Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Please help with this argument- Intermittent fasting related

11314151618

Replies

  • annie5904annie5904 Posts: 56Member Member Posts: 56Member Member
    I read about cell renewal...it is called autophogy I think. I like 6/8. At worstt it is an easy way to cut calories, at best it it has health benefits...or so they think.
    I have gone back to it and lost a few pounds over Christmas.
    Like all thinks we need to do what works for us.
    Annie x
  • BootzeyBootzey Posts: 274Member Member Posts: 274Member Member
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
  • snickerscharliesnickerscharlie Posts: 8,466Member Member Posts: 8,466Member Member
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    And your body not burning hot (whatever that means) having anti-aging benefits? First I've ever heard of that. And I've heard a lot. Do you have any links to where this was being alleged?

    edited January 2
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Posts: 4,475Member Member Posts: 4,475Member Member
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
  • wmd1979wmd1979 Posts: 441Member Member Posts: 441Member Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
  • wmd1979wmd1979 Posts: 441Member Member Posts: 441Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I can accept that explanation. Very well thought out and articulated response as always Ann.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,394Member Member Posts: 5,394Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    I agree with this. Humans have not changed. Our environment on the other hand has changed dramatically.

  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,550Member Member Posts: 7,550Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Posts: 13,696Member Member Posts: 13,696Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).

    Agreed that selection applies to variations that have arisen (for lack of a better term) randomly - some variations enhance survival, so those with that variation have better survival odds. I probably phrased it badly, but the main point was not the magnitude of odds or shifts, but rather that humans having hunger (but no opposite "fasting urge") is not in itself a sign that fasting would have no benefits.

    My point was that selection doesn't design organisms to an optimum, it "rewards" variations that have a survival advantage with the prize of survival. With a long history of mostly food shortage rather than surplus, it seems like humans would've had little selection pressure toward developing a physiological "fasting urge" . . . although it's interesting that many traditions include fasting, from a cultural standpoint.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 1,061Member Member Posts: 1,061Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).

    Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
    I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,550Member Member Posts: 7,550Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).

    Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
    I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.

    Again, this seems to assume that evolution must proceed incrementally (which, oddly given your overall position, seems more aligned with the idea that evolution proceeds according to design than not). If we agree that mutations are random and aren't headed anywhere by design, there is no need for them to take a series of genetic changes down the hill and up the other side. It's possible (maybe less likely, but still possible) for dramatic mutations to occur that would allow the organism to leap across the valley without walking down the hill and up the other side.
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Posts: 1,061Member Member Posts: 1,061Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).

    Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
    I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.

    Again, this seems to assume that evolution must proceed incrementally (which, oddly given your overall position, seems more aligned with the idea that evolution proceeds according to design than not). If we agree that mutations are random and aren't headed anywhere by design, there is no need for them to take a series of genetic changes down the hill and up the other side. It's possible (maybe less likely, but still possible) for dramatic mutations to occur that would allow the organism to leap across the valley without walking down the hill and up the other side.

    When speaking of it in forms of algorithms, there are cases where, no, there could not be such a leap because an evolutionary algorithm will have a limit on how far a mutation can cross a solution space.
    In nature rather than in math, there could be the possibility of say, several hundred mutations happening at once in an organism to reach one particular state, but the probability tends to be such that even if a million size population was born every second for the length of time the universe has existed, it still would be unlikely.

    Yes, evolution is incremental. It isn't a designer, it is a tinkerer - it cobbles together what already works. Design would be the type of thing that can produce what isn't incremental.
    How I'm reading your take on evolution sounds more like the hopeful monsters of saltation, not the kind of evolution of the Modern Synthesis that's descended from Darwinism.
  • liftingbroliftingbro Posts: 2,035Member Member Posts: 2,035Member Member
    It's pretty clear from what I've studied on IF is that there are solid benefits to IF but they're not in the fat loss realm. There's no metabolic advantage in IF (like any other fad diet). I may help people feel better if they have GI issues and may help people who feel the need to have large meals. You aren't going to burn fat any faster, it's still deficit or not.

    If eating like that suits you, do it. If you have GI issues, try it. Otherwise meh.
  • lynn_glenmontlynn_glenmont Posts: 7,550Member Member Posts: 7,550Member Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    kimny72 wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    Bootzey wrote: »
    My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits

    Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too. ;)

    In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.

    It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.

    Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).

    Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.

    Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.

    Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?


    To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.

    Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.

    But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.

    Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).

    For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.

    I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:

    I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).

    Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
    I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.

    Again, this seems to assume that evolution must proceed incrementally (which, oddly given your overall position, seems more aligned with the idea that evolution proceeds according to design than not). If we agree that mutations are random and aren't headed anywhere by design, there is no need for them to take a series of genetic changes down the hill and up the other side. It's possible (maybe less likely, but still possible) for dramatic mutations to occur that would allow the organism to leap across the valley without walking down the hill and up the other side.

    When speaking of it in forms of algorithms, there are cases where, no, there could not be such a leap because an evolutionary algorithm will have a limit on how far a mutation can cross a solution space.
    In nature rather than in math, there could be the possibility of say, several hundred mutations happening at once in an organism to reach one particular state, but the probability tends to be such that even if a million size population was born every second for the length of time the universe has existed, it still would be unlikely.

    Yes, evolution is incremental. It isn't a designer, it is a tinkerer - it cobbles together what already works. Design would be the type of thing that can produce what isn't incremental.
    How I'm reading your take on evolution sounds more like the hopeful monsters of saltation, not the kind of evolution of the Modern Synthesis that's descended from Darwinism.

    I guess without practical examples there's no way of knowing whether we're thinking of valleys and hills on the same magnitude. The discussion started on the issue of whether there could possibly be benefits from fasting given that there have not developed genetically preferred fasting behaviors, and my objection was that such an argument actually pictures evolution as pursuing some goal. We seem to have strayed far from that issue.


    ETA: and again, this seems self-contradictory. You say evolution isn't a designer (which I agree with) and then you imbue it with an aim, a goal, a plan of attack to solve problems, which has you, I suspect, unintentionally in agreement with advocates of intelligent design theory:
    It isn't a designer, it is a tinkerer - it cobbles together what already works.

    Evolution doesn't care what already works, because it doesn't care about anything. It doesn't think. It doesn't have intention. It doesn't tinker. It doesn't really do anything. It's just an unavoidable consequence of genetic inheritance, random mutations, and the fact that sometimes a mutation is more beneficial for survival of the genes.





    edited January 4
  • After41After41 Posts: 94Member Member Posts: 94Member Member
    Saw this post on Reddit. Did you get some good answers?
Sign In or Register to comment.