Food vs Sleep

[Barnebus Frey]

Let's say there's an underweight novice who struggles to eat enough food so sets out a plan of splitting it into 5 meals throughout the day.

Now for whatever reason (maybe they have to wake up extra early the next day or something), it's 8 hours until they need to wake up but they've only eaten 4 of their meals and it'd be another couple of hours until they could possibly eat the 5th without throwing up.

Which would be more beneficial, the 2 hours of sleep or the 700 calories?

[Mark Rippetoe]

I don't know.

[Mike C]

Sleep is always better. You can lift and feel good, while being at a deficit, so not getting your "surplus" for the day is a cake walk. Now try lifting when you haven't slept well, and you can barely keep your eyes open at your desk, and your pulse skyrockets from just standing up, and the muscles in your arm burn from lifting up your coffee mug......

Yeah. There's nothing worse than operating on too little sleep.

[Paul1]

Sleep debt lasts a lot longer than a 700 calorie deficit on a single day.

[Drewcar]

You should try an extra 1.9 hours of sleep coupled with an extra 35 calories. That combination is sure to be successful.

[Will Morris]

Let's say there's an underweight novice who struggles to eat enough food so sets out a plan of splitting it into 5 meals throughout the day.

Now for whatever reason (maybe they have to wake up extra early the next day or something), it's 8 hours until they need to wake up but they've only eaten 4 of their meals and it'd be another couple of hours until they could possibly eat the 5th without throwing up.

Which would be more beneficial, the 2 hours of sleep or the 700 calories?

Sleep the extra 2 hours and drink more milk throughout the day.

[PackMule]

Food does not make up for poor sleep.

But why would it take 2 hours to get 700 calories?

[iamgmo]

Let's say there's an underweight novice who struggles to eat enough food so sets out a plan of splitting it into 5 meals throughout the day.

Now for whatever reason (maybe they have to wake up extra early the next day or something), it's 8 hours until they need to wake up but they've only eaten 4 of their meals and it'd be another couple of hours until they could possibly eat the 5th without throwing up.

Which would be more beneficial, the 2 hours of sleep or the 700 calories?

stuff your mouth and squat. seriously, just f*** eat at whatever time and go to sleep.

[Patrick]

I have lived the full 2x2 matrix of sleep and food being either sufficient or insufficient. My observations on training in any of these states for a substantial length of time, for what they are worth:

1. In the case of insufficient food and insufficient sleep , just forget it. You will not recover from physical exertion, much less accrue the benefits of overcompensation.
2. You can get by eating enough but not sleeping enough for a few weeks, maybe a month. You can do this if and only if you do no taxing physical activity other than lifting and you keep your intensity up with volume down -- high weight, low reps. Depending on where you are in the progression you might gain some strength.
3. If you don't eat enough but you can sleep plenty, do the same thing. In this instance, you will probably not gain strength unless you are an early novice lifter, but you will retain strength and preferentially preserve muscle mass.
4. You sleep and eat in sufficient measure. Squat more, brada.

The solution is probably to find a way for you... er... "someone" to eat more without throwing up. Look at your food choices and see if they're calorically dense. Could you sneak in an extra tablespoon of oil or butter here or there to add in some calories without making you hurl? How about a spoon of peanut butter in between your meals? You can get in those extra calories without waking up -- I'm certain of it.

[RussB]

"Don't think he knows about second breakfast, Pip."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0Est7seheM#t=0m15s