5 ms·

[flagged]

by 876978095789789 4y ago

[flagged]

dtjb 4y ago
What purpose does that last sentence serve?
- 876978095789789 4y ago
  Should I be more tactful towards dangerous health misinformation being spread here?
  - dtjb 4y ago
    It actively thwarts that goal.
mancerayder 4y ago
I feel more awake when fasting. I feel sluggish and hungry if I eat breakfast. It's not ridiculous to skip breakfast. How is that idiotic ? I have top health markers for my age and do a variety of different types of physical sports. I think the old adage (still popular among powerlifters and bodybuilders) to eat every 3-4 hours to be completely stupid. We never evolved like that, it's a luxury modernity that this is even an option.
- 876978095789789 4y ago
  > We never evolved like that, it's a luxury modernity that this is even an option. That's the brainletism I was referring to. You could have easily verified your assumption by looking at remaining hunter-gather populations, who serve as a good proxy for you ancestors, and had you done that, you would have discovered that--surprise, surprise--they don't fast: youtu.be/Ci70YYaVHeQ?t=2807
  - mancerayder 4y ago
    You're overly confident in your tone and thin on details (and a written link goes further than a YouTube reference). How in the world is a remaining hunter gatherer population in 2022 a proxy for what happened tens of thousands of years ago. That's an assumption you're expected to justify, first off. Secondly, how is food abundance being modern a 'brainletism' or whatever you're enjoying repeating as a sort of provocation.
    - 876978095789789 4y ago
      > and a written link goes further than a YouTube reference That's an interview with Herman Pontzer, PhD, the lead author of the most import papers published to date studying the energy expenditure of the Hadza of Tanzania, one of the few remaining hunter-gather populations. By all means, keep believing that your ancestors subsisted off of 100% Woolly Mammoth meat in between days of starvation, if it makes you happy.
      - mancerayder 4y ago
gnicholas 4y ago
> the IF group saw no excess weight loss or cardiometabolic benefits vs. the continuously calorically restricted control It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that. But the fact that IF doesn't lead to better results than a different system doesn't mean that people who practice IF are clinging to an idiotic practice, as you put it.
- 876978095789789 4y ago
  > It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that. In the 8-16 IF study I linked to, the IF/TRE group actually had worse adherence: > Self-reported adherence to the diets was 1002 of 1088 (92.1%) in the CMT group (did not miss any meals) and 1128 of 1351 (83.50%) in the TRE group
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    The fact that more people couldn't adhere to an IF plan than a the other plan isn't really relevant. It's easy for someone (like me) to be able to ascertain if it I am able to stick to IF, so it doesn't matter if other people find it harder. Like I said, if other people find the other plan easier to do, and also effective, then it makes sense for them to do it. I don't understand the name-calling, as if no rational person could choose IF.
tarsinge 4y ago
You are missing key informations here (see below). The study you linked is on obese people primarily aiming for weight loss, it’s absolutely not of good quality for judging IF because calories and protein intake are not matched between the groups, it’s more a study of if IF gives better satiety. Not really comparable to the one randomized on firefighters discussed here, which is of better quality overall especially for IF health benefits (main vs secondary objective in your linked study, randomized not only on obese people, no difference in meal compositions between groups) and so directly contradicts the decision of the lead researcher you cited to quit IF. From the study you linked: > Participants were randomized such that the consistent meal timing (CMT) group was instructed to eat 3 structured meals per day, and the time-restricted eating (TRE) group was instructed to eat ad libitum from 12:00 pm until 8:00 pm > A follow-up study showed that when calorie intake and protein intake were matched to prestudy consumption, no change in lean mass was observed. > Ad libitum feeding during TRE leads to reduced calorie intake and might also reduce protein intake.9 Together, these data highlight the importance of adequate protein consumption while adhering to a TRE diet. Many studies have shown that adequate/excessive protein consumption during weight loss can mitigate losses in lean mass.
ramoz 4y ago
So IF lost just as much weight as normal dieting. Are you unable to comprehend it that way?
- saurik 4y ago
  I mean, what weight was lost seems extremely important... let's say you lost the "as much weight" because your foot fell off... would that make the distinction more clear?

[flagged]

dtjb 4y ago

What purpose does that last sentence serve?

876978095789789 4y ago
Should I be more tactful towards dangerous health misinformation being spread here?
- dtjb 4y ago
  It actively thwarts that goal.

mancerayder 4y ago

I feel more awake when fasting. I feel sluggish and hungry if I eat breakfast. It's not ridiculous to skip breakfast. How is that idiotic ? I have top health markers for my age and do a variety of different types of physical sports. I think the old adage (still popular among powerlifters and bodybuilders) to eat every 3-4 hours to be completely stupid. We never evolved like that, it's a luxury modernity that this is even an option.

876978095789789 4y ago
> We never evolved like that, it's a luxury modernity that this is even an option. That's the brainletism I was referring to. You could have easily verified your assumption by looking at remaining hunter-gather populations, who serve as a good proxy for you ancestors, and had you done that, you would have discovered that--surprise, surprise--they don't fast: youtu.be/Ci70YYaVHeQ?t=2807
- mancerayder 4y ago
  You're overly confident in your tone and thin on details (and a written link goes further than a YouTube reference). How in the world is a remaining hunter gatherer population in 2022 a proxy for what happened tens of thousands of years ago. That's an assumption you're expected to justify, first off. Secondly, how is food abundance being modern a 'brainletism' or whatever you're enjoying repeating as a sort of provocation.
  - 876978095789789 4y ago
    > and a written link goes further than a YouTube reference That's an interview with Herman Pontzer, PhD, the lead author of the most import papers published to date studying the energy expenditure of the Hadza of Tanzania, one of the few remaining hunter-gather populations. By all means, keep believing that your ancestors subsisted off of 100% Woolly Mammoth meat in between days of starvation, if it makes you happy.
    - mancerayder 4y ago

gnicholas 4y ago

> the IF group saw no excess weight loss or cardiometabolic benefits vs. the continuously calorically restricted control It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that. But the fact that IF doesn't lead to better results than a different system doesn't mean that people who practice IF are clinging to an idiotic practice, as you put it.

876978095789789 4y ago
> It may be the case that these two processes lead to similar outcomes. But for me, it is much easier to stay faithful to an IF lifestyle than a "continuously calorically restricted" lifestyle. I find the binary aspect of the IF system to be very helpful. If the other system is easier for other folks to maintain, that's great, and they should do that. In the 8-16 IF study I linked to, the IF/TRE group actually had worse adherence: > Self-reported adherence to the diets was 1002 of 1088 (92.1%) in the CMT group (did not miss any meals) and 1128 of 1351 (83.50%) in the TRE group
- gnicholas 4y ago
  The fact that more people couldn't adhere to an IF plan than a the other plan isn't really relevant. It's easy for someone (like me) to be able to ascertain if it I am able to stick to IF, so it doesn't matter if other people find it harder. Like I said, if other people find the other plan easier to do, and also effective, then it makes sense for them to do it. I don't understand the name-calling, as if no rational person could choose IF.

tarsinge 4y ago

You are missing key informations here (see below). The study you linked is on obese people primarily aiming for weight loss, it’s absolutely not of good quality for judging IF because calories and protein intake are not matched between the groups, it’s more a study of if IF gives better satiety. Not really comparable to the one randomized on firefighters discussed here, which is of better quality overall especially for IF health benefits (main vs secondary objective in your linked study, randomized not only on obese people, no difference in meal compositions between groups) and so directly contradicts the decision of the lead researcher you cited to quit IF. From the study you linked: > Participants were randomized such that the consistent meal timing (CMT) group was instructed to eat 3 structured meals per day, and the time-restricted eating (TRE) group was instructed to eat ad libitum from 12:00 pm until 8:00 pm > A follow-up study showed that when calorie intake and protein intake were matched to prestudy consumption, no change in lean mass was observed. > Ad libitum feeding during TRE leads to reduced calorie intake and might also reduce protein intake.9 Together, these data highlight the importance of adequate protein consumption while adhering to a TRE diet. Many studies have shown that adequate/excessive protein consumption during weight loss can mitigate losses in lean mass.

ramoz 4y ago

So IF lost just as much weight as normal dieting. Are you unable to comprehend it that way?

saurik 4y ago
I mean, what weight was lost seems extremely important... let's say you lost the "as much weight" because your foot fell off... would that make the distinction more clear?