I somehow missed Fidel's reply before posting my own. After a quick review, it appears The Obesity Code is a comparable study and program to others I have read. I may pick it up after a time to expand my body of reference. Thanks, Fidel.
I somehow missed Fidel's reply before posting my own. After a quick review, it appears The Obesity Code is a comparable study and program to others I have read. I may pick it up after a time to expand my body of reference. Thanks, Fidel.
Consilio et animis
Essayons!
Originally Posted by mitunnelrat
From what I have read it doesn't matter if you eat once a day or not. As long as you get your caloric intake for the day it is irrelevant if it is in one meal or 8 meals. I can see the argument either way on this. I choose to eat 5 times a day. Breakfast is at 12:30, snack at 2:30, lunch at 4:30, snack at 6:30, then supper at 8:30. Each meal is usually between 400 and 600 calories. I get 2100 calories each day.
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!" - Thomas Jefferson
As Dr Fung explains in the Obesity Code, it is actually counterproductive and potentially dangerous to eat many small meals a day.
His point is that by constantly taking in food (especially carbohydrates) your body is constantly either in a high-insulin state, or swinging between high and low blood glucose levels. The swinging is bad because it leads to the feelings of weakness and hunger that cause people to not stick to an eating plan, and having high levels of blood insulin causes...insulin insensitivity which is the definition of Diabetes Type II.
Of course, eating snacks will do the same thing. We've probably all seen that commercial for Snickers candy bars saying have a snickers - you'll feel better! They're right, for an hour or two, as you metabolize all that sugar (and it's mostly fructose, too - the worst kind). Then your blood sugar crashes, and you feel bad again.
He actually advocates what he calls small fasts....for instance, eat dinner on Sunday, and don't eat again until lunch or dinner on Monday. When I first read it I thought it was BS, and then I tried it with good results. I'm generally eating only one or two meals a day (often only one) and not feeling any adverse signs or symptoms (and my body fat is decreasing). I do cheat a bit (I suppose), I drink coffee with half and half in it in the mornings. After that, it's water only.
When I say snack I should probably explain. My snacks are always healthy, low car snacks. I eat less than 35 total carbs a day. My meals are eggs and bacon for breakfast, usually 8 ounces of pork, deer, tuna, chicken or rabbit for lunch and supper. I add lots of fat in when ever possible.
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!" - Thomas Jefferson
OK, but if you're eating snacks, your blood glucose will rise...it will rise a lot more with carbohydrates, but it will still rise through gluconeogenesis with anything you eat.
So, not eating snacks is probably best.
I get to hungry. The 16 hour fast is fine, but after I eat I stay hungry. What is the downside of my blood glucose rising?I only got a little bit of fat left to loose.
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!" - Thomas Jefferson
I've been reading a lot on diets and such. One of the most interesting ones I read was fasting for roughly 24-36 hours then eating as much as you can stomach. Supposedly it is based off of the way people ate in really primitive times. They wouldn't be able to find or eat 3 meals a day because food would spoil so quickly. So it was based on only being able to find food occasionally and then eat as much as possible when you did get it.
Yes, as there was no guarantee for the hunter gatherer types of the day to have much in the way of food in the future. Add to that, primitive times were anything but the relatively sedentary times of today. (As little as 300 years ago, never mind 30,000 years ago, the avg. Joe of that time would be reduced to laughter at the amount of 'work' present day Joe does.) One probably tanked up on the calories as soon as they were made available.
In a SHTF situation, absent a store of food before a viable growing and harvesting cycle gets re-established, survival gets a LOT more labor-intensive. Even moreso if there is the matter of raiders, thieves, or an outright war going on.
Fidel, do you think I should try fasting for longer? Also is working out during a fast effective for the workout? Thanks
"When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes DUTY!" - Thomas Jefferson
The downside of your blood glucose rising is that you will release insulin to either convert it to energy (insulin works by carrying glucose molecules through the cell wall) or if you don't need energy, then convert it to fat. Also, the highs and lows cause hunger, and the effects of not eating (lightheadedness, irritability, etc).
- - - Updated - - -
I wouldn't go all paleo with that....those folks also died at 25, too weak to run from the saber-tooth or fight off the dire wolves...
- - - Updated - - -
If it is bothering you then no. And working out is working out, the benefits happen when muscle that has been over stressed and damaged is replaced with new, stronger muscle.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks