KETO & OMAD the best weight loss marriage!!
Options
Replies
-
physiquelore wrote: »I do not mean to be a party pooper, but we have to be realistic. I have been in countless communities like this one, I have seen it all before and I have done it all before too. Ketosis does help but most people can not stay on it long term. OMAD has a much lower adherence rate than keto. I do not think this will end well.
You have to consider what you're really doing to your body. You are not shrinking your stomach you're actually expanding it. You are putting a days worth of food in your stomach in a short period of time. When people go off things like this or other forms of intermittent fasting they end up with a bottomless stomach. They stuff their face like there is no tomorrow.
If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
Shaun Phillips, the guy in your profile picture, is a fan of IF. He's actually published a few blog posts and podcasts with Brad Plion on the subject where they talk about their 24 hours fasts.4 -
physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »deborahbarnes904 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
I'm sorry you didn't have success with OMAD. Not everyone does OMAD the same as you. I do not ever "stuff" my face. Today I'm consuming 800 calories, keto, OMAD. Each person has to find what works for them and their personality. OMAD wasn't for you. I know many who refuse to acknowledge Keto works for weight loss.
Each person should be encouraged to keep trying to find what works for them. YouTube is full of persons successful on OMAD alone without keto. One in particular losing over 100 lbs and are going strong.
Thanks for your input.
You are losing that weight from very low calorie intake. Not healthy and certainly not something to promote.
She did say she consumed 1,500 calories on average. For a woman, Consuming 800 calories in 1 meal is still stuffing your face. Obviously, consuming 1,500 calories is worse.
Say what?
Take a loose average of a woman's maintenance calories. Let us say 2,000 calories a day. 800 calories are 40% of that. That is almost half of your daily food requirement in 1 sitting.
And? If it's also your biggest meal of the day, that's perfectly reasonable. Not to mention, 800 calories of calorie dense food could make a reasonably small meal - say a decent sized burger. Hardly "stuffing your face".
And on your 2000 a day, that still leaves 1200 a day for breakfast, lunch and snacks. That's a pretty generous allowance.
Everything you said just reinforces bad habits. Meals with a high-calorie density really do not help anyone. The only way to achieve meals with high calories density is junk food or high fat. Both will not offer much to satiety.
People should eat more often than 1 to 2 times a day. With larger meals, you're just training your body to consume more food per sitting. It's like weight training lifting little girl weights(eating more frequently with smaller meals) will not do much. If you start to add intensity(large meals) you adapt. What was previously difficult is now easy. Do you want to be able to consume a lot more food more easily? Obviously not.
I had 1000 calories tonight with 2 hours. Here's the menu:
Bean pasta with olive oil and broccoli
Peanut butter protein fluff topped with walnuts and some light Hershey's syrup
Not high fat, not junk food. Try again.
Depends on how you define "junk food." Junk food is high-calorie foods. With a few exceptions, like olive oil(used sparingly). Foods that are 180 calories or more per 100 grams are considered high-calorie foods.
Peanut butter shake = 367 calories per 100 grams.
Olive oil = extremely high
walnuts = 654 calories per gram
More hubris. You automatically presumed I overate the fat and don't know what I'm doing.
Junk food = high calorie foods? I'm seeing some disordered thinking coming from you. Fats are essential nutrients, dude. Walnuts are healthy foods full of good essential fats and I ate all of 10 grams of them. Oh, the horror. As for the olive oil on the pasta? I had a teaspoon.
Peanut butter protein powder... you're going to have issue with that? Try again on the calorie count. It's 110 calories. And I had 5 grams of actual peanut butter, again for the fat. I have very little actual fat in my diet, I have to work to get to 50 grams a day.
I said, "The only way to achieve meals with high calories density is junk food or high fat." How will you define junk food? Based on carb content, fat content, or protein content? Carbs are not bad, neither is fat, or protein. You used high-calorie foods, and high-fat foods, just like I said.
Most protein powders are 28-32g of protein(talking about mass). I just randomly picked a peanut butter protein. The one I picked contained 110 calories (just like you said) for 30grams.
"Foods that are 180 calories or more per 100 grams are considered high-calorie foods. "
100g * (110 calories / 30g) = 367 calories for 100 grams.
Is 367 greater than 180???
I didn't eat 100 grams. I ate 30. You are twisting to suit your narrative which proves I have nothing further to say to you since you have no interest in a rational discussion.
I did not twist anything. I said "180 calories or more per 100g" The protein shake is 367 calories per 100g. It does not matter if you consumed 1g or 10,000g it is still 367 calories per 100g.
Fortunately, you're not the ultimate arbiter of what exactly constitutes "junk food". Nor are you the ultimate arbiter of what makes for successful habits.
I'll tell you what, get back to me when you've done ten years of your restrictive eating plan and then we'll talk.
I've done that, for the record. It's more than I could say for many people who post exactly like you on these boards. I'm what happens when you get over all that stuff.1 -
physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I do not mean to be a party pooper, but we have to be realistic. I have been in countless communities like this one, I have seen it all before and I have done it all before too. Ketosis does help but most people can not stay on it long term. OMAD has a much lower adherence rate than keto. I do not think this will end well.
You have to consider what you're really doing to your body. You are not shrinking your stomach you're actually expanding it. You are putting a days worth of food in your stomach in a short period of time. When people go off things like this or other forms of intermittent fasting they end up with a bottomless stomach. They stuff their face like there is no tomorrow.
If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
Shaun Phillips, the guy in your profile picture, is a fan of IF. He's actually published a few blog posts and podcasts with Brad Plion on the subject where they talk about their 24 hours fasts.
It has been a long time since I been up to date with Shawn Phillips. Keep in mind he has never been overweight either. I have in another post that the people who usually do well on IF are people who are not that overweight to begin with. Take all the If authors for example
Using his stock photo sure ruins your credibility.6 -
physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »deborahbarnes904 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
I'm sorry you didn't have success with OMAD. Not everyone does OMAD the same as you. I do not ever "stuff" my face. Today I'm consuming 800 calories, keto, OMAD. Each person has to find what works for them and their personality. OMAD wasn't for you. I know many who refuse to acknowledge Keto works for weight loss.
Each person should be encouraged to keep trying to find what works for them. YouTube is full of persons successful on OMAD alone without keto. One in particular losing over 100 lbs and are going strong.
Thanks for your input.
You are losing that weight from very low calorie intake. Not healthy and certainly not something to promote.
She did say she consumed 1,500 calories on average. For a woman, Consuming 800 calories in 1 meal is still stuffing your face. Obviously, consuming 1,500 calories is worse.
Say what?
Take a loose average of a woman's maintenance calories. Let us say 2,000 calories a day. 800 calories are 40% of that. That is almost half of your daily food requirement in 1 sitting.
And? If it's also your biggest meal of the day, that's perfectly reasonable. Not to mention, 800 calories of calorie dense food could make a reasonably small meal - say a decent sized burger. Hardly "stuffing your face".
And on your 2000 a day, that still leaves 1200 a day for breakfast, lunch and snacks. That's a pretty generous allowance.
Everything you said just reinforces bad habits. Meals with a high-calorie density really do not help anyone. The only way to achieve meals with high calories density is junk food or high fat. Both will not offer much to satiety.
People should eat more often than 1 to 2 times a day. With larger meals, you're just training your body to consume more food per sitting. It's like weight training lifting little girl weights(eating more frequently with smaller meals) will not do much. If you start to add intensity(large meals) you adapt. What was previously difficult is now easy. Do you want to be able to consume a lot more food more easily? Obviously not.
I had 1000 calories tonight with 2 hours. Here's the menu:
Bean pasta with olive oil and broccoli
Peanut butter protein fluff topped with walnuts and some light Hershey's syrup
Not high fat, not junk food. Try again.
Depends on how you define "junk food." Junk food is high-calorie foods. With a few exceptions, like olive oil(used sparingly). Foods that are 180 calories or more per 100 grams are considered high-calorie foods.
Peanut butter shake = 367 calories per 100 grams.
Olive oil = extremely high
walnuts = 654 calories per gram
More hubris. You automatically presumed I overate the fat and don't know what I'm doing.
Junk food = high calorie foods? I'm seeing some disordered thinking coming from you. Fats are essential nutrients, dude. Walnuts are healthy foods full of good essential fats and I ate all of 10 grams of them. Oh, the horror. As for the olive oil on the pasta? I had a teaspoon.
Peanut butter protein powder... you're going to have issue with that? Try again on the calorie count. It's 110 calories. And I had 5 grams of actual peanut butter, again for the fat. I have very little actual fat in my diet, I have to work to get to 50 grams a day.
I said, "The only way to achieve meals with high calories density is junk food or high fat." How will you define junk food? Based on carb content, fat content, or protein content? Carbs are not bad, neither is fat, or protein. You used high-calorie foods, and high-fat foods, just like I said.
Most protein powders are 28-32g of protein(talking about mass). I just randomly picked a peanut butter protein. The one I picked contained 110 calories (just like you said) for 30grams.
"Foods that are 180 calories or more per 100 grams are considered high-calorie foods. "
100g * (110 calories / 30g) = 367 calories for 100 grams.
Is 367 greater than 180???
I didn't eat 100 grams. I ate 30. You are twisting to suit your narrative which proves I have nothing further to say to you since you have no interest in a rational discussion.
I did not twist anything. I said "180 calories or more per 100g" The protein shake is 367 calories per 100g. It does not matter if you consumed 1g or 10,000g it is still 367 calories per 100g.
Fortunately, you're not the ultimate arbiter of what exactly constitutes "junk food". Nor are you the ultimate arbiter of what makes for successful habits.
I'll tell you what, get back to me when you've done ten years of your restrictive eating plan and then we'll talk.
I've done that, for the record. It's more than I could say for many people who post exactly like you on these boards. I'm what happens when you get over all that stuff.
How about you get back to me after doing what you did for 20 years as I have. All jokes a said, I do not understand how you believe what I said is restrictive. I honestly want you to explain that.
You said you're maintaining a 100 pound loss for 6 years. Where is this 20 years coming from?
As far as restrictive eating, it's quite obvious from all your "rules" around food how restrictive you are and where you get them from.
You don't have a reasonable understanding of what healthy food is, to my (not uneducated) way of looking at food, some of what you say comes across as disordered, frankly.
Take, for example, lack of consideration of context and dosage. There is nothing wrong with consuming high calorie foods in proper portions for one's diet. That you consider them to be "junk" based on their calorie count alone is indicative of problematic and restrictive thinking on your part.2 -
physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »deborahbarnes904 wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
I'm sorry you didn't have success with OMAD. Not everyone does OMAD the same as you. I do not ever "stuff" my face. Today I'm consuming 800 calories, keto, OMAD. Each person has to find what works for them and their personality. OMAD wasn't for you. I know many who refuse to acknowledge Keto works for weight loss.
Each person should be encouraged to keep trying to find what works for them. YouTube is full of persons successful on OMAD alone without keto. One in particular losing over 100 lbs and are going strong.
Thanks for your input.
You are losing that weight from very low calorie intake. Not healthy and certainly not something to promote.
She did say she consumed 1,500 calories on average. For a woman, Consuming 800 calories in 1 meal is still stuffing your face. Obviously, consuming 1,500 calories is worse.
Say what?
Take a loose average of a woman's maintenance calories. Let us say 2,000 calories a day. 800 calories are 40% of that. That is almost half of your daily food requirement in 1 sitting.
And? If it's also your biggest meal of the day, that's perfectly reasonable. Not to mention, 800 calories of calorie dense food could make a reasonably small meal - say a decent sized burger. Hardly "stuffing your face".
And on your 2000 a day, that still leaves 1200 a day for breakfast, lunch and snacks. That's a pretty generous allowance.
Everything you said just reinforces bad habits. Meals with a high-calorie density really do not help anyone. The only way to achieve meals with high calories density is junk food or high fat. Both will not offer much to satiety.
People should eat more often than 1 to 2 times a day. With larger meals, you're just training your body to consume more food per sitting. It's like weight training lifting little girl weights(eating more frequently with smaller meals) will not do much. If you start to add intensity(large meals) you adapt. What was previously difficult is now easy. Do you want to be able to consume a lot more food more easily? Obviously not.
I had 1000 calories tonight with 2 hours. Here's the menu:
Bean pasta with olive oil and broccoli
Peanut butter protein fluff topped with walnuts and some light Hershey's syrup
Not high fat, not junk food. Try again.
Depends on how you define "junk food." Junk food is high-calorie foods. With a few exceptions, like olive oil(used sparingly). Foods that are 180 calories or more per 100 grams are considered high-calorie foods.
Peanut butter shake = 367 calories per 100 grams.
Olive oil = extremely high
walnuts = 654 calories per gram
More hubris. You automatically presumed I overate the fat and don't know what I'm doing.
Junk food = high calorie foods? I'm seeing some disordered thinking coming from you. Fats are essential nutrients, dude. Walnuts are healthy foods full of good essential fats and I ate all of 10 grams of them. Oh, the horror. As for the olive oil on the pasta? I had a teaspoon.
Peanut butter protein powder... you're going to have issue with that? Try again on the calorie count. It's 110 calories. And I had 5 grams of actual peanut butter, again for the fat. I have very little actual fat in my diet, I have to work to get to 50 grams a day.
I said, "The only way to achieve meals with high calories density is junk food or high fat." How will you define junk food? Based on carb content, fat content, or protein content? Carbs are not bad, neither is fat, or protein. You used high-calorie foods, and high-fat foods, just like I said.
Most protein powders are 28-32g of protein(talking about mass). I just randomly picked a peanut butter protein. The one I picked contained 110 calories (just like you said) for 30grams.
"Foods that are 180 calories or more per 100 grams are considered high-calorie foods. "
100g * (110 calories / 30g) = 367 calories for 100 grams.
Is 367 greater than 180???
I didn't eat 100 grams. I ate 30. You are twisting to suit your narrative which proves I have nothing further to say to you since you have no interest in a rational discussion.
I did not twist anything. I said "180 calories or more per 100g" The protein shake is 367 calories per 100g. It does not matter if you consumed 1g or 10,000g it is still 367 calories per 100g.
Fortunately, you're not the ultimate arbiter of what exactly constitutes "junk food". Nor are you the ultimate arbiter of what makes for successful habits.
I'll tell you what, get back to me when you've done ten years of your restrictive eating plan and then we'll talk.
I've done that, for the record. It's more than I could say for many people who post exactly like you on these boards. I'm what happens when you get over all that stuff.
How about you get back to me after doing what you did for 20 years as I have. All jokes a said, I do not understand how you believe what I said is restrictive. I honestly want you to explain that.
You said you're maintaining a 100 pound loss for 6 years. Where is this 20 years coming from?
As far as restrictive eating, it's quite obvious from all your "rules" around food how restrictive you are and where you get them from.
You don't have a reasonable understanding of what healthy food is, to my (not uneducated) way of looking at food, some of what you say comes across as disordered, frankly.
Take, for example, lack of consideration of context and dosage. There is nothing wrong with consuming high calorie foods in proper portions for one's diet. That you consider them to be "junk" based on their calorie count alone is indicative of problematic and restrictive thinking on your part.
The 20 years comes from "trying" for the last 20. I eventually was successful to some extent. It is not really restrictive because you would not desire those foods. I would have completely agreed with you a few years ago. If I was talking to myself in this discussion I would have said. "I did IF for a while and keep the weight off. You get satiety from it. Calories are what determine weight loss, not food quality. CICO's. What you are preaching is unstainable long term for most people." I havebeen there done that already for years. Honestly, that is how I lost most of my weight, actually all of it(the 200lbs).
Over a few years, I gained back about 100. Last year I was the same weight I was at now. I lost about 50lbs by June, September the weight started to pile back on. I gained 50lbs between September and January.
I have been studying and researching this stuff for 20 years. As you can suspect I am tired of this struggle. I have been through some serious illnesses because of it. I needed to do a lot of thinking, analyzing myself and others and try to figure out a way to solve this problem.
Keep in mind, I am not saying to eliminate those foods forever. That is highly unrealistic. I do believe they have to greatly be limited(trigger foods).
I've dieted and failed for 40 years. You've got nothing on me kid.
You name it, I've tried it.
There's a difference between you and me here, a big, glaring fundamental one.
I don't presume that what worked for me will work for everyone.
I don't presume that there's just one way to go about this.
Can you tell me how you've come to the conclusion, after studying all this for so long, and obviously observing others, how you could possibly think that this works the same exact way for everyone?
To the point of the OP and IF...
I do have concerns about OMAD. I don't have concerns about IF in general, because certain meal timing patterns can be natural (like a delayed breakfast) for some people. If your natural hunger cues were such that eating once a day was how your hunger worked, I wouldn't have an issue with it.
The issue I have, thinking long term, is one of sustainability. How long can you live like this?
I practice a form of IF wherein I delay breakfast, but that's simply because I don't wake up hungry. My natural hunger pattern works that way and it just so happens that I naturally would IF without knowing that's what I'm doing. Since this suits my natural hunger patterns, I can sustain this.
It's okay to do something short term and then switch gears, but always remember to keep your eye on the future. Your goal isn't just to lose weight. Your goal is to keep the weight off, and that's going to require the formation of habits to sustain the change. Is OMAD really the path you want to keep to for life?1 -
physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I do not mean to be a party pooper, but we have to be realistic. I have been in countless communities like this one, I have seen it all before and I have done it all before too. Ketosis does help but most people can not stay on it long term. OMAD has a much lower adherence rate than keto. I do not think this will end well.
You have to consider what you're really doing to your body. You are not shrinking your stomach you're actually expanding it. You are putting a days worth of food in your stomach in a short period of time. When people go off things like this or other forms of intermittent fasting they end up with a bottomless stomach. They stuff their face like there is no tomorrow.
If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
Shaun Phillips, the guy in your profile picture, is a fan of IF. He's actually published a few blog posts and podcasts with Brad Plion on the subject where they talk about their 24 hours fasts.
It has been a long time since I been up to date with Shawn Phillips. Keep in mind he has never been overweight either. I have in another post that the people who usually do well on IF are people who are not that overweight to begin with. Take all the If authors for example
It's a fair point about body comp history, not that I think it makes much, if any difference - energy in, energy out is the driver for fat loss/gain I'm clear on that.
What I am unclear about is you. You're vehemently anti IF, but your profile pic is of a proponent of the system, "so what?" you might say - In fact, my profile pic is Arnold dressed as Mr Freeze - I certainly don't share all beliefs that Arnie or Mr Freeze have. But your user name is taken from a health and fitness blog/site which has articles about the benefits of IF (http://physiquelore.com/home/eating-frequency-and-its-fallacies). I'm assuming it's your website?
So, what's going on here? I just don't get it.
Background - These boards are pretty vibrant and we have many discussions about health, fitness, diet etc. There certainly is a prevailing theme (some may call it a dogma) from the more experienced posters and that is generally one of:- CICO above all else
- Different ways of eating and clean/dirty may help with dietary compliance
- Find your own path
- Weight loss and health and fitness share a lot of common ground but are not the same thing
- Quick fixes and raspberry ketones don't work
- Starvation mode is a myth
You get the picture.
Every couple of months we get a new, prolific, "expert" poster on the boards who comes in all helpful and *kitten* (many have a first post of "Hey, I'm a PT from New Jersey, hit me up with any questions") but then start spouting off a load of bro-science and 20 year old, debunked fitness myths - I'm not suggesting that this is you. But, my spidey-sences are tingling. It's also worth pointing out that some of these guys (it's always guys) end up being long term and very positive members of the boards.
I'm not the board police, and some may say I've overstepped the mark with this post - I'll probably get some flack for it - but, whilst people have the right to be whoever they want to on internet forums, I'm trying reconcile the advice your giving here with that which you have given (if it is you) elsewhere.3 -
^^ pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...
- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."1 -
physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »physiquelore wrote: »I do not mean to be a party pooper, but we have to be realistic. I have been in countless communities like this one, I have seen it all before and I have done it all before too. Ketosis does help but most people can not stay on it long term. OMAD has a much lower adherence rate than keto. I do not think this will end well.
You have to consider what you're really doing to your body. You are not shrinking your stomach you're actually expanding it. You are putting a days worth of food in your stomach in a short period of time. When people go off things like this or other forms of intermittent fasting they end up with a bottomless stomach. They stuff their face like there is no tomorrow.
If you're doing OMAD you're already stuffing your face once a day. This is not a healthy mindset and it does not strengthen long-term positive habits.
My max weight loss was roughly 200lbs. My experience with OMAD is I eventually got sick. I eventually gained back about 100lbs. I did keto on and off through the years. I started to do it again and I Lost about 50lbs putting me at a 150lbs weight loss. I stalled out a bit, took a diet break. Stress hit gained those 50lbs right back.
Shaun Phillips, the guy in your profile picture, is a fan of IF. He's actually published a few blog posts and podcasts with Brad Plion on the subject where they talk about their 24 hours fasts.
It has been a long time since I been up to date with Shawn Phillips. Keep in mind he has never been overweight either. I have in another post that the people who usually do well on IF are people who are not that overweight to begin with. Take all the If authors for example
It's a fair point about body comp history, not that I think it makes much, if any difference - energy in, energy out is the driver for fat loss/gain I'm clear on that.
What I am unclear about is you. You're vehemently anti IF, but your profile pic is of a proponent of the system, "so what?" you might say - In fact, my profile pic is Arnold dressed as Mr Freeze - I certainly don't share all beliefs that Arnie or Mr Freeze have. But your user name is taken from a health and fitness blog/site which has articles about the benefits of IF (http://physiquelore.com/home/eating-frequency-and-its-fallacies). I'm assuming it's your website?
So, what's going on here? I just don't get it.
Background - These boards are pretty vibrant and we have many discussions about health, fitness, diet etc. There certainly is a prevailing theme (some may call it a dogma) from the more experienced posters and that is generally one of:- CICO above all else
- Different ways of eating and clean/dirty may help with dietary compliance
- Find your own path
- Weight loss and health and fitness share a lot of common ground but are not the same thing
- Quick fixes and raspberry ketones don't work
- Starvation mode is a myth
You get the picture.
Every couple of months we get a new, prolific, "expert" poster on the boards who comes in all helpful and *kitten* (many have a first post of "Hey, I'm a PT from New Jersey, hit me up with any questions") but then start spouting off a load of bro-science and 20 year old, debunked fitness myths - I'm not suggesting that this is you. But, my spidey-sences are tingling. It's also worth pointing out that some of these guys (it's always guys) end up being long term and very positive members of the boards.
I'm not the board police, and some may say I've overstepped the mark with this post - I'll probably get some flack for it - but, whilst people have the right to be whoever they want to on internet forums, I'm trying reconcile the advice your giving here with that which you have given (if it is you) elsewhere.
What is wrong is you're referring old material, such as my profile image and that link. It is not mine, I do know the owner of it, though. Yes, I am aware of the theme on here and the dogma. I am very aware of those bro science guys they are all over the internet. That is why you need a reliable and accurate source for information.
I have been on the forum for over 7 years. You mentioned the "experienced members." How many of them have lost 100+ pounds and kept it off for 2+ years?
OK, I get it:- You've lost a total of 200lb because you lost 100 then gained it back then lost it again but you've held it off for a year (or two - I can't quite work it out from from your posts - "Over a few years, I gained back about 100. Last year I was the same weight I was at now. I lost about 50lbs by June, September the weight started to pile back on. I gained 50lbs between September and January." ).
- You've been on here for 7 years but you've just decided to start posting on the forums.
- You're not Antonio Rodriguez, the creator of www.physiquelore.com but you know him and you're using his website name as your username on this forum, but you disagree with his views on fasting.
- You're generally against fasting because you feel that it increases the chances of binges.
1 -
physiquelore wrote: »StealthHealth wrote: »^^ pilot study with 15 participants but if we are to draw conclusions...
- subjects had a significant increase in hunger - NEGATIVE
- a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass - POSITIVE (since participants maintained weight and therefore increased LBM)
- significant increases in blood pressure - NEGATIVE (although researchers do point out that it may be due to circadian rhythm since animal studies have shown the opposite effect)
- and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations - Generally considered to be NEGATIVE but, to be expected if participants losing fat?
- significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol - POSITIVE
"In conclusion, altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women. Consumption of 1 meal/d resulted in weight loss and a decrease in fat mass with little modification in calorie consumption. It remains unclear whether altered meal frequency would lead to changes in weight and body composition in obese subjects."
"Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
I do not know where you're getting some of your "negative's" from.
The POSITIVE/NEGATIVE interpretations are mine. But, I'm getting more and more confused with your posts.
Are you posting a link to that study as supporting evidence that fasting is bad? That was my assumption and my post containing the POSITIVE/NEGATIVE interpretations was to state that, in my opinion the study results (ignoring the comically low number of participants), display both positive outcomes and negative outcomes.
I added the researcher's own summary "... altered meal frequency is feasible in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged men and women..." as a statement to show that they consider fasting to be a useful tool.
I may have got hold of the wrong end of the stick here and you were posting a link to that study in support of fasting? If that's the case, great, but WTF are you doing posting it on every IF post you come across? You've posted it on three to my knowledge.0 -
you posted it in three threads
- 2 Meals a day?
- KETO & OMAD the best weight loss marriage!!
- Intermittent fasting does it work?
and you claim that "This eventually results in faulty signaling of satiety and hunger." is certainly not a conclusion from the study you cite.
(my stuff is in italics)
"Only a few experimental studies have tested the effect of meal frequency on satiety measures. The results of the VASs suggest that subjects did not become habituated to the 1 meal/d diet. Over time, hunger, desire to eat, and prospective consumption increased, whereas feelings of fullness decreased. Similarly, subjects who followed an alternate-day-fast diet for 3 wk had a significant increase in hunger and desire to eat on their fasting days than at baseline, but they did not become habituated to the alternate-day-fast diet, and they were just as hungry on their first day of fasting as on the last day (21)."
In other words, the subjects did not get used to fasting periods and were as hungry during fasts at the end of the study(s) as they were at the start. And that there is an indication that they may get used to the larger meals in the future.
"Although subjective hunger and satiety assessments were not made after the evening meal, in comments during consumption of the 1 meal/d diet, most subjects reported extreme fullness after the meal and had difficulty finishing their food in the allotted time."
Participants struggled to eat the allotted food in the time and I assume that, because of this, in other circumstances (not being on the study) their food intake would not increase.
"Further research is required to gain a better understanding of subjective satiety on meal frequency."
Says it all.
So, where does that leave OP and MFP users? We could say (from this study alone), that if you fast you're going to get hungry, but in calorific control you're not going to eat more on a OMAD way of eating than any other protocol.
And that bold bit in calorific control is the important bit, because that is what most people on MFP are doing - counting calories. It is, the key part of the site. And as we both know, if you're not in control of the calories going in, neither IF, OMAD, or 6 meals a day is not going to make a blind bit of difference and you can fall off the wagon with any type of eating system.
What the study did show (and I'll repeat that I don't think we should be putting much weight behind a 15 participant pilot study) is that there were some positive outcomes to the OMAD protocol - most interesting to many MFPers is the reduction in body fat but apparent increase in LBM when compared to the iso-calorific control group.
I think that there may be some validity in the claim that fasting can increase/trigger binge behaviour, although the correlation/causation discussions around any studies would be interesting. I've used fasting protocols for years and suffered from binge episodes dressed up as cheat meals, but then again I displayed that behaviour when I used to eat three meals a day (and my n=1 does not a study make). But, I can say that the study you're citing doesn't prove a damn thing about faulty signaling, falling off the wagon, or binge behaviour and doesn't prove you point about "Eating a lot of food in a short period of time expands the stomach. Over time, your body will get used to this. We do not want this. If you fall off the wagon or something. You will be eating a lot more."0 -
ms_smartypants wrote: »I am a keto'er....Most of us are in this awesome group.....Feel free to join http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/394-low-carber-daily-forum-the-lcd-group
I have lost 91 lbs with 30 more to go
Congrats on all your weight loss
I have been trying to get accepted into this group for 2 days. So much for being supportive I could really use some help.0 -
For the OP - if you have found a means of getting to your goals, more power to you and carry on smartly!
for @physiquelorephysiquelore wrote: »Just going to through this in here.
"when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/
And here is the problem that I have with the argument that you are positing (and have done so in 3 threads so far) - to claim that a study of 15 people is some how representative of the other 6 billion people that live on the planet is absolutely absurd! Just to get this straight - I have no problem with the study and I am sure that the results represent what those 15 people actually experienced, but a group of 15 people doesn't even represent a valid cross section of the people who reside in the study's city of origin, much less the population of the planet. Such a small study sample doesn't even represent a statistical blip on an aberration when compared to a reasonable population cross section (think in the 10's of thousands).0 -
The incentive is always good. I remember that before my wedding I lost about 15 kilos drinking weight loss tea and exercising. Plus, it was very tasty or I'm just a tea lover. Of course I kept the diet, that's why I didn't eat any pastries or junk ( so tasty) food, just a lot of vegetables, fruits.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions