5 ms·

The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood sugar levels. In

The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood sugar levels. In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems, the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens when a runner carbo loads the night before a race? The pasta she eats is coveted to glycogen and stored in the liver not to fat. However, when the liver storage of energy is full, it then converts the excess to fat. Think about this for a second. The glycemic index and load don't apply because most people convert excess blood sugar to a readily available energy stored in the liver as glycogen not fat. The problem is that Americans culturally never deplete the storage of energy in the liver because of two reasons; first, Americans snack all the time and drink sugary drinks, and, second, which I don't understand, we have developed an idea that we should eat huge third meals at night. A big dinner will completely replenish the energy stores in the liver leaving excess sugar that will be converted into fat during sleep. Perhaps, it is smarter to eat a decent breakfast that contains simple sugars which are absorbed faster into the blood stream, a big lunch which will provide energy for the rest of the day, and a small dinner to satiate hunger. For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping. And then in the morning break the fast. There is no reason to have big dinners which are ridiculous. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen

pjc50 11y ago
the fast should begin around 5pm .. which requires that lunch be the main meal, which could be difficult in countries where eating at your desk is normalised.
bad_user 11y ago
> ... the fast should begin around 5pm ... there is no reason to have big dinners which are ridiculous Actually there is a very big reason for why your advice is harmful, for me at least, but I suspect that for others as well. At 5pm I'm still at work, which means that whatever meal I'll have will be fast food and not a home cooked meal. But even more problematic is that dinner is also the perfect opportunity to sit together with your family, as in that moment during the day that can be shared without feeling rushed and if you want to sit together with your wife and kids, anything less than 8pm is not doable, as afternoons are usually unpredictable, as for example that's also the time of day when people go shopping or solve other chores. The family dinner is a matter of cultural inheritance that we've been forgetting and I'm willing to bet that this trait of modern life is much more harmful than fats, carbohydrates or whatever identified nutritional element is the enemy du-jour.
- zappo2938 11y ago
  The American overweight problem is cultural and not an issue with eating high or low glycemic foods like the article states. If losing weight is an issue for someone. They are better off having a larger second meal and a smaller third meal even if that third meal is at 9 or 10pm so they can enjoy it with family or after work. The idea is not to have more blood sugar than then the liver can store as glycogen at bed time. Everyone is different. If someone is really thin they probably should eat a massive third meal because the body does need stored body fat too.
  - wdewind 11y ago
    It really really doesn't matter how you time your calories.
    - omarchowdhury 11y ago
      Please elaborate further. Sources et al.
      - wdewind 11y ago
        Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced countless times. There is no science showing caloric timing being significant (physically) in terms of weight management. Mentally (as your sibling comment points out) sure, but physically absolutely not. You don't get fat from eating late, you get fat from eating an extra meal late.
        omarchowdhury 11y ago
        The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?
bagacrap 11y ago
Perhaps the strategy should be to eat when hungry and abstain when not hungry. (Americans tend to be good at the former but not the latter.) A one-size-fits-all approach to meal timing is not practical or effective. > There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping Night time is when humans are most hormonally active, and going to bed with an energy surplus will help engender a more anabolic state.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
> leaving excess sugar that will be converted into fat De-novo lipogenisis from sugar in practice does not happen humans. If you do something goofy like keep dietary fat under 5 grams and eat hundreds of grams of carbohydrate some monounsaturated fats can be synthesized, but it's fair to say that it basically doesn't happen. Any fat on your body came directly from fats you ate. Sugar and carbohydrate only matter with regard to weight loss to the extent they displace fat metabolism.
- TurboHaskal 11y ago
  And even if it did, it's good to keep in mind all the energy that is lost converting sugars into fat during DNL, which isn't exactly the most efficient process. In terms of fattening macro-nutrients, the rank would be fat > sugars > protein. People keep ignoring this simple fact (that fat is already fat after all), yet argue endlessly about physiological stuff and ancestor mumbo jumbo.
TurboHaskal 11y ago
Quality sleep is a good enough reason for me to have available sugars while sleeping. I rest my best after a nice dinner, whereas skipping it means that I'll take longer to fall sleep and more often than not end up waking up way earlier than I should.
pandaman 11y ago
Speaking about drinks (not just sugary) with the food - I was taught as a child not to do that and chew my food instead of washing it down with a drink. I imagine you can eat much more this way but, otherwise, this seems to be a harmful habit to me.
visakanv 11y ago
> For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping. And then in the morning break the fast. I can only speak from my own experience– but I'm a tall, skinny guy and if I don't eat for longer than a couple of hours, I start getting low blood sugar symptoms. My heart starts racing and I have trouble focusing or sleeping. I did some reading about it, and I can't remember the exact science, but I think I read that if your blood sugar levels are too low, your brain worries that you'll go into a coma and it'll try to keep you awake. Now that I wrote that down, it sounds a little pseudosciency, but that's consistent with my experience. Would love to hear from anybody who has a better understanding.
doublerebel 11y ago
You've brought up good points about carbs. However, It's arguably better and more realistic to skip breakfast than to have a small dinner at 5pm. Typical breakfast foods are full of carbs and can be more easily avoided. This is how I and many others use Intermittent Fasting to avoid carb overload.
gabemart 11y ago
This seems like a huge premature optimisation. Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasise [1]. For someone who wants to lose weight or maintain their current weight, eating a calorie controlled diet is the first (and often only) thing they need to do. Eating a calorie-controlled diet is primarily a psychological challenge. They should therefore eat with whatever frequency and quantity they personally find makes sticking to a calorie-controlled diet easiest, whether that's eating 2 meals a day at 07:00 and 13:00, or eating 5 meals a day, or eating 1 meal a day at 21:00, or whatever works for them. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357
- rgoddard 11y ago
  When talking about a diet you want to break it down into several dimensions. 1) Does this diet lead to weight loss? This boils down to burning more calories then consumed. As mentioned in a different comment you can lose weight eating only twinkies. 2) Sustainability of diet - can the diet be maintained over the long term, and this plays in to the psychological challenge you mentioned. 3) Long term health effects - does the diet promote overall long term health or have potential negative consequences. Something like the twinkie diet most likely does not. i.e. does a twinkie have enough vitamin c to prevent scurvy 4) Interactions with personal health conditions - how does the diet affect your own current health condition. I am sure a diabetic would not fare well on the twinkie diet
misev 11y ago
> For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping. This is not convincing. According to [1] it seems like system glucose utilization is only about 10-20% lower during sleep. Muscles store even more glycogen than the liver btw (~500g vs ~100g). 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC293874/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC293874/

pjc50 11y ago

the fast should begin around 5pm .. which requires that lunch be the main meal, which could be difficult in countries where eating at your desk is normalised.

bad_user 11y ago

> ... the fast should begin around 5pm ... there is no reason to have big dinners which are ridiculous Actually there is a very big reason for why your advice is harmful, for me at least, but I suspect that for others as well. At 5pm I'm still at work, which means that whatever meal I'll have will be fast food and not a home cooked meal. But even more problematic is that dinner is also the perfect opportunity to sit together with your family, as in that moment during the day that can be shared without feeling rushed and if you want to sit together with your wife and kids, anything less than 8pm is not doable, as afternoons are usually unpredictable, as for example that's also the time of day when people go shopping or solve other chores. The family dinner is a matter of cultural inheritance that we've been forgetting and I'm willing to bet that this trait of modern life is much more harmful than fats, carbohydrates or whatever identified nutritional element is the enemy du-jour.

zappo2938 11y ago
The American overweight problem is cultural and not an issue with eating high or low glycemic foods like the article states. If losing weight is an issue for someone. They are better off having a larger second meal and a smaller third meal even if that third meal is at 9 or 10pm so they can enjoy it with family or after work. The idea is not to have more blood sugar than then the liver can store as glycogen at bed time. Everyone is different. If someone is really thin they probably should eat a massive third meal because the body does need stored body fat too.
- wdewind 11y ago
  It really really doesn't matter how you time your calories.
  - omarchowdhury 11y ago
    Please elaborate further. Sources et al.
    - wdewind 11y ago
      Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced countless times. There is no science showing caloric timing being significant (physically) in terms of weight management. Mentally (as your sibling comment points out) sure, but physically absolutely not. You don't get fat from eating late, you get fat from eating an extra meal late.
      - omarchowdhury 11y ago
        The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?

bagacrap 11y ago

Perhaps the strategy should be to eat when hungry and abstain when not hungry. (Americans tend to be good at the former but not the latter.) A one-size-fits-all approach to meal timing is not practical or effective. > There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping Night time is when humans are most hormonally active, and going to bed with an energy surplus will help engender a more anabolic state.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

a8da6b0c91d 11y ago

> leaving excess sugar that will be converted into fat De-novo lipogenisis from sugar in practice does not happen humans. If you do something goofy like keep dietary fat under 5 grams and eat hundreds of grams of carbohydrate some monounsaturated fats can be synthesized, but it's fair to say that it basically doesn't happen. Any fat on your body came directly from fats you ate. Sugar and carbohydrate only matter with regard to weight loss to the extent they displace fat metabolism.

TurboHaskal 11y ago
And even if it did, it's good to keep in mind all the energy that is lost converting sugars into fat during DNL, which isn't exactly the most efficient process. In terms of fattening macro-nutrients, the rank would be fat > sugars > protein. People keep ignoring this simple fact (that fat is already fat after all), yet argue endlessly about physiological stuff and ancestor mumbo jumbo.

TurboHaskal 11y ago

Quality sleep is a good enough reason for me to have available sugars while sleeping. I rest my best after a nice dinner, whereas skipping it means that I'll take longer to fall sleep and more often than not end up waking up way earlier than I should.

pandaman 11y ago

Speaking about drinks (not just sugary) with the food - I was taught as a child not to do that and chew my food instead of washing it down with a drink. I imagine you can eat much more this way but, otherwise, this seems to be a harmful habit to me.

visakanv 11y ago

> For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping. And then in the morning break the fast. I can only speak from my own experience– but I'm a tall, skinny guy and if I don't eat for longer than a couple of hours, I start getting low blood sugar symptoms. My heart starts racing and I have trouble focusing or sleeping. I did some reading about it, and I can't remember the exact science, but I think I read that if your blood sugar levels are too low, your brain worries that you'll go into a coma and it'll try to keep you awake. Now that I wrote that down, it sounds a little pseudosciency, but that's consistent with my experience. Would love to hear from anybody who has a better understanding.

doublerebel 11y ago

You've brought up good points about carbs. However, It's arguably better and more realistic to skip breakfast than to have a small dinner at 5pm. Typical breakfast foods are full of carbs and can be more easily avoided. This is how I and many others use Intermittent Fasting to avoid carb overload.

gabemart 11y ago

This seems like a huge premature optimisation. Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasise [1]. For someone who wants to lose weight or maintain their current weight, eating a calorie controlled diet is the first (and often only) thing they need to do. Eating a calorie-controlled diet is primarily a psychological challenge. They should therefore eat with whatever frequency and quantity they personally find makes sticking to a calorie-controlled diet easiest, whether that's eating 2 meals a day at 07:00 and 13:00, or eating 5 meals a day, or eating 1 meal a day at 21:00, or whatever works for them. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19246357

rgoddard 11y ago
When talking about a diet you want to break it down into several dimensions. 1) Does this diet lead to weight loss? This boils down to burning more calories then consumed. As mentioned in a different comment you can lose weight eating only twinkies. 2) Sustainability of diet - can the diet be maintained over the long term, and this plays in to the psychological challenge you mentioned. 3) Long term health effects - does the diet promote overall long term health or have potential negative consequences. Something like the twinkie diet most likely does not. i.e. does a twinkie have enough vitamin c to prevent scurvy 4) Interactions with personal health conditions - how does the diet affect your own current health condition. I am sure a diabetic would not fare well on the twinkie diet

misev 11y ago

> For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily available sugars while sleeping. This is not convincing. According to [1] it seems like system glucose utilization is only about 10-20% lower during sleep. Muscles store even more glycogen than the liver btw (~500g vs ~100g). 1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC293874/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC293874/