|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Mar 20, 2024 15:03:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by minx on Mar 21, 2024 9:04:44 GMT -5
I think that if you carry it to an extreme, yes. But for most people, missing a meal isn't all that harmful. And of course, this was a 'self-reported' study, so who knows what these people actually ate?
I have friends who have successfully done IF - one doesn't eat breakfast, and the other doesn't eat dinner. Both make sure they have healthy meals for the other two though, and full meals. So the breakfast friend will have something like a grilled chicken sandwich, and fruit or a salad for lunch and an afternoon snack before dinner. Dinner friend has a breakfast of cereal and yogurt, an morning snack, lunch and an afternoon snack.
Both say they feel better overall - less groggy during the day. Breakfast friend has lost 30 lbs and her A1C has dropped significantly. Dinner friend has lost some weight - hasn't had any lab work to show if it's benefited or not, but says she doesn't miss dinner and feels better when she wakes up.
Tons of people are doing IF, so if it's that harmful, a real study needs to be done with more than 50 people. Same with all of the newer weight loss drugs - over the long haul are they really working, and are there lasting side-effects? No one really knows.
|
|
|
Post by Dave's Not Here Man on Mar 21, 2024 10:28:47 GMT -5
I was going somewhere else with the OP, the actual story being secondary. My point is how everything along these lines winds up going through the same cycle. First there's a breakthrough discovery about a pill, mineral, diet, exercise, practice, therapy, food, etc etc etc and everybody jumps on shit like "They say one glass of red wine is good for heart health" knowing that a year or three later, red wine is the cause of erectile dysfunction and death. I can cite at least a couple dozen off the top of my head that started out as either being good or bad, only to switch from good to bad and vice versa with some other study a few months later.
|
|
|
Post by minx on Mar 21, 2024 12:45:45 GMT -5
Truth.
A huge part of the problem is the design of the study itself. Under 100 people self-reporting on food intake and how they feel isn't a statically significant study.
At the same time, it would be the rare person who was willing to record their food intake and mood several times a day. And there have been a LOT of studies around exercise showing that people 'improve' their behavior when they know the results are being recorded somewhere. I believe the basis was that people don't want to look bad.
I think we all know the research for the average person - eat food. Not too much, mostly unprocessed. And try to get out and move.
The big one at the moment is 'longevity' - how can we live to 100 and be healthy and vibrant the entire time. And the wonder drug these folks tout is Rapamycin - used in transplant surgery to prevent rejection. Well, this drug also boosts immune function in some way - not enough research to know why. Hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing for off-label use, even though no one knows what an optimal dose for a healthy person. Zero studies done, but people are so terrified of aging that they're willing to try anything to prevent it.
|
|