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
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.11 -
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd 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.
3 -
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 cents2
-
fitnessguy266 wrote: »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 are these results being measured and over what period of time? What controls have you put in place to make sure your results are only being produced by IF and no other factor?
9 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »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
4 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »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 example3 -
@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.
2 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »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
Then don't post in the debate forum...17 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »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
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.7 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »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
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »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
Thanks! I would rather not engage in the debate, as there a countless number of articles, research, and personal experiences to investigate, and even try yourself, like i have. IF, vs, countless other methods I have tried has been a godsend for my physique.0 -
@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.
This kind sir seems to be providing research links for the group on others behalf.0 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.0 -
Ive been doing IF for months and, fort some unknown reason, I thought I could sneak in some additional cals during my IF hours w. out gaining weight.....somehow I would miracoulosuly have more time to burn them off and they wouldn't count..LOL
thats not the case!
if I eat too much of the wrong stuff and/or go above my allotted maintenance calories....my weight goes up
I continue to do IF though because I like having a clearly defines regimen with a start eating and stop time ....if not, I tend to pick and graze which can snowball to overeating
My hours for eating are from 8-2..Im never hungry in the evening..dont miss snacking etc
With the holidays coming up though and more evening activities...it will be tough..dont want to be that odd ball sitting there w nothing to eat/drink
7 -
To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread0 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
How does one person's personal 6 week experience "/thread"?
I guess you're assuming that your body reacted immediately to how you were eating on a daily basis? What kind of structure did you set up to ensure absolutely no other variables changed during that 6 weeks? Are you a professional researcher? What equipment did you use to measure bf? Calorie burns? Did you sleep the exact same minutes every week? Do you use a step tracker? What about environmental conditions? How did you measure your hydration? Did you quantify digestive transit time and waste production?15 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
How does one person's personal 6 week experience "/thread"?
I guess you're assuming that your body reacted immediately to how you were eating on a daily basis? What kind of structure did you set up to ensure absolutely no other variables changed during that 6 weeks? Are you a professional researcher? What equipment did you use to measure bf? Calorie burns? Did you sleep the exact same minutes every week? Do you use a step tracker? What about environmental conditions? How did you measure your hydration? Did you quantify digestive transit time and waste production?
I didn't "overcomplicate" the process with all the methods you are asking me about lol, but good questions nonetheless. However nothing changed in terms of food and caloric intake, same place of employment, same daily routine, same sleep pattern (11pm-7pm) same workout days (Mon, Wed, Fri). Sunday is a day I bump my caloric intake to roughly 2300-2600 to allow for social fun (alcohol and the like) drinking exclusively red wine.....
To attempt to dissect it further to find the more effective approach with other methods you mentioned is simply unnecessary....has anyone here actually TRIED Intermittent Fasting as an alternative approach to what they have tried in the past? I'm genuinely very curious....0 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
How does one person's personal 6 week experience "/thread"?
I guess you're assuming that your body reacted immediately to how you were eating on a daily basis? What kind of structure did you set up to ensure absolutely no other variables changed during that 6 weeks? Are you a professional researcher? What equipment did you use to measure bf? Calorie burns? Did you sleep the exact same minutes every week? Do you use a step tracker? What about environmental conditions? How did you measure your hydration? Did you quantify digestive transit time and waste production?
I didn't "overcomplicate" the process with all the methods you are asking me about lol, but good questions nonetheless. However nothing changed in terms of food and caloric intake, same place of employment, same daily routine, same sleep pattern (11pm-7pm) same workout days (Mon, Wed, Fri). Sunday is a day I bump my caloric intake to roughly 2300-2600 to allow for social fun (alcohol and the like) drinking exclusively red wine.....
To attempt to dissect it further to find the more effective approach with other methods you mentioned is simply unnecessary....has anyone here actually TRIED Intermittent Fasting as an alternative approach to what they have tried in the past? I'm genuinely very curious....
This here is a good baseline for an "average" person testing different diets...... do not become obsessive to the point you are trying to incorporate all the above methods the young lady mentioned above if you are not a professional researcher lol.0 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
Lol...6 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
Lol...
Sorry man lol, we have to have a little fun here...it's getting too serious lol1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.
You are actually only speaking from how you interpreted your personal experience. You didn't answer my questions on how you evaluated your results or how you controlled the experiment to be sure your findings were accurate. The reason is you are just out there living life and if you perceive a change, assuming the change you think happened did happen, you may or may not assign it to the correct cause.
If you want your personal experience to be proof of something you need to have something more than blind faith in your interpretation to base it on. IMO, the best place to start would be to assume you are wrong. I always assume I am wrong first. Then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes even if I can't I am still dubious because I am also just living life not conducting a controlled scientific experiment.
For the longest time I believed in set points. I believe that once your body got to a certain weight it would try to stay there and that losing weight would reset it and allow it to go higher. My personal experiences were interpreted in a way that seemed to confirm this suspicion. The reality is I was not resetting my "set point" I was just resetting my eating habits. When I lost weight I stepped out of my normal routine that maintained me where I was and when I stopped losing I would eat more than I had previously.11 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.
You are actually only speaking from how you interpreted your personal experience. You didn't answer my questions on how you evaluated your results or how you controlled the experiment to be sure your findings were accurate. The reason is you are just out there living life and if you perceive a change, assuming the change you think happened did happen, you may or may not assign it to the correct cause.
If you want your personal experience to be proof of something you need to have something more than blind faith in your interpretation to base it on. IMO, the best place to start would be to assume you are wrong. I always assume I am wrong first. Then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes even if I can't I am still dubious because I am also just living life not conducting a controlled scientific experiment.
For the longest time I believed in set points. I believe that once your body got to a certain weight it would try to stay there and that losing weight would reset it and allow it to go higher. My personal experiences were interpreted in a way that seemed to confirm this suspicion. The reality is I was not resetting my "set point" I was just resetting my eating habits. When I lost weight I stepped out of my normal routine that maintained me where I was and when I stopped losing I would eat more than I had previously.
My apologies if I missed the feedback you were seeking with your post, I however did post my "baseline" as to how i measured my results a few posts above. Dedicating 6 weeks to 4 different diet approaches (this is a good timeline to measure results, any debate against it is lack of education and actual attempts) changing nothing in terms of life habits, food choices, and routine, I found IF to be the superior method for the results I was looking for.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.
You are actually only speaking from how you interpreted your personal experience. You didn't answer my questions on how you evaluated your results or how you controlled the experiment to be sure your findings were accurate. The reason is you are just out there living life and if you perceive a change, assuming the change you think happened did happen, you may or may not assign it to the correct cause.
If you want your personal experience to be proof of something you need to have something more than blind faith in your interpretation to base it on. IMO, the best place to start would be to assume you are wrong. I always assume I am wrong first. Then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes even if I can't I am still dubious because I am also just living life not conducting a controlled scientific experiment.
For the longest time I believed in set points. I believe that once your body got to a certain weight it would try to stay there and that losing weight would reset it and allow it to go higher. My personal experiences were interpreted in a way that seemed to confirm this suspicion. The reality is I was not resetting my "set point" I was just resetting my eating habits. When I lost weight I stepped out of my normal routine that maintained me where I was and when I stopped losing I would eat more than I had previously.
My apologies if I missed the feedback you were seeking with your post, I however did post my "baseline" as to how i measured my results a few posts above. Dedicating 6 weeks to 4 different diet approaches (this is a good timeline to measure results, any debate against it is lack of education and actual attempts) changing nothing in terms of life habits, food choices, and routine, I found IF to be the superior method for the results I was looking for.
How were you measuring body fat and how do you know the end result was not a combination of the other methods used before it? I also disagree with your 6 week assertion. For me 6 weeks can still yield decent results although not nearly as much as when I started many pounds ago. I am still technically obese so I have plenty of fat stores to lose. When you are trying to cut down to 9 you are starting with very little and so progress will take time and be potentially masked by weight fluctuations for weeks. One of the most common mistakes here at MFP is trying to connect recent changes to current scale results. IF changes your eating routine which can change your restroom routine.
It is quite possible and even likely if you had reversed the order of the last 2 methods you tried the last one would have still won your vote.2 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
Lol...
Sorry man lol, we have to have a little fun here...it's getting too serious lol
You're an interesting guy. First you say you don't want to debate. Then you continue to post your anecdotes in the debate forum some kind of proof. And then give kudos to the person who posts from the Harvard Health Blog as though they provided some kind of proof source.
You say you want info from people who have actually done it? I have practiced IF on and off for 10+ years. My weight loss track on a trending app on a very close track with my calorie intake and energy balance. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you like real data instead of anecdotes (anecdotes=/=proof), here is some.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
A meta analysis of multiple studies on various IF methods.Modified fasting regimens appear to promote weight loss and may improve metabolic health. However, there are insufficient data to determine the optimal fasting regimen, including the length of the fasting interval, the number of “fasting” days per week, degree of energy restriction needed on fasting days, and recommendations for dietary behavior on non-fasting days.
So, no proven metabolic advantage yet. More study needed.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/intermittent-fasting/
An overview of multiple studies on IF.Bottom Line
Although certain benefits of caloric restriction have been demonstrated in animal studies, similar benefits of intermittent fasting in humans have not been observed. It is unclear that intermittent fasting is superior to other weight loss methods in regards to amount of weight loss, biological changes, compliance rates, and decreased appetite. Certain people who typically eat one or two meals a day or do not eat for long stretches of time may show better compliance with this type of regimen.
More high-quality studies including randomized controlled trials with follow-up of greater than one year are needed to show a direct effect and the possible benefits of intermittent fasting. Strong recommendations on intermittent fasting for weight loss cannot be made at this time.
For me, if it's a choice between your anecdotes (or anyone else's for that matter) and a preponderance of study data to date, I'm going with the data. Anecdotes are just that. A collection of subjective observations from phenomena that occur under uncontrolled conditions. You, of course are free to believe anything you choose and take any course of action you like. But the data so far, in humans not mice, is inconclusive.
It is a little specious though to say on the one hand you don't care about controls and scientific methodology and on the other hand claim benefits in a debate forum that are based on nothing but your subjective observations that could certainly be colored by confirmation bias, and then to compliment someone who provides data that does the same thing.
I practice IF and have no dog in the fight to disprove anything. I hope there is further study and it proves a bunch of benefits honestly. But right now? Nada, other than an aid in calorie restriction and possible help with insulin sensitivity and BG control. I'm not the one saying this. That is what the preponderance of data says.
11 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.
You are actually only speaking from how you interpreted your personal experience. You didn't answer my questions on how you evaluated your results or how you controlled the experiment to be sure your findings were accurate. The reason is you are just out there living life and if you perceive a change, assuming the change you think happened did happen, you may or may not assign it to the correct cause.
If you want your personal experience to be proof of something you need to have something more than blind faith in your interpretation to base it on. IMO, the best place to start would be to assume you are wrong. I always assume I am wrong first. Then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes even if I can't I am still dubious because I am also just living life not conducting a controlled scientific experiment.
For the longest time I believed in set points. I believe that once your body got to a certain weight it would try to stay there and that losing weight would reset it and allow it to go higher. My personal experiences were interpreted in a way that seemed to confirm this suspicion. The reality is I was not resetting my "set point" I was just resetting my eating habits. When I lost weight I stepped out of my normal routine that maintained me where I was and when I stopped losing I would eat more than I had previously.
My apologies if I missed the feedback you were seeking with your post, I however did post my "baseline" as to how i measured my results a few posts above. Dedicating 6 weeks to 4 different diet approaches (this is a good timeline to measure results, any debate against it is lack of education and actual attempts) changing nothing in terms of life habits, food choices, and routine, I found IF to be the superior method for the results I was looking for.
How were you measuring body fat and how do you know the end result was not a combination of the other methods used before it? I also disagree with your 6 week assertion. For me 6 weeks can still yield decent results although not nearly as much as when I started many pounds ago. I am still technically obese so I have plenty of fat stores to lose. When you are trying to cut down to 9 you are starting with very little and so progress will take time and be potentially masked by weight fluctuations for weeks. One of the most common mistakes here at MFP is trying to connect recent changes to current scale results. IF changes your eating routine which can change your restroom routine.
It is quite possible and even likely if you had reversed the order of the last 2 methods you tried the last one would have still won your vote.
Good response, however i have much more experience to where I am able to discern weight fluctuations attributed to different dieting strategies, timeline involved, etc. to ACTUAL weight loss. Weight loss is a combination of things, fat loss is not.......by the way I used hydrostatic and caliper methods (yes, I know of the accuracy variance that is possible)...which brings me to my next question.....are we talking in relation to weight loss or fat loss? Even though the two are tied together, they are very different at the same time.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.
You are actually only speaking from how you interpreted your personal experience. You didn't answer my questions on how you evaluated your results or how you controlled the experiment to be sure your findings were accurate. The reason is you are just out there living life and if you perceive a change, assuming the change you think happened did happen, you may or may not assign it to the correct cause.
If you want your personal experience to be proof of something you need to have something more than blind faith in your interpretation to base it on. IMO, the best place to start would be to assume you are wrong. I always assume I am wrong first. Then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes even if I can't I am still dubious because I am also just living life not conducting a controlled scientific experiment.
For the longest time I believed in set points. I believe that once your body got to a certain weight it would try to stay there and that losing weight would reset it and allow it to go higher. My personal experiences were interpreted in a way that seemed to confirm this suspicion. The reality is I was not resetting my "set point" I was just resetting my eating habits. When I lost weight I stepped out of my normal routine that maintained me where I was and when I stopped losing I would eat more than I had previously.
My apologies if I missed the feedback you were seeking with your post, I however did post my "baseline" as to how i measured my results a few posts above. Dedicating 6 weeks to 4 different diet approaches (this is a good timeline to measure results, any debate against it is lack of education and actual attempts) changing nothing in terms of life habits, food choices, and routine, I found IF to be the superior method for the results I was looking for.
How were you measuring body fat and how do you know the end result was not a combination of the other methods used before it? I also disagree with your 6 week assertion. For me 6 weeks can still yield decent results although not nearly as much as when I started many pounds ago. I am still technically obese so I have plenty of fat stores to lose. When you are trying to cut down to 9 you are starting with very little and so progress will take time and be potentially masked by weight fluctuations for weeks. One of the most common mistakes here at MFP is trying to connect recent changes to current scale results. IF changes your eating routine which can change your restroom routine.
It is quite possible and even likely if you had reversed the order of the last 2 methods you tried the last one would have still won your vote.
My deadstop from continued fat loss stopped at 9% bf, I am not a naturally lean individual, and I started toward the 17-18% bf range before i began my journey to get shredded. I was open minded enough to implement different strategies with reasonable timelines during the course of that journey.....again, I did not achieve the results I wanted UNTIL I incorporated IF strategies....I am not putting IF on the top of Mt. Olympus as the greatest strategy of all time, I am simply saying giving the different approaches I tried, IF came out on top for ME. We seem to be coming to the conclusion that this was a "spur of the moment" strategy that I confused with progress i was making from previous methods....no.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »To add more substance....i tested Atkins, Keto, and a standard caloric deficit of 1600 calories within a concrete 6 week period measuring results....i could never crack under 9% bf without IF....taking into consideration that every individual's results are HIGHLY different based off genetics etc....it's safe to conclude in my case that IF principles were the deciding factor in achieving my desired results.
/thread
Lol...
Sorry man lol, we have to have a little fun here...it's getting too serious lol
You're an interesting guy. First you say you don't want to debate. Then you continue to post your anecdotes in the debate forum some kind of proof. And then give kudos to the person who posts from the Harvard Health Blog as though they provided some kind of proof source.
You say you want info from people who have actually done it? I have practiced IF on and off for 10+ years. My weight loss track on a trending app on a very close track with my calorie intake and energy balance. Nothing more. Nothing less. If you like real data instead of anecdotes (anecdotes=/=proof), here is some.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
A meta analysis of multiple studies on various IF methods.Modified fasting regimens appear to promote weight loss and may improve metabolic health. However, there are insufficient data to determine the optimal fasting regimen, including the length of the fasting interval, the number of “fasting” days per week, degree of energy restriction needed on fasting days, and recommendations for dietary behavior on non-fasting days.
So, no proven metabolic advantage yet. More study needed.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-weight/diet-reviews/intermittent-fasting/
An overview of multiple studies on IF.Bottom Line
Although certain benefits of caloric restriction have been demonstrated in animal studies, similar benefits of intermittent fasting in humans have not been observed. It is unclear that intermittent fasting is superior to other weight loss methods in regards to amount of weight loss, biological changes, compliance rates, and decreased appetite. Certain people who typically eat one or two meals a day or do not eat for long stretches of time may show better compliance with this type of regimen.
More high-quality studies including randomized controlled trials with follow-up of greater than one year are needed to show a direct effect and the possible benefits of intermittent fasting. Strong recommendations on intermittent fasting for weight loss cannot be made at this time.
For me, if it's a choice between your anecdotes (or anyone else's for that matter) and a preponderance of study data to date, I'm going with the data. Anecdotes are just that. A collection of subjective observations from phenomena that occur under uncontrolled conditions. You, of course are free to believe anything you choose and take any course of action you like. But the data so far, in humans not mice, is inconclusive.
It is a little specious though to say on the one hand you don't care about controls and scientific methodology and on the other hand claim benefits in a debate forum that are based on nothing but your subjective observations that could certainly be colored by confirmation bias, and then to compliment someone who provides data that does the same thing.
I practice IF and have no dog in the fight to disprove anything. I hope there is further study and it proves a bunch of benefits honestly. But right now? Nada, other than an aid in calorie restriction and possible help with insulin sensitivity and BG control. I'm not the one saying this. That is what the preponderance of data says.
I understand what you are saying, and I even agree (to a degree). However, again, we are coming to the conclusion that I hail IF as a "one size fits all" for everyone......a strong determination can be made from what I experienced during my journey that IF had a direct correlation to "assisting" me break through the final layers of bodyfat....all methods prior using caloric restriction were helpful as well. As you stated, you are free to believe and absolutely have the right to take the action you believe is the most effective for you my friend.1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction]/b]. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
In mice. Mice are not humans. A large percentage of mice studies don't prove in humans. Got any high participant, well controlled peer reviewed studies in humans that show any benefits besides calorie control and improved insulin sensitivity/ BG improvements?
Not really, the difference in my original post vs. the IF debunking attempts posted here is I am speaking from personal experience in results utilizing many different, popular methods....nothing more.
You are actually only speaking from how you interpreted your personal experience. You didn't answer my questions on how you evaluated your results or how you controlled the experiment to be sure your findings were accurate. The reason is you are just out there living life and if you perceive a change, assuming the change you think happened did happen, you may or may not assign it to the correct cause.
If you want your personal experience to be proof of something you need to have something more than blind faith in your interpretation to base it on. IMO, the best place to start would be to assume you are wrong. I always assume I am wrong first. Then I try to prove it wrong. Sometimes even if I can't I am still dubious because I am also just living life not conducting a controlled scientific experiment.
For the longest time I believed in set points. I believe that once your body got to a certain weight it would try to stay there and that losing weight would reset it and allow it to go higher. My personal experiences were interpreted in a way that seemed to confirm this suspicion. The reality is I was not resetting my "set point" I was just resetting my eating habits. When I lost weight I stepped out of my normal routine that maintained me where I was and when I stopped losing I would eat more than I had previously.
My apologies if I missed the feedback you were seeking with your post, I however did post my "baseline" as to how i measured my results a few posts above. Dedicating 6 weeks to 4 different diet approaches (this is a good timeline to measure results, any debate against it is lack of education and actual attempts) changing nothing in terms of life habits, food choices, and routine, I found IF to be the superior method for the results I was looking for.
How were you measuring body fat and how do you know the end result was not a combination of the other methods used before it? I also disagree with your 6 week assertion. For me 6 weeks can still yield decent results although not nearly as much as when I started many pounds ago. I am still technically obese so I have plenty of fat stores to lose. When you are trying to cut down to 9 you are starting with very little and so progress will take time and be potentially masked by weight fluctuations for weeks. One of the most common mistakes here at MFP is trying to connect recent changes to current scale results. IF changes your eating routine which can change your restroom routine.
It is quite possible and even likely if you had reversed the order of the last 2 methods you tried the last one would have still won your vote.
Good response, however i have much more experience to where I am able to discern weight fluctuations attributed to different dieting strategies, timeline involved, etc. to ACTUAL weight loss. Weight loss is a combination of things, fat loss is not.......by the way I used hydrostatic and caliper methods (yes, I know of the accuracy variance that is possible)...which brings me to my next question.....are we talking in relation to weight loss or fat loss? Even though the two are tied together, they are very different at the same time.
My experience has taught me through very careful tracking of my weight curve that being able to predict where I actually am in the midst of fluctuations only lasts for a short period of time. The bathroom scale is not precise enough, calories are averages, and daily energy expenditure varies. The spreadsheet I have that I use to analyze my progress is kind of ridiculous. I can predict what my unmasked weight would be in normal situations but there is a margin of error that causes it to drift and require manual updating. The only reason it is ever right though is because I lose weight at about 3500 calories per pound. I have been eating in a 6ish hour window and sometimes less nearly the entire 20 months I have been losing weight. I have actually been eating that way for decades before too but I don't have a spreadsheet for my gaining years.
My weight loss is somewhat predictable because even if increased fasting were a factor it is not enough of one to produce large enough results to be measured at home.
I am talking about fat loss that happens inside a weight curve on a bathroom scale. My own curve has been consistently 7.8 pounds from highest to lowest to the extent I can calculate it.
5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.2K 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
- 421 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions