If you aren't intermittent fasting I want to know why not

[marmel75]

I can't see restricting your calories to 12-6 being anything but disastrous. Doing the 8-5 I can almost go with, which leaves you 15 hours of fasting. I went through plenty of times in my life where I simply skipped breakfast every day, and at lunch as my first meal, then would eat dinner around 5. Most times I would semi-eat healthy. Not only did it make me fat, it also encouraged eating later in the night. Yeah, not eating breakfast is easier because it's more convenient, but dinner is not quit as easy.

The perfect, most natural diet seems to me to be 3 meals per day, 80% fruits and vegetables, 20% whatever you want, based on your goals. And eat the vegetables first. Do that, you don't overeat.

I don't know, fasting just seems like the latest bro-science to me. Potatoes, bread and pasta are not bad in moderation. And telling someone to eat a bunch of fattening (even the good fats) is stupid. It's still a ridiculous amount of calories.

"bro science" is made up stuff that has no scientific basis or studies to back it up---just what someone who has tried it says the results are. Intermittent Fasting and fasting has 65+ years of thousands of scientific studies behind it that all pretty much show exactly the same thing. In essence, it's the exact opposite of "bro-science".

It's only recently been brought to people's attention because "old lies die hard"...eating breakfast was once a scientific dogma of a "healthy diet" and nobody dared go against it for 50 years. It was as unthinkable to say that "Maybe breakfast isn't actually needed by the body" as it was to say "The Earth is not flat" during Galilleo's time. That's why such slow progress is made..people become indoctrinated with these old, false ideas and no matter how much research keeps showing they are wrong, it keeps being regurgitated to the next generation of medical professionals as if it's one of the 10 Commandments. The early studies done, that were so poorly designed they shouldn't have even been called studies, are still used because nobody bothered verifying whether they actually were true or not. And usually once that happens---many times by chance by a college kid who isn't set in their ways and taught that BS for 20 years---and they go to reproduce the study they almost always find it was terrible and would never even meet the lowest standard for a legitimate "study" these days. But they had nothing to compare it to back then and no set standards in place either.

It's what happened with saturated fats and STILL doctors are saying they are bad for you when all the research shows they are neutral at worst and slightly beneficial to beneficial at best.

So comparing it to "bro-science" is completely off-base and illogical.

 

[amazingswayze]

Bump