Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How do you feel about fasting?
Options
Replies
-
stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.11 -
janejellyroll wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
This point should be posted prominently somewhere. It's amazing how many times people are like "Checkmate, Harvard agrees with me!"
You have been quite snippy the entire thread and have been one of those people continually questioning my sources. So I'll repeat what I responded to the poster above:
This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.11 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall6 -
johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
What is the point that you are trying to get across to me? That you don't believe in fasting? That you don't believe in Jason Fung's theories and studies? That whatever other information I provide is not valid? Maybe you're a glass half empty kind of guy. I prefer to see these studies as a promising start in continuing research that may contribute to solutions plaguing a large percentage of the population.
I would like to add that I believe that the quantity and quality of your diet is a major factor. I also firmly believe in the benefits of regular exercise. I do believe that hormone regulation is a huge factor in individual weight gain and weight loss.13 -
johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
Yes, the benefit of vetting sources. It also helps to look at sources that don't just confirm one's bias. If you are interested in truth that is....8 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
What is the point that you are trying to get across to me? That you don't believe in fasting?
I believe that fasting existsThat you don't believe in Jason Fung's theories and studies?
His hypotheses have been thoroughly debunkedThat whatever other information I provide is not valid?
I haven't seen anything of substance yet
Promising speculations happen every day. Until they are thoroughly vetted, I don't buy into any of themMaybe you're a glass half empty kind of guy. I prefer to see these studies as a promising start in continuing research that may contribute to solutions plaguing a large percentage of the population.
6 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.Mandylou19912014 wrote: »It’s science .. fasting works .. there’s literally nothing you can really say against it is there?
Your claim is that Fasting causes weight/fat loss regardless of deficit.
That's contrary to established science. SO, I want a reference so I can see for myself.
But I have witnessed people who are fasting lose weight, I see for myself just how much it does for them
Yea, starving yourself will do that, nobody is arguing that. But decreasing your calories, eating right, and upping your exercise will too, in a healthy way.
Fasting is seen as healthy as it does improve blood pressure etc, it’s just another route to losing weight
So it's weight loss that causes all those benefits. NOT fasting?Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.
Just want to be clear, because you said that it's FASTING that causes those benefits.
Yes, fasting causes the weight loss ..
Only if you're consuming less calories than you burn.
Fasting itself doesn't cause anything other than "causing" you to eat or not eat at certain times of the day. You lose weight via calorie deficit, however that is accomplished. The calories are what matter, not what time you eat them.
Fasting causes your body to burn fat because it’s used up all of its energy supply, this is what aids the weight loss, that and keeping to a healthy diet
Honestly, if you are not well versed on the physiology, it's probably best not to make these kind of blanket statements.
But it’s not a false statement, it’s just how the body works when someone is fasting
How can we trust your assertion that it's true or false? You are unwilling or unable to cite anything you've claimed, so why should anyone trust what you say? The peer reviewed meta-studies I've seen to date do not support your claims.6 -
You aren't looking hard enough.johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
What is the point that you are trying to get across to me? That you don't believe in fasting?
I believe that fasting existsThat you don't believe in Jason Fung's theories and studies?
His hypotheses have been thoroughly debunked
Show me your evidence that is directly related to his hypotheses on Fasting that's isn't anecdotal.That whatever other information I provide is not valid?
I haven't seen anything of substance yet
12 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight. I 110% think that fasting is a great way to lose weight and works well
Please link these studies, that show these benefits.
Dr Michael Mosley who wrote the “The Fast Diet” book has quoted said studies, I wouldn’t know which particular ones he is referring too but I trust his statement, it scientifically makes sense as well
So None. Got it.
"I know a guy I trust and he has the studies" just doesn't carry the water.
It’s science .. fasting works .. there’s literally nothing you can really say against it is there?
So does eating a well balanced diet throughout the day. If you do get any benefits at all with IF, you will hardly notice it. I remember I did IF and I didn't feel different than my regular cutting, I didn't see any major difference. The rate of weight loss was the same, the physical changes were the same as my previous 5 years of bulking and cutting. The only changes I had was the fact that I built muscles throughout the years, but that's due to being in a caloric surplus combined with training. Those who claim that they did see a major difference, it's all in their head (Placebo effect).
I can tell ou that in 5 years of bulking and cutting, I have tried countless diets at the same number of calories just for experimentation and not one stood out for me. They were all equal.9 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
Mostly because you've not yet posted any sources.
This is a civil debate, and when you present a hypothesis it is expected that you'll support it with well qualified and vetted sources.
So it's NOT condescending when you're asked to present qualified sources that support your assertions. Its good manners... even civil.10 -
johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
Yes, the benefit of vetting sources. It also helps to look at sources that don't just confirm one's bias. If you are interested in truth that is....
This is the second time you have insulted my ability to "vet sources". I'm not sure what your argument in this is other than making others feel less than. IF you had read the study I posted, you will see that Dr. Fung is only one of the sources she cites and states that she had not previously agreed with him until evidence suggested otherwise. In case you missed it, here is a screenshot of the sources "vetted" for the article, many of which came from respected authorities in medicine:
7 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
I think it's evident that you didn't actually read the article:
3 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You aren't looking hard enough.johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
You should understand that just because a blog is hosted at Harvard doesn’t mean its content is endorsed by Harvard
It's so nice to have another condescending poster in the thread! Welcome. If you have read the full thread, you would see that my sources were repeatedly questioned. This happened to be another article I came across to add to my pool of sources. The writer is also a physician and used clinical studies (referenced at the end) to substantiate her findings. She is also a contributor to a well-respected medical institution. I misunderstood that we were in a civil conversation and exchange of information.
If you had actually read the primary sources from your link, you would see that she referenced the same quack that you have been citing (Fung) plus a tiny unreplicated study locked behind a paywall
What is the point that you are trying to get across to me? That you don't believe in fasting?
I believe that fasting existsThat you don't believe in Jason Fung's theories and studies?
His hypotheses have been thoroughly debunked
Show me your evidence that is directly related to his hypotheses on Fasting that's isn't anecdotal.That whatever other information I provide is not valid?
I haven't seen anything of substance yet
Based on your posts in this thread, I can't see how you are in any position to judge.3 -
Dr Fung shouldn't be cited for source, that man is a fraud.6
-
Dr Fung shouldn't be cited for source, that man is a fraud.
Everyone here keeps saying that but I don't see any evidence provided here. Should I take everyone's word for it? Again, it's clear that no one read all the way to the bottom of the article that I posted but I'll post the sources used in that one:
5 -
You really should actually vet your sources
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2623528Conclusions and Relevance Alternate-day fasting did not produce superior adherence, weight loss, weight maintenance, or cardioprotection vs daily calorie restriction.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/81/1/69/4607679
https://insights.ovid.com/crossref?an=01938924-201802000-00016In conclusion, alternate-day fasting is feasible in nonobese subjects for short time periods, although unlike rodents, the subjects were unable to maintain their body weight. Furthermore, fat oxidation was increased and translated into fat mass loss. Hunger on fasting days did not habituate over the course of the study, which perhaps indicates the unlikelihood of subjects continuing on this diet for extended periods of time. Whether alternate-day fasting would promote weight loss in an obese population is uncertain.Conclusions:
Intermittent energy restriction may be an effective strategy for the treatment of overweight and obesity. Intermittent energy restriction was comparable to continuous energy restriction for short term weight loss in overweight and obese adults. Intermittent energy restriction was shown to be more effective than no treatment, however, this should be interpreted cautiously due to the small number of studies and future research is warranted to confirm the findings of this review.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118302535
Paywalled14 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.Mandylou19912014 wrote: »It’s science .. fasting works .. there’s literally nothing you can really say against it is there?
Your claim is that Fasting causes weight/fat loss regardless of deficit.
That's contrary to established science. SO, I want a reference so I can see for myself.
But I have witnessed people who are fasting lose weight, I see for myself just how much it does for them
Yea, starving yourself will do that, nobody is arguing that. But decreasing your calories, eating right, and upping your exercise will too, in a healthy way.
Fasting is seen as healthy as it does improve blood pressure etc, it’s just another route to losing weight
So it's weight loss that causes all those benefits. NOT fasting?Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.
Just want to be clear, because you said that it's FASTING that causes those benefits.
Yes, fasting causes the weight loss ..
Only if you're consuming less calories than you burn.
Fasting itself doesn't cause anything other than "causing" you to eat or not eat at certain times of the day. You lose weight via calorie deficit, however that is accomplished. The calories are what matter, not what time you eat them.
Fasting causes your body to burn fat because it’s used up all of its energy supply, this is what aids the weight loss, that and keeping to a healthy diet
Honestly, if you are not well versed on the physiology, it's probably best not to make these kind of blanket statements.
But it’s not a false statement, it’s just how the body works when someone is fasting
It has a shade of truth mixed with a lot of misunderstanding. You admittedly are not familiar with the research and the science. So, why keep doubling down with vague blanket statements. You will only draw questions from those that are more knowledgeable that you are unequipped to answer.
Haha you mean those who think they are more knowledgeable11 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.Mandylou19912014 wrote: »It’s science .. fasting works .. there’s literally nothing you can really say against it is there?
Your claim is that Fasting causes weight/fat loss regardless of deficit.
That's contrary to established science. SO, I want a reference so I can see for myself.
But I have witnessed people who are fasting lose weight, I see for myself just how much it does for them
Yea, starving yourself will do that, nobody is arguing that. But decreasing your calories, eating right, and upping your exercise will too, in a healthy way.
Fasting is seen as healthy as it does improve blood pressure etc, it’s just another route to losing weight
So it's weight loss that causes all those benefits. NOT fasting?Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.
Just want to be clear, because you said that it's FASTING that causes those benefits.
Yes, fasting causes the weight loss ..
Only if you're consuming less calories than you burn.
Fasting itself doesn't cause anything other than "causing" you to eat or not eat at certain times of the day. You lose weight via calorie deficit, however that is accomplished. The calories are what matter, not what time you eat them.
Fasting causes your body to burn fat because it’s used up all of its energy supply, this is what aids the weight loss, that and keeping to a healthy diet
Honestly, if you are not well versed on the physiology, it's probably best not to make these kind of blanket statements.
But it’s not a false statement, it’s just how the body works when someone is fasting
It has a shade of truth mixed with a lot of misunderstanding. You admittedly are not familiar with the research and the science. So, why keep doubling down with vague blanket statements. You will only draw questions from those that are more knowledgeable that you are unequipped to answer.
Haha you mean those who think they are more knowledgeable
No, just those who can read and vet sources and review the research and distinguish between what a study actually shows and what a hype/fluff piece asserts it demonstrates.11 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.Mandylou19912014 wrote: »It’s science .. fasting works .. there’s literally nothing you can really say against it is there?
Your claim is that Fasting causes weight/fat loss regardless of deficit.
That's contrary to established science. SO, I want a reference so I can see for myself.
But I have witnessed people who are fasting lose weight, I see for myself just how much it does for them
Yea, starving yourself will do that, nobody is arguing that. But decreasing your calories, eating right, and upping your exercise will too, in a healthy way.
Fasting is seen as healthy as it does improve blood pressure etc, it’s just another route to losing weight
So it's weight loss that causes all those benefits. NOT fasting?Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.
Just want to be clear, because you said that it's FASTING that causes those benefits.
Yes, fasting causes the weight loss ..
Only if you're consuming less calories than you burn.
Fasting itself doesn't cause anything other than "causing" you to eat or not eat at certain times of the day. You lose weight via calorie deficit, however that is accomplished. The calories are what matter, not what time you eat them.
Fasting causes your body to burn fat because it’s used up all of its energy supply, this is what aids the weight loss, that and keeping to a healthy diet
Honestly, if you are not well versed on the physiology, it's probably best not to make these kind of blanket statements.
But it’s not a false statement, it’s just how the body works when someone is fasting
How can we trust your assertion that it's true or false? You are unwilling or unable to cite anything you've claimed, so why should anyone trust what you say? The peer reviewed meta-studies I've seen to date do not support your claims.
I trust the findings of a doctor over everyone on here’s views on it all13 -
Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.Mandylou19912014 wrote: »It’s science .. fasting works .. there’s literally nothing you can really say against it is there?
Your claim is that Fasting causes weight/fat loss regardless of deficit.
That's contrary to established science. SO, I want a reference so I can see for myself.
But I have witnessed people who are fasting lose weight, I see for myself just how much it does for them
Yea, starving yourself will do that, nobody is arguing that. But decreasing your calories, eating right, and upping your exercise will too, in a healthy way.
Fasting is seen as healthy as it does improve blood pressure etc, it’s just another route to losing weight
So it's weight loss that causes all those benefits. NOT fasting?Mandylou19912014 wrote: »Studies do show that intermittent fasting improves your blood pressure, cholesterol levels and your insulin sensitivity. When you fast your body can’t get it’s energy from food so it uses your glucose which is found in your liver and muscles, that process usually happens around 8 hours after your last meal. When that stores glucose has been used up the body then starts to burn fat to get its energy which is why you lose weight.
Just want to be clear, because you said that it's FASTING that causes those benefits.
Yes, fasting causes the weight loss ..
Only if you're consuming less calories than you burn.
Fasting itself doesn't cause anything other than "causing" you to eat or not eat at certain times of the day. You lose weight via calorie deficit, however that is accomplished. The calories are what matter, not what time you eat them.
Fasting causes your body to burn fat because it’s used up all of its energy supply, this is what aids the weight loss, that and keeping to a healthy diet
Honestly, if you are not well versed on the physiology, it's probably best not to make these kind of blanket statements.
But it’s not a false statement, it’s just how the body works when someone is fasting
How can we trust your assertion that it's true or false? You are unwilling or unable to cite anything you've claimed, so why should anyone trust what you say? The peer reviewed meta-studies I've seen to date do not support your claims.
I trust the findings of a doctor over everyone on here’s views on it all
You do know the majority of doctors don't know much about nutrition right?9
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
- 391 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
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions