Anyone else doing internment fasting?
Replies
-
I do it too
, I fast 16hrs a day, is specially useful for cutting phases.
It took me a couple of weeks to get used to it since I was a "breakfast" believer, but now I can even train fasted
1 -
I have started with IF Dr Fung has good books and his blog has lots of studies
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com9 -
I too have a hypothyroidism, with an insulin-resistance chaser. I've been losing weight steadily. Am I on medication? Yes. Can I lose weight on just the medication? No, I still have to be in a calorie deficit. Do these conditions make my body more efficient, in that I can go about my day on fewer calories than average for my gender/age/weight? Yes. That doesn't mean CICO doesn't work, it just means that I am at the lower end of the spectrum used to generate the online calculators. My CICO output is lower than the average, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.
See? That wasn't so hard.1 -
iamrichlee wrote: »I have started with IF Dr Fung has good books and his blog has lots of studies
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com
dr fung is a quack and has been discredited. end of story6 -
iamrichlee wrote: »I have started with IF Dr Fung has good books and his blog has lots of studies
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com
Fung isn't considered a good source, but Leangains/Mark Berkhan is a great one-he no longer posts on his site but he's kept up all the information-highly recommend checking it out
http://www.leangains.com/2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.
To kill both quotes here with one suggestion that everyone overlooks in this argument.
Yes CICO applies in all situations, but to think that hormones don't affect it in some cases such that the CICO equation can't be accurately calculated or changes in reaction to said hormonal imbalances is naive on both sides of the debate.
But that's NOT the assertion being repeatedly made. The assertion made is always that hormones or what kind of food you're eating or toxins or the moon phases or whatever somehow work OUTSIDE of CICO.
I agree. That's why I included the other quote too.
Hormone people say CICO doesn't work because of hormones.
CICO people say don't use hormones as an excuse, CICO is absolute.
Biology & physiology says we'll use hormones to change the CICO equation to say whatever we want it to say and the rest of you can argue who is right.
Excuses are useless, but I am a "CICO person" who thinks hormones could be an issue.
If someone has an (undiagnosed) thyroid problem and is responding to calorie cutting (low calories) by still not losing anything and feeling sluggish and low energy and so on, then the solution is not to cut calories more. It's to treat the thyroid issue. The person may end up with a lower TDEE than the average person of their age and activity, and that may be a bummer while not preventing weight loss, but I'd never say that CICO trumps all health conditions and that you can always lose no matter what by cutting calories. Sometimes CICO reveals a health issue that must be treated first. That's why I say to log as accurately as possible and if something seems off, bring the log to your doctor. (I do think that you aren't going to be eating 800, not losing weight, but feeling perfectly good with normal activity -- there would be other symptoms. However, if you are convinced you are the eating 800 person, logging and then a doctor makes sense.)
Similarly, I think hormones and other factors can make it difficult to maintain the correct calories for some. IR people on average may be better able to maintain a deficit with lower carbs, and that's relevant. Others of us may find how we eat makes a difference.
Stress and increased cortisol may decrease TDEE some, deep deficit over time may also, major weight loss may (even beyond what the numbers would predict), decreased leptin or leptin sensitivity may (but exercise makes you more leptin sensitive). So on.
Bigger point is that none of this is contrary to CICO. Even the thyroid example -- it's a problem with CO that can be fixed (or improved a great deal).4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.
To kill both quotes here with one suggestion that everyone overlooks in this argument.
Yes CICO applies in all situations, but to think that hormones don't affect it in some cases such that the CICO equation can't be accurately calculated or changes in reaction to said hormonal imbalances is naive on both sides of the debate.
But that's NOT the assertion being repeatedly made. The assertion made is always that hormones or what kind of food you're eating or toxins or the moon phases or whatever somehow work OUTSIDE of CICO.
I agree. That's why I included the other quote too.
Hormone people say CICO doesn't work because of hormones.
CICO people say don't use hormones as an excuse, CICO is absolute.
Biology & physiology says we'll use hormones to change the CICO equation to say whatever we want it to say and the rest of you can argue who is right.
Excuses are useless, but I am a "CICO person" who thinks hormones could be an issue.
If someone has an (undiagnosed) thyroid problem and is responding to calorie cutting (low calories) by still not losing anything and feeling sluggish and low energy and so on, then the solution is not to cut calories more. It's to treat the thyroid issue. The person may end up with a lower TDEE than the average person of their age and activity, and that may be a bummer while not preventing weight loss, but I'd never say that CICO trumps all health conditions and that you can always lose no matter what by cutting calories. Sometimes CICO reveals a health issue that must be treated first. That's why I say to log as accurately as possible and if something seems off, bring the log to your doctor. (I do think that you aren't going to be eating 800, not losing weight, but feeling perfectly good with normal activity -- there would be other symptoms. However, if you are convinced you are the eating 800 person, logging and then a doctor makes sense.)
Similarly, I think hormones and other factors can make it difficult to maintain the correct calories for some. IR people on average may be better able to maintain a deficit with lower carbs, and that's relevant. Others of us may find how we eat makes a difference.
Stress and increased cortisol may decrease TDEE some, deep deficit over time may also, major weight loss may (even beyond what the numbers would predict), decreased leptin or leptin sensitivity may (but exercise makes you more leptin sensitive). So on.
Bigger point is that none of this is contrary to CICO. Even the thyroid example -- it's a problem with CO that can be fixed (or improved a great deal).
This is my point exactly, you laid it out very well. If more people understood this, there wouldn't really be a debate about all this.1 -
Most days I fast for 15-16 hrs, but I don't think of this as intermittent fasting. I've eaten this way for decades and never heard of IF before joining this site. Also, it's not a rule, just the way I typically get hungry.1
-
OliveGirl128 wrote: »iamrichlee wrote: »I have started with IF Dr Fung has good books and his blog has lots of studies
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com
Fung isn't considered a good source, but Leangains/Mark Berkhan is a great one-he no longer posts on his site but he's kept up all the information-highly recommend checking it out
http://www.leangains.com/
I think IF is great and lots of reasonable people support it as a strategy, and there are people like Berkan and the ADF woman and so on who I think make sense.
However, I admit I have been wondering if the current faddiness of IR that I've noticed this year is about Fung. That includes calling eating schedules that are basically breakfast, lunch, dinner (like 10 or 12 hours no eating) "fasting" and the idea that it should be combined with keto.
I am aware that Jimmie Moore (who for some reason many people seem to consider some kind of authority) is doing a fasting podcast with Fung, so...1 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »OliveGirl128 wrote: »iamrichlee wrote: »I have started with IF Dr Fung has good books and his blog has lots of studies
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com
Fung isn't considered a good source, but Leangains/Mark Berkhan is a great one-he no longer posts on his site but he's kept up all the information-highly recommend checking it out
http://www.leangains.com/
I think IF is great and lots of reasonable people support it as a strategy, and there are people like Berkan and the ADF woman and so on who I think make sense.
However, I admit I have been wondering if the current faddiness of IR that I've noticed this year is about Fung. That includes calling eating schedules that are basically breakfast, lunch, dinner (like 10 or 12 hours no eating) "fasting" and the idea that it should be combined with keto.
I am aware that Jimmie Moore (who for some reason many people seem to consider some kind of authority) is doing a fasting podcast with Fung, so...
Dr. Mosley took IF to the mainstream with his documentary and then all sorts jumped on the bandwagon, Fung being the latest to cash in on it. But yeah-Berkhan, Dr. Johnson, Dr. Varady-those were the 'good old days' of IF 0 -
repeat post0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions