this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2025
530 points (98.4% liked)
Microblog Memes
10883 readers
1461 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In my totally unscientific opinion, I would say that you're 'fat adapted' due to intermittent fasting. In contrast, this person likely eats 3 meals religiously and snacks in between. Their blood sugar absolutely crashes when they haven't eaten in a while because their body is used to a constant supply of glucose
I have a high metabolism and if I don't eat i get the shakes. Some people are different from others. I know people that can go all day without eating, that's not me.
You get the shakes because your body is used to getting sugar so regularly. It doesn't want to work for it.
Like a pet cat who can't really hunt if they needed to. Sure they could learn, but it takes a while.
Unless you're literally in single-digit fat-% and I don't think that's too likely for some reason.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast
Angus fasted for over a year.
Basically hunger is just an illusion as long as there's some fat on you and you aren't deprived of any essential vitamins. That'll make you as cranky as on low blood sugar, but as opposed to low blood sugar, you're not actually feeling physically that weak necessarily. Chronically maybe yeah, but not acutely.
Spend a winter in a polar region without supplementing for vitamin D and see how you feel, lol.
Your body needs a lot of trace nutrients that are not found in the fat stores, for all kinds of different things.
Also, if it starts to feel like the food supply is threatened, it won't just happily burn through all the fat reserves down to 0 just trusting that there's obviously more food available if things get really dire. At that point it's life and death, and it'll start to fight. All of these metabolic systems were designed and tuned for environments a lot more unpredictable than modern supermarket life of someone who always has money. Sure, you can "train" it to use up the fat reserves. But it'll also start concluding that resources are scarce, and it'll start hoarding in fat whatever it can get its hands on, and ramp way down on resource consumption for a few different pretty important things, among them running the brain and maintaining the physical structures in the body.
If you want your body to run through its fat reserves, do intermittent fasting. I have no real idea, but I suspect that the regularity of it is detected by the body and interpreted as a signal that things are stable and reliable, and it's okay to reduce the fat reserves which will then carry a few other benefits which are evolutionarily good things. Just "eat less sugar ignore when you're hungry to train your body to burn fat" isn't necessarily wrong I think, but it needs a whole bunch of asterisks to really become complete good advice, as far as I knkow.
Yeah, we call those "vitamins".
And like I wrote, "as long as you're getting essential vitamins". Angus was monitored by doctors. It was supposed to be just a short diet, but as Angus felt good, was being monitored and wanted to continue.
Not "happily", no, but it will burn through all of your fat. And then eventually you die if you don't find more. Which is why you're more likely to become more aggressive as that situation becomes more likely and/or the longer you're kept somewhat deprived of required sustenance.
But our bodies aren't magical objective truth knowing machines. They don't know what is needed. They're just pretty fucking good at estimating and adapting.
You got that the wrong way around, m8. You've trained your body to be on calory-save mode. Using glucose and panicking when it doesn't get some for a few hours. Fat burning is normal. Eating "three square meals a day" is arguably way more often than we need and not necessarily even healthy. (As in intermittent fasting may be better. I'm not saying it is, I'm saying neither or us knows enough to call that as a fact or not, even with googling, as nutrition sciences are very complex and the whole field doesn't agree on any single thing.)
I mean, I do. I do intermittent fasting every basically. Not as a choice, just as a symptom more or less. But I regularly go 16+ hours without eating. There's definitely a sweet spot between 10-24 hours or so 24 is a bit much and won't work for any sort of stability obviously.
But yeah one meal a day usually. Perhaps something light early in the day / during the day, like fruit or nuts, and then a big meal late in the evening. A packet of chicken wings, couple of tomatoes, large red öniön, Turkish yoghurt on the side. A pint of beer with it. Mmm.
My body goes kinda quickly from one mode to the other, I don't have to "train" mine anymore despite swapping between munching candy all day and intermittent fasting and decent-ish diet.
The calory saver mode is essentially "since you've been munching on sugary treats (berries/candy) for every hour you're awake for the past two days, we (the body) have decided that you'll now get sugar cravings two hours after you stop eating. Just to make sure you remember to eat while it's available.
Which is why, like you pointed out, our systems aren't really adapted to the kind of environment where you can actually eat as much as you want.
If I was billionaire with a private chef, I'd be obese. But am not, and... am not.
But you just got it a little bit the wrong way around. You have to remind your body that scarcity is real. Which is why intermittent fasting works so well.
I was thinking morelike "make sure you're not addicted to sugar, stuck on 'harvest-time' mode for the entire year."
I am sorry to report, I've lost my faith in your nutritional science capabilities
Edit: If I am to take it out of the realm of sarcastic dismissal, I would say that you spun up this whole narrative about how the person you're talking to is addicted to sugar and needs to eat sweet stuff constantly throughout the day, just because they said they can't go a full day without eating. I don't even violently disagree with most of what you're saying here, most of it I agree with if it is applied to someone who is constantly eating and whose metabolism is adapted like you said, but it seems unlikely that that applies to the person you're talking to. It feels like you sort of applied a whole bunch of stuff that's more a you situation or something you're familiar with, to the other person without bothering to gather the information about what's going on with them. And then talking about the large red öniön just brought it into the realm of the surreal for me.
You shouldn't take the word of anyone just saying things.
I'm not a nutrition scientist nor do I purpor to be one. I have some schooling on it, from the army and some in civilian life, but yeah, why would you trust a random person on Lemmy?
That being said, what do you think is so wrong with the meal? A succulent chicken meal? Ofc I don't eat that everyday or even every week. Super greasy, macros unbalanced. But delicious, and depending on what else you've had around the days before and after, it can be a part of a balanced diet.
I'm not claimed anyone is addicted to anything. I'm just saying that modern humanity is very different from what most of our evolutionary history was. The last 200 000 years are a miniscule portion or our evolutionary history, and while adaptation is our thing, the increased productivity over the last 200 years has made the Western world so wealthy that humanity itself is sort of distorted at places. New things become the norm. Surely you wouldn't disagree that obesity is an ever growing issue?
If you look at the difference between Americans and Europeans, Europeans are generally slimmer, no offense. That's just statistics. And it's genuinely largely because the US uses HFCS instead of wheat derivative glucose, and while the difference between those isn't huge, it's is probably statistically significant. But its not just the difference in which sugar, it's also how much of it is, or can be, labeled how, marketed how. Billion things affect it. Food deserts, infrastructure, social structure.
My point is that we probably have an equal amount of gluttony in Europe, and obviously similar-ish levels of obesity when properly compared, but still the US is worse. And it's probably because we are more anal at regulating and America is more about freedom. So perhaps you guys have more fitter people as well, but so many more obese people that the obesity rate is still higher, and Europeans are just like on average less fit as fit people in the US, but not as fat as the average person.
And again I'd like to remind I don't claim to have any professional knowledge. Just talking shit, but you can check to see if it is correct or not. I'm sure that last third is 90% bullshit guesses but the first third should be okay.
Oh and I'm saying just that bulking is regular mode in our metabolism, but that it's being kept "too" on in modern society. Again, which is why intermittent fasting is so popular and effective. So for a person who's not diabetic and eating the three meals a day, they probably can't easily go a full day without being in kind of discomfort if they don't eat at all. That's "normal", as per modern society and standards, but is it "normal" if we saw thousands of years into the past? Tens of thousands? I'd say not really. Would be a very different style.
So yeah, the "adaptation" is you just "changing modes" but for someone who hasn't ever lived with an eating schedule like intermittent fasting, it can be a bitch at first. When I was in the army and eating five meals a day basically (three meals and breakfast and optional snack in the evening), I totally could not make it a full day without eating without being in massive pain. Hell just after a few weeks in the army, back home, even after a night out, I'd just wake up first time around 5.30 and my stomach would be painfully rumbling by 7 if I didn't get up. Whereas currently I can rather easily go a day or two with little to no calories at any point. But that sort of deprivation does tend to make one angry is continued for too long, for realz, even when you're used to it.
What a massive comment no-one is gonna read half of this but I'm writing it more for myself I guess.
At 276 lbs that dude is about double my wieght.
Im built like a toothpick and borderline under wieght. I eat three meals a day and snack.
This is where the "calories out" part comes into play.
I assume you do a little more than lying down all day, every day?
I used to eat three meals a day in the army but it was honestly challenging for me, didn't suit me at all and made me sluggy and nauseous all day. Luckily on exercises I commanded the group that made the food, so I was in charge of the food and never announced if people were sick from exercises. Meaning I'd be set to feed 200 people for instance but only 185 showed up for the exercise so each meal if there's a treat like chocolate or something good, I get to pocket 15 of them. Plus have my own. Had cupboards full of tea, coffee and liquorice for years after I left the army, lol. Well not the licorice or choccie for long but they lasted a few weeks.
Back then I was around 93kg I'd say. Now I'm <70kg. But honestly most of that difference is muscle, not fat. Most as in more than half but I have lost some fat as well methinks, but legs are way skinnier also nowadays.
So CICO does matter but it's not all that matters. In nutrition nothing ever is as simple as that.
No mention of CICO in your comment. https://lemmy.world/comment/19499449
People are different. I know calories out are important that's why I eat as much as I do. I burn it so fast.
Are you quoting me back to... me..? And you think you need to source that?
No, I didn't explicitly mention the basic concept of nutrition science.
"I burn it so fast"
Perhaps. Or perhaps you don't absorb all of it, or you have a rapid transit time, or a billion other reasons. I don't know who you are, what you eat and what you do, so I couldn't possibly comment on what is objectively right for you or what is going on what you.
People are very different, yes, but some basics apply. Like all else being equal, CICO is the defining factor. And if it seems it isn't, there's likely a disorder of some sort.
It's a pretty undeniable fact that if you maintain a caloric deficit for long enough, you'll lose weight. And if you eat more than you consume, you gain weight. If it seems you're consuming something like 5000 kcal a day, not exercising at all and still not gaining weight, as a non-obese non-Shaq person, then you should probably consult a gastroenterologist for some tests.
It can crash all it wants. Still no reason to act like it's anyone else's problem.
It's not intentional. There's tons of times where I've acted poorly because I was hungry, and even if I'm aware of it at the time it doesn't help much.
More things feel like personal attacks, you have less self-control, and generally you get more emotional. In retrospect, sure, I know I've acted like a dick, but when you're hungry enough that you can't think straight...