Any one doing the OMAD diet ( One Meal a Day )

[WaveHunter]

53 minutes ago, Hummin said:

As I mentioned earlier, it all depends on your life what you do and if you have family. For kids structured diet is important, and food is a social and cultural happening that also is an important factor for most people. 
 

The real enemy is what we eat and how much we eat, not breakfest lunch and dinner, or if we eat 2 times a day or 8 times day. 
 

I stand by my 4 points described by the medical dr, randomly picked out of many youtubers, and because of lenght and straight to the point. Never seen him before, and do not follow him.  

Well, the real bottom line is whatever makes you feel good and whatever fits your particular lifestyle I guess.  You make a good point that what you eat is far more important than when you eat.  I couldn't agree more with that!

 

We live in a world of heavily processed foods and it's almost impossible to escape that no matter how health conscious you are.  IMO the biggest culprit of all is high-fructose corn syrup.  It is in EVERYTHING these days, and as far as I'm concerned it is poison to the human body!  It all really started with the low-fat craze in the 1980's with food companies jumping on the bandwagon coming out with low fat everything!

 

The trouble with making low-fat foods is that they taste absolutely horrible, so that's why high-fructose corn syrup found its way into everything.  It simply replaced the flavor that removing fats caused , and was an incredibly cheap way for food makers to boost their profits!

 

The result...a huge rise in obesity, and metabolic diseases like Diabetes type 2.  When you look at a time graph of the prevalence of D type 2, it coincides almost perfectly with the rising popularity of low fat foods, and worse, for the first time in history, little kids became afflicted with D type 2, whereas before, it was practically unheard of.  Today, both Diabetes type 2 and obesity are at epidemic levels in Western developed countries, and now it's even starting to be the same in Asian countries like here in Thailand with the proliferation of fast foods places like KFC which is a favorite of little Thai kids!

 

As for frequency of meals, I am only saying that one-meal-a-day fits me like a well-tailored suit.  That may not be true for everyone, and I can appreciate that.  On the other hand, most of the people following this thread  are seriously overweight, and even obese.  I mean, this thread is under the "I'm too fat" forum, ya know? 

 

For the obese, one meal a day is a VERY smart idea. that should be seriously considered.  Most people think that obesity is simply a matter of too many calories coming in and too few calories going out, but there is more to it than that, MUCH MORE!

 

There is a very real metabolic reason for obesity and it has to do with insulin.  This is a very simplistic description but when food is consumed, insulin levels rise as a result.  If you are also in a fed state, which you pretty much asre if you eat three or more meals per day, insulin levels will always remain high.

 

The problem with that is that as long as insulin levels are high, the body can not access stored fat to use as fuel, and over time, all the body can do is store more and more fat, while never being able to burn it.

 

However, by only eating once a day, the body has a chance to deplete glycogen stores, thereby reducing insulin levels, and the body begins to again have the ability to access stored fat.

 

It's loosely referred to as becoming "fat-adapted", or "keto-adapted".  Since carbohydrates elicit the highest insulin response, in addition to lessening the frequency of meals, if less carbohydrates are consumed, the effect on fat burning is amplified.

 

Again this is an extremely controversial topic with many pro and con viewpoints so I won't go any further, but as you can see in my notebook list, I have been studying this for a while now purely for my love of metabolic studies, and half of my notebooks really are on this topic.

 

From my studies I am convinced that a) caloric restriction diets simply do not work on their own over time, and 2) altering metabolic profiles through carbohydrate restriction, and limiting the amount of time that the body is in the fed state (i.e.: fewer meals per day) are the real keys to long-term treatment of obesity, and even Diabetes.

 

I'm not a scientist of course, but I can read and I have become pretty familiar with the underlying metabolic science (including the biochemistry involved) to really believe that obesity has a metabolic basis, and is not simply a matter of over consuming calories.

 

In purely non-scientific terms, one only needs to ask this:  If caloric restriction diets (which have been around for over a hundred years) actually worked, why is there an epidemic of obesity today?

 

[scubascuba3]

43 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

The result...a huge rise in obesity, and metabolic diseases like Diabetes type 2.  When you look at a time graph of the prevalence of D type 2, it coincides almost perfectly with the rising popularity of low fat foods, and worse, for the first time in history, little kids became afflicted with D type 2, whereas before, it was practically unheard of.  Today, both Diabetes type 2 and obesity are at epidemic levels in Western developed countries, and now it's even starting to be the same in Asian countries like here in Thailand with the proliferation of fast foods places like KFC which is a favorite of little Thai kids!

 

but KFC type places are high fat not low fat?

[BigStar]

19 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

but KFC type places are high fat not low fat?

High fat, wrong fat, high carb. Worst combo.

[scubascuba3]

19 minutes ago, BigStar said:

High fat, wrong fat, high carb. Worst combo.

Yeah junk food has made people fat, he was talking about how bad low fat and his example was KFC etc

[Hummin]

20 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, the real bottom line is whatever makes you feel good and whatever fits your particular lifestyle I guess.  You make a good point that what you eat is far more important than when you eat.  I couldn't agree more with that!

 

We live in a world of heavily processed foods and it's almost impossible to escape that no matter how health conscious you are.  IMO the biggest culprit of all is high-fructose corn syrup.  It is in EVERYTHING these days, and as far as I'm concerned it is poison to the human body!  It all really started with the low-fat craze in the 1980's with food companies jumping on the bandwagon coming out with low fat everything!

 

The trouble with making low-fat foods is that they taste absolutely horrible, so that's why high-fructose corn syrup found its way into everything.  It simply replaced the flavor that removing fats caused , and was an incredibly cheap way for food makers to boost their profits!

 

The result...a huge rise in obesity, and metabolic diseases like Diabetes type 2.  When you look at a time graph of the prevalence of D type 2, it coincides almost perfectly with the rising popularity of low fat foods, and worse, for the first time in history, little kids became afflicted with D type 2, whereas before, it was practically unheard of.  Today, both Diabetes type 2 and obesity are at epidemic levels in Western developed countries, and now it's even starting to be the same in Asian countries like here in Thailand with the proliferation of fast foods places like KFC which is a favorite of little Thai kids!

 

As for frequency of meals, I am only saying that one-meal-a-day fits me like a well-tailored suit.  That may not be true for everyone, and I can appreciate that.  On the other hand, most of the people following this thread  are seriously overweight, and even obese.  I mean, this thread is under the "I'm too fat" forum, ya know? 

 

For the obese, one meal a day is a VERY smart idea. that should be seriously considered.  Most people think that obesity is simply a matter of too many calories coming in and too few calories going out, but there is more to it than that, MUCH MORE!

 

There is a very real metabolic reason for obesity and it has to do with insulin.  This is a very simplistic description but when food is consumed, insulin levels rise as a result.  If you are also in a fed state, which you pretty much asre if you eat three or more meals per day, insulin levels will always remain high.

 

The problem with that is that as long as insulin levels are high, the body can not access stored fat to use as fuel, and over time, all the body can do is store more and more fat, while never being able to burn it.

 

However, by only eating once a day, the body has a chance to deplete glycogen stores, thereby reducing insulin levels, and the body begins to again have the ability to access stored fat.

 

It's loosely referred to as becoming "fat-adapted", or "keto-adapted".  Since carbohydrates elicit the highest insulin response, in addition to lessening the frequency of meals, if less carbohydrates are consumed, the effect on fat burning is amplified.

 

Again this is an extremely controversial topic with many pro and con viewpoints so I won't go any further, but as you can see in my notebook list, I have been studying this for a while now purely for my love of metabolic studies, and half of my notebooks really are on this topic.

 

From my studies I am convinced that a) caloric restriction diets simply do not work on their own over time, and 2) altering metabolic profiles through carbohydrate restriction, and limiting the amount of time that the body is in the fed state (i.e.: fewer meals per day) are the real keys to long-term treatment of obesity, and even Diabetes.

 

I'm not a scientist of course, but I can read and I have become pretty familiar with the underlying metabolic science (including the biochemistry involved) to really believe that obesity has a metabolic basis, and is not simply a matter of over consuming calories.

 

In purely non-scientific terms, one only needs to ask this:  If caloric restriction diets (which have been around for over a hundred years) actually worked, why is there an epidemic of obesity today?

 

Discipline and belief is the key here no matter what you do, and for most that is the hardest part. 
 

Also genuine interest and understanding of what you read and believe in is also important. At last there is not so complicated, everyone can manage to put together a healthy lifestyle and diet if they really want to, but most do not want it enough to set some goal and work out a plan and execute it. 
 

Comfortable laziness I would say. 
 

 

[BigStar]

3 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Discipline and belief is the key here no matter what you do, and for most that is the hardest part. 
 

Also genuine interest and understanding of what you read and believe in is also important. At last there is not so complicated, everyone can manage to put together a healthy lifestyle and diet if they really want to, but most do not want it enough to set some goal and work out a plan and execute it. 
 

Comfortable laziness I would say. 
 

 

Very true. I'd add that low carb doesn't require much discipline before long because you lose your desire for the baddies you thought you could never, ever give up. Most discipline is needed at the beginning. Here belief comes in, as most can't or won't believe they'll no longer care for, oh, pies, pastries, and pizza.

[Hummin]

28 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Very true. I'd add that low carb doesn't require much discipline before long because you lose your desire for the baddies you thought you could never, ever give up. Most discipline is needed at the beginning. Here belief comes in, as most can't or won't believe they'll no longer care for, oh, pies, pastries, and pizza.

The strangest part is many see themselves in the mirror, they know when they have to walk two hounded meters, and they feel they are not healthy, but need a Dr to tell them they are going to die soon if they do not change their lifestyle after been given medication for many years already. Medication for something changing diet and walking 5k a day, would prevented all happening in the beginning.

 

It is a cheap investment for a better life.

 

 

 

 

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, BigStar said:

Very true. I'd add that low carb doesn't require much discipline before long because you lose your desire for the baddies you thought you could never, ever give up. Most discipline is needed at the beginning. Here belief comes in, as most can't or won't believe they'll no longer care for, oh, pies, pastries, and pizza.

Low junk would be a better description rather than low carb, you are talking about pies, pastries, pizza etc, which contains loads of fat, unlike potatoes, rice, pasta even bread

[WaveHunter]

21 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

but KFC type places are high fat not low fat?

I'm just saying processed foods will kill you, and there are fats that are good for you, and fats that are not.  I would guess that what KFC uses to fry their chicken are in the latter category..  And I would venture to say that high fructose corn syrup is no stranger to KFC.    Add a supersize soda, and it's no wonder you see so many fat Thai kids who have become addicted to Western fast foods.

[WaveHunter]

9 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Low junk would be a better description rather than low carb, you are talking about pies, pastries, pizza etc, which contains loads of fat, unlike potatoes, rice, pasta even bread

Not really.  A carb is a carb. There's no difference between a junk food carb and a natural carb.  They both are simply forms of sugar and cause dangerously high insulin levels when overindulged in.  Not only that but carbohydrates are the one macronutrient that is NOT essential for health. 

 

The foods you mentioned actually contain very little fat.  It is the sugar (carb) content that is dangerous.

 

Fats and proteins are both considered "essential" macronutrients, meaning you can not live without them.  Only carbohydrates are considered non-essential.  The trick is to keep carbs as low as you can comfortably tolerate.  Contrary to popular myth, fats will not make you fat, carbs will.

[Hummin]

22 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Low junk would be a better description rather than low carb, you are talking about pies, pastries, pizza etc, which contains loads of fat, unlike potatoes, rice, pasta even bread

I would not go so far to say all pizza, pasta etc is bad. Enjoying food you like as well be social is important factors for a healthy and happy life. 

[scubascuba3]

35 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

The foods you mentioned actually contain very little fat.  It is the sugar (carb) content that is dangerous.

 

 

Sounds wrong, although I'm sure you'll find alternate examples.

Pizza around 15% fat, not many people eat 1 slice only.

Pastries and pies about 20% fat.

 

Most people realise those things aren't healthy

 

 

[scubascuba3]

45 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I would not go so far to say all pizza, pasta etc is bad. Enjoying food you like as well be social is important factors for a healthy and happy life. 

Pasta isn't bad, it's what you put with it, high fat, depends. Pizza is ok, but don't have that type of food too often. Once a week works well for me. If you have something like that every day then you'll get fat unless you do an enormous amount of exercise.

 

Anyway diet is like religion, pick a side

[Hummin]

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

Pasta isn't bad, it's what you put with it, high fat, depends. Pizza is ok, but don't have that type of food too often. Once a week works well for me. If you have something like that every day then you'll get fat unless you do an enormous amount of exercise.

 

Anyway diet is like religion, pick a side

I grew up with standard traditional food, and Saturday was Family dinner with tv, and the only day we eat sweets, pasta or pizza with sugar drinks. The rest of the week, we ate a traditional balanced diet with potato, vegetables meat or fish. Fish often twice a week. Desserts  only Sundays. Breakfast was fullkorn bread or oat pudding with a spoon of homemade jam. We never went to restaurants if we where not travelling somewhere. 

[scubascuba3]

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

I grew up with standard traditional food, and Saturday was Family dinner with tv, and the only day we eat sweets, pasta or pizza with sugar drinks. The rest of the week, we ate a traditional balanced diet with potato, vegetables meat or fish. Fish often twice a week. Desserts  only Sundays. Breakfast was fullkorn bread or oat pudding with a spoon of homemade jam. We never went to restaurants if we where not travelling somewhere. 

That all sounds sensible. The people i know on OMAD were fat people who couldn't lose weight, OMAD helped them control the intake but still binge fatty junk food

 

 

[Hummin]

11 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

That all sounds sensible. The people i know on OMAD were fat people who couldn't lose weight, OMAD helped them control the intake but still binge fatty junk food

 

 

I do not dismiss omad at all, all I'm arguing about, in my eyes not sustainable for longer periods. Same I will argue  keto is not a lifelong diet either for most out of health reasons, as well vegetarian or any other diet I will call out as extreme as life long diets. 

 

Most extreme diets do influence your social life and can complicate your life in many ways, depending where you live, what your work is, training, family etc. 

 

Ad long I can avoid it, I prefer a life without supplements and medicine, and a good reason to eat as balanced as possible with all nutrients available.

 

When i grew up, very few was Obes, and out of 60 kids at my class level, I can only recall one really fat kid, and one chubby. The fat kid was a spoiled kid, got everything he wanted and parents never told him no, or did put any restrictions on him what so ever. He got sausage on his lunch sandwiches every day, and I remember we all was a little bit jealous of his dayly lunch. We had boring liver pate with cucumber, sardines in oil or tomato sauce, or brown cheese on our sandwiches. 

[WaveHunter]

On 10/27/2022 at 4:23 PM, scubascuba3 said:

Sounds wrong, although I'm sure you'll find alternate examples.

Pizza around 15% fat, not many people eat 1 slice only.

Pastries and pies about 20% fat.

 

Most people realise those things aren't healthy

 

 

I agree with you that foods such as pastries, pasta, and pizza are not healthy when consumed on a regular basis, but it is the carbohydrates content that is the problem, not the fat content.  Of course, if saturated fats are part of the food (like Pizza), that's another story entirely.  However, it is a fallacy that unsaturated fatty foods are unhealthy and make you fat.  It is excessive carbohydrates that are unhealthy and make you fat.

 

In real basic terms, It is carbohydrates, not dietary fat that elicit huge insulin response and THAT is what makes the human body store body fat instead of being able to burn it.

 

There is so much misinformation and just plain myths about nutrition, often spread by so-called professional nutritionists and even doctors who simply have not schooled themselves in modern-day metabolic science.  In the last decade huge strides have been made in understanding the metabolic basis of obesity and related conditions such as Diabetes type 2, and yet many health care professionals are still cling to outdated beliefs.

[scubascuba3]

43 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I agree with you that foods such as pastries, pasta, and pizza are not healthy when consumed on a regular basis, but it is the carbohydrates content that is the problem, not the fat content.  Of course, if saturated fats are part of the food (like Pizza), that's another story entirely.  However, it is a fallacy that unsaturated fatty foods are unhealthy and make you fat.  It is excessive carbohydrates that are unhealthy and make you fat.

 

In real basic terms, It is carbohydrates, not dietary fat that elicit huge insulin response and THAT is what makes the human body store body fat instead of being able to burn it.

 

There is so much misinformation and just plain myths about nutrition, often spread by so-called professional nutritionists and even doctors who simply have not schooled themselves in modern-day metabolic science.  In the last decade huge strides have been made in understanding the metabolic basis of obesity and related conditions such as Diabetes type 2, and yet many health care professionals are still cling to outdated beliefs.

That's your view, that's all it is, plenty of contradictory experts out there

[WaveHunter]

On 10/27/2022 at 5:09 PM, Hummin said:

I do not dismiss omad at all, all I'm arguing about, in my eyes not sustainable for longer periods. Same I will argue  keto is not a lifelong diet either for most out of health reasons, as well vegetarian or any other diet I will call out as extreme as life long diets. 

 

Most extreme diets do influence your social life and can complicate your life in many ways, depending where you live, what your work is, training, family etc. 

 

Ad long I can avoid it, I prefer a life without supplements and medicine, and a good reason to eat as balanced as possible with all nutrients available.

 

When i grew up, very few was Obes, and out of 60 kids at my class level, I can only recall one really fat kid, and one chubby. The fat kid was a spoiled kid, got everything he wanted and parents never told him no, or did put any restrictions on him what so ever. He got sausage on his lunch sandwiches every day, and I remember we all was a little bit jealous of his dayly lunch. We had boring liver pate with cucumber, sardines in oil or tomato sauce, or brown cheese on our sandwiches. 

One meal per day (as well as Keto type protocols) are quite sustainable over the long run, and very healthy I might add.  I embrace both and have done so for almost 20 years now, and my quality of life is not lacking in any regard whatsoever.  I am in my 50's and compete in athletic competition with people half my age and can still hold my own, and I know many others who are the same way.

 

Conversely, I know many other people in my age bracket who are obese, prediabetic or diabetic and on insulin and VERY unhappy people.  In almost every case, they are the ones that cling to outdated myths about nutrition and think that their condition is just a natural consequence of getting old....and they are dead-wrong!

 

For most of history, people did not eat more than one meal per day, and in hunter/gatherer times went for days without even one meal, and they were far more healthy than many people today. 

 

The obesity epidemic that exists today did not exists 100 years ago.  It is only in the last 50 years that it started to become a problem.  It is no coincidence that this coincides almost perfectly with the advent of 24 hour supermarkets, convenience foods, and advertising that equate always being in a fed state with being healthy, happy, and full of energy. 

 

Just look at commercials for soda, candy bars, and all the other junk foods that are actually promoted as "energy foods".  Look at the tv commercials back in the 1960's for Wonder Bread that "Helps build strong bodies 12 ways", or the Snicker candy bar commercials that promised to give you that mid-day boost in energy you needed, or the Coke commercial showing active and healthy young people smiling as they consumed a Coke after sports competition, or ads showing competitive athletes using sports gels, energy bars, and protein shakes...

 

People actually buy into such nonsense today, actually believing these things are healthy for you!   THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY AT ALL!  Being in a continually fed state from the moment you wake up until you go to bed is about the worst health strategy you can come up with!  THAT is what OMAD and things like Keto address.  They are LONG-term lifestyle solutions, NOT short-term weight loss diets.

 

From a purely metabolic point of view, the body is not designed to consume multiple meals in a single day and continually be in a fed state.  The fact that many eat 3 meals a day is due to social conditioning, not metabolic need.

 

It is not healthy to always be in a fed state.  If you eat three meals a day, you can never deplete your glycogen stores, and if glycogen is always high, insulin is also high.  That means that the body can not efficiently access stored body fat for fuel the way it was intended to do.  THAT is why there are so many obese people in Western countries today.

 

The whole idea behind OMAD and Keto is that the body's need for macronutrients and calories is far less than most people realize, and that alway being in a fed state has some pretty serious long-term health issues. 

 

OMAD and Keto are actually LONG-TERM health strategies, not short term weight loss solutions.  Those who think of these strategies as weight-loss diets will usually not succeed with them in the long term because they will just go back to their bad nutritional habits afterwards.

[Hummin]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

One meal per day (as well as Keto type protocols) are quite sustainable over the long run, and very healthy I might add.  I embrace both and have done so for almost 20 years now, and my quality of life is not lacking in any regard whatsoever.  I am in my 50's and compete in athletic competition with people half my age and can still hold my own, and I know many others who are the same way.

 

Conversely, I know many other people in my age bracket who are obese, prediabetic or diabetic and on insulin and VERY unhappy people.  In almost every case, they are the ones that cling to outdated myths about nutrition and think that their condition is just a natural consequence of getting old....and they are dead-wrong!

 

For most of history, people did not eat more than one meal per day, and in hunter/gatherer times went for days without even one meal, and they were far more healthy than many people today. 

 

The obesity epidemic that exists today did not exists 100 years ago.  It is only in the last 50 years that it started to become a problem.  It is no coincidence that this coincides almost perfectly with the advent of 24 hour supermarkets, convenience foods, and advertising that equate always being in a fed state with being healthy, happy, and full of energy. 

 

Just look at commercials for soda, candy bars, and all the other junk foods that are actually promoted as "energy foods".  Look at the tv commercials back in the 1960's for Wonder Bread that "Helps build strong bodies 12 ways", or the Snicker candy bar commercials that promised to give you that mid-day boost in energy you needed, or the Coke commercial showing active and healthy young people smiling as they consumed a Coke after sports competition, or ads showing competitive athletes using sports gels, energy bars, and protein shakes...

 

People actually buy into such nonsense today, actually believing these things are healthy for you!   THEY ARE NOT HEALTHY AT ALL!  Being in a continually fed state from the moment you wake up until you go to bed is about the worst health strategy you can come up with!  THAT is what OMAD and things like Keto address.  They are LONG-term lifestyle solutions, NOT short-term weight loss diets.

 

From a purely metabolic point of view, the body is not designed to consume multiple meals in a single day and continually be in a fed state.  The fact that many eat 3 meals a day is due to social conditioning, not metabolic need.

 

It is not healthy to always be in a fed state.  If you eat three meals a day, you can never deplete your glycogen stores, and if glycogen is always high, insulin is also high.  That means that the body can not efficiently access stored body fat for fuel the way it was intended to do.  THAT is why there are so many obese people in Western countries today.

 

The whole idea behind OMAD and Keto is that the body's need for macronutrients and calories is far less than most people realize, and that alway being in a fed state has some pretty serious long-term health issues. 

 

OMAD and Keto are actually LONG-TERM health strategies, not short term weight loss solutions.  Those who think of these strategies as weight-loss diets will usually not succeed with them in the long term because they will just go back to their bad nutritional habits afterwards.

For most of the time humans have lived, people did not live to they where 80 or more, my parents generation who is the first generation to eat more balanced do. I doubt my generation will live in average for women 84 and men 81 if they continue eating processed food as now

[WaveHunter]

On 10/29/2022 at 1:48 PM, Hummin said:

For most of the time humans have lived, people did not live to they where 80 or more, my parents generation who is the first generation to eat more balanced do. I doubt my generation will live in average for women 84 and men 81 if they continue eating processed food as now

Personally I don't think it's as much to do with how long you live as it is to consider the quality of life you have as you age.

 

For example, Clint Eastwood was a staunch believer in low carbohydrate protocols (which is really what OMAD is all about if you consider the science, and not just listen to the nonsensical hype.

 

He lived to be 92 years old and right up the last moments he was an energetic and dynamic film director and actor.  In fact his finest films were made when he was in his 80's!

 

His health and vibrancy were not merely by chance or due to good genes alone.  A lot of it had to do with his lifestyle principally when it came to nutrition.  He famously said that he thought his health was 10% due to staying active and 90% due to nutrition, and keeping carbs extremely low was a huge part of his equation.

 

In a number of serious interviews he made very clear that he was an ardent student of the newly emerging metabolic sciences and applied them to his lifestyle in a very focused way.  Though anecdotal, I take accounts like that as being just as important as the science based studies.

 

One can nitpick the details or veracity of things like OMAD, Keto, and the like, and you can just resign yourself to rigid and outdated myths about nutrition, or you can think out of the box and explore new ideas that are backed up by emerging science.  I just prefer to be in the latter category.

[WaveHunter]

On 10/29/2022 at 9:33 AM, scubascuba3 said:

That's your view, that's all it is, plenty of contradictory experts out there

There are always contradictory experts when it comes to newly emerging knowledge.  I'm not saying I am right or wrong.  I am saying that a person has a choice of sticking with old and perhaps outdated beliefs that are not really supported by science, or they can explore new ways of thinking that are strongly supported by science. I prefer to be in the latter category, that's all.

[scubascuba3]

50 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Personally I don't think it's as much to do with how long you live as it is to consider the quality of life you have as you age.

 

For example, Clint Eastwood was a staunch believer in low carbohydrate protocols (which is really what OMAD is all about if you consider the science, and not just listen to the nonsensical hype.

 

He lived to be 92 years old and right up the last moments he was an energetic and dynamic film director and actor.  In fact his finest films were made when he was in his 80's!

 

His health and vibrancy were not merely by chance or due to good genes alone.  A lot of it had to do with his lifestyle principally when it came to nutrition.  He famously said that he thought his health was 10% due to staying active and 90% due to nutrition, and keeping carbs extremely low was a huge part of his equation.

 

In a number of serious interviews he made very clear that he was an ardent student of the newly emerging metabolic sciences and applied them to his lifestyle in a very focused way.  Though anecdotal, I take accounts like that as being just as important as the science based studies.

 

One can nitpick the details or veracity of things like OMAD, Keto, and the like, and you can just resign yourself to rigid and outdated myths about nutrition, or you can think out of the box and explore new ideas that are backed up by emerging science.  I just prefer to be in the latter category.

You make it sound as if Clint Eastwood is dead, maybe if he carbed up he might live to 100

[Hummin]

42 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Personally I don't think it's as much to do with how long you live as it is to consider the quality of life you have as you age.

 

For example, Clint Eastwood was a staunch believer in low carbohydrate protocols (which is really what OMAD is all about if you consider the science, and not just listen to the nonsensical hype.

 

He lived to be 92 years old and right up the last moments he was an energetic and dynamic film director and actor.  In fact his finest films were made when he was in his 80's!

 

His health and vibrancy were not merely by chance or due to good genes alone.  A lot of it had to do with his lifestyle principally when it came to nutrition.  He famously said that he thought his health was 10% due to staying active and 90% due to nutrition, and keeping carbs extremely low was a huge part of his equation.

 

In a number of serious interviews he made very clear that he was an ardent student of the newly emerging metabolic sciences and applied them to his lifestyle in a very focused way.  Though anecdotal, I take accounts like that as being just as important as the science based studies.

 

One can nitpick the details or veracity of things like OMAD, Keto, and the like, and you can just resign yourself to rigid and outdated myths about nutrition, or you can think out of the box and explore new ideas that are backed up by emerging science.  I just prefer to be in the latter category.

You continue talking about proven facts that never have been produced. 

 

And I am talking about my parents generation who did eat balanced, same as Clint Eastwood who late in life maybe converted to another balanced diet. 

 

Post some facts and not claim facts and statements and rely on us to do the googling. I want to see what you see as proven facts because there is no clinical proven trials, just people who talking about theory and beliefs.

 

If it does you good, fine, good for you, but for most people, there is easier way, but still it seems extreme sometimes is the only way for some to start get going. To much people struggle with discipline and have to go to the extreme belief to reach their goals.

 

Quality life is a stretched term

[Hummin]

And by the way I Did not know Clint was dead

[scubascuba3]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

There are always contradictory experts when it comes to newly emerging knowledge.  I'm not saying I am right or wrong.  I am saying that a person has a choice of sticking with old and perhaps outdated beliefs that are not really supported by science, or they can explore new ways of thinking that are strongly supported by science. I prefer to be in the latter category, that's all.

Just different views, i believe in high carb low fat, you OMAD, others Keto or version of it etc etc, everyone says theirs is the one just like religion 

[BigStar]

20 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

He lived to be 92 years old and right up the last moments he was an energetic and dynamic film director and actor. 

Clint's last moments and death seem well-kept secrets indeed. You may want to sell that info to the celebrity sites and make a killing.

 

Jack LaLanne's a good example.

 

[WaveHunter]

On 10/31/2022 at 4:51 PM, scubascuba3 said:

Just different views, i believe in high carb low fat, you OMAD, others Keto or version of it etc etc, everyone says theirs is the one just like religion 

That's not true at all.  The negative effects on the human body from excessive carbs are based on hard science, not pseudoscience or unfounded myths...and I'm not talking about just "bad" carbs.  Metabolically your body reacts the same way regardless of whether the carb is from a natural food like an apple, or a processed one like a candy bar.  A carb is a carb...it's really as simple as that.

 

If you actually delve into the peer-reviewed research over the last decade, it's very compelling that excessive carbs (not calories) are where the health dangers are coming from.

[WaveHunter]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:48 AM, BigStar said:

Clint's last moments and death seem well-kept secrets indeed. You may want to sell that info to the celebrity sites and make a killing.

 

Jack LaLanne's a good example.

 

I don't know anything about the "literal" last moments of his life, nor do I really care.  I only know what his views were about excessive carbohydrates which he openly expressed numerous times in interviews, and I know that anyone who is still directing and playing roles in movies into his 80's is in incredibly good health, and he himself attributed that primarily to nutrition, plain and simple.

[Hummin]

7 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

That's not true at all.  The negative effects on the human body from excessive carbs are based on hard science, not pseudoscience or unfounded myths...and I'm not talking about just "bad" carbs.  Metabolically your body reacts the same way regardless of whether the carb is from a natural food like an apple, or a processed one like a candy bar.  A carb is a carb...it's really as simple as that.

 

If you actually delve into the peer-reviewed research over the last decade, it's very compelling that excessive carbs (not calories) are where the health dangers are coming from.

Just a question about your saliva glands, and your gut health when you obviously getting less saliva from chewing on Omad, what do you do regarding reduced saliva?