Originally Posted by
hubcyclist
As redlude said above, you're not going to be convinced otherwise. I have personal experience conducting health related research, and I know how hard it is for even good research to make it through the rigorous peer review process and to have every assertion questioned, so to see these leaps in logic (like that autophagy is a benefit of IF, even though it's not fully understood in humans and from what I see will have to be triggered by newly developed drugs), it just sets off my BS detector.
Your statement has merit. But even drugs that are the most rigorously tested substances in our society, and have been put on the market have fail over time. The study of nutrition is a relatively new science, so we're learning new things every day. That's why so many things about it seem to keep changing all the time.
Still, that's no reason to completely ignore or deny at least some correlation between one thing and the other. Just consider Capt. Cook and how he learned to prevent scurvy. He didn't have any advanced labs, scanning equipment or test group, just his wits and observation. If we waited until we were absolutely sure through research and testing, it would take a lifetime and some unethical practices before we could begin to see results.
I know you're not selling anything, you're just enthusiastic, but everyone else posting stuff online do have agendas, whether it's driving traffic to their websites, getting youtube clicks, ad revenue, etc. If you want to review actual medical research, you need to be on pubmed and other repositories of peer reviewed research. Get off youtube and these random websites.
I'm glad you pointed that out. But obtaining research is a very arduous and time consuming chore. In addition, most research is just data that has to be interpreted and put into meaningful terms most people can understand. It gives us some general level of understanding about how things work, but does not always apply those results towards the average unrestrained individual. When I find a video that does the interpretation well, I post it. Its meant to be informative, not perfect. I'm learning here too.
Another reason for my posts is to give a real-world example of some results the average person can expect; and to answer some questions from experiences I've had that the research may leave out. Such as, What does it feel like when you're fasting? Or, How do you deal with the environment and stress of overcoming hunger? Where the research is static, a thread is dynamic.
In any event, the research is written to peers with a lot of technobabble that is simply way beyond the average individual. If this were a professional website with all scientist, things would be much different.
Originally Posted by
wolfchild
This is one of the reasons why I prefer to eat larger meals less frequently. I eat 3 meals per day spaced 5-6 hours apart and I never snack in between... I just hate eating 6-7 times per day every 2-3 hours...Eating less frequently allows your body to absorb the food a lot more efficiently...Eating protein too often is bad and it can make your body resistant to protein absorption and protein synthesis and when that happens most of the protein you eat will get wasted.
Speaking of protein that's a another subject that could have its own thread. Some much research has gone into that about what is enough or too much and whether its harmful or not. Even the research results are all over the place on that one. At the moment, the heath community seems to know more about the subject than the scientist.