Interesting. What they don't answer is if the gene expression can be changed (for example, with No-S).
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 072406.php
thanks,
david
article: snacking may be a genetic habit
Moderators: Soprano, automatedeating
-
ThomsonsPier
- Posts: 321
- Joined: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:18 pm
- Location: Reading, UK
This is hardly new research (interesting though it is); I thought it was common knowledge that the body could be trained to expect certain events from certain triggers.
This is the same as a Pavlovian response (not the dessert); it just uses the body clock as a trigger instead of a bell.
This is the same as a Pavlovian response (not the dessert); it just uses the body clock as a trigger instead of a bell.
ThomsonsPier
It's a trick. Get an axe.
It's a trick. Get an axe.
Yes, we have known for a long time about behavioral training. The new thing here is the discovery that gene expression actually changes.
My (largely uninformed) theory is that if your behavior/habits encourage your genes to express a certain way that a consistant change in habit should change which genetic switches are flipped--it just may take a while.
My point in posting a link to this article is that there may be more to using No-S than simply having a convenient way to limit portions. Here are my thoughts in no particular order:
*No snacking during the space between meals allows the digestive and endocrine systems to complete a full "cycle" without having to deal with new inputs. To use a crude analogy, you wouldn't stuff more dirty clothes in your washing machine during the final rinse cycle. Big Phil has suggested that the no snacking rule gives the liver time to process fats in the bloodstream
*Feeling hunger is a good thing. If you permasnack you rarely, if ever, feel physical hunger. No-S allows your body to fully engage in the hormonal cycles which underpin hunger and feeding. Rather than relying (as most Westerners seem to) on a psychological cue that one should start stalking that steak in the fridge or start foraging for those beans in the pantry, on No-S we rely on a whole cascade of physical and chemical cues.
*Because of the lack of sweets or snacking we tend to eat far fewer simple carbs. Kevin has written about his need for less insulin after adopting No-S. From an endocrinological standpoint No-S is good because you are avoiding a good deal of the glucose/insulin roller coaster that permasnacking and eating too much sugar induces.
*The S days are very important. They are an opportunity to do a sensible "re-feed" so that your metabolism doesn't slow down too much.
*I have no proof but I think that all of the above can improve gene expression. In other words, you may turn off your fat saving genes.
Keep in mind that I'm no scientist. Also, I may be "harshing the No-S buzz" by overcomplicing things but I'm convinced through my lay research that there is way more to No-S than meets the eye.
I would love to hear your opinions and if you guys can point me to any good resources on these subjects I would appreciate it!
thanks,
david
My (largely uninformed) theory is that if your behavior/habits encourage your genes to express a certain way that a consistant change in habit should change which genetic switches are flipped--it just may take a while.
My point in posting a link to this article is that there may be more to using No-S than simply having a convenient way to limit portions. Here are my thoughts in no particular order:
*No snacking during the space between meals allows the digestive and endocrine systems to complete a full "cycle" without having to deal with new inputs. To use a crude analogy, you wouldn't stuff more dirty clothes in your washing machine during the final rinse cycle. Big Phil has suggested that the no snacking rule gives the liver time to process fats in the bloodstream
*Feeling hunger is a good thing. If you permasnack you rarely, if ever, feel physical hunger. No-S allows your body to fully engage in the hormonal cycles which underpin hunger and feeding. Rather than relying (as most Westerners seem to) on a psychological cue that one should start stalking that steak in the fridge or start foraging for those beans in the pantry, on No-S we rely on a whole cascade of physical and chemical cues.
*Because of the lack of sweets or snacking we tend to eat far fewer simple carbs. Kevin has written about his need for less insulin after adopting No-S. From an endocrinological standpoint No-S is good because you are avoiding a good deal of the glucose/insulin roller coaster that permasnacking and eating too much sugar induces.
*The S days are very important. They are an opportunity to do a sensible "re-feed" so that your metabolism doesn't slow down too much.
*I have no proof but I think that all of the above can improve gene expression. In other words, you may turn off your fat saving genes.
Keep in mind that I'm no scientist. Also, I may be "harshing the No-S buzz" by overcomplicing things but I'm convinced through my lay research that there is way more to No-S than meets the eye.
I would love to hear your opinions and if you guys can point me to any good resources on these subjects I would appreciate it!
thanks,
david