Why Wai dieters have to eat 20 meals a day

[RRM]

Basically its all about this:

We dont need 20 meals because we are constantly hungry.
We are not.
Actually, im hardly ever hungry. Only if im too busy to eat.
So, thats simply not true, no matter what reasoning you use.

[B-Rad]

I don't. I do things a bit different. I eat 4-5 bigger meals a day..

4-5 big meals consisting of what?

I'll have a smoothie that I consume over say 45 minutes, I may sip it but consider it one meal. Then I may have a avocado, cucumber, tomato salad with 4 -6 yolks or salmon. I just don't sip a small amount of juice all the time. Other days if the conditions are right I will have a big glass of OJ with OO and i'll take a sip every 20 minutes or so. I don't feel like this is a meal so I don't see my self as constantly having to eat. If I don't have time I'll drink it a bit faster.

See where the contradiction comes here?

How the studies are interpreted and presented mean a lot to the way a lot of people take this info. Some studies are messed up from the beginning others are done right but used to support bogus claims. My whole point is that there are a lot of errors that occur in the attempts to gain understanding of the physical world in general.

People are fools; it's not the researcher's job to have to compensate for their lack of common sense. Trying to save the world is a waste of time; it won't be saved.

We dont need 20 meals because we are constantly hungry.
We are not.
Actually, im hardly ever hungry. Only if im too busy to eat.
So, thats simply not true, no matter what reasoning you use.

I believe you stated yourself it's impossible to eat big meals on the Wai diet and everyone knew it. Which is why I took it for granted this was already accepted and just posted the possible reasons why. Just in case anyone was wondering... not for any other reasons.

[RRM]

We dont need 20 meals because we are constantly hungry.
We are not.
Actually, im hardly ever hungry. Only if im too busy to eat.
So, thats simply not true, no matter what reasoning you use.

I believe you stated yourself it's impossible to eat big meals on the Wai diet and everyone knew it. Which is why I took it for granted this was already accepted and just posted the possible reasons why. Just in case anyone was wondering... not for any other reasons.

What???
So, you are saying that the possible reason why we cannot eat big meals on this diet is because we are always hungry because of the fructose?
Does that make sense to you?
(it doesnt to me)

And again: We are NOT always hungry.
or often
Actually, we are hardly ever hungry.
So, it doesnt make any sense to me.

[RRM]

People are fools; it's not the researcher's job to have to compensate for their lack of common sense.

And researchers are ... ?

[johndela1]

People are fools; it's not the researcher's job to have to compensate for their lack of common sense.

And researchers are ... ?

people, too

and like b-rad says "People are fools"

I do realize that scientists take measures to be rational, but there abilities are not perfect


b-rad, have you tried following this diet? I was very sceptical at first.

[B-Rad]

So, you are saying that the possible reason why we cannot eat big meals on this diet is because we are always hungry because of the fructose?

Yes

Does that make sense to you?
(it doesnt to me)

Why not? Do you see a flaw with the research?

And again: We are NOT always hungry.
or often
Actually, we are hardly ever hungry.

Right, you just need 20 meals/day...

And researchers are ... ?

Researchers are paid professionals who conduct studies and to an extent draw possible conclusions. They have slightly more credibility than the average person because they are trained in their specific fields and bound by the scientific method and a community that discourages bias.

b-rad, have you tried following this diet? I was very sceptical at first.

Why do you think I haven't followed this diet? I believe I even stated I did in an earlier post.

And why do you think I'm skeptical of this diet? Do you think I am trying to attack it?

It's always funny how when you say one little thing that goes against the herd mentality, you automatically get pigeonholed as the enemy. It's almost as though people have lost any sense of intuitive understanding of themselves and ability to critically analyze any aspect of their own existence; so that everything becomes a cut and dried truth or falsehood in the face of their clumsy rigidity.

And in this fashion they languidly sway back and forth through life... never truly attaining knowledge of any state of affairs. And so they are furtively eaten away unawares, until their accredited stint has expired...

[johndela1]

b-rad, have you tried following this diet? I was very sceptical at first.

Why do you think I haven't followed this diet? I believe I even stated I did in an earlier post.

And why do you think I'm skeptical of this diet? Do you think I am trying to attack it?

It's always funny how when you say one little thing that goes against the herd mentality, you automatically get pigeonholed as the enemy. It's almost as though people have lost any sense of intuitive understanding of themselves and ability to critically analyze any aspect of their own existence; so that everything becomes a cut and dried truth or falsehood in the face of their clumsy rigidity.

And in this fashion they languidly sway back and forth through life... never truly attaining knowledge of any state of affairs. And so they are furtively eaten away unawares, until their accredited stint has expired...

I didn't say you haven't followed this diet, I asked. You ask why I think you are sceptical. It seems like you are. My definition of sceptical is simply questioning the claims. I thought that was the whole purpose of this thread?

What did I say to cause you to think that I am making you out to be an enemy? I'm open to hearing your side and responding with my side. Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean I am making you to be the enemy.

Yes, I do change my view when I come to more data that indicate that my current understanding is lacking. I was first a raw vegan, did more research, read about low car high fat diets, then came across the research here and now am going with this. If I find new data to convince me to change my views I will. I don't claim to know anything, but rather feel this diet has a high probability of being close to ideal for me.

[ It's almost as though people have lost any sense of intuitive understanding of themselves and ability to critically analyze any aspect of their own existence; so that everything becomes a cut and dried truth or falsehood in the face of their clumsy rigidity.

And in this fashion they languidly sway back and forth through life... never truly attaining knowledge of any state of affairs. And so they are furtively eaten away unaware, until their accredited stint has expired...

If things are cut and dried why would someone sway back and forth? I actually disagree and think intuition is often wrong. I think people are frequently biased by their intuition. Currently, this diet appears intuitive to me, but it wasn't always that way and I don't expect people to follow this diet based on intuition, but rather to look at the data and change their views (yes, sway).

[summerwave]

that's science.


Which is why there is so much good information on here-- so far we have a good working explanation of why this diet can work, and even with variation, certain principles are the same and are working admirably and predictably for most people.

There is discussion and corollary information too, as people discover nuances within this. So far not enough to overturn what is here.

[B-Rad]

I didn't say you haven't followed this diet, I asked. You ask why I think you are sceptical. It seems like you are. My definition of sceptical is simply questioning the claims. I thought that was the whole purpose of this thread?

I wasn't questioning the claims at all... provides all the reuslts it claims to provide. What I question is the reasons for the results.

What did I say to cause you to think that I am making you out to be an enemy?

By claiming you were skeptical before following this diet then implying the reason I'm skeptical is because I haven't followed this diet, which implies I am attacking the diet or claiming that it doesn't do what it states it will do.

If things are cut and dried why would someone sway back and forth?

They sway back and forth between their foolish conceptions of truth and falsehood

I actually disagree and think intuition is often wrong. I think people are frequently biased by their intuition.

If it was biased, it wouldn't be intuitive

Currently, this diet appears intuitive to me, but it wasn't always that way and I don't expect people to follow this diet based on intuition, but rather to look at the data and change their views (yes, sway).

Data can be interpreted in many different ways as you know. Yet you claim the conclusions of other research is false, yet won't accept the possibility of your own being false. That's called being biased as opposed to intuitive.

[johndela1]

By claiming you were skeptical before following this diet then implying the reason I'm skeptical is because I haven't followed this diet, which implies I am attacking the diet or claiming that it doesn't do what it states it will do.
.

this is where we had bad communication...I wasn't implying you I was asking if you follow the diet.


Does this change the way you feel? I understand why you are upset now. I'm not saying you have not tried the diet (just to be clear). These kinds of things cause so many day to day arguments...


the rest of the points are getting off topic, so why don't we get back to the topic of the thread

[summerwave]

Now that I think of it, I do eat a lot...

How superb, since it is all delicious.

20 delicious meals a day--

I do not see the downside!

[johndela1]

I don't consider a sip of a glass of OJ a meal. I don't think people on more regular diets consider each snack or sip of a sugary beverage a meal?

[RRM]

So, you are saying that the possible reason why we cannot eat big meals on this diet is because we are always hungry because of the fructose?

Yes

If fructose makes us hungry, why would that result in that we cannot eat big meals???

And again: We are NOT always hungry.
or often
Actually, we are hardly ever hungry.

Right, you just need 20 meals/day...

Hunger is experienced when you let your blood sugar level drop too low, making you feel unpleasant and quite uncomfortable.
If hunger is would have been defined solely as the need for some energy, you would have been right.
But its not.
If you would have been right, you would also have been hungry constantly, as your body constantly needs energy as well.
Its just that you are not aware of that need, and we are.
We are in tune with our body's direct energy needs.
We constantly are aware of how much direct energy is available.
You are deriving that energy from the big meals that you ate previously; from the energy that you have stored as glycogen, bodyfat and blood protein.

Let us see what wikipedia includes in its description of hunger:

Hunger is a feeling experienced when one has a desire to eat.... The often unpleasant feeling of hunger... the sensation of hunger..is generally considered quite uncomfortable.

When i feel like taking a sip of juice, i dont have the desire to eat.
When i feel like taking a sip of juice, it doesnt feel unpleasant.
When i feel like taking a sip of juice, i dont feel quite uncomfortable.
So, strictly speaking, im hardly ever hungry.
Why?
Because dont let it go that far.
We prevent hunger by taking a bit of energy before we get hungry.

And researchers are ... ?

Researchers are paid professionals who conduct studies and to an extent draw possible conclusions. They have slightly more credibility than the average person because they are trained in their specific fields and bound by the scientific method and a community that discourages bias.

And they are never fools?
And other people are all fools always?

It's always funny how when you say one little thing that goes against the herd mentality, you automatically get pigeonholed as the enemy. It's almost as though people have lost any sense of intuitive understanding of themselves and ability to critically analyze any aspect of their own existence

So, because we dont agree with what you say, that is because we have lost any sense of intuitive understanding of ourselves and we have also lost the ability to critically analyze any aspect of our own existence?
And if we agree with you, then we are doing fine?

I better agree with you then...
, because i dont want my accredited stint to expire...

[B-Rad]

I don't consider a sip of a glass of OJ a meal. I don't think people on more regular diets consider each snack or sip of a sugary beverage a meal?

Depends. I'd expect alot more than a sip for someone to get the 2000+ calories per day they need from juice. lol.

If fructose makes us hungry, why would that result in that we cannot eat big meals???

You can, it just knocks out satiety hormones not allowing the body to properly register caloric intake. So the body probably goes to its next from of evaluation; by how full th stomach is.

This is why many scientists blame fructose for the rapid increase in obesity and diabetes due to allowing people to consume excessive caloric intake over prolonged periods of time.

If you would have been right, you would also have been hungry constantly, as your body constantly needs energy as well.

What?

Let us see what wikipedia includes in its description of hunger:

Hunger is a feeling experienced when one has a desire to eat.... The often unpleasant feeling of hunger... the sensation of hunger..is generally considered quite uncomfortable.

When i feel like taking a sip of juice, i dont have the desire to eat.
When i feel like taking a sip of juice, it doesnt feel unpleasant.
When i feel like taking a sip of juice, i dont feel quite uncomfortable.
So, strictly speaking, im hardly ever hungry.
Why?
Because dont let it go that far.

Most people do this too...

And they are never fools?
And other people are all fools always?

Rediculous inference

So, because we dont agree with what you say, that is because we have lost any sense of intuitive understanding of ourselves and we have also lost the ability to critically analyze any aspect of our own existence?

No, because you wont analyze other valid viewpoints, it signifies you are displaying bias and narrowmindedness when assessing a topic.

This feeds into the herd mentality and we might as well regress to the dark ages, engage in witch hunts, practice cannibalism and kill all who dissent to our beliefs also.

[RRM]

I'd expect alot more than a sip for someone to get the 2000+ calories per day they need from juice. lol.

Why?
Many sips combines to a lot of energy, No?
Thats how i get my 3500+ kcal

If fructose makes us hungry, why would that result in that we cannot eat big meals???

You can, it just knocks out satiety hormones not allowing the body to properly register caloric intake. So the body probably goes to its next from of evaluation; by how full th stomach is.

By that logic, you can eat until your stomach is filled up, no?

This is why many scientists blame fructose for the rapid increase in obesity and diabetes due to allowing people to consume excessive caloric intake over prolonged periods of time.

But if we cannot eat big meals, itsnt it HARDER to become obese?

Actually, we are hardly ever hungry.

Right, you just need 20 meals/day...

Hunger is experienced when you let your blood sugar level drop too low, making you feel unpleasant and quite uncomfortable.
If hunger is would have been defined solely as the need for some energy, you would have been right. ...
If you would have been right, you would also have been hungry constantly, as your body constantly needs energy as well.

What?

If you think we are constantly hungry because we need energy constantly,
you must consider yourself constantly hungry as well,
as your body constantly needs energy too.

Most people do this too...

Ok, and when they do, they are not constantly hungry, right?
simply because they hardly ever let it come that far.
We consume energy BEFORE we get hungry; we keep 'in touch' with
our energy level to prevent hunger (blood glucose going down too much)

]

People are fools; it's not the researcher's job to have to compensate for their lack of common sense

And they (the researchers) are never fools?
And other people are all fools always?

Rediculous inference

Well, you seem to imply that 'normal' people have no analytical skills (they are fools without common sense)
and that its hard for them to make any sense of what is written in scientific studies.
and that only researchers have the common sense to distract meaningful info from
a scientific study.

you wont analyze other valid viewpoints, it signifies you are displaying bias and narrowmindedness when assessing a topic.

So, we are not analyzing what you are saying?
If you re-read this thread, we do exactly that.
Without attacking you.
Without being unfriendly.
Without questioning your intentions or character.
So, there is no need to feel attacked, and you may refrain from getting personal.
We are not attacking you.
We just question your reasoning, if thats ok with you.