CICO
Replies
-
http://www.leighpeele.com/martin-berkhan-and-intermittent-fasting-interview
Leangains author guy talks about a lot of benefits of fasting vs small meals. A lot of them are psychological benefits that make his program sustainable. He did not state there is a big effect physiologically of fasting on cals used. I did read another article where I thought he had but can't find it now. I will try more later. I may have misrepresented him on the rate limiting thing on what he thinks.
Bottom line, even if it only helps psychologically, that is not majoring in the minors or minutiae. Also, I made a statement that I thought he agreed with the rate limiting thing. I didn't state that it was a fact that it worked that way. Is it not ok to speculate at all? Even if he agreed with the rate limiting thing, I would want to look at other studies if available. I still think it has an effect, but it might not have a big effect. The psychological effect is huge for a lot of people! Even if studies show it has no significal cal consumption effect, that is good knowledge, you can now not worry about meabolism slowing down by eating few meals so you can eat with fewer meals with no bad effects and get a huge psychological positive effect of being able to wat larger meals that can make it sustainable. That is not majoring in the minors. Look on the IF forum and there are numerous people who failed and yo-yo'ed with many small meal methods but succeeded with IF.0 -
Hey y'all
Have a Merry Christmas and may each of us reach our fitness goals in a reasonable and healthy manner!
Take Care!0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
It doesn't make a difference
For the benefits of those who may be momentarily confused
0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
The answer is the one that sticks to it longest. The issue is that the variable differences that do exist (about 3-7% depending on macros partitioning and other issues ....) are lost in the actual variability of diet, actual cals, etc... and factors like sticking to it matter more than those few percents. Single meals matter much more at 5000 cals than at normal rates of consumption - one isn't rate limiting until some extremes are met.
You want to reach those 5-10% take Alli, or do Keto, or walk a little more but given that the real issue is long term maintenance what truly matters is learning habits that stick.
(in other words, see what rabbitjb wrote - there is a difference but it doesn't make a difference - long term)
0 -
This thread is like someone getting hung up on the fact that calorie count on packaged goods can be up to 20% out and completely ignoring the fact that that works both ways and is a good enough estimate in the long run because it all evens out0
-
Gianfranco_R wrote: »
On a side note, I miss the times when there were less people around. The education level was definitely higher, so the level of the debates.
I think there was actually a period where "debating" required standards, and trolling wasn't taken place (much) yet. Once everyone had access, the flat earth theorists and trolls of great numbers were showing up to "win".EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Why not both?
I'd rather focus on the actual subject of weight loss, physiology, exercise, etc. on the site but I'm certainly not beyond being amused by cat gifs and everything that is silly - especially by the irony of someone "taking the high road" and then using the not so subtle digs above.
I can completely agree with the both method, and you did provide actual input that related to what the OP was looking for, along with questions that might have spiked his curiosity into various macro management and influence. But my point is, many provide nothing, and have all the time in the world to add gifs, mock, or just interject their feelings into the matter, while making efforts to provide nothing of use to the question at hand. And we all have to wade through that crap to read the discussion.
As to the "high road" point, you may have missed one of my earlier posts that expanded on my initial post. I was making no attempt to take the high road, instead I used the method of lowering myself to the standard many had set. And being blunt, tactless, and to the point inflamed several of them. Which I'm fine with. If the shoe fit and they live in a house without mirrors... not my problem. And especially not my problem when I could easily post quotes that solidified the double standards statement I made.That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
There have been a decent number of studies on various eating patterns, including fasting. Though they do show some very slight changes in certain areas, they also tend to be inconsistent study to study IMO. This leads me to believe that there may be flaws or lack of sufficient controls in place to come to the same conclusions.
The below is a recent abstract concerning some of the other studies:
ajcn.nutrition.org/content/102/2/464.short
I've got a bunch of individual links as well, but it's a lot of reading to essentially come to the conclusion that there may be a slight influence over certain things, but little overall IMO if you look at all of the studies in context.
What I think would also interest you is the various studies on satiety, and which foods work well for you in that regard. For me protein is king, followed by fats, and carbs are essentially munchie food that might have some fat, or other things overall low in the nutritional side of things. That is somewhat influenced by the carbs I eat, but for me, they exist at the bottom of the food chain as far as nutrition goes. I know I'll get more than enough and enjoy eating them but on the overall scale they don't satisfy me long term. But that all varies somewhat person to person. You might find carbs very filling in the long term.
I also tend to eat on a modified fast type method, with a normal day probably having me eating 60-75% of all my foods at or after dinner time. Coffee and maybe a couple hundred calories (sometimes) from a bagel or something get me through the day just fine, including through most workouts.
But as for eating a lot in a short period of time, it essentially won't change your absorbtion rates any more than the method of eating 3 or 6 times a day. There is some "ceiling" that has been estimated, but the numbers are huge, more than most competitive eaters slam down in a contest.
Being you also in a couple posts mentioned psychology and how we view foods, eat our meals, etc. There are a few studies on this that are quite revealing that I've read, some with conclusions I didn't expect. There was one I read recently concerning people with long term obesity, and essentially saying beyond a certain period of time, all people that lost weight had lower indicators of happiness and well being after losing weight, while the groups that maintained their weight while obese or continued gaining were overall happier. People that gained quickly or were overweight short term and then lost the weight didn't have the same trend, and most were happier after losing the weight.
There are also studies suggesting that essentially while in reality a 3rd world problem, here in the 1st world problems with food associations are often formed and ingrained while young due to restrictions imposed by our parents (or caretakers) causing food insecurities for some. So for those people, it's possible that something as simple as strict dietary limits might affect them many years later when those kids grow up and can make their own choices.
And though many here will often say there is no place for feelings, or "dem feelz" in regards to food, I personally think there is, and especially for those that struggle to control their food intakes or weights. I've seen way too many people in real life and on this forum, that I know are intelligent and well educated enough to make better choices, but they don't. And some of those same people often seem to feel that anything restricting will make them fall off the recovery path of proper eating. So I say don't restrict anyone from doing anything that works for them. At some level the brain function of humans and the psychology of us all comes into the picture with a great many things, and I can't think that food would be an exception.
Maybe one day they will figure it all out. Maybe it's as simple as the left brain wants and Oreo, and the right brain wants a steak.0 -
Bottom line, you changed goals or at least goal posts(psychology ?!?). I can see you do not want a conversation about what you may or may not be seeing or attempting but rather a constant dog chase tale scenario. I'm done; best of luck. Oh, some of the people on here who have commented gave you solid advice. Hopefully some day you'll figure out who they were and be thankful.http://www.leighpeele.com/martin-berkhan-and-intermittent-fasting-interview
Leangains author guy talks about a lot of benefits of fasting vs small meals. A lot of them are psychological benefits that make his program sustainable. He did not state there is a big effect physiologically of fasting on cals used. I did read another article where I thought he had but can't find it now. I will try more later. I may have misrepresented him on the rate limiting thing on what he thinks.
Bottom line, even if it only helps psychologically, that is not majoring in the minors or minutiae. Also, I made a statement that I thought he agreed with the rate limiting thing. I didn't state that it was a fact that it worked that way. Is it not ok to speculate at all? Even if he agreed with the rate limiting thing, I would want to look at other studies if available. I still think it has an effect, but it might not have a big effect. The psychological effect is huge for a lot of people! Even if studies show it has no significal cal consumption effect, that is good knowledge, you can now not worry about meabolism slowing down by eating few meals so you can eat with fewer meals with no bad effects and get a huge psychological positive effect of being able to wat larger meals that can make it sustainable. That is not majoring in the minors. Look on the IF forum and there are numerous people who failed and yo-yo'ed with many small meal methods but succeeded with IF.0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
the answer is C - roughly the same but as @EvgeniZyntx pointed out the variance can be roughly 5%….0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
I will answer it, and while it's not IF, it's 3 meals vs 6 meals, the NIH has already concluded that meal frequency is irrelevant to weight loss:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
"We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study."
I would suggest that it is possible to extrapolate similar results to having 1 meal or 2 meals while following the IF models.
One point I would like to discuss. Even if we can improve the models, how would that be measured or even address the variables? We don't live inside a metabolic chamber. How would we measure TEF, TEA, NEAT?0 -
IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
I would suggest your hunch would only pertain to you. I have done 16:8 IF and while maintaining my calories (2400, 40% carbs, 30% pro, 30% fats), I didn't see any differences in weight loss speed. My average was exactly the same. I will say, I personally found it harder as i never really adapted to those very long periods of fasting. I found that I do much better with 3 large meals vs 2 large meals as I tend to be very hungry in the AM since I workout later in the day.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
When one is driving a car (inarguably a machine) 100% of the gasoline is not converted to forward motion. To say that because our bodies aren't 100% efficient makes them not machines is a nonsensical statement.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
The answer is the one that sticks to it longest. The issue is that the variable differences that do exist (about 3-7% depending on macros partitioning and other issues ....) are lost in the actual variability of diet, actual cals, etc... and factors like sticking to it matter more than those few percents. Single meals matter much more at 5000 cals than at normal rates of consumption - one isn't rate limiting until some extremes are met.
Exactly this.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »As to the "high road" point, you may have missed one of my earlier posts that expanded on my initial post. I was making no attempt to take the high road, instead I used the method of lowering myself to the standard many had set. And being blunt, tactless, and to the point inflamed several of them. Which I'm fine with. If the shoe fit and they live in a house without mirrors... not my problem. And especially not my problem when I could easily post quotes that solidified the double standards statement I made.
You seem to be talking about a different thread, as in this one I see lots of people attempting to discuss the topic seriously. Not agreeing with OP, who himself seems to have changed his position some, but that doesn't mean not discussing seriously.
IMO, your need to slam the other participants in the thread is more disruptive than those of us debating seriously with OP.What I think would also interest you is the various studies on satiety, and which foods work well for you in that regard. For me protein is king, followed by fats, and carbs are essentially munchie food that might have some fat, or other things overall low in the nutritional side of things. That is somewhat influenced by the carbs I eat, but for me, they exist at the bottom of the food chain as far as nutrition goes. I know I'll get more than enough and enjoy eating them but on the overall scale they don't satisfy me long term. But that all varies somewhat person to person. You might find carbs very filling in the long term.
This seems off-topic. Many of us have pointed out that there are numerous individual reasons why a particular eating style will work for one person vs. another, and that has to do with what feels satisfying, and is why IF can be a really good strategy independent of whether there's much of a difference in how many calories one can eat. But OP keeps saying that he is interested in maximizing the number of calories one can eat.Being you also in a couple posts mentioned psychology and how we view foods, eat our meals, etc. There are a few studies on this that are quite revealing that I've read, some with conclusions I didn't expect. There was one I read recently concerning people with long term obesity, and essentially saying beyond a certain period of time, all people that lost weight had lower indicators of happiness and well being after losing weight, while the groups that maintained their weight while obese or continued gaining were overall happier. People that gained quickly or were overweight short term and then lost the weight didn't have the same trend, and most were happier after losing the weight.
This is interesting -- do you have a link? I'd love to read it.And though many here will often say there is no place for feelings, or "dem feelz" in regards to food, I personally think there is, and especially for those that struggle to control their food intakes or weights. I've seen way too many people in real life and on this forum, that I know are intelligent and well educated enough to make better choices, but they don't. And some of those same people often seem to feel that anything restricting will make them fall off the recovery path of proper eating. So I say don't restrict anyone from doing anything that works for them. At some level the brain function of humans and the psychology of us all comes into the picture with a great many things, and I can't think that food would be an exception.
I don't see people as saying that psychological issues and feelings don't matter. But people need to figure out how to deal with those issues, of course, and IMO trying to find a trick so that one can keep overeating (in terms of # of calories) specifically does NOT help with that struggle.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
The answer is the one that sticks to it longest. The issue is that the variable differences that do exist (about 3-7% depending on macros partitioning and other issues ....) are lost in the actual variability of diet, actual cals, etc... and factors like sticking to it matter more than those few percents. Single meals matter much more at 5000 cals than at normal rates of consumption - one isn't rate limiting until some extremes are met.
You want to reach those 5-10% take Alli, or do Keto, or walk a little more but given that the real issue is long term maintenance what truly matters is learning habits that stick.
(in other words, see what rabbitjb wrote - there is a difference but it doesn't make a difference - long term)
Exactly. I tried pointing this out earlier, but apparently, doing so is considered trolling.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »IF is just a tool to get someone into a deficit, it does not create more fat loss then a regular calorie deficit with four or five meals a day added in ...
two people on a 500 calorie deficit; one does IF and one eats three meals a day. Guess what, they both lose about the same amount of weight.
That is not what leangains preaches. State your sources please.
you want a source to prove that two people eating in a 500 calorie deficit will lose the about the same amount of weight...really?
that is called common knowledge and does not require sourcing.
Leangains would argue with you and so would I. I think it is logical and common sense that every process is rate and saturated limited. The questions is does that make a difference.
if you believe in CICO then you would not make the claim that one deficit is superior to another.....
You don't understand what I'm stating I think. Stuff I proposed is part of cico, it doesnt replace it.
simple question for you @blambo61
two people both eat in a 500 calorie deficit.
one does IF and the other person eats three meals a day. Macros are consistent for both people.
who loses more weight the person doing IF, or the person eating three meals a day, or C) the both lose roughly the same???
So your not going to answer???
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
The answer is the one that sticks to it longest. The issue is that the variable differences that do exist (about 3-7% depending on macros partitioning and other issues ....) are lost in the actual variability of diet, actual cals, etc... and factors like sticking to it matter more than those few percents. Single meals matter much more at 5000 cals than at normal rates of consumption - one isn't rate limiting until some extremes are met.
You want to reach those 5-10% take Alli, or do Keto, or walk a little more but given that the real issue is long term maintenance what truly matters is learning habits that stick.
(in other words, see what rabbitjb wrote - there is a difference but it doesn't make a difference - long term)
Exactly. I tried pointing this out earlier, but apparently, doing so is considered trolling.
When Alice fell down the rabbit hole she was misunderstood, met a bunch of animals in a pool of tears and two even argued about the meaning of "it". She still got on with her adventure.
0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
When one is driving a car (inarguably a machine) 100% of the gasoline is not converted to forward motion. To say that because our bodies aren't 100% efficient makes them not machines is a nonsensical statement.
and the counter argument that our bodies should be viewed as machines is just as nonsensical...
0 -
TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
When one is driving a car (inarguably a machine) 100% of the gasoline is not converted to forward motion. To say that because our bodies aren't 100% efficient makes them not machines is a nonsensical statement.
and the counter argument that our bodies should be viewed as machines is just as nonsensical...
I think the original post about the body not being a machine would have been best made with a slight modifier:
Our bodies are not [simple] machines.
The idea that body function can be simply described by an equation that governs individual responses to all dietary parameters is naive, at best. It's like saying I can predict Star Wars movie sales in the US by the number of gallons of gas sold in all other nations (not even knowing what was sold last week or what is grey market). The body is a very complex machine; it is THAT complex.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »TheopolisAmbroiseIII wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Tinawood40 wrote: »Ok so I believe in CICO - I've lost 33 lbs and I'm sold. But I do wonder sometimes why some weeks I don't lose weight then others I lose more than usual. My diet is much the same all the time - I log super carefully and weigh my food. If it's all CICO - then every 3500 calories down should result in a lb lost. Then I hear - weight loss is not linear - why not ? If it's simple math then every time I eat at a 3500 calorie deficit I should lose a pound. I have gone for a couple of 2 week stretches with no losses eating and logging the same food. And what about plateau's ? How the hell does that happen ???
Our bodies are not machines
Yes they are. All physical processes in the body can be modeled with mathematical equations. We may need to develop some math to do it but it can be done.
sorry, but that is a pretty absurd claim. If our bodies were machines then when one was bulking with a structured progressive overload program you would be able to convert 100% of excess calories to muscle building and have zero fat gains, or, conversely, one would be able to cut with a structured lifting program and adequate protein intake and have 100% fat loss with zero muscle loss.
our bodies are complex systems, yes, but they are not machines…
When one is driving a car (inarguably a machine) 100% of the gasoline is not converted to forward motion. To say that because our bodies aren't 100% efficient makes them not machines is a nonsensical statement.
and the counter argument that our bodies should be viewed as machines is just as nonsensical...
I think the original post about the body not being a machine would have been best made with a slight modifier:
Our bodies are not [simple] machines.
The idea that body function can be simply described by an equation that governs individual responses to all dietary parameters is naive, at best. It's like saying I can predict Star Wars movie sales in the US by the number of gallons of gas sold in all other nations (not even knowing what was sold last week or what is grey market). The body is a very complex machine; it is THAT complex.
i typically refer to the body as a complex system ...but maybe that is just semantics....0 -
Didn't think my reply was that complex. I stated right at the start that CICO is the beginning.
I do believe there is individual variation though. That isn't an excuse (stinks, but not an excuse). Some people are able to maintain a lower weight while eating more and/or moving less.
My brother and I grew up in the same home eating the same food and running around the neighborhood, riding our bikes, etc. He was always slim and I was always thick.
My 10 year old daughter is about 5 foot tall and 110 pounds. I'm 5'6 an presently over 200 pounds. She can out eat me anytime and usually does. Heck, she eats as much as my 6'1 220ish husband. She does have recess at school, but no special exercise program or sports. I walk if the weather is any good at all, about an hour.
Which is a long way of saying that it isn't all that helpful to shout CICO at someone who is struggling. Yes, they may need to eat less/move more, but that doesn't mean that they aren't presently following the guidelines on the site that are supposed to produce weight loss.
I was 200 pounds and my adult height at age 13. I've been as high as 280. Lowest weight I've ever achieved at my adult height was about 160 and that was eating 800-1000 calories a day/high protein. Ate that way for about 8 months to get there. Couldn't maintain it, tried to find a moderate spot to maintain at, might have been able to stick at 175, but had a lot of stress (multiple moves, loss) and here I am at it again....1200 or less a day because I am hoping to find something I can stick with.
I know this was a while ago, but I'm late to the game and wanted to say a couple of things about this.
1 - Your brother and you at the same food, but are you sure it was the same amounts? It probably wasn't (and even if it was, age difference and male vs female growth and metabolism as kids could be enough to make up the difference). My brother, almost 3 years older, was always a string bean and I was always a bit more chunky. Now, he's overweight (I would guess about 50 pounds?) and I am just working on losing the weight from my last pregnancy to get back into trim and tight. Sometimes childhood doesn't predict adult except as self-fulfilling.
2- Of course your 10 year old daughter needs more to eat. She's still growing. She's presumably putting on height and weight, as well as heading into puberty in the next few years (upcoming growth spurt and much more). You, on the other hand, are trying to lose weight and you aren't getting any taller. She needs a calorie surplus. You need a deficit.
3- Like others said, I'm pretty sure your logging was inaccurate. The only person I knew who had to eat under 1000 calories to lose weight was my grandma, who was under 5 feet tall and 70+ plus years old, and she only estimated so was probably losing more. Even my 4'9" 68 year old mother who only walks for exercise can lose weight at 1200 - 1400 calories a day. Button up your logging and you'll probably be surprised.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »Adding a bunch of minute complications to something that already works might be a good way to discourage a whole lot of people.
The beauty of CICO is in its simplicity and accessibility.
Bears repeating.
If you want something else to take on board, here are my thoughts.
OP, You are reducing this to a matter of physical and mathematical functions, and I can tell you right now that food is a much more complicated subject than that.
We all have a relationship with food, and for those of us who have become overweight, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a dysfunctional one. That relationship can carry with it a host of lovely companions like guilt, denial, shame, scapegoating, self-loathing, and a host of other issues.
Unless and until a person is able to sift through all this baggage that comes along for the ride when it comes to food, every effort to get somewhere with dieting will ultimately fail.
Frankly, and I am being blunt here, OP... you are striking me as a person desperate for answers, but you are looking in the wrong place.
I agree that there are a lot of mental and psychological issues with loosing weight as you stated and I think you are wise to remember that.
There is some tie-in here with that though. If more understanding of the physical side were known and good easy recommendations made, then it could help those that struggle.
I probably should take this elsewhere. I will be blunt too. I don't think many people here understand a lot about math and what I'm saying so a lot of it falls on deaf ears. I do think that there are a lot of people here with some good physiology knowledge (a lot better than mine). But until the two get together, progress in what I've suggested won't get very far. I'm not desperate, just curious.
Except that math tries to make things as simple as possible. Once they are shown to work, we use "shortcuts" all the time. That's why we use the exponent rule, the addition rule, the multiplication rule, and so on for derivatives instead of calculating df/dx from the actual definition (df/dx= lim (h->0) [f(x-h)-f(x)]/[x-h] ) . It's the same with all other higher math ... we use the simplest form possible. And math is about the most 'purist' of the sciences (in that they have to be the most precise). Physics, engineering, and most other sciences are content with rounding, say, π, to a few decimal places (in fact, they get picky about only using the right amount of significant figures).
So, I don't see how claiming a familiarity with math suggests we need to add in more variables to an equation that adequately works without them, especially since most of them reduce to adding 0 or multiplying 1 when the limits that we deal with in reality are taken into account. Maybe for the academic adventure of the whole thing (hey, knock yourself out), but not for any sort of practical application.
After all, Einstein's relativity still simplifies down to Newton's basic laws of physics for the "very large" and "very slow" that we deal with on a day-to-day basis. So we still teach (and use) Newton's laws for non-relativity cases. Because it's simpler and the result is basically the same. Same thing for CI-CO. All those variables to contend with will probably cause greater issues with someone struggling to lose weight, when in reality, it'll simplify down to pretty much the same thing.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »jennifer_417 wrote: »Adding a bunch of minute complications to something that already works might be a good way to discourage a whole lot of people.
The beauty of CICO is in its simplicity and accessibility.
Bears repeating.
If you want something else to take on board, here are my thoughts.
OP, You are reducing this to a matter of physical and mathematical functions, and I can tell you right now that food is a much more complicated subject than that.
We all have a relationship with food, and for those of us who have become overweight, it's pretty much guaranteed to be a dysfunctional one. That relationship can carry with it a host of lovely companions like guilt, denial, shame, scapegoating, self-loathing, and a host of other issues.
Unless and until a person is able to sift through all this baggage that comes along for the ride when it comes to food, every effort to get somewhere with dieting will ultimately fail.
Frankly, and I am being blunt here, OP... you are striking me as a person desperate for answers, but you are looking in the wrong place.
I agree that there are a lot of mental and psychological issues with loosing weight as you stated and I think you are wise to remember that.
There is some tie-in here with that though. If more understanding of the physical side were known and good easy recommendations made, then it could help those that struggle.
I probably should take this elsewhere. I will be blunt too. I don't think many people here understand a lot about math and what I'm saying so a lot of it falls on deaf ears. I do think that there are a lot of people here with some good physiology knowledge (a lot better than mine). But until the two get together, progress in what I've suggested won't get very far. I'm not desperate, just curious.
Except that math tries to make things as simple as possible. Once they are shown to work, we use "shortcuts" all the time. That's why we use the exponent rule, the addition rule, the multiplication rule, and so on for derivatives instead of calculating df/dx from the actual definition (df/dx= lim (h->0) [f(x-h)-f(x)]/[x-h] ) . It's the same with all other higher math ... we use the simplest form possible. And math is about the most 'purist' of the sciences (in that they have to be the most precise). Physics, engineering, and most other sciences are content with rounding, say, π, to a few decimal places (in fact, they get picky about only using the right amount of significant figures).
So, I don't see how claiming a familiarity with math suggests we need to add in more variables to an equation that adequately works without them, especially since most of them reduce to adding 0 or multiplying 1 when the limits that we deal with in reality are taken into account. Maybe for the academic adventure of the whole thing (hey, knock yourself out), but not for any sort of practical application.
After all, Einstein's relativity still simplifies down to Newton's basic laws of physics for the "very large" and "very slow" that we deal with on a day-to-day basis. So we still teach (and use) Newton's laws for non-relativity cases. Because it's simpler and the result is basically the same. Same thing for CI-CO. All those variables to contend with will probably cause greater issues with someone struggling to lose weight, when in reality, it'll simplify down to pretty much the same thing.---Full-T-Shirts.png)
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
GuitarJerry wrote: »I just ate a muffin.
What kind??0 -
That is my exact question you posed. I don't know the answer. I think eating the same cals in a shorter window is probably better just as a hunch and also knowing all physicsl processes are rate and saturation limited. If that makes a differrnce or not, I don't know. There might be other effects also. I will keep looking and if I find something I will post more. Thanks.
This meta-review of 40 different studies says otherwise: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
In the Summary (emphasis added):Intermittent fasting thus represents a valid - albeit apparently not superior - option to continuous energy restriction for weight loss.0 -
@lemurcat12 Lost track of this bookmark in the others, and forgot all about it for a while. Though it was worth responding to, even though it appears the OP has moved on.lemurcat12 wrote: »You seem to be talking about a different thread, as in this one I see lots of people attempting to discuss the topic seriously. Not agreeing with OP, who himself seems to have changed his position some, but that doesn't mean not discussing seriously.
IMO, your need to slam the other participants in the thread is more disruptive than those of us debating seriously with OP.
I've read the whole thread, and there is as much time if not more from people trying to convince the OP his desires make no sense. My comments were intended to slam the posters it applied to as an "if the shoe fits" type statement. And it fit quite a few.lemurcat12 wrote: »This seems off-topic. Many of us have pointed out that there are numerous individual reasons why a particular eating style will work for one person vs. another, and that has to do with what feels satisfying, and is why IF can be a really good strategy independent of whether there's much of a difference in how many calories one can eat. But OP keeps saying that he is interested in maximizing the number of calories one can eat.
This is where you confuse me at times. You openly state " Many of us have pointed out", but consider my input off topic? I posted actual peer review studies on IF, mentioned the satiety and other factors, and as such added no input that others didn't do as well. It was either all relevant, or none of it was. And being that the OP did move the goal posts some, I thought it was all relevant. If the OP had stated he didn't want to discuss IF or those topics, I wouldn't have provided the info.
I try to stay on track with the OPs intentions, regardless of who it is. If it's your thread and you don't want to discuss fasting, I'd keep my comments from fasting.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is interesting -- do you have a link? I'd love to read it.
Here is one that is similar, if I find the one that includes the short term overweight vs the long term overweight I'll post it.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104552
A lot of the ones I've found concerning patterns that form as children are due to researching on that particular issue. We have a daughter that has dealt with some "thin shaming", and though she is very intelligent, I wanted to look at studies to make sure we help her overcome any damage it might create.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't see people as saying that psychological issues and feelings don't matter. But people need to figure out how to deal with those issues, of course, and IMO trying to find a trick so that one can keep overeating (in terms of # of calories) specifically does NOT help with that struggle.
In the same intention as the above, I brought it up as a "shoe fits" statement due to the people on this thread making clear that the OPs desires and feelings were invalid, and interjecting feelings in attempts to sway his desires. Personally to me, all feelings on issues matter, as we are all somewhat driven by personal feelings, conscious of it or not. And in this thread, some of the same people interjecting the OPs feelings while interjecting their own are some of the ones that often claim "dem feelz" have no place in a discussion.
Now the people interjecting the feeling that science rules over woo, that at least has some basis.
But I should also comment that I see your comment about finding a trick to avoid overeating while valid, has no application to the OP as he has never stated any such issue.0 -
robertw486 wrote: »@lemurcat12 Lost track of this bookmark in the others, and forgot all about it for a while. Though it was worth responding to, even though it appears the OP has moved on.lemurcat12 wrote: »You seem to be talking about a different thread, as in this one I see lots of people attempting to discuss the topic seriously. Not agreeing with OP, who himself seems to have changed his position some, but that doesn't mean not discussing seriously.
IMO, your need to slam the other participants in the thread is more disruptive than those of us debating seriously with OP.
I've read the whole thread, and there is as much time if not more from people trying to convince the OP his desires make no sense. My comments were intended to slam the posters it applied to as an "if the shoe fits" type statement. And it fit quite a few.
I disagree.lemurcat12 wrote: »This seems off-topic. Many of us have pointed out that there are numerous individual reasons why a particular eating style will work for one person vs. another, and that has to do with what feels satisfying, and is why IF can be a really good strategy independent of whether there's much of a difference in how many calories one can eat. But OP keeps saying that he is interested in maximizing the number of calories one can eat.
This is where you confuse me at times. You openly state " Many of us have pointed out", but consider my input off topic? I posted actual peer review studies on IF, mentioned the satiety and other factors, and as such added no input that others didn't do as well. It was either all relevant, or none of it was. And being that the OP did move the goal posts some, I thought it was all relevant. If the OP had stated he didn't want to discuss IF or those topics, I wouldn't have provided the info.
I try to stay on track with the OPs intentions, regardless of who it is. If it's your thread and you don't want to discuss fasting, I'd keep my comments from fasting.
Many of us have said to OP that eating decisions should prioritize satiety and satisfaction factors vs how many calories one can take in, if there are minor differences, as those differences are going to be so small as to not matter. It's why arguments about meal timing, etc., are majoring in the minors. I totally agree -- as does everyone -- that satiety is an issue, but OP made it clear in response that he is focusing on this (false) idea that one can eat way more calories, or trick the system, if you find a way to do it. So talking about satiety reasons to do IF (while IMPO those are the reasons to do IF) are off the topic as defined by OP.lemurcat12 wrote: »This is interesting -- do you have a link? I'd love to read it.
Here is one that is similar, if I find the one that includes the short term overweight vs the long term overweight I'll post it.
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0104552
Thanks, I'll check it out.lemurcat12 wrote: »I don't see people as saying that psychological issues and feelings don't matter. But people need to figure out how to deal with those issues, of course, and IMO trying to find a trick so that one can keep overeating (in terms of # of calories) specifically does NOT help with that struggle.
In the same intention as the above, I brought it up as a "shoe fits" statement due to the people on this thread making clear that the OPs desires and feelings were invalid, and interjecting feelings in attempts to sway his desires. Personally to me, all feelings on issues matter, as we are all somewhat driven by personal feelings, conscious of it or not. And in this thread, some of the same people interjecting the OPs feelings while interjecting their own are some of the ones that often claim "dem feelz" have no place in a discussion.
OP wasn't talking about psychological issues or even acknowledging them. He was saying someone might need to eat super low calories to lose (not true) and could change that by doing some other eating style -- tricking the system to allowing more calories, specifically the idea one could gorge in a narrow time window.But I should also comment that I see your comment about finding a trick to avoid overeating while valid, has no application to the OP as he has never stated any such issue.
See above. That's the trick -- it's not to avoid overeating, but is, as I said, to permit overeating. He also claimed that limiting yourself to one plate was deprivation.0 -
This thread is like someone getting hung up on the fact that calorie count on packaged goods can be up to 20% out and completely ignoring the fact that that works both ways and is a good enough estimate in the long run because it all evens out
If people were that smart this thread wouldn't have gone on for this long.
0 -
http://healthyenough.net/calorie-counting/
The article slams CICO. It says CICO doesn't account for thermal and excretion losses.
I think a person should do CICO, but could also experiment with other things to see if it helps more than what the cal deficit says will happen. This is what I have stated over and over and not what a lot have insinuated.
I haven't proposed overeating as some have assumed. Also, unless your on a drip or something, even diets with overal deficits have periods of time where your not in a deficit. A non-linear dynamic model is needed to understand what is happening and not just a static linear model. During short periods of time you hit saturation and magnitude rate limits not taken into account with a static linear model. If things worked like the static linear model, as almost all here believe in, we would have gained 3 or 4 times the weight we gained by all the eating we did for years.
Also see:
http://www.leangains.com/2010/06/intermittent-fasting-and-stubborn-body.html?m=1
This was the article I mentioned but couldn't find. He says it might be wishful thinking but there is is antedotal evidence to support his ideas and what I've been saying.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 427 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