Old Wisdom On Daily Meal Frequency
theiflife.com
theiflife.com
1: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/eat-more-calories-in-the-morning-than-the-evening/
2: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/chronobiology/I regularly experienced headache and mild hypoglycemia a few hours later, but it took me a very long time to connect the dots.
I also used to drink an unhealthy amount of sugar in various form, cola or so-called energy drink. Those are very effective to give a temporary boost.
At some point I tried something different, no breakfast, no soda and either a single large meal in the evening or a small meal mid-day and a medium one in the evening.
In my case there is absolutely no doubt this is much better, no more headache or sugar crash, I've seen changes in my body, mood, mental clarity and overall energy.
Digestion is a complex process, eating sugar can be extremely efficient as a booster as it can be used almost instantly, but it is very easy to eat too much and trigger the storage mechanism that has the exact inverse effect.
Some people achieve this via low carb diets and keto, but intermittent fasting is also a good way to do it.
I've been on the one meal per day thing for years.
I'm approaching 50 and have a physique comparable or better than most 20 year olds.
So while it's a data point of one, I can say that it works very well for me and I enthusiastically recommend it for multiple reasons, not just bodybuilding.
Otherwise it’s obviously ignorant bullshit.
(age of the piece of wisdom / human lifespan) > 2
AND the wisdom or some semblance of it is still expressed or practiced to this day
then it's probably not bullshit.
The probability of a piece of wisdom not being bullshit increases for every additional generation it survives through.
Are there any proof to dismiss that other planets don't have any kind of effect on human psyche and body?
Let me explain, maybe the period of effect of other planets is not measured in hours, but years or decades. Hell, look at seasons, in someway it depends on the position of the earth relative to the sun. Some people have seasonal affective disorder. Moreover, look at the Moon, which is roughly in synch with menstrual cycle of women. The solar cycle defines your age, as you age your behaviour changes.
This are some small example.
It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body.
That's not how this works - I don't need to prove it doesn't, you need to prove it does. The null hypothesis is that they don't. Russell's Teapot is a great thought experiment for this - just because I can't prove it's not true doesn't mean I should accept it. Alternatively, would you accept that the moon is what defines digestion and makes us poop just because you can't disprove it might have some effect?
I don't think your arguments hold much weight - SAD is a problem with vitamin D. Menstrual cycle and lunar cycle, while sharing similar lengths (though not for many women), is by all evidence a coincidence to the best of my knowledge (again, unless you can prove otherwise). You need to provide a mechanism for why Neptune being in the seventh house can effect someone biologically before I'll consider it. If you have examples I'm all ears.
> It baffles me, how many people in tech dismiss astrology even though there are no proof to acknowledge or deny their effect on human psyche and body.
Again, if there is no proof by default most scientifically minded people tend to assume it's not true.
Would it be fair to say "We don't know and we should study it more", rather than "There is no proof supporting it and I feel like it is stupid to believe so, therefore I should not believe in it."
This feels all over again "Earth is at the center of the universe" when 99% of the humans believed otherwise.
My stance is "Since there is no proof that supports or is against astrology, it is better to say I don't know and be open about it."
In my mind, a scientific-minded person comes up with a hypothesis, models with explaining power, and then thinks "how could I devise an (ideally repeatable) experiment that could help me distinguish between this hypothesis and another (likely null) hypothesis?" The fundamental mindset isn't "accept only proven claims", it's formulating hypotheses and then evaluating them via testing.
I'd guess many astrological hypotheses aren't especially likely to fare well, and to the extent that would-be scientists have the same intuition we probably won't get a lot of tested astrology. But I think it's also an interesting question where that intuition comes from; generating & exploring hypotheses are pretty fuzzy parts of the process.
And how you formulate them matters. If the hypothesis is that Neptune's position is causal, well, there's not a lot of mechanisms we're aware of to build around. OTOH, if the hypothesis is that Neptune's position is correlated with some other variable, still could be a waste of time but there's a lot more mechanisms one could look into. "SAD is a problem with vitamin D" is an acknowledgement that there are these kind of correlations in play.
How likely are they to bear fruit? My gut says not super likely, but at some level that's back in that field of intuition. In some ways the ultimate measure of whether something is "scientific" and included/excluded from scientific inquiry is basically a declaration about how interesting or uninteresting it is to scientists.
"Breakfast as we know it didn’t exist for large parts of history. The Romans didn’t really eat it, usually consuming only one meal a day around noon, says food historian Caroline Yeldham. In fact, breakfast was actively frowned upon."
Part of the article suggests one meal at evening, the other part says noon. This seems a serious discrepancy.
> In terms of “meal” in the quotes above, this was most likely referring to their larger “cooked” feast later in the day.
> To be fair, I wouldn’t personally say they ate “one meal” as it really doesn’t fully describe their full daily eating habits (as you will see below in another quote).
> It was more like 2 meals. The later meal being the main and larger one, but they most likely also had an earlier smaller “meal” at some point of bread, fruit (like fig), cheese, olives or local grains mashed up into a porridge.
Eat before the afternoon siesta.
My general rule of thumb is that after I do the 100g or protein and side veggies, I let myself have anything else I can eat as a treat.
Normally though, that's not much. Sometimes a little ice cream or something if I'm not being strict and cutting.
How many people today use a meal as a reward for a hard day’s work? How many use it as a “festival” to enjoy with friends and/or family? How many take the time after the meal to relax and let the body digest what they have eaten?
> most revered past civilizations full of healthy, athletic, and intelligent people
because apperantly they didn't eat breakfast? Is that what it's saying? Sorry but I think there's a lot of assumption here...
does that count the slaves? Because rich people had a LOT of leisure time.
Other studies have shown increased testosterone and muscle growth in men from intermittent fasting.
Intuitively, though I think the IF approach makes more sense.
We evolved to be in a sort of consistent cycle of massively reduced calories with short periods of calorie and protein bursts (from a successful hunt).
The "eat all the time" thing is pretty new to us, historically speaking, and we're poorly adapted to it (see obesity rates).
I know a lot of bodybuilders (I'm a gym rat) who do the constant eating thing to help them get bigger, but those guys are also using various hormone hacks in conjunction with their training/diet, or they tend to have a pretty high body fat percentage.
This isn't evidence! At the period of their greatest power, the United States ate three meals a day. So what? It means nothing.