And on the seventh day HE feasted

ok, I get this but it begs another question.

So i eat 900 calories at one meal and my body can't process all of it so some gets stored as fat. That stored fat is not going to be reflected by a tape measurer. I'm assuming this is true because, with the exception of an extended belly, you generally don't see your hips or thighs get instantly bigger within hours of eating a meal that contains more energy than you need. In fact, as i understand it, that energy gets stored as glycogen for now. However, later that day I eat 300 calories and about an hour later head to gym where I do a 60 minute cardio workout that burns 600 calories followed by a strength training workout. Once I depleted that 300 calories, wouldn't my body dip into that stored fat?

Even if I did my workout that morning. I started on 300 calories, burned 600 so I had to burn stored fat, which was then replenished by my larger meal. Again, if I stored less than I burned, I lose weight.

At the end of the day, I ate 1500 calories (300 breakfast, 900 lunch, 300 dinner) and with a RMR of 1300 and an exercise burn of say 600 I still have a deficit for the day of 300 to 500 calories, depending on activity level. So, bottom line is that I stored some fat temporarily but then burned more than I stored and i should be losing weight.

So, wouldn't that work for a week? I stored some extra fat due to a binge day but had a deficit for the next 6 days. Wouldn't I burn off what I stored as long as my binge calories don't exceed my weekly deficit? And if I'm burning more than I stored, then I'll lose weight. It still comes down to net/net doesn't it?

Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong but anecdotal evidence suggests that people tend to eat/store energy inconsistently. Most of the world does not eat small meals 6 times a day. Despite that inconsistency they manage to lose/maintain weight.

Not saying you're wrong or trying to argue. Just want to understand since I'm trying to break through what I consider to be my "set point" (yes, I know the theory was debunked some time ago but is seems to apply to my particular problem) right now.

Banks:

ok, I get this but it begs another question.

So i eat 900 calories at one meal and my body can't process all of it so some gets stored as fat. That stored fat is not going to be reflected by a tape measurer. I'm assuming this is true because, with the exception of an extended belly, you generally don't see your hips or thighs get instantly bigger within hours of eating a meal that contains more energy than you need. In fact, as i understand it, that energy gets stored as glycogen for now. However, later that day I eat 300 calories and about an hour later head to gym where I do a 60 minute cardio workout that burns 600 calories followed by a strength training workout. Once I depleted that 300 calories, wouldn't my body dip into that stored fat?

Even if I did my workout that morning. I started on 300 calories, burned 600 so I had to burn stored fat, which was then replenished by my larger meal. Again, if I stored less than I burned, I lose weight.

At the end of the day, I ate 1500 calories (300 breakfast, 900 lunch, 300 dinner) and with a RMR of 1300 and an exercise burn of say 600 I still have a deficit for the day of 300 to 500 calories, depending on activity level. So, bottom line is that I stored some fat temporarily but then burned more than I stored and i should be losing weight.

So, wouldn't that work for a week? I stored some extra fat due to a binge day but had a deficit for the next 6 days. Wouldn't I burn off what I stored as long as my binge calories don't exceed my weekly deficit? And if I'm burning more than I stored, then I'll lose weight. It still comes down to net/net doesn't it?

Maybe I'm just looking at this wrong but anecdotal evidence suggests that people tend to eat/store energy inconsistently. Most of the world does not eat small meals 6 times a day. Despite that inconsistency they manage to lose/maintain weight.

Not saying you're wrong or trying to argue. Just want to understand since I'm trying to break through what I consider to be my "set point" (yes, I know the theory was debunked some time agobut is seems to apply to my particular problem) right now.

this is gonna get a bit technical, but I'll try to keep it as simple as I can for those of us who don't have a firm grip on the inner workings of our body.

In a perfect world this would be how it would work.

Unfortunately our bodies don't work like a straight causality machine. What you have to take into account is the idea that our body doesn't just take in the food, process it and expel waste. It (passively) takes all the things that you do into account and it also takes energy from where ever it needs it and where it can get it fastest.

So when doing the calculations (and obviously this is theoretical, there's really no way for even doctors to tell exactly where you are deriving all your energy) you must factor in the concept of use of proteins as a secondary fuel source and slow digesting foods as a fuel source also. So while some of those extra calories (many, in fact) that you need come from the fat you just stored, some also comes from lean tissue, and bone. There is always some degree of muscle loss in humans, how much depends on how often, and for how long, and how hard the particular muscle in question is being used.

Remember, muscle is always very close to the blood supply, it has to be, that's how muscles are "fed". Fat on the other hand, doesn't need a ready supply of blood which is why it's stored in the out of place area's it is. So when the body sends out the chemicals saying it needs fuel (lactic acid, insulin, and cortosol among others) the body responds by grabbing first digested food in the form of glycogen from the liver and blood, then it looks for alternate fuel sources, fat is the major one, and yes, a large percentage comes from fat, but also amino acids are broken down too. Because what ever fuel source the body thinks it can break down fastest, it will use, if the fat is far from the blood, it takes a while to pull the fat, get it to the liver, break it down, and put it back into the blood as glycogen, if that takes longer than pulling amino acids and breaking them down, guess who wins!

this all factors in to why we say to keep doing strength training while trying to lose weight, active muscles don't release protein up to the body as easilly, and force the body to use fat.

One other tid bit to remember about this is that, while you are doing this kind of eating, you are basically keeping older fat stores right where they are. Remember, it's harder to burn fat than to burn glucose, so it takes longer, giving the body more of a chance to slow down and not burn older fat. So when you binge , you are helping to keep the old fat (any fat that wasn't just put on) hanging around.

A lot of people either tend to forget the important roll protein metabolism plays, or just plain don't know about it. It's a big factor in how fit we become.

so your saying its not the cartoons.... the food nose-dives straight into your stomach, making that whistling noise. Then drops outta your *kitten*? weird.