Intermittent Fasting

moved from 1 up by mods, once they've proved to contain interesting discussions
avalon
Posts: 818
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51

Post by avalon »

That's okay, I'm tired of being Shena Queen of the Jungle :wink:

But no, IF done correctly, gives you about the same calories in a different way. So you aren't being deprived of foods,

Oh, never mind :cry:
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

Oscar wrote:You will also burn muscles. Fats will be burnt mainly for fatty energy.
Does this mean the muscles cells shrink or are gone?

From what I know, when you do something to put on muscl e weight you dont' gain muscles cells but the same cells you have get larger.

If losing muscle by dieting reduce the size of the cells that is fine but if it reduceds the amount of cells then it seems that you can permantly alter your muclecells to fat ratio.



I read a lot of contradictory info on frequency of meals.

Some people say eat lots of small meals. other people say eat less meals space out with no snacking so your digestive system wont be constantly burdened

Is it a good thing to have gaps when you eat to let your system clear out or is that a bad thing?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote: Does this mean the muscles cells shrink or are gone?
There's a study that shows that age related decrease in muscle mass is not accompanied with a decrease in muscle number, but other studies show opposite results.
Whatever is the case, what is important here, is that we are considering the effects of a lack of energy to the size of your muscles. Its a fact that when this is required, muscle myofibers will be converted into direct available energy, as having sufficient energy available is our primary priority.

This may be reflected by a decrease in number, but that is not really an issue, as they will be replaced (though this has an effect on the rate of aging of your muscles).

If losing muscle by dieting reduce the size of the cells that is fine
If you dont mind losing muscle mass, that is (as there will be less myofiber mass).
I read a lot of contradictory info on frequency of meals.
Sure, as with any subject.
What matters is: what makes most sense to you?
other people say eat less meals space out with no snacking so your digestive system wont be constantly burdened
If burdening of your digestive system is of concern, you should simply decrease the intake of food that burdens your digestive system (cooked food, fiber), not the frequency of intake of foods that are readily and easily digested.
Is it a good thing to have gaps when you eat to let your system clear out or is that a bad thing?
Its a bad thing when this results in energy lows, as there are better ways to decrease burden of your digestive system.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I was saying it is not a bad thing to lose size vs number of cells, because you can get the size back by eating enough and using the muscles. I'be read that you don't add new muscle cells just increase the size of the cells you already have. so losing cells seems like it would be permanent but losing size of cells could be reversed


By eating enought calories in say three meals shouldn't that give you stable energy? doesn't the body buffer the calories?
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:By eating enought calories in say three meals shouldn't that give you stable energy? doesn't the body buffer the calories?
Yes, it 'buffers' the calories: it converts them into glycogen and adipose fat, which get reconverted into energy when required.
The downside of consuming only 3 (large enough) meals, is that you will either readily gain fat, or loose muscles. The reason for this is this 'buffering'; If you have reconverted all glycogen into glucose, but not yet the fat, than you will steadily gain fat. (because you will eat as you are now hungry) And if you try to prevent that, by eating less (or not on time), this will be at the expense of your muscles.
If you have reconverted all bodyfat into fatty acids, but not yet the glycogen, then you will use muscle protein for fatty acids.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

so then if you just ate all your calories at one meal (according to your logic) you would slowly get fatter and fatter, right? Or am I not undrestanding?


also, how many calories does the liver buffer? As long as you don't run it out or run it over then you shouldn't gain fat or burn muscle. I thought the liver held enough calories (glycogen) to make it though the time between 3 evenly spaced meals.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

The liver can hold about 400kcal.
avo
Posts: 415
Joined: Fri 05 May 2006 20:04
Location: New York City

Post by avo »

Unless you are pretty sedentary, 400 kcal is used up pretty quickly. I know from experience that it is not enough to last me 4-6 hours in between meals. And I also know that I lost a lot of muscle by doing this technique, 2 meals a day, with an occasional snack of a fruit or so. Eating small meals of a fruit or two plus some fats, frequently throughout the day, definately keeps energy and blood sugar levels optimal.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:so then if you just ate all your calories at one meal (according to your logic) you would slowly get fatter and fatter, right?
Not necessarily, as it depends on which source of energy will get depleted first (adipose fat or glycogen).

also, how many calories does the liver buffer? As long as you don't run it out or run it over then you shouldn't gain fat or burn muscle.
No, that also depends on your blood fatty acid level.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

avo wrote:Unless you are pretty sedentary, 400 kcal is used up pretty quickly. I know from experience that it is not enough to last me 4-6 hours in between meals. And I also know that I lost a lot of muscle by doing this technique, 2 meals a day, with an occasional snack of a fruit or so. Eating small meals of a fruit or two plus some fats, frequently throughout the day, definately keeps energy and blood sugar levels optimal.
But you dont' just live off the 400 in the liver, that is an *extra* 400 on to of what you ate at your last meal

so if you ate 400-500 at one meal then sayburned up 700 before you next meal you would cut into your livers calories but no all of them.



plus... I read that the liver holds around 2000 k. Oscar, where did you find the number of 400?

And the atkins people say it takes 3-4 days of 0 carb to actually run out of stored sugars. I don't know if this correlates to how long the liver can sustain you.
User avatar
RRM
Administrator
Posts: 8164
Joined: Sat 16 Jul 2005 00:01
Contact:

Post by RRM »

johndela1 wrote:But you dont' just live off the 400 in the liver, that is an *extra* 400 on to of what you ate at your last meal
No.
Your blood sugar and blood fat level are kept rather steady. When you ingest energy, this is to bring the blood levels back to normal ('level zero') plus a little extra, and all the extra energy is stored (as adipose fat or glycogen), so that what is stored in the liver is taken from what you ate.

It is however true that you not just live off the 400 kcal in the liver, but also off the energy from fats.
plus... I read that the liver holds around 2000 k.
Where did you read that?
Ive always read 400 kcal (in books about biochemistry and physiology).
The combined total of that what can be stored in the liver (400) and that what can be stored (on average) in the muscles (1600), is about 2000 kcal....

the atkins people say it takes 3-4 days of 0 carb to actually run out of stored sugars.
Thats easy to say, but on what data do they base that claim?
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

I think they do some kind of urine testing wtih litmus paper to determine when they go into keotosis.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

johndela1 wrote:plus... I read that the liver holds around 2000 k. Oscar, where did you find the number of 400?
For instance here: http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Informati ... /carb1.htm
The average male athlete can store about 1,500 to 1,900 kilocalories (kcal) of carbohydrate: 60-80 kcal in the blood, 360-440 kcal in the liver and 1,300 to 1,400 kcal in the muscles.
Also other methods of measuring are used, so you could see that the liver holds about 100 grams of glycogen, which amounts to 400kcal.
johndela1
Posts: 968
Joined: Fri 31 Mar 2006 03:54
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Post by johndela1 »

ok, then the body can store alot mroe than 400 calories. I was wrong about where, but this seems like a lot of calories. I mean more than you would exahaust easily by spacing meals out

I guess I don't understand how those calories differ from food you eat
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by nick »

Also,

The glycogen in the muscles can only be utilized for muscle energy. So it won't be utilized for the blood sugar, but muscle can be used for the sugar level, thus important to keep sugar levels steady.
Post Reply