INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Replies
-
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
But Katz is the one writing in and reviewing on HP.0 -
Whatever the reasons Katz went on that rant, Big Y took the high ground.0
-
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.
I recognize that but it has also been some of the more recent research. Are you upset by his research that its disproving some of your personal beliefs? I already asked this in other threads without a response but do you have any other metabolic ward studies that are isocaloric iso protein that has a different outcome? Have you not seen the plethora of research on energy balance?
Heck even Dr. Attia has recognized him as a lead researcher in cell metabolism. Would you prefer the works of Dr Fung who hasnt provided research to back his claims?5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
But Katz is the one writing in and reviewing on HP.
Correct, the Yale Daily was just reporting the aftermath of the article in the HP by Dr. Katz. I was just joking about the lack of readership in the HP.0 -
Sheesh, all this arguing lol. I did 16/8 fasting for about a year. I started eating at 10:00 a.m. and stopped at 6:00 p.m. When I restricted calories I lost weight. When I didn't I stayed the same. But that was actually awesome, because usually if I am not really tracking what I eat, I gain. And it seemed I could eat and drink pretty much whatever I wanted in my 8 hr. eating window and not gain a bit. I'm sure it was because my calories were being somewhat lowered by not eating before 10 and especially by stopping eating after 6. No evening snacks, no before bed ice cream, etc. Going to go back to it. I have slowly gained about 5 lbs. in the last 10 months and some clothes are too tight. And for me losing 5 lbs. is a 5 or 6 month process, being old and female and somewhat sedentary. It helps me a lot to have an eating window.5
-
I'm a fan of IF. It works for me. Results are what I'm going for. It decreases my daily calorie consumption.2
-
I don't see anyone here saying IF doesn't work for some (by making calorie consumption lower or easier to keep lower). Just that it doesn't work for everyone or by some different manner than other forms of calorie restriction. I also don't see anyone saying anything bad about IF in general (vs. maybe as something for them).4
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't see anyone here saying IF doesn't work for some (by making calorie consumption lower or easier to keep lower). Just that it doesn't work for everyone or by some different manner than other forms of calorie restriction. I also don't see anyone saying anything bad about IF in general (vs. maybe as something for them).
This. I really don't understand why there's an argument about meal timing.
I found out I was an intermittent faster through these forums in the first place. I thought I wasn't hungry for breakfast and was just different. I realized that if I ate breakfast early, it made me hungrier throughout the day, so it was better for me to skip it. I realized that other people, like my husband and daughter, do better off eating first thing in the morning.
I haven't thoroughly read the whole discussion, so forgive me if I'm stepping on toes here, but I'm a bit confused that there seems to be some kind of argument taking place over this. :::shrug:::
Isn't the point about learning healthy habits with food finding out what works on an individual level? Why does there have to be a superior method in a universal sense? There really can't be? Preference, lifestyle, age, and training (to think of a few factors off the top of my head) would affect what makes most sense for each individual. Too many moving pieces in play to make sweeping statements on an issue as trivial as meal timing, imo.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't see anyone here saying IF doesn't work for some (by making calorie consumption lower or easier to keep lower). Just that it doesn't work for everyone or by some different manner than other forms of calorie restriction. I also don't see anyone saying anything bad about IF in general (vs. maybe as something for them).
This. I really don't understand why there's an argument about meal timing.
I found out I was an intermittent faster through these forums in the first place. I thought I wasn't hungry for breakfast and was just different. I realized that if I ate breakfast early, it made me hungrier throughout the day, so it was better for me to skip it. I realized that other people, like my husband and daughter, do better off eating first thing in the morning.
I haven't thoroughly read the whole discussion, so forgive me if I'm stepping on toes here, but I'm a bit confused that there seems to be some kind of argument taking place over this. :::shrug:::
Isn't the point about learning healthy habits with food finding out what works on an individual level? Why does there have to be a superior method in a universal sense? There really can't be? Preference, lifestyle, age, and training (to think of a few factors off the top of my head) would affect what makes most sense for each individual. Too many moving pieces in play to make sweeping statements on an issue as trivial as meal timing, imo.
This is my point as well, find a method that suits you and that you will be able to sustain for prolonged periods of time. Anything else is just won't cut it. As the OP mentioned, it's a lifestyle change for her and that's the only thing that will work if you want to keep off the weight.7 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
Then we agree on something. I never said I don't believe in science, and I'm not sure what I posted to make so many people think that I said that.
Science is..,,well it's science. I get that.
But new discoveries are made all the time.
Scientists make careers out of disproving other scientists' conclusions.
My point in this whole thread is to be open to trying new things and thinking outside the box, when you're having trouble with complying to calorie restriction.
You only have to be in these forums for a short amount of time to know that while CICO is the answer to weight loss, people still have trouble complying.
While I'm an intermittent faster, if you've read through this thread, I never said that I know or believe if IF has any other weight loss benefit other than helping with deficit compliance.
Just another tool in the toolbox for weight loss IMO.
And yes, people should question everything, it's why we've evolved as human beings.
1 -
So everyone is arguing, but we're all actually in agreement with one another?
Sounds about right.5 -
So everyone is arguing, but we're all actually in agreement with one another?
Sounds about right.
Yep. I seem to have hit a nerve in saying that science and scientific beliefs are always changing. I'm not sure why but it seems I did.
Meant no harm. I just have a curious mind and like out of the box thinking.
2 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
Then we agree on something. I never said I don't believe in science, and I'm not sure what I posted to make so many people think that I said that.
Science is..,,well it's science. I get that.
But new discoveries are made all the time.
Scientists make careers out of disproving other scientists' conclusions.
My point in this whole thread is to be open to trying new things and thinking outside the box, when you're having trouble with complying to calorie restriction.
You only have to be in these forums for a short amount of time to know that while CICO is the answer to weight loss, people still have trouble complying.
While I'm an intermittent faster, if you've read through this thread, I never said that I know or believe if IF has any other weight loss benefit other than helping with deficit compliance.
Just another tool in the toolbox for weight loss IMO.
And yes, people should question everything, it's why we've evolved as human beings.
The toolbox is the important part. I agree with question everything as well but I was just in an odd mood at the time over the difference belief and evidence so probably shouldn't have posted lol. I wasn't trying to be abrasive, just trying to be pedantic and succeeding if I might say so.
0 -
-
We're good Wheelhouse15!!
I appreciate your posts.1 -
rightoncommander wrote: »
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".
Are you saying that we can burn fat during maintenance or even surplus? Can you please explain this a little more? My understanding is that one has to eat less calories than their body needs to maintain its current weight in order for fat loss to occur. How is it possible to lose weight during maintenance and surplus? Are you referring to body recomp?2 -
cerise_noir wrote: »rightoncommander wrote: »
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".
Are you saying that we can burn fat during maintenance or even surplus? Can you please explain this a little more? My understanding is that one has to eat less calories than their body needs to maintain its current weight in order for fat loss to occur. How is it possible to lose weight during maintenance and surplus? Are you referring to body recomp?
He is correct, the part after what you have in bold explained it but was a little cryptic. Essentially, you are always burning fat for energy but you are also storing it as well. The difference between fat lose and fat gain depends on the balance of energy between what you take in and what you burn off.5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »cerise_noir wrote: »rightoncommander wrote: »
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".
Are you saying that we can burn fat during maintenance or even surplus? Can you please explain this a little more? My understanding is that one has to eat less calories than their body needs to maintain its current weight in order for fat loss to occur. How is it possible to lose weight during maintenance and surplus? Are you referring to body recomp?
He is correct, the part after what you have in bold explained it but was a little cryptic. Essentially, you are always burning fat for energy but you are also storing it as well. The difference between fat lose and fat gain depends on the balance of energy between what you take in and what you burn off.
Net energy balance is key. But when people discuss a deficit, it does refer to a net negative energy balance. So hos statement is a bit confusing.1 -
For the sake of recent readers, the debate started from my original post and it wasn't actually about whether Intermittent Fasting works for some people to lose weight, as most of us seem to be agreeing on the 'can' but not necessarily on the 'how' of this.
The question was whether it's true that if you fast for a long enough time you will start to burn stored fat and lose weight without having to DO anything, such as reduce your normal calorie intake, or change what you are putting in your mouth, or up your fitness level at all.
This of course sounded great to me!
Like a magic fat kicking pill - all I need to do is sit on my bum and keep my mouth closed for 16 hours.
Unfortunately it appears there is no scientific proof of this awesome 'fat burning phase' though, so some party pooping nay-sayers on here have called it a lot of 'pseudo science mumbo jumbo'.
Rats I say, to all of you who have burst my bubble!
But I'm not ready to give up hope just yet......
As there are no scientific tests saying this theory is True (except perhaps on rats or mice), this also means there are no scientific tests saying it's False either
I've read a lot more on the differing opinions and also looked into what scientific research has been done and it's interesting how scientists are disputing test results or disagreeing on how research has been carried out all across the weight loss, health and nutrition arena and the way they conduct the science itself is constantly evolving with new tests, studies and research often disproving theories done decades earlier.
So eggs are now choice bro, sugar is the enemy and good fats are my friend, avocados and salmon rule, spinach packs more of a punch than lettuce - the jury is still out on bananas though...
Subsequent debates on this thread have been along the lines of:
Are 6 small meals throughout the day better than 1 or 2 of the same amount of calories in a short eating window?
Do I need to go with the CICO theory and reduce my calories in as well?
And as all calories are not the same (theres also a debate about whether this is true) does this mean I need to change from carbs & sugars to more proteins & fats?
Or do I need to both reduce my calories in and ALSO change from carbs to fats?
Or does none of the above make any difference if I don't do any exercise?
So in conclusion I think we have now established nobody believes I will lose weight from Intermittent Fasting alone.
Unfortunately, we will never have 'scientific' proof of that either, as I am also counting and reducing my calories, making better choices of what those calories are, drinking loads of water and even - but only very occasionally - doing some exercise....
A few kgs down and a fair way to go, so watch this space
2 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »For the sake of recent readers, the debate started from my original post and it wasn't actually about whether Intermittent Fasting works for some people to lose weight, as most of us seem to be agreeing on the 'can' but not necessarily on the 'how' of this.
The question was whether it's true that if you fast for a long enough time you will start to burn stored fat and lose weight without having to DO anything, such as reduce your normal calorie intake, or change what you are putting in your mouth, or up your fitness level at all.
This of course sounded great to me!
Like a magic fat kicking pill - all I need to do is sit on my bum and keep my mouth closed for 16 hours.
Unfortunately it appears there is no scientific proof of this awesome 'fat burning phase' though, so some party pooping nay-sayers on here have called it a lot of 'pseudo science mumbo jumbo'.
Rats I say, to all of you who have burst my bubble!
But I'm not ready to give up hope just yet......
As there are no scientific tests saying this theory is True (except perhaps on rats or mice), this also means there are no scientific tests saying it's False either
I've read a lot more on the differing opinions and also looked into what scientific research has been done and it's interesting how scientists are disputing test results or disagreeing on how research has been carried out all across the weight loss, health and nutrition arena and the way they conduct the science itself is constantly evolving with new tests, studies and research often disproving theories done decades earlier.
So eggs are now choice bro, sugar is the enemy and good fats are my friend, avocados and salmon rule, spinach packs more of a punch than lettuce - the jury is still out on bananas though...
Subsequent debates on this thread have been along the lines of:
Are 6 small meals throughout the day better than 1 or 2 of the same amount of calories in a short eating window?
Do I need to go with the CICO theory and reduce my calories in as well?
And as all calories are not the same (theres also a debate about whether this is true) does this mean I need to change from carbs & sugars to more proteins & fats?
Or do I need to both reduce my calories in and ALSO change from carbs to fats?
Or does none of the above make any difference if I don't do any exercise?
So in conclusion I think we have now established nobody believes I will lose weight from Intermittent Fasting alone.
Unfortunately, we will never have 'scientific' proof of that either, as I am also counting and reducing my calories, making better choices of what those calories are, drinking loads of water and even - but only very occasionally - doing some exercise....
A few kgs down and a fair way to go, so watch this space
If you are losing weight and happy then keep up what you are doing until you either reach the end or stop losing weight then you'll have to decide what to do at that point.
Just a few points to clarify; however, since I've already admitted I can be rather pedantic: First, science can rarely prove something false, for example, I can claim I was abducted by little green men and science can't prove I wasn't but it can say there is no evidence to support this. Second, I think most of us believe that you can lose weight using IF alone, just not the way you might have thought. The fact is people use IF to lose weight just as they use any other diet to lose weight, with or without actually counting calories you will be in a deficit or you won't lose, that's just the way it works.
I would recommend exercise for the health benefits alone apart from the weight loss since you can always over eat what you burn but their are important benefits you will get and those shouldn't be overlooked. It's your life, your body and your diet so find what works for you. Best of luck to you.4 -
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.
I recognize that but it has also been some of the more recent research. Are you upset by his research that its disproving some of your personal beliefs? I already asked this in other threads without a response but do you have any other metabolic ward studies that are isocaloric iso protein that has a different outcome? Have you not seen the plethora of research on energy balance?
Heck even Dr. Attia has recognized him as a lead researcher in cell metabolism. Would you prefer the works of Dr Fung who hasnt provided research to back his claims?
Beliefs? To say the truth, I have mainly doubts, and a sane skepticism.
And no, of course I'm not going to browse the literature in search of metabolic-isocaloric iso-protein studies that you would dismiss anyway if they don't fit *your* beliefs (and I already gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked for statistics on IR incidence, I won't repeat the mistake, sorry).0 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »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.
I recognize that but it has also been some of the more recent research. Are you upset by his research that its disproving some of your personal beliefs? I already asked this in other threads without a response but do you have any other metabolic ward studies that are isocaloric iso protein that has a different outcome? Have you not seen the plethora of research on energy balance?
Heck even Dr. Attia has recognized him as a lead researcher in cell metabolism. Would you prefer the works of Dr Fung who hasnt provided research to back his claims?
Beliefs? To say the truth, I have mainly doubts, and a sane skepticism.
And no, of course I'm not going to browse the literature in search of metabolic-isocaloric iso-protein studies that you would dismiss anyway if they don't fit *your* beliefs (and I already gave you the benefit of the doubt when you asked for statistics on IR incidence, I won't repeat the mistake, sorry).
You would be wrong that if there was a good study that I wouldn't adjust my beliefs. There are plenty of good studies that have changed my perceptions (many of which were from yarwell); it why I have worked to increase unsaturated fats due to the links of improved health. I look at things based on the parameters established within the context of the study and look at how that would apply in real life conditions. I provide greater skepticism when it is blogs. And you would highly be surprised of some of the people I train on this board. Several of them in your part of the community. I am not as close minded as you perceive.1 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »For the sake of recent readers, the debate started from my original post and it wasn't actually about whether Intermittent Fasting works for some people to lose weight, as most of us seem to be agreeing on the 'can' but not necessarily on the 'how' of this.
The question was whether it's true that if you fast for a long enough time you will start to burn stored fat and lose weight without having to DO anything, such as reduce your normal calorie intake, or change what you are putting in your mouth, or up your fitness level at all.
This of course sounded great to me!
Like a magic fat kicking pill - all I need to do is sit on my bum and keep my mouth closed for 16 hours.
Unfortunately it appears there is no scientific proof of this awesome 'fat burning phase' though, so some party pooping nay-sayers on here have called it a lot of 'pseudo science mumbo jumbo'.
Rats I say, to all of you who have burst my bubble!
But I'm not ready to give up hope just yet......
As there are no scientific tests saying this theory is True (except perhaps on rats or mice), this also means there are no scientific tests saying it's False either
I've read a lot more on the differing opinions and also looked into what scientific research has been done and it's interesting how scientists are disputing test results or disagreeing on how research has been carried out all across the weight loss, health and nutrition arena and the way they conduct the science itself is constantly evolving with new tests, studies and research often disproving theories done decades earlier.
So eggs are now choice bro, sugar is the enemy and good fats are my friend, avocados and salmon rule, spinach packs more of a punch than lettuce - the jury is still out on bananas though...
Subsequent debates on this thread have been along the lines of:
Are 6 small meals throughout the day better than 1 or 2 of the same amount of calories in a short eating window?
Do I need to go with the CICO theory and reduce my calories in as well?
And as all calories are not the same (theres also a debate about whether this is true) does this mean I need to change from carbs & sugars to more proteins & fats?
Or do I need to both reduce my calories in and ALSO change from carbs to fats?
Or does none of the above make any difference if I don't do any exercise?
So in conclusion I think we have now established nobody believes I will lose weight from Intermittent Fasting alone.
Unfortunately, we will never have 'scientific' proof of that either, as I am also counting and reducing my calories, making better choices of what those calories are, drinking loads of water and even - but only very occasionally - doing some exercise....
A few kgs down and a fair way to go, so watch this space
I think the debate/discussion started to help people understand the mechanisms involved with the weight loss. Many of us have actually done IF and many other diets. It's using those experiences and the science behind to inform people of the mechanisms involved to get the most out of the diet. If someone can naturally restrict calories while doing IF, then fantastic. But quite frequently, new members will post that they just started "XX" diet and they can't figure out why they are losing.
Side note, since you are at a fairly low level of calories, and aren't overly frequent with exercise, have you increase protein consumption? Increase protein consumption can improve muscle retention. The more muscle you maintain, the faster your body fat % will decrease, the faster your metabolism will be, and the more lean your body will look. It is also significantly easier to maintain your muscle base, rather than rebuild it. Something to consider but it should be around .6-.8g per lb of weight. And if you incorporate exercise, resistance training will significantly improve this as well.0 -
Bring back your metabolism to normal:
http://www.muscleforlife.com/reverse-diet/1 -
Bring back your metabolism to normal:
http://www.muscleforlife.com/reverse-diet/
That article is ridiculous. It is basically saying nothing.
Read it critically. Then read it again. It is basically saying to gradually increase your calories and weight lift so that you eat your TDEE at maintenance. Not some magic TDEE, but an appropriate one for your weight. Oh, and that people who've been dieting a long time tend to move less (have less NEAT and have less TEF because they're eating less food and have lower BMR's because they weigh less. DUH.)4 -
NM0
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bring back your metabolism to normal:
http://www.muscleforlife.com/reverse-diet/
That article is ridiculous. It is basically saying nothing.
Read it critically. Then read it again. It is basically saying to gradually increase your calories and weight lift so that you eat your TDEE at maintenance. Oh, and that people who've been dieting a long time tend to move less (have less NEAT and have less TEF because they're eating less food and have lower BMR's because they weigh less. DUH.)
When you get more muscles you will burn more at BMR.
You need to eat a surplus of calories to build muscle tissue. With a few very rare exceptions.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bring back your metabolism to normal:
http://www.muscleforlife.com/reverse-diet/
That article is ridiculous. It is basically saying nothing.
Read it critically. Then read it again. It is basically saying to gradually increase your calories and weight lift so that you eat your TDEE at maintenance. Oh, and that people who've been dieting a long time tend to move less (have less NEAT and have less TEF because they're eating less food and have lower BMR's because they weigh less. DUH.)
When you get more muscles you will burn more at BMR.
You need to eat a surplus of calories to build muscle tissue. With a few very rare exceptions.
That is my point. Thank you.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Bring back your metabolism to normal:
http://www.muscleforlife.com/reverse-diet/
That article is ridiculous. It is basically saying nothing.
Read it critically. Then read it again. It is basically saying to gradually increase your calories and weight lift so that you eat your TDEE at maintenance. Oh, and that people who've been dieting a long time tend to move less (have less NEAT and have less TEF because they're eating less food and have lower BMR's because they weigh less. DUH.)
When you get more muscles you will burn more at BMR.
You need to eat a surplus of calories to build muscle tissue. With a few very rare exceptions.
That is my point. Thank you.
Why would you want to gain weight?0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions