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.
Intermittent Fasting - Is it a good idea?
Replies
-
lukejoycePT wrote: »I still stand by that. I still believe it is a superior method of eating.
Conventional eating patterns negate many of the benefits of fasting. You could argue this all day but all eating patterns have their drawbacks. Ultimately the amount of benifits that appear to be gained from IF over a little dip in testosterone (which you will find with any prolonged dieting) make it superior.
If you stay in a deficit long enough to get below double digits of body fat (for me) then you will see a dip in testosterone anyway so I don’t really see how that makes any differencemagnusthenerd wrote: »
My recollection was you said something like IF was superior for everything. Now you're saying everything is just trade offs?lukejoycePT wrote: »I dont feel anything about it, in fact I don’t care. Anything in the universe has it’s positives and negative outcomes. I’ve not come across anything that doesn’t. This doesn’t effect my that’s for sure
Personally I do 16:8 Sunday to Friday
Calorie/ carb cycling
And on Saturdays I fill my boots.
Lost 16lbs in 6.5 months doing that.
Never get tired in the gym.
Increased strength every week.
Lost fat every week.
Don’t feel like i am begrudging myself of treats. So I’ve not experienced any decrease in anything like that yet. But it’s totally possible.
Love how you focus on the negatives tho.magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »
So how do you feel about this cited study:
^ Moro, Tatiana, Grant Tinsley, Antonino Bianco, Giuseppe Marcolin, Quirico Francesco Pacelli, Giuseppe Battaglia, Antonio Palma, Paulo Gentil, Marco Neri, and Antonio Paoli. Effects of eight weeks of time-restricted feeding (16/8) on basal metabolism, maximal strength, body composition, inflammation, and cardiovascular risk factors in resistance-trained males Journal of Translational Medicine 14, no. 1 (October 2016).
In particular, how do you feel about TRF lowering Total Testosterone and IGF-1 significantly?
I'm well aware, I just got tested at a 628 ng/dL total but 88 ng/dL bioavailable T. In relative terms, my total T is in the 90th percentile for my age, even into the top quarter if compared to the peak age of 19 year olds, but my biovailable is between the average of men in their 70s, and men in their 80s.
Which is why I find it a bit curious that they collected measure of free testosterone per the protocol, but they did not report it at all.
And while I likely am in the single digits, the subjects were losing I think 2.3 kg in an 8 (or was it 12) week study...
It seems a rather different footing to be saying now IF is the diet of the best compromises. I'd say all diets are compromises on something, and it will be a matter of individual preferences and desires that determines the best diet - that is impossible to say IF is necessarily going to be superior, as individuals are individuals.4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »I'd say all diets are compromises on something, and it will be a matter of individual preferences and desires that determines the best diet
Hit the nail on the head...
2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight
Sorry for my belated reply to your post.
Never thought about it, your comment about them failing to report free testosterone. Haven't read the study in a while, maybe I'll go back and review it.
Testosterone isn't the panacea of optimum male health, it's one of several markers and yes I understand the significance of free testosterone in relation to total testosterone. Years ago, I spent some time studying testosterone to better understand my readings. Estradiol and SBGH lab results are also relevant measures. A client physician recently told me that you've got to look at lab results in totality and that when you place a greater emphasis on a single measure, you're evaluation is short-sighted. I agree. I'm not a science type in fact my claim to fame is that I dodged science classes in high school and college but I've read to know more in the context of my health.
Has your lower free testosterone adversely impacted you achieving your fitness, health and wellness goals? I doubt it.
Never thought about your comment about no preliminary maintenance period.
It's easy to punch holes in all research studies. It's something we all do. I'm comfortable doing my n=1 evaluations of diet and exercise and what they do for my body and have decided IF is a valuable tool in my fitness, health and wellness toolbox. I don't think it's the best for all but it's the best for me. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
2 -
cheryldumais wrote: »Thought this was well written and wanted to hear others' thoughts on it.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide#benefits
Below is more science studies about IF from a very small group of 12 study on the same subject. As these pilot studies often do this one raised more questions than it answered and hopefully larger studies get funded but IF and meal timing in general info is not a high profit potential I expect.
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-07-meal-strategies-appetite-fat.html
JULY 24, 2019
Study finds meal timing strategies appear to lower appetite, improve fat burning
by The Obesity Society
"Researchers have discovered that meal timing strategies such as intermittent fasting or eating earlier in the daytime appear to help people lose weight by lowering appetite rather than burning more calories, according to a report published online today in the journal Obesity, the flagship journal of The Obesity Society. The study is the first to show how meal timing affects 24-hour energy metabolism when food intake and meal frequency are matched....."10 -
pierinifitness wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight
Sorry for my belated reply to your post.
Never thought about it, your comment about them failing to report free testosterone. Haven't read the study in a while, maybe I'll go back and review it.
Testosterone isn't the panacea of optimum male health, it's one of several markers and yes I understand the significance of free testosterone in relation to total testosterone. Years ago, I spent some time studying testosterone to better understand my readings. Estradiol and SBGH lab results are also relevant measures. A client physician recently told me that you've got to look at lab results in totality and that when you place a greater emphasis on a single measure, you're evaluation is short-sighted. I agree. I'm not a science type in fact my claim to fame is that I dodged science classes in high school and college but I've read to know more in the context of my health.
Has your lower free testosterone adversely impacted you achieving your fitness, health and wellness goals? I doubt it.
Never thought about your comment about no preliminary maintenance period.
It's easy to punch holes in all research studies. It's something we all do. I'm comfortable doing my n=1 evaluations of diet and exercise and what they do for my body and have decided IF is a valuable tool in my fitness, health and wellness toolbox. I don't think it's the best for all but it's the best for me. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My lower free testosterone is a consequence of my fitness goals - hard to say that it directly impacts them as it isn't separable from being in a deficit while at a lower body fat percentage - I'll be getting a DEXA next week, but I'm guessing I'm around 8% based on prior scans. So currently both limit me to only maintaining strength and lean mass, rather than gaining.
In terms of wellness goals? Well, I don't know that I have a goal about it, but I do have some psychological / physiological changes that I do notice, probably more prominent in a way because I was above 15% last year, and I think around there is an inflection point where testosterone peaks while in the 12-15% range. Though the changes that feel odd to me about single digits would probably put me more in the average range anyway.
The YMMV is about where I put a lot of nutrition and health science. Even well evidence positions are going to report a mean, and there's no guarantee a person is in the mean of responders. That's also why I end up with qualms about the over-touting I tend to see about IF, particularly from the gurus.
Just last weekend I happened to see multiple videos on YouTube, including one from an MD (sadly), claiming skin removal surgery is a sham and you can just fix loose skin from massive weight loss by doing IF. It is a shame that people have to take a strategy for setting up a deficit that helps some psychologically, and try to sell it as a miracle.7 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight
Sorry for my belated reply to your post.
Never thought about it, your comment about them failing to report free testosterone. Haven't read the study in a while, maybe I'll go back and review it.
Testosterone isn't the panacea of optimum male health, it's one of several markers and yes I understand the significance of free testosterone in relation to total testosterone. Years ago, I spent some time studying testosterone to better understand my readings. Estradiol and SBGH lab results are also relevant measures. A client physician recently told me that you've got to look at lab results in totality and that when you place a greater emphasis on a single measure, you're evaluation is short-sighted. I agree. I'm not a science type in fact my claim to fame is that I dodged science classes in high school and college but I've read to know more in the context of my health.
Has your lower free testosterone adversely impacted you achieving your fitness, health and wellness goals? I doubt it.
Never thought about your comment about no preliminary maintenance period.
It's easy to punch holes in all research studies. It's something we all do. I'm comfortable doing my n=1 evaluations of diet and exercise and what they do for my body and have decided IF is a valuable tool in my fitness, health and wellness toolbox. I don't think it's the best for all but it's the best for me. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My lower free testosterone is a consequence of my fitness goals - hard to say that it directly impacts them as it isn't separable from being in a deficit while at a lower body fat percentage - I'll be getting a DEXA next week, but I'm guessing I'm around 8% based on prior scans. So currently both limit me to only maintaining strength and lean mass, rather than gaining.
In terms of wellness goals? Well, I don't know that I have a goal about it, but I do have some psychological / physiological changes that I do notice, probably more prominent in a way because I was above 15% last year, and I think around there is an inflection point where testosterone peaks while in the 12-15% range. Though the changes that feel odd to me about single digits would probably put me more in the average range anyway.
The YMMV is about where I put a lot of nutrition and health science. Even well evidence positions are going to report a mean, and there's no guarantee a person is in the mean of responders. That's also why I end up with qualms about the over-touting I tend to see about IF, particularly from the gurus.
Just last weekend I happened to see multiple videos on YouTube, including one from an MD (sadly), claiming skin removal surgery is a sham and you can just fix loose skin from massive weight loss by doing IF. It is a shame that people have to take a strategy for setting up a deficit that helps some psychologically, and try to sell it as a miracle.
Sadly, I’ve seen this “info” ages ago, it just throws bad shade to IF. Excess skin is not something you can avoid if you are very over weight. No matter how you look at it IF is a positive thing for someone to try in their attempt at a healthy lifestyle change.
What we can agree on...
1. IF or no IF you will lose weight if you eat in a calorie deficit
2. IF or no IF eat the right amount of protein and you will see minimal muscle loss ( if you resistance train you may see an increase)
3. IF or no IF, consistency is key and if you stick with something long enough you’ll see the results required.
Things we don’t agree on...
1. IF helps reduce inflammation in the body
2. IF helps burn more fat than conventional methods
3. IF helps those with hormonal issues
4. IF helps with the regeneration and clearing of dead cell from the body
5. IF allows the gut to heal and produce a better, balanced microbiome
6. IF fights aging, other diseases etc.
7. Is the most beneficial method of eating because of the above.
We can argue these issues all day but we can agree it will make no difference. I respect your opinion. I don’t agree with it.15 -
The problem is claiming that IF is superior because of alleged "helps reduce inflammation" and the rest leads to the question "compared to what?" -- any way of eating that is not IF? Very unlikely. Some other ways of eating that are likely not the norm or not the norm among health conscious people? Maybe, but you might do better focusing on other things (like food choice or amount) vs. timing.
Certainly with things like inflammation and microbiome, to pick just a couple, food choice is likely much more significant. From what I've read of the anti aging folk (whom I am skeptical of, but whatever), daily IF is seen as less of an issue than occasional fasting (which means different things, could be weekly 24 hours, could be rarer occasional fasts) plus a beneficial diet (i.e., lower protein, lots of veg, among other things).
So again I think the focus on "eating in a window" as the OneTrueThing is really odd.11 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight
Sorry for my belated reply to your post.
Never thought about it, your comment about them failing to report free testosterone. Haven't read the study in a while, maybe I'll go back and review it.
Testosterone isn't the panacea of optimum male health, it's one of several markers and yes I understand the significance of free testosterone in relation to total testosterone. Years ago, I spent some time studying testosterone to better understand my readings. Estradiol and SBGH lab results are also relevant measures. A client physician recently told me that you've got to look at lab results in totality and that when you place a greater emphasis on a single measure, you're evaluation is short-sighted. I agree. I'm not a science type in fact my claim to fame is that I dodged science classes in high school and college but I've read to know more in the context of my health.
Has your lower free testosterone adversely impacted you achieving your fitness, health and wellness goals? I doubt it.
Never thought about your comment about no preliminary maintenance period.
It's easy to punch holes in all research studies. It's something we all do. I'm comfortable doing my n=1 evaluations of diet and exercise and what they do for my body and have decided IF is a valuable tool in my fitness, health and wellness toolbox. I don't think it's the best for all but it's the best for me. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My lower free testosterone is a consequence of my fitness goals - hard to say that it directly impacts them as it isn't separable from being in a deficit while at a lower body fat percentage - I'll be getting a DEXA next week, but I'm guessing I'm around 8% based on prior scans. So currently both limit me to only maintaining strength and lean mass, rather than gaining.
In terms of wellness goals? Well, I don't know that I have a goal about it, but I do have some psychological / physiological changes that I do notice, probably more prominent in a way because I was above 15% last year, and I think around there is an inflection point where testosterone peaks while in the 12-15% range. Though the changes that feel odd to me about single digits would probably put me more in the average range anyway.
The YMMV is about where I put a lot of nutrition and health science. Even well evidence positions are going to report a mean, and there's no guarantee a person is in the mean of responders. That's also why I end up with qualms about the over-touting I tend to see about IF, particularly from the gurus.
Just last weekend I happened to see multiple videos on YouTube, including one from an MD (sadly), claiming skin removal surgery is a sham and you can just fix loose skin from massive weight loss by doing IF. It is a shame that people have to take a strategy for setting up a deficit that helps some psychologically, and try to sell it as a miracle.
Sadly, I’ve seen this “info” ages ago, it just throws bad shade to IF. Excess skin is not something you can avoid if you are very over weight. No matter how you look at it IF is a positive thing for someone to try in their attempt at a healthy lifestyle change.
What we can agree on...
1. IF or no IF you will lose weight if you eat in a calorie deficit
2. IF or no IF eat the right amount of protein and you will see minimal muscle loss ( if you resistance train you may see an increase)
3. IF or no IF, consistency is key and if you stick with something long enough you’ll see the results required.
Things we don’t agree on...
1. IF helps reduce inflammation in the body
2. IF helps burn more fat than conventional methods
3. IF helps those with hormonal issues
4. IF helps with the regeneration and clearing of dead cell from the body
5. IF allows the gut to heal and produce a better, balanced microbiome
6. IF fights aging, other diseases etc.
7. Is the most beneficial method of eating because of the above.
We can argue these issues all day but we can agree it will make no difference. I respect your opinion. I don’t agree with it.
Superior to what? A nutrient dense diet mixed with a solid training program and adequate rest and recovery?7 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight
Sorry for my belated reply to your post.
Never thought about it, your comment about them failing to report free testosterone. Haven't read the study in a while, maybe I'll go back and review it.
Testosterone isn't the panacea of optimum male health, it's one of several markers and yes I understand the significance of free testosterone in relation to total testosterone. Years ago, I spent some time studying testosterone to better understand my readings. Estradiol and SBGH lab results are also relevant measures. A client physician recently told me that you've got to look at lab results in totality and that when you place a greater emphasis on a single measure, you're evaluation is short-sighted. I agree. I'm not a science type in fact my claim to fame is that I dodged science classes in high school and college but I've read to know more in the context of my health.
Has your lower free testosterone adversely impacted you achieving your fitness, health and wellness goals? I doubt it.
Never thought about your comment about no preliminary maintenance period.
It's easy to punch holes in all research studies. It's something we all do. I'm comfortable doing my n=1 evaluations of diet and exercise and what they do for my body and have decided IF is a valuable tool in my fitness, health and wellness toolbox. I don't think it's the best for all but it's the best for me. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My lower free testosterone is a consequence of my fitness goals - hard to say that it directly impacts them as it isn't separable from being in a deficit while at a lower body fat percentage - I'll be getting a DEXA next week, but I'm guessing I'm around 8% based on prior scans. So currently both limit me to only maintaining strength and lean mass, rather than gaining.
In terms of wellness goals? Well, I don't know that I have a goal about it, but I do have some psychological / physiological changes that I do notice, probably more prominent in a way because I was above 15% last year, and I think around there is an inflection point where testosterone peaks while in the 12-15% range. Though the changes that feel odd to me about single digits would probably put me more in the average range anyway.
The YMMV is about where I put a lot of nutrition and health science. Even well evidence positions are going to report a mean, and there's no guarantee a person is in the mean of responders. That's also why I end up with qualms about the over-touting I tend to see about IF, particularly from the gurus.
Just last weekend I happened to see multiple videos on YouTube, including one from an MD (sadly), claiming skin removal surgery is a sham and you can just fix loose skin from massive weight loss by doing IF. It is a shame that people have to take a strategy for setting up a deficit that helps some psychologically, and try to sell it as a miracle.
Sadly, I’ve seen this “info” ages ago, it just throws bad shade to IF. Excess skin is not something you can avoid if you are very over weight. No matter how you look at it IF is a positive thing for someone to try in their attempt at a healthy lifestyle change.
What we can agree on...
1. IF or no IF you will lose weight if you eat in a calorie deficit
2. IF or no IF eat the right amount of protein and you will see minimal muscle loss ( if you resistance train you may see an increase)
3. IF or no IF, consistency is key and if you stick with something long enough you’ll see the results required.
Things we don’t agree on...
1. IF helps reduce inflammation in the body
2. IF helps burn more fat than conventional methods
3. IF helps those with hormonal issues
4. IF helps with the regeneration and clearing of dead cell from the body
5. IF allows the gut to heal and produce a better, balanced microbiome
6. IF fights aging, other diseases etc.
7. Is the most beneficial method of eating because of the above.
We can argue these issues all day but we can agree it will make no difference. I respect your opinion. I don’t agree with it.
1. I generally think trying to reduce inflammation simpliciter is a bad dietary goal. Almost anytime someone uses inflammation in a generic sense, I'm leery of what they're about to try to sell. Just for example, inflammation is actually seems part of the process involved in muscle building - if my goal is increasing muscle, it seems I don't want to reduce that inflammation, do I?
2. Too strong a claim - I'd be fine with it can help, but I guarantee there are individuals that if you put them on IF, they're going to burn less. I believe the strongest proposed advantage in this regard is hypothesized as an increase in movement that happens when fasting. If that is the actual advantage, that's something a person can train themselves to do - just move around more.
3. Again, this is the kind of claim that I'd go with it can help. Say someone's hormonal issues is hypoglycemia - I'm thinking this really isn't a way to help that problem.
4. I'm skeptical of claims of there being a greater beneficial autophagy claim above what happens with weight loss in general.
5. I'd say nobody could make that claim because there isn't enough research yet to say what a better, balanced microbiome is. Frankly, I'm very skeptical that microbiome is actually causative in health and not just a marker of health.
6. Alright, where's the telomere data for IFers then?
7. Again, this isn't the kind of claim one can make universally. It could accomplish every thing one of the above but if it has adherence problems for someone, a diet that elicits adherence and puts the person in a healthy weight category is one I'd predict produces better health marker outcomes.12 -
Yeh well like I said, we don’t agree on those points.magnusthenerd wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »Testosterone impacts things besides strength. When I get towards single digit BF%, strength changes aren't what I initially notice about the changes in testosterone.
Do you feel failing to report free testosterone, particularly given it looks like they collected it, was not a design issue?
You don't feel there was a problem with no preliminary maintenance period? The loss seems to be because the IF group wasn't eating at maintenance when developing their base diet. Yet without a preliminary maintenance period, the researchers suggested adiponectin increased activity was behind the weight loss.
Like, I'm not sure what is interesting that people in a slight deficit that stayed in it lost a small about of weight
Sorry for my belated reply to your post.
Never thought about it, your comment about them failing to report free testosterone. Haven't read the study in a while, maybe I'll go back and review it.
Testosterone isn't the panacea of optimum male health, it's one of several markers and yes I understand the significance of free testosterone in relation to total testosterone. Years ago, I spent some time studying testosterone to better understand my readings. Estradiol and SBGH lab results are also relevant measures. A client physician recently told me that you've got to look at lab results in totality and that when you place a greater emphasis on a single measure, you're evaluation is short-sighted. I agree. I'm not a science type in fact my claim to fame is that I dodged science classes in high school and college but I've read to know more in the context of my health.
Has your lower free testosterone adversely impacted you achieving your fitness, health and wellness goals? I doubt it.
Never thought about your comment about no preliminary maintenance period.
It's easy to punch holes in all research studies. It's something we all do. I'm comfortable doing my n=1 evaluations of diet and exercise and what they do for my body and have decided IF is a valuable tool in my fitness, health and wellness toolbox. I don't think it's the best for all but it's the best for me. Your mileage may vary.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
My lower free testosterone is a consequence of my fitness goals - hard to say that it directly impacts them as it isn't separable from being in a deficit while at a lower body fat percentage - I'll be getting a DEXA next week, but I'm guessing I'm around 8% based on prior scans. So currently both limit me to only maintaining strength and lean mass, rather than gaining.
In terms of wellness goals? Well, I don't know that I have a goal about it, but I do have some psychological / physiological changes that I do notice, probably more prominent in a way because I was above 15% last year, and I think around there is an inflection point where testosterone peaks while in the 12-15% range. Though the changes that feel odd to me about single digits would probably put me more in the average range anyway.
The YMMV is about where I put a lot of nutrition and health science. Even well evidence positions are going to report a mean, and there's no guarantee a person is in the mean of responders. That's also why I end up with qualms about the over-touting I tend to see about IF, particularly from the gurus.
Just last weekend I happened to see multiple videos on YouTube, including one from an MD (sadly), claiming skin removal surgery is a sham and you can just fix loose skin from massive weight loss by doing IF. It is a shame that people have to take a strategy for setting up a deficit that helps some psychologically, and try to sell it as a miracle.
Sadly, I’ve seen this “info” ages ago, it just throws bad shade to IF. Excess skin is not something you can avoid if you are very over weight. No matter how you look at it IF is a positive thing for someone to try in their attempt at a healthy lifestyle change.
What we can agree on...
1. IF or no IF you will lose weight if you eat in a calorie deficit
2. IF or no IF eat the right amount of protein and you will see minimal muscle loss ( if you resistance train you may see an increase)
3. IF or no IF, consistency is key and if you stick with something long enough you’ll see the results required.
Things we don’t agree on...
1. IF helps reduce inflammation in the body
2. IF helps burn more fat than conventional methods
3. IF helps those with hormonal issues
4. IF helps with the regeneration and clearing of dead cell from the body
5. IF allows the gut to heal and produce a better, balanced microbiome
6. IF fights aging, other diseases etc.
7. Is the most beneficial method of eating because of the above.
We can argue these issues all day but we can agree it will make no difference. I respect your opinion. I don’t agree with it.
1. I generally think trying to reduce inflammation simpliciter is a bad dietary goal. Almost anytime someone uses inflammation in a generic sense, I'm leery of what they're about to try to sell. Just for example, inflammation is actually seems part of the process involved in muscle building - if my goal is increasing muscle, it seems I don't want to reduce that inflammation, do I?
2. Too strong a claim - I'd be fine with it can help, but I guarantee there are individuals that if you put them on IF, they're going to burn less. I believe the strongest proposed advantage in this regard is hypothesized as an increase in movement that happens when fasting. If that is the actual advantage, that's something a person can train themselves to do - just move around more.
3. Again, this is the kind of claim that I'd go with it can help. Say someone's hormonal issues is hypoglycemia - I'm thinking this really isn't a way to help that problem.
4. I'm skeptical of claims of there being a greater beneficial autophagy claim above what happens with weight loss in general.
5. I'd say nobody could make that claim because there isn't enough research yet to say what a better, balanced microbiome is. Frankly, I'm very skeptical that microbiome is actually causative in health and not just a marker of health.
6. Alright, where's the telomere data for IFers then?
7. Again, this isn't the kind of claim one can make universally. It could accomplish every thing one of the above but if it has adherence problems for someone, a diet that elicits adherence and puts the person in a healthy weight category is one I'd predict produces better health marker outcomes.
2 -
Again like I said we don’t agree so...The problem is claiming that IF is superior because of alleged "helps reduce inflammation" and the rest leads to the question "compared to what?" -- any way of eating that is not IF? Very unlikely. Some other ways of eating that are likely not the norm or not the norm among health conscious people? Maybe, but you might do better focusing on other things (like food choice or amount) vs. timing.
Certainly with things like inflammation and microbiome, to pick just a couple, food choice is likely much more significant. From what I've read of the anti aging folk (whom I am skeptical of, but whatever), daily IF is seen as less of an issue than occasional fasting (which means different things, could be weekly 24 hours, could be rarer occasional fasts) plus a beneficial diet (i.e., lower protein, lots of veg, among other things).
So again I think the focus on "eating in a window" as the OneTrueThing is really odd.
3 -
I do a 14/10 IF...I don’t think it really has an impact on my body that differs from when I was not doing this, as I’m still eating the same amount of calories and the same foods. I enjoy eating larger meals in shorter time frames personally.
I think the one benefit to my IF is that having the fast schedule gets me to bed sooner and gets me a better, longer night of sleep, which was a huge issue for me before. And, I just think it’s because my food is on a schedule, so at 9:30 pm when I begin my fast, I’m also thinking bedtime is an hour away. So, I think just forcing a schedule on an eating gets me to force a schedule on my sleeping...
So while I feel more energetic, productive, and healthy when I moved to IF, I think that’s due to having a more regimented schedule and sleeping consistently and more during this time.4 -
I guess we’ve come to the conclusion that it really does not matter. Eat a nutrient dense diet with a wide variety of foods and in the appropriate amounts to reach your goals. Train hard and get plenty of rest and recovery. All the benefits seem to be there fasting or no fasting. Use your personal preferences to guide you, not what the “gurus” try to tell...12
-
-
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/intermittent-fasting/Dropout rates ranged from 0-65%. When comparing dropout rates between the fasting groups and continuous calorie restriction groups, no significant differences were found. Overall, the review did not find that intermittent fasting had a low dropout rate, and therefore was not necessarily easier to follow than other weight loss approaches.
When examining the 12 clinical trials that compared the fasting group with the continuous calorie restriction group, there was no significant difference in weight loss amounts or body composition changes.
Ten trials that investigated changes in appetite did not show an overall increase in appetite in the intermittent fasting groups despite significant weight loss and decreases in leptin hormone levels (a hormone that suppresses appetite).
A randomized controlled trial that followed 100 obese individuals for one year did not find intermittent fasting to be more effective than daily calorie restriction. [6] For the 6-month weight loss phase, subjects were either placed on an alternating day fast (alternating days of one meal of 25% of baseline calories versus 125% of baseline calories divided over three meals) or daily calorie restriction (75% of baseline calories divided over three meals) following the American Heart Association guidelines. After 6 months, calorie levels were increased by 25% in both groups with a goal of weight maintenance. Participant characteristics of the groups were similar; mostly women and generally healthy. The trial examined weight changes, compliance rates, and cardiovascular risk factors. Their findings when comparing the two groups:
No significant differences in weight loss, weight regain, or body composition (e.g., fat mass, lean mass).
No significant differences in blood pressure, heart rate, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin. At 12 months, although there were no differences in total cholesterol and triglycerides, the alternate-day fasting group showed significantly increased LDL cholesterol levels. The authors did not comment on a possible cause.
The dropout rate was higher in the alternate-day fasting group (38%) than in the daily calorie restriction group (29%). Interestingly, those in the fasting group actually ate less food than prescribed on non-fasting days though they ate more food than prescribed on fasting days.
9 -
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/intermittent-fasting/Dropout rates ranged from 0-65%. When comparing dropout rates between the fasting groups and continuous calorie restriction groups, no significant differences were found. Overall, the review did not find that intermittent fasting had a low dropout rate, and therefore was not necessarily easier to follow than other weight loss approaches.
When examining the 12 clinical trials that compared the fasting group with the continuous calorie restriction group, there was no significant difference in weight loss amounts or body composition changes.
Ten trials that investigated changes in appetite did not show an overall increase in appetite in the intermittent fasting groups despite significant weight loss and decreases in leptin hormone levels (a hormone that suppresses appetite).
A randomized controlled trial that followed 100 obese individuals for one year did not find intermittent fasting to be more effective than daily calorie restriction. [6] For the 6-month weight loss phase, subjects were either placed on an alternating day fast (alternating days of one meal of 25% of baseline calories versus 125% of baseline calories divided over three meals) or daily calorie restriction (75% of baseline calories divided over three meals) following the American Heart Association guidelines. After 6 months, calorie levels were increased by 25% in both groups with a goal of weight maintenance. Participant characteristics of the groups were similar; mostly women and generally healthy. The trial examined weight changes, compliance rates, and cardiovascular risk factors. Their findings when comparing the two groups:
No significant differences in weight loss, weight regain, or body composition (e.g., fat mass, lean mass).
No significant differences in blood pressure, heart rate, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin. At 12 months, although there were no differences in total cholesterol and triglycerides, the alternate-day fasting group showed significantly increased LDL cholesterol levels. The authors did not comment on a possible cause.
The dropout rate was higher in the alternate-day fasting group (38%) than in the daily calorie restriction group (29%). Interestingly, those in the fasting group actually ate less food than prescribed on non-fasting days though they ate more food than prescribed on fasting days.
Objective data as opposed to hucksters YouTube videos. Nice work!
BTW, I've seen the video posted above before. A thought that went through my mind while viewing it was, "would you buy a used car from this guy?" But that's just me...11 -
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/intermittent-fasting/Dropout rates ranged from 0-65%. When comparing dropout rates between the fasting groups and continuous calorie restriction groups, no significant differences were found. Overall, the review did not find that intermittent fasting had a low dropout rate, and therefore was not necessarily easier to follow than other weight loss approaches.
When examining the 12 clinical trials that compared the fasting group with the continuous calorie restriction group, there was no significant difference in weight loss amounts or body composition changes.
Ten trials that investigated changes in appetite did not show an overall increase in appetite in the intermittent fasting groups despite significant weight loss and decreases in leptin hormone levels (a hormone that suppresses appetite).
A randomized controlled trial that followed 100 obese individuals for one year did not find intermittent fasting to be more effective than daily calorie restriction. [6] For the 6-month weight loss phase, subjects were either placed on an alternating day fast (alternating days of one meal of 25% of baseline calories versus 125% of baseline calories divided over three meals) or daily calorie restriction (75% of baseline calories divided over three meals) following the American Heart Association guidelines. After 6 months, calorie levels were increased by 25% in both groups with a goal of weight maintenance. Participant characteristics of the groups were similar; mostly women and generally healthy. The trial examined weight changes, compliance rates, and cardiovascular risk factors. Their findings when comparing the two groups:
No significant differences in weight loss, weight regain, or body composition (e.g., fat mass, lean mass).
No significant differences in blood pressure, heart rate, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin. At 12 months, although there were no differences in total cholesterol and triglycerides, the alternate-day fasting group showed significantly increased LDL cholesterol levels. The authors did not comment on a possible cause.
The dropout rate was higher in the alternate-day fasting group (38%) than in the daily calorie restriction group (29%). Interestingly, those in the fasting group actually ate less food than prescribed on non-fasting days though they ate more food than prescribed on fasting days.
Objective data as opposed to hucksters YouTube videos. Nice work!
BTW, I've seen the video posted above before. A thought that went through my mind while viewing it was, "would you buy a used car from this guy?" But that's just me...
No lol - no judgement though!
3 -
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/intermittent-fasting/Dropout rates ranged from 0-65%. When comparing dropout rates between the fasting groups and continuous calorie restriction groups, no significant differences were found. Overall, the review did not find that intermittent fasting had a low dropout rate, and therefore was not necessarily easier to follow than other weight loss approaches.
When examining the 12 clinical trials that compared the fasting group with the continuous calorie restriction group, there was no significant difference in weight loss amounts or body composition changes.
Ten trials that investigated changes in appetite did not show an overall increase in appetite in the intermittent fasting groups despite significant weight loss and decreases in leptin hormone levels (a hormone that suppresses appetite).
A randomized controlled trial that followed 100 obese individuals for one year did not find intermittent fasting to be more effective than daily calorie restriction. [6] For the 6-month weight loss phase, subjects were either placed on an alternating day fast (alternating days of one meal of 25% of baseline calories versus 125% of baseline calories divided over three meals) or daily calorie restriction (75% of baseline calories divided over three meals) following the American Heart Association guidelines. After 6 months, calorie levels were increased by 25% in both groups with a goal of weight maintenance. Participant characteristics of the groups were similar; mostly women and generally healthy. The trial examined weight changes, compliance rates, and cardiovascular risk factors. Their findings when comparing the two groups:
No significant differences in weight loss, weight regain, or body composition (e.g., fat mass, lean mass).
No significant differences in blood pressure, heart rate, fasting glucose, and fasting insulin. At 12 months, although there were no differences in total cholesterol and triglycerides, the alternate-day fasting group showed significantly increased LDL cholesterol levels. The authors did not comment on a possible cause.
The dropout rate was higher in the alternate-day fasting group (38%) than in the daily calorie restriction group (29%). Interestingly, those in the fasting group actually ate less food than prescribed on non-fasting days though they ate more food than prescribed on fasting days.
Objective data as opposed to hucksters YouTube videos. Nice work!
BTW, I've seen the video posted above before. A thought that went through my mind while viewing it was, "would you buy a used car from this guy?" But that's just me...
Thanks! Gave me another reason for not being able to keep a straight face when I watched that. 5 -
So what might surprise some as coming from me, a positive study for IF - although the study's results were actually negative - as in no difference.
In a study of women following TRF (the literature term for most forms of IF) during resistance training, it was found that there was no difference in hypertrophy outcomes between TRF and non-TRF.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ajcn/nqz126/5527779
I'm interested to see if there will be any more studies like this. I don't know how well I could do IF during maintenance, but it would be nice to see it isn't worth concerning myself about getting spaced out protein feedings.2 -
I do Omad but it was a transition. started off just 12:12 in April of 2018. By May/June i was 14:10. July 2018 to Feb 2019 I was 16:8. By march 2019 to MAY 2019 I would typically do 18 to 19 hrs fasted. By June i was 20 to 24 daily Omad.
5 -
It works well for me lost 20 lbs in the last three months, I will keep going........0
https://youtu.be/HLV-tSK-iCo
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions