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
-
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.
No -- taking the last point first, the reason LCHF works is because people cut calories. For some it helps with appetite, for others reducing choices just helps with calories. Fat is burned by all of us, low carb or not, and how much is burned in relation to what is added depends on...wait for it!...calories.
Your link doesn't work for me, but where we are disagreeing is the claim that more insulin due to IR results in MORE fat being added, all else equal. That makes no sense. Again, in a normal, insulin sensitive person, you eat, need to store glucose, insulin comes to do its job and shuttles glucose into storage as glycogen in the muscles and liver and, if there is extra, as fat in the cells.
If one is insulin resistant it can't do it's job so more and more is produced until the cells finally respond. How does this result in MORE fat being stored -- it's harder to store fat.
Probably what also happens in many is that because insulin does not get a normal response it also fails to get the reduction in appetite that most get with insulin doing its job, so hunger can be problematic, especially when carbs are consumed (consistent with the fact that many with IR report that low carb helps with hunger issues).4 -
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No -- taking the last point first, the reason LCHF works is because people cut calories. For some it helps with appetite, for others reducing choices just helps with calories. Fat is burned by all of us, low carb or not, and how much is burned in relation to what is added depends on...wait for it!...calories.
Your link doesn't work for me, but where we are disagreeing is the claim that more insulin due to IR results in MORE fat being added, all else equal. That makes no sense. Again, in a normal, insulin sensitive person, you eat, need to store glucose, insulin comes to do its job and shuttles glucose into storage as glycogen in the muscles and liver and, if there is extra, as fat in the cells.
If one is insulin resistant it can't do it's job so more and more is produced until the cells finally respond. How does this result in MORE fat being stored -- it's harder to store fat.
Probably what also happens in many is that because insulin does not get a normal response it also fails to get the reduction in appetite that most get with insulin doing its job, so hunger can be problematic, especially when carbs are consumed (consistent with the fact that many with IR report that low carb helps with hunger issues).
You are having a basic understanding issue. IR doesn't mean that insulin doesn't do it's job it means it takes more insulin to do the same job that less insulin used to do. There are something like 100 trillion cells in the human body and many are dying and being replaced every day. All kinds of processes are going on at the same time. Even levels of insulin resistance can be changing some everyday.
Another definition of insulin resistance: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/122501-overviewInsulin resistance is a state in which a given concentration of insulin produces a less-than-expected biological effect. (See Pathophysiology.) Insulin resistance has also been arbitrarily defined as the requirement of 200 or more units of insulin per day to attain glycemic control and to prevent ketosis.
It is true that if no food is consumed there can't be any fat production. However it isn't true that you have to consume a large amount of calories to have fat production. The problem is we don't control what is done with calories, our bodies control that. We really have no idea just how many calories are be used for what at any given moment or if foods are even what a given food is going to be used for. There are pretty good ideas and estimates but it isn't something we control. The body can wildly change how many calories it is using or not using and we either benefit or suffer from it. In many cases reducing calorie intake just reduces the amount of calories used. It is very difficult to know what the energy balance is at any given point and even if it is determined at one point it can be different at a different point in time. That is why calorie restrictive diets don't work long term.
Fasting is something everyone experiences everyday. When extending a fast, blood glucose levels will be lower and insulin will also stay low for much longer. This removes one barrier to metabolizing fat. That doesn't mean you won't gain fat if you don't control your eating after the fast, it just gives one a better fighting chance of reducing stored fat.
As for the other link, http://www.diabetesresearchclinicalpractice.com/article/S0168-8227(11)70014-6/abstract
Note I formatted it a bit to make the points easier to see.The major effects of insulin on muscle and adipose tissue are:
(1) Carbohydrate metabolism:
(a) it increases the rate of glucose transport across the cell membrane,
(b) it increases the rate of glycolysis by increasing hexokinase and 6-phosphofructokinase activity,
(c) it stimulates the rate of glycogen synthesis and decreases the rate of glycogen breakdown.
(2) Lipid metabolism:
(a) it decreases the rate of lipolysis in adipose tissue and hence lowers the plasma fatty acid level,
(b) it stimulates fatty acid and triacylglycerol synthesis in tissues,
(c) it increases the uptake of triglycerides from the blood into adipose tissue and muscle,
(d) it decreases the rate of fatty acid oxidation in muscle and liver.
(3) Protein metabolism:
(a) it increases the rate of transport of some amino acids into tissues,
(b) it increases the rate of protein synthesis in muscle, adipose tissue, liver, and other tissues,
(c) it decreases the rate of protein degradation in muscle (and perhaps other tissues).
These insulin effects serve to encourage the synthesis of carbohydrate, fat and protein, therefore, insulin can be considered to be an anabolic hormone.
0 -
Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
Thoust is correct.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
A diet can fail because people give up on it, but on their own with 100% compliance diets still eventually fail. That is because the human body adjusts to the diet.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »
A diet can fail because people give up on it, but on their own with 100% compliance diets still eventually fail. That is because the human body adjusts to the diet.
That's wrong.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.
It is all about the dosage. IR people just produce a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That is the problem, as it takes longer for the insulin to reach lower levels where fat can be metabolized. Hence if you are IR, you can still store fat because your high insulin levels but you can't burn the fat as often because of the high insulin levels.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No -- taking the last point first, the reason LCHF works is because people cut calories. For some it helps with appetite, for others reducing choices just helps with calories. Fat is burned by all of us, low carb or not, and how much is burned in relation to what is added depends on...wait for it!...calories.
Your link doesn't work for me, but where we are disagreeing is the claim that more insulin due to IR results in MORE fat being added, all else equal. That makes no sense. Again, in a normal, insulin sensitive person, you eat, need to store glucose, insulin comes to do its job and shuttles glucose into storage as glycogen in the muscles and liver and, if there is extra, as fat in the cells.
If one is insulin resistant it can't do it's job so more and more is produced until the cells finally respond. How does this result in MORE fat being stored -- it's harder to store fat.
Probably what also happens in many is that because insulin does not get a normal response it also fails to get the reduction in appetite that most get with insulin doing its job, so hunger can be problematic, especially when carbs are consumed (consistent with the fact that many with IR report that low carb helps with hunger issues).
You are having a basic understanding issue. IR doesn't mean that insulin doesn't do it's job it means it takes more insulin to do the same job that less insulin used to do.
So it's not doing it's job properly. I don't see how what you are saying is different. The excess insulin is because you need more to get the cells to respond; it doesn't mean there's extra super storage of fat or whatever.It is true that if no food is consumed there can't be any fat production. However it isn't true that you have to consume a large amount of calories to have fat production.
Again, you are arguing against a strawman.
What is true is that you need to consume excess calories (more calories than you burn) to add net fat (more fat than you burn).
You are obviously always adding and using fat--which is why trying to exercise in the "fat burning zone" is unnecessary. However, if at a consistent calorie deficit your glycogen stores are unlikely to be full so you probably aren't adding much fat (and you are burning it).
The idea that you can somehow burn more fat than you can account for by the calorie deficit by eating more fat doesn't hold up.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
No -- taking the last point first, the reason LCHF works is because people cut calories. For some it helps with appetite, for others reducing choices just helps with calories. Fat is burned by all of us, low carb or not, and how much is burned in relation to what is added depends on...wait for it!...calories.
Your link doesn't work for me, but where we are disagreeing is the claim that more insulin due to IR results in MORE fat being added, all else equal. That makes no sense. Again, in a normal, insulin sensitive person, you eat, need to store glucose, insulin comes to do its job and shuttles glucose into storage as glycogen in the muscles and liver and, if there is extra, as fat in the cells.
If one is insulin resistant it can't do it's job so more and more is produced until the cells finally respond. How does this result in MORE fat being stored -- it's harder to store fat.
Probably what also happens in many is that because insulin does not get a normal response it also fails to get the reduction in appetite that most get with insulin doing its job, so hunger can be problematic, especially when carbs are consumed (consistent with the fact that many with IR report that low carb helps with hunger issues).
You are having a basic understanding issue. IR doesn't mean that insulin doesn't do it's job it means it takes more insulin to do the same job that less insulin used to do.
So it's not doing it's job properly. I don't see how what you are saying is different. The excess insulin is because you need more to get the cells to respond; it doesn't mean there's extra super storage of fat or whatever.It is true that if no food is consumed there can't be any fat production. However it isn't true that you have to consume a large amount of calories to have fat production.
Again, you are arguing against a strawman.
What is true is that you need to consume excess calories (more calories than you burn) to add net fat (more fat than you burn).
You are obviously always adding and using fat--which is why trying to exercise in the "fat burning zone" is unnecessary. However, if at a consistent calorie deficit your glycogen stores are unlikely to be full so you probably aren't adding much fat (and you are burning it).
The idea that you can somehow burn more fat than you can account for by the calorie deficit by eating more fat doesn't hold up.
The problem is the body does produce the insulin and the insulin does do it's job for a much longer period of the day. That part is that it prevents fat from being metabolize. Then the body has no choice but to lower metabolism so that it can stay alive. More insulin promotes fat storage, less insulin allows for fat reduction.
You ideas seemed to be based on metabolism being a constant. Metabolism is often changing and at any given point in time one doesn't know what their metabolism is. There is no way for a person to really know how much of a calorie deficit or surplus they actually have. Weeks or months later an estimate can be calculated.
Even if there is a surplus of food consumed, it doesn't mean all the surplus will be converted to fat, the body also uses nutrients form food to rebuild, that even happens in a caloric deficit but just to a lesser extent. The point is we have very little control over what our bodies does with the food we consume.
There are many processes going on and the end result is very complex. There isn't any simple control mechanism, there are only influences on our part. Basically we can't control too many things; mainly how much we eat, what we eat, when we eat, how active we are and when we are active. Sure there is also things like drinking, sleeping and what all else we put in our bodies. The point is we don't have direct control of our metabolism. That is actual a good then because if we did we would probably all be dead, it is just too complex.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »
A diet can fail because people give up on it, but on their own with 100% compliance diets still eventually fail. That is because the human body adjusts to the diet.
That's wrong.
There are plenty of studies that show that all calorie restrictive diets fail over time. This has been well know for at least a 100 years. Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. There is a small percentage of people that don't seem to suffer the same failure rates that most do, but they are not the rule.
Probably the largest failure to date has been the push to lower fat diets around the world. Basically 40 years of lower fat in the diet has pushed the world to being the most obese it ever has ever been. Fat consumption is down, body fat is up and that is mostly worldwide.
0 -
I'm running out of time as I have to head to the states tomorrow. I'm planning a 30 hour fast to try and reset my clock faster to US time. I'm sure I'll make up the calories as I've packed dried fruit, nuts and other goodies to start eating once I hit 7am (PDT). I'll report back how it goes.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.
It is all about the dosage. IR people just produce a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That is the problem, as it takes longer for the insulin to reach lower levels where fat can be metabolized. Hence if you are IR, you can still store fat because your high insulin levels but you can't burn the fat as often because of the high insulin levels.
The supression of lipolysis is also one of its jobs which means the higher levels mean nothing because the higher level is needed to do the job of the lower levels in a normal person. Don't you understand what "being resistant to something" means?3 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.
It is all about the dosage. IR people just produce a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That is the problem, as it takes longer for the insulin to reach lower levels where fat can be metabolized. Hence if you are IR, you can still store fat because your high insulin levels but you can't burn the fat as often because of the high insulin levels.
The supression of lipolysis is also one of its jobs which means the higher levels mean nothing because the higher level is needed to do the job of the lower levels in a normal person. Don't you understand what "being resistant to something" means?
The issue is the insulin ends up staying at high levels for large parts of the day for many people. There is very little lipolysis that occurs during the waking hours if insulin is always high. When fat is only stored and not used, the person gains more fat.
These are well documented issues, it was basically the whole point behind the Atkin's diet. Break the cycle of high insulin and keep the body in a state were fat is being metabolized. Other diets also end up reducing insulin levels. Even eating a less helps.
When hormones are working reasonably well, then fat metabolism can happen and temporary calorie deficits do result is fat loss. Prolonged calorie deficits are much more complex as the body can adapt to a diet. Temporary is probably on the order of a few months for most people.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.
It is all about the dosage. IR people just produce a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That is the problem, as it takes longer for the insulin to reach lower levels where fat can be metabolized. Hence if you are IR, you can still store fat because your high insulin levels but you can't burn the fat as often because of the high insulin levels.
The supression of lipolysis is also one of its jobs which means the higher levels mean nothing because the higher level is needed to do the job of the lower levels in a normal person. Don't you understand what "being resistant to something" means?
The issue is the insulin ends up staying at high levels for large parts of the day for many people. There is very little lipolysis that occurs during the waking hours if insulin is always high. When fat is only stored and not used, the person gains more fat.
These are well documented issues, it was basically the whole point behind the Atkin's diet. Break the cycle of high insulin and keep the body in a state were fat is being metabolized. Other diets also end up reducing insulin levels. Even eating a less helps.
When hormones are working reasonably well, then fat metabolism can happen and temporary calorie deficits do result is fat loss. Prolonged calorie deficits are much more complex as the body can adapt to a diet. Temporary is probably on the order of a few months for most people.
Assuming that the calories remain at a constant, while the need decreases alongside bodyweight, then yes, you are correct. We've all seen that you have to continue to reduce in order to maintain a deficit.
My best guess would be that the failure point for each individual would be when they finally reach their pain threshold for caloric reduction, give in, and start stuffing their faces again. This would obviously be an extremely individual thing, but as a person who has varied all the way from 2700 kcals per day, down to 1300, I can assure you that it is by no means impossible. Said pain threshold also doesn't negate the fact that a person's willpower collapsing is not the fault of caloric restriction, but of the willpower of said failing person.4 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.
It is all about the dosage. IR people just produce a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That is the problem, as it takes longer for the insulin to reach lower levels where fat can be metabolized. Hence if you are IR, you can still store fat because your high insulin levels but you can't burn the fat as often because of the high insulin levels.
The supression of lipolysis is also one of its jobs which means the higher levels mean nothing because the higher level is needed to do the job of the lower levels in a normal person. Don't you understand what "being resistant to something" means?
The issue is the insulin ends up staying at high levels for large parts of the day for many people. There is very little lipolysis that occurs during the waking hours if insulin is always high. When fat is only stored and not used, the person gains more fat.
These are well documented issues, it was basically the whole point behind the Atkin's diet. Break the cycle of high insulin and keep the body in a state were fat is being metabolized. Other diets also end up reducing insulin levels. Even eating a less helps.
When hormones are working reasonably well, then fat metabolism can happen and temporary calorie deficits do result is fat loss. Prolonged calorie deficits are much more complex as the body can adapt to a diet. Temporary is probably on the order of a few months for most people.
Assuming that the calories remain at a constant, while the need decreases alongside bodyweight, then yes, you are correct. We've all seen that you have to continue to reduce in order to maintain a deficit.
My best guess would be that the failure point for each individual would be when they finally reach their pain threshold for caloric reduction, give in, and start stuffing their faces again. This would obviously be an extremely individual thing, but as a person who has varied all the way from 2700 kcals per day, down to 1300, I can assure you that it is by no means impossible. Said pain threshold also doesn't negate the fact that a person's willpower collapsing is not the fault of caloric restriction, but of the willpower of said failing person.
Okay, I can buy that. I also believe you had days that weren't any fun.
My approach has been to spread the pain out over years and for me it has been working. Yesterday I was actually down 18.5 kg from where I started four years ago and that is after packing on some muscle. I'm probably not lucky enough to avoid a oversized metabolic decrease, that is why I use a lot of exercise, often change up my diet and am trying to learn about the effects of fasting. The more tools the better.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Yes, being IR means you need more insulin to do the same job that less should do.
THIS INCLUDES THE JOB THAT IS "STORING GLUCOSE AWAY".
Which means IR people have a harder time storing glucose as fat.
It is all about the dosage. IR people just produce a lot more insulin to overcome the resistance. That is the problem, as it takes longer for the insulin to reach lower levels where fat can be metabolized. Hence if you are IR, you can still store fat because your high insulin levels but you can't burn the fat as often because of the high insulin levels.
The supression of lipolysis is also one of its jobs which means the higher levels mean nothing because the higher level is needed to do the job of the lower levels in a normal person. Don't you understand what "being resistant to something" means?
The issue is the insulin ends up staying at high levels for large parts of the day for many people. There is very little lipolysis that occurs during the waking hours if insulin is always high. When fat is only stored and not used, the person gains more fat.
First, what stevencloser said.
Second, this doesn't matter so long as there is some time when there isn't high levels of insulin, as there would be, of course. For example, let's presume you are right and there are high levels of insulin and that prevents you from burning fat during the day -- you burn glycogen instead, say. So what? Then at other times you need to replace the glycogen and will do that instead of adding fat when eating or you burn the fat as your primary fuel source at other times, like overnight.
This is the same as the ridiculous claims that you need to exercise in the fat burning zone to lose fat or that it is beneficial. No -- we burn fat as one of multiple fuel sources all the time. Burn less at one point and you will burn more at others, generally based on the proportion consumed and if one is in a deficit. Major point is that you need to fuel your activity, no matter what, and having IR doesn't mean you can fuel it without using energy any more than LCHF means you will burn more than you need given your activity.
But if you think it might be beneficial to you to fast, go for it. Like I've said, I think fasting can be beneficial, but not because IR people gain weight without overeating, as they do not.These are well documented issues, it was basically the whole point behind the Atkin's diet. Break the cycle of high insulin and keep the body in a state were fat is being metabolized. Other diets also end up reducing insulin levels. Even eating a less helps.
The studies on low carb show that low carb works because of a calorie deficit. Read the Hall studies, for example. No one reputable thinks that low carb works independent of a calorie deficit.5 -
"There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy
body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient
distribution expressed in energy percentage (%E). " - WHO
The argument that it is anything other than energy balance as the main reason is stupid.4 -
I'm talking about fast less than 2 days in length, probably more like 16 hours most of the time.
Let's say you eat lunch, then nothing until breakfast the next morning. Maybe 20 hours of fasting. I've tried this and it isn't that hard to pull off and my general experience is it does seem to promote fat loss.
What do you think? Does a short fast really help with fat loss or is it harmful someway?
I have done it in the past and all I can say is for me, it made the process of eating less overall easier.0 -
I'm talking about fast less than 2 days in length, probably more like 16 hours most of the time.
Let's say you eat lunch, then nothing until breakfast the next morning. Maybe 20 hours of fasting. I've tried this and it isn't that hard to pull off and my general experience is it does seem to promote fat loss.
What do you think? Does a short fast really help with fat loss or is it harmful someway?
I have done it in the past and all I can say is for me, it made the process of eating less overall easier.
All it does for me as well.0 -
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.
Do you know that the human body has a very limited ability to store glycogen? A typical athletic male can hold about 2,500 calories of it. And no more. You don't use up all the glycogen in your body and become slender as a result.0 -
I recently started an 16:8 plan and I love it! I was already restricting to between 1200 and 1400 calories a day for weight loss and that hasn't changed. But since I started I have so much more energy and it's much easier to stay within my calorie range.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
Science_101 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. 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
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.
No, no one can gain weight in a deficit. Sure it has been a few years since I had basic physiology and physics, but what you are literally claiming is that energy (fat) can be created from nothing. That would make a person a perpetual motion/energy machine. If this is true they why are we not harvesting diabetics and/or using insulin to power our infrastructure instead of using our limited natural resources?
So, instead of sending fat people to the camps, we should be harvesting them, Matrix style? It's genius!1 -
The poster is misunderstanding the link about insulin. It's true that weight loss is a common side effect of diabetes and that someone who lacks insulin will likely gain when insulin is available -- that's because in the absence of insulin (or the ability to use insulin properly) you will have trouble putting on fat and can't use calories efficiently. The link explains the weight gain as due to calories being used more efficiently, so the person having to adjust to what was likely overeating before. Not a claim that being diabetic makes you gain despite a deficit.
This supports my point above that being IR wouldn't make you fat (absent excess calories), and instead is a common side effect of being obese for those with a propensity (not everyone IR is obese, of course, but it's a huge risk factor).
Again, I see in this common misreading an effort to claim that you can become obese/overweight without overeating, and that's not so. (One can have a thyroid issue that makes overeating happen at a ridiculously low level and needs to be corrected, but that's not what's happening with the typical T2D who is obese and doesn't also have preexisting thyroid issues.)2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »The poster is misunderstanding the link about insulin. It's true that weight loss is a common side effect of diabetes and that someone who lacks insulin will likely gain when insulin is available -- that's because in the absence of insulin (or the ability to use insulin properly) you will have trouble putting on fat and can't use calories efficiently. The link explains the weight gain as due to calories being used more efficiently, so the person having to adjust to what was likely overeating before. Not a claim that being diabetic makes you gain despite a deficit.
This supports my point above that being IR wouldn't make you fat (absent excess calories), and instead is a common side effect of being obese for those with a propensity (not everyone IR is obese, of course, but it's a huge risk factor).
Again, I see in this common misreading an effort to claim that you can become obese/overweight without overeating, and that's not so. (One can have a thyroid issue that makes overeating happen at a ridiculously low level and needs to be corrected, but that's not what's happening with the typical T2D who is obese and doesn't also have preexisting thyroid issues.)
It seem that you are assuming your body can't make other changes to compensate for the food or lack of food it is getting. When we eat less our bodies can do a lot to keep us living in a lower calorie budget. When we eat more our bodies can also do a lot to help burn the excess calories. So it can turn out that what should be a calorie deficit is really a calorie surplus, that is even more likely in people that are insulin resistant because they will have even more insulin in the blood than a non-insulin resistive person.
This problem is compounded because it isn't easy to measure how much insulin is in the blood. Measuring glucose isn't hard but that is only part of the story. The problem is if you have too much insulin and it is pushing the glucose into cells including fat cells then the body can make up the difference by lowering metabolism in a variety of ways. The fundamental problem is you can't know that you are in a calorie deficit until weigh has been actually lost.
Overeating is just part of the problem. While there are obese people that eat enough for multiple people there are also obese people that don't really eat as much food as many normal people. It isn't often just about the food consumed.
Still I'm not sure is fasting will really cure insulin resistance, or if it does how long of a fast it would take.
0 -
Before flying to the US on Aug. 10th I fasted for about 28 hours and then started eating in the US time zone. (I probably over ate a bit.) The fasting wasn't that hard. However I don't think the fasting is having a positive impact on my blood glucose levels yet. My fasting glucose is just over normal and it is the same as it was five years ago. However I've done only about 1/2 dozen fasts so far.
My 28 hour fast seemed to really help with adjusting to the US time. I was even able to drive 700 miles on my first full day in the states, although I was tired after that.0 -
It helps if it helps you eat less. Other than that no, because if you break your fast with over 9000 calories you're still going to gain weight.
However, I have noticed other benefits such as mental clarity during the fasted periods. I don't worry about what I'm gonna have for lunch during work. I spend a lot less on food and when I finally do eat my food tastes DAMN good.1 -
Are you intending to debate between the link of fasting with people with IR issues or without? There is some evidence that fasting is beneficial in those with IR, but not so much in individual without IR issue.
Also, to point out, even with very low levels of insulin, you can still gain weight. There is more than one anabolic hormone besides insulin. Just look up Acylation Stimulating Protein and Glucose-dependent Insulinothropic Peptide.
It seems you only discuss the negative of insulin, but you should also know that it stimulates muscle protein synthesis and other hormones to build muscle. So if your goal is solid body composition during a cut, you should have a training program to support that, including nutrition to support muscle growth or even muscle sustainment.3 -
Are you intending to debate between the link of fasting with people with IR issues or without? There is some evidence that fasting is beneficial in those with IR, but not so much in individual without IR issue.
Also, to point out, even with very low levels of insulin, you can still gain weight. There is more than one anabolic hormone besides insulin. Just look up Acylation Stimulating Protein and Glucose-dependent Insulinothropic Peptide.
It seems you only discuss the negative of insulin, but you should also know that it stimulates muscle protein synthesis and other hormones to build muscle. So if your goal is solid body composition during a cut, you should have a training program to support that, including nutrition to support muscle growth or even muscle sustainment.
Yes insulin has gotten a bad rap. I think what people most of the time miss is that it's not elevated insulin that has to be looked out for, but chronically elevated insulin.
IMO, it boils down to a basic misunderstanding of human physiology and majoring in the minors...7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions