View Full Version : Forward or Backward thinking.
Recently I've started a new diet. One thing a little different is I am basing my calories on how active I've been since my last meal, rather than how active I am planning on being before my next meal. Does it help? Not really, except that it's making pay attention a little more.
Anyhow, here is a question...
I find it harder to go from one meal to the next without eating if I am less active. Why is that?
Say in a typical day I am burning 100 kcal per hour, why am I hungry after 4 hours?
On the trail I can go 6 hours or more without eating, burning perhaps 400 kcal per hour. What's up with that?
I read recently that up until 500 years ago most europeans only ate two meals a day, with breakfast being the smallest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_modern_European_cuisine
In most parts of Europe two meals per day were eaten, one in the early morning to noon and one in the late afternoon later at night. The exact times varied both by period and region. In Spain and in parts of Italy such as Genoa and Venice the early meal was the lighter one while supper was heavier. In the rest of Europe, the first meal of the day was the more substantial. Throughout the period, there was a gradual shift of mealtimes. The first meal, then called dinner in English, moved from before noon to around 2:00 or 3:00 in the afternoon by the 17th century. By the end of the 18th century, it could be held as late as 5:00 or 6:00. This necessitated a midday meal, luncheon, later shortened to lunch, which was established by the late 18th century. Breakfast[3] does not receive much attention in any sources. Breakfast, when it began to be fashionable, was usually just a coffee, tea or chocolate, and did not become a more substantial meal in many parts of Europe until the 19th century. In the south, where supper was the largest meal, there was less need for breakfast, and it therefore remained unimportant, something that can still be seen today in the traditionally light breakfasts of southern Europe, which usually consists of coffee or tea with bread or pastry. There is no doubt that working people since medieval times ate some sort of morning meal , but it is unclear exactly at what time and what it consisted of. The three-meal-regimen so common today did not become a standard until well into the modern era.
As in the Middle Ages, breakfast in the sense of an early morning meal, is largely absent from the sources. It's unclear if this meant it was universally avoided or that it simply was not fashionable enough to be mentioned, as most sources were written by, for and about the upper class.
So what triggers hunger? How do you know it is real hunger? When should you eat? When your stomach is empty? When your blood sugar is low? Time of Day? Should you eat less often when burning only 2400 kcal per day at home vs 6000 kcal per day on the trail, or more often? If you want to be burning body fat, how much should you deplete and restore your glycogen levels? If you burn 1200 kcal over a 3 hour hike, do you need to eat right away? How much? What kind of food?
1. How low should you allow your glycogen stores to drop?
2. When dieting and exercising, do you need to fully refuel?
3. Is it different on the trail vs at home?
Many studies have shown that, in terms of weight gain/loss, the only thing that matters is calories per day. It doesn't matter when you eat them, what form they're in (fats/carbs/protein), etc. Weight gain = calories in (eaten) - calories out (burned).
So, my advice is to not sweat it. Eat the right amount per day and your body will sort it out.
I think there is alot to that. The body will sort things out. But in theory, when dieting and exercising at the same time, how much should we let glycogen levels deplete, and how fully should we top them up? It would be cool if there was a way of knowing your current glygogen level, like 0 to 500g. If you had such an instrument, how low would you let it go between meals, or during a long run or hike? Also, if you were to let it fluxuate between say, 300g and 450g when dieting and exercising, does that mean you would have 150g of carbs, 50g protien, and 25g fat when refueling, for a meal of 1050 kcal or so, or is it better to spread the glycogen restoring over 2 or 3 meals? What is the biggest that any given meal should be?
Man I'm really struggling with my diet and exercise these days. I either overeat, or don't have the energy to exercise, or both. I think I am going to try one meal a day, plus something extra if I exercise, but only if I exercise. When hiking I think I will stick to my usual 2 meals a day plan, as I have less of a problem when I am hiking. Maybe I just need to get out for a hike and get myself back to normal.
Man I'm really struggling with my diet and exercise these days. I either overeat, or don't have the energy to exercise, or both. I think I am going to try one meal a day, plus something extra if I exercise, but only if I exercise. When hiking I think I will stick to my usual 2 meals a day plan, as I have less of a problem when I am hiking. Maybe I just need to get out for a hike and get myself back to normal.
I've definitely struggled with this off and on. I've currently gone back to my practice of simply not eating after 8pm. If I know I can't eat later (which usually translates to overeating), I seem to remember to eat regular reasonable meals throughout the day. I tend to drink a lot of herbal tea at night and generally don't have a problem with hunger as long as I don't stay up after 1am. Or at least if I'm up later I try to read in bed and I find I'm not hungry when I'm laying down. Good luck finding whatever works best for you.
As for glycogen, I'm a runner, and from what I understand you don't need to worry about depleting your glycogen until you've burned roughly 2000 calories. So unless you're exercising like crazy or starving yourself, your glycogen level is probably fine.
I am not going to argue the pros and cons of counting calories or when and how much we should be eating. I'm going to just tell you that I tried a new approach and have dropped 21 pounds so far in a little over two months and have not been hungry and have not felt tired or unable to hike.
I happened to see Dr. Joel Fuhrman do an infomercial on PBS and it sounded pretty interesting. I purchased his book "Eat To Live" and read it cover to cover. I didn't do the plan quite as strict as I could have but then I wasn't morbidly overweight and just wan't to lose a few pounds and eat a little healthier. So far it has worked well for me. I am now within a few pounds of my weight when I came out of boot camp. YMMV
Only downside I can see to the plan is that it would be very hard to do on the trail. To drop a few pounds and get healthier for an upcoming hike is my goal and so far it is working.
colonel r
01-06-2012, 17:23
Hunger is triggered by insulin levels in the blood stream. Insulin levels also control the conversion and storage of fat in the body. Control insulin levels and you will control the amount of fat stored and consequently your weight. How do you control the insulin? ... control your carbohydrate intake. This will also control hunger and cravings. The energy in = energy out formula is incorrect. This is why low cal diets are seldom effective and almost never permanent.
Limit your carb intake to about 60 grams per day, less if you want to loose faster. Eat all the protein and fat you want. Eventually you will self limit your calories.
I am not trying to start an argument here but know from experience and education that this works. I'll answer any positive comments and provide references but will not argue.
Col R
Not to argue either Colonel but would you believe me if I told you Brocoli has more protein than steak?
It's true on a calorie basis. 100 calories worth of brocoli has more protein than 100 calories worth of steak. Nice thing is that you can eat almost a pound of brocoli and only 1 oz of steak. Just saying.
colonel r
01-06-2012, 18:14
Don't consider that an argument. The point is you do not have to count calories, just carbs. Some of the veggies that are low carb (and worth eating to my taste) are green beans and broccoli.
A diet without veggies seems an anathema. However, there are whole cultures that have never eaten vegetables and are healthy and long lived. The Alaskan Inuit come to mind.
Col R
Once you get into the rhythm of this thing then there are ways to tweak the kind, type, and ratios of protein and fat. However in the beginning it does not matter.
Good responses, but to really answer the question, or at least make a hypothesis, I'd guess that the body is predisposed to not send eating signals (hunger pangs) until the body is at rest, OR until which time that a certain amount of time has passed and certain triggers are reached (i.e. glycogen, insulin levels). My guess is that the body wants to be at rest so that blood flow can be properly allocated to those organs involved in the process of eating and digesting. My guess is that its a complex equation based on the intensity of the activity, certain levels of whatever in the body acting as triggers, and your own DNA that determines how your body reacts to each.
Tenderheart
01-06-2012, 18:41
I find it harder to go from one meal to the next without eating if I am less active. Why is that?
Say in a typical day I am burning 100 kcal per hour, why am I hungry after 4 hours?
On the trail I can go 6 hours or more without eating, burning perhaps 400 kcal per hour. What's up with that?
In simple terms, exercise reduces your appetite. I am a former marathoner and when I would do long training runs to prepare, I would have to make myself eat after I finished. Now, I run six miles every morning and still have no appetite when I return. Go figure. I have read the physiology, but the bottom line is: exercise reduces appetite. Those smarter than I say that many small meals per day will elevate metabolism. Get that going for you too. Isn't it funny how weight can come on overnight but take months to go away? Good luck!!
Pedaling Fool
01-06-2012, 18:53
Man I'm really struggling with my diet and exercise these days. I either overeat, or don't have the energy to exercise, or both. I think I am going to try one meal a day, plus something extra if I exercise, but only if I exercise. When hiking I think I will stick to my usual 2 meals a day plan, as I have less of a problem when I am hiking. Maybe I just need to get out for a hike and get myself back to normal.JAK, judging by you other posts I believe you're overthinking WRT the issue of diet. BTW, what do you do for exercise? For example, do you just do one or two things or do you do a multitude of different things?
When I do only a few things for an extended period I start feeling worn down and lethargic, at this time if I skip all that and do something completely different, that usually re-energizes me. Or say, I've been lifting heavy weights for a long time, I'll switch and do lighter weights at higher reps and that gets me a feeling of renewal.
I'm not one of those people that can just do one exercise over and over and.....
Thanks for all the comments and support. Great stuff. Cheered me up.
I'll have a light breakfast and try to get out for a long walk tomorrow. Then see.
I think what I might try and do now is not plan any meals, but when I do eat I will estimate how much calories I have burned since the last meal or snack, and eat some fraction of that, like 50-75. Keeping a special eye on carbs. I'm not sure I will go super low on carbs, but I'll try and keep them lower than 30% of calories burned. So I'll not think too far ahead and just go one meal to the next.
So I last ate around 9pm. Yeah, it was junk. Anyhow, assuming I make it to morning without more snacking, that'll be about 6 x 60 + 6 x 100 = 960. I'll try a 500 kcal breakfast, low in carbs. Maybe I'll get a short run in before breakfast and make it 600 kcal. Then I'll see about that walk. Thanks again.
redheadedhiker674
01-07-2012, 01:18
If you eat smaller meals, then your metabolism speeds up and you have to eat more frequently. Like if you were to do a 6 meal per day diet. Also, you want your breakfast to be high in carbs, just make sure they're not sugary refined carbs like white bread refined pasta. Carbs=energy. Carbs aren't bad. Eat some whole wheat toast, grape nuts, or something like that. It'll give your metabolism a good kick start and lots of energy for the day! :)
I think if you are eating carbs you need to spread them over many meals, and be even more careful not to take in more carbs than you have burned. I agree that carbs are energy, but so is fat. I think of carbs as the kindling, and the fat as the primary fuel. I know I have become somewhat addicted to carbs, even slow carbs like oatmeal.
My current thinking is that my body is consuming 10% protien, 70% carbs, 20% fat, because I have become overdependant on carbs and have to keep topping them up, and often over do it. I would like my body to get back to "normal" which to me means 10% protien, 30% carbs, 60% fat. Then some of that fat can some from body fat. So I'll try not to consume more than 30% of calories burned as carbs, and never too much at once. So breakfast might be 20-30% protien, 40-60% carbs, and 20-30% fat, but will only be 50-75% of the cakories I have burned.
I am going to try and stop thinking of the food I eat being for the work I haven't done yet, and think of it more as only being for whatever work I have recently done since the previous meal. I think this makes more sense, even though it isn't actually true. The idea is that we have energy stores, fat and glycogen, and if we want to burn some of those fat reserves, then we have to stop trying to keep our glycogen reserves topped up, and overfilling, too much of the time.
JAK - I truely believe the one big meal and one small meal may be the best. You are correct about two (or less) meals per day worked for most of human history. Some will argue that better nutrition has made us taller, but most also got wider. If you need 2000 calories per day and want to loose weight then only give yourself 1800. 200 calories / 9 calories per gram of fat = 22 grams per day. This about 5 ounces per week. Not alot but realistic. Also add fiberous vegetables. Don't try to eat like a Eskimo, they live in an extreme climate that their diet fits.
daddytwosticks
01-07-2012, 10:49
JAK...this problem can be solved with one GOOD cleanse....:)
I cut down on carbs recently - had to quit drinking beer (which I like - the dark, rich kind) due to gout, and had to give up another dietary staple of mine, oatmeal. Both are high in purines, as are most red meats, all organ meats (yep, no more hot dogs, either :(). Maybe it's because I'm out of work, but I haven't lost an ounce in two months. Hopefully, that will change when I get back to work (March, probably).
I used to say that I hiked so I could eat more, but the eating often outdid the caloric output of the hike, and continued on for at least a week afterwards. No wonder I'm fat (and it pains me to say that there are a lot of folks I see every day that are fatter and more sedentary than I am). It's difficult to think about how hard every day must be for them and I wonder if they'll even make it to my age.
A lot of nice people need a friend to tell them that they need to change because we want them around longer (and they will be happier, to boot). On the plus side (no pun intended), I haven't gained my usual 10 lbs. over the holidays due to the changes in diet I've been forced to make.
Take care of yourselves. :)
Thanks Tinker. I've managed to get myself going a little, so perhaps the dieting and weight loss will come easier now. Still not sure how I will work it. I'll try different things, other than bingeing. Thanks for the encouragement. Right back at you.
JAK - I truely believe the one big meal and one small meal may be the best. You are correct about two (or less) meals per day worked for most of human history. Some will argue that better nutrition has made us taller, but most also got wider. If you need 2000 calories per day and want to loose weight then only give yourself 1800. 200 calories / 9 calories per gram of fat = 22 grams per day. This about 5 ounces per week. Not alot but realistic. Also add fiberous vegetables. Don't try to eat like a Eskimo, they live in an extreme climate that their diet fits.Sounds about right. I am currently 6'0" and about 213. I am a rather flabby 213 though, as I don't have much upper body muscle. My spare tire is 43". It is remarkably close to 1" for every 5 pounds of body weight, at least in the 185 to 230 range I have been in the last 5 years or so. My calculated lean body mass is 150, so I should be about 165 to 170 unless I gain some muscle. A 34" waist line is my ultimate goal, among other things.
So I have 7" of waistline, or about 35-40 pound of fat to go, but its the first 20 pounds that will do the most good. 30 pounds is about 100,000 kcal, or a deficit of 1000 kcal per day over 100 days. To manage a deficit of 1000 kcal I know I will need to exercise about 1000 kcal per day in addition to my usual sedintary routine. Dieting on my usual sedintary routine is hard, and really shouldn't be an option. I know 1000 kcal per day of exercise is aggressive, but I've done it before and kept it up for about 100 days. The trick is to do stuff that won't injure you. Easy on the trail, so I will simulate that as much as I can. I am fortunate that we have nice trails within our city, and the river has just frozen enough for cross-country skiiing, so I hope to get out regularly.
I just got back from a 1 hour 12 minute walk / run for about 7 km, 700 kcal maybe. Plus I started walking a mile every morning with my daughter. So that was another 100 this morning, so I have 200 kcal to go today. She is doing it as part of her science project. My idea. She is in good shape, but like most kids, and adults, not always active enough. So I hope to get her hooked again.
Surprisingly not hungry today. Well a little, but my willpower is up because I am feeling good about myself again. So I think I'll wait and see what my wife has planned for dinner, and just cut out the starches and sugars. I'll weigh myself tomorrow and keep the thread going. I might get out for a hike this weekend also, or some skiing if we don't get too much rain after the snow that is coming.
Camping Dave
01-12-2012, 14:58
Don't kid yourself or you're going to end up heavier and frustrated.
4.2 miles (~7km) in 1.2 hours is walking, not running. You're net burn is maybe 70-75kCal per mile. That's about half of what you're telling yourself you're burning. http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html. (http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304-311-8402-0,00.html) If you want to burn 100kCal, you have to "run" about 4 hours. That's hard to do for 1 day, let alone 100 in a row, with 0 calorie deficit. Thinking you can do this with a 100kCal/day deficit is delusional.
Insert realism.
Working from memory from last time I did this, I think for me, a good rule of thumb is...
Gross Calories per hour = ( Average Heart Rate - 60 ) x 10
Net Calories per hour = ( Average Heart Rate - 50 ) x 10
For a 1 hour walk at 100, 400 kcal per hour net. That's about 6 km per hour currently.
For a 1 hour run at 150, 900 kcal per hout net. That might be 8 km, on good surface.
I weigh 213. As I lose weight I will go faster for the same heart rate.
So for 1000 calories a day, net, in exercise I will need to average...
2:00 at 110 = 2 x 500 = 1000 kcal
1:40 at 120 = 5/3 x 600 = 1000 kcal
1:15 at 140 = 5/4 x 800 = 1000 kcal
1:00 at 160 = 1 x 1000 = 1000 kcal, but that would be a tough grind every day, as it would be race pace.
In terms of weight loss, I will try and eat no more than 2000 per day, sometimes less.
So I should be losing at least 2 pounds a week, if all goes well. 1500 a day would make it 3 pounds a week.
I might do a 2000 cal net day once or twice a week, but that would be at longer slower paces on those days, like a 4-5 hour hike, or cross-country ski. About 20-25 km depending on terrain. I will do some strength training also, using the same formula for net calories burned base on average heart rate for the hour. Not sure how valid this is, but as long as I do the whole hour at a steady pace I think it will be close enough. Some of those estimated calories might actually be burned later, but it doesn't really matter. The important thing is whether or not it motivates me to stay active, with a varitiety of activities.
Need to get out and shovel now. Will see how many calories it burns, then will walk around the block in the snow to finish off my 1000 for the day. Cheers.
Sorry I got the gross and net formulas backwards. I will be using ( heart rate - 60 ) x 10 for calories per hour, net. I know that is high for most people, but I've got a decent set of lungs. Better not to waste them.
Wise Old Owl
01-13-2012, 00:04
If you eat smaller meals, then your metabolism speeds up and you have to eat more frequently. Like if you were to do a 6 meal per day diet. Also, you want your breakfast to be high in carbs, just make sure they're not sugary refined carbs like white bread refined pasta. Carbs=energy. Carbs aren't bad. Eat some whole wheat toast, grape nuts, or something like that. It'll give your metabolism a good kick start and lots of energy for the day! :)
OK can you give me an idea where you read that - or where you learned that?
Seperate post
Amongs the elderly the 80-100 almost all talk about having a big breakfast.
redheadedhiker674
01-13-2012, 00:51
OK can you give me an idea where you read that - or where you learned that?
Seperate post
Amongs the elderly the 80-100 almost all talk about having a big breakfast. Well, I'm a Biology major. So, the thing about carbs being energy is just one of the most esssential things you learn in Biology. Carbs are your body's main energy source. Simple carbs include glucose and fructose and if you have ever looked at how cellular respiration occurs, it uses glucose to make ATP. ATP is energy. As for the other statements in there, I just did a lot of online research and read as many articles as I could concerning one's diet because I'd like to keep myself in tip top shape! A lot of doctors nowadays are recommending a 6 meal diet. When you have three meals a day, your body has to wait longer for the next meal, so it breaks down your food slower (your metabolism is slower) OR you get hungry inbetween meals and end up snacking.
Back from shoveling the driveway and walking a mile around the block to cooldown. Driveway was 25 minutes at 141 bpm, for 340 calories. The 1 mile walk was 19min at 112. It should have been 90 to 100 but because I was cooling down from the shovelling it was higher. Not sure I should count that but I will. Actually below 120 my formula gets rather sketchy, but if it helps me walk a few extra miles I'll take it. So I've done my 1000 exercise calories for the day. I didn't eat much either. Probably less than I should have. About 2 cups of milk, 5 oz of left over pork, and oops 3 cookies and a candy cane. 800 kcal maybe. Tomorrow I will eat closer to 2000 and eat well, but I think its ok to have the batteries discharged.
There is alot of misinformation out there about 6 meals a day versus 1 or 2, on both sides. I read some garbage today about how we go into starvation mode after 3 hours of not eating, and this makes us burn protien instead of fat. Even at 200 to 400 kcal per hour we should be able to go 6 hours and still have our glycogen tank half full, and that should actually trigger us to burn more fat not less. True, our muscle and tissue protien might be a little more vulnerable, but if we eat enough protien we are not going to waste away. Where there might be something to having more meals per day when dieting is that, if we manage things carefully, we might lower our glycogen reserves to some optimal level that burns more fat to conserve glycogen, and then maintain it at that level my raising it up a little every 3 hours rather than topping it up completely or overfilling it. I think both schemes can work. I think the 6 meals a day scheme might be better if you are on a low fat diet, and 1-2 meals a day might be better on a low carb diet. Both have to be managed. I think a low carb diet is better for the initial process of weaning off over-dependance on carbs, but I think both schemes work well if you combine them with exercise, and both schemes work poorly if you combine them with a sedentary lifestyle with no exercise.
redheadedhiker674
01-13-2012, 00:58
JAK, one meal a day is not a good idea. That's a good way to slow your metabolism and store more fat, unless you are completely sedentary (but seeing as you are on a hiking website I am guessing you're not.)
Well, I'm a Biology major. So, the thing about carbs being energy is just one of the most esssential things you learn in Biology. Carbs are your body's main energy source. Simple carbs include glucose and fructose and if you have ever looked at how cellular respiration occurs, it uses glucose to make ATP. ATP is energy. As for the other statements in there, I just did a lot of online research and read as many articles as I could concerning one's diet because I'd like to keep myself in tip top shape! A lot of doctors nowadays are recommending a 6 meal diet. When you have three meals a day, your body has to wait longer for the next meal, so it breaks down your food slower (your metabolism is slower) OR you get hungry inbetween meals and end up snacking.
But as a biology major you must understand that fatty acids are also an energy source that can be converted into ATP, and they are stored within the muscles for this purpose, and can be the primary energy source for activities below 50% of your VO2Max, which is the bulk of our daily activity. Glucose is only the primary energy source for the brain, and for muscles when working at higher unsustainable activity levels, OR AT LOWER ACTIVITIES IF OUR BLOOD SUGAR LEVEL IS TOO HIGH. That's the problem with high carb diets. They tend to sustain high blood sugar levels, which leads to higher levels of insulin. High carb diets are ok as long as they are managed in such a way as to avoid high blood glucose levels. But the bottom line is, if we want to burn body fat, we have to burn some body fat. That can be done with high carb or low carb diets as long as there is a calorie deficit. The rest is mostly rhetoric. Both glucose and fatty acids are primary energy sources. The combination of both, without over reliance on one or the other works best, but there is a wide range of flexibility.
redheadedhiker674
01-13-2012, 01:10
But as a biology major you must understand that fatty acids are also an energy source that can be converted into ATP, and they are stored within the muscles for this purpose, and can be the primary energy source for activities below 50% of your VO2Max, which is the bulk of our daily activity. Glucose is only the primary energy source for the brain, and for muscles when working at higher unsustainable activity levels, OR AT LOWER ACTIVITIES IF OUR BLOOD SUGAR LEVEL IS TOO HIGH. That's the problem with high carb diets. They tend to sustain high blood sugar levels, which leads to higher levels of insulin. High carb diets are ok as long as they are managed in such a way as to avoid high blood glucose levels. But the bottom line is, if we want to burn body fat, we have to burn some body fat. That can be done with high carb or low carb diets as long as there is a calorie deficit. The rest is mostly rhetoric. Both glucose and fatty acids are primary energy sources. The combination of both, without over reliance on one or the other works best, but there is a wide range of flexibility. Fatty acids are a secondary source. of energy, not a primary. There's no way of getting around the fact that carbs are the body's MAIN and PRIMARY source of energy, that's just how the body works. Do you realize that vegetables are carbs? If you are eating whole grains and vegetables, you don't have to worry about high blood sugar. It's not going to happen! I'm not saying you have to do a high carb diet, I just don't agree with low carb diets. You have to pick the good carbs like I said earlier, not refined pasta and white bread.
Wise Old Owl
01-13-2012, 01:10
I cut down on carbs recently - had to quit drinking beer (which I like - the dark, rich kind) due to gout, and had to give up another dietary staple of mine, oatmeal. Both are high in purines, as are most red meats, all organ meats (yep, no more hot dogs, either :(). Maybe it's because I'm out of work, but I haven't lost an ounce in two months. Hopefully, that will change when I get back to work (March, probably).
I used to say that I hiked so I could eat more, but the eating often outdid the caloric output of the hike, and continued on for at least a week afterwards. No wonder I'm fat (and it pains me to say that there are a lot of folks I see every day that are fatter and more sedentary than I am). It's difficult to think about how hard every day must be for them and I wonder if they'll even make it to my age.
A lot of nice people need a friend to tell them that they need to change because we want them around longer (and they will be happier, to boot). On the plus side (no pun intended), I haven't gained my usual 10 lbs. over the holidays due to the changes in diet I've been forced to make.
Take care of yourselves. :)
UUGh I am not trying to rip this apart - but if what you think is true than all of Germany would have gout.....The black lines represent total gout
Obesity is the real issue not beer - Drinking 150 calories with each beer (liquid bread) is one of the real causes of obesity... but so is Pizza.
And Tinker.... I feel your pain. Please remember there is a lot of garbage "studys suggest"
14873
Oh and the real numbers? Germany & England have the same measure of gout - Yet France should have less - due to Red Wine....So drink up.
Wise Old Owl
01-13-2012, 01:14
redheadedhiker674 - One of the things I remember is having a small granola bar between micro meals on the weight loss program - thanks.
Fatty acids are a secondary source. of energy, not a primary. There's no way of getting around the fact that carbs are the body's MAIN and PRIMARY source of energy, that's just how the body works. Do you realize that vegetables are carbs? If you are eating whole grains and vegetables, you don't have to worry about high blood sugar. It's not going to happen! I'm not saying you have to do a high carb diet, I just don't agree with low carb diets. You have to pick the good carbs like I said earlier, not refined pasta and white bread.Well it depends on what you mean by the bodies primary fuel. It is the primary fuel for the brain, but your body burns more fat than glycogen most of the time, unless you are doing high intensity activities or have over consumed carbs.
I am on a low carb diet, in the sense that it is only 30% of my daily calories burned, but it is actually a somewhat high carb diet as a percentage of my calories taken in as food. I am shooting for about a 50% calorie deficit each day, and burn the other 50% as body fat. If I feel the need I will snack my way up to 75% if I have to.
For example, say my base calories are 2000 and my exercise calories are 1000, for 3000 total. I assume that my needs are 10% protien, 30% carbs, and 60% fat, but when I take away 50% fat I end up at 10-30-10 which becomes 20-60-20 as a percentage of my diet. If those 1500 kcal are divided between 3 500 kcal meals, each meal would have 300 kcal of carbs, which isn't too bad, as long as the body is short by at least 300 kcal. It also helps if they are slow carbs as you suggest. After a long afternoon hike, burning say 1000 kcal net, my body might be down 1500 kcal total if my last meal was 5 hours ago, but only 500 kcal of that should be glycogen, or about 25% if I have 2000 kcal of glycogen storage. Then I could probably get away with a 1000 kcal meal after something like that. So 1 or 2 meals a day is manageable, but it does help to have some snacks as well between meals. I keep them small though, like a cup of milk, for 100 kcal, and maybe a banana for another 100 kcal. On the trail it is usually tea with skim milk powder.
Both 1-2 meals and 6 meals work, and are easy to manage if exercising, and hard to manage if not. I think the really tough cravings come when you are not exercise, especially if feeling blue. Regular small meals will not usally snap you out of the doldrums. Exercise will, but it is a bit of a chicken and egg. Which comes first, the motivation, or the exercise? I will try not to go lower than 50% calories, even when motivated, but I will also try not to go over 100%. On days when I don't exercise, becomes I'm in the dumps, I will be especially careful not to go over 100%, or about 2000 kcal per day. On days I do manage to get in 1000 or 2000 kcal of net exercise, for 3000 to 4000, I think I will still try and limit myself to 2000 kcal. I think I will also try and keep all meals under 500 kcal, of which 300 kcal at most will be carbs. Perhaps sometimes I might have a 1000 kcal meal, but only when my carbs are very low, like after a long run or very long hike, and again no more than 60% carbs.
Today I feel motivated for a 4 hour ski, for 2000 kcal net, because we have our first day with decent snow base. I am going to have 500 kcal before I go, and take 500 kcal with me, and have 500 kcal when I get back if I feel the need, and 500 kcal for supper, but possibly combine the last two into one, or make the last one 1000 kcal rather than 500 kcal, for a 1500 kcal deficit rather than 2000 kcal. It will be a big day, but I've got it off and I am up for it. What I won't do is have a big breakfast before the exercise.
So I think 1-2 meals can work, but I'm not tied to it. Also, I will go lower than 30% daily carbs, as percentage of calories burned, when I am trying to reduce my dependancy on them and get the body burning fat again.
I think you are wrong to say that fatty acids are a secondary source. It depends on how you define that. Carbs are the primary fuel if you are running a 2 hour race pace, or faster, but fat should be the primary fuel when you are doing slower activities or no activities or are burning excess body fat. Otherwise how are you going to burn it? It depends on what you mean by primary fuel. I define primary fuel as the fuel that you are burning the most of, on a daily basis, or should be. For my purposes that is fat, not carbohydrates.
I think it is worth noting that "primary fuel" is not really a scientific term, because it is so ambiguous. Google "primary fuel" and you will find many statements that "carbohydrates are the primary fuel", "glucose is the primary fuel", "fat is the primary fuel", and "fatty acids are the primary fuel", but none of them really define what the term "primary fuel" means.
Both glucose and fatty acids are regularly metabolized into ATP within mitochondria. Sometime fatty acids more than glucose. Sometimes glucose more than fatty acids. The body will prefer glucose under two main circumstances; during very high intensity activities because it can obtain and metabolize glucose faster, and when glycogen stores are high and blood glucose levels are high and it has to get rid of it. The body will prefer fatty acids under two circumstances; during medium intensity exercises in order to conserve limited glycogen stores in anticipation of them running low, once they have run low and blood sugar levels are low. So both are primary fuels.
In terms of diet, in environments where carbs are not abundant, fats become the primary fuel, whereas in environment where carbs are abundant, carbs become the primary fuel, but once they are stored within the body as glycogen and tryglycerides, both are primary fuels, depending on the circumstances.
Protien doesn't work well as the primary fuel for humans, because of complications, but it can be a significant secondary fuel, especially in environments and diets where carbohydrates are scarce, and fats are plentiful. If we think back to before foods were developed to produce higher energy yields, in sugars and starches, carbohydrates tended to be more scarce in many natural habitats, not just the far north. But it can also be argued that fats are also more scarce in many natural habitats. Fact is, both of these primary fuels tend to be scarce in most natural habitats. Compared to the modern world, human food used to be scarce, plain and simple, which is one of the reasons we evolved and can adapt to use either fats or carbohydrates as primary fuels, or both. What is most natural? Whatever happens to be most available. What is best? Probably a combination of both, in fairly equal amounts in terms of calories. What is best for dieting? Fats to reduce over-dependance on carbs, and to burn more body fat, but in terms of food taken in, carbs, since the fats can come from the body, which is the point.
Body fat should be the primary fuel, when you have too much of it, but that doesn't mean you have to eat more fat than carbs, because you already have the fat in you. So carbs can be the primary food, but you have to be careful never take in too much at once too fast when your glycogen levels are already high. For this many smaller meals, and more complex carbs can help, but that is not the only way. It is sometimes better to have fewer meals, so that you aren't made to think about food all the time. I think the real question is how low can you let your glycogen levels go, and under what circumstances, and how much and how regularly do you need to top them up? I think its healthy to drain them a little deeper during exercise then when not exercising, and also to top them up higher if you are about to exercise, but when dieting it isn't really neccessary or desirable to top them up 100%, in my opinion. Maybe now and then, to maintain your bodies ability to store high levels of glycogen, but not every day. Moderation in moderation, with variation, and depending on circumstances.
Odd Man Out
01-13-2012, 16:47
I find it harder to go from one meal to the next without eating if I am less active. Why is that?
As I biochemist I tend to get all excited about these nutrition discussions. But as of yesterday I think I have a much easier answer. I wasn't very busy at work yesterday and so I sat around all day thinking about how hungry I was. When I am busy, I'm not thinking about that. Could it be that simple?
Multiply your weight times eleven and that is how many calories you must eat per day in order to maintain your current weight. In order to lose you must eat fewer calories than that. There are 3500 calories in a pound. So if you weigh 213 pounds you must eat less than 2343 calories per day in order to lose weight. If you're only eating 100 calories less than that per day its going to take you 35 days to lose a pound. A better approach would be to decide how much you want to weigh and then multiply that times eleven and eat that many calories...that way when you reach your target weight you will be used to eating the amount of calories it takes to maintain that. A 2000 calorie a day diet would put you at about 180lbs.
I like that approach. Good way to think.