Calorie deficit not the answer?
Replies
-
0 -
Wow Adam. Very helpful. And so on-topic, too. However, did you come up with all that research to support your argument?
0 -
I never said either way of eating was superior, only that yours deviated from the norm. That being said, I honestly do not think it's sustainable over your lifetime and it might better serve you to learn more ordinary manners of eating so that you can do so and maintain health when you are forced to change (elderly people have many eating issues due to a reduction in senses and normal body functions--not saying that you'll be elderly soon, though, since I don't know you or your age.
). It is possible to eat dessert and still eat three meals/day.
What "norm"? You do realize that "three meals a day" is a cultural norm in some places, and is based off of a social construct, not any kind of biological imperative?
Meal timing shifts depending where you live and how you live, and plenty of people have survived, and thrived, not eating "three meals a day".0 -
I never said either way of eating was superior, only that yours deviated from the norm. That being said, I honestly do not think it's sustainable over your lifetime and it might better serve you to learn more ordinary manners of eating so that you can do so and maintain health when you are forced to change (elderly people have many eating issues due to a reduction in senses and normal body functions--not saying that you'll be elderly soon, though, since I don't know you or your age. ). It is possible to eat dessert and still eat three meals/day.
What "norm"? You do realize that "three meals a day" is a cultural norm in some places, and is based off of a social construct, not any kind of biological imperative?
Meal timing shifts depending where you live and how you live, and plenty of people have survived, and thrived, not eating "three meals a day".
Now you're just cherry-picking. Did you see what I wrote later in the thread? But yeah . . . eating on a more regular basis (and I never said three meals were an imperative) helps keep the blood sugar on a more constant basis and provides the body with a more constant supply of food. There's a reason the food we digest travels through our guts at the pace it does and it's not because we're supposed to eat one meal a day. Heck, even my dogs benefit from getting more than just one meal a day, such as when they get their meal and then training treats or snacks with me.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
It was surprising how I had no idea how many calories I was really eating until I started tracking. Serving sizes changed everything. I tried clean eating for 3 weeks, thinking it would help, but it didn't because I wasn't limiting how much clean food I ate.
Unless you're accurately tracking, you can't know anything for sure. Maybe you should give it a shot.0 -
I practice IF and target specific calorie and macronutrient goals. ED, not once.
And who's to say what's norm?
Oh, please. Now you're just grasping at straws for things to argue with me about. Just apologize for making assumptions and move on.0 -
I'm looking for some journal articles on fasting and insulin. I'm just basing this on an MS in nutrition, MS in Animal Science and a DO medical degree. 13 years of college and 4 years of residency. I'm not an endocrinologist so it may be possible that I don't fully understand insulin and glycogen responses. I've been to a lot of CMEs about diabetes and care for quite lot of diabetics, especially Native Americans. I'll find some sources in the morning.Not sure if eating more frequently will help your weight loss but it is easier on your bodies insulin/glucagon and adrenal hormones. It's harder to regulate blood sugar when you fast and then eat a huge meal everyday.
Where in the world are you getting that information from? Sources for both claims please.I think it also raised cortisol which is death to weight loss, not to mention very bad for everything.
You do know one of the most significant producers of cortisol is aerobic activity right? Running, biking, etc...
Actually, you're incorrect about cortisol:
EFFECT OF MUSCULAR EXERCISE ON THE PLASMA LEVEL OF CORTISOL IN MAN
A. Cornil, A. De Coster, G. Copinschi and J. R. M. Franckson
ABSTRACT
Intense muscular exercise performed on a bicycle ergometer by untrained normal men is accompanied by a significant fall in the plasma cortisol level. This observation suggests an increased utilization or diffusion of cortisol during exercise.0 -
I never said either way of eating was superior, only that yours deviated from the norm. That being said, I honestly do not think it's sustainable over your lifetime and it might better serve you to learn more ordinary manners of eating so that you can do so and maintain health when you are forced to change (elderly people have many eating issues due to a reduction in senses and normal body functions--not saying that you'll be elderly soon, though, since I don't know you or your age. ). It is possible to eat dessert and still eat three meals/day.
What "norm"? You do realize that "three meals a day" is a cultural norm in some places, and is based off of a social construct, not any kind of biological imperative?
Meal timing shifts depending where you live and how you live, and plenty of people have survived, and thrived, not eating "three meals a day".
Now you're just cherry-picking. Did you see what I wrote later in the thread? But yeah . . . eating on a more regular basis (and I never said three meals were an imperative) helps keep the blood sugar on a more constant basis and provides the body with a more constant supply of food. There's a reason the food we digest travels through our guts at the pace it does and it's not because we're supposed to eat one meal a day. Heck, even my dogs benefit from getting more than just one meal a day, such as when they get their meal and then training treats or snacks with me.
There is no "regular basis" is the point.
The human body is incredibly adaptable. "Regularity" in meal timing has no set biological imperative whatsoever. Millions of people have, and still do, thrive on eating only one large meal a day.
You're confusing societal norms with physiological needs. They aren't the same thing.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
There are actually is quite a bit of research out there on the benefits of fasting. One of the apparent benefits is change in you IGF-2 hormones. When fasting, your body is able to focuses on cellular repair due to what they believe is the shift in IGF-2 levels -- also the reason why so much cellular repairs occurs during sleep. Some theorize that by fasting, you're giving your body greater time to repair and recovery, leading to less of certain conditions like diabetes, and increasing longevity.
One of the short term improvements that has been seen by fasting is an increase in insulin sensitivity levels, which can be quite important for those with insulin resistance issues (over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in pre-diabetic or diabetic levels).
Now, the nutritional content of food -- macros and micros -- is a different issue. If you're eating nutritionally deficient food, there I've seen no difference on meal timing in this regard. The fasting issue is not related to that at all as someone can eat junk all throughout the day or in just one sitting -- fasting doesn't increase that likelihood one way or the other. Or at least I've seen no research ever linking the two.0 -
Nope. You said what you said. And have no first hand knowledge or clear understanding of IF or IIFYM. Your claims are all assumptions.
I practice IF and target specific calorie and macronutrient goals. ED, not once.
And who's to say what's norm?
Oh, please. Now you're just grasping at straws for things to argue with me about. Just apologize for making assumptions and move on.
No one is going to apologize. If you want to wait for one feel free but I suggest you don't as I'm sure you don't want to stay up all night.
If I had said what you thought I said, that would be fine--unlike some people, I can admit to my mistakes (and have, in this very thread). However I never said anything derogatory about IIFYM. You made an assumption. You were wrong. Now you're not willing to admit to your mistake. C'est la vie. Not everyone has the intestinal fortitude to do it. I accept that and don't hold it against you. Cheers. Feel free to put me on ignore, since you choose to misinterpret everything I say--that way you can't misinterpret more of what I say.
I agree with the other people who say that the OP (who I assume has never returned to this thread) just needs to log his food to determine what his actual intake is. Even people who are doing IIFYM need to know what foods they are attempting to fit into macros and what their macros are set at to begin with.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
\
Also starving all day and then eating one meal, it is very likely you are eating more than 1500 in one sitting. After not eating all day you will be ravenously hungry and when you start eat it'll be hard to stop eating.
Start eating breakfast and lunch. Eat a smaller dinner. Your metabolism will be faster & you'll feel better.
No...just no.
lol k0 -
Nice! OK... I will recheck BMR and track every morsel by weighing everything... i will drink only water and start jogging 3 days per week.... I will report my baseline information and report back in 2 weeks to see what if anything has changed... stay tuned.0
-
Nice! OK... I will recheck BMR and track every morsel by weighing everything... i will drink only water and start jogging 3 days per week.... I will report my baseline information and report back in 2 weeks to see what if anything has changed... stay tuned.
I think that's a great plan and a great place to start. Good luck.
I'm sorry your topic went so badly off the rails. :ohwell:0 -
Off the rails is part of the fun... didn't think IF was going to dominate... havent seen this much activity since someone threw a cupcake into a weight watchers meeting!0
-
Wow :laugh:0
-
Nice! OK... I will recheck BMR and track every morsel by weighing everything... i will drink only water and start jogging 3 days per week.... I will report my baseline information and report back in 2 weeks to see what if anything has changed... stay tuned.
Excellent place to start.0 -
Do you have actual journal articles on the diabetes and fasting? Cortisol raises blood sugar, glucagon would be revved to the max to maintain a fasting sugar and so when they break the fast, hypothetically the blood sugar will go very high, before plummeting with the over increase in insulin, then glucagon will come back to fix the problem and they will overshoot again.There are actually is quite a bit of research out there on the benefits of fasting. One of the apparent benefits is change in you IGF-2 hormones. When fasting, your body is able to focuses on cellular repair due to what they believe is the shift in IGF-2 levels -- also the reason why so much cellular repairs occurs during sleep. Some theorize that by fasting, you're giving your body greater time to repair and recovery, leading to less of certain conditions like diabetes, and increasing longevity.
One of the short term improvements that has been seen by fasting is an increase in insulin sensitivity levels, which can be quite important for those with insulin resistance issues (over 40% of US adults have insulin resistance in pre-diabetic or diabetic levels).
Now, the nutritional content of food -- macros and micros -- is a different issue. If you're eating nutritionally deficient food, there I've seen no difference on meal timing in this regard. The fasting issue is not related to that at all as someone can eat junk all throughout the day or in just one sitting -- fasting doesn't increase that likelihood one way or the other. Or at least I've seen no research ever linking the two.
I can say from being a doctor for almost 20 years, that I see this in real life when patients do a bunch of blood sugars and keep a log for me. If they skip breakfast after a night of fasting, havoc is wrought. Here's a statement about this from the Mayo website. Still not a journal article but this is what we see in real life:
What is the dawn phenomenon that some people with diabetes experience? Can anything be done about it?
Answers from Maria Collazo-Clavell, M.D.
The dawn phenomenon, also called the dawn effect, is the term used to describe an abnormal early-morning increase in blood sugar (glucose) — usually between 2 a.m. and 8 a.m. — in people with diabetes.
Some researchers believe the natural overnight release of hormones — including growth hormones, cortisol, glucagon and epinephrine — increases insulin resistance, causing blood sugar to rise. High morning blood sugar may also be caused by insufficient insulin the night before, incorrect medication dosages or carbohydrate snack consumption at bedtime.
If you have persistently elevated blood sugar in the morning, checking your blood sugar once during the night — around 2 a.m. or 3 a.m. — for several nights in a row will help you and your doctor to determine if you have the dawn phenomenon or if there's another reason for an elevated morning blood sugar reading.0 -
In0
-
As for sources, I read mine in a book, so I'm not sure if these are the exact same I originally saw, but a quick google search found this article: http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2013/03/01/daily-intermittent-fasting.aspx
with the following references (links are in the original article):
2 Cell Metabolism June 6, 2012: 15(6); 848-860
3 V. D. Longo - Evidence for Programmed Aging
4 American Journal of Clinical Nutrition July 2007: 86(1); 7-13
5 Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 1991:74(4); 757-765 (PDF)
6 New England Journal of Medicine 2013; 368:446-454
If you do a little googling with IF and IGF and insulin sensitivity, I'm sure you'll come up with even more research on your own.0 -
Dump the diet soda. Just dump it.
+1 on that. It will still spike your insulin levels (or so they say) and make you hungry. Its chemical garbage.0 -
Did anyone link this yet? I don't feel like reading this whole thread. Yeah, I know...
http://www.acaloriecounter.com/blog/why-am-i-not-losing-weight/
Edit: Yep someone posted it already. Fine, let's look at it again!0 -
Mercola? Seriously?0
-
Mercola? Seriously?
He's not incapable of writing summary articles. The cites are the same regardless of Mercola or someone else you respect more writes up the summary. It's not like he did the actual studies. So, how about focus on the content of the message rather than the one delivering through summary.
Or you could do just a little of your own research rather than asking others on a website to spoonfeed it to you.0 -
What do you eat on Mondays?
... for science.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Can't...stop..laughing....0 -
Mercola? Seriously?
He's not incapable of writing summary articles. The cites are the same regardless of Mercola or someone else you respect more writes up the summary. It's not like he did the actual studies. So, how about focus on the content of the message rather than the one delivering through summary.
Or you could do just a little of your own research rather than asking others on a website to spoonfeed it to you.
I wouldn't trust Mercola to write a "summary article" on the containment properties of a wet paper bag. That being said, if you make assertions, expect people to ask you to back them up.0 -
Mercola? Seriously?
He's not incapable of writing summary articles. The cites are the same regardless of Mercola or someone else you respect more writes up the summary. It's not like he did the actual studies. So, how about focus on the content of the message rather than the one delivering through summary.
Or you could do just a little of your own research rather than asking others on a website to spoonfeed it to you.
I wouldn't trust Mercola to write a "summary article" on the containment properties of a wet paper bag. That being said, if you make assertions, expect people to ask you to back them up.
And I did. You don't trust the summary article author, then fine, go find your own. Or read the underlying studies and those scientists instead of being dismissive of those studies because you don't like the summary author. But I guess that would require actual effort. I found the article helpful because it had actual links to those studies, so people could read them for themselves.
It's really not that hard -- these aren't esoteric subjects. They take only simple google searches. But some people on this site are soooo lazy, then have the audacity to complain that someone else's quick searches aren't up to their standards. Stop being so intellectually lazy and then complain about others' attempts to help when you've provided ZERO effort yourself.
It's no one's duty on this site to do all the work for you, or anyone else. It's just sharing of information, not a symposium.0 -
Mercola? Seriously?
He's not incapable of writing summary articles. The cites are the same regardless of Mercola or someone else you respect more writes up the summary. It's not like he did the actual studies. So, how about focus on the content of the message rather than the one delivering through summary.
Or you could do just a little of your own research rather than asking others on a website to spoonfeed it to you.
I wouldn't trust Mercola to write a "summary article" on the containment properties of a wet paper bag. That being said, if you make assertions, expect people to ask you to back them up.
And I did. You don't trust the summary article author, then fine, go find your own. Or read the underlying studies and those scientists instead of being dismissive of those studies because you don't like the summary author. But I guess that would require actual effort. I found the article helpful because it had actual links to those studies, so people could read them for themselves.
It's really not that hard -- these aren't esoteric subjects. They take only simple google searches. But some people on this site are soooo lazy, then have the audacity to complain that someone else's quick searches aren't up to their standards. Stop being so intellectually lazy and then complain about others' attempts to help when you've provided ZERO effort yourself.
It's no one's duty on this site to do all the work for you, or anyone else. It's just sharing of information, not a symposium.
Burden of Proof fallacy
Ad hominem fallacy
Proof by assertion
In any case, when people ask for proof, in general they are asking for legitimate sources. Mercola is not generally recognized as a legitimate source.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions