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
Intermittent Fasting
-
avalon
- Posts: 818
- https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
- Joined: Thu 23 Feb 2006 17:51
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.
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?
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?
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 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.
What matters is: what makes most sense to you?
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?
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?
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.johndela1 wrote:By eating enought calories in say three meals shouldn't that give you stable energy? doesn't the body buffer the calories?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Where did you read that?plus... I read that the liver holds around 2000 k.
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....
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.