On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:02:51 -0600, Todd Moody <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Robert Kesterson wrote:
>>
>> Probably because they were starving.  If you don't eat all day, your  
>> body  is going to be catabolic, burning itself (fat and/or muscle  
>> protein) for  fuel.
>
> It's not about starvation at all.  Your liver stores enough glycogen for  
> about 36 hours of normal activity, so the tissues that need glucose get  
> enough without resorting to cannibalizing muscle--which should not be a  
> problem anyway if one gets enough carbs and protein at that one meal.

I'm not talking about a person feeling like they're starving.  I'm talking  
about the body's starvation response.  What you're describing is basically  
like a cyclical ketogenic diet, just on a 24-hour cycle.  You burn off the  
stored glycogen, then you put it all back.  I don't have a problem with  
that.  However, I also know that if you go for very long taking in fewer  
calories than you are burning, you will trigger the body's starvation  
response -- it will assume there's not enough food to be had, and will  
slow your metabolism to conserve resources.  If that's your goal, that's  
fine.  But for people trying to lose weight, it can result in a vicious  
cycle.  You reduce calories, the body slows the metabolism to compensate.   
You reduce further, it slows the metabolism a little more.  And so on.

By not taking in any food at all, I can't help but think the body will  
begin conserving resources.  I know for me personally, if I eat the  
typical three meals a day, it is tougher for me to lose weight.  On the  
other hand, eating six meals a day, it's a lot easier.

Personally, with my activity level, I simply could not eat only once a day  
unless I purposely focused on calorie-dense foods to keep my calorie  
intake high enough.

> Animal studies show that animals fed once a day, but allowed to eat as  
> much as they want, end up eating 30% less than they do if fed multiple  
> times (but also allowed to eat all they want).

I don't doubt that a bit.  A stomach can only hold so much at once.

> Eating more calories, spread out over more meals, may produce 
> smaller/shorter [insulin] surges, but I think the total isstill greater.

But that's one of the reasons I eat numerous smaller meals -- specifically  
to *prevent* insulin spikes.  My blood sugar stays more even throughout  
the day.  In fact, a lot of literature I have seen recommends a  
several-small-meal eating style to those concerned with diabetes  
specifically because of the stabilizing effect it has on blood sugar.  (I  
do not have diabetes, though it's not unheard of in my family history.)

> My fasting BG is gradually falling, from mid 90s to low 90s, with the  
> occasional high 80s reading.  This suggests improved insulin  
> sensitivity, which is also what animal studies indicate.  My goal is  
> fasting BG in low 80s; I don't know if that's doable.

I don't know what my fasting BG is offhand (I have it on the blood work  
 from my last physical, but I don't have that with me at the moment), but I  
do know that my doctor remarked that I was in outstanding shape by all  
indicators, so it must not have been bad.

As for whether hunter-gatherers eat one meal or many ... that probably  
depended more on availability than anything else. If there was food to be  
had, I'm sure he ate whenever he was hungry, which was probably more than  
once a day.  He may not have had a "sit down meal", but a handful of nuts,  
a piece of fruit, or similar would have made for a quick snack.

-- 
   Robert Kesterson
   [log in to unmask]