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

[WaveHunter]

37 minutes ago, Hummin said:

One single question, what is the problem with balanced diet, little bit of everything? I'm not talking about sugar, not processed food, but healthy seasonal food! 

 

I know the challenge when it comes to discipline among most people and the reasons why people fail, but if you have discipline to follow one rigid diet, you should manage a balanced diet to? 

Nothing IMO, nothing at all wrong with a diet containing all macronutrients, even the occasional taboo items like potato chips, candy, etc.  The challenge for most people is defining "occasional". I don't care how strict somebody says their diet is.  The truth is that we all indulge every once in a while in something we know is not good for us but life would be pretty unpleasant if we were that strict.

 

Anyone who follows a "strict" OMAD protocol, or some guru-inspired diet is just not well versed on nutrition.  Your body is the best guide to what you should or should not consume IF you haven't blunted its' natural hormonal cues for hunger and satiety.  If you have a craving for ice cream, I mean a REAL craving, it's probably a good idea to give in to it.  

 

I believe too many people try and follow some rigid diet plan when they feel like they are overweight or feeling out of sorts, when the real problem is they are just grazing on food from the moment they wake up until the moment they are in bed for the night, and most people who graze on food usually selects highly processed foods with loads of carbs.

 

When your metabolic state is in homeostasis, it knows what it needs and when it needs it far better than you do.  I think the key to good health and avoiding obesity is simply paying attention to your body's natural signals; it wont let you down if you do. 

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Damn!  It seem you are correct!  I saw a report of his passing from what I thought was a very credible source...CNN!  Now that I google further it turns out that was a fake post with a CNN logo appearing on it.  It's pretty appalling how much misinformation and trickery goes on in the internet these days!  Still though, the fact he is still alive at 92 lends some credence to my belief about keeping carbs low.  The lst time I saw him in an interview, he may have looked his age, but his demeanor and mental clarity was a sharp as a tack!

Sounds like you need to change your sources, you may be getting other fake info

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, BigStar said:

Actually it arose from the excessive carbs, in junk food and added sugar + the so-called healthy carbs (in fruit and starches, not veggies) + the lack of exercise. Fact is, they're insulin resistant now.

Don't forget excessive fat in their rich western diet, i realise you guys are carb phobic. Anyway if they're insulin resistant they can reverse it

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Sounds like you need to change your sources, you may be getting other fake info

My whole point in replying to BigStar was how easy it is to be fooled  these days by errant FRAUDULENT posts, especially when they pose as legitimate news sources like CNN. 

 

When it comes to stuff I am researching on nutrition, my sources are not fraudulent unless you consider sources like research labs of Nobel Prize winning researchers, or peer-reviewed medical/science journals like The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, or JAMA to be fake sources.

 

What are your sources for the belief that dietary fat is the cause of obesity, besides certain YouTube Gurus with a financial interest in promoting low-fat lifestyles, or processed food companies trying to sell the public on low fat foods by pumping them full of high fructose corn syrup (super concentrated carbs) to replace the flavor robbed by making the natural foods low-fat?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.  I'm just saying there's a lot of misinformation out there on the internet (some of it quite intentional),  If you don't really research topics objectively and in-depth, you will not know the truth.

[scubascuba3]

24 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

My whole point in replying to BigStar was how easy it is to be fooled  these days by errant FRAUDULENT posts, especially when they pose as legitimate news sources like CNN. 

 

When it comes to stuff I am researching on nutrition, my sources are not fraudulent unless you consider sources like research labs of Nobel Prize winning researchers, or peer-reviewed medical/science journals like The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Nature, or JAMA to be fake sources.

 

What are your sources for the belief that dietary fat is the cause of obesity, besides certain YouTube Gurus with a financial interest in promoting low-fat lifestyles, or processed food companies trying to sell the public on low fat foods by pumping them full of high fructose corn syrup (super concentrated carbs) to replace the flavor robbed by making the natural foods low-fat?

 

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you.  I'm just saying there's a lot of misinformation out there on the internet (some of it quite intentional),  If you don't really research topics objectively and in-depth, you will not know the truth.

As I've said a few times already which you've missed, I'm not suggesting anyone should eat processed fatty carb junk as it will make you fat (rich western diet), I agree that a lot of the guru's especially youtube are selling supplements and related rubbish, that's usually the giveaway they can't be trusted

[WaveHunter]

33 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

As I've said a few times already which you've missed, I'm not suggesting anyone should eat processed fatty carb junk as it will make you fat (rich western diet), I agree that a lot of the guru's especially youtube are selling supplements and related rubbish, that's usually the giveaway they can't be trusted

I did not miss anything in your posts.  I take you seriously and read everything you write.  We are talking about a distinction between dietary fat and carbohydrates.  You originally referred to bad foods as "fatty junk foods" but have amended it now to "fatty carb junk".  My point is simply that dietary fats pose no inherent danger to good health even in large quantities, but science has proven that carbohydrates absolutely do.

 

Without even looking at the biochemistry behind all of this, one only needs to look at the public's massive increase in carbohydrate consumption in the last few decades once the low-fat craze started and see that it correlates almost perfectly with the rise in obesity rates and diagnosed diabetes type-2 cases.

 

If a low-fat diet was actually good for you and carbohydrates were not a big factor, then you would expect to see rates dropping not increasing to epidemic levels in the last few decades, ya know? 

 

I mean, the writing is on the wall for anyone who cares to take an objective look at it.  In simplest terms, it's not fat that makes you fat, it's carbohydrates.

 

[scubascuba3]

18 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

If a low-fat diet was actually good for you and carbohydrates were not a big factor, then you would expect to see rates dropping not increasing to epidemic levels in the last few decades, ya know? 

 

 

 

No, because as i keep saying it's the rich western diet of high fatty junk, chips, crisps, pizza, ice cream, cakes, pastries, chocolate, burgers etc those things are not low fat, they combine fat and carbs, carbs keep poor friends.

 

Anyway you're carb phobic even though people live perfectly healthy on carbs like potato, rice, bread

[scubascuba3]

35 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I mean, the writing is on the wall for anyone who cares to take an objective look at it.  In simplest terms, it's not fat that makes you fat, it's carbohydrates.

 

Garbage, that's just your view, not fact, plenty of experts say the opposite, plus which you keep ignoring, many people live a healthy slim life on carbs low fat

[BigStar]

19 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

It seems losing weight by different methods can reverse diabetes including high carb low fat diet.

Losing weight by different methods can bring the commonly-used measurements of diabetes into normal ranges if the "different methods" are put into practice soon after the initial diagnosis.

 

But low carb seems best for the purpose.

 

Studies have found low-carb, high-protein diets to be more effective in improving metabolic health and reducing weight, as well as being easier for subjects to stick to[*] than high-carb, low-fat diets.[*][*]    

     --https://www.healthline.com/health-news/low-carb-diet-may-help-people-with-type-2-diabetes-go-into-remission#Low-carb-diets-linked-to-higher-rates-of-remission

 

It's rather like alcohol being less effective to help alcoholics to overcome their addiction to alcohol. How long's that going to "work?"

 

Researchers found that patients who stuck with a low carb diet experienced greater rates of remission at six months compared with those who did not strictly adhere to a low carb diet.

 

Compared to other diets, low carb diets were associated with a 32 percent increase in diabetes remission.

     --https://www.healthline.com/health-news/low-carb-diet-may-help-people-with-type-2-diabetes-go-into-remission#Low-carb-diets-linked-to-higher-rates-of-remission

[BigStar]

On 11/8/2022 at 5:24 PM, Hummin said:

He eat mixed food all his life, and managed to become 96, my grandmother 94, and everyone in my family managed to be more than 80 years old eating seasonal mixed food. They where all born before 1900. My mom and dad passing 83 and 84 now and healthy enough to still hit the dance floor, and enjoy mixed food with a glass of wine. Non of them is obese. 

Not being obese is helpful.

 

This is #3 of the Principles of ANF Poster Longevity Science.

 

3.   The Relative

A relative of mine did nothing special and lived to 95. I probably will too.

 

But

Scientists reported on Tuesday that genes accounted for well under 7 percent of people’s life span, versus the 20 to 30 percent of most previous estimates.

    -- https://www.statnews.com/2018/11/06/life-span-genes-ancestry-database/

 

It's a variation of #2, the George Burns Hail Mary, buttressed by personal "evidence."

You know that person who won the genetic lottery and seems to get away with eating trash all their lives and stay healthy? Well, get over it. You’re NOT that person and you need to work hard to reclaim your health.

     --Elie Jarrouge, MD

[BigStar]

19 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Whatever works if blood tests shows things are ok. I've never needed to go OMAD, keto, Atkins or any of those fashionable diets

True, few diets are more unfashionable than the McDougall diet. Breatharianism, perhaps, even more effective for weight loss.

 

But it's not clear whether you need to or not. We do hear "I feel good and am therefore healthy (don't need no checkup, even)" around here. Turns out the poster's taking a handful of meds. Or later coming into the health forum w/ various problems, all of which reflect metabolic syndrome resistance--before disappearing. Thinking it so don't make it so. 

 

And you've admitted to insulin drops requiring more carbs to be shoveled in, suggesting poor insulin regulation.

 

So we can better tell if you need to get off the McDougall diet after you finally reveal (having been asked a couple of times) that TG/HDL ratio, the WHR, WHtR, and the results of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), the last of which you seem unwilling to have for some reason.

 

And I'd get the scans to reveal how much visceral fat's accumulating in your liver, stomach, intestines, and arteries owing to McDougall.

 

     --https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Variation_in_visceral_fat_in_men_with_the_same_waist_circumference.jpg

 

Turns out low carb can help:

A low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet reduced the progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and despite no calorie restriction, participants with both NAFLD and type 2 diabetes lost 5.8% of their body weight, according to a randomized controlled study.

     --https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/976209
 

[BigStar]

18 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Don't forget excessive fat in their rich western diet, i realise you guys are carb phobic. Anyway if they're insulin resistant they can reverse it

Having acquired insulin resistance from excessive carbs, insulin will then turn any extra calories from any source into more body fat. Fat, carbs, protein, doesn't matter. But a lot of processed foods have reduced the fat and increased the sugar, so then carbs become of greatest significance again.

[BigStar]

 

 

20 hours ago, Hummin said:

what is the problem with balanced diet, little bit of everything? I'm not talking about sugar, not processed food, but healthy seasonal food! 

First, the definition of balanced comes from the food industry in pursuit of its own self-interest. This idea may be more congenial now that we've all gone through COVID.

 

Read all about it in Denise Minger’s Death by Food Pyramid: How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health. Or Robert Lustig’s The Hacking of the American Mind: The Science Behind the Corporate Takeover of Our Bodies and Brains.

 

No, not conspiracy theories. Here it is in action:

 

TEICHOLZ DISINVITED FROM FOOD POLICY PANEL: In a sign that the nutrition space is as defensive as ever, Nina Teicholz, an author who has publicly criticized the science behind the government's low-fat dietary advice, was recently bumped from a nutrition science panel after being confirmed by the National Food Policy Conference. The panel instead will include Maureen Storey, president and CEO of the Alliance for Potato Research and Education.

     --"Teicholz disinvited from food policy panel," https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-agriculture/2016/03/teicholz-disinvited-from-food-policy-panel-stabenow-grassley-let-usda-fda-review-syngenta-merger-fda-to-release-food-safety-tests-on-cucumbers-213410 

 

The Alliance for Potato Research and Education, LOL.

 

Nothing’s changed. COI = Conflict Of Interest

 

Our analysis found that 95% of the committee members had COI with the food, and/or pharmaceutical industries and that particular actors, including Kellogg, Abbott, Kraft, Mead Johnson, General Mills, Dannon, and the International Life Sciences had connections with multiple members. Research funding and membership of an advisory/executive board jointly accounted for more than 60% of the total number of COI documented.

     —Conflicts of interest for members of the U.S. 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

 

There are 1,114 food lobbying organizations in Wash DC that spend over $3 billion a year.

 

So you can ignore the "balanced" guidelines and just stick to nutritionally efficient foods, which would exclude starches and sugars of all types anyway--and so avoid the cumulative effect of insulin spikes. Problem is, by the time the insulin resistance shows on a fasting blood sugar test or HbA1c, damage has already been done and now you have serious problem.

 

Those tests aren't THAT reliable, anyway. If in doubt, as you should be if you've previously been overweight, get the oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT). The results of that may put an end to the pop tarts.

 

 

Whole foods aren't as safe as you might think:

 

 

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

No, because as i keep saying it's the rich western diet of high fatty junk, chips, crisps, pizza, ice cream, cakes, pastries, chocolate, burgers etc those things are not low fat, they combine fat and carbs, carbs keep poor friends.

 

Anyway you're carb phobic even though people live perfectly healthy on carbs like potato, rice, bread

You just keep missing my point my friend.  Firstly, I am not carb-phobic, I am carb-aware. 

 

Dietary fats regardless of their origin have a negligible effect on insulin levels but carbohydrates have a massive effect on them. 

 

In the presence of hightended insulin, the body's ability to break down stored triglycerides into fatty acids that the body can use as fuel is seriously jeopardized.

 

The net result is the accumulation of more and more stored body fat, and eventually obesity.  As a result of that there is increased likelihood of metabolically-related diseases as one ages. In short, it is excessive carbs that are the culprit, not dietary fats.

 

Just become knowledgeable of the actual biochemical science instead of talking off the top of your head.

[WaveHunter]

57 minutes ago, BigStar said:

 

 

First, the definition of balanced comes from the food industry in pursuit of its own self-interest.

You are pretty much hitting the nail on the head in this one sentence.  In spite of dramatic advances in the metabolic sciences over the last decade, powerful food companies that manufacture processed foods like General Foods, Frito-Lay, and all the rest spend millions of dollars on public relations, advertising, and political lobbying to hide the truth about their products, and their financially driven motives for producing the type of foods they promote as healthy and wholesome but in fact have resulted in obesity and metabolic diseases at what ar now epidemic levels in Western countries, and it now spreading worldwide.  One only haas to look at Thailand with the proliferation of Western fast foods like KFC (a favorite among young Thai children), 7-11, and all the rest.  Just look around at how many Thai children are now overweight, and it's obvious something is not right.

 

The concept of a "balanced meal" is completely bogus and always has been.  I've seen old ads frmthe 1960's  for Wonder bread, and how it "Helps build strong bodies 12 ways"

 

These were the claims:

1. Builds muscle
2. Bones and teeth
3. Increases body cells
4. Improves blood
5. Creates better appetite
6. Helps children grow bigger and stronger
7. Increases brain cells
8. Adds more red cells
9. Provides vitamin B
10. Potassium
11. Helps build tissue
12. Supplies more energy

Just how does a food that contains nothing but carbohydrates build muscle, increase brain cells, or any of the other claims here.  What a joke, and yet millions of Americans believed it, just like they fervently believed in the "food pyramid" for healthy nutrition, which was completely wrong!

 

Nothing has really changed in the last 50 years in terms of the deceptive practices of the processed food companies.  Profits are all that matter.

 

The definition of a "balanced" meal should be defined by peer reviewed science, not by advertising hucksters, and others with vested interests like health gurus who are trying to sell their latest books and diet plans.

[scubascuba3]

7 hours ago, BigStar said:

Losing weight by different methods can bring the commonly-used measurements of diabetes into normal ranges if the "different methods" are put into practice soon after the initial diagnosis.

 

But low carb seems best for the purpose.

 

Studies have found low-carb, high-protein diets to be more effective in improving metabolic health and reducing weight, as well as being easier for subjects to stick to[*] than high-carb, low-fat diets.[*][*]    

     --https://www.healthline.com/health-news/low-carb-diet-may-help-people-with-type-2-diabetes-go-into-remission#Low-carb-diets-linked-to-higher-rates-of-remission

 

It's rather like alcohol being less effective to help alcoholics to overcome their addiction to alcohol. How long's that going to "work?"

 

Researchers found that patients who stuck with a low carb diet experienced greater rates of remission at six months compared with those who did not strictly adhere to a low carb diet.

 

Compared to other diets, low carb diets were associated with a 32 percent increase in diabetes remission.

     --https://www.healthline.com/health-news/low-carb-diet-may-help-people-with-type-2-diabetes-go-into-remission#Low-carb-diets-linked-to-higher-rates-of-remission

If people are happy with low carb diets and it gets the results then great, wouldn't suit me i like eating good carbs when i want

[scubascuba3]

7 hours ago, BigStar said:

True, few diets are more unfashionable than the McDougall diet. Breatharianism, perhaps, even more effective for weight loss.

 

But it's not clear whether you need to or not. We do hear "I feel good and am therefore healthy (don't need no checkup, even)" around here. Turns out the poster's taking a handful of meds. Or later coming into the health forum w/ various problems, all of which reflect metabolic syndrome resistance--before disappearing. Thinking it so don't make it so. 

 

And you've admitted to insulin drops requiring more carbs to be shoveled in, suggesting poor insulin regulation.

 

So we can better tell if you need to get off the McDougall diet after you finally reveal (having been asked a couple of times) that TG/HDL ratio, the WHR, WHtR, and the results of an oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT), the last of which you seem unwilling to have for some reason.

 

And I'd get the scans to reveal how much visceral fat's accumulating in your liver, stomach, intestines, and arteries owing to McDougall.

 

     --https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Variation_in_visceral_fat_in_men_with_the_same_waist_circumference.jpg

 

Turns out low carb can help:

A low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet reduced the progression of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), and despite no calorie restriction, participants with both NAFLD and type 2 diabetes lost 5.8% of their body weight, according to a randomized controlled study.

     --https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/976209
 

My blood test results are great, certainly no meds needed for me although I'm sure people pretending to be wise on here are probably overweight or obese or certainly were before their extreme diets.

 

A few figures for you

BMI 22.7

HbA1c 5.2%

Total cholesterol 176

HDL 70

LDL 83.4

Triglycerides 81

Blood pressure in healthy green zone

no need for blood pressure drugs or any other drugs

 

How do you compare on your restriction diet?

[scubascuba3]

5 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

You just keep missing my point my friend.  Firstly, I am not carb-phobic, I am carb-aware. 

 

Dietary fats regardless of their origin have a negligible effect on insulin levels but carbohydrates have a massive effect on them. 

 

In the presence of hightended insulin, the body's ability to break down stored triglycerides into fatty acids that the body can use as fuel is seriously jeopardized.

 

The net result is the accumulation of more and more stored body fat, and eventually obesity.  As a result of that there is increased likelihood of metabolically-related diseases as one ages. In short, it is excessive carbs that are the culprit, not dietary fats.

 

Just become knowledgeable of the actual biochemical science instead of talking off the top of your head.

Like i keep saying plenty of people (millions) eating carbs mainly and are slim and are not accumulating more and more body fat, just look at most Thais who live on rice.

 

You said yesterday you eat once maybe for several hours. You've not said what you eat, but seem to be carb phobic, list out what you eat for a meal?

[scubascuba3]

7 hours ago, BigStar said:

Having acquired insulin resistance from excessive carbs, insulin will then turn any extra calories from any source into more body fat. Fat, carbs, protein, doesn't matter. But a lot of processed foods have reduced the fat and increased the sugar, so then carbs become of greatest significance again.

Not sure why you are banging on about type 2 diabetes maybe you've just read up on it. As you are also carb phobic let us know what you eat? in an average day

[BigStar]

27 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Not sure why you are banging on about type 2 diabetes maybe you've just read up on it.

"Insulin resistant" doesn't mean T2D. Maybe you should start reading up on it.

[scubascuba3]

1 minute ago, BigStar said:

"Insulin resistant" doesn't mean T2D. Maybe you should start reading up on it.

pre diabetes type 2 and type 2 both have insulin resistance,  there's also 1 plus 1.5 read up on it 

[BigStar]

4 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

pre diabetes type 2 and type 2 both have insulin resistance,  there's also 1 plus 1.5 read up on it 

Well, duh, you'll need to get it through your head that being insulin resistant still doesn't necessarily mean you have T2D or are even pre-diabetic. Yet. The point is to avoid becoming insulin resistant in the first place (staying low carb, avoiding insulin spikes) or to mitigate it as soon as the usual signs appear before it results in pre-diabetes or T2D. Read up on it.

[scubascuba3]

5 hours ago, BigStar said:

Well, duh, you'll need to get it through your head that being insulin resistant still doesn't necessarily mean you have T2D or are even pre-diabetic. Yet. The point is to avoid becoming insulin resistant in the first place (staying low carb, avoiding insulin spikes) or to mitigate it as soon as the usual signs appear before it results in pre-diabetes or T2D. Read up on it.

You are trying to tell me stuff i already know, it's like you've just read it. Like i said read up on type 1 and 1.5 then you'll understand 

[WaveHunter]

On 11/11/2022 at 6:30 PM, scubascuba3 said:

Like i keep saying plenty of people (millions) eating carbs mainly and are slim and are not accumulating more and more body fat, just look at most Thais who live on rice.

 

You said yesterday you eat once maybe for several hours. You've not said what you eat, but seem to be carb phobic, list out what you eat for a meal?

It would be a lot better if you would quote science based sources that support your assumptions instead of just making baseless comments like "Thai people are slim because they eat rice".   No offence intended but that's just nonsense.

 

I see many Thai people who are not slim at all, and many (including children) that are obese. 

 

It is a fallacy to attribute slimness with eating rice.  Most rice that is consumed in Thailand is nothing more than highly refined carbohydrates (i.e.: sugar).  To say that people are slim because they eat primarily sugar is pure nonsense!

 

ANd besides, "slimness" is not even a gauge of good health.  Lean body mass more accurately defines "healthy", and that comes from getting enough protein, not carbohydrates.

 

You are GROSSLY confusing me with OMAD fanatics who don't really understand metabolic science  at all and just blindly follow the latest popular health gurus on YouTube.  I eat whatever I "feel" like eating.  By that, I mean I eat when, and whatever my body prompts me to eat....and nothing more.

 

The human body is a remarkable machine and IF it has not been polluted with highly processed foods containing huge amounts of carbohydrates that alter the hormonal balance of metabolism,  it will naturally prompt you to eat the foods it needs, not the food your brain tells you it wants.  It will prompt you with natural satiety signals when you've had enough.  However, when you artificially raise resting insulin levels through excessive carbs from the moment you awake to when you sleep, that mechanism no longer works.

 

That's really all there is to the way I eat, and FYI sometimes those foods can be quite rich in carbohydrates...but it is my body that decides when to eat those kind of foods, not my brain. 

 

It is not at all a matter of being carb-phobic, it is simply a matter of being carb-aware.

[scubascuba3]

10 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

It would be a lot better if you would quote science based sources that support your assumptions instead of just making baseless comments like "Thai people are slim because they eat rice".   No offence intended but that's just nonsense.

 

I see many Thai people who are not slim at all, and many (including children) that are obese. 

 

It is a fallacy to attribute slimness with eating rice.  Most rice that is consumed in Thailand is nothing more than highly refined carbohydrates (i.e.: sugar).  To say that people are slim because they eat primarily sugar is pure nonsense!

 

ANd besides, "slimness" is not even a gauge of good health.  Lean body mass more accurately defines "healthy", and that comes from getting enough protein, not carbohydrates.

 

You are GROSSLY confusing me with OMAD fanatics who don't really understand metabolic science  at all and just blindly follow the latest popular health gurus on YouTube.  I eat whatever I "feel" like eating.  By that, I mean I eat when, and whatever my body prompts me to eat....and nothing more.

 

The human body is a remarkable machine and IF it has not been polluted with highly processed foods containing huge amounts of carbohydrates that alter the hormonal balance of metabolism,  it will naturally prompt you to eat the foods it needs, not the food your brain tells you it wants.  It will prompt you with natural satiety signals when you've had enough.  However, when you artificially raise resting insulin levels through excessive carbs from the moment you awake to when you sleep, that mechanism no longer works.

 

That's really all there is to the way I eat, and FYI sometimes those foods can be quite rich in carbohydrates...but it is my body that decides when to eat those kind of foods, not my brain. 

 

It is not at all a matter of being carb-phobic, it is simply a matter of being carb-aware.

I don't agree with any of that, i see you haven't listed what you might eat in one of your binge sessions, probably embarrassed by all the meat and fat. As I've said before i mainly use Dr John McDougall for my HCLF info, he gets all his information from studies etc and experience of treating thousands of patients to lose weight and reverse type 2. Check his website for info or look at YouTube.

 

I'm guessing you were overweight\obese before your current extreme diet? this might explain why you're so brainwashed about it

[Hummin]

On 11/9/2022 at 2:50 PM, WaveHunter said:

Of the three macronutrients (protein, fat, and carbohydrates), the human body actually can function fine without ANY carbohydrates.  I'm not saying that would be pleasant, but my point is that carbohydrates are completely unnecessary for good health. 

 

My definition of "excessive" carbohydrates are the amount that will cause insulin levels to be elevated throughout the day to an extent that, as a result, glycogen also remains so high that the body has no need to tap into fat stores.  That is unnatural and leads to a maladapted fat metabolism.  In other words, the body becomes inefficient at using fat as a fuel source.

 

What eating only once a day does is that it allows glycogen levels to get low enough that the body readily transitions to burning fat as fuel.  It is referred to as "fat adaptation" or "keto adaptation".  Ketones are what are responsible for unlocking the body's ability to a) provide an immediate fuel source, and b) to facilitate the breakdown of stored body fat as an indirect fuel source.

 

I'm not trying to get overly technical, but what I'm talking about is actually a very complex biochemical process.  My point is simply that if you are always in a fed state (i.e.: plenty of glycogen), the body will prefer to use it as fuel, and like anything that is not used regularly, will become very efficient at using stored fat as fuel.  So, eating only once a day prevents that from happening.

 

Eating a meal over a period of hours is NOT binging.  It is simply a matter of eating leisurely until you are satiated.

The difference from before sugar and processed food in Thailand, is they eat natural rice to every meal as before, but they eat more meat especially pork, and added processed ingredients, which leads to much more calories. Their weight gain have nothings  to do with rice, same as potato do not have anything to do with obesity in the west. 
 

Ballanced diet is nothing new, and certainly not invented by processed food inventors. Balanced food is natural seasonal food from what was available in the old days. 
 

It is as simple as we had one day a week with snacks and sweets which was saturday, and one day with desserts sunday! We ate healthy all year based on seasonal food available. Thats maybe a different meaning in other countries such as Usa, who maybe was first out with industrialized food, and Thailand maybe one of the last. I see big difference from 20 years ago and today here in Thailand, and how all food have changed even street food. 

[WaveHunter]

6 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

I don't agree with any of that, i see you haven't listed what you might eat in one of your binge sessions, probably embarrassed by all the meat and fat. As I've said before i mainly use Dr John McDougall for my HCLF info, he gets all his information from studies etc and experience of treating thousands of patients to lose weight and reverse type 2. Check his website for info or look at YouTube.

 

I'm guessing you were overweight\obese before your current extreme diet? this might explain why you're so brainwashed about it

That's pretty funny calling my way of eating extreme when you base all of your nutritional beliefs in a man known for advocating extreme diets that have NO science-based foundation to them AT ALL!

 

I know very well who Dr. McDougall is.  He makes an obscene amount of money from fad diet books, over-priced, resort style 10 day fat loss clinics, and as the owner of a very profitable food company that all of his books funnel gullible and misinformed people to! 

 

He is not in any way a legitimate researcher and has no ties to any sort of academic research.  All of his so-called research consists of  anecdotal observational studies, carefully cherry-picked to support his narrative.  He has been widely criticized by the legitimate research community for making unsubstantiated health claims.

 

When I was exploring veganism, I read one of his books called "The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss" and IMO it was an incredibly restrictive protocol that was completely out of touch with nutritional reality! 

 

In another of his books I read called "The McDougall Program: 12 Days to Dynamic Health", it contained no science-based information whatsoever and was nothing but anecdotal accounts and very dubious statements that were and are not supported in any way by science.

 

Everything he advocates is merely a quick-fix solution, rather than advocating a serious approach to good health. 

 

Just look at all of the titles of his books, like "12 Days to Dynamic Health", or  "Dr. McDougall's Digestive Tune-Up", or "The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss".  Do those titles sound like the result of serous scientific research or are they the typical titles that self-serving health gurus use to sell millions of books?

 

That's who you place your trust in but you refuse to explore legitimate science?  That's what lazy people do when they want a quick magic fix based on wishful thinking and are unwilling to do the hard work of learning the real underlying science.

 

I am well-versed in the underlying metabolic science related to nutrition on the biochemical level.  I may not have advanced degrees in biochemistry but I love learning about science and have diligently studied it since my college days, and my nutritional protocols are based on actual science, not some guy trying to get rich from selling fad diet books.

 

The way I approach nutrition is not in any way extreme.  It is entirely based on biochemical science and It aligns perfectly with the way the body was intended to be fueled.  That's all that good nutrition is really about...fueling the body in the most efficient way possible.

 

Contrary to what you try to imply, I eat a fair amount of carbohydrates, along with fats and protein but my body is keto-adapted so it can readily switch from carbs to stored fat for fuel, the way the human body was intended to be.  As a result, MY BODY decides what I should eat, not me, and not what some dopey health guru tells me to eat, when I should eat it, or how much I should eat.

 

I have been an athlete all of my life, and now that I am in my 50's I am still competitive with people a lot younger than me, so I know first-hand that what I practice works, and BTW, it is all backed up with quarterly blood panels that never deviate from the norm.

 

Since you obviously are very close-minded and not at all objective, preferring to place your trust in gurus like Dr. McDougall instead of actual science based information, I think we are done here.

 

Good Luck to you.

[scubascuba3]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

That's pretty funny calling my way of eating extreme when you base all of your nutritional beliefs in a man known for advocating extreme diets that have NO science-based foundation to them AT ALL!

 

I know very well who Dr. McDougall is.  He makes an obscene amount of money from fad diet books, over-priced, resort style 10 day fat loss clinics, and as the owner of a very profitable food company that all of his books funnel gullible and misinformed people to! 

 

He is not in any way a legitimate researcher and has no ties to any sort of academic research.  All of his so-called research consists of  anecdotal observational studies, carefully cherry-picked to support his narrative.  He has been widely criticized by the legitimate research community for making unsubstantiated health claims.

 

When I was exploring veganism, I read one of his books called "The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss" and IMO it was an incredibly restrictive protocol that was completely out of touch with nutritional reality! 

 

In another of his books I read called "The McDougall Program: 12 Days to Dynamic Health", it contained no science-based information whatsoever and was nothing but anecdotal accounts and very dubious statements that were and are not supported in any way by science.

 

Everything he advocates is merely a quick-fix solution, rather than advocating a serious approach to good health. 

 

Just look at all of the titles of his books, like "12 Days to Dynamic Health", or  "Dr. McDougall's Digestive Tune-Up", or "The McDougall Program for Maximum Weight Loss".  Do those titles sound like the result of serous scientific research or are they the typical titles that self-serving health gurus use to sell millions of books?

 

That's who you place your trust in but you refuse to explore legitimate science?  That's what lazy people do when they want a quick magic fix based on wishful thinking and are unwilling to do the hard work of learning the real underlying science.

 

I am well-versed in the underlying metabolic science related to nutrition on the biochemical level.  I may not have advanced degrees in biochemistry but I love learning about science and have diligently studied it since my college days, and my nutritional protocols are based on actual science, not some guy trying to get rich from selling fad diet books.

 

The way I approach nutrition is not in any way extreme.  It is entirely based on biochemical science and It aligns perfectly with the way the body was intended to be fueled.  That's all that good nutrition is really about...fueling the body in the most efficient way possible.

 

Contrary to what you try to imply, I eat a fair amount of carbohydrates, along with fats and protein but my body is keto-adapted so it can readily switch from carbs to stored fat for fuel, the way the human body was intended to be.  As a result, MY BODY decides what I should eat, not me, and not what some dopey health guru tells me to eat, when I should eat it, or how much I should eat.

 

I have been an athlete all of my life, and now that I am in my 50's I am still competitive with people a lot younger than me, so I know first-hand that what I practice works, and BTW, it is all backed up with quarterly blood panels that never deviate from the norm.

 

Since you obviously are very close-minded and not at all objective, preferring to place your trust in gurus like Dr. McDougall instead of actual science based information, I think we are done here.

 

Good Luck to you.

I'm beginning to think you might have a screw loose, no need to buy anything from Dr McDougall, only people who really struggle with weightloss might do the 12 day online programme, he gives away some books for free, i think one is available free now. Like i said it works for 1000s of people if you don't like it stick with your fat and meat diet. He basically recommends a vegan diet, low fat and high carb\starches, hardly extreme. The keto\atkin types seem to get very hostile towards him because he thinks those are poor unhealthy diets longterm. I just watch his YouTube channel sometimes and refer to his website if i want more detail. Costs me nothing

 

See you still haven't disclosed the amount of fat and meat you eat?

 

Not confirmed yet if you were overweight or obese prior to your current diet?

 

Post your blood test results also? i posted mine further up, might be useful if anyone is considering your extreme fat meat carb phobic diet

[eezergood]

On 11/10/2022 at 3:24 PM, patman30 said:

Completely incorrect.

OMAD is simply eating 1 meal a day, there is no going into calorie count etc.
just like IF is intermitant fasting
neither are starving you or calorie deficient (unless you want them to be)
or eat this not that, they just refer to the eating window, not a diet itself

i have done OMAD eating 10,000 calories a day.

I call 100000% BS - you must have caused HUGE GI distress, or you where eating pure fat.

[patman30]

41 minutes ago, eezergood said:

I call 100000% BS - you must have caused HUGE GI distress, or you where eating pure fat.

if you have no experience, which is obviously clear
you shouldn't really comment

you can call whatever you want, it does not make your naive ignorant comment fact does it.

was eating ~2kg of pork belly each day, long sitting at a mookata