INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Replies
-
let it die4
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Good points @frankiesgirlie .
It would be nice if there was solid dieting science out there that factored in all the human differences but that is not likely to happen.
Trial and error is about as good as it gets. Sure the science that we have is very helpful but just can not be used in cookie cutter manner. Even for the same person the best way of eating can change from time to time.
The science is very clear.
Total calories consumed over long periods of time are all that matter. How one accomplishes a calorie deficit, maintains one, or chooses to eat in order to stay on one are up to interpretation.
We know that meal timing does not have an effect on the way our bodies assimilate and use energy over long periods of time. These, however, are generally considered important factors in maintaining satiety and thus staying on a calorie deficit.
As i stated in my previous posts, these are undeniable facts. Trying to do anything special outside of the above, or trying to say that it is "the only way" are silly. The only factors that matter are total calories consumed.
We are the same species, and not considering some sort of outlying medical condition, eating the foods you enjoy so that you can sustain a calorie deficit and eating at the timed intervals which keep you most satiated is all that matters.
No one was attacking the OP, just simply saying that she is not receiving extra benefits from eating within a short period of time. Just as those who eat 10 meals, 6 meals, 3 meals, and so on have no advantage.
I understand how you currently feel about IF. Once I felt the same way about IF. After studying the science behind IF and actually trying IF I came to understood scientifically how it can work and that it did actually work to help me lose weight.
How many times a week did you do IF and for how many months if you are speaking on the subject from real personal experience before you decided IF did not work for you?
No one is saying that one can defeat CICO with IF. One's hormone levels are for real a factor in the ease to store/loose fat.
What? I have no clue what you're talking about.
Sorry, how long did you do IF and what version(s) did you do before you decided IF for some reason did not personally work out for you unlike it works well for many others?1 -
How in the blue hell did you get that out of her response?3
-
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
Exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread.
Scientific beliefs are always changing, and we probably haven't even scratched the surface as far as the complexities of the human body and weight loss and nutrition.
I like a person that thinks outside the box tigerblue. Question everything. It keeps life interesting.
5 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
Exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread.
Scientific beliefs are always changing, and we probably haven't even scratched the surface as far as the complexities of the human body and weight loss and nutrition.
I like a person that thinks outside the box tigerblue. Question everything. It keeps life interesting.
Do you question gravity?
Even if tomorrow a huge breakthrough were to be made, explaining gravity in a completely different manner than we though until now, it wouldn't change the fact that if you jump, you fall back down 10 out of 10 times.12 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
Exactly what I was saying earlier in this thread.
Scientific beliefs are always changing, and we probably haven't even scratched the surface as far as the complexities of the human body and weight loss and nutrition.
I like a person that thinks outside the box tigerblue. Question everything. It keeps life interesting.
Science does not have beliefs, that's for religion, science has evidence, facts, conclusions, challenges and progression based on those. Is the human body complex? Very, but I'll take science over gurus and testimonials every time.
14 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
You should reread the thread because it's clear you missed everyone's point. No one said IF doesn't work for some people as a tool to help them control their overall calorie intake. We said it has no advantages over eating 3 meals, 6 meals, or even 1000 meals a day. Whichever eating style best suits someone's personal preference, satiety, and lifestyle that allows them to control overall intake is all that matters.
-your whole shpeel about "well your opinion is invalid if you haven't done IF" is just nonsense. If you're insistent on having my irrelevant anecdote I have already said "IF caused binge eating" for me personally along with dissatisfaction with any "normal" portion sizes and almost triggered an eating disorder. Having previously suffered anorexia In my teens, I realized that the science says there is no advantage to eating this way and trying to force myself to do so was overly restrictive.... without any good reason.
IF did not fit my lifestyle personally, this doesn't mean IF can't help others control their overall calorie intake. Just as eating 6 small meals a day might help another. The method is irrelevant, only CICO matters.
IF is not some special magically thing that works mysteriously.9 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
Kevin Hall, Kevin Hall, Kevin Hall, that's exactly the problem. Settled science is never the result of the work of a single individual.
2 -
rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
You should reread the thread because it's clear you missed everyone's point. No one said IF doesn't work for some people as a tool to help them control their overall calorie intake. We said it has no advantages over eating 3 meals, 6 meals, or even 1000 meals a day. Whichever eating style best suits someone's personal preference, satiety, and lifestyle that allows them to control overall intake is all that matters.
-your whole shpeel about "well your opinion is invalid if you haven't done IF" is just nonsense. If you're insistent on having my irrelevant anecdote I have already said "IF caused binge eating" for me personally along with dissatisfaction with any "normal" portion sizes and almost triggered an eating disorder. Having previously suffered anorexia In my teens, I realized that the science says there is no advantage to eating this way and trying to force myself to do so was overly restrictive.... without any good reason.
IF did not fit my lifestyle personally, this doesn't mean IF can't help others control their overall calorie intake. Just as eating 6 small meals a day might help another. The method is irrelevant, only CICO matters.
IF is not some special magically thing that works mysteriously.
So you agree if IF works for some people to control their overall calorie intake that IF has an advantage for them than eating 1000 meals a day?3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
You should reread the thread because it's clear you missed everyone's point. No one said IF doesn't work for some people as a tool to help them control their overall calorie intake. We said it has no advantages over eating 3 meals, 6 meals, or even 1000 meals a day. Whichever eating style best suits someone's personal preference, satiety, and lifestyle that allows them to control overall intake is all that matters.
-your whole shpeel about "well your opinion is invalid if you haven't done IF" is just nonsense. If you're insistent on having my irrelevant anecdote I have already said "IF caused binge eating" for me personally along with dissatisfaction with any "normal" portion sizes and almost triggered an eating disorder. Having previously suffered anorexia In my teens, I realized that the science says there is no advantage to eating this way and trying to force myself to do so was overly restrictive.... without any good reason.
IF did not fit my lifestyle personally, this doesn't mean IF can't help others control their overall calorie intake. Just as eating 6 small meals a day might help another. The method is irrelevant, only CICO matters.
IF is not some special magically thing that works mysteriously.
So you agree if IF works for some people to control their overall calorie intake that IF has an advantage for them than eating 1000 meals a day?
No. I just... can't with you on this anymore.
IF has no advantage. None. Zilch. Nada. Zero.
I don't know how many other ways I can say that.5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
You should reread the thread because it's clear you missed everyone's point. No one said IF doesn't work for some people as a tool to help them control their overall calorie intake. We said it has no advantages over eating 3 meals, 6 meals, or even 1000 meals a day.
Whichever eating style best suits someone's personal preference, satiety, and lifestyle that allows them to control overall intake is all that matters.
IF did not fit my lifestyle personally, this doesn't mean IF can't help others control their overall calorie intake. Just as eating 6 small meals a day might help another. The method is irrelevant, only CICO matters.
IF is not some special magically thing that works mysteriously.
So you agree if IF works for some people to control their overall calorie intake that IF has an advantage for them than eating 1000 meals a day?
She said, "Whichever eating style best suits someone's personal preference, satiety, and lifestyle that allows them to control overall intake is all that matters." That includes IF. So I don't see an argument here. You are both agreeing about the same thing. Rainbowbow can't IF because it makes her hungrier. Intermittant fasting causes you to cut back on calories. Everyone is different.
4 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it. 6 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
You should reread the thread because it's clear you missed everyone's point. No one said IF doesn't work for some people as a tool to help them control their overall calorie intake. We said it has no advantages over eating 3 meals, 6 meals, or even 1000 meals a day. Whichever eating style best suits someone's personal preference, satiety, and lifestyle that allows them to control overall intake is all that matters.
-your whole shpeel about "well your opinion is invalid if you haven't done IF" is just nonsense. If you're insistent on having my irrelevant anecdote I have already said "IF caused binge eating" for me personally along with dissatisfaction with any "normal" portion sizes and almost triggered an eating disorder. Having previously suffered anorexia In my teens, I realized that the science says there is no advantage to eating this way and trying to force myself to do so was overly restrictive.... without any good reason.
IF did not fit my lifestyle personally, this doesn't mean IF can't help others control their overall calorie intake. Just as eating 6 small meals a day might help another. The method is irrelevant, only CICO matters.
IF is not some special magically thing that works mysteriously.
So you agree if IF works for some people to control their overall calorie intake that IF has an advantage for them than eating 1000 meals a day?
If they can control their calories and maintain a deficit, or roughly maintainance if that is their goal, then yes. I think we have agreement on that. Of course, the reverse is also true, if a person finds 6 to 8 small meals a day works better, and many do, then that's the way they should eat even if their is no actual metabolic advantage the method is the key.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
It's his journalism and political activism that's the issue not his chops. Interesting article though. However, he is still a bonna fide researcher despite the attempts at character assassination via innuendo.5 -
Your body burns fat whether you're fasting or not and you have to be in a calorie deficit to burn fat.
You're half right. You do not have to fast to burn fat, but you don't have to be in calorie deficit, either. It's a standard part of the human body's energy system. Of course, if you're not in calorie deficit you will store more than you burn, but that's beside the point!
Regarding IF, I tried the 5/2 version. It got me started on weight loss, it was easy and didn't involve unrealistic changes to my actual diet. I liked it. I don't know whether it helped anything else, as I didn't have any blood work done at any point. It's certainly sustainable, although I can't imagine myself fasting 2 days/week long term. There's a lot of pseudo-science, on both sides of the mostly silly, petty arguments that have blown up around the idea.
For me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. If someone loses weight in a way that doesn't jeopardise their health, it's very silly to tell them, "You're doing it wrong!" If there is patchy evidence that they are experiencing additional health benefits, let's ask for more research, rather than just assume that if there isn't conclusive proof right now, it must be bunkum. This is a new area of research, and evidence takes time to accumulate.
As for paleo and all its variants, I am not convinced that modern healthy eating is best served by guessing what hunter-gatherers would have eaten. You can't test your theories on people who are long dead. The argument should be, "Eat this way because evidence suggests it's better for you." NOT "Eat this way because hunter-gatherers would have eaten this way".3 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
Kevin Hall, Kevin Hall, Kevin Hall, that's exactly the problem. Settled science is never the result of the work of a single individual.
The WHO says so too.
"There was convincing evidence that energy balance is critical to maintaining healthy body weight and ensuring optimal nutrient intakes, regardless of macronutrient distribution expressed in energy percentage (%E)."
As does any researcher who is not trying to sell you their "This is why you ACTUALLY get fat" *kitten*. Because this has been settled for a loooooong time.3 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
I love how Big Y supermarket responded.0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
I've skimmed bits of this thread. I IF. I agree with Evgeni, way back on the first page that IF'ing is simply a way for me to control my hunger and comply with a deficit. If that means that it's impacting hormones in doing so, fine. But it does nothing magical in terms of speeding fat loss.
There have been days during my weight loss where I felt a migraine coming on and I need to eat before my window opens to cut it off at the pass (fasting is bad for migraines). There's really been no difference in my progress in having lost 90 pounds in doing this.
I've seen some extraordinary claims made in this thread regarding IF'ing. I have yet to see any research or any credible advocates of the method indicate that it's more than a means of providing adherents with a method of achieving a caloric deficit.10 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
I love how Big Y supermarket responded.
It was a Huffington Post Article, A whole 10 people must have read it!
2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
I love how Big Y supermarket responded.
It was a Huffington Post Article, A whole 10 people must have read it!
I found the content to be quite interesting. I don't know a lot about this researcher or whether he did write his own review or disparage Big Y. But I like how Big Y responded.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
I love how Big Y supermarket responded.
It was a Huffington Post Article, A whole 10 people must have read it!
This is from a "Yale Daily News" article.0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.
Yes, the one thing I can't replicate in real life is to do "strict IF" and watch the results and then a more flexible approach, and compare. Because I can never get EVERYTHING ELSE to be exactly the same. So maybe what looks like a connection is a coincidence.
But I do want to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
On another subject (but related because it also says that insulin is the reason we can't lose) is the sugar buster's approach, which supposedly uses glycemic index to control insulin response. It worked very well for me. But I think it was more from the fact that I naturally ate fewer (a lot fewer) calories when I followed it because it is a generally healthy, no junk food approach. But there are people who would argue it was insulin. Who knows. Maybe that played in as well.
I should go back to eating that way for sure, because it is more healthy than just counting calories. But I love the treats. And the wine. . . . .
Ah well.
Any way you go it is a sacrifice somewhere!
Kevin hall has several studies that back up that insulin does not have to be reduced in order to lose fat (pending you dont have IR because that altera the variable a little). In an isocaloric, isoprotein comaprison, weight loss was pretty much the same after 30 days. This doesnt even take into consideration huge amounts of anecdotal evidence demonstrated by many of us who eat higher levels of carbs with no issue.
Weight loss is fairly simple. Eat less than you burn and you lose weight; this has been shown in every metabolic ward study (EE is measured and they take a reduction from that baseline). What is difficult for many is several factors; a sustainable dietary strategy to achieve a prolonged deficit, a dietary preference to address satiety, modifying calories to find where a deficit actually is, and most importantly... consistency. These variables can be difficult for people to work out and is the reason why losing weight and particularly maintaining that weight loss is hard. I barely lost any weight with 16:8 or paleo because i kept over eating. Both diets where just not suited for me.. why? I just dont do well with restriction... i do well with 3 large meals.
And I enjoy having two larger more satisfying meals and a snack rather than three small meals and a snack, which leaves me feeling constantly hungry. But then my tdee is pretty low, unless I run a good bit. And I am Trying to cut back on running to have more time to lift.
What of the research on menopause that indicates that some women's bodies become more insulin resistant at perimenopause?
Regardless, there are new scientific discoveries all the time, and scientists have to recant from time to time. So who knows what they will discover about nutrition and weight and fitness!
We know that people will lose weight no matter what method they use as long as they achieve a caloric deficit. This has been known for centuries, even before we knew much about nutrition it was obvious that less food meant less fat on you and more food meant more fat on you. That observation has never changed, nor will it, because we know what the basic causes weight loss and weight gain are. Every diet works as long as you follow it and, unfortunately, every diet fails when you stop adhering to it, which is why the vast majority of people regain their initial weight, or more, within 2 years of acheiving their lowest weight on a diet.
My view is, that in light of this failure rate, the important thing is to find what you can adhere to for a sustain period of time. So, forgetting the details, find what you feel can work for your lifetime and stick with it. You don't have to worry about how it works unless you are so inclined to investigate the biological underpinnings.
I think the science that will evolve will be more along the lines of figuring out better ways to allow us to overcome our desire to eat for pleasure, emotionally, or other non-hunger related reasons. Also, ways to block absorbtion of nutrients when we overeat. This means drugs, not dietary methods, for treating obesity that will allow people to lose weight and keep it off when they are unable to acheive this through normal diet and exercise methods.
I guess it is kind of like saying every car will wreck if you take your hands off of the steering wheel long enough when running down the road at 55 MPH.
Everyone knows if one's net CICO is positive that one should gain weight. Everyone knows if one's net CICO is negative that one should lose weight.
IF is just one way to help some of us develop a net negative CICO. It is not white nor black magic. Clearly some are commenting about IF but have never done IF themselves. That would be like me saying I understand the stress of a woman living in a male dominated world and clearly never having been a female. I can make comments all day every day on that subject but it is not from personal experience.
It is OK to discuss IF without personally experiencing IF but one is without credibility to tell another person who has experienced good weight control using IF that it does not work for that person.
As one with an earned terminal degree in a healthcare field and an undergrad degrees in both science and religion I can tell you there is less difference between the two than many think there is. 90% of "science" today will be proven wrong in the next 100 years I expect. Gravity is settled science I would say. Global warming/global cooling science is not settled science yet for example. The cause of cancer is far from settled science or it would have been cured years ago.
We are still clueless about the best way for mankind to best eat.
Ahh, yes the great "you haven't been there so you don't know" non sequitir as if someone doesn't stick their head in a cement mixer they can't possible know they won't enjoy the experience. I have done IF, didn't like it but I don't have anything against it. . Not sure what 90% we will prove wrong or what proven wrong means in this case nor what listing your degree in optometry and religion have to do with anything other than trying to set up an argument to authority.
Now let's also understand this, there is no debate that the world has warmed over the past 50 years, only the causes and predicted consequences are up for debate but the climate data is not. No data support meal timing in any form as a significant contributor to weight loss, and since science evolves on observation of the data and refining theories to fit that data then it's very unlikely that this will change. Also, understanding the cause of a disease does not automatically confere the ability to cure it or Type 2 Diabetes would be a thing of the past as well. You should already know this from your study of the eye as you understand the cause of old eye (the cells don't regenerate) but you aren't curing it with glasses.
AS |Dr Katz, a bonna fide nutritional researcher and medical doctor, has said, we basically know how to feed the human being and the only people that are confused about it are the gurus who are selling you something and those who are buying it.
speaking about Katz and bona fide:
http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2016/09/12/yale-doctors-column-raises-questions-again/
I love how Big Y supermarket responded.
It was a Huffington Post Article, A whole 10 people must have read it!
This is from a "Yale Daily News" article.
The article that they responded to was in the HP. Yale Daily is just a student rag.1 -
Effort to distract aside, Wheelhouse's point stands: there is no credible debate as to the main points of what good nutrition is. Katz is right on that, whatever his personal vanity issues may be. Another source is here: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/
Sloan Kettering's is focused on cancer survivors, but is basically the same: https://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/patient-education/nutrition-basics-survivors
The WHO recommendations and the US Guidelines are consistent also.
That supermarket pizza would probably be a "rarely" in all cases, but whatever. Glad we've moved off all processed food being the devil, anyway.
Bigger point is that no one is saying that IF doesn't work for those who find it a useful way to get a calorie deficit (which it obviously can be). People are disagreeing that it's magical, works for reasons other than a calorie deficit, or is superior to other ways of eating that other people find more congenial for them.
I've considered IFing since I don't find fasting (or doing a low day like 500) all that tough, and am habit-based in my eating -- for years I ate only an afternoon snack and dinner and something a little after dinner and that was fine. The reason I haven't so far is lifestyle -- I find working out on a 500 calorie day hard given the kind of workouts I do and how they affect me, and I find it much easier to get good nutrition (especially the amount of protein and vegetables I prefer) in 3 meals vs. one ginormously-big one and a snack. For others these things may work fine (or they may not have my volume or workout issues), and for still others IFing may be even more of a hardship.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 423 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