Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are short fasts really helpful for burning fat?
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
If they just ate a "normal" meal and then fasted for 16 hours, I would think it pretty likely the individual would have a pretty low calorie intake which would obviously result in burning fat to make up for the energy deficiency.
I've read one of the books about 5:2, and the author (who has done studies on the supposed benefits of the fasting periods) attributes the weight loss, at least in large part, to the calorie deficit. According to her, if someone has a low calorie day they tend to (on average) eat more than maintenance the next day, but not enough more to blot out the overall deficit for the week. (This is borne out for me by my own experiences, as I said.)
That aside, many who do the diet tend to track non fasting days as well as fasting to stay at maintenance, which ensures a deficit.
With the windows I think it's pretty clear that for many who do them at least they create a deficit, especially in the short term. There's a limit to how much most want to eat at a time, especially if they mostly stick to their normal diets and don't go nuts on restaurant food or some such.1 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
If they just ate a "normal" meal and then fasted for 16 hours, I would think it pretty likely the individual would have a pretty low calorie intake which would obviously result in burning fat to make up for the energy deficiency.
so in other words, just another fancy way to create a calorie deficit...0 -
I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
If they just ate a "normal" meal and then fasted for 16 hours, I would think it pretty likely the individual would have a pretty low calorie intake which would obviously result in burning fat to make up for the energy deficiency.
I've read one of the books about 5:2, and the author (who has done studies on the supposed benefits of the fasting periods) attributes the weight loss, at least in large part, to the calorie deficit. According to her, if someone has a low calorie day they tend to (on average) eat more than maintenance the next day, but not enough more to blot out the overall deficit for the week. (This is borne out for me by my own experiences, as I said.)
That aside, many who do the diet tend to track non fasting days as well as fasting to stay at maintenance, which ensures a deficit.
With the windows I think it's pretty clear that for many who do them at least they create a deficit, especially in the short term. There's a limit to how much most want to eat at a time, especially if they mostly stick to their normal diets and don't go nuts on restaurant food or some such.
I do agree that many use fasting so they don't have to count calories and it is easier to have a calorie deficit. I have also read many examples of what you talked about that even though people eat more on non-fast days they still end up with a weekly calorie deficit.
Still I'm really interested in the non-calorie deficit benefits or issues. Clearly most people are healthy enough to not really suffer much from missing a meal or two, however do they gain back anything from doing so?
* One such benefit I've been reading about is a slight metabolic increase although one might have to fast for more than 20 hours for that to happen and if you fast too long your metabolism probably decreases.
* Another claim is repeated fasting puts pressure on the fasting insulin level and helps lower it over time. Since insulin is a primary gate keeper when it comes to burning or storing fat, lower fasting levels of insulin are better for burning fat.
* Other claims would be harder to measure like improved mental state and so forth.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
You assume incorrectly.
The point of intermittent fasting is that it makes it easier for some people to adhere to a calorie deficit because fitting TDEE-500 into a four hour window makes for much larger meals than spreading out the same intake across the entire day.
All the potential hormonal benefits are fine and dandy but regardless of what your insulin levels do, you will not lose fat if you eat as much as you burn and you will lose fat if you eat less than you burn no matter whether you eat all day or only for four hours.
It is quite possible to gain fat even while eating at a calorie deficit. 1) This can happen with type 2 diabetics when they are put on insulin. Fat gets created and the metabolism is slowed down even more to make up the difference causing the person to feel lousy. That is one of the reasons that T2D is a progressive disease. While there is energy balance it isn't always simple or even something we can control. https://www.drugs.com/sfx/insulin-side-effects.html
2) Type 1 diabetics actually lose weight no matter how much they eat when their insulin is too low. They can gorge themselves and they literally die of starvation without insulin.
Potentially if fasting helps reset fix hormonal problems it could be a huge benefit even to relatively healthy people. However at this point it appears most studies are animal based. There is probably more information that I'm not aware of it.
1) This is an example of a disease affecting the CO side of CICO. When Type 2 diabetics gain weight, it is because their CO is less than their CI. The fact that hormonal problems can affect CO doesn't mean that they are gaining weight while in a calorie deficit.
2) This is an example of the reverse, where a disease is affecting the CI side of CICO. When the body is unable to process the food taken in (as in the example you give), the CI will be affected and potentially create a calorie deficit. This does not mean that you can lose weight while in a calorie surplus. It means that there are diseases that can cause the surplus to not occur.
Healthy people don't have these problems so I don't see how fixing these problems (if IF is even effective in managing these problems in humans) could be a "huge benefit" to them.
which does not change the fundamental truth of CICO, except that certain people need medication to regulate the out side of CICO, so it is still CICO...
With diabetics, insulin is already the medicine. The body often adjusts by changing metabolism, meaning that CO = f(CI). Sometime fat stores are not accessible for energy because of insulin levels.
Insulin resistance is the first stage of these problems and current estimates run as high as 60% of the US population being insulin resistant. That level is highly debatable, but it is clearly much higher now than it was a few decades ago. This is a rapidly spreading problem world wide. Being insulin resistant means one is not healthy and that their metabolism is working against them when it comes to burning fat because of too much insulin in the blood.
Fasting might be a way to help allow the body to recover from insulin resistance. There are a few doctors that make those kinds of claims. However insulin levels can't be measure with simple home blood tests, at least yet so it is difficult to personally identify.3 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
You assume incorrectly.
The point of intermittent fasting is that it makes it easier for some people to adhere to a calorie deficit because fitting TDEE-500 into a four hour window makes for much larger meals than spreading out the same intake across the entire day.
All the potential hormonal benefits are fine and dandy but regardless of what your insulin levels do, you will not lose fat if you eat as much as you burn and you will lose fat if you eat less than you burn no matter whether you eat all day or only for four hours.
It is quite possible to gain fat even while eating at a calorie deficit. 1) This can happen with type 2 diabetics when they are put on insulin. Fat gets created and the metabolism is slowed down even more to make up the difference causing the person to feel lousy. That is one of the reasons that T2D is a progressive disease. While there is energy balance it isn't always simple or even something we can control. https://www.drugs.com/sfx/insulin-side-effects.html
2) Type 1 diabetics actually lose weight no matter how much they eat when their insulin is too low. They can gorge themselves and they literally die of starvation without insulin.
Potentially if fasting helps reset fix hormonal problems it could be a huge benefit even to relatively healthy people. However at this point it appears most studies are animal based. There is probably more information that I'm not aware of it.
1) This is an example of a disease affecting the CO side of CICO. When Type 2 diabetics gain weight, it is because their CO is less than their CI. The fact that hormonal problems can affect CO doesn't mean that they are gaining weight while in a calorie deficit.
2) This is an example of the reverse, where a disease is affecting the CI side of CICO. When the body is unable to process the food taken in (as in the example you give), the CI will be affected and potentially create a calorie deficit. This does not mean that you can lose weight while in a calorie surplus. It means that there are diseases that can cause the surplus to not occur.
Healthy people don't have these problems so I don't see how fixing these problems (if IF is even effective in managing these problems in humans) could be a "huge benefit" to them.
You admit there are things thing modify CI & CO. In fact I only gave two simple examples there are dozens to hundreds of other modifiers. The human body isn't a simple closed system and food is used for a lot more than just providing energy. The overwhelming evidence is that most diets fail. If it was simple then that wouldn't be the case.
I understand your concerns about IF. I was of the same mindset a few months ago. Even though I've been doing some short fasts with positive results, I haven't made up my mine yet.1 -
So another common claim is with short fasts there is more human growth hormone production. That helps with building muscles and it is also a hormone that helps burn fat.
I have a elbow that is still healing from am injury, but I think as it gets better and I go back to building up my pull ups, I'll just have to try a few weeks of IF to see if it makes a difference will building strength up. Those are painful workouts that typically cause a lot of DOMS in the chest, shoulders, back and parts of the arms. They also hard on the hands but hanging from bars builds an insane amount of hand strength. At least I'm pretty convinced now that there isn't any harm from short fasts.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
You assume incorrectly.
The point of intermittent fasting is that it makes it easier for some people to adhere to a calorie deficit because fitting TDEE-500 into a four hour window makes for much larger meals than spreading out the same intake across the entire day.
All the potential hormonal benefits are fine and dandy but regardless of what your insulin levels do, you will not lose fat if you eat as much as you burn and you will lose fat if you eat less than you burn no matter whether you eat all day or only for four hours.
It is quite possible to gain fat even while eating at a calorie deficit. 1) This can happen with type 2 diabetics when they are put on insulin. Fat gets created and the metabolism is slowed down even more to make up the difference causing the person to feel lousy. That is one of the reasons that T2D is a progressive disease. While there is energy balance it isn't always simple or even something we can control. https://www.drugs.com/sfx/insulin-side-effects.html
2) Type 1 diabetics actually lose weight no matter how much they eat when their insulin is too low. They can gorge themselves and they literally die of starvation without insulin.
Potentially if fasting helps reset fix hormonal problems it could be a huge benefit even to relatively healthy people. However at this point it appears most studies are animal based. There is probably more information that I'm not aware of it.
1) This is an example of a disease affecting the CO side of CICO. When Type 2 diabetics gain weight, it is because their CO is less than their CI. The fact that hormonal problems can affect CO doesn't mean that they are gaining weight while in a calorie deficit.
2) This is an example of the reverse, where a disease is affecting the CI side of CICO. When the body is unable to process the food taken in (as in the example you give), the CI will be affected and potentially create a calorie deficit. This does not mean that you can lose weight while in a calorie surplus. It means that there are diseases that can cause the surplus to not occur.
Healthy people don't have these problems so I don't see how fixing these problems (if IF is even effective in managing these problems in humans) could be a "huge benefit" to them.
You admit there are things thing modify CI & CO. In fact I only gave two simple examples there are dozens to hundreds of other modifiers. The human body isn't a simple closed system and food is used for a lot more than just providing energy. The overwhelming evidence is that most diets fail. If it was simple then that wouldn't be the case.
I understand your concerns about IF. I was of the same mindset a few months ago. Even though I've been doing some short fasts with positive results, I haven't made up my mine yet.
I never contested that there are things that modify CI and CO. That was never put up for debate.
You claimed that it's possible to gain fat while eating in a calorie deficit. This is absolutely false and the very fact that CI and CO can be modified is what explains away your examples.
Where you say that people are gaining fat in a deficit, I say the deficit didn't exist due to the factors affecting CO.8 -
Not all measurable effects, but I love what I have experienced since starting 18:6. I feel "ON". Clear-headed. Not hungry. No cravings. My blood pressure dropped to normal for the first time since I was a teenager. It had been in the 130/90s for several weeks after I lost weight, but only dropped into normal range after a few weeks of IF and maintaining weight. Maintaining a calorie target is a breeze. I'm not even logging anymore. It is easy to eat two ~700-calorie meals without measuring everything. Can you tell I'm a fan?
As far as the original question of whether or not it helps to burn fat, it makes sense to me that exercising while fasted, with very low levels of insulin and glycogen stores running out, would make more fat be utilized for energy.
Another great benefit is autophagy. Dr. Fung's website has a ton of stuff on the benefits of fasting. Here's the page on autophagy: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/
3 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Not all measurable effects, but I love what I have experienced since starting 18:6. I feel "ON". Clear-headed. Not hungry. No cravings. My blood pressure dropped to normal for the first time since I was a teenager. It had been in the 130/90s for several weeks after I lost weight, but only dropped into normal range after a few weeks of IF and maintaining weight. Maintaining a calorie target is a breeze. I'm not even logging anymore. It is easy to eat two ~700-calorie meals without measuring everything. Can you tell I'm a fan?
As far as the original question of whether or not it helps to burn fat, it makes sense to me that exercising while fasted, with very low levels of insulin and glycogen stores running out, would make more fat be utilized for energy.
Another great benefit is autophagy. Dr. Fung's website has a ton of stuff on the benefits of fasting. Here's the page on autophagy: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/
I'm a big fan also and can report similar positive effects.
I've bookmarked that autophargy blog post for future reading - Thanks for that I've been looking for something on that subject for a while.
With respect to fat usage in fasted exercise, I don't think the evidence points to that. During a recent post on another MFP thread I did a little bit of googling on google scholar and pulled up this 2011 paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Paoli/publication/50409403_Exercising_fasting_or_fed_to_enhance_fat_loss_Influence_of_food_intake_on_respiratory_ratio_and_excess_postexercise_oxygen_consumption_after_a_bout_of_endurance_training/links/0912f502eba1356566000000.pdf
"The authors conclude that when moderate endurance exercise is done to lose body fat,
fasting before exercise does not enhance lipid utilization; rather, physical activity after a light meal is advisable."
It's a small study but it's the only one I've seen (I'm no expert on this subject, but keen to learn) where fasted exercise was compared to fed, iso-colorifically in humans.2 -
@StealthHealth, I was thinking more of fat burned during the fasting/exercise itself as opposed to what continues to happen 24 hours later... I did not consider that aspect. Interesting! I will still imagine myself burning more fat this morning while I exercise before I eat. It is motivating.0
-
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Not all measurable effects, but I love what I have experienced since starting 18:6. I feel "ON". Clear-headed. Not hungry. No cravings. My blood pressure dropped to normal for the first time since I was a teenager. It had been in the 130/90s for several weeks after I lost weight, but only dropped into normal range after a few weeks of IF and maintaining weight. Maintaining a calorie target is a breeze. I'm not even logging anymore. It is easy to eat two ~700-calorie meals without measuring everything. Can you tell I'm a fan?
As far as the original question of whether or not it helps to burn fat, it makes sense to me that exercising while fasted, with very low levels of insulin and glycogen stores running out, would make more fat be utilized for energy.
Another great benefit is autophagy. Dr. Fung's website has a ton of stuff on the benefits of fasting. Here's the page on autophagy: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/
I've now done quite a few workouts after at least 12 hours of fasting. Today I even worked in some easy intervals, sort of easy HIIT and it went fine. I'm actually a little more comfortable when just doing normal intensity.
At first I though Dr. Fung was a bit of a quack, but after reading his blog I listened to his six part youtube series about obesity. He has a lot of good stuff to say. I'm warming up to what he is saying. He does a pretty good job of referencing his sources too.0 -
StealthHealth wrote: »CorneliusPhoton wrote: »Not all measurable effects, but I love what I have experienced since starting 18:6. I feel "ON". Clear-headed. Not hungry. No cravings. My blood pressure dropped to normal for the first time since I was a teenager. It had been in the 130/90s for several weeks after I lost weight, but only dropped into normal range after a few weeks of IF and maintaining weight. Maintaining a calorie target is a breeze. I'm not even logging anymore. It is easy to eat two ~700-calorie meals without measuring everything. Can you tell I'm a fan?
As far as the original question of whether or not it helps to burn fat, it makes sense to me that exercising while fasted, with very low levels of insulin and glycogen stores running out, would make more fat be utilized for energy.
Another great benefit is autophagy. Dr. Fung's website has a ton of stuff on the benefits of fasting. Here's the page on autophagy: https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/fasting-and-autophagy-fasting-25/
I'm a big fan also and can report similar positive effects.
I've bookmarked that autophargy blog post for future reading - Thanks for that I've been looking for something on that subject for a while.
With respect to fat usage in fasted exercise, I don't think the evidence points to that. During a recent post on another MFP thread I did a little bit of googling on google scholar and pulled up this 2011 paper:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Paoli/publication/50409403_Exercising_fasting_or_fed_to_enhance_fat_loss_Influence_of_food_intake_on_respiratory_ratio_and_excess_postexercise_oxygen_consumption_after_a_bout_of_endurance_training/links/0912f502eba1356566000000.pdf
"The authors conclude that when moderate endurance exercise is done to lose body fat,
fasting before exercise does not enhance lipid utilization; rather, physical activity after a light meal is advisable."
It's a small study but it's the only one I've seen (I'm no expert on this subject, but keen to learn) where fasted exercise was compared to fed, iso-colorifically in humans.
Interesting paper! I'm not really sure what to think but it is a lot of food for thought. The main problem I have with the study is the workout intensity was low. 65% of max HR on a treadmill, that is barely a brisk walk. Also who eats right before working out? It is kind of asking to end up losing your light meal on the floor or ground. Still it is exactly they type of study that starts sheading light on what is going on. I wonder how light of a meal could be used. Maybe a handful of nuts?0 -
CorneliusPhoton wrote: »@StealthHealth, I was thinking more of fat burned during the fasting/exercise itself as opposed to what continues to happen 24 hours later... I did not consider that aspect. Interesting! I will still imagine myself burning more fat this morning while I exercise before I eat. It is motivating.
I'm kind of with you, I wouldn't expect much fat to be burned after such a light workout. I'm more of the push hard and continue to burn while the body is recovering school of thought.0 -
Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.6 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Well it depends. Is that lunch 2000 calories?
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
I assume people eat just as many calories weather they fast or not. It wouldn't be about energy balance it is about what source of energy the body will use.
You assume incorrectly.
The point of intermittent fasting is that it makes it easier for some people to adhere to a calorie deficit because fitting TDEE-500 into a four hour window makes for much larger meals than spreading out the same intake across the entire day.
All the potential hormonal benefits are fine and dandy but regardless of what your insulin levels do, you will not lose fat if you eat as much as you burn and you will lose fat if you eat less than you burn no matter whether you eat all day or only for four hours.
It is quite possible to gain fat even while eating at a calorie deficit. 1) This can happen with type 2 diabetics when they are put on insulin. Fat gets created and the metabolism is slowed down even more to make up the difference causing the person to feel lousy. That is one of the reasons that T2D is a progressive disease. While there is energy balance it isn't always simple or even something we can control. https://www.drugs.com/sfx/insulin-side-effects.html
2) Type 1 diabetics actually lose weight no matter how much they eat when their insulin is too low. They can gorge themselves and they literally die of starvation without insulin.
Potentially if fasting helps reset fix hormonal problems it could be a huge benefit even to relatively healthy people. However at this point it appears most studies are animal based. There is probably more information that I'm not aware of it.
1) This is an example of a disease affecting the CO side of CICO. When Type 2 diabetics gain weight, it is because their CO is less than their CI. The fact that hormonal problems can affect CO doesn't mean that they are gaining weight while in a calorie deficit.
2) This is an example of the reverse, where a disease is affecting the CI side of CICO. When the body is unable to process the food taken in (as in the example you give), the CI will be affected and potentially create a calorie deficit. This does not mean that you can lose weight while in a calorie surplus. It means that there are diseases that can cause the surplus to not occur.
Healthy people don't have these problems so I don't see how fixing these problems (if IF is even effective in managing these problems in humans) could be a "huge benefit" to them.
You admit there are things thing modify CI & CO. In fact I only gave two simple examples there are dozens to hundreds of other modifiers. The human body isn't a simple closed system and food is used for a lot more than just providing energy. The overwhelming evidence is that most diets fail. If it was simple then that wouldn't be the case.
I understand your concerns about IF. I was of the same mindset a few months ago. Even though I've been doing some short fasts with positive results, I haven't made up my mine yet.
I never contested that there are things that modify CI and CO. That was never put up for debate.
You claimed that it's possible to gain fat while eating in a calorie deficit. This is absolutely false and the very fact that CI and CO can be modified is what explains away your examples.
Where you say that people are gaining fat in a deficit, I say the deficit didn't exist due to the factors affecting CO.
You are actually playing a word game. I'll say it clearly, it is completely possible to choose a calorie level that should be a deficit and still gain weight. Yes the actual reason is because the body is not truly at a deficit and a big part of that is there are a lot of things that can modify CI and CO. Additionally everything we do to determine or measure it is only estimates. From a pragmatic view point it is the same as gaining weight while eating at a calorie deficit.
Almost all diets work for a while and then fail within six months. People plateau and sometimes get going again and often just start gaining back the weight. At least CO has changed and likely the metabolism is lower. Intermitted fasting my be a solution to that problem even without additional calorie reductions. However there is a lot of conflicting information because a low of what is known about fasting is from much longer fasts where people are actually starving.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.2 -
I found something interesting but it will take a while to read it. http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/0
-
Another interesting paper: http://caloriesproper.com/skipping-meals-intermittent-fasting-grazing-etc/
I've actually been mostly eating lighter dinners or skipping them and I've been moving more of my working into the period from waking up and before breakfast. That means I'm getting up early.
When dinner is skipped I end up with about a 20 hour fast and really look forward to my fruity breakfast oatmeal. I also think it is easier for me to work more vegetables into a shorter period than fruit so breakfast helps with that. When I do eat dinner it is typically centered around a large lower carb salad and maybe some protein like a piece of salmon. My other meals are not low carb. So for me it is intermittent fasting as basically calorie neutral. I'm just experimenting now and will lose two weeks to travel. Just too hard to do when traveling.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »Well, the real thing is - it doesn't actually matter how much fat is burned at any particular instant in time, what matters is the long term effect over the course of days and months.
For that, the only thing that really affects total change in body fat is the total energy deficit or surplus over that period of time. Everything else would cancel out in the long term.
If only human bodies were that simple then losing fat would be easy! It is actually very difficult to determine even what type of weight has been lost let alone how much a energy deficit or surplus there is. Clearly people do lose fat but it isn't so easy as cutting 100 kc / day and lose 5 kg of fat / year.
That is why intermitted fasting is interesting. It may help the body actually more like expected by helping with hormones and keeping the metabolism from declining. At first I thought it was nonsense, but now I'm a lot more open minded about it.
It IS that simple. Glycogen depletion from high intensity exercise gets refilled by incoming carbs, creating a larger deficit during the times you're at rest -> burning fat. And muscle loss isn't an issue for anyone getting their nutritional needs and working out.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions