INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Options
Replies
-
-
JustaJoe00 wrote: »Good reading. I"ve done some intermittent fasting this year and have found some benefits also. Not sure if i'm beating a dead horse but there is some really good reading on diabetes and fasting by a Canadian doctor...
Which Doctor is that? Is it Yani Freedhoff?0 -
JustaJoe00 wrote: »Looks like the woman that started this thread is using a different name or is no longer on the site......way to go....
Awww... that is sad.0 -
For those who don't rate IF and generally feel cico is the only thing that matters, what are your thoughts on pre workout/post workout meals?
Alan Aragon covers that quite a bit in his work and has shown that there is no difference in meal timings. The window for protein synthesis elevation is rather long, about 24-48 hours. A lot of people feel better eating before and/or after a workout so it's up to you if you choice to or not.
0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »How can you sayGaleHawkins wrote: »The doctor was only addressing over eating of carbs and proteins as to increasing cancer risks.
Then in the next sentence contradict it and say:He did not say eating carbs and protein increased cancer risk.
And why are we supposed to believe this single doctor when he says:He said over eating of fats did not increase cancer risks.
Since all the reputable science links the *overeating* that leads to obesity of *anything* with several forms of cancer. I can post links to reputable studies, not just a youtube link to one random doctor to back this up.
Thanks for doing so when you find the research.0 -
Sup fellow IF'ers! I'm tryna understand the thinking of those who don't rate it.2
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »
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.
My example was about being overweight (I didn't say morbidly obese) and eating a balanced, varied diet long term, compared to being a normal weight and eating nothing but Skittles long term. It was an extreme example, just to try to highlight what I thought the intention of that post was. And yes, it is my opinion that the person who eats a varied diet with a BMI that indicates "overweight" will live longer than the person who only eats Skittles. Long term.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
If you think that my intention was that it was the "overweight" part that was healthy, you totally missed my point. "Obese and healthy" is a myth. However, the obesity paradox is not a myth to shatter. It is a viewpoint that elderly and chronically ill may sometimes benefit from having extra weight when they experience unintentional extreme weight loss as a result of their illness. Being overweight has been associated with lower mortality rates in some cases. [/b]
nytimes.com/2013/01/02/health/study-suggests-lower-death-risk-for-the-overweight.html
"But a new report suggests that Miss Scheel may have been onto something. The report on nearly three million people found that those whose B.M.I. ranked them as overweight had less risk of dying than people of normal weight. And while obese people had a greater mortality risk over all, those at the lowest obesity level (B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9) were not more likely to die than normal-weight people."
Gale, that is from 2013. A new meta analysis, controlling for confounders like smoking, has found that not to be the case.
Read the BMJ link I posted upthread.
Conclusion Overweight and obesity is associated with increased risk of all cause mortality and the nadir of the curve was observed at BMI 23-24 among never smokers, 22-23 among healthy never smokers, and 20-22 with longer durations of follow-up. The increased risk of mortality observed in underweight people could at least partly be caused by residual confounding from prediagnostic disease. Lack of exclusion of ever smokers, people with prevalent and preclinical disease, and early follow-up could bias the results towards a more U shaped association.
And I buy into this.
Physically and mentally healthy people with a full choice of foods to eat typically are not under weight or obese so I agree there often may be underlying health issues impacting death rates besides body weight.
You seem to be saying that obese people have an increased risk of mortality (within a certain number of years) because they have an underlying condition that is also causing the obesity, and not because it is a risk factor in and of itself. Also, you seem to be saying that healthy people can't become obese, that obesity must be caused by an underlying physical or mental illness* -- is that right?
Out of curiosity, what was your top BMI and what is your BMI now?
*I suspect you are defining any tendency to overeat as a mental illness which is, well, interesting.
Well, wait a moment. Obesity/weight gain is a symptom for several diseases as well as a side effect of many medications...same thing as being under weight.
The best thing I ever learned in business school was that correlation does not equal causation.
If you think that's an argument against what I said (which was a question/effort to clarify what Gale was saying), you have misunderstood.
No one is suggesting that correlation = causation. Nor is anyone saying that obesity cannot be a symptom/side effect. The question is whether Gale is ASSERTING that all risks associated with obesity are linked to such things. The merits of such a claim can be examined (as I do think it's wrong), once that is established.0 -
JustaJoe00 wrote: »Looks like the woman that started this thread is using a different name or is no longer on the site......way to go....
Her profile is still here so I'm not sure I'm tracking you.
1 -
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »JustaJoe00 wrote: »Looks like the woman that started this thread is using a different name or is no longer on the site......way to go....
Her profile is still here so I'm not sure I'm tracking you.
She also asked a question as recently as last night or this morning, and received a number of helpful (IMO) answers.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »JustaJoe00 wrote: »Looks like the woman that started this thread is using a different name or is no longer on the site......way to go....
Her profile is still here so I'm not sure I'm tracking you.
She also asked a question as recently as last night or this morning, and received a number of helpful (IMO) answers.
Maybe we didn't scare her off after all.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »For those who don't rate IF and generally feel cico is the only thing that matters, what are your thoughts on pre workout/post workout meals?
Alan Aragon covers that quite a bit in his work and has shown that there is no difference in meal timings. The window for protein synthesis elevation is rather long, about 24-48 hours. A lot of people feel better eating before and/or after a workout so it's up to you if you choice to or not.
I haven't looked into his work, I shall. Have you tried IF and been unsuccessful with it or saw no difference from what you're currently doing?0 -
Yeah. You can eat once a day or several smaller meals a day. I tried 6 small meals a day and was miserable. I eat 2 larger meals and am happy. Other people like to graze and hate to eat in a small window of time. Everyone is different
0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »
I wasn't planning on changing my ways. It works like a treat and I can get away with different forns of eating vs spreading my meals out. That's just how my body works, we're all different. Whatever one sees the best results with I also say stick with that. There's multiple ways to get to the same destination.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »For those who don't rate IF and generally feel cico is the only thing that matters, what are your thoughts on pre workout/post workout meals?
Alan Aragon covers that quite a bit in his work and has shown that there is no difference in meal timings. The window for protein synthesis elevation is rather long, about 24-48 hours. A lot of people feel better eating before and/or after a workout so it's up to you if you choice to or not.
I haven't looked into his work, I shall. Have you tried IF and been unsuccessful with it or saw no difference from what you're currently doing?
I did it for a couple months but just never really enjoyed it nor found any particular benefit for me personally. I like having a more open eating schedule and never really got into the groove of it.2 -
This is why I like IFing. For me I did it for PCOS because a lot of information stated it could improve symptoms of PCOS. I didn't want to be medicated so I thought why not try it? It has helped with my cycle, my cycle is a lot more regular. I find it easier to lose weight, I'm eating about 1600 calories and losing. I find it less stressful, I eat about 500-600 for lunch, 600-700 for dinner then a small dessert. It works for me, it wasn't easy at first but being realistic any change to your diet can be difficult. But for me this was a lot easier and it fits in with my life...4
-
GaleHawkins wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »How can you sayGaleHawkins wrote: »The doctor was only addressing over eating of carbs and proteins as to increasing cancer risks.
Then in the next sentence contradict it and say:He did not say eating carbs and protein increased cancer risk.
And why are we supposed to believe this single doctor when he says:He said over eating of fats did not increase cancer risks.
Since all the reputable science links the *overeating* that leads to obesity of *anything* with several forms of cancer. I can post links to reputable studies, not just a youtube link to one random doctor to back this up.
Thanks for doing so when you find the research.
Here's a small start. I'm in the middle of cooking dinner.
http://www.obesity.org/obesity/resources/facts-about-obesity/cancer-obesity
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3773450/
1 -
Yeah. You can eat once a day or several smaller meals a day. I tried 6 small meals a day and was miserable. I eat 2 larger meals and am happy. Other people like to graze and hate to eat in a small window of time. Everyone is different
I don't think anyone here actually eats the typical "6 small meals" a day tho, it's borderline ridiculous eating that frequently. I generally eat 2/3 times a day myself too. Just over a shorter time period.0 -
Yeah. You can eat once a day or several smaller meals a day. I tried 6 small meals a day and was miserable. I eat 2 larger meals and am happy. Other people like to graze and hate to eat in a small window of time. Everyone is different
I don't think anyone here actually eats the typical "6 small meals" a day tho, it's borderline ridiculous eating that frequently. I generally eat 2/3 times a day myself too. Just over a shorter time period.
I 16:8 and tend to graze during it. I start to feel full quickly and just like eating that way. I have 3-4 small meals and a snack during my window.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions