Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Gator Country Health and Fitness' started by Dreamliner, Jan 24, 2013.
But it's okay to binge for a week.
Note to others: pay this nutcase no heed.
Binging is never a good thing, many people do it everyday without the fasting, which is definitely worse. Fasting is normal, in fact its a part of just about every major religion. So, fasting has been commonly practiced for all of written history. Here are just some of the ways to incorporate fasting into your lifestyle if you so choose.
Eat Stop Eat
8 Hour Diet
That last one is from Men's Health and while I dont agree with it necessarily I think you can see that fasting is now about as mainstream a way of eating as six meals a day. And there are success stories using these approaches all over the place.
And you know what ? I don't care what the f*** people call it. I call what I do "not eating breakfast." And the reason I don't eat breakfast is because ... wait for it - I'm rarely hungry until lunchtime.
Cutting-edge, I know.
And let me address another lie that's circulating about me and my changing views: that I used to tell people that they don't have to give in to every hunger pang, but now I'm supposedly telling them to stuff their faces every time they're hungry.
It's a lie, of course. Basically, I'm discouraging people from starving themselves in order to conform to distorted cultural expectations.
The first rule of IF is to not discuss IF. People's first instinct is to think you have an eating disorder.
I sometimes drink coffee w/ cream or whole milk for breakfast, and other times I slam down some bacon/sausage/steak & eggs, hash browns, w/ fruit & nuts, etc. Just depends on how I feel....Other times I skip lunch or dinner, or both if I'm not hungry.
I've always found the "intermittent fasting" label to be silly....it's called not eating breakfast....going 18hrs without eating is not starvation, lol.
Neither is going 24. I have been doing that once a year since I was 13. Some people do it once or twice a week. The key is to eat normally after a long break from eating.
I think it's fine to take a break from eating. Clearly, nobody is going to die if they go a day without eating. I do on occasion. But not as an exercise in asceticism. And certainly not for health. Usually it's because I've binged a bit and am a little sick of food.
Now, the reason I am reluctant to recommend this strategy to others is that, frankly, I've come to believe that people are different. Yes, I really do believe that there are lots of people who are hungrier than I am and are less prone to be satiated than I am.
Put another way, I am not inclined to believe that I have more willpower than other people. I rather suspect that I have nothing to boast about in being naturally thin.
I really do believe people these days (don't think they're weak-willed) when they tell me it's difficult for them to go for more than a few hours without eating.
But when I do get hungry for breakfast, this is what I like to do:
I've had avid fitness enthusiasts raise an eyebrow at me. I no longer tell a soul.
Don't tell your mom especially. It's like saying, "Hey Mom, I found this nice old Vietnamese lady, who's going to do a nipple ring for me, cheap!"
You drink a lot of beer too.
Actually, 7_5's experience, and mine, collide with the 'calories in/calories out' theory. At roughly 6-0 145, I can eat 3,000 calories or more, for a number of days, and not gain any weight. I require sustained force-feeding just to gain a few pounds. My energy expenditure is WAY off the BMR estimates.
By calories in/calories out I mean the notion of adding or subtracting 500 calories and gaining or losing a pound a week. It simply doesn't work that way for a lot of people. It may not work that way for most people. Too many variables involved.
From an engineer's perspective...
You CAN NOT VIOLATE "Energy in = Energy Out + Energy Stored". If you can, you should write a paper on it and you might win a Nobel Prize. After that, I would then begin work on a perpetual motion machine, as that would probably land you a second Nobel Prize.
To say that you are an outlier to the "traditional BMR/Energy expenditure estimates" is one thing, but to say you can violate a fundamental law is dead wrong. Besides, the ESTIMATES are just that... estimates based on a population of people. Similar to making the statement that ALL people with BMI over 30 are fat obese people with no physical capability. (Jay Cutler at competition weight is something like 40 BMI).
Again, in the end ... it does boil down to energy balance. But what people don't get is the body is extraordinarily resourceful in its ability to utilize calories more efficiently (when calories are in short-supply) and its ability to shunt resources away from one bodily function after another in order to hold onto fat.
I think it's illuminating that John Barban, the one guy on the internet who swears by the BMR calculators, acknowledges that weight-loss aspirants have to continually recalibrate their BMR's in order to reach more extreme goals. And one of his clients acknowledged that, in the final stages of his 'leaning out' he was getting 1,200 calories a day and walking upwards of fifteen miles a day.
And we haven't gotten to the wanting the weight back part.