psychology – Page 2 – Thought Canvas

What Derren Brown Taught Me About Learning

Tricks of the Mind is a book by Derren Brown, an eccentric British mentalist/magician/illusionist/TV star. The book had been sitting in my bedroom for the last decade almost completely unread. The only section I had perused shortly after I bought it as a teenager was about how to detect a liar. Evidently, I was less than impressed and put down the book and never picked it back up until now.

Inside Tricks of the Mind are interesting instructions on how to learn some ‘magic tricks’ and the main principles needed to engineer an impressive one. But what really amazed me about this book was the section on memory.

Unsurprisingly, Brown invites us to memorize a list of 20 words in consecutive order. I said the first six words out loud several times before closing book to try and recall them. As I went to write, my mind went blank, and I ended up writing the first five words but in completely the wrong order. A complete fail.

The chapter then went to give instructions on how to remember the list of words. It used a process called linking, whereby you imagine vivid associations between the consecutive words. For example if the word “baby” follows the word “wigwam”, you can imagine a gigantic baby that is inside a Native American abode, tearing it apart as it woke up angrily from a nap. The more outrageous the story, the easier it is to remember.

Within two minutes, I had memorized the list perfectly. I was amazed. By inputting the words into my long-term memory, it became easy to remember the list. In my first attempt, I was attempting to cram my short-term memory and was destined for failure.

I could have been there for a full day with my first method learning the 20 words, but with a more effective method I managed to memorize it in a fraction of the time. I felt empowered and elated.

Within the next hour, I managed to remember a different 20-word list and their corresponding numbers, and a list of nine generic to-do tasks. I managed to memorize a 21-digit number and recite it. It’s 876498474505773498724 by the way. I did each of those with various methods such as the loci method and the pegging method, all within minutes of reading it from the page. I can still remember all of the above lists and numbers now.

I began to ponder: What other things are we trying to learn, but just learning with the wrong method? Where could we seek coaching from an expert, instead of wasting our time and energy trying to learn by ourselves? What long-accepted ways of learning could be transformed by changing the way we do things?

Please comment your thoughts and ideas below!

Can Pain Be an Effective Call to Action?

If you are trapped in the nightmare you will probably be more strongly motivated to awaken than someone who is just caught in the ups and downs of an ordinary dream.
Eckhart Tolle, author of The Power of Now

The quote above rings true. Why do we will ourselves to wake up during a nightmare, while we remain blissfully ignorant during regular or pleasant dreams?

Tony Robbins describes in his book Awaken the Giant Within the following scenario:

I believe that life is like a river, and that most people jump on the river of life without ever really deciding where they want to end up. So, in a short period of time, they get caught up in the current: current events, current fears, current challenges.
When they come to forks in the river, they don’t consciously decide where they want to go, or which is the right direction for them. They merely ‘go with the flow’. They become a part of the mass of people who are directed by the environment instead of by their own values. As a result, they feel out of control.
They remain in this unconscious state until one day the sound of the raging water awakens them, and they discover that they’re five feet from Niagara Falls in a boat with no oars. At this point, they say, ‘Oh shoot!’.
Tony Robbins, Awaken the Giant Within

This scenario is similar to the nightmare scenario is that we only really awaken when we realize that catastrophe is looming. We can no longer ignore the pain we are experiencing and are forced into action.

One of the biggest human motivators is the avoidance of pain, even more than pursuing pleasure. It’s been shown in experiments that humans refuse to gamble on a coin toss until the ratio of the reward is twice as much as their initial stake they could lose. This is explained by Daniel Kahneman’s Nobel Prize-winning theory of loss aversion – people hate losing more than they enjoy winning.

So how do we avoid noticing that life is going sour before it’s too late? One way is to increase our reference points in our lives. This is the same as raising our standards, or turning up a metaphorical thermostat. This applies to our finances, health, relationships, and any other area of our life. If we have higher standards, we will feel ‘pain’ even when other people may not, which we can use as motivation to get where we deem is acceptable.

Therefore, pursuing a goal means you must be willing to sacrifice. To get something “better” you will have to give up something – be it energy, time, even sense of current identity. Having a higher level of reference will mean that you have to be ready to meet the challenge of living life at a higher level – taking more responsibility and using up more effort.

You Are Not Your Mind

In Eckhart Tolle’s book The Power of Now, Tolle describes the time in his life in which he had an epiphany which you could describe as a spiritual awakening:

“I cannot live with myself any longer.” This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then I suddenly became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. “Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: The ‘I’ and the ‘self’ that ‘I’ cannot live with.” “Maybe,” I thought, “only one of them is real.”

The ‘self’ that Tolle was describing was the personification of his mind. The state he was in before he had the epiphany was a state of unconsciousness. He was identifying with his mind – he thought his mind was himself. Unconscious mind identification happens to all of us, and is a major source of our suffering.

It’s freeing to detach from mind identification. The same mind that constantly comes up with negative, self-defeating thoughts or projecting to the future or revisiting past events – you can simply observe. Observation of the mind brings a new level of awareness and consciousness and brings you into the Now.

If you were to have these same thoughts and identify with your mind, you will suffer. You end up attaching too much to your thoughts. You don’t end up using your mind – your mind uses you. Whenever you are able to observe your mind, you are no longer trapped in it.

Teleology: Can We Change Easier Than We Think?

The Courage to Be Disliked is by Ichiro Kishimi and Fumitake Koga is a book on individual psychology, a school of thought made famous by Alfred Adler. Adler was a lesser known contemporary of Sigmund Freud and opposed many of his views. One of the most interesting differences is Freud’s view of etiology compared to Adler’s view of teleology.

Much like most of the general population, Freud believed that events early on in childhood had an effect on how the child would grow into adulthood. We see this all the time in documentaries about people that explained how they grew up and how it made them to be who they were: Michael Jordan grew up with two brothers that used to beat him all the time in basketball, so now Michael Jordan is extremely competitive.

Adler, however, believed that human beings choose specific narratives or goals, and use past events that match up with it: Michael Jordan chose to be competitive at some point in time, and we are just using the fact that he had two brothers to generate a plausible explanation (but in reality it makes no difference).

If you think about it, if Michael Jordan turned out to be uncompetitive, the etiological model would say that he was uncompetitive because his brothers beat him at basketball too much and it made him dislike competition. It’s argued that Freud’s etiological stance is deterministic, and it builds up an identity attachment that can be difficult to overcome in mental illnesses.

Adler’s teleological model explains that human beings can choose to change their narrative or goal whenever they want to, and can start living whatever kind of life that they choose. One of my friends once told me that she had a quiet, timid personality when she grew up in Europe, and when moving to USA she decided that she would be outgoing, charismatic and confident. And then she simply just did it! This is an example that people aren’t just a product of their environment over time, and it is possible to change through an instantaneous, powerful decision.

Of course it seems unbelievable to think that people suffering from negative emotions or illnesses are choosing to do so, and this is probably the reason why Adler’s theory is less accepted than Freud’s theory. It could be that the person chooses to suffer because the idea of suffering is attached to their identity, and they won’t change their narrative through fear of uncertainty. They end up choosing the more familiar option of staying stuck.

In summary, teleology can be a useful way of taking control of our lives, and through choosing a empowering goal we can begin a fulfilling journey instead of carrying on with a self-defeating one.

Man’s Search For Meaning: What Viktor Frankl Can Teach Us About the Meaning of Life

Viktor Frankl was an Austrian psychiatrist who was subjected to the horrors of the Nazi concentration camps during the Second World War. Once the war ended and he was released, he wrote Man’s Search For Meaning in a nine-day span, describing his experience in the concentration camps and his theory of logotherapy – that meaning was the central motivational force in human beings.

Most of the book describes the conditions that the Jews had to endure in the Nazi concentration camps. I couldn’t help to feel more grateful that I hadn’t ever had to deal with that kind of suffering or torture before. Even as we complain of being locked down in a pandemic, it pales in comparison to the suffering endured in the Nazi concentration camps.

Frankl outlines that meaning is the central motivating force in human beings. The meaning that an individual has doesn’t have to be the same as everybody else’s, and an individual can have multiple meanings for life. The meanings can also change with time and circumstances.

Frankl described three sources of meaning:

The first source of meaning comes from life’s work. Frankl was determined to survive the concentration camp because he believed that he needed to produce academic work on his theory of logotherapy once the war finished. While he was in the concentration camp he was unable pursue that work, so he had to make sure he survived to be able to get back to regular life as an academic and finish his work.

The second source of meaning comes from love. Frankl remembered that when he was on his arduous daily walk to his labour camp during the Second World War, he would picture his wife, the love he had for her, as well as the thought of being able to see her again once the war was over. This was another motivating factor for him to survive the concentration camp.

The third source of meaning comes from suffering. In the concentration camps, Frankl realized that the Nazis could take away everything except for the attitude that he chose to have towards the suffering he was experiencing. Once he added meaning (and sometimes humour) to his suffering, he no longer felt as if he was really suffering. Frankl observed that there was a deadly effect for anyone who lost hope and courage in the concentration camps, as well as those who were overly optimistic about their release dates (to find out eventually that they were not released by the date they had in their mind).

Frankl does note however, that just because meaning can can be found in suffering, you do not need to seek suffering to find meaning (the first and second source of meaning should be the main focus).

In summary, Frankl’s book is a reality check for us. What it also does beautifully is take the pressure off the individual to find their one life’s purpose. We can remember that there can be many purposes, and they change over time. As long as there’s an inkling of meaning in the moment, we might just be okay.

Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules For Life Rule 9: Assume that the Person You Are Listening to Might Know Something You Don’t

My first response to this rule was “Of course! Every single person on the planet will know something I don’t, this makes a lot of sense.” So why have I found myself listening to people as if they don’t? Stay humble.

I am the type of person that can easily block out people and focus on the task I am currently doing instead. I understand numbers and words easier than I understand people.

Once I started working in the door-to-door sales industry, I instantly found out that I wasn’t understanding people because I wasn’t paying attention to them. After all these years I finally started looking at people’s faces, their eyes, and their feet. I could actually tell what people were thinking because I was concentrating on them and attentive to their tone of voice, volume and syntax.

Even so, you don’t have to make it so complicated if you just listen with curiosity. The more you listen to the other person, the more the other person is willing to share.

If you’re the one doing the talking all the time, you don’t end up learning anything. Everything in the conversation is something you already know! So shut your mouth, let the other person talk, and see what you can learn from them.

Assume that the person you are listening to might know something you don’t.

Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life Rule 8: Tell the Truth, or at Least Don’t Lie

“If your life is not what it could be, try telling the truth. If you cling desperately to an ideology, or wallow in nihilism, try telling the truth. If you feel weak and rejected, and desperate, and confused, try telling the truth.”
Jordan Peterson

It’s the human default to manipulate the world into delivering what you want – to act politically. We all too often see people who are trying to “get ahead” in life. They trample over others, they take credit for others’ work, they want to look competent and be right all the time.

We can also see the same trait in the people-pleaser, always saying yes to the requests that are thrown their way by their boss, family and friends. They cannot say no, and they cannot communicate authentically. So they suffer. But what if they could tell the truth? What if they declined their boss’ request for them to work overtime that evening? Maybe they would feel a little lighter. Maybe they would be living a life that is actually true to themselves. Maybe they could share their problems and concerns and find a happy resolution. Maybe they could have the power to say no to all the other things they don’t want to do anymore.

To live a truthful life is not perfect, but it is far better than living a dishonest life. Instead of thinking of the answer that you think the other person wants to hear, why not just say the first answer that comes to your head? But if they don’t agree with you they might not want to be friends with you anymore. Well, do you want to be friends with someone that doesn’t like your true character anyway?

What’s more, the ones that do like you when you are being truthful like the REAL version of you. What could be more fulfilling, meaningful and authentic than that?

I’ve seen plenty of assholes that are relatively well-liked because they embrace their assholery, while the ones that are assholes but pretend they’re not assholes end up with fake, superficial bonds with their peers (at best). At worst they’re ostracized. People are generally very good and quick at judging the authenticity of others. If something doesn’t sit right with them, they tend to keep them at arm’s length.

Unless you are a clinical psychopath, your body will tell you exactly when you are breaching this rule.

Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie.

Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules For Life Rule 1: Stand Up Straight With Your Shoulders Back

In the last few weeks I have been reading books more than I ever have. So I decided last night that I would write some summaries and thoughts on some of my latest reading material.

I recently read through Jordan Peterson’s book 12 Rules For Life for a second time. Not only did I find it extremely applicable to everyday life, it also discusses the subject of humanity in the most intelligent and fascinating way. I hope to summarize some of his chapters while adding in my own reflections upon reading.

Jordan’s first rule is “Stand Up Straight With Your Shoulders Back”. My response to this title was that although this was a handy piece of advice, this surely could not be so fundamental that it would be in the top 12 rules? For life! I mean, after all there are 10 commandments in the Bible and they tell “Thou shalt not kill”, not “Thou shalt not hunch over once in a while”. So is it really that important?

The chapter starts off describing the behavior of lobsters. Lobsters are primitive creatures that live on the seabed, and often they come across one another as they vie for territory. When they do, the lobsters undergo a series of dominance behaviors until one of the lobsters concedes victory to the other. What’s fascinating about this phenomenon is that afterwards there is a change in the physiology of the lobsters. The winning lobster stands more upright, defiant and triumphant. The losing lobster does not only leave the territory in shame, it hunches over and makes itself smaller. What’s more, the next time the lobsters get in a fight, the one that is on a winning streak becomes more likely to win again, partly due to its new, more exuberant posture. The one that loses keeps losing more, and goes on to live a lonely lobster life. The winning lobster acquires mates, has abundant food in his territory and lives happily ever after.

This captivating story of what goes on in Lobsterland can be translated onto the human experience. In the world of fighting, fighters who lose for the first time are likely to lose again. They’re more likely to give up the sport. The ones who win seem to keep winning, knocking out and submitting opponent after opponent. That’s why a boxer’s manager might keep on accepting fights from weaker opponents, and stalling on negotiating fights for stronger opponents in an attempt to stay off the slippery slope that a loss can introduce.

One of the Bible’s most harrowing lines is “to those who have everything, more will be given; from those who have nothing, everything will be taken.” [Matthew 25:29] This is the exact description of what a positive feedback loop is. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer. The lucky get luckier and the unlucky get unluckier. The happy get happier and the sad get sadder. Although I am not sure how universal or pervasive this biblical wisdom is, it is food for thought.

It has also been said that “when aristocracy catches a cold, the working class dies of pneumonia.” This is all too relevant in today’s issues of the Covid-19 pandemic. I’ve also heard before something along the lines that “you know things are bad if the rich start dying from it”.

The fact that lobsters are such ancient beings, and that the neurochemicals related to dominance are built so deep into our brainstems shows that dominance hierarchies are older than mankind. They are older than trees in fact. Dominance hierarchies are an unavoidable part of life. There will be dominance hierarchies in the workplace, at social gatherings and at the local sports club. So how can we not fall prey to the system of dominance in society?

Maybe we could stand up straight with our shoulders back. Humans are counter to most of the animal kingdom in that we have evolved to stand upright. This naturally makes our most vulnerable angle of attack (our soft belly and all our organs underneath) open to the outside world. Contrast this to a quadruped that has their soft underbelly facing the ground.

I work in the door-to-door sales industry, and I have noticed time and again that the rejection that comes with almost every sales call can change the physiology of the salespeople. With each “no thank you” the salesperson’s posture gets a little more hunched, until eventually they are just a shadow of their formerly confident selves and barely able to keep eye contact with a prospect. The hunching action is a physiological mechanism that longs to curl up and be warm, comfortable and sheltered. But it also displays to the world that you are scared, that you have suffered, that you have been defeated many times before. People treat others how they think they’re usually treated. If it looks like every person has slammed a door in their face all day, it’s safer just to do the same thing. I mean, there must be a reason they’ve done that, right? Conversely, the successful people in my field maintain a confident posture in spite of all the rejection that may come their way.

If you find one day that you have been surrounded by rude and horrible people, then it’s more likely that it’s something to do with you. Maybe it’s posture. Maybe it’s lack of healthy boundaries getting chipped away by a positive feedback loop, stemming from a incapability of fighting back and standing up for your own values and principles.

Standing up straight with your shoulders back is to accept the responsibility of life, how difficult it can be, and how vulnerable it can feel. It is staring into the face of defeat without flinching. It is the zebra standing up to the lion saying “I’m not scared of you”.

Winston Churchill once said, “Success is going from failure to failure without any loss of enthusiasm.”

Stand up straight with your shoulders back.

How Solskjaer Has Used a Navy SEAL Management Strategy To Lead Manchester United to Success

A hero’s return

In the last two months Manchester United have gone from European laughing stock to a team that is genuinely feared by each opponent it faces. On December 18th 2018, Jose Mourinho was sacked as manager after a disappointing run of performances, epitomized by the embarrassing defeat at the hands of arch-rivals Liverpool. Former United legend Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was appointed until the end of the season and since then the team have won 11 matches, drawn one, and lost one. This is title-winning form. United have beaten Tottenham, Arsenal and Chelsea away from home – all formidable opponents.

Pundits from all over the world have speculated on what has happened behind the scenes for this dramatic shift in fortune. Common quotes like “he’s put smiles back on the players’ faces” and “he has got the best out of Paul Pogba (widely considered the best player in the team)” are true, but how has he actually done that? Here is what I think is a key change in the way the team is managed.

Has Solskjaer been studying US Navy SEALs?

Decentralized command has been made popular in recent years by the book Extreme Ownership by former US Navy SEAL Officers Jocko Willink and Leif Babin. It is a leadership and management technique whereby more responsibility is placed upon individuals lower in the chain command to achieve success in a particular mission. On the other hand, centralized command (which Mourinho preferred) places the responsibility on one leader to make sure that everybody does their job correctly. In decentralized command, the team is split into several smaller teams, giving the chance for individuals to take more control and find effective solutions themselves. These individuals become empowered by the responsibility, and the resulting sense of importance adds more drive to achieve success in their mission. Any idea that is believed to be their own will be executed with vigor, conviction and wholeheartedness – nobody likes their idea to result in failure.

Mourinho the control freak

“I was thinking for him, when to close inside, when to open, when to press the opponent, I was making every decision for him.”

Mourinho was an egoistic puppet-master while managing at Manchester United. If they won, he would take the credit for masterful strokes of tactical artistry. If they lost, he would simply blame his players for not being good enough to follow his instructions, complaining that he needed more skillful and obedient puppets. The thing that Mourinho failed to understand is that the volumes of instruction and excessive micromanagement he was giving the players was overwhelming and paralyzing them. They played in a confused and fearful manner, unable to see the bigger picture that the overall mission was simply to win a game of football. They were bogged down in whether to attack or defend, press or sit deep, and whether they were in their correct defensive positions. I was alarmed in April 2017 when Mourinho told the press of an example of this excessive micromanagement of left-back Luke Shaw: “I was thinking for him, when to close inside, when to open, when to press the opponent, I was making every decision for him.” Mourinho gave no freedom to his players which came back to bite him – there was no-one else to blame for the defeats because he controlled everything his team did. On top of that, his players took no responsibility for their moves on the field because Mourinho gave them no freedom to find their own solutions. “I just did what you told me to do boss”, they would think as they trudged back to the changing rooms after another defeat. The disjointed performances led to lots of goals conceded and not many scored – a recipe for disaster, and a managerial sacking.

Ole’s at the wheel… or is he?

“They are good players and it’s up to them to use their imagination, creativity and just enjoy playing for this club”

What Solskjaer has done differently is give control back to the players. Players are now given the freedom to find their own solutions on the pitch. They now attack each game with enthusiasm, as opposed to the dread which filled the chests of the players each time they took to the field under Mourinho. This is where the “smiles back on faces” quote that every pundit is saying comes from. Solskjaer is giving the chance for each player to be a leader by splitting the team into smaller units. Smaller units like the combination of Martial, Pogba and Shaw on the left side has led to more cohesive combinations on the ball, while the defence looks improved under the new increased responsibility of each player to contribute to the collective mission. With Solskjaer, the mission is clear – win the game simply by scoring more goals than the opposition team. The players are trusted to create their own ideas on how to win the game, and to own these ideas. The players are much more invested in these ideas because they were the ones that created them instead of the manager, and therefore they are trying much harder to make them work – it will be their fault if they don’t. There is no coincidence that Manchester United went from the team with the least to the most distance covered per game in the Premier League once Solskjaer came in as manager. The execution of decentralized command is visibly shown on the touchline at Manchester United matches now too. Solskjaer spends the same amount of time – maybe even less – in the technical area than his assistants Michael Carrick and Mike Phelan, demonstrating that he has used this strategy with his staff too. When United score now, the whole matchday staff team jump and celebrate in unison because they all know that they contributed their own ideas and creativity to the success. Solskjaer has shown humility by looking up to the United Directors’ Box for advice from Sir Alex Ferguson, something Mourinho never did in his two and a half years in charge. Last month Solskjaer was quizzed by the media about the squad at Manchester United – the same squad that Mourinho would publicly criticize with worrying regularity. He said: “They are good players and it’s up to them to use their imagination, creativity and just enjoy playing for this club”. Contrary to the song all the United fans are singing, Solskjaer is letting his players take the wheel.

United have the mentality of a top team now.

Under Mourinho, Ander Herrera was used in matches against Chelsea as a man-marker for the dangerous opposition winger Eden Hazard. His instruction would simply be to follow this player on the pitch for 90 minutes. This strategy was worrying for many reasons. This sent a message that United thought that Chelsea’s players were better, and also it was too simplistic to think that just by stopping Hazard, it would lead to a United win. It would only take one individual duel that Herrera lost to potentially result in a goal too, and the role as a man-marker took away from Herrera contributing more to the game when United were in possession. In the same fixture under Solskjaer, Herrera was an influential member of the team – making tackles and interceptions, passing the ball and scoring a brilliant goal. Now under Solskjaer, it is the United players that are being man-marked. Paul Pogba was marked by Calum Chambers of Fulham recently – Pogba ended up still scoring two goals in a 3-0 win.

No, Paul Ince couldn’t have done it.

It is important to note that Solskjaer has not just simply turned up and told the team to play football, and sat back to watch the wins come in (like a certain ex-United and Liverpool player may think). Solskjaer has used clever gameplans in his various matches in charge. Against Cardiff, Huddersfield and Bournemouth his team dominated possession and attacked quickly, mainly on the inside left channel where Pogba is positioned. Against Arsenal, Tottenham and Chelsea he opted for the counter-attack strategy employing wide strikers and was happy to concede more possession of the ball in order to defend more compactly. He has identified weaknesses in certain areas of opposition teams such as the left side of Chelsea, where the attack-minded Alonso would vacate space in behind for midfield runners like Herrera and pacey attackers like Marcus Rashford. Unlike Mourinho, Solskjaer is not obsessed with details, but places the correct amount of importance to them. The most crucial point of all is that his players have bought into the vision that Solskjaer has championed – winning.

How can you implement the above strategies to get more out of your team and your life? Let me know in the comments below!

Skipping one meal a day to keep the doctor away: Intermittent fasting as part of the strategy for a healthier life

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” J. Krishnamurti

We live in a world where the four biggest killers after the age of 40 are cancer, stroke, neurodegenerative disease, and cardiovascular disease. Although the life-expectancy in almost every country has increased in the past century, there seems to be more incidence of these diseases, as well as inflammatory diseases such as arthritis and autoimmune disorders like coeliac disease. As a result, people (including myself) are always trying to find out how they can reduce risk of disease and increase longevity. New bold claims by scientists to increase lifespan include use of drugs like rapamycin, metformin and low-dose aspirin. Other lifestyle changes such as gluten-free diet, low-carb diet and intermittent fasting are also gaining traction in the media as ways to live a healthier life and prevent disease. Consensus is being achieved by the medical world that Western eating habits may be the root cause of the problem. Over 2000 years ago Hippocrates, a classical Greek physician said that “all disease begins in the gut”, and I think he may have been onto something there.

What is time-restricted eating (intermittent fasting)?

Time-restricted eating is type of intermittent fasting method in which uses alternating windows of feeding with windows of no caloric intake (fasting). It has been made widely popular in the last few years, and has been the subject of documentaries, podcasts and articles in recent times. Many sources cite a wide array of health benefits, which was the reason why I personally decided to give it a go. I have now been intermittent fasting for over a year and I will share my thoughts on the method as a strategy to live a healthier life.

I first came across the concept of intermittent fasting, I was confused. The book I was reading by Tim Ferriss named Tools of Titans described intermittent fasting along with terms I had never heard of such as ‘ketosis’. I had an instant aversion to it. Conventional wisdom told me that eating frequent, small meals was the recipe for good health. I had even made it a rule to eat on average every three hours that I was awake. I had never thought of timing of meals as a serious factor to consider when making diet choices. And besides, wasn’t it supposed to be a terrible thing whenever we skipped breakfast?

“Never again”

Fast forward six months and I thought I would give it a go. I would skip breakfast, and wait until mid-afternoon before I ate my first meal. When the time came that my first meal was due, I rushed to the nearest takeaway joint to stuff my face with high fat, high sugar foods. When dinner arrived, I did the same thing again. By the end of the day, I was telling myself that I would never do it again. The hunger I felt was painful, and the foods I ended up eating were extremely unhealthy. A month later, I thought I would give it another try. Over 12 months later, I am still fasting somewhere between 12-18 hours per day, every day.

I decided to persist with intermittent fasting because of the supposed benefits that it achieves. Here they are:

Fat loss and potentially muscle gain

Evolutionarily, storage of fat was useful for humans since during harsh winters where food was scarce, the body could use its fat stores for energy. Now in the 21st century, excess fat storage in the body is causing a list of chronic diseases such as stroke, heart attack, and Type 2 diabetes and the majority of people are now looking to rid themselves of this excess fat. The reason why people find fat loss so difficult is because our bodies prefer to use energy derived from glucose in the blood and glycogen from the liver. Once the levels of glucose and glycogen are depleted, the body will turn to the fat stores and turn it into ketones in our liver for energy. Fasting is considered the easiest way to access the fat storage in our body for use as energy, inducing fat loss. However, some suggest that by fasting, it is naturally leading to caloric deficit, and that the subsequent lower intake of calories leads to the fat loss. Fasting leads to an increase in the release of noradrenaline, which is associated with fat loss, as well as an increase in metabolic rate, meaning more calories would be being burned off by the body at rest. Interestingly, it has been noted that fasting leads to an increase in natural growth hormone in the body, preserving against muscle loss. I know it’s hard to believe, but actors Hugh Jackman and Terry Crews are known for their intermittent fasting practices, and they are hardly lacking in muscle. Female stars like Beyonce and Jennifer Lopez have also been reported to be advocates of intermittent fasting.

The longest fast on record was 382 days. The patient weighed in at 456 pounds (~207 kg) and weighted out 180 pounds (~82 kg).

Intermittent fasting can slow down the aging process by activating cellular housekeeping processes, increasing insulin sensitivity and lowering inflammation.

When our bodies are in a fasted state, less energy is available for the cells. This activates a process called autophagy, where the weaker cells are chosen to die while the stronger, more robust cells are rejuvenated upon refeeding. It is possible that autophagy can help prevent against formation of cancerous tumours and has been found to be true in animal studies. Fasting lowers insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) which is known as a strong driver of cancer. And since IGF-1 is related to insulin, this could be the link between the sugar and carbohydrates leading to the insulin release from the pancreas and driving the aging process. Spending more time in a fasted state also leads to lower insulin secretion from the pancreas, which therefore increases the sensitivity of cells to insulin, further protecting the body from diseases of the pancreas such as metabolic syndrome or Type 2 diabetes. Inflammatory markers that are associated to cardiovascular disease and neurodegenerative disease also become lowered from intermittent fasting. Mice who were subjected to intermittent fasting experiments lived 40% longer compared to mice that didn’t fast at all.

Intermittent fasting is easier than dieting.

Skipping breakfast or dinner saves time in our increasingly busy lifestyles. There’s no need to wash up, cook and eat that extra meal. I also found personally that skipping breakfast allowed me to be much more productive in the mornings. I no longer had bouts of “brain fog” shortly after breakfast as a result an insulin spike in the blood. Evolutionarily, it makes sense for humans to be more alert when we are hungry – we are in more desperate need to hunt down our next meal and need to be more productive in an unfed state. Personally, I found that intermittent fasting was really easy to be compliant with and after the first couple of days it was very easy to put into action. It wasn’t restrictive in terms of which food I allowed myself to eat either. Traditional diets are designed to take a lot of willpower (which will eventually let you down) and are short-term. Intermittent fasting is something I can envisage doing for life.

Considerations

Intermittent fasting is not a one-size-fits-all solution to everyone’s health problems. It is important before deciding to partake in intermittent fasting that it is suitable. If meals are being skipped it can lead to nutrient deficiency so it is important to plan meals to get enough micronutrients in the diet. For underweight people looking to gain weight, it is a lot harder to gain weight when intermittent fasting, and fasting could also be a bad idea for people who are prone to eating disorders such as anorexia. In people suffering from diabetes, it may lead to hypoglycemia. In women it could cause disruption of the menstrual cycle. I personally found that high intensity workouts were tougher in a fasted state. And of course fasting for 16 hours at a time can cause a bout of hunger or two, although after the first couple of days it became easy to manage. Intermittent fasting should be used as a method that supplements a healthy and nutritious diet. Eating unhealthy foods while intermittent fasting is not something that I would advise, although I struggle with this myself. Finally, most research into this new field of study is in animal models and clinical data is scarce, so it is important to take the research findings with a pinch of salt.