Your body needs a lot of trace nutrients that are not found in the fat stores, for all kinds of different things.
Also, if it starts to feel like the food supply is threatened, it won’t just happily burn through all the fat reserves down to 0 just trusting that there’s obviously more food available if things get really dire. At that point it’s life and death, and it’ll start to fight. All of these metabolic systems were designed and tuned for environments a lot more unpredictable than modern supermarket life of someone who always has money. Sure, you can “train” it to use up the fat reserves. But it’ll also start concluding that resources are scarce, and it’ll start hoarding in fat whatever it can get its hands on, and ramp way down on resource consumption for a few different pretty important things, among them running the brain and maintaining the physical structures in the body.
If you want your body to run through its fat reserves, do intermittent fasting. I have no real idea, but I suspect that the regularity of it is detected by the body and interpreted as a signal that things are stable and reliable, and it’s okay to reduce the fat reserves which will then carry a few other benefits which are evolutionarily good things. Just “eat less sugar ignore when you’re hungry to train your body to burn fat” isn’t necessarily wrong I think, but it needs a whole bunch of asterisks to really become complete good advice, as far as I knkow.
Your body needs a lot of trace nutrients that are not found in the fat stores, for all kinds of different things.
Yeah, we call those “vitamins”.
And like I wrote, “as long as you’re getting essential vitamins”. Angus was monitored by doctors. It was supposed to be just a short diet, but as Angus felt good, was being monitored and wanted to continue.
just happily burn through all the fat reserves down to 0 just trusting that there’s obviously more food available if things get really dire
Not “happily”, no, but it will burn through all of your fat. And then eventually you die if you don’t find more. Which is why you’re more likely to become more aggressive as that situation becomes more likely and/or the longer you’re kept somewhat deprived of required sustenance.
But our bodies aren’t magical objective truth knowing machines. They don’t know what is needed. They’re just pretty fucking good at estimating and adapting.
Sure, you can “train” it to use up the fat reserves.
You got that the wrong way around, m8. You’ve trained your body to be on calory-save mode. Using glucose and panicking when it doesn’t get some for a few hours. Fat burning is normal. Eating “three square meals a day” is arguably way more often than we need and not necessarily even healthy. (As in intermittent fasting may be better. I’m not saying it is, I’m saying neither or us knows enough to call that as a fact or not, even with googling, as nutrition sciences are very complex and the whole field doesn’t agree on any single thing.)
I have no real idea, but I suspect that the regularity of it is detected b
I mean, I do. I do intermittent fasting every basically. Not as a choice, just as a symptom more or less. But I regularly go 16+ hours without eating. There’s definitely a sweet spot between 10-24 hours or so 24 is a bit much and won’t work for any sort of stability obviously.
But yeah one meal a day usually. Perhaps something light early in the day / during the day, like fruit or nuts, and then a big meal late in the evening. A packet of chicken wings, couple of tomatoes, large red öniön, Turkish yoghurt on the side. A pint of beer with it. Mmm.
My body goes kinda quickly from one mode to the other, I don’t have to “train” mine anymore despite swapping between munching candy all day and intermittent fasting and decent-ish diet.
The calory saver mode is essentially "since you’ve been munching on sugary treats (berries/candy) for every hour you’re awake for the past two days, we (the body) have decided that you’ll now get sugar cravings two hours after you stop eating. Just to make sure you remember to eat while it’s available.
Which is why, like you pointed out, our systems aren’t really adapted to the kind of environment where you can actually eat as much as you want.
If I was billionaire with a private chef, I’d be obese. But am not, and… am not.
But you just got it a little bit the wrong way around. You have to remind your body that scarcity is real. Which is why intermittent fasting works so well.
ust “eat less sugar ignore when you’re hungry to train your body to burn fat” isn’t necessarily wrong I thin
I was thinking morelike “make sure you’re not addicted to sugar, stuck on ‘harvest-time’ mode for the entire year.”
large red öniön, Turkish yoghurt on the side. A pint of beer with it. Mmm.
I am sorry to report, I’ve lost my faith in your nutritional science capabilities
Edit: If I am to take it out of the realm of sarcastic dismissal, I would say that you spun up this whole narrative about how the person you’re talking to is addicted to sugar and needs to eat sweet stuff constantly throughout the day, just because they said they can’t go a full day without eating. I don’t even violently disagree with most of what you’re saying here, most of it I agree with if it is applied to someone who is constantly eating and whose metabolism is adapted like you said, but it seems unlikely that that applies to the person you’re talking to. It feels like you sort of applied a whole bunch of stuff that’s more a you situation or something you’re familiar with, to the other person without bothering to gather the information about what’s going on with them. And then talking about the large red öniön just brought it into the realm of the surreal for me.
You shouldn’t take the word of anyone just saying things.
I’m not a nutrition scientist nor do I purpor to be one. I have some schooling on it, from the army and some in civilian life, but yeah, why would you trust a random person on Lemmy?
That being said, what do you think is so wrong with the meal? A succulent chicken meal? Ofc I don’t eat that everyday or even every week. Super greasy, macros unbalanced. But delicious, and depending on what else you’ve had around the days before and after, it can be a part of a balanced diet.
I’m not claimed anyone is addicted to anything. I’m just saying that modern humanity is very different from what most of our evolutionary history was. The last 200 000 years are a miniscule portion or our evolutionary history, and while adaptation is our thing, the increased productivity over the last 200 years has made the Western world so wealthy that humanity itself is sort of distorted at places. New things become the norm. Surely you wouldn’t disagree that obesity is an ever growing issue?
If you look at the difference between Americans and Europeans, Europeans are generally slimmer, no offense. That’s just statistics. And it’s genuinely largely because the US uses HFCS instead of wheat derivative glucose, and while the difference between those isn’t huge, it’s is probably statistically significant. But its not just the difference in which sugar, it’s also how much of it is, or can be, labeled how, marketed how. Billion things affect it. Food deserts, infrastructure, social structure.
My point is that we probably have an equal amount of gluttony in Europe, and obviously similar-ish levels of obesity when properly compared, but still the US is worse. And it’s probably because we are more anal at regulating and America is more about freedom. So perhaps you guys have more fitter people as well, but so many more obese people that the obesity rate is still higher, and Europeans are just like on average less fit as fit people in the US, but not as fat as the average person.
And again I’d like to remind I don’t claim to have any professional knowledge. Just talking shit, but you can check to see if it is correct or not. I’m sure that last third is 90% bullshit guesses but the first third should be okay.
Oh and I’m saying just that bulking is regular mode in our metabolism, but that it’s being kept “too” on in modern society. Again, which is why intermittent fasting is so popular and effective. So for a person who’s not diabetic and eating the three meals a day, they probably can’t easily go a full day without being in kind of discomfort if they don’t eat at all. That’s “normal”, as per modern society and standards, but is it “normal” if we saw thousands of years into the past? Tens of thousands? I’d say not really. Would be a very different style.
So yeah, the “adaptation” is you just “changing modes” but for someone who hasn’t ever lived with an eating schedule like intermittent fasting, it can be a bitch at first. When I was in the army and eating five meals a day basically (three meals and breakfast and optional snack in the evening), I totally could not make it a full day without eating without being in massive pain. Hell just after a few weeks in the army, back home, even after a night out, I’d just wake up first time around 5.30 and my stomach would be painfully rumbling by 7 if I didn’t get up. Whereas currently I can rather easily go a day or two with little to no calories at any point. But that sort of deprivation does tend to make one angry is continued for too long, for realz, even when you’re used to it.
What a massive comment no-one is gonna read half of this but I’m writing it more for myself I guess.
Your body needs a lot of trace nutrients that are not found in the fat stores, for all kinds of different things.
Also, if it starts to feel like the food supply is threatened, it won’t just happily burn through all the fat reserves down to 0 just trusting that there’s obviously more food available if things get really dire. At that point it’s life and death, and it’ll start to fight. All of these metabolic systems were designed and tuned for environments a lot more unpredictable than modern supermarket life of someone who always has money. Sure, you can “train” it to use up the fat reserves. But it’ll also start concluding that resources are scarce, and it’ll start hoarding in fat whatever it can get its hands on, and ramp way down on resource consumption for a few different pretty important things, among them running the brain and maintaining the physical structures in the body.
If you want your body to run through its fat reserves, do intermittent fasting. I have no real idea, but I suspect that the regularity of it is detected by the body and interpreted as a signal that things are stable and reliable, and it’s okay to reduce the fat reserves which will then carry a few other benefits which are evolutionarily good things. Just “eat less sugar ignore when you’re hungry to train your body to burn fat” isn’t necessarily wrong I think, but it needs a whole bunch of asterisks to really become complete good advice, as far as I knkow.
Yeah, we call those “vitamins”.
And like I wrote, “as long as you’re getting essential vitamins”. Angus was monitored by doctors. It was supposed to be just a short diet, but as Angus felt good, was being monitored and wanted to continue.
Not “happily”, no, but it will burn through all of your fat. And then eventually you die if you don’t find more. Which is why you’re more likely to become more aggressive as that situation becomes more likely and/or the longer you’re kept somewhat deprived of required sustenance.
But our bodies aren’t magical objective truth knowing machines. They don’t know what is needed. They’re just pretty fucking good at estimating and adapting.
You got that the wrong way around, m8. You’ve trained your body to be on calory-save mode. Using glucose and panicking when it doesn’t get some for a few hours. Fat burning is normal. Eating “three square meals a day” is arguably way more often than we need and not necessarily even healthy. (As in intermittent fasting may be better. I’m not saying it is, I’m saying neither or us knows enough to call that as a fact or not, even with googling, as nutrition sciences are very complex and the whole field doesn’t agree on any single thing.)
I mean, I do. I do intermittent fasting every basically. Not as a choice, just as a symptom more or less. But I regularly go 16+ hours without eating. There’s definitely a sweet spot between 10-24 hours or so 24 is a bit much and won’t work for any sort of stability obviously.
But yeah one meal a day usually. Perhaps something light early in the day / during the day, like fruit or nuts, and then a big meal late in the evening. A packet of chicken wings, couple of tomatoes, large red öniön, Turkish yoghurt on the side. A pint of beer with it. Mmm.
My body goes kinda quickly from one mode to the other, I don’t have to “train” mine anymore despite swapping between munching candy all day and intermittent fasting and decent-ish diet.
The calory saver mode is essentially "since you’ve been munching on sugary treats (berries/candy) for every hour you’re awake for the past two days, we (the body) have decided that you’ll now get sugar cravings two hours after you stop eating. Just to make sure you remember to eat while it’s available.
Which is why, like you pointed out, our systems aren’t really adapted to the kind of environment where you can actually eat as much as you want.
If I was billionaire with a private chef, I’d be obese. But am not, and… am not.
But you just got it a little bit the wrong way around. You have to remind your body that scarcity is real. Which is why intermittent fasting works so well.
I was thinking morelike “make sure you’re not addicted to sugar, stuck on ‘harvest-time’ mode for the entire year.”
I am sorry to report, I’ve lost my faith in your nutritional science capabilities
Edit: If I am to take it out of the realm of sarcastic dismissal, I would say that you spun up this whole narrative about how the person you’re talking to is addicted to sugar and needs to eat sweet stuff constantly throughout the day, just because they said they can’t go a full day without eating. I don’t even violently disagree with most of what you’re saying here, most of it I agree with if it is applied to someone who is constantly eating and whose metabolism is adapted like you said, but it seems unlikely that that applies to the person you’re talking to. It feels like you sort of applied a whole bunch of stuff that’s more a you situation or something you’re familiar with, to the other person without bothering to gather the information about what’s going on with them. And then talking about the large red öniön just brought it into the realm of the surreal for me.
You shouldn’t take the word of anyone just saying things.
I’m not a nutrition scientist nor do I purpor to be one. I have some schooling on it, from the army and some in civilian life, but yeah, why would you trust a random person on Lemmy?
That being said, what do you think is so wrong with the meal? A succulent chicken meal? Ofc I don’t eat that everyday or even every week. Super greasy, macros unbalanced. But delicious, and depending on what else you’ve had around the days before and after, it can be a part of a balanced diet.
I’m not claimed anyone is addicted to anything. I’m just saying that modern humanity is very different from what most of our evolutionary history was. The last 200 000 years are a miniscule portion or our evolutionary history, and while adaptation is our thing, the increased productivity over the last 200 years has made the Western world so wealthy that humanity itself is sort of distorted at places. New things become the norm. Surely you wouldn’t disagree that obesity is an ever growing issue?
If you look at the difference between Americans and Europeans, Europeans are generally slimmer, no offense. That’s just statistics. And it’s genuinely largely because the US uses HFCS instead of wheat derivative glucose, and while the difference between those isn’t huge, it’s is probably statistically significant. But its not just the difference in which sugar, it’s also how much of it is, or can be, labeled how, marketed how. Billion things affect it. Food deserts, infrastructure, social structure.
My point is that we probably have an equal amount of gluttony in Europe, and obviously similar-ish levels of obesity when properly compared, but still the US is worse. And it’s probably because we are more anal at regulating and America is more about freedom. So perhaps you guys have more fitter people as well, but so many more obese people that the obesity rate is still higher, and Europeans are just like on average less fit as fit people in the US, but not as fat as the average person.
And again I’d like to remind I don’t claim to have any professional knowledge. Just talking shit, but you can check to see if it is correct or not. I’m sure that last third is 90% bullshit guesses but the first third should be okay.
Oh and I’m saying just that bulking is regular mode in our metabolism, but that it’s being kept “too” on in modern society. Again, which is why intermittent fasting is so popular and effective. So for a person who’s not diabetic and eating the three meals a day, they probably can’t easily go a full day without being in kind of discomfort if they don’t eat at all. That’s “normal”, as per modern society and standards, but is it “normal” if we saw thousands of years into the past? Tens of thousands? I’d say not really. Would be a very different style.
So yeah, the “adaptation” is you just “changing modes” but for someone who hasn’t ever lived with an eating schedule like intermittent fasting, it can be a bitch at first. When I was in the army and eating five meals a day basically (three meals and breakfast and optional snack in the evening), I totally could not make it a full day without eating without being in massive pain. Hell just after a few weeks in the army, back home, even after a night out, I’d just wake up first time around 5.30 and my stomach would be painfully rumbling by 7 if I didn’t get up. Whereas currently I can rather easily go a day or two with little to no calories at any point. But that sort of deprivation does tend to make one angry is continued for too long, for realz, even when you’re used to it.
What a massive comment no-one is gonna read half of this but I’m writing it more for myself I guess.