Just would like your thoughts, starting with the presumption that everyone has a limited amount of willpower, in other words, you can’t do everything right all the time. Which provides the most return on investment? True example, a couple I know decides to “get healthy” or rather, get “healthier”. They don’t eat SAD, they eat basically Primal, but more like 70/30 instead of 80/20. She decides to go 95/5. She really ups the veggies, goes gluten free, eliminates dairy, etc. He goes down to more like 60/40, but does 16/8 IF and once a month does a 40 hour fast. She loses no weight and looks the same. He loses 2 inches off his waist and everyone says he looks 5 years younger. I’ve been doing IF for over a year and have noticed the same thing. Eating less often (and therefore also eating less over time) seems to have a much greater proportional impact than eating “right” does (again, no one is advocating SAD). I’m beginning to see that doing things like eating more vegetables doesn’t really make much of a difference, except that they act as a place holder that might otherwise be filled by crap that does harm. However, IF seems to have an affirmative effect on health. It’s ironic, but from what I’ve seen, the most effective nutrition/diet composition, is just periodic avoidance of nutrition.
No announcement yet.
Question to IFers - Eating perfectly (relatively speaking) or IF?