Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Fasting
Jul 27, 2018 13:51:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2018 13:51:18 GMT -5
There are other things to consider as well, such as muscle tissue loss while in a caloric deficit or due to inadequate protein intake. This is where exercise, specifically resistance training, enters the weight loss equation. The popular fitness rhetoric (which I call 'fitness nonsense') promotes 'calorie burning' as a weightloss strategy, but this is a shallow perspective to the degree of being misguided. Weight loss necessitates a calorie deficit, so the body burns its own tissue for energy. If the body goes into 'starvation mode' it knows it has to retain the fat as best it can so it tends toward metabolising muscle tissue (particularly if protien intake is deficient.
Of course a person doesn't want to lose weight per-se; they want to lose fat. This really means they would like to reduce percentage of fat that makes up their body weight, so indeed, a person (untrained individuals especially) can remain the same weight while increasing their muscle mass, and reducing fat percentage. 'They' say fasting is good for the obese, and indeed losing fat by any means is beneficial for such individuals, but I question, is it optimal or does it present compound risks in the longer term? One of the big problems with 'weight loss fads' is the person loses muscle mass, and muscle is what 'does work'. Less muscle is diminishing the ability to 'do work', which means reduced life abilities. This is why a fast might, and probably is, beneficial in the immediate term, but it is not a sustainable endeavour, and at some stage a person has to resume eating. It is therefore shortsighted to the point of detriment to simply say 'fasting is great for obesity'. A fat person might fast, lose 40 pounds in 40 days, and then resume their pizza and cola lifestyle, in which case they will worse off than they were prior to commencing the fast due to reduced muscle mass. The key is not a 'fix'. It is a transformation of lifestyle; a shift in the persona so they become the 'kind of person' who is healthy and active. If the 'kind of person' who is about beer and pizza goes on a diet or a fast, it does no good and it can create more harm than good in the long run. The evidence presented about fasting is doubtlessly valid, but data are collected in the short term. I have seen no follow up literature say 5 years down the track, but I can extrapolate from data on dieting that over 90% of individuals will revert to their old ways - and state of health - and often worse. That said, dealing with the well-being of physical form realistically requires a psychological transformation - a whole personality change - so individuals become the 'kind of person' whose 'natural environment' does not include the McDonald's drive through window.
In conclusion, calories are not managed by 'burning calories'. They are managed by nutrition intake. Exercise should be resistance training to signal the body that it needs the muscle, so it tends toward burning fat rather than muscle tissue. Calorie deficits, especially prolonged fasting are not sustainable, so these can not represent 'lifestyles'. dA lifestyle is the expression of the 'kind of person' you are. Rectifying health conditions does not come down to a 'fix'. It comes down to a lifestyle, and a 'healthy lifestyle' and positive changes in this regard depend on personality transformation. Hence, a 'whole person' approach is realistic. Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm fit and healthy, but curious to know what you think about the warrior diet. It incorporates fasting about 20 hrs. per day and then feasting for four hours. The feasting part is the most interesting.
|
|
|
Fasting
Jul 28, 2018 6:04:36 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2018 6:04:36 GMT -5
Once you let this guy get goin' he's entirely adorable. There's some of his premises I see potential flaws in but his overall logic in terms of where it's going that seems to make sense to me. Right, the overpopulation myth seems to be mostly based on flawful logic and cherry picking of data. Seems to me also about worthiness issues, shame, misplaced sense of "sin", etc..
|
|
|
Fasting
Jul 28, 2018 6:07:25 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Jul 28, 2018 6:07:25 GMT -5
Her apparent focus on balance and her recognition of the dualistic polarities suggests that if she wasn't exposed to the Tao then she sort of reinvented parts of it herself, which I wouldn't find all that surprising. A very interesting women. She's obviously been very influential, was probably some kind of polymath and also a saint. Check out this link : catholicsaints.info/saint-hildegard-von-bingen/(she does look a bit like Niz!) "geh raus! geh raus!" (** flicks zündete sich beedi an **)
|
|
|
Fasting
Jul 28, 2018 8:44:25 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Jul 28, 2018 8:44:25 GMT -5
There are other things to consider as well, such as muscle tissue loss while in a caloric deficit or due to inadequate protein intake. This is where exercise, specifically resistance training, enters the weight loss equation. The popular fitness rhetoric (which I call 'fitness nonsense') promotes 'calorie burning' as a weightloss strategy, but this is a shallow perspective to the degree of being misguided. Weight loss necessitates a calorie deficit, so the body burns its own tissue for energy. If the body goes into 'starvation mode' it knows it has to retain the fat as best it can so it tends toward metabolising muscle tissue (particularly if protien intake is deficient.
Of course a person doesn't want to lose weight per-se; they want to lose fat. This really means they would like to reduce percentage of fat that makes up their body weight, so indeed, a person (untrained individuals especially) can remain the same weight while increasing their muscle mass, and reducing fat percentage. 'They' say fasting is good for the obese, and indeed losing fat by any means is beneficial for such individuals, but I question, is it optimal or does it present compound risks in the longer term? One of the big problems with 'weight loss fads' is the person loses muscle mass, and muscle is what 'does work'. Less muscle is diminishing the ability to 'do work', which means reduced life abilities. This is why a fast might, and probably is, beneficial in the immediate term, but it is not a sustainable endeavour, and at some stage a person has to resume eating. It is therefore shortsighted to the point of detriment to simply say 'fasting is great for obesity'. A fat person might fast, lose 40 pounds in 40 days, and then resume their pizza and cola lifestyle, in which case they will worse off than they were prior to commencing the fast due to reduced muscle mass. The key is not a 'fix'. It is a transformation of lifestyle; a shift in the persona so they become the 'kind of person' who is healthy and active. If the 'kind of person' who is about beer and pizza goes on a diet or a fast, it does no good and it can create more harm than good in the long run. The evidence presented about fasting is doubtlessly valid, but data are collected in the short term. I have seen no follow up literature say 5 years down the track, but I can extrapolate from data on dieting that over 90% of individuals will revert to their old ways - and state of health - and often worse. That said, dealing with the well-being of physical form realistically requires a psychological transformation - a whole personality change - so individuals become the 'kind of person' whose 'natural environment' does not include the McDonald's drive through window.
In conclusion, calories are not managed by 'burning calories'. They are managed by nutrition intake. Exercise should be resistance training to signal the body that it needs the muscle, so it tends toward burning fat rather than muscle tissue. Calorie deficits, especially prolonged fasting are not sustainable, so these can not represent 'lifestyles'. dA lifestyle is the expression of the 'kind of person' you are. Rectifying health conditions does not come down to a 'fix'. It comes down to a lifestyle, and a 'healthy lifestyle' and positive changes in this regard depend on personality transformation. Hence, a 'whole person' approach is realistic. Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm fit and healthy, but curious to know what you think about the warrior diet. It incorporates fasting about 20 hrs. per day and then feasting for four hours. The feasting part is the most interesting. So that's intermittnt fasting, and if that what works for you, boom. If the 'meal frequency' is that then stick to it. It still comes down to how many cals, macronutrient distribution (protien is required but fats and carbs are fexilbe), and essential vitamins and minerals. That might sound clinical, but however flowery one makes it, it comes down to the same thing. Math.
|
|
|
Fasting
Jul 28, 2018 9:17:21 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Jul 28, 2018 9:17:21 GMT -5
Yeah, so Id say if a nutrition plan such as Warrior Diet doesn't have a nutrient profile then it has no basis from which to claim its health optimising. I't just 'eat like a warrior' nonsense. Firstly, the 'this is how we were supposed to eat' pitch bizzarely assumes that all individuals should have an identical meal frequency? Er... that's never going to work. The 'this is how we're supposed to eat' line is hogwash.
It's simple in principle (but nuances in application) because optimum nutrition is but the sum of nutrients.
What sex? What's the goal. Lose fat? Gain muscle? Get titan strong? ... that's all different nutrition protocols.
When's work? What's bedtime? Where do meals fit in best? Different for difference.
How much do you weigh? Losing fat or gaining muscle? How much ya wanna way?
Ok so it's 180g protein, 200g carbs, 80 g'eeza fat, which equals 2500 calories (hypothetically)... + micronutrients.
What kind of food has carbs, protein, fat an' vitamins an' sh!t?... and how much of these is in a 100 grams what kinds of foods?
Do my meals include the foods in such quantities than contain the nutrient profile above.
When am I going to eat those meals?
If this stuff isn't calculated into the 'nutrition equazjun', then it ain't worth a shilling.
|
|
|
Fasting
Jul 28, 2018 9:45:26 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Jul 28, 2018 9:45:26 GMT -5
Quite apart from an exercise regimen which is conducive to adherence. That's another thing which somehow merges seamlessly within the scope of one's life.
The issue is, the fitness industry is x% nonsense, so romantic naturale 'warrior diets', 3 minute abs, weight loss shakes, shady suppliment industry, lose 20 pounds in a week, burn belly fat... waddaloada carp.
Real things have numbers. X protein y fat and z carbs, and numbers of reps at x kilos, or timed, or measured somehow - Accurately - to track and monitor the minutiae of the process. It imprtant for exercise success because if you don;t monitor you can't optimise overload, and overload is the essence of continuous improvement.
To add even deeper complexity to the intersection of diet (fuel in) and exercise (fuel burnt). Whatever the health optimising activity might be, as defined by the diverse health inclined, it won't work results unless fueled with the right stuff.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2018 5:40:11 GMT -5
If you're active, doing what you enjoy, your body adapts to the activity and so does your diet. That's my experience as well. In that sense, adjusting your diet is a backwards approach. Which would explain why it usually fails.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 1, 2018 6:07:12 GMT -5
These days i follow a Mediterranean diet and average 10,000 steps per day, and that keeps the old blood flowing along and looking pretty good. Bottom line? If your genetic inheritance isn't the best, you can improve your odds by educating yourself and becoming pro-active. Circulation seems to be an important factor in the health equation. Increasing circulation is the whole idea behind the so-called 'bed of nails' (or acupressure mat) treatment. Get yourself an acupressure mat and stand on it for 30 min per day. In the beginning, you probably can't even do it for half a minute. But you'll get used to it over time. It will increase circulation in the entire body after a while. Here's an interesting research result:
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2018 9:24:20 GMT -5
Well, UG is well known for saying outrageous things, and I imagine Hicks isn't a lot better when it comes to nutritional advice. I remember having a go at Enigma because he was promoting and selling that lemon and syrup 'cleansing' fad using 'spirituality' as a pseudo nutrition qualification. I have a very low opinion of spirituality being used as a qualification, which is why UG is a quack in this regard and AH is NOT a good source of nutritional information. Yes, you are right, A-H sometimes say outrageous things. But in the case of UG I think he actually does mean it, while A-H usually say outrageous things in order to just yank someone's chain a bit. I remember Seth giving specific dietary advice to Rob and Jane, but not really as a general rule for everyone. A-H basically do the same. They would recommend more natural foods but they would also be quick to add that your energy and health does not come from the food you eat but from alignment. And when you are in alignment you will know exactly what to eat. And what you then eat may sometimes actually go against any nutritional 'science' or 'logic'. It is also preposterous to say the body can live on anything. For example feeding a hyperglycemic person a lot of sugar would be disasterous, as would feeding an obese person calorie dense foods, and there are so many examples which clearly show the fallacy. It's also ridiculous to use a rare instance of a spiritual person who claims not to eat. Firstly, there is no documentation of that because you can't ethically confine a person to controlled conditions for a long time. I have read about one or two examples of maybe 2 weeks in controlled settings - which is probably as long as any ethics board would permit. I believe that there are those who can go withut food, but just because I buy into the spiritual aspect of that. Secondly, the vast, vast majority of humans, animals and plants die of starvation if not fed. I'd say the 'your body can live on anything' rule only applies to those who live predominantly in alignment. That's how I understand it. In the old days on the A-H forum there used to be a discussion about what would happen if someone who is in alignment would actually drink clorox bleach. Would he die? Someone actually asked that question in a workshop. And A-H always answered that if you are in alignment you wouldn't be so stupid and drink clorox bleach. So they were basically pointing at the false premise of the question. Of course, no one seemed really satisfied with that answer and I think back then I didn't like their answer either. But now I do get it. There so much you really don't need to know or worry about once you understand this alignment business. What I provided was a system of organising a diet, but what I suggested was a 'whole person' approach that transforms the personality, the psychological profile, from behavious of sloth and indulgence to behaviours of vitality and balance. That is a neurological transformation involving entire body/brain rather that a trick of psychology. I guess that relates to alignment.
It does relate to alignment, but at the bottom level (at least form my perspective). I guess that's what our disagreement here is. What I (and Seth and A-H) recommend is a top down approach, i.e. like the Buddhist say to watch your thoughts because they become your words, to watch your words because they become your actions which eventually become your habits which will become your character and destiny. So what I see you recommend is jumping in at the middle and start changing actions. What I recommend is start where it all begins and the rest will follow automatically. You see, the whole point of the alignment approach A-H teach is that your thoughts create your reality and that people try to compensate with physical action for sloppy thinking, which - in the long run - will never really work because first it requires a lot of discipline and then you usually get frustrated and overwhelmed with your to-do-lists (or don't-do-lists). I'm not saying that the action approach doesn't work. I'm just saying that the action approach doesn't give you any leverage. Now, does this 'whole person' approach also include our mental diet, i.e. the things we watch, read and listen to and the people we hang around with and talk to plus what we talk about? You see, if we look at this diet issue from the metaphysical perspective (as above so below) instead of from a scientific perspective (molecule A interacts with molecule B and creates disease C) then our diet in terms of what we eat is just a reflection of our mental diet. And as such, tweaking the mental diet is where all the leverage is, not in changing what we eat or how we exercise (even though this will certainly help to some degree). So I think, in the end, what our disagreement in approach really boils down to that we work with different and somewhat incompatible models, I tend to prefer the metaphysical model while you seem to prefer the scientific model. Does that seem accurate?
|
|
|
Fasting
Aug 4, 2018 10:20:53 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Aug 4, 2018 10:20:53 GMT -5
Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm fit and healthy, but curious to know what you think about the warrior diet. It incorporates fasting about 20 hrs. per day and then feasting for four hours. The feasting part is the most interesting. Seth would recommend the exact opposite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Fasting
Aug 4, 2018 11:06:56 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2018 11:06:56 GMT -5
Hey, I resemble that remark! I'm fit and healthy, but curious to know what you think about the warrior diet. It incorporates fasting about 20 hrs. per day and then feasting for four hours. The feasting part is the most interesting. Seth would recommend the exact opposite. I love Seth now.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 5, 2018 3:21:28 GMT -5
Seth would recommend the exact opposite. I love Seth now. It's a rather strange suggestion, to be honest, but Seth mentions this in the context of sleeping habits and how our sleeping habits (which directly influence our eating habits) keep us from getting more in touch with the inner ego/self. And in this context it makes sense. Here's the quote:
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 5, 2018 5:10:21 GMT -5
Well, UG is well known for saying outrageous things, and I imagine Hicks isn't a lot better when it comes to nutritional advice. I remember having a go at Enigma because he was promoting and selling that lemon and syrup 'cleansing' fad using 'spirituality' as a pseudo nutrition qualification. I have a very low opinion of spirituality being used as a qualification, which is why UG is a quack in this regard and AH is NOT a good source of nutritional information. Yes, you are right, A-H sometimes say outrageous things. But in the case of UG I think he actually does mean it, while A-H usually say outrageous things in order to just yank someone's chain a bit. I remember Seth giving specific dietary advice to Rob and Jane, but not really as a general rule for everyone. A-H basically do the same. They would recommend more natural foods but they would also be quick to add that your energy and health does not come from the food you eat but from alignment. And when you are in alignment you will know exactly what to eat. And what you then eat may sometimes actually go against any nutritional 'science' or 'logic'. It is also preposterous to say the body can live on anything. For example feeding a hyperglycemic person a lot of sugar would be disasterous, as would feeding an obese person calorie dense foods, and there are so many examples which clearly show the fallacy. It's also ridiculous to use a rare instance of a spiritual person who claims not to eat. Firstly, there is no documentation of that because you can't ethically confine a person to controlled conditions for a long time. I have read about one or two examples of maybe 2 weeks in controlled settings - which is probably as long as any ethics board would permit. I believe that there are those who can go withut food, but just because I buy into the spiritual aspect of that. Secondly, the vast, vast majority of humans, animals and plants die of starvation if not fed. I'd say the 'your body can live on anything' rule only applies to those who live predominantly in alignment. That's how I understand it. In the old days on the A-H forum there used to be a discussion about what would happen if someone who is in alignment would actually drink clorox bleach. Would he die? Someone actually asked that question in a workshop. And A-H always answered that if you are in alignment you wouldn't be so stupid and drink clorox bleach. So they were basically pointing at the false premise of the question. Of course, no one seemed really satisfied with that answer and I think back then I didn't like their answer either. But now I do get it. There so much you really don't need to know or worry about once you understand this alignment business. What I provided was a system of organising a diet, but what I suggested was a 'whole person' approach that transforms the personality, the psychological profile, from behavious of sloth and indulgence to behaviours of vitality and balance. That is a neurological transformation involving entire body/brain rather that a trick of psychology. I guess that relates to alignment.
It does relate to alignment, but at the bottom level (at least form my perspective). I guess that's what our disagreement here is. What I (and Seth and A-H) recommend is a top down approach, i.e. like the Buddhist say to watch your thoughts because they become your words, to watch your words because they become your actions which eventually become your habits which will become your character and destiny. So what I see you recommend is jumping in at the middle and start changing actions. What I recommend is start where it all begins and the rest will follow automatically. You see, the whole point of the alignment approach A-H teach is that your thoughts create your reality and that people try to compensate with physical action for sloppy thinking, which - in the long run - will never really work because first it requires a lot of discipline and then you usually get frustrated and overwhelmed with your to-do-lists (or don't-do-lists). I'm not saying that the action approach doesn't work. I'm just saying that the action approach doesn't give you any leverage. Now, does this 'whole person' approach also include our mental diet, i.e. the things we watch, read and listen to and the people we hang around with and talk to plus what we talk about? You see, if we look at this diet issue from the metaphysical perspective (as above so below) instead of from a scientific perspective (molecule A interacts with molecule B and creates disease C) then our diet in terms of what we eat is just a reflection of our mental diet. And as such, tweaking the mental diet is where all the leverage is, not in changing what we eat or how we exercise (even though this will certainly help to some degree). So I think, in the end, what our disagreement in approach really boils down to that we work with different and somewhat incompatible models, I tend to prefer the metaphysical model while you seem to prefer the scientific model. Does that seem accurate? Well science isn't an exact science when it comes to how the body used nutrients, but the basic chemical processes are well studies, and the fundamental fuel requirements are understood, but really, not much else, and fitting what reliable information there is into the actuality of anyone's subjective life isn't science at all. I only eat to fuel the body toward attaining performance outcomes, so it's all calculated numerically because it is necessary to eat enough of the right stuff to make more muscle to lift heavier weights. I don;t have as much leeway as most people do, so I tend not to get 'alternative' ideas, and I just stick to management of nutrient quantities... not intuitive in the least.
The whole person approach is the acknowledgment that under any presented physical condition there is emotional content, which is quazi related to thought, and the primary aspect of vitality shining through. To release everything from the form so the posture starts to correct itself and you walk differently, the whole body is used with proper frequency. The weaknesses tighten up, and the tensions relax, until an equalibrium of the tissues aligns the body for seamless efficiency of movement. The psychological structure, the neurology of it has to change because the mind maps the body, and that 'image' is changing. What sort of mind tends a body toward an increasingly hunched over back compared a mind which tends the back to straighten out? There is a whole 'way of being' involved in simple comportment.
If we're talking of alignment of the spirit with the form, that's more like releasing obstacles that inhibit the freer flow of universal vitality, and an obstacle is a sensation in the form - maybe it's heavy in the chest or whatever - but it's temporary, it's changing, and any seeming endurance is an illusion. But there there that thing, 'craving', 'clinging', and such reactivity in the wild mind produces its own sensation throughout the lifeform... kamma, baby.
The practice of feeling oneself move, being aware through the full range of motion, feeling the details of stretch and contraction, and being acute to exaction of coordination... having 'mind muscle connection' and proprioception is essentially a mind/body connection. That connection reinforces the neural pathway through body and brain, literally electrically re-wiring an athletic psychological profile.
One can only be present in body awareness now - and a body does have its 'own knowing', but it needs to be part of the right conditions to assume the shape that optimises its function.
I guess I'm pretty 'big picture' and have a holistic view that includes the nuts and bolts of calories and nurtients, and then there's a whole subtle body/mind thang goin' on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2018 9:49:20 GMT -5
It's a rather strange suggestion, to be honest, but Seth mentions this in the context of sleeping habits and how our sleeping habits (which directly influence our eating habits) keep us from getting more in touch with the inner ego/self. And in this context it makes sense. Here's the quote: Here I thought he was going to endorse feasting. I agree with the sleep suggestion. If you meditate quite often, you don't need as much sleep. Naps are delicious. The food part is good too. When I used to go on cruises I didn't go to the formal meals. I'd just go grab a snack when hungry. I grazed. I would actually lose weight.
|
|
|
Fasting
Aug 10, 2018 5:25:50 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Aug 10, 2018 5:25:50 GMT -5
Seth would recommend the exact opposite. I love Seth now. Personally I eat pretty much like Seth said, maybe 4 or 5 meals during the day, and I have a couple of snacks on fruit during the night, so personally, I'm with Seth, but I don't preach it as gospel because I'm not a flake.
For another person, that isn't appropriate. If a person is not active and obese it's possible that intermittent fasting could be a great strategy (one of many) for reducing calories. It really could be the best strategy for certain individuals so long as it suits them.
On another tangent, when I undertook serious meditation retreat, the tradition is to eat breakfast at 6 and lunch at 11 - nothing for the rest of the day/night , which is a version of intermittent fasting, and considered optimal for meditation.
|
|