Recomendations for diet and exercise.

[Kurtis]

Bah, portion size, calories in - calories out, eat less - exercise more, and all those other similar memes have no basis in science. A calorie is simply how much heat is expended when you burn said item. It has never been shown to be the same in the body. Lastly, the average person gains 50 lbs between 25 and 50, or about 2lbs a year. That's overeating by about 3 potato chips per day. There is no way to control energy intake to that degree. In other words calories in - calories out is so oversimplified it fails. It has also been shown there is no correlation between exercise and weight loss. 

 

 

These statements are pretty amazing and certainly go against my lived experience.  Are you saying that if I ate healthy foods, but I ate a lot of them, and had a sedentary lifestyle, that I would have the same body fat levels as if I was eating less and moving more?  Could you point me towards where this has been shown to be true?

[BenjaminRVA]

I've lost about 100 pounds and really transformed my energy level with Paleo, Intermittent-Fasting, and Paleo-compliant Ketosis for fat loss. These were excellent layman's intros to Paleo and Intermittent Fasting. Highly recommended, if you're interested. 

 

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2010/10/04/the-beginners-guide-to-the-paleo-diet/

http://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/2013/08/06/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/

 

That website does a really good job. They also have a ton of other informative writeups. On supplements (http://bit.ly/1i42N2h) and caffeine (http://bit.ly/14BL5SO), for instance. Mark's Daily Apple is another site with excellent research and sources for all their claims that I'd highly recommend. 

[cobra2411]

These statements are pretty amazing and certainly go against my lived experience.  Are you saying that if I ate healthy foods, but I ate a lot of them, and had a sedentary lifestyle, that I would have the same body fat levels as if I was eating less and moving more?  Could you point me towards where this has been shown to be true?

I was speaking about the notion that counting calories has any merit in the idea that we can somehow use a calculator to control our waistline. Assuming normal metabolic function, you eat when hungry, stop when full and you'll maintain a healthy weight. As for stuffing your face and what happens, there's the interesting part. It depends on what you eat. Eat meat and drink water for 30 days and try and stuff yourself. It's been tried and it's incredibly hard. Now eat twinkies and coke and it's very easy. 

 

Food can be separated into three groups. Carbs, Protein and Fat. Two of those are needed to live, the third isn't. Ancel Keys did a study of a low fat, high carb diet in the 40's and restricted people to around 1600 cal/day. They became depressed, fixated on food and had many other health problems by the end of the 4 week study. In the 60's John Yudkin did a study on a low carb, high fat diet where people were able to choose the amount of food they ate. With no restrictions, they also settled in at around 1600 cal/day. However, they felt an increased sense of well being and didn't suffer from the same maladies. In the Keys study, at the beginning everyone ate 3200 cal/day and felt fine. Certainly isn't a smoking gun because that's not what the study was looking at, but it's interesting to see that the low carb group had similar feelings as the high carb group with half the calories. One of the criticisms of Atkins is that he says "eat all you want". Critics claim that if a person was to eat all he wanted he'd gain weight, but without the carbs you really don't want to eat as much, nor do you need to.

 

My point is that the body processes the energy from the different sources differently and a calorie isn't a calorie. Eat the right foods and there's no need to worry about how many calories you eat, the body takes care of that for you. Eat the wrong foods and restrict them and you're in for a miserable experience. Is it any wonder that so many "diets" fail and people end up weighing more? Also, an increase in output; exercise, will lead to an increase in hunger and if allowed, an increase in food intake. To say "Eat less and exercise more" is to trivialize obesity and blame the victim. There are more people exercising today than ever and obesity is still exploding. We're still eating wrong. 

[MagnumPI]

http://greatist.com/health/exercise-weight-loss-071213

 

(The researchers defined “sufficient physical activity” as the American Heart Association's recommendation of 150 minutes of moderate physical activity, 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or the equivalent combination each week.)

 

 

2.5 hours a week can only be considered sufficient in TV & Smartphone-Land. My, I'm exercising but it's not doing it! Yeah, walking on a fucking treadmill for three hours isn't really exercise.

 

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/physical-activity-and-obesity/

 

Whole hell of a lot less activity through the decades. And centuries:

http://www.outsideonline.com/1923776/how-far-fitness-has-fallen

[Guest Gee]

Calaries in vs calaries out is an energy contiunity equation, if it does not hold true for all people in all time in all space then the conservation of energy does not hold true and all science is wrong.

 

So would you care to prove it? You'll win a Nobel prize and a million dollars.........?

[Pelafina]

Calaries in vs calaries out is an energy contiunity equation, if it does not hold true for all people in all time in all space then the conservation of energy does not hold true and all science is wrong.

 

So would you care to prove it? You'll win a Nobel prize, a million dollars.........?

 

The people who claim “calories in/calories out” are making the unproven claim that if you don’t burn all the calories that you take in, then the excess energy will be stored as fat.  This is an assumption.  

[thebeardslastcall]

Calaries in vs calaries out is an energy contiunity equation, if it does not hold true for all people in all time in all space then the conservation of energy does not hold true and all science is wrong.

 

So would you care to prove it? You'll win a Nobel prize and a million dollars.........?

 

Calories is a very rudimentary measurement produced by the burning of foods which is far from the same way the human body actually digests the food. It doesn't factor in the cost of digestion and the degree of digestion and how efficiently the body will use the chemical energy gathered from the food. Some people absorb a lot of their food, others pass stuff through largely undigested. It's not some simple physics as people like to portray it. Unless the body absorbs it, it isn't part of the body. It's complicated and the simple calories in calories out model is an erroneous oversimplification.

[Guest Gee]

The people who claim “calories in/calories out” are making the unproven claim that if you don’t burn all the calories that you take in, then the excess energy will be stored as fat.  This is an assumption.  

 

I made no such claim, I read no posts making no such claim, perhaps you should take this up with someone who actually made this claim.

 

I said........

 

A calorie is a unit of energy.

Energy is conserved.

Therefore.

If energy in > energy out then energy of a person increases.

Energy and mass are equivilent.

So the mass of the person increases.

And visa-versa.

Calories is a very rudimentary measurement produced by the burning of foods which is far from the same way the human body actually digests the food. It doesn't factor in the cost of digestion and the degree of digestion and how efficiently the body will use the chemical energy gathered from the food. Some people absorb a lot of their food, others pass stuff through largely undigested. It's not some simple physics as people like to portray it. Unless the body absorbs it, it isn't part of the body. It's complicated and the simple calories in calories out model is an erroneous oversimplification.

 

Calorie = Heat = Mechanical Work = Energy

 

This is the mechanical equilivence of heat and has been established since the early 19th century.

 

Taking the equation of state from the first law of thermodynamics.

 

dU = Q_in - Q_out - W

 

Which is to say:

The change in internal energy of the system, U, being dU

is equil to heat in, Q_in

minus heat out, Q_out

minus work done on the system W.

 

Where:

Heat in is energy in is calories in is food in.

Heat out is energy out is calories out is food out as waste .

Work done is energy out is calories out is basic metabolic rate + energy out (work done) from going to your job and exersize and everything else you do over and above lying down all day.

 

As per the energy mass equilvence, if you want to decrease the mass of the human system you must decrease the energy of the system and there are three ways of doing this:

 

Less energy in (calories in)

More energy out (calories out)

More work done (carloies out)

 

or to simplify futher.

 

Calories out vs Calories in

 

*Edit. In the interest of completeness you could decrease the mass of a person but cutting out, of off, body parts.

[Pelafina]

I said........

 

A calorie is a unit of energy.

Energy is conserved.

Therefore.

If energy in > energy out then energy of a person increases.

Energy and mass are equivilent.

So the mass of the person increases.

 

It's not true that energy and mass are equivalent.

[shirgall]

It's not true that energy and mass are equivalent.

 

What is true that they can be converted one into another in a standard ratio, and in combination the total amount cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

What makes the situation more difficult is that bodies don't exist in closed systems, they have a multitude of adaption mechanisms that interfere with expected results, and, frankly, mental state can drive a lot of those mechanisms more than anyone expects.

 

A plan you trust and covers all the bases that gives you desireable results is what is needed, getting there is a radically different path for every individual.

[MagnumPI]

E=/=mc²... Great. So now instead of exercise and eating right we gotta re-engineer a fucking nuclear bomb.

 

Is the person you're taking advice from fat? Yes. Talk to someone else.

Is this person in good shape? Yes. Great, listen to them.

 

Fuck. No wonder nerds don't work out! And God forbid they get a look at the pulley systems on a nautilus.

[Kurtis]

What is true that they can be converted one into another in a standard ratio, and in combination the total amount cannot be created nor destroyed.

 

What makes the situation more difficult is that bodies don't exist in closed systems, they have a multitude of adaption mechanisms that interfere with expected results, and, frankly, mental state can drive a lot of those mechanisms more than anyone expects.

 

A plan you trust and covers all the bases that gives you desireable results is what is needed, getting there is a radically different path for every individual.

 

+1 and why I think that to discuss physical health as though separate from mental health is a big mistake.

 

 

I'm trying to get back in shape and would appreciate any advice and recommendations (websites, youTube, books, etc.). 

 

To get this back on track with the OP's question... (I don't understand why there is often so much obfuscation around these topics of diet.)

 

1) Eat plants and animals.  2) Move your body.  

If this is too difficult, then add a third item to your health regime:  3) Therapy.

 

The movement part is key as you need to maintain muscle mass, bone density, and flexibility as you age.

 

If you are already healthy, and you are looking to optimize, then is the time to start going deeper into specifics and details.

[shirgall]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/upshot/americans-are-finally-eating-less.html

 

 

Calories consumed daily by the typical American adult, which peaked around 2003, are in the midst of their first sustained decline since federal statistics began to track the subject, more than 40 years ago. The number of calories that the average American child takes in daily has fallen even more — by at least 9 percent.

[Frederik]

I went from 64 kg to 54 kg in ~3 months without trying,

never ever calorie-restrict,

take no medication (and got rid of one),

am very lean,

can run 10 km in 37:19,

can hold 4.5 W/kg for an hour (for the cyclists ,

can do 130 deep bodyweight squats in ~2:25,

take no drugs or stimulants whatsoever (no caffeine!),

have clean and glowing skin,

have no joint or backpain even when running 80 or cycling 350 km in a week,

have excellent problem-free digestion,

eat as much as I want at every meal (and that is a lot - avg. 3,200 kcal per day, up to 4,500 kcal (small body!)),

have minimal to non-existent body odor,

learned to read and respect my body's signals,

supplement only vitamin B12,

 

and this is some of the advice I follow:

 

The 80/10/10 Diet

http://www.amazon.com/The-80-10-Diet/dp/1893831248

 

 

 

 

If you are interested in finding out more about a healthy high-carb low-fat plant-based diet and endurance athleticism, I love to talk about it.

[Mattertea]

I went from 64 kg to 54 kg in ~3 months without trying,

never ever calorie-restrict,

take no medication (and got rid of one),

am very lean,

can run 10 km in 37:19,

can hold 4.5 W/kg for an hour (for the cyclists ,

can do 130 deep bodyweight squats in ~2:25,

take no drugs or stimulants whatsoever (no caffeine!),

have clean and glowing skin,

have no joint or backpain even when running 80 or cycling 350 km in a week,

have excellent problem-free digestion,

eat as much as I want at every meal (and that is a lot - avg. 3,200 kcal per day, up to 4,500 kcal (small body!)),

have minimal to non-existent body odor,

learned to read and respect my body's signals,

supplement only vitamin B12,

 

and this is some of the advice I follow:

 

The 80/10/10 Diet

http://www.amazon.com/The-80-10-Diet/dp/1893831248

 

 

 

 

If you are interested in finding out more about a healthy high-carb low-fat plant-based diet and endurance athleticism, I love to talk about it.

 

+1 to that -

High Carb Raw vegan (fruitarian) is the ultimate human diet. There is so much science linking heart disease and obeisity to animal based foods - even eggs and cheese.

When you eat living foods, you nourish your body with enzymes and the essential amino acids.  You can start by incorporating into your meals even something as simple as 2 slices of cucumber.  Take small steps towards your goal, if you try to do a crash diet you will most likely yo-yo. By adding things into your diet that are good, you will find you eat less of the bad stuff.

 

For me its challenging to maintain a raw plant based diet, since I do not live in the tropics.  I find sweet potatoes, oatmeal, beans, brown rice or quinoa to be acceptable. But the theme here is plant based whole foods. 

 

Check out:

OKRaw

Liferegenerator

Running Raw

FullyRawKristina

 

I have the exact opposite problem as the OP - I am 5' 10" and the heaviest i've ever been at 125lbs which lead me to follow VeganGains

 

ps Durianrider is hillarious and gives no fucks.

[russoft]

I'm not going to peruse everyone's comments - I'm sure there's lots of excellent advice.

 

I just read the post above me. I have to take my previous comment back...

 

 

I was 230 lb (~100 kg) at the beginning of 2008.

 

I began making healthy substitutions for food and ran each evening. I started at a slow pace and short distance and worked up from there. I also began lifting weights to preserve muscle mass.

 

By the Christmas of 2009 (about 2 years in total), I'd gotten down to 160 lb (73 kg). I could've lost the weight faster, but I was still learning what worked and what didn't. For the last 25 lb (from 185 lb to 160 lb), I found that I had to count my calories. This mean weighting and measuring everything I ate. Most restaurants provide calorie contents for their meals. If they don't, the calories can usually be estimated. I didn't care about my macronutrients too much, but ensured I was consuming at least 1 gram of protein per pound of  bodyweight. This works out to about 40% protein, with the rest a combination of fat, carbs, and alcohol (if you really can't give it up while getting in shape).

 

As for fitness, running is great. Not everyone can do it due to injuries (shin splints, bad knees, etc.). Cycling is okay, but you really have to search for demanding routes to ride because cycling is much easier than running on your heart/lungs. Cardiovascular fitness keeps your heart healthy and is very important. I say this because some body builder types make fun of cardio and undervalue it. That's because it won't change your body shape dramatically.

 

There are a whole host of benefits to weight training. Any training is better than none, but I strongly encourage people to do free weights. If you take my advice and do free weights - PLEASE learn proper technique! Don't go injuring yourself! You can cover most muscles with a few barbell and body weight exercises. I do squats, dead lifts, bench press, overhead press, and barbell rows. I supplement with push ups and weighted pull ups. I haven't become any bodybuilder,  but my body shape changed dramatically due to a year or two of dedicated weight training.

 

Benefits from losing fat, building muscle, and improving my cardiovascular fitness:

I have fewer back problems, I sleep better, I think better, my grades in college increased even though I studied less, I am less stressed, I am more self confident. 

 

Good luck!

 

Some resources to excellent weight training programs:

 

Starting Strength (Mark Rippetoe): http://startingstrength.com/

 

Stronglifts (a rip-off of Rippetoe's program): http://stronglifts.com/

[shirgall]

Consider Lean Habits for Lifelong Weight Loss

 

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O0FJ66K

 

This book spends time on getting into good habits and making them stick, without beating you up for occasional missteps. Good empiricism too.

[NumberSix]

russoft, I used to run, but my knees are bad now and with the extra 30 lbs I'm carrying it isn't a great idea.  Maybe I can start running when I'm closer to normal weight.

[russoft]

russoft, I used to run, but my knees are bad now and with the extra 30 lbs I'm carrying it isn't a great idea.  Maybe I can start running when I'm closer to normal weight.

 

Lower weight may help. Good running shoes will also help. I find swimming an excellent work out, but don't get around to doing it nearly enough. I'd get on an exercise bike and crank the resistance as high as you can get it while still keeping up a good pace. My objection is against a regular bicycle. I always tire out my legs or hurt my knees long before I get my heart rate up. You could also look into muscle imbalance issues around the knee. Lower body weight training may help here. I'm no expert on joint problems, though I've had plenty of knee pain. I used to run through it. Probably not a wise idea.

 

Also, to plug weight training again: I eat way more food now than I did while losing weight. I haven't gained any weight in 3 years despite not really watching my diet carefully. I have more muscle mass now to balance my eating habits. Muscle burns energy so building muscle will never hurt. It's sometimes hard to do while also trying to lose fat though, as you usually have to under-eat to lose fat and over-eat to build muscle (so conventional knowledge goes, at least).

[J. D. Stembal]

Hyper-glycemia is perfectly correlated with risk for dementia.

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1215740#t=articleMethods

 

That fact alone casts so much doubt on the healthfulness of high-carb, all-fruit diets. I would be very surprised if any human could keep average glucose levels below 100 mg/dL while essentially eating sugar all the time. The only reason these unnatural diets exist is because you can buy fruits out of season any time of the year thanks to our modern global economy, which does not fit the evolution of our species. In winter, there is naturally no fruit available. Reality dictates that you must eat meat to survive and thrive.

 

Everything else - veganism, fruitarianism, vegetarianism, breathairanism - is based solely on cultural Marxism (conveniently using animals as a prop victim class which cannot speak) and has no basis in reality, science or the multitude of empirical evidence gathered regarding human health.

 

[thebeardslastcall]

That fact alone casts so much doubt on the healthfulness of high-carb, all-fruit diets. I would be very surprised if any human could keep average glucose levels below 100 mg/dL while essentially eating sugar all the time. The only reason these unnatural diets exist is because you can buy fruits out of season any time of the year thanks to our modern global economy, which does not fit the evolution of our species. In winter, there is naturally no fruit available. Reality dictates that you must eat meat to survive and thrive.

 

Why is there not fruit year round? It must be growing somewhere year round to be available year round, yes? Perhaps that climate, where stuff grows year round, is where we lived for a while and adapted to a high-fruit diet before we sprawled all over the planet. When we spread everywhere over the planet our conditions and available diet naturally changed heavily. If you put a cow in a place with no grass where it can only survive by eating non-grass would you claim grass is no longer its best diet because it has to "import" grass from other places? Reality of what you have to eat to survive in any particular environmental situation doesn't dictate the reality of what the body can do best with, given all options.

 

 

Humanity spread fast far and wide around the world and entering into so many different environments how could it not take a dietary hit from being forced to eat in new ways? What is natural about our current environment and what does that have to do with what is practical versus what is optimal? Is feeding cows grains instead of grass to meat the survival needs of factory farming to produce mass amounts of meat natural or just reality to "survive and thrive"?

 

Also it's kind of silly to compare breathairanism to any diet as it's just a starvation/non-diet. Or perhaps you're making the case fruits and vegetables, often regarded as health foods, are in fact not foods at all? Also I'm confused as to what evidence you're talking about in regards denying vegetarian/vegan type diets. Are you rejecting all the health and longevity studies that show cultures that survive on mostly (if not completely) fruits and vegetables live longer (because...Marxism??) ? Do you imagine all vegans give up meat just because of animal welfare reasons and that none simply don't particularly care and just do it for the health benefits? Most of the studies also showed the longest lived cultures tended to have dementia free elders. Dementia is a more recent phenomena of modern cultures.

 

You keep referring to reality, but simply calling something "reality" isn't an argument. Might as well be saying "Reality dictates that we pray to Zeus to survive and thrive!" If reality demands there is only one food in your underground bunker shelter demanding you eat military food packages to survive, then giving diet advice is kind of pointless.

[Guest Gee]

Why is there not fruit year round?

 

Because............ Physics! (and biology, boooo!)

 

A fruit is fundamentally a store of energy.

 

Fruit producing plants convert energy irradiated from the sun into a usable form via photosynthesis.

 

Due to the specifics of the earths orbit, spin and axis of rotation, there are (predicable) periods of time when a plant population would:

A. Be closer (more proximal) to the sun,

B. Be exposed to the sun for longer.

 

We know that:

1. Energy transmitted must, all else equal, increase linearly with time, and,

2. Intensity (the amount of light photons an per unit area and hence energy available per unit area) DECREASES with the square of the distance from the source of energy, the sun.

 

Therefore there must be predictable periods when the energy available for conversion by photosynthesis is increased as a function of energy (photons) per unit area incident upon the leaf AND as a function of time (length of day).

 

From biology (boo!) we know that, by evolution, fitness selects for successful adaptation to the environment.

 

Defining successful adaptation of a plant as its ability to propagate and make best use of available resources, where available resources include of course the energy from the sun, it would be reasonable to expect plants to evolve in such a way as to maximize its ability to utilise the dearth of energy available during such periods of time.

 

As previously mentioned fruit is simply a store of energy, so it reasonable for energy to be stored during periods of peak energy availability and so for evolution to select for production of fruit during peak energy periods.

 

And so no year round fruit because...... Physics (with biology sprinkling).

 

This could of course be adapted for humans to explain why we evolved to have a mixed diet rich in meaty fatty goodness.

[thebeardslastcall]

Because............ Physics! (and biology, boooo!)

 

{{ Snippity -- CUT some QUOTED CONTENT OUT }} 

 

And so no year round fruit because...... Physics (with biology sprinkling).

 

This could of course be adapted for humans to explain why we evolved to have a mixed diet rich in meaty fatty goodness.

 

Such an elaborate response, but nope. Would you like another try? Did you even read what I said after that question?

[BaylorPRSer]

This mini-fasting strategy is something I have practiced for decades.  It's been good to me.  I abhor the idea of dietary restrictions and eat lots of "junk food." My weight has remained stable.

 

http://www.healthline.com/health-news/changing-when-you-eat-could-help-you-lose-weight-120214#4

So to be clear, your approach is to eat whatever you want, but never eat within 12 hours of your previous meal?

[thebeardslastcall]

When did 12 hours start counting as a something worthy of a "fast" type label?... If you finished dinner at 7:00PM... you'd only need to not eat breakfast before 7:00AM to meet that requirement. If that counts as "mini-fasting" then I've been doing the same "strategy" as I go over 12 hours between dinner and breakfast most times. I don't eat any junk food though. Unless you define fruit as junk or something like that (they're out there). My weight has been pretty stable as well. Having a stable weight alone doesn't mean you're healthy.

[Guest Gee]

Such an elaborate response, but nope. Would you like another try? Did you even read what I said after that question?

 

I did indeed, but I figured the rest would logically follow and sure, why not.

 

"Why is there not fruit year round?"

Answered.

 

" It must be growing somewhere year round to be available year round, yes? Perhaps that climate, where stuff grows year round, is where we lived for a while and adapted to a high-fruit diet before we sprawled all over the planet."

As every area on earth is on earth it is subject to the constraints that come with being on earth (seasons) no plant can fruit continuously as any that did were out competed for resources by those that fruit seasonally, continuously fruiting plants being plant that do not vary in energy use with energy supply.

 

"When we spread everywhere over the planet our conditions and available diet naturally changed heavily. If you put a cow in a place with no grass where it can only survive by eating non-grass would you claim grass is no longer its best diet because it has to "import" grass from other places?"

This follows from my answer, as no fruiting is continuous no local (as in local continent) can produce continuous fruit therefore it can not be true that we evolved to eat fruit continuously.

 

"Reality of what you have to eat to survive in any particular environmental situation doesn't dictate the reality of what the body can do best with, given all options."

Follows from my answer, evolution selects for max fitness and max fitness is max reproduction and energy acquisition therefore evolution would tend towards permitting the body to do better with the food in the particular environment, which is to say, those with a mutation that permits superior use of local resources will, all else equal, be fitter for said environment and this gene will propagate.

 

"Humanity spread fast far and wide around the world and entering into so many different environments how could it not take a dietary hit from being forced to eat in new ways? What is natural about our current environment and what does that have to do with what is practical versus what is optimal? "

Given that evolution selects for max fitness it follows we would if we could shape our environment such that our fitness from diet is maximized. Which, we do.

 

"Is feeding cows grains instead of grass to meat the survival needs of factory farming to produce mass amounts of meat natural or just reality to "survive and thrive"?"

False dichotomy, to survive and thrive is natural.

 

"Also it's kind of silly to compare breathairanism to any diet as it's just a starvation/non-diet. Or perhaps you're making the case fruits and vegetables, often regarded as health foods, are in fact not foods at all?"

Equivocation thus not an argument.

 

"Also I'm confused as to what evidence you're talking about in regards denying vegetarian/vegan type diets. Are you rejecting all the health and longevity studies that show cultures that survive on mostly (if not completely) fruits and vegetables live longer (because...Marxism??) ?"

Asserted without evidence and thus not an argument.

 

"Do you imagine all vegans give up meat just because of animal welfare reasons and that none simply don't particularly care and just do it for the health benefits? Most of the studies also showed the longest lived cultures tended to have dementia free elders. Dementia is a more recent phenomena of modern cultures."

Again, asserted without evidence, not an argument.

 

"You keep referring to reality, but simply calling something "reality" isn't an argument. Might as well be saying "Reality dictates that we pray to Zeus to survive and thrive!" If reality demands there is only one food in your underground bunker shelter demanding you eat military food packages to survive, then giving diet advice is kind of pointless."

Saying something is not an argument is not an argument, thus, this is not an argument.

 

"Such an elaborate response, but nope. Would you like another try?"

Not even pretending to be an argument.

[J. D. Stembal]

So to be clear, your approach is to eat whatever you want, but never eat within 12 hours of your previous meal?

 

He might be doing the 16:8 intermittent fasting routine that is quite popular these days. I do it when the mood strikes me, and I am starting to get scared to lose any more body fat. I see vascularity on certain parts of my body (arms, hips, and shoulders). I never had that before.

 

Fasting is also how the body starves and eliminates cancerous cells, so intermittent fasting is a win-win negotiation with your metabolism, and long term health.

 

Oh, if you get the inclination to fast, drink a ton of water while you do it. As I understand it, you want your urine to be damn near to clear.

Do you imagine all vegans give up meat just because of animal welfare reasons and that none simply don't particularly care and just do it for the health benefits?

 

Since there are no benefits to being a vegan, the only rational explanation is cultural Marxism. It's a bumper sticker, and an idiotic political statement to not eat animals and gloat about it. Save the poor! Save the whales! Save the planet! It's all part of the same mind game to exploit a victim class for political gain.

 

How about we save the humans? We are the ones that need saving from ourselves.

 

If you don't like the taste of animal flesh, simply don't eat it!

 

Those of us who know better get a little tired of hearing the ethical vegans cry over slaughtered animals. An animal's loss of life is my gain of lean muscle mass. I'm on top of the food chain, so I get to eat what I please.

 

Let's call it Human Entitlement, since that kind of language seems to jive with social justice warriors.

 

When I die, the scavengers and microbes get to feast on me. You won't hear me complaining, and I doubt that you will kick up much protest.

[fractional slacker]

So to be clear, your approach is to eat whatever you want, but never eat within 12 hours of your previous meal?

Generally, yes and yes.

In addition, if you discount a small 250 calories (snack) shortly after waking up, my "mini fast" is 16-18 hours.

When did 12 hours start counting as a something worthy of a "fast" type label?... If you finished dinner at 7:00PM... you'd only need to not eat breakfast before 7:00AM to meet that requirement. If that counts as "mini-fasting" then I've been doing the same "strategy" as I go over 12 hours between dinner and breakfast most times. I don't eat any junk food though. Unless you define fruit as junk or something like that (they're out there). My weight has been pretty stable as well. Having a stable weight alone doesn't mean you're healthy.

If you read my earlier post (with link to article), the latest research gives some indication that the longer you go from last meal of day 1 until first meal of day 2, the better. It's not conclusive or definitive, it's a theory in development.

 

"Having a stable weight doesn't mean you are healthy." 

Perhaps you would like to define healthy without indicator of stable weight?

[shirgall]

Since there are no benefits to being a vegan, the only rational explanation is cultural Marxism.

 

 

There's a plausible alternative: abundant resources, empathy for animals that have faces, and a desire to be "different" (or to cleave to what seemed like a trendy clique) in order to set oneself apart from others.

[thebeardslastcall]

Edited August 20, 2015 by thebeardslastcall

[J. D. Stembal]

There's a plausible alternative: abundant resources, empathy for animals that have faces, and a desire to be "different" (or to cleave to what seemed like a trendy clique) in order to set oneself apart from others.

 

A very attractive bar maid once told me that she did not eat any creature with eyes or that poops. I also overheard her say that pork is toxic to humans because pigs have no sweat glands as if that was the only way animals could remove toxins from their bodies. *facepalm*

 

She was 28 years old at the time and desperately anxious that she was still single. She had just dumped a guy that she was seeing for a couple months, and seemed very interested in me (she introduced me to her BFF).

 

Hypergamous? Check.

 

Social justice warrior feminist? Check.

 

Vegan? Check.

 

My penis absolutely wanted to meet her, but the three above characteristics are enough to get my amygdala to fire off when thinking about how lawyers with unlubed dildos would be chasing me and my wallet in the future.

 

We can NAWALT (or NAVALT) all we want, but ethical vegans tend to also be cut from the same cloth as this social justice feminist because veganism and feminism are derived from the same political movement that started in the 1960s, which is also when government and academics started to stick their meddling fingers into national food policy.

 

If there were hard metrics to peruse online, the correlation between feminism (and other cultural Marxists) and veganism would be strong. I'm thinking of a Pearson's Linear Corralation of .4 or greater.

 

Thank you, philosophy, for helping me to save myself from eating a loaded shotgun after this woman was done with me.

 

Egads! I shiver to think about how sexually attracted I was to her. Blahck!

[LandoRamone30]

There is tons of information that is out there on diets and how to lose weight, pills programs etc. etc. etc. I will simplify this for you, then I will give you the source material. Exercise is good for health, but has little or nothing to do with weight loss. Fructose is toxic and dangerous. Fiber has to be a huge part of your diet. Food and Drug Admin. Recommends 38 grams of fiber. Any number above that will not hurt. You will just keep feeling fuller until you get tired of eating. Real whole foods is what your body wants. Box processed stuff is what your taste buds want, but it hurts the body. The source material Dr. Robert Lustig book Fat Chance. Has a lecture on youtube.

 

 

Have Fun!

[J. D. Stembal]

This thought occurred to me today when a person messaged me on Facebook in order to insinuate passive-aggressively that by eating meat, I lack compassion. That's not an argument, or if it is one, I certainly don't understand how it works logically.

In the moment that I was typing a reply, I realized that Stefan is absolutely right about this r/K theory of the human species.

We have a subset of people who worship the state, espouse cultural Marxism, detest eating meat and those who voluntarily choose to eat it. They are the living embodiment of rabbits (r-selected), and thus, are the natural enemy of the rest of us voluntarists (K-selected).

Incidentally, the only reason the modern raw vegan fad diet works is because of the hyper-availability of global food crops through taxpayer subsidized agriculture, rapid transport, and the productivity of market Capitalism to respond to consumer demand. Fifty years ago, no one could be a raw vegan. It was simply not possible to get enough calories or the right nutrients without relying on animal products to some degree.

 

All the while, the r-selected vegans attempt to use emotional appeals disguised as ethics in order to gain more followers at the expense of the K-selected humans who are more intelligent and see that animal husbandry is the healthiest and most sustainable means of food production.

On a long enough timeline, the r-selected, consuming a herbivore's diet, will slowly drain the capital from the K-selected through the gun of the state by over-stressing the already stretched socialized health care system with their resulting illnesses due to eating vegan.

In conclusion, vegans are the epitome of the r-selected human, slowly killing themselves while considering it a more ethical ideology. I have to say that I've never been more proud to eat meat than I do in this moment.

[st434u]

There is tons of information that is out there on diets and how to lose weight, pills programs etc. etc. etc.

Yes, but most of it is contradictory. Also, one may want to know what's healthy. Cocaine will make it very easy to lose weight. But it's probably not a good idea as far as your health goes.

 

Fructose is toxic and dangerous. Fiber has to be a huge part of your diet. Food and Drug Admin. Recommends 38 grams of fiber. Any number above that will not hurt. You will just keep feeling fuller until you get tired of eating. Real whole foods is what your body wants. Box processed stuff is what your taste buds want, but it hurts the body.

I don't necessarily disagree with Robert Lustig, but there's a problem with these claims. Especially when you consider how a part of his argument is that there's no food in nature that contains both sugar and fat in large amounts. Here's the problem. There's really only one major natural, whole food source of calories that contains a very high amount of fiber and can be found in relative abundance in the wild. Fruits. And they also contain a lot of fructose.

[fractional slacker]

There is tons of information that is out there on diets and how to lose weight, pills programs etc. etc. etc. I will simplify this for you, then I will give you the source material. Exercise is good for health, but has little or nothing to do with weight loss. Fructose is toxic and dangerous. Fiber has to be a huge part of your diet. Food and Drug Admin. Recommends 38 grams of fiber. Any number above that will not hurt. You will just keep feeling fuller until you get tired of eating. Real whole foods is what your body wants. Box processed stuff is what your taste buds want, but it hurts the body. The source material Dr. Robert Lustig book Fat Chance. Has a lecture on youtube.

 

 

 

Have Fun!

Exercise has little or nothing to do with weight loss. 

Are you making the claim exercise has nothing to do with weight loss?

Fructose is toxic and dangerous.

What is the definition of toxic?

 

Real whole foods is what your body wants.

Food is what your body wants/needs, absolutely. That is a given.