Re: WD vs. frequent meals

[Guest guest]

>In other words, how does the one large meal of the WD take you through the

>whole undereating period evenly, when otherwise the satisfying meals on

>other plans like Schwarzbein (not quite as low-carb as Atkins, and includes

>good fats) only hold you a few hours.

>

>It seems to me that if those other plans are really putting you in

>fat-burning mode, you shouldn't feel like you have to fuel up so often.

>

>Thanks,

>

The short answer is: " your body adapts " . If you feed your body every 3 hours,

then your body is used to that, and gets hungry every 3 hours. If you feed

it once a day, it gets used to that too.

More technically ...

1. Your body is designed to live off stored fat and glycogen.

That's WHY you store fat and glycogen ... so you can use it

for energy.

2. When you are digesting food, glucose is " leaking " into

your blood from the food, so you don't need to access

the fat and glycogen. You can live off the glucose (and fat)

that you are constantly supplying.

3. One set of hormones causes you to burn fat/glycogen.

Another set turns off that burning. As long as you

are constantly eating sugar/starch, your body turns

off the " burn fat/glycogen " system.

Anyway, when you eat a big meal, it gets stored as fat

and glycogen. Then during the day, your body secretes

hormones so you can access that ( " fat burning mode " ).

And I think you are exactly correct ... if you are REALLY

in fat burning mode you shouldn't need to eat

constantly.

However, during the switchover from

multiple meals to one, you can feel pretty lousy (Ori

says it is from too much cortisol being secreted as

your body gets used to this concept). So going at

it gradually isn't a bad thing. I did it cold turkey and

was fine after 2 days or so.

As for hunger ... hunger is mainly an illusion ... your

body secretes a hormone that makes you feel hungry.

For most Americans, that " hunger signalling " is WAY

out of kilter, though people disagree on WHY that is so.

But it has very little to do with how much energy is actually

available for use -- most of us have WAY too much stored

energy and still feel way too hungry.

One thing the WD is supposed to do is train

the appestat to signal hunger appropriately, so you

eat the right amount of food.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Thanks Heidi! That's exactly what I was looking for, in a nutshell.

You read so much and sometimes the details crowd your brain and you

lose the forest for the trees..

One more point..

> if you are REALLY in fat burning mode you shouldn't need to eat

> constantly.

IIRC, Schwarzbein says not to jump into fat-burning mode right away,

especially for the person who is insulin resistant and adrenally

burned out. So her 3-meals plus snacks maybe is not supposed to push

you into fat-burning, but is part of the " Transition " of her book

title.

I think part of my friend's confusion is about why Schwarzbein makes

such a big issue of this transition, while other diets don't have

such phases. Schwarzbein was the first healthy diet plan she studied,

and she isn't understanding how the WD can take her to the same place

if it doesn't address this transition phase that Schwarzbein

emphasizes as so necessary in order to heal the metabolism.

Maybe I just have more tolerance for the variety of diet plans out

there that work for different people :-)

-

[Guest guest]

>> It seems to me that if those other plans are really putting you in

fat-burning mode, you shouldn't feel like you have to fuel up so often. <<

Well, Atkins DEFINITELY puts you in fat burning mode - witness the 80 pounds of

it I've lost since May. <G>

However, I agree with Heidi's explanation. All that happens is that you get used

to eating at certain intervals, and so you feel hungry at those intervals.

Change the interval and after a period of transition during which you might feel

awful, you'll adjust to the new schedule.

But people also have their personal preferences, quirks, biochemical

differences, etc. I myself like to eat three meals a day. I like to cook, and

part of my emotional healing process with food involves investing my time and

attention to preparing foods, having a nice kitchen, etc. That's one of the

reasons Atkins works SO well for me. Plus, I don't have a family, it's just me -

and the dogs. <G> So I get to set things up just how I want them, don't have to

consider anyone else's needs or schedule. I can see why the harried mom of four

kids with a job might love the WD, and having to focus basically on just one

meal a day for her and her family. I am a writer, living alone and working at

home, and would simply go insane going all day with no or little food.

There is no one size fits all when it comes to eating.

Christie

[Guest guest]

>> I think part of my friend's confusion is about why Schwarzbein makes

such a big issue of this transition, while other diets don't have

such phases. Schwarzbein was the first healthy diet plan she studied,

and she isn't understanding how the WD can take her to the same place

if it doesn't address this transition phase that Schwarzbein

emphasizes as so necessary in order to heal the metabolism. <<

Although I did read Schwarzbein's first book, it was a long time ago and I don't

remember anything about a transition phase. Can you describe this more?

Christie

[Guest guest]

Thanks Christie.. I agree, it's about what works in your own

experience rather than on paper. Congrats on the success, that's

quite an accomplishment.

-

[Guest guest]

> Although I did read Schwarzbein's first book, it was a long time

>ago and I don't remember anything about a transition phase. Can you

>describe this more?

>

> Christie

Her newer book is called " The Schwarzbein Principle II: The

Transition " . I skimmed through it a while ago, and don't remember all

the details, but basically the " Transition " is moving from sugar-

burning into fat-burning, and healing the related adrenal stress.

She lays out four different programs according to metabolic type--the

parameters are insulin sensitivity/resistance and adrenal

health/burnout, combining for 4 different types. The eating plans are

somewhat different for each in terms of amount of carbs and how many

snacks if any.

For adrenal burnout with insulin resistance, the daily carb allowance

is 75-- 3 meals plus 2 snacks, 15 grams carbs each.

She advocates good fats, but she greatly limits saturated fats during

the transition period only. She says that while you're still burning

sugar for fuel during the transition, the fat is going to be stored

as fat. I guess she sees this transition phase as being significantly

long for most people, given that the SAD diet produces impaired

metabolism. I'm not clear on why she (like Ron Rosedale) singles out

saturated fat as the one to limit during this period.

I was helping my friend follow the book, although I thought she

really needed as much fat as she could get, just to kick her sugar

addiction which I saw as the first order of business. So I'm not sure

how that fat limitation is supposed to work in the real world.

Back to the whole transition issue.. maybe it isn't such a big issue

as she makes it out to be, and maybe for most people it all comes out

in the wash once they're eating in a way that promotes fat-burning.

She makes a big point of saying that you need to heal your metabolism

in order to lose weight, not lose weight in order to heal your

metabolism. For someone who's aiming to lose weight eating junk food

thinking that will jump-start a healing process, maybe that's an

important point for them to get.

So my friend learned the lesson that she needs to heal her metabolism

first, and then I think I kind of blindsided her with the WD :-)..

She was really struggling with the 3 meals plus two snacks and

counting macronutrients, so I thought the WD might suit her lifestyle

better, and it seems to be. She's just having a little cognitive

dissonance with the conflicting information.

-

[Guest guest]

Christie-

>However, I agree with Heidi's explanation. All that happens is that you

>get used to eating at certain intervals, and so you feel hungry at those

>intervals. Change the interval and after a period of transition during

>which you might feel awful, you'll adjust to the new schedule.

I don't really buy this theory, since it conflicts with my own

experience. I find that the length of time between meals before I get

hungry varies very widely depending on the size and composition of my last

meal. If I eat a rather WD-style dinner (but without all the carbs many WD

types seem to eat -- I remain low-carb) I often don't have any hunger until

late the following afternoon. If I eat a huge, fatty low-carb breakfast, I

can go until late afternoon or early to mid evening before needing to

eat. If I eat a smaller meal and/or one with less fat, I need another meal

sooner.

-

[Guest guest]

>

>>However, I agree with Heidi's explanation. All that happens is that you

>>get used to eating at certain intervals, and so you feel hungry at those

>>intervals. Change the interval and after a period of transition during

>>which you might feel awful, you'll adjust to the new schedule.

>

>I don't really buy this theory, since it conflicts with my own

>experience. I find that the length of time between meals before I get

>hungry varies very widely depending on the size and composition of my last

>meal.

Christie and :

Actually I think both come into play also. There is a fair bit

of evidence that high-carb meals make you hungrier faster (because

of the way the hormones react to food, esp. cortisol and insulin,

I think). And if you have allergies to any food, you'll get really

hungry a few hours after the meal, and that will happen

if you have blood sugar issues too.

But if you eat the same kind of meal every

night, your body WILL adapt (or most people will) if the

food is halfway decent. Shoot, I lived off 1,200 calories

a day for a couple of years and stopped being hungry after

a couple of weeks. My metabolism plummeted, I lost

weight ... but I wasn't hungry!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

--- Heidi Schuppenhauer <heidis@...>

wrote: >

> 1. Your body is designed to live off stored fat and

> glycogen.

> That's WHY you store fat and glycogen ... so you can

> use it

> for energy.

>

> 2. When you are digesting food, glucose is " leaking "

> into

> your blood from the food, so you don't need to

> access

> the fat and glycogen. You can live off the glucose

> (and fat)

> that you are constantly supplying.

>

> 3. One set of hormones causes you to burn

> fat/glycogen.

> Another set turns off that burning. As long as you

> are constantly eating sugar/starch, your body turns

> off the " burn fat/glycogen " system.

Heidi

You write here about burning fat/glycogen as though

they are burnt at the same time, as easily as each

other, and your body uses both. However, the

principle of a low carb diet is that the body has to

use up stores of glycogen in order to use fat, and

that this transition can take several day - this is

what the Atkins induction period is for. The body

doesn't switch easily from glycogen-burning to fat

burning - athletes will know this from when they hit

" the wall " which is bascially when the glycogen stored

in their bodies runs out. They no longer have the

energy to go on. Their bodies cannot switch to fat

burning that quickly.

The switch from burning blood glucose to glycogen

though is an easy and quick one. Is it a

scientifically proven fact that the hormone required

to burn blood glucose is different from the one

required to use glycogen, and that the one required

for glycogen is the same as the fat burning hormone?

If so, what is the wall experienced by athletes? And

why do people switching from a high carb to a low carb

diet and who supposedly switch from glycogen burning

to fat burning feel like cr@p for 3 days while their

body makes the switch?

This is just what I've read, I'm not saying it's

right. What you've said challenges everything I've

learned about a low carb diet, so I'm curious.

Thanks

Jo

___________________________________________________________

BT Broadband - Free modem offer, sign up online today and save £80

http://bt..co.uk

[Guest guest]

>Heidi

>You write here about burning fat/glycogen as though

>they are burnt at the same time, as easily as each

>other, and your body uses both. However, the

>principle of a low carb diet is that the body has to

>use up stores of glycogen in order to use fat, and

>that this transition can take several day - this is

>what the Atkins induction period is for. The body

>doesn't switch easily from glycogen-burning to fat

>burning - athletes will know this from when they hit

> " the wall " which is bascially when the glycogen stored

>in their bodies runs out. They no longer have the

>energy to go on. Their bodies cannot switch to fat

>burning that quickly.

Well ... we had a discussion about that awhile ago.

Atkin's description of fat burning differs somewhat

from some other researchers. My understanding is that

there are 3 forms of energy use in the body:

1. Fat+glycogen. A lot of fat and a little glycogen

are burned together. This is very efficient, and is the

" normal " metabolic mode of a human being and

animals.

2. Pure glycogen. This is mainly used during heavy

stress, like sprinting -- this is anaerobic, I think.

3. Fat only. This is ketogenic .. it isn't very efficient,

which means you can eat more calories and lose weight.

However, Inuit and true carnivores can eat just fat and

protein and NOT go ketogenic, because they convert

the protein to glucose and use #1.

Athletes are using #2, because they are under heavy

stress. And yeah, if they run out of glycogen they

hit the wall -- I think if they continue to work out

another hormone kicks in but I forget how that part

works ...

Folks on Atkins are aiming for #3, which

they call " Fat burning mode " . But everyone burns

fat, all the time. Lipids move in and out of fat cells

into the blood, and they can be used for energy.

If you are in a ketogenic state though, a lot of the

calories are " wasted " and go down the drain (literally)

as ketones, so you burn more fat. (Or so goes the

theory ... actually there is some controversy about that too).

I suspect that some people end up adapting to a low

carb diet though, and end up using glucogenesis to turn

protein into glucose, then they probably stop losing weight.

Kids on the " seizure diet " did not necessarily lose weight,

even though they were allowed almost no carbs.

And

>why do people switching from a high carb to a low carb

>diet and who supposedly switch from glycogen burning

>to fat burning feel like cr@p for 3 days while their

>body makes the switch?

Going " ketogenic " is #3, and it is a different state.

So I'd guess it takes getting used to. But the same

kind of thing happens when you start ANY different

diet ... and when you go all-protein you are also

probably inducing a state of withdrawal from

various other semi-addictive foods (wheat being one,

plus most Atkins folks give up caffeine too!).

> This is just what I've read, I'm not saying it's

>right. What you've said challenges everything I've

>learned about a low carb diet, so I'm curious.

I think it is mostly the language being used. But

look at it this way -- all people (and animals) store

fat. And that fat gets used, without going on

a low-carb diet, if more calories happen to be

needed than are being stored (yeah, calories

count, though there are a zillion other factors

that affect fat storage and usage). But at a cellular

level, your cells are burning fat+glycogen, all day ...

If it were true that fat ONLY gets burned on a low

carb diet, then no one would ever lose weight

and fat would be useless.

(OK, someone is going to correct me on that ..

they are actually burning ATP which is formed FROM

fat+glycogen via several steps -- I'd have to look

it up to get it exact).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

My experience is a synthesis of the 's theory and Heidi's theory. If I eat

a very large meal for dinner, especially one very heavy in fat, I'm less likely

to be hungry in the morning. However, there is definitely an adaptable

circadian rhythm. If I don't eat anything around the time I usually start

eating my Warrior Meal for several hours afterwards, I get painfully hungry in a

way I simply don't during the day at all.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi wrote:

> (OK, someone is going to correct me on that ..

> they are actually burning ATP which is formed FROM

> fat+glycogen via several steps -- I'd have to look

> it up to get it exact).

That would be a rather silly criticism, since the body doesn't really " burn " ATP

for energy, and since you could keep breaking down the process ad infinatum for

more " ultimate " sources of energy. What they're really using for energy is the

kinetic energy of Hydrogen ions floating across a membrane, which is maintained

by the action of ATP. But the body doesn't " burn " ATP, it recycles it, and uses

it as a transfer agent to transfer the potential energy to the protein pumps

that maintain the H+ gradient. That energy doesn't come from ATP itself, but

comes from the bonds in the fat, carb, and protein you were talking about, and

ATP just transfers it.

ATP is like a boat that ships packages across the river. If some company is

loading packages onto the boat, and some receiver is taking them at the other

hand, no one would say the packages are generated by the boat.

So your own formulation is more accurate than that of your hypothetical critic.

One correction to your second idea I would make is that, likewise, no one would

say the boat is made by the packages, or by the company who owns the packages.

There is neither adenosine, nor phosphate, in a sugar molecule, so obviously the

ATP is not manufactured by the breakdown of sugar. It just stores some of the

potential energy from the sugar in its terminal phosphate bond.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Jo and Heidi,

The hormones required for the breakdown of glycogen and fats are different, but

there is some overlap.

Glucagon stimulates the breakdown of glycogen, and the formation of glucose from

non-carbohydrates. It does NOT stimulate the breakdown of fats or protein for

energy.

Adrenaline stimulates the breakdown of glycogen and fat for energy.

Noradrenaline stimulates ONLY the breakdown of fat for energy.

Cortisol stimulates the breakdown of protein for energy, and the formation of

glucose from non-carbohydrates, and the breakdown of fat for energy. It does

NOT stimulate the breakdown of glycogen for energy.

IGFs, theyroid hormones, and some other hormones all stimulate the breakdown of

fat, but none of the other functions mentioned.

My understanding is that endurance exercises burn fat more heavily while

strength exercises burn glycogen more heavily. I suspect the body tends to use

a combination of energy sources rather than one at a time, and I've never seen a

reason to think that the body must exhaust glycogen stores before using fat.

My A & P book says the body can store about 400g of glycogen, which could

theoretically yield 800 calories of energy. Ori says glycogen storage can be

manipulated through the proper combination of diet and exercise. If it's true

the average person stores 400g glycogen, they certainly wouldn't have a very

easy time burning fat if they had to exhaust that store first.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2004 11:26:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, ChrisMasterjohn

writes:

> What they're really using for energy is the kinetic energy of Hydrogen ions

floating across a membrane, which is

> maintained by the action of ATP

Err... well, in some cases. In other cases they're using kinetic energy of

other ions. Or, in the case of muscle contraction, they're using ion gradients

as well as ATP, but the ATP still doesn't get burned, but just transfers the

potential energy in its terminal bond to induce a conformational change in one

of the proteins of a muscle fiber-- much a boat can carry packages one way

across a river, come back across the river empty of packages, and then pick up

more packages to carry across the river.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Err... well, in some cases. In other cases they're using kinetic energy of

other ions. Or, in the case of muscle contraction, they're using ion gradients

as well as ATP, but the ATP still doesn't get burned, but just transfers the

potential energy in its terminal bond to induce a conformational change in one

of the proteins of a muscle fiber-- much a boat can carry packages one way

across a river, come back across the river empty of packages, and then pick up

more packages to carry across the river.

>

>Chris

Well, in any case ... by the time energy gets to the cell, the cell

doesn't care if it came from the intestine (just ingested food) or

from fat/glycogen stores (food you ate yesterday or prior). It's

all just chemicals ....

-- Heidi