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.
Please help with this argument- Intermittent fasting related
Replies
-
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.8 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You are claiming a 6 pound advantage over 6 weeks. How can you seriously suggest that your genetics would alter the way your body works to that degree just because you fasted a little longer?
Once again if you were claiming a small percentage increase in efficiency I would be more likely to agree with you or accept that it is possible and may be confirmed at some point in the future. I don't rule out that there may be some advantages but they won't fundamentally change the way the human body works.8 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.3 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
His proof seems to be that because we don't all have the same color hair that IF will activate an otherwise dormant superhuman aspect of his genetics.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.
Proof for what exactly? A vast majority of you have provided research material, articles, and links on IF that would give us all a Harvard education on the subject. At this point in the thread, everyone is aware that IF is one of many dieting strategies to control caloric intake in an effort to lose weight.
However, no one has taken into account, or even acknowledged, that weight loss and fat loss although tied, are VERY different result wise over a period of time. When does OPTIMIZED fat loss occur? When insulin has reached baseline levels due to glucose depletion, the amount of fat being mobilized contingent upon period of time stores has been depleted. One can argue, and rightfully so, that the same can be achieved through a low carb, or Keto diet. But what about.....never mind.0 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
His proof seems to be that because we don't all have the same color hair that IF will activate an otherwise dormant superhuman aspect of his genetics.
Pretty good attempt at humor my friend, but you really can't be oblivious to the fact that results can be highly individualized based upon genetic design.........right? I hope not......1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
See above response, you all have done well providing this thread with research and articles giving further insight to the matter....I have provided personal experience quantified over a period of time using different diets, and that was my intent. You can make your own determination of what's best for you through trials of your own, based on your own research, and what you consider the most sustainable.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
His proof seems to be that because we don't all have the same color hair that IF will activate an otherwise dormant superhuman aspect of his genetics.
Pretty good attempt at humor my friend, but you really can't be oblivious to the fact that results can be highly individualized based upon genetic design.........right? I hope not......
Highly individualized would not in any way shape or form account for 6 pounds in 6 weeks. You really don't get that?6 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
His proof seems to be that because we don't all have the same color hair that IF will activate an otherwise dormant superhuman aspect of his genetics.
Pretty good attempt at humor my friend, but you really can't be oblivious to the fact that results can be highly individualized based upon genetic design.........right? I hope not......
Highly individualized would not in any way shape or form account for 6 pounds in 6 weeks. You really don't get that?
Dude....it's 6 pounds in 6 weeks....do we need to revisit the basic fundamentals of weight loss? How is that so difficult to ascertain? I'm truly at a loss here....please elaborate further or rephrase your question please.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.
Proof for what exactly? A vast majority of you have provided research material, articles, and links on IF that would give us all a Harvard education on the subject. At this point in the thread, everyone is aware that IF is one of many dieting strategies to control caloric intake in an effort to lose weight.
However, no one has taken into account, or even acknowledged, that weight loss and fat loss although tied, are VERY different result wise over a period of time. When does OPTIMIZED fat loss occur? When insulin has reached baseline levels due to glucose depletion, the amount of fat being mobilized contingent upon period of time stores has been depleted. One can argue, and rightfully so, that the same can be achieved through a low carb, or Keto diet. But what about.....never mind.
So what exactly are you debating in this debate thread. That results are individual. While that is true, it is within a narrow range of variability and nothing like what you have claimed from your personal experiences.
No matter what you want to believe, physiology, is still physiology, biology is still biology and physics are still physics. So, once again, why are you in a debate thread? All you seem to want to do is repeated stated your personal experience that seems to defy science. Ok, good for you. Believe what you like. There is nothing to debate about subjective belief, however erroneous it might be for all the reasons that have been pointed out.3 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
His proof seems to be that because we don't all have the same color hair that IF will activate an otherwise dormant superhuman aspect of his genetics.
Pretty good attempt at humor my friend, but you really can't be oblivious to the fact that results can be highly individualized based upon genetic design.........right? I hope not......
Highly individualized would not in any way shape or form account for 6 pounds in 6 weeks. You really don't get that?
Dude....it's 6 pounds in 6 weeks....do we need to revisit the basic fundamentals of weight loss? How is that so difficult to ascertain? I'm truly at a loss here....please elaborate further or rephrase your question please.
Right. The fundamentals of weight loss state that weight is lost at ~3500 calorie per pound. What you have said is that all things being equal that IF gave you the results after the same calorie and training regimen failed to do so in 6 week segments before it.
4 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.
Proof for what exactly? A vast majority of you have provided research material, articles, and links on IF that would give us all a Harvard education on the subject. At this point in the thread, everyone is aware that IF is one of many dieting strategies to control caloric intake in an effort to lose weight.
However, no one has taken into account, or even acknowledged, that weight loss and fat loss although tied, are VERY different result wise over a period of time. When does OPTIMIZED fat loss occur? When insulin has reached baseline levels due to glucose depletion, the amount of fat being mobilized contingent upon period of time stores has been depleted. One can argue, and rightfully so, that the same can be achieved through a low carb, or Keto diet. But what about.....never mind.
The body needs energy. It gets it from food or stores. While there is extra glucose the body uses it first. If you eat 2000 calories and your body needs 2500 it doesn't matter that stored energy won't be used after a meal is eaten for awhile. The end result is that the body needs 500 more calories at some point and it will use stores to meet that demand.
The insulin conspiracy is no different than keto sites claiming that keto burns more fat. The fine print is that keto burns more dietary fat because you are eating more of it. Insulin blocking fat from being used is just a shocking thing people say to other people that somehow believe they should be used stored fat 24 hours a day while they are losing weight.
5 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You seem to be certain of a lot of things but have proof for very little.
His proof seems to be that because we don't all have the same color hair that IF will activate an otherwise dormant superhuman aspect of his genetics.
Pretty good attempt at humor my friend, but you really can't be oblivious to the fact that results can be highly individualized based upon genetic design.........right? I hope not......
Highly individualized would not in any way shape or form account for 6 pounds in 6 weeks. You really don't get that?
Dude....it's 6 pounds in 6 weeks....do we need to revisit the basic fundamentals of weight loss? How is that so difficult to ascertain? I'm truly at a loss here....please elaborate further or rephrase your question please.
Right. The fundamentals of weight loss state that weight is lost at ~3500 calorie per pound. What you have said is that all things being equal that IF gave you the results after the same calorie and training regimen failed to do so in 6 week segments before it.
This is the point, you are claiming a 6lbs in 6 weeks loss due to IF in and of itself...2 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.
Proof for what exactly? A vast majority of you have provided research material, articles, and links on IF that would give us all a Harvard education on the subject. At this point in the thread, everyone is aware that IF is one of many dieting strategies to control caloric intake in an effort to lose weight.
However, no one has taken into account, or even acknowledged, that weight loss and fat loss although tied, are VERY different result wise over a period of time. When does OPTIMIZED fat loss occur? When insulin has reached baseline levels due to glucose depletion, the amount of fat being mobilized contingent upon period of time stores has been depleted. One can argue, and rightfully so, that the same can be achieved through a low carb, or Keto diet. But what about.....never mind.
What a load of twaddle.
Bearing in mind you may well have 2,000 cals of glycogen stored and it's not used sequentially let alone first thinking an extra 4hrs of fasting will make the slightest difference is nonsensical.
Even if you do put in the effort to exhaust glycogen stores (2hrs strenous cardio perhaps?) fat loss over time is in line with caloric deficit not fuel substrate mix used during exercise - that blend of fuel substrates used is primarily determined by exercise type and intensity - not whether you are fasted or fed.
By the way if you do manage to fully deplete your glycogen stores (hitting the wall or bonking as cyclists call it) you will be barely able to function let alone exercise. It's an unmistakable and awful experience to be avoided not flirted with.10 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.
Proof for what exactly? A vast majority of you have provided research material, articles, and links on IF that would give us all a Harvard education on the subject. At this point in the thread, everyone is aware that IF is one of many dieting strategies to control caloric intake in an effort to lose weight.
However, no one has taken into account, or even acknowledged, that weight loss and fat loss although tied, are VERY different result wise over a period of time. When does OPTIMIZED fat loss occur? When insulin has reached baseline levels due to glucose depletion, the amount of fat being mobilized contingent upon period of time stores has been depleted. One can argue, and rightfully so, that the same can be achieved through a low carb, or Keto diet. But what about.....never mind.
Yup, Insulin bad, that's why IFBB Pros inject it to get into physiques not physiologically possible without PEDs.
People that think insulin is weightloss magic switches you turn off and on have lost the difference between the metaphor of the map and the truth of the place. Insulin causes fat storage in the same way smartphones cause Amazon.com purchases to show up at addresses - you're confusing the signal for the phenomenon.8 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....
You have repeatedly claimed IF gives metabolic advantages without once providing any sort of proof outside of your n=1. If that isn't disputing science, then I don't know what is. When you get called out on it, instead of offering proof, you offer more n=1 arguments, then you say you don't want to debate and backpedal. You know what is proven, and true 100% of the time? CICO.
Proof for what exactly? A vast majority of you have provided research material, articles, and links on IF that would give us all a Harvard education on the subject. At this point in the thread, everyone is aware that IF is one of many dieting strategies to control caloric intake in an effort to lose weight.
However, no one has taken into account, or even acknowledged, that weight loss and fat loss although tied, are VERY different result wise over a period of time. When does OPTIMIZED fat loss occur? When insulin has reached baseline levels due to glucose depletion, the amount of fat being mobilized contingent upon period of time stores has been depleted. One can argue, and rightfully so, that the same can be achieved through a low carb, or Keto diet. But what about.....never mind.
So what exactly are you debating in this debate thread. That results are individual. While that is true, it is within a narrow range of variability and nothing like what you have claimed from your personal experiences.
No matter what you want to believe, physiology, is still physiology, biology is still biology and physics are still physics. So, once again, why are you in a debate thread? All you seem to want to do is repeated stated your personal experience that seems to defy science. Ok, good for you. Believe what you like. There is nothing to debate about subjective belief, however erroneous it might be for all the reasons that have been pointed out.
And you know it is subjective belief based on how it is presented. If I suddenly lost 6 pounds in 6 weeks doing IF while believing that my variables had all stayed the same I would present it as an anomalous result. I would not steadfastly state that my result was proof of something. The less willing that a person is willing to accept that their interpretation of the results could be wrong the more they prove they are biased and so was their conclusion.
My field requires a lot of data analysis and I the first thing I do even when I get an expected result is assume it is wrong. I check and recheck everything that led up to the result before I present it to my client.1 -
Like if we wanted to discuss n=1 magical results, I could mention I went from 173 lbs after a funeral to 164.6 lbs 10 days later. Clearly that means funerals induce weight loss close to 1 lb / day. No need for anyone else to go to a funeral to check this. I know it clearly was the funeral, and not that I had supercomensation of glycogen from desserts offered at the funeral, combined with dehydration today from sleeping in.
Anyone that disagrees with my funeral explanatory hypothesis is trying to invalidate my personal experience.
Now I'm not selling a funeral diets book, but you should check out when Dr. Fung comes out with the Dead and Buried Diet soon.15 -
According to research, there has been some really good benefits to IF. Yes, it is a way to restrict calories without necessarily counting them, but it has also been proven to help with blood pressure, blood sugar, and your overall digestive health, because you are extending your time without food, it gives the digestive system extra time to clear everything out and process everything. You feel less bloated (at least I do) you have more normal bowel movements and it helps regulate hunger because we all know that we are creatures of habit, so times feeding like IF helps teach your brain when to increase Ghrelin, the hunger hormone. You can combine it with Keto, low carb, low fat, Paleo, Mediterranean, DASH, or any other diet because essentially IF isn't a diet. It only controls when you eat, not what you eat. Hope that info helps some.1
-
michaelsvance wrote: »According to research, there has been some really good benefits to IF. Yes, it is a way to restrict calories without necessarily counting them, but it has also been proven to help with blood pressure, blood sugar, and your overall digestive health, because you are extending your time without food, it gives the digestive system extra time to clear everything out and process everything. You feel less bloated (at least I do) you have more normal bowel movements and it helps regulate hunger because we all know that we are creatures of habit, so times feeding like IF helps teach your brain when to increase Ghrelin, the hunger hormone. You can combine it with Keto, low carb, low fat, Paleo, Mediterranean, DASH, or any other diet because essentially IF isn't a diet. It only controls when you eat, not what you eat. Hope that info helps some.
I believe the propose benefits have already been discussed. The blood pressure should be an artifact of weight loss that doesn't hold up statistically.
As far as blood sugar, it is also possible that it is not IF but the feeding windows typically used - and that's something I heard pointed out by an IF researcher. She noted that most IF involves skipping breakfast which means you're not getting as early an effect of food driving down the cortisol rise that usually happens in the morning.3 -
michaelsvance wrote: »According to research, there has been some really good benefits to IF. Yes, it is a way to restrict calories without necessarily counting them, but it has also been proven to help with blood pressure, blood sugar, and your overall digestive health, because you are extending your time without food, it gives the digestive system extra time to clear everything out and process everything. You feel less bloated (at least I do) you have more normal bowel movements and it helps regulate hunger because we all know that we are creatures of habit, so times feeding like IF helps teach your brain when to increase Ghrelin, the hunger hormone. You can combine it with Keto, low carb, low fat, Paleo, Mediterranean, DASH, or any other diet because essentially IF isn't a diet. It only controls when you eat, not what you eat. Hope that info helps some.
You know how I know you didn't read through the entire thread? Seriously, this is like the same *kitten* on repeat, and it's obvious that these people haven't read anything other than a blog post on a pro-IF site, or some other "expert" who is selling magical weight loss cures to sell books. It cracks me up when I hear claims about a diet "teaching" the body anything, because that assumes that our internal organs need to learn how to work properly. Thats not how it works. Thats not how any of this works.14 -
michaelsvance wrote: »According to research, there has been some really good benefits to IF. Yes, it is a way to restrict calories without necessarily counting them, but it has also been proven to help with blood pressure, blood sugar, and your overall digestive health, because you are extending your time without food, it gives the digestive system extra time to clear everything out and process everything. You feel less bloated (at least I do) you have more normal bowel movements and it helps regulate hunger because we all know that we are creatures of habit, so times feeding like IF helps teach your brain when to increase Ghrelin, the hunger hormone. You can combine it with Keto, low carb, low fat, Paleo, Mediterranean, DASH, or any other diet because essentially IF isn't a diet. It only controls when you eat, not what you eat. Hope that info helps some.
10 -
michaelsvance wrote: »According to research, there has been some really good benefits to IF. Yes, it is a way to restrict calories without necessarily counting them, but it has also been proven to help with blood pressure, blood sugar, and your overall digestive health, because you are extending your time without food, it gives the digestive system extra time to clear everything out and process everything. You feel less bloated (at least I do) you have more normal bowel movements and it helps regulate hunger because we all know that we are creatures of habit, so times feeding like IF helps teach your brain when to increase Ghrelin, the hunger hormone. You can combine it with Keto, low carb, low fat, Paleo, Mediterranean, DASH, or any other diet because essentially IF isn't a diet. It only controls when you eat, not what you eat. Hope that info helps some.
You know how I know you didn't read through the entire thread? Seriously, this is like the same *kitten* on repeat, and it's obvious that these people haven't read anything other than a blog post on a pro-IF site, or some other "expert" who is selling magical weight loss cures to sell books. It cracks me up when I hear claims about a diet "teaching" the body anything, because that assumes that our internal organs need to learn how to work properly. Thats not how it works. Thats not how any of this works.
Yup! That's right up there on the bs scale along with your digestive system needing a rest. If that's true, don't your heart and lungs deserve a few hours off every once in a while, too?4 -
So has this thread settled the debate on IF?2
-
NorthCascades wrote: »So has this thread settled the debate on IF?
No, but this article most positively and certainly does. Nothing at all to add, here.
Are There Benefits to Intermittent Fasting? (NY Times)
"The best diet is the one where you are healthy, hydrated and living your best life. If you want to fast, it offers similar weight-loss benefits to just cutting calories."
https://nyti.ms/2KNpYVM5 -
NorthCascades wrote: »So has this thread settled the debate on IF?
This debate will never end...Today. tomorrow, next week, next month. Just like the hundreds of pages that preceded this diatribe. Someone will ask again and again and off we go... again. lol1 -
haha. i thought this would be just two pages when i started it awhile ago. The fact that it went to Nov 27th is heartwarming haha0
-
I didn't read the whole thread, yet but I will because i think IF has health benefits important to ME. When my DH was hospitalized for weeks last year I was not eating dinner because I didnt want to cook for 1. I ate breakfast, lunch at the hospital. Nothing again until the next morning. 15 lbs lost, blood sugar improved so much I cut my diabetes meds way back. This could have been from the weight loss, but my arthritis pain went away, and so did my urge incontinence. That was the biggest shocker of all. Now that I'm back to eating through the day I've gained back only a few lbs, but my arthritis is back and so is the incontinence. I want those benefits again. But this is for me. I don't try to push my ideas on others. We are all different.5
-
I didn't read the whole thread, yet but I will because i think IF has health benefits important to ME. When my DH was hospitalized for weeks last year I was not eating dinner because I didnt want to cook for 1. I ate breakfast, lunch at the hospital. Nothing again until the next morning. 15 lbs lost, blood sugar improved so much I cut my diabetes meds way back. This could have been from the weight loss, but my arthritis pain went away, and so did my urge incontinence. That was the biggest shocker of all. Now that I'm back to eating through the day I've gained back only a few lbs, but my arthritis is back and so is the incontinence. I want those benefits again. But this is for me. I don't try to push my ideas on others. We are all different.
Often losing weight/eating at a deficit has benefits if one is overweight even before significant weight loss. I think that's likely the explanation for your experience. But it is true that the studies I've seen about IF are more likely to show a benefit for meals eaten earlier in the day (something about circadian rhythm) vs. late in the day (even though the latter can be very beneficial for some in controlling cals too).
Here's one interesting study: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(18)30253-5 (For some reason my link isn't posting right, so you have to cut and paste it.)
(I will note that despite this, I ate 3 meals, no snacking, and dinner quite late -- I would usually go from a lunch around noon to dinner around 9, which was just about as long as the fast period between the end of dinner and when I'd eat in the morning some days, and lost weight quite easily and without hunger, so I don't think eating late is a big problem at all if someone finds that an easier schedule. Generally I think people pursue a strategy that is easiest for them specifically to achieve goals, as that will be easier to maintain.)1 -
I didn't read the whole thread, yet but I will because i think IF has health benefits important to ME. When my DH was hospitalized for weeks last year I was not eating dinner because I didnt want to cook for 1. I ate breakfast, lunch at the hospital. Nothing again until the next morning. 15 lbs lost, blood sugar improved so much I cut my diabetes meds way back. This could have been from the weight loss, but my arthritis pain went away, and so did my urge incontinence. That was the biggest shocker of all. Now that I'm back to eating through the day I've gained back only a few lbs, but my arthritis is back and so is the incontinence. I want those benefits again. But this is for me. I don't try to push my ideas on others. We are all different.
Often losing weight/eating at a deficit has benefits if one is overweight even before significant weight loss. I think that's likely the explanation for your experience. But it is true that the studies I've seen about IF are more likely to show a benefit for meals eaten earlier in the day (something about circadian rhythm) vs. late in the day (even though the latter can be very beneficial for some in controlling cals too).
Here's one interesting study: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(18)30253-5 (For some reason my link isn't posting right, so you have to cut and paste it.)
(I will note that despite this, I ate 3 meals, no snacking, and dinner quite late -- I would usually go from a lunch around noon to dinner around 9, which was just about as long as the fast period between the end of dinner and when I'd eat in the morning some days, and lost weight quite easily and without hunger, so I don't think eating late is a big problem at all if someone finds that an easier schedule. Generally I think people pursue a strategy that is easiest for them specifically to achieve goals, as that will be easier to maintain.)
I find the circadian angle interesting. Before artificial light made daytime a 24 hour period, we probably slept whole lot more. What do you not do while you're sleeping? Eat. Much like we exercise to try and replace an overall less active lifestyle, maybe fasting is a way to mitigate all those extra hours we are now awake when we probably didn't used to be...3 -
I fast periodically. At noon, I will have completed a 24 hour fast. The truth is that most people do not have the discipline or self regulation to fast. I won't get into the many benefits of fasting because if you haven't done your own research, I'd just be wasting my time... The geniuses here are much more credible than any documented research and you should trust their opinions. My husband has done many fasts over several days. My longest has been a 41 hour fast. I maintain 105 pounds at 5 foot tall.4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions