meals a day, calories and metabolism

[Baked]

My breakfast is over 1K calories already. Lunch is between 600 to 1K. Dinner can hit 1.5K. I'm not gaining weight. Damn you metabolism, stop burning all my calories so fast!

 

[SociallyChallenged]

It may well be more realistic/natural and even more convenient than frequently eating. So it is only a matter of overcoming the learned perception of deprivation (and "arbitrary" mealtimes).

Yes, overall restriction prolongs lifespan however that is seperate from the benefits of periodic restriction where total intake is not necessarily reduced (and therefore an already healthy weight can be maintained).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16529878
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc

I don't disagree with you that I see how the benefits could arise. However, I do disagree with you about it being more realistic. Almost all the studies I've read on the subject utilize older, "healthy" individuals. "Healthy" frequently means sedentary. Anyone who completes moderate or vigorous exercise may suffer significant detriment by not eating regularly. Granted, there may be many health benefits overall to fasting and such, but performance is likely to suffer as a result. I'd be interested to see more studies in young, healthy individuals and then young, active, healthy individuals (or athletes). I just don't see someone performing well with depleted glycogen stores...

 

[Auric]

Sure, but a so-called athlete has totally different and short-term goals. Indeed, they may well accept doing long-term damage to their health and longevity. For everyone else, we want longevity with quality of life.

In that BBC proggy, the analogy is made of a "go-go" sports car which is not properly maintained because, again, repairs are only made when not "on the gas", particularly of protein.

It seems unlikely that apes have evolved to require substantial food daily and certainly our closest relatives only occasionally take meat. So in the short-term we may appear uber healthy with constant eating but to the detriment of longevity and quality of life -particularly, but not limited to, degenerative brain diseases.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Sure, but a so-called athlete has totally different and short-term goals. Indeed, they may well accept doing long-term damage to their health and longevity. For everyone else, we want longevity with quality of life.

In that BBC proggy, the analogy is made of a "go-go" sports car which is not properly maintained because, again, repairs are only made when not "on the gas", particularly of protein.

It seems unlikely that apes have evolved to require substantial food daily and certainly our closest relatives only occasionally take meat. So in the short-term we may appear uber healthy with constant eating but to the detriment of longevity and quality of life -particularly, but not limited to, degenerative brain diseases.

Exactly. I imagine a precision athlete that utilizes more fine motor skills with relatively little energy expenditure (archery, shooting, bowling, etc) would potentially do well for their longevity with something like this or intermittent fasting in general. But, honestly, I don't know if this applies as significantly to athletes in general. Considering both resistance and endurance exercise induce similar changes as the fasts (improved insulin sensitivity, reduced cholesterol, lower body fat/weight, etc), they may have little to gain from these fasts. We don't know because studies have not specifically looked at the benefits in exercise-trained vs sedentary individuals. We're both speculating at this point though, as the research simply hasn't been done.

To be perfectly honest, this may very well be something to study, especially in individuals with or at high risk of obtaining something like Alzheimer's disease or other neurological dysfunction. Living forever isn't really my goal in life. Living well is. Considering I have a family history of Alzheimer's disease, I would do the fasts for that reasons, rather than for longevity's sake. You've presented some interesting info and it'll be neat to see what research is done in the future. Thanks for the links. I'll research it more and post some links if I find anything interesting on the subject.

 

[darkxshade]

Interesting topic, I'll throw in 2 cents about my experience.


I used to prescribe to the meal freqency mantra of eating smaller meals throughout the day. What a miserable experience that was. Then I read up on IF from leangains and it was an interesting idea so I gave it a shot. I thought it was going to be extremely difficult to do and that I was going to lose muscle. It's been almost a year since I switched to IF and while it was tough at first, it didn't take long for my body to adapt. I haven't lost muscle mass at all and I have not lost strength on my lifts... still lifting the same as before. I leaned out a little but not a lot... not as you would have imagined from what leangains was advertising but it was to be expected.

Most importantly though, the takeaway from the past year for me was how truly adaptable the body is when exposed to a constant state of lifestyle. In the beginning, it truly was hard, I got so hungry and thought about nothing but food but I stuck with it. Then slowly and surely, those senses started to fade over time and it's now a year later and I pretty much don't eat 18-20 hrs a day... the extra hours is due to convenience as I like getting up in the morning, going to work from 9-5 and not have to worry about food and paying $10 or cooking or what have you. It's actually pretty awesome since all my co-workers think I'm some freak. Now, I pretty much can eat a man sized mean in the comforts of my own home... I can pretty much eat whatever I want and it's pretty tough to go overboard. I have not had a true hunger pang since I've adapted, most nights I feel like I could go another day but I love food too much to skip a feeding window.

edit: on special occasions for social purposes, I do break my routine to eat lunch with friends. And I do drink coffee with creamer... sometimes 2x/day. I don't really IF anymore for the goal of leaning out, I more or less do it now because it makes my life so much easier.

 

[justaguy168]

From the book Nutrition for Life by Janice Thompson, PhD FACSM and Melinda Manore, PhD, RD, FACSM from my nursing school pre-req nutrition class:

1. First calculate your basal metabolic rate (BMR): weight / 2.2 * 24
2. Then calculate your caloric need: BMR x activity factor
3. Activity factor is
   • 1.2 for whe exercise or labor < 3x/week
   • 1.5 for those who exercise or labor 3-5x/week
   • 1.75 for those who exercise or labor 6-7x/week
4. Caloric intake for those on a diet should be the caloric need - (250 to 1000 calories/day). Aim for a weight loss of 0.5-2 lb/week. 1 lb of fat~=3,500 excess calories! Reducing caloric intake more than that run afoul of the set point theory
5. Set point therory suggests our bodies are designed to maintain our weights w/in a narrow range. When we dramatically reduce energy intake with strict diets, our bodies respond with physiologic changes that cause our BMR to drop and energy level with it. So extreme dieting can decrease metabolism and slow weight loss. Set points can only be changed with gradual and consistent diets over long periods of time. Unfortunately the best way to lose weight is never to gain it in the first place. (I know, I know.)
6. Fat calories should be 15-25% of total calorie intake. To convert grams of fat to calories, multiply by 9.
7. Keep cholesterol < 300 mg/day
8. Protein should be
   • most adults 0.8 g / kg of body weight
   • nonvegetarian athletes 1.2 to 1.7 g / kg of body weight
   • vegetarian athletes 1.3 to 1.8 g / kg of body weight
9. Carbohydrate should be 45-65% of total calories and should be complex, whole grain, unprocesed carbohydrates. Only 10% should come from simple sugars. To convert grams of carbohydrates to calories, multiply by 4
10. Consume 25-35g of fiber a day
11. Adult males require 3.0 liters (13 cups) and females require 2.2 liters (9 cups) per day. Healthy persons aged 75 and over without heart or kidney disease should increase that amount.
12. Eating throughout the day aids in "euglycemia" or constant blood sugar and prevents hunger pangs and jitteriness. Meals and snacks should contain a balance of carbs and protein both.

Note that:

• 1 gram of carbohydrates = 4 kilocalories(Calories)
• 1 gram of protein = 4 kilocalories (Calories)
• 1 gram of lipid(fats) = 9 kilocalories (Calories)

When making health recommendations, it is important to cite the source and the credentials of the author. There is a lot of pseudo-science around nutrition and health in general. It's tough enough sifting through the real science w/o adding more variables to the mix.

IMHO weightlifting magazines and websites are geared towards a more extreme audience that many of us (including me) only fantasize about being a part of. Also medical doctors -- while knowledgeble -- acknowledge the importance of nutrition but tend not to like to pay attention to it that much. The best sources I find come from people who are registered dieticians (they have an RD after their name).

FACSM = Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine

Thats a big chunk of my nutrition class in one post!

 

[SociallyChallenged]

From the book Nutrition for Life by Janice Thompson, PhD FACSM and Melinda Manore, PhD, RD, FACSM from my nursing school pre-req nutrition class:

1. First calculate your basal metabolic rate (BMR): weight / 2.2 * 24
2. Then calculate your caloric need: BMR x activity factor
3. Activity factor is
   • 1.2 for whe exercise or labor < 3x/week
   • 1.5 for those who exercise or labor 3-5x/week
   • 1.75 for those who exercise or labor 6-7x/week
4. Caloric intake for those on a diet should be the caloric need - (250 to 1000 calories/day). Aim for a weight loss of 0.5-2 lb/week. 1 lb of fat~=3,500 excess calories! Reducing caloric intake more than that run afoul of the set point theory
5. Set point therory suggests our bodies are designed to maintain our weights w/in a narrow range. When we dramatically reduce energy intake with strict diets, our bodies respond with physiologic changes that cause our BMR to drop and energy level with it. So extreme dieting can decrease metabolism and slow weight loss. Set points can only be changed with gradual and consistent diets over long periods of time. Unfortunately the best way to lose weight is never to gain it in the first place. (I know, I know.)
6. Fat calories should be 15-25% of total calorie intake. To convert grams of fat to calories, multiply by 9.
7. Keep cholesterol < 300 mg/day
8. Protein should be
   • most adults 0.8 g / kg of body weight
   • nonvegetarian athletes 1.2 to 1.7 g / kg of body weight
   • vegetarian athletes 1.3 to 1.8 g / kg of body weight
9. Carbohydrate should be 45-65% of total calories and should be complex, whole grain, unprocesed carbohydrates. Only 10% should come from simple sugars. To convert grams of carbohydrates to calories, multiply by 4
10. Consume 25-35g of fiber a day
11. Adult males require 3.0 liters (13 cups) and females require 2.2 liters (9 cups) per day. Healthy persons aged 75 and over without heart or kidney disease should increase that amount.
12. Eating throughout the day aids in "euglycemia" or constant blood sugar and prevents hunger pangs and jitteriness. Meals and snacks should contain a balance of carbs and protein both.

Note that:

• 1 gram of carbohydrates = 4 kilocalories(Calories)
• 1 gram of protein = 4 kilocalories (Calories)
• 1 gram of lipid(fats) = 9 kilocalories (Calories)

When making health recommendations, it is important to cite the source and the credentials of the author. There is a lot of pseudo-science around nutrition and health in general. It's tough enough sifting through the real science w/o adding more variables to the mix.

IMHO weightlifting magazines and websites are geared towards a more extreme audience that many of us (including me) only fantasize about being a part of. Also medical doctors -- while knowledgeble -- acknowledge the importance of nutrition but tend not to like to pay attention to it that much. The best sources I find come from people who are registered dieticians (they have an RD after their name).

FACSM = Fellow of the American College of Sports Medicine

Thats a big chunk of my nutrition class in one post!

While most of this information is well and good, the carbohydrate suggestion is well out-of-date. I was taught this as well in my nutrition classes, but recent research has consistently shown that lower carb, higher fat diets have reduced risks of many diet related pathologies (insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, excess body fat, etc). Typically 30% of calories from fat is considered a very moderate intake of fat. 40% is now typically the suggested amount of carbohydrate to take in, which should mostly be from vegetables. A 40%/30%/30% (carb, protein, fat) is a good ratio for resistance trained athletes. Obviously, endurance athletes will need more carbs than the those populations. For sedentary individuals, obviously 30% of calories from protein is far excessive so once their caloric need of protein is calculated, the rest should be split between carbs and fats.

 

[justaguy168]

While most of this information is well and good, the carbohydrate suggestion is well out-of-date.

Copyright is 2007. Figure the info is a year or two old before it goes to press so info is probably circa 2005 or 7 years old.

A lot of nutritionists react very negatively to low carb diets. One said to me, "if you don't eat carbs -- you'll die" Many hated Robert Atkins. I'm sure you could even find a conspiracy theorist who would posit that Atkins didn't fall on that icy day -- but was pushed by an RD from a bedpan-alley hospital seething with rage. :wub:

I've gone on low carb diets myself. As I said earlier, it's hard to sift through all this information.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Copyright is 2007. Figure the info is a year or two old before it goes to press so info is probably circa 2005 or 7 years old.

A lot of nutritionists react very negatively to low carb diets. One said to me, "if you don't eat carbs -- you'll die" Many hated Robert Atkins. I'm sure you could even find a conspiracy theorist who would posit that Atkins didn't fall on that icy day -- but was pushed by an RD from a bedpan-alley hospital seething with rage. :wub:

I've gone on low carb diets myself. As I said earlier, it's hard to sift through all this information.

They've known this information for 20+ years, but it's very, very slow to be corrected in many textbooks and courses. In fitness, there's a similar topic that still has yet to be changed in many book. This topic is the theory that lactic acid causes burning in your muscles, which results in fatigue and failure. Research has shown this isn't true for 20-30 years, but professors are slow to actually embrace the research.

The proportions research suggests don't even have to be anywhere near the Atkins level. 30% dietary calories from fat is really moderate. Many bodybuilders or fitness models will take in 40-50% of their calories from fat and their biomarkers aren't bad (better than sedentary).

And by the way, research has shown repeatedly that you can live without carbs A ketogenic diet isn't ideal for health, but it can be done for long periods of time and you can survive. Carbs are great - they're easy energy for our cells, but when resting, fat is the dominant power source. Fat doesn't give off quick energy, but it gives off a lot of it per unit volume. Resting skeletal muscle, which is the dominant calorie-consuming tissue, consumes almost solely fatty acids. I don't know why there's such a divide between nutrition and physiology sometimes.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

It may well be more realistic/natural and even more convenient than frequently eating. So it is only a matter of overcoming the learned perception of deprivation (and "arbitrary" mealtimes).

Yes, overall restriction prolongs lifespan however that is seperate from the benefits of periodic restriction where total intake is not necessarily reduced (and therefore an already healthy weight can be maintained).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16529878
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc

With my student access to journals, I was able to gain access to the research article. In fact, however, it wasn't a research article but a "medical hypothesis" paper. Essentially, it just re-studies a study done in 1960, which they believe had misconstrued results. I haven't been able to find anything that consistently establishes that alternating day calorie restriction provides any benefit, except this one article. We can wait for more research, but it's not something I'd put into action quite yet.

 

[Auric]

Thanks for the update. If I recall from the BBC proggy, alternating day was presented as an easier potential alternative to perodic fasting. Either way, the goal is to allow repairing damage rather than just replacing those cells that can be (even that ability decreases with age).

Using the car analogy, perhaps it can be said that a common misconception is that fueling is maintenance -certainly there is too much emphasis on what seems good for muscles in the short-term (i.e. protein and constant eating in one ratio or another).

The conclusions of these articles state the ethical and logistial limitations of long-term human studies, and the practical difficulties of implementation by individuals for social reasons.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3200169
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2622429

 

[spamsk8r]

They've known this information for 20+ years, but it's very, very slow to be corrected in many textbooks and courses. In fitness, there's a similar topic that still has yet to be changed in many book. This topic is the theory that lactic acid causes burning in your muscles, which results in fatigue and failure. Research has shown this isn't true for 20-30 years, but professors are slow to actually embrace the research.

The proportions research suggests don't even have to be anywhere near the Atkins level. 30% dietary calories from fat is really moderate. Many bodybuilders or fitness models will take in 40-50% of their calories from fat and their biomarkers aren't bad (better than sedentary).

And by the way, research has shown repeatedly that you can live without carbs A ketogenic diet isn't ideal for health, but it can be done for long periods of time and you can survive. Carbs are great - they're easy energy for our cells, but when resting, fat is the dominant power source. Fat doesn't give off quick energy, but it gives off a lot of it per unit volume. Resting skeletal muscle, which is the dominant calorie-consuming tissue, consumes almost solely fatty acids. I don't know why there's such a divide between nutrition and physiology sometimes.

Actually, there are some cases where a ketogenic diet *is* ideal for health, as in certain types of cancers (since cancer cells predominantly use glucose). But yeah, a ketogenic diet isn't ideal for most people, especially anyone who's active. Obese, sedentary people, on the other hand...

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Actually, there are some cases where a ketogenic diet *is* ideal for health, as in certain types of cancers (since cancer cells predominantly use glucose). But yeah, a ketogenic diet isn't ideal for most people, especially anyone who's active. Obese, sedentary people, on the other hand...

Makes sense. If I remember correctly, the keto diet itself does have long term risks. I know in livestock, a state of ketoacidosis eventually leads to fatty liver disease, which ends life rather quickly. I think keto is a bit extreme in most cases, but I definitely think less active people should restrict carbs. To under 50g per day? Not quite. You should get more carbs than that in veggies daily, which is mainly why I have a problem with it.

 

[Wreckem]

Makes sense. If I remember correctly, the keto diet itself does have long term risks. I know in livestock, a state of ketoacidosis eventually leads to fatty liver disease, which ends life rather quickly. I think keto is a bit extreme in most cases, but I definitely think less active people should restrict carbs. To under 50g per day? Not quite. You should get more carbs than that in veggies daily, which is mainly why I have a problem with it.

If you are eating a lot of starchy veggies, then maybe. Now if you said fruit and veggies, then your statement is more realistic. Even then, if you are eating greens and lower carb fruit/berries you still won't hit 50g carbs by eating the recommended number of servings. More so if you are mainly eating leafy greens like spinach.

Then again it could also depend on what you think the recommended servings/servings sizes are.

 

[rga]

Makes sense. If I remember correctly, the keto diet itself does have long term risks. I know in livestock, a state of ketoacidosis eventually leads to fatty liver disease, which ends life rather quickly. I think keto is a bit extreme in most cases, but I definitely think less active people should restrict carbs. To under 50g per day? Not quite. You should get more carbs than that in veggies daily, which is mainly why I have a problem with it.

I was eating 150g each of lettuce, spinach, broccoli and asparagus per day when I was on a ketogenic diet. That's almost a pound-and-a-half of fresh vegetables every day, and I was still under 50g of carbs (excluding fiber).