![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
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
![Crying or Very sad :cry:](./images/smilies/icon_cry.gif)
Does this mean the muscles cells shrink or are gone?Oscar wrote:You will also burn muscles. Fats will be burnt mainly for fatty energy.
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.johndela1 wrote: Does this mean the muscles cells shrink or are gone?
If you dont mind losing muscle mass, that is (as there will be less myofiber mass).If losing muscle by dieting reduce the size of the cells that is fine
Sure, as with any subject.I read a lot of contradictory info on frequency of meals.
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.other people say eat less meals space out with no snacking so your digestive system wont be constantly burdened
Its a bad thing when this results in energy lows, as there are better ways to decrease burden of your digestive system.Is it a good thing to have gaps when you eat to let your system clear out or is that a bad thing?
Yes, it 'buffers' the calories: it converts them into glycogen and adipose fat, which get reconverted into energy when required.johndela1 wrote:By eating enought calories in say three meals shouldn't that give you stable energy? doesn't the body buffer the calories?
Not necessarily, as it depends on which source of energy will get depleted first (adipose fat or glycogen).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?
No, that also depends on your blood fatty acid level.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.
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 mealavo 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.
No.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
Where did you read that?plus... I read that the liver holds around 2000 k.
Thats easy to say, but on what data do they base that claim?the atkins people say it takes 3-4 days of 0 carb to actually run out of stored sugars.
For instance here: http://www.bodyandfitness.com/Informati ... /carb1.htmjohndela1 wrote:plus... I read that the liver holds around 2000 k. Oscar, where did you find the number of 400?
Also other methods of measuring are used, so you could see that the liver holds about 100 grams of glycogen, which amounts to 400kcal.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.