71–80 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> going for a run for 30 minutes in the morning still seemed far superior Why not both?
Fasting combined with exercise sounds like a recipe for overeating after the fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pro-breakfast proponents say that eating breakfast results in eating less throughout the day, but I can't say this has been true at all for myself. Another sample size of 1, but I had the same experience. Eating or not eating breakfast has no apparent impact on my hunger at lunchtime. (Not eating dinner the night before, however, does, so I'm hardly immune to hunger. I wish) > The only negative effect I'm having is…
> I'm hardly immune to hunger. I wish Why would you wish such a thing? Being hungry and then eating is one of the nicest things in life.
"hunger is the best sauce" - yes, I agree. Several years ago, I even made a similar comment to yours when I discovered a coworker disliked eating. But that was 50 pounds ago and I was overweight then.
Now I find that a lot of pleasures of the world are less pleasurable because I'm fat. Eating less (and appropriately, but still less) is the key component to not being fat, but that's hard because I'm hungry. I wish to continue to eat, and to enjoy eating, but I'll happily give up that extra burst of enjoyment while eating for the benefits I'd get in the rest of my life - both from the better health and the reduced unhappiness of wanting to eat.
Thus my comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds plausible (and interesting) but do you have a source for it?
No, that's false. It was actually General Foods for Grape Nuts: https://priceonomics.com/how-breakfast-became-a-thing/
I sometimes intermittently fast for 24 hour periods, but recently I've switched to skipping breakfast, which effectively works out to be a 17 hour fast for me if I eat dinner at 6pm and have lunch at 12pm. Everyone says it's the most important meal of the day, but I haven't found convincing evidence of this(especially that which isn't sponsored by grain and sugar producers), and not having a huge insulin spike at the…
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/well/eat/skipping-breakfa...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Pro-breakfast proponents say that eating breakfast results in eating less throughout the day, but I can't say this has been true at all for myself. Another sample size of 1, but I had the same experience. Eating or not eating breakfast has no apparent impact on my hunger at lunchtime. (Not eating dinner the night before, however, does, so I'm hardly immune to hunger. I wish) > The only negative effect I'm having is…
> This symptom I do not share, however. Yeah, it's funny because I eat plenty of eggs and fat, which have constituents used by the body to produce hormones like testosterone. If anything, I'd expect the opposite effect but I haven't read any literature on the effects it can have on libido, so I'm not sure what's typical.
Could be made up but sounds like a plausible theory to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Highly recommend the book "The Complete Guide to Fasting" by Dr. Jason Fung. Such books and doctors, promoting this or that diet, heavily cherry-pick from research papers, they don't reflect the scientific consensus on the matter.
I'll be interested to see where the scientific consensus is in 10 years. I think the evidence is very much on the side of the hormonal theory of obesity and fasting, especially given the monumental failure of the "calories in calories out" model.
On the regular medical world, there are just new inputs about things that also matter, as science and our understanding progresses (as opposed "the calories thing is wrong, let's throw it out altogether").
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article makes a case against a calorie-centric approach to dieting. It boils down to something like Michael Pollan's "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." A guy (who has since become an expert in public health) wasn't able to control his weight using standard calorie-counting techniques and had a lot of success changing his diet to "high quality" (as opposed to "highly processed") food. The article isn't supe…
Eh. the articles argument appears to be that even though nutritionists, physicists, and dieters all agree that eating fewer calories than you expend causes weight loss, it isn't easy for a variety of factors. No shit. The thing is, it is the simplest expression of what needs to happen, and there is no getting around it. I was once well north of the weight of the subject in the article and have since shed about half o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> especially given the monumental failure of the "calories in calories out" model. Can you explain this in more detail? CICO seems like it might oversimplify things but it always seemed like a really sane basis for helping shape your diet. If you need to lose weight, you should plan meals to create a calorie deficit. But yes, I would not be surprised to learn that fasting on day X and consuming double your normal cal…
This article makes a case against a calorie-centric approach to dieting. It boils down to something like Michael Pollan's "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." A guy (who has since become an expert in public health) wasn't able to control his weight using standard calorie-counting techniques and had a lot of success changing his diet to "high quality" (as opposed to "highly processed") food. The article isn't supe…
In fact, the article says "He kept to low-fat, low-calorie food for three years. It simply didn’t work. At one point he lost about 10kg but his weight rebounded, though he still restricted his calories."
Keeping a diet like low-carb or low-fat etc (and other fads), is difficult, so many rebounce.
But the true lifestyle change of a balanced diet is difficult anyway too, and most can't do that either.
(And you do need a balanced diet, whether you follow the calories/in out or not).
This doesn't invalidate the calories in/out, just their ability to apply it (and it's not necessarily their fault, they can have all kinds of impediments causing them to overeat, eg. situational depression).
On the other hand, if you know 100% your calories, you can diet even with the most surprising foods:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profes...
> And that’s what we’re finding in lab animals — the brain and body actually perform better during fasting. In the case of the brain, cognitive function, learning, memory, and alertness are all increased by fasting. I find this to be true whenever I fast for 12+ hours. It feels like I'm on a drug. It's strange to realize how not eating can be good for you. Fun trivia: the longest a human went without food is 382 days…
I've done 7 day water fasts (I try to do them quarterly, or bi-annually) and I find by day three I'm full of energy to the point where I have a hard time sleeping. I'm also way more productive during those 7 days. The only thing that tends to suffer is my weight lifting. I drop in strength a tiny bit, but not nearly as much as you'd expect. I also drop about 5-10 lbs in mass, with about half of that coming from water…
So, there is nothing weird about what you are experiencing - it's like wanting to get air when you are under water. Doesn't make it a good way to do things.
It's amazing how much of a trend fasting is lately.
I sometimes intermittently fast for 24 hour periods, but recently I've switched to skipping breakfast, which effectively works out to be a 17 hour fast for me if I eat dinner at 6pm and have lunch at 12pm. Everyone says it's the most important meal of the day, but I haven't found convincing evidence of this(especially that which isn't sponsored by grain and sugar producers), and not having a huge insulin spike at the…
“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" was an advertising slogan for Kellogg's.
The current insanity also grew out of commercials promoting the idea that you needed to spend big for this holiday. Historically, Christmas gifts were basically for children and poor people and the rest of it could be handled as a social get together based on a big meal and/or attending some kind of spiritual/religious thing. It wasn't some obligation to bleed yourself to participate in some out-of-control spending ritual in order to not be on the outs socially with everyone you know.