A
ayesane
Guest
Interesting, in a nut shell I should be consuming Sucrose as opposed to Fructose, is that right?
- Status
Interesting, in a nut shell I should be consuming Sucrose as opposed to Fructose, is that right?
AlpineExile
Striker
I'm not an expert so I really don't want to answer that.
However, I never drink [or eat] anything with modified corn starch in it. There is, of course, nowt wrong with your normal dietary starches.
Gluconeogenesis has nothing to do with proteins. Protein can be broken down as an energy source but it is not done via glucose. As far as I'm aware, the body lacks the metabolic pathways to convert protein to carbohydrate or fat (or vice versa).
It's good to get more of your five a day from veg than fruit. But it's probably not too much of an issue as long as you avoid soft drinks and processed foods that are sweetened with fructose.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
That's not what I said/implied, but I think oRosso cleared it up for the most part.
I don't claim to be an expert or anything and at my age I have a long way to go, but I'll try and provide advice/information based on what I have learned through my own research and application. However sometimes this calls for the need to go into a bit more detail than some people can understand/care about, but I know there are certain members that value these types of posts because they'll pick up something interesting and go and research it further themselves and as long as I'm providing a basis for people to further their own knowledge, I'm happy.
Last edited by a moderator:
Actually scratch that. Found the section of my book I was looking for.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
No worries
Do you know where I can find information on resting rates of muscle protein turnover? What I've read suggests that protein isn't an important source of energy during exercise but I'd be interested to know what the rates are. How does it compare to protein turnover in non-muscle cells?
For some reason I thought gluconeogenesis was conversion of glycogen to glucose. Science teachers basically get paid to lie to kids.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
Conversion of glycogen to glucose is glycogenolysis mate.
EDIT: "Exercise Metabolism" by Mark Hargreaves and Lawrence Spriet may be of use, as there is a chapter on the effects of exercise on skeletal muscle protein/AA metabolism.
"The Protein Book" by Lyle McDonald is a book I've just bought, yet to arive though. It's meant to be great.
I'll try and get some additional sources later for you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, that's what I get for trusting what I got told at school. I should know better by now.
I'll have a look to see if they're in the library here.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
My biology teacher just made us copy out of text books 90% of the time
Also, if you're a student in a relative field, or just interested in training/nutrition in general, I would very strong advise subscribing to Alan Aragon's research review. It's around £10 per month, but it's fantastic.
Last edited by a moderator:
offmenut
Striker
I'm sure somebody will take something useful out of it, or atleast I hope
Ha, that was me!
I've read a bit of your stuff since, and you haven't come across as bad as I thought you were, so I apologise if I was rude..
Im still confused though, as what I wrote was that lasses skip meals, and this doesn't help them lose weight
You then said this was untrue. I could t be arsed at the time, but there are loads of research on missing meals, lots contradictory
Myth - Skipping meals will help me to lose weight
Fact – There are a number of studies that find meal skipping during the day, increase the likelihood of an eating binge later in the day. Another disadvantage with meal skipping, is that it may place your body in the starvation mode and so the body works to conserve its fat deposits by lowering metabolic rate. Breakfast is the most common meal to be missed, but a recent Harvard study found that those who ate breakfast regularly were less likely to become obese, compared to those who skipped it.
Last edited:
A
ayesane
Guest
Marty Moose
Striker
Surely it's pissing into the wind to argue convincingly one way or the other on things like this. Academic research always argues against each other and each professed scientifically proven assumption on weight management will be backed by countless PhD experts in the field that will promote its benefits. People should just read around and hop onto something that looks appealing and has a convincing argument in it's favour and give it a go - if they aren't happy it works for them then try something else. Easy.
I think the main point people on here try to make is that it doesn't need to be overly complicated and one or two basic principles are all that you need to remember rather than going in for one diet plan or another. A lot of the stuff that people trot out might be true (such as eating different things at different times of the day) but unless you're an elite athlete are going to have such a minimal effect that they're not worth getting too concerned about.
It really is as simple as taking in fewer calories than you burn to lose weight. If a diet plan works it's because you're doing this.
The bold is the important bit there. If you can skip the meals without the binge eating or snacking then you'll reduce your intake of calories and lose weight. Skipping meals on its own isn't what's important it's the whole lifestyle.
The heaviest I've ever been in my life was the brief period when I ate breakfast regularly. I never eat breakfast now but I can happily eat nothing until lunch time and don't end up snacking or binging.
offmenut
Striker
That's my viewpoint.
It's not that long ago that weight training didn't realise the importance of protein.
Loads of contradictory info, loads of different things to do, see what works best.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
My problem was that you implied that there were physiological reasons as to why you must eat every 2-3 hours. HOWEVER, you raise an interestic topic on the the psychological issues related to dieting, but again in regards to meal frequency, it's going to come down to personal preference. Some people feel satieted for longer eating fewer, but larger meals, whereas some people prefer to eat smaller meals more frequently.
Yet another thread where I've learned something new.
D
Deleted member 26533
Guest
Yet another thread where I've learned something new.
Good stuff
I also feel compelled to give an explanation as to where the belief that more meals = better fat loss came from. Basically, when you eat there is dietary induced thermogenesis, which is caloric expenditure of burning food. This led to the logic of "eat more, more calories expended" - sounds right, right? Well here's the flaw in the logic, dietary induced thermogenesis or the thermic effect of food is on average 10% (obviously with variations) so say somebody on a 3000kcal diet eats 6 meals of 500kcal per day, the thermic effect of food is going to be around 50kcal, so multiplying that by 6 gets you a daily total of 300kcal. Now, somebody eats 3 meals of 1000kcal, the dietary induced thermogenesis is 100kcal per meal, multiplied by 3 that's also a daily total of 300kcal.
offmenut
Striker
Good stuff
I also feel compelled to give an explanation as to where the belief that more meals = better fat loss came from. Basically, when you eat there is dietary induced thermogenesis, which is caloric expenditure of burning food. This led to the logic of "eat more, more calories expended" - sounds right, right? Well here's the flaw in the logic, dietary induced thermogenesis or the thermic effect of food is on average 10% (obviously with variations) so say somebody on a 3000kcal diet eats 6 meals of 500kcal per day, the thermic effect of food is going to be around 50kcal, so multiplying that by 6 gets you a daily total of 300kcal. Now, somebody eats 3 meals of 1000kcal, the dietary induced thermogenesis is 100kcal per meal, multiplied by 3 that's also a daily total of 300kcal.
What about missing meals?
I was led to believe that the body would store fat as wouldn't know when it was getting fed?
I read on that intermittent fasting too, but there is quite a lot of theories on both.
I have eaten every 2/3 hours for the last ten years, but that's due to getting protein in for muscle growth
I have eaten every 2/3 hours for the last ten years, but that's due to getting protein in for muscle growth
I have eaten every 2/3 hours for the last ten years, but that's due to getting protein in for muscle growth[/QUOTE]
Lewberry pie
Striker
- Status
