Alan Aragon on Intermittent Fasting
Replies
-
Maybe I am incorrect, but to me I think there is something to it when you exercise after not eating for a certain amount of hours that puts you in a higher fat burning zone, how could it not...when I exercise in the morning after not intaking any food in my stomach for the past 14 plus hours, how am I able to find the energy to get thru the workout? I will do half hour of kickboxing, plus a 4 km walk all before I eat..where is the energy coming from???
This is nothing new, I remember reading a book called Body for LIfe about 15 years ago and this was mentioned.
Acutely, this is true, however, over the time span of a day, it's not the case. Jeff Nippard did a myth bust monday on fasted cardio exploring the science.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEbWdoceH-A
I often use IF as an adherence tool, but the science doesn't really seem to support fasted exercise being superior. I still workout fasted since it better supports my lifestyle.2 -
When you google about exercising on an empty stomach vs not...you see about 50/50 pros and cons..whatever! I think for me because I have lost 15 lbs in two months doing this I am just going to continue it.
I keep thinking too back about 15 years ago I never weighed as much as I did now and espeically two years ago (just about 30 lbs more than I am today) and back then I never did fasting but always worked out in the a.m. prior to eating.
https://weightology.net/fasted-cardio-an-undeserved-good-reputation/1 -
-
Except that Jeff Nippard has an actual education and that other guy doesn't. And the few videos i have seen are the typical overly biased non sense.
I'll take information from a person who has a formal education over that guy.6 -
Personally, I consider the source and the argument that source is making. If the source is one that I believe to be trustworthy (admittedly, I read virtually zero studies/abstracts), and if they make an argument that jives with what I think I know, then I'm more apt to give credence to what they are saying. If not, then I probably won't.
As for your bigfoot example... that's exactly my point. With no compelling evidence, there is a chasm of possibilities between "can't possibly exist" and "go live in the woods hoping they'll take you in as one of their own". Same with IF and similar. There's a lot of gray area between it does nothing and it's a miracle that defies the basics of energy balance.
So your line is a hypothetical line because you haven't done any research? What is the point of this exchange then? I threw big foot out there to be a nonsense extreme and you actually used it to make your point so basically anything and everything in your world exists to some degree until someone proves it doesn't. You can't have a productive conversation with someone that has that criteria. It is pointless and hopeless.
So I will return to the Santa Claus example of when the presents are found under the tree the science can begin. Until then it is conjecture. Speculating about it is a waste of time like I have just proven.7 -
Well, ok then. Good chat.3
-
Personally, I consider the source and the argument that source is making. If the source is one that I believe to be trustworthy (admittedly, I read virtually zero studies/abstracts), and if they make an argument that jives with what I think I know, then I'm more apt to give credence to what they are saying. If not, then I probably won't.
As for your bigfoot example... that's exactly my point. With no compelling evidence, there is a chasm of possibilities between "can't possibly exist" and "go live in the woods hoping they'll take you in as one of their own". Same with IF and similar. There's a lot of gray area between it does nothing and it's a miracle that defies the basics of energy balance.
So your line is a hypothetical line because you haven't done any research? What is the point of this exchange then? I threw big foot out there to be a nonsense extreme and you actually used it to make your point so basically anything and everything in your world exists to some degree until someone proves it doesn't. You can't have a productive conversation with someone that has that criteria. It is pointless and hopeless.
So I will return to the Santa Claus example of when the presents are found under the tree the science can begin. Until then it is conjecture. Speculating about it is a waste of time like I have just proven.
WHAT!!!???!?! Santa and Biggie Feet are not real? Kitten, I hang out with them all the time when I am off my meds! LOL2 -
I'm curious as to whether diet breaks / refeeds count as intermittent fasting, and the science / hormones that make refeeds more beneficial than IF.
@Nony_Mouse
I think the answer to that question is nuanced because intermittent fasting can be run at a deficit, at maintenance or at a surplus, depending on one's needs. It's simply a pattern of eating. The effect it may have upon leptin levels and/or adaptive thermogenesis will be driven by the deficit (or lack thereof). The effects of leptin falling and adaptive thermogenesis are chronic (happening over days/weeks/months), whereas IF is more of an acute thing (the gap between meals on a day-to-day basis). While none of the studies Alan referenced specifically reference leptin or AT, I'd postulate that under isocaloric conditions, there would be no difference in results between IF or a "conventional" eating pattern - the overall caloric intake being the prime driver of any results.
A refeed/diet break is a different thing that's done for a different reason than IF, but you could conceivably run a diet break on an IF pattern if you so desired - again, the difference being the caloric deficit (or lack thereof, in the case of a refeed/diet break). So a refeed/diet break could "count" as intermittent fasting (if you chose to eat in that pattern), or it could not (if you chose not to) - but there's no outright interconnection between the two.
I hope that makes sense.
I have not read all of this post so please forgive me if I am repeating what has already been stated....
But, IF is simply a schedule of "Food on | Food off". In other words, the time frame in which you eat and then the rest of the day (when you do not eat). I read and hear lots of interesting things about IF and, for the most part, just shake my head. Generally speaking.
It surprises me (but, honestly - no it does not....not when I think about it) how creative people can be when they have 'an angle' (that they are trying to sell).
Anyway, great topic. Going to read the entire post now....1 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »I'm curious as to whether diet breaks / refeeds count as intermittent fasting, and the science / hormones that make refeeds more beneficial than IF.
@Nony_Mouse
I think the answer to that question is nuanced because intermittent fasting can be run at a deficit, at maintenance or at a surplus, depending on one's needs. It's simply a pattern of eating. The effect it may have upon leptin levels and/or adaptive thermogenesis will be driven by the deficit (or lack thereof). The effects of leptin falling and adaptive thermogenesis are chronic (happening over days/weeks/months), whereas IF is more of an acute thing (the gap between meals on a day-to-day basis). While none of the studies Alan referenced specifically reference leptin or AT, I'd postulate that under isocaloric conditions, there would be no difference in results between IF or a "conventional" eating pattern - the overall caloric intake being the prime driver of any results.
A refeed/diet break is a different thing that's done for a different reason than IF, but you could conceivably run a diet break on an IF pattern if you so desired - again, the difference being the caloric deficit (or lack thereof, in the case of a refeed/diet break). So a refeed/diet break could "count" as intermittent fasting (if you chose to eat in that pattern), or it could not (if you chose not to) - but there's no outright interconnection between the two.
I hope that makes sense.
I have not read all of this post so please forgive me if I am repeating what has already been stated....
But, IF is simply a schedule of "Food on | Food off". In other words, the time frame in which you eat and then the rest of the day (when you do not eat). I read and hear lots of interesting things about IF and, for the most part, just shake my head. Generally speaking.
It surprises me (but, honestly - no it does not....not when I think about it) how creative people can be when they have 'an angle' (that they are trying to sell).
Anyway, great topic. Going to read the entire post now....
...."how creative people can be when they have 'an angle' (that they are trying to sell)" Could you not say that about any type of "diet/eating plan", etc.0 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »I'm curious as to whether diet breaks / refeeds count as intermittent fasting, and the science / hormones that make refeeds more beneficial than IF.
@Nony_Mouse
I think the answer to that question is nuanced because intermittent fasting can be run at a deficit, at maintenance or at a surplus, depending on one's needs. It's simply a pattern of eating. The effect it may have upon leptin levels and/or adaptive thermogenesis will be driven by the deficit (or lack thereof). The effects of leptin falling and adaptive thermogenesis are chronic (happening over days/weeks/months), whereas IF is more of an acute thing (the gap between meals on a day-to-day basis). While none of the studies Alan referenced specifically reference leptin or AT, I'd postulate that under isocaloric conditions, there would be no difference in results between IF or a "conventional" eating pattern - the overall caloric intake being the prime driver of any results.
A refeed/diet break is a different thing that's done for a different reason than IF, but you could conceivably run a diet break on an IF pattern if you so desired - again, the difference being the caloric deficit (or lack thereof, in the case of a refeed/diet break). So a refeed/diet break could "count" as intermittent fasting (if you chose to eat in that pattern), or it could not (if you chose not to) - but there's no outright interconnection between the two.
I hope that makes sense.
I have not read all of this post so please forgive me if I am repeating what has already been stated....
But, IF is simply a schedule of "Food on | Food off". In other words, the time frame in which you eat and then the rest of the day (when you do not eat). I read and hear lots of interesting things about IF and, for the most part, just shake my head. Generally speaking.
It surprises me (but, honestly - no it does not....not when I think about it) how creative people can be when they have 'an angle' (that they are trying to sell).
Anyway, great topic. Going to read the entire post now....
...."how creative people can be when they have 'an angle' (that they are trying to sell)" Could you not say that about any type of "diet/eating plan", etc.
I think that was his point.3 -
AnvilHead, you've hit the nail on the head with IF. Technically, most people do it wrong. Intermittent does not mean every single day. IF has morphed into simply skipping meals every single day. IF is now JNE. Just not eating. Skipping meals every day and eating later in the day is not magic.
IF doesn't boost your metabolism or turn you into a lean fat burning machine when all of your calories are saved for the dinner meal or afternoon eating window.
For those with metabolic dysfunction, ingesting the entire day's calories in the eating window or at dinner results in increases in fasting glucose levels and increases in insulin responses to large afternoon or evening meals.
The metabolism is naturally slowing down around 4 in the afternoon or with the sunset. There's no metabolic advantage to eating everything later rather than sooner or throughout the day.
I beg to differ. I have fasted all my life as Im not nor was I ever a breakfast eater. I have a metabolic issue that is genetic, my fasting glucose and insulin is just fine. no issues there. as for the metabolism slowing down at a certain time. can you please cite the source in which you got your info? I dont eat after 1pm most days and never had any issues health wise. some days its not til 3 depends on when I get hungry. your metabolism runs all the time even when asleep.2 -
LiftHeavyThings27105 wrote: »I have not read all of this post so please forgive me if I am repeating what has already been stated....
But, IF is simply a schedule of "Food on | Food off". In other words, the time frame in which you eat and then the rest of the day (when you do not eat). I read and hear lots of interesting things about IF and, for the most part, just shake my head. Generally speaking.
It surprises me (but, honestly - no it does not....not when I think about it) how creative people can be when they have 'an angle' (that they are trying to sell).
Anyway, great topic. Going to read the entire post now....
IF has been given a schedule but one has always existed. Most people are probably 12:12 if they eat 3 meals a day at the conventional times in this country. You don't hear people talk about being 12:12 normally though because that would be absurd. IMO calling the act of skipping the morning meal 16:8 is equally absurd.
I wish those creative people were telling the truth based on real science. If those extra 4 hours of fasting carry a benefit I have over 25,000 of them. I might need extra retirement money if I am going to live to 150 because of the miraculous health bestowed on me.6 -
OK, so I guess this is the point where I'm not smart enough to stay in this thread. I get lost when I have to figure out how to take a sentence like "there's no science to support point XYZ" and figure out how to make use of that information. In most cases, especially with things like IF, I assume that any claims made in main stream media are highly overstated. But I also believe that where there's smoke there's fire. So it becomes an issue of perceived effort vs perceived benefit. And it's at that point that things become very personal/individual. But everyone just wants to oversimplify things and speak in general, black and white terms saying that there is zero benefit aside from preference/adherence.
It wasn't long ago that the forums spoke that way about nutrient timing (very black and white, virtually no context). Only recently have we started saying that the benefits are relatively small, far outweighed by other factors, and probably only significant to people already pretty lean/accomplished... or with specific athletic/endurance goals.
The question I have for you is where do you draw the line? There are thousands of supplements and dozens of added-bonus diets and jump-starters like cleanses and detoxes. (I am guessing, I don't know the actual counts). Isn't it better to be skeptical until there is proof instead of relying on something that is fake? In the case of IF, which for me is probably one of the more absurd (personal bias admitted), there is nothing wrong with doing it if you can handle it and you understand that it still requires a deficit. Of course if you think it is a miracle cure for something else and you stop taking medicine that you need then it becomes potentially dangerous.
I am not accusing you of this but the "smoke and fire" mindset can be used on big foot too. I guess there is no harm in believing he/she/they exist but if you abandon your job and family to live in the woods there is a problem.
Personally, I consider the source and the argument that source is making. If the source is one that I believe to be trustworthy (admittedly, I read virtually zero studies/abstracts), and if they make an argument that jives with what I think I know, then I'm more apt to give credence to what they are saying. If not, then I probably won't.
As for your bigfoot example... that's exactly my point. With no compelling evidence, there is a chasm of possibilities between "can't possibly exist" and "go live in the woods hoping they'll take you in as one of their own". Same with IF and similar. There's a lot of gray area between it does nothing and it's a miracle that defies the basics of energy balance.
I think you're getting hung up on the fact that a stopped analog watch is right twice a day.
IF only "works" if you eat less than you burn.
It doesn't guarantee weight loss, no matter what eating window or schedule the latest IF diet prescribes.4 -
OK, so I guess this is the point where I'm not smart enough to stay in this thread. I get lost when I have to figure out how to take a sentence like "there's no science to support point XYZ" and figure out how to make use of that information. In most cases, especially with things like IF, I assume that any claims made in main stream media are highly overstated. But I also believe that where there's smoke there's fire. So it becomes an issue of perceived effort vs perceived benefit. And it's at that point that things become very personal/individual. But everyone just wants to oversimplify things and speak in general, black and white terms saying that there is zero benefit aside from preference/adherence.
It wasn't long ago that the forums spoke that way about nutrient timing (very black and white, virtually no context). Only recently have we started saying that the benefits are relatively small, far outweighed by other factors, and probably only significant to people already pretty lean/accomplished... or with specific athletic/endurance goals.
The question I have for you is where do you draw the line? There are thousands of supplements and dozens of added-bonus diets and jump-starters like cleanses and detoxes. (I am guessing, I don't know the actual counts). Isn't it better to be skeptical until there is proof instead of relying on something that is fake? In the case of IF, which for me is probably one of the more absurd (personal bias admitted), there is nothing wrong with doing it if you can handle it and you understand that it still requires a deficit. Of course if you think it is a miracle cure for something else and you stop taking medicine that you need then it becomes potentially dangerous.
I am not accusing you of this but the "smoke and fire" mindset can be used on big foot too. I guess there is no harm in believing he/she/they exist but if you abandon your job and family to live in the woods there is a problem.
Personally, I consider the source and the argument that source is making. If the source is one that I believe to be trustworthy (admittedly, I read virtually zero studies/abstracts), and if they make an argument that jives with what I think I know, then I'm more apt to give credence to what they are saying. If not, then I probably won't.
As for your bigfoot example... that's exactly my point. With no compelling evidence, there is a chasm of possibilities between "can't possibly exist" and "go live in the woods hoping they'll take you in as one of their own". Same with IF and similar. There's a lot of gray area between it does nothing and it's a miracle that defies the basics of energy balance.
I think you're getting hung up on the fact that a stopped analog watch is right twice a day.
IF only "works" if you eat less than you burn.
It doesn't guarantee weight loss, no matter what eating window or schedule the latest IF diet prescribes.
exactly, I have fasted most of my life and I gained weight doing IF because I ate more calories than my body burned. I didnt know that what I was doing was considered fasting, because back then it wasnt heard of much or very popular.But there it was I gained almost 70lbs over the years.I still do IF(16:8 most days some days its 18:6)and lost 45 so far. and I lost it because I am eating less than my body needs to maintain my weight. so nope nothing special about IF2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqbmiewWkJg
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions