/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9566123]

How (un)healthy is it to eat only 1 meal a week?


Take any organism on the planet earth and reduce their caloric intake by 30% science shows they live 30% longer.
Also When fasting for extended periods of time, time slows down. A week ago feels like much longer ago. It's puzzling. But is it healthy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKfR6bAXr-c
At ~ 3 minutes

[Anonymous No.9566133]

>science shows
Can we stop with the """science""" shows meme? Science is not showing anything, research is. Say "There exits research which provides evidence that..."

[Anonymous No.9566134]

>>9566123
THe only species this hasn't been tested on is homosapiens

[Anonymous No.9566139]

>>9566133
Don't be so autistic abt it, nobody is gaining from that.

[Anonymous No.9566143]

>>9566123
Humans have larger brains.

[Anonymous No.9566144]

>>9566123
If you reduce caloric intake by 30%, then you just lose weight until you reach the maintenance weight of your new caloric goal. So what is the ideal BMI for longevity?

[Anonymous No.9566154]

Caloric restriction is only effective in small organisms with fast metabolism. The bigger the organism, the smaller the effect.

[Anonymous No.9566160]

>>9566144
It probably does more than that. Explain the difference in time perception otherwise

>>9566154
Effective for what? And proof please

[Anonymous No.9566165]

>>9566160
What do you think happens when you eat less calories? Your weight will go down until your lowered calorie consumption can maintain your weight. So what is the ideal weight? 30% reduction is meaningless since we don't know the starting weight

[Anonymous No.9566176]

>>9566165
I'm not saying your claim is wrong, it's just incomplete

[Anonymous No.9566374]

>>9566123
>Any organism
Starving africans?
>Science shows
What the fuck are you talking about? Even if there were an ideal bodyfat percentage for longevity it would vary between species with different metabolic needs. If they're in alaska, "science shows" that a 30% in caloric intake will make it a lot harder to hold heat in their bodies.

[Anonymous No.9566411]

>>9566176
His claim is incomplete because OPs claim is incomplete. Can't make a full argument without all the relevant facts.

[Anonymous No.9566431]

eating once a week only works if you have high body fat. if you have no fat to use as energy and you fast for a week, it will fuck you up. but extremely long fasts have been performed by fat shits before. a guy fasted for almost 400 days (literally only drank water and had vitamins) and stayed healthy.

source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

there are some proponents nowadays of fasting down to a certain body fat percentage and then eating one meal a day. i've experimented with doing a few 48 hour fasts and it seems to work decently well.

[Anonymous No.9566450]

>>9566411
Op here, i basically quote the professor in the video at 3min. in

[Anonymous No.9566455]

>>9566176
I can't reduce my calories by 30% because then I'll be severely underweight

[Anonymous No.9566469]

>eat once a week instead of 21 times a week
>30% reduction
>[math]\frac{1}{21} = 0.3[/math]

[Anonymous No.9566582]

>>9566450
That doesn't make you or him right. Any organism? Okay, you feed a baby 30% less, see what happens. Hasn't been tested on humans? Take some plants for example (can't recall names), but give them 30% less nutrients and they will die, this is a fact.
You can't just go make claims like that. It's the same as if I said that if I only shit once a month, that I would never get sick because I absorb the extra nutrients from the shit that's in me.
Absurd, but you get my point.

[Anonymous No.9566600]

>>9566469
Yeah thanks, i never claimed 1x a week is 30 less

>>9566582
> feed a baby 30% less
I doubt they tested baby animals. Which means timing is imperative.
Also
The nutrients are exactly what matters to stay alive. So if you consume them 30% less on average you nonetheless still consume them, your body stores and redistributes. The whole point of this is that it has Not been tested, so who knows what a human body will make of it.

[Anonymous No.9566602]

>>9566123
S C I E N C E
H
O
W
S

[Anonymous No.9566607]

>>9566600
Thank you, you proved my point, not enough data. For further reading, google keto. That still requires you to hit your daily intake though, even though it uses fat as a substitute for carbs.

[Anonymous No.9566609]

>>9566123
>If I'm not a fatass, I live 30% longer
wow, who would have known

[Anonymous No.9566967]

>>9566123
>and reduce their caloric intake by 30%

30% starting from what?

How do you correlate calorie intake to life span anyway? Surely the composition of calorie intake matters just as much as the amount of calories affecting life span e.g eating 2500 calories from McDonalds vs getting the same amount from a traditional Mediterranean based diet would lead to very different results.

[Anonymous No.9567071]

>>9566967
Every animal they've tested started overweight

[Anonymous No.9567088]

>>9567071
Wait, so they got the animal fat, said "Bro you only have 6 months to live" then starved it, and it lived 8 months?

[Anonymous No.9567116]

Once a week is pretty intense man. Usually people will do a 1 week water fast every so often, not base their entire diet on it. Even at the small amount of 2000 caloires per day, which is barely enough to maintain my 5'9 115 lbs sedentary figure, you'd need to eat 14000 calories in one day to maintain your weight.

[Anonymous No.9567121]

>>9566123

it might (might) make you live longer, but 100% of people who have ever starved or fasted can confirm you feel like shit after 3 days. There's no way a manual laborer could go without food that long. Binge-eating has its own problems, so for most people the smartest solution is intermittent fasting. Also
>downplaying the influence of dietary cations this much
>comparing hypertensive burgers who cant even make a salad without mayo to japs and natives who eat more greens than grain everyday

[Anonymous No.9567252]

>>9566967
> 30% starting from what?

You're right. I also would like to know how these scientists figured that without their testing these animals would had a 30% shorter lifespan.

[Anonymous No.9567261]

>>9567116
You'd adapt to a different bodyweight. And in the subsequent process you live on, living longer.

[Anonymous No.9567311]

>>9566133
>Can we stop with the """science""" shows meme? Science is not showing anything, research is. Say "There exits research which provides evidence that..."

Science IS the Scientific method. Research is derived from that.

SCIENCE SHOWS U DUMB. THIS JUST IN. MAN ON SCI IS STIOOPID HAHAHA.

[Anonymous No.9567437]

Hello! I do a 16 to 24 hour fast 3 to 5 days a week for a couple months now. I have actually found that my energy levels and focus are greater when I fast with moderation. It takes quite a bit of our body's energy to be constantly digesting food. There are many benefits to fasting including the regular access to a state of ketosis, greater longevity, and it gives our metabolism a break which sort of "refreshes" our state

[Anonymous No.9567784]

>>9567437
What do you eat? Do you ever eat any carbs at all?

[Anonymous No.9567791]

>>9566123
How do you go from a 30% reduction to one meal a week?

If you have three meals a day it would be like going to two meals a day.
But really, you could change what you are eating instead of reducing what you are eating, because it is about caloric intake, not mass consumption.

[Anonymous No.9567798]

>>9567437
Did you know that if you aren't consuming energy digesting food, your body will be consuming energy converting fat reserves into energy?

You cannot reach a state where your body is not consuming energy this side of death, that's why eating is important.
Now, fasting by choice is not a bad thing, but you need to be realistic about what you are expecting to receive from doing it.

[Anonymous No.9568147]

>>9567798
It's just that consuming energy in one way is more effective for selfpreservation purposes than consuming energy in another way. And that difference is manifested short or longterm

[Anonymous No.9568297]

>>9566431
It doesn't even work then. The weight you loose will be a good part muscle mass and not fat

[Anonymous No.9570017]

>>9566123

It all depends. If you are fat, it's not going to matter that much because your body is just going to use your fat supply as energy. If you are skinny, you're going to go into starvation mode and start using a muscle for fuel. It also depends on what you eat for your meal.

Just eat once a day or every other day and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous No.9570030]

>>9566139
On the other hand people regularly use the phrase science "science shows" to mean "this one study says," so asking them to explicitly say that the article is based upon a single study rather than the scientific consensus implied by "science shows" seems entirely reasonable to me.

[Anonymous No.9570037]

>eating anything other than 3 meals a weak + regular exercise + several hours a day of social contact
you dun goofed

[Anonymous No.9570076]

>>9566123
>reduce caloric intake by 100%
>live twice as long
the absolute state of popsci retards

[Anonymous No.9570441]

>>9566123
>Eat nothing
>Caloric intact reduced by 100%
>Live 100% longer

[Anonymous No.9570449]

>whativelearned

He's a pseud to be honest. Its extremely unhealthy unless you're a fucking snake. Humans use 2500 calories to sustain themselves each day. Even if you eat a 2500 calorie meal, you're burning 15000 calories/week. You're on a one way ticket to starvation town.

>Take any organism on the planet earth and reduce their caloric intake by 30% science shows they live 30% longer.

Fucking bollocks mate, that doesn't even make sense. Reduce it 30% from what? What if you reduce it 30% to live 30% longer, and then reduce that by 30%? Do you live 41% longer? Think about what you're saying. The scientist probably found that if they reduced obese people's calorie intake by 30% they live 30% longer, not your average person.

[Anonymous No.9571043]

>>9570449
They're his words, watch the vid on the timestamp i gave with it. Michio Kaku is a respected professor and has a reputation to not just throw under the bus by spitting nonsense .

Now i agree out of context it makes little sense so i now wonder what he in actual fact means with this.


But you're completely wrong about extended periods of water-fasting. This is not unhealthy and like hunter-gatherers were required to face all of the time our bodies are perfectly capable of adapting to the necessary means-- up to 30days people undergo periods of no caloric intake

[Anonymous No.9571047]

>>9570076
>>9570441
>I automatically assume that the relationship is linear

[Anonymous No.9571052]

>>9570449
>2500 cal a day

You are a fat fuck and probably American