131–140 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that's all the time, not just ramadan.
But during Ramadan, it's basically all at once. Am I wrong to conclude that more unhealthy food in a shorter time period = more weight problems?
To lose weight, it's recommended to eat many times a day (like 5-6), but limit yourself to small portions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about skipping breakfast and lunch, as done by Muslims during Ramadan? In general, Islam recommends voluntary fasting for 2 days every week (traditionally Monday and Thursday).
It's probably better to skip breakfast and dinner, and eat only at mid-day. You're still generally active for hours after the mid-day meal, so you don't have the tendency to gorge and then curl up on the couch or go to bed.
If you try to eat 2000 calorie lunches, you'll have major lethargy in the afternoon and insomnia from hunger in the evening.
Better to use hunger as a driver during the day, then gorge and go to sleep at night.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about skipping breakfast and lunch, as done by Muslims during Ramadan? In general, Islam recommends voluntary fasting for 2 days every week (traditionally Monday and Thursday).
It's probably better to skip breakfast and dinner, and eat only at mid-day. You're still generally active for hours after the mid-day meal, so you don't have the tendency to gorge and then curl up on the couch or go to bed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Middle Eastern cuisine doesn't help either. Most of our food is high in carbs and fats, and we eat a ton of bread!
But so good. :(
Spoiler: I'm a Tunisian.
I checked out the recipes on the iDiet website recommended in the article, and I'm feeling sad and deprived just reading them. I'm willing to suffer for better health, but I'd hate to suffer through a life of egg whites and margarine and then discover in the end that the science was wrong.
I'm currently on a calorie-counting streak coming up on a year, and I have managed to do it without switching to foods I don't enjoy. The guiding principle is to look at nutrition labels for calorie information, then choose foods that are low-calorie, enjoyable, and that make me feel full. (That means, generally, more high-protein items like meat and more high-fiber items like vegetables.)
I've made some effort to switch to healthier foods, but mostly I just started with the foods I like and filtered that set down to eliminate the worst ones. I still eat frozen pizzas and ice cream, but I do carefully measure the portions on those.
Anyway, if calorie restriction is the thing that actually gives you health benefits, then I feel like I'm doing that without dooming myself to a life of foods that I don't enjoy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
CR reduces inflammation through the mTor pathway. And a lot(if not all) of the benefits of CR are seen with protein restriction or intermittent fasting(which both don't modify total caloric intake) because they both act on the same receptor. So CR isn't about eating too much food (though many of us are) it's about certain biological pathways that get activated during famine that prioritize longevity over other things…
Yes. But isn't it odd that our diets cause information in the first place. In an evolutionary way, that feels odd. So, then I have to wonder, is this further incrimination of the modern diet? And lifestyle? That is, is CR simple a proxy / correlation for putting less (modern) shit in your body?
That is, is CR simple a proxy / correlation for putting less (modern) shit in your body? No, you can take a drug rapamycin that has the exact same effects as CR, even if you are putting the exact same amount of food in your body. The benefits of CR are not caused because food is damaging, and less food is less damaging. CR is your body noticing it's running low on food and telling your body to do some maintenance. Rapamycin does the exact same thing, causes your body to enter maintenance mode.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Do you have any source of proof of any of this? Of course not. There's never been any significant evidence of health benefits from breakfast.
Why the snark? No need for that. There are many studies that show a link between meals, especially breakfast, and our circadian clocks. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4078443/ http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/03/05/eating-times-affect... Here's a HN discussion regarding a Harvard study on the subject, from 7 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=199394 Please provide some evidence that these…
I have no trouble believing that breakfast is relevant to circadian rhythms. This is far different from saying that skipping breakfast inevitably results in "sleeping later and waking up later as the rhythm shifts towards your first meal of the day." This is a very strong claim that demands strong evidence. Some studies linking circadian rhythm to meals is not sufficient.
I checked out the recipes on the iDiet website recommended in the article, and I'm feeling sad and deprived just reading them. I'm willing to suffer for better health, but I'd hate to suffer through a life of egg whites and margarine and then discover in the end that the science was wrong.
As someone has pointed out above, it seems like the calorie restriction is not really the reason for improved health. The real reason seems to be that reducing calories happens to also reduce all the stuff that makes us sick in the first place, like pro-inflammatory vegetable oils, sugar, and refined carbohydrates. If you look at the actual studies mentioned in the article, you'll see that the NIA study didn't find any difference between the two groups of monkeys, while the UW study did. The primary difference between the two is that the NIA fed the monkeys varied protein sources, while the UW study fed them significantly higher levels of sucrose. We already know that sugar is bad for you, so it makes sense that reducing its intake would improve health. The CR is a red herring.
I also checked some of the iDiet recipes, and I'm pretty sure they will do you more harm than good. Margarine, like pretty much any vegetable oil other than olive/avocado/coconut, is really bad for you. Egg yolks are not bad for you at all and I wouldn't worry about cholesterol in food (this is a whole topic in and of itself that I won't really go into here). One of the recipes on there is oatmeal with maple syrup; that is just sugar and grains, which honestly just feels like a slightly healthier frosted flakes.
Do non-growing adults (30+ years old) enjoy greater benefits than small children who have faster metabolisms and growth spurts ahead of them?
My inutition says that even if the concept still fits well with growing children, that their cycles are different, and closer together in frequency. Maybe they don't eat more calories, but eating several times a day might possibly tie into cycles of blood serum nutrient levels properly based of weight and activity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'd hate to suffer through a life of egg whites and margarine I know this wasn't your point but: I don't think people recommend eating margarine instead of real butter anymore. I won't claim to know if avoiding egg yolks is healthy or not, but many seem to think that dietary cholesterol isn't as bad as once thought.
It's right there in the recipes on the iDiet website, recommended in the article by "Susan Roberts, a dietary scientist at Tufts University". I was surprised too-- I didn't think anyone still believed margarine was healthier than butter, but here it is: https://www.theidiet.com/food/idiet-recipes/vanilla-spice-co... And here's their cake made with egg whites, which I imagine is great for crying yourself to sleep whil…