# Which is healthier, eating nothing or eating horribly?



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Title is self-explanatory. Is it better to fast, or to consume nothing but absolute shit food?


----------



## lemurs (Jun 22, 2012)

Eating nothing is better than eating crap. If done properly, eating nothing becomes a water/juice fast, and it can be very healing/rejuvenating. Obviously, if done too frequently, or for too long, then you'll end up in trouble.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

I think it's best to live a life where you don't worry about living life but just live it. I smoke, drink, usually eat terrible food (micky'ds has some of the best bad burgers ever) and don't work out (not sure why I weigh 160 at 6'2"). "Oh that's bad for you", really? how? oh my health, bad for my health; yeah my health is not congruent to the primary objective.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Why not a third choice: eat healthier?


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Ummmmm How long is the fasting going on?

Both are unhealthy, but if you fast for the rest of your life, you would probably starve to death (unless something happens to you before you starve)
And, if you eat just garbage, at least you may get some of the energy and nutrients your body needs (calories, fat, protein, some vitamins and minerals ... Not enough vitamins and minerals to sustain something, but some is better than nothing .... And if you literally eat shit, then you may get all the B-12 you need )


Thank being said, both sound like ways to an early death (assuming the fasting is a permentant fast), but, if I lived in a post apocalyptic world where a crazy dictator made me chose one, then I think I would be happier and maybe a little healthier actually eating something (anything)


----------



## Liquid Metal (Nov 20, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> I think it's best to live a life where you don't worry about living life but just live it. I smoke, drink, usually eat terrible food (micky'ds has some of the best bad burgers ever) and don't work out (not sure why I weigh 160 at 6'2"). "Oh that's bad for you", really? how? oh my health, bad for my health; yeah my health is not congruent to the primary objective.


Please elaborate. I consider health to be vitally important, it allows me to perform better mentally and physically and extends my lifespan. I haven't been ill in 6 years.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Eating nothing is healthier. Those who consume low calorie diets live longer.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> Why not a third choice: eat healthier?


I only have access to junk food for various personal reasons.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

To eat or not to eat.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Mr. Meepers said:


> Ummmmm How long is the fasting going on?
> 
> Both are unhealthy, but if you fast for the rest of your life, you would probably starve to death.


I would eat something before I died obviously lol. I'd just eat the minimum that is required to survive.

I'd probably start off going three days without a meal, then a week, then two weeks, etc.


----------



## Trademark (Nov 13, 2014)

F-U-8-0 , you will starve to death.


----------



## telepariah (Jun 20, 2011)

Low calories and zero calories are not the same thing. Just sayin'...

If it's just temporary, like for a day or two, who cares? And if it's long term, I'll eat the crap because I will last longer on that than I will on nothing.


----------



## melancholy (Aug 14, 2014)

It depends on how long this "fasting" is, but I would probably choose this option.
Then again, I'm going to miss having pizza...


----------



## dragthewaters (Feb 9, 2013)

Eating horribly for sure.

Let's put it this way, if you eat horribly, you MAY develop nutritional deficiencies (although you'd be surprised -- some junk foods randomly have nutrients in them, like toaster waffles have a ton of calcium for example), and you may get fat (depending on how many calories you eat), and long-term you will probably get diabetes or kidney issues or something, but at least you will be satiated and have enough calories to burn through the day. You will probably get digestive issues though. Also, I know several people who pretty much lived off unhealthy food for years and it either didn't kill them or took many many years to do so (like when they were old).

If you don't eat enough, you will get malnourished for sure, AND also be miserable and weak and tired and thinking about food all the time. You will probably get osteoporosis. It's more likely you'll die young. Look up the long-term effects of anorexia for more info. Sounds like a fucking shitty life to me.

However I don't get why you are in this situation where your only choices are between the two.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Eating horribly, it may make you fat, ugly and possibly disease ridden but it won't result in the slow process of self digestion


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Stampede said:


> I only have access to junk food for various personal reasons.


Well in that case it's best to eat, but try to maintain your weight at a healthy range.


----------



## Psychophant (Nov 29, 2013)

DudeGuy said:


> I think it's best to live a life where you don't worry about living life but just live it. I smoke, drink, usually eat terrible food (micky'ds has some of the best bad burgers ever) and don't work out (not sure why I weigh 160 at 6'2"). "Oh that's bad for you", really? how? oh my health, bad for my health; yeah my health is not congruent to the primary objective.


I don't know what your primary objective is, but most of ours are difficult to achieve in poor health.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Liquid Metal said:


> Please elaborate. I consider health to be vitally important, it allows me to perform better mentally and physically and extends my lifespan. I haven't been ill in 6 years.


I eat starch starch meat if I eat at home, if I don't have time I get fast food; maybe 10-15 times a month. I gorge candy, I love chocolate. I haven't been ill since I was a child. I would just rather a life with what I enjoy than one that I wouldn't. I will die when I die.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Obviously eating horribly is better than eating nothing. We need a certain amount of food for our bodies to function properly. Healthy food is best, unhealthy food is a sufficient substitution. No food is not an option. Just regulate the amount of shitty food you're eating and that should be good enough for now.


----------



## Mr. Meepers (May 31, 2012)

Stampede said:


> I would eat something before I died obviously lol. I'd just eat the minimum that is required to survive.
> 
> I'd probably start off going three days without a meal, then a week, then two weeks, etc.


Okay, I thought this was just a curiosity question where it was all hypothetical.

Hearing your plan, I would have to say that, even still, eating the junk food is better than nothing. I remember seeing something on t.v. about whether it is better to have a child go to school without breakfast or just give in to their demands for a sugary breakfast and it said, from a biological standpoint, it is better/healthier for them to just eat thee junk food because something was better than nothing. That said, kids are not adults and adults could probably fast for a day and be okay (although they may feel a bit dizzy). Going days or weeks with little food sounds like a way to be severely malnourished (and possibly lead to future emergency hospital visits if done for long term). I still think the junk food is better for the long term (even for anything longer than a day, but definitely for the long term)


----------



## Liquid Metal (Nov 20, 2014)

DudeGuy said:


> I would just rather a life with what I enjoy than one that I wouldn't. I will die when I die.


No food tastes better than being at your peak physically and mentally.
Healthy food being bland and unenjoyable is a comforting myth put about by those that don't want to cook.
A common misunderstanding is that eating and drinking junk will just knock off years from the end of your life, allowing you to die before you look like a scrotum draped over a coathanger; it would be more accurate to imagine your "timeline" squeezed with every week of excess, bringing about old age and failing health earlier, rather than having time snipped off at the end.

If your "health is not congruent to the primary objective", which appears to be experiencing joy with minimal effort, then why not start taking heroin?

I'm not trying to change your mind, just trying to understand it.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Liquid Metal said:


> No food tastes better than being at your peak physically and mentally.
> Healthy food being bland and unenjoyable is a comforting myth put about by those that don't want to cook.
> A common misunderstanding is that eating and drinking junk will just knock off years from the end of your life, allowing you to die before you look like a scrotum draped over a coathanger; it would be more accurate to imagine your "timeline" squeezed with every week of excess, bringing about old age and failing health earlier, rather than having time snipped off at the end.
> 
> ...


I would take heroin, but I don't have friends to help me find it - or maybe because I'm too scared to ask.

On the rest of your comment: I've already had this conversation, with an ex of mine. *at this point I was about to shut you out, but given that you're INTJ* Essentially; even if it did noticeably affect my body, I could still live a happy life in my head.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Stampede said:


> I would eat something before I died obviously lol. I'd just eat the minimum that is required to survive.
> 
> I'd probably start off going three days without a meal, then a week, then two weeks, etc.


That won't work, you will feel terribly weak and tired, you won't be able to function mentally or physically and it could be dangerous to your life. Fast food isn't worse than that.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

It appears that most people believe shitty diet>fasting. 

Is this guy a quack?


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Stampede said:


> It appears that most people believe shitty diet>fasting.
> 
> Is this guy a quack?


He's not talking about fasting the way you want to do it, but intermittent fasting (IF). IF can be done in several ways, either the alternate-day model where you eat normally one day and the next you do a fast, so basically you eat every other day, or a 15 hour fast every day (along with sleep), or 5:2 model where you eat for 5 days and you fast 2 days of the week (whichever you choose). 
The first model was the first studied, but people have been implementing the 15 hour fast naturally for many generations, it's common for older people in my country to stop eating anything after say 7 in the evening, without ever reading about scientific facts. 

I don't know if it'd be good to do this when you survive on fast food, because you will likely be nutrient-deprived by the low quality of food you'll have, so adding a fast day will further increase your risk of malnutrition. If you are overweight you could do it to lose weight, but if you are not then it's probably not the best idea.


----------



## Impavida (Dec 29, 2011)

Stampede said:


> I would eat something before I died obviously lol. I'd just eat the minimum that is required to survive.
> 
> I'd probably start off going three days without a meal, then a week, then two weeks, etc.


I'm a huge fan of fasting. I do intermittent fasting as my regular eating cycle and will occasionally do a longer fast of 2-3 weeks at a time. 

However, in your situation, I would say don't do it. If you want to be successful at long-term fasting, you need to be eating good, nutritious food when you do eat. Fasting puts your body into a stressed state, depleting your nutrient reserves. You need to resupply those reserves in between fasts so that you don't cause long-term damage to your body.

If you're worried about weight gain from eating crap, just eat less of it. No need to fast, just consume less on a daily basis. It will be easier and healthier for you in the long run. Fasting is generally a positive thing, just not in your specific situation.


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

Eating nothing would be better in the short run. Obviously you would die if you didn't eat in the long run, so by default, eating shit food would have to be better in long run.


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

If we take the statement to its absolute literal conclusion, then it's better to eat horribly than to not eat. Eating horribly will result in an early demise. Not eating at all will result in a far earlier demise.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

@sassysquid @Judson Joist By "eating nothing" I mean fasting, not starving to death. I would eat nothing for a period of time, then eat only what is required to keep me alive. Is it better to eat the minimum that is required to live or to consume only junk food?


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

Stampede said:


> @_sassysquid_ @_Judson Joist_ By "eating nothing" I mean fasting, not starving to death. I would eat nothing for a period of time, then eat only what is required to keep me alive. Is it better to eat the minimum that is required to live or to consume only junk food?


Oh, I see. Hrm. Need more options, I'd say. I'm a fo0die, so g0od luck trying to convince me to "eat the bare minimum" *or* to eat only junk fo0d.
:tongue:


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Eating nothing would be healthier than eating junk food all the time.

I have a third option though: If those are your only two choices then don't eat at all then occasionally eat whatever it is you have access to to keep yourself from starving. That's not healthy behavior at all but at least it's better than eating junk food all the time or starving yourself.

If money is an issue then buy cheap vegetables/beans plus lean meats and learn how to cook. That's the cheapest option and is how you stretch a dollar the furthest.

Also, most produce markets start their sales on Wednesday and is the day when you can buy sale items at their freshest.


----------



## ai.tran.75 (Feb 26, 2014)

Hmmm ...I'm guessing depending on the time span and are we drinking anything ? I guess if it's a short amount of time eating nothing is better - if drinks included eating nothing , of course when I'm thinking horribly I'm thinking of garbage- puss - lead, foil , rat poisoning ect so my vote is eating nothing . But if it's junk food and fat vs eating and drinking nothing probably eating horribly at least some nutrients will get into your system as to eating and drinking nothing will cause you to die and collapse sooner


----------



## sassysquid (Jul 16, 2014)

Stampede said:


> @sassysquid @Judson Joist By "eating nothing" I mean fasting, not starving to death. I would eat nothing for a period of time, then eat only what is required to keep me alive. Is it better to eat the minimum that is required to live or to consume only junk food?


I see. I would say it's still better to eat nothing, because if you eat nothing, you at least aren't filling your body with carcinogens, which basically all bad foods have.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

ai.tran.75 said:


> Hmmm ...I'm guessing depending on the time span and are we drinking anything ? I guess if it's a short amount of time eating nothing is better - if drinks included eating nothing , of course when I'm thinking horribly I'm thinking of garbage- puss - lead, foil , rat poisoning ect so my vote is eating nothing . But if it's junk food and fat vs eating and drinking nothing probably eating horribly at least some nutrients will get into your system as to eating and drinking nothing will cause you to die and collapse sooner


I drink only water and tons of it. Time span would be as long as is optimal to go without eating (if eating junk food is the only other option). I would eat before I died.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

MNiS said:


> If money is an issue then buy cheap vegetables/beans plus lean meats and learn how to cook. That's the cheapest option and is how you stretch a dollar the furthest.
> 
> Also, most produce markets start their sales on Wednesday and is the day when you can buy sale items at their freshest.


Money isn't the issue. I know how to cook. I literally cannot leave my house, so I'm at the mercy of people who can leave the house as far as my diet is concerned.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Both will kill you relatively fast, eating nothing kills you faster though. Pretty hard to go without food for more than a month without running into some issues, but it has been proven that one can go on a diet of only french fries for about 20 years before having to be hospitalized. Calories are calories. 

Of course fasting is good for you in short spurts, but people forget to mention the whole obvious "eating nothing will always eventually kill you" thing when talking about the advantages of eating nothing. In this sense eating nothing is the opposite of healthy. One needs to be careful not to get to the point of nutrition deficiencies or self-digestion when fasting, and this point will vary by the individual. I'd be surprised if I lived past a week - I have to eat about every 3 hours to keep from feeling weak. I tried juice fasting and even that doesn't work for me, by about the 24th hour it messes with my head too much (I end up losing a ton of weight when I do cut my calories though, so at least there's that). So personally I'd just scarf the twinkles and deal with it until I had more freedom of my life, but some bodies are more tolerant with fasting. I'd at least try to beg and plead for a multivitamin, preferably some sort of liquid one, they work miracles.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Stampede said:


> Money isn't the issue. I know how to cook. I literally cannot leave my house, so I'm at the mercy of people who can leave the house as far as my diet is concerned.


Are you under house arrest or something? That sounds like a weird situation.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Are you under house arrest or something?


Nope.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Stampede said:


> Nope.


Well then?


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

MNiS said:


> Well then?


Don't want to get into the details on a public forum, but basically if I leave the house I'll be homeless. I am a vassal because I don't have a source of income. I must eat what is given to me by my masters.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Stampede said:


> Don't want to get into the details on a public forum, but basically if I leave the house I'll be homeless. I am a vassal because I don't have a source of income. I must eat what is given to me by my masters.


:shocked: So what're you going to do? That sounds like a terrible situation to be in. Especially if the people who can leave only bring you back junk food.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

I am a bit confused, not sure why junk food or nothing are the only two options. I would say junk food over nothing though, depending on the specifics. Junk food isn't good - stating the obvious here - but at least it will offer some kind of nutrition and energy. Nothing will be more detrimental in the long run. 

I mean, if you're talking about eating only one really healthy meal every day or maybe two days, or junk food three times a day, I would probably go with the former. But it depends on a lot of personal factors. Some people do not do well fasting like that. If you are talking about going days or weeks without eating, long term, I would say eat junk food. Just eat the best of the crappy food that you can, and eat it in moderation. 

Also not sure what you mean by 'shit food'. Some 'shit food' is worse than others, and you can work around it and be reasonably healthy. This isn't really enough to go on, unfortunately.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

MNiS said:


> :shocked: So what're you going to do? That sounds like a terrible situation to be in. Especially if the people who can leave only bring you back junk food.


Fast or eat the junk food. Hence this thread. This is my position because I lack value. I've accepted my fate as a vassal. I'll be "fasting" if I choose to become homeless anyway.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Stampede said:


> Fast or eat the junk food. Hence this thread. This is my position because I lack value. I've accepted my fate as a vassal. I'll be "fasting" if I choose to become homeless anyway.


It sounds like you have some terrible people in your life. I'd tell you to try to get yourself out of your current situation but it sounds like you've resigned yourself to your situation, and there's not much some random person over the internet can do for you in that regard.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

BlackDog said:


> Also not sure what you mean by 'shit food'. Some 'shit food' is worse than others, and you can work around it and be reasonably healthy. This isn't really enough to go on, unfortunately.


Simple carbs and empty calories. Lots of candy, milk chocolate Hershey bars, chips, pizza, pop tarts, hot pockets, Chinese takeout, donuts, etc. Shit food. It's all I have access to.

Also, one side of my family has a history of diabetes and cancer, so a shit diet + a homebody lifestyle seems like flirting with disaster. I'm leaning towards fasting atm.


----------



## BlackDog (Jan 6, 2012)

Stampede said:


> Simple carbs and empty calories. Lots of candy, milk chocolate Hershey bars, chips, pizza, pop tarts, hot pockets, Chinese takeout, donuts, etc. Shit food. It's all I have access to.
> 
> Also, one side of my family has a history of diabetes and cancer, so a shit diet + a homebody lifestyle seems like flirting with disaster. I'm leaning towards fasting atm.


Hmmm... well assuming you really can't access other food, and you can't exercise, I would still eat but be choosy. I'd avoid the candy, chocolate bars, and pop tarts. Eat the pizza sparingly - at least you get some carbs, protein, calcium, and some vitamins most likely - and eat the Chinese take out in moderation. Try to pick anything that isn't battered, fried, and soaked in syrup (think sweet and sour pork). If you have any say in the take out choices, get something like wonton soup or beef and broccoli. Some chicken and vegetables dishes can be okay too. They aren't ideal, but it's nutrition.


----------



## Biracial (Sep 8, 2010)

Stampede said:


> Fast or eat the junk food. Hence this thread. This is my position because I lack value. I've accepted my fate as a vassal. I'll be "fasting" if I choose to become homeless anyway.


What the hell is this? the slave diet? I hope you aren't a minor...

Make like Harriet Tubman, find the underground railroad and split from your sitch. If you'd be temporarily homeless, go to a soup kitchen. you'd probably eat better.

If you're agoraphobic or something and you have money, you can order fresh food online. 

Anywho, as others have stated some calories is better than no calories at all


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Stampede said:


> Simple carbs and empty calories. Lots of candy, milk chocolate Hershey bars, chips, pizza, pop tarts, hot pockets, Chinese takeout, donuts, etc. Shit food. It's all I have access to.
> 
> Also, one side of my family has a history of diabetes and cancer, so a shit diet + a homebody lifestyle seems like flirting with disaster. I'm leaning towards fasting atm.


You can choose chinese with lots of veggies in and not fried and healthier choices of pizza with veggies, no ham or bacon, light cheese if you can and whole wheat flour if you can. Don't eat the candy and the others. Try to make the best of your situation.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Red Panda said:


> You can choose chinese with lots of veggies in and not fried and healthier choices of pizza with veggies, no ham or bacon, light cheese if you can and whole wheat flour if you can. Don't eat the candy and the others. Try to make the best of your situation.


I don't get to choose. I just eat what's in the fridge, mostly pork.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

What's a vassal in nowadays definition anyway? 
Are your masters your parents? 
Not so much mean slavery going on if they bring you Hershey chocolate bars...
O_ô

Can't you ask for other things?
The things you mentioned can be normally healthy if consumed by removing the excess dough of the pizza, for example, selecting only the meat and veggies... rice is great... etc etc...


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

FePa said:


> What's a vassal in nowadays definition anyway?
> Are your masters your parents?
> Not so much mean slavery going on if they bring you Hershey chocolate bars...
> O_ô
> ...


Vassal - a person or country in a subordinate position to another.

Like I said, I don't want to discuss the details here. I'll discuss it with you through PMs if you want.

No, I can't ask for other things.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

You have to eat to survive and most can only survive a few weeks or months without any food. Whereas if you eat only junk, at least you're getting energy for the body. You probably don't get the proper nutrition or get too much of the bad stuff (e.g. trans fats) but I'd guess the death would be slower with the latter. Probably on the order of several years rather than several months.


----------



## FePa (Feb 13, 2014)

Stampede said:


> Vassal - a person or country in a subordinate position to another.
> 
> Like I said, I don't want to discuss the details here. I'll discuss it with you through PMs if you want.
> 
> No, I can't ask for other things.


I can't promise fast reply because I'm quite busy lately but yup, if you want to discuss in PM ...
1) I'm curious
2) I'm actually right now studying Nutrition related diseases, so, perhaps could offer few insights


----------



## IIIIII (Oct 2, 2013)

Fast, 24 hours does not hurt and may have a therapeutic value, I believe you don't go into Ketosis until the second day. Shit food pretty much starts affecting you the moment you eat it.


----------



## Fleetfoot (May 9, 2011)

Nobody does one or the other in real life, for the most part.

It's better for you to eat, as fasting for too long can screw up your metabolic system. It isn't bad to fast for a day or have a certain period of time for fasting, as it gives your digestive system a break. It's recommended you fast before bedtime, since your stomach doesn't need to digest cheese puffs and make crazy sounds when you're trying to catch some z's. 

Just eat healthy, give yourself a small break from eating, and enjoy life and cinnamon rolls and ice cream every now and then.


----------



## xisnotx (Mar 20, 2014)

caloric restriction doubles the life span of lab rats

i'd wager "hungry" is the base state from which humans are supposed to operate. being "full" is supposed to occur only after having eaten...and not always. you're supposed to feel hungry most of the time.


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

I did eat a little and it did comprise mostly of not so healthy foods.I think eating as little junk food would be better than nothing at all.

Fasting feels good but you have to do it in a way that minimizes health risk. I have fasted in some way before for long periods of time and it caused me issues so, do it with caution.


----------



## Splash Shin (Apr 7, 2011)

Can't believe this is even being debated.

Eating junk is the best way to go. Eating the "minimum" to get by is not any good either. Leptin, insulin and multitude of other hormones will be working sub-optimally and this has a domino effect on the entire body and it's systems.

for this reason junk is better than nothing(without going into the obvious starvation).

The question is fun but ultimately a pointless one.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

I think the amount of fasting you're talking about would ultimately end up in lack of vitamins and supplements that even horrible foods can provide. Our bodies can do wonderfully at extracting even the smallest traces of nutrition from even shitty foods. But eating hardly anything would mean that it's latching onto nutrients that it does get and storing the nutrition in very unhealthy ways. 

Then again if you're talking about someone eating straight up moldy food, then.. uh, yeah fasting would be the lesser of two evils. o_o


----------



## conscius (Apr 20, 2010)

Eating horribly, without a doubt. It's kind of like prison food I imagine. But better than fasting yourself to death.


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

eating nothing = you die
eating horrible = heavy reliance on science, I like science so xD


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

Gentleman said:


> Don't want to get into the details on a public forum, but basically if I leave the house I'll be homeless. I am a vassal because I don't have a source of income. I must eat what is given to me by my masters.





Gentleman said:


> Fast or eat the junk food. Hence this thread. This is my position because I lack value. I've accepted my fate as a vassal. I'll be "fasting" if I choose to become homeless anyway.


wait what the fuck


----------



## Modal Soul (Jun 16, 2013)

ite hold the fuck up this is some serious shit

what kind of junk food? chips? mcdonalds? sour candy?


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Eating crap is better than eating nothing. Eating crap will kill you in some years, eating nothing in about a month.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

@Gossip Goat Did you browse my post history and bump my old threads? You could've PMed me with this information. My circumstances have changed.


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

double post phone fail


----------



## Gossip Goat (Nov 19, 2013)

Gentleman said:


> @Gossip Goat Did you browse my post history and bump my old threads? You could've PMed me with this information. My circumstances have changed.


Oh, sorry...


----------



## Gentleman (Jun 14, 2014)

Gossip Goat said:


> Oh, sorry...


It's cool, your intentions were not malicious.


----------



## scoobysnack (Jan 26, 2015)

lol. probably eating horribly


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Sounds as though it's a choice between starving one's self, resulting in death or consuming an unhealthy diet which will most often result in moderate negative consequences such as obesity & diabetes.

I prefer a happy medium of consuming a healthy nutritious diet & exercising to convert healthy calories into energy.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

It's been in some studies that the less calories you eat, the longer you live.

Or, you could die of starvation.

It's a balance. :laughing:


----------



## aef8234 (Feb 18, 2012)

It honestly doesn't matter, so long as you're using whatever the food is giving you.

So if you eat nothing, do nothing, if you eat "horribly" <which I'm assuming for you, is like greasy food which has a huge amount of calories from grease, etc> you'd better add at least a small amount of vitamins in that, and exercise a lot.


----------



## Yotty (Jan 25, 2015)

Both have consequences. Assuming you have average exercise + hydration + not taking supplements is separate from eating, you'll screw yourself over either way in the long run.

Not eating: breaking down of muscles/organs/whatever else because of lack of vitamins after maybe the first two weeks of just fasting. You'll feel weak after the "cleansing" time period since you wouldn't gradually introduce yourself to any necessary vitamins + calories. Your immune system will also probably go to crud.

Eating crap: Cholesterol, for one. High blood pressure from too much sodium content, no doubt. Weight gain (or loss, depending on the person) of just pure fat. Bad fats. Malnutrition would either come slower than fasting would, since you'd gain some vitamins (not enough though). Diabetes. Heart disease in general. All the usual things when you eat crappy. Your immune system will also go to crud. You'd technically live longer unless your heart gives out before the fasting person drops from malnutrition.

Either way, you'd get some major digestive issues too. Lots of bad things will happen. I have gone both ways before. Korean society is rather notorious for fasting diets, and America for junk food.

Moderation is key.


----------



## Paty (Dec 31, 2015)

When you're 50 kilos bodyweight, and a normal man hits you, you go up flying, when you're 500 kilos a normal man hits you, he looses his arm because it gets stuck in your fat, and when you start trundling forward you eat him up and he becomes part of you, therefore you can still actually fight, so it's better...... LOL...I'd say eating shit is better (not literally)... just watch your cholesterol


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

I once read about a study with two groups of animals. Some were fed food without nutrition and some were fed no food. The group that ate no food lived longer. In typical INTP fashion, I don't feel like googling it to give the source.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Mark R said:


> I once read about a study with two groups of animals. Some were fed food without nutrition and some were fed no food. The group that ate no food lived longer. In typical INTP fashion, I don't feel like googling it to give the source.


It wasn't 'no nutrition' it was 'very, very low in fat'.

And yeah, they lived longer. In later studies, however, the fat ones survived longer, when they made the 'very, very low in fat' so low in fat that the animals who ate it could not maintain a healthy weight.

Eh.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

You must be describing some other study. The one I read about involved removing vitamins and minerals from animal feed. There wasn't any mention of any particular macro-nutrient.


----------



## FourLeafCloafer (Aug 5, 2014)

Mark R said:


> You must be describing some other study. The one I read about involved removing vitamins and minerals from animal feed. There wasn't any mention of any particular macro-nutrient.


Probably.


----------



## bruh (Oct 27, 2015)

1 dying real fast
2 dying real slow


----------



## Allyrah (Nov 23, 2015)

It's healthier to eat nothing, assuming you're still at least drinking water. However, at some point you'd have to consume something with actual vitamins and nutrients...but you could still last a while. I've seen multiple studies, as some others have mentioned, in which the health benefits of caloric restriction, and fasting, were found to be quite significant. The only people who might be in serious danger of undergoing such a fast would be those who aren't healthy. If you're in great physical health, then fasting for a decent amount of time would actually be quite good for you.


----------

