The every other day diet
Replies
-
Type 1 diabetes is genetic. Type 2 comes from beating the crap out of your pancreas by eating too many carbs. Yes, people fix it all the time by chilling on the sugar.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's a good book. People interested should read it, and also the people with no interest or knowledge about it who feel compelled to post their opinions of it in every thread about it.
It's written by a PhD who's been studying it for many years so the health claims aren't all just confirmation bias.0 -
feisty_bucket wrote: »Type 1 diabetes is genetic. Type 2 comes from beating the crap out of your pancreas by eating too many carbs. Yes, people fix it all the time by chilling on the sugar.
That's not exactly accurate either. I did not chill one bit on the sugar and carbs but my weight loss and the increase in physical activity has taken me from being pre-diabetic at 115 glucose to having a normal 70-83 blood sugar.
A side note: I do notice that when I go through phases of every other day diet every now and then, my numbers do tend to hover on the lower side even on the mass 2500 calorie carb laden eating days. Anecdotal, but it would be interesting to investigate further.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »It's a good book. People interested should read it, and also the people with no interest or knowledge about it who feel compelled to post their opinions of it in every thread about it.
It's written by a PhD who's been studying it for many years so the health claims aren't all just confirmation bias.
Actually the kindle version of the book is currently at a massive discount on amazon for the month of december.0 -
Well, yeah, that's why I suggested people read it.
By the way, you don't need a Kindle or any ereader to read Kindle format books. Amazon has a free reader tool so you can read on your monitor or tablet or phone.
The book is short and easy reading. You could read it in a couple hours.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »Rabbitjb I'm down to my last 5kgs (11lbs) so I have to be super strict. I dropped from 1750-1800 down to 1550 calories last week.
the less you have to lose the lower your calorie defecit should be not the higher to help protect your lean muscle mass and get you ready for a system of maintenance.
In my understanding rather than dropping your calories, you should have been slowing down your rate of loss to about 0.5lb loss a week. That basically means by cutting 250 approximately from your TDEE - if you want to do so by an every other day method that really makes very little difference
so for example if your TDEE is say 2000 - you should be eating 1750 a day (12,250 a week) - if 3 days a week you eat 500 calories (1500 calories) - the other 4 days you should be eating around 2,680 calories
rabbitjb is to help reduce the chances of 'rebound' weight gain after a large deficit calorie diet?
0 -
#shortcutsdontwork0
-
christinev297 wrote: »Hamoncan the longer I've been doing it, the easier it has become. It's gotten to the stage that I look forward to fast days.
I have up to 500 calories on down days and 1550 on up days. I've only got 5kgs (11lbs ) left to lose, so have to be super strict. Once I get down to my goal weight I'll do 6:1 to maintain, meaning just one fast day a week.
You're averaging 1000 calories everyday; that seems really low, and it may not be sustainable. You might want to reconsider your calorie intake on your up days.
Overall, it seems like just another way of creating a deficit; if it works for you great, if it doesn't don't do it. That said, it seems like you really need to make sure your calorie counts are accurate and that you're getting adequate micro and macronutrients.
ETA: the 500 calories on down days seems arbitrary and seems like it would make more sense if it was a percentage of your maintenance calories. It doesn't seem like someone who burns 2000 calories a day and someone who burns 4000 calories a day should eat the same amount on their down days (and their deficit will be drastically different).0 -
ETA: the 500 calories on down days seems arbitrary and seems like it would make more sense if it was a percentage of your maintenance calories. It doesn't seem like someone who burns 2000 calories a day and someone who burns 4000 calories a day should eat the same amount on their down days (and their deficit will be drastically different).
In the book it says the testing was conducted on 25% of maintenance calories, but for the sake of simplicity it's okay to do 500 calories since it's a close average for most people, and a bit lower or higher should not be an issue. When I do it, I do it at 25% of my maintenance (550 calories) but that's only because I like an extra snack.0 -
seems alot easier to just eat healthy.0
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »ETA: the 500 calories on down days seems arbitrary and seems like it would make more sense if it was a percentage of your maintenance calories. It doesn't seem like someone who burns 2000 calories a day and someone who burns 4000 calories a day should eat the same amount on their down days (and their deficit will be drastically different).
In the book it says the testing was conducted on 25% of maintenance calories, but for the sake of simplicity it's okay to do 500 calories since it's a close average for most people, and a bit lower or higher should not be an issue. When I do it, I do it at 25% of my maintenance (550 calories) but that's only because I like an extra snack.
Ah, that makes more sense. Although, that still averages to half your maintenance which is a fairly steep deficit. I guess it just takes trying it to see if it works for people and what their specific goals are.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »ETA: the 500 calories on down days seems arbitrary and seems like it would make more sense if it was a percentage of your maintenance calories. It doesn't seem like someone who burns 2000 calories a day and someone who burns 4000 calories a day should eat the same amount on their down days (and their deficit will be drastically different).
In the book it says the testing was conducted on 25% of maintenance calories, but for the sake of simplicity it's okay to do 500 calories since it's a close average for most people, and a bit lower or higher should not be an issue. When I do it, I do it at 25% of my maintenance (550 calories) but that's only because I like an extra snack.
Ah, that makes more sense. Although, that still averages to half your maintenance which is a fairly steep deficit. I guess it just takes trying it to see if it works for people and what their specific goals are.
On free eating days you don't eat your maintenance, you eat "ad libitum". In researches they found that people tend to eat roughly at 110% of their maintenance. I consume 2000-3500 calories on these days depending on my appetite and foods I feel like eating, so I guess I'm one of the people on the higher end of the deviation.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »It's a good book. People interested should read it, and also the people with no interest or knowledge about it who feel compelled to post their opinions of it in every thread about it.
It's written by a PhD who's been studying it for many years so the health claims aren't all just confirmation bias.
That doesn't mean anything. There are plenty of researchers and authors that write books full of confirmation bias. In fact, the longer they study a topic, the worse it can get, because they have their own preset conclusions, and begin filtering research to fit their conclusion, rather than adjusting their conclusion to fit the research. Ansel Keys is a great example of this. His "seven countries study" was a big part of the "fat causes heart disease" push. The issue? There was information available from 21 countries. He cherry picked 7 countries that seemed to show a correlation between fat intake and heart disease (because that's the conclusion he wanted to find,) while pretending the 14 other countries that showed no such link didn't exist.0 -
There are all kinds of shortcomings in the scientific method. It doesn't mean we can't learn from studies.
I'm beginning to think it means you can't post evidence of anything from a study or an authority on the internet, though. If it doesn't jibe with some readers' senses of correctness (researched or not), then it's automatically biased or otherwise worthless.0 -
I'm losing 500g a week roughly. Very slow and steady.
Rabbit thank you for taking the time to explain. I appreciate it xx0 -
Not at all. It means show me the study for me to judge it based on its merits. Telling me it's automatically true because, "the author is a PhD," doesn't mean anything, it's a fallacy known as, "argumentum ab auctoritate." (Argument from authority, or appeal to authority)WalkingAlong wrote: »There are all kinds of shortcomings in the scientific method. It doesn't mean we can't learn from studies.
I'm beginning to think it means you can't post evidence of anything from a study or an authority on the internet, though. If it doesn't jibe with some readers' senses of correctness (researched or not), then it's automatically biased or otherwise worthless.
0 -
"Show me the study"... Deja vu. Last time it spawned a hilarious, ginormous thread on how to correctly post studies to a discussion board.
The book is $2.99 and lists the studies. The studies are free on the internet.
The education level and profession of the author does speak to the authority.
Is there a name for the logical fallacy that presumes that since a PhD is human and may exhibit bias, being a PhD has no authority in a field?0 -
It's the same fallacy, however, that's not an argument I even came close to making, stop building a strawman.WalkingAlong wrote: »"Show me the study"... Deja vu. Last time it spawned a hilarious, ginormous thread on how to correctly post studies to a discussion board.
The book is $2.99 and lists the studies. The studies are free on the internet.
The education level and profession of the author does speak to the authority.
Is there a name for the logical fallacy that presumes that since a PhD is human and may exhibit bias, being a PhD has no authority in a field?
If you read what I said, I said that stating a person is a PhD does not mean a book isn't filled with confirmation bias. I never said the author couldn't be an authority. Haven't read the book. Maybe the author covered both the pros and cons of the subject (which is how it's supposed to work, present a theory, present evidence supporting the theory, discuss alternate evidence that may undermine the theory.) Having not read the book, I don't know that. My point still stands that an author's level of education is meaningless if that's the only evidence presented as to the accuracy of the author's statements.0 -
The comments above regarding "I read fasting Facebook pages and they claim their diabetes is gone", etc., and your reply about "members of a self-selected group have confirmation bias"... that's why I mentioned there is a book with peer reviewed studies from a recognized authority in the field. Not to suggest that her having a PhD means that anything claimed positive about IF in this thread is 100% fact. But that all the health claims can't all be confirmation bias.tigersword wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't know if it CURES diabetes, but they are in remission, if that's the correct term?? Eg they are able to completely get off their diabetes medication
Weight loss does that, fasting doesn't.
What you're talking about is called, "confirmation bias." Of course members of a group are going to have success and post about it, because the ones that fail leave the group and stay silent. Just look at all the groups here, and how people get recruited to them.
"I'm curious about 'xyz' method of eating."
"OH! 'XYZ' is amazing! Here, come join this 'xyz' group I'm in! They'll all tell you how wonderful it is! Then you won't have to deal with anyone on the main forum who might tell you it's not wonderful."
Happens every day.0 -
I'm not sure you understand what confirmation bias is.
Confirmation bias is selectively finding only information that confirms your belief, and out of hand rejecting anything that doesn't. There may be 1,000 scholarly articles that correlate a behavior with something else, while there are 100,000 articles showing no link between them.
Confirmation bias would be pointing to those 1,000 articles that agree with your preconceived belief, while ignoring the 100,000 that disprove it. Facebook has unfortunately started to become a well of confirmation bias, as their software is designed to track the things a user likes, and then only suggest new content that agrees with things they already like, rather than possibly showing something they may disagree with.0 -
I don't understand your point.
I agree that a Facebook page devoted to the wonders of fasting is going to be full of success stories and not a great indicator of whether overall it's successful at whatever action is being looked at (diabetes, whatever).
Are you saying the book author's studies are biased and based on preconceived notions? Or that the people here are? Or that reading the studies and books is futile unless you read them all, on both sides?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions