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
-
LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.18 -
A caloric deficit does that quite nicely, however it is created. That's how weight loss happens. CICO.LeeshaSeal wrote: »I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food.
You still haven't answered the question of how people manage to gain weight while doing IF, if eating within a certain time window will absolutely guarantee weight loss. If time-constrained eating automatically causes your body to burn fat for energy after depleting its immediate energy store from food (which is not how it happens, btw), then it would not be physiologically possible to gain weight while doing IF.
LOL. That's a bit more complex than can be summed up in a forum post. And I'm not in the least bit inclined to take on rewriting what has been covered in countless textbooks on the subject to argue against Fung's pseudoscience and cherry-picked research.LeeshaSeal wrote: »Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology?
I haven't answered the question because I don't have the answer. I have stated multiple times that I am relatively new to IF and I don't profess to be the expert. I would assume that over-eating would cause you to gain or repeatedly eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently.
And since I'm in the habit of researching and reading right now, why don't you send some links or titles to those "countless textbooks". I'm clearly uneducated in the subject. LOL.10 -
stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
Fasting most certainly starts autophagy. Here is one link to check out: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Ok - so it does in mice (transgenic mice, no less)... did you read the study? The autophagy results were achieved with 24-48 hour water fasts, well beyond the range of IF.
And 48 hours in the life of a mouse is quite something different than 48 hours to a human.
IIRC from reading study commentary on the topic, a mouse fasting for 24-48 hours is akin to a human fasting for ~10 years.1 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »
A caloric deficit does that quite nicely, however it is created. That's how weight loss happens. CICO.LeeshaSeal wrote: »I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food.
You still haven't answered the question of how people manage to gain weight while doing IF, if eating within a certain time window will absolutely guarantee weight loss. If time-constrained eating automatically causes your body to burn fat for energy after depleting its immediate energy store from food (which is not how it happens, btw), then it would not be physiologically possible to gain weight while doing IF.
LOL. That's a bit more complex than can be summed up in a forum post. And I'm not in the least bit inclined to take on rewriting what has been covered in countless textbooks on the subject to argue against Fung's pseudoscience and cherry-picked research.LeeshaSeal wrote: »Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology?
I haven't answered the question because I don't have the answer. I have stated multiple times that I am relatively new to IF and I don't profess to be the expert. I would assume that over-eating would cause you to gain or repeatedly eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently.
And since I'm in the habit of researching and reading right now, why don't you send some links or titles to those "countless textbooks". I'm clearly uneducated in the subject. LOL.
I'm not relatively new to IF. I've eaten that way for much of my life, and pretty consistently (albeit loosely) done 16:8 IF for the last 4 years. I find it makes it easier to stick to my calorie goals and makes eating more satisfying because it works with my natural eating patterns. With that said, I have lost 74 pounds in that time span and maintained that loss for nearly a year so far. I have also gone through periods during that time span where I have started to regain weight, because I was eating too many calories. It works for me because it increases satiety and adherence, there's absolutely no magic beyond that. None. Zero.
"Eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently" is more woo perpetrated by people who don't understand (or choose to ignore) basic physiology. Think about it for a second - if your body didn't "efficiently utilize" a particular food, that means it would pass through undigested, or you wouldn't fully absorb the caloric/nutrient values in it. How would less calories equate to weight gain, when weight loss is created by calorie deficit?19 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »
A caloric deficit does that quite nicely, however it is created. That's how weight loss happens. CICO.LeeshaSeal wrote: »I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food.
You still haven't answered the question of how people manage to gain weight while doing IF, if eating within a certain time window will absolutely guarantee weight loss. If time-constrained eating automatically causes your body to burn fat for energy after depleting its immediate energy store from food (which is not how it happens, btw), then it would not be physiologically possible to gain weight while doing IF.
LOL. That's a bit more complex than can be summed up in a forum post. And I'm not in the least bit inclined to take on rewriting what has been covered in countless textbooks on the subject to argue against Fung's pseudoscience and cherry-picked research.LeeshaSeal wrote: »Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology?
I haven't answered the question because I don't have the answer. I have stated multiple times that I am relatively new to IF and I don't profess to be the expert. I would assume that over-eating would cause you to gain or repeatedly eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently.
And since I'm in the habit of researching and reading right now, why don't you send some links or titles to those "countless textbooks". I'm clearly uneducated in the subject. LOL.
I'm not relatively new to IF. I've eaten that way for much of my life, and pretty consistently (albeit loosely) done 16:8 IF for the last 4 years. I find it makes it easier to stick to my calorie goals and makes eating more satisfying because it works with my natural eating patterns. With that said, I have lost 74 pounds in that time span and maintained that loss for nearly a year so far. I have also gone through periods during that time span where I have started to regain weight, because I was eating too many calories. It works for me because it increases satiety and adherence, there's absolutely no magic beyond that. None. Zero.
"Eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently" is more woo perpetrated by people who don't understand (or choose to ignore) basic physiology. Think about it for a second - if your body didn't "efficiently utilize" a particular food, that means it would pass through undigested, or you wouldn't fully absorb the caloric/nutrient values in it. How would less calories equate to weight gain, when weight loss is created by calorie deficit?
I love hearing about your journey! I'm going to respond but then I have to go until this evening if there is more to be said (too distracted at work).
And after thinking about it for a second, I don't think I agree with you. I'm talking about caloric value. 100 calories of fresh fruit does not equal 100 calories of fruit snacks. My body is going to treat them differently and I would likely have different insulin and digestion responses. I mean I see what you're saying about passing what the body cannot use through waste but I think you're oversimplifying nutritional profile.24 -
stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.9 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.
If you're depositing the same amount total, you deposited the same amount total. You have the same result.
Same with food. You eat your whole day in one meal or you eat 6 meals or anything between. If the total amount of calories is the same, the results will be virtually identical.12 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.
curious - why when you keep saying that this is all very new to you and that you are not an expert, do you also seem so sure that you are right about everything???14 -
andreascjonsson wrote: »I have "fasted" for years, not intentionally though. I just hate eating breakfast so the time between my last and first meal is often 12-16 hours. I have no Medical data that show that i have any diffrent values than someone that eat breakfast, neither for the good or bad direction. My doctor says im normally healthy so the whole fasting thing i feel is just humbug and the only thing that makes it benifitial is that you have less time to get the same amount of calories in resulting in easier weight loss.
@andreascjonsson Bingo! You nailed it.0 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »
A caloric deficit does that quite nicely, however it is created. That's how weight loss happens. CICO.LeeshaSeal wrote: »I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food.
You still haven't answered the question of how people manage to gain weight while doing IF, if eating within a certain time window will absolutely guarantee weight loss. If time-constrained eating automatically causes your body to burn fat for energy after depleting its immediate energy store from food (which is not how it happens, btw), then it would not be physiologically possible to gain weight while doing IF.
LOL. That's a bit more complex than can be summed up in a forum post. And I'm not in the least bit inclined to take on rewriting what has been covered in countless textbooks on the subject to argue against Fung's pseudoscience and cherry-picked research.LeeshaSeal wrote: »Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology?
I haven't answered the question because I don't have the answer. I have stated multiple times that I am relatively new to IF and I don't profess to be the expert. I would assume that over-eating would cause you to gain or repeatedly eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently.
And since I'm in the habit of researching and reading right now, why don't you send some links or titles to those "countless textbooks". I'm clearly uneducated in the subject. LOL.
I'm not relatively new to IF. I've eaten that way for much of my life, and pretty consistently (albeit loosely) done 16:8 IF for the last 4 years. I find it makes it easier to stick to my calorie goals and makes eating more satisfying because it works with my natural eating patterns. With that said, I have lost 74 pounds in that time span and maintained that loss for nearly a year so far. I have also gone through periods during that time span where I have started to regain weight, because I was eating too many calories. It works for me because it increases satiety and adherence, there's absolutely no magic beyond that. None. Zero.
"Eating foods that your body doesn't utilize efficiently" is more woo perpetrated by people who don't understand (or choose to ignore) basic physiology. Think about it for a second - if your body didn't "efficiently utilize" a particular food, that means it would pass through undigested, or you wouldn't fully absorb the caloric/nutrient values in it. How would less calories equate to weight gain, when weight loss is created by calorie deficit?
I love hearing about your journey! I'm going to respond but then I have to go until this evening if there is more to be said (too distracted at work).
And after thinking about it for a second, I don't think I agree with you. I'm talking about caloric value. 100 calories of fresh fruit does not equal 100 calories of fruit snacks. My body is going to treat them differently and I would likely have different insulin and digestion responses. I mean I see what you're saying about passing what the body cannot use through waste but I think you're oversimplifying nutritional profile.
Ask this guy how it worked for him: https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10348650/cico-still-skeptical-come-inside-for-a-meticulous-log-that-proves-it/p18 -
While I understand what everyone is saying I do often think that maybe there’s more to how our bodies work that just CI/CO. Of course I 100% agree and believe that a person needs to creat a deficit to lose weight generally speaking. I do also think there are cases where other factors ( maybe heredity idk) come into play. My husband for example is 6ft 7. He weighs 155lbs. He always has. He is extremely sedentary. Can not stress this enough. He will not work out, will not go for walks, if we take the kids to the pool he lays in a lounge chair the whole time. He eats like a horse all the time. I mean he eats constantly. He’lol pound 3 big Mack’s at a time plus fries plus chicken tenders, then come home and eat again. Whatever I cook, he’ll easily eat 4 of five servings. He drinks a 12 pack of coke a day. Also, plenty of beer. Won’t eat healthy stuff. I kid you not he will not gain a pound ever. As long as I have known him he’s weighed the exact same. A lot of people have joked around that when his metabolism catches up that will change, we’re knocking on our fourties now. His father is the same way, his grandfather is the same way. To watch them eat is like watching a binge eating competition. They are all bean poles when by all accounts they should easily 400 pounds. I don’t understand how that can happen.8
-
Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »johnslater461 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
So mice, then.
That changes nothing.
That depends on how you look at things. The process of autophagy is only recently discovered and studied. It's the beginning of something that can be truly promising. All studies have to start somewhere and typically, they have to be successful on animals before moving to human trials. Weight loss aside, the idea that a process we can initiate can contribute to cancer, alzeihmers, Parkinsons, etc. prevention is inspiring to me. But if you want to dumb the whole thing down to a who's right and who's wrong about weight loss conversation, that's up to you.
you never addressed my earlier question to you - you say IF causes weight loss - how is it that people use IF to lose/gain/maintain weight if calorie deficit has nothing to do with it???
exactly I got fat doing IF because I ate too much and moved too little. I lost weight on IF eating in a deficit and Now I am maintaining my weight without really trying to. I havent lost anything in the last 4 months. I have done IF all my life because I dont eat breakfast and for me eating that early makes me sick and then later on I want to overeat sometimes. I gained weight the first time because I had no idea I was fasting and had no idea to lose you had to be in a deficit, so I continued to eat the same way I was when I was thin(not sure how many calories but I can say many times over it was a lot more than I eat now). and move a LOT less.6 -
Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.
curious - why when you keep saying that this is all very new to you and that you are not an expert, do you also seem so sure that you are right about everything???
Curious - are you looking to have a real discussion or mock someone who is doing something different? In saying that Intermittent Fasting is relatively new to me, I am saying that I don't claim to be the expert and/or be "right about everything". Seems to me that there are quite a few trolls that want to belittle others for entertaining ideas outside the status quo.19 -
AmberGlitterSparkles wrote: »While I understand what everyone is saying I do often think that maybe there’s more to how our bodies work that just CI/CO. Of course I 100% agree and believe that a person needs to creat a deficit to lose weight generally speaking. I do also think there are cases where other factors ( maybe heredity idk) come into play. My husband for example is 6ft 7. He weighs 155lbs. He always has. He is extremely sedentary. Can not stress this enough. He will not work out, will not go for walks, if we take the kids to the pool he lays in a lounge chair the whole time. He eats like a horse all the time. I mean he eats constantly. He’lol pound 3 big Mack’s at a time plus fries plus chicken tenders, then come home and eat again. Whatever I cook, he’ll easily eat 4 of five servings. He drinks a 12 pack of coke a day. Also, plenty of beer. Won’t eat healthy stuff. I kid you not he will not gain a pound ever. As long as I have known him he’s weighed the exact same. A lot of people have joked around that when his metabolism catches up that will change, we’re knocking on our fourties now. His father is the same way, his grandfather is the same way. To watch them eat is like watching a binge eating competition. They are all bean poles when by all accounts they should easily 400 pounds. I don’t understand how that can happen.
does your hubby have a very active job where hes on the go all the time? if he is that tall and is that thin(hes severely underweight) its possible he could have an overactive thyroid(or other health issue thats may have not shown any other smptoms). I had friends like that and my daughter had a friend like that and once she found out she had a thyroid issue she was put on meds and started gaining. genetics have really nothing to do with if you will be thin or not(but they say thyroid issues can be genetic).
if that were the case I would have never became obese. both my parents and both sets of grandparents were of a healthy weight their whole life. none of them battled with their weight or went on diets. 4 out of 5 of us girls got fat.even the ones with different dads,their dads were all tall and thin as were their parents. its because we all got sedentary (we were all active as kids and younger adults) and ate more than our bodies burned. I was of a healthy weight until about 32 then it went downhill from there. I gained weight over the years. as for working out that has no bearing on weight loss,weight is lost eating less than your body burns.
0 -
LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.
curious - why when you keep saying that this is all very new to you and that you are not an expert, do you also seem so sure that you are right about everything???
Curious - are you looking to have a real discussion or mock someone who is doing something different? In saying that Intermittent Fasting is relatively new to me, I am saying that I don't claim to be the expert and/or be "right about everything". Seems to me that there are quite a few trolls that want to belittle others for entertaining ideas outside the status quo.
I think it's being asked because it seems like you are being very dogmatic about some claims while at the same time proclaiming you are new to learning about this and not an expert. It's a somewhat confusing combination.
I would expect someone who knew they were still learning to be more open to the possibility they could be wrong.
11 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AmberGlitterSparkles wrote: »While I understand what everyone is saying I do often think that maybe there’s more to how our bodies work that just CI/CO. Of course I 100% agree and believe that a person needs to creat a deficit to lose weight generally speaking. I do also think there are cases where other factors ( maybe heredity idk) come into play. My husband for example is 6ft 7. He weighs 155lbs. He always has. He is extremely sedentary. Can not stress this enough. He will not work out, will not go for walks, if we take the kids to the pool he lays in a lounge chair the whole time. He eats like a horse all the time. I mean he eats constantly. He’lol pound 3 big Mack’s at a time plus fries plus chicken tenders, then come home and eat again. Whatever I cook, he’ll easily eat 4 of five servings. He drinks a 12 pack of coke a day. Also, plenty of beer. Won’t eat healthy stuff. I kid you not he will not gain a pound ever. As long as I have known him he’s weighed the exact same. A lot of people have joked around that when his metabolism catches up that will change, we’re knocking on our fourties now. His father is the same way, his grandfather is the same way. To watch them eat is like watching a binge eating competition. They are all bean poles when by all accounts they should easily 400 pounds. I don’t understand how that can happen.
does your hubby have a very active job where hes on the go all the time? if he is that tall and is that thin(hes severely underweight) its possible he could have an overactive thyroid(or other health issue thats may have not shown any other smptoms). I had friends like that and my daughter had a friend like that and once she found out she had a thyroid issue she was put on meds and started gaining. genetics have really nothing to do with if you will be thin or not(but they say thyroid issues can be genetic).
if that were the case I would have never became obese. both my parents and both sets of grandparents were of a healthy weight their whole life. none of them battled with their weight or went on diets. 4 out of 5 of us girls got fat.even the ones with different dads,their dads were all tall and thin as were their parents. its because we all got sedentary (we were all active as kids and younger adults) and ate more than our bodies burned. I was of a healthy weight until about 32 then it went downhill from there. I gained weight over the years. as for working out that has no bearing on weight loss,weight is lost eating less than your body burns.
No, he has a sedentary job as well. He has had his thryroid tested, that’s normal. Matter of fact, I’m the one with the thyroid issues. Doctors have no explaination for why he can’t put on weight. Like I said he refuses to work out and try and bulk up. I don’t mind. I’m just saying that some times there are unknown factors. He honestly eats easily 5 to 6 thousand calories a day.2 -
I never used to eat breakfast...I'd eat dinner around 8 PM and then not eat again until around noon or 1. Gained 40 Lbs over 8 years of doing that. I was always cranky by lunch time and I also had issues with arrhythmia which my Dr. said was probably due to an electrolyte imbalance which can happen with fasting.1
-
LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.
curious - why when you keep saying that this is all very new to you and that you are not an expert, do you also seem so sure that you are right about everything???
Curious - are you looking to have a real discussion or mock someone who is doing something different? In saying that Intermittent Fasting is relatively new to me, I am saying that I don't claim to be the expert and/or be "right about everything". Seems to me that there are quite a few trolls that want to belittle others for entertaining ideas outside the status quo.
no one is belittling you. you are saying IF caused weight loss on its own. I am proof that no it doesnt. I got fat doing IF. I have done it since I was a kid. I was never a breakfast eater even at a young age. Im still that way, Ive tried eating breakfast but for me I just cant. I have gained weight eating too much on IF,I am now maintaining doing IF. I maintained my weight up until around 32. I was 140-143 lbs(weight fluctuates) then I became sedentary and was eating the same amount to maintain my weight, but my body needed less calories because I was less active so that resulted in weight gain over the next 6 years.
I lost weight again not even trying in 2003(broke my leg and could not get to the kitchen as often) but didnt lose much maybe 15-20 lbs? which I then gained back once I got back on my feet. I started eating more again so I gained it back and then some. I started my weight loss/fitness journey again 5 years ago. I lost 44 of the 70 lbs I gained. If IF caused weight loss I would have never gained the weight. especially after getting back on my feet again the whole time I was doing IF.
so IF has no weight loss/ fat loss properties. I lost a lot of fat being in a calorie deficit and slowly losing it now in maitenance, but Im also more active now too.I still fast to this day. Its not made any difference in anything ,even the times when I didnt fast for short times over the years because I was told that breakfast was the most important meal of the day and would jum start my metabolism. it didnt.I just ended up eating more then too.6 -
janejellyroll wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »Muscleflex79 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »pinggolfer96 wrote: »LeeshaSeal wrote: »IF helps with calorie restriction only. It has no specific health benefits. If you log your intake adequently and exercise, and you’re at or below your daily calories, IF isn’t needed. I tried IF (16:8 ratio) awhile back and I found I was eating MORE later because I felt famished. Eating 3 times a day has eliminated that.
That is a false statement. The benefits are numerous and there studies and research to prove it, which include weight loss, reducing inflammation, increasing muscle, reducing/eliminating type 2 diabetes, preventing cancer and alzheimers, to name a few. The 2016 Nobel Prize for Medicine went to a person that identified the process of Autophagy, which happens during a fasted-state. It's the process of your body cleaning out cellular junk and broken down proteins. Also, you were probably hungry because you were consuming something that released insulin and triggered digestion. It could have even been lemon in your water.
I actually think this is more of a false statement. you can't outrun thermodynamics. 2500 cals in your eating window is 2500 cals regardless. also autophogy and sparked more so by extended caloric restriction and deprivation, not fasting. if fasting helps you to create a deficit, then yes, its helping, but not causing. I would love to see those studies that prove it from credible legit sources. because I have credible proven meta analysis studies and articles on hand to negate a "10 person study" or a bodybuilding .com article.....
fasting does not promote weightless, caloric deficits do. I've been a test subject myself just to disprove people.
The one time I looked for autophagy after people touted it as this amazing thing that's going to save your life thanks to fasting, I have not found any sources besides, I think, studies done in worms. That's also a problem.
I don't think you looked very hard. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
From your link: "Our data lead us to speculate that sporadic fasting might represent a simple, safe and inexpensive means to promote this potentially therapeutic neuronal response."
Even the study authors don't think they've demonstrated what you seem to claim they have. They're just speculating.
And the study doesn't demonstrate anything about beneficial effects of autophagy, just suggests the speculation that "sporadic fasting" could enable neuronal autophagy, contrary to current "dogma" ("dogma" = widely held opinions that you disagree with). Also, unless they have their own special definition of "sporadic," even their "speculation" doesn't support IF on a regular, daily basis ("regular, daily" is not "sporadic" (occasional, irregular).
As I've replied to other posters, the studies are relatively new (within the last 10 years). They have to start somewhere but their "speculations" are pretty promising. And, I posted one example that was easily found. It's not the only information out there. I'm not sure where your dogma comment is coming from but if it's because I'm discussing ideas that go against the grain, then okay. I prefer to be inspired by ideas that may prevent cancer and alzheimers - we aren't successfully winning that battle yet.
On a personal note, I've done CI/CO for nearly 2 decades. I'm 40 now and had my last baby at 38 and it is NOT working for me. I've logged in every day since January and I am personally not having success. I am trying something else and have been keeping my "friends" updated.
what do you mean when you say CICO doesn't work for you? you believe you are eating at a calorie SURPLUS now and losing weight????
I'm saying that the traditional method of calorie counting and restriction isn't working for me. My hope is that my body starts using its energy differently. BUT I don't intend to consume carte blanche either.
That's like saying I hope my car starts running on water instead of gasoline.
The human body has established metabolic pathways. Physiology is what it is. Changing what time you eat doesn't somehow alter your metabolic pathways or change your physiology and magically make your body do something it isn't made to do, despite whatever woo Fung and his ilk might dream up.
That's not helpful at all and thank you for nit-picking my conversations. I am using a method that will allow me to burn fat for energy after it has depleted it's immediate energy store from food. I guess the joke is on me when I'm starving and still overweight. Why don't you explain "established metabolic pathways" and the corresponding physiology? And maybe provide articles outside of weightlifting online.
So you're not eating for X hours, in that time your body will indeed use it's stores to make up for the energy missing.
Where your train of thought ends is what happens when you do eat again. You're eating a whole day's worth of food in a short time span. Far more than you'd usually eat.
By your insulin theory, that leads to a long spike in insulin and fat gain.
In reality, it's simply at that moment a calorie surplus, excess gets stores and in need used again. It's literally not any different than depositing 1000 bucks into your bank account in one go at the end of the month vs. In 10 dollar increments. I.e. no difference whatsoever in the long run.
I have to put this thread down for the rest of the work day but I will certainly come back. However, you are incorrect in assessing my eating habits. I have actually found that I have more control when I eat and that I am craving better quality foods. Is it just a mental magic trick? Maybe. BUT I do not feel that I'm overeating and I can tell you that my clothes fit a little looser and I have had little to no bloating in two weeks, which is a completely new experience for me. Maybe my deposit schedule is different because I might put in 8 dollars one day and 18 the next. It's not the same.
curious - why when you keep saying that this is all very new to you and that you are not an expert, do you also seem so sure that you are right about everything???
Curious - are you looking to have a real discussion or mock someone who is doing something different? In saying that Intermittent Fasting is relatively new to me, I am saying that I don't claim to be the expert and/or be "right about everything". Seems to me that there are quite a few trolls that want to belittle others for entertaining ideas outside the status quo.
I think it's being asked because it seems like you are being very dogmatic about some claims while at the same time proclaiming you are new to learning about this and not an expert. It's a somewhat confusing combination.
I would expect someone who knew they were still learning to be more open to the possibility they could be wrong.
yes - this! and I haven't seen anyone mocking anyone.3 -
AmberGlitterSparkles wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »AmberGlitterSparkles wrote: »While I understand what everyone is saying I do often think that maybe there’s more to how our bodies work that just CI/CO. Of course I 100% agree and believe that a person needs to creat a deficit to lose weight generally speaking. I do also think there are cases where other factors ( maybe heredity idk) come into play. My husband for example is 6ft 7. He weighs 155lbs. He always has. He is extremely sedentary. Can not stress this enough. He will not work out, will not go for walks, if we take the kids to the pool he lays in a lounge chair the whole time. He eats like a horse all the time. I mean he eats constantly. He’lol pound 3 big Mack’s at a time plus fries plus chicken tenders, then come home and eat again. Whatever I cook, he’ll easily eat 4 of five servings. He drinks a 12 pack of coke a day. Also, plenty of beer. Won’t eat healthy stuff. I kid you not he will not gain a pound ever. As long as I have known him he’s weighed the exact same. A lot of people have joked around that when his metabolism catches up that will change, we’re knocking on our fourties now. His father is the same way, his grandfather is the same way. To watch them eat is like watching a binge eating competition. They are all bean poles when by all accounts they should easily 400 pounds. I don’t understand how that can happen.
does your hubby have a very active job where hes on the go all the time? if he is that tall and is that thin(hes severely underweight) its possible he could have an overactive thyroid(or other health issue thats may have not shown any other smptoms). I had friends like that and my daughter had a friend like that and once she found out she had a thyroid issue she was put on meds and started gaining. genetics have really nothing to do with if you will be thin or not(but they say thyroid issues can be genetic).
if that were the case I would have never became obese. both my parents and both sets of grandparents were of a healthy weight their whole life. none of them battled with their weight or went on diets. 4 out of 5 of us girls got fat.even the ones with different dads,their dads were all tall and thin as were their parents. its because we all got sedentary (we were all active as kids and younger adults) and ate more than our bodies burned. I was of a healthy weight until about 32 then it went downhill from there. I gained weight over the years. as for working out that has no bearing on weight loss,weight is lost eating less than your body burns.
No, he has a sedentary job as well. He has had his thryroid tested, that’s normal. Matter of fact, I’m the one with the thyroid issues. Doctors have no explaination for why he can’t put on weight. Like I said he refuses to work out and try and bulk up. I don’t mind. I’m just saying that some times there are unknown factors. He honestly eats easily 5 to 6 thousand calories a day.
What people dont understand is that Ci/Co always work becouse the law of conservation of energy demands it to. Is the mfp given calories your calories out? Probably not becouse there is a lot of things that determines how much nutrients your body pics up and how much it expends. But its close enough unless you have a medical condition that it makes for a great tool.
So if your husband eats 5-6k calories that mean by the laws of physics that it has to go somewhere and he isnt storing it as fat or burning it by transforming it to kinetic energy by moving. Is he a walking furnace? Or a power outlet? Otherwise he has some kind of problem with his body that makes it not pick up the nutrients and most of it simply get excreted and that could create a number of problems in the future so you should really try to get him diagnosed.
7
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