Keto and Fasting has been amazing thus far.
Replies
-
Keto worked for me for quite a while. It really helped me with my carb addiction. I'm still leery of any "nutritional" benefit that might come from our commercialized wheat and flour. The most popular wheat germ that we grow from agriculture is not grown because of its nutrition, it's popular because you can harvest it faster and get more out of it. Just look at enriched flour (flour that has no nutritional value after the milling process, so the FDA requires companies to add vitamins back into it).
Some of this is true, I think, but perhaps a little oversimplified. That said, even accepting this as written, is it worth throwing out wheat entirely because of non-ideal practices that account for a very, very short period of its cultivation history? I find it a curious approach when talking about food ethics and I run into a lot - the worst practices by some producers are seen as a reason to quit cultivating the crop entirely, and that doesn't make any sense to me.
(NB: I purchase wheat and other grains directly from a local family farm, and would definitely agree that taste, at the very least, is vastly superior to the offerings at a typical grocery store. I'd argue it's probably more nutritious too, but I do not in fact have the stats to back that up. Taste and supporting a neighbor matter enough for me.)
Flour has calories and therefore by definition has nutrition. I'm not a fan of "big agriculture" as it were, for a variety of reasons, but the technological advancements and huge increases in yields over the past several centuries have probably saved a lot of people from starving to death. I have no problem talking about ideals and ethics with food, and about the variations in nutrition based on cultivation methods. That's all fine. But with wheat and other grains especially I think you can't ignore that there are people in this world who have and still do depend on it to not die. Those of us who have enough access to other food to be able to not include staple foods like this are very lucky.4 -
penguinmama87 wrote: »
Keto worked for me for quite a while. It really helped me with my carb addiction. I'm still leery of any "nutritional" benefit that might come from our commercialized wheat and flour. The most popular wheat germ that we grow from agriculture is not grown because of its nutrition, it's popular because you can harvest it faster and get more out of it. Just look at enriched flour (flour that has no nutritional value after the milling process, so the FDA requires companies to add vitamins back into it).
Some of this is true, I think, but perhaps a little oversimplified. That said, even accepting this as written, is it worth throwing out wheat entirely because of non-ideal practices that account for a very, very short period of its cultivation history? I find it a curious approach when talking about food ethics and I run into a lot - the worst practices by some producers are seen as a reason to quit cultivating the crop entirely, and that doesn't make any sense to me.
(NB: I purchase wheat and other grains directly from a local family farm, and would definitely agree that taste, at the very least, is vastly superior to the offerings at a typical grocery store. I'd argue it's probably more nutritious too, but I do not in fact have the stats to back that up. Taste and supporting a neighbor matter enough for me.)
Flour has calories and therefore by definition has nutrition. I'm not a fan of "big agriculture" as it were, for a variety of reasons, but the technological advancements and huge increases in yields over the past several centuries have probably saved a lot of people from starving to death. I have no problem talking about ideals and ethics with food, and about the variations in nutrition based on cultivation methods. That's all fine. But with wheat and other grains especially I think you can't ignore that there are people in this world who have and still do depend on it to not die. Those of us who have enough access to other food to be able to not include staple foods like this are very lucky.
I'm not trying to write off wheat or grains entirely, even though I probably came off that way. I ate muesli this very breakfast, and I tend to eat a lot of white rice (which also has it's own gross practices). I also tend to eat the bread that is made out of the same enriched flour I was just condemning in my previous post. I try to find 100% wheat bread, but it isn't always available where I live. I'm mostly just rambling about the unhealthy, processed side of grains (and big agriculture).
Keto started out as a blanket "carbs are bad" approach to losing weight. I think it is proposed this way because the simpler it is, the easier it is. But after getting into it, I tried to understand why carbs were being restricted, and why it was working (for me). I'm not trying to paint any food group out to being the bad guy, even though that may be what my Keto journey was based on initially. I began to learn that some carbs were good, others were bad, just like I learned that some fats were healthy, and so on. I didn't need to do Keto to learn this, but for some reason it was the first time in my life that I began to learn about nutrition. Sadly my school never taught nutrition. Our lesson was basically our physical ed. teacher handing out the food pyramid and calling it a day.
And I think it is great that you are buying locally. Where I grew up, I was able to buy eggs, bacon, and milk from the farm next door. Now where I live, I am surrounded by farms in the middle of no where, but these farms don't sell locally. I can drive probably 8 hours and see nothing but farmland, but it's all soybeans and canola. So I am definitely one of those people who is dependent on big farms because that's where all my produce and meat come from at the store.
Big agriculture is one of those things that I am amazed and appreciative of, but also fearful of what affects it has on the environment. So if you have the option to buy locally and choose to do so, I really do commend you!4 -
psychod787 wrote: »Human history is much longer than you can imaging. Thousands years of evolution is definitely not correct, We talking millions years of evolution. All this amazingly long historical stretch humans did not touch even one piece of bread, one piece of sugar. What prehistoric man could find in nature is only, plants parts . like tubers, leaves, stems, very small fruits, berries. With such a little nutritious values of these parts of veggies, sure thing he turned to the meat of animals, where whole spectrum of nutrients and calories present in full.
Some people miss the point: not all carbs created equal. If they say carbs , they mean bread, for some reason. Let distinguish once and forever carbs are not only bread. Carbs are million of plants and their parts. They are not addictive, hard to eat 1 lb of kale or spinach, but it is easy to eat 1lb sandwich for some people. Bread looks good, smells good and taste very good. Such heard to resist fresh bread.
First off..... wrong about hunter gatherers diets being primarily meat based. Is actually heavily plant based. This is a breakdown by season of the Hadza's diet
The Hatza Tribe is only 1 hunter/gatherer society of over 200 anthropological sites that have been excavated and studied. Macronutrients are mostly based geographically and the latitude is a very important factor. The Hatza being from the Riff Valley is different than the sites in Europe or Scandinavia for example. From memory I think the average carbohydrate intake was in the low 30%, with some in the single digits.0 -
On Okinawa diagram, nobody told you what style of eating those people have. But it is a very special comment has to be done. They eat first about 2 times a day, consuming only 80% of fullness feeling in the stomach. With this style of eating any food, even cake or pop corn turn in to heath food.
Haha, that's kinda true. A 20% deficit eating McDonalds all day would provide improved blood markers, comparatively speaking. Who's the person that ate junk in a deficit and their health markers were better?0 -
If you start thinking deeply, nothing is wrong about McDonalds food. You eat ground meet, little veggies, you can throw away that enormous amount of white bread, not drink coke and --wualyaa! you have normal meal. If you eat it only 2 times a day with break between meal of 5-7 hrs, not having snacks after 7 PM and, also feeling 80% fullness in your stomach, YES. your will see your health markers improving. I just listed the menu of "healthy " food.
What is healthy food? Good source of protein, veggies, fruits in limit, fiber. And what we got from that menu? exactly same list. With little corrections. Meat could be more naturally processed, veggie could be more abandon, add little bit of fruits or berries, and you get picture perfect.
I don t mean we can eat it every day, but as emergency back up it is fine once in a wile .2 -
If you start thinking deeply, nothing is wrong about McDonalds food. You eat ground meet, little veggies, you can throw away that enormous amount of white bread, not drink coke and --wualyaa! you have normal meal. If you eat it only 2 times a day with break between meal of 5-7 hrs, not having snacks after 7 PM and, also feeling 80% fullness in your stomach, YES. your will see your health markers improving. I just listed the menu of "healthy " food.
What is healthy food? Good source of protein, veggies, fruits in limit, fiber. And what we got from that menu? exactly same list. With little corrections. Meat could be more naturally processed, veggie could be more abandon, add little bit of fruits or berries, and you get picture perfect.
I don t mean we can eat it every day, but as emergency back up it is fine once in a wile .
True in the sense that if someone's diet is lacking essential nutrients or specific vitamins and minerals which are present in a McDonalds food they are consuming. Otherwise I believe a more natural choice, you know one where the food actually rots and becomes methane, what, wait, so eating McDonalds helps in the fight against climate change...
0 -
If you start thinking deeply, nothing is wrong about McDonalds food. You eat ground meet, little veggies, you can throw away that enormous amount of white bread, not drink coke and --wualyaa! you have normal meal. If you eat it only 2 times a day with break between meal of 5-7 hrs, not having snacks after 7 PM and, also feeling 80% fullness in your stomach, YES. your will see your health markers improving. I just listed the menu of "healthy " food.
What is healthy food? Good source of protein, veggies, fruits in limit, fiber. And what we got from that menu? exactly same list. With little corrections. Meat could be more naturally processed, veggie could be more abandon, add little bit of fruits or berries, and you get picture perfect.
I don t mean we can eat it every day, but as emergency back up it is fine once in a wile .
I think McDonald's is fine as part of an overall nutritious diet and that includes the bread and Coke, if you want to eat them.
How long a break you have between meals or whether you have snacks after 7 pm is irelevant.6 -
I think that breaks between meals and no snacking after 7PM are very relevant. It is main times periods when your insulin going down and let your internal system recover from glucose peaks. Your fat burning hormones (about 38 of them allowed to be released and do their valuable work. Hormonal make up is crucial in any centenarians diets , in the blew zones diets. Not a food type makes the blue zoned so healthy, but what people do between the meals.
There are diets based on sweet potato, on lentils, on meat, on coconut palm fruits or palm oil. But the mail feature they have is calories deficit and few times of meals a day (1, 2 or 3 not more)0 -
I think that breaks between meals and no snacking after 7PM are very relevant. It is main times periods when your insulin going down and let your internal system recover from glucose peaks. Your fat burning hormones (about 38 of them allowed to be released and do their valuable work. Hormonal make up is crucial in any centenarians diets , in the blew zones diets. Not a food type makes the blue zoned so healthy, but what people do between the meals.
There are diets based on sweet potato, on lentils, on meat, on coconut palm fruits or palm oil. But the mail feature they have is calories deficit and few times of meals a day (1, 2 or 3 not more)
How do you explain the experiences of people who lose weight and maintain that loss long term while eating frequent meals or eating after 7 PM?
What is the evidence that food choices are irrelevant in the blue zones? Most experts seems to agree there is a combination of food choices AND lifestyle factors at play there, so I'm curious to know what you're citing to dismiss the role that food choices play.9 -
There is nothing more important than eating in whichever way ends up most effective in ensuring compliance with caloric goals when one is either sitting at bmis above 30 (or bmis below 18).
When one is far out of the 18 to 25 range--maybe stretching it up to 27 or 28-), when one is that far out, *at that point*, everything other than long-term caloric compliance is mouse turds.
If you're sitting pretty in the 20 to 27 range then let's talk marginal improvements; but until and unless you're in that range it's all about calories and compliance baby!
And don't worry, you will breathe out your stored fat reserves pretty much in line with the overall long term caloric deficit you create, regardless of how you end up creating it.
To position yourself better for continuing compliance for the long-term, you're better off not taking things to wild extremes and concentrating throughout to options that are likely to prove sustainable for you, while recognizing that you can and should make changes (that remain in line with promoting caloric compliance) over time!
While animal studies support the idea of permanent deficit eating for longevity, there exists more considerations than just longevity, and the results are not quite in for humans yet.
I mean monks in the Himalayas are/were also thought to live a long life... but their lifestyle does have a couple of downsides which would make me hesitant to adopt it as my own, so there's that.5 -
If your calories such important, so how in the world people managed to slim before those calories were invented?
Even in my life time, there were time just about 20 years ago. nobody counted those calories, especially macros, And anyway people managed to stay slim. I had my weight of 118 lb from high school thru retirement. I still cam fit in my wedding dress1 -
I agree with Pav - except I would go one further and say compliance matters at maitenance too, not just when one is a BMI that needs weight loss or gain.
How long one goes between meals or whether one snacks (or eats main meals) after 7 pm is totally irelevant both from a weight point of view where it is only the calorie total that matters, not when or how frequently you ate them and from a nutrition point of view where it is only the overall nutrition balance that matters, not when or how frequently you ate.3 -
and on a personal note - I lost weight to goal in 2013 and have kept it off since then.
I nearly always have my main meal (dinner) after 7 pm and a snack after that.
I don't go long distances between eating and generally eat 5 times per day (it varies but breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, dinner , after dinner snack is my norm with drinks in between that)
That is just me - may or may not apply to anyone else.5 -
If person trying to loose weight from BMI 30 and higher. is one thing. If he/she divides the calories by 5 meals, it become a good meaningful meal. But for person of BMI 20, if you divide his her day calories by 5, it will looks like 4 nuts and 5 raisins. This is only a tip of the iceberg. But the majority of benefits comes from pause between the meals. This is not only about deficit, guys, please understand, this is about HORMONAL SHIFT.
We are not a simple laboratory calorimetric bombs, we all unique metabolically and biochemically individuals, with our own unique processes in each of the trillions cells. Those cells receive nutrients, and not gonna simply burn them as fuel in the isolated bomb, they receive information of how to deal with them, communicate to each other with this information. And the messengers in our body are nothing but hormones, and or special proteins which transfer information about all body cells.
And the beauty and meaning of the processes is not only in the times of receiving nutrients, but also in the time when nothing is coming. Cells have mechanism of mobilization, survival and rejuvenation.
Our mission is only to help our body to reach this time of rejuvenation and stay there for reasonable stretch of time to rip all the benefits.
1 -
If your calories such important, so how in the world people managed to slim before those calories were invented?
Even in my life time, there were time just about 20 years ago. nobody counted those calories, especially macros, And anyway people managed to stay slim. I had my weight of 118 lb from high school thru retirement. I still cam fit in my wedding dress
From my high school home economics textbook, published in 1960, i.e., 61 years ago:
Note the nutrients, starting in the right-hand side of the page, in that 2nd image. Other nutrients are there; I just didn't copy the full page-width. Book also has lists of calories/nutrients in various common foods.
And in the same book, based on 1944 research data:
People have known about calories since the 1800s, and use of them for personal weight management began to be popularized in the early 1900s, though counting in detail wasn't really practical until we had the modern apps. (We counted calories using books with food/calorie lists, back in the 1970s, when I was a teenager . . . but it wasn't at all practical, so not very sustainable, realistically.)
For centuries, most people - many more of whom were farmers, back in the day - have understood that if you feed an animal more food, it gets fatter, faster; and if you feed it less food to the low point needed to have the effect, it loses weight. They didn't need to be able to measure calories to realize that. Further, they understood that the same principle applied to people. There was also an understanding that food quality mattered, even before people clearly understood macronutrients.
No, I didn't dig up this old book for just this thread. There's more about the book here, in the Debate area - originally posted it to counter-balance inaccurate things about the history of calorie counting and weight loss methods in other threads over there.
If it amuses anyone, there's more extracts from the book here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10625791/mainstream-eating-guidance-1960/p1
I fit in my wedding dress, too, though I admit I didn't continuously fit in it since I first wore it in 1978. I'm not sure how that's a qualification for the validity of any discussion point in this thread, though.
Different methods of weight management work. For some people, like the OP, that's keto and fasting. For me, it's calorie counting and balanced nutrition. Whatever method brings a person to a healthy weight and/or keeps them there, happily, with reasonable nutrition, is a good thing, IMO. Misrepresenting science, history, anthropology, etc., tends to reduce the credibility of a person's conclusions or advice, I would think. Of course, we can all make mistakes or have misunderstandings!15 -
[
I don't go long distances between eating and generally eat 5 times per day (it varies but breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, dinner , after dinner snack is my norm with drinks in between that)
That is just me - may or may not apply to anyone else.[/quote]
I just wonder, do you have something else to do in life? Looks like you only busy with meal preparation. meal consuming, cleaning and thinking what to cook for next meal. What a life!0 -
If your calories such important, so how in the world people managed to slim before those calories were invented?
Even in my life time, there were time just about 20 years ago. nobody counted those calories, especially macros, And anyway people managed to stay slim. I had my weight of 118 lb from high school thru retirement. I still cam fit in my wedding dress
Echoing @AnnPT77
My mom used a book, measuring cups, a scale, and the Navy Fitness book circa 1975.
10 -
I think that breaks between meals and no snacking after 7PM are very relevant. It is main times periods when your insulin going down and let your internal system recover from glucose peaks. Your fat burning hormones (about 38 of them allowed to be released and do their valuable work. Hormonal make up is crucial in any centenarians diets , in the blew zones diets. Not a food type makes the blue zoned so healthy, but what people do between the meals.
There are diets based on sweet potato, on lentils, on meat, on coconut palm fruits or palm oil. But the mail feature they have is calories deficit and few times of meals a day (1, 2 or 3 not more)
I eat about 70% of my food after 7pm and I've lost 113 pounds in 11 months. I don't feel like I'm at a significant disadvantage from working 3rd shift and eating lunch and diner after 7pm.10 -
Your sleep pattern is different from standard. So you just do the breaks between meals accordingly, it is just 18:6 IF and you start your "morning" meal at your convenient time1
-
If person trying to loose weight from BMI 30 and higher. is one thing. If he/she divides the calories by 5 meals, it become a good meaningful meal. But for person of BMI 20, if you divide his her day calories by 5, it will looks like 4 nuts and 5 raisins. This is only a tip of the iceberg. But the majority of benefits comes from pause between the meals. This is not only about deficit, guys, please understand, this is about HORMONAL SHIFT.
We are not a simple laboratory calorimetric bombs, we all unique metabolically and biochemically individuals, with our own unique processes in each of the trillions cells. Those cells receive nutrients, and not gonna simply burn them as fuel in the isolated bomb, they receive information of how to deal with them, communicate to each other with this information. And the messengers in our body are nothing but hormones, and or special proteins which transfer information about all body cells.
And the beauty and meaning of the processes is not only in the times of receiving nutrients, but also in the time when nothing is coming. Cells have mechanism of mobilization, survival and rejuvenation.
Our mission is only to help our body to reach this time of rejuvenation and stay there for reasonable stretch of time to rip all the benefits.
That's interesting. I actually am a person of BMI 20 (point-something, depending on the day), and neither a large (5'5") nor a young one (65). If you divide my maintenance calories on a day without exercise by 5, the result is roughly 400; on a more normal day, with exercise, it's closer to 500. That's quite a few raisins and nuts, I think?
I don't divide my calories up that way - how I divide them varies by day - but it's rare for me to stop eating them before 7PM. Fairly often, the slight majority of them are after 7PM, sometimes right up to when I brush my teeth before bed, and I've been at a healthy weight for 5+ years now, blood tests and other health markers good, energy and exercise performance ditto, also general health good, so I don't personally perceive a big problem.
I go to bed sometime around 11 or midnight, get up around 7AM, eat for the first time around 8AM, usually. Or is that just 8:16 IF, or thereabouts 😉, since I don't eat while sleeping?
If you thrive on a different pattern, that's great, sincerely.I don't go long distances between eating and generally eat 5 times per day (it varies but breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, dinner , after dinner snack is my norm with drinks in between that)
That is just me - may or may not apply to anyone else.
I just wonder, do you have something else to do in life? Looks like you only busy with meal preparation. meal consuming, cleaning and thinking what to cook for next meal. What a life!
Ad hominem? That's persuasive.16 -
janejellyroll wrote: »I think that breaks between meals and no snacking after 7PM are very relevant. It is main times periods when your insulin going down and let your internal system recover from glucose peaks. Your fat burning hormones (about 38 of them allowed to be released and do their valuable work. Hormonal make up is crucial in any centenarians diets , in the blew zones diets. Not a food type makes the blue zoned so healthy, but what people do between the meals.
There are diets based on sweet potato, on lentils, on meat, on coconut palm fruits or palm oil. But the mail feature they have is calories deficit and few times of meals a day (1, 2 or 3 not more)
How do you explain the experiences of people who lose weight and maintain that loss long term while eating frequent meals or eating after 7 PM?
What is the evidence that food choices are irrelevant in the blue zones? Most experts seems to agree there is a combination of food choices AND lifestyle factors at play there, so I'm curious to know what you're citing to dismiss the role that food choices play.
For months in my weight loss journey I ONLY ate after 7 p.m! Fell into a OMAD thing and for a while it worked, then I got hungry earlier and... changed what I was doing to the next thing that worked. There have been a LOT of things that worked in the year I lost weight. OMAD, IF of various lengths and at least twice - while continuing loss - eating about 6 times a day.
The only thing that hasn't changed (macros, frequency, timing, whatever) has been eating between maintenance and 1200 calories about 90% of the time.7 -
If person trying to loose weight from BMI 30 and higher. is one thing. If he/she divides the calories by 5 meals, it become a good meaningful meal. But for person of BMI 20, if you divide his her day calories by 5, it will looks like 4 nuts and 5 raisins. This is only a tip of the iceberg. But the majority of benefits comes from pause between the meals. This is not only about deficit, guys, please understand, this is about HORMONAL SHIFT.
We are not a simple laboratory calorimetric bombs, we all unique metabolically and biochemically individuals, with our own unique processes in each of the trillions cells. Those cells receive nutrients, and not gonna simply burn them as fuel in the isolated bomb, they receive information of how to deal with them, communicate to each other with this information. And the messengers in our body are nothing but hormones, and or special proteins which transfer information about all body cells.
And the beauty and meaning of the processes is not only in the times of receiving nutrients, but also in the time when nothing is coming. Cells have mechanism of mobilization, survival and rejuvenation.
Our mission is only to help our body to reach this time of rejuvenation and stay there for reasonable stretch of time to rip all the benefits.
That's interesting. I actually am a person of BMI 20 (point-something, depending on the day), and neither a large (5'5") nor a young one (65). If you divide my maintenance calories on a day without exercise by 5, the result is roughly 400; on a more normal day, with exercise, it's closer to 500. That's quite a few raisins and nuts, I think?
I don't divide my calories up that way - how I divide them varies by day - but it's rare for me to stop eating them before 7PM. Fairly often, the slight majority of them are after 7PM, sometimes right up to when I brush my teeth before bed, and I've been at a healthy weight for 5+ years now, blood tests and other health markers good, energy and exercise performance ditto, also general health good, so I don't personally perceive a big problem.
I go to bed sometime around 11 or midnight, get up around 7AM, eat for the first time around 8AM, usually. Or is that just 8:16 IF, or thereabouts 😉, since I don't eat while sleeping?
If you thrive on a different pattern, that's great, sincerely.I don't go long distances between eating and generally eat 5 times per day (it varies but breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, dinner , after dinner snack is my norm with drinks in between that)
That is just me - may or may not apply to anyone else.
I just wonder, do you have something else to do in life? Looks like you only busy with meal preparation. meal consuming, cleaning and thinking what to cook for next meal. What a life!
Ad hominem? That's persuasive.
Also this, having just found it.
My BMI is not 20. My bmi is about 22 right now. I'm 5'5" and 44.
But I maintain on 2200-2400 for TDEE with the occasional much higher activity day I log. That's very in line with Anne per meal if divided by 5 meals.
400-500 at a go. For me that's 2 pieces of toast with sugar free jam 3 pieces of turkey sausage, and a 2 egg cheese omelet. That's 450 calories. I dunno about you, but for me that's a perfectly satisfying amount of food.6 -
my BMI is currently 23 and I am maintaining on that on 1710 calories net. (58 yrs old, height 164cm, weight 62 kg)
I don't do a lot of excercise so some days it is 1800 ish but often just 1710
when I was losing I was on 1460.
One can divide one's meals into 5 (breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, dinner, after dinner snack) without any meal being only raisins and nuts
Raisins and nuts are quite calorie dense - but my mid morning snack is something like a banana, and main meals look like main meals, not a handful of nuts.
4 -
If your calories such important, so how in the world people managed to slim before those calories were invented?
Even in my life time, there were time just about 20 years ago. nobody counted those calories, especially macros, And anyway people managed to stay slim. I had my weight of 118 lb from high school thru retirement. I still cam fit in my wedding dress
People have been calorie counting for well over 20 years - calorie counting pre dates the internet.
People used to do tedious pen and paper calculations from books way before MFP.
But of course people stayed slim (and some still do) without counting calories, or before calories were invented.
Calories are just a unit of measure.
The energy in food existed before calories were 'invented'
Just like the distance between A and B exists before miles were invented
or people jumping off a cliff fell downwards before gravity was 'invented'
10 -
I just wonder, do you have something else to do in life? Looks like you only busy with meal preparation. meal consuming, cleaning and thinking what to cook for next meal. What a life!
yes actually I have lots more to do in life - I work nearly full time and have a family and am involved in clubs and hobbies.
Quite a good life.
Eating breakfast, mid morning snack, lunch, dinner, after dinner snack doesn't stop me doing any of them - although I do vary it on non work days depending on different things in life
Most of my meals don't take much preparation - cereal or toast for breakfast is easy, mid morning snack is something like a banana, no preparation or cleaning up, I take lunch to work in a lunch box - usually things like fruit, yoghurt, sandwich, takes 5 minutes to pack it and very little cleaning required
I usually have 1 cooked meal per day (dinner) - well, unless one counts toast as 'a cooked meal'
I do prepare dinner or sometimes my husband does or sometimes we go out or buy take away
After dinner we tend to have a coffee and small snack or dessert in front of TV
Am certainly not only busy with meal preparation, consuming, cooking etc - in fact I probably do less of that than many other people.
Meal frequency and timing is purely personal preference - my way works for me.
10 -
May I return to (according to my intepretation) the point of this thread? I have a question about Ketosis. Having dabbled a bit with converting my metabolism to Ketosis, I have discovered that one meal/a few choice snacks, can catapult me out of Ketoland without mercy. I was in Ketosis yesterday and had crispy chicken and a handful of chips and snap...I was sent flying back into normal metabolic world. ....Question. If I fast for a day or so and return back to the strict/rigid/and carb-free and sugar-free diet, will it take the same amount of time to return to Ketosis or will the lack of carbs/sugars speed the process up in relation to the typical 2 to 5 days? Your thought (if we can shift from the all important "pizza-gate" debate?
Thanks
2 -
Do you think it matters if you occasionally go out of ketosis? My understanding is that the main benefit of keto is appetite control and that if you can ride out any cravings from going out of it (eating more carbs or carbs/fat junk type foods), you reenter easily.2
-
I think that breaks between meals and no snacking after 7PM are very relevant. It is main times periods when your insulin going down and let your internal system recover from glucose peaks. Your fat burning hormones (about 38 of them allowed to be released and do their valuable work. Hormonal make up is crucial in any centenarians diets , in the blew zones diets. Not a food type makes the blue zoned so healthy, but what people do between the meals.
There are diets based on sweet potato, on lentils, on meat, on coconut palm fruits or palm oil. But the mail feature they have is calories deficit and few times of meals a day (1, 2 or 3 not more)
I eat about 70% of my food after 7pm and I've lost 113 pounds in 11 months. I don't feel like I'm at a significant disadvantage from working 3rd shift and eating lunch and diner after 7pm.
Yeah, I'm a person who finds snacking is unsatisfying so I decided to eat only at meals (3, I'm conventional) when losing and I easily lost 90 lbs (215-125) eating at 7, 12, and 9 most days. Wasn't an issue. Obsessing about dumb stuff like ideal eating/workout times and amount of eating and macros (I do think protein matters and lower carb helps hunger for some, as does WFPB) only made it more difficult to do what made it easier for me. Currently I find 2 meals easier for me (although I was at a lower weight when eating 3, I think it has more to do with other things) and usually eat them around 12 and 7, but my old eating late pattern clearly did not hurt me (and I'm perfectly capable of gaining when eating earlier, less times, or in a shorter window--I've done it!).
Edit: and I ate late bc of work and commuting. I currently eat earlier bc of covid flexibility as even though I go to the office most days now I car pool and do a lot of work from home. When I'm back to the office full time and commute 7 will be completely unrealistic. I used to normally leave the office at 7:30 (or maybe 6:30 if I worked out after work), get home around 8:30, and then make dinner. When younger in a (usually) more stressful job, I'd leave later. The idea that eating everything before 7 is necessary, let alone possible, is bizarre to me.3 -
I'm pretty weirded out, reading back, by the idea that you have 'nothing else in your life' if you're eating multiple snacks in a day.
How freaking long do you think it takes to shove bread in a toaster and smear peanut butter on it, or grab a banana and yogurt, then wash a spoon???13 -
wunderkindking wrote: »I'm pretty weirded out, reading back, by the idea that you have 'nothing else in your life' if you're eating multiple snacks in a day.
How freaking long do you think it takes to shove bread in a toaster and smear peanut butter on it, or grab a banana and yogurt, then wash a spoon???
Or even if it does take some of us a long time - are cooking, baking, gardening, and other related hobbies all lame because they involve food?
11
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions