To eat or not to eat...

I invite everyone to STOP eating and see what happens!

Do it long enough, and you will end up looking like a holocaust
victim.

Starvation works every time, guaranteed!

On Feb 8, 1:13 am, 6packer wrote:
On Feb 7, 8:47 am, "Mr. Natural-Health"

wrote:
On Feb 6, 9:37 pm, 6packer wrote:

Haha, no no dont STOP EATING...actually the best thing to do to lose
weight fast/effectively is to eat about 6 times a day!

Probably the worst advice ever given.

Are you kidding? i guess you dont know anything about how the
metabolic process works in your body.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

I happen to know how FatSos work!

Six tiny meals a day. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Absolutely no way.

FatSos just love any excuse to eat more food all day long.

Want to loose weight, then try starving for a change.

(Mr. Natural-Health) wrote in
:

I invite everyone to STOP eating and see what happens!

BREATHARIANISM, INEDIA, NON-EATING (breatharian, inediate, non-eater)

This is a state of man (breatharian, inediate, non-eater) characterized
(among other things) by the absence of eating, ...

http://www.breatharian.info/

On Feb 13, 9:35 am, Fred wrote:
(Mr. Natural-Health) wrote :

I invite everyone to STOP eating and see what happens!

BREATHARIANISM, INEDIA, NON-EATING (breatharian, inediate, non-eater)

This is a state of man (breatharian, inediate, non-eater) characterized
(among other things) by the absence of eating, ...

Fasting / breatharian was quite popular during the 19th century. A
number of individuals managed to publicly starve themselves to death
trying to prove that they did not to eat in order to survive.
Relatives were passing these nut jobs food during kissing.

None of these breatharian freaks were note worthy enough to mention by
name. They were were all obviously mentally ill. And, would rather
live their miserable existence of a life staying in bed their entire
life then doing an honest day's work.

http://naturalhealthperspective.com/...n-america.html
"1859Charles Darwin publishes his On the Origin of Species, in London
England. People in the 19th century would soon become less than
convinced that everything about a human being could be explained
biologically. The medical profession obsessed with its mechanical
materialism from the perspective of the 19th century person would end
up attacking far more than just unscientific alternative medicine.
Mechanical materialism was a direct attack upon the Christian faith
and its notion of a soul as well as an attack upon all Classical
Western values. When science attacks alternative medicine, it is
really claiming that everything about a human being can be explained
by biology. For with biomedicine all Classical Western values such as
bravery, loyalty, hard work, and free will are only a matter of
molecules, genetics, and the right combination of prescription
medication. The public would soon develop a mistrust of the new and
rapid ascendance of science which precluded any belief in the ability
of a person to rise above carnal needs and desires. The 19th century
American public would soon see fasting as proof that people could live
through divine grace rather than by the normal laws of nature.
Interest in Spiritualism would soon develop as a direct response to
mechanical materialistic Darwinism as a form of scientific religion
that proclaimed that it could scientifically study the soul."

On Jan 28, 3:10 pm, Prisoner at War wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:59 pm, forest demon wrote:

What are peoples thoughts on eating or aerobics, first thing in the
morning. I've done both in the past, but wanted to hear what people
have to say. in other words, is there a benefit to doing aerobics when
waking, and then eat afterwards....or eat, wait 90 minutes or so and
then do the aerobics.

I'n not into lifting weights or having huge muscle mass. i also like
doing the three hour meal interval; however, not eating within the
first half hour of rising contradicts my question above, i know.

thanks folks.....

-
fd

Like 99% of everything having to do with health and fitness, you're
going to get opinions all over the place, each one with its
"scientific studies" backing it up.

I've heard that cardio in the morning before breakfast is best for
burning calories. Just like I've heard that that doesn't matter, that
it doesn't matter whether you do it in the morning or before
breakfast, as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

Me personally, I've done both and haven't noticed any difference
either way. I think it's more psychological than physiological.

I believe that both possibilities have pros and cons. It's a
subjective issue depending on what you are eating, what you ate the
night before, and what your body feels like. You see, by eating before
working out, theoreticlly, one has a high possible energy level with
the high calories and would be thence able to work harder, translating
into a healthier routine. But at the same time, the calories consumed
need to be canceled for the workout to be as effective as doing it on
an empty stomach. By not eating, your body would be already a bit weak
and so as long as you have a high protein recovery meal, it could also
translate into the building of muscle.

I am doing a science project involving the effects of various
exercises on pulse, sugar, mass, and isolated muscular exhaustion, for
which I performed all the treatments on an empty stomach. I found that
when my sugar levels were relatively low, I felt a bit weaker and less
able to operate at top performance. I am not diabetic, but eating
gives us energy and sugar defiantly plays a role in short term
strength. You also don't want a high sugar level, just an average one.

Another thing you may want to consider is compromising the two. Try
eating (for lack of a better phrase) a 'half breakfast' before working
out and then eat the other half afterwards.

N.X. Rodser wrote:

I am doing a science project involving the effects of various
exercises on pulse, sugar, mass, and isolated muscular exhaustion, for
which I performed all the treatments on an empty stomach. I found that
when my sugar levels were relatively low, I felt a bit weaker and less
able to operate at top performance. I am not diabetic, but eating
gives us energy and sugar defiantly plays a role in short term
strength. You also don't want a high sugar level, just an average one.

Another thing you may want to consider is compromising the two. Try
eating (for lack of a better phrase) a 'half breakfast' before working
out and then eat the other half afterwards.

Read Gary Taubes new book "Good Calories, Bad Calories". The primary
hypothesis that appears to be very strong is that carbs drive insulin which
drives calories to fat cells. Decrease your carb intake and your body fat
will decrease, provided calories stay reasonable and exercise is decent
volume.

On Jan 28, 3:10*pm, Prisoner at War wrote:
On Jan 27, 10:59 pm, forest demon wrote:

What are peoples thoughts on eating or aerobics, first thing in the
morning. *I've done both in the past, but wanted to hear what people
have to say. in other words, is there a benefit to doing aerobics when
waking, and then eat afterwards....or eat, wait 90 minutes or so and
then do the aerobics.

I'n not into lifting weights or having huge muscle mass. i also like
doing the three hour meal interval; however, not eating within the
first half hour of rising contradicts my question above, i know.

thanks folks.....

-
fd

Like 99% of everything having to do with health and fitness, you're
going to get opinions all over the place, each one with its
"scientific studies" backing it up.

I've heard that cardio in the morning before breakfast is best for
burning calories. *Just like I've heard that that doesn't matter, that
it doesn't matter whether you do it in the morning or before
breakfast, as far as caloric expenditure is concerned.

Me personally, I've done both and haven't noticed any difference
either way. *I think it's more psychological than physiological.

Nathan Pritikin once wrote that one should eat at least a little
something before exercise because otherwise, on a completely empty
stomach, free fatty acids would be thrown into the blood. I have no
comment on this other than to say I read it in one of his books.

Dolores