Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So you basically subsist on caffeine from the time you wake up, til you finally succumb to a late lunch at 1PM, stuff up to 1400 calories into a 6-hour window of time, and otherwise refrain from ingesting any food at all for the rest of the 24-hour day.
Do you really think you would blow up like a balloon, if you ate the exact same things you're eating now - but split it over a wider window of time? Are those meals you're eating, somehow gaining calories when they're consumed at 11AM instead of 1PM? How does that work? What's the science in that?
Is it not possible that before you changed to this way of eating, you were simply eating MORE food than you are now?
Also, if your energy level is what it is, with that much caffeine in the morning, that would indicate that it would be significantly lower, without that caffeine. I'd be concerned about that. My concern would be that you are relying on a diuretic stimulant drug (caffeine) to get your energy. Frankly I'm surprised your doctor is "in awe" of your blood counts and pressure, and not "concerned about" your blood counts and pressure.
You know, it is really easy to spot the people who haven't even tried the thing they are bashing, nor spent the time reading the scientific literature on the subject.
Using words like "succumb" are what give you away. The fasted state is not a low energy, delirious, weak, (fill in the negative blank) state where you are counting the minutes in agony for the chance to take a bite of food. I drink a cup of coffee and I'm fine, if I go without it I'm still fine.
And "stuffing" 1400 calories into a 6 hour time frame is NOTHING. Seriously, I can eat 1400 calories in a single sitting, let alone in 6 hours. And while this is a personal thing, the feeling of demolishing a couple of big meals is so satisfying. I've found that I feel fuller and more satisfied whilst simultaneously eating fewer overall calories when I only eat twice a day vs. 5 or 6.
Fasting works because fax oxidation is at an all time high during the fast. Your insulin levels are low(unlike when you are eating all the time), and you are burning stored fat for energy. Do that for enough hours over the course of a few months and it makes a difference. It's a very simple concept, backed by science.
I used to eat that way, all through college and beyond. I never ate breakfast, and I didn't even start drinking coffee til after I graduated college. I'd eat a hotdog for lunch, and maybe some linguine with cottage cheese for supper, maybe have a seafood salad sandwitch mid-day, or fruit, or a nice falafel in a pita with tahini and tomato...it varied. Doubtul I got more than 1800 calories per day, but definitely didn't dip below 1200.
I wasn't fat, but I was very VERY unhealthy. I was tired all the time, had very little energy, would wake up tired and drag myself through the day.
Most college kids go through this, but they have those super-charged caffeine drinks now to make them pop awake for a few hours. It's a vicious cycle though. They pop from the caffeine, then it wears off and they're exhausted, but it's not time for bed yet, so they have to drink another one, and by the time it's bedtime, they're not ready to sleep yet, so they sleep fitfully and wake up exhausted, and down another energy drink.
If they'd just eat something for breakfast instead of chugging down drugs (don't forget caffeine is a drug), they'd be able to get to a more normal, healthy cycle.
This isn't junk science, it's common sense. You don't even need to be a doctor to figure it out. You just need to be observant.
No, because I reason from EVIDENCE, NOT belief. I make my views conform to the evidence of reality, which is what we are supposed to do, in science.
Scientific evidence shows us dieting is a total waste of time and is a horribly flawed and failed methodology. The only people who keep this MYTH alive is the fraudulent and unscientific commercial weight loss industry- "the most successful FAILED business in history" ...
Those who engage in this dangerous behavior called "dieting" are uneducated and reveal a complete lack of understanding of how body weight is actually regulated. Namely, a ROBUST INVOLUNTARY regulatory system which operates over the very LONG term within a weight range of about 15 pounds either side.
Eating to satisfaction , stopping hwen first hints of fullness happen, honoring signals, wworking WITH the body and nutrient dense eating is what we should do. We also should move around playfully. Scientist, Linda Bacon Ph.D., suggests all of this as science supports it.
These are habits ALL should do- thin or not- but realize they are limited for weight loss. They usually only keep you at the lower end of set point- 8 pounds less or so. The most active people and dedicated exercisers - even in snow- in my neighborhood - are all obese or over-fat. Yet, grossly misinformed, unscientific medical doctors probably would not believe them due to their IGNORANCE of the SCIENCE.
There are at least a dozen neurochemcials that signal for fat storage and weight gain.
Last edited by MikeSneedman; 06-04-2014 at 08:27 AM..
No, because I reason from EVIDENCE, NOT belief. I make my views conform to the evidence of reality, which is what we are supposed to do, in science.
Scientific evidence shows us dieting is a total waste of time and is a horribly flawed and failed methodology. The only people who keep this MYTH alive is the fraudulent and unscientific commercial weight loss industry- "the most successful FAILED business in history" ...
Those who engage in this dangerous behavior reveal a complete lack of understanding of how body weight is actually regulated. Namely, a ROBUST INVOLUNTARY regulatory system which operates over the very LONG term within a weight range of about 15 pounds either side. Eating to satisfaction and nutrient dense is what we should do and move around playfully.
These are habits ALL should do- thin or not- but realize they are limited for weight loss. They usually only keep you at the lower end of set point- 8 pounds less or so. The most active people and dedicated exercisers - even in snow- in my neighborhood - are all obese or over-fat. Yet, grossly misinformed, unscientific medical doctors probably would not believe them due to their IGNORANCE of the SCIENCE.
There are at least a dozen neurochemcials that signal for fat storage and weight gain.
By your logic, everyone who finds themselves to be naturally fat (that is, when they leave their diet alone and just eat whenever they feel like it, they end up with love handles and a belly) can never be very lean, let alone keep themselves that way long term.
Problem is, there are 10's of thousands (probably more like 100's of thousands) of people who prove you wrong. Your body doesn't magically pack on fat(which is only stored energy) when you aren't supplying it with excess energy. It doesn't conjure up energy out of thin air.
The scientific evidence shows that the only proven way to lose weight is long term caloric restriction. Not healthy eating, simple caloric restriction. The science isn't showing that restricting calories is useless.
Limiting calories isn't dangerous, in fact it's the only way we have discovered to extend life. Yes, that's right, EXTEND. Intermittent fasting has also been shown to extend life in both rats and primates.
And there are also dozens of neurochemicals that signal the release and burning of stored energy. Way to only focus on one half of the balanced equation to try and bolster your flawed stance on the matter.
I used to eat that way, all through college and beyond. I never ate breakfast, and I didn't even start drinking coffee til after I graduated college. I'd eat a hotdog for lunch, and maybe some linguine with cottage cheese for supper, maybe have a seafood salad sandwitch mid-day, or fruit, or a nice falafel in a pita with tahini and tomato...it varied. Doubtul I got more than 1800 calories per day, but definitely didn't dip below 1200.
I wasn't fat, but I was very VERY unhealthy. I was tired all the time, had very little energy, would wake up tired and drag myself through the day.
Most college kids go through this, but they have those super-charged caffeine drinks now to make them pop awake for a few hours. It's a vicious cycle though. They pop from the caffeine, then it wears off and they're exhausted, but it's not time for bed yet, so they have to drink another one, and by the time it's bedtime, they're not ready to sleep yet, so they sleep fitfully and wake up exhausted, and down another energy drink.
If they'd just eat something for breakfast instead of chugging down drugs (don't forget caffeine is a drug), they'd be able to get to a more normal, healthy cycle.
This isn't junk science, it's common sense. You don't even need to be a doctor to figure it out. You just need to be observant.
For the record, I think you were getting less calories then you think. 1200 is generous for a hot dog and some linguine/cottage cheese, seafood salads aren't calorically dense either.
You were tired all the time because of your crap diet, not because you skipped breakfast. There are many other potential reasons as well, mostly having to do with mental stress, suppressed emotions, etc. Our physical energy isn't ONLY a product of physical processes, our mind's have a huge impact physically as well. If your mind is not healthy neither is your body. Everyone nowadays is focused on their body and totally disregard their mind, it needs exercise/healing too.
Let me illustrate the difference between what you were doing and what I do:
I skip b-fast and meditate instead. Meaning instead of using 30 minutes to cook up b-fast, I meditate. (There is plenty of science on the benefits and effects of meditation, I welcome you to research if you doubt it's usefulness).
I break my fast sometime between 12-3pm, depending on what I'm doing. My first meal of the day is a large chunk of protein, and the rest of the plate filled with veggies. I take 4 fish oil capsules, a multi vitamin and usually a calcium/vit.D pill at the same time. You ate a hot dog.
That meals leaves me good until dinner, usually at 7-8pm, where I eat a similar meal, lots of protein(w/ fat, not super lean cuts) and veggies, more fish oil, another multi vitamin(the one's I take are designed to be taken in doses along w/ food to increase absorption). I then meditate again and go to sleep, and wake up and do it again.
Only time I do it different is on days when I am strength training. Then I break my fast at 8am w/ 30-40 g's of fat, protein and carbs, and workout a couple hours later. Then I eat right after the workout, lots of carbs along with the usual protein/veggies. Doing this helps with protein synthesis and the anabolic response.
This thread is so full of "Well, duh, everyone knows that it's stupid" and, just like tofur said, ignoring the evidence. Tons and tons of evidence says fasting for short periods is fine. Fasting is not "starving yourself in the hopes of losing weight." Fasting is not "I skipped breakfast, had a hot dog for lunch and ate a healthy salad for dinner." Fasting is not "going for as long as possible before eating everything in sight."
I've posted all of these before but there's plenty of research showing how fasting is fine if you like doing it; there's nothing magical about it, but there's nothing magical about eating several times a day either.
There's three rules of nutrition: eat mostly whole foods, eat enough calories, don't eat too many calories. Everything is has been proven that it's not a rule; everything else is merely a suggestion. If that suggestion works for you, great. If not, find one that does work for you. If you skip breakfast and eat a box of cookies as a result, then don't skip breakfast. That doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't skip breakfast, it means you shouldn't. If you like higher carb meals and you look and feel good, it means that works for you. It doesn't work for everyone else.
Anecdotal evidence is just that; it doesn't apply to anyone else. This exactly why "low-fat diets" were so popular. They worked out great, didn't they? This is why eggs get such a bad wrap since they have cholesterol, never mind the fact that our body produces way more cholesterol naturally than one egg will ever contribute
Intermittent fasting means - not eating for a length of time, then eating again, then not eating for a length of time.
There is nothing magical about either. However, both are a fast track to anorexia, for those people who are likely to become anorexic. Both are also a fast track to binge-eating and purging, for those people who are likely to become binge-eaters and/or bulimics.
There is nothing "healthy" about fasting on a regular basis, and there is nothing "healthy" about not eating for 16 consecutive hours per day. There is nothing healthy about it. Just in case you missed it the first time: There is nothing healthy about it.
It doesn't matter what you eat, when you finally do eat. It doesn't matter how much you eat, when you finally do eat. The fact of the matter is, you are depriving yourself of nutrition for 16 consecutive hours per day. It isn't healthy. Will it cause problems for you? Maybe, maybe not. But you have an increased risk of problems by fasting for 16 consecutive hours per day, than if you got up and ate breakfast within a couple of hours of rolling out of bed.
For me, I'm not interested in increasing my risk of medical problems, just to prove that fasting will help me lose weight. I'd rather go the proven healthy way - which is to eat better quality foods, using food to FUEL my body (which is why humans have to eat - it is FUEL), and get some daily exercise.
Intermittent fasting means - not eating for a length of time, then eating again, then not eating for a length of time.
There is nothing magical about either. However, both are a fast track to anorexia, for those people who are likely to become anorexic. Both are also a fast track to binge-eating and purging, for those people who are likely to become binge-eaters and/or bulimics.
There is nothing "healthy" about fasting on a regular basis, and there is nothing "healthy" about not eating for 16 consecutive hours per day. There is nothing healthy about it. Just in case you missed it the first time: There is nothing healthy about it.
It doesn't matter what you eat, when you finally do eat. It doesn't matter how much you eat, when you finally do eat. The fact of the matter is, you are depriving yourself of nutrition for 16 consecutive hours per day. It isn't healthy. Will it cause problems for you? Maybe, maybe not. But you have an increased risk of problems by fasting for 16 consecutive hours per day, than if you got up and ate breakfast within a couple of hours of rolling out of bed.
For me, I'm not interested in increasing my risk of medical problems, just to prove that fasting will help me lose weight. I'd rather go the proven healthy way - which is to eat better quality foods, using food to FUEL my body (which is why humans have to eat - it is FUEL), and get some daily exercise.
Excuse me, please show me some research, besides repeating "it's unhealthy," that shows we're going to become anorexic or we're somehow setting ourselves up for medical problems. Somehow now everyone in the world is in danger of having an eating disorder
You fast every night for 7 to 9 hours. Is that unhealthy? As I said well wait for the research that shows how unhealthy we're being. Evidence and research not personal belief
By your logic, everyone who finds themselves to be naturally fat (that is, when they leave their diet alone and just eat whenever they feel like it, they end up with love handles and a belly) can never be very lean, let alone keep themselves that way long term.
Problem is, there are 10's of thousands (probably more like 100's of thousands) of people who prove you wrong. Your body doesn't magically pack on fat(which is only stored energy) when you aren't supplying it with excess energy. It doesn't conjure up energy out of thin air.
The scientific evidence shows that the only proven way to lose weight is long term caloric restriction. Not healthy eating, simple caloric restriction. The science isn't showing that restricting calories is useless.
Limiting calories isn't dangerous, in fact it's the only way we have discovered to extend life. Yes, that's right, EXTEND. Intermittent fasting has also been shown to extend life in both rats and primates.
And there are also dozens of neurochemicals that signal the release and burning of stored energy. Way to only focus on one half of the balanced equation to try and bolster your flawed stance on the matter.
Tofur
First of all , it is NOT "my logic". It is called REASONING FROM EVIDENCE OF "A1A QUALITY " SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENTS. I make my views conform to the evidence of reality WHICH IS WHAT YOU DO NOT DO.....
WITHOUT these deep insights from Dr. Rosenbaum the situation WOULD HE HOPELESS for the obese.CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.IT IS RATHER BLEAK. WITH THESE INSIGHTS FROM DR ROSENBAUM NEW TREATMENTS WILL COME ABOUT- EFFECTIVE ONES EVENTUALLY.
STOP misusing the first law of thermodynamics to BLAME obese people. This is as scientifically erroneous as it gets. You are FOOLISH. This is my area of expertise.
Who said anything was created out of thin air? That is YOUR strawman and MISAPPLICATION of the conservation of energy.
LET ME EDUCATE YOU:
yes, the first law of thermodynamics applies to all life- humans and animals. However, IT SAYS NOTHING WHATSOEVER about the regulation of fat cells specifically, nor their dysregulation, nor the causes of obesity.
Humans are open , non - equilibrium dissipative systems. This makes the situation hellishly complicated. Humans exchange energy and mater with the environment,. Humans POOP out energy- up to 9 % of total energy. Humans produce VERY SUBSTANTIAL amounts of dissipated heat- LOST energy.... 120 watts
NO PROBLEM HERE. The chemical energy ingested CHANGED FORMS , with matter being released into the environment the form of POOP and DISSIPATED HEAT which is what the first law states. There are MANY PATHWAYS energy can be led to, you foolish person.
WHAT IN THE HECK DOES THE FIRST LAW HAVE TO DO WITH THE REGULATION OF FAT CELLS SPECIFICALLY - WHICH IS GOVERNED BY BIOCHEMISTRY?
LEARN WHAT OT STATES AND MEANS FROM ALEX FILIPPENKO HIMSELF:
THERE IS MUCH MOERE GOING ON WITH OBESITY THAN MERE ENERGY BALANCE. IT IS ONLY ONE FACT. ALL SCIENTISTS AGREED WITH ME UNANIMOUSLY.
I have DONE THE WORK- YOU have NOT.
HOW your body uses this energy is NOT AT ALL determined by the first law of thermodynamics. This is NOT a basic thermodynamics problem. The BEST of the BEST scientists who study this specific area of non - equilibrium thermodynamics ( recommended to me by scientists from M.I.T. who think this is an interesting topic) PERSONALLY told me in those EXACT words.
WHY prime Arnold Schawzenneger gains MAINLY OR ALL MUSCLE in a consistent positive energy while lifts weights, whole the average obese person doing the SAME thing gains MOSTLY OR ALL FAT- IS NOT AT ALL ADDRESSED by the first law. THERE IS MUCH, MUCH MUCH MORE GOING ON HERE than energy balance- it is only one important facet. ONE FACET. BOTH were in a positive balance, YET VERY DIFFERENT PHYSIOLOGICAL RESULTS.
WHY a patient with a serious disease tries his best to eat a lot to make himself PRONE top gain mass , YET gets thinner and thinner is NOT AT ALL ADDRESSED by the first law. IT IS A BIOCEMISTRY/PHYSIOLOGY MATTER.
WHY a naturally thin guy pigs out and stays on his couch and STAYS THIN AND as well as NUMEROUS OVERFEEDING STUDIES have shown- these people gain hardly anything and WHAT they gain is MUSCLE. Skinny Asian kid on YouTube special participating in a study is only one example demonstrating this. hose with a family history of obesity GAIN THE MOST BY FAR DISPROPORTIONATELY. The first law DOES NOT DEAL WITH THIS. BIOCHEMISTRY DOES. One MIGHT BE PRONE to gain mass sitting around and eating a lot- the first law DOES NOT AT ALL SAY THEY WILL !!!!!!!!!!!
IF THIS THEN THAT is the ONLY thing the first law deals with AND IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH WHAT FORM OF MASS IS GAINED. EXCESS ENERGY CAN BE WASTED ( DISSIPATED HEAT, EXCRETED, OR SHUTTLED TO MUSCLE MASS.
WHY a weigh reduced 170 pound obese person cannot eat anywhere near what a NATURAL 170 ponder can eat is NOT AT ALL ADDRESSED by the first law. Former weight reduced obese people CANNOT eat the SAME amount of energy that a NATURAL person at 170 can eat. They have to eat 400 calories LESS or they will GAIN DESPITE NOT overeating.Obese subject OFTEN EAT LESS than their lean counterparts, YET FAIL TO LOSE. THIS IS WELL DOCUMENTED IN DR. ROSENBAUM'S STUDIES DATING BACK TO 1987ish
Obesity is NOT a matter of thermodynamics. It is a hellishly complicated biochemical matter best understood within that context.ALL THE SCIENTIST TOLD ME THIS FROM PHYSICISTS TO BIOLOGISTS !!!!!!!
YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENT, TOFUR, AND NEVER DID. YOU ARE REASONING FROM YOUR BELIEFS ABOUT OBESITY. STOP MORALIZING IT
Last edited by MikeSneedman; 06-04-2014 at 12:27 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
