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
-
Typically on a fasting day I start fasting at 1pm and then go to about 7:30am the next morning. Sometimes a little longer. That puts the fast in the 18 hour range. Water, black coffee and maybe some diet soda is all I take during the fast period.
I've ordered a blood glucose tester and when I get it I might play around will meals that don't bump my blood sugar. I keep changing things all the time.0 -
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
0 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.
The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.0 -
-
Typically on a fasting day I start fasting at 1pm and then go to about 7:30am the next morning. Sometimes a little longer. That puts the fast in the 18 hour range. Water, black coffee and maybe some diet soda is all I take during the fast period.
I've ordered a blood glucose tester and when I get it I might play around will meals that don't bump my blood sugar. I keep changing things all the time.
Are you diabetic?0 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.
I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.
I'm doing IF too and have for a long time. You're wrong.3 -
I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!2 -
I'm not diabetic or a mindless grazer. I know very well how much I'm eating. I have more than replaced all the calories I cut before and I'm not using IF to cut calories. Tomorrow I will eat back the calories I didn't eat today. I probably do by eating walnuts and additional fruit. If I had eaten tonight I would have probably had a large salad with beans and maybe a piece of salmon. So the fasting doesn't account for much calorie loss.
I'm interested in tacking blood sugar because my fasting glucose levels are often slightly high. (~5.6 mmol/L) My normal glucose levels have tested low. (~ 4.4 mmol/L) I'm just curious what is going on and what to learn how to control it.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.1 -
Here is a thought. While fasting your insulin goes down to your fasting level. (Unless you are type 1 diabetic you always have some insulin in your blood.) The lower this level the easier it is for your body to use fat stores. By increasing the hours without comsumig food, maybe the fasting insulin goes lower over time allowing for more fat to be used.
Anyway that seems to be a common claim.
I think this can be helpful in mobilizing stubborn fat (fasting can inhibit the alpha-2 receptors that make stubborn fat stubborn). But people needn't be worrying about stubborn fat until they're pretty lean. The amount of loss or gain will always be determined by energy balance.
In the real world, I think fasts push some people into binge cycles or disordered eating. For others, it works really well with their lifestyle and apetite.
You are spot on! I think it depends on the individuals lifestyle. If you can stay busy enough to not think about food then fasting will work.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
That's not how it works. Lemon even showed you a graphic.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
That's not how it works. Lemon even showed you a graphic.
Sigh ... you might want to check the graphic out yourself. It is exactly how I described it.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
That's not how it works. Lemon even showed you a graphic.
Sigh ... you might want to check the graphic out yourself. It is exactly how I described it.
No, it's not. If you eat a whole bunch at once or spaced out over the day makes no difference. You have "more time" to burn the food (not just sugar), but you also ate a lot more so it takes more time to use it up.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
You still have the completely mistaken belief that fuel substrates are used sequentially - they are not.4 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.
The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.
that is great that you feel great..however,if you have a 500 calorie deficit on IF and a 500 calorie deficit on four meals a day you rate of loss will be the same.2 -
-
Return2Fit wrote: »
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.
The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.
that is great that you feel great..however,if you have a 500 calorie deficit on IF and a 500 calorie deficit on four meals a day you rate of loss will be the same.
For the short time I was able to follow IF, this was my experience. My weight loss was exactly the same thing.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats.
What difference would this make? This is similar to the also mistaken notion that it matters whether you are burning fat when exercising or not. It doesn't. You burn the same amount and your body takes what is best and most easily available at the time, but the total at the end of the day isn't going to vary much, just the specific time at which it was burned. If you don't burn fat immediately after a meal you will burn it at some other time if, in fact, you have a deficit. Similarly, if you burn fat for activity all day because you do low-exertion stuff and eat mostly fat (or eat less often or whatever), but eat at a surplus, you are still going to put on fat.
It doesn't matter, because it still works for people, but not because you are tricking the body into not storing fat that it otherwise would store and not use.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
You still have the completely mistaken belief that fuel substrates are used sequentially - they are not.
I have never said that or even implied that. When insulin is high lipolysis is inhibited. As insulin goes down to the basal level there simple more lipolysis that can occur. The longer one is in that state the more opportunity for it. It isn't sequential it is deterministic.0 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.
The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.
that is great that you feel great..however,if you have a 500 calorie deficit on IF and a 500 calorie deficit on four meals a day you rate of loss will be the same.
It isn't necessary true. High insulin levels can restrict the amount of energy the body can pull from fat reserves and cause a reduction in metabolism. Reduced metabolism reduces any calorie deficit. Lower levels of insulin allow for the body to draw more energy from fat preventing a reduction in metabolism. There are many other factors that come into play such as increased production of Human Growth Hormone. There is also evidence of IF promoting higher metabolism.
It is also possible that higher calorie deficits do occur. For example I replaced calories today by eating walnuts. I choose that to improve my balance of fats and they taste really good after fasting. However there has been studies that show additional calories from nuts don't lead to weight gain. Plus there is only so many walnuts I'm willing to eat. There are many factors going on. The body isn't a simple as you try to make it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRxMhqdmb2Y 0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
You still have the completely mistaken belief that fuel substrates are used sequentially - they are not.
I have never said that or even implied that. When insulin is high lipolysis is inhibited. As insulin goes down to the basal level there simple more lipolysis that can occur. The longer one is in that state the more opportunity for it. It isn't sequential it is deterministic.
yes but when you are failing to recognize, when you modify your eating protocol to eat two larger meals vs 6 through out the day (irrespective of time), it takes longer to digest and bring back your insulin levels after those periods; essentially, the amount of time spend in lipogenesis is shorter with smaller meals and longer with bigger meals. This is why meal timing and meal frequency do not matter. All you are doing is shifting the period.2 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.
The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.
that is great that you feel great..however,if you have a 500 calorie deficit on IF and a 500 calorie deficit on four meals a day you rate of loss will be the same.
It isn't necessary true. High insulin levels can restrict the amount of energy the body can pull from fat reserves and cause a reduction in metabolism. Reduced metabolism reduces any calorie deficit. Lower levels of insulin allow for the body to draw more energy from fat preventing a reduction in metabolism. There are many other factors that come into play such as increased production of Human Growth Hormone. There is also evidence of IF promoting higher metabolism.
It is also possible that higher calorie deficits do occur. For example I replaced calories today by eating walnuts. I choose that to improve my balance of fats and they taste really good after fasting. However there has been studies that show additional calories from nuts don't lead to weight gain. Plus there is only so many walnuts I'm willing to eat. There are many factors going on. The body isn't a simple as you try to make it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRxMhqdmb2Y
Actually when it comes to weight loss it is pretty simple; put yourself in a negative energy balance and you will lose weight....you can complicate it all you want but that is how simple it is.
0 -
It isn't necessary true. High insulin levels can restrict the amount of energy the body can pull from fat reserves and cause a reduction in metabolism. Reduced metabolism reduces any calorie deficit. Lower levels of insulin allow for the body to draw more energy from fat preventing a reduction in metabolism. There are many other factors that come into play such as increased production of Human Growth Hormone. There is also evidence of IF promoting higher metabolism.
Exercise does the same things...1 -
Great topic. Wonderful engaging discussion.0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
You still have the completely mistaken belief that fuel substrates are used sequentially - they are not.
I have never said that or even implied that. When insulin is high lipolysis is inhibited. As insulin goes down to the basal level there simple more lipolysis that can occur. The longer one is in that state the more opportunity for it. It isn't sequential it is deterministic.
yes but when you are failing to recognize, when you modify your eating protocol to eat two larger meals vs 6 through out the day (irrespective of time), it takes longer to digest and bring back your insulin levels after those periods; essentially, the amount of time spend in lipogenesis is shorter with smaller meals and longer with bigger meals. This is why meal timing and meal frequency do not matter. All you are doing is shifting the period.
You are assuming that it takes longer to digest, that wouldn't be true at all. Same amount of food will take the same amount of time. The difference is how long insulin remains at high levels in the blood. By spreading the meals out over the day one just ends up with more insulin spikes. I realize it is possible to eat foods that don't have much impact on blood glucose, but that is really my preference and many people don't try to do that. If the blood glucose is still elevated before the next meal, one is just forcing themselves into the higher blood insulin state. For diabetic testing they test 2 hours after eating. 6 meals a day means you are basically eating every two hours. Plus it is a real pain in the butt to prepare 6 healthy meals a day.
Anyway all one is doing is creating a smaller feeding window and just opening up a larger period of time for the body to be in the fasted state. The difference may not be huge, but at least for me it is clearly having an impact. In my case I really notice more difference with having about an 18 hour fast. 12 hour doesn't seem to make a difference.
Granted I've done other things like cutting my refined sugar consumption down to about 10g or less a day. Maybe there are changes there that are becoming more effective than they were a few months ago. I've also made an effort to watch my fat balance and try to consume a little more protein. So since I'm doing multiple things I can't be sure how much the IF is really helping vs the other. All I can be sure of is I'm not getting my body fat down to levels I hadn't been at for over 30 years. I was losing fat, but once I start IF it seems to be happening faster, at least the weight loss is faster, almost too fast.1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.
The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.
Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.
On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.
You still have the completely mistaken belief that fuel substrates are used sequentially - they are not.
I have never said that or even implied that. When insulin is high lipolysis is inhibited. As insulin goes down to the basal level there simple more lipolysis that can occur. The longer one is in that state the more opportunity for it. It isn't sequential it is deterministic.
yes but when you are failing to recognize, when you modify your eating protocol to eat two larger meals vs 6 through out the day (irrespective of time), it takes longer to digest and bring back your insulin levels after those periods; essentially, the amount of time spend in lipogenesis is shorter with smaller meals and longer with bigger meals. This is why meal timing and meal frequency do not matter. All you are doing is shifting the period.
You are assuming that it takes longer to digest, that wouldn't be true at all. Same amount of food will take the same amount of time. The difference is how long insulin remains at high levels in the blood. By spreading the meals out over the day one just ends up with more insulin spikes. I realize it is possible to eat foods that don't have much impact on blood glucose, but that is really my preference and many people don't try to do that. If the blood glucose is still elevated before the next meal, one is just forcing themselves into the higher blood insulin state. For diabetic testing they test 2 hours after eating. 6 meals a day means you are basically eating every two hours. Plus it is a real pain in the butt to prepare 6 healthy meals a day.
Anyway all one is doing is creating a smaller feeding window and just opening up a larger period of time for the body to be in the fasted state. The difference may not be huge, but at least for me it is clearly having an impact. In my case I really notice more difference with having about an 18 hour fast. 12 hour doesn't seem to make a difference.
Granted I've done other things like cutting my refined sugar consumption down to about 10g or less a day. Maybe there are changes there that are becoming more effective than they were a few months ago. I've also made an effort to watch my fat balance and try to consume a little more protein. So since I'm doing multiple things I can't be sure how much the IF is really helping vs the other. All I can be sure of is I'm not getting my body fat down to levels I hadn't been at for over 30 years. I was losing fat, but once I start IF it seems to be happening faster, at least the weight loss is faster, almost too fast.
If you have 2 diets, both 2000 calories and equal macros, but one is 6 meals and one is 2 meals, they will provide equal results. TEF will be equal for both diets. Both diets will take the same amount in total time to digest, but with fasting, those digestion windows are phased differently. Small meals would have several small digestion periods. Insulin would go up, and come back down more quickly. With two large meals, digestion and insulin/bg would be up for longer periods. If you looked at total digestion and insulin/bg time, they would be equal.
If you don't believe it, look for an isocalorie study (one fasting vs one normal eating) and see if there is a weight difference.4 -
It isn't necessary true. High insulin levels can restrict the amount of energy the body can pull from fat reserves and cause a reduction in metabolism. Reduced metabolism reduces any calorie deficit. Lower levels of insulin allow for the body to draw more energy from fat preventing a reduction in metabolism. There are many other factors that come into play such as increased production of Human Growth Hormone. There is also evidence of IF promoting higher metabolism.
Exercise does the same things...
Well I have years of exercising experience of many different types. The results aren't the same. With just exercise it is really hard to lose the fat after a point, that is if you are eating enough to exercise hard enough to do any good. I'm sure there are wide variations in how that works, but in my case exercise builds muscle but it never burned all the fat or even got close to doing that.
With IF I'm starting to see a leaner body very quickly. Currently I'm only doing it 2 or 3 times a week, however I'm thinking about changing that.1 -
Return2Fit wrote: »
My experience is yes.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 fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
Good Luck!
I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.
The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.
that is great that you feel great..however,if you have a 500 calorie deficit on IF and a 500 calorie deficit on four meals a day you rate of loss will be the same.
It isn't necessary true. High insulin levels can restrict the amount of energy the body can pull from fat reserves and cause a reduction in metabolism. Reduced metabolism reduces any calorie deficit. Lower levels of insulin allow for the body to draw more energy from fat preventing a reduction in metabolism. There are many other factors that come into play such as increased production of Human Growth Hormone. There is also evidence of IF promoting higher metabolism.
It is also possible that higher calorie deficits do occur. For example I replaced calories today by eating walnuts. I choose that to improve my balance of fats and they taste really good after fasting. However there has been studies that show additional calories from nuts don't lead to weight gain. Plus there is only so many walnuts I'm willing to eat. There are many factors going on. The body isn't a simple as you try to make it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRxMhqdmb2Y
Actually when it comes to weight loss it is pretty simple; put yourself in a negative energy balance and you will lose weight....you can complicate it all you want but that is how simple it is.
A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens. The body will meet the energy needs but it can also just lower the energy needs. That is why people often don't feel good when trying to lose weight. This discussion is about things that can be done so that the body will make up energy shortages from consuming fat rather than reducing the body's metabolism. There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit. A thought about this is if one is eating say 2000 kc a day and only has a six hour eating window, 2000 kc in six hours feels like a lot more food than 2000kc spread out over 12 hours.2 -
I fast Wednesdays and Fridays for religious reasons, a good side effect is that I am loosing weight and I feel stronger than ever.3
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