I'd appreciate if you could please answer my question regarding fat and carbohydrate intakes in human body:

Let's say I take 100 grams of chocolate in one single day, and then don't take chocolate at all for the next 6 days. On the other hand, let me spread the 100 grams of chocolate over a week, so let me take 100/7 grams of chocolate each day.

Now considering the effect of fat, carbohydrate and sugar that's consumed, which one is going to affect me (increase my weight, body fat percentage) worse? Or is the effect equal? Assume that all the other factors remain equal, including food intake, exercise etc. Please justify your answer!

  • Care to add the nutrition facts of this chocolate? – MDMoore313 Mar 22 '15 at 21:28
  • @BigHomie - It doesn't matter the nutrition of the chocolate, the question is off topic. – JohnP Mar 23 '15 at 4:23

Practically speaking there won't be a difference for such a low amount as 100 grams, but if it's 1000 grams instead, I think it will be better to consume it over a week. 100 grams of chocolate will give some satiety and thus decrease your calory intake more in total than having 1000 grams in one sitting.

If you assume your calorie intake is fixed and isn't affected like this though, eating 1000 grams in one sitting is still worse. The liver tends to store more visceral fat when overloaded, i.e. there is a threshold. Basically, if the liver is capable of taking 30 grams and using it for muscle glycogen and other things, that would mean that 1000-30 = 970 grams will hit your liver in one case, and 6*(1000/6 - 30) = 820 grams in the other case. That's pretty speculative though.

I would also like to add that you can't really say that "all other factors remain equal", since your dietary intake affects many of the other factors, like energy usage.

| improve this answer | |

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.