If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
Jamie -- (this method of posting is quite clunky to me -- takes too
long to compose a respone) Any chance you'd like to put a small wager on this one? Say one dollar? Dr. Mattson's study will start in late summer or early fall and will take about six months. Please see the following for a brief description of three meals being better than two, http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...9/ntwin129.xml As for what those folks the knowledgeable folks from misc.fitness.weights have referred to studies showing that the only number of meals per day that has poorer results for weight loss than any other meal frequency is eating only once a day. say, I'd be happy to wager each of them a buck as well (to a maximum of 100 dollars). I think we will find that one meal a day is no less harmful than more meals a day (in terms of harm to the human body). And from my perspective, we're going to find that it's easier to adhere to one meal a day than to be forced with the choice on a daily basis of, "Should I eat? Should I just have a 16th of that?" Wanna bet on whether it's more harmful? Yours, Caleb |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
I see, it's a life-extension study, that hasn't been done yet.
Says nothing at all about losing weight, or this eating pattern on optimal weight folks vs overweight folks, or if the rodent study helped or hindered fat mice. The page did refer to the once a day eating as raising "stresses", from which one might suspect that it might raise cortisol, the latest fad bugaboo cause of difficulty losing weight. Kalepa wrote: Jamie -- (this method of posting is quite clunky to me -- takes too long to compose a respone) Any chance you'd like to put a small wager on this one? Say one dollar? Dr. Mattson's study will start in late summer or early fall and will take about six months. Please see the following for a brief description of three meals being better than two, http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/ne...9/ntwin129.xml As for what those folks the knowledgeable folks from misc.fitness.weights have referred to studies showing that the only number of meals per day that has poorer results for weight loss than any other meal frequency is eating only once a day. say, I'd be happy to wager each of them a buck as well (to a maximum of 100 dollars). I think we will find that one meal a day is no less harmful than more meals a day (in terms of harm to the human body). And from my perspective, we're going to find that it's easier to adhere to one meal a day than to be forced with the choice on a daily basis of, "Should I eat? Should I just have a 16th of that?" Wanna bet on whether it's more harmful? Yours, Caleb -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
Bob -- I agree with your views. Important too is throwing off the
oppression of the toxic advice given by people who give advice that is without any good scientific foundation. Agreement among nutritionists on this particular matter is almost worthless, I think. (They encourage three squares a day, plus snacks, etc.) While they certainly know a lot about different things (and a heck of a lot more than I do about food-related biology -- I'm a psychologist, not a physiologist, nutritionist, nurse, etc.), a lot of what "they know just ain't so." (You may remember that Mondale in his 84 election campaign said, "It's not what we don't know that's going to harm us. It's what we know that just ain't so!" I too would like to look into the future on this one. Yours, Caleb Bob wrote in message . .. Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity. And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness for those who fast. I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week' produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day' with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the fasting days. Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and in relatively good health for the duration. Bob |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
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? Bob On 26 Jun 2004 23:16:45 -0700, (Kalepa) wrote: Bob -- I agree with your views. Important too is throwing off the oppression of the toxic advice given by people who give advice that is without any good scientific foundation. Agreement among nutritionists on this particular matter is almost worthless, I think. (They encourage three squares a day, plus snacks, etc.) While they certainly know a lot about different things (and a heck of a lot more than I do about food-related biology -- I'm a psychologist, not a physiologist, nutritionist, nurse, etc.), a lot of what "they know just ain't so." (You may remember that Mondale in his 84 election campaign said, "It's not what we don't know that's going to harm us. It's what we know that just ain't so!" I too would like to look into the future on this one. Yours, Caleb Bob wrote in message . .. Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity. And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness for those who fast. I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week' produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day' with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the fasting days. Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and in relatively good health for the duration. Bob |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
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. -- jamie ) "There's a seeker born every minute." |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie -- Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research
Bob -- I don't know the parameters of the days on eating and off
eating. I wrote to Mattson several days ago asking him what the research shows about three day and six day intervals but I have not heard back. I'll post it here when I hear his results. But this is all very interesting, and certainly it goes along with his observation that many years ago, the human race had to survive with long intervals between meals. I don't mind long intervals between meals. It's the immediacy of food that gets to me, and -- I'd venture to say -- to a heck of a lot of people. Yours, Caleb Bob wrote in message . .. 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? Bob On 26 Jun 2004 23:16:45 -0700, (Kalepa) wrote: Bob -- I agree with your views. Important too is throwing off the oppression of the toxic advice given by people who give advice that is without any good scientific foundation. Agreement among nutritionists on this particular matter is almost worthless, I think. (They encourage three squares a day, plus snacks, etc.) While they certainly know a lot about different things (and a heck of a lot more than I do about food-related biology -- I'm a psychologist, not a physiologist, nutritionist, nurse, etc.), a lot of what "they know just ain't so." (You may remember that Mondale in his 84 election campaign said, "It's not what we don't know that's going to harm us. It's what we know that just ain't so!" I too would like to look into the future on this one. Yours, Caleb Bob wrote in message . .. Caleb, you are correct. I have no doubt that the fasting will produce the greatest results for both weight loss and longevity. And with that, there will be an increase in health and happiness for those who fast. I'm anxious for the results though and wish I could see into the future as to just how much fasting and how many calories per 'week' produces the best results. I know we can't say say 'calories per day' with this diet because there will be approximately 0 calories on the fasting days. Some have started this diet already and expect to live to be 120 and in relatively good health for the duration. Bob |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dr. Mark Mattson's fascinating research | Caleb Burns | Low Calorie | 1 | June 23rd, 2004 11:33 PM |
Federal diet guidelines to purée low-carb craze | tcomeau | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 8 | May 28th, 2004 10:19 PM |