Not eating or eating junk - what's worse?

Sascha6990

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2020
Messages
141
If you're in a situation where you can't get anything prometabolic to eat, do you prefer not eating or eating some antimetabolic food?
What do you think will lower metabolism more - lack of calories or antimetabolic food?

Very interested to hear everyone's opinions. I usually choose the antimetabolic food (usually packaged sandwiches) because if I don't eat for too long my energy becomes very low, I can't concentrate on anything and sometimes, drinking a Coca Cola just doesn't cut it for me.
 

-Luke-

Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2014
Messages
1,269
Location
Nomansland
Depends on how long I would go without food. I would rather skip one meal than eat junk food. But starting with the second meal, I would go for the least negative junk food.
 

sunny

Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2020
Messages
886
Depends how long and how often. When you have to eat undesirable food, having some vitamin e on hand might help. Then follow up with carrot salad.

"When we don’t eat for many hours, our glycogen stores decrease, and adrenaline secretion is increased, liberating more glucose as long as glycogen is available, but also liberating fatty acids from the fatty tissues. When the diet has chronically contained more polyunsaturated fats than can be oxidized immediately or detoxified by the liver, the fat stores will contain a disproportionate amount of them, since fat cells preferentially oxidize saturated fats for their own energy, and the greater water solubility of the PUFA causes them to be preferentially released into the bloodstream during stress"
 

Jennifer

Member
Joined
Jul 8, 2014
Messages
4,635
Location
USA
For me, the only guaranteed antimetabolic choice out of the two would be to not eat so I would choose to eat, and enjoy it. :)
 

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
3,582
Eat.
 

Peatful

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2016
Messages
3,582
We live a privileged life if we refuse food.







Not trying to derail.
But if I am rigid in my relationship to food; I think the future will hold more challenges than it already is going to....
 
B

Blaze

Guest
If you're in a situation where you can't get anything prometabolic to eat, do you prefer not eating or eating some antimetabolic food?
What do you think will lower metabolism more - lack of calories or antimetabolic food?

Very interested to hear everyone's opinions. I usually choose the antimetabolic food (usually packaged sandwiches) because if I don't eat for too long my energy becomes very low, I can't concentrate on anything and sometimes, drinking a Coca Cola just doesn't cut it for me.
Not eating is much worse than eating junk. Junk food will sustain a person for a long time until the body's stores of vitamins and minerals runs out.
 

md_a

Member
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
468
I have noticed that people who have reached 40 years of age and who have followed all kinds of restrictive diets suffer from more health problems compared to those people who did not starve themselves and ate whatever they could find.
 

tastyfood

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2016
Messages
533
A perfect example is being at a party or social gathering where they have food you consider "not Peaty". If you choose not to eat while everyone else does, you are making yourself very stressed, which is a lot worse than eating a little bit of suboptimal food.

Similar to what some people said here, if I'm in such situation, I choose from the best options available. I'll eat the tortilla chips with canola oil, but perhaps I only eat a little bit, with some sugary drink. What matters is what you do consistently.
 

YourUniverse

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
2,035
Location
your mind, rent free
You cant know how anti-fragile your body can be until you go periods without food. Like realizing you dont need 200 grams of protein daily, it is freeing to be able to forget about food for a little while, knowing you'll be OK.
 

LLight

Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,411
I have noticed that people who have reached 40 years of age and who have followed all kinds of restrictive diets suffer from more health problems compared to those people who did not starve themselves and ate whatever they could find.
People follow such diets for a reason so a comparison with other people is difficult.
 

abady

Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2021
Messages
110
Location
saudi arabia
Eat. don't starve yourself for a perfect diet. you gonna rais your metabolism by simply eating and you gonna crash it by starving yourself for perfection lol.
 

actknow

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
10
Location
USA
The Peaty way of eating is actually the easiest to find something to eat without much effort. If I don't have time, I normally can get some cheese, milk, OJ, ice cream, a can of oysters, or some liverwurst.
 

frannybananny

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2018
Messages
704
Not eating is worse. The damage of eating bad foods is cumulative, doing so sporadically is fine. Especially when in good company, the good even outweighs the bad.
If not eating is worse then why does all the recent research saying that intermittent fasting for 10-16 hours stabilizes blood glucose?
 

Lollipop2

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
5,267
I bring snacks with me to work and with me if I will be away for a long day things like tortilla chips cooked in coconut oil, popcorn with coconut oil, grapes, chocolate, Maine Root natural root beer soda or Mexicane cola, crystallized ginger, natural candy canes, natural ginger candies, etc. That way if work is serving junk food or people are eating junk food, I can join them with my “junk food”. OR I have something with me to snack on so I am not pulled into eating junk because I am starving. It only takes a tiny bit of planning to be prepared.

That said, if nothing else eat food!!
 

InChristAlone

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
5,955
Location
USA
Considering many people live long lives eating junk foods, I'd argue diet is not number one for health. I just found out the popular low histamine chef died of breast cancer. If anyone ate the highest quality food it was her albeit way too many veggies in comparison to a Peat diet.
 

actknow

Member
Joined
May 6, 2022
Messages
10
Location
USA
Considering many people live long lives eating junk foods, I'd argue diet is not number one for health. I just found out the popular low histamine chef died of breast cancer. If anyone ate the highest quality food it was her albeit way too many veggies in comparison to a Peat diet.
From my personal experience, diet can be the #1 for health. I've been on paleo diet for more than 10 years. I also tried carnivore and vegan diets along the way. I never felt I'm a high-energy person even though I regularly exercise. Following the Peat way of eating has been completely transformational even though I stopped exercising.
 

LLight

Member
Joined
May 30, 2018
Messages
1,411
e026185e258deb60cf6955e10e91aebb__01.jpg
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom