Among the many mysteries in the universe there are a handful that are just way too perplexing. For example why are cows and elephants - avowed vegetarians - not exactly exhibit "A" examples of leanness. And why are snakes that are strictly meat eaters, that don't even bother to chew their food, the epitome of slim and slender? Meanwhile, humpback whales, long distance swimmers extraordinaire, where the geographic gap between Hawaii and Alaska is a mere lap to them, can't seem to have a decent discernible waistline even when they are on a starvation diet for six months while making the trans Pacific annual journey away from their feeding grounds.
It is so unfair that hummingbirds can't seem to gain weight when they dine mainly on sugary food almost continuously throughout the day as if breakfast, lunch and early dinner are all linked together with a string of unending sweet snacks in between, while we gain weight by merely staring at doughnuts. Consequently, doughnuts and muffins are now mostly banned during company staff meetings. But despite that, corporate America and the U.S. population at large (no pun intended) are getting heavier and the average girth is circumferentially enlarged all the way around? (again, no pun intended).
When doctors tell us we need to lose weight they don't waste consultation time on any scientific validation for their advice. We just have to lose weight, or else. "Or else" is a preamble to a litany of bad stuff that can happen to us.
It is always controversial to talk about weight. Mathematician/philosopher Rene Descartes said, "I think therefore I am", but I surmise that in a much earlier epoch the first cave-man-philosopher must have said, "I eat therefore I be", (excuse his grammar, what did you expect from a caveman). It is said that our life's stages, biologically speaking may be divided into growth, reproduction and maintenance (keeping us alive and staying healthy). Nutrition had to attend to growth and maintenance mostly from birth leading up to puberty until we reached the height and skeletal limits as dictated by our genes.
The reproduction part has a narrow window, particularly for the women. The guys... well ... the ways of the active cave man - hunting and fighting for mates and territory - kept them busy for calories or fat to be an issue, at least until weight gain becomes part of the travails of middle age, although there is no fossil evidence of overweight cavemen. Women, on the other hand, have 10% more body fat than men to begin with - an evolutionary trait that assures ample source of proper nutrition for the young by being able to draw from it during pregnancy and nursing. So it's a bit unfair that women must have the extra baggage (pardon the pun) to start with. But then they are destined for a much nobler role.
At middle age, growth and reproduction fade in priority. Maintenance - the proper daily functioning and repairing of our bodies are about what nutrition is for at that point. But guess what happens? We continue to eat like we still have all the three biological phases to contend with. "Diet and exercise", while catchy does not seem to successfully deliver the message that if you can't burn it all, don't eat it all.
But here is the good news. Actually great news from the field of research. It always starts with experimenting on mice. Of course. Adult mice that were given restricted diet, such as just enough for each day, lived a lot longer than those that were fed buffet style. The theory is that organisms, mammals in particular, make trade off in allocating nutrition. It's true that when times are good mammals reproduce more but cut back on fertility during leaner times. Here's why it may make sense. Our bodies will recognize that when food is plenty the order of business is to propagate the species so it will consume everything it can get for growth and reproduction. When food is scarce nutrition focuses on making sure the body will survive through the famine. So priority for nutrition once growth is no longer a priority is for our cells to undergo repair and maintenance regularly. What happens is at middle age when growth and reproduction have been signed off and there's plenty of food, our body's response is still to continue with consumption, often in excess of what's needed. And we store the excess nutrition by filling out our fat cells for the lean times that never come. So by restricting food intake to just enough we may be tricking our bodies to respond to the lean times and so it focuses on repair and maintenance by keeping our cells healthy. Therefore, eating just right may mean longer, healthier life. And the numbers do seem to support it.
Here are the numbers. A pound of fat (pardon me but let's call it what it is) has the equivalence of 3500 calories. If you consume excess calories by 500 each day, you will gain one pound after one week (500 X 7 = 3500). So, you say you will cut that in half and only consume 250 in excess. You feel good but you will still gain one pound in two weeks. So, now you'll reduce that to half again, down to 125 excess calories. Well, it will now take a month to gain one pound. Unfortunately, after just a year you will be 12 pounds heavier. And that my friends is just from one extra can of regular soda (140 cal.) or its equivalent in candies or other sweets every day. On the other hand, diet soda only gives us a wayward sense of well being, as in someone ordering diet Coke, with double cheeseburger, extra cheese and large fries. And a milk shake to go.
Somewhere on the plains of Africa today a Mazai cattle herder is probably subsisting on 800 calories a day. Contrast that to the developed world where somewhere someone was observed to have consumed 2000 calories in one meal! Yet, it is still perplexing that the Mazai's general population are pretty tall, many reach near 7 feet in height.
In the first world countries marketers and advertisers are a formidable force in influencing consumers. Take the whole idea behind the doughnut hole which gained popularity at one time (it might still be today). The subliminal message of a hole being empty was what drove the psychology of buying doughnut holes instead of the regular doughnut. It turned out folks who bought doughnut holes were eating the same amount, if not more, of carbs and sugar.
So, what is the consumer to do? Go to any book store or library. Diet books outnumber exercise books by half a shelf or more. If you have any doubt, Google diet and exercise books - images on the subject will tell you the deck is once again stacked against the consumer. But there is hope.
There must have been a thousand and one diet and weight loss prescriptions and programs already "in the books" since the reign of King Henry VIII - who loomed large (literally) as an image of over consumption. What is the latest idea? Befitting of 2-3 letter acronyms associated with the high tech world in this modern era is a method called IF for short. Intermittent Fasting.
"In Judaism, fasting is the Biblical or Rabbinic precept or custom of refraining from eating and drinking". Now, the origins of the ritual of fasting, generally speaking from history, is not very clear and not limited to the Jewish faith because other cultures do it as well. What seems to be consistent, however, is that fasting, specially those rooted in ancient practices, is more deeply aligned to the spiritual, rather than for plain dietary reasons. I do not know this for sure but I have yet to come across fasting as defined by ancient cultures that is based other than the theological origins. Except ...
These days fasting can be or is a medical prescription. Certain blood work requires fasting. Colonoscopy and other intestinal examinations can only be conducted when fasting is followed by a thorough and clean sweep of the entire gastric system. Not exactly a pleasant experience for anyone but it is a survivable episode. And it proves that we can handle missing a meal for 24 hours. And people have survived hunger lost in the wilderness or at sea, which are the extreme forms of fasting we do not wish on us or others.
Intermittent fasting comes in different forms, schedules or frequency. What is gaining some real interest, at least from what I've read, is the 16 hour daily intermittent fasting method. It only seems draconian but this popular version sounds reasonable to those who tried it and are staying with it. More severe is the 24 fast, for one day of every seven or fasting four days a month.
The 16 hour one prescribes (not using the word in medical terms here) that if one's evening meal is at 7:00, there should be no more eating after that (no snacks of any kind, and clearly not a bowl of ice cream or a bar of chocolate). The fast does not end in the morning. The traditional first meal to break the fast, which is of course called breakfast, should be skipped entirely, except for coffee, tea and water (definitely no juices of any kind or milk). So at 7:00 a.m. one should have already fasted 12 hours from the night before. Four more hours to go, we're told, should not be too hard to do. One's next meal, therefore, is at between 11:00 a.m. and noon. That is essentially still breaking fast, except it is at 11:00 a.m. - at lunch. Technically, therefore, one breaks the fast with lunch.
And one may eat whatever he or she wants. In other words, there are no dietary restrictions (within reason, of course). All food consumption is done during the next eight hours (snacks in between are allowed during this period) before and up to the evening meal at 7:00 and the cycle begins again. Not that hard after all, is it? It is simple to remember. Confine eating to a third of the entire 24 hour cycle. 16 hour fast and eat only during the other 8-hour period. One caveat is that one should still follow sensible meal choices, such as making sure veggies and fruit are part of the meals.
Harvard Medical and other clinicians who conducted studies on the method have positive things to say about it. Weight loss and general health benefits were observed. I encourage the reader to read up on it. In a nutshell, the idea is for the body to draw on reserve fat during the 16 hour period, perhaps mainly during the remaining 4 hours when we will typically feel the hunger pangs after the last 12 hours of not eating.
I can see one major side effect. It will be on the economy and economists might warn us about it. If everybody does this IF thing, IHOP (International House of Pancakes - for my non-U.S. readers) and breakfast at McDonald's will suffer greatly. On the bright side, restaurants that serve brunch will benefit. Or, rather that brunches will no longer be just on Sundays only.
http://calculators.hpathy.com/calories-need.asp
In the first world countries marketers and advertisers are a formidable force in influencing consumers. Take the whole idea behind the doughnut hole which gained popularity at one time (it might still be today). The subliminal message of a hole being empty was what drove the psychology of buying doughnut holes instead of the regular doughnut. It turned out folks who bought doughnut holes were eating the same amount, if not more, of carbs and sugar.
So, what is the consumer to do? Go to any book store or library. Diet books outnumber exercise books by half a shelf or more. If you have any doubt, Google diet and exercise books - images on the subject will tell you the deck is once again stacked against the consumer. But there is hope.
There must have been a thousand and one diet and weight loss prescriptions and programs already "in the books" since the reign of King Henry VIII - who loomed large (literally) as an image of over consumption. What is the latest idea? Befitting of 2-3 letter acronyms associated with the high tech world in this modern era is a method called IF for short. Intermittent Fasting.
"In Judaism, fasting is the Biblical or Rabbinic precept or custom of refraining from eating and drinking". Now, the origins of the ritual of fasting, generally speaking from history, is not very clear and not limited to the Jewish faith because other cultures do it as well. What seems to be consistent, however, is that fasting, specially those rooted in ancient practices, is more deeply aligned to the spiritual, rather than for plain dietary reasons. I do not know this for sure but I have yet to come across fasting as defined by ancient cultures that is based other than the theological origins. Except ...
These days fasting can be or is a medical prescription. Certain blood work requires fasting. Colonoscopy and other intestinal examinations can only be conducted when fasting is followed by a thorough and clean sweep of the entire gastric system. Not exactly a pleasant experience for anyone but it is a survivable episode. And it proves that we can handle missing a meal for 24 hours. And people have survived hunger lost in the wilderness or at sea, which are the extreme forms of fasting we do not wish on us or others.
Intermittent fasting comes in different forms, schedules or frequency. What is gaining some real interest, at least from what I've read, is the 16 hour daily intermittent fasting method. It only seems draconian but this popular version sounds reasonable to those who tried it and are staying with it. More severe is the 24 fast, for one day of every seven or fasting four days a month.
The 16 hour one prescribes (not using the word in medical terms here) that if one's evening meal is at 7:00, there should be no more eating after that (no snacks of any kind, and clearly not a bowl of ice cream or a bar of chocolate). The fast does not end in the morning. The traditional first meal to break the fast, which is of course called breakfast, should be skipped entirely, except for coffee, tea and water (definitely no juices of any kind or milk). So at 7:00 a.m. one should have already fasted 12 hours from the night before. Four more hours to go, we're told, should not be too hard to do. One's next meal, therefore, is at between 11:00 a.m. and noon. That is essentially still breaking fast, except it is at 11:00 a.m. - at lunch. Technically, therefore, one breaks the fast with lunch.
And one may eat whatever he or she wants. In other words, there are no dietary restrictions (within reason, of course). All food consumption is done during the next eight hours (snacks in between are allowed during this period) before and up to the evening meal at 7:00 and the cycle begins again. Not that hard after all, is it? It is simple to remember. Confine eating to a third of the entire 24 hour cycle. 16 hour fast and eat only during the other 8-hour period. One caveat is that one should still follow sensible meal choices, such as making sure veggies and fruit are part of the meals.
Harvard Medical and other clinicians who conducted studies on the method have positive things to say about it. Weight loss and general health benefits were observed. I encourage the reader to read up on it. In a nutshell, the idea is for the body to draw on reserve fat during the 16 hour period, perhaps mainly during the remaining 4 hours when we will typically feel the hunger pangs after the last 12 hours of not eating.
I can see one major side effect. It will be on the economy and economists might warn us about it. If everybody does this IF thing, IHOP (International House of Pancakes - for my non-U.S. readers) and breakfast at McDonald's will suffer greatly. On the bright side, restaurants that serve brunch will benefit. Or, rather that brunches will no longer be just on Sundays only.
http://calculators.hpathy.com/calories-need.asp
No comments:
Post a Comment