No. Salmon is a short lived fish, especially if this is Atlantic farmed salmon which it probably is given his location is in the east. Tuna , a fish with a 30 year lifespan, okay maybe.

I don't know what you land locked states and provinces eat but we on the east and west eat seafood including salmon , tuna , etc 5-7 days a week in many areas. Its not uncommon.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 5 2020 10:18am

Yes.





No.

Salmon has insigificant levels of mercury compared to tuna and other "high mercury" fish. It's completely safe to make a significant part of your diet.

When I've heard about "starvation mode" it's been to imply that your body lowers its basal metabolic rate to avoid digesting fat, and puts a priority on storage.

So on a normal day you would burn 1500 calories from BMR, and 1000 from activity, but if you are in "starvation mode" your body would tone down your BMR to 1200 causing you to get more sluggish and stop losing weight on an equal calorie diet.

There's some good science to back this up. It's been found that people who have been fatter hate a lower BMR and as a result have to be on a greater calorie deficit to have the same weight loss.

It's really hard to do good nutrition science because the only way to get good data is to lock a group of people in a room and totally control their diet and exercise.

Clarence Kennedy being a great example. Boy is stronk.

oh really? that's good to know. i thought i read somewhere that cheap one could be problematic if you ate large quantities, but i'm glad if that's wrong. not that i eat that much, but i sure like my salmon. tuna as well though, unfortunately...

Here's a charting, yes it's wikipedia but it's consistent with other sources iv read.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury_in_fish

well, you're not handing in an academic assignment, wiki is completely fine by me - especially an article like that with plenty external links.

i stand corrected, salmon is apparently completely unproblematic in terms of mercury (did some reading, and apparently it has some serious other issues, at least the cheap one from fish farms, maybe that's what i remembered). anyway, thanks for the source.

Do you mean this in context of fat people starving themselves, or just starting at a lower floor?

Does your BMR slowdown somewhat when you sharply reduce energy intake? There's evidence for that. But like nutritional science seems predisposed to, it's usually misconstrued. "Reducing food intake doesn't work!", "Reduce by "x" number of calories is too much, your body will fight it and you'll gain weight!" are some of the takes I see on a regular basis.

It's refreshing to see disagreements resolved this way by people at opposite ends of the political spectrum 🤔