Why Wai dieters have to eat 20 meals a day

[B-Rad]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085

Fructose basically knocks out satiety hormones making you feel hungry all the time.

In theory, it should be causing serious weight gain.

[summerwave]

For digestive reasons (I have had large and small intestinal disease in the past), I eat nearly all monosaccharides for sugars in my diet. It breaks down to roughly 50% fructose; 50% glucose, with an absolute minimum of sucrose. This involves eating fruits with that proportion of sugars, which includes cherries, kiwifruit, figs, etc.; and also supplementing with glucose powder, crystalline fructose, and raw honey.

I eat according to the Wai guidelines throughout the day and have not had problems with weight gain. In fact, eating this way has allowed for good health.

[RRM]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15181085

Fructose basically knocks out satiety hormones making you feel hungry all the time.

In theory, it should be causing serious weight gain.

So, what is the flaw in this theory?
We never consume fructose only.
Regardless of the non-influence of fructose, the influence of glucose is still there.
So, that theortically, our meals may increase by 50% (compared to high glucose, low fructose), but compared to normal meals (in normal diets), these are still very small meals. Thats because normal meals may be high in starch, but not in glucose, so that the satiety kicks in AFTER the big meal has been consumed...

In conclusion, any cooked meal, with larger meals, will always make you gain weight more readily than a high fructose (and glucose) raw food diet.

[B-Rad]

I eat nearly all monosaccharides for sugars in my diet. It breaks down to roughly 50% fructose; 50% glucose, with an absolute minimum of sucrose. This involves eating fruits with that proportion of sugars, which includes cherries, kiwifruit, figs, etc.; and also supplementing with glucose powder, crystalline fructose, and raw honey.

You must be eating nonstop.

So, what is the flaw in this theory?

There is no flaw, just thought I'd let people know why they get hungry after eating fruits/juice.

Regardless of the non-influence of fructose, the influence of glucose is still there.

Doesn't matter, satiety isn't purely based on getting enough glucose, it's regulated hormonally.

[B-Rad]

In conclusion, any cooked meal, with larger meals, will always make you gain weight more readily than a high fructose (and glucose) raw food diet.

Right, but consuming anything with fructose along with high calorie processed foods= far greater chance of weight gain/diabetes.

[summerwave]

I take it with oil/fat and of course that is what RRM recommends anyway, for any sugar.

I sip on juice all day. I really don't know the difference, if any, between what I do and what anyone eating proportionally more sucrose does on this diet.

It always feels like "nonstop"compared to the standard American diet (SAD), anyway. Any version of the Wai diet sugarwise always puts me in mind of Lewis Carroll's Red Queen, who has to "run as fast as she can, just to stay in one place.".... I think if I were more active it would feel like an encumbrance to eat so frequently. As it is-- it does not, and I'm able to meet my energy needs perfectly.

[johndela1]

There is no flaw, just thought I'd let people know why they get hungry after eating fruits/juice.
.

I don't... I have lost weight on this diet (that wasn't my goal). I'm not constantly hungry. If the observations of many contradict a study, I would consider the study is not accurately modeling reality. In theory you say we should be gaining weight. In practice a lot of people have the opposite response when they follow this diet.

I don't know if you knew this. If this is new info to you (people losing weight) you may want to reconsider the theory.

[RRM]

So, what is the flaw in this theory?

There is no flaw, just thought I'd let people know why they get hungry after eating fruits/juice.

They dont.
Fruits/juice contain glucose, fructose and sucrose.
Where the fructose does not inhibit hunger, glucose does.
And because the glucose is readily available in fruits/juice, the hunger stops stops almost immediately; as the blood sugar level increases.
The flaw of that theory is the role of glucose.
Where fructose lacks that role, glucose has a very strong role. the presence of fructose does not undo the influence of glucose, at all. Its just that fructose is INACTIVE in that regard. Glucose is not.

Thats why its impossible to keep on sipping juice when you have already replenished your blood glucose.

[johndela1]

Where the fructose does not inhibit hunger, glucose does.

Good information... I was becoming confused after reading studies done with high fructose corn syrup and thinking fruit was doing the same thing to me (contrary to my observations).

[B-Rad]

I don't... I have lost weight on this diet (that wasn't my goal).

As did I (mostly muscle from not enough protein though).

Which is why it's hard to knock off the theory when there may be conflicting variables. One example would be if the weight stayed the same while body composition changed OR fat mass increased while total weight decreased (more plausible).

Some other interesting info:
http://www.physorg.com/news113902673.html
http://www.physorg.com/news137173251.html

The second article contains too many variables to draw any conclusions, but the first places glucose and fructose as the prime modulators of SHBG; the gene primarily responsible for the body's levels of free testosterone.

What this may signify is:
1. free testosterone concentrations have nothing to do with acne/water retention (tough to believe)
2. free testosterone concentrations are correlated with acne/water retention and something else about the diet is causing cessation of acne despite this (i.e. low protein intake causes catabolic state which plummets sex hormone/androgenic activity and thereby eliminates acne).

I'm not constantly hungry.

If you weren't constantly hungry, you wouldn't have to eat 20 times a day, would you?

Where the fructose does not inhibit hunger, glucose does.
And because the glucose is readily available in fruits/juice, the hunger stops stops almost immediately; as the blood sugar level increases.
The flaw of that theory is the role of glucose.

I previously stated:

Doesn't matter, satiety isn't purely based on getting enough glucose, it's regulated hormonally.

Satiety is far more complicated than simple blood glucose levels

Thats why its impossible to keep on sipping juice when you have already replenished your blood glucose.

The body also stores both sugars as glycogen... it doesn't just circulate them in the blood stream.

[Oscar]

If you weren't constantly hungry, you wouldn't have to eat 20 times a day, would you?

There are different kinds of 'hunger'. There is a difference between the body signaling it could ideally use some energy and being hungry because glycogen depots are empty and blood sugar is low. Also, if your body is used to a certain regimen of eating, it will signal accordingly.

The body also stores both sugars as glycogen... it doesn't just circulate them in the blood stream.

The body only stores glycogen after it has used the energy it needs and has replenished the blood sugar. Any extra sugar is then stored.

[johndela1]

I'm not constantly hungry.

If you weren't constantly hungry, you wouldn't have to eat 20 times a day, would you?

I don't. I do things a bit different. I eat 4-5 bigger meals a day.

I haven't measured this but I don't seem to be losing muscle disproportionately to fat. I appear much leaner than I did five years ago. I have not gotten any weaker. This I have measured.

I'm not looking to be muscular in appearance. When I workout I practice Olympic lifting and my goal is to be able to generate force. Like lifting a barbell over your head in one explosive move. I also supplement this with an exercise called a muscle-up that comes out of gymnastics. I hand on rings then in one move pull up to the bottom of a dip, then push up from there. I have increased my performance in these areas, but that could mean I just have better coordination and am not actually stronger.


I under stand your concern. I have read many article promoting low carb. They make it sound like drinking orange juice is is one of the worst things to do. I am going with my observations over the low carb literature.

If I go out to eat I'll usually get a rare steak with nothing else. I go for the fattiest cut I can get (rib eye or prime rib). I feel fine eating this way, too. It seem to me that the human body does well with sugars as fuel but is very adaptable.

[RRM]

Very adaptable indeed.

[B-Rad]

I don't. I do things a bit different. I eat 4-5 bigger meals a day..

4-5 big meals consisting of what?

I have read many article promoting low carb. They make it sound like drinking orange juice is is one of the worst things to do. I am going with my observations over the low carb literature.

You have to read between the lines. Just because people draw erroneous conclusions from observations doesn't mean the research itself is flawed.

[johndela1]

I don't. I do things a bit different. I eat 4-5 bigger meals a day..

4-5 big meals consisting of what?

I'll have a smoothie that I consume over say 45 minutes, I may sip it but consider it one meal. Then I may have a avocado, cucumber, tomato salad with 4 -6 yolks or salmon. I just don't sip a small amount of juice all the time. Other days if the conditions are right I will have a big glass of OJ with OO and i'll take a sip every 20 minutes or so. I don't feel like this is a meal so I don't see my self as constantly having to eat. If I don't have time I'll drink it a bit faster.

I have read many article promoting low carb. They make it sound like drinking orange juice is is one of the worst things to do. I am going with my observations over the low carb literature.

You have to read between the lines. Just because people draw erroneous conclusions from observations doesn't mean the research itself is flawed.

How the studies are interpreted and presented mean a lot to the way a lot of people take this info. Some studies are messed up from the beginning others are done right but used to support bogus claims. My whole point is that there are a lot of errors that occur in the attempts to gain understanding of the physical world in general.