Low Carb Friends

Low Carb Friends (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/)
-   JUDDD (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/juddd/)
-   -   I've always wondered this... (http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/juddd/771626-ive-always-wondered.html)

Yam-Yam 05-14-2012 09:23 AM

I've always wondered this...
 
If our bodies are so smart that they go into starvation mode and conserve energy when they perceive no food is coming, even though we have stored fat available, why:

Why aren't our bodies smart enough to perceive the dangers of obesity and increase energy out put and fat burning processes when we have too much fat stored?:dunno:

Is it because our ancestors never really had that much fat stored? Or did not have the ability to store fat because they practiced an IF lifestyle??

Seriously, I used to doubt the starvation mode theory. There are some researchers who still call it a myth.

Today is an UD for me and I find myself doubting at the moment. My stomach is growling really loud. Kinda screaming for attention. I don't want to hit that dreaded 40 hour mark where my body will stop burning fat, so I just took half a teaspoon of coconut oil and one egg white to calm my stomach down until I get to my planned break-fast meal, which will be soon.

But in the back of my mind is that old dieter's mentality. "Maybe I should not eat very much today and see if the scale will move faster for me."

I have a 1650 calorie UD planned. It's a little low for me. But, I went to 35% DD WLM yesterday because I was trying to up my lean protein intake. It was very deliberate. So, I decided I would decrease my UD calories today to compensate. I did that one day last week and it worked really well as I showed a 2 pound loss after that slightly restricted UD.

It came back though.

I was just hoping we could have a discussion about the starvation mode and wondered if anyone else out there struggles to believe in it. And, like I said, do you have an opinion on why our very smart brains and bodies don't seem to be smart enough to perceive the many dangers of extra fat around our organs and under our skin that can damage bones, joints, vital organs and cause us to become sluggish and unable to move enough to preserve and build lean muscle?? Just wondering....

Alcestis 05-14-2012 09:30 AM

My quick take on it is that the incredible speed (in evolutionary terms) at which our eating has changed is impossible for our bodies to keep up with. The changes in western diets and activity isn't even a blip on the landscape!

Just a "quick and dirty" completely non-scientific analysis :D

Joyjoy 05-14-2012 10:01 AM

Yamyam,
Even the experts are just taking their best theoretical shots at it. The ones that work in my head are
1. Genetic adaptation is slooooowwwww, and
2. There aren't many of us over the age of ten who aren't insulin insensitive to some degree. We tend to accumulate fat as a result. There is no chance we've had time to do a genetic shift in response to our carby Western diet.
I see some (not all) evidence supporting IF as a way to remedy the insulin insensitivity. Juddd also provides us with a caloric deficit. Worth committing to for a few months in my opinion.
Good for you for doubting and re-examining. You sound too bright for blind acceptance. Looking forward to this discussion,
Kristin:heart:

Luna Loca 05-14-2012 10:17 AM

I've read a lot about evolutionary theory and love the stuff, so here's my take on this.

Organisms, whether they be human or amoeba, have one major imperative. To pass their genetic material on to the next generation. Just about everything we do at a biological level comes down to this. Pass on the genes, see that the offspring live long enough to do the same.

Obesity actually serves very well when it comes to this. Starvation is an immediate threat. You starve, you will not be able to reproduce, you will not have the energy needed to shelter and protect your young, they will die and your genetic material dies out as well. Obesity, on the other hand, means that you have abundant energy stored within your body, which is the best and safest place to store it, from an evolutionary point of view. If it's stored in your body, it can't spoil, be stolen by someone else, or be lost in any way. It's right there for use by you and only by you.

The dangers of obesity are long-term. Arthritis? Heart disease? Cancers? All of those are small potatoes in evolutionary theory. Why? Because usually by the time you've lived long enough to have those bad side effects of obesity, you've lived long enough to reproduce and see your offspring grow to maturity. As far as evolutionary theory goes now, you're expendable because your purpose has been fulfilled.

We see the dangers of obesity as dire, because as individuals we like living and want to extend our lives, especially the healthy part of our lives, as long as we can. But from an evolutionary point of view, starvation is the biggest threat and obesity is actually a beneficial state. Thus, we are programmed to conserve calories and wring every last little benefit from them.

The problem is the environment, not the organism, IMO. We live in a food-rich environment, which in the entire course of human history has barely ever existed (and doesn't even today in many parts of the world). I read somewhere that the United States produces 3,900 calories for every man, woman and child in this country every single day. Think about the menu at McDonalds and it makes sense to me. Put this body, that is designed to harvest and store and use every calorie, in an environment like this one, and you've got a recipe for epidemic obesity. Which is what's happening.

Just my opinion. What an interesting thread, I look forward to reading other people's points of view.

vanilla_latte 05-14-2012 10:32 AM

I have absolutely no answers to your questions, of course. But I've always wondered why the body can't figure out it has enough storage to live off for awhile! It appears our bodies are the ultimate Hoarders gone amock. It doesn't care if it has enough or not. It just hoards for a famine no matter what.

For some odd reason, it reminds me of my grandmother who had a pantry you could just about do your weekly shopping in. Having lived through the Depression, she bought and stocked even though she didn't need to any longer.

Sorry, I've contributed absolutely nothing to this thread. :o :laugh:

Luna Loca 05-14-2012 10:36 AM

Vanilla, on the contrary, I think your analogy is perfect. Our bodies are like your grandmother. They know that food can get scarce, and quick. If you look at human history, it's happened bajillions of times. So the body hoards food, so that if (when) it happens again, it'll be able to survive.

Yam-Yam 05-14-2012 10:53 AM

Vanilla: You sparked a lot of thoughts in my head. My mother and father lived through the depression just like your Grandma did. What a nightmare to clean out my mother's kitchen cupboards when it was time to let go of the house! She had so many canned goods and dry goods squirled away no one would have believed it. Besides that, she had rooms packed to the ceiling with yarn, fabric, thread...and other rooms filled with sale items she felt she needed to keep on hand for wedding gifts. dozens of irons and toasters and blenders, towels, sheets, gift cards you name it. My mother and father both hoarded clothes.

My father would never wear any of the lovely sweaters, shirts or jackets we gave him for Christmas and birthdays. Not even underwear!!! Once I was so tired of seeing him wearing the old moth eaten gray sweater with holes in the elbows. I bought him a lovely comfortable, soft new one for Christmas.

The next time I was home visiting, he was wearing the old one. "Pup!" I said, "Where is your new sweater? Don't you like it?" He simply said "I'm savin' it for good."

So afraid when the time came that he would really need a nice new one and he wouldn't have it. He died never wearing so many of my gifts.

Are we genetically hoarders in every way? Hoarders of food, fat, clothes, homes? Or is it the environment that makes us this way? After some live through times of want, they have learned that: "boy, I came up short and unprepared and that won't happen to me again....."

There are whole companies nowadays that deal in food storage (for disasters). You can order a "package" that will keep you alive for a year in case of earthquake, war, tornadoes. We have all this food, but we are still gathering more for future famines. Interesting stuff!

b_lou_who 05-14-2012 10:55 AM

Makes sense to me.
We have artificially available very poor-nutrient food getting stored, because it is healthy for our bodies to store abundance for lean times. These bodies have no way of knowing how long a famine or lack of food will last, so they have to store when food is available and then work at holding on to the storage to last during the famine.
The healthy way for a body to respond to lack is to try not to burn fat since it might have to last a long, long time. It is also hormonal/chemical that we have trained our bodies to store and not release, mostly through consumption of rampant sugars, genetically modified "food", hydrogenated and homogenized fats, and other chemically toxic gunk that has damaged our entire endocrine systems.
I was just reading somewhere (my mind is like a sieve and I am a voracious reader) might have been in Warrior Diet, that we diet and damage our bodies so that instead of getting 100cal from a portion of food we will force more like 130cal from that same amount of food. That 30% is a huge difference if you "think" you are consuming 2000cal in a day, but your body makes it 2600cal of energy to store. Once again, a calorie is not a calorie and each body is unique.
Makes it also logical that IF would work if we are careful about what we eat and when. We are allowing our bodies to reenter the healthy cycle of moving storage in and out of fat cells on a daily basis. Which is normal, and certainly explains the IF scale bounce.

Yam-Yam 05-14-2012 11:03 AM

Luna: Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed explanation! wow, I loved that. I'm going to have to read it about four more times to really digest all of it. It's got me thinking. I'm going to try and sort out my thoughts and comment more. I really appreciate your insight. I think everyone trying to lose weight needs to read your post!

what a staggering figure about how much food we produce every day. Enough for 3900 calories per day when most of us have a BMR of about half that or less! Is it any wonder we are overweight?

All the comments about evolution and the speed with the western world has made food available are interesting and something to think more about.

The insulin resistance comment was good insight as well. It is processed foods and refined foods that contribute more than anything to insulin resistance, right? And they are every where.

Wow. Let's keep talking. So far, JUDD is the first WOE I've heard of that can overcome the starvation mode condition and make it work like it is biologically supposed to. Well, any IF really, I guess.

How did we get so far off track?? How did our own government come to recommend so many unhealthy diets over the years? I've read a little bit about the food industry influencing government to move product. It seems everything is ruled by the almighty dollar.

It is kinda sickening when I think of it. I mean we become pawns in a money making scheme that threatens our very lives.

Luna, I got a lot out of what you said about obesity not being an immediate threat to life where starvation certainly is. And the passing on the genes thing. Really interesting....

Luna Loca 05-14-2012 11:17 AM

Yam-Yam, if you're really interested in evolutionary theory, a great (but dense) book is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Really kind of mind blowing read. I think you would like it.

Yam-Yam 05-14-2012 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by b_lou_who (Post 15653820)
Makes sense to me.
We have artificially available very poor-nutrient food getting stored, because it is healthy for our bodies to store abundance for lean times. These bodies have no way of knowing how long a famine or lack of food will last, so they have to store when food is available and then work at holding on to the storage to last during the famine.
The healthy way for a body to respond to lack is to try not to burn fat since it might have to last a long, long time. It is also hormonal/chemical that we have trained our bodies to store and not release, mostly through consumption of rampant sugars, genetically modified "food", hydrogenated and homogenized fats, and other chemically toxic gunk that has damaged our entire endocrine systems.
I was just reading somewhere (my mind is like a sieve and I am a voracious reader) might have been in Warrior Diet, that we diet and damage our bodies so that instead of getting 100cal from a portion of food we will force more like 130cal from that same amount of food. That 30% is a huge difference if you "think" you are consuming 2000cal in a day, but your body makes it 2600cal of energy to store. Once again, a calorie is not a calorie and each body is unique.
Makes it also logical that IF would work if we are careful about what we eat and when. We are allowing our bodies to reenter the healthy cycle of moving storage in and out of fat cells on a daily basis. Which is normal, and certainly explains the IF scale bounce.

I read that too! I read it in Dukan's book where he talks about the why and how of maintaining losses. (Also reading the Warrior Diet but haven't totally finished it yet).

Dukan says if we get to a point where we are weary or self-satisfied, beware. And, instead of just giving up, learn a method to maintain that loss for a while and guard against gaining it back. Because!!! Our bodies will try every trick in the book, including squeezing more calories out of every bite, so that we will go back to our top weight.

Our mind has a memory of our very highest weight, even if we only saw it on the scale for one day. And, it will try and go back to it and above unless we maintain for a while. Dukan says we need 5 days of maintaining for every pound lost. And it takes vigilance to maintain.

Then, he says, after we have maintained our current loss for a while, we can go back to WLM whenever we are ready. But every time we lose a nice chunk and then maintain it at least for a while as we practice maintenance, we are healing our bodies of that urge to do a quick weight rebound maneuver.

I found that extremely helpful. It has made me feel proud that since I started losing weight on August 1 of last year, I have kept off everything I have lost. Yes, in April my body fought me tooth and nail and I maintained for a month. (Still trying to lose. Not practicing maintenance but in JUDD WLM calories:annoyed:) But, because of reading that, I felt like I had fought the weight rebound effect and won! At least this time!

I so want to punish and torture my body right now. I'm mad at it and I want to starve it and over work it. (I'm thinking 90 minutes of cardio a day plus weight lifting!!!) However, JUDD is healing me of that tendency and making me a more patient loser. :hyst: I'm able to remind myself this is not a race.

I also remind myself that in the past when I have punished my body by working out too hard, I suffered some pretty serious injuries that ended up back firing by setting me way back.

So, even in workouts I must be careful and patient. That's why I have a personal trainer right now. She protects me from injuring myself!!!

Now I'm rambling. My mind is really filling up with all these thoughts that are helping me stay the course....

Yam-Yam 05-14-2012 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luna Loca (Post 15653868)
Yam-Yam, if you're really interested in evolutionary theory, a great (but dense) book is The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. Really kind of mind blowing read. I think you would like it.

I'll bet I would! I'm going to look that up and maybe put it on my wish list. thanks!

mykidsteacher 05-14-2012 11:36 AM

I wonder if just the nature of IF helps heal insulin sensitivity, almost by default? When you are doing 500 cals or less for a day, you simply aren't going to be putting many carbs in. And with a deficiency of carbs, you will need less insulin to process them, and your body will turn to fat for energy as well.

Even if you 'carb up' on the UD's, you are giving your body a rest from being awash in excess insulin every other day.

From the reading I've done (Taubes, paleo/primal stuff, etc), it makes sense to me that insulin drives fat storage. The more insulin, the more fat gets stored, the less there is, the more fat is released.

I know that's probably simplistic, but it does help explain the first 20 pounds I lost, and the weight many lose lc. (I think stalls happen on lc because at some point calories DO matter. And it may be that lc stops working in subsequent trials of it because your body gets 'smart' and doesn't give up the insulin sensitivity as easily).

Yam-Yam 05-14-2012 11:59 AM

Tina: I think you are right. What do you think about Atkins assertion that some people are more carb sensitive than others. Do you think it's true?

circusgirl 05-14-2012 12:01 PM

I think those of us that have the weight to lose simply have the thrifty genome activated and JUDDD is working to deactivate it. So yes, in a lot of ways I think many of us here are genetic hoarders!

vanilla_latte 05-14-2012 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yam-Yam (Post 15653840)
Wow. Let's keep talking. So far, JUDD is the first WOE I've heard of that can overcome the starvation mode condition and make it work like it is biologically supposed to. Well, any IF really, I guess.

How did we get so far off track?? How did our own government come to recommend so many unhealthy diets over the years? I've read a little bit about the food industry influencing government to move product. It seems everything is ruled by the almighty dollar.

It is kinda sickening when I think of it. I mean we become pawns in a money making scheme that threatens our very lives.

Luna, I got a lot out of what you said about obesity not being an immediate threat to life where starvation certainly is. And the passing on the genes thing. Really interesting....

Cool, glad I actually sparked some thoughts :). I can certainly relate to what you said about your grandfather saving the sweaters, etc. I'm a packrat and am always saving (insert whatever) "just in case". Sometimes doesn't matter what it is, if I even know what the heck it is. I figure if it exists, it might be useful. Someday. So, I keep it. "Just in case". Must be how our bodies work. "Just in case".

Maybe it's the opposite for naturally slender people? My DH, who I outweigh :cry: , isn't a packrat/hoarder. He's the type if he doesn't use it or wear it in a year, out it goes. Maybe their genes are different?

I did Fast 5 and IF before (not JUDDD style) but JUDDD seems to work so much better for me in the way of almost thinking of food as a nuisance. :eek: I actually told my DH last week that although I love UD's, they're a pain because I have to make sure to take enough food to work!

I watched that YouTube video about sugar that someone posted on the main board. It was fascinating - and horrifying - about how the government gets involved in our diets. I emailed it to my DH to watch as he was a vehement proponent of lowfat/high carb eating (he's also a vegetarian). I've been trying to educate him since really trying to stay low carb all year. Besides sharing with him studies, that video helped shift his thinking alot. He's now shifting to more low carb eating with me. But, he's sadly lacking in fat! :laugh:

Re: the carb sensitivity. I never was until I made a concerted effort to eat low carb or at least make it the norm 90% of the time. I don't think I have a physical sensitivity to them, but after overdoing it on carbs and sweets on my last UD, my tummy was very unhappy with me. :sick:

TryingJudd 05-14-2012 02:11 PM

Very interesting discussion. So would it be too much of a stretch to assume that either slow loss (me, me, me) OR lack of a significant scale bounce after UD (me again) would be sign that your metabolism still needs to heal before the weight loss benefit can kick in from IFing? How do you get the metabolism to heal?

OhioGuy 05-14-2012 06:03 PM

i wondered the same thing about my aunt who had surgery for weight loss. she hardly ever ate and when she did she would yack it up.
but she lost a lot of weight. im kind of thinking that our bodys flush to a degree.
like water and our wooshes.
it might hang in there for a day or two and then it needs to get rid of excess
just likeva lot of those that start to lose after only three or four weeks.
our bodies takeva little time to balance out, even the simple thing like water

Spank'd 05-14-2012 07:47 PM

Go back in time before the advent of farming, and you will see the hunter/gatherers as the primary way of life, as there really was no other option. You killed or gathered what you ate. Chasing your food is tiring. :) Running away from things that wanted to make YOU their food was tiring.

I'm sure it took a lot of calories to simply survive. I'm also sure hunting/gathering took time. There were minimal ways to protect yourself, no soft beds, no A/C or central heating, so sleep was likely in smaller chunks.

Cooking was likely the first food change we introduced to our diets as a species. That alone might have changed everything.

Grain might have changed everything.

There's no way to know. Starvation wasn't a mode or a theory. It was real. The body has probably always been storing whatever it didn't burn as long as we've roamed the earth. We just had to burn less than we took in, in order to survive.

So, no cheese cake. No advertisements for Outback Steak House. No beer and bar-b-q. No homemade potato salad. None of that was introduced until much later, but the basic functions of our bodies have not changed.

Is starvation mode real? In the way that the body will slow down to preserve its stores, yeah.

Doesn't mean we're truly at risk of starvation. Far from it. :)

mykidsteacher 05-14-2012 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yam-Yam (Post 15653966)
Tina: I think you are right. What do you think about Atkins assertion that some people are more carb sensitive than others. Do you think it's true?


Yes, I think it's probably true. We are all different, it would made sense that we have differences in how well we are able to metabolize carbs. I seem to have issues with it, but I know that there are people here who can eat all the carbs they want (on their ud and within their limits of course, lol) and do it very well.

And our sensitivity changes as our bodies age, or are stressed by other illnesses or injuries (or even pregnancy).

I'm not sure that staying away from carbs has helped to heal my sensitivity (because I still get blood sugar spikes from too much grain/sugar), but it has certainly eliminated the effects of it. And I guess, for now, that's all I can do.

Yam-Yam 05-15-2012 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TryingJudd (Post 15654307)
Very interesting discussion. So would it be too much of a stretch to assume that either slow loss (me, me, me) OR lack of a significant scale bounce after UD (me again) would be sign that your metabolism still needs to heal before the weight loss benefit can kick in from IFing? How do you get the metabolism to heal?

From many posts I've read here, the best way to heal your metabolism is to do the UD/DD rotations and stick to your calorie numbers.

Lots of experienced JUDDers have talked about the body needing to heal in some ways before it will start dropping weight.

Hazelsmrf 05-16-2012 06:19 AM

I am one that doesn't believe in the starvation mode theory. There are plenty of people that fast longer than 40 hours. There are plenty of plans that make you fast more than 1 day in a row. I don't think that you kill your metabolism by fasting longer, I think that it does slow down, but your calories are lower too, and it's not a permanent slow down. I do however think that it's harder to get your nutrition in if you're "starving" yourself, and that you're likely losing more lean body mass as a result - prioritizing protein above all else and doing some load bearing exercise while fasting would help with this.

I do think as long as you have fat stores on your body, your body won't go into true starvation mode. Because real starvation mode would be a horrible thing to go through with your body actually slowing down, your temperature gets regulated all wonky and bad things happen. Bad bad.

The starvation mode theory comes from this experiment, and it involves our good buddy Ancel Keys (hasn't he done wonders for us?)
Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The problem with this experiment is that these were not overweight or obese subjects, these were people with normal body fat levels that were starved down to really low body fat levels, which is not good. So sure these guys went into starvation mode, but they were literally starving, they went through their body fat stores.

There was a study done where the subjects ate 800 calories for 12 weeks:
Effects of Resistance vs. Aerobic Training Combined With an 800 Calorie Liquid Diet on Lean Body Mass and Resting Metabolic Rate
Half the group did cardio (1 hour X 4 days per week), and the other half did resistance training. At the end of the study, the cardio group lost significantly more WEIGHT, however... they lost a lot of lean body mass. The resistance training group lost less weight but conserved all of their lean body mass.

I don't believe that less is more. I don't think that if you lose 2 pounds a week doing JUDDD that you'd lose 4 pounds a week if you did down days every single day. I do think your metabolism slows down a bit if you fast extensively, but I don't think that's starvation mode. I think we experience this metabolic slowdown on down days even when only doing 1, you know that thread where everyone talks about how cold they are on down days? I think this is a part of that. And then yes, we eat more the next day so our metabolism revs up again, but we ate more. It's faster, but we ate more.

And I do think that weight loss will slow down or bounce around. I know people tend to try to tweak things when they feel they aren't working right, such as tweak when they haven't lost weight in a week and then when the scale moves again they say oh, it moves because I ate 100 extra calories. But you don't know that the scale wouldn't have moved without you eating the extra 100 calories either. I firmly believe that the scale slow downs are normal and will happen no matter what you do.

Anyways, me personally... i've done extended fasting before and lost 20 pounds in a month. But it was horribly bland and boring. I'll gladly halve my losses with JUDDD and have the freedom of knowing that the down days are only one day. That said, I'd have no issues personally doing 2 down days in a row, but for psychological reasons I certainly wouldn't advocate it.

Hazelsmrf 05-16-2012 06:34 AM

Some more:

Conditioning Research: Intermittent Fasting and "Starvation Mode"

And in myth #4 here Lyle McDonald posts a link that says that metabolism actually increases with short term fasting?
Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked (Major Update Nov 4th) | Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health

Resting energy expenditure in short-term star... [Am J Clin Nutr. 2000] - PubMed - NCBI

I guess that does make sense from an evolutionary perspective.

piratejenny 05-16-2012 08:53 AM

Thanks for all that info...I don't have time to read it all now, but look forward to doing so soon!

I am uncomfortable with the term "starvation mode" when used in the context of dieting/intentional calorie restriction. I think "conservation" or "slow-down" mode would be more appropriate...if it does indeed occur. Although I have noticed some BUDDDs saying they lose weight better when the DD is a bit shorter--eating breakfast on UD, for example, rather extending the fast til lunch or dinner.

I guess my concerns with people doing 2 DDs in a row are
--does the body continue its healing & inflammation reduction pattern that we often experience with JUDDD, or does the fasting past a certain point become stressful?
--many of those who ask whether they should do 2 consecutive DDs are new to JUDDD & have recently gone overboard with eating, and seem like they want to punish themselves. It may not be psychologically healthy, and it may be better (more sustainable) to learn to eat properly on UDs than to get in the habit of overeating then doing double DDs
(DDDs? DDDDs? :)) (with possible exceptions for switching rotation for special occasions).

Hazelsmrf 05-16-2012 11:26 AM

Oh absolutely, I don't think there's any reason to do two down days, I don't think it'll necessarily make much of a difference in your losses, and I think that psychologically it might even be a bit damaging if as you say, you're flogging yourself with it. But I don't think that anything bad (physically) would happen if you did, I don't think your metabolism will come to a halt or that you'll gain or that it's bad for your body (if you have excess body fat). I read a book by Lyle McDonald (rapid fat loss) which basically told you how to fast/crash diet "healthily". I mean he doesn't advocate it but he knows people will do it anyways, so he figures if you're going to do it, do it the right way. Anyways, so I typically eat his way on my down days, and I've occasionally done a few in a row (to change a rotation), but I don't think that I'd really recommend that... I don't think you're necessarily losing better doing it.

SoHappy 05-16-2012 06:14 PM

There are studies showing that metabolism actually increases from fasting, and some studies showing it increases more when the fast is adhered to longer! Our JUDDD approximately 36-hour fast period paired against our nice full Up Days is a real good plan to increase metabolism while just letting us get on with enjoying our lives and enjoying our meals and our social friendships and holidays and everything. I think it is just the best of all possible worlds of weight management!

I wouldn't want a fasting period much longer than true JUDDD, but I also don't want a shorter fasting period either. That's why I wouldn't do Fast 5 or some of the other IF plans. I really do value the benefit and effects from our JUDDD fasting period! It's really made a great difference for my body!!!

krow134 05-16-2012 06:38 PM

I think alot of it is. Our ancestors killed and ate off the land. They didnt have a grocery store to run and buy processed foods, meats that are "glued" or "slimed", and so on so forth. They woke with the sun and started working (mills, mines, farms, etc), they went to bed with the moon and rested the night (no tv's and pc's). They didnt have much, but yet they were alot better off than us now. Heart disease and obesity was rare. You appericated the meal on the table. You made do with what you had.

Now we have a mcdonalds on every corner. Candy bars you can buy at any gas station you stop at, hormones added to this and that. More fake foods than real foods. And lord forbid you shoot a deer, turkey or catch a fish without paying $100 bucks for a license and the tags/stamps.

I just told hubby last night, as a matter of fact, that if america can flip flop the way things were sold there wouldnt be as big as a problem. Make candy, chips, pop and things like that more expensive and make meats and veggies cheaper. I told him hot dogs, mac and cheese, pork and beans and little debbie snacks for a meal is cheaper and worse for you than a meal of fish, fresh veggies and fruit for a meal! And like he said the price of gas dont help. You chose to fill the gas tank and buy cheaper meals because you have to, its really not that much of a choice they just want to make you think its a choice!!

Goodness have I rambled!!!

Beeb 05-17-2012 08:07 AM

VERY interesting read!! Thanks Yam!! :hugs:

piratejenny 05-18-2012 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoHappy (Post 15660119)
I wouldn't want a fasting period much longer than true JUDDD, but I also don't want a shorter fasting period either. That's why I wouldn't do Fast 5 or some of the other IF plans. I really do value the benefit and effects from our JUDDD fasting period! It's really made a great difference for my body!!!

JUDDD can be done in conjunction *with* Fast 5.
In fact, I think a lot of BUDDDs sort of gravitate to it anyway...skipping breakfast (and sometimes lunch), and saving calories for later in the day--esp on DDs, but it works on UDs, too!

OhioGuy 05-18-2012 12:35 PM

i tried fast five for a week and gained quickly. its eaaasy to pack in to many calories that window and just have junk, blood sugar remaining very high for a long time
(for us poor eaters)
thats why i went with an early snack, not as hungry at night for the one bigger meal


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:43 PM.