CICO
Replies
-
I think satiation is 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).
I - and everyone else - agrees on eating all types of food. As long as the CICO equation is close to correct for one's goals via proper portion control, it's all good.
But I simply argue that it's not measured in "plates".
You mentioned in your profile that you...
Was young and athletic (3.5% body fat fresman year in college by caliper measurement). Ran from age 16 to mid 30's 25 to 60 miles/wk. Got old and fat. Have allergy and gout issues.
...and....
I want to be skinny again and do things like run and hike without it injuring me or trashing me. I REALLY need to get over my gout issues. Hopefully loosing weight will help.
I hardly consider 54 old (I'm the same age) and am still racing.
I wish you all the best at getting back down to your fighting weight. Having done the same myself, I highly recommend it. Super charged energy, new clothes, and much faster on the bike at the lighter weight.
What not seriously bump up your endurance training again to get back to where you were - or close to where you were? Maybe you are, I don't know, but based on all the energy you are spending arguing about trying to come up with a "better or more refined CICO" formula, you could be pounding out the miles to cut weight instead. At 6'1" running that much, I assume you were once in the 155 - 175 lbs range. If your current weight puts too much strain on your joints to run, hop on a bike and pedal for 6 - 12 hours a week to whittle away the pounds. Even if it's an exercise bike in your home, it's a great way to burn the calories with very limited stress on your joints. Cycling shorts are a must to protect the backside, but the body reacts in a similar fashion to running as it burns the stored fat that an endurance athlete who has allowed it to collect.
As an endurance athlete myself and your age (former runner myself, now cyclist), I can attest to the weekly miles trumping anything to do with what you eat, when you eat it, and how you eat it. CICO still has to be in line, but with the huge increase in the CO, one is quite content with the amount of CI one gets to eat.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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.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.
It appears blambo, ironically enough, is thinking too statically about our digestive system.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.
Blambo, food you eat stays in you an average of 12-48 hours. Citation for that: http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
Meaning, if you eat your whole day all at once it will all leave about 2 days later, barring diarrhea or constipation.
If you eat that day's of food over the day, what's the difference? It's a bit more spaced out inside your colon, that's all. It's still the same work done to all of the food once you put the last bit in.
How much do you think you'd accomplish if your idea worked?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.
Your body has millions of years of evolution driving it to be as efficient as possible at extracting and storing calories. Starvation has been a constant spectre looming over our species for virtually our entire existence. The body is very good at what it does - if it couldn't adapt well to extracting energy from irregular meals we probably would be extinct.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.
You are asking me to prove a negative.
You know I can't do that.
IF only "works" because it's a way to comply with a caloric deficit. If you do a search on it for weight loss, the fasting has nothing to do with a method to lose weight other than being a way to manipulate caloric intake.0 -
SingingSingleTracker wrote: »I think satiation is 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).
I - and everyone else - agrees on eating all types of food. As long as the CICO equation is close to correct for one's goals via proper portion control, it's all good.
But I simply argue that it's not measured in "plates".
Calories are never measured in plates of course. I was talking about satiation. A small plate would be hard to satisfy me.
You mentioned in your profile that you...
Was young and athletic (3.5% body fat fresman year in college by caliper measurement). Ran from age 16 to mid 30's 25 to 60 miles/wk. Got old and fat. Have allergy and gout issues.
...and....
I want to be skinny again and do things like run and hike without it injuring me or trashing me. I REALLY need to get over my gout issues. Hopefully loosing weight will help.
I hardly consider 54 old (I'm the same age) and am still racing.
I wish you all the best at getting back down to your fighting weight. Having done the same myself, I highly recommend it. Super charged energy, new clothes, and much faster on the bike at the lighter weight.
That's awesome your there!
What not seriously bump up your endurance training again to get back to where you were - or close to where you were? Maybe you are, I don't know, but based on all the energy you are spending arguing about trying to come up with a "better or more refined CICO" formula, you could be pounding out the miles to cut weight instead. At 6'1" running that much, I assume you were once in the 155 - 175 lbs range. If your current weight puts too much strain on your joints to run, hop on a bike and pedal for 6 - 12 hours a week to whittle away the pounds. Even if it's an exercise bike in your home, it's a great way to burn the calories with very limited stress on your joints. Cycling shorts are a must to protect the backside, but the body reacts in a similar fashion to running as it burns the stored fat that an endurance athlete who has allowed it to collect.
I'm currently doing cardio 4xweek for 60-min. I've had a lot of issues trying to add more. I've hurt myself while overweight trying (stress reaction in foot). Also, I've got allergy issues where running outside has resulted in me getting sick instead of getting fitter. My immune system is weak and I get sick easier than I should. I've tried what you have suggested numerous times to only get bronchitis after a month of running. I think I had bronchitis every year for many years and strep also while in a dusty place in California. I moved and its' a lot better now. I used to not understand when I was a runner why people didn't just get out and run? Now I understand it's not always that easy. Add in 3-ACL tears (all from basketball) and gout issues and it hasn't been easy. When you have gout, you can hardly do anything. I've got that under control now. I haven't given up the dream of being a runner again though..
As an endurance athlete myself and your age (former runner myself, now cyclist), I can attest to the weekly miles trumping anything to do with what you eat, when you eat it, and how you eat it. CICO still has to be in line, but with the huge increase in the CO, one is quite content with the amount of CI one gets to eat.
I can relate. I used to pride myself on being able to eat endlessly and not gain a lb when younger. I didn't worry about how much I ate then and just tried to get healthy stuff in me. I've changed and smelling food seems to put on weight now (I'm know I've been overeating). I have been counting cals and its been good since I haven't really done that seriously ever. It is eye-opening. But, I do like to eat tell full (probably due to my trying to gain weight forever when young) and small meals are very hard for me. I've tried that.
I'm not saying that basic CICO isn't the way we should go. I've stated numerous times that should be the basis. I'm also just stating there are things that effect CICO that can be looked at. That is all.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
Again, that is your opinion without sources. I respect your opinion but I reserve the right to disagree.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »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.
Your body has millions of years of evolution driving it to be as efficient as possible at extracting and storing calories. Starvation has been a constant spectre looming over our species for virtually our entire existence. The body is very good at what it does - if it couldn't adapt well to extracting energy from irregular meals we probably would be extinct.
Already said that pages ago (or was that the other thread that got delted because someone told others they have mental illnesses?), and it got ignored.
Our bodies are really good at all of that.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
I think you are right and the cal deficit rules. I'm not preaching IF for everyone. I'm sure small multiple meals are better for some. I mainly brought that up to support my original assertion that CICO could be looked at more closely for which I've received plenty of criticism.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
Again, that is your opinion without sources. I respect your opinion but I reserve the right to disagree.
It is your job to provide sources that back your claim, not everyone else's job to find sources to show you you're wrong.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
That is interesting! I'm sure IF is not for a lot of people like you mentioned.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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
It appears blambo, ironically enough, is thinking too statically about our digestive system.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.
Blambo, food you eat stays in you an average of 12-48 hours. Citation for that: http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
Meaning, if you eat your whole day all at once it will all leave about 2 days later, barring diarrhea or constipation.
If you eat that day's of food over the day, what's the difference? It's a bit more spaced out inside your colon, that's all. It's still the same work done to all of the food once you put the last bit in.
How much do you think you'd accomplish if your idea worked?
Feces don't have any calories?0 -
rankinsect wrote: »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.
Your body has millions of years of evolution driving it to be as efficient as possible at extracting and storing calories. Starvation has been a constant spectre looming over our species for virtually our entire existence. The body is very good at what it does - if it couldn't adapt well to extracting energy from irregular meals we probably would be extinct.
Feces have no calories. I fully expect some off the wall remark like try it and see!0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
It appears blambo, ironically enough, is thinking too statically about our digestive system.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.
Blambo, food you eat stays in you an average of 12-48 hours. Citation for that: http://www.mayoclinic.org/digestive-system/expert-answers/faq-20058340
Meaning, if you eat your whole day all at once it will all leave about 2 days later, barring diarrhea or constipation.
If you eat that day's of food over the day, what's the difference? It's a bit more spaced out inside your colon, that's all. It's still the same work done to all of the food once you put the last bit in.
How much do you think you'd accomplish if your idea worked?
Feces don't have any calories?
They're gonna have about the same amount regardless if you eat 1/24 of your calorie allotment every hour or all in one giant meal. Your body can handle your food.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
You are asking me to prove a negative.
You know I can't do that.
IF only "works" because it's a way to comply with a caloric deficit. If you do a search on it for weight loss, the fasting has nothing to do with a method to lose weight other than being a way to manipulate caloric intake.
Leangains argues otherwise.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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
Leangains didn't invent IF. And please source where he's saying you increase your CO by doing it or whatever you're arguing.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
Again, that is your opinion without sources. I respect your opinion but I reserve the right to disagree.
It is your job to provide sources that back your claim, not everyone else's job to find sources to show you you're wrong.
I have said the stuff suggested MIGHT be significant. You make statements as FACTS. There is a difference. I don't have to provide proof if just speculating. You should if you are stating something as fact!0 -
I think SingingSingleTracker is right. I have spent enough time here.0
-
PeachyCarol wrote: »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.
You are asking me to prove a negative.
You know I can't do that.
IF only "works" because it's a way to comply with a caloric deficit. If you do a search on it for weight loss, the fasting has nothing to do with a method to lose weight other than being a way to manipulate caloric intake.
Leangains argues otherwise.
Source? Specific one? I shouldn't have to hunt it down.0 -
I think SingingSingleTracker is right. I have spent enough time here.
It's interesting that you're deciding to leave right after being asked to cite sources. You have made specific claims with regards to what Leangains says about IF.
Frankly, I think you're misinterpreting him. So, if you come back, please back up your claims.0 -
I dug.Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.
Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.
A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal.
Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.
C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.
What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.
However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.
Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.
The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:
"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".
Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.
Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.
http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Intermittent Fasting Primer
This link contains various supporting links.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I dug.Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.
Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.
A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal. Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.
C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.
What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.
However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.
Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.
The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:
"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".
Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.
Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.
http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Intermittent Fasting Primer
This link contains various supporting links.
I also dug...
It is commonly believed that multiple small meals increase metabolism and lead to increased overall energy expenditure. Following every meal there is an increase in expenditure due to the processing of the nutrients, commonly referred to Thermic Effect of Food (TEF) (78). A common belief therefore is that increased meal frequency leads to increased TEF and increased overall energy expenditure with multiple meals, and that intermittent fasting accordingly would decrease metabolic rate and lead to increased fat accumulation and possibly obesity. According to current research though, TEF is proportional to the calorie content and vary with macronutrient composition (with the highest increase in energy expenditure observed with a high protein diet) and not meal frequency per se, as demonstrated by the equal TEF in different meal patterns under iso-caloric conditions (79,80). Furthermore, one study examined alterations in resting metabolic rate in human subjects on alternate-day fasting diets, and found no changes after a 22 day period (67). According to these findings, any potential decreases in metabolic rate would be due to decreased total calorie intake and not fasting per se.
The quote from above....http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/
This is attached below the quote. Apologies for the munching up of this topic.
- See more at: http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/#sthash.Zg9K6mNI.dpuf
So, the least impactful part of TDEE(TEF) isn't impacted. So the minoring in the minor leads to no change in the minor....per se.
0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »I dug.Each time you eat, metabolic rate increases slightly for a few hours. Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal.
Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 24 hours in a diet of 2700 kcal with 40% protein, 40% carbohydrate and 20% fat. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency.
A) Three meals: 900 kcal per meal. Six meals: 450 kcal per meal.
C) Nine meals: 300 kcal per meal.
What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. Example "A" would yield a larger and long lasting boost in metabolic rate that would gradually taper off until the next meal came around; TEF would show a "peak and valley"-pattern. "C" would yield a very weak but consistent boost in metabolic rate; an even pattern. "B" would be somewhere in between.
However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency.
Further reading: I have covered the topic of meal frequency at great length on this site before.
The most extensive review of studies on various meal frequencies and TEF was published in 1997. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1-17 meals and concluded:
"Studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging".
Since then, no studies have refuted this. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle McDonald.
Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times.
http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Intermittent Fasting Primer
This link contains various supporting links.
You are the hero MFP city needs.0 -
I came back and the conversation was the calorie content of feces. WTAF?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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
We understand. Do you understand that you're putting way too much effort into searching for minutae that are insignificant in relation to the whole?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.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.1K 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
- 437 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