INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER

1…78101213…20

Replies

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    No. No they aren't. Are you seriously suggesting that people on low carb diets have no cravings for food?

    I lost my carb cravings after not eating them for two weeks.

    I still get hungry but I just make sure on any day my total carbs are <50 grams in the process of feeding my hunger. I can now go 12 hours without eating and still function. When I lived on a high carb diet after 4 hours I had to eat or drink more carbs to kind of function. Fat is more like diesel fuel where carbs is more of a flash fuel like gasoline.

    What, this makes no sense. You just told me a few minutes ago that why I can fast no problem for a day is that I am eating no carbs. But when you would go 4 hours without eating, you too were eating no carbs during that period. How are those 4 hours different from my first 4 hours on a fasting day?

    I have no way of knowing our differences. You may be able to fast for a day just because that is your decision. That is not something that I ever remember trying.

    So when you told me a page or so ago that I can successfully fast "because you went ZERO carb for the day" you misrepresented your own view? I see.

    Yes to truly fast one will be eating nothing so one would be zero carb by default. Insulin levels should be relative low as a side effect of the fasting. There are many listed side effects of fasting but I have not tried a 24 hour fast yet.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    DebSozo wrote: »
    Bring back your metabolism to normal:
    http://www.muscleforlife.com/reverse-diet/

    Interesting article. Since I eat LCHF that by default typically increases BMR I have never done it but have seen it mentioned on some body building sites when researching LCHF.

    How does Keto increase BMR? Do you have any references? This is something I'm not familiar with (and honestly curious in) since BMR is normally tightly regulated by several processes including mitochondrial efficiencies and T3.

    @Wheelhouse15 off the top of my head I do not remember how LCHF/Keto has been proven to cause some increase in BMR. Since 90+ of cancer per some researchers is due to poor mitochondrial efficiencies I have been working to increase both the number and efficiencies of my mitochondrial so I expect KETO/LCHF does improve one's mitochondrial health that helps improve one's BMR. I did find the below that hints that may be the case in a passing comment.

    telegraph.co.uk/food-and-drink/news/high-fat-cheese-the-secret-to-a-healthy-life/

    "Bertram found that those who ate cheese had higher levels of butyric acid, a compound which has been been linked to reduced obesity and higher metabolism. The higher butyrate levels were linked to a reduction in cholesterol."

    ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4027835/

    "The pathogenesis of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), the most commonly diagnosed functional gastrointestinal condition, is complex, and its precise mechanisms are still unclear. This article describes the potential benefits of butyric acid in IBS."

    I always wondered why after 40 years of very serious IBS after the first 6 months of LCHF/Keto that that my IBS seemed to be cured and 18 months later has not returned so far. Butyric Acid may be the key to why LCHF/Keto/IF can lead to fat loss as well as other positive side effects.

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't increased mitochondrial efficiency actually lead to the exact opposite? Decreased BMR?

    That would be the same as saying increasing muscle mass lowers BMR would it not?

    weightlossforall.com/metabolism-raise-mitochondria.htm

    "In order to lose weight quickly, it is important to raise the metabolism in order to burn more calories. Fit people tend to have a raised metabolism for two reasons, a higher level of lean mass and a greater number of mitochondria within the cells. If one has difficulty in raising the amount of lean mass it may be important to work on raising the metabolism by increasing the number of mitochondria."

    coachcalorie.com/increase-mitochondrial-density/

    "Without delving too deep into cellular biology, just understand that mitochondria are essential to our energy metabolism, and because of this, they play a very important role in fatty acid oxidation (fat loss). For fat loss to occur, fatty acids must be mobilized from fat stores and sent to mitochondria to be oxidized so that they can be used for energy."

    So what you mean is increase mitochondrial activity vice efficiency, that makes more sense now.

    Yep, via cheese!

    And butter? :grin:

    I drink a lot of Fairlife. Can I get in on this action?

    Butter loves a crowd!

  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    ericromzek wrote: »
    fr33sia12 wrote: »

    I'm also interested to know what you mean by this statement. Your body burns fat whether you're fasting or not and you have to be in a calorie deficit to burn fat.

    Your body does not burn stored adipose tissue fat while there is elevated insulin running through your body.

    No, insulin acts to slow the release and increase the storage but does not stop it. It acts as a dimmer and not an on/off switch.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2016
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    3bambi3 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    No. No they aren't. Are you seriously suggesting that people on low carb diets have no cravings for food?

    I lost my carb cravings after not eating them for two weeks.

    I still get hungry but I just make sure on any day my total carbs are <50 grams in the process of feeding my hunger. I can now go 12 hours without eating and still function. When I lived on a high carb diet after 4 hours I had to eat or drink more carbs to kind of function. Fat is more like diesel fuel where carbs is more of a flash fuel like gasoline.

    What, this makes no sense. You just told me a few minutes ago that why I can fast no problem for a day is that I am eating no carbs. But when you would go 4 hours without eating, you too were eating no carbs during that period. How are those 4 hours different from my first 4 hours on a fasting day?

    I have no way of knowing our differences. You may be able to fast for a day just because that is your decision. That is not something that I ever remember trying.

    So when you told me a page or so ago that I can successfully fast "because you went ZERO carb for the day" you misrepresented your own view? I see.

    Yes to truly fast one will be eating nothing so one would be zero carb by default. Insulin levels should be relative low as a side effect of the fasting. There are many listed side effects of fasting but I have not tried a 24 hour fast yet.

    Yes, rather obviously I was zero carb, zero fat, and zero protein for the day.* (I actually typically go to communion on fasting days, so count that as you prefer.)

    My point is that if just doing it for the day is enough to make it easy, it should be easy for anyone right at first, and you claimed that you were starving after only 4 hours with no carbs, protein, or fat. What's the difference? It seems to me that you are saying inconsistent things.

    *Not that it matters, but a day long fast isn't 24 hours -- it's from dinner (let's say 9 pm to be conservative) to breakfast the day after the fast (let's say 6 am), so about 33+ hours, depending on mealtimes.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    edited September 2016
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    Intermittent Fasting might help with your Weight Loss too...

    I have just started with My Fitness Pal logging food and calorie counting for 1200 calories a day.

    I've also stopped smoking, lowered alcohol intake from my daily glass (or 4) of wine, to just 1 this week and I'm doing 10,000 steps a day for Steptember (sometimes :wink: )

    It may sound like I am the motivated type (that has fallen off the band wagon), but I am far from that normally and more of a couch potato - in fact lying in bed working on my computer has been my comfort zone for a long time.

    However, I discovered Intermittent Fasting online (see links below) and I have been doing the 16/8 - that's 16 hours no food and 8 hours of eating and it is working miracles! I am also incorporating the Primal eating type lifestyle to a point - more protein, less carbs, lots of veggies, no packaged chemical ridden crap, avoiding sugar apart from some fruit.

    Our Primal ancestors probably didn't eat breakfast, let alone 6 meals a day, or take a snack everywhere with them and I've learnt that these type of diets just don't cut it for me. I simply become food obsessed and always hungry.

    I have found IF actually does work for me. I am not hungry during the fasting time at all and tend to eat a lot less in the 8 hour window I've allocated myself. Now I do 2 meals rather than 3 and find I don't need anything in between, so taking in a lot less calories overall. I also have motivation to make all of the above lifestyle changes for the first time in many years and energy to get up and moving. And I'm sleeping better as well - insomnia and sleep apnoea has been an ongoing nightmare for me, but maybe the change in overall eating patterns has helped with this.

    I am only just on the start of my journey, so I am not sure whether I will have the willpower to keep it up - my willpower with anything is usually non existent. However, I have set myself a goal of 30kgs (66 pounds) to lose by April and right now I am determined to make it happen - hence the blog post to keep me accountable!

    I'm only about a week in now and I have already found that eating the IF way has set me free from a life long struggle where I have been eating emotionally - when bored, lonely, depressed, grieving, self-sabotaging relationships - heck even when everything was fine and I was happy I'd still eat. I was never really listening to my body’s own hunger or satiety signals and just eating because I could and because food was readily available. I was not stopping when full - to the point I would go back for second or even third helpings and then feel ill from overeating - but be hungry again in a few hours.

    I'm ditching that cycle for good!

    Now I only get an empty, growly tummy just before 1pm when my eating window is about to start, the first few days was more often - but I discovered that being hungry didn't mean I had to give in to it. And then the hunger pangs would disappear after a few minutes.

    What a great feeling of control and empowerment I have today. And what an unusual feeling that is for me.

    I recommend reading up on Intermittent Fasting and giving it a go if you want to lose weight or improve your overall wellbeing - it's proven to be great for a myriad of other health reasons too.

    It's free; nobody is making money out of a diet gimmick, pills and protein shakes, or selling you a book - you can google everything you need to know; humans have been doing it for centuries...

    Did I mention it costs nothing?

    In fact it may save you money, especially if you end up eating less like me and drinking more water - rather than wine :wink:

    And even if you don't reduce your calorie intake or increase your exercise output your body will still get a few hours of fat burning time, so even the most sedentary couch potato has a chance of success!

    Thanks for reading and hope this blog helps others like me :smiley:
    Christina

    Some good articles that have helped me understand the benefits of IF:

    http://jamesclear.com/the-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting

    http://mamasweeds.com/weight-loss/intermittent-fasting-for-weig

    Christina, it is fabulous that you are getting such great results with Intermittant Fasting! Now you are in touch with your body's hunger signals, eating food for nutrition, and stopping eating emotionally. It is nice you are not hungry during the 8 hour window and have subsequently cut back on calories. I just learned about it this past year and it helps me to eat 2 meals in the 8 hour window also. There are some IF groups you can join for support if you need it.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    edited September 2016
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?

    As for VLCD, why are you going there?
  • ChristinaOne21
    ChristinaOne21 Posts: 49 Member
    I'm getting a bit lost in translation on this thread, perhaps as I'm new to all the lingo being used, but also there is so much knowledge and it seems also plenty of differing views too.

    So I have a few basic questions just to get things clear - I would really appreciate if someone could clarify a few things for me... 101-for-dummies-style :wink:

    I'm finding it hard to get enough protein in my daily intake - are protein shakes any good for someone whose not lifting weights or doing much exercise other than walking?

    Can anyone suggest a well balanced basic daily eating plan that gives enough protein, fat etc?

    Should I be upping my butter and cheese intake? (That I am very happy to do!)

    And was coffee actually a good thing to have in my fasting window and if so is it more beneficial to add a tbsp of coconut oil, butter or cream? I've read that quite a lot, but it feels like I am breaking my fast so I'm not sure and also struggling a bit with the idea of eating fat to lose fat.....

    And when everyone is talking about low carbs they are meaning cutting out bread, potatoes, rice, oats, grains, pasta etc aren't they? Nobody actually means cutting out vegetables do they?

    And can anyone explain Keto or ketogenic in a real simple way for me?

    Thank you. C
  • richln
    richln Posts: 809 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?

    As for VLCD, why are you going there?

    Just want to point out that, for some reason, that author decided to use the acronym "VLCD" to refer to a "Very Low Carb Diet."
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,426 MFP Moderator
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    I'm getting a bit lost in translation on this thread, perhaps as I'm new to all the lingo being used, but also there is so much knowledge and it seems also plenty of differing views too.

    So I have a few basic questions just to get things clear - I would really appreciate if someone could clarify a few things for me... 101-for-dummies-style :wink:

    I'm finding it hard to get enough protein in my daily intake - are protein shakes any good for someone whose not lifting weights or doing much exercise other than walking?

    Can anyone suggest a well balanced basic daily eating plan that gives enough protein, fat etc?

    Should I be upping my butter and cheese intake? (That I am very happy to do!)

    And was coffee actually a good thing to have in my fasting window and if so is it more beneficial to add a tbsp of coconut oil, butter or cream? I've read that quite a lot, but it feels like I am breaking my fast so I'm not sure and also struggling a bit with the idea of eating fat to lose fat.....

    And when everyone is talking about low carbs they are meaning cutting out bread, potatoes, rice, oats, grains, pasta etc aren't they? Nobody actually means cutting out vegetables do they?

    And can anyone explain Keto or ketogenic in a real simple way for me?

    Thank you. C

    Protein is one of the more important nutrients in your diet. To get more protein, you can add; meats, fish, beans/lentils, soy, sietan, etc..

    Keto is very low carb (5-50g) and is very high in fat. With this, you also need to get 3-5k of sodium in hope of maintaining electrolyte balance (some has to supplement potassium/magnesium).

    You can add butter, cheese or bread to your diet, as long as you can meet all your other needs. Personally, I concentrate on calories and then proteins.

  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    edited September 2016
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »

    I'm finding it hard to get enough protein in my daily intake - are protein shakes any good for someone whose not lifting weights or doing much exercise other than walking?

    Of course. It can be an easy and convenient way to get more protein. I use them when I'm short on protein. Even those who exercise often use them for the same exact reason: hitting their protein goal. Their protein goal may be higher than yours, so it's often harder to hit conveniently through food alone, so they are the ones who use them most often.
    Can anyone suggest a well balanced basic daily eating plan that gives enough protein, fat etc?

    That would be hard to answer because it highly depends on your preferences. Some people rigidly control their macros, but me personally I like to look at my macros as a "minimum to hit then free reign". My personal minimum numbers are 25 grams of fat, 60 grams of protein and 100 grams of carbs which work out to about 900 calories. Anything above that is optional. I basically see what I feel like eating for my main meal on a given day, then tailor another meal to "complete" my minimums, and my third meal/snacks are free for grabs, focusing slightly more on protein than other macros when I make choices, having my "preferable but don't stress it" protein goal to be 100g. Of course everyone does things differently, this is just the way I personally do it.
    Should I be upping my butter and cheese intake? (That I am very happy to do!)

    That's up to you! Do you feel like you need more fat in your diet? Experiment. Try upping your intake for a few days and see if it makes dieting easier for you. Don't get too attached to the idea if it doesn't. The butter and cheese discussion was just a certain poster promoting his way of eating (low carb high fat) as the best. In reality there isn't a universal best way to eat, there is only best way to eat for you. As you diet you will notice some foods make dieting easier and some make it harder, what foods these are is very individual.
    And was coffee actually a good thing to have in my fasting window and if so is it more beneficial to add a tbsp of coconut oil, butter or cream? I've read that quite a lot, but it feels like I am breaking my fast so I'm not sure and also struggling a bit with the idea of eating fat to lose fat.....

    People who use butter in coffee are often those who follow a low carb high fat diet, so they take any chance to add fat to their diet. It's absolutely not necessary, they just do it because they like it/feel it promotes satiety for them/helps them hit their own choice of macros. What you decide to do is up to you. Fasting is just a tool to control calories. Would adding butter to your coffee help make your fast easier? if yes, add away! You don't need to be strict for fasting to be successful. Personally, that butter in coffee robs me of calories that I would rather spend on something else, so it's not the best choice for me.
    And when everyone is talking about low carbs they are meaning cutting out bread, potatoes, rice, oats, grains, pasta etc aren't they? Nobody actually means cutting out vegetables do they?

    Well, most low carb followers do eat vegetables, but for some of those who follow a ketogenic diet, there is a hard limit on the quantity of vegetables they can eat on a given day, or even type of vegetable if they wish to be able to eat a reasonable amount. That hard limit is nothing extreme. I mean if they play their cards right they can eat up to about a pound or even more of vegetables if they wish. Some very extreme variations of this diet (I haven't seen many of them on the forums) actually do cut out vegetables. These are just a chosen ways to eat by some. It's by no means necessary to cut carbs if you don't want to/don't have a good reason to. You could experiment if you wish of course. You may end up finding cutting out carbs to make dieting easier for you. It makes it harder for me, so it's not a good option for me personally. Again it's all up to personal preference.
    And can anyone explain Keto or ketogenic in a real simple way for me?

    It's basically eating a diet very low in carbs (less than 50 grams although most seem to prefer 20 grams as their upper limit), moderate in protein and very high in fat. The goal is to enter a state called ketosis. Some people feel like they have better control of their hunger and cravings when in ketosis, and some do it to help manage certain medical conditions like diabetes. It's not better or worse for weight loss than any other method universally, again, it's all individual.

    No harm in trying to new things to see if they work for you. All diets lead to weight loss if they help you reduce your calories. However, is if something you are trying is overcomplicating things and making it harder for you then it's perfectly alright to toss it in the "not for me" bin.
  • CorneliusPhoton
    CorneliusPhoton Posts: 965 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?

    As for VLCD, why are you going there?

    I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.

    But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    Did you mean to say until we find a "macro" to focus on instead of "micro"?

    Regardless, no, I don't agree. For many people simply reducing calories in order to lose weight offers a significant health benefit in staving off a number of obesity related disease markers.

    Besides, in my opinion, no one food, macronutrient or micronutrient is going to be a magic bullet in optimizing one health. Health benefits are most likely to occur when being at a healthy weight with regular moderate physical activity, eating a variety of foods from different groups including lean protein, vegetables, fruit, whole grain, dairy and good fats, with some "treats" mixed in for enjoyment.

    I'm not sure why you are now bringing up VLCD but promoting them is against TOS so no I will not discuss the recommendations of whatever PhD you dug up.
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited September 2016
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    I'm getting a bit lost in translation on this thread, perhaps as I'm new to all the lingo being used, but also there is so much knowledge and it seems also plenty of differing views too.

    So I have a few basic questions just to get things clear - I would really appreciate if someone could clarify a few things for me... 101-for-dummies-style :wink:

    I'm finding it hard to get enough protein in my daily intake - are protein shakes any good for someone whose not lifting weights or doing much exercise other than walking?

    Can anyone suggest a well balanced basic daily eating plan that gives enough protein, fat etc?

    Should I be upping my butter and cheese intake? (That I am very happy to do!)

    And was coffee actually a good thing to have in my fasting window and if so is it more beneficial to add a tbsp of coconut oil, butter or cream? I've read that quite a lot, but it feels like I am breaking my fast so I'm not sure and also struggling a bit with the idea of eating fat to lose fat.....

    And when everyone is talking about low carbs they are meaning cutting out bread, potatoes, rice, oats, grains, pasta etc aren't they? Nobody actually means cutting out vegetables do they?

    And can anyone explain Keto or ketogenic in a real simple way for me?

    Thank you. C

    How much protein are you taking in and how much are you aiming for? You shouldn't need more than .6g or protein per pound of body weight since you are seem to be moderately active. My guess is that you are meeting your protein requirements easily. If you want to add a bit then I would add in some lean meats like chicken breast before you go to supplements since they are often just a waste of money.

    Macro content probably doesn't matter much as long as you are meeting your micro requirements. A good start might be a 45/25/30 split or 40/25/35 but if you want to go for lower carb then drop carbs and up fats as desired. A good plan would be to start with whole grains, and plenty of fruits and vegetables plus lean meats and the occasional snack and that should work well but there are a lot of good diet plans on this site and others that give much more details. If you want to up cheese and butter then just make sure you have the calorie budget for them and enjoy!

    As for low carb, only starchy vegetables would be targeted for cutting (potatoes, carrots, beets etc) while green leafy vegetables are highly encourage especially those such as broccoli and kale.

    Ketogenic diets are very low carb and high fat with moderate to low protein. The idea is to convert your body from burning carbohydrates to burning ketone bodies (i.e. fat based fuel) as the main source of fuel. You will need to avoid too much protein for that since excess protein gets converted to carbohydrates and will then raise your blood sugar and take you out of keto. There is a good group for that and I'm sure someone can direct you to it if you are interested.
  • DebSozo
    DebSozo Posts: 2,578 Member
    richln wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?

    As for VLCD, why are you going there?

    Just want to point out that, for some reason, that author decided to use the acronym "VLCD" to refer to a "Very Low Carb Diet."

    Oh thanks! I was puzzled because the acronym usually refers to "very low calorie diet".
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    I'm getting a bit lost in translation on this thread, perhaps as I'm new to all the lingo being used, but also there is so much knowledge and it seems also plenty of differing views too.

    So I have a few basic questions just to get things clear - I would really appreciate if someone could clarify a few things for me... 101-for-dummies-style :wink:

    I'm finding it hard to get enough protein in my daily intake - are protein shakes any good for someone whose not lifting weights or doing much exercise other than walking?

    This is actually why I haven't yet tried IF. I think it would be hard for me to get enough protein, as I rely on gettting some at every meal and would have a difficult time eating meals large enough to have even more protein.

    Not saying that's the case for you, of course.

    Anyway, protein powder is simply a source of protein -- nothing about bodybuilding except it's an easy post exercise source of protein and many BB's traditionally thought you had to get protein in immediately (not true, actually). So sure, try them. I often use protein powder if having an otherwise lower protein breakfast (smoothie or oats)--figure out how you like them and if they are satiating. Some find them a pleasant before bed snack.
    Can anyone suggest a well balanced basic daily eating plan that gives enough protein, fat etc?

    Check out the IF groups -- that's your best source.

    I think .8 g of protein per lb of goal weight is plenty for protein but serves the goal of helping to maintain body weight (it's really more like .65-.85 g, so you can go lower if you wish without problem, I imagine). Type of fat is more important than total fat, but a minimum of .3 g/lb if not hugely overweight is a good place to start (more is fine, many like about 30%, but really it's personal preference).
    Should I be upping my butter and cheese intake? (That I am very happy to do!)

    If you want, but no health reason to do so, IMO. I love both, but eat them in small quantities, since the calories are high vs. the nutrients, and they are major sources of sat fat (which I think is fine in moderation but not really something that should be a huge part of one's diet -- this is mainstream nutrition advice -- good general source is here: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/).
    And was coffee actually a good thing to have in my fasting window and if so is it more beneficial to add a tbsp of coconut oil, butter or cream? I've read that quite a lot, but it feels like I am breaking my fast so I'm not sure and also struggling a bit with the idea of eating fat to lose fat.....

    Coffee is fine (although I am going to explore the things that Evgeni brought up). I wouldn't add fat (calories) to it unless you like it better that way or need it to stay satisfied, but then I dislike stuff in my coffee and wasting calories on drinks. The idea is that a small amount of fat (not really the 300 or so calories some put in coffee) doesn't make a difference to the fasting state.
    And when everyone is talking about low carbs they are meaning cutting out bread, potatoes, rice, oats, grains, pasta etc aren't they? Nobody actually means cutting out vegetables do they?

    You don't need to do low carb, but it's about carb amount or percentage (below a certain number, usually 100 g for low carb and 50 or less for keto). What people cut out depends on them. From what I've seen it's hard to get all that many veg in on an extreme keto diet, easy to eat plenty of veg on low carb, and some low carbers do and eat very healthful diets, whereas others use it as an excuse to eliminate veg almost entirely.
    And can anyone explain Keto or ketogenic in a real simple way for me?

    I'll refer you to the low carb forum if you are interested in that, although someone like Evgeni or stevencloser, among others, could explain it in a more neutral way. For some it helps with hunger, but there's really no other reason (other than a few medically indicated ones) to go that low on carbs, as contrary to some evangelism it doesn't actually increase weight loss or magically allow for weight loss without a calorie deficit. It's always about the calorie deficit.
  • ChristinaOne21
    ChristinaOne21 Posts: 49 Member
    edited September 2016


    Awesome thank you for this! If you can humour me one more time what are macros and micros that you mention here below?
    "Macro content probably doesn't matter much as long as you are meeting your micro requirements. A good start might be a 45/25/30 split or 40/25/35 but if you want to go for lower carb then drop carbs and up fats as desired."

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2016
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success?

    What is "the micro that works best"? You mean getting in one's micros? I think that's important, yes -- it's why I focus on eating a nutritious balanced diet with lots of vegetables, and one reason I think variety can be important for people not tracking especially. For health, though, if someone is hugely overweight, the first priority really ought to be losing weight and if they struggle with a more nutrient-dense diet I'd probably recommend not focusing on that initially and taking supplements. (But I do think people should try to improve their diets too, if they aren't healthful.)

    Or do you mean macro percentages? If so, I totally disagree -- I agree with the WHO that macros don't matter much, and beyond focusing on a minimum amount of protein I personally am more concerned with making healthful choices within the macros (getting in healthy fats, lots of vegetables, fiber, whole grains and tubers, legumes, some fruit, so on, and on the other hand limiting sat fat, processed meat, refined carbs). None of this takes much work or is before calories (it's really part of watching calories and overall diet). I think it's just common sense and I did it even when I was eating too many calories (and yet gaining weight was still unhealthy, even if on so called healthy foods).

    As for keto vs. IF vs. other choices, they all work -- it's a matter of personal preference. I am interested in IF since I often think I might enjoy it, so plan to give it a try. Keto doesn't interest me since I don't think I would enjoy eating that much fat -- it sounds miserable to me and unhealthy in that you are devoting such a high percentage of your diet to foods that don't really offer much in the way of micros (although I concede that given how variable human diets are that one can likely do it in a healthy way -- it's just not how I like to eat and to do it right I think would require more thought and planning than a more diverse diet). I don't criticize others for doing keto, but I note that you are, again, trying to push it as a better way (here, allegedly better than IF).
  • Wheelhouse15
    Wheelhouse15 Posts: 5,575 Member
    edited September 2016
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    Awesome thank you for this! If you can humour me one more time what are macros and micros that you mention here below?
    "Macro content probably doesn't matter much as long as you are meeting your micro requirements. A good start might be a 45/25/30 split or 40/25/35 but if you want to go for lower carb then drop carbs and up fats as desired."

    The split is carbs/proteins/fat in that order. For low carb you probably want to split more in the area of 25/35/40 but for keto more like 10/15/75. The Keto and low carb groups have far more information than I can give you since I really don't follow those diets.

    As for micros, you'll need to meet the RDAs for those and you can find those online, I really don't pay as much attention to them since my diet is pretty varied and I know I'm hitting them.
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 6,002 Member
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.

    As per the bolded, that is his interpretation of the science, not the be all end all truth. And I'm sure his interpretation is slanted due to his bias, as is all interpretations. Bottom line, we still don't know...
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    richln wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?

    As for VLCD, why are you going there?

    Just want to point out that, for some reason, that author decided to use the acronym "VLCD" to refer to a "Very Low Carb Diet."

    I should have known. Thank you for pointing that out for me.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    CorneliusPhoton wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I don't eat low carb at all, but have never had an issue fasting. I do it from time to time for religious reasons (full day fast).

    That is because you went ZERO carb for the day. Carbs are the driver of most all cravings. Hungry is real so we do not die but cravings are not so much. :)

    I don't have cravings and I eat plenty of carbs (about 45-50%). The last time I recall having a real craving was when I was vegetarian for Lent and started thinking about my planned Easter dinner with lamb (and it was the lamb I was thinking about, not the potatoes or dessert). Obviously, that was some months ago. Occasionally I really want a particular food item or meal, but I wouldn't call it a craving, and it's something I can choose to fit in or not.

    The idea that I was "keto" or "fat adapted" (more than usual) because I fasted for a day makes no sense. We all know there's an adjustment period before one is fully keto. It doesn't just kick in the minute you miss a usual breakfast.

    I agree with you. This is why Keto long term or IF short term is NOT of interest to many for improving weight or lab numbers.

    So if you agree with me now, you admit that you were wrong to claim that one must be LCHF to successfully fast?

    I claim fasting is nothing more than a window of time without carbs, proteins and fats. food Water is OK to drink in my view. I know there are egg, etc fast but that is not true fasting but just a limited macro.

    Fixed it for you. Why turn a discussion about IF into a discussion about macros? Fasting is the avoidance of food, ie calories, for a particular period of time.

    Can we all agree until one finds the micro at works best for them at the current time that counting calories is secondary to one's long term health success? I know I have to get what to eat correct before I know how much of it to eat. When to eat it can fall under how to do IF in a way at works best for me.

    bodybuilding.com/fun/ask-the-macro-manager-low-carb-or-fasting.html

    "I recommend my clients using a VLCD rather than fasting. My interpretation of the science is that due to the consistent, repeated stimulation of protein synthesis that you get with VLCD, it is a superior approach when looking at overall improvements in body composition. However, if executed properly, both these systems should result in similar fat loss. The key when choosing a VLCD or fasting is to decide which will enable you to execute most consistently and efficiently in your lifestyle."

    This Ph.D. leans towards VLCD vs. IF.



    No, "we" cannot agree on finding a "micro" that works best. Macro nutrient balance is about satiety and compliance which comes secondary to calorie consumption in the hierarchy of weight loss protocol. They are important factors -- very important factors, but they come down to individual preference. Calorie deficit is needed for everyone to lose weight and is universal. How does that make it secondary?

    As for VLCD, why are you going there?

    I *think* that the post was about nutrition being of primary importance to long-term health, which is different from what is important (energy balance) for weight loss. For long-term health, you'd be better off being a bit overweight, eating a varied diet to ensure adequate nutrient consumption than eating your TDEE in Skittles for perfect energy balance.

    But I could be making the wrong assumption about what that post was about.

    Ah, thank you. So, to answer what was actually addressed, I can't agree that being overweight is better for health in any way. Let me see if I can find that recent study that shattered the so-called "obesity paradox" myth...

    http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2156
  • jprewitt1
    jprewitt1 Posts: 264 Member
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    jprewitt1 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    Why do think over eating of carbs increases one risk of developing cancer but over eating of fats does not increase the risk of developing cancer then?

    Carbs cause cancer?

    There was nothing in my post about carbs causing cancer so I do not understand your question.

    You said overeating of carbs increases the risk of cancer. I was specifically asking about that. It's in the part I quoted. I've never heard that before and was asking to have some additional information.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories