Anecdote, but this may explain why I feel so much healthier when I'm fasting regularly.
Turns out, if you stop putting everything but water/salt in your body, there's not much left that causes inflammation.
Turns out, if you stop putting everything but water/salt in your body, there's not much left that causes inflammation.
First, if this is as well documented as you say then you should provide such documentation as you seem to think it should be at the finger tips of others.
Second, your comment doesn't actually counter the main point of what you are responding to. The point is that what "inflammation" means is too general. Even if it is true that you enter a "heightened inflammation" state when eating, that doesn't discredit the idea that inflammation as a category is being overloaded.
People don't want to be told that alcohol, sugar, too many calories, etc inflames the hell out of the body. So be it.
Wait for your own wakeup call. I hope it never comes.
Everything you have said is true.
What I think you are missing is that there is both a per-calorie inflammation cost for all food inputs and a minimum inflammatory startup cost just to metabolize at all.
More simply: 1000 calories spread across two meals will generate more inflammation than 1000 calories in a single meal.
There are two analogies that I think are useful when thinking about this:
First, introducing food inputs appears to be an interrupt for most other bodily activities - even very essential ones like sleep and reproduction, etc. You might consider how many hours each day your body spends not digesting. It doesn't take much to increase that by 50% or more...
Second, electric motors like pumps and fans have failures ("deaths") that are much more accurately predicted by number of start-stop cycles than by the number of hours run. Startup is expensive for these devices and I suspect that startup is expensive for our food metabolism as well.
You're talking a very long time ago. Shouldn't that be already disregarded from an evolutionary POV?
We've made strong progress in food security in the last 100-200 years, not sure about before that. I suspect hunter/gatherers had it actually better than farmers. What time spans are you talking about?
I would assume (from ignorance) than knowledge about food security is older than us as a species. And by food security I mean "don't eat plant A", or "don't eat plant B raw, put it first on the fire or it will make you sick" etc.
Result: Insulin is anti-inflammatory and antiatherosclerotic hormone.
My skin clears up, brainfog disappears, the white in my eyes get brighter, etc.
After reading a bit i have come to the same conclusion - if your diet is already extremely clean / bland, maybe you won't get the same effect, but for most people that eats lots of different foods, processed stuff, fast food, alcohol, harsh additives, fried/burned food etc. on occasion then i think you really need to give yourself a break at least once a month. For a minimum of 48 hours.
I've done some intermittent fasting before (I think that's where you make sure you don't eat after 18:00 and only start at 9:00)
Drinking water with potassium + magnesium + salt also helps a lot, to replenish electrolytes, but some people can manage without. Some people can continue workouts, others continue for 7+ days. It's all about experimentation.
Atm. i start each week fasting and just fast for as long as it feels ok. Often 1-3 days.
I would recommend 2 fasts per month 36-48 hours, and with electrolyte water for newcomers.
Off course starting weight, activity level etc. is also important factors, i'm personally trying to lose some "corona weight" atm.
If it benefits you, it may get easier over time. I have a serious medical condition. I used to routinely throw up when I was even just underfed for one day.
It now takes longer than one day for me to start having strong reactions. Fasting and semi-fasting have been beneficial for my condition, but it was amazingly hard on me for a really long time and is still not easy.
I tend to semi-fast for somewhere between one and two days (often around 36 hours) most months. I've done longer -- up to a week -- but two per month for a newcomer sounds like a lot to me and I assume that's because of how hard it is on me.
So YMMV and probably will.
Your lack of understanding of the context of use, and underlying meaning, is nobody's problem but your own.
Perhaps you should have asked what He meant by clean, because clearly you don't understand.
https://www.primalorganicmiami.com/eat-clean-miami/ As this website says "There is not a strict definition for “eating clean”. I still assert clean eating is meaningless.
I'm not against healthy eating. But "healthy eating" or "clean foods" don't have definitions.
Think of it this way, there may not be a nailed down definition of “clean” or healthy” eating. However, it gets you in a “range of uncertainty”
Is McDonalds clean? No. Is Pizza clean? Nope. Is brown rice clean? Maybe. I should ask what they mean by their usage of clean.
Have I made my point a little bitter? I view usage of vague terms like that not as useless, but as “gets you close to the target without getting lost in the weeds.”
Hope this helps.
Although I don't know any diet that would be "clean" compared with a water fast...
Vegan perhaps?
It's neither bs nor meaningless. It intuitively describes a good diet if you have a basic knowledge of food and diet. It basically means "what is good for you". What would you describe as "clean", deep fried butter or broccoli sprouts? See how it's intuitive?
The only intuitive difference I see in those scenarios is that one has less calories and less fat (which are obviously both essential components of any diet).
"Clean" is pretty well understood as what's left after you finish an elimination diet.
As i just described it can be different for different people but in general, super high fat, super high carbohydrate, meals that are too large or too frequent, too much alcohol, lots of additives, lots of candy or cake, too many heavy metals from fish, too much fried food, too much low quality processed foods including cheap oils that has gone semi rancid, corn syrup, various carcinogens are all agreed upon across various a large spectrum of diets from Vegan to Paleo including nutrition research.
It probably also depends on ones own gut flora.
Pausing eating or just eating a pretty bland diet without above "luxuries" and you definitely get less of these things, that's partly why fasting works for a lot of people.
Did a month on sweet potatoes. Very boring but same result.
Just for an extreme example to make the point - say some diet included a poisonous component as well as the antidote. Those eating the diet may well be just fine. However if somebody else simply looked at the poisonous part and copied only that, they would not do so well.
I'm not saying sweet potatoes are bad. And I'm sure this was a somewhat flippant statement, but this is the kind of thinking we're very prone to and I think it's important to recognize when it actually tries to lead us down the wrong path.
This was a pure desperation move.
I have experience here, literally with isolation diets for immune issues on starches, common for immunologists to run, see AIP which can start extreme down to one thing. I had a friend who had to do a super intense version, luckily, mine was quick.
There’s no problem with flippant statements, just bad faith replies that try and pick fights over nothing.
Also didn’t claim benefit. It’s potato. If there were some significant problem we’d have known by now.
I was specifically taking umbrage with the reasoning provided - X does a lot of Y in their complex thing and gets good results, so lots of Y can't be bad - and tried to be clear about that.
> gets good results
You claim I said it’s “good”, but I said “can’t be bad” in relation to a short term allergy diet. Your super pedantic bone you picked is based on exaggerating what I said twice and generalizing it out of context, which is funny coming from a pedant.
Boiled or microwaved. Always plain.
I Felt a lot better afterwards.
Non trigger foods, ie. sweet potatoes allow me to avoid such problems.
As to well managed. No, not really. I was physically doing much better when taking proper meds, (plaqunial)
However side effects were to much.
Considering this is Ramadan and fasting is pretty much on-topic, I notice a big difference between the religious fasts and the self-regulated ones.
The ramadan fasting without water seems to result in a net weight loss between the morning and the first meal.
On the other hand, people like me who do drink water/electrolytes, see our weight go up in the day from drinking water to compensate for the hunger.
A small part of what you experience might just be reaching adequate hydration and dropping salt levels to a more healthy level over the day.
The results you feel might not be from the lack of inflammation from food, but from a change in immune responses, some of which can reduce inflammation and other bad feelings.