Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNewGirl
Da Fonz.
The same journal contains articles supporting more frequent eatting.
http://journals.cambridge.org/downlo...bbfbf916a408e1
Shows slightly higher physical activity but more importantly, better fat oxidation in a three meal a day over two meal a day model and that the less frequent meals may promote fat storage.
The research on it is ALL over the place.
Ideally one would carry around a blood glucose monitor and test themselves frequently, basing their eatting on the results not what their stomach tells them (cause your stomach and mouth lie, as a I learned when I had to test around the clock for 48 hours recently, you're totally right, the feeling which most of us call having low blood sugar is really us being thirsty most of the time or bored). But people don't (though I totally recommend anyone who has access to one of these with a clean needle and a container of strips does it).
I have found, personally, that the best way to keep my blood glucose at ideal levels is to graze.
But different bodies do different things, which is one of the big confounding issues with the literature.
Re: Nuts. Fat is not bad. Calories are not the issue. Sugar is the issue. Nuts are full of good fats, and fiber. A handful (not a whole bag but a handful) of walnuts or almonds is a fantastic way to get fiber, protein, iron, calcium and fat into your diet. Check out the Fat Head documentry on the tread I mentioned above. |
Can you link to the abstract and not the direct article? I'd like to look at the test setup and the methodologies.
Regardless, I still disagree with you. Look at fasting studies for example which show that fat oxidation greatly accelerates in hr 16 of a fast. It's only when you hit the 32 hr mark that your body begins to catabolize muscle.
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top...-debunked.html
On the whole calories in, calories out silliness - yes what you eat makes a difference, but calories do matter to an extent as well. Taubes (I assume if you've read fat head, you've also read good calories, bad calories) himself has said that (I cant for the life of me find it on his blog though).
As for good fats? What? Nuts are most certainly not full of good fats. They are mostly comprised of omega 6 fatty acids and further exacerbate the typical north american problem of having WAY too much omega 6s vs omega3s in their diets.
Nuts are also a pretty useless source of protein. For a handful, you get what.. 5 g? Pretty insignificant not to mention that their amino acid profile is incomplete.