4 ms·
It really shouldn't be allowed to publish science without the underlying data regarding what you did - barely any of that list gives much hint as to actual ingr
by themgt 11y ago
It really shouldn't be allowed to publish science without the underlying data regarding what you did - barely any of that list gives much hint as to actual ingredients.
That said, this conforms to a lot of previous research regarding fasting, and so it's a reasonable assumption that if you did a once-monthly 5 day fast at 33% of normal calorie intake, composed of a mix of nutrient/vitamin-dense plants and herbs, you would see similar benefits.
In reality this should just be your normal diet - eat lots of plants, add a reasonable amount of healthy meat (i.e. not a kilo of red meat a day). Limit simple carbohydrates, especially sugar. Keep calories reasonably low (which will happen naturally because you'll feel full & satisfied).
- bjt 11y ago> In reality this should just be your normal diet Maybe the proportions, but not the total amounts. 725 calories per day is way too low on a long term basis.
- themgt 11y agoCompletely agreed - I do think the fasting studies suggest you should find some way to integrate that into your diet, and the easiest way is likely intermittently, trying to space out and decrease your eating in reasonable ways, e.g. taking consistent 12-20 hour breaks between large meals, spending a few days a month on a 1/3 normal caloric intake, etc. You don't need to keep yourself in a low-calorie state, but it's important to enter that state to some degree, on some number of occasions, to get your body to kick off the internal processes of autophagy and renewal that result in a variety of benefits, to healthspan even moreso than lifespan.
- chisleu 11y agoThere are websites that let you put in your macros and your calories, and the type of diet you want to eat, and they design a diet for you automatically.