I don't see why energy would be more efficiently utilized during relative starvation, and reconstruction happen more efficiently after a great influx of nutrients. Obviously, the body has limits on the amount of starvation it can take before it starts sacrificing stuff you don't want to, and the body has limits on the amount of nutrients it can process for any unit of time, logically it follows that staying as far away from the limits as possible could be optimal, in other words, having the most gradual diet and activity level you can manage. At least that's the "other theory" I was trying to convey. If you ate a very gradual diet, just barely above what you need, and half the time of these days less than what you need, then your body is getting very little excess nutrients to deal with, it has less of a shock, just like walking vs. sprinting. Over short amounts of time, you would be undernourished on an hourly basis so that your body induces small amounts of autophagy to sustain itself, and then the next few hours have gradual meals and resupply.RRM wrote: Yes, energy is more efficiently utilized during relative starvation and activity, and (re)construction happens more efficiently after a great influx of nutrients (and during rest).
There will be an optimum of balances somewhere. (preventing too much muscle break down for energy, for example)
I think it's plausible that this strategy might be more efficient than, for example, fasting on nothing but water for one day and then eating enough to resupply the previous days losses as well as the current days needs. Or, vastly more efficient than fasting on nothing but water for 3 days and then eating enough for 2 days needs consecutively for the 3 days after. I can see how the opposite might be true, or there might be a sweet spot in between all of these examples, but in order to determine which is best and where the sweet spot might be we need to know the factors/variables that are controlling our metabolism and its efficiency.