How many meals?
- Thread starter Bishop
- Start date
Like Aaron said, eat as many as you need to. When I'm cutting, that can be only 3 meals a day, when I'm bulking, that can be 8 or 9 meals. Just make sure you are hitting your calorie requirements for whatever your goals are and you should be fine. Obviously when it comes to weight loss or weight gain, trying to divide up your food so you can eat 6 meals a day is less important than making sure you only get a certain amount of calories.
Isnt the idea thats its important to eat atleast every 3 hours? I remember readin a diet based entirely around some science about eating every 3 hours being much better for you.
Also after long periods of time if your blood glucose levels decrease to low...gluconeogenesis takes place..where your body starts converting protein from your musclesss into glucose for your brain and certain cells.
So you need to eat every 3 hours to raise your blood sugar & if you miss it not only will it eat at your muscles but apparently it also lowers
your metabolism.
And then things like needing protein frequently because the body doesnt have the ability to store protein & amino acids effectivly, and they are constantly required for synthesis. Cause ur body can only use so much protein and any excess is used for energy or pissed out...or stored as fat eh.
& I remember reading something once on eating more frequently having a better effect on cholesterol or something. Ima have to look it up again.
Also after long periods of time if your blood glucose levels decrease to low...gluconeogenesis takes place..where your body starts converting protein from your musclesss into glucose for your brain and certain cells.
So you need to eat every 3 hours to raise your blood sugar & if you miss it not only will it eat at your muscles but apparently it also lowers
And then things like needing protein frequently because the body doesnt have the ability to store protein & amino acids effectivly, and they are constantly required for synthesis. Cause ur body can only use so much protein and any excess is used for energy or pissed out...or stored as fat eh.
& I remember reading something once on eating more frequently having a better effect on cholesterol or something. Ima have to look it up again.
Bull. You don't have to eat every three hours to prevent muscle catabolism. If you are eating at maintenance calories or beyond, you are not going to be using muscle for fuel regardless of how many meals a day you eat.
And considering how much protein most BBers consume, I really don't think you need to be getting in protein every 3 hours. The whole myth that any excess protein will be converted into fat or excreted is just retarded. Of course any excess calories will be stored as fat (or muscle) but there is nothing magical about protein that makes it instantly turn into fat if you ingest more than x amount of grams at one time.
Regarding blood sugar... really, if you aren't diabetic, then who cares about blood sugar?
And considering how much protein most BBers consume, I really don't think you need to be getting in protein every 3 hours. The whole myth that any excess protein will be converted into fat or excreted is just retarded. Of course any excess calories will be stored as fat (or muscle) but there is nothing magical about protein that makes it instantly turn into fat if you ingest more than x amount of grams at one time.
Regarding blood sugar... really, if you aren't diabetic, then who cares about blood sugar?
Well how would that help protein synthesis if your body cannot store amino acids? im pretty sure ive read that on this website aswell. And with protein being stored as fat i was meaning it in the context of overeatin calories yeah, not that it automatically gets stored as fat after a certain amount lol But im pretty sure ive read that its pissed out. What happens to it if its isnt?
Tho i also remember reading now that i think about it about casein protein being able to sustain steady amino acid elevations for up to 7 hours...so im thinkin it would depend on the form of protein.
Anyway i found the 3 hour diet website.
http://www.3hourdiet.com/home/index.php?page=FAQ
It claims also
"After 3 hours your body passes a tipping point and signals your body to launch its natural “starvation protection mechanism” or your SPM. When your SPM is switched on, your body preserves the most calorie-rich tissue in the body to ensure your survival. That tissue is body fat. But there’s even more bad news. This is the most critical point you must never forget about the 3-Hour Diet™: Anytime you allow more than 3 hours to pass without eating, your body not only preserves body fat, but worst of all it begins to cannibalize precious fat-burning muscle. Why is losing lean muscle devastating to your health? Lean muscle tissue is your metabolism. Bottom line, muscle burns fat and thus will set your metabolism in motion™. ."
Havent checked out the studies its listed yet tho
& http://www.naturalhealthmag.com/nutrition/18 has some more ideas on it in terms of glucose levels.
Like it keeping you more energetic..keeping your metabolism speedier...your mood better & more on cholesterol.
Anyway i found the 3 hour diet website.
http://www.3hourdiet.com/home/index.php?page=FAQ
It claims also
"After 3 hours your body passes a tipping point and signals your body to launch its natural “starvation protection mechanism” or your SPM. When your SPM is switched on, your body preserves the most calorie-rich tissue in the body to ensure your survival. That tissue is body fat. But there’s even more bad news. This is the most critical point you must never forget about the 3-Hour Diet™: Anytime you allow more than 3 hours to pass without eating, your body not only preserves body fat, but worst of all it begins to cannibalize precious fat-burning muscle. Why is losing lean muscle devastating to your health? Lean muscle tissue is your metabolism. Bottom line, muscle burns fat and thus will set your metabolism in motion™. ."
Havent checked out the studies its listed yet tho
& http://www.naturalhealthmag.com/nutrition/18 has some more ideas on it in terms of glucose levels.
Like it keeping you more energetic..keeping your metabolism speedier...your mood better & more on cholesterol.
Well from what ive read it takes up to 2 hours to digest a high carb meal..up to six for a high fat meal & around 4 for protein.
This is what bryan says on the pre/post workout nutrition article:
"It should be remembered that the body does not have the capacity to effectively store amino acids. Protein should be eaten at least every 3-4 hours. The evening meal should contain slowly digesting protein that will allow a steady release of amino acids into your system well into the night. Dinner is a perfect time for steak or other meat dishes."
Then this is from Dan Benardot, Ph.D., professor of nutrition, kinesiology..etc
"Understanding that blood sugar fluxes every three hours (after a meal, it rises, levels off, and drops in three hours), the reason for the higher body fat level becomes clear. With delayed eating, blood sugar drops and the amino acid alanine is recruited from muscle tissue to be converted to glucose by the liver. While this stabilizes blood sugar, it does so at the cost of the muscle mass. In addition, both low blood sugar and large meals are associated with hyperinsulinemia, which encourages the manufacture of fat. So, delayed eating followed by an excessively large meal, which is typical of the athletic eating paradigm, is an ideal way to lower muscle mass and increase fat mass…not what athletes want to do.
A number of studies that have assessed eating frequency have come to the same conclusion: the more frequent the eating pattern, the lower the body fat and the higher the muscle mass. Hawley JA & Burke LM. Meal frequency and physical performance. Br J Nutr 1997; 77:S91-103., Iwao S, Mori K, & Sato Y. Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996; 6(5):265-72., Jenkins DJA et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med 1989; 321:929-34., Metzner HL, Lamphiear DE, Wheeler NC, & Larkin FA. The relationship between frequency of eating and adiposity in adult men and women in the Tecumseh Community Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr 1977; 30:712-715. Frequent eating reduces the size of within-day energy deficits and surpluses, and helps to stabilize blood sugar."
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You don't have to eat every three hours to prevent muscle catabolism. If you are eating at maintenance calories or beyond, you are not going to be using muscle for fuel regardless of how many meals a day you eat.</div>
But if your cutting then your not going to be taking in maintenance calories or beyond. Plus if blood glucose drops every 3 hours regardless & triglyceride cannot be converted back into glucose...the only place it can get that from is your muscles. Unless im missing something.
This is what bryan says on the pre/post workout nutrition article:
"It should be remembered that the body does not have the capacity to effectively store amino acids. Protein should be eaten at least every 3-4 hours. The evening meal should contain slowly digesting protein that will allow a steady release of amino acids into your system well into the night. Dinner is a perfect time for steak or other meat dishes."
Then this is from Dan Benardot, Ph.D., professor of nutrition, kinesiology..etc
"Understanding that blood sugar fluxes every three hours (after a meal, it rises, levels off, and drops in three hours), the reason for the higher body fat level becomes clear. With delayed eating, blood sugar drops and the amino acid alanine is recruited from muscle tissue to be converted to glucose by the liver. While this stabilizes blood sugar, it does so at the cost of the muscle mass. In addition, both low blood sugar and large meals are associated with hyperinsulinemia, which encourages the manufacture of fat. So, delayed eating followed by an excessively large meal, which is typical of the athletic eating paradigm, is an ideal way to lower muscle mass and increase fat mass…not what athletes want to do.
A number of studies that have assessed eating frequency have come to the same conclusion: the more frequent the eating pattern, the lower the body fat and the higher the muscle mass. Hawley JA & Burke LM. Meal frequency and physical performance. Br J Nutr 1997; 77:S91-103., Iwao S, Mori K, & Sato Y. Effects of meal frequency on body composition during weight control in boxers. Scand J Med Sci Sports 1996; 6(5):265-72., Jenkins DJA et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med 1989; 321:929-34., Metzner HL, Lamphiear DE, Wheeler NC, & Larkin FA. The relationship between frequency of eating and adiposity in adult men and women in the Tecumseh Community Health Study. Am J Clin Nutr 1977; 30:712-715. Frequent eating reduces the size of within-day energy deficits and surpluses, and helps to stabilize blood sugar."
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">You don't have to eat every three hours to prevent muscle catabolism. If you are eating at maintenance calories or beyond, you are not going to be using muscle for fuel regardless of how many meals a day you eat.</div>
But if your cutting then your not going to be taking in maintenance calories or beyond. Plus if blood glucose drops every 3 hours regardless & triglyceride cannot be converted back into glucose...the only place it can get that from is your muscles. Unless im missing something.
Obviously all those people who have cut successfully in the past without losing much muscle mass were just flukes, because they didn't eat every 3-4 hours. To lose lean mass, you would have to undereat and do very little work for an extended period of time. Two hours without protein is not going to eat away a ton of muscle mass.
This is just anecdotal, but I've been doing UD2.0 off and on lately, and during the low carb days, I will go sometimes five hours between 'meals' and I lost no lean mass that I could detect. Yeah, it's not a study by some scientist using rats or people who starve themselves constantly, but I have normal genes as far as I know and was not on any kind of assistance, so I'm pretty sure my results are typical.
This is just anecdotal, but I've been doing UD2.0 off and on lately, and during the low carb days, I will go sometimes five hours between 'meals' and I lost no lean mass that I could detect. Yeah, it's not a study by some scientist using rats or people who starve themselves constantly, but I have normal genes as far as I know and was not on any kind of assistance, so I'm pretty sure my results are typical.
Yeah i did a few more searches on here & found a good thread from 2003 discussing some possible benefits of eating less often & some studies to back up the idea of not needing to eat frequently atall...
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....d+hours
But then u have that 3 hour diet which gives a loada studies to back up what its saying aswell, though i dont think some of them really back up what its claiming at the start.
But studies like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract
"It is concluded that the increased frequency of feeding significantly reduces insulin secretion in subjects fed a relatively high carbohydrate meal. In addition to this beneficial effect, increasing the number of meals increased thermogenesis and fat utilization."
Then Iwao, S., K. Mori, and Y. Sato. “Effects of Meal Frequency on Body Composition During Weight Control in Boxers.” Scandinavia Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 6 no. 5 (1996): 265–72.
"These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....itation
"CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term."
A few claim it was more efficient in terms of controlling appetite & that lower TEF took place in response to an irregular meal pattern.
This one had a whole load of references & info, problem being i couldnt understand half of what it was talking about.
I needa find a place that educates you on all the scientific terms used in these studies.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi....id=ajcn
Main part i got was:
"The current study showed the importance of meal pattern in addition to the amount and composition of food in influencing carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. Further studies measuring the above factors and other possible influences are required. The current study also showed lower TEF and higher EI with an irregular meal frequency. This indicates a potential mechanism by which an irregular meal pattern might affect EE and EI, which could lead to weight gain in the longer term. In addition, the irregular meal pattern had potentially deleterious effects on insulin sensitivity and plasma cholesterol, which are known risk factors of CVD. "
lol the last study the 3 hour diet uses for the case of eatin every 3 hours is actually one of the exact same studies used in the other thread to prove that u dont need to...
Anyway so which studies are more reliable?? Arent they contradicting eachother?
http://www.hypertrophy-specific.info/cgi-bin....d+hours
But then u have that 3 hour diet which gives a loada studies to back up what its saying aswell, though i dont think some of them really back up what its claiming at the start.
But studies like this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....bstract
"It is concluded that the increased frequency of feeding significantly reduces insulin secretion in subjects fed a relatively high carbohydrate meal. In addition to this beneficial effect, increasing the number of meals increased thermogenesis and fat utilization."
Then Iwao, S., K. Mori, and Y. Sato. “Effects of Meal Frequency on Body Composition During Weight Control in Boxers.” Scandinavia Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 6 no. 5 (1996): 265–72.
"These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez....itation
"CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term."
A few claim it was more efficient in terms of controlling appetite & that lower TEF took place in response to an irregular meal pattern.
This one had a whole load of references & info, problem being i couldnt understand half of what it was talking about.
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi....id=ajcn
Main part i got was:
"The current study showed the importance of meal pattern in addition to the amount and composition of food in influencing carbohydrate and lipid metabolism. Further studies measuring the above factors and other possible influences are required. The current study also showed lower TEF and higher EI with an irregular meal frequency. This indicates a potential mechanism by which an irregular meal pattern might affect EE and EI, which could lead to weight gain in the longer term. In addition, the irregular meal pattern had potentially deleterious effects on insulin sensitivity and plasma cholesterol, which are known risk factors of CVD. "
lol the last study the 3 hour diet uses for the case of eatin every 3 hours is actually one of the exact same studies used in the other thread to prove that u dont need to...
Anyway so which studies are more reliable?? Arent they contradicting eachother?
<div>
(Razien99 @ Mar. 26 2006,05:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Then Iwao, S., K. Mori, and Y. Sato. “Effects of Meal Frequency on Body Composition During Weight Control in Boxers.” Scandinavia Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 6 no. 5 (1996): 265–72.
"These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed."</div>
we have talked about this study on this site in the past.
It was a 1200kcal diet, containing very low levels of protein. Far lower than any bodybuilder would ever consume, so its showing more of that if you eat inadequate protein, meal frequency can help offset that (mainly becuase a large lump of protien will more htan likely result in greater oxidation. when you have an excess of protein, like there should be during dieting, its far far less important)
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term."</div>Just a note, this is a study of irregular vs standard meals, not a study of meal frequency.
same as the last study.
(Razien99 @ Mar. 26 2006,05:44)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Then Iwao, S., K. Mori, and Y. Sato. “Effects of Meal Frequency on Body Composition During Weight Control in Boxers.” Scandinavia Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports. 6 no. 5 (1996): 265–72.
"These results suggest that the lower frequency of meal intake leads to a greater myoprotein catabolism even if the same diet is consumed."</div>
we have talked about this study on this site in the past.
It was a 1200kcal diet, containing very low levels of protein. Far lower than any bodybuilder would ever consume, so its showing more of that if you eat inadequate protein, meal frequency can help offset that (mainly becuase a large lump of protien will more htan likely result in greater oxidation. when you have an excess of protein, like there should be during dieting, its far far less important)
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">"CONCLUSION: Irregular meal frequency led to a lower postprandial energy expenditure compared with the regular meal frequency, while the mean energy intake was not significantly different between the two. The reduced TEF with the irregular meal frequency may lead to weight gain in the long term."</div>Just a note, this is a study of irregular vs standard meals, not a study of meal frequency.
same as the last study.
Ah right so what those studies are showing isnt meal frequency is better, more that a regular pattern of eating is better. So it would be better to have 6 meals every day for a month..rather than 1 week having 5 meals..then 8 meals..then 3 meals etc Well why the hell is the 3 hour diet using those studies as a reference for needing to eat every 3 hours lol i hate being misguided.
So what about the comments from supposed experts that your blood sugar fluxes every 3 hours & you then need to convert amino acids from the muscles into glucose by the liver.
I mean if its all about overall caloric intake, how does that work? Our bodys store carbs in the form of glycogen in the liver & muscles right...so is it a case of those being used to level out our blood sugar? I mean if you eat a large meal in the morning...and then wait 6 hours..how does that meal stop your blood sugar levels from dropping after a certain amount of time ?
So what about the comments from supposed experts that your blood sugar fluxes every 3 hours & you then need to convert amino acids from the muscles into glucose by the liver.
I mean if its all about overall caloric intake, how does that work? Our bodys store carbs in the form of glycogen in the liver & muscles right...so is it a case of those being used to level out our blood sugar? I mean if you eat a large meal in the morning...and then wait 6 hours..how does that meal stop your blood sugar levels from dropping after a certain amount of time ?
<div>
(Razien99 @ Mar. 28 2006,07:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So what about the comments from supposed experts that your blood sugar fluxes every 3 hours & you then need to convert amino acids from the muscles into glucose by the liver.</div>
Except blood sugar depends on a lot of things, and the body doesnt magically switch over at three hours.
Which ever way, ~50% of the incomming dietary amino acids are deaminated and converted into energy/glucose anyway, so worrying about it is nearly pointless
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I mean if its all about overall caloric intake, how does that work? </div>becuase our body is smarter than we are?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Our bodys store carbs in the form of glycogen in the liver & muscles right...so is it a case of those being used to level out our blood sugar? </div>Muscle glycogen is not released into circulation, its a one way street.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I mean if you eat a large meal in the morning...and then wait 6 hours..how does that meal stop your blood sugar levels from dropping after a certain amount of time ?
</div>I dont think Ig et what you are talking about
(Razien99 @ Mar. 28 2006,07:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">So what about the comments from supposed experts that your blood sugar fluxes every 3 hours & you then need to convert amino acids from the muscles into glucose by the liver.</div>
Except blood sugar depends on a lot of things, and the body doesnt magically switch over at three hours.
Which ever way, ~50% of the incomming dietary amino acids are deaminated and converted into energy/glucose anyway, so worrying about it is nearly pointless
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I mean if its all about overall caloric intake, how does that work? </div>becuase our body is smarter than we are?
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Our bodys store carbs in the form of glycogen in the liver & muscles right...so is it a case of those being used to level out our blood sugar? </div>Muscle glycogen is not released into circulation, its a one way street.
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I mean if you eat a large meal in the morning...and then wait 6 hours..how does that meal stop your blood sugar levels from dropping after a certain amount of time ?
tocamjapan
New Member
Aaron, are you saying that as long as you get your daily calories in, eating 2 or 3 meals is fine as opposed to 6/7? Lee Priest was saying much the same thing at a seminar I went to the other day. The only time he does 6 meals is precontest dieting time.
If 2/3 a day is ok, then I'm going to make big changes to how I start eating simply for convenience.
If 2/3 a day is ok, then I'm going to make big changes to how I start eating simply for convenience.
Depends on a host of things.
For fat loss there doesnt appear to be any differnece.
Consistent multiple meals may be better from a health perspective, but I would guess it all comes out at nothing in the big picture.
---------
for bulking more meals usually = easier. Mainly becuase if you have to eat 5000kcals for a bulk, thats difficult to achieve without having multiple meals, well unless you want to vomit after each meal.
For dieting its a mixed bag. FOr some it increases satiety, which means you dont feel hungry, for others - especially as energy intakes reduce - it doesnt really do this.
For the people on extremely low energy intakes (which can happen in light people, and the poor people who dont need a lot) eating 6 meals is impractile, as if you are eating 1200kcals thats 200kcals per meal, hardly satisfying. Three to four bigger meals at 300-400kcals is a touch more realistic.
At times when dieting i have gone down to 1800kcals, or <10kcals/lb - so it was pretty light calories - i would have three meals and a snack.
For fat loss there doesnt appear to be any differnece.
Consistent multiple meals may be better from a health perspective, but I would guess it all comes out at nothing in the big picture.
---------
for bulking more meals usually = easier. Mainly becuase if you have to eat 5000kcals for a bulk, thats difficult to achieve without having multiple meals, well unless you want to vomit after each meal.
For dieting its a mixed bag. FOr some it increases satiety, which means you dont feel hungry, for others - especially as energy intakes reduce - it doesnt really do this.
For the people on extremely low energy intakes (which can happen in light people, and the poor people who dont need a lot) eating 6 meals is impractile, as if you are eating 1200kcals thats 200kcals per meal, hardly satisfying. Three to four bigger meals at 300-400kcals is a touch more realistic.
At times when dieting i have gone down to 1800kcals, or <10kcals/lb - so it was pretty light calories - i would have three meals and a snack.
Ok i was basing what i was saying on the idea that your blood sugar fluxes after a certain amount of time and you have to do something about it.
So for example if you dont eat for 5 hours, your blood sugar levels start to drop & your liver starts converting amino acids into glucose. Which is why sleep generally puts us into a catabolic state & we need to get protein into us when we wake up right?
I mean if we're intaking a slow digesting protein..then the amino acids from that could be used to regulate our blood sugar, but wouldnt that get in the way of protein synthesis?
What im mainly asking is how does the body regulate blood sugar without turning to protein...is it just a case of it using glycogen stored in the liver ? Doesnt that run out after a certain amount of time?
So for example if you dont eat for 5 hours, your blood sugar levels start to drop & your liver starts converting amino acids into glucose. Which is why sleep generally puts us into a catabolic state & we need to get protein into us when we wake up right?
I mean if we're intaking a slow digesting protein..then the amino acids from that could be used to regulate our blood sugar, but wouldnt that get in the way of protein synthesis?
What im mainly asking is how does the body regulate blood sugar without turning to protein...is it just a case of it using glycogen stored in the liver ? Doesnt that run out after a certain amount of time?
<div>
(Razien99 @ Apr. 02 2006,06:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok i was basing what i was saying on the idea that your blood sugar fluxes after a certain amount of time and you have to do something about it.
So for example if you dont eat for 5 hours, your blood sugar levels start to drop & your liver starts converting amino acids into glucose. Which is why sleep generally puts us into a catabolic state & we need to get protein into us when we wake up right?
I mean if we're intaking a slow digesting protein..then the amino acids from that could be used to regulate our blood sugar, but wouldnt that get in the way of protein synthesis?
What im mainly asking is how does the body regulate blood sugar without turning to protein...is it just a case of it using glycogen stored in the liver ? Doesnt that run out after a certain amount of time?</div>
ok except for a few things
1) the body doesnt instanty start breaking down tons of aminos just becuase blood sugar lowers, liver glycogen is there for a reason, and it can last many hours
2) in the post prandial state, the body reduces the utilization of glucose and upping that for fat.
3) A no-carb diet lowers blood glucose all day, but strangely you dont lose muscle mass.
(Razien99 @ Apr. 02 2006,06:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Ok i was basing what i was saying on the idea that your blood sugar fluxes after a certain amount of time and you have to do something about it.
So for example if you dont eat for 5 hours, your blood sugar levels start to drop & your liver starts converting amino acids into glucose. Which is why sleep generally puts us into a catabolic state & we need to get protein into us when we wake up right?
I mean if we're intaking a slow digesting protein..then the amino acids from that could be used to regulate our blood sugar, but wouldnt that get in the way of protein synthesis?
What im mainly asking is how does the body regulate blood sugar without turning to protein...is it just a case of it using glycogen stored in the liver ? Doesnt that run out after a certain amount of time?</div>
ok except for a few things
1) the body doesnt instanty start breaking down tons of aminos just becuase blood sugar lowers, liver glycogen is there for a reason, and it can last many hours
2) in the post prandial state, the body reduces the utilization of glucose and upping that for fat.
3) A no-carb diet lowers blood glucose all day, but strangely you dont lose muscle mass.