Sun, Aug-27-17, 08:19
|
Registered Member
Posts: 37
|
|
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 286.8/257.7/190
BF:
Progress: 30%
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by deirdra
Up until the late 1960s, three square meals with no snacks was thought to be the best. The idea of eating several small meals a day instead did not come into vogue until the low-fat low-cal nutritionists found that their clients were all starving 2 hrs after eating their carb-based fodder. So they divided calories into mini-meals with no real science behind it. I followed this advice and it just made me fatter and thinking about food all the time and the mini-meals were never satiating.
I also found IF easiest once totally adapted to HFLC eating. In fact I often IF'ed unintentionally before I'd even heard about it since I was very satiated, not hungry and had skipped a meal or two without even noticing it.
|
Thanks. That's what I was wondering, whether or not there is any real science behind the idea that eating so frequently increases your metabolism, as we've been told. It makes sense though that if you're eating a diet high in carbs and low in calories, you'd have to eat more often to not be starving. I have experimented a little in the last few days with intermittent fasting and I'm amazed, just as I was after the first two weeks of induction generally, at how little hunger I feel, and how quickly it goes away if I just hold off for a little bit. Before eating low carb, I would've been lightheaded and dizzy before I could've ever made it to 24hrs, unless of course I was completely sedentary during that period. The satiety this woe gives me is just astonishing. I'm not sure I'll commit totally to IF right now, but I may do it every so often, since thus far, it hasn't proven that difficult.
|