Quote:
Originally Posted by ProteusOne
Kneebrace, you're preaching. I have a different take on "evolutionary logic" than you do and I really don't care whether you understand/respect that or not. But there's no need to be rude. Read all the posts here. You'll see that I often accept even those ideas (and even this one) that I don't particularly like at first. Where is your iota of evidence? Evidence is a difficult thing to come by; it's not as if diet + outcome = 2 + 2.
And, btw, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a conservative approach to your own health, so long as you are willing to change when the need arises. There is something, however, wrong with believing your viewpoint is regarded as "the best of all possible worlds."
|
I'm sorry you're offended Proteus. But if you are going to make what IMHO are nonsensical statements, the spirit of this forum is best served by vigorous debate, not limp generalizations about 'doing what is best for you' etc.
No, not preaching Proteus, but I am taking you to task on two very important flaws in your argument(s) about whether IF (practiced as currently discussed on this forum and elsewhere- ie up to 48 hrs with the eat days well fed with adequate protein and fat) is a good idea for health and sustained bodyfat loss.
(1) You don't even really seem to understand what IF means. It has nothing to do with scarcity. And over the time frame calorie restriction occurs (ie < 48hrs) has not been shown to have a slowing effect on metabolic rate. Saying that it might, because longer term calorie restriction can (even moderate calorie restriction, not even fasting) is pretty silly (again IMHO). You might as well suggest that it may well
increase metabolic rate. And quoting Andrew Weil completely out of context with the current discussion - maple syrup and what was it, lemon juice? Really Proteus
- is frankly insulting to the standard of the debate.
(2) You seem to think that Palaeolithic humans would have enjoyed several regular meals, every day. As I said, there is
universal agreement among prominent human evolutionary biologists that intermittent fasting is a simple reality of hunter gatherer life. In my own country, traditionally living Aborigines still usually eat once a day. It's a big meal, and it's a hearty celebration of food and community. But it's still intermittent fasting. And they've been doing it for at least 40,000 yrs. So here it is again, IMHO regular meals are a neolithic distortion of the overwhelming bulk of human evolution. Now you may like eating regular meals. Many people do. But it has nothing to do with evolutionary logic.
Suggesting that it does Proteus, invites debate. And you are right, your idea of evolutionary logic obviously differs from mine. That's what I'm doing. Pointing out where I think you are mistaken. Don't be insulted by that. Either stick with your (IMHO misguided) logic or amend it. But please, grow up. I respect your opinion. But that certainly doesn't mean I will shrink from the opportunity of exposing the inaccuracies it is based on. I hope you are mature enough to do the same without reaching for the 'rudeness' accusation.