Intermittent Fasting Ideas

#23

Why would anyone need to poop at night…? I don’t understand.

@never2late wrote a carnivore meal even if she eats a little plants sometimes… The list was carnivore. Yeah, spice and coffee but carnivores typically allows that as it’s minimal.

#25

Sorry but I think it’s unhealthy NOT to be able to poop every day or at least every other day and I mean this as far as colon health.

#26

Why would it be unhealthy? Many carnivores collect a log apparently and it takes days :slight_smile: I go every day even on carnivore but it isn’t the only right way, just mine :wink:

More like “not being able”, it’s “not needed”. There isn’t enough poop to go, no problem with that.

#28

I’ve just found that. IDK how trusty the source is, I just put this here :smiley: I looked up the Bristol scale as I am usually not on it and forgot the name…

It’s common for people to empty their bowel once a day, although it’s still normal to be more or less often. Being regular really means that soft yet well-formed bowel motions are easily passed and that this happens anywhere from 1–3 times a day to 3 times a week.

If you ask people on this forum, they say once a week is okay too as long as it works fine, no strain or any problem.
It sounds too slothish to me but what do I know…?
And the amount is really tiny on carnivore. If my body would want to form a smallish log, I wouldn’t go often either.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #29

The idea that we need to move our bowel every day was started by laxative manufacturers looking to sell product. Of course, if we eat a lot of carbohydrate, we’ll have a lot of waste to get rid of and it’s not healthy to let it accumulate, but a high percentage of meat is digestible, so there’s much less waste, and what there is isn’t as damaging to the colon.

#30

Colon specialists will tell you it’s best to move your bowels at least once every other day to limit collection of parasitic entities lining the walls. I’m not bragging but I go once or twice daily and if I eat lunch before 12pm I end up having to go at 2-3am and who wants to do that. I try to eat lunch after 12pm so I dont have to go in the middle of the night.

#32

Odd. In the article I have partially read, they said one usually goes soon after a meal. It’s obviously not true for everyone but I still don’t understand your (as far as I know) unusual situation. Even people who wake up at night, need to pee, not poop…
My own body is a dear, almost nothing can wake me up at night, definitely not these things, no matter how I ate and drank.

Multiple times a day is normal for me - on carbs. A smaller frequency is perfectly logical on carnivore or close to it. As my frequency was higher and my body loves to toss out the waste often even when it’s just 1-2 tiny balls, I just went to daily but it’s understandable others have a lower frequency. And it seems it works for them just fine.

(Allie) #33

Agreed, that’s not the way the body works and if it does, there’s a problem.

(Allie) #34

Less crap in, less crap out.
It’s that simple.

You’re not constipated unless you have real symptoms of constipation and just not popping is not one of them.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #35

My mother received her nursing training in the 1940’s, before laxative manufacturers invented the notion of “regularity” simply to sell their products. She was very keen on letting the body work the way it wanted to, so we never worried about keeping our bowels on any kind of schedule. Experience has shown a complete lack of harm from that practice, and my colonoscopy results have always been good.

I met a guy once, who was greatly concerned and felt he had to take urgent action, if his bowel didn’t move precisely at ten o’clock every morning. That’s no way to live.

#36

I didn’t do any for 9 months. It didn’t feel right, and (absent carbs) I trust my body. The benefits of IF have been shown by science to apply to males, but not so much to females. So it’s not a requirement.

I stopped snacking immediately, so I did go for 12-13 hours without food. And then eventually, I quit eating a full supper, grabbing a piece of cheese or a handful of nuts. And then sometime after that, I realized I was skipping supper 2-3 days per week. I wasn’t all that hungry, and I really didn’t want the hassle.

But that drove my calories too low, so I started making sure I’m eating a large lunch (a whole t-bone, two burger patties with cheese and bacon.) Suppers became lighter meals if I ate them, and sometimes I don’t.

But it took months and months to get there. No reason to rush it. Let your body lead.

(Chuck) #37

I agree that the most important thing is learning to listen to your body, except for the carbs. After 5 months my body still craves carbs but not the ones I needed to give up. My general rules is no grains and very little potatoes and rice. Yes rice is a grain but it has proven useful in very small amounts. I have raised my calorie intake about 20% and my carbs from a total of 50 to 75 and I am dropping weight again. I am about 20 pounds from being at the top end of normal weight. I haven’t been normal weight in over 40 years, and not sure I will get there this time either.

#38

Sounds healthy to me. But I don’t believe in the weight charts at all. The first time I did keto and got down to a healthy-for-me weight, I fell off because of my frustration with the scale weight still being 20 pounds over normal. But my body fat was 20%, which is plenty low enough for a woman, and I was lifting a lot of weight. There’s an assumption in those charts that females don’t!

I know better now, and processed carbs are just off the table for me, but I have only a vague guess as to what I weigh. I caliper myself. I’m over 65, and 23% body fat, which is healthy for the age. You don’t want to be 15% BF and an elderly female. Bad idea, moving toward the 'break the hip and die four months later" end. BMI/weight charts are, I think, just a proxy for body fat measurements, which is what’ll tell more of the tale. Visceral body fat measurements and a liver scan–now those would likely tell us most of what we needed to know about our metabolic health.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #39

Those charts were developed by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from actuarial data that is now probably a century old, when the standard diet was very different from what it is today.

So people were a lot healthier in general, although it has to be said that the epidemic of Type II diabetes got started around a century and a half ago, about twenty years after the advent of cheap refined sugar and cheap refined white flour, which means the bad trends had already gotten started. As Weston A. Price observed, dental cavities were the early warning sign of an unhealthy change in diet.

But still, the height and weight charts were based on a population that was generally healthy, and our population has been badly affected by poor diet, so I’m guessing our bodies no longer know exactly what is normal, even on a well-formulated ketogenic diet.

(Chuck) #40

When I grew up in the farming community, I never saw anyone with a fat belly. We all worked the land and ate what the land produced. Meals were farm fresh, produce, eggs, milk, meat, fruit and vegetables. Very lot was bought in the grocery stores, salt, and maybe flour. The lord game from the pigs, and butter from the milk we got from the cows and goats. I remember my family being all slim and stout. I remember going to school in the small farming community and we would challenge the kids from the city schools to football and they didn’t want to play with us, we were naturally stronger and even faster. I grew up chasing down chickens, pigs and calves. For special occasions my dad and I would go hunting for deer, rabbits and squirrels. When I went into the Navy boot camp was a vacation for me but also where I gained so much weight, I should say fat.

(Joey) #41

Yes! We have just found the basis for a new keto forum challenge. :poop:

#42

Chuck, I know that is hard work, but it’s a damned healthy way to live, physically and mentally. And quite healthy for the earth. Spread the manure for next year’s crops as fertilizer, have a pretty self-contained system, work together, help your neighbors on chicken processing day, can, churn butter, understand where food comes from. I know there’s not enough good land for 8 billion people to do it, but I wish there were only 2 billion and we could all opt to do that again. (she says, using the internet to say it, quite aware of the irony, lol). I wish I would have done it at age 40! By the time I got the urge, I was 58 and had to compromise to live a fraction of that life for a few years. (veg and fruit on a half acre, trading that for local free-range eggs, fishing the local lakes, getting venison from a hunting relative, and filling in the rest of food needs at the grocery store. Even that was hard work, but I loved doing it. And as I delivered giant watermelons and bags of tomatoes around the neighborhood, I was building a closer community. Don’t do that now, but am the driving force behind a community garden so my neighbors have access to safe, spray-free, fresh veg if they want.)

Sorry, OP, for the derail. Fasting living that kind of life wouldn’t be such a good idea. :smiley: You need to fuel day-long physical labor.

(Joey) #43

A bit tangential to this topic, but I’ll push back on this notion. Industrial agricultural farming consumes more land for a single (unhealthy) purpose and causes more environmental damage than animal farming in open grazing pastures would.

Animal-based eating without the industrial practices (and associated cruelty) would greatly reduce humanity’s adverse effects on the Earth.

Meanwhile, Malthusian fears of overpopulation have long been disproven, as the inflation adjusted cost of basic commodities (and the “time cost” … of how long people have to labor to pay for those needed commodities) has decreased by nearly 98% over the last 100+ years. [See: https://www.superabundance.com for a compelling stroll through the facts.]

This has been made possible by human innovation and applied technology. It’s remarkable… and, so far, the end of this curve is not yet in sight.

Too many people are not the problem - at least not yet.

With carbon sequestering, the prospects for reducing/reversing CO2 emissions is also on the horizon.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #44

As Peter Ballerstedt has the figures to show, there is not enough crop land available to feed the entire human race, even if protein deficiencies wouldn’t do us in, in the first place. The only hope we have of feeding the world adequately is ruminant animal agriculture, because most of the agricultural land is not suitable for growing crops. Not to mention that we have a habit of building subdivisions on farmland, because it’s already been leveled.

Ruminant agriculture using regenerative methods (as opposed to the inhumane CAFO system) helps restore the soil, sequesters a great deal of carbon, minimises flooding, greatly reduces fossil fuel inputs (almost no pesticides, very little synthetic fertiliser, if any, little need for gas-guzzling agricultural machinery, and the electric fences can be solar-powered), and produces meat with much better quality and a better nutrient profile. Not to mention that ploughing a field displaces and outright kills thousands of animals and millions of insects, whereas none of them die to feed an animal. The sad fact is that no matter, how we eat, lives have to be lost to make that possible, so the “ethical” argument in favour of veganism doesn’t hold water. (Unless one believes that the lives of cows are more important than those of rabbits, mice, voles, badgers, foxes, ground-nesting birds, and so forth.)

(Joey) #45

@PaulL Tell it, brother! :clap: