Intermittent Fasting!

cwolfman13

lowcarbmale wrote: »

show previous quotes

kimny72 wrote: »

lowcarbmale wrote: »

ccrdragon wrote: »

lowcarbmale wrote: »

73CL350 wrote: »

I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1

Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:

Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.

Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).

Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.

Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).

The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*

CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.

No it's not. A calorie is a unit of energy. The way energy can and will be used is not always the same. You can argue for that, but it's not correct. Mass in mass out is a scientifically proven fact.

Just for my own clarification, are you arguing against the First Law of Thermodynamics or am I misunderstanding? To be fair it's early and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet...

Yes you are misunderstanding.
The First Law of Thermodynamics only applies in isolated systems, which the body is clearly not. In the CICO dogma you ignore several dynamic processes: How much CO2 you breath out, how much H20 you lose through sweat or urine, how much and what kind of waste you produce and how much energy of the food you eat can actually be accessed by the body after taking into account that it needs to be processed by the body first and there sometimes are several steps of conversion to get to the kind of energy you need in the body.

Just for fun let's assume there are three types of inputs u1,u2,u3 to a given system.
u1 represents food that is super easy to digest
u2 represents food that is easy to digest
u3 represents food that is hard to digest
Each input has the value 1=100g of food when it enters.
There is an input-function f1(u1), f2(u2), f3(u3) for each input. For simplicity, let's assume the total amount of energy your body will be able to use is sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3).
To digest u1 (super easy) let's assume no energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 100% of the energy can be used in the body
To digest u2 (easy) let's assume 5% of energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 95% of the energy can be used in the body
To digest u2 (easy) let's assume 20% energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 80% of the energy can be used in the body.

It is clear that sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3) = 1*1 + 0.95*1 + 0.8*1 is less than 3. If it gets all inputs through f1 (sum = 3*1), the result would be 3.

Now replace u1, u2, u3 with fat, protein and carbs and think about it.
Also neglected here is, that some types of food are primarly used for energy purposes ( carbs, fat), while other (protein) have other functions like muscle replacement in the body.
This would add another function f4(u3) which would deduct from the total amount of energy that can be used to "burn energy" inside the body.. so you would receive sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3) - f4(u4)

That's TEF...we're all well aware of TEF...it would be included in the CO part of the equation.

lowcarbmale

Very interesting read that goes into more depth:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC543577/

Also very interesting article (but very long)
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2217/17460875.3.1.43?needAccess=true

J72FIT

"The theoretical possibility of inefficiency and metabolic advantage due to macronutrient compositional change exists, but demonstration of the phenomenon can only be resolved experimentally..."

mmapags

73CL350 wrote: »

show previous quotes

AnvilHead wrote: »

73CL350 wrote: »

No no that's just how much it takes to feel "full" for me. I eat about 1300 to 1600 a day ... 2 meals and a snack/protein shake

You're eating 1300-1600 calories/day as a grown man, and you're crediting IF for your weight loss?

I credit i.f. for making it easy to eat 1300 cals in a day.

And another who thinks you are under eating an unhealthy level for a man.

Elphaba1313

lowcarbmale wrote: »

show previous quotes

73CL350 wrote: »

I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1

Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:

Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.

Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).

Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.

Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).

The dogma here fact is that all that matters is calories in, calories out even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma fact gets wooed. *shrug*

Fixed that for you.

PBAUSA17

I've been doing a 22:2 regime for a couple of weeks. I eat between the hours of 2-4pm. Yes, it reduces my calorie intake and I find it helps me personally as I am a chronic snacker!!! I don't snack with this WOE and for the first time in 10 years, I have lost 2 lbs. in one week (4 overall in 2 weeks). For me, after keto and so many other diets, this is working! Here is a helpful film I watched on Prime about the health benefits of fasting - https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/video/detail/B0771V2KBT