Limitations to the study aside, this is one angle where I’m curious to see some detail and drill down analysis.
Gorging is not a healthy practice, and I wouldn’t be shocked if the application of gorging led to health problems. I’m also curious how variations in fasting windows might compare. Fitting 3,000 calories in to 4 hours vs divided up between 8 or 10 for example.
Yeah, it stuck with me because I was eating 6 meals per day at the time and these guys looked like mountains. There must be something to it. I’ll try to find it but it was over 20 years ago so I don’t even have an idea where to start.
Another unpopular opinion but those guys were likely also using mountains of steroids and training like it was a full time job. I don’t care, for the record, but it’s an important part of many if not most elite equations that often gets downplayed in favor of discussing macro timing and grip width or some shit.
Then again sumo wrestlers have followed a similar feeding style for centuries. And they’re strong and gigantic too.
I have no doubt.
You reminded me of this article.
Interesting: most predatory animals in nature tend to engage in just this practice. They kill, eat until full, and then don’t eat again until hungry.
You are of the opinion it would be healthier for these animals to eat smaller meals more frequently? Or is it that they have something biologically unique about them that we as humans do not posses?
Lions live longer in a zoo.
I’m not sure how to dissect all the different angles here succinctly, but from a lack of refrigeration and ease of food distribution to significantly varied genetic profiles there’s a lot to unpack.
I don’t think tigers, lions and bears consider the health aspects of meals they eat, however. They most likely aren’t counting calories, dividing macros in to perfect ratios or thinking at all.
For the record, most animals have significantly shorter lifespans than humans anyways.
Most likely not feeding practice related but if we are going compare with generalities it should probably be considered.
Speaking of study limitations, studies utilizing mice draw interest but also can’t always accurately correlate to human results and everyone knows this. Extrapolate as you wish.
You can, however, look up the effects of gorging on humans. And it’s not healthy.
And we don’t see in them the rate of diabetes or obesity that we see in house cats…rather interesting no?
This is an extrapolation from an extrapolation and likely is due to many factors above and beyond diet. House cats eat, shit and lay around. This would be like comparing full time athletes to fat kids who live for video games. Feed them all apples and chicken and you’ll still see major physical and health differences.
Genetic adaptations aside, and that’s a gigantic aside, good - better - best likely fits. Sort of like protein intake. Can you build muscle on .5 grams per bodyweight? Yes. Is .75 better? Most studies say so. Is 1 gram plus best? Yes. But I wouldn’t compare a lump eating 1 gram to an athlete eating .75 for example.
If you’re sold on eating like a Liger go for it. You’re an athletic guy with impressive gym accomplishments. More power to you. I’m not going sell anyone on what they should be doing and this wasn’t the intent of the post.
But I’m not going to compare whales and crickets at dinner time either.
We’re seeing more things that are terrible for us here! Fantastic observations indeed, haha.
Thats where content plays a major role too. Proteins & fats will keep you satiated and running long & strong, vs. carb based meals which will get digested & used relatively quickly.
But is their mortality connected to diet or other more likely causes… predation, disease, starvation…
Edit: Layne is discussing a study showing similar results but illustrates higher rates of all causes of mortality vs. discussing heart issues alone. I believe he’s referencing a different study given dates but haven’t dug around to be sure. Interesting either way.
I realize this isn’t a Layne Norton playground but here is his take on IF and higher mortality rates.
He acknowledges and discusses limitations, and similar to posts in this thread concludes there isn’t enough info for a definite determination. He does provide food for thought, however, and makes some interesting points.
As a side note, he discusses animals.
This is a pretty weak study, and at most it only shows a link between intermittent fasting and heart disease.
Only 414 people ate all their meals in an eight-hour window, and this cohort had different characteristics than the other group. They were younger, poorer, less educated, etc. The study interviewed participants twice, and then just assumed they followed that eating pattern for a year. They also did not look at what people ate, just when.
Diet studies are hard and expensive to do properly. So much nutritional information published in papers rather than journals is questionable. But this study design is too weak to draw any real link. Indeed, only the abstract is available. But the two cohorts seem different enough that any conclusion is pretty unreliable, even though 91% seems dramatic.
