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
-
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.
If you were building muscle and not burning fat, you were eating at maintenance or above.
I've found it easy to lose fat with exercise when diet is controlled. For example, the thinnest I've been was when really into tri training in my 30s. I had a good diet and had lost some weight but was stalled at around 130. I ramped up exercise, did not change my diet (I wasn't logging, but being mindful) and lost more fat, ended up maintaining around 120.
I think you have the amount the body can reduce or increase metabolism really exaggerated. It won't be because of insulin, but deficit, and it's not going to prevent fat loss if you do have a deficit. I'm glad IF is working for you (as mentioned above, there are aspects of it that I think would work for me too, although I am attached to the three meal pattern at the moment, find it an easier way to get in nutrients adequately, since there is a limit on how much protein/fiber I can eat at a given meal), but I don't believe it's making you burn fat at some rate beyond what you'd do eating in some other way with the same exercise and deficit. If you feel better and more energetic and more satisfied, that's important, though. And if thinking that you are cheating the system or getting extra fat burning vs. regular ways to have a deficit is important to your motivation (as it seems to be), have at it.1 -
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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...5 -
I've been doing an IF plan since July 1. As of today I am down 37 pounds, I will be off my blood pressure meds soon, I am stronger with more endurance, and I feel great! Since I am a teacher, it works out nice for me to eat all my calories between 4pm and 8pm.2
-
dprisinger wrote: »I've been doing an IF plan since July 1. As of today I am down 37 pounds, I will be off my blood pressure meds soon, I am stronger with more endurance, and I feel great! Since I am a teacher, it works out nice for me to eat all my calories between 4pm and 8pm.
Wow! I haven't been doing IF consistently as life interferes but that sounds great!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...
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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...
As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed. Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't. In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight. I had to do that because I've been losing weight too fast and wanted to slow the process down. I don't have that much weight to lose and was getting too much loose skin from the weight loss.
I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism. That alone caused me to lose a lot of visceral fat and which still seems to be happening. According to a DEXA scan I'm now into the safe area for visceral fat.
My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication. My doctor was against my approach but is happy that it has worked. It did take a few years though.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...
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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...
As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed. Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't. In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight. I had to do that because I've been losing weight too fast and wanted to slow the process down. I don't have that much weight to lose and was getting too much loose skin from the weight loss.
I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism. That alone caused me to lose a lot of visceral fat and which still seems to be happening. According to a DEXA scan I'm now into the safe area for visceral fat.
My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication. My doctor was against my approach but is happy that it has worked. It did take a few years though.
Do you weigh and log all your food?0 -
Clearly you are controlling your calories if you are losing weight. You may not have intended to use it that way but alas you are...As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed.
See above...Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't.
None of these are hard numbers, all are estimates...In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight.
Nope...I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism.
That's fantastic!My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication.
2 -
Clearly you are controlling your calories if you are losing weight. You may not have intended to use it that way but alas you are...As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed.
See above...Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't.
None of these are hard numbers, all are estimates...In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight.
Nope...I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism.
That's fantastic!My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication.
Yes, glad you found a way to keep a deficit dykask. Kudos to you.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.
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.
the title of this thread is "are shorts fats useful for burning fat"...the answer to the title is "anything that creates a negative energy balance is useful for burning fats"..
YOu can complicate it all you want with woo woo about refined sugars, TEF, etc, etc...but the fact of that matter is that anything that puts you into a negative energy balance will cause you to burn fat, and that is the only way to burn fat. So yes, if a short fast puts you in a negative energy balance then it will burn fat, if it does not put you in a negative energy balance then you won't burn fat.
Unless your argument is that you can eat in a surplus of calories, do a fast, AND burn fat at the same time, which would go against the universal laws of math and physics....?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.
the title of this thread is "are shorts fats useful for burning fat"...the answer to the title is "anything that creates a negative energy balance is useful for burning fats"..
YOu can complicate it all you want with woo woo about refined sugars, TEF, etc, etc...but the fact of that matter is that anything that puts you into a negative energy balance will cause you to burn fat, and that is the only way to burn fat. So yes, if a short fast puts you in a negative energy balance then it will burn fat, if it does not put you in a negative energy balance then you won't burn fat.
Unless your argument is that you can eat in a surplus of calories, do a fast, AND burn fat at the same time, which would go against the universal laws of math and physics....?
He is still looking for magic...0 -
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...
As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed. Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't. In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight. I had to do that because I've been losing weight too fast and wanted to slow the process down. I don't have that much weight to lose and was getting too much loose skin from the weight loss.
I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism. That alone caused me to lose a lot of visceral fat and which still seems to be happening. According to a DEXA scan I'm now into the safe area for visceral fat.
My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication. My doctor was against my approach but is happy that it has worked. It did take a few years though.
Do you weigh and log all your food?
Not anymore, it really was a waste of time after a few weeks.
Does it really matter in the long run? I figured out my meals and I add back the portions, but they are different foods. I use the opportunity to add back healthy fats and protein that I wouldn't normally eat. Often the calories are higher, for example 25g of walnuts is 150 kc. (I know pecans are better, just harder to find in Tokyo.) Three servings like that and I'm over the calories I missed. I tend to eat light suppers when I do eat supper. Mostly an almost dry salad and some protein of some type. I did start adding beans into my salads, pushing the complex carbs a bit.
So on days I fast after not fasting .... I'm down 300 to 400 kc. The day I'm back to norm or way over if I decide not to fast that day. If I fasted everyday, I would be eating the same calories as not fasting.
Now personally I don't believe a calorie is a calorie and I do think it is different. But if you are looking at the calorie math ... well then it doesn't matter. By not weighing my food I tend to overeat, but since I'm still losing weight at least every month, I'm fine with it.0 -
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...
As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed. Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't. In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight. I had to do that because I've been losing weight too fast and wanted to slow the process down. I don't have that much weight to lose and was getting too much loose skin from the weight loss.
I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism. That alone caused me to lose a lot of visceral fat and which still seems to be happening. According to a DEXA scan I'm now into the safe area for visceral fat.
My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication. My doctor was against my approach but is happy that it has worked. It did take a few years though.
Do you weigh and log all your food?
Not anymore, it really was a waste of time after a few weeks.
Does it really matter in the long run? I figured out my meals and I add back the portions, but they are different foods. I use the opportunity to add back healthy fats and protein that I wouldn't normally eat. Often the calories are higher, for example 25g of walnuts is 150 kc. (I know pecans are better, just harder to find in Tokyo.) Three servings like that and I'm over the calories I missed. I tend to eat light suppers when I do eat supper. Mostly an almost dry salad and some protein of some type. I did start adding beans into my salads, pushing the complex carbs a bit.
So on days I fast after not fasting .... I'm down 300 to 400 kc. The day I'm back to norm or way over if I decide not to fast that day. If I fasted everyday, I would be eating the same calories as not fasting.
Now personally I don't believe a calorie is a calorie and I do think it is different. But if you are looking at the calorie math ... well then it doesn't matter. By not weighing my food I tend to overeat, but since I'm still losing weight at least every month, I'm fine with it.
Point is if you don't weigh your food, you don't actually know how much you're eating and all your assertions that you're eating just as much or ten percent more than you did before you started IF are just wild guesses and not statements of known fact.
I get that you are losing weight with your current approach and that's awesome. It's just that the reasons you think it works are not really the reasons it works.
As for you not "personally believing a calorie is a calorie," I'd have to say it's physics, not a belief system subject to personal opinions.3 -
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...
As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed. Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't. In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight. I had to do that because I've been losing weight too fast and wanted to slow the process down. I don't have that much weight to lose and was getting too much loose skin from the weight loss.
I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism. That alone caused me to lose a lot of visceral fat and which still seems to be happening. According to a DEXA scan I'm now into the safe area for visceral fat.
My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication. My doctor was against my approach but is happy that it has worked. It did take a few years though.
Do you weigh and log all your food?
Not anymore, it really was a waste of time after a few weeks.
Does it really matter in the long run? I figured out my meals and I add back the portions, but they are different foods. I use the opportunity to add back healthy fats and protein that I wouldn't normally eat. Often the calories are higher, for example 25g of walnuts is 150 kc. (I know pecans are better, just harder to find in Tokyo.) Three servings like that and I'm over the calories I missed. I tend to eat light suppers when I do eat supper. Mostly an almost dry salad and some protein of some type. I did start adding beans into my salads, pushing the complex carbs a bit.
So on days I fast after not fasting .... I'm down 300 to 400 kc. The day I'm back to norm or way over if I decide not to fast that day. If I fasted everyday, I would be eating the same calories as not fasting.
Now personally I don't believe a calorie is a calorie and I do think it is different. But if you are looking at the calorie math ... well then it doesn't matter. By not weighing my food I tend to overeat, but since I'm still losing weight at least every month, I'm fine with it.
Point is if you don't weigh your food, you don't actually know how much you're eating and all your assertions that you're eating just as much or ten percent more than you did before you started IF are just wild guesses and not statements of known fact.
I get that you are losing weight with your current approach and that's awesome. It's just that the reasons you think it works are not really the reasons it works.
As for you not "personally believing a calorie is a calorie," I'd have to say it's physics, not a belief system subject to personal opinions.
You don't know what I eat or how I eat. I'm very aware of how much I'm eating because I have a system I use. I've very sure I'm eating more than I was before and I don't need a scale to be sure of that.
Some months ago I did cut to a deficit, then I started adding different food back. You don't end up eating less when you have been adding food to your diet. When I started fasting I made a point to eat back the calories because I was already losing enough weight, I just want to make sure I'm losing the fat.
In my case I started losing fat when I cut back on the refined sugar in my diet. I still have some refined sugar in my diet, just less than 25% of last year. That was a large cut because when I did it, I no longer had the hunger that was forcing me to snack and I stopped snacking. Since then I've only been adding back healthy calories. For me cutting the sugar was key. After that it just became easy to lose weight. I don't know how low it will go, I suspect it will slow as I run out of visceral fat. At this point I'm down 15 cm on my waistline in less than six months, another 5 cm I'll be down to where I was when I entered college. I'm now well below the best I very got to in 20+ years of trying to exercise my self thin and I'm not exercising nearly as hard. That was when I doing 20 miles of hilly bicycling a day, something I couldn't maintain forever. (It took over 80 minutes everyday of heart pounding effort.)
My total body fat is now less than 23%, down a little more than 1% in a month. I'm very happy with that progress.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.
I wasn't contesting that someone would feel bad if their metabolism slowed down. I was contesting your assertion that the metabolism slows in response to a simple deficit.
Metabolic adaption occurs after a prolonged period of an extreme deficit. The average joe cutting calories from 3,000 down to 1,800 and creating a 500-1000 calorie deficit isn't going to cause metabolic adaptation. Therefore, if they feel "bad" on 1,800 calories, it's because they feel hungry because they're used to more food, not because their metabolism slowed.1 -
I think you have the backwards...
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view.
1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.
Incorrect...0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »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.
Seems to me that with IF you are having a better time controlling the CI side of the equation...
As I explained multiple times, I'm not using IF that way and I make it a point to eat back the calories I missed. Many do use IF for calorie control, I just haven't. In fact I'm probably eating 10% more than before and even at that time MFP was telling me I was going to gain weight. I had to do that because I've been losing weight too fast and wanted to slow the process down. I don't have that much weight to lose and was getting too much loose skin from the weight loss.
I think cutting way back on refined sugar consumption changed my metabolism. That alone caused me to lose a lot of visceral fat and which still seems to be happening. According to a DEXA scan I'm now into the safe area for visceral fat.
My doctor also confirmed my blood lipids are now low as before I've always been pushing high levels. My blood pressure is normal which is amazing as I've been fighting high blood pressure for years but also refused medication. My doctor was against my approach but is happy that it has worked. It did take a few years though.
Do you weigh and log all your food?
Not anymore, it really was a waste of time after a few weeks.
Does it really matter in the long run? I figured out my meals and I add back the portions, but they are different foods. I use the opportunity to add back healthy fats and protein that I wouldn't normally eat. Often the calories are higher, for example 25g of walnuts is 150 kc. (I know pecans are better, just harder to find in Tokyo.) Three servings like that and I'm over the calories I missed. I tend to eat light suppers when I do eat supper. Mostly an almost dry salad and some protein of some type. I did start adding beans into my salads, pushing the complex carbs a bit.
So on days I fast after not fasting .... I'm down 300 to 400 kc. The day I'm back to norm or way over if I decide not to fast that day. If I fasted everyday, I would be eating the same calories as not fasting.
Now personally I don't believe a calorie is a calorie and I do think it is different. But if you are looking at the calorie math ... well then it doesn't matter. By not weighing my food I tend to overeat, but since I'm still losing weight at least every month, I'm fine with it.
Point is if you don't weigh your food, you don't actually know how much you're eating and all your assertions that you're eating just as much or ten percent more than you did before you started IF are just wild guesses and not statements of known fact.
I get that you are losing weight with your current approach and that's awesome. It's just that the reasons you think it works are not really the reasons it works.
As for you not "personally believing a calorie is a calorie," I'd have to say it's physics, not a belief system subject to personal opinions.
You don't know what I eat or how I eat. I'm very aware of how much I'm eating because I have a system I use. I've very sure I'm eating more than I was before and I don't need a scale to be sure of that.
Some months ago I did cut to a deficit, then I started adding different food back. You don't end up eating less when you have been adding food to your diet. When I started fasting I made a point to eat back the calories because I was already losing enough weight, I just want to make sure I'm losing the fat.
In my case I started losing fat when I cut back on the refined sugar in my diet. I still have some refined sugar in my diet, just less than 25% of last year. That was a large cut because when I did it, I no longer had the hunger that was forcing me to snack and I stopped snacking. Since then I've only been adding back healthy calories. For me cutting the sugar was key. After that it just became easy to lose weight. I don't know how low it will go, I suspect it will slow as I run out of visceral fat. At this point I'm down 15 cm on my waistline in less than six months, another 5 cm I'll be down to where I was when I entered college. I'm now well below the best I very got to in 20+ years of trying to exercise my self thin and I'm not exercising nearly as hard. That was when I doing 20 miles of hilly bicycling a day, something I couldn't maintain forever. (It took over 80 minutes everyday of heart pounding effort.)
My total body fat is now less than 23%, down a little more than 1% in a month. I'm very happy with that progress.
What kind of system tells you how much food is on your plate if you don't weigh it? Eyeballing something like olive oil or cheese can result in hundreds of calories you think you've eaten but haven't or vice versa.
I'm very happy for you that you're seeing such success.
You just misunderstand the reasons behind that success.0 -
You don't weigh and measure so how do you know...You don't know what I eat or how I eat.
You don't weigh and measure so how do you know...I'm very aware of how much I'm eating because I have a system I use.
You don't weigh and measure so how do you know...I've very sure I'm eating more than I was before and I don't need a scale to be sure of that.
You don't weigh and measure so how do you know...Some months ago I did cut to a deficit, then I started adding different food back. You don't end up eating less when you have been adding food to your diet. When I started fasting I made a point to eat back the calories because I was already losing enough weight, I just want to make sure I'm losing the fat.
You don't weigh and measure so how do you know...In my case I started losing fat when I cut back on the refined sugar in my diet. I still have some refined sugar in my diet, just less than 25% of last year. That was a large cut because when I did it, I no longer had the hunger that was forcing me to snack and I stopped snacking.
5 -
Some people do it for religious reasons, some people do it as a way to regulate their calories. I've done both, and I think it's good for the body, if done wisely.0
-
This content has been removed.
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.
You keep saying that. You're also saying low carb does that. What else does in your opinion and shouldn't you end up at metabolisms the likes of Michael Phelps would wish they had?1 -
@dykask would you consider weighing and logging everything you eat for a solid month? That way you would have concrete proof of exactly how much, or not, you are actually eating, instead of pretty much guessing that you are.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.
You keep saying that. You're also saying low carb does that. What else does in your opinion and shouldn't you end up at metabolisms the likes of Michael Phelps would wish they had?
I never said low carb slows down metabolism. Low amount of fuel slows down metabolism. The only thing I've said about low carb was there probably isn't any metabolic advantage after the adaption period if a person is going to depend on ketosis. The big advantage of low carb appears to be that people eat less. Personally I wouldn't expect that, but it appears to be true.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.
If you're fasting, you're generating a deficit. This seems like thinking of biological systems as static sets of numbers rather than rates over time.
If fasting consistently resulted in raised metabolism, we'd have the perfect diet. Overweight? Eat nothing, the longer you wait to eat, the higher the metabolism goes so you're normal weight again. Now resume eating. Overweight? Repeat.
Sure there is a calorie deficit generated during the fast time. I just don't think that the adding back the calories seems to make much difference. My suppers were pretty low calorie in the first place I was trying to keep my blood sugar lower at night.
What I'm noticing is a lower heart rate while exercising but a higher heart rate with light activities. Since most of the day I'm not exercising that appears to be the difference. I wear a Fenix 3 HR which is a pretty high end sports watch, it even computes VO2Max if one is using a chest strap. That is how I'm watching my heartrate. I started using it in May and started playing around with short fasting late July. Granted these are only estimates base on average heart rate:
June: BMR calories - 52286
July: BMR calories - 53242
AUG: BMR calories - 59430
So something is going on. 6000 extra calories burned outside of working out is a lot. Part of it is I probably recorded some walks in June and July too to get GPS maps and those calories would have then been in the active group. However my BMR calories don't include workouts. However I use stairs a lot.
All the data shows is something is going on. In Aug I probably fasted 10 to 12 times, and one fast was over 30 hours, but most were 16 to 20 hours.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »@dykask would you consider weighing and logging everything you eat for a solid month? That way you would have concrete proof of exactly how much, or not, you are actually eating, instead of pretty much guessing that you are.
Well I did log through June, July and first half of Aug. However the real problem is a lot of foods I eat aren't even in the database so I have to use something I think is similar. I would say less than 1/3 of the Japanese dishes are even in the database, or if they are they are under some name that doesn't make sense to me. Even if you weigh and log everything it is still an estimate with multiple points of errors. For example the protein content is food varies very widely. (I realize I could add to the database.)
However your point is valid and I understand why people don't believe me.
Here is probably what really goes on though. When you fast and push calories into the next day, it isn't as likely one will over eat when the two days are averaged together. So I eat 1800 kc on the fast day and push 400 kc into the next day. That would mean I have to eat 2600 kc the next day to average to 2200 kc for the two days. It is even worse when IF is used multiple days in a row. So while I'm not using IF to force a calorie deficit, it certainly make it easier to not over eat. Today I just didn't manage it. I did add back in 300 kc, but I was full at that point. When I was logging my daily consumption ran from about 1800 kc to 2400 kc. 2000 kc was my typical target. Now my target is 2200 kc. (Basically I added 200 kc to breakfast) My breakfast is calorie dense and runs 800 kc to 950 kc.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »
What...?A negative energy balance isn't a balance and isn't what happens.
People often do not feel good when trying to lose weight because they are eating less then they are used to or would like. That is, less then what got them fat in the first place...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.
Eat at a slight deficit. The body makes up the difference with body fat, no need to overcomplicate...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.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...There many tools we can use, cutting refined sugar, eating protein, eating more fats, not eating, etc. This discussion is about fasting.
IF is mainly a tool for creating a calorie deficit and not feel like you are creating a calorie deficit. It is a way of eating less in an enjoyable manner...The primary point I've learned here is that many people believe IF is just for calorie deficit.
See above, no need to overcomplicate...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.
You are very single minded view. Personally I enjoy mornings that I've fasted, it actually feels good. That might not work for you but that doesn't mean it is a less enjoyable way of eating for me. My only issue is sometimes it conflicts too much with family demands, if it weren't for that I'd probably do it everyday.
Now skipping breakfast is much less enjoyable for me. Just the way I am. I like it when I don't have to stop for supper. Programming is like that.
Your reply has nothing to do with what he said.
Initially, you said people feel bad when dieting because their bodies are slowing down internally to adjust to their new calorie intake (which is entirely bogus) and J72 said "no, they feel "bad" because they feel hungry because they're used to eating more."
Then you replied by saying he's single minded because you enjoy fasting.
People do feel bad when the metabolism slows down. You don't have to believe it but that are many sources that confirm it. A danger of calorie deficits is slowing metabolism. A benefit of short fasts is the metabolism can even increase a little.
If you're fasting, you're generating a deficit. This seems like thinking of biological systems as static sets of numbers rather than rates over time.
If fasting consistently resulted in raised metabolism, we'd have the perfect diet. Overweight? Eat nothing, the longer you wait to eat, the higher the metabolism goes so you're normal weight again. Now resume eating. Overweight? Repeat.
Sure there is a calorie deficit generated during the fast time. I just don't think that the adding back the calories seems to make much difference. My suppers were pretty low calorie in the first place I was trying to keep my blood sugar lower at night.
What I'm noticing is a lower heart rate while exercising but a higher heart rate with light activities. Since most of the day I'm not exercising that appears to be the difference. I wear a Fenix 3 HR which is a pretty high end sports watch, it even computes VO2Max if one is using a chest strap. That is how I'm watching my heartrate. I started using it in May and started playing around with short fasting late July. Granted these are only estimates base on average heart rate:
June: BMR calories - 52286
July: BMR calories - 53242
AUG: BMR calories - 59430
So something is going on. 6000 extra calories burned outside of working out is a lot. Part of it is I probably recorded some walks in June and July too to get GPS maps and those calories would have then been in the active group. However my BMR calories don't include workouts. However I use stairs a lot.
All the data shows is something is going on. In Aug I probably fasted 10 to 12 times, and one fast was over 30 hours, but most were 16 to 20 hours.
Well I poked around a bit and I don't trust the BMR calories. Total calories are probably fine. In that case AUG was actually lower than July.0
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