all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Why Peter Attia Changed His Mind on Fasting

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Boris Bachmann said:
"Welp, guess I was wrong (again) *giggle* - never mind."
Click to expand...
Not trying to be mean-spirited here but, Fixed it for ya…

wespom9 said:
Better IMO to follow/listen to those who have studied aging, or studied the aspect of aging you are interested in. This gives you much better clues
Click to expand...
Confirmation bias could be clouding the results, or the effect in the real world (on a human being no less) is so small it renders the research pointless in application.

From my POV, keep up on the research (reading the fine print), pay attention to what actually seems to work, and let it guide what works best for you. A lot of what gets pushed winds up being hype, one of the first lessons aging will teach teach you.
 
wespom9 said:
I think it's pretty disappointing when someone who changes their mind is accused of selling out or '180-ing'. Science. We learn, we adapt. Things that we thought are no longer true. With evidence, things change. I can't see why people view this as a negative. Imagine you were held to your first thoughts on a subject your whole life, even with updated evidence. Or that you had to keep doing an activity because that's how you started, and world be damned if it turns out harmful. How stupid would that be?
Click to expand...

I find this criticism odd, as well.

I certainly don't agree with everything Attia has to say.

And sometimes I also a raise a few eyebrows at his willingness to self-experiment in a manner that is somewhat ad hoc and a little sloppy, i.e. in a manner I would do on myself. But he's usually pretty good about admitting he is an n=1.

I also find his comments about fasting and muscle loss to be a little "duh, dude."

But the alternative to revising thinking in the face of new info is dogma.

I've never been a fan of dogma, but some people really seem into it, especially when it comes to nutrition.
 
silveraw said:
I get that…

but how else do you handle finding out you were wrong other than owning up to it publicly?

Keep pushing your original idea as truth and hand wave the mounting evidence against it as a global conspiracy?
Click to expand...

In the nutrition world, doubling down on adherence to orthodoxy in the face of new evidence as a bulwark against cognitive dissonance seems pretty common.

I find nutrition often has a religious flavor, where people do a dietary intervention (whatever it is -- vegan, carnivore, gluten free, whatevs), see some change for the better, and then become convinced it is "the way" and then practice their new nutrition with the zealotry of a convert.

This is then reinforced by a community of like-minded nutrition co-religionists with regular info on how to keep the faith, and occasional debates on doctrine ("are legumes paleo?") worthy of Augustine of Hippo.
 
I think we can sum this thread up to;
- don't eat too much or be afraid to skip a meal or two.
- humans can and should eat a variety of foods
- skip the processed crap and eat whole foods
- why would anyone want to drink camel milk?
- wine sucks
- beer is delicious

Anything else?
 
djm said:
I think we can sum this thread up to;
- don't eat too much or be afraid to skip a meal or two.
- humans can and should eat a variety of foods
- skip the processed crap and eat whole foods
- why would anyone want to drink camel milk?
- wine sucks
- beer is delicious

Anything else?
Click to expand...

Nothing about longevity?
 
silveraw said:
I get that…

but how else do you handle finding out you were wrong other than owning up to it publicly?

Keep pushing your original idea as truth and hand wave the mounting evidence against it as a global conspiracy?
Click to expand...
You start by not strongly selling bad information. If you've already done that, apologize profusely and make restitution as best you can. I'm not speaking about Peter specifically here fwiw.
 
All these longevity gurus really try so hard to overcomplicate the simple concept of being healthy.

For me it is as simple as:
1. Do some strength training, in order to be functional and avoid sarcopenia.
2. Do some cardio in order to maintain good cardiovascular function and making your everyday life easier.
3. Have a healthy bodyfat percentage.

Achieve these and do not worry about anything else.
 
watchnerd said:
I find nutrition often has a religious flavor, where people do a dietary intervention (whatever
Click to expand...

The reason why I find the nutty nutritional world so interesting is the clash between science and objectivity rammed up against belief, spinning around in a fog of business marketing, pseudo-science, identity politics, cultural differences and economics. Oh and health. And, of course, sport performance. Food is a big part of all our lives and there are deep cultural roots associated with why we choose what to eat, when and with whom.

What I don't fully understand is why it is so polarising and I can only presume it has evolved such in line with how politics has shifted: our identities forged via group think and tribal loyalties to 'othering' those outsiders. Given the very real threat of climate change and energy issues we are facing perhaps the end of cheap easy food energy is coming to an and there will be a paradigm shift, who knows.
 
Spartan Agoge said:
All these longevity gurus really try so hard to overcomplicate the simple concept of being healthy.

For me it is as simple as:
1. Do some strength training, in order to be functional and avoid sarcopenia.
2. Do some cardio in order to maintain good cardiovascular function and making your everyday life easier.
3. Have a healthy bodyfat percentage.

Achieve these and do not worry about anything else.
Click to expand...

The counter-argument, though, is that those are just table-stakes to a good healthspan and that if you want to live to 100+, you probably need to go above and beyond.

So what do you do next if you're already doing all that?
 
ali said:
What I don't fully understand is why it is so polarising
Click to expand...

I think it has been for millennia.

The empirical evidence seems to be that food rules are a pretty good way to create an us vs them identity, whether religious (halal/kosher, hindu food rules, etc) or simply cultural (Romans viewed beer drinking as something the barbarians did, American disdain for dog or horse eating).

And in-group/out-group distinctions are a way to create social bonding.
 
Last edited:
Just a weird segue that I love, Iceland had beer prohibited until 1989 due to it being considered a Danish drink. They allowed wines and liquor sales due to trade agreements, even allowed foreigners to buy beer in duty free but Icelanders were restricted from beer purchases and were fined if they tried to bring it into the country.

Also their ponies are delicious.
 
watchnerd said:
The empirical evidence seems to be that food rules are a pretty good way to create an us vs them identity,
Click to expand...

Yes, cultural differences, true and power dynamics or those that wish to exploit differences for power and control.
Why that has filtered down to a food identity to create division today is perhaps rooted in tribal belonging and amplified via social media algorithms.
Absolutely, food rules very much feature in religious doctrine.
 
watchnerd said:
So what do you do next if you're already doing all that?
Click to expand...
Better to be lucky than to be good. Sleep soundly knowing you did the best you can and not everything is under your control. See: The Serenity Prayer.

-S-
djm said:
You, my friend, are drinking the wrong beer
Click to expand...
Guinness Stout is wonderful. It's a cross between a beer and a milkshake.

-S-
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom