Your questions, hypotheses, and curiosities?

lemurcat12

girlviernes wrote: »

Alright, question of the day (and I may post this separately)... I've been reading lately about intermittent fasting as a treatment for insulin resistance, which has peaked my interest in it. However, when I try to skip a meal I go kinda crazy. I mean, I love my meals and have always loved my meals. I eat a big breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day. So I'm wondering, would I actually adjust, or am I just the type of person that IF is not a good fit for? I also think there are benefits to eating a very stable meal schedule (e.g., in terms of cortisol release, circadian rhythms, etc.). In addition, part of the reasoning behind IF is that you have extended time without insulin release, thus I wonder if having a fat-based or low-carb meal could also achieve a similar effect (e.g., bacon for breakfast). And to use IF for a therapeutic benefit, how long would you need to stick with it?

Also, what is the research behind the 16:8 protocols, is there actually a difference between 16:8 and 14:10 or 12:12?

This is all really interesting.

As we all know, I'm probably not IR, but when I first cut my calories I went pretty low carb (cut out bread, wasn't eating much fruit because it was the dead of winter, was controlling portion sizes on starches pretty strictly)--probably less than 100 g on average. I noticed immediately that I felt less ups and downs and wasn't as likely to feel hungry between meals (and more important for me, wasn't likely to feel tired between meals--my energy was stable). I considered doing low carb for that reason, but when I upped my carbs in a balanced pattern the effect remained. Most notably, when I fasted for Ash Wednesday/Good Friday (and I generally do a full fast until very late in the day), I felt totally fine, whereas traditionally fasting has always made me cranky. So I thought "hmm, magical effect, maybe I could do IF" (although I still never wanted to, since I just enjoy my meal times too much).

This year, though, even though I eat the same way and still don't usually feel hungry between meals, fasting wasn't horrible, but was much more difficult. So whatever was going on in '14 must have had more to do with the dieting being new or something or maybe having all the fat left to lose, I dunno.

I wonder if it's related to how I was totally happy on 1250 then (although my BMR would have been higher than now) whereas now I find I have trouble with a much higher calorie level.

I do think it's more psychological than anything, though--I have thought about going back and just following my menus from April 2014, but my guess is I'd be bored more than hungry, miss the variety and luxuries I've gotten used to again.

Anyway, I think my question/point was that it's so hard for me to separate out what is physical and what is mental/emotional (not that that's a straightforward distinction, obviously).

girlviernes

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This is all really interesting.

As we all know, I'm probably not IR, but when I first cut my calories I went pretty low carb (cut out bread, wasn't eating much fruit because it was the dead of winter, was controlling portion sizes on starches pretty strictly)--probably less than 100 g on average. I noticed immediately that I felt less ups and downs and wasn't as likely to feel hungry between meals (and more important for me, wasn't likely to feel tired between meals--my energy was stable). I considered doing low carb for that reason, but when I upped my carbs in a balanced pattern the effect remained. Most notably, when I fasted for Ash Wednesday/Good Friday (and I generally do a full fast until very late in the day), I felt totally fine, whereas traditionally fasting has always made me cranky. So I thought "hmm, magical effect, maybe I could do IF" (although I still never wanted to, since I just enjoy my meal times too much).

Yes, I've been listening to the signanutrition podcast and reading Lyle MacDonald and so in a couple different places I've been hearing about low carb specifically for a therapeutic effect rather than necessarily a long-term approach. Perhaps the low carb trial did help you in some way. How long were you following low carb?

lemurcat12 wrote: »

This year, though, even though I eat the same way and still don't usually feel hungry between meals, fasting wasn't horrible, but was much more difficult. So whatever was going on in '14 must have had more to do with the dieting being new or something or maybe having all the fat left to lose, I dunno.

I think it's those fat reserves... I am sooo curious to see what this is all going to be like when I'm down closer to a normal body fat range.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I wonder if it's related to how I was totally happy on 1250 then (although my BMR would have been higher than now) whereas now I find I have trouble with a much higher calorie level.

I do think it's more psychological than anything, though--I have thought about going back and just following my menus from April 2014, but my guess is I'd be bored more than hungry, miss the variety and luxuries I've gotten used to again.

Anyway, I think my question/point was that it's so hard for me to separate out what is physical and what is mental/emotional (not that that's a straightforward distinction, obviously).

Yes I wonder how much of the adaptation to new eating patterns and amounts is purely physiological vs psychological. And how could you test that?

ahoy_m8

girlviernes wrote: »

... In addition, part of the reasoning behind IF is that you have extended time without insulin release, thus I wonder if having a fat-based or low-carb meal could also achieve a similar effect (e.g., bacon for breakfast). And to use IF for a therapeutic benefit, how long would you need to stick with it?

FWIW, both protein and carbs stimulate an insulin response, so a bacon breakfast, while totally awesome, would not extend the "fast."

girlviernes

ahoy_m8 wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

... In addition, part of the reasoning behind IF is that you have extended time without insulin release, thus I wonder if having a fat-based or low-carb meal could also achieve a similar effect (e.g., bacon for breakfast). And to use IF for a therapeutic benefit, how long would you need to stick with it?

FWIW, both protein and carbs stimulate an insulin response, so a bacon breakfast, while totally awesome, would not extend the "fast."

This is true but I just can't fathom eating a full-fat breakfast, lol.

girlviernes

Something else I wonder about, is BMI skewed at all by height? For example, I can remember many occasions where I was quite surprised by short people whose BMI was a lot higher than I expected based on their appearance. I also wonder if shorter people in general have a slightly harder go of it since they get the same portions at restaurants, in packaged foods, etc but need fewer calories than taller people.

andympanda

Never understood the big deal about getting in 10,000 steps. I used to get in over 10,000 steps and was putting on weight, until i started eating at a deficit. I average about 25,000 steps now

ahoy_m8

girlviernes wrote: »

This is true but I just can't fathom eating a full-fat breakfast, lol.

Me either. My first thought is if you have a routine that works for you and that you like, I wonder if it would be worth it to rock the boat chasing potential insulin sensitivity gains via IF. That said, my comfortable eating routine is IF. Breakfast @10AM and dinner 6-ish. It might be worth experimenting with a late morning breakfast/snack?

mkakids

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

maidentl wrote: »

Giving yourself extra calories for a normal amount of walking (10,000 steps) doesn't make a lot of sense.

It depends on what your "normal" was before you started trying to lose weight. If you regularly got 9,000 steps before trying to lose, then yeah - adding calories for getting to 10K isn't going to help you. But if you only got to 3,000 steps...then the difference of 7k steps can definitely add up!

DeguelloTex

girlviernes wrote: »

Something else I wonder about, is BMI skewed at all by height? For example, I can remember many occasions where I was quite surprised by short people whose BMI was a lot higher than I expected based on their appearance. I also wonder if shorter people in general have a slightly harder go of it since they get the same portions at restaurants, in packaged foods, etc but need fewer calories than taller people.

It is skewed by height, but it gives lower numbers to short people and higher numbers to tall people than it should.

mkakids

girlviernes wrote: »

Okay so I gained about an inch in my late 20s, early 30s, I'm wondering if weight gain could have caused actual height gain, and will I shrink with weight loss? I also wonder if my feet will reshape and I'll fit shoes better.

I have noticed that when I got heavier, I started to improve my posture to reduce the rolls and lines when I sit and suck it in/hold my shoulders higher when I stand. Could it just be improved posture?

azulvioleta6

girlviernes wrote: »

Something else I wonder about, is BMI skewed at all by height? For example, I can remember many occasions where I was quite surprised by short people whose BMI was a lot higher than I expected based on their appearance. I also wonder if shorter people in general have a slightly harder go of it since they get the same portions at restaurants, in packaged foods, etc but need fewer calories than taller people.

I've read that it is actually skewed in the other direction. In other words, BMI is much too generous to people who are very short and much too strict on those of us who are very tall.

PeachyCarol

girlviernes wrote: »

Alright, question of the day (and I may post this separately)... I've been reading lately about intermittent fasting as a treatment for insulin resistance, which has peaked my interest in it. However, when I try to skip a meal I go kinda crazy. I mean, I love my meals and have always loved my meals. I eat a big breakfast, lunch, and dinner every day. So I'm wondering, would I actually adjust, or am I just the type of person that IF is not a good fit for? I also think there are benefits to eating a very stable meal schedule (e.g., in terms of cortisol release, circadian rhythms, etc.). In addition, part of the reasoning behind IF is that you have extended time without insulin release, thus I wonder if having a fat-based or low-carb meal could also achieve a similar effect (e.g., bacon for breakfast). And to use IF for a therapeutic benefit, how long would you need to stick with it?

Also, what is the research behind the 16:8 protocols, is there actually a difference between 16:8 and 14:10 or 12:12?

Seeing this late in the game.

I IF, but I don't have insulin resistance and really know nothing behind the hormonal aspects of IF.

I just know it's a good fit with my natural eating pattern.

I 18:6. Very small window.

I find it mostly helps with appetite regulation to eat all of my food in that short period.

As you know, I moderate carb, if that adds anything interesting to the conversation.

Nony_Mouse

I generally IF on non field work days by accident (ie I never get around to having breakfast unless my belly is screaming at me, though I do have milk in my coffee, so maybe that negates it). I'd be something like a 16:8 (or more often 17:7).

PeachyCarol

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I generally IF on non field work days by accident (ie I never get around to having breakfast unless my belly is screaming at me, though I do have milk in my coffee, so maybe that negates it). I'd be something like a 16:8 (or more often 17:7).

The info I read is that as long as it's less than 25-50 calories or so, you're probably fine.

Nony_Mouse

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I generally IF on non field work days by accident (ie I never get around to having breakfast unless my belly is screaming at me, though I do have milk in my coffee, so maybe that negates it). I'd be something like a 16:8 (or more often 17:7).

The info I read is that as long as it's less than 25-50 calories or so, you're probably fine.

Good to know!

Also, awesome before and after pic!!

PeachyCarol

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I generally IF on non field work days by accident (ie I never get around to having breakfast unless my belly is screaming at me, though I do have milk in my coffee, so maybe that negates it). I'd be something like a 16:8 (or more often 17:7).

The info I read is that as long as it's less than 25-50 calories or so, you're probably fine.

Good to know!

Also, awesome before and after pic!!

Well, it's still a before and during pic, but thanks! That before isn't even me at my heaviest. I only have face pictures from then.

Nony_Mouse

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

mamapeach910 wrote: »

Nony_Mouse wrote: »

I generally IF on non field work days by accident (ie I never get around to having breakfast unless my belly is screaming at me, though I do have milk in my coffee, so maybe that negates it). I'd be something like a 16:8 (or more often 17:7).

The info I read is that as long as it's less than 25-50 calories or so, you're probably fine.

Good to know!

Also, awesome before and after pic!!

Well, it's still a before and during pic, but thanks! That before isn't even me at my heaviest. I only have face pictures from then.

haha good point! I already have an after pic, just it was taken 4.5 years ago .

tomatoey

Ah, wish I'd seen this thread earlier!

Also curious about gut bacteria; the ways obesity might alter metabolic processes longer term, even after weight loss and maintenance (seems to be homeostatic, once obesity occurs); epigenetics; some things specific to injuries i've had (i.e. tendinosis, which has been misnamed "tendonitis", remains a mystery at the histological level. it's "failed healing", not inflammation, but it's unclear why/how. this makes sense when you think about it. it does not make sense to look at chronic dysfunction through the lens of acute trauma (local inflammation that needs to be treated with e.g. cortisone. lots of professionals still do that).

I'm also interested in the processes underlying recomp, and have a lot of wishful thinking around somehow firming up my everything while keeping my chesticles (signs point to this being impossible, oh well.)

LYL353

I want to know what's *really real* in regards to cal in/cal out theory versus "starvation mode" and not eating enough calories.

girlviernes

azulvioleta6 wrote: »

girlviernes wrote: »

Something else I wonder about, is BMI skewed at all by height? For example, I can remember many occasions where I was quite surprised by short people whose BMI was a lot higher than I expected based on their appearance. I also wonder if shorter people in general have a slightly harder go of it since they get the same portions at restaurants, in packaged foods, etc but need fewer calories than taller people.

I've read that it is actually skewed in the other direction. In other words, BMI is much too generous to people who are very short and much too strict on those of us who are very tall.

Interesting!