Content-type: |
text/plain; charset=US-ASCII |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:09:59 -0600 |
In-Reply-To: |
<24038328.1122563069741.JavaMail.root@sniper33> |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> The Warrior Diet involves DIF or daily intermittent fasting, i.e.,
> eating most or all of your food within a time window of a few hours in
> the evening.
I can't help but wonder if there could be *that* much difference between a
fast of - say - 20 hours, and a fast of 36. I seems (not scientific, I know
:) that once you've passed that hunger pang point, you're in a fasting
state. With me, I never seem to get *physically hungry* until the afternoon
anyway, and then it's just a matter of a few more hours until that 18-20
hour fast is complete.
> Now here's an another idea... What's the calorically smallest meal that
> delivers all the nutrients one needs in a day? Can it be done in, say,
> 800 kcal of carefully chosen foods?
Which seems reasonable in the context that *if you are only going to eat
once per day, you'd better select only the highest quality food*. It would
defnitely eliminate the temptation to *cheat* on one meal knowing you would
*be good* later :)
|
|
|