• Senseless@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t eat three meals a day because you have no money.

    I don’t eat three meals a day because I want to lose weight.

    We’re not the same.

    • EmoDuck
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      92
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      You don’t eat three meals a day because you want to lose weight

      I don’t eat three meals a day because shit is it already 5 pm? Why did my hunger response not say anything? Time to eat my entire daily caloric allowance in one sitting

      We’re not the same

    • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      On any given day I can eat 1-4 meals.

      It depends if I’m hungry. Mostly it’s 2 meals and I stop when I’m full.

      I think it helps that I treat food like fuel rather than something I actively enjoy doing. On the days I’m more active I’m more hungry and so eat more.

      There is no point to this comment other than to put out my odd relationship with food I guess.

      • Senseless@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s okay, we all have our quirks.

        When in really into the zone (whatever zone that might be) I tend to not have any appetite and “forget” to eat. But that doesn’t happen all this often. Also, I just like good, or basically yummy food. Makes it kind of hard to change your habits and eat junk only about once weekly.

        • dependencyinjection@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks.

          Yeah it’s those habits that are hard to break. Like I eat too much sugar for my liking.

          IKR to being in the zone and forgetting things. It’s that reason I have a very strong bladder lol

      • IWantToFuckSpez@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why is it contra productive? If their daily calorie intake goes down than it is effective. That’s all that matters. Doesn’t matter if they achieve that trough intermittent fasting or calorie restriction.

        • taladar@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Not the person you replied to but one reason not to eat all your calories in one or two meals a day would be that your blood sugar levels can spike higher that way, putting you at more risk of adverse health effects from that. Of course it also depends on what you eat and how much in general.

        • gajustempus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          1 year ago

          because your metabolism consumes the most calories - and if you don’t eat anything, it’ll just slow the process of consuming calories.

          So, to keep it running, you have to give it at least SOMETHING to work with.

          • barsoap@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            All our calories are consumed by the metabolism. It’s like saying that all the wood fed to an oven is consumed by fire, it’s in the definition of the thing.

            And, no, skipping meals doesn’t slow down the metabolism. What kind of survival strategy would that be, be hungry but don’t have energy to gather and hunt food? Up to about 48 hours of fast you get a metabolic boost on the order of 4 to 16%, then it returns to baseline before going down. And this isn’t fucking new and no I won’t cite anything because it’s been known since we can fucking measure it. If you find a source contradicting it it’s going to be some fad diet propaganda, not actual science. Searching online you’ll find papers and bad scans of graphs from the 70s but the data should go back at least to the 40s or so.

            These mechanisms are practically identical in pretty much all living critters on earth as they’re very old because evolutionary speaking food insecurity is the rule, not the exception, meaning our genome is accustomed to it and our bodies right-out need periods of fast to switch on certain crucial programs, such as autophagy – which isn’t just starvation-grade “let’s eat all the muscle mass” but also “hey that skin is quite loose now let’s shrink it a bit”. General maintenance work, gotta rip out and recycle some old stuff once in a while to keep everything running smoothly.

            And that’s before getting hunger and satiation hormones into play. “Just eat less calories” is kinda hard to do when you’re choosing the maximally difficult way to do it – compare and contrast the Minnesota starvation experiment. Sure all those diet comparisons generally show that equal reductions in calories imply roughly equal reductions in weight but have a look at which diets are ad-lib (eat as much as you want, but only certain stuff, or at certain times of day), or not (eat only so and so many calories), and how well people are able to actually keep those up.