Caloric deficit

droahrig

I've read a study that indicated a 16:8 fast was as effective as a 350 calorie deficit in terms of weight loss. Is that good science?

If so, can the effects of an actual deficit and fasting be stacked?

Last, can I effectively stack fasting, an intake deficit and, workout (while maintaining a 35/40/25 protein/carb/fat macro mix) to say, achieve a 1,000 calorie deficit (i.e
350/350/300 fast/deficit/work out)?

sbelletti

I'm gonna hazard a guess that the fast participants were eating the same as the calorie deficit participants to get the same rate of loss.

However you choose to get there, burn more calories than you consume to create a calorie deficit.

Xellercin

Research on almost all diets, including IF is extremely limited and of nearly no utility for the individual.

I personally do IF, but I don't bother counting calories anymore. I personally have lost faster with IF while eating more calories than I did the 6 months before eating a very calorie restricted diet.

That's me though, and that's because my metabolism was shot before I started IF. My weight loss actually started speeding up when I started eating *more* calories, because my body seemed to get used to burning large amounts of food again, and raised my resting metabolism. This wasn't a subtle effect, I went from deeply lethargic to reasonably energized within a matter of weeks of eating more.

So for my personal experience, stacking IF with calorie restriction wouldn't have been as beneficial as increasing my average calorie intake, which allows me to rev my engines significantly higher than before.

That's largely because my metabolism was in the toilet though, I'm not sure it would have had any effect if my energy levels had been normal to begin with. Who knows.

When dealing with an individual body, your individual results will vary.

wilson10102018

Fasting is pointless and unscientific. Most calorie burn is for keeping the mostly water filled bag (your body) at 98.6 F and moving it around. Metabolic functions do adjust in amounts about as important as not havng a carrot with your meal. Ignore this stuff and get to a deficit that works. 350/day is appropriate.

droahrig

sbelletti wrote: »

I'm gonna hazard a guess that the fast participants were eating the same as the calorie deficit participants to get the same rate of loss.

However you choose to get there, burn more calories than you consume to create a calorie deficit.

The study authors said specifically that they had the fasting group eat maintenance level calories. Hard to say what impact that had- i.e. if they were previously over eating

droahrig

Xellercin wrote: »

Research on almost all diets, including IF is extremely limited and of nearly no utility for the individual.

I personally do IF, but I don't bother counting calories anymore. I personally have lost faster with IF while eating more calories than I did the 6 months before eating a very calorie restricted diet.

That's me though, and that's because my metabolism was shot before I started IF. My weight loss actually started speeding up when I started eating *more* calories, because my body seemed to get used to burning large amounts of food again, and raised my resting metabolism. This wasn't a subtle effect, I went from deeply lethargic to reasonably energized within a matter of weeks of eating more.

So for my personal experience, stacking IF with calorie restriction wouldn't have been as beneficial as increasing my average calorie intake, which allows me to rev my engines significantly higher than before.

That's largely because my metabolism was in the toilet though, I'm not sure it would have had any effect if my energy levels had been normal to begin with. Who knows.

When dealing with an individual body, your individual results will vary.

Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing. Trying to find balance here. I have several joint issues and prefer running for cardio so it's chicken and egg. Run hard, while heavy, is tough. Run light doesn't produce results. As I said though, I appreciate your contribution

sijomial

Please share this study - it doesn't seem very likely but would like to read it.
Were the participants actually on a measured intake or self-reporting?

Can you follow a time restricted eating schedule and eat in a deficit and exercise - yes of course.
(Just like you can do 16:8 and be in a surplus and gain weight, or eat at maintenance and stay the same weight.)

Can you "stack" an eating schedule and a deficit - yes of course (but I'm extremely dubious that simply moving your calories around has the impact your study suggests). As far as I'm aware studies that equate both calories and protein show no difference in weight loss due to how the intake is split up.

Is a 1,000 cal deficit suitable for you? Absolutely no idea as got nothing to go on but it wouldn't be suitable for me.
Currently losing the "Christmas Pudding" while mostly skipping breakfast and in a moderate deficit and doing loads of activity and exercise, I wouldn't go for such a fast rate of loss but I'm probably not in the same position as you.

Anecdote - neither 5:2 or 16:8 fasting while calorie counting showed any difference to my rate of loss compared to more traditional eating pattern, my weight loss (or maintenance) was in line with my calorie balance.

droahrig

sijomial wrote: »

Please share this study - it doesn't seem very likely but would like to read it.
Were the participants actually on a measured intake or self-reporting?

Can you follow a time restricted eating schedule and eat in a deficit and exercise - yes of course.
(Just like you can do 16:8 and be in a surplus and gain weight, or eat at maintenance and stay the same weight.)

Can you "stack" an eating schedule and a deficit - yes of course (but I'm extremely dubious that simply moving your calories around has the impact your study suggests). As far as I'm aware studies that equate both calories and protein show no difference in weight loss due to how the intake is split up.

Is a 1,000 cal deficit suitable for you? Absolutely no idea as got nothing to go on but it wouldn't be suitable for me.
Currently losing the "Christmas Pudding" while mostly skipping breakfast and in a moderate deficit and doing loads of activity and exercise, I wouldn't go for such a fast rate of loss but I'm probably not in the same position as you.

Anecdote - neither 5:2 or 16:8 fasting while calorie counting showed any difference to my rate of loss compared to more traditional eating pattern, my weight loss (or maintenance) was in line with my calorie balance.

Thank you for your comments. I'll dig around for the study I found before. I thought I had it bookmarked but I'm not seeing it. I did a quick Google search and actually found a decent amount of commentary about indirect effects of fasting, such as been commented on, because of a shorter eating window, some folks simply eat less.

I can be pretty flexible with what I do. I prefer fasted and early morning work out and, when focused, eat for purpose v. pleasure. Save for family dinners, what I eat, when I eat, is up to me. Thankfully, my wife makes pretty healthy dinners or, when we order out, there are good options.

I'm not sure, absent these stacking elements (part of which may not be real in terms of the stand alone impact of fasting), that I can or want to have a 1,000 daily deficit. Half that, considering workouts, is more likely. I'm just trying to gather input to make expectations realistic.

I have a big trip at the end of May that includes a lot of hiking on back-to-back days (25k / day for 5 days). While I'm happy with my cardio (can comfortably do a 5k in under 30 mins), I have bad knees and any measurable weight off will make my trip more enjoyable!

droahrig

wilson10102018 wrote: »

Fasting is pointless and unscientific. Most calorie burn is for keeping the mostly water filled bag (your body) at 98.6 F and moving it around. Metabolic functions do adjust in amounts about as important as not havng a carrot with your meal. Ignore this stuff and get to a deficit that works. 350/day is appropriate.

Thanks for your thoughts, Wilson. I have the same suspicions. Other words, I'll eat reasonably, work out and, be good long term.

Xellercin

droahrig wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

Research on almost all diets, including IF is extremely limited and of nearly no utility for the individual.

I personally do IF, but I don't bother counting calories anymore. I personally have lost faster with IF while eating more calories than I did the 6 months before eating a very calorie restricted diet.

That's me though, and that's because my metabolism was shot before I started IF. My weight loss actually started speeding up when I started eating *more* calories, because my body seemed to get used to burning large amounts of food again, and raised my resting metabolism. This wasn't a subtle effect, I went from deeply lethargic to reasonably energized within a matter of weeks of eating more.

So for my personal experience, stacking IF with calorie restriction wouldn't have been as beneficial as increasing my average calorie intake, which allows me to rev my engines significantly higher than before.

That's largely because my metabolism was in the toilet though, I'm not sure it would have had any effect if my energy levels had been normal to begin with. Who knows.

When dealing with an individual body, your individual results will vary.

Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing. Trying to find balance here. I have several joint issues and prefer running for cardio so it's chicken and egg. Run hard, while heavy, is tough. Run light doesn't produce results. As I said though, I appreciate your contribution

I have severe joint issues and am currently on crutches and can't even go for a walk, and won't be able to for the next 3+ years, so I am very familiar with losing weight while not being able to do strenuous exercise.

I personally have never needed exercise in order to lose weight. I lost from obese to a BMI of 19 with only very light activity and a whole foods, plant based, calorie restricted diet. I then gained a bit back due to serious injury and and meds, and could not lose weight even with far lower calories than I had lost with previously. That's when I switched to IF and have had excellent results, again, with very low activity level and a whole foods, plant based diet.

There are also plenty of demanding exercises you can do that won't tax your leg joints very much. Pilates is a beast of an exercise and can be very easy on the body. My husband had to stop running due to knee injury and I finally convinced him to try pilates, and his results have been amazing. He's doing rehab to regain his ability to run, because he loves it, but he'll never go back to daily running, he loves what pilates does for his body. He's never looked so ripped or had this much core strength.

I do clinical pilates, which is not at all intense, and doesn't contribute to my weight loss, but it's great for maintaining good muscle mass, core strength, and generally looking and feeling good.

For the rare times that I can stand, I use a weighted smart hula hoop for cardio. However, my injuries are so bad now that I can't use that safely. I'll hopefully get back to it, because it's stupid easy, effective, and creates absolutely no joint impact.

Good luck finding your balance. Just know from someone severely injured and disabled that weight loss is very, very doable without intense, high impact exercise. I'm literally bedridden more than half the time, and I can lose weight, so there's plenty of hope for you.

droahrig

Xellercin wrote: »

droahrig wrote: »

Xellercin wrote: »

Research on almost all diets, including IF is extremely limited and of nearly no utility for the individual.

I personally do IF, but I don't bother counting calories anymore. I personally have lost faster with IF while eating more calories than I did the 6 months before eating a very calorie restricted diet.

That's me though, and that's because my metabolism was shot before I started IF. My weight loss actually started speeding up when I started eating *more* calories, because my body seemed to get used to burning large amounts of food again, and raised my resting metabolism. This wasn't a subtle effect, I went from deeply lethargic to reasonably energized within a matter of weeks of eating more.

So for my personal experience, stacking IF with calorie restriction wouldn't have been as beneficial as increasing my average calorie intake, which allows me to rev my engines significantly higher than before.

That's largely because my metabolism was in the toilet though, I'm not sure it would have had any effect if my energy levels had been normal to begin with. Who knows.

When dealing with an individual body, your individual results will vary.

Good thoughts. Thanks for sharing. Trying to find balance here. I have several joint issues and prefer running for cardio so it's chicken and egg. Run hard, while heavy, is tough. Run light doesn't produce results. As I said though, I appreciate your contribution

I have severe joint issues and am currently on crutches and can't even go for a walk, and won't be able to for the next 3+ years, so I am very familiar with losing weight while not being able to do strenuous exercise.

I personally have never needed exercise in order to lose weight. I lost from obese to a BMI of 19 with only very light activity and a whole foods, plant based, calorie restricted diet. I then gained a bit back due to serious injury and and meds, and could not lose weight even with far lower calories than I had lost with previously. That's when I switched to IF and have had excellent results, again, with very low activity level and a whole foods, plant based diet.

There are also plenty of demanding exercises you can do that won't tax your leg joints very much. Pilates is a beast of an exercise and can be very easy on the body. My husband had to stop running due to knee injury and I finally convinced him to try pilates, and his results have been amazing. He's doing rehab to regain his ability to run, because he loves it, but he'll never go back to daily running, he loves what pilates does for his body. He's never looked so ripped or had this much core strength.

I do clinical pilates, which is not at all intense, and doesn't contribute to my weight loss, but it's great for maintaining good muscle mass, core strength, and generally looking and feeling good.

For the rare times that I can stand, I use a weighted smart hula hoop for cardio. However, my injuries are so bad now that I can't use that safely. I'll hopefully get back to it, because it's stupid easy, effective, and creates absolutely no joint impact.

Good luck finding your balance. Just know from someone severely injured and disabled that weight loss is very, very doable without intense, high impact exercise. I'm literally bedridden more than half the time, and I can lose weight, so there's plenty of hope for you.

First of all, prayers from my house to yours for a full and lasting recovery.

Second, thank you for sharing your wisdom. I will put it to use.

sijomial

droahrig wrote: »

I did a quick Google search and actually found a decent amount of commentary about indirect effects of fasting, such as been commented on, because of a shorter eating window, some folks simply eat less.

That definitely makes sense but I wouldn't say it's unique to IF, people who add any restriction (food types, macros, time windows, or just calorie counting) tend to simply become more aware of what and how much they are stuffing in their cake-hole which can result in a calorie reduction.

I actualy disliked strict 16:8 because it made me an obsessed clock watcher always thinking about food.
So although I mostly skip breakfast (especially when making a weight correction) I give myself "permission" to have breakfast when I need it (fuelling long bike rides) or simply when I want it.

Layne Norton has some interesting educational articles and research reviews on IF, worth watching.

I'm also a member of the bad knees club (31 years since I lost a cruciate ligament and most of a cartilage). Cycling however is something that my knees tolerate very well, unlike running.
Losing weight and keeping my quads strong has made a significant reduction in pain and increase in capabilities.

droahrig

sijomial wrote: »

droahrig wrote: »

I did a quick Google search and actually found a decent amount of commentary about indirect effects of fasting, such as been commented on, because of a shorter eating window, some folks simply eat less.

That definitely makes sense but I wouldn't say it's unique to IF, people who add any restriction (food types, macros, time windows, or just calorie counting) tend to simply become more aware of what and how much they are stuffing in their cake-hole which can result in a calorie reduction.

I actualy disliked strict 16:8 because it made me an obsessed clock watcher always thinking about food.
So although I mostly skip breakfast (especially when making a weight correction) I give myself "permission" to have breakfast when I need it (fuelling long bike rides) or simply when I want it.

Layne Norton has some interesting educational articles and research reviews on IF, worth watching.

I'm also a member of the bad knees club (31 years since I lost a cruciate ligament and most of a cartilage). Cycling however is something that my knees tolerate very well, unlike running.
Losing weight and keeping my quads strong has made a significant reduction in pain and increase in capabilities.

Good points and guidance, thank you