Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are short fasts really helpful for burning fat?
Replies
-
@StealthHealth, I was thinking more of fat burned during the fasting/exercise itself as opposed to what continues to happen 24 hours later... I did not consider that aspect. Interesting! I will still imagine myself burning more fat this morning while I exercise before I eat. It is motivating.0
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Not all measurable effects, but I love what I have experienced since starting 18:6. I feel "ON". Clear-headed. Not hungry. No cravings. My blood pressure dropped to normal for the first time since I was a teenager. It had been in the 130/90s for several weeks after I lost weight, but only dropped into normal range after a few weeks of IF and maintaining weight. Maintaining a calorie target is a breeze. I'm not even logging anymore. It is easy to eat two ~700-calorie meals without measuring everything. Can you tell I'm a fan?
As far as the original question of whether or not it helps to burn fat, it makes sense to me that exercising while fasted, with very low levels of insulin and glycogen stores running out, would make more fat be utilized for energy.
Another great benefit is autophagy. Dr. Fung's website has a ton of stuff on the benefits of fasting. Here's the page on autophagy: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/
I've now done quite a few workouts after at least 12 hours of fasting. Today I even worked in some easy intervals, sort of easy HIIT and it went fine. I'm actually a little more comfortable when just doing normal intensity.
At first I though Dr. Fung was a bit of a quack, but after reading his blog I listened to his six part youtube series about obesity. He has a lot of good stuff to say. I'm warming up to what he is saying. He does a pretty good job of referencing his sources too.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Not all measurable effects, but I love what I have experienced since starting 18:6. I feel "ON". Clear-headed. Not hungry. No cravings. My blood pressure dropped to normal for the first time since I was a teenager. It had been in the 130/90s for several weeks after I lost weight, but only dropped into normal range after a few weeks of IF and maintaining weight. Maintaining a calorie target is a breeze. I'm not even logging anymore. It is easy to eat two ~700-calorie meals without measuring everything. Can you tell I'm a fan?
As far as the original question of whether or not it helps to burn fat, it makes sense to me that exercising while fasted, with very low levels of insulin and glycogen stores running out, would make more fat be utilized for energy.
Another great benefit is autophagy. Dr. Fung's website has a ton of stuff on the benefits of fasting. Here's the page on autophagy: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/
I'm a big fan also and can report similar positive effects.
I've bookmarked that autophargy blog post for future reading - Thanks for that I've been looking for something on that subject for a while.
With respect to fat usage in fasted exercise, I don't think the evidence points to that. During a recent post on another MFP thread I did a little bit of googling on google scholar and pulled up this 2011 paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Paoli/publication/50409403_Exercising_fasting_or_fed_to_enhance_fat_loss_Influence_of_food_intake_on_respiratory_ratio_and_excess_postexercise_oxygen_consumption_after_a_bout_of_endurance_training/links/0912f502eba1356566000000.pdf
"The authors conclude that when moderate endurance exercise is done to lose body fat,
fasting before exercise does not enhance lipid utilization; rather, physical activity after a light meal is advisable."
It's a small study but it's the only one I've seen (I'm no expert on this subject, but keen to learn) where fasted exercise was compared to fed, iso-colorifically in humans.
Interesting paper! I'm not really sure what to think but it is a lot of food for thought. The main problem I have with the study is the workout intensity was low. 65% of max HR on a treadmill, that is barely a brisk walk. Also who eats right before working out? It is kind of asking to end up losing your light meal on the floor or ground. Still it is exactly they type of study that starts sheading light on what is going on. I wonder how light of a meal could be used. Maybe a handful of nuts?0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »@StealthHealth, I was thinking more of fat burned during the fasting/exercise itself as opposed to what continues to happen 24 hours later... I did not consider that aspect. Interesting! I will still imagine myself burning more fat this morning while I exercise before I eat. It is motivating.
I'm kind of with you, I wouldn't expect much fat to be burned after such a light workout. I'm more of the push hard and continue to burn while the body is recovering school of thought.0 -
Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
You assume incorrectly.
The point of intermittent fasting is that it makes it easier for some people to adhere to a calorie deficit because fitting TDEE-500 into a four hour window makes for much larger meals than spreading out the same intake across the entire day.
All the potential hormonal benefits are fine and dandy but regardless of what your insulin levels do, you will not lose fat if you eat as much as you burn and you will lose fat if you eat less than you burn no matter whether you eat all day or only for four hours.
It is quite possible to gain fat even while eating at a calorie deficit. 1) This can happen with type 2 diabetics when they are put on insulin. Fat gets created and the metabolism is slowed down even more to make up the difference causing the person to feel lousy. That is one of the reasons that T2D is a progressive disease. While there is energy balance it isn't always simple or even something we can control. https://www.drugs.com/sfx/insulin-side-effects.html
2) Type 1 diabetics actually lose weight no matter how much they eat when their insulin is too low. They can gorge themselves and they literally die of starvation without insulin.
Potentially if fasting helps reset fix hormonal problems it could be a huge benefit even to relatively healthy people. However at this point it appears most studies are animal based. There is probably more information that I'm not aware of it.
1) This is an example of a disease affecting the CO side of CICO. When Type 2 diabetics gain weight, it is because their CO is less than their CI. The fact that hormonal problems can affect CO doesn't mean that they are gaining weight while in a calorie deficit.
2) This is an example of the reverse, where a disease is affecting the CI side of CICO. When the body is unable to process the food taken in (as in the example you give), the CI will be affected and potentially create a calorie deficit. This does not mean that you can lose weight while in a calorie surplus. It means that there are diseases that can cause the surplus to not occur.
Healthy people don't have these problems so I don't see how fixing these problems (if IF is even effective in managing these problems in humans) could be a "huge benefit" to them.
You admit there are things thing modify CI & CO. In fact I only gave two simple examples there are dozens to hundreds of other modifiers. The human body isn't a simple closed system and food is used for a lot more than just providing energy. The overwhelming evidence is that most diets fail. If it was simple then that wouldn't be the case.
I understand your concerns about IF. I was of the same mindset a few months ago. Even though I've been doing some short fasts with positive results, I haven't made up my mine yet.
I never contested that there are things that modify CI and CO. That was never put up for debate.
You claimed that it's possible to gain fat while eating in a calorie deficit. This is absolutely false and the very fact that CI and CO can be modified is what explains away your examples.
Where you say that people are gaining fat in a deficit, I say the deficit didn't exist due to the factors affecting CO.
You are actually playing a word game. I'll say it clearly, it is completely possible to choose a calorie level that should be a deficit and still gain weight. Yes the actual reason is because the body is not truly at a deficit and a big part of that is there are a lot of things that can modify CI and CO. Additionally everything we do to determine or measure it is only estimates. From a pragmatic view point it is the same as gaining weight while eating at a calorie deficit.
Almost all diets work for a while and then fail within six months. People plateau and sometimes get going again and often just start gaining back the weight. At least CO has changed and likely the metabolism is lower. Intermitted fasting my be a solution to that problem even without additional calorie reductions. However there is a lot of conflicting information because a low of what is known about fasting is from much longer fasts where people are actually starving.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.2 -
I found something interesting but it will take a while to read it. http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/0
-
Another interesting paper: http://caloriesproper.com/skipping-meals-intermittent-fasting-grazing-etc/
I've actually been mostly eating lighter dinners or skipping them and I've been moving more of my working into the period from waking up and before breakfast. That means I'm getting up early.
When dinner is skipped I end up with about a 20 hour fast and really look forward to my fruity breakfast oatmeal. I also think it is easier for me to work more vegetables into a shorter period than fruit so breakfast helps with that. When I do eat dinner it is typically centered around a large lower carb salad and maybe some protein like a piece of salmon. My other meals are not low carb. So for me it is intermittent fasting as basically calorie neutral. I'm just experimenting now and will lose two weeks to travel. Just too hard to do when traveling.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.
It IS that simple. Glycogen depletion from high intensity exercise gets refilled by incoming carbs, creating a larger deficit during the times you're at rest -> burning fat. And muscle loss isn't an issue for anyone getting their nutritional needs and working out.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.
It IS that simple. Glycogen depletion from high intensity exercise gets refilled by incoming carbs, creating a larger deficit during the times you're at rest -> burning fat. And muscle loss isn't an issue for anyone getting their nutritional needs and working out.
There are many variables and many possible outcomes but typically only about 5% are successful with losing fat and keeping it off. As for the glycogen depletion, very few people actually can actually burn so much glycogen that it can't be replaced from the food being consumed. It is really very difficult to just exercise yourself slim.
Intermittent fasting though would help a lot by helping making it easier to deplete more glycogen and providing periods where blood glucose and insulin are lower. People aren't successful with burning fat if insulin levels are too high. It is likely that most people are in that state most of the waking hours. If those people eat a calorie deficit they end up feeling horrible because the body reduces energy expenditure if it can burn enough fat.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.
Dinner, breakfast, lunch, dinner, skip breakfast, skip lunch and repeat? Was the dinner at the end of 24 hours the 500 calories?0 -
I have no idea whether intermittent fasting actually helps fat loss or not. Having two satisfying meals a day and feeling full is more enjoyable for me than having more meals spread out through the day and always feeling like I'd like to eat something else.6
-
I've been IF for a couple months. I haven't really noticed anything different other than cardio sucks fasted for me. Fat loss? Meh. It all comes down to energy balance. Can IF effect it? I don't know. It doesn't seem so in my case though from a completely unscientific n-1. That being said, I don't have a ton of fat to shed so not sure that plays a role either.2
-
stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.
It IS that simple. Glycogen depletion from high intensity exercise gets refilled by incoming carbs, creating a larger deficit during the times you're at rest -> burning fat. And muscle loss isn't an issue for anyone getting their nutritional needs and working out.
There are many variables and many possible outcomes but typically only about 5% are successful with losing fat and keeping it off. As for the glycogen depletion, very few people actually can actually burn so much glycogen that it can't be replaced from the food being consumed. It is really very difficult to just exercise yourself slim.
Intermittent fasting though would help a lot by helping making it easier to deplete more glycogen and providing periods where blood glucose and insulin are lower. People aren't successful with burning fat if insulin levels are too high. It is likely that most people are in that state most of the waking hours. If those people eat a calorie deficit they end up feeling horrible because the body reduces energy expenditure if it can burn enough fat.
The 5% number is taken from an amount of people they didn't even know if they were trying to lose in the first place.
Glycogen replacement is the reason you still lose fat even when you're doing strenuous exercise that "burns carbs not fat" which is the origin of those stupid fat burning zone workout *kittens*.
Carbs that are turned to glycogen to refill your tank aren't used to fuel your caloric needs, so you're burning bodyfat while refilling your glycogen because substrate utilization shifts to primarily fat while at rest.
Your glycogen does not have to be depleted to lose fat. Your insulin is lower if you're in a deficit anyway and the idea that you need to decrease insulin to lose fat is bunk to begin with.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.
It IS that simple. Glycogen depletion from high intensity exercise gets refilled by incoming carbs, creating a larger deficit during the times you're at rest -> burning fat. And muscle loss isn't an issue for anyone getting their nutritional needs and working out.
There are many variables and many possible outcomes but typically only about 5% are successful with losing fat and keeping it off. As for the glycogen depletion, very few people actually can actually burn so much glycogen that it can't be replaced from the food being consumed. It is really very difficult to just exercise yourself slim.
Intermittent fasting though would help a lot by helping making it easier to deplete more glycogen and providing periods where blood glucose and insulin are lower. People aren't successful with burning fat if insulin levels are too high. It is likely that most people are in that state most of the waking hours. If those people eat a calorie deficit they end up feeling horrible because the body reduces energy expenditure if it can burn enough fat.
The 5% number is taken from an amount of people they didn't even know if they were trying to lose in the first place.
Glycogen replacement is the reason you still lose fat even when you're doing strenuous exercise that "burns carbs not fat" which is the origin of those stupid fat burning zone workout *kittens*.
Carbs that are turned to glycogen to refill your tank aren't used to fuel your caloric needs, so you're burning bodyfat while refilling your glycogen because substrate utilization shifts to primarily fat while at rest.
Your glycogen does not have to be depleted to lose fat. Your insulin is lower if you're in a deficit anyway and the idea that you need to decrease insulin to lose fat is bunk to begin with.
The body isn't just about burning fuel, it also changes the rate that fuel is burned. That is metabolism and that is why so people can feel horrible in a calorie deficit. Lower metabolic processes are typically of being sick rather than healthy.
The 5% figure actually came from weight watchers long term success rate, it was actually more like 4.6%. I ran across it while reading Dr. Jason Fung's blog. https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/how-do-we-gain-weight-calories-part-1/ Any it is very clear that the majority of people are not successful for very long at losing weight.
Weight loss and gain isn't simple because we have very little control over our energy balance and almost no control over how our bodies deal with energy imbalance. Tools like fasting and exercise may give us a little more influence, but it still isn't direct control. However something is a lot better than nothing.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.
Dinner, breakfast, lunch, dinner, skip breakfast, skip lunch and repeat? Was the dinner at the end of 24 hours the 500 calories?
Yeah sorry, my post was unclear.
On my up day i would eat as normal, 2-3 meals a day. Dinner was my last meal at around 5-6, the next day was my 500 calorie day and i wouldn't eat anything til dinner, which was the whole 500 cals for one meal. So it was a 24 hour fast every second day.0 -
This study found that exercise-induced fat metabolism is enhanced while fasted.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21051570rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
Although it makes sense to me that fasting gives us a bit of an edge, I definitely agree with you. The long-term effects of calorie restriction and exercise are much more noteworthy.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.
Dinner, breakfast, lunch, dinner, skip breakfast, skip lunch and repeat? Was the dinner at the end of 24 hours the 500 calories?
Yeah sorry, my post was unclear.
On my up day i would eat as normal, 2-3 meals a day. Dinner was my last meal at around 5-6, the next day was my 500 calorie day and i wouldn't eat anything til dinner, which was the whole 500 cals for one meal. So it was a 24 hour fast every second day.
That makes sense, thanks. The reason why I asked is some people talk about drinking some calories during a fast, which I don't really understand.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.
Dinner, breakfast, lunch, dinner, skip breakfast, skip lunch and repeat? Was the dinner at the end of 24 hours the 500 calories?
Yeah sorry, my post was unclear.
On my up day i would eat as normal, 2-3 meals a day. Dinner was my last meal at around 5-6, the next day was my 500 calorie day and i wouldn't eat anything til dinner, which was the whole 500 cals for one meal. So it was a 24 hour fast every second day.
That makes sense, thanks. The reason why I asked is some people talk about drinking some calories during a fast, which I don't really understand.
I agree, what i did is officially call Alternate day fasting, but it's not a "true" fast. Some say anything over 50 calories breaks a fast, like a couple cups of coffee with milk will end it.0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
This study found that exercise-induced fat metabolism is enhanced while fasted.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21051570rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
Although it makes sense to me that fasting gives us a bit of an edge, I definitely agree with you. The long-term effects of calorie restriction and exercise are much more noteworthy.
Thanks for the study link. It seems in this study the exercise was at a more reasonable level than in the other in the other which was walking on a treadmill at 65% of max HR for 36 minutes.
Exercise over the long term does reduce fat if a person doesn't compensate and overeat, but it isn't a quick process. Exercise is more about improving heath and fat lose is just a part of that.0 -
I'm more interested in intermitted fasting as a way to bring the body back to a more healthy state. That goes along with the theory that excess fat storage is actually a protective mechanism to deal with too much insulin in the blood. High insulin causes fat to be stored, low insulin allows fat to be burned. There are multiple approaches to lower insulin, ketogenic diets, glycemic diets, calorie reduction, drugs, fasting, exercise and so forth. There are tradeoffs with all approaches. It is also important to keep in mind that insulin isn't the only factor and there are other hormones involved. Also it is important to note that heathy hormone levels will not be maintained if there is sustained over-eating. The causes of obesity is multifactorial including at least the amount of calories consumed, type of food consumed, genetics, gender, metabolic health, general health, smoking, drinking, other habits and activity level.
Simple calorie reduction is often pushed as the solution. In the short-term, calorie reduction almost always works. Still there are lots of issues with calorie reduction that often aren't addressed. Everything is estimates, there are also lots of adjustments that a body can make that impact the input and use of calories. Worst a result of using calorie reduction can be a lower metabolism that persists long term. This then makes it easier for people to regain the weight. For a study on this effect see http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.longBackground: After weight loss, total energy expenditure—in particular, energy expenditure at low levels of physical activity—is lower than predicted by actual changes in body weight and composition. An important clinical issue is whether this reduction, which predisposes to weight regain, persists over time.
Objective: We aimed to determine whether this disproportionate reduction in energy expenditure persists in persons who have maintained a body-weight reduction of ≥10% for >1 y.
Design: Seven trios of sex- and weight-matched subjects were studied in an in-patient setting while receiving a weight-maintaining liquid formula diet of identical composition. Each trio consisted of a subject at usual weight (Wtinitial), a subject maintaining a weight reduction of ≥10% after recent (5–8 wk) completion of weight loss (Wtloss-recent), and a subject who had maintained a documented reduction in body weight of >10% for >1 y (Wtloss-sustained). Twenty-four-hour total energy expenditure (TEE) was assessed by precise titration of fed calories of a liquid formula diet necessary to maintain body weight. Resting energy expenditure (REE) and the thermic effect of feeding (TEF) were measured by indirect calorimetry. Nonresting energy expenditure (NREE) was calculated as NREE = TEE − (REE +TEF).
Results: TEE, NREE, and (to a lesser extent) REE were significantly lower in the Wtloss-sustained and Wtloss-recent groups than in the Wtinitial group. Differences from the Wtinitial group in energy expenditure were qualitatively and quantitatively similar after recent and sustained weight loss.
Conclusion: Declines in energy expenditure favoring the regain of lost weight persist well beyond the period of dynamic weight loss.1 -
I'm more interested in intermitted fasting as a way to bring the body back to a more healthy state.
If you are overweight and it helps you lose weight it will do that.That goes along with the theory that excess fat storage is actually a protective mechanism to deal with too much insulin in the blood. High insulin causes fat to be stored, low insulin allows fat to be burned.
This doesn't make sense in the absence of a calorie surplus/deficit. You will burn more fat than you store with a calorie deficit (and not have enough consistent insulin or topped up glycogen stores to interfere with that). If you store more fat than you burn it's because you have eaten more calories than you need to fuel activity. Nothing else makes sense.
Also, if someone is IR, that means their body is LESS able to store fat than someone with normal insulin sensitivity. Their cells are resistant to insulin, which is why their body keeps making more and more. To blame insulin resistance for fatness, rather than excess calories and obesity for become IR (much more common, although there is an inherent genetic risk factor and not everyone obese gets IR or everyone IR is obese), seems like an excuse, a desire to believe that you gained weight for some reason besides overeating.
If hunger is an issue, trying things like keto and IF could help with that, of course.
I like the idea of IF for reasons unrelated to any physical effects (which I am skeptical about). I find it more satisfying to eat main meals and not snack or graze and I think the latter is too often encouraged and doesn't work well for many, whereas things like eating windows and ADF/5:2 might. I also think experimenting with partial fasts or low cal days can be educational. I've never had trouble running on a 12-hour fast (which I don't personally consider a fast), but I do have issues so far exercising hard a on low cal day (500 cal).
In addition to experimenting with IF, I've experimented with mostly plant-based diets, including ways of eating that are much higher carb than what I normally fall into (my default seems to be 40% carbs). I have not found at all that I am tempted to eat more on this higher carb way of eating or gain weight -- quite the opposite. (But I like meat, eggs, and dairy, so...)4 -
Lemur said everything I was gonna say, just better and with less kittens.5
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm more interested in intermitted fasting as a way to bring the body back to a more healthy state.
If you are overweight and it helps you lose weight it will do that.That goes along with the theory that excess fat storage is actually a protective mechanism to deal with too much insulin in the blood. High insulin causes fat to be stored, low insulin allows fat to be burned.
This doesn't make sense in the absence of a calorie surplus/deficit. You will burn more fat than you store with a calorie deficit (and not have enough consistent insulin or topped up glycogen stores to interfere with that). If you store more fat than you burn it's because you have eaten more calories than you need to fuel activity. Nothing else makes sense.
Also, if someone is IR, that means their body is LESS able to store fat than someone with normal insulin sensitivity. Their cells are resistant to insulin, which is why their body keeps making more and more. To blame insulin resistance for fatness, rather than excess calories and obesity for become IR (much more common, although there is an inherent genetic risk factor and not everyone obese gets IR or everyone IR is obese), seems like an excuse, a desire to believe that you gained weight for some reason besides overeating.
If hunger is an issue, trying things like keto and IF could help with that, of course.
I like the idea of IF for reasons unrelated to any physical effects (which I am skeptical about). I find it more satisfying to eat main meals and not snack or graze and I think the latter is too often encouraged and doesn't work well for many, whereas things like eating windows and ADF/5:2 might. I also think experimenting with partial fasts or low cal days can be educational. I've never had trouble running on a 12-hour fast (which I don't personally consider a fast), but I do have issues so far exercising hard a on low cal day (500 cal).
In addition to experimenting with IF, I've experimented with mostly plant-based diets, including ways of eating that are much higher carb than what I normally fall into (my default seems to be 40% carbs). I have not found at all that I am tempted to eat more on this higher carb way of eating or gain weight -- quite the opposite. (But I like meat, eggs, and dairy, so...)
You have it backwards with insulin resistance and fat storage. If you are IR it means your body is producing a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That high insulin will force glucose into the cells and that increases fat storage. The high levels of insulin a take longer to clear out of the blood preventing fat from being burned. When the body can no longer produce enough insulin to overcome the resistance you have type 2 diabetes and likely to be given even more insulin. The result of higher levels of insulin is more weight gain.
It is understandable thinking that IR blocks fat storage as it does increase the required levels of insulin to store fat. The problem is that normally people don't have problems with producing ever higher amounts of insulin and often are obese before they reach a point that insulin production can't keep up. Once insulin production can't overcome the resistance, you quickly become ill.
When you are insulin sensitive not very much insulin is needed to get glucose to be absorbed into cells. Then while fasting (even between meals or snacks) the insulin level drops to lower levels that don't inhibit fat burning.
IR (insulin resistance) is a marker for metabolic disease as with obesity. Higher insulin levels correspond to higher levels of body fat. http://www.jci.org/articles/view/10842 Insulin isn't the only hormone involved in fat storage, it is just the primary one.
How this makes you fat when you are eating less makes sense when you realize the body has control over it's resting metabolism. There are a lot of changes the body can make to reduce metabolism and most of them leave a person feeling lousy or at least tried and weak.
As far as if 12 hour fast is valid or not, I'm not sure. Probably everyone hits 12 hours sometimes. When I have fasted it has been closer to 20 hours. My exercise patterns are continuing to improve with short fasts. A couple months ago I could only do easy walks, now I'm up to light HIIT. I don't know if that is normal, but I did take a pretty big hit at first.0 -
I wish i could remember where i read this and the exact details, but the gist of it was that people were 'healthier' and "more disease free" in the great depression, and one of the reasons was put down to fasting aka not enough food.
Obviously there was much more to it than i just explained, I will try and find it.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I wish i could remember where i read this and the exact details, but the gist of it was that people were 'healthier' and "more disease free" in the great depression, and one of the reasons was put down to fasting aka not enough food.
Obviously there was much more to it than i just explained, I will try and find it.
I've also read there were also large decreases in diabetes during the WWI & WWII in the US probably due to sugar rationing. I think I might have read that in Dr. Jason Fong's blog.0 -
Just a clarification post where I'm assuming intermittent fasting is as beneficial at reducing average insulin levels.
Let's say 500 calorie deficit is maintained, some possible outcomes.- (1) Doing Intermittent fasting and it helps
- --- Result building more fat than the deficit and the body raises metabolism to make up the difference! Yay!
- (2) CICO prediction
- --- Burn deficit in fat
- (3) Typical result
- --- Burn less than deficit in fat and the body reduces metabolism to make up the difference.
- (4) Sickly result
- --- No fat loss and the body reduces metabolism by the deficit amount. People feel sluggish, low energy, etc
- (5) Worse case result
- --- Fat is added and the metabolism is reduced by more than the deficit. Insulin resistance is high and increasing, next stop is probably type 2 diabetes. At this point a person has at least one foot in the grave.
I'm pretty sure that 4 years ago before I started exercising again I was dipping into state 5 and quickly headed for an untimely death. Exercise didn't cure the problem, but did start to help improve the situation. Improving my diet helped even more. Now I'm seeking better results, maybe with some fasting. I'm warming up to the idea.
I personally believe most people hover around state 3. Very few people obtain state 2 (the CICO prediction) but a few do and they are very vocal here on MFP. I'm hopeful that state one is achievable and my initial results are encouraging but it is an extremely high bar.0 - (1) Doing Intermittent fasting and it helps
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm more interested in intermitted fasting as a way to bring the body back to a more healthy state.
If you are overweight and it helps you lose weight it will do that.That goes along with the theory that excess fat storage is actually a protective mechanism to deal with too much insulin in the blood. High insulin causes fat to be stored, low insulin allows fat to be burned.
This doesn't make sense in the absence of a calorie surplus/deficit. You will burn more fat than you store with a calorie deficit (and not have enough consistent insulin or topped up glycogen stores to interfere with that). If you store more fat than you burn it's because you have eaten more calories than you need to fuel activity. Nothing else makes sense.
Also, if someone is IR, that means their body is LESS able to store fat than someone with normal insulin sensitivity. Their cells are resistant to insulin, which is why their body keeps making more and more. To blame insulin resistance for fatness, rather than excess calories and obesity for become IR (much more common, although there is an inherent genetic risk factor and not everyone obese gets IR or everyone IR is obese), seems like an excuse, a desire to believe that you gained weight for some reason besides overeating.
If hunger is an issue, trying things like keto and IF could help with that, of course.
I like the idea of IF for reasons unrelated to any physical effects (which I am skeptical about). I find it more satisfying to eat main meals and not snack or graze and I think the latter is too often encouraged and doesn't work well for many, whereas things like eating windows and ADF/5:2 might. I also think experimenting with partial fasts or low cal days can be educational. I've never had trouble running on a 12-hour fast (which I don't personally consider a fast), but I do have issues so far exercising hard a on low cal day (500 cal).
In addition to experimenting with IF, I've experimented with mostly plant-based diets, including ways of eating that are much higher carb than what I normally fall into (my default seems to be 40% carbs). I have not found at all that I am tempted to eat more on this higher carb way of eating or gain weight -- quite the opposite. (But I like meat, eggs, and dairy, so...)
You have it backwards with insulin resistance and fat storage. If you are IR it means your body is producing a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That high insulin will force glucose into the cells and that increases fat storage. The high levels of insulin a take longer to clear out of the blood preventing fat from being burned. When the body can no longer produce enough insulin to overcome the resistance you have type 2 diabetes and likely to be given even more insulin. The result of higher levels of insulin is more weight gain.
Nope, although what you post is a common misunderstanding.
IR means that the cells are resistant to insulin -- it doesn't do it's job and so the body needs to produce more and more. It doesn't result in MORE fat being stored in the cells, however. Just more insulin.
There's no need for insulin to be continually present unless you also just keep eating and eating.
Anyway, bigger point is that typically IR follows obesity, not the reverse. And plenty of obese people aren't IR.
Are you IR, or just assuming? I am not and never was.As far as if 12 hour fast is valid or not, I'm not sure. Probably everyone hits 12 hours sometimes.
Right -- I'm not saying it's not "valid" but simply not what I'd consider a fast. Eat dinner at 6 (as I occasionally do) and don't eat til 10 the next day or even wait until noon (not uncommon for me on a weekend, although less common than it used to be). That's not a fast in my book. What I consider a fast is nothing for a full day -- like between dinner on Aug 6 and breakfast on Aug 8. IF is not based on full fasts, of course -- for the purpose of IF you do a window or a low cal day (like I said, 5:2 or ADF is what appeals to me).
I mostly run and bike and swim for cardio. I can run fasted without issue, but I have a hard time running and sticking to 500 calories (as on a low day with 5:2) and not struggling. Not sure if that goes away or not, so I've been assuming I'd have to exercise on eating days and take the low days as recovery, but am a bit worried that that might interfere with recovery. I need to just experiment, I suppose.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm more interested in intermitted fasting as a way to bring the body back to a more healthy state.
If you are overweight and it helps you lose weight it will do that.That goes along with the theory that excess fat storage is actually a protective mechanism to deal with too much insulin in the blood. High insulin causes fat to be stored, low insulin allows fat to be burned.
This doesn't make sense in the absence of a calorie surplus/deficit. You will burn more fat than you store with a calorie deficit (and not have enough consistent insulin or topped up glycogen stores to interfere with that). If you store more fat than you burn it's because you have eaten more calories than you need to fuel activity. Nothing else makes sense.
Also, if someone is IR, that means their body is LESS able to store fat than someone with normal insulin sensitivity. Their cells are resistant to insulin, which is why their body keeps making more and more. To blame insulin resistance for fatness, rather than excess calories and obesity for become IR (much more common, although there is an inherent genetic risk factor and not everyone obese gets IR or everyone IR is obese), seems like an excuse, a desire to believe that you gained weight for some reason besides overeating.
If hunger is an issue, trying things like keto and IF could help with that, of course.
I like the idea of IF for reasons unrelated to any physical effects (which I am skeptical about). I find it more satisfying to eat main meals and not snack or graze and I think the latter is too often encouraged and doesn't work well for many, whereas things like eating windows and ADF/5:2 might. I also think experimenting with partial fasts or low cal days can be educational. I've never had trouble running on a 12-hour fast (which I don't personally consider a fast), but I do have issues so far exercising hard a on low cal day (500 cal).
In addition to experimenting with IF, I've experimented with mostly plant-based diets, including ways of eating that are much higher carb than what I normally fall into (my default seems to be 40% carbs). I have not found at all that I am tempted to eat more on this higher carb way of eating or gain weight -- quite the opposite. (But I like meat, eggs, and dairy, so...)
You have it backwards with insulin resistance and fat storage. If you are IR it means your body is producing a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That high insulin will force glucose into the cells and that increases fat storage. The high levels of insulin a take longer to clear out of the blood preventing fat from being burned. When the body can no longer produce enough insulin to overcome the resistance you have type 2 diabetes and likely to be given even more insulin. The result of higher levels of insulin is more weight gain.
Nope, although what you post is a common misunderstanding.
IR means that the cells are resistant to insulin -- it doesn't do it's job and so the body needs to produce more and more. It doesn't result in MORE fat being stored in the cells, however. Just more insulin.
There's no need for insulin to be continually present unless you also just keep eating and eating.
Anyway, bigger point is that typically IR follows obesity, not the reverse. And plenty of obese people aren't IR.
Are you IR, or just assuming? I am not and never was.As far as if 12 hour fast is valid or not, I'm not sure. Probably everyone hits 12 hours sometimes.
Right -- I'm not saying it's not "valid" but simply not what I'd consider a fast. Eat dinner at 6 (as I occasionally do) and don't eat til 10 the next day or even wait until noon (not uncommon for me on a weekend, although less common than it used to be). That's not a fast in my book. What I consider a fast is nothing for a full day -- like between dinner on Aug 6 and breakfast on Aug 8. IF is not based on full fasts, of course -- for the purpose of IF you do a window or a low cal day (like I said, 5:2 or ADF is what appeals to me).
I mostly run and bike and swim for cardio. I can run fasted without issue, but I have a hard time running and sticking to 500 calories (as on a low day with 5:2) and not struggling. Not sure if that goes away or not, so I've been assuming I'd have to exercise on eating days and take the low days as recovery, but am a bit worried that that might interfere with recovery. I need to just experiment, I suppose.
About five years ago I was pre-diabetic and most likely was IR.
Anyway what you are saying about high insulin levels is simply incorrect. High insulin also pushes glucose and fatty acids into fat cells and that makes them bigger. In short insulin is an anabolic hormone. Insulin resistance prevents insulin from being as effective and results in higher levels of glucose in the blood which triggers more insulin production. At some point the glucose does go into cells and it takes time for insulin levels to fall to the point that lipolysis isn't inhibited.
http://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227(11)70014-6/abstract
In short, high levels of insulin stimulates fat storage and prevents fat from being metabolized. IR not only means that your cells are resisting insulin, it also means the body is producing more insulin to overcome the resistance. When you hit the point that the insulin resistance isn't overcome you are then a type 2 diabetic.
The whole point of LCHF diets is to keep blood sugar low so that insulin stays low so that fat can be metabolized.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions