Printable View
Here's my query, what's worse for your body/i.e. What would you recommend?
1. Skipping a meal OR eating a non-paleo alternative? So for example instead of skipping breakfast, eating cereal.
2. Skipping Breakfast, Lunch or non-paleo? etc.
3. Skipping Breakfast, Lunch and dinner or non paleo? etc.
What's more important, energy with the potential of damaging your body, or perhaps the very sake of the body itself?
Let me ask a question in response — are you joking?
If you're not, search for "Intermittent Fasting" on the main site for your answer.
I am most certainly not.
I ask this because often when you go out there may not be paleo foods to eat for lunch, so is it better to just starve it out and wait till you get home to cook something healthier.
What's your perspective?
Or I may not have enough time to cook a steak for breakfast, so would it be wiser to buy a quick sandwhich for energy and suffer the negative consequences of the food? Or is it better to go without energy until you can get something paleo?
Concentrate on adapting to the lifestyle instead of finding reasons not to observe it. I rarely find myself in a position where there isn't acceptable food. I'll fast if I do
There is never an excuse for not having made provision for good food for yourself. If you don't have time to cook then make sure you have food that you can eat cold or reheat. Pretty basic
I understand your position, however that's not the question I'm asking. I guess fasting looks like the option to take.
Starvation - this makes me laugh.
Hard boiled eggs are a something portable, quick to eat and which you can prepare in advance.
Once you've been eating in a Primal or Paleo way for a while you'll likely find that skipping a meal does not starve you. A lot of people do this very often (some every day). You may feel a few waves of hunger in that time, but they usually pass, especially if you keep busy and hydrated. Try it a few times and you might find it a lot easier than you think.
So I'd definitely recommend skipping a meal when you don't have time over staying in old eating habits.
The other option to a full fast, is to consume fat only until your first meal. If you like coffee, blending some grass fed, unsalted butter in coffee is worth trying (see [URL="http://www.bulletproofexec.com/how-to-make-your-coffee-bulletproof-and-your-morning-too/"]Bulletproof Coffee[/URL])
Dot,
If you are coming from a "regular" diet, this will be completely different. With "Old" diets I would always have that hungry feeling all the time - and skipping a meal was torture because I always seemed to WANT to eat. When you start with this one, you will realize your eating most of the time and not really hungry - I was just looking at another diet that is talking about eating 6x a day (the normal diet) and I just dont see how people do it. I had my omelet this morning and I brought a big hamburger patty for lunch, and its about 50/50 if I'll eat it or not because I just wont be hungry.
For the simple answer, Fasting is the way to go if you cant eat primal/paleo. But I think you will be surprised on how easy that is to do once you get going on this.
[QUOTE=dottjt;755465]Here's my query, what's worse for your body/i.e. What would you recommend?
1. Skipping a meal OR eating a non-paleo alternative? So for example instead of skipping breakfast, eating cereal.
2. Skipping Breakfast, Lunch or non-paleo? etc.
3. Skipping Breakfast, Lunch and dinner or non paleo? etc.
What's more important, energy with the potential of damaging your body, or perhaps the very sake of the body itself?[/QUOTE]
I would say skipping would be better. It all depends though. Skipping meals is not necessarily starvation. Starvation mode kicks in if you've skipped many meals, sorry, I don't remember exactly how many meals though. Does that answer your question?