Quote:
Originally Posted by ProteusOne
Yes, to an extent, I believe that there were definitely times of scarcity, but I'm not sure if the scarcity was frequent, as on a week-to-week basis. I give those cavemen and women the benefit of the doubt when it comes to knowing what they needed, where to get it, and how to get it. They had to be a lot tougher and saavy than we can imagine just to get by. Nor do I think that it was a Garden of Eden.
|
Who's talking about a week to week basis? The IF we're discussing is on a daily (theoretically beneficial up to 48 hrs, ie when the free amino acid pool runs out). The trouble with the 'cavemen knowing what they needed, where to get it' idea is that they weren't the only ones in the know. Every bit of food was fiercely contested. Not just by the tribe up the garden (of Eden?) path, but by other species too. 'Just to get by'. Well said. The whole point is that just getting by involved a daily process of intermittent fasting. Remember we are definitely
not talking about week to week scarcity. That is, for all sorts of metabolic reasons, not the best way to thrive.
Quote:
Were there times of scarcity? Certainly. And in these times of scarcity, would it be not only beneficial, but essential, for the body to react with conservation?
|
You keep saying this with almost the same dreary certainty that people go on trotting out the 'fat must make you fat' idea, as if it's somehow self evident. Proteus, I'll ask again, can you show me one iota of evidence that up to 48 hr low carb intermittent fasting (not just scarcity, calorie free - ie not eating) followed by eating well (don't forget these savvy paleo humans knew how and where to get a good fatty feed
. What you're forgetting is that sometimes it just took them a bit longer) either slows metabolic rate or is not the most healthy way to nourish the human body.
Quote:
Regardless, I'm not saying that periodic fasting is a bad thing. I have done it and plan to do it additionally myself. My point is more one of evolutionary logic than to shoot the idea down. And I maintain that everyone should do what they believe is best for them. I also think that if you are already at or near your desired weight that fasting may be more beneficial than to someone who's got a ways to go.
|
Thanks mate
. Unfortunately your point doesn't involve any evolutionary logic. In fact, you aren't really talking about up to 48 hr IF at all. You are talking about several weeks (at least) of calorie restriction. I've no doubt that does slow your metabolic rate. I pointed out to you earlier that the natural moderate calorie restriction of plain ole LC probably slows your metabolic rate somewhat (although my reading of this issue is that it would depend entirely on wether you had a lot of bodyfat to lose). The issue of wether that is a good or bad thing is for another discussion. But keep in mind that much shorter term intermittent fasting, for well understood metabolic reasons, has no slowing effect on metabolic rate. Here's the money quote for you Proteus:
Up to 48 hr fasting followed by feasting is not interpreted by human metabolism as scarcity, so why would metabolic rate be reduced?.
Prolonged caloric restriction well might. But let's be clear. We're not discussing that.
Quote:
Some good sources:
http://www.ultrametabolism.com/ (the book is very informative)
and
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA400132
(I'm not normally a big fan of Dr. Weil, but he does have a cautious approach to anything extreme.)
"But fasting and near-fasting routines such as the Master Cleanse are not effective weight loss tools - they alter your metabolism in a way that actually may make it harder for you to lose weight or easier to regain the weight once you go back to the way you normally eat. Most people compensate for the deprivation of the regimen by increasing their caloric consumption afterward.
"If you really want to lose weight, forget about drinking lemon juice and maple syrup and learn the basic facts about nutrition and optimal health, including the glycemic index, anti-inflammatory diet, and recognize any unhealthy relationships with food."
|
Proteus, are you seriously suggesting that the good Dr even knows what the IF we are discussing is? Actually it reminds me a bit of the oft repeated no brainer that Low Carb dieters always regain the lost weight when they go back to eating the carby crap that put it there in the first place. And I hope you don't need reminding that Dr. Weil also thinks low carb is an 'extreme' diet.
Btw. what's lemon juice and maple syrup got do with IF, pray tell? Please don't insult us all by inferring that this 'cautious approach to anything exteme is more than the usual tired old innaccuracies by a breathtakingly misguided medical/ nutritional establishment.
Quote:
Again, I want to stress that I am not anti-fasting! I'm just not going to adopt it as a (weekly) way of life for myself.
|
Best of luck to you Proteus. But it would be a mistake to claim that any points you have made so far follow any kind of evolutionary logic. Particularly this last 'as a
weekly way of life for myself'. Since when is the IF being discussed other than at most bi daily? (most people doing IF fast a maximum of 24 hrs).