48 hour vs 24 hour calorie cycles

gavini

has there been much research to show that our bodies work on a 24 hour calorie cycle?

i know there has been a lot of research showing that sleep wise we work on 48 hour cycles. one take away from that knowledge is that if you have an important day where you need to be rested (a big race, important meeting, job interview, etc) then it is not the night before that will help, it is two nights before when you need the good nights sleep in order to feel well rested and perform at your peak either mentally, physically or both.

so this got me to thinking that it could be possible that we should be tracking our food and calories on 48 cycles instead, i have no science to back up either side but was wondering if anyone else did since surely there is some conventional wisdom on the subject about why you would look at it one way or the other.

if it is 24, then how long to i have to replenish the calories i have burnt?

for example, say i am basically calorie neutral for the day, then at 8pm i go for a late evening run and burn 1000 calories, i have say 500 calories plus protein when i get home, i stretch, shower and go to bed. should i have tried to find more calories? do i have a few calories to spare the next morning/day as a result of that deficit the night before? is sleeping the key that resets the counter? if so then what if i run at 3am (i do this somewhat regularly) and the same scenario plays out, then at 6 i take a two hour nap and get up and have a second breakfast, should i start counting my day from that point? i know i am asking a few different questions but i would think the answers and the reasons behind them would be closely related so... what do you think?

gavini

Bueller?

SideSteel

I think the following generalized statements are true:

1) Overall energy balance over time will dictate change in weight. Time being ambiguous here.
2) 48 hour balance SHOULD be fine to use.

3) However, I think at some point, someone in the nether regions of the internet will take these statements to a degree of idiocy and say "Well what if you didn't eat for 18 days and then had 52k calories in 1 sitting? You think that will work you moron?"

This is the same type of person that would then claim that calories aren't calories and that thermodynamics doesn't work.


As you get more and more extreme with this example I would imagine that it COULD become counter-productive. Generally speaking, as long as your average intake is appropriate you should make good progress regardless of where you divide your tracking periods.