Slashdot Mirror
Fasting Can Improve Overall Health By Causing Circadian Clocks In the Liver and Skeletal Muscle To Rewire Their Metabolism, Study Finds (sciencedaily.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ScienceDaily: In a University of California, Irvine-led study, researchers found evidence that fasting affects circadian clocks in the liver and skeletal muscle, causing them to rewire their metabolism, which can ultimately lead to improved health and protection against aging-associated diseases. The study was published recently in Cell Reports. The research was conducted using mice, which were subjected to 24-hour periods of fasting. While fasting, researchers noted the mice exhibited a reduction in oxygen consumption (VO2), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and energy expenditure, all of which were completely abolished by refeeding, which parallels results observed in humans.
"The reorganization of gene regulation by fasting could prime the genome to a more permissive state to anticipate upcoming food intake and thereby drive a new rhythmic cycle of gene expression. In other words, fasting is able to essentially reprogram a variety of cellular responses. Therefore, optimal fasting in a timed manner would be strategic to positively affect cellular functions and ultimately benefiting health and protecting against aging-associated diseases." This study opens new avenues of investigation that could ultimately lead to the development of nutritional strategies to improve health in humans.
"The reorganization of gene regulation by fasting could prime the genome to a more permissive state to anticipate upcoming food intake and thereby drive a new rhythmic cycle of gene expression. In other words, fasting is able to essentially reprogram a variety of cellular responses. Therefore, optimal fasting in a timed manner would be strategic to positively affect cellular functions and ultimately benefiting health and protecting against aging-associated diseases." This study opens new avenues of investigation that could ultimately lead to the development of nutritional strategies to improve health in humans.
Shouldn't UC Irvine be testing on anteaters, not rats?
The newest diet fad is "intermittent fasting". 20 years ago it was "skipping breakfast" and was bad for you.
"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
I follow this new fad called "I only eat when I'm hungry".
I got to tell you, so far it's really going greaH&goyLUKHgZZZzzzz....
#DeleteFacebook
I have noticed that dropping my calories way down for a day leads to dramatically improved sleep. FWIW, YMMV, etc.
The old religions have known about fasting for millennia. Science is way behind.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
This was worth logging in for.
I was overweight and staring down 50, so I did some research and decided to try it.
I did a 7 day water fast followed by a mostly keto style diet, but really just sticking to food that's been on the planet for longer than 100 years, no processed chemical foods. I lost maybe 10 pounds during that week but the weight just kept falling off. Down from 40's to 34's and even 32's after about 9 months of sticking to real food, cut back(not out) on sugar and bread. My blood panels showed no problems with cholesterol etc after eating bacon and eggs for breakfast for months. homemade soups etc for dinner.
Fasting is part of a natural cycle, your body uses the time when digestion is shut down to heal itself.
Don't believe me, prove me wrong.
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
False.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Probabilistic structure for fasting http://bit.ly/2ivHC5d
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
It's a quote from the movie Men in Black
for making a rodent healthier.
primates? who knows....
Only one way to find out... I started the "fad" a couple weeks ago, restricting my eating time to 8 hours a day and 16 hours of fasting with some 24+ hours fasts thrown in here and there. I'm less concerted about weight loss and more focused on cholesterol and an A1C that puts my blood glucose levels on the edge of pre-diabetic. I'm decently fit and athletic, healthy diet, middle of the "healthy weight" for my height and sex. I plan to fast this way every day for 3 months, though still keeping my typical diet, and get some bloodwork done to see if my numbers improve at all. It does seem effective for weight loss even though that's not my focus. It's a much easier plan to follow than calorie restriction, I just eat when I'm hungry during my 8 hour window... but I'm not as hungry after the first few days of the fasting which is causing me to run a slight calorie deficit. Interested to see if this has any positive or negative effect on my insulin resistance and cholesterol levels, I've had bloodwork done regularly for the past 8 years so I have a pretty good baseline.
In the VERY old days, periods of fasting were unavoidable. So, naturally, humans built some myths around it, as they did around basically everything. They sanctify the mundane as a psychological mechanism for coping with the existential emptiness of our existence.
The old religions simply inherited those myths.
It's really not surprising that they would, nor that our bodies would have some baked-in responses to this recurring survival need.
https://lifehacker.com/intermi... Often I'll read a topic somewhere else and see it show up on Slashdot hours or days later. When I saw this I was sure it was the post I'd read earlier in the day. Imagine my surprise to find it had the opposite conclusion.
doubledown00 pointed out:
The newest diet fad is "intermittent fasting". 20 years ago it was "skipping breakfast" and was bad for you.
This is purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but I'm an insuliin-dependent, Type II diabeitc. I've been "daytime fasting" (fasting a minimum of 16 hours each day) for about 8 months now.
My weight is down about 40 lbs since I began this regimen. Just as importantly, I now need only half as much insulin per day as I did before I began fasting during the day. In fact, I have to be especially careful with my Lantus intake, because hypoglycemia is a fucking drag.
Oh, and I "cheat" on weekends by eating sparingly during the day, to reward myself for exercising the required self-discipline during the week.
YMMV - but it probably won't, as long as you stick to the schedule ...
Check out my novel.
I know you're trolling, but allow me to bite: Vegan doctrine doesn't include fasting, moreover, vegans love carbs and get fat if they don't also afford a nutrition coach. Muslims don't know the first thing about fasting, Ramadan is a joke: not even water during daytime, only to eat triple the normal daily amount all night long is NOT intermittent fasting, it's binge eating with a cooldown phase.
Keto and fasting (comes naturally, the hunger just goes away) for the win, and you can keep eating those steaks. But throw away the potato.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
Cant eat as much, cant buy as much alcohol or drugs... Ummm... ya. :)
[($)]
>Don't believe me, prove me wrong.
That's not how it works. YOU make a claim, YOU provide proof.
Your post was fine until that last sentence.
Besides, it's impossible to prove that what worked for you won't work for others.
You probably understand that your body might be an exception as well, just because it worked for you it won't necessarily work for others.
This is all anecdotal, which is just fine. Just don't start asking for "disproving proof" when you provide none in the first place.
Skipping breakfast is impossible unless you stop eating until you starve to death.
"Therefore, optimal fasting in a timed manner would be strategic to positively affect cellular functions and ultimately benefiting health and protecting against aging-associated diseases."
Why keep us in suspense? What is the freaking optimal fasting and timing? Tell us already. Just like the local news people. "There is a killer tornado bearing down on you, we'll tell you how to survive at 11."
I assume, like many a mouse study, that there is a giant gulf between the results one gets with experiments on Mickey versus a real, live, 200lb human person.
Nana...
[($)]
my statement is meant as more of a "don't do what I did without doing your own research" and less a demand for others to refute it.
english, not my best subject but whatever
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
Going in ketosis is not that hard. Sub 20 grams carbs/day is enough for most people.
When I was going keto last year, I had my Ketones checked at work (im a hospital microbiologist), I was in ketosis within a couple weeks.
The fasting traditions in religion didn't make health claims.
Fasting causes acidosis, which leads to mild euphoria.
People also fast to promote the odds of transcendental experiences.
It was an act of discipline.
But no religion had the liver, let alone circadian clocks in mind.
I wouldn't say religion *knew* fasting. It used it for an entirely different purpose.
I'm amazed at how much snark is offered about intermittent fasting by those who rarely miss a single meal.
Of course anything I say can only be taken as an anecdote, and naturally YMMV, but I've found it to be remarkably beneficial, and I'm glad there is increasing scientific inquiry into the particulars.
My custom, these days, is to partake only of liquids (water and 2 cups of coffee - one with a teaspoon of sugar) on Wednesday and Saturday. Generally this results in two 36 hour intervals each week without food. The remainder of the week, I eat whatever I please, as much as I please. Been doing this for the past three years.
Yes, you get hungry. Yes, your energy level drops. Yes, you get cold. OTOH, your mind clears, you have two days and nights free from any hint of indigestion, and you do reach a point somewhere around 26 hours where your hunger disappears. It is sometimes necessary to force myself to stop fasting.
Before undertaking this regimen, I had chronic high blood pressure and elevated cholesterol levels, was 10-30 lbs overweight and survived several heart attacks and a bout with lung cancer. Now all blood levels and pressures are normal; I am a couple lbs under my "ideal weight"; and I am off all medications, leading a reasonably active lifestyle for one 64 years old.
It is a tough regimen to start. I initially struggled to do one day a week - and failed to get through a full day many times. However, once you become accustomed to the new sensations you naturally encounter, and once you recognize that you will not die from these feelings, it gets considerably easier. Over time, as the benefits begin to appear, it becomes a regimen you are loath to abandon.
Of course, I am fortunate that I am forced to choose this lifestyle, rather than having it forced upon me by want.
That doesn't make it any more correct or relevant.
The quote is correct, in that it is a faithful representation of the line spoken in the movie. And that quote was far more relevant to the conversation than your pathetic protestation.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Not at all impossible.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Oh, please, people, stop, you're killing me..
Today people still believe that people 500 years ago believed the world to be flat.
"Who now in the world likes fasting. Vegans, Mohammedans, and other religious cults."
Indeed. Jesus was famous for it. Did it for 40 days.
"The old religions have known about fasting for millennia. Science is way behind."
Poor people have always been fasting for millennia, even thought they were illiterate and not religious.
or you can assume that our body evolved mechanism to deal with the recurring lack of food and periods of fast might be where you are the sharpest. This would definitively be required to be able to find food. To the opposite, the constant influx of food is not "natural" to the body.
by definition, it *is*, as "breakfast" is litterally the "breaking of the period of fast" :-/
define "normal eating schedule" ? Last time I checked it was more "socially imposed eating schedule", nothing "normal" about it.
The 'breakfast is the most important meal" was a marketing propaganda by breakfast cereal companies. Stuffing yourself in the morning with high carb cereals leads to obesity especially kids who eat sweetened cereals. Eat when you are hungry and in moderation. There is no need to religiously eat at certain times of day. This is an artifact of the Industrial Revolution where you only had time to eat before work and during the official lunchtime. Cut out the high carb foods and sugary drinks and you'll find it is easier to control your diet. Eat more protein and fats so that you'll feel satiated longer.
Haha,
that is funny, insightful and awesome!
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Potatoes are not that bad.
McDonalds style french fries are, especially if you top them with ketchup and majonaise (hint: look up how french fries are supposed to look).
The real problem is pasta from simple flour, white bread, the typical US processed rice, corn syrup in stuff where it simply does not belong, pizza with to much of everything. The "oversize" attitude. Artificial sweeteners in your drinks that completely mess up the digesting system.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Most of what had been "known" for millennia was wrong. That is the whole point of doing science.
But even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
The scientific process for doing dietary studies though is less than stellar today. But that can be fixed.
Science is working, not "struggling". Never before in human history has so much been uncovered in such a short time.
> "religions" are just archetypes of human biology pattern
If so, we would not have so many religions. Religions occasionally are codifications of natural human behavior - social, more than biological. Other times, they deny natural human behavior.
I live in Belgium, we know not only how fries supposed to look, but also that double frying is the answer to soggy fries. And you are supposed to eat them like this
I think I just gained a kilo just looking at those images.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Asserting health benefits with no data is cheap, even when occasionally correct. Showing with data and analysis is actually knowing (science).
There is still quite a bit that needs to be investigated with regards to diet. The basics are well understood. The long term effects are less well understood since that research is harder (to control).
> You seem not to belong to the "western world" anymore with your retarded science.
The only "retarded" arguments seem to be yours. What western world? I have not cared to divide the world into East and West here.
What makes you think I am from the "western world" in the first place? I don't remember declaring my location. Where I am from/at, religious fasting for the public usually simply means eating lightly for dinner, abstaining from the main staple diet, not complete caloric abstinence, which is left to monks.
In the data-centric modern world we collectively inhabit today, east and west is irrelevant. One measures. One verifies. Biological realities have little need for philosophies and theologies.
> in most religions fasting was done during periods were they had no food anyway.
> were fasting was artificially introduced, because they simply copied it from Christians.
> But they were smarter, as they had irrigation and food: they were allowed to eat after sunset. Hence: Ramadan is actually a big party.
What does all that have to do with my statement that religious fasting has little to do with health? Culturally, the point was an offering or sacrifice, that you cared about it enough to endure some discomfort and participated in a collective activity which perhaps contributed to some degree of social cohesion.
Science can be a liar, sometimes!
It is a well known pop culture reference which pertains the the concept underlying his statement. It was correctly quoted and it is certainly relevant. If he links an article containing a spelling error are you going to correct hat as well? It was the correction which wasn't relevant, his argument wasn't based on that detail.
I hope all these studies are not tied to religions that preach fasting.
I like the last point. ... As if. Except the obvious in that you get used to a more sweet taste and it doesn't feed you so you still want food and maybe prefer a sweeter one.
Yeah artificial sweeteners are the problem
Not behind.
Just scientific.
The idea that 'everyone thought that the earth was flat 500 years ago' is a myth. The ancient greeks knew that that the world is roughly round; Pythagoras wrote as much in 600 BC. Christopher Columbus was ridiculed because he believed that the world was half the size that most who had studied the subject believed. They were right, if he hadn't run into 'the west indies' rather than India as he planned, the famous explorer would be nothing more than a footnote at best. https://www.washingtonpost.com...
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Following that logic, everything we know is false because it could be falsified some day.
That's stupid. You work with the best data you have available to you.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
The point of the comment was changes in consensus over time. But since you wish to be a Slashdot neckbeard and pontificate over commonly understood colloquial terms rather than discuss the issue, here is an MD saying the same shit I did:
https://health.usnews.com/heal...
That article does not counter the claims of this study. Most of the claims are also dubious.
"There's not much research". No, but there isn't much research on keto, paleo, or most other diets. The reason is that human long term trials are difficult to get right and expensive. There is a reason most diets are hyped at first as being "special" but when science catches up they turn out to be no better than a similarly calorie restricted diet.
"It's hard to do". Depends on the regimen and your body. Time-restricted fasting is much easier than intermittent (or longer) in my experience. But, I suspect this differs a lot from person to person.
"It can be unhealthy!" ... for people with who have a history of eating disorders... Yeah, that was really dumb.
"Other forms of calorie restriction are more effective". Misleading, it depends. If you find fasting easy, you can go for a more extreme regimen and thus make it more effective. Effectiveness is really based on how difficult you find a particular type of diet. If counting calories is hard for you, then fasting might be easier or vice versa.
The joke is that if that was the new fad, you'd still find morans who can't even listen to their own bodies and would starve themselves anyway.
#DeleteFacebook
> "Much", and a tiny, tiny portion was wrong
Not true. MOST of what was claimed from religious frameworks was wrong.
It is quite uncommon for old religious claims to be held up by science. It is just that it makes news when it rarely does.
This is also obvious if you give it even a minute of thought. Since Truth is singular, all religions must then make identical claims. But they do not.
This is however true of Science. There are no multiple versions of Physics or Chemistry, but you can have an infinite variations on religion.
> Citation: religious societies survived the evolutionary selection process. Non-religious did not.
They survived on social and cultural grounds, not ontological grounds. Survival fitness requires very little Truth. Humans aside, least complicated creatures survive better than more complex, not the ones that "know" most.
It is generally reproductive fitness, not intelligence that contributes more to survival. Religions with an active or aggressive propagation component survive better than "more true" or at least less false religions. The job of the priest/theologian/apologist is partly to deny deviance from known reality and that the texts were never wrong, even against overwhelming evidence.
Create a sophisticated philosophical religion with no proselytization element and it has no chance against an emotional one that appeals to convert as many as you can to its fold through power (wealth or violence).
True. Even though there was evidence as to the true nature of the Earth the belief was still widespread that it was flat, It took a long time to change.
Yes it does.
Bad advice. Excessive protien brings disease. But hey, you can drop a few pounds scarfing down steak instead of baguettes.
We are done evolving unconsciously.
Most of the religious laws were concerned with promoting health and stable society. The smart people used the scary God dude to keep the dunces in line.
We are just now resolving the basics. Not even done yet. Government authority infused "scientists" had it dead fucking wrong for several generations and the wrong shit is still on the books.
By that you mean the carbohydrate based food pyramid that was driven by farm lobbies and not sound science. I get that.
That not withstanding, the basics are still considered resolved some 50 years ago. The basic biochemistry here has not changed radically.
Most of what had been "known" for millennia was wrong. That is the whole point of doing science.
Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later In other words, you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
The fasting traditions in religion didn't make health claims.
In this regard, religion 1, science 0.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Great, if you had a handy decoder ring to help separate the few things they got right from all the other batshit they didn't.
The modern definition of "known about" means that you have substantive evidence where you don't need to resort to a telepathic-genie powered decoder ring.
We know that Einstein's correction to Newton improves on Newton's original predictions of celestial motions. This will never change. We might come up with yet a better prediction than Einstein's, but nothing we could feasibly learn will cause Newton's old predictions to suddenly regain the lead.
The substantive import of "known about" has improved just a smidgen over the past 3000 years.
Nearly a Billion People Still Defecate Outdoors. Here's Why. — August 2017 CE
No, I did not drop the B from BCE, or write "billion" when I meant "million".
Depends on what you mean by the word "basic".
Old-fashioned: underlying reactions.
New-fangled: underlying reactions, plus the metabolic control regime.
Old-fashioned: Micro what?
New-fangled: Microbiota.
Old-fashioned: Epi what?
New-fangled: Epigenetic.
But I get your point: the basics of solar navigation haven't really changed much since the trusty slide rule.
Potatoes are not that bad. McDonalds style french fries are, especially if you top them with ketchup and majonaise
It all comes down to your goals and what you're doing. Also genetics somewhat as well. Some people do great with low carb and ketosis. Some people it's almost dangerous for.
If you want to do endurance sports or focus on fat burning ketosis can be a good thing for you. If you're more of a sprinter, power lifter, or strength based athlete carbs may serve you a bit better as you would do best with quick energy you have immediate access to. Not to mention carbs are one of the easier ways to putting on weight (needed for muscle). Generally ketosis is better for endurance sports and fat burn focus.... with carbs being better suited to strength and explosiveness. Right now I've finished with my recent races and wanted to focus on strength so I'm enjoying eating a bit more reckless.... but I'm also lifting super heavy in the gym.
Shhh. I do it to confuse the American tourist. I also tell them Duvel is a light pils as it tastes a bit sweet and the best chocolates are Leonidas. That is why there are stores everywhere.
The real fun is having them drink a few light Duvels and start explaining the Political and language situation. Be sure to be in a pub with late or no closing hours and even better if it is a 18 or 19 year old without any real drinking experience who thinks he is the man. (Only if they think that, others are really nice and will be treated accordingly. And yes, it is alway men.)
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It doesn't have to end at either eating or starving. There are several other ways of dying.
But since you wish to be a Slashdot neckbeard and pontificate over commonly understood colloquial terms
No. There was no "consensus". Pointing out that that commonly "understood" terms are completely misunderstood and not backed by any science is not being some pontificating neckbeard, it's there for the betterment of society.
The MD highlights your comment just as much as it highlights my point: "The most important meal of the day" had no influence and was never backed by science which brings me back to my conclusion, which I will now re-quote for prosperity:
Guess what: Skipping breakfast is still bad for you. Intermittent fasting is still good for you. Your problem was that you never defined "bad" or "good"
As soon as anyone uses the word "bad" or "good" to defined something as complicated as nutrition you have lost. If I am a neckbeard pontificating then let me pontificate this to you: BE BETTER. Don't dumb down science into worthless words only to reiterate the notion that our knowledge is changing. It is not.
Long time member here, also happen to be Muslim. But I am posting anonymously because of the blatant bias many members show here, including down mods, trolling, name calling ...etc.
Yes, Muslim fasting means no eating, no drinking and no sex from first light till sundown. That is usually around 15 to 17 hours, depending on length of day (summer vs winter, latitude).
As for eating triple, that is not what fasting is about at all. It is quite the opposite.
Indeed, many people do binge, but that is only in recent times where most people have access to plenty of food. Another factor is the custom of inviting people over for breakfast (at sunset), and in most Muslim cultures, that involves being extra generous with many dishes and portions. So some do it like American Thanksgiving or Christmas.
But traditionally, Ramadan was not about overeating. Quite the opposite. It was about moderation and remembering those who are hungry not by choice, but of not having enough food. It was also about curbing one's desires, and strengthening self control.
Muslim fasting is not the only type of fasting. In the Middle East, there are Christians who fast too, but in different ways: some abstain from animal food (go vegan, before the term was invented). That includes no meat (obviously), as well as no milk, butter, cheese, nor eggs. And the observant ones do it for as long as 200 days a year, not just 29 or 30 like the Muslims.
Hindus and Buddhists have their fasts too.
There is no general rule for all the above, except restriction of diet (type and/or quantity) for some time.
You don't understand weight.
It's the force of gravity toward the gravitational center of a large, solid body on the sum total of your person, conventionally including your hair, your giant curtains of skin (should you be unfortunate enough to have one), your circulatory system, your bladder, your colon, your lungs (and fluid accumulations), your sinuses (and fluid accumulations), etc.
It's absolutely possible to lose 10 lbs in one week, without surgery to remove a balky limb or a giant skin flap, contracting hemorrhagic fever, or even just a flair-up of your severe hyperthyroidism.
What's not possible is to reduce the fat component of your body composition by ten pounds in one week through regular metabolism, excepting the oddities above, and their next of kin.
McDonalds fries are famously also double fried at exactly the 'correct' temperatures.
Serious Eats reverse engineering of McDonalds fries
"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
Sorry Agent K, you got that backwards. Pythagoras postulated the earth was round by 500 BC, mostly because he thought spheres were really cool. Aristotle used observational evidence for it being round in mid 300 BC. In mid 200 BC Eratosthenes estimated the earth to be 250,000 stadia. We don't know exact size of a stadia, but it's estimated to be between 500 and 600 feet. So his estimate of the circumference of the earth was between 23.6 thousand and 28.5 thousand miles.
The geocentric model was widely used until the 1500's AD.
You don't lose 10 lbs in one week even if you eat ZERO food. Losing a pound of fat requires a calorie deficit of 3500 calories. An adult male has a breakeven point of about 2000 calories per day. So the most you are going to lose in one week of ZERO food is about 4 pounds.
You aren't accounting for lost water weight. At the start of caloric restriction, it's pretty common to have a sharp drop as the body gets rid of the extra water it carries around to help process all the extra calories that were being consumed previously.
Obs. this isn't sustainable long term, and it can be frustrating for someone that sees a quick drop when they start caloric restriction, and then their weight loss trend levels out after their water loss stops.
file:
>
Great, if you had a handy decoder ring to help separate the few things they got right from all the other batshit they didn't.
Sounds like you're committing base rate fallacy. For most people, you have to also consider what did religion got right. Scientism has its own decoder rings...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
I was always the prototypical "skinny nerd" through my late teens and twenties. Once I hit 30, I wanted to bulk up a bit, not become a muscle head but at least look a bit better physically. While it might just be me, I struggled to put on weight by exercising and eating more heavily (and trust me, eating 3000+ calories per day when you're not used to it is HARD).
Most interestingly is that I'd always been a no-breakfast type of person, just wasn't hungry until around lunch. Instead of massive calorie loading around dinner time, when I finally starting eating breakfast, weight started to stick like no tomorrow. I put on 25-30 lbs in just two months (mostly muscle). Not sure what this translates into, just an interesting anecdote as it was clearly breakfast which had the effect. Note that I am still unable to eat a good meal for breakfast, my body just isn't hungry and hard to eat food, so I down a meal replacement shake.
Outcompeting your competition takes many forms in evolution. That is one of those forms, yes.
So?
This is largely correct, and one of my main worries when it comes to survival of scientific method as the primary method of generating new knowledge. Just a couple of decades ago when I was young, the biggest people who tried to push the idea that science is a religion were folks who argued against science.
And now those who are arguing for science are arguing about it in religious terms. That spells death of scientific method, and we're already seeing religious movements masquerading as science within academic circles today.
I've been trying the intermittent fasting like you described too.
However, I pretty much blew it over the Xmas/NY holidays...and starting back on that. I've also gone back low carb.
My blood is good except for triglycerides. My cardio Dr. said go low carb. I'm hoping to see if both intermittent and low carb (keto starting out) can get that last blood fat out of my numbers.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
"Citation: religious societies survived the evolutionary selection process. Non-religious did not."
A) That's not how citations work
B) What is your evidence for this?
~Any apparent grammatical or typographic errors are caused by defects in your display device.
The real payload:
Note that while the genetic pathways may be distinct, this is not the same as saying that establishing a TRE practice (easy, if you start with a broad 12-hour restriction window) won't later help you adapt to an actual fasting practice.
Nor does this state that the genetic response to TRE is less beneficial than the genetic response to actual fasting. It merely demonstrates that these are distinct metabolic regimes, with potentially different costs and benefits.
Mostly I see this as a glass half full: if your metabolism is tilting toward metabolic syndrome on a standard American diet, there are now two distinct exits in the when rather than what camp, either of which might provide some relief.
The "what" camp had a long run, and was mostly found wanting.
Perversely, some people still belief in the greedy algorithm of weight reduction: winning the battle between calories in, calories out by any means available. The unstated presumption is that once you win this battle, the greedy algorithm turns to confront the next great personal challenge: dealing with perpetually feeling cold, listless, and unmotivated. Which is then easily solved by restoring the previous anabolic diet.
(Greedy algorithms are notorious for going around in circles, if you're not lucky, or the problem set is not analytic.)
TRE and fasting have the potential to improve your blood chemistry, without rendering you permanently cold, listless, and unmotivated.
Jason Fung explains the now well-established model of caloric-restriction pick one:
[ ] weight rebound
[ ] long-term metabolic slowdown
in his book The Obesity Code: Unlocking the Secrets of Weight Loss — 2015
Not my favourite book of all time, but a credible, recent round-up from a Canadian nephrologist with expertise on intermittent fasting.
Observable reality.
Nonsense, this is what fries are supposed to look like: https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdnme...
LOL "french fries".
They are called chips, you illiterate, uncultured fuck.
The term "french fries" comes from the fact the potatoes are "french cut" (julienne cut) and then fried. As to "uncultured", that's just hogwash! Nearly everyone has a culture, even if it doesn't match your own.
Survival is what matter, how they managed to is irrelevant.
I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I, too, have noticed that many use caricatures when describing other religions and cultures. My Christian sect does not observe Lent, but we have our own fasting. On the first Sunday of the month healthy members fast either 2 meals or 24-hours (depends on personal interpretation) without food or water. This can be modified based on individual needs (eg. drink minimal water in some climates, or avoid low blood sugar for diabetics). We donate the money we would have spent on food to a "fast offering" fund which is used to provide for the poor and needy. We are strongly encouraged to be generous in this offering. No, the money doesn't go into the bank account of the bishop or other leaders. Members can also fast at other times based on their needs. We believe that by combining fasting with prayer we can increase our spirituality. We've been doing this since our sect was founded in 1830. It's good to see that there might be some health related benefits to our religious practices.
You don't need to double fry to avoid soggy fries, but you do need to double cook them. I've found microwaving the potatos using your microwaves baked potato settings followed by frying at a high temperature (~190) produces better fries than either double frying or boiling then frying does.
You are a moron who can't think for himself, a blithering parrot repeating obnoxious atheistic mythology
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Exacto mundo. Finally some sense.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
or you can assume that our body evolved mechanism to deal with the recurring lack of food and periods of fast might be where you are the sharpest. This would definitively be required to be able to find food. To the opposite, the constant influx of food is not "natural" to the body.
George Cahill wrote a paper called Fuel Metabolism in Starvation that describes a lot of that. Our liver converts fatty acids to ketone bodies. One of the papers he references: BETA-HYDROXYBUTYRATE: THE MOST EFFICIENT FUEL Veech and colleagues discovered that administering -hydroxybutyrate to the perfused rat heart in place of glucose increased work output but decreased oxygen consumption (35). http://bit.ly/2AI7LUt
Nassim Taleb's probabilistic structure for fasting: http://bit.ly/2ivHC5d
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
I agree with the need the distinguish between the scientific method and "Science", and I would argue that scientific literacy is just as much about understanding the scientific method and applying it broadly as it as about knowing a collection of scientific facts.
That being said, what alternative to psychology do you propose? I will not argue that psychology has ruined lives. I am sure other fields (including the harder sciences) have similar dark spots on their records. Starting from the premise that given a lack of evidence all possibilities must be considered equally probable, new sciences use observations to make hypotheses. These hypotheses represent the best use of available evidence. They may be wrong, but they tip the scales towards certain possibilities, i.e., they increase our confidence that a given outcome is true.
People often discount the results of studies due to flaws in the study design or execution. These flaws are valid critiques, and they certainly need to be addressed in future work. However, if you do not present evidence showing that these flaws significantly impact the results, our original premise above says it is equally likely that the flaws do not impact the results. Therefore, what justification is there for ignoring the results? No study is perfect (I have yet to read a paper in chemistry or physics which is above reproach, including all the ones I've written), but I feel that disciplines closer to everyday life experience much more frequently this situation.
This may be the difference between science and religions. Science says that if everyone follows the scientific method, humanity will eventually arrive at the truth. It does not say that the current scientific understanding of the world is the truth, or that any individual living today will ever know truth. This distinction is vital, and perhaps not emphasised enough, likely due to the type of people mentioned in the previous paragraph who use criticism as a way to ignore results that they don't like, as opposed to accepting results they don't like as being the current "best guess" while using valid criticism to dig deeper in the future.
"Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
You should take your own advice.
While anecdotal, I've had a similar experience as have many others. Several years ago, I had a serious issue with my gall bladder. I ate nothing solid for 6 days and had IV fluid only for 5. During this period I lost 9 pounds. I too did the math and my baseline metabolism should only have accounted for maybe 3 pounds. The weight of my gall bladder was negligible.
Other posters have pointed to water weight and this is likely a big part of the missing weight loss effect, but cannot explain all of it.
I suspect that the gut has something to do with this effect as well. We have between 2 and 6 pounds of gut flora and fauna. I suspect when you don't eat, this bacteria gets eliminated and is another contributing factor in temporary weight loss after extended fasting.
It could also lead to long term benefits by resetting the population of gut bacteria to a more healthful balance depending upon what you eat after a period of extended fasting.
Greed is the root of all evil.
Use fresh potatoes, cut them and soak them in cold water before frying.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
"Natural" is irrelevant. The digestion of food generates free radicals; that's bad. By limiting the amount of time that the body is exposed to free radicals, and limiting their quantity, health improves. That's accomplished by choosing the right foods, not eating too much, and having extended periods in which no food is ingested. Apparently, the lower end of the range for "extended" is about 14 hours, although the research on this is rather sparse so far.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Non-religious societies are a modern invention. All ancient societies were religious, the ones that were successful and those that weren't. No logical conclusion as to the survival value of religion is possible; nor can confounding factors be eliminated.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Claiming that something is science, as psychologists like to do, does not make it science.
Science does not require faith; the two are mutually exclusive.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The food pyramid has varied a lot over time, occasionally featuring 3 protein categories: meat, fish, dairy.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Caloric restriction, although not the same as fasting, is well-established as extending average and maximum life.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Even not allowing for water loss, it's possible to drop ten pounds in a week. Exercise uses calories, and it's not particularly difficult to do 600 calories of exercise per hour.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You cannot make that statement in good faith, as there is insufficient data. All we know is that religious societies were the only ones to survive the series of contacts with other societies that occurred all over the planet as humanity entered the era that is known history.
The swastika (as a character å or å) is a geometrical figure and an ancient religious icon in the cultures of Eurasia, used as a symbol of divinity and spirituality in Indian religions.[1][2][3][4] In the Western world, it was a symbol of auspiciousness and good luck until the 1930s, when it became a feature of Nazi symbolism as an emblem of Aryan race identity and, as a result, was stigmatized by association with ideas of racism and antisemitism.[5][6]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I think you forgot the buds of the extinguished cigarets?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Artificial sweeteners mess up the bodies insulin balance.
E.g. as soon as you have sweet taste in your mouth the body already starts emitting insulin.
However that level is "to high" in relation to the true blood sugar level, hence instead of "digesting" the sugar it is transported to the fat cells, and converted into fat. Insulin is also responsible to transport ordinary fat to the fat cells. So while the sweetener itself has no calories, it messes up how the body is treating calories. And it messes up how the pancreas reacts and produces insulin.
Needless to say: when a good chunk of the calories you just ate simply "vanish" in the fat cells, you are sooner hungry again.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
And every country had/has a different one.
The problem is: people have no common sense anymore. Unless you have a study, they don't believe anything. And studies are perhaps rigged to show what they should show.
So instead of reading news articles about studies, why not read a book? Why not watch what healthy people do? And then again, having some extra pounds is not bad.
The parent thinks fasting is a religious thing, which it is not really. It got incorporated into two religions, Christianity and Islam copied it from there. Christians proclaim they fast because of either Jesus might have fasted 40 days in the desert (but they only do 14 days, rofl) or because of preparation for the easter celebrations.
Fact is: Christians started around 200 - 400 with fasting. And for a very simple reason: historically they did it anyway, either they could eat the rest of their remaining seeds, or use them as intended: put them in the soil. The idea to fast comes from the northern european regions, where they simply had no food. And has nothing to do with any "religion". Albeit the religions conquered every celebration of the natives ... otherwise it was a bit difficult to convince them :D
See e.g. Erntedank, the european version of "thanksgiving": https://germanfoods.org/german...
Why people try to dispute that fasting is actually healthy for the body is beyond me.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I guess it helps that we write % on the bottles and the murricans some strange "proof" number (actually it is just 2x the percentage, but how retarded can a nation be?)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
That is actually subtly incorrect. Try again.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.