Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Please help with this argument- Intermittent fasting related

18911131417

Replies

  • PWHFPWHF Posts: 211Member, Premium Member Posts: 211Member, Premium Member
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
    If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
    You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.

    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.

    Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.

    I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?

    Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me

    I believe he is discounting this because it is not objectively factual, or at least provable. Note the error of instrumentation is ~5%, so even if this may occur it is less than 5% and beneath detection.

    I can see how this notion gets traction on a macro scale, that work under fast burns more, but isn't how it works on a biochemical level. The biochemical pathways are fixed and it is irrelevant for all meaningful purposes when you eat as long as you continually fuel the pathways.

    The best way to see this is monitoring the military and Olympic programs. Again - irrelevant for the average population, but meaningful for elite level athletes. The US Naval Special Warfare Experimental Medical Center experimented with this and found no change in performance, but a marked increase in dropouts from the experiment due to injury and hypothermia.

    That's interesting, I'll look into that more. I can't discount what I'm seeing on the scale and with the tape measure and visibility of veins and abs.
  • PWHFPWHF Posts: 211Member, Premium Member Posts: 211Member, Premium Member
    PWHF wrote: »

    Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
    If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
    You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.

    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.

    Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.

    I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?

    Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me

    So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
    Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.

    It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.

    IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.

    Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.

    Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.

    IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.

    Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
    edited October 25
  • PWHFPWHF Posts: 211Member, Premium Member Posts: 211Member, Premium Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
    If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
    You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.

    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.

    Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.

    I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?

    Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me

    So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
    Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.

    It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.

    IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.

    Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.

    Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.

    IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.

    Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

    I don't say this to be rude but you have to keep saying "I didn't say this" because you don't understand rational inference. You aren't directly claiming things but they're the inescapable implications of what you are saying.

    Think of the person who says the Earth isn't round, gets questioned about why they think the Earth isn't a sphere, and says "I didn't say it". Sure, they said not round but all spheres are round, so one can't avoid claiming the Earth is not round without claiming it isn't a sphere.

    If you're gaining .5kg a week and actually losing ("burning") fat, you're claiming to be gaining more than .5kg of muscle a week. That's more than the rate of muscle gains a beginner can expect based on any expert I've ever read. Brad Schoenfeld says 2.5lbs (~1.2kg) a _month_, Lyle gives maybe up to 3 lb (~1.4kg) a _month_, Alan Aragon up to 1.5% bodyweight so 3lb for a 200lb (~90kg) a _month_. All for beginners. The rates are lower for intermediates with 3 years of experience.

    I'm not happy to agree to disagree. I am ecstatic to change my wrong understanding to one less wrong when evidence warrants it. Someone's self perception of their fat burn is no warrant.

    I'm not directly or indirectly claiming anything - you are doing that on my behalf. You've broken out the maths again but to back up my claims but are now omitting the activity modifier that you use previously to 'debunk' the notion of fasted training and post training fasting having any fat burning benefits at all:
    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    It looks like it's my self perception vs your speculation (which other people are citing as fact). We're going round in circles and won't reach an agreement on this. I'm happy to agree to disagree and keep doing what I'm doing until it stops working.

    FWIW I'm upping the calories to bulk more but sticking with IF.
  • PWHFPWHF Posts: 211Member, Premium Member Posts: 211Member, Premium Member
    NovusDies wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
    If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
    You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.

    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.

    Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.

    I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?

    Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me

    So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
    Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.

    It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.

    IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.

    Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.

    Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.

    IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.

    Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

    You can choose to be stubborn. I do not think it is wise to do it but there is no immediate harm to it that I can see if you are enjoying how it feels and the progress you are making. Plenty of people manage to get the correct results while giving credit to the wrong source.

    I will take this opportunity to share one of my favorite sayings though:

    It is what you learn after you know it all that counts.

    I'm agreeing to disagree and sticking with what works until it stops working. I like IF and it had become a way of life for me, I like the way it feels, I like the results so far - I'm not going to stop doing something that's working. I have said 'it works for me - these are the results so far'.

    Never have I claimed to be a great source of knowledge or know everything. I have merely stated what I am experiencing and made a point of people mis-quoting me and putting words in my mouth and accusing me of making specific claims based on their own speculation of what they think I am probably doing.

    It's strange that in an IF thread it's the detractors who are the zealous ones, you'd think it would be the other way round.
    edited October 25
  • NovusDiesNovusDies Posts: 5,945Member, Premium Member Posts: 5,945Member, Premium Member
    PWHF wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »
    PWHF wrote: »

    Yeah, and part of the problem is you don't follow the entailment of your claims.
    If you are eating 500 surplus calories on training days, and 100 surplus non training days, you are claiming to store 1900 or more calories a week.
    You're also claiming to lose body fat. That means it follows you are storing all 1900 as muscle unless you have managed some interesting organ hypertrophy.

    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    As Lemurkat2 said, you really at best measure your genuine surplus based on how much weight you are gaining. You can't determine your surplus by taking the amount above your prior maintenance.

    Other part of the problem is that you are completely discounting any additional calorie burn from IF, fasted training and post training fast. The whole point of the method is to combine lifting and fasting to burn fat.

    I think what you are getting at is that activity and exercise reduce the maintenance number from TDEE so TDEE + 500/100 isn't true bulking numbers? Isn't this true with or without IF?

    Like I said I'm happy with a slower bulk (due to IF) and minimal fat gain (due to IF). Works for me

    So you're happy with nothing? You're either easy or impossible to make happy then.
    Your minimal fat gain / slower bulk is due to your true surplus, which is lower than you think it is.

    It is true that your actual current TDEE under a bullk is higher than your maintenance TDEE if activity is kept relatively the same and that is true with or without IF. That it is true with or without IF is the point.

    IF is not changing your TDEE. It is not changing your calorie partitioning. It may help with controlling your CI.

    Did I say that? Why do I keep having to respond to your posts with "I didn't say that"? This must be the third time now.

    Back to the topic in hand - I can accept that my activity modifier calcs could be a bit off and need some adjusting due to my activity. Perhaps although I have a sedentary desk job my activity is more similar to an active job given the cardio/abs/MA and walking. Either way I'm happy with the slower bulk and minimal fat gain. Just to clarify I am seeing gains and my weight is going up - about 2KG in coming up to 4 weeks now. That hasn't been a linear 0.5 KG/week but that's where it stands at the moment.

    IF isn't meant to change your TDEE or restrict CI - like I said a few posts back you consume all your cut/bulk/maint calories in the feeding window - you're not just 'skipping breakfast' - I eat my breakfast (oats + fruit + protein powder) at 4 PM.

    Anyway - it's working for me, I like the way it makes me feel and I will continue to do it. I accept that it is not for everyone, but I will not accept that it has zero benefit and does not contribute to fat burn when combined with heavy lifting. I'm happy to agree to disagree.

    I don't say this to be rude but you have to keep saying "I didn't say this" because you don't understand rational inference. You aren't directly claiming things but they're the inescapable implications of what you are saying.

    Think of the person who says the Earth isn't round, gets questioned about why they think the Earth isn't a sphere, and says "I didn't say it". Sure, they said not round but all spheres are round, so one can't avoid claiming the Earth is not round without claiming it isn't a sphere.

    If you're gaining .5kg a week and actually losing ("burning") fat, you're claiming to be gaining more than .5kg of muscle a week. That's more than the rate of muscle gains a beginner can expect based on any expert I've ever read. Brad Schoenfeld says 2.5lbs (~1.2kg) a _month_, Lyle gives maybe up to 3 lb (~1.4kg) a _month_, Alan Aragon up to 1.5% bodyweight so 3lb for a 200lb (~90kg) a _month_. All for beginners. The rates are lower for intermediates with 3 years of experience.

    I'm not happy to agree to disagree. I am ecstatic to change my wrong understanding to one less wrong when evidence warrants it. Someone's self perception of their fat burn is no warrant.

    I'm not directly or indirectly claiming anything - you are doing that on my behalf.
    You've broken out the maths again but to back up my claims but are now omitting the activity modifier that you use previously to 'debunk' the notion of fasted training and post training fasting having any fat burning benefits at all:
    What is probably going on? You probably have a number you have for maintenance and you are eating 100 / 500 above that. That isn't the same as a 100/500 surplus. When you eat more, you burn more, not just Thermic effect of food, but subconsciously you become more active, certain metabolic pathways also increase using more calories.

    It looks like it's my self perception vs your speculation (which other people are citing as fact). We're going round in circles and won't reach an agreement on this. I'm happy to agree to disagree and keep doing what I'm doing until it stops working.

    FWIW I'm upping the calories to bulk more but sticking with IF.

    You are. The same way someone who says the earth is not round is claiming indirectly that the world is not a sphere.

    Without access to a rather sophisticated lab, you don't actually have a perception of what your calorie surplus is. Look, if you are taking what you maintain on, and adding 100 calories to that a day non-training, and adding 500 on training days, you are not eating 100 calorie / 500 calorie surplus on those days. You are eating 100/500 more than the number you've calculated for maintenance. There is a difference between these things. That you seem to understand that is why you can't follow the implications of your own claims.

    As far as an activity modifier for IF - okay, what modifier, sourced from what study that shows there is such a thing? I've yet to see one study show people on IF burn more with a statistical significance. What's more, if IF really did make you more active, either by raising your metabolism or activity, so that you burn more than your prior maintenance, you're also saying you aren't getting in a 100/500 surplus if you're eating 100/500 more than your prior maintenance.

    And here's the other implication of your claims you can't seem to follow. You say you are "burning" fat, which I take to mean you are claiming you are losing fat while gaining weight, right? If that's true, each gram of fat lost is a gram of lean tissue (essentially muscle, maybe blood volume without organ hypertrophy) you're gaining. If you're claiming to gain 2 kg of weight in a month while losing fat, it follows your roughly claiming to gain more than 2kg of muscle in a month. It is dead simple math weight gained = non-fat weight gained + fat weight gained -> if fat weight gained is negative (fat lost "burned") then non-fat weight gained > weight gained.

    zq9ysuj06y9k.gif
  • fitnessguy266fitnessguy266 Posts: 30Member Member Posts: 30Member Member
    IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
  • PWHFPWHF Posts: 211Member, Premium Member Posts: 211Member, Premium Member
    IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents

    This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results B)
  • mbaker566mbaker566 Posts: 10,181Member Member Posts: 10,181Member Member
    IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents

    how so?
    how do you know it was IF and nothing else? nutrition v IF for example
  • Hollis100Hollis100 Posts: 332Member, Premium Member Posts: 332Member, Premium Member
    @SCoil123 Thank you for posting the link to this Harvard Medical School article about intermittent fasting. I also read past the catchy start about rats and read to end about studies on people.



    https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-surprising-update-2018062914156

    Harvard Health Publishing
    Harvard Medical School
    Intermittent fasting: Surprising update
    Posted June 29, 2018, 6:30 am

    Monique Tello, MD, MPH
    Contributing Editor

    There’s a ton of incredibly promising intermittent fasting (IF) research done on fat rats. They lose weight, their blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugars improve… but they’re rats. Studies in humans, almost across the board, have shown that IF is safe and incredibly effective, but really no more effective than any other diet. In addition, many people find it difficult to fast.

    But a growing body of research suggests that the timing of the fast is key, and can make IF a more realistic, sustainable, and effective approach for weight loss, as well as for diabetes prevention.

    The backstory on intermittent fasting

    IF as a weight loss approach has been around in various forms for ages, but was highly popularized in 2012 by BBC broadcast journalist Dr. Michael Mosley’s TV documentary Eat Fast, Live Longer and book The Fast Diet, followed by journalist Kate Harrison’s book The 5:2 Diet based on her own experience, and subsequently by Dr. Jason Fung’s 2016 bestseller The Obesity Code. IF generated a steady positive buzz as anecdotes of its effectiveness proliferated.

    As a lifestyle-leaning research doctor, I needed to understand the science. The Obesity Code seemed the most evidence-based summary resource, and I loved it. Fung successfully combines plenty of research, his clinical experience, and sensible nutrition advice, and also addresses the socioeconomic forces conspiring to make us fat. He is very clear that we should eat more fruits and veggies, fiber, healthy protein, and fats, and avoid sugar, refined grains, processed foods, and for God’s sake, stop snacking. Check, check, check, I agree. The only part that was still questionable in my mind was the intermittent fasting part.

    Intermittent fasting can help weight loss

    IF makes intuitive sense. The food we eat is broken down by enzymes in our gut and eventually ends up as molecules in our bloodstream. Carbohydrates, particularly sugars and refined grains (think white flours and rice), are quickly broken down into sugar, which our cells use for energy. If our cells don’t use it all, we store it in our fat cells as, well, fat. But sugar can only enter our cells with insulin, a hormone made in the pancreas. Insulin brings sugar into the fat cells and keeps it there.

    Between meals, as long as we don’t snack, our insulin levels will go down and our fat cells can then release their stored sugar, to be used as energy. We lose weight if we let our insulin levels go down. The entire idea of IF is to allow the insulin levels to go down far enough and for long enough that we burn off our fat.

    Intermittent fasting can be hard… but maybe it doesn’t have to be

    Initial human studies that compared fasting every other day to eating less every day showed that both worked about equally for weight loss, though people struggled with the fasting days. So I had written off IF as no better or worse than simply eating less, only far more uncomfortable. My advice was to just stick with the sensible, plant-based, Mediterranean-style diet.

    New research is suggesting that not all IF approaches are the same, and some are actually very reasonable, effective, and sustainable, especially when combined with a nutritious plant-based diet. So I’m prepared to take my lumps on this one (and even revise my prior post).

    We have evolved to be in sync with the day/night cycle, i.e., a circadian rhythm. Our metabolism has adapted to daytime food, nighttime sleep. Nighttime eating is well associated with a higher risk of obesity, as well as diabetes.
    Based on this, researchers from the University of Alabama conducted a study with a small group of obese men with prediabetes. They compared a form of intermittent fasting called “early time-restricted feeding,” where all meals were fit into an early eight-hour period of the day (7 am to 3 pm), or spread out over 12 hours (between 7 am and 7 pm). Both groups maintained their weight (did not gain or lose) but after five weeks, the eight-hours group had dramatically lower insulin levels and significantly improved insulin sensitivity, as well as significantly lower blood pressure. The best part? The eight-hours group also had significantly decreased appetite. They weren’t starving.
    Just changing the timing of meals, by eating earlier in the day and extending the overnight fast, significantly benefited metabolism even in people who didn’t lose a single pound.

    So is this as good as it sounds?

    I was very curious about this, so I asked the opinion of metabolic expert Dr. Deborah Wexler, Director of the Massachusetts General Hospital Diabetes Center and associate professor at Harvard Medical School. Here is what she told me. “There is evidence to suggest that the circadian rhythm fasting approach, where meals are restricted to an eight to 10-hour period of the daytime, is effective,” she confirmed, though generally she recommends that people “use an eating approach that works for them and is sustainable to them.”

    So here’s the deal. There is some good scientific evidence suggesting that circadian rhythm fasting, when combined with a healthy diet and lifestyle, can be a particularly effective approach to weight loss, especially for people at risk for diabetes. (However, people with advanced diabetes or who are on medications for diabetes, people with a history of eating disorders like anorexia and bulimia, and pregnant or breastfeeding women should not attempt intermittent fasting unless under the close supervision of a physician who can monitor them.)

    4 ways to use this information for better health

    Avoid sugars and refined grains. Instead, eat fruits, vegetables, beans, lentils, whole grains, lean proteins, and healthy fats (a sensible, plant-based, Mediterranean-style diet).

    Let your body burn fat between meals. Don’t snack. Be active throughout your day. Build muscle tone.
    Consider a simple form of intermittent fasting. Limit the hours of the day when you eat, and for best effect, make it earlier in the day (between 7 am to 3 pm, or even 10 am to 6 pm, but definitely not in the evening before bed).
    Avoid snacking or eating at nighttime, all the time.

    Sources
    Effect of Alternate-Day Fasting on Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, and Cardioprotection Among Metabolically Healthy Obese Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, May 2017.
    Alternate-day fasting in nonobese subjects: effects on body weight, body composition, and energy metabolism. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, January 2005.
    The Obesity Code, by Jason Fung, MD (Greystone Books, 2016).
    Intermittent fasting interventions for treatment of overweight and obesity in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, February 2018.
    Metabolic Effects of Intermittent Fasting. Annual Review of Nutrition, August 2017.
    Early Time-Restricted Feeding Improves Insulin Sensitivity, Blood Pressure, and Oxidative Stress Even without Weight Loss in Men with Prediabetes. Cell Metabolism, May 2018.

    edited November 11
Sign In or Register to comment.