|
Tesseraction posted:Wasn't that their point, though, that not eating long enough to provide weight loss would be reversed because of the body's pre-disposal to long-term store energy reserves if it feels there could be long times between meals? I agree the weeks-long fast is an extreme example, but even not eating for a day will probably see the opposite of weight loss happening once you've broken that fast. Not really, no. It sounds like you've read the wiki page on the effects of starvation for prolonged weight loss but you've never read any of the actual research. IIRC the commonly cited starvation research was long term with extremely reduced caloric intake (in the 500 calorie range for weeks or months), and nothing less extreme than that triggers the same effects. If you don't eat for two days and then grab a combo meal at McDonalds, you're eating more than they were.
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 02:23 |
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Cute pointless dig Mike, but given that I've not glanced at Wikipedia pages on anything raised in this thread it rings a little hollow. 14-22 hours of fasting does not in any way constitute starvation. 14 hours is 8pm to 10am, they skipped the midnight snack and had brunch instead of breakfast.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:We weren't talking about starvation we were talking about periods of not eating, I used extreme starvation as a counter-productive example, I've now used 14-22 hour fasting as a more common example. Perhaps you could clarify what your hypothesis is rather than snipe about whether or not I read Wikipedia. You were talking about not eating for a day and posted a study about people that didn't eat for 14 hours. I'll go ahead and clarify my hypothesis: you don't know what the gently caress you're talking about with all of this and you're trying to hide behind a bunch of random studies that show anything close to what you're saying, and it's annoying.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 19:19
|
|