4 ms·

> Have you ever experienced the mental clarity of 12 or 24 hours of fasting? I have never experienced a difference between eating more or less frequently (apar

> Have you ever experienced the mental clarity of 12 or 24 hours of fasting? I have never experienced a difference between eating more or less frequently (apart from hunger), only between quality of food (i.e., after a few days of not eating well, I feel less sharp). > We're designed to function and hunt after some prey after days of starvation. Natural arguments are not valid arguments. We're also "designed" to walk barefoot and yet I bet you wear shoes when you go out. It isn't like someone designed humans to work for a certain use case: we reached some adaptations to the environment, but it doesn't mean that original environment is the optimal one. Edit: specified "eating more frequently"

rmoriz 5y ago
It's not about eating less. It's about eating less frequent. Each meal triggers an insulin reaction that make many tired and depressed. I started eating to cover up my depression. Worst mistake of my life.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  > It's not about eating less. It's about eating less frequent Well, that's what I meant. I haven't found a difference between eating more or less frequently, other than hunger, of course.
- krsdcbl 5y ago
  peole are different. I loose appetite and forget to eat enough and regularly enough when depressed, found the "last 4 hours" prompt to be a useful reminder and it would definitely not serve me well if I was told to eat less frequently
lm28469 5y ago
> Natural arguments are not valid arguments. When half of western country inhabitants are overweight, obese and have the physical strength/endurance of a 12 years old I think this argument holds a lot more than you think
- gjulianm 5y ago
  You can eat normally and swim or go on a bike, neither of those are things "humans were designed for", and yet they help. If you think something is good/bad for you, the argument must be about the thing itself, not the fact that primitive humans did it or did not do it.
  - lm28469 5y ago
    > and swim or go on a bike, neither of those are things "humans were designed for" You mean, exercising ? We very much have body designed for that. Not exercising and poor diet choices are the leading cause of death in the west...
    - gjulianm 5y ago
      Is your body designed for swimming? Or for going on a bike? I don't think so. These are modes of exercise we invented (even when we aren't optimally designed for them) and yet they are good for us. If you followed the "primitive people did it/did not do it" argument you'd have to say that going swimming must be bad for you.
ZephyrBlu 5y ago
I think shoes are mostly aesthetic. We would do fine walking around bare foot. In a lot of cases I think natural arguments are correct. Our environment has changed far more than we have in recent times.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  I don't think shoes are aesthetic. Temperature, grip, protection against injuries, hygiene... > In a lot of cases I think natural arguments are correct. Our environment has changed far more than we have in recent times. Precisely because we can adapt to that environment by means other than evolution. If you think something is bad/good, you need a real argument for it, not just "we did it this way before".
- martopix 5y ago
  Oh boy. Have you tried walking barefoot on snow? Or on a rocky path that has been in the summer sun for the past 6 hours? On gravel? In an area with thorny bushes?
  - foxhop 5y ago
    Avoidance is key when barefoot, otherwise a self trance state will bring you across most terrain.
  - rustybolt 5y ago
    If you are used to it, you build up callus and it's mostly fine. Except for broken glass, but that's not exactly "natural" either.
    - watwut 5y ago
      Lol, no. Walking barefoot in snow is something you can use to, so that you walk for short time. Eventually the cold gets you, even if you trained. Frostbite is a thing, no matter how much you train.
      - 5y ago
foxhop 5y ago
The more we rely on an instrument of protection, the more we need it. I went barefoot through a particularly thorny patch of land the other day. I expected hurt but because of that I was more ginger and careful and intuitive where to step as I walked, I didn't stop, I kept moving & trusted my instincts to avoid pain, it worked.
- gjulianm 5y ago
  In some instances you'll be able to walk barefoot, but at a certain cost (attention to terrain that you wouldn't need to pay so much attention with shoes). In other instances you won't be able no matter how much you train: go walk in roads or large stones in the summer, and you'll burn your feet. Walk in the snow, and you'll get frostbite. Walk in a forest full of fallen branches and sticks, and you'll get an injury. People didn't invent shoes because it was aesthetic, it was a necessity when adapting for certain terrains.

rmoriz 5y ago

It's not about eating less. It's about eating less frequent. Each meal triggers an insulin reaction that make many tired and depressed. I started eating to cover up my depression. Worst mistake of my life.

gjulianm 5y ago
> It's not about eating less. It's about eating less frequent Well, that's what I meant. I haven't found a difference between eating more or less frequently, other than hunger, of course.
krsdcbl 5y ago
peole are different. I loose appetite and forget to eat enough and regularly enough when depressed, found the "last 4 hours" prompt to be a useful reminder and it would definitely not serve me well if I was told to eat less frequently

lm28469 5y ago

> Natural arguments are not valid arguments. When half of western country inhabitants are overweight, obese and have the physical strength/endurance of a 12 years old I think this argument holds a lot more than you think

gjulianm 5y ago
You can eat normally and swim or go on a bike, neither of those are things "humans were designed for", and yet they help. If you think something is good/bad for you, the argument must be about the thing itself, not the fact that primitive humans did it or did not do it.
- lm28469 5y ago
  > and swim or go on a bike, neither of those are things "humans were designed for" You mean, exercising ? We very much have body designed for that. Not exercising and poor diet choices are the leading cause of death in the west...
  - gjulianm 5y ago
    Is your body designed for swimming? Or for going on a bike? I don't think so. These are modes of exercise we invented (even when we aren't optimally designed for them) and yet they are good for us. If you followed the "primitive people did it/did not do it" argument you'd have to say that going swimming must be bad for you.

ZephyrBlu 5y ago

I think shoes are mostly aesthetic. We would do fine walking around bare foot. In a lot of cases I think natural arguments are correct. Our environment has changed far more than we have in recent times.

gjulianm 5y ago
I don't think shoes are aesthetic. Temperature, grip, protection against injuries, hygiene... > In a lot of cases I think natural arguments are correct. Our environment has changed far more than we have in recent times. Precisely because we can adapt to that environment by means other than evolution. If you think something is bad/good, you need a real argument for it, not just "we did it this way before".
martopix 5y ago
Oh boy. Have you tried walking barefoot on snow? Or on a rocky path that has been in the summer sun for the past 6 hours? On gravel? In an area with thorny bushes?
- foxhop 5y ago
  Avoidance is key when barefoot, otherwise a self trance state will bring you across most terrain.
- rustybolt 5y ago
  If you are used to it, you build up callus and it's mostly fine. Except for broken glass, but that's not exactly "natural" either.
  - watwut 5y ago
    Lol, no. Walking barefoot in snow is something you can use to, so that you walk for short time. Eventually the cold gets you, even if you trained. Frostbite is a thing, no matter how much you train.
    - 5y ago

foxhop 5y ago

The more we rely on an instrument of protection, the more we need it. I went barefoot through a particularly thorny patch of land the other day. I expected hurt but because of that I was more ginger and careful and intuitive where to step as I walked, I didn't stop, I kept moving & trusted my instincts to avoid pain, it worked.

gjulianm 5y ago
In some instances you'll be able to walk barefoot, but at a certain cost (attention to terrain that you wouldn't need to pay so much attention with shoes). In other instances you won't be able no matter how much you train: go walk in roads or large stones in the summer, and you'll burn your feet. Walk in the snow, and you'll get frostbite. Walk in a forest full of fallen branches and sticks, and you'll get an injury. People didn't invent shoes because it was aesthetic, it was a necessity when adapting for certain terrains.