CICO
Replies
-
jennifer_417 wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »I think there is a possibility that what I'm doing might result in the body not being able to handle the cals I dump on it in the 3-hour window and therefore doesn't produce some fat that it could if the cals where consumed over a longer period of time.You should hope not. That would be very bad for your health - you'd end up hyperglycemic and could experience complications.
Even if it did, it wouldn't help you - it would only take longer to store the same amount of fat. Once it's in your blood stream, barring severe hyperglycemia or kidney damage, there's nowhere else for it to go.
A pertinent fact here is that the OP has clearly stated that he doesn't actually count calories, since it's "a pain."
I didn't say I dont count my cals. I've stated the opposite multiple times. Also my diary is open. Why do you want to attack?
You know what, that was my mistake, I misread something earlier in the thread. My sincere apologies.
No problem0 -
-
rankinsect wrote: »
That is a finite amount of time. Is it all absorbed in that time? I doubt it and think the more you eat at a given time the less percentage is used. I don't know how significant this would/could be.0 -
Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing? It just reminds me of some of the eating disorders, like mia, or chewers and spitters, or beyond eating disorders, of the pill that stops you from absorbing fats. I'm not trying to offend, but this has been on my mind.
Anyway, this might be an interesting idea to some, but to the majority of people wanting to lose weight, probably the basics is better.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
0 -
Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
And....with that....we have now entered the realm of ridiculousness (because, clearly we weren't there before).
It's unfortunate I didn't consider all of this 3 years ago when I was in weight loss mode. I could have more accurately predicted things, and would have ended up losing 60.6 lbs, instead of just 60. I feel so cheated...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I recently just read some leangains info where the author talks 8n a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss.
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
I don't eat small meals, and I am satisfied after I eat (I don't seek out a stuffed feeling, which is what it kind of sounds like you are talking about). Of course, if your concept of small meals is a plate of food, we have different perceptions.
How have I missed the point?
Also, I'm not opposed to IF if that's what turns you on or works for you. I just don't think that weight loss should be approached as about tricking your body into ignoring as many of the calories you take in as possible. Better to figure out how to be happy with your maintenance calories.
Your last paragraph makes no sense, and I don't think anyone is claiming the body is static.0 -
There was a study (shown in a film by the BBC that was floating around here somewhere) that showed people who consume dairy daily might absorb up to 50 percent less fat than those who don't eat any dairy. I am in no way going to poop in a bag to have my poo analyzed so I can find out how many less calories from any fat I may or may not be absorbing. I'll just stick to the numbers the calculators give me and make adjustments based on my measurements and what the scale says over time. So much easier that way.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I recently just read some leangains info where the author talks 8n a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss.
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
I don't eat small meals, and I am satisfied after I eat (I don't seek out a stuffed feeling, which is what it kind of sounds like you are talking about). Of course, if your concept of small meals is a plate of food, we have different perceptions.
How have I missed the point?
Also, I'm not opposed to IF if that's what turns you on or works for you. I just don't think that weight loss should be approached as about tricking your body into ignoring as many of the calories you take in as possible. Better to figure out how to be happy with your maintenance calories.
Your last paragraph makes no sense, and I don't think anyone is claiming the body is static.
It's not tricking the body, it is how the body works. Leangains also talks about how it helps with the CO part in a nonlinear sense in that a fast of sufficient duration (i think they said 12 to 30 hrs) results in greater weight loss rates than fasting for lesser durations. The baby example shows a falicy in linear thinking and ignoring non linear realities like rate limiting.
If you can't even eat one plate of food in a sitting because it's considered too large and your ok with that, well good for you. Not for me. I think most people want to eat more than a small plate of food for a meal. The many small meals would not be sustainable for me and would be more opportunities to cheat.0 -
blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
I know! We can call it the wolf diet!! And books can be written on how to eat as much as possible as fast as possible, guest starring those people who go to contests at state fairs and eat like 30 chili dogs at a sitting.
Think of the possibilities! The program could be sold to employers, and statutory changes made, so lunch 'hours' would only be 5 minutes!
There would be guests on late night talk shows to talk about wolf etiquette, and whether one could entertain oneself with a cell phone if one was going to a restaurant on a date with a 'regular' eater.
(I don't, myself, want to wolf down huge amounts of food in a couple minutes, but as we've said so many times, find something that works for you!)
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I recently just read some leangains info where the author talks 8n a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss.
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
I don't eat small meals, and I am satisfied after I eat (I don't seek out a stuffed feeling, which is what it kind of sounds like you are talking about). Of course, if your concept of small meals is a plate of food, we have different perceptions.
How have I missed the point?
Also, I'm not opposed to IF if that's what turns you on or works for you. I just don't think that weight loss should be approached as about tricking your body into ignoring as many of the calories you take in as possible. Better to figure out how to be happy with your maintenance calories.
Your last paragraph makes no sense, and I don't think anyone is claiming the body is static.
It's not tricking the body, it is how the body works. Leangains also talks about how it helps with the CO part in a nonlinear sense in that a fast of sufficient duration (i think they said 12 to 30 hrs) results in greater weight loss rates than fasting for lesser durations. The baby example shows a falicy in linear thinking and ignoring non linear realities like rate limiting.
If you can't even eat one plate of food in a sitting because it's considered too large and your ok with that, well good for you. Not for me. I think most people want to eat more than a small plate of food for a meal. The many small meals would not be sustainable for me and would be more opportunities to cheat.
It was supposed to show ridiculousness of a way of thinking. You state it would of only made a small difference. Please back that up. I'm saying it might make a big difference and I'm searching for more evidence, some of which I've found and referenced.0 -
Lucille4444 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
I know! We can call it the wolf diet!! And books can be written on how to eat as much as possible as fast as possible, guest starring those people who go to contests at state fairs and eat like 30 chili dogs at a sitting.
Think of the possibilities! The program could be sold to employers, and statutory changes made, so lunch 'hours' would only be 5 minutes!
There would be guests on late night talk shows to talk about wolf etiquette, and whether one could entertain oneself with a cell phone if one was going to a restaurant on a date with a 'regular' eater.
(I don't, myself, want to wolf down huge amounts of food in a couple minutes, but as we've said so many times, find something that works for you!)
Please don't ridicule, it doesn't prove anything and I have never promoted wolfing anthing down or over eating. Please re-read what I wrote. Also, I've just discussed possible benefits of it helping the CO side of burning more fat besides limiting storage of fat. Hard to have reasonable, civil discussions here.0 -
MommyL2015 wrote: »There was a study (shown in a film by the BBC that was floating around here somewhere) that showed people who consume dairy daily might absorb up to 50 percent less fat than those who don't eat any dairy. I am in no way going to poop in a bag to have my poo analyzed so I can find out how many less calories from any fat I may or may not be absorbing. I'll just stick to the numbers the calculators give me and make adjustments based on my measurements and what the scale says over time. So much easier that way.
Now this is a contribution that can be looked into. Drinking a glass of milk is easy.
We can all adjust. How low are we willing to go and how much are we able to exercise.
Simple things like this might make a difference for some.0 -
If you can't even eat one plate of food in a sitting because it's considered too large and your ok with that, well good for you. Not for me. I think most people want to eat more than a small plate of food for a meal. The many small meals would not be sustainable for me and would be more opportunities to cheat.
Geez! Define "plate".
Are we measuring our calories by plates now? Good grief!
You can load up a lot on a plate and keep the calories low...
Or you can eat one sweet that looks pretty dang small in volume, but has more calories than the entire plate of salad, veggies, egg, and tuna.
Water is great for volume in your stomach as well. Drink up. Grab a pitcher and fill that belly!
Load up a plate with cups and cups and cups of spinach (7 calories per cup - so have it, find a plate that will hold 20 cups of raw spinach (or some other greens) and chew like a rabbit to your heart's content if it is "plates" of food that satisfy you. ;-)0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
No one here is looking at this in a static way, though. You're the one presuming that.
I'm frankly disturbed, as blankiefinder mentioned, by your approach here.
Let's back up for a minute though.
You introducing the topic of a dynamic model is nothing new to people who've been around the forums a long time. We all know the effects of ongoing weight loss and changing body composition plus length of time spent dieting on not only metabolism but the rate at which the weight drops.
Evgeni, a long time ago, had an excellent thread on the subject of adaptive thermogenesis.
I've been eating at deficit for a year now. My system had adapted to lower caloric intake. I'm doing a diet break right now, eating at maintenance (which for me, a 53 year old woman who is considerably shorter than you is about what you're eating to lose) for a month. My system hormones will reset and I'll go back to eating at deficit.
This is how you handle plateaus. I go through periods where I scale back and increase my activity. My body adapts.
I still think you're looking in the wrong places for answers.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »If you can't even eat one plate of food in a sitting because it's considered too large and your ok with that, well good for you. Not for me. I think most people want to eat more than a small plate of food for a meal. The many small meals would not be sustainable for me and would be more opportunities to cheat.
Geez! Define "plate".
Are we measuring our calories by plates now? Good grief!
You can load up a lot on a plate and keep the calories low...
Or you can eat one sweet that looks pretty dang small in volume, but has more calories than the entire plate of salad, veggies, egg, and tuna.
Water is great for volume in your stomach as well. Drink up. Grab a pitcher and fill that belly!
Load up a plate with cups and cups and cups of spinach (7 calories per cup - so have it, find a plate that will hold 20 cups of raw spinach (or some other greens) and chew like a rabbit to your heart's content if it is "plates" of food that satisfy you. ;-)
I think satiation us more than eating like a rabbit though (that looks good and I'm not trying to be derogatory). I do think that is a good strategy though to be full without going to high number of cals. What I've talked about is in addition to what you suggested and might let you eat some other types of foods which can be important for long-term sustainable eating methods (good for the mind).0 -
rankinsect wrote: »
That is a finite amount of time. Is it all absorbed in that time? I doubt it and think the more you eat at a given time the less percentage is used. I don't know how significant this would/could be.
Your body actually adjusts the amount of time food spends in the intestines based on how many nutrients need to be absorbed, so that it really does extract most of the nutrients regardless. A larger meal will move slower through the intestines.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I recently just read some leangains info where the author talks 8n a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss.
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
I don't eat small meals, and I am satisfied after I eat (I don't seek out a stuffed feeling, which is what it kind of sounds like you are talking about). Of course, if your concept of small meals is a plate of food, we have different perceptions.
How have I missed the point?
Also, I'm not opposed to IF if that's what turns you on or works for you. I just don't think that weight loss should be approached as about tricking your body into ignoring as many of the calories you take in as possible. Better to figure out how to be happy with your maintenance calories.
Your last paragraph makes no sense, and I don't think anyone is claiming the body is static.
It's not tricking the body, it is how the body works. Leangains also talks about how it helps with the CO part in a nonlinear sense in that a fast of sufficient duration (i think they said 12 to 30 hrs) results in greater weight loss rates than fasting for lesser durations. The baby example shows a falicy in linear thinking and ignoring non linear realities like rate limiting.
If you can't even eat one plate of food in a sitting because it's considered too large and your ok with that, well good for you. Not for me. I think most people want to eat more than a small plate of food for a meal. The many small meals would not be sustainable for me and would be more opportunities to cheat.
It was supposed to show ridiculousness of a way of thinking. You state it would of only made a small difference. Please back that up. I'm saying it might make a big difference and I'm searching for more evidence, some of which I've found and referenced.
Why should she back anything up? You've yet to back anything you've said up in terms of how big a difference this will make.
BTW, I've done IF. In a sense, I still do simply because I'm not hungry first thing in the morning. I typically fast for 15-16 hours. I did this when I was obese, I'm doing it now. I know there are studies out there showing some hormonal benefits to IF, but in terms of weight loss? It's not really a huge edge like you're hoping. Calories are still king.0 -
I'm wondering what can increase CO in addition to exercise and what can inhibit fat storage when CI > CO.
For the first, daily activity. For the second, some drugs or altering your insides, I guess, but neither is appealing to me. The bigger issue as to the second is why? It sounds like you are trying to find some way around simply eating an appropriate number of calories.I'm interested in more than the bodies use of less calories in adaptation although that is interesting in itself and I have to ask if that can be messed with so we don't adapt so much.
This I agree is interesting.What I meant by "greatly improve weight loss" for those who struggle
Well, first you said for those already having success, remember.for those people [who struggle], they might give up and discovering things for them might be the only way that they will end up loosing weight (a lot of it due to the mental thing causing them to give up).
I disagree, because I think focusing on the search for tricks to let you exercise less or eat more, when you aren't at an overly aggressive deficit, is probably the last thing that will help most trying to lose. Figuring out how to eat an appropriate amount of calories for your lifestyle and goals is what's going to help. Are different things going to work for different people? Sure, like keto vs. volume eating vs. IF, eating more protein for satiety or more fiber or whatever. But on the whole the differences aren't going to be significant as to the amount of calories you can eat, which is why I think other factors are more significant.I'm sure anyone, if they can mentally tuff through it and don't eat anything or if they can exercise for hours will loose weight. I don't think that is sustainable for a lot of people and will result in burnout and probably deficiencies in proper nutrients and also injury.
But no one is recommending this. You don't have to eat super low cal or exercise for hours to lose weight, of course.I think there are a lot of people that have plateaus that are not totally explained by the linear - static model of CICO.
Depends on how you define it, but is it normal to not lose for a few weeks just due to fluctuations or sometimes weight loss gets stalled a bit, yeah, I buy that. If it's for a long time I think it is more likely to be a failure to adjust for the effect of the lost weight or getting sloppy with how much you are eating.So if rate limiting is significant in loosing weight because the body can't keep up then a 21:3 type diet could make a significant difference in weight loss as compared to eating the same calories over an extended period of time.
I haven't seen anything that would support the idea that there's a significant difference, and it doesn't make sense to me for the reasons rankinsect pointed out.Then there is the practicality of if it does work, is that acceptable for people. I've found it to be much more acceptable for me than eating small meals. Once I start eating I get hungry and want to keep eating. If I don't continue eating I get real and hurtful hunger pangs. Also never getting to fill up goes against my eating habits and mentality and is stressful to me.
This is about sustainability, the psychological things, and I do think it is important (although people differ). For the same reasons, then, even if it turned out that you lost slightly less quickly doing IF, it might still be a good choice for you. That's why I say other factors outweigh the small differences in calories taken in, if any.My motivation is to help people including myself to lose weight. I'ts pretty obvious a lot of people even on here who count calories have a hard time sticking to their diets (I would have a very hard time doing small meals and calorie counting for ever) and have yo-yo'ed many times. I think what I am looking into is very practical, and also could be very significant for those who have a hard time loosing weight or for sticking with maintenance for a long time.
You are conflating the psychological/lifestyle things and the calorie tricks. The first set of things I do think is important, but people are going to vary on what helps them. Bouncing into a thread and recommending that others IF because it works for you won't be helpful to most. But talking to someone about what they are struggling with and recommending IF if their struggles seem like yours might make sense. (It's similar to why I get frustrated with people insisting that increasing fat is satiating -- it's not for lots of us. For some, yes.)0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
No one here is looking at this in a static way, though. You're the one presuming that.
I'm frankly disturbed, as blankiefinder mentioned, by your approach here.
Let's back up for a minute though.
You introducing the topic of a dynamic model is nothing new to people who've been around the forums a long time. We all know the effects of ongoing weight loss and changing body composition plus length of time spent dieting on not only metabolism but the rate at which the weight drops.
Evgeni, a long time ago, had an excellent thread on the subject of adaptive thermogenesis.
I've been eating at deficit for a year now. My system had adapted to lower caloric intake. I'm doing a diet break right now, eating at maintenance (which for me, a 53 year old woman who is considerably shorter than you is about what you're eating to lose) for a month. My system hormones will reset and I'll go back to eating at deficit.
This is how you handle plateaus. I go through periods where I scale back and increase my activity. My body adapts.
I still think you're looking in the wrong places for answers.
I think this probaly is the wrong place (IF forum probably better). I don't dissagree with any methods or discussion you just propossed. I do find the resistance by many to consider what I'm saying interesting though. Why? I believe in CICO, I think there are variables that effect it. Why can't that be discussed. People have jumped to all sorts of conclusions like pigging out, cico doesn’t matter, etc. People are very closed minded here in my opinion and have insinuated lots that was never said or meant. Am I damaging this forum or something? Why can't people have a civil discussion instead of being so dismissive and insinuating so much? Just have a discussion for heaven's sake and be respectful of different opinions. If you don't agree, state why and don't just be dismissive. Site some evidence or something and don't mock and ridicule. I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people here, so have a discussion please.
This was meant for this thread and not you PeachyCarol.0 -
How did me saying that I don't feel compelled to eat more than one plate of food become me saying that I can't manage to eat even a small plate's worth?
I usually fill up a regular sized plate since a good bit of the plate is vegetables -- I'm a volume eater, or so I thought. I don't think needing to eat multiple plates of food is so common as all that.0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I just read some leangains info where the author talks in a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss. I'm goi going to read more on this subject (fasting).
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
No one here is looking at this in a static way, though. You're the one presuming that.
I'm frankly disturbed, as blankiefinder mentioned, by your approach here.
Let's back up for a minute though.
You introducing the topic of a dynamic model is nothing new to people who've been around the forums a long time. We all know the effects of ongoing weight loss and changing body composition plus length of time spent dieting on not only metabolism but the rate at which the weight drops.
Evgeni, a long time ago, had an excellent thread on the subject of adaptive thermogenesis.
I've been eating at deficit for a year now. My system had adapted to lower caloric intake. I'm doing a diet break right now, eating at maintenance (which for me, a 53 year old woman who is considerably shorter than you is about what you're eating to lose) for a month. My system hormones will reset and I'll go back to eating at deficit.
This is how you handle plateaus. I go through periods where I scale back and increase my activity. My body adapts.
I still think you're looking in the wrong places for answers.
I think this probaly is the wrong place (IF forum probably better). I don't dissagree with any methods or discussion you just propossed. I do find the resistance by many to consider what I'm saying interesting though. Why? I believe in CICO, I think there are variables that effect it. Why can't that be discussed. People have jumped to all sorts of conclusions like pigging out, cico doesn’t matter, etc. People are very closed minded here in my opinion and have insinuated lots that was never said or meant. Am I damaging this forum or something? Why can't people have a civil discussion instead of being so dismissive and insinuating so much? Just have a discussion for heaven's sake and be respectful of different opinions. If you don't agree, state why and don't just be dismissive. Site some evidence or something and don't mock and ridicule. I'm sure there are a lot of very smart people here, so have a discussion please.
This was meant for this thread and not you PeachyCarol.
It's not that we're resistant to discussing these issues, blambo.
It's that in the end, what you're suggesting are things that don't make huge differences and will ultimately come down to personal preference for individual dieters.
I simply don't think what you're suggesting is helpful to a large number of people.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »How did me saying that I don't feel compelled to eat more than one plate of food become me saying that I can't manage to eat even a small plate's worth?
I usually fill up a regular sized plate since a good bit of the plate is vegetables -- I'm a volume eater, or so I thought. I don't think needing to eat multiple plates of food is so common as all that.
That's not what I meant. I said good on you if that's all you need. I was relpying to your statement that I interpreted as you saying a plate of food was excessive. If I read/wrote that wrong, I'm sorry.0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
I think there's some hormonal effects to IF. I know that there's one study out there that had... I believe it was older women eating one meal a day... and I think it showed something in relation to protein synthesis, but for the life of me, I cannot remember enough about it to even begin to know what to search for on Google Scholar.
That being said, once again, any differences are not huge enough to trump sustainability and adherence. If IF doesn't suit someone's preference/lifestyle, it's not really a suggestion that will have much merit.
Ultimately, the weight will come off with a calorie deficit anyway.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
That is a finite amount of time. Is it all absorbed in that time? I doubt it and think the more you eat at a given time the less percentage is used. I don't know how significant this would/could be.
Your body actually adjusts the amount of time food spends in the intestines based on how many nutrients need to be absorbed, so that it really does extract most of the nutrients regardless. A larger meal will move slower through the intestines.
I'm sure the body adapts as you say but I don't think it can fully.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »
That is a finite amount of time. Is it all absorbed in that time? I doubt it and think the more you eat at a given time the less percentage is used. I don't know how significant this would/could be.
Your body actually adjusts the amount of time food spends in the intestines based on how many nutrients need to be absorbed, so that it really does extract most of the nutrients regardless. A larger meal will move slower through the intestines.
I'm sure the body adapts as you say but I don't think it can fully.
That's great if if doesn't, but you know what?
I can name you right now a whole class of people for whom this "one weird trick" is meaningless.
Migraineurs.
I had the darndest time this year getting a colonoscopy done because of the fasting. I had to cancel my first appointment because the fasting gave me one of the worst migraines I ever had. We chronic migraine sufferers have a hell of a time with not eating. It's a bad trigger for us. While I do delay breakfast, I'm quite careful about getting it in on time.
I could NEVER eat just one meal a day.
BTW, I don't experience the situation you describe of never feeling full on smaller meals. I find the feeling of being overstuffed to be really uncomfortable. I eat to satisfaction several times a day.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »blankiefinder wrote: »Am I the only one who finds the thought of trying to manipulate your digestive process so that you overwhelm it with food during a short duration to the point that it cannot absorb all of the nutrients and calories from your food a bit disturbing?
No, I do too, and being able to eat more calories in an unpleasant-sounding way doesn't seem that beneficial, even if possible (same with the idea that if you eat mainly protein you can eat more calories).
It also reminds me of the efforts to alter rice so you absorb fewer of the calories. I think most people are better off learning to eat an appropriate amount of food.
To each his own. I grew up practically force feeding myself trying to gain weight. I like to eat tell full. Eating small meals and never filling up SUCKS! Eating tell full isn't unpleasant. I don't gorge myself. As a matter of fact my stomach has shrunk so much on this diet that I can only eat about one plate of food at a time now.
You have missed the point!
I recently just read some leangains info where the author talks 8n a bunch of physiological terms about how fasting helps with weight loss.
Most of you people are thinking about what is going on in the body in a static sense (what has happened at the end of the day). You need to look at it in a dynamic sense (what is happening at each instant of time). The static model misses a lot of what is going on for things that are important (rate limits, saturation limits, and other non-linearities). Your way of thinking would allow two ladies to have a baby in 4.5 months.
I don't eat small meals, and I am satisfied after I eat (I don't seek out a stuffed feeling, which is what it kind of sounds like you are talking about). Of course, if your concept of small meals is a plate of food, we have different perceptions.
How have I missed the point?
Also, I'm not opposed to IF if that's what turns you on or works for you. I just don't think that weight loss should be approached as about tricking your body into ignoring as many of the calories you take in as possible. Better to figure out how to be happy with your maintenance calories.
Your last paragraph makes no sense, and I don't think anyone is claiming the body is static.
It's not tricking the body, it is how the body works. Leangains also talks about how it helps with the CO part in a nonlinear sense in that a fast of sufficient duration (i think they said 12 to 30 hrs) results in greater weight loss rates than fasting for lesser durations. The baby example shows a falicy in linear thinking and ignoring non linear realities like rate limiting.
If you can't even eat one plate of food in a sitting because it's considered too large and your ok with that, well good for you. Not for me. I think most people want to eat more than a small plate of food for a meal. The many small meals would not be sustainable for me and would be more opportunities to cheat.
It was supposed to show ridiculousness of a way of thinking. You state it would of only made a small difference. Please back that up. I'm saying it might make a big difference and I'm searching for more evidence, some of which I've found and referenced.
Why should she back anything up? You've yet to back anything you've said up in terms of how big a difference this will make.
BTW, I've done IF. In a sense, I still do simply because I'm not hungry first thing in the morning. I typically fast for 15-16 hours. I did this when I was obese, I'm doing it now. I know there are studies out there showing some hormonal benefits to IF, but in terms of weight loss? It's not really a huge edge like you're hoping. Calories are still king.
I've never made the claims it Was significant. I've said it MAY be. I didn't make my statements as fact like others have. I believe cals are king too. You made a factual statement that fasting is insignificant yet offered no sources.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions