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

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, eezergood said:

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

A lot of you that are exploring popular weight loss diets with silly names like Mediterranean Diet, Keto Diet, OMAD, DASH Diet, Paleo Diet, Atkins Diet, MIND Diet, Dubrow Diet, etc... would do much better to just toss those type of diets in the trash bin and start thinking about how your body really works. 

 

These all are FAD DIETS popularized by YouTube gurus and others with a financial incentive in promoting them.  As soon as one becomes dated, another is there to replace it.  Such fad diets have been around for over one hundred years now, and if any of them truly worked, we would not be facing the obesity epidemic we face today.

 

Diets like these are really just marketing and promotional hype and are no more effective than disproven calorie-restriction diets IF you don't really understand the underlying metabolic processes involved in becoming obese.

 

Shedding excess body fat is not rocket science and does not require following some rigidly defined protocol to do so.  Once you understand the underlying science of obesity, you will realize that the goal should NOT be to lose weight, but rather, to get your metabolic system back to working the way it was intended to work.

 

Very simply, It means that you stop grazing on food all day long, consuming breakfast, lunch, and dinner along with all the snacks in between.

 

The human body was NOT intended to be in a "fully fed state" constantly throughout the day!  When glycogen stores are full, insulin is also high enough to prevent efficient access to stored body fat.  The process of converting stored body fat (triglycerides) into simple fatty acids that the body can use as fuel is seriously hampered whenever insulin is high.  This is just a basic biochemical fact that's been very well understood by scientist for a while now so it is not  open to debate. IT IS A FACT!

 

Yet, despite that knowledge, people still believe that obesity is simply the result to an over abundance of calories being consumed.  It is NOT too many calories that causes obesity; it is the simple fact that stored glycogen is never allowed to be depleted enough throughout a day to allow the body to shift over to a fat metabolism, and that is caused by too much carbohydrate consumption.

 

It is carbohydrates that are the root cause, simply because insulin responds more to carbohydrate consumption that it does to fats which cause a negligible response to insulin, or even proteins (which have some effect on insulin, but only when over-consumed to the point that they are converted to glycogen through "gluconeogenesis".  This biochemical process is also very well understood by scientists and is therefore not open to debate.  It is also a scientific FACT! 

 

So, always being in a fed state leads to continually high insulin levels throughout the day, which in turn leads to diminished ability of the body to use stored body fat as fuel, and that eventually causes obesity!.  That's a pretty easy concept to wrap your head around, and it's all based on two very easy to understand biochemical realities!

 

Making lifestyle adjustments that allow your body to become depleted of glycogen throughout the day is difficult for a period of time if you have been acclimated to grazing on food throughout the day for a long time, but the body quickly adjusts to the change in just a matter of days or perhaps weeks, and once it does, it becomes highly efficient at shifting from a carb-based metabolism to a fat-based one when glycogen levels become low. 

 

Once acclimated, it does this seamlessly without hunger pangs, lethargy, or any of the other things that people fear will happen if you are not constantly in a fed state.  The net result of letting your body work the way it is supposed to...your body sheds those excess pounds of fat all on its' own, and remains that way NATURALLY...without the need for silly diet plans which never work in the long term, in the first place!

 

Just think about it!

Edited November 14, 2022 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

On 3/3/2021 at 9:51 AM, eezergood said:

Its not magic, you simply eat less than normal - In the sort term I suspect it will be hard, but you will loose a lot of weight (not just fat) and may run into some gastric distress if you try to eat all your previous calories in that 60 minute window.

 

Overall I would suggest its not sustainable for MOST, but in general calorie restriction has been show to lead to increases in longevity 

It is sustainable.  I've been eating one meal a day for decades with no drawbacks to it whatsoever, and I happen to follow a very active lifestyle.   

 

Who says there has to be a rigid 60 minute window?  That's nonsense.  There is absolutely no scientific reason to have a rigid eating window at all.  All that matters is that the body has time throughout the day to deplete glycogen levels so that fat metabolism can kick in.

 

From a purely biochemical perspective, the whole idea about eating only once a day is that it allows the body to deplete glycogen levels enough throughout the day so that the body can efficiently shift over to burning fat as fuel.  That's really all there is to it.

 

Our bodies are meant to efficiently use BOTH stored fat and glycogen as a ready fuel source but if you are always in a fed-state, that does not happen because, like almost anything that is not exercised regularly, fat metabolism becomes compromised if glycogen levels always remain high.

 

Your one meal of the day can be spread out over hours and you can eat until satiety is reached as long as the foods you eat do not promote false satiety signals (like highly processed foods will do).

 

People should explore "one-meal-a-day " nutrition from a nutritional science (i.e.: biochemical) standpoint instead of through fad diet gurus that promote rigid protocols and dogma that really have no scientific basis.

 

One-meal-a-day makes a lot of sense since that is the way the body was really meant to function best when you look purely at the biochemistry side of things.

Edited November 17, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

41 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

It is sustainable.  I've been eating one meal a day for decades with no drawbacks to it whatsoever, and I happen to follow a very active lifestyle.   

 

Who says there has to be a rigid 60 minute window?  That's nonsense.  There is absolutely no scientific reason to have a rigid eating window at all.  All that matters is that the body has time throughout the day to deplete glycogen levels so that fat metabolism can kick in.

 

From a purely biochemical perspective, the whole idea about eating only once a day is that it allows the body to deplete glycogen levels enough throughout the day so that the body can efficiently shift over to burning fat as fuel.  That's really all there is to it.

 

Our bodies are meant to efficiently use BOTH stored fat and glycogen as a ready fuel source but if you are always in a fed-state, that does not happen because, like almost anything that is not exercised regularly, fat metabolism becomes compromised if glycogen levels always remain high.

 

Your one meal of the day can be spread out over hours and you can eat until satiety is reached as long as the foods you eat do not promote false satiety signals (like highly processed foods will do).

 

People should explore "one-meal-a-day " nutrition from a nutritional science (i.e.: biochemical) standpoint instead of through fad diet gurus that promote rigid protocols and dogma that really have no scientific basis.

 

One-meal-a-day makes a lot of sense since that is the way the body was really meant to function best when you look purely at the biochemistry side of things.

Just going in circles here, and your experience is not a truth, and most likely you glamour it maube a tiny bit to, for an instance you know say you spread it out on many hours? What does many hours mean? 
 

another important factor when men passes 50 years old, is their testosterone Levels, and you add extra by doing trt. What testosterone measuring do you have on your peak, and how much testosterone do you inject and how often? What is your hemmoglobin level after many years therapy?
 

testosterone levels do play a important role in digestion and also recovery. 
 

when that said, is Omad the reason you are on trt? There is scientific proofs that fasting can reduce hormones in men, especially older who also loose more shbg compare to younger who do not necessery get that impacted of lower T, because their shbg stayed high. 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

Just going in circles here, and your experience is not a truth, and most likely you glamour it maube a tiny bit to, for an instance you know say you spread it out on many hours? What does many hours mean? 
 

another important factor when men passes 50 years old, is their testosterone Levels, and you add extra by doing trt. What testosterone measuring do you have on your peak, and how much testosterone do you inject and how often? What is your hemmoglobin level after many years therapy?
 

testosterone levels do play a important role in digestion and also recovery. 
 

when that said, is Omad the reason you are on trt? There is scientific proofs that fasting can reduce hormones in men, especially older who also loose more shbg compare to younger who do not necessery get that impacted of lower T, because their shbg stayed high. 

Trying to have an intelligent discussion on a science-based topic on this forum is pointless when people like you are only here to bait one into pointless arguments with complete nonsense that adds nothing useful to the thread.
 

If you have something credible to say, fine, but I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.  I mean, what does this even mean???  "... your experience is not a truth, and most likely you glamour it maube a tiny bit to, for an instance you know say you spread it out on many hours?..." 

 

Though I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make, it's more than obvious it is only intended to throw the discussion off-topic.  Why people seem to get pleasure from disrupting serious discussion with such nonsense is beyond me!

 

Your nitpicky comments about TRT and trying to somehow negatively connect that to eating one-meal-a-day is so uneducated, it's not even worthy of a reply.

 

I mean, if you are going to discuss Testosterone and SRGB proteins, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! 

 

Your comments on this sound like you hastily read bits and pieces from a wiki that you haven't even taken the time to understand, so it sounds more like gibberish than anything that is truly science-based.

 

Bottom line, if you intend to attack a point of view, at least research it enough so that you understand it.  Otherwise you are just talking through your hat!

Edited November 17, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

47 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Trying to have an intelligent discussion on a science-based topic on this forum is pointless when people like you are only here to bait one into pointless arguments with complete nonsense that adds nothing useful to the thread.
 

If you have something credible to say, fine, but I don't even understand what point you're trying to make.  I mean, what does this even mean???  "... your experience is not a truth, and most likely you glamour it maube a tiny bit to, for an instance you know say you spread it out on many hours?..." 

 

Though I haven't a clue what point you are trying to make, it's more than obvious it is only intended to throw the discussion off-topic.  Why people seem to get pleasure from disrupting serious discussion with such nonsense is beyond me!

 

Your nitpicky comments about TRT and trying to somehow negatively connect that to eating one-meal-a-day is so uneducated, it's not even worthy of a reply.

 

I mean, if you are going to discuss Testosterone and SRGB proteins, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT! 

 

Your comments on this sound like you hastily read bits and pieces from a wiki that you haven't even taken the time to understand, so it sounds more like gibberish than anything that is truly science-based.

 

Bottom line, if you intend to attack a point of view, at least research it enough so that you understand it.  Otherwise you are just talking through your hat!

I continue to read your scientific understanding, but so far only see words. You make so many statements without any science based documentation, and when being asked for the evidence, you continue to discredit any questions or questioners to be uneducated and complete idiots, because you are the living proofs. You discredit my life experience as well my knownledge, and as stated before, I can not find any long term clinical studies on omad that back up your selfmade facts. 
 

To prove me wrong is on your behalf, because you say you have the evidence, and therefor I say we go in circles. I guess this was the third time I called you out on exactly the same. And in fact in a polite way not calling you out with names or trying to degrade your intellect. 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

I continue to read your scientific understanding, but so far only see words. You make so many statements without any science based documentation, and when being asked for the evidence, you continue to discredit any questions or questioners to be uneducated and complete idiots, because you are the living proofs. You discredit my life experience as well my knownledge, and as stated before, I can not find any long term clinical studies on omad that back up your selfmade facts. 
 

To prove me wrong is on your behalf, because you say you have the evidence, and therefor I say we go in circles. I guess this was the third time I called you out on exactly the same. And in fact in a polite way not calling you out with names or trying to degrade your intellect. 

Don't take this the wrong way, but I've been down this road before on forums as far as providing links to scientific studies, etc.   My goal in posting here is to give the broad strokes of what I believe and why I believe it.  Your goal should be to explore the concepts I discuss FOR YOURSELF, and to explore research that both supports as well as contradicts your own beliefs.

 

Too many people research a topic only from sources that support their belief, and ignore sources that contradict it.  That's no good, not if you really want to explore a topic objectively.

 

If I provide links, most people will argue that I am cherry picking them to support my narrative, and that would probably be true. 

 

There is no way around it...if you want to find the TRUTH on a topic as debated as nutrition, you have to do your OWN research even though you will find no definitive answers.  It is only then that you can find your own opinion on the topic and have conviction to believe in it.  It is a painstaking process to do it, for sure!

 

I've been doing that for over 20 years since I was in college.  I don't do it for any reason other than I love studying science, particularly in the area of metabolic biochemistry.  I hold no advanced degrees in biochemistry but I studied it as an undergraduate so that helps some in understanding developments over the last decade, and most of what I say here is based on that, not in what's written in diet books or discussed by health gurus on YouTube.

 

I mean, here's a snapshot of just some of my notebooks on Fasting related topics.  I have many more on other subjects as well, all collected over the last twenty years, which I regularly add to:

 

My beliefs are not just knee jerk reaction to a single study, a preconceived belief, or a rigid point of view.  Instead, they evolve and change over time, based on newly emerging research.

 

To do it any other way will just lead you astray.

 

If you really want the truth on a topic, you need to really study it FOR YOURSELF, not simply accept someone else's word for it even it if they are a credible source simply because there often is no single correct answer.  In the end you have to decide for yourself what you believe the truth is, but you can't do that unless you explore the topic objectively from all different viewpoints, and then make your own decision.

 

If you don't really put in the work, you just won't really have the strength to trust your own opinions, and instead fall back on trusting someone else's opinion.

 

There are far simpler ways to form an opinion on o complex topic like nutrition I suppose, and I guess there is nothing too wrong with being allied to a particular researcher you respect, but that's just never worked for me.

 

So, I'm not professing to know all the answers or nor am I trying to sway anyone to my way of thinking.  All I am saying is that if you really want to feel comfortable that you are on the right path, you have to put in an effort so that you can think for yourself.

Edited November 17, 2022 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

BTW, the reason I added the snapshot of my notebooks is not to show off how well read I am but to give you some good keywords and phrases to search (including Ohsumi and autophagy) without me giving you biased leads,

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

I continue to read your scientific understanding, but so far only see words. You make so many statements without any science based documentation, and when being asked for the evidence, you continue to discredit any questions or questioners to be uneducated and complete idiots, because you are the living proofs. You discredit my life experience as well my knownledge, and as stated before, I can not find any long term clinical studies on omad that back up your selfmade facts. 
 

To prove me wrong is on your behalf, because you say you have the evidence, and therefor I say we go in circles. I guess this was the third time I called you out on exactly the same. And in fact in a polite way not calling you out with names or trying to degrade your intellect. 

No offence intended but you are not paying attention to what I say.  I am NOT saying I am "living proof" at all.  I am saying I practice what I do based on MANY sources of science based information I have read over a long period of time and from literally hundreds of sources.

 

There is no one source or school of thought that I base my nutritional beliefs on.  It is the culmination of a lot of information that leads me on the path I am on. Some of that information supports my beliefs and some contradicts it but each is important to explore.

 

I would have t provide you with literally hundreds of links (both pro and con) for you to understand why I believe what I do.  The only way you will ever be convinced, one way or another is to do your own research, but if you don't do that for yourself, you really have nothing that is science-based to pin your beliefs on.

 

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong.  I am just saying that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) I base my practices on are science-based because throughout history, only the "scientific method" of enquiry has proven efficacy.  It's the only way that knowledge and truth can evolve in the long run.

 

That it works for me is NOT proof that I am right.  It is only validation that it works, specifically for me.  I hope you see the distinction I am making here.  I would have to disagree that life experiences alone are proof of anything.  That's why I don't like many fo the health gurus who base all of their beliefs on observation studies, rather than clinical studies of biochemical processes.

 

I know I can get upset sometimes but I don't mean it to be personal...but I know that sometimes I will come off that way.  I apologize for that.  I know I can sometimes have a short temper.

 

I just believe in science above everything else, and unfortunately when it comes to nutrition, very little is really black and white and there is no wrong or right answer right now so you have to know everything you can possibly know (both sides of the debate) and only then decide what you believe is the right path to take, and even then there's no guarantee that what is right for me will also be right for you.

Edited November 17, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

No offence intended but you are not paying attention to what I say.  I am NOT saying I am "living proof" at all.  I am saying I practice what I do based on MANY sources of science based information I have read over a long period of time and from literally hundreds of sources.

 

There is no one source or school of thought that I base my nutritional beliefs on.  It is the culmination of a lot of information that leads me on the path I am on. Some of that information supports my beliefs and some contradicts it but each is important to explore.

 

I would have t provide you with literally hundreds of links (both pro and con) for you to understand why I believe what I do.  The only way you will ever be convinced, one way or another is to do your own research, but if you don't do that for yourself, you really have nothing that is science-based to pin your beliefs on.

 

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong.  I am just saying that everything (and I mean EVERYTHING) I base my practices on are science-based because throughout history, only the "scientific method" of enquiry has proven efficacy.  It's the only way that knowledge and truth can evolve in the long run.

 

That it works for me is NOT proof that I am right.  It is only validation that it works, specifically for me.  I hope you see the distinction I am making here.  I would have to disagree that life experiences alone are proof of anything.  That's why I don't like many fo the health gurus who base all of their beliefs on observation studies, rather than clinical studies of biochemical processes.

 

I know I can get upset sometimes but I don't mean it to be personal...but I know that sometimes I will come off that way.  I apologize for that.  I know I can sometimes have a short temper.

 

I just believe in science above everything else, and unfortunately when it comes to nutrition, very little is really black and white and there is no wrong or right answer right now so you have to know everything you can possibly know (both sides of the debate) and only then decide what you believe is the right path to take, and even then there's no guarantee that what is right for me will also be right for you.

To me that becomes a little bit like the theory of how micronutrients works but in practice it is quite different when you add it as single standing suplements or as multi solution. 
 

There is an overwhelming database out there, and most is without any proof or proven in clinical trials.
 

Everyone becomes an expert basically out of theories and just theories. 
 

As said many times in this thread, most diets works and some is mostly beneficial short time only. When I want to study something about nutrition, I start searching for clinical trials ,,,,,, ,,,,,, ,,,,,

 

If I search for Omad long term I find nothing that is scientific backed! Neither any good researches that backing your view if I searching clinical trials omad. I find good feedback on loosing weight, but no indication in any report this is long therm sustainable. 
 

 

 

Edited November 17, 2022 by Hummin

[WaveHunter]

If you only search for proof that "Omad" works, you will find nothing credible because the term "Omad" is more or less a catch-phrase used by people trying to promote it, not by science based researchers so I'm not surprised you come up with nothing.  Like I said before, you need to research this from a science-based perspective.

 

You shouldn't be trying to disprove "Omad", which is what you;re really trying to do.  Instead, you should take the long-route and start trying to understand the scientific basis of nutrition.  In other words, the metabolic workings of our bodies in terms of biochemistry.

 

When you look at it that way, there's a lot of science that backs up the concepts I'm talking about, like not always being in a fed-state, allowing your glycogen levels to fall throughout the day so that your body can efficiently shift over to a fat-burning metabolism naturally. 

 

The human body was simply not intended to use carbohydrates as a sole fuel source.  If you are always in a fed-state, the body's ability to shift over to burning fats is simply made less efficient, and over time it just becomes less and less efficient, especially if your lifestyle involves "grazing" (i.e.: eating regularly throughout the day from the moment you wake up to the moment you go to sleep.

 

Many people who have their 3 meals a day and snack in between may do fine for a long time, but for many, always being in a fed state with continually high insulin levels will eventually lead to insulin insensitivity, and then they are on a slippery slope towards obesity, and even diseases associated with obesity like Diabetes-2. 

 

I'm not just pulling this all out of thin air.  There is substantial science to support this...but you have to do the hard work of researching it, not just listening to proponents or critics of diet books...you have to become familiar with THE UNDERLYING SCIENCE.

 

So, for me that was the starting point.  It was easy for me because I love learning about science, but that's not where I stop since you are correct that most of the science is only theory when it comes to how our bodies really work.  I take it a step further and put it into practice to see for myself if it has a positive or negative effect on my body.

 

I am a "bio-hacker".  If you've never heard the term, it just means that I like to test these theories by putting them into practice on myself sort of like an experiment to see if I can discern a positive or negative effect.  If you look at the titles of some of my notebooks you can see that I have tested various fasting regimens to gauge their effect on general feelings of well-being, but also more specific things like their effect on lipid levels, changes in cholesterol, resting blood pressure, and other metabolic markers, but the one area I have the most interest is in intra-cellular metabolic markers...the proteins within our cells that really affect metabolic health.

 

My bio-hacks are simply an attempt to see what happens when I try to put these theories into practice via fasting.  I do it responsibly and carefully.  My doctor is on board when I run these "self-experiments" and I always do before / after blood panels not only for safety but as proof of whether these changes are real or just imagined.

 

Like I said, I don't do these for any reason except that I love the science, and I do them just for myself, not in order to convince others they should do the same.  Again, I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking. 

 

All I am saying is that people should take the subject of how their bodies work seriously, and not taking any particular health guru's word for it.  You simply have to decide for yourself, and you can't do that unless you base it on hard science that you them use to form your own opinions.

 

The human body relies on NOT always being in the fed-state for these mechanisms to function properly.  The emerging science that pertains to this is far too complex to go into in this post but it is groundbreaking in understanding how our bodies really work, and it is NOT guru-speak.  One of the leading researchers in this field of study was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work, so it is the real deal!

 

If I were to offer two of the most influential researchers whose work really frames my beliefs about how fed vs fasted states affect metabolic health, it would be these two:

 

• Dr. George F. Cahill, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School who's treatise "Fuel metabolism in Starvation" written several decades ago was based on his research that really changed how metabolic sciences began to evolve.

 

• The work of Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi into the functions and processes of autophagy, for which he received the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.  His work is the closest thing to proof that the human body relies on NOT always being in a fed state for optimum metabolic health.

 

There you go.  If you choose, you can google these and learn more.  Yo are not going to find some easy "holy grail" type proof since no such thing exists, but if you use these two names as a starting point and really put some effort into it, maybe you'll appreciate what science has to say about all of this.

Edited November 18, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

I can assure you every intermittent fasting plans shows up in the google research, and I'm quite positive if it is a serious trial omad would be one of the search words. 

 

Anyway, as said we going in circles I'm done here, and for my personal health, I choose mixed seasonal healthy delicious food for my life with limited restrictions. 

 

It is to much health in happiness as well discover new restaurants, new food, new friends and new horizons. 

 

Thanks the the company and good luck.

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

I can assure you every intermittent fasting plans shows up in the google research, and I'm quite positive if it is a serious trial omad would be one of the search words. 

 

Anyway, as said we going in circles I'm done here, and for my personal health, I choose mixed seasonal healthy delicious food for my life with limited restrictions. 

 

It is to much health in happiness as well discover new restaurants, new food, new friends and new horizons. 

 

Thanks the the company and good luck.

Well, you're just plain wrong.  Serious scientific researchers whose work is essential to understanding the metabolic processes and functions I'm talking about would NEVER use popular catchphrases like OMAD or any of the other popularized diet fads in describing their work. 

 

I mean I defy you to find the term "omad" used anywhere on the Nobel prize website, or in any of the works associated with the two researchers I mentioned, and yet their work is integral to understanding the fed vs fasted state....and THAT is entirely what the OMAD concept is all about.  Don't you see that?  I guess you don't after so many time of repeating myself.

 

That's OK though.  Like I said, I am into the metabolic sciences and love studying it.  You apparently are not.  I'm not criticizing you for that since everyone has their priorities in life, and if deeply understanding the rapidly emerging science is not your thing, there's nothing wrong with that at all. 

 

HOWEVER, it is wrong of you to criticize me for my beliefs when you have no understanding of, nor desire to explore the underlying science that I pin them on.

 

Anyway it was nice debating with you even if we didn't really communicate in a meaningful way.  Best wishes to you also.

Edited November 18, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

14 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Well, you're just plain wrong.  Serious scientific researchers whose work is essential to understanding the metabolic processes and functions I'm talking about would NEVER use popular catchphrases like OMAD or any of the other popularized diet fads in describing their work. 

 

I mean I defy you to find the term "omad" used anywhere on the Nobel prize website, or in any of the works associated with the two researchers I mentioned, and yet their work is integral to understanding the fed vs fasted state....and THAT is entirely what the OMAD concept is all about.  Don't you see that?  I guess you don't after so many time of repeating myself.

 

That's OK though.  Like I said, I am into the metabolic sciences and love studying it.  You apparently are not.  I'm not criticizing you for that since everyone has their priorities in life, and if deeply understanding the rapidly emerging science is not your thing, there's nothing wrong with that at all. 

 

HOWEVER, it is wrong of you to criticize me for my beliefs when you have no understanding of, nor desire to explore the underlying science that I pin them on.

 

Anyway it was nice debating with you even if we didn't really communicate in a meaningful way.  Best wishes to you also.

You have to admit you have been advocating omad since your first post here ???? and, oh well forget about it, as said you are to sure about anything you get involved in, no matter what topic. 

[scubascuba3]

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

You have to admit you have been advocating omad since your first post here ???? and, oh well forget about it, as said you are to sure about anything you get involved in, no matter what topic. 

3,000 word response coming soon 555

[Hummin]

On 10/22/2022 at 11:24 PM, Hummin said:

I guess our body adopt easily to any diet if necessary! Of course not fast food, <deleted> food or processed food, but seasonal food we have been consuming for 1000's of years. That's why our body is good at storing energy for seasons and times with less food 

 

Eat healthy be smart, be happy, use common sense if it's 1 time a day, or 10 times a day.

@scubascuba3And this simple answer started the endless debate! 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Hummin

[eezergood]

On 11/14/2022 at 10:13 AM, patman30 said:

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

That is still only (max) 5000 cals 

[eezergood]

On 11/14/2022 at 1:32 PM, WaveHunter said:

A lot of you that are exploring popular weight loss diets with silly names like Mediterranean Diet, Keto Diet, OMAD, DASH Diet, Paleo Diet, Atkins Diet, MIND Diet, Dubrow Diet, etc... would do much better to just toss those type of diets in the trash bin and start thinking about how your body really works. 

 

These all are FAD DIETS popularized by YouTube gurus and others with a financial incentive in promoting them.  As soon as one becomes dated, another is there to replace it.  Such fad diets have been around for over one hundred years now, and if any of them truly worked, we would not be facing the obesity epidemic we face today.

 

Diets like these are really just marketing and promotional hype and are no more effective than disproven calorie-restriction diets IF you don't really understand the underlying metabolic processes involved in becoming obese.

 

Shedding excess body fat is not rocket science and does not require following some rigidly defined protocol to do so.  Once you understand the underlying science of obesity, you will realize that the goal should NOT be to lose weight, but rather, to get your metabolic system back to working the way it was intended to work.

 

Very simply, It means that you stop grazing on food all day long, consuming breakfast, lunch, and dinner along with all the snacks in between.

 

The human body was NOT intended to be in a "fully fed state" constantly throughout the day!  When glycogen stores are full, insulin is also high enough to prevent efficient access to stored body fat.  The process of converting stored body fat (triglycerides) into simple fatty acids that the body can use as fuel is seriously hampered whenever insulin is high.  This is just a basic biochemical fact that's been very well understood by scientist for a while now so it is not  open to debate. IT IS A FACT!

 

Yet, despite that knowledge, people still believe that obesity is simply the result to an over abundance of calories being consumed.  It is NOT too many calories that causes obesity; it is the simple fact that stored glycogen is never allowed to be depleted enough throughout a day to allow the body to shift over to a fat metabolism, and that is caused by too much carbohydrate consumption.

 

It is carbohydrates that are the root cause, simply because insulin responds more to carbohydrate consumption that it does to fats which cause a negligible response to insulin, or even proteins (which have some effect on insulin, but only when over-consumed to the point that they are converted to glycogen through "gluconeogenesis".  This biochemical process is also very well understood by scientists and is therefore not open to debate.  It is also a scientific FACT! 

 

So, always being in a fed state leads to continually high insulin levels throughout the day, which in turn leads to diminished ability of the body to use stored body fat as fuel, and that eventually causes obesity!.  That's a pretty easy concept to wrap your head around, and it's all based on two very easy to understand biochemical realities!

 

Making lifestyle adjustments that allow your body to become depleted of glycogen throughout the day is difficult for a period of time if you have been acclimated to grazing on food throughout the day for a long time, but the body quickly adjusts to the change in just a matter of days or perhaps weeks, and once it does, it becomes highly efficient at shifting from a carb-based metabolism to a fat-based one when glycogen levels become low. 

 

Once acclimated, it does this seamlessly without hunger pangs, lethargy, or any of the other things that people fear will happen if you are not constantly in a fed state.  The net result of letting your body work the way it is supposed to...your body sheds those excess pounds of fat all on its' own, and remains that way NATURALLY...without the need for silly diet plans which never work in the long term, in the first place!

 

Just think about it!

Not sure if you meant to respond to me? However, this dude has NOT been eating 10k cals per day consistently. Im calling shenanigan's  

[WaveHunter]

19 minutes ago, eezergood said:

Not sure if you meant to respond to me? However, this dude has NOT been eating 10k cals per day consistently. Im calling shenanigan's  

I have no idea what your reply even means.  Do you?

[WaveHunter]

On 11/18/2022 at 4:33 PM, scubascuba3 said:

3,000 word response coming soon 555

LOL!  OK, I admit I get carried away sometimes with my "War and peace" length responses.  However, there is actually a lot of meat on the bone for anyone objectively looking for real information on the topic, and not just simple unsubstantiated sound bites or personal anecdotes that prove nothing.

Edited November 23, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

LOL!  OK, I admit I get carried away sometimes with my "War and peace" length responses.  However, there is actually a lot of meat on the bone for anyone objectively looking for real information on the topic, and not just simple unsubstantiated sound bites or personal anecdotes that prove nothing.

 

 

After I got covid I have changed strictly to eat only between 08:00 and 16:00, and one week in, it feels good. However I do my nuts, oats, youghurt in the morning, just little bit fruit during the day, and dinner with 1/3 rice portion, seasonal vegetables and little bit meat. I guess I maybe consume 1750 calories a day now. No additional sugar, sweets or processed food. When I heatthe gym and work harder on the farm again, I will add more protein. 
 

There is not only one way to a better life, and a little change from daily routines and habits is a good start without becoming a nob and a religious. 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Hummin

[eezergood]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

I have no idea what your reply even means.  Do you?

You quoted me, totally unrelated to anything you said. 

[scubascuba3]

58 minutes ago, Hummin said:

 

 

After I got covid I have changed strictly to eat only between 08:00 and 16:00, and one week in, it feels good. However I do my nuts, oats, youghurt in the morning, just little bit fruit during the day, and dinner with 1/3 rice portion, seasonal vegetables and little bit meat. I guess I maybe consume 1750 calories a day now. No additional sugar, sweets or processed food. When I heatthe gym and work harder on the farm again, I will add more protein. 
 

There is not only one way to a better life, and a little change from daily routines and habits is a good start without becoming a nob and a religious. 

Good to get a blood test done regularly especially when changing diet to see the effect, it's not just weight change. 1 week is a short time to know if it works and is sustainable, I've been doing my HCLF for couple years now

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

 

 

After I got covid I have changed strictly to eat only between 08:00 and 16:00, and one week in, it feels good. However I do my nuts, oats, youghurt in the morning, just little bit fruit during the day, and dinner with 1/3 rice portion, seasonal vegetables and little bit meat. I guess I maybe consume 1750 calories a day now. No additional sugar, sweets or processed food. When I heatthe gym and work harder on the farm again, I will add more protein. 
 

There is not only one way to a better life, and a little change from daily routines and habits is a good start without becoming a nob and a religious. 

I'm not criticizing you or your routine.  What you described doesn't sound that unhealthy.  I'm not criticizing anybody who takes steps to have a lifestyle that they feel works best for them since optimal nutrition is unique to the individual. 

 

I'm only critical when someones attacks concepts that have a lot of science to support them without even making an effort to objectively explore the underlying science they are based on.

 

I'm NOT advocating OMAD or any other nutritional practice.  All of my posts have only been intended for people to objectively explore the underlying biochemistry of metabolism since that is the foundation of what is or is not proper nutrition.

Edited November 23, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

Good to get a blood test done regularly especially when changing diet to see the effect, it's not just weight change. 1 week is a short time to know if it works and is sustainable, I've been doing my HCLF for couple years now

This is only to Im 80kg, and I know I will go up to 84-85 again as once I hit the gym. It is nothing special with my diet, and pretty much close to what I always done, except when have been travelling and working, which I have done the last 8 months. 
 

After reaching my goal I will end up around 17% body fat, and quite fit. 

[Hummin]

17 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I'm not criticizing you or your routine.  What you described doesn't sound that unhealthy.  I'm not criticizing anybody who takes steps to have a lifestyle that they feel works best for them since optimal nutrition is unique to the individual. 

 

I'm only critical when someones attacks concepts that have a lot of science to support them without even making an effort to objectively explore the underlying science they are based on.

 

I'm NOT advocating OMAD or any other nutritional practice.  All of my posts have only been intended for people to objectively explore the underlying biochemistry of metabolism since that is the foundation of what is or is not proper nutrition.

If you read my replies, and answered my questions instead of claiming you rely on science we still wait for you to provide instead of degrading us. The latest comment “Anyway it was nice debating with you even if we didn't really communicate in a meaningful way” is really not necessary when you avoiding every common sense question asked, and hiding behind your science we still havent seen.

 

My critic is based on common sense, previous scientific researches based on Omad, where they find long term Omad is not healthy neither sustainable out of many reasons and should not be promoted as healthy and sustainable. 
 

Im totally fine with you describing your system, and you are happy with your lifestyle diet as long you feel good about it, but it is not for everybody. 
 

I already feel the effect as expected but physically and mentally, and a big factor is the decission I made about making the change it self. A little placebo effect. The craving is gone and waking up feeling full. 
 

I have done keto with cheating before, because Im not giving up my oat maels in the morning, and had the same effect and feeling as now. 
 

The good thing, it doesnt need to be extreme to get result, just a tiny bit dicipline and motivation. The hardest things for most people, is to sacrifice their little everyday treats or maybe drinking habits. 
 

I love wine and dining a few times a week, and also a cold beer after a nice long ride with the motorbike, which is my bottle neck for being sustainable, so therefor I have quit those treats because they lead to cravings. For most this is the real problem to succeed, because it is a social thing and part of peoples life to have small well deserved treats in life to feel better. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Hummin

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, Hummin said:

If you read my replies, and answered my questions instead of claiming you rely on science we still wait for you to provide instead of degrading us. The latest comment “Anyway it was nice debating with you even if we didn't really communicate in a meaningful way” is really not necessary when you avoiding every common sense question asked, and hiding behind your science we still havent seen.

 

My critic is based on common sense, previous scientific researches based on Omad, where they find long term Omad is not healthy neither sustainable out of many reasons and should not be promoted as healthy and sustainable. 
 

Im totally fine with you describing your system, and you are happy with your lifestyle diet as long you feel good about it, but it is not for everybody. 
 

I already feel the effect as expected but physically and mentally, and a big factor is the decission I made about making the change it self. A little placebo effect. The craving is gone and waking up feeling full. 
 

I have done keto with cheating before, because Im not giving up my oat maels in the morning, and had the same effect and feeling as now. 
 

The good thing, it doesnt need to be extreme to get result, just a tiny bit dicipline and motivation. The hardest things for most people, is to sacrifice their little everyday treats or maybe drinking habits. 
 

I love wine and dining a few times a week, and also a cold beer after a nice long ride with the motorbike, which is my bottle neck for being sustainable, so therefor I have quit those treats because they lead to cravings. For most this is the real problem to succeed, because it is a social thing and part of peoples life to have small well deserved treats in life to feel better. 

FYI, when I don't provide links to studies I am NOT hiding information from you or anyone else.  There is no single study that will prove or disprove what I say.  It would be nice if there was, bu that's not how the real world works!

 

I have looked at literally hundreds of scientific studies, and have objectively explored AND PRACTICED both high carb and low carb nutrition over the years to arrive at the point I am at now with my nutritional beliefs. 

 

There was a time when I firmly believed in high carb nutrition when I was more or less leading a vegan lifestyle, so I have looked at both side of this debate not just from studying the science but practicing it!

 

My posts have NEVER advocated a particular nutritional lifestyle to anyone! I only relate what works for me and why I believe in it.  My posts are all about urging others to objectively research the science for themselves FROM ALL PERSPECTIVES. 

 

If the actual science leads you to Omad fine.  If it leads you to a high carb vegan lifestyle, that's fine too.  I've practiced both.  All I am saying is that if you don't use actual science to form your views, you are just being blind to the truth.

 

This is why I do NOT provide links to studies.I don't provide links to studies.  Not only would the list of links be overwhelming, but it would probably be biased.

 

SO...I give you enough information and keywords in what I say for you to google and find the information for yourself, but it's obvious that you're not willing to take the time to do that, and so you cling to your biased beliefs that probably originated from a single source like some health guru on YouTube.

 

I don't mean to be harsh, but nothing annoys me more than someone who's not willing to really explore something as complex as the physiological basis of nutrition in an objective way, and instead takes the easy way out by listening to a few YouTube health gurus and adopts their view as their own.

 

That lazy method will never lead you to a truth you can truly believe in, but if that's how you want to do things, that's your right.

 

Even worse though is to attack others for their beliefs, armed only with scientifically unfounded and biased views.

 

So, that's why I said It's pointless to discuss this further...because you are simply not willing to discuss this topic in an objective way.

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by WaveHunter

[Hummin]

33 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

FYI, when I don't provide links to studies I am NOT hiding information from you or anyone else.  There is no single study that will prove or disprove what I say.  It would be nice if there was, bu that's not how the real world works!

 

I have looked at literally hundreds of scientific studies, and have objectively explored AND PRACTICED both high carb and low carb nutrition over the years to arrive at the point I am at now with my nutritional beliefs. 

 

There was a time when I firmly believed in high carb nutrition when I was more or less leading a vegan lifestyle, so I have looked at both side of this debate not just from studying the science but practicing it!

 

My posts have NEVER advocated a particular nutritional lifestyle to anyone! I only relate what works for me and why I believe in it.  My posts are all about urging others to objectively research the science for themselves FROM ALL PERSPECTIVES. 

 

If the actual science leads you to Omad fine.  If it leads you to a high carb vegan lifestyle, that's fine too.  I've practiced both.  All I am saying is that if you don't use actual science to form your views, you are just being blind to the truth.

 

This is why I do NOT provide links to studies.I don't provide links to studies.  Not only would the list of links be overwhelming, but it would probably be biased.

 

SO...I give you enough information and keywords in what I say for you to google and find the information for yourself, but it's obvious that you're not willing to take the time to do that, and so you cling to your biased beliefs that probably originated from a single source like some health guru on YouTube.

 

I don't mean to be harsh, but nothing annoys me more than someone who's not willing to really explore something as complex as the physiological basis of nutrition in an objective way, and instead takes the easy way out by listening to a few YouTube health gurus and adopts their view as their own.

 

That lazy method will never lead you to a truth you can truly believe in, but if that's how you want to do things, that's your right.

 

So, that's why I said It's pointless to discuss this further...because you are simply not willing to be objective.  

 

Seriously? Go back to page one and read what you have constantly repeated and advocated. Again accusing others for being lazy and not objective? It all falls back on your responses who have not provided anything else than false claims. 
 

From one extreme to another you base your opinions on, and please read back how many times you mention Omad and how much you advocate for it. 
 

This is just pure bull pie and trolling and you know it. 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Hummin

[WaveHunter]

10 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Seriously? Go back to page one and read what you have constantly repeated and advocated. Again accusing others for being lazy and not objective? It all falls back on your responses who have not provided anything else than false claims. 
 

From one extreme to another you base your opinions on, and please read back how many times you mention Omad and how much you advocate for it. 
 

This is just pure bull pie and trolling and you know it. 

 

 

I am so done with trying to have an intelligent conversation about nutrition in this thread when certain people only want to entertain themselves with troll-like comments. 

 

What a <deleted>' waste of time this is!  This particular thread was so positive in the beginning but has now devolved to nothing more than bizarre entertainment for unhappy and bitter expats who have nothing better to do with their lives then to cowardly pick fights under the anonymity afforded by an online forum.

 

So, I'm done with this BS.  Find someone else to play this silly and unproductive game with!

Edited November 24, 2022 by WaveHunter

[scubascuba3]

Newsflash, Potatoes  (carbohydrates) are good for you and helps you lose weight. I appreciate the carb phobic people won't like this news

 

 

https://www.gbnews.uk/health/eating-a-common-vegetable-is-the-key-to-losing-weight-research-study-claims/397453

[patman30]

On 11/23/2022 at 11:14 AM, eezergood said:

That is still only (max) 5000 cals 

Pork Belly = 518 Calories/100g