A public apology to Bigmike and why fat people set me off (616 hits)
Category: NoneRating: -0.3 on 15 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Evil Morg (View user info) at 2006-11-19 20:03:28 EST
Sorry there Bigmike, my comments when a little overboard. LSD420 when as far as to recommend the "verbal curb-kick" award to me. I explained a few reasons why, now I'll explain the rest.
I weigh 72.5 KG/ 160 lb with my height being 1.7 meters/ 5 feet 10 inches with a medium build. Sit tight, I'm going somewhere with this. For my height, weight and activity level, I eat approximately one third of what the average person eats. Why would I do such a horrible thing to myself? Let me tell you.
Advantages of a Extreme Calorie Reduced Diet:
Health:
Food is poison. It's true. Even the in healthiest food, there are chemicals that are harmful to the body. For this example, I will be talking specifically about Oxidants or free radicals but keep in mind there are many other. Free radicals are very unstable compounds, without the proper number of electrons, and they tend to react quickly with neighboring compounds, trying to "steal" electrons from other molecules in an attempt to regain stability. The chief danger comes from the damage free radicals do when they react with cellular structures such as DNA or the cell membrane. This is one of the major causes of ageing and damaged can also cause the cell to become cancerous.
By reduced the amount of food I eat by one third, I have also reduced the amount of Oxidants that I consume by one third.
Because of the small amount of food being consumed, the body enters a kind of starvation mode where your metabolism slows right down. I'm not really starving because I'm burning about the same amount of calories as I take in each day. With a slowed metabolism, all the body processes are slowed with it, included mitosis (cell division). Every time the cell divides, a small part of the cell's DNA is ripped off. This is another cause of ageing. By slowing down my metabolism, I've further reduced ageing.
And for reason unknown (to me anyway), people on this diet tent to have a stronger immune system. I've been doing this for about 4 years now and now I hardly ever get sick.
Studies have show that this diet leads to about a 30% increases in lifespan with a higher quality of life. I'm 26 years old, I've been on this for about 4 years now and people have already started tell me that I look young for my age.
Social/Economical:
If everyone on the world suddenly reduced their food consumption by one third, (assuming there was exactly enough food to feed everyone) there would be an immediate food surplus of 70%. Drastically increasing the number of people the planet can support. As food becomes less scarce it becomes less expensive. So you're saving money by buying less, cheaper food.
As more people adopt this way of life, more people will live healthier lives. So less money would be spent on health care.
I spend less time preparing food so I have more time for other things. You would be surprised at how much time the average person spends making, eating and crapping out food.
Also, because I have less fat on my body, I am more attractive.
Environmental:
Producing food requires energy. Less food produced means less greenhouse gasses and other pollutants released. Same goes for transporting the food from place to place (E.I. from the plant to the warehouse, from the warehouse to the store, and so on).
I could go on but I'm sure you see ripple of advantages. Simply put the more people that do this, the better for everyone.
Disadvantages of a Extreme Calorie Reduced Diet:
Its not easy. You are more or less fighting a natural response to eat almost all the time (until your body adjusts). Your body thinks its staving; this is uncomfortable and at times painful (again, only till your body adjusts).
As Shaun_Rocks pointed out "Well you might live longer than us, but we're going to be a lot warmer than you"
This is true. I am cold all the fucking time. With my metabolism slowed, my body doesn't produce as much heat, and don't have much fat to hold the heat in. I wear big hoodies all the time, even in the summer. If everyone else is sweating and complaint about the heat, I'm about good.
Without food in the stomach, digestive acid will eat the stomach lining. If the diet is done improperly there is an increased risk of ulcers.
This isn't for the young. If you're still growing you should be eating a normal amount.
This isn't for people with certain medical problems.
The last one is a big one; less chance to survive a major illness or injury. I am talking a MAJOR illness or injury like being comatose or getting cancer (you do have less of a chance to get cancer but if you get it, its harder to recover from). Without having much fat, the body has less energy resurveys. Chemotherapy really takes it out of you and the comatose don't eat well.
this has nothing to do with anorexia. An anorexic has a problem with their body image. Please not that only one line was used to talk about physical appearance.
Anyways, I feel that obesity is a huge problem and should not be encouraged to any extent. My way of life is not easy, but the advantages greatly outweigh the cost. More people should live like this.
Good god, did I write all that? Fuck, anyone still reading has way too much free time.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/03/14_intermittentfeeding.shtml
Here is a study showing a significant reduction in cell proliferation in several tissues, (considered an indicator for cancer risk) in rats that only ate every other day.
User Reviews
Submitted by JohnnyACDC (user info) at 2008-08-12 07:40:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
who cares?
Submitted by JonnyX (user info) at 2006-11-20 16:45:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
GO PEDDLE YOUR CRAZY ASS IDEAS TO THE NORTH KOREANS
Submitted by homer42 (user info) at 2006-11-20 12:53:24 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
You're an idiot.
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-11-20 10:21:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
bollocks.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-11-20 09:44:46 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Those studies are on mice which have a much different aging process than people.
And you fail to point out the biggest drawback of a slowed metabolism, huge decrease in sex drive. What is the point of living 30 extra years if you don't have enough energy to enjoy it.
Also we already have enough food to feed the world, excess food doesn't mean we the starving will get food.
Submitted by Doodles (user info) at 2006-11-19 23:10:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Personally, I couldn't stand the thought of living to be one of those old relics that you see in nursing homes. It doesn't matter how long you can increase your life span, or really how slow the metabolism is, your body starts to decay after X years no matter how good care you took of it. I'd just as soon rot unerground as I would in an old hom that smells like urine and chea[ disinfectant.
I'm tired, no spell check and I apologize in advance for any sense the above might not have made.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2006-11-19 23:09:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
here are more relivent studys:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529117
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529044
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/295/13/1539
"Our findings suggest that 2 biomarkers of longevity (fasting insulin level and body temperature) are decreased by prolonged calorie restriction in humans and support the theory that metabolic rate is reduced beyond the level expected from reduced metabolic body mass. Studies of longer duration are required to determine if calorie restriction attenuates the aging process in humans."
even if I'm completely wrong about this one point, all my others (such as reduced oxidant intake) are still 100% valid.
Also, good point about the studies being done one mice. Its true that mice are very different then humans but I have seen studies done on other mammals such as cats and dogs. Rarely is this stuff done on people, but from what I have read the effects are similar.
Submitted by Bigmike (user info) at 2006-11-19 22:56:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I like the way you explained everything here.
You don't need to apologize as I took no offense to your remarks.
Everybody has a different opinion, that's what makes the world such an interesting place. Uber is a reflection of the world.
I don't care if you think fat is disgusting or not, my piece was a half hearted humor piece with a little bit of truth.
I don't form opinions on people by how they look, I form opinions based on actions. I guess that's my opinion huh?
No apologies. We are all different.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2006-11-19 22:50:30 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
nothing of what i said was based on that study. i just happend to find that.
Submitted by ilikesteak (user info) at 2006-11-19 22:14:04 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
-2 for apologizing for anything said here.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-11-19 21:30:35 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Evil Morg. Youre misunderstanding the study by Berkeley.
First off, they only cut caloric intake 5%...not 33% as you are proposing. I am fairly certain that 5% is still within normal metabolic activity, instead of the massive alteration in metabolic activity that a decrease of 33% implies. Secondly, the other mice in the study were freely allowed to eat, without restraint.
This info is very interesting but the feeding patterns of humans have evolved much differently to that of mice to allow for our increased life span. It would be intersting to see something like this study on humans, especially those who need the increased glucose for physical or mental activity.
Submitted by Evil_Morg (user info) at 2006-11-19 21:08:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-11-19 20:32:00 (#)
Ranking: 0
Although your arguments are very valid for economic/social as well as environmental.
your basic scientific argument regarding senescense is faulty. A cell's senescene is not regulated by metabolic activity, but rather in relation to homeostasis. The primary increased rate of senescense is stress as well as disease. In fact, if you attempt this reduced calorie diet, senescense will increase as your body adjusts as well as at any point you increase caloric intake above whatever standard deviation there is for metabolic activity.
That being said, instead of decreasing the total amount of calories, it would be much more beneficial to simply space them out over longer time periods.
This is for a healthy person, obviously any overweight individual needs to reduce caloric intake or increase activity so that consumption is less than usage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may have explained it poorly or incorrectly, however study's have shown what I said to be true. I'm not sure exactly how metabolism affects cellular senescence (or if anyone really knows) but the end result is less mitosis and therefore less ageing. I'm not disagreeing with what you said; the body enters a starvation mode that changes many internal processes. This starvation mode has only recently become the focus of study and little is understood about it.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-11-19 20:34:15 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Instead of everyone reducing the caloric intake, it would be wiser to get those overeating to stop and redistribute that food. Plus, keep in mind that everyone's metabolism works at a different rate, so if we all knew our needed intake for a regular day, it would be easier.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-11-19 20:32:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Although your arguments are very valid for economic/social as well as environmental.
your basic scientific argument regarding senescense is faulty. A cell's senescene is not regulated by metabolic activity, but rather in relation to homeostasis. The primary increased rate of senescense is stress as well as disease. In fact, if you attempt this reduced calorie diet, senescense will increase as your body adjusts as well as at any point you increase caloric intake above whatever standard deviation there is for metabolic activity.
That being said, instead of decreasing the total amount of calories, it would be much more beneficial to simply space them out over longer time periods.
This is for a healthy person, obviously any overweight individual needs to reduce caloric intake or increase activity so that consumption is less than usage.
Submitted by Hobocore (user info) at 2006-11-19 20:13:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Very interesting, and I'd love to have the willpower to have such a lifestyle.