I am very pleased to have broken a recent stall and gone down 3 pounds. Some of it was Carb Creep; if I'm serious about losing more pounds, I am going to do better with 22 daily carbs instead of 32; no question. But I changed something else at the same time. I also wonder if it was due to eating only two meals a day. This made me less hungry... and I found myself dropping carbs without effort.
I have been reading about Intermittent Fasting, and have been successfully skipping breakfast for several weeks now. I realized I had never been a fan of eating first thing in the morning; worse yet, it seemed to increase my hunger. But that alone didn't seem to do anything; the dramatic results might have come from dropping my carbs, certainly, but I'm also NOT SNACKING.
Now, I always loved the way Dr. Atkins, in his books, always said "If you're hungry, eat!" What a wonderful thing to hear when we are trying to lose weight! But I read about a new study that led me to tweak my approach: this blog post by Martin Berkhan, of leangains.com, just published January 3rd, 2011:
Quote:
On three separate occasion, each participant was then fed the following 1500-kcal diets:
6 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.
3 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 500 kcal x 3.
6 PRO: 35% carbs, 45% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.
Let's look at the average BG values for each diet-experiment.
6 CHO: 710.0 +-251.0 mmol/L*min
3 CHO: 522.7 +-99.3 mmol/L*min
6 PRO: 442 +- 121.0 mmol/L*min
The 6 CHO-experiment exhibited significantly higher BG values than the other groups. Despite identical carb and calorie-intakes, those who ate 6 meals had 30% higher blood sugar values than those who ate 3 meals. That's a rather striking difference considering the energy- and nutrient-matched condition.
Better Blood Glucose with Lower Meal Frequency
|
It is a shame they didn't compare the 35% carbs for both 3 meal and 6 meal frequency, but the numbers are stark enough;
two and a half times the BG values, for identical meals, between the 6 meal a day folks and the 3 meal a day folks. And it was the 3 meal a day people, at 35% carbohydrate, that had the
lowest BG values.
I read about folks here on the forum who get stuck; their carbs are low, no Frankenfoods, do some exercise, watch their portions... and they are still stalled. But when menus are posted, so often I see:
snack... sometimes several times.
I understand it because it's important to learn to eat only until we are sated. It's important not to feel deprived or hungry. I can sure attest that it's important to have low carb treats!
By skipping breakfast, I was hungry at lunch; and I ate a good lunch. If I wanted a snack or a treat... I ate it then.
This let me coast many hours to dinner time; where, if I was budgeted for dessert and wanted one, I had one. With my meal.
Then, I'm done.
I think this does two things. First of all, a good satisfying meal is
there for the insulin to work on. And when the insulin winds down, it stays down... I'm not goosing it into action again by a snack. Because my pancreas doesn't know it's a snack... it might dump a bunch of insulin. What if it's taking care of the snack... then mops up my blood sugar... and lowers it so much it makes me hungry?
So, for what it's worth, I thought I'd share my thoughts. If you:
- Snack between meals because of hunger
- Graze throughout the day
- Try to leave the table "a little bit hungry"
You might be stuck with OLD thinking and BAD advice. One of the benefits of lowcarbing was my freedom from food for hours and hours.
Now I'm just extending those benefits.
