31 ms·

Old Wisdom On Daily Meal Frequency

32 points by XitN 4y ago

giardini 4y ago
Yeah, but these guys were only five feet tall!
bryanrasmussen 4y ago
yeah, well, early to bed and early to rise would be to be a dullard in Ben Franklin's eyes.
csours 4y ago
But how to tell the difference between old wisdom and old bullshit?
- VoodooJuJu 4y ago
  if (age of the piece of wisdom / human lifespan) > 2 AND the wisdom or some semblance of it is still expressed or practiced to this day then it's probably not bullshit. The probability of a piece of wisdom not being bullshit increases for every additional generation it survives through.
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    Or it's just very well ingrained bullshit - the idea that the stars you were born under define your personality and fate is as old as time and still practiced today.
    - codeflo 4y ago
      You're wrong here, it's bullshit that was regularly updated with new astronomic findings. :P Isn't it miraculous how astrology was just as accurate before its charts included Neptune?
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        Let's be honest, Neptune isn't a planet, it's a feeling.
    - rrgok 4y ago
      I don't know about the stars defining your personality and fate in absolute terms, but I also cannot dismiss altogether. To prove my point, circadian rhythm is mostly in synch with day/night rhythm. Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? Let me explain, maybe the period of effect of other planets is not measured in hours, but years or decades. Hell, look at seasons, in someway it depends on the position of the earth relative to the sun. Some people have seasonal affective disorder. Moreover, look at the Moon, which is roughly in synch with menstrual cycle of women. The solar cycle defines your age, as you age your behaviour changes. This are some small example. It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body.
      - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
        > Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? That's not how this works - I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove it does. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Russell's Teapot is a great thought experiment for this - just because I can't prove it's not true doesn't mean I should accept it. Alternatively, would you accept that the moon is what defines digestion and makes us poop just because you can't disprove it might have some effect? I don't think your arguments hold much weight - SAD is a problem with vitamin D. Menstrual cycle and lunar cycle, while sharing similar lengths (though not for many women), is by all evidence a coincidence to the best of my knowledge (again, unless you can prove otherwise). You need to provide a mechanism for why Neptune being in the seventh house can effect someone biologically before I'll consider it. If you have examples I'm all ears. > It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body. Again, if there is no proof by default most scientifically minded people tend to assume it's not true.
        rrgok 4y ago
        I guess you didn't understand my reply. I'm not pro astrology nor I'm against it. But, I kinda dislike when tech people dismiss it all together because their logical knowledge can't come up with a proof. That's why I made some example, not as a proof for the correctness of astrology. Would it be fair to say "We don't know and we should study it more", rather than "There is no proof supporting it and I feel like it is stupid to believe so, therefore I should not believe in it." This feels all over again "Earth is at the center of the universe" when 99% of the humans believed otherwise. My stance is "Since there is no proof that supports or is against astrology, it is better to say I don't know and be open about it."
- gumby 4y ago
  If it agrees with your beliefs then it’s ancient insight. Otherwise it’s obviously ignorant bullshit.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  throw your infant into the furnace of Baal and ask for guidance. duh!
zimpenfish 4y ago
Worth noting that Herbert M Shelton was a smallpox anti-vaxxer: "The mortality from VACCINATION is much higher than that from smallpox" (from the same book quoted in the article) and generally a quack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_M._Shelton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_M._Shelton
- arcanemachiner 4y ago
  I think we can address the situation at hand easily enough without resorting to ad hominems.
  - CrazyStat 4y ago
    If one side of an argument presents a source as an authority on a health-related issue, it's not ad hominem to point out that the same source held positions which are far outside the scientific consensus on other health-related issues.
easygenes 4y ago
This just reads as marketing prattle. Modern research [1][2] shows that our bodies will only prioritize loading up our muscles with carbs if we eat in the morning, as it is an energy-intense process which requires about 10% of the calories consumed and only really makes sense for our bodies to do if we eat at the start of a day. 1: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eat-more-calories-in-the-morning-than-the-evening/ 2: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/chronobiology/
- claytongulick 4y ago
  My understanding is that we want to have good metabolic flexibility, where it is easy and normal for our bodies to use stored energy (fat cells) instead of the glucose/glucogen (carbs) thing. Some people achieve this via low carb diets and keto, but intermittent fasting is also a good way to do it. I've been on the one meal per day thing for years. I'm approaching 50 and have a physique comparable or better than most 20 year olds. So while it's a data point of one, I can say that it works very well for me and I enthusiastically recommend it for multiple reasons, not just bodybuilding.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  I've had the habit of large/festive breakfast on Saturday and Sunday for more than ten years, and simpler cereal bowl with milk during the week. I regularly experienced headache and mild hypoglycemia a few hours later, but it took me a very long time to connect the dots. I also used to drink an unhealthy amount of sugar in various form, cola or so-called energy drink. Those are very effective to give a temporary boost. At some point I tried something different, no breakfast, no soda and either a single large meal in the evening or a small meal mid-day and a medium one in the evening. In my case there is absolutely no doubt this is much better, no more headache or sugar crash, I've seen changes in my body, mood, mental clarity and overall energy. Digestion is a complex process, eating sugar can be extremely efficient as a booster as it can be used almost instantly, but it is very easy to eat too much and trigger the storage mechanism that has the exact inverse effect.
craftkiller 4y ago
Regardless of whether or not its a good idea for general life, in terms of dieting/weight loss, going to 1 meal a day has made a huge difference for me. With one meal per day, it would be difficult to eat enough calories to gain and/or not lose weight. Also, after about 2 weeks your stomach capacity shrinks which makes it even easier to lose weight because you actually feel full/satisfied on meals that used to seem like snacks to me. Those first two weeks are hell though. These days, if I eat 3 meals in a day then I feel awful and bloated. To anyone who is struggling with giving up the food you love for weight loss: you don't need to be replacing your pizza with salad. Just eat less.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  I agree, and especially if you focus on getting about 100g of protein (depending on your size/sex) during that meal, and healthy carbs (veggies etc), you're not going to have a lot of room left. My general rule of thumb is that after I do the 100g or protein and side veggies, I let myself have anything else I can eat as a treat. Normally though, that's not much. Sometimes a little ice cream or something if I'm not being strict and cutting.
Loveaway 4y ago
ok wtf am I reading here. > most revered past civilizations full of healthy, athletic, and intelligent people because apperantly they didn't eat breakfast? Is that what it's saying? Sorry but I think there's a lot of assumption here...
- pfortuny 4y ago
  Mmmmhhhhh does that count the slaves? Because rich people had a LOT of leisure time.
thunderbong 4y ago
I found this interesting - How many people today use a meal as a reward for a hard day’s work? How many use it as a “festival” to enjoy with friends and/or family? How many take the time after the meal to relax and let the body digest what they have eaten?
- vuln 4y ago
  Just like alcohol. Anything in excess is poison.
  - throwaway4aday 4y ago
    Unfortunately alcohol is a poison in any amount.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ilyt 4y ago
  I definitely prefer getting some nice meal after day's of work but I know it's generally worse for me than eating few hours after waking up.
- lo_zamoyski 4y ago
  Starting with the fast and ending with the feast versus starting with the feast and ending with the headache.
SapporoChris 4y ago
Does the article contradicts itself? "during the zenith period of Grecian and Roman civilization monogamy was not as firmly established as the rule that a health-loving man should content himself with one meal a day, and never eat till he had leisure to digest, i.e., not till the day’s work was wholly done." "Breakfast as we know it didn’t exist for large parts of history. The Romans didn’t really eat it, usually consuming only one meal a day around noon, says food historian Caroline Yeldham. In fact, breakfast was actively frowned upon." Part of the article suggests one meal at evening, the other part says noon. This seems a serious discrepancy.
- causality0 4y ago
  Seconding this. How can one historian put such emphasis on this "only eat after the day's work is done and you can leisure to digest" and the other puts the major meal in the middle of the day?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - hasmanean 4y ago
    There is no contradiction. When does the days work end in Mediterranean countries? Eat before the afternoon siesta.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - causality0 4y ago
      The siesta is the middle of the work day, not the end.
- 1970-01-01 4y ago
  The site contradicts itself: https://theiflife.com/2-meals-a-day/ https://theiflife.com/2-meals-a-day/
- 4y ago
egypturnash 4y ago
I'm really skeptical of life advice from someone at the domain name "Theif Life".
- m4x 4y ago
  It's supposed to be The IF Life, for intermittent fasting
nradov 4y ago
Much of the old "wisdom" now appears to be wrong based on recent research into protein metabolism. In order to optimize training adaptations and recovery, you need to space your protein intake out in multiple meals per day. This includes breakfast. https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/ https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/
- claytongulick 4y ago
  There's a ton of conflicting research in this space, and it's by no means a "settled" issue. Other studies have shown increased testosterone and muscle growth in men from intermittent fasting. Intuitively, though I think the IF approach makes more sense. We evolved to be in a sort of consistent cycle of massively reduced calories with short periods of calorie and protein bursts (from a successful hunt). The "eat all the time" thing is pretty new to us, historically speaking, and we're poorly adapted to it (see obesity rates). I know a lot of bodybuilders (I'm a gym rat) who do the constant eating thing to help them get bigger, but those guys are also using various hormone hacks in conjunction with their training/diet, or they tend to have a pretty high body fat percentage.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mrtweetyhack 4y ago
[dead]
smitty1e 4y ago
I've been eating breakfast only during the work-week, and both losing weight and feeling fine.
karaterobot 4y ago
> At the period of their greatest power, the Greeks and Romans ate only one meal a day. This isn't evidence! At the period of their greatest power, the United States ate three meals a day. So what? It means nothing.
juancn 4y ago
Breakfast is the only meal that's unavoidable... since it's the one that breaks fast. Call it dinner, or lunch or whatever, but if it's the first one, it's breakfast.

32 points by XitN 4y ago

giardini 4y ago

Yeah, but these guys were only five feet tall!

bryanrasmussen 4y ago

yeah, well, early to bed and early to rise would be to be a dullard in Ben Franklin's eyes.

csours 4y ago

But how to tell the difference between old wisdom and old bullshit?

VoodooJuJu 4y ago
if (age of the piece of wisdom / human lifespan) > 2 AND the wisdom or some semblance of it is still expressed or practiced to this day then it's probably not bullshit. The probability of a piece of wisdom not being bullshit increases for every additional generation it survives through.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  Or it's just very well ingrained bullshit - the idea that the stars you were born under define your personality and fate is as old as time and still practiced today.
  - codeflo 4y ago
    You're wrong here, it's bullshit that was regularly updated with new astronomic findings. :P Isn't it miraculous how astrology was just as accurate before its charts included Neptune?
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      Let's be honest, Neptune isn't a planet, it's a feeling.
  - rrgok 4y ago
    I don't know about the stars defining your personality and fate in absolute terms, but I also cannot dismiss altogether. To prove my point, circadian rhythm is mostly in synch with day/night rhythm. Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? Let me explain, maybe the period of effect of other planets is not measured in hours, but years or decades. Hell, look at seasons, in someway it depends on the position of the earth relative to the sun. Some people have seasonal affective disorder. Moreover, look at the Moon, which is roughly in synch with menstrual cycle of women. The solar cycle defines your age, as you age your behaviour changes. This are some small example. It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body.
    - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
      > Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body? That's not how this works - I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove it does. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Russell's Teapot is a great thought experiment for this - just because I can't prove it's not true doesn't mean I should accept it. Alternatively, would you accept that the moon is what defines digestion and makes us poop just because you can't disprove it might have some effect? I don't think your arguments hold much weight - SAD is a problem with vitamin D. Menstrual cycle and lunar cycle, while sharing similar lengths (though not for many women), is by all evidence a coincidence to the best of my knowledge (again, unless you can prove otherwise). You need to provide a mechanism for why Neptune being in the seventh house can effect someone biologically before I'll consider it. If you have examples I'm all ears. > It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body. Again, if there is no proof by default most scientifically minded people tend to assume it's not true.
      - rrgok 4y ago
        I guess you didn't understand my reply. I'm not pro astrology nor I'm against it. But, I kinda dislike when tech people dismiss it all together because their logical knowledge can't come up with a proof. That's why I made some example, not as a proof for the correctness of astrology. Would it be fair to say "We don't know and we should study it more", rather than "There is no proof supporting it and I feel like it is stupid to believe so, therefore I should not believe in it." This feels all over again "Earth is at the center of the universe" when 99% of the humans believed otherwise. My stance is "Since there is no proof that supports or is against astrology, it is better to say I don't know and be open about it."
gumby 4y ago
If it agrees with your beliefs then it’s ancient insight. Otherwise it’s obviously ignorant bullshit.
readthenotes1 4y ago
throw your infant into the furnace of Baal and ask for guidance. duh!

zimpenfish 4y ago

Worth noting that Herbert M Shelton was a smallpox anti-vaxxer: "The mortality from VACCINATION is much higher than that from smallpox" (from the same book quoted in the article) and generally a quack: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_M._Shelton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_M._Shelton

arcanemachiner 4y ago
I think we can address the situation at hand easily enough without resorting to ad hominems.
- CrazyStat 4y ago
  If one side of an argument presents a source as an authority on a health-related issue, it's not ad hominem to point out that the same source held positions which are far outside the scientific consensus on other health-related issues.

easygenes 4y ago

This just reads as marketing prattle. Modern research [1][2] shows that our bodies will only prioritize loading up our muscles with carbs if we eat in the morning, as it is an energy-intense process which requires about 10% of the calories consumed and only really makes sense for our bodies to do if we eat at the start of a day. 1: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eat-more-calories-in-the-morning-than-the-evening/ 2: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/chronobiology/

claytongulick 4y ago
My understanding is that we want to have good metabolic flexibility, where it is easy and normal for our bodies to use stored energy (fat cells) instead of the glucose/glucogen (carbs) thing. Some people achieve this via low carb diets and keto, but intermittent fasting is also a good way to do it. I've been on the one meal per day thing for years. I'm approaching 50 and have a physique comparable or better than most 20 year olds. So while it's a data point of one, I can say that it works very well for me and I enthusiastically recommend it for multiple reasons, not just bodybuilding.
stephc_int13 4y ago
I've had the habit of large/festive breakfast on Saturday and Sunday for more than ten years, and simpler cereal bowl with milk during the week. I regularly experienced headache and mild hypoglycemia a few hours later, but it took me a very long time to connect the dots. I also used to drink an unhealthy amount of sugar in various form, cola or so-called energy drink. Those are very effective to give a temporary boost. At some point I tried something different, no breakfast, no soda and either a single large meal in the evening or a small meal mid-day and a medium one in the evening. In my case there is absolutely no doubt this is much better, no more headache or sugar crash, I've seen changes in my body, mood, mental clarity and overall energy. Digestion is a complex process, eating sugar can be extremely efficient as a booster as it can be used almost instantly, but it is very easy to eat too much and trigger the storage mechanism that has the exact inverse effect.

craftkiller 4y ago

Regardless of whether or not its a good idea for general life, in terms of dieting/weight loss, going to 1 meal a day has made a huge difference for me. With one meal per day, it would be difficult to eat enough calories to gain and/or not lose weight. Also, after about 2 weeks your stomach capacity shrinks which makes it even easier to lose weight because you actually feel full/satisfied on meals that used to seem like snacks to me. Those first two weeks are hell though. These days, if I eat 3 meals in a day then I feel awful and bloated. To anyone who is struggling with giving up the food you love for weight loss: you don't need to be replacing your pizza with salad. Just eat less.

claytongulick 4y ago
I agree, and especially if you focus on getting about 100g of protein (depending on your size/sex) during that meal, and healthy carbs (veggies etc), you're not going to have a lot of room left. My general rule of thumb is that after I do the 100g or protein and side veggies, I let myself have anything else I can eat as a treat. Normally though, that's not much. Sometimes a little ice cream or something if I'm not being strict and cutting.

Loveaway 4y ago

ok wtf am I reading here. > most revered past civilizations full of healthy, athletic, and intelligent people because apperantly they didn't eat breakfast? Is that what it's saying? Sorry but I think there's a lot of assumption here...

pfortuny 4y ago
Mmmmhhhhh does that count the slaves? Because rich people had a LOT of leisure time.

thunderbong 4y ago

I found this interesting - How many people today use a meal as a reward for a hard day’s work? How many use it as a “festival” to enjoy with friends and/or family? How many take the time after the meal to relax and let the body digest what they have eaten?

vuln 4y ago
Just like alcohol. Anything in excess is poison.
- throwaway4aday 4y ago
  Unfortunately alcohol is a poison in any amount.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ilyt 4y ago
I definitely prefer getting some nice meal after day's of work but I know it's generally worse for me than eating few hours after waking up.
lo_zamoyski 4y ago
Starting with the fast and ending with the feast versus starting with the feast and ending with the headache.

SapporoChris 4y ago

Does the article contradicts itself? "during the zenith period of Grecian and Roman civilization monogamy was not as firmly established as the rule that a health-loving man should content himself with one meal a day, and never eat till he had leisure to digest, i.e., not till the day’s work was wholly done." "Breakfast as we know it didn’t exist for large parts of history. The Romans didn’t really eat it, usually consuming only one meal a day around noon, says food historian Caroline Yeldham. In fact, breakfast was actively frowned upon." Part of the article suggests one meal at evening, the other part says noon. This seems a serious discrepancy.

causality0 4y ago
Seconding this. How can one historian put such emphasis on this "only eat after the day's work is done and you can leisure to digest" and the other puts the major meal in the middle of the day?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- hasmanean 4y ago
  There is no contradiction. When does the days work end in Mediterranean countries? Eat before the afternoon siesta.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - causality0 4y ago
    The siesta is the middle of the work day, not the end.
1970-01-01 4y ago
The site contradicts itself: https://theiflife.com/2-meals-a-day/ https://theiflife.com/2-meals-a-day/
4y ago

egypturnash 4y ago

I'm really skeptical of life advice from someone at the domain name "Theif Life".

m4x 4y ago
It's supposed to be The IF Life, for intermittent fasting

nradov 4y ago

Much of the old "wisdom" now appears to be wrong based on recent research into protein metabolism. In order to optimize training adaptations and recovery, you need to space your protein intake out in multiple meals per day. This includes breakfast. https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/ https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/

claytongulick 4y ago
There's a ton of conflicting research in this space, and it's by no means a "settled" issue. Other studies have shown increased testosterone and muscle growth in men from intermittent fasting. Intuitively, though I think the IF approach makes more sense. We evolved to be in a sort of consistent cycle of massively reduced calories with short periods of calorie and protein bursts (from a successful hunt). The "eat all the time" thing is pretty new to us, historically speaking, and we're poorly adapted to it (see obesity rates). I know a lot of bodybuilders (I'm a gym rat) who do the constant eating thing to help them get bigger, but those guys are also using various hormone hacks in conjunction with their training/diet, or they tend to have a pretty high body fat percentage.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mrtweetyhack 4y ago

[dead]

smitty1e 4y ago

I've been eating breakfast only during the work-week, and both losing weight and feeling fine.

karaterobot 4y ago

> At the period of their greatest power, the Greeks and Romans ate only one meal a day. This isn't evidence! At the period of their greatest power, the United States ate three meals a day. So what? It means nothing.

juancn 4y ago

Breakfast is the only meal that's unavoidable... since it's the one that breaks fast. Call it dinner, or lunch or whatever, but if it's the first one, it's breakfast.