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
-
I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.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.
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.
BMR changes with the watch were software updates. The AUG calories are low because I was traveling and lost data crossing the international date line. Also there were a lot of driving ~3000 miles on my trips. So I don't have a good calorie comparison yet. I'll have to see how Sept pans out.
However I'm definitely getting more active calories after fasting and that is due to my heartrate easily going up in the 90's or even up to 120's. However it is much harder to push my heartrate above the 150's. When I'm not fasting I'm seeing lower heartrate throughout the day and higher heartrate while exercising, even 160's. I don't know if it is a good or bad thing. My resting HR last night was 51, which seems a little low, although I had 48 bpm in a doctors office before.
I've ran a lot in my life but I'm no fan of running. Lately I notice it is much easier to run after fasting for a while but before any eating. It is almost like my body is helping me. This morning I was running near my top speed over the last few years but I didn't feel like I was pushing it at all. However I only ran hard for 4 km because I had to stop. One thing fasting doesn't help me with is constipation, and nothing fixes that like running.0 -
So you are measuring your BMR using a watch that isn't accurate for what you are tracking (BMR) and using guesses on intake to make your assumptions?3
-
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.
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.
If your Fenix 3 HR had capabilities like a good saiyan scouter, I might find this data interesting. Instead, I see a sporadic heart rate taken from a wrist using light pulses to guestimate something like BMR and VO2Max - your Fenix 3 HR estimates a VO2Max, it does not calculate one, that would require an O2 sensor.
You've admitted that about everything you're making claims about is just hunches and feelings, with no real numerical evidence. If that is your basis, I can say I've done the exact same self experiments and feel the exact opposite. Now what?
Using stairs a lot doesn't have anything to do with your BMR. There's a certain arrogance I could admire in someone that wants to explain things down to others when they don't grasp the terminology, but as it is being directed at me, I'm rather not amused.
Some studies show metabolic rate rises while fasting for up to 48 hours. It then starts to plummet for times after that. It isn't something that causes a long term uptick in metabolism. It is merely a product of your human body becoming agitated to direct you towards activity that locates food because you're running out of stores. In controlled observations, the caloric effect of such fasting amounts to about 3/5s of a rat's behind in terms of difference. If you're chasing small differences like that, you might as well also always exercise immediately after eating (possibly even while eating) to force TEF higher while you're at it.
For someone complaining about usage of terms you should learn what IF is. Intermitted Fasting isn't fasting for multiple days without eating, it is just creating narrow eating windows to do the eating generally on a daily basis. The metabolic increase in theory would come from repeated short fasts. Typically a short fast is at least 16 hours but normally less than 24 hours without eating. The fact that I feel better after 16 hours of fasting is subjective but is also addicting. I really enjoy that time late in the fast, and it carries through the day. I also don't get sluggish or tried. There is probably a lot of things going on.
As far as VO2Max goes, I never said that is done with the OHRM. When in a lab a O2 sensor is used to measure VO2Max, however a value can be calculated from a good enough heart rate monitor. That value is an estimate of the what a measured value would be, but from the forum it seems the watch does a pretty good job. However one has to run quite a while before the watch does a calculation. For me it was in the 5 to 10 hours range worth of running. The OHRM on the watch is only good for steady state and has too much lag to be useful for many biometrics. It is useful to see what your average heartrate is through out the day. The watch makes a great many measurements, especially related to running, but requires the proper sensors to do so.
I had already pointed the change in BMR calories was due to software changes. It would be total calories that would be needed. I never said stairs is related to BMR, but frequent use of stairs cause the heart rate to be higher. On the watch though that is count as active calories.
As far as exercises right after eating or even while eating ... That simply wouldn't be possible for the type of exercises I like to do. Even when I exercise normally (non-fasted), it would be at least 90 minutes after eating. If I have food in my stomach it can end up on the ground pretty quickly with hard exercise. I know that ultra-endurance sports require eating on the go, but I've never built up that skill.
0 -
So you are measuring your BMR using a watch that isn't accurate for what you are tracking (BMR) and using guesses on intake to make your assumptions?
No the BMR is just what the watch is computing. It sets aside some calories as the BMR and those add up each minute of the day. When there are extra calories above a base heartrate they go into active calories. I just didn't realize that the BMR was changed because of software, I thought it was off an average heartrate but that was incorrect.
Right now it is 9:03am and I have 768 calories for BMR and 437 active calories given 1205 calories burned so far today.
The active calories are highly variable as one would expect.1 -
louann_jude wrote: »I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.
Wow! 93 lbs is a lot of weight. That is so impressive!!
I fully understand that a lot of people need to measure their food to get good estimates. Yesterday I eat a lot. Full breakfast, 300 kc of nuts, full lunch and a complete Japanese dinner. That would be about 800 + 300 + 900 + 1100 kc, or 3100 kc (+/- 10%) That is good enough for me. (Supper was tendon and cold soba. Tendon is tempura served on rice.) However my calorie burn was 3587 kc, it was high because I ran 5 km pretty hard while fasted, 75 floors of stairs (more really, the watch cheats on floor counting) and walked another 10 km. However my heartrate was also much more elevated that normal. I think that happens on days after a fast. On days I don't fast it isn't common to break 3000 kc burned.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.
If your Fenix 3 HR had capabilities like a good saiyan scouter, I might find this data interesting. Instead, I see a sporadic heart rate taken from a wrist using light pulses to guestimate something like BMR and VO2Max - your Fenix 3 HR estimates a VO2Max, it does not calculate one, that would require an O2 sensor.
You've admitted that about everything you're making claims about is just hunches and feelings, with no real numerical evidence. If that is your basis, I can say I've done the exact same self experiments and feel the exact opposite. Now what?
Using stairs a lot doesn't have anything to do with your BMR. There's a certain arrogance I could admire in someone that wants to explain things down to others when they don't grasp the terminology, but as it is being directed at me, I'm rather not amused.
Some studies show metabolic rate rises while fasting for up to 48 hours. It then starts to plummet for times after that. It isn't something that causes a long term uptick in metabolism. It is merely a product of your human body becoming agitated to direct you towards activity that locates food because you're running out of stores. In controlled observations, the caloric effect of such fasting amounts to about 3/5s of a rat's behind in terms of difference. If you're chasing small differences like that, you might as well also always exercise immediately after eating (possibly even while eating) to force TEF higher while you're at it.
Sorry for the additionally follow-up. Rest assured I don't know who you are and I didn't direct anything at you.0 -
louann_jude wrote: »I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.
Wow! 93 lbs is a lot of weight. That is so impressive!!
I fully understand that a lot of people need to measure their food to get good estimates. Yesterday I eat a lot. Full breakfast, 300 kc of nuts, full lunch and a complete Japanese dinner. That would be about 800 + 300 + 900 + 1100 kc, or 3100 kc (+/- 10%) That is good enough for me. (Supper was tendon and cold soba. Tendon is tempura served on rice.) However my calorie burn was 3587 kc, it was high because I ran 5 km pretty hard while fasted, 75 floors of stairs (more really, the watch cheats on floor counting) and walked another 10 km. However my heartrate was also much more elevated that normal. I think that happens on days after a fast. On days I don't fast it isn't common to break 3000 kc burned.
But how do you know it was 300 kcal of nuts if you didn't weigh them???2 -
This content has been removed.
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »louann_jude wrote: »I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.
Wow! 93 lbs is a lot of weight. That is so impressive!!
I fully understand that a lot of people need to measure their food to get good estimates. Yesterday I eat a lot. Full breakfast, 300 kc of nuts, full lunch and a complete Japanese dinner. That would be about 800 + 300 + 900 + 1100 kc, or 3100 kc (+/- 10%) That is good enough for me. (Supper was tendon and cold soba. Tendon is tempura served on rice.) However my calorie burn was 3587 kc, it was high because I ran 5 km pretty hard while fasted, 75 floors of stairs (more really, the watch cheats on floor counting) and walked another 10 km. However my heartrate was also much more elevated that normal. I think that happens on days after a fast. On days I don't fast it isn't common to break 3000 kc burned.
But how do you know it was 300 kcal of nuts if you didn't weigh them???
Come on that is a lame question. Nuts can be purchased in packages.
0 -
Packages that can be off in weight up to 20%.3
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »louann_jude wrote: »I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.
Wow! 93 lbs is a lot of weight. That is so impressive!!
I fully understand that a lot of people need to measure their food to get good estimates. Yesterday I eat a lot. Full breakfast, 300 kc of nuts, full lunch and a complete Japanese dinner. That would be about 800 + 300 + 900 + 1100 kc, or 3100 kc (+/- 10%) That is good enough for me. (Supper was tendon and cold soba. Tendon is tempura served on rice.) However my calorie burn was 3587 kc, it was high because I ran 5 km pretty hard while fasted, 75 floors of stairs (more really, the watch cheats on floor counting) and walked another 10 km. However my heartrate was also much more elevated that normal. I think that happens on days after a fast. On days I don't fast it isn't common to break 3000 kc burned.
But how do you know it was 300 kcal of nuts if you didn't weigh them???
Come on that is a lame question. Nuts can be purchased in packages.
Were those?
And what about your "full lunch" and "complete Japanese dinner?" How do you know how many calories were in those?1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »louann_jude wrote: »I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.
Wow! 93 lbs is a lot of weight. That is so impressive!!
I fully understand that a lot of people need to measure their food to get good estimates. Yesterday I eat a lot. Full breakfast, 300 kc of nuts, full lunch and a complete Japanese dinner. That would be about 800 + 300 + 900 + 1100 kc, or 3100 kc (+/- 10%) That is good enough for me. (Supper was tendon and cold soba. Tendon is tempura served on rice.) However my calorie burn was 3587 kc, it was high because I ran 5 km pretty hard while fasted, 75 floors of stairs (more really, the watch cheats on floor counting) and walked another 10 km. However my heartrate was also much more elevated that normal. I think that happens on days after a fast. On days I don't fast it isn't common to break 3000 kc burned.
But how do you know it was 300 kcal of nuts if you didn't weigh them???
Come on that is a lame question. Nuts can be purchased in packages.
Were those?
And what about your "full lunch" and "complete Japanese dinner?" How do you know how many calories were in those?
Breakfast and lunch I figured out when I was logging. Dinner was a best guess, it was a very big dinner. In Japan it is common to list the calories of meals in many stores so those can be used as comparison.
Yesterday was a very heavy food day. Really doesn't make a difference if I'm 10% high or low. Today I'm skipping supper and didn't add anything, so I'm at 1500 kc for the day. I actually feel a little hungry right now, probably form eating so much yesterday. My calories burned today will probably end up about 2850.
These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent. I find I don't really have to pause. That was true when I started too, except I'm now pushing harder than I was six weeks ago. It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating. At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic. Right now I'm 9 hours in, and I'm just feeling a little hungry and tried. That seems to be a typical pattern. I'll go to bed very soon and when I wake up I'll probably feel really good. I haven't had any problem sleeping while fasting, so it is a good thing to do when I'm feeling a little hungry.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This I agree with, especially the bolded...These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
In regards to the bolded, this is why it is generally a bad idea to make generalizations...I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
So exercise is helpful for fat loss then...I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent.
Only if it effected the quality of your workouts. If calories are equal it shouldn't have an effect. I say shouldn't because obviously for some it does. But this goes back to your other true statement, things are not done in isolation so it is very hard to pick out the one thing that worked...It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating.
In my experience this was probably due to cortisol release. Probably the bodies way of getting us to get up and find some food...At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic.2 -
@dykask I think this is something you would be interested in...
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/snr-65-lyle-mcdonald-fat-loss/id857888327?i=1000340393737&mt=20 -
Sooo.......you're eyeballing portions and guessing the calorie content of your foods and presenting the resulting numbers as evidence for your theory. K.
And sure, even using scales won't give you a perfectly accurate calorie count but it's certainly more accurate than eyeballing your servings and estimating calories based on comparisons with other foods.
Again, I'm not implying that you're not seeing success. It's clear that you are. I'm just saying that your success is not occurring for the reasons you believe and that the statistics you're quoting to support your beliefs are likely highly inaccurate.2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Sooo.......you're eyeballing portions and guessing the calorie content of your foods and presenting the resulting numbers as evidence for your theory. K.
And sure, even using scales won't give you a perfectly accurate calorie count but it's certainly more accurate than eyeballing your servings and estimating calories based on comparisons with other foods.
Again, I'm not implying that you're not seeing success. It's clear that you are. I'm just saying that your success is not occurring for the reasons you believe and that the statistics you're quoting to support your beliefs are likely highly inaccurate.
Yep, the how and the why...2 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Sooo.......you're eyeballing portions and guessing the calorie content of your foods and presenting the resulting numbers as evidence for your theory. K.
And sure, even using scales won't give you a perfectly accurate calorie count but it's certainly more accurate than eyeballing your servings and estimating calories based on comparisons with other foods.
Again, I'm not implying that you're not seeing success. It's clear that you are. I'm just saying that your success is not occurring for the reasons you believe and that the statistics you're quoting to support your beliefs are likely highly inaccurate.
What, this:
isn't a good way to balance things? Focus strongly on the minutia in details, and only guess at measurements for the things that impact 90% of results?2 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »louann_jude wrote: »I do IF daily. I use the window of 16:8 or 18:6. I exercise better first thing in the morning at a fasted state. I also get more done cleaning wise. I eat at a calorie deficit every day. I just get to eat larger meals during my window which helps me from eating to much. I do weigh, measure and log everything I eat. I do have one to two high calorie days a month where I eat at maintenance.
The way I do things may not work for every one else. But it definitely works for me. I have lost 93 pounds. I will always have to weigh and measure my food. It's to easy to eat to much when not doing it. Because what we think is a serving size and what actually is is totally different.
Wow! 93 lbs is a lot of weight. That is so impressive!!
I fully understand that a lot of people need to measure their food to get good estimates. Yesterday I eat a lot. Full breakfast, 300 kc of nuts, full lunch and a complete Japanese dinner. That would be about 800 + 300 + 900 + 1100 kc, or 3100 kc (+/- 10%) That is good enough for me. (Supper was tendon and cold soba. Tendon is tempura served on rice.) However my calorie burn was 3587 kc, it was high because I ran 5 km pretty hard while fasted, 75 floors of stairs (more really, the watch cheats on floor counting) and walked another 10 km. However my heartrate was also much more elevated that normal. I think that happens on days after a fast. On days I don't fast it isn't common to break 3000 kc burned.
But how do you know it was 300 kcal of nuts if you didn't weigh them???
Come on that is a lame question. Nuts can be purchased in packages.
Were those?
And what about your "full lunch" and "complete Japanese dinner?" How do you know how many calories were in those?
Breakfast and lunch I figured out when I was logging. Dinner was a best guess, it was a very big dinner. In Japan it is common to list the calories of meals in many stores so those can be used as comparison.
Yesterday was a very heavy food day. Really doesn't make a difference if I'm 10% high or low. Today I'm skipping supper and didn't add anything, so I'm at 1500 kc for the day. I actually feel a little hungry right now, probably form eating so much yesterday. My calories burned today will probably end up about 2850.
These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent. I find I don't really have to pause. That was true when I started too, except I'm now pushing harder than I was six weeks ago. It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating. At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic. Right now I'm 9 hours in, and I'm just feeling a little hungry and tried. That seems to be a typical pattern. I'll go to bed very soon and when I wake up I'll probably feel really good. I haven't had any problem sleeping while fasting, so it is a good thing to do when I'm feeling a little hungry.
How would you know your visceral fat is going down? Are you getting exploratory surgery done periodically?
This is quite easy. You measure you waistline right across the belly button. You also do skin fold there so then the difference in between total volume lost and subcutaneous fat is the difference in visceral fat at that slice at the waist. I've lost 15cm at my waist line in four months, most of that has been visceral fat, although I'm now starting to lose subcutaneous fat. You can estimate volume by considering your waist an circle and the waistline the circumference of the circle.
I've also done a DEXA scan.
On a day to day basis I use bio impedance measurement which is easy to do, but for visceral fat it only really tells you if you are gaining or losing over multiple weeks.
There are other methods that could be used, for example ultrasound. I used to working on software high end ultrasound systems, but no longer have access to that. However that is much safer and accurate than surgery would be.
0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Sooo.......you're eyeballing portions and guessing the calorie content of your foods and presenting the resulting numbers as evidence for your theory. K.
And sure, even using scales won't give you a perfectly accurate calorie count but it's certainly more accurate than eyeballing your servings and estimating calories based on comparisons with other foods.
Again, I'm not implying that you're not seeing success. It's clear that you are. I'm just saying that your success is not occurring for the reasons you believe and that the statistics you're quoting to support your beliefs are likely highly inaccurate.
And you are making assumptions about my accuracy when you know nothing about me. I've been controlling my diet for years, I know very well exactly what I'm doing. I'm not some newbie crying that I'm not losing weight. Just because something doesn't fit in to your model of the world, doesn't mean it is wrong.1 -
This I agree with, especially the bolded...These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
In regards to the bolded, this is why it is generally a bad idea to make generalizations...I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
So exercise is helpful for fat loss then...I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent.
Only if it effected the quality of your workouts. If calories are equal it shouldn't have an effect. I say shouldn't because obviously for some it does. But this goes back to your other true statement, things are not done in isolation so it is very hard to pick out the one thing that worked...It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating.
In my experience this was probably due to cortisol release. Probably the bodies way of getting us to get up and find some food...At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic.
Just to be 100% clear I have never said exercising isn't helpful for fat loss. Exercise though often will cause people to gain weight not lose weight over some periods of time. There is a lot more to weight than just fat.
Additionally many people tend to overeat with exercise. That can lead to at least maintaining fat while building muscle. Exercise with diet control is different than just exercising without paying attention to diet.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This I agree with, especially the bolded...These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
In regards to the bolded, this is why it is generally a bad idea to make generalizations...I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
So exercise is helpful for fat loss then...I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent.
Only if it effected the quality of your workouts. If calories are equal it shouldn't have an effect. I say shouldn't because obviously for some it does. But this goes back to your other true statement, things are not done in isolation so it is very hard to pick out the one thing that worked...It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating.
In my experience this was probably due to cortisol release. Probably the bodies way of getting us to get up and find some food...At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic.
Just to be 100% clear I have never said exercising isn't helpful for fat loss. Exercise though often will cause people to gain weight not lose weight over some periods of time. There is a lot more to weight than just fat.
Additionally many people tend to overeat with exercise. That can lead to at least maintaining fat while building muscle. Exercise with diet control is different than just exercising without paying attention to diet.
Well to that point, if you are losing fat and gaining weight you are gaining muscle, which is a good thing...0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »
This I agree with, especially the bolded...These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
In regards to the bolded, this is why it is generally a bad idea to make generalizations...I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
So exercise is helpful for fat loss then...I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent.
Only if it effected the quality of your workouts. If calories are equal it shouldn't have an effect. I say shouldn't because obviously for some it does. But this goes back to your other true statement, things are not done in isolation so it is very hard to pick out the one thing that worked...It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating.
In my experience this was probably due to cortisol release. Probably the bodies way of getting us to get up and find some food...At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic.
Just to be 100% clear I have never said exercising isn't helpful for fat loss. Exercise though often will cause people to gain weight not lose weight over some periods of time. There is a lot more to weight than just fat.
Additionally many people tend to overeat with exercise. That can lead to at least maintaining fat while building muscle. Exercise with diet control is different than just exercising without paying attention to diet.
Well to that point, if you are losing fat and gaining weight you are gaining muscle, which is a good thing...
Good is subjective, not everyone wants to build muscle. Since you like pointing out others are generalizing, maybe you shouldn't do it yourself.
Confused. Are you arguing to argue? My sixteen year old is like this, too! This is black, no it's white, mom!
No, not confused, it is often the same few people that diss everything yet never add any value to threads.
Honest, nobody is dissing you. I've been here awhile and I've seen this a lot. People claim they are eating at a deficit, trying to maintain or even trying to gain but don't really track their intake very good.0 -
This I agree with, especially the bolded...These are all just estimates, even if you use a scale. The way calories are measured isn't even remotely close to how the body metabolizes the food. Tracking calories off of heartrate too is another form of estimation. Additionally the so called 3500 kc / lb of fat is another estimate. Striving for exactness is a waste of time. Anyway I'm eating out a lot right now and I can't easily change that right now. So weighing food isn't really an option.
In regards to the bolded, this is why it is generally a bad idea to make generalizations...I'm also not doing things in isolation, so it is really murky about the value of each part. Here are the current things I'm doing.
* Cut way back of refined sugar - pretty sure that is driving the reduction in visceral fat if nothing else. It took me 2 years to go from 106 cm waistline to 103 cm, after cutting sugar I'm at 88 cm in only 4 months.
* Changing the foods I eat, mostly adding complex carbs, some healthy fats and more protein.
* Trying to run a slight calorie deficit of ~250 kc / day average. At least for now.
* Experimenting with fasting multiple times a week.
* When I eat back calories from fasting I'm choosing fats and protein. I already have enough carbs in breakfast.
* Doing most workouts while in the fasted state.
Anyone one of those things by themselves can help with weight loss.
So exercise is helpful for fat loss then...I'm pretty sure though the fasting helps with fat lose because my workouts are more consistent.
Only if it effected the quality of your workouts. If calories are equal it shouldn't have an effect. I say shouldn't because obviously for some it does. But this goes back to your other true statement, things are not done in isolation so it is very hard to pick out the one thing that worked...It would likely be a wash if I did the same workouts after eating.
In my experience this was probably due to cortisol release. Probably the bodies way of getting us to get up and find some food...At around 15 hours into the fast, I start feeling very good and energetic.
Just to be 100% clear I have never said exercising isn't helpful for fat loss. Exercise though often will cause people to gain weight not lose weight over some periods of time. There is a lot more to weight than just fat.
Additionally many people tend to overeat with exercise. That can lead to at least maintaining fat while building muscle. Exercise with diet control is different than just exercising without paying attention to diet.
Well to that point, if you are losing fat and gaining weight you are gaining muscle, which is a good thing...
Good is subjective, not everyone wants to build muscle. Since you like pointing out others are generalizing, maybe you shouldn't do it yourself.
So let me get this straight. Are you suggesting that it is unhealthy to have a well muscled body? That adding muscle mass is anything but a good thing for overall health? Mind you, I am not talking about body builder type muscle...1 -
This content has been removed.
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