I'm really getting tired of reading about all the ways that Conventional Wisdom for healthy eating is wrong. I mean, everybody is reading the same studies, right? Isn't there anything that's universally accepted to be true? (Vegetables are healthy? Except not corn? Can we all agree on that one?)
We've all been hearing for years about how it's best not to let yourself get too hungry—to space out your meals and snacks so that you're eating a mini-meal every two to three hours. That's supposed to keep your blood sugar nice and steady and keep your body from switching into "starvation mode." It sounded logical to me, and we rearranged our mealtimes several years ago so that we serve four meals a day (breakfast, lunch, "meal," and dinner) instead of three.
So what's with this intermittent fasting stuff? Who am I supposed to believe?
Actually, don't worry about it. I'm going to go ahead and believe the primal guy, because he supports his arguments with links to lots of studies—many of which I actually clicked through—because he's always upfront about what he doesn't know, and because my experience tells me that he's been right about everything else so far. But darn it, Conventional Wisdom. This is getting ridiculous.
Actually, if you think about it, primal eaters ... the originals... would've been practicing intermittent fasting on a regular basis. That whole feast or famine thang. I can understand how it works in that the body gets pretty durned good at regulating w/whatever you put into it. I think the key here though is ...and in all honesty I didn't read Apple's article, just cruised but am basing on what JB (aka John Berardi head of Precision Nutrition) does... to alternate "eat anything you want days" with fasting days. Keeping the body guessing is key to continued weight loss/leaning. In my humble opinion. :)
ReplyDeleteToday's conventional wisdom is tomorrow's old wives' tales.
ReplyDelete