I've been reading many articles lately touting intermittent fasting as being healthier than overall calorie restriction. I tried intermittent fasting, but it didn't work well for me. When I went to "re-feed", as they say, I feel like I had to eat too much at a sitting, and that led to some gut problems. I seem to do better with three small well-spaced out meals per day.
I was reading about Roy Lee Walford's time at Biosphere 2 and afterwards, utiliizing calorie restriction. It didn't seem to keep him very hale or hearty. He was very thin and emaciated and died of ALS.
I wonder if calorie restriction on a regular carb-burning diet isn't very healthy? Maybe a ketogenic version would be better in the long run?
Or is even a keto version not healthy? However, all of my health parameters are excellent, besides LDL (but I have familial hypercholesteremia, which leads to naturall high LDL). Even the high LDL doesn't seem to be affecting my heart health, since I have had both a heart scan and a tri-vascular scan and got perfect scores.
I don't know the answer, but for now, I like having 15% bodyfat, and I'm going to stay with calorie restriction. I'll keep an eye on my health parameters though and make sure that I stay hale and hearty!
Speaking of which, I picked up some Jana mineral water from Croatia, which has a great amount of dissolved minerals in it. It tastes a little sweet, and it's very refreshing!
Edited to Add: I came across a study which seems to show that perhaps calorie restriction is better than intermittent fasting for weight loss. In this study, the participants did 12 months of calorie restriction (CR) followed by one month of intermittent fasting(IF).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28537332
While subjects lost 1250 ± 372g monthly during the CR, in the IF period, weight loss was decreased to 473 ± 146 g.
That's a pretty significant difference!
 |
Grassfed lamb chops with sea salt
|
Comments
Post a Comment