|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 4, 2018 11:28:00 GMT -5
I'm 'fasting' right now. Some folks might just call it a time restricted eating window. I start eating around 6pm and finish around 8. So 2 hours eating time. Some say this is good for the body rest. I'm just doing it to keep my body tuned to burning fat. Not looking to lose or gain wt. On sustainability, I'm not sure, as I think it disrupts my circadian rhythm a tad. The autophagy and stem cell reboot that is touted with fasting only happens after 3-5 days of water fast. Haven't done that -- but I know of many metabolically healthy peeps like me that do it 3-4 times a year, just to hit the body in the ass re:taking out the old and sprouting the new. So far it's just fun.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 4, 2018 11:39:34 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Dec 4, 2018 11:39:34 GMT -5
I'm 'fasting' right now. Some folks might just call it a time restricted eating window. I start eating around 6pm and finish around 8. So 2 hours eating time. Some say this is good for the body rest. I'm just doing it to keep my body tuned to burning fat. Not looking to lose or gain wt. On sustainability, I'm not sure, as I think it disrupts my circadian rhythm a tad. The autophagy and stem cell reboot that is touted with fasting only happens after 3-5 days of water fast. Haven't done that -- but I know of many metabolically healthy peeps like me that do it 3-4 times a year, just to hit the body in the ass re:taking out the old and sprouting the new. So far it's just fun.That's the attitude!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 5, 2018 9:02:11 GMT -5
He seems sincere on the fasting issue. That's why I recommended his videos on fasting. If you've watched the playlist I posted, you'll also see that. The reason he did such a long fast was because he wanted to speak from first hand experience and he also wanted to prove that a busy life is no excuse to not fast. So he basically got his first hand experience and he also proved what he wanted to prove. What is also very interesting to watch is how his attitude slowly changes. During the first few days he comes across as very mind driven and determined but after a week into the fast his approach softens. He actually starts listening more to his inner guidance, takes days off from work, checks into a spa and just enjoys being. It's an interesting transformation. And everyone who has done a longer fast will understand what happened here. People do fasting for all kinds of reasons (they think). Mostly they say it's because they want to get healthy again, or younger instead of old or just feel better. But what most seem to discover is that the main event isn't the improvement in health or emotional state of being, the main in improvement is on a spiritual level. In fact, the changes that happen on a spiritual level during a fast seems to be the most memorable changes. I've watched a lot of videos lately about fasting and people telling their experiences and this seems to be a common denominator for people who do longer fasts (beyond 5 days). Fascinating stories. I scanned through the videos, which didn't prove anything, and perhaps he didn't even stick to fast for all I know, He may have, but there are reasons to mistrust Group. Why would you assume that? Seems you've made up your mind about Group a while ago. That he isn't trustworthy in your eyes on one subject, doesn't automatically mean that he has to be not trustworthy on all subjects. That's a bit too simplistic. People are complex beings. And they all have some valid points here and there. I see this on the forum all the time. Just because someone is consistently wrong or confusing things on one topic doesn't mean that he gets it necessarily wrong and confuses things on all topics all the time. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm far from trying to defend Group, but your criticism of his fasting seems way over the top and is neither justified nor reasonable given that you didn't even watch it all. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, Lolly. What is it exactly that annoys you about Group? Or is it the water fasting?
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 5, 2018 10:05:02 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Dec 5, 2018 10:05:02 GMT -5
I scanned through the videos, which didn't prove anything, and perhaps he didn't even stick to fast for all I know, He may have, but there are reasons to mistrust Group. Why would you assume that? Seems you've made up your mind about Group a while ago. That he isn't trustworthy in your eyes on one subject, doesn't automatically mean that he has to be not trustworthy on all subjects. That's a bit too simplistic. People are complex beings. And they all have some valid points here and there. I see this on the forum all the time. Just because someone is consistently wrong or confusing things on one topic doesn't mean that he gets it necessarily wrong and confuses things on all topics all the time. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. I'm far from trying to defend Group, but your criticism of his fasting seems way over the top and is neither justified nor reasonable given that you didn't even watch it all. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water, Lolly. What is it exactly that annoys you about Group? Or is it the water fasting? I checked out Group's credentials, his business website, and his social media narrative, and assessed that he fancies himself an expert of everything from nutrition to psychology (when he's really an average chiropractor at best), and he sells shonky supplements.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 5, 2018 10:20:07 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Dec 5, 2018 10:20:07 GMT -5
I'm 'fasting' right now. Some folks might just call it a time restricted eating window. I start eating around 6pm and finish around 8. So 2 hours eating time. Some say this is good for the body rest. I'm just doing it to keep my body tuned to burning fat. Not looking to lose or gain wt. On sustainability, I'm not sure, as I think it disrupts my circadian rhythm a tad. The autophagy and stem cell reboot that is touted with fasting only happens after 3-5 days of water fast. Haven't done that -- but I know of many metabolically healthy peeps like me that do it 3-4 times a year, just to hit the body in the ass re:taking out the old and sprouting the new. So far it's just fun. People say a lot of nonsense in the nurtrition space, and neglect the important factors - like calories. The body 'burns fat' when it is in a calorie deficit. It will not burn fat if it is not in a calorie deficit. A 2 hour feeding window will almost certainly induce a calorie deficit (because you can't eat very much in 2 hours). I'm not knocking intermittent fasting at all. It is an effective fat burning approach (though perhaps not a sustainable approach). I merely want to clarify that it is a calorie deficit, and not fasting in particular, that causes fat loss.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 5, 2018 17:09:46 GMT -5
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 5, 2018 17:09:46 GMT -5
I'm 'fasting' right now. Some folks might just call it a time restricted eating window. I start eating around 6pm and finish around 8. So 2 hours eating time. Some say this is good for the body rest. I'm just doing it to keep my body tuned to burning fat. Not looking to lose or gain wt. On sustainability, I'm not sure, as I think it disrupts my circadian rhythm a tad. The autophagy and stem cell reboot that is touted with fasting only happens after 3-5 days of water fast. Haven't done that -- but I know of many metabolically healthy peeps like me that do it 3-4 times a year, just to hit the body in the ass re:taking out the old and sprouting the new. So far it's just fun. People say a lot of nonsense in the nurtrition space, and neglect the important factors - like calories. The body 'burns fat' when it is in a calorie deficit. It will not burn fat if it is not in a calorie deficit. A 2 hour feeding window will almost certainly induce a calorie deficit (because you can't eat very much in 2 hours). I'm not knocking intermittent fasting at all. It is an effective fat burning approach (though perhaps not a sustainable approach). I merely want to clarify that it is a calorie deficit, and not fasting in particular, that causes fat loss. I'm in no disagreement with you and appreciate your skepticism. It's true there are lots of nutribollocks out there. Not just lay folks either. Nutrition science is still in its infancy and guidelines are seriously spoiled by an overreliance on epidemiological studies that deliver tenuous conclusions. You're right that 2 hours is not long enough to replenish. It's the other hours of the day that I'm forcing the body to rely on fat-burning, especially between hours 12-22 of not eating. And I don't do it every day -- maybe 3-5 days a week. I'm doing it right now, and am in hour 22 of not eating. I feel no hunger cuz the bod is just humming off fat stores. good times.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 5, 2018 21:00:42 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Dec 5, 2018 21:00:42 GMT -5
People say a lot of nonsense in the nurtrition space, and neglect the important factors - like calories. The body 'burns fat' when it is in a calorie deficit. It will not burn fat if it is not in a calorie deficit. A 2 hour feeding window will almost certainly induce a calorie deficit (because you can't eat very much in 2 hours). I'm not knocking intermittent fasting at all. It is an effective fat burning approach (though perhaps not a sustainable approach). I merely want to clarify that it is a calorie deficit, and not fasting in particular, that causes fat loss. I'm in no disagreement with you and appreciate your skepticism. It's true there are lots of nutribollocks out there. Not just lay folks either. Nutrition science is still in its infancy and guidelines are seriously spoiled by an overreliance on epidemiological studies that deliver tenuous conclusions. You're right that 2 hours is not long enough to replenish. It's the other hours of the day that I'm forcing the body to rely on fat-burning, especially between hours 12-22 of not eating. And I don't do it every day -- maybe 3-5 days a week. I'm doing it right now, and am in hour 22 of not eating. I feel no hunger cuz the bod is just humming off fat stores. good times. It is a good method of dealing with hunger craving, so that's another positive. Pretty much all conclusions in nutrition are tenuous because the interplay between nutrients and metabolism is multifactoral. I'm in the fitness space so am mainly into body fat reduction and muscle building nutrition rather than clinical nutrition. Intermittent fasting with short feeding windows is a common practice in the fat reduction context - because it works. That's not to say the fitness space is 'healthy'. Many people develop a bulking/cutting obsession, which amounts to yo yo dieting, and lose touch with normal eating which maintains a reasonably constant weight.
If people are obese, the rapid weight loss is the primary goal, but for the average person carrying a bit of excess fat, rapid weight loss includes rapid muscle loss, which is the basic reason that physical activity is important - to signal the body that it needs its muscles, and tune the body to using fat reserves rather than lean muscle for energy. Protein is important, too, because if protein is lacking, the body will draw on skeletal muscle for protein for organ regeneration. That is not healthy, it diminishes the capacity for activity and basic functional ability.
If we listen to people such as Group, and indeed, most vegan advocates, who don't talk about calories or their constituent macronutrients, we don't hear the critical information and are bombarded with asides - let alone being persuaded into ineffective supplements prior to establishing balanced nutrition with whole food. Thread demonstrates how the 'fasting space' is dominated by supplement marketing which sponsors the forums for the narratives.
Once people have developed an unhealthy relationship with food, it is difficult to re-establish a normal maintenance diet. The main problenm as I see it is, people don't know much about nutrition and they make uninformed choices, believe 'diet gurus, and are generally mislead by the food marketing narrative - which extends all the way to government dietary guidelines. Isn't it incredible that we are taught advanced mathematics, science and nuances of literature but complete our tertiary education at age 23 with little to no nutritional knowledge?
Ignorance, emotional food marketing, pop media, diet guruism, and outright deception is the prominent nutritional discourse, so it's little wonder cultural norms perpetuate adverse statistical outcomes in obesity and fitness rates.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 6, 2018 8:36:23 GMT -5
I'm in no disagreement with you and appreciate your skepticism. It's true there are lots of nutribollocks out there. Not just lay folks either. Nutrition science is still in its infancy and guidelines are seriously spoiled by an overreliance on epidemiological studies that deliver tenuous conclusions. You're right that 2 hours is not long enough to replenish. It's the other hours of the day that I'm forcing the body to rely on fat-burning, especially between hours 12-22 of not eating. And I don't do it every day -- maybe 3-5 days a week. I'm doing it right now, and am in hour 22 of not eating. I feel no hunger cuz the bod is just humming off fat stores. good times. It is a good method of dealing with hunger craving, so that's another positive. Pretty much all conclusions in nutrition are tenuous because the interplay between nutrients and metabolism is multifactoral. I'm in the fitness space so am mainly into body fat reduction and muscle building nutrition rather than clinical nutrition. Intermittent fasting with short feeding windows is a common practice in the fat reduction context - because it works. That's not to say the fitness space is 'healthy'. Many people develop a bulking/cutting obsession, which amounts to yo yo dieting, and lose touch with normal eating which maintains a reasonably constant weight.
If people are obese, the rapid weight loss is the primary goal, but for the average person carrying a bit of excess fat, rapid weight loss includes rapid muscle loss, which is the basic reason that physical activity is important - to signal the body that it needs its muscles, and tune the body to using fat reserves rather than lean muscle for energy. Protein is important, too, because if protein is lacking, the body will draw on skeletal muscle for protein for organ regeneration. That is not healthy, it diminishes the capacity for activity and basic functional ability.
If we listen to people such as Group, and indeed, most vegan advocates, who don't talk about calories or their constituent macronutrients, we don't hear the critical information and are bombarded with asides - let alone being persuaded into ineffective supplements prior to establishing balanced nutrition with whole food. Thread demonstrates how the 'fasting space' is dominated by supplement marketing which sponsors the forums for the narratives.
Once people have developed an unhealthy relationship with food, it is difficult to re-establish a normal maintenance diet. The main problenm as I see it is, people don't know much about nutrition and they make uninformed choices, believe 'diet gurus, and are generally mislead by the food marketing narrative - which extends all the way to government dietary guidelines. Isn't it incredible that we are taught advanced mathematics, science and nuances of literature but complete our tertiary education at age 23 with little to no nutritional knowledge?
Ignorance, emotional food marketing, pop media, diet guruism, and outright deception is the prominent nutritional discourse, so it's little wonder cultural norms perpetuate adverse statistical outcomes in obesity and fitness rates.
Also, profit dictates the invention of a variety of hyper palatable, not satiating, and convenient foods. Foods that were once only rarely consumed at celebrations are now a staple. Methinks the lack of fitness is partially due to folks feeling sick and low energy. When peeps get to their lean weight, exercise is done for fun. Folks need to start watching what they put in their mouths before they end up suffering from chronic disease, probably stemming from being constantly awash in insulin and glucose.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 6, 2018 14:20:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 6, 2018 14:20:13 GMT -5
It is a good method of dealing with hunger craving, so that's another positive. Pretty much all conclusions in nutrition are tenuous because the interplay between nutrients and metabolism is multifactoral. I'm in the fitness space so am mainly into body fat reduction and muscle building nutrition rather than clinical nutrition. Intermittent fasting with short feeding windows is a common practice in the fat reduction context - because it works. That's not to say the fitness space is 'healthy'. Many people develop a bulking/cutting obsession, which amounts to yo yo dieting, and lose touch with normal eating which maintains a reasonably constant weight. If people are obese, the rapid weight loss is the primary goal, but for the average person carrying a bit of excess fat, rapid weight loss includes rapid muscle loss, which is the basic reason that physical activity is important - to signal the body that it needs its muscles, and tune the body to using fat reserves rather than lean muscle for energy. Protein is important, too, because if protein is lacking, the body will draw on skeletal muscle for protein for organ regeneration. That is not healthy, it diminishes the capacity for activity and basic functional ability.
If we listen to people such as Group, and indeed, most vegan advocates, who don't talk about calories or their constituent macronutrients, we don't hear the critical information and are bombarded with asides - let alone being persuaded into ineffective supplements prior to establishing balanced nutrition with whole food. Thread demonstrates how the 'fasting space' is dominated by supplement marketing which sponsors the forums for the narratives.
Once people have developed an unhealthy relationship with food, it is difficult to re-establish a normal maintenance diet. The main problenm as I see it is, people don't know much about nutrition and they make uninformed choices, believe 'diet gurus, and are generally mislead by the food marketing narrative - which extends all the way to government dietary guidelines. Isn't it incredible that we are taught advanced mathematics, science and nuances of literature but complete our tertiary education at age 23 with little to no nutritional knowledge?
Ignorance, emotional food marketing, pop media, diet guruism, and outright deception is the prominent nutritional discourse, so it's little wonder cultural norms perpetuate adverse statistical outcomes in obesity and fitness rates.
Also, profit dictates the invention of a variety of hyper palatable, not satiating, and convenient foods. Foods that were once only rarely consumed at celebrations are now a staple. Methinks the lack of fitness is partially due to folks feeling sick and low energy. When peeps get to their lean weight, exercise is done for fun. Folks need to start watching what they put in their mouths before they end up suffering from chronic disease, probably stemming from being constantly awash in insulin and glucose. Yes, I decided not to have to say one day: "If I known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself".
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 6, 2018 14:48:18 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2018 14:48:18 GMT -5
FWIW, yesterday I read that a relatively lo-cab diet significantly reduces the odds of several major kinds of illness, reduces the odds of dementia, and increases the odds of living 10 years longer than people who eat a hi-carb diet. That's pretty fascinating.
Aerobic exercise apparently has the same kind of effect, but the odds are much better if the exercise and lo-cab diet are combined.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 6, 2018 14:53:53 GMT -5
Also, profit dictates the invention of a variety of hyper palatable, not satiating, and convenient foods. Foods that were once only rarely consumed at celebrations are now a staple. Methinks the lack of fitness is partially due to folks feeling sick and low energy. When peeps get to their lean weight, exercise is done for fun. Folks need to start watching what they put in their mouths before they end up suffering from chronic disease, probably stemming from being constantly awash in insulin and glucose. Yes, I decided not to have to say one day: "If I known I was going to live this long, I would have taken better care of myself". Right, 'the point is to die young, at an old age.'
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 6, 2018 14:59:27 GMT -5
FWIW, yesterday I read that a relatively lo-cab diet significantly reduces the odds of several major kinds of illness, reduces the odds of dementia, and increases the odds of living 10 years longer than people who eat a hi-carb diet. That's pretty fascinating. Aerobic exercise apparently has the same kind of effect, but the odds are much better if the exercise and lo-cab diet are combined. yeps that's my strategery right now. Deplete glycogen with exercise, fasting, and replenish with nutrient dense very low carb whole foods, forcing the body and brain to create more mitochondria to metabolize fat, keeping the insulin and glucose levels low and stable. Chronically high levels of insulin -- hyperinsulonemia -- are probably one of the root causes of major chronic disease and lots of other minor stuff too.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 6, 2018 15:13:47 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2018 15:13:47 GMT -5
It is a good method of dealing with hunger craving, so that's another positive. Pretty much all conclusions in nutrition are tenuous because the interplay between nutrients and metabolism is multifactoral. I'm in the fitness space so am mainly into body fat reduction and muscle building nutrition rather than clinical nutrition. Intermittent fasting with short feeding windows is a common practice in the fat reduction context - because it works. That's not to say the fitness space is 'healthy'. Many people develop a bulking/cutting obsession, which amounts to yo yo dieting, and lose touch with normal eating which maintains a reasonably constant weight.
If people are obese, the rapid weight loss is the primary goal, but for the average person carrying a bit of excess fat, rapid weight loss includes rapid muscle loss, which is the basic reason that physical activity is important - to signal the body that it needs its muscles, and tune the body to using fat reserves rather than lean muscle for energy. Protein is important, too, because if protein is lacking, the body will draw on skeletal muscle for protein for organ regeneration. That is not healthy, it diminishes the capacity for activity and basic functional ability.
If we listen to people such as Group, and indeed, most vegan advocates, who don't talk about calories or their constituent macronutrients, we don't hear the critical information and are bombarded with asides - let alone being persuaded into ineffective supplements prior to establishing balanced nutrition with whole food. Thread demonstrates how the 'fasting space' is dominated by supplement marketing which sponsors the forums for the narratives.
Once people have developed an unhealthy relationship with food, it is difficult to re-establish a normal maintenance diet. The main problenm as I see it is, people don't know much about nutrition and they make uninformed choices, believe 'diet gurus, and are generally mislead by the food marketing narrative - which extends all the way to government dietary guidelines. Isn't it incredible that we are taught advanced mathematics, science and nuances of literature but complete our tertiary education at age 23 with little to no nutritional knowledge?
Ignorance, emotional food marketing, pop media, diet guruism, and outright deception is the prominent nutritional discourse, so it's little wonder cultural norms perpetuate adverse statistical outcomes in obesity and fitness rates.
Also, profit dictates the invention of a variety of hyper palatable, not satiating, and convenient foods. Foods that were once only rarely consumed at celebrations are now a staple. Methinks the lack of fitness is partially due to folks feeling sick and low energy. When peeps get to their lean weight, exercise is done for fun. Folks need to start watching what they put in their mouths before they end up suffering from chronic disease, probably stemming from being constantly awash in insulin and glucose. Indeed. But we are told processed food is good. Almost every food ad is for packaged, processed food. According to a you tube video (the most reliable source information eva), the 2018 Superbowl food ads are for Pepsi, Pringles, Tostitos, Wendy's, Hillshire Farm Smoked Sausage, Coca Cola, Doritos, Mountain Dew Ice, HEB sause, Jack in the Box, M&M's, Sunbasket and Avocados. That ratio of 2 fresh foods to 12 'junk/fast' foods is the 'nutritional message' which socially normalises sh!tty eating habits, which are now an intergenerational issue.
The irony is, the food industry is effectively making people unhealthy and the medical industry is cleaning up, and both are making an absolute motser, so neither has any interest in resolving the dire situation. Doctors don't have nutritional training or expertise in exercise physiology, which is really outrageous if you think about it.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 6, 2018 15:40:46 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Dec 6, 2018 15:40:46 GMT -5
FWIW, yesterday I read that a relatively lo-cab diet significantly reduces the odds of several major kinds of illness, reduces the odds of dementia, and increases the odds of living 10 years longer than people who eat a hi-carb diet. That's pretty fascinating. Aerobic exercise apparently has the same kind of effect, but the odds are much better if the exercise and lo-cab diet are combined. Well, when they say 'carb', they mean starches and sugars, and there is a difference between a potato salad and a can of Pepsi. There's a difference between ripe bananas and a box of M&Ms. This is where the term 'relatively low carbs' probably mainly means less processed sugars, considering the tremendous excess thereof in the modern food environment.
The other factor is, less carbs necessarily means more fats and/protein to make up the calories. IOW the benefits of getting enough protein and fat is the same thing as the benefits of lower carbs.
Finally, it is likely that people who eat lower carbs in terms of less added sugar are more likely to more health conscious on the whole and have healthier lifestyles generally speaking.
In the end, just saying 'low carbs' is vague to the point of being misleading, and it is far better to discuss the balanced distribution of protein, fat and carbs to make one's daily calorie needs.
|
|
|
Fasting
Dec 6, 2018 16:30:41 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2018 16:30:41 GMT -5
FWIW, yesterday I read that a relatively lo-cab diet significantly reduces the odds of several major kinds of illness, reduces the odds of dementia, and increases the odds of living 10 years longer than people who eat a hi-carb diet. That's pretty fascinating. Aerobic exercise apparently has the same kind of effect, but the odds are much better if the exercise and lo-cab diet are combined. Well, when they say 'carb', they mean starches and sugars, and there is a difference between a potato salad and a can of Pepsi. There's a difference between ripe bananas and a box of M&Ms. This is where the term 'relatively low carbs' probably mainly means less processed sugars, considering the tremendous excess thereof in the modern food environment.
The other factor is, less carbs necessarily means more fats and/protein to make up the calories. IOW the benefits of getting enough protein and fat is the same thing as the benefits of lower carbs. Finally, it is likely that people who eat lower carbs in terms of less added sugar are more likely to more health conscious on the whole and have healthier lifestyles generally speaking. In the end, just saying 'low carbs' is vague to the point of being misleading, and it is far better to discuss the balanced distribution of protein, fat and carbs to make one's daily calorie needs.
I totally agree. I didn't quote the entire article but it emphasized healthy oils and proteins as well as healthy carbs. The headline just summarized the issue with the term "lo-carbs." It sounds like our forum has a lot of health-minded folks on board, so this is probably not news to many of them. As Max pointed out, a low-glycemic index diet, alone, would probably eliminate millions of deaths from diabetes, cancer, heart disease, etc. but only a fairly small number of people are interested in a pro-active approach to health. As I've gotten older, I've watched countless friends and relatives blow up like balloons, and even after becoming a hundred pounds overweight, they show no interest at all in changing their eating habits. It's rather amazing.
|
|