Jamie -- I'm not sure that the data support your view. Perhaps losing
a lot of weight in the course of a year -- not that one wants to do
that regularly -- is far better than maintaining a lot of weight
throughout the year. (Overall, I'm a lot lower than I was 6 years
ago.)
Do you have any proof at all that the above perspective is wrong?
On the other hand, Mattson's views appear to support the intermittent
lengthy periods between eating. For some reason, eating less regularly
helps the brain and body in a variety of ways.
The traditional three-squares a day appears to harmful (according to
the prelimnary Mattson results) and are incredibly difficult to follow
for the average human beings. That's clearly one of the reasons Dr.
Stern (of the American Obesity Association thinks the results of
intermittent non-eating are important for people to consider.
As athletes fall off their regimens in the course of a year, so too do
people people fall off their diet and exercise programs. (It's tuff to
be good ALL year long.) And as you may be aware, a variety of
admonitions are out there to get people to get in shape -- e.g.,
putting on one's summer bathing suit, getting in shape for sports,
etc.
Yours,
Caleb
(jamie) wrote in message ...
Bob wrote:
Caleb, I'm seeing more and more reputation of the idea that skipping
breakfast is necessarily bad for you. I'm now highly suspect of
anyone that claims that, or that 3 squares are necessary or that
starvation mode is a bad thing. Most of these people will go to
their graves knowing what ain't so.
What's your idea on a likely diet/fasting schedule that will maximize
longevity?
Caleb's history for the past several years in the diet groups is to
crash diet for the 100 days preceding Thanksgiving every year to take
off 40 or 50 pounds then gain the weight back the rest of the year and
crash diet again for 100 days. He's been know to subsist on diets
of cup'o noodles and cabbage soup to do this, so I wouldn't put any
great stock in his nutritional advice for longevity or weight loss.