Rate Limited Fat Absorbtion with OMAD?
blambo61
Posts: 4,372 Member
I have a question. Since the body is rate limited in producing enzymes to support fat storage, does eating in a small window (high calorie input rate) result in the body not being able to convert all the temporary excess cals into fat that are above the rate limit level that can be supported?
I've asked questions like this on some of the main forums and people go into attack mode because it doesn't fit the CICO linear static model.
I don't think a professional eater gains 4 lbs of fat when they put down 60 hot dogs. I think most of the cals are excreted (due to the bodies inability to store it as fat partly due to rate limited fat storage capability of the body). I think they will gain a little (.5 lb maybe?) But will be back to normal weight within a couple of days with normal eating.
What think ye?
I've asked questions like this on some of the main forums and people go into attack mode because it doesn't fit the CICO linear static model.
I don't think a professional eater gains 4 lbs of fat when they put down 60 hot dogs. I think most of the cals are excreted (due to the bodies inability to store it as fat partly due to rate limited fat storage capability of the body). I think they will gain a little (.5 lb maybe?) But will be back to normal weight within a couple of days with normal eating.
What think ye?
0
Replies
-
You are exactly right. The body can only absorb so much at one time, hence the lack of serious gains. If it weren't true, then I'd have hit 1,000 lbs long ago.
I guess people react the way you describe since they fear it encourages gluttony or something. lol1 -
arguablysamson wrote: »You are exactly right. The body can only absorb so much at one time, hence the lack of serious gains. If it weren't true, then I'd have hit 1,000 lbs long ago.
I guess people react the way you describe since they fear it encourages gluttony or something. lol
That was some of the things said, also some references to believing in pink unicorns, looking for easy ways out, making excuses, and looking into minutia were a few others I can remember. It's like strict cal counting is a religion with them or something. I do think counting cals is a good idea but your plate portion control with OMAD would probably work well without ever counting a calorie. Counting the cals would just make sure. I don't call a diet that is psychological sustainable and doesn't require a crazy amount of meal prep minutia. I probably spelled that wrong.
I think in the short time I've been dieting, I've lost more than what mfp predicted for my cal deficits. I don't think it is a ramped up metabolism. I think meal frequecy is a factor at the far end of the spectrum (OMAD).0 -
Yep, and I did very little calorie counting ever when I was losing. And those who worship the capital "C" MFP tracker god are among those who refuse to ever allow themselves to face any kind of discomfort whatsoever. They fall in love with the MFP support system and can't seem to get away from it, like many who find their hope in organized religion. In a way, it's almost cultish. I've had/get my share of hatemail from some, although it's not that often nowadays.0
-
Not to change the subject but I do gain hope from organized religion. I believe in God and that he saves but that he instructs us and administers necessary ordances through organized religion (I dont believe all organized religions have that authority). Also associating with others with the same goals I think is good.
I do think the CICO crowd will attack if you say anything against their linear, static CICO model. A lot of them won't acknowledge that maybe not all the cals are converted to fat or used up due to body energy needs. They ignore that some cals can be excreted without being turned to fat or being used for energy needs. Frustrating as can be to do simple reasoning with some.0 -
Not to change the subject but I do gain hope from organized religion. I believe in God and that he saves but that he instructs us and administers necessary ordances through organized religion (I dont believe all organized religions have that authority). Also associating with others with the same goals I think is good.
I do think the CICO crowd will attack if you say anything against their linear, static CICO model. A lot of them won't acknowledge that maybe not all the cals are converted to fat or used up due to body energy needs. They ignore that some cals can be excreted without being turned to fat or being used for energy needs. Frustrating as can be to do simple reasoning with some.
I hope I didn't give offense--having a religion doesn't make a person bad or somehow less. I was just drawing upon an analogy...one that I didn't express well since I was primarily talking about fundy groups who lose touch with reality and become exclusivist.0 -
I knew what you meant and no offense taken! Thanks.0
-
arguablysamson wrote: »SNIP I do think counting cals is a good idea but your plate portion control with OMAD would probably work well without ever counting a calorie. Counting the cals would just make sure. I don't call a diet that is psychological sustainable and doesn't require a crazy amount of meal prep minutia. I probably spelled that wrong.
I think in the short time I've been dieting, I've lost more than what mfp predicted for my cal deficits. I don't think it is a ramped up metabolism. I think meal frequecy is a factor at the far end of the spectrum (OMAD). /SNIP
This is accurate. I have NEVER checked my calories, only using the plate size. Every time I stayed with it for more than three days, I lost weight.
Concerning your other comment about absorption, CICO typically is like a slow drip of calories into your body. It requires strict adherence because the body is better able to utilize the calories. OMAD slaps it all in there at once, and the absorption rate cannot keep up with the overwhelming amount of calories to process. (this is not scientific, just my personal experience) This would result in less calories being utilized than were ingested. To over simplify, you can fill a syringe with a faucet or bucket but the syringe can only hold so much before it overfills. The bucket pour will overfill a lot quicker than a faucet stream. Again, grossly oversimplified.0 -
arguablysamson wrote: »SNIP I do think counting cals is a good idea but your plate portion control with OMAD would probably work well without ever counting a calorie. Counting the cals would just make sure. I don't call a diet that is psychological sustainable and doesn't require a crazy amount of meal prep minutia. I probably spelled that wrong.
I think in the short time I've been dieting, I've lost more than what mfp predicted for my cal deficits. I don't think it is a ramped up metabolism. I think meal frequecy is a factor at the far end of the spectrum (OMAD). /SNIP
This is accurate. I have NEVER checked my calories, only using the plate size. Every time I stayed with it for more than three days, I lost weight.
Concerning your other comment about absorption, CICO typically is like a slow drip of calories into your body. It requires strict adherence because the body is better able to utilize the calories. OMAD slaps it all in there at once, and the absorption rate cannot keep up with the overwhelming amount of calories to process. (this is not scientific, just my personal experience) This would result in less calories being utilized than were ingested. To over simplify, you can fill a syringe with a faucet or bucket but the syringe can only hold so much before it overfills. The bucket pour will overfill a lot quicker than a faucet stream. Again, grossly oversimplified.
Yep, I believe this and I do like the analogy. I posted a discussion like this on the main message board and took about 5,000 spears with people calling me ignorant, trying to do tricks, being lazy, believing in unicorns, disobeyin the laws of physics/thermodynamics etc, etc, etc..
All physical systems are rate and magnitude limited. I'm an engineer and for a part if my career I've modeled dynamic systems to include rate and magnitude limited effects. I found it rich that people were calling me out on the math. I don't know how much an effect these limits have but I suspect they are not insignificant.0 -
It surprises me that people push back on such reasoning. I like a good discussion, but it doesn't take a genius to see that you don't utilize the entire caloric content of a Crave Case from White Castle. The results speak for them selves.
Practically, to test the theory, drink nothing but water and eat varying amounts of food, carefully weighing input and "output". The difference between the two numbers will be amount of mass storage plus sweat and glandular secretions. This indeed would only provide a "gross" result, but I'm betting that at a certain point the relationship between in/out becomes rather linear.0
