I am a Little Confused. Please Help.

Truly shocking? Truly shocking?

What is truly shocking is that someone can drop by, share personal experience and some sound advice because someone needs it, and get this unbelievable amount of people just go crazy on him. I am not dismissing the benefits of intermittent fasting. I don't question your own decisions. But I won't be silent while people throw me around like that. You keep referring to the 5 meal concept as if it were a total crock. Let me tell you something. Serious people in medicine and nutrition have been talking about frequent meals for at least 2 decades. Long before Atkins became popular and then faded as the myth it was. Long beft cae any of the crazy fads you see every 6 months were even in the imagination of any of their creators, people were experiencing the benefits of SMALL FREQUENT meals. If you think fasting will do something for you or the OP, by all means share it. In the meantime I'd appreciate if you respect me and keep in mind my advice was directed at a woman who wants to lose 80+ lbs and clearly stated that she's under eating on a regular basis because she's not hungry. Keep in mind I didn't start the thread... I was just helping.

What was so shocking anyway. You people are so unhappy following your fad crap that you can't imagine the idea of someone being happy and suggesting a lifestyle long lasting change that will make someone happy. The fact that you have a pathetic life is no excuse to make others miserable.


P.S. I'm editing this because I just read your leangains reference. You're following HIS advice like you just converted to a different religion. Seems like a lot of people that replied to my post are in the same boat. I'm going to clarify. The guy tries to prove a point, and in many cases his arguments sound like they make sense. I'm not going to say he's completely wrong. The guy is trying to make a living by selling his system anyway... Who else sold b.s... let me think.. Atkins... well. I'm not saying he's like Atkins... at least not completely. But he bases many of his counter arguments on the morally questionable nature of some people who think differently or on the lack of evidence for the opposing view. For crying out loud the lack of evidence on the truth of something doesn't automatically make the opposite view true by default. He's selling fasting, people who believe in starvation mode would never buy into fasting frequently unless they're brainwashed to stop believing starvation mode is real.

In my personal opinion and experience starvation mode is real. Most serious people in medicine and nutrition believe so too. And people that were close to me and severely overweight who often starved themselves because of their excess weight always failed to achieve anything. Doing things in the way we've come to find out that works.. made 2 out of 3 people I'm thinking about drop at least 60 lbs. All they had to do is eat with some structure, excersise, and avoid dropping under 80% of their caloric requirement, and that was to start with the main topic at hand since the OP wanted to eat too few calories.

I like this article because it is on women specifically. Of note, they were postmenopausal. Since not everyone may be familiar with primary sources, I bolded the things I think are most important to understanding why this is relevant
Menopause. 2012 Aug;19(8):870-876.
Short- and long-term effects of continuous versus intermittent restrictive diet approaches on body composition and the metabolic profile in overweight and obese postmenopausal women: a pilot study.
Arguin H, Dionne IJ, Sénéchal M, Bouchard DR, Carpentier AC, Ardilouze JL, Tremblay A, Leblanc C, Brochu M.
Source
From the 1Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Division of Kinesiology, Laval University, Quebec, Quebec, Canada; 2Faculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 3Research Centre on Aging, Social Services and Health Centre, University Institute of Geriatrics of Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada; 4Faculty of Kinesiology and Recreation Management, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada; and 5Centre de Recherche Clinique Étienne-Le Bel, Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (CHUS), Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The objective of this study was to compare changes in body composition and the metabolic profile between women taking an intermittent diet (ID) and women taking a continuous diet (CD).
METHODS:
Twenty-five obese postmenopausal women were randomized to an ID (n = 13) or a CD (n = 12). In the ID, 5-week energy restriction periods were followed by 5-week weight stabilization periods. In the CD, 15 weeks of energy restriction was followed by 5 weeks of weight stabilization. Outcome measures before, during, and after weight loss, as well as after a 1-year follow-up, were body weight and composition, waist circumference, resting metabolic rate, and fasting lipid and glucose levels.
RESULTS:
Body weight, waist circumference, percentage fat mass, and fat mass decreased significantly and similarly in both groups (P < 0.0001). Both groups showed similar overall decreases in plasma total cholesterol and triglycerides (all P < 0.05). Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol improved significantly in the CD group only, whereas fasting glucose decreased significantly in the ID group only. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and resting metabolic rate remained stable in both groups. Fasting plasma triglyceride and glucose levels were the only metabolic variables to further improve after the fifth week of the protocol. At the 1-year follow-up, both interventions were associated with successful and similar weight loss maintenance and improvements in fasting plasma glucose levels.
CONCLUSIONS:
The ID resulted in similar short- and long-term changes in body composition and metabolic profile compared with a CD. Most improvements occurred during the first 5 weeks of treatment in both interventions.

nt J Obes (Lond). 2011 May;35(5):714-27. Epub 2010 Oct 5.
The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomized trial in young overweight women.
Harvie MN, Pegington M, Mattson MP, Frystyk J, Dillon B, Evans G, Cuzick J, Jebb SA, Martin B, Cutler RG, Son TG, Maudsley S, Carlson OD, Egan JM, Flyvbjerg A, Howell A.
Source
Genesis Prevention Centre, University Hospital of South Manchester NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK. michelle.harvie@manchester.ac.uk
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
The problems of adherence to energy restriction in humans are well known.
OBJECTIVE:
To compare the feasibility and effectiveness of intermittent continuous energy (IER) with continuous energy restriction (CER) for weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other metabolic disease risk markers.
DESIGN:
Randomized comparison of a 25% energy restriction as IER (∼ 2710 kJ/day for 2 days/week) or CER (∼ 6276 kJ/day for 7 days/week) in 107 overweight or obese (mean (± s.d.) body mass index 30.6 (± 5.1) kg m(-2)) premenopausal women observed over a period of 6 months. Weight, anthropometry, biomarkers for breast cancer, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia risk; insulin resistance (HOMA), oxidative stress markers, leptin, adiponectin, insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1 and IGF binding proteins 1 and 2, androgens, prolactin, inflammatory markers (high sensitivity C-reactive protein and sialic acid), lipids, blood pressure and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were assessed at baseline and after 1, 3 and 6 months.
RESULTS:
Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04).
CONCLUSION:
IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.


There is a lot of research showing that various types of intermittent fasting is fine. Please cite some sources for your statements so I may evaluate them. I like to make informed health decisions and would change my opinion if presented with sufficient information to warrant it.

Award,

Thank you for taking the time to share that information.

I dropped by in this thread to help the OP. Nothing else. As as said in my unusually long post (in which I covered healthy food, smoking, lifestyle changes, long term goals, my own experience, and some tips I intended specifically for her), I mentioned that when I go into unhealthy living I completely abandon anything related to fitness, I said I had been totally inactive for 2 years (enough to be completely unaware of this relatively new IF thingy). I wasn't aware of its existence. As I said I just wanted to help the OP with her situation. She was confused and clearly stated she had a rough time eating because she's not hungry (and there might be many reasons for that), she didn't understand a lot of basics, plus she needed more support than cold hard facts, or research references to anything really. I simply shared some personal stuff and tried to give her the best advice I could.

The next thing I know, I was under attack for no good reason. People just got very crazy on me. And I just don't want to argue, I really don't. I started by saying this was meant for the OP, explaining I didn't deny their way could work as well, I mean, I really tried being nice after all hell broke loose. All I got was more confrontation and people quoting this leangains website. At some point I got really upset. I went to the website, I read some of it. I don't say the guy is wrong. A lot of people seem to be happy, and many others appear to get good results. I personally found a way to make the 5 meals deal work for me (not only I can manage to do it comfortably but I also get results). I couldn't imagine myself trying to go for 8 hours with no food, just not going to happen. However if it's your cup of tea and it works.. by all means. Bottom line is, many people need lifestyle changes when it comes to food.. according to some numbers 2/3 of the american population. If that is in the form of IF, paleo diet, raw diet, eating 5 times a day, eating 9 times a day, vegan, frutarian.... it's just a matter of preference, they are all healthy choices if done right and come with good sleep and exercise.

At some point I mentioned how the guy basically tries to destroy all conventional wisdom. I don't agree with it. Things shouldn't be my way or the highway. What works for me might not work for you, etc, etc. I for once could tolerate the drug Chantix to quit smoking, many others can't. Am I going to throw bricks at a guy who says the thing doesn't work? Of course not. However people were acting like if they were fighting for their religion, or as if they were in a political debate. Scroll up and back, that was never my intention.

I do't thing I need to quote any of my research, since I don't intend to prove anything. As long as you have enough C-P-F in your diet, and have a number of calories in a healthy range, I think you can do whatever suits you.

FFS can't you reply without quoting the whole damn thing you're replying to !