Recently, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences pointed out in an interview that there is no need to eat more than two meals a day, and even believes that hunger is conducive to prolonging life. As soon as this statement was announced, it immediately set off a heated discussion on the Internet. Many netizens expressed their doubts and dissatisfaction with this view in various ways.
The academician said in an interview that the human body does not need many calories every day, as long as it is enough to eat at two points in breakfast and lunch. The human body will produce some beneficial biological reactions in a hungry state, which is beneficial to delay aging in the long term, thereby prolonging life.
It seems to be a philosophy of "eat less, sleep less, and be in good health". But in this regard, netizens were extremely enthusiastic. Some netizens scolded him for "speaking imprudently", pointing out that manual workers and the elderly need at least three meals a day. Some netizens refuted this statement with their personal experience that her 101-year-old grandmother had three meals a day, was full and healthy.
To be honest, this academician can "take the lead in the trial" and eat only two meals to see how it works. Of course, not everyone disagrees with the academician's point of view, and a small number of netizens said that being hungry does make people feel relaxed, and two meals a day is enough for themselves. For a while, this topic became a hot topic on the Internet and sparked extensive discussions on major social platforms.
What I have always wanted to say is, can experts speak in line with the actual situation? Every time we talk openly about a problem, it seems to be far from reality. For example, he argues that housing price fluctuations have no impact on young people, or points out that the average household asset in China is as high as 300,000 yuan, which is much worse than reality. Some people even concluded that it is better to listen to the experts "in reverse", because most of what they say is unreliable.
Experts may simply want to promote health awareness, emphasize a reasonable diet and control intake, and do not really require everyone to eat only two meals, but it may be difficult to convey ideas due to poor expression. From a purely physiological point of view, hunger may also have some benefits to the body, provided that it is not severely malnourished for a long time.
There is a lack of communication between some experts and the public, so it is important for more people to pay attention to the way of knowledge dissemination and promotion of healthy eating. Whether eating only two meals can really lead to longevity, and whether short-term hunger is really beneficial, needs to be supported by more empirical evidence. If the original intention was to show that controlling the diet is good for health, I can understand it.
But this expression is really unpleasant, and it also reminds me of a few years, a few years ago, there was an inexplicable and wonderful vegetarian wind for no reason. At that time, I didn't think about it so much, but as I grew up, I realized that it was really harboring evil intentions! Everyone's life just got better, but not everyone's life was better, and as a result, some people advocated vegetarianism.
People's diet is inseparable from meat, and if we want to be strong, in addition to physical exercise, there is also dietary intake, and as a result, there are still people who advocate that we who have just lived a better life eat vegetarian food?
There is no problem with controlling your diet, but it still depends on your specific physical condition. Generally speaking, if you are in good health, you don't need to care about these, if you want to control your weight a little, you can exercise more to control your diet, and if you are too thin, you can consider controlling your diet and eating more meals. Finally, the editor really suggests: experts have nothing to learn to shut up, it's good for everyone!