|
|
I'm doing the 5-2 fasting even though I am not overweight, but for the other health benefits. It's week two, and in my second fast. The first fast went well, although I did experience a headache and pressure behind the eyes - but I doubt this has anything to do with it! I did feel a little restless/fidgety though.
Generally, I only eat two full meals a day anyway (I skip breakfast), although I do usually like a latte in the morning, and cups of tea with milk throughout the day. Don't believe the nonsense about breakfast being the most important meal of the day. It is about what you eat over weeks, rather than hours that is important. But obviously, if you do a lot of manual work, you might prefer a big calorific breakfast. Each to his own.
When fasting I choose to skip the evening meal. Yesterday I had a small snack in the evening because I felt some pangs, and probably hadn't eaten my quota at lunchtime.
Having never calorie counted, I am struggling a bit in knowing what amounts 600 calories. But I am trying to take into account things like mugs of tea.
I think there is a lot of misinformation about calories anyway. I was shocked to learn that a small grainy health bar was 120 calories! Which got me thinking about the difference between digested calories and actual calories. It turns out that some foods are terrible, with 100% of the calories being fully digested, with others providing a lot less calories than the label would suggest. For example, chocolate would be entirely metabolised into calories, but a bag of nuts might result in 25% less calories. Generally, cooked/processed foodstuffs and those high in sugar, salt and fat, should be avoided - irrespective of the calories on the labels. Salads, raw, lean, unsweetened foods are better, when watching calories. For example, there is estimated to be 50% less calories in a raw egg (when digested) than in a cooked one! This is simply because it is easier for the body to digest, at the molecular level.
I had no idea that calorie counting was this complicated, but it may contribute to why some people on calorie controlled diets consistently fail.
Recently, I also heard that exercise levels have little to do with weight/obesity - and the arguments were pretty convincing. The research was suggesting it was all down to the food we ate (avoid starch, glucose, and carb-rich foods). We've all been brainwashed into thinking it is all about fatty food, and buying products that are "fat-free" - and thinking that they are healthy. But sugar and potatoes are fat-free too! There is nothing wrong with exercising for health benefits (it's encouraged!), but it's the diet that is the main factor. Anyway, that all seems to align with my own personal experience.
It would be nice if we could easily monitor our blood levels. I know my cholesterol was slightly above the recommended level last year (although below average). It would be interesting to know what effect fasting was having on this, and my IGF-1 levels. I have started weighing myself, to make sure I'm not losing too much.
On the willpower front, I've not had difficulty. But prior to this, I was already aware of not eating until you feel "full". That just means you are "stuffed" and probably over-eating. You should generally be aiming to eat enough, rather than feeling full. I also believe that consistently eating until "full" expands your eating capacity, and makes you want to eat more each time. But this is just a theory. I am also aware that there are remote tribes that deliberately eat 80% less than full, for cultural reasons. Research has shown they live longer, perhaps by as much as 20%, compared neighbouring tribes with similar genetics, lifestyles and resources. This suggests a real connection between longevity and calorie restriction.
I was quite surprised that the Panorama programme was advocating fasting, quite so blazingly, without much in the way of any health warnings. I wonder if there are any unforseen consequences? For example, nutritional deficiencies that might arise in some cases, or elevated levels of something else. At the very least, it's difficult to consume your recommended 5-a-day in just 500/600 calories. It seems to me that the long-term consequences might not be very well understood, yet. |
|
Author: GuitarGuy
26-11-2019 05:26:31