Myfitnesspal

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Do we intermittently fast already?

24

Replies

  • kshama2001kshama2001 Member Posts: 24,052 Member Member Posts: 24,052 Member
    I IF 12:12 :lol:
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    That was kind of the point!

    Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.

    I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?
  • ccrdragonccrdragon Member Posts: 2,977 Member Member Posts: 2,977 Member
    That was kind of the point!

    Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.

    I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?

    What magic do you think there is to IF?
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    That was kind of the point!

    Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.

    I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?

    What magic do you think there is to IF?

    There is no magic and I never said there was. I was asking what research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF. Maybe you could chime in if you like.
    edited May 24
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    Well - for the magical part:


    And more on IF recent study results:


    I think the reference to no magic is the fact that many zealots program it is more than just a different way of eating, that it causes extra changes that enhance fat loss, and that, as commented on already, something as simple as a little cream in the morning coffee will ruin the whole thing and break your fast too early and make you miss out on the benefits you could have had.

    He's using autophagy when comparing to calorie restriction and autophagy doesn't even commence in fasting until the 48-72 hour stage. He did get to 36 hrs to show autophagy pitfalls.....If he talked about IF in general and argued against the scientific research then he might be more believable. I admit I didn't watch the second video. He just wanted to win and make a video. Basically let me baffle you with bullsh1t. Scientific data looks a little different.
  • ccrdragonccrdragon Member Posts: 2,977 Member Member Posts: 2,977 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    That was kind of the point!

    Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.

    I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?

    What magic do you think there is to IF?

    There is no magic and I never said there was. I was asking what research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF. Maybe you could chime in if you like.

    I guess I read your reply wrong - I'm in the 'no magic' camp myself - IF just happens to fit my normal eating pattern and helps me restrict calories pretty effortlessly.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    ccrdragon wrote: »
    That was kind of the point!

    Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.

    I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?

    What magic do you think there is to IF?

    There is no magic and I never said there was. I was asking what research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF. Maybe you could chime in if you like.

    I guess I read your reply wrong - I'm in the 'no magic' camp myself - IF just happens to fit my normal eating pattern and helps me restrict calories pretty effortlessly.

    Hey, that's cool. Yes IF can help with calorie restriction, but it doesn't have to, and if it works into you schedule all the better.
    edited May 24
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    heybales wrote: »
    heybales wrote: »
    Well - for the magical part:


    And more on IF recent study results:


    I think the reference to no magic is the fact that many zealots program it is more than just a different way of eating, that it causes extra changes that enhance fat loss, and that, as commented on already, something as simple as a little cream in the morning coffee will ruin the whole thing and break your fast too early and make you miss out on the benefits you could have had.

    He's using autophagy when comparing to calorie restriction and autophagy doesn't even commence in fasting until the 48-72 hour stage. He did get to 36 hrs to show autophagy pitfalls.....If he talked about IF in general and argued against the scientific research then he might be more believable. I admit I didn't watch the second video. He just wanted to win and make a video. Basically let me baffle you with bullsh1t. Scientific data looks a little different.

    Then you missed the referenced study on the 2nd video.

    The study can be found here for your own enjoyment: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2771095

    Recommending to rewatch the 1st video since you may not have been paying attention - if you think autophagy doesn't commence until 48-72 hrs - because the studies he referenced shows it most certainly does.

    Since you said "research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF." - perhaps you could share what this research is for IF that shows it provides more benefits than what calorie restriction and resulting weight loss would provide on it's own?

    Thanks haybales, I appreciate the link. Couldn't access the complete study, but the Dr's that commented on the study had quite a few concerns with the study. Also if you could link me to the references in the first video to autophagy, I couldn't find or see them, that would be great.
    edited May 24
  • tsazanitsazani Member Posts: 753 Member Member Posts: 753 Member
    If you suffer from insulin resistance maladies (overweight to T2D) the amount of time you fast makes a big difference.

    Everytime you eat you spike your blood sugar which causes a spike in insulin. When insulin is high your body is in fat storage mode.

    Carbs spike both a lot. Protein some. Fat hardly at all.

    Combining LCHF with fasting is how one attacks insulin resistance.

  • xrj22xrj22 Member, Premium Posts: 33 Member Member, Premium Posts: 33 Member
    I think there is a huge difference psychologically between sticking to a plan that you believe is healthy, and just absentmindedly falling into a pattern because it is easy. If there is a box of donuts when you get to work, the person who skipped breakfast is way more likely to have one (or 2 or 3), than the person on IF is.
  • lorrainequiche59lorrainequiche59 Member Posts: 874 Member Member Posts: 874 Member
    For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
    edited May 26
  • wunderkindkingwunderkindking Member Posts: 645 Member Member Posts: 645 Member
    For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol

    Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.

    Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol

    Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.

    Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.

    Can you elaborate.
  • freda78freda78 Member Posts: 321 Member Member Posts: 321 Member
    For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol

    I will counter that by pointing out that while that is where the word may have originated, in my universe at least it is the meal you have soon after you wake.

    So when people say they "skip breakfast" what they are really saying is they eat their first meal some number of hours after getting up, perhaps lunch time.

    I am not aware of any but of course some countries of course may use "breakfast" to mean their first meal even if their first meal is dinner, 10 hours after waking, but not here.
  • neanderthinneanderthin Member Posts: 7,657 Member Member Posts: 7,657 Member
    That seems the opposite of how insulin resistance works.

    In people with fully functioning pancreas, sugar intake causes insulin spike - that is the point of insulin and what should happen - to control blood sugar.

    In people with diabetes , the insulin response is impaired hence less insulin spike in response to sugar intake and therefore poor blood sugar control.

    I see no medical reason to encourage people to fast.

    The spike is circulating blood glucose. Postprandial blood glucose elevation (spike) is caused by insulins inability to shuttle glucose into cells from the blood because of ineffective/damaged receptors for the uptake of that glucose.
    If someone consumes food 3 times a day plus snacks generally they will generate quite a few more insulin responses from beta cells in the pancreas.....overworking those beta cells leads to impaired glucose transport leading to insulin resistance which can last for yrs and be undetected until someone is diagnosed with diabetes. That's why it's important to have a glucose test done and not just a snapshot of circulating blood glucose. More than likely there's quite a few more people with some form of insulin resistance that is currently known.

    IF, calorie restriction (weight loss), fasting, low carb are all avenues to reduce the total amount of sugar either by not consuming it, delaying, allowing for less spikes etc......all are working towards reducing IR. The benefits of this is lower overall HbA1c, lower triglycerides, improved cholesterol markers, improved insulin sensitivity etc. basically better overall health.
    edited May 27
  • paperpuddingpaperpudding Member Posts: 6,712 Member Member Posts: 6,712 Member
    That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
    And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
    And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.

    Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.

    But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.

Sign In or Register to comment.