Let me ask you a question first. Do you think regular and quantitative diet is good for health, or irregular diet is good for health? I think almost everyone will choose the former. This is indeed a widely circulated nutrition theory, which holds that a regular diet can maintain the normal metabolism of the body and avoid overeating after hunger. But is this really the case? Or is this the only answer? Let's look at an experiment of 1956.
This is an experiment done in Spain. 120 The elderly were divided into two groups. One group has an irregular daily food quantity, with a maximum of 2300 calories and a minimum of 900 calories, which is almost 1 liter of milk and some fruits. Another group of elderly people, according to their age and weight, set their daily calories as 1600 calories, which is fixed. After three years of experiments, the researchers found that the mortality rate of the elderly in the irregular diet group was half that of the regular diet group, and even if they were sick due to influenza and other diseases, the hospitalization time of the irregular diet group was only half that of the regular diet group.
In any case, this experiment gives us another answer, that is, a regular diet is not necessarily healthy. In fact, going back thousands of years of human history, human beings have always had similar intermittent fasting customs because of religious teachings. However, some studies have shown that one kind of bacteria is very active in fasting state. They are called Ackermann bacteria, which feed on the cells shed from the intestinal wall, so they can also be regarded as intestinal scavengers. Miraculously, when they clean up these shed cells, they will promote the diversity of other bacteria. However, it should be pointed out that everything has proved to be the opposite. If you fast for too long, Ackermann's bacteria will destroy the intestinal wall and bring hidden dangers to your health.
Then, since short-term fasting is not only harmful to health, but also beneficial to health by increasing intestinal microorganisms, can we adjust the frequency and time of eating every day? This leads to an interesting question, is breakfast really necessary? When we put breakfast as a life choice in different time and space dimensions, we will find that we really don't have to be too persistent, and we don't have to be upset because we didn't eat breakfast.
First of all, in terms of time, three meals a day is a modern invention. In ancient times, westerners only had a big meal at dinner to reward a hard day's work. In Britain in the16th century, only the rich could eat two meals a day, so the book also recorded a sentence at that time: "Go to bed at 6 o'clock, 10, and eat on time at 10 and 6 o'clock to ensure health and longevity." From the spatial dimension, about one-third of Spaniards, French and Italians eat nothing in the morning, sometimes even until two o'clock in the afternoon, but they usually drink an espresso in the morning.
Speaking of which, a little knowledge about coffee must be inserted. It is said that drinking a cup of coffee in the morning can awaken microorganisms in the body, because first of all, coffee beans will produce dozens of polyphenols during baking. Polyphenols are beneficial to intestinal probiotics, and coffee has another advantage that other tea drinks do not have, that is, it is rich in cellulose. Cellulose combines with polyphenols to provide sufficient nutrition for bacteria in the intestine. Perhaps this is why people who only drink coffee and don't eat breakfast in the Mediterranean can stay healthy. Actually, it's no secret. The comparative experiment of "one meal a day" and "three meals a day" shows that although one meal a day will definitely make you hungrier, it will not harm your health, but will be good for metabolism and intestinal microorganisms.
Finally, a more and more common question is, is the beverage food marked with zero sugar and zero fat, that is, is it really healthy without sugar and fat?
In a study in the Netherlands, researchers found 64 1 Dutch children and randomly divided them into two groups. One group drinks a can of diet coke every day, and the other group drinks a can of ordinary coke every day. This study lasted 65438 0.5 years. The experimental results showed that both groups of children gained weight. Although the children in the diet coke group gained a little less weight, it is worth noting that the difference between the two groups is not significant. In addition, the average weight gain of children in the diet coke group was much higher than expected. Then, you may ask, diet coke is just a low-sugar coke anyway. Will zero-sugar coke, which focuses on zero-sugar, be healthier now? Then let's look at another experiment. The researchers found 1 14 students and randomly divided them into groups. One group drinks regular sprite, and the other group drinks zero sugar sprite. The results show that zero-sugar Sprite actually encourages students to consume extra calories, which may be caused by the sweetener aspartame.
Aspartame can affect hypothalamic neurons and theoretically interfere with our eating path. Just like the students in the Sprite experiment above, they are obviously not hungry, but they still look for food. Other studies also show that drinking sugar-free drinks for a long time will make people more likely to get pleasure from sugar, and they can't quit sugar. Moreover, artificial sweeteners can also cause damage to intestinal microorganisms, disrupt the function of intestinal flora and further endanger health.
But this is only the harm brought by the sweetener itself. The food called zero calorie and zero sugar, on the other hand, will also bring hidden dangers to our health. Sugar has bacteriostatic effect, so many refined foods will add a lot of sugar in order to extend the shelf life. For those sugar-free foods, manufacturers will add a lot of chemical preservatives in order to extend the shelf life. It is conceivable that these chemical molecules will have a negative impact on our intestinal flora.