INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER

1356730

Replies

  • Elphaba1313
    Elphaba1313 Posts: 190 Member
    edited September 2016
    author wrote:
    Nope. That's mumbo jumbo.

    If you eat 1300 calories spread out over 10 meals or only eat 1300 calories in one meal a day you'll burn the same amount of fat.

    Intermittent fasting may help some people with hunger signaling, calorie control, satiety, etc... and if that works for you great! But let's keep it real and stop with the fat burning pseudo science stuff that just doesn't pan out when tested.



    Yep, that's what I use it for. I don't believe it "burns my fat" faster, but it makes it easier for me to eat in a calorie deficit. I find it easier not to eat junk, and when I do eat it, much smaller portions. Also my general portions are smaller because I fill up faster. I'm not eating crap all day and so I feel more like going for a walk than flopping on the couch.

    So for me? Yeah, it's a magic bullet, but still relies on the good old calories in < calories out.

  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    burreld wrote: »
    IF works for everyone. It lowers the bodies IGF-1 and increases insulin sensitivity.

    Frequent meals does the opposite. Each time you spike your insulin your body becomes less sensitive to it changes.

    You will find that eating many small meals in a day has been proven bad. Also you will find skipping does more good than bad.

    Dr Mike Mosely has a diet named 5:2 and was used by Jimmy Kemmel to drop a bunch of weight. Look it up.

    Also if you have been dieting for long periods of time you will need to build the loss muscle back and your results will be less drastic.

    No one diet/eating schedule works for everyone. What if you're hypoglycemic? What if you are hungriest in the morning? What if you simple like eating 3 square meals or a bunch of smaller meals? What if you do best being a grazer? What if a big breakfast makes some people less hungry for the day?
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,363 MFP Moderator
    edited September 2016
    burreld wrote: »
    IF works for everyone. It lowers the bodies IGF-1 and increases insulin sensitivity.

    Frequent meals does the opposite. Each time you spike your insulin your body becomes less sensitive to it changes.

    You will find that eating many small meals in a day has been proven bad. Also you will find skipping does more good than bad.

    Dr Mike Mosely has a diet named 5:2 and was used by Jimmy Kemmel to drop a bunch of weight. Look it up.

    Also if you have been dieting for long periods of time you will need to build the loss muscle back and your results will be less drastic.
    Can you provide a study for that? I would personally love to see rebound rates on muscle growth.


    And no, IF absolutely does NOT work for every. I couldn't sustain 16:8 because I was always starving. Blanket statements are never correct.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    Are you qualified yourself to call James Clear's fasted state fat burning information mumbo jumbo?

    Are you qualified yourself to say it's not?
  • lthames0810
    lthames0810 Posts: 722 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    I first stumbled onto IF in an article about whether one could fend off Alzheimer's disease in part with dietary changes. The theory was that Alz was associated with insulin resistance in the brain and that IF improved insulin resistance, so maybe it could prevent cognitive decline. I have no idea if this theory is bunk or not and I have no ability or desire to defend it.

    But, having encountered this way of eating for the first time, I decided to try it out and see if I could do it. I found that it was easy and solved some problems I had been having with hunger.

    I continue to do it, but on the day after a very long bike ride or after a night of poor sleep I feel especially hungry early in the day, so I follow a more conventional eating schedule on those days.

    I think with alzheimer's there are a lot of theories and preliminary research. But nothing has been confirmed or at least adopted by the alzheimer's association.

    Your are absolutely right, of course. I am terrified by Alzheimer's because of the up close view I had of it with my father. That creates the dangerous combination with me of seizing onto any article or hint of progress, but at the same time not having the scientific background to properly evaluate the research. I don't invest much hope in these ideas (or in the likelihood of my avoiding the same fate as my father.)
  • rainbowbow
    rainbowbow Posts: 7,490 Member
    I previously posted about some stuff related to meal timing so i'll copy and paste it here:


    You may see studies which state that eating breakfast is necessary for weight management, but again, this is not true. The evidence suggests that it may help some with satiety and may lead to less overall calories consumed throughout the day. The fact of the matter is, it doesn't matter WHEN you eat, but the total caloric value of what you eat. (P.S. You may also see studies which say DIET soda causes weight gain or something to that effect. This has a similar effect in that by drinking diet soda you may crave more sweets throughout the day, thus raising your total caloric intake. In both of these scenarios they are assuming the individual is NOT controlling any portion of the caloric intake and are at the will of their stomachs). It is difficult to find studies DIRECTLY related to "before bed" or "before sleep" because as I said, your body does not run on the same clock as we think it does. I'll give some info I could find related to that below-


    American Dietary Recommendations and Guidelines

    "Although the research does not yet support making absolute meal frequency or breakfast recommendations for optimizing body weight control, it is important that clinical judgment is used when guiding clients. Helping a client to find a meal pattern that prevents the times when high hunger coincides with an environment of high-energy food choices seems pertinent. EAL Recommendation “Total caloric intake should be distributed throughout the day for satiety and optimal consumption control. Consumption of greater energy intake during the day may be preferable to evening.”


    Here's a study done on monkeys- http://www.ohsu.edu/xd/about/news_events/news/2006/02-01-ohsu-scientists-dispel-l.cfm "

    It was really interesting to see that the monkeys who ate most of their food at night were no more likely to gain weight than monkeys who rarely ate at night," said Elinor Sullivan, an OHSU graduate student conducting research along with Cameron at the Oregon National Primate Research Center. "This suggests that calories cause weight gain no matter when you eat them."




    Here's some info on LeanGain's site with studies which i believe explain it more eloquently than i do.

    http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html
    "However, at the end of the 24-hour period, or as long as it would take to assimilate the nutrients, there would be no difference in TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. You cannot "trick" the body in to burning more or less calories by manipulating meal frequency."
    and much more


    Essentially, the current science shows that only total caloric intake over an extended period of time matters. One should eat in a pattern or manner that allows them to control hunger and maintain the proper calorie balance. It is individual when it comes to hunger and satiety. Luckily, as we're tracking our intake, neither of these are HUGE driving factors.
  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    I've tried two different IF protocols, one I liked and one I didn't.
    To me it's just an adherence tool that works for some and not for others, no magical fat burning qualities, just a way to stick to a calorie allowance.

    As with all eating patterns there's pros and cons.
  • CorneliusPhoton
    CorneliusPhoton Posts: 965 Member
    I did 18:6 for awhile and loved it. I was fat-adapted, so I believe it helped a lot with not feeling hungry and being able to exercise while fasted. It was so easy to control calories, I didn't even have to log. I found my WOE.

    BUT. I was recently diagnosed with gall stones after some complications from another procedure and I have totally slipped out of my routine.

    I feel conflicted about fasting because fasting is a risk factor for developing gall stones. When you fast, your gallbladder does not function as often, which allows stones to form.

    I feel conflicted about continuing with my higher fat diet (GI doctor recommended low fat diet for gall stones), so I have been eating more carbs and have been so much hungrier. Wouldn't a low fat diet also decrease gallbladder movement and thereby be a risk factor for more gallstones?

    Gall stones are not treated unless they bother you. Mine are not bothering me, but I feel like it is a ticking timebomb. I don't know what to do or what to eat anymore. I feel like I have to start over. Sorry for the sadrant :(

  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,160 Member
    sijomial wrote: »
    I've tried two different IF protocols, one I liked and one I didn't.
    To me it's just an adherence tool that works for some and not for others, no magical fat burning qualities, just a way to stick to a calorie allowance.

    As with all eating patterns there's pros and cons.

    I agree. I have yet to read any Way Of Eating research that is totally valid across all populations.
  • booncey
    booncey Posts: 75 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    booncey wrote: »
    I started it a week ago and it is definitely working for me too. I'm not sure what exactly is working, but I believe cutting out the carbs is the huge kicker. I start my eating window at 12pm and eat high protein, some fat, and vegetables for 2 meals and a few snacks of nuts or cheese if I have cravings in between my two meals. I have a banana with peanut butter to end my eating window at 8pm and don't eat again until 12pm the next day. The banana is really the only carb I consume during a weekday. My trainer did tell me to have a cheat meal on the weekend, which is something to look forward to and keeps me on track during the week. I have only done 40 minutes of cardio last week and lost 5 pounds on this diet. I don't really think it is water weight either. I am 42 and within my normal weight range...but out of shape, so I'm sure that there is some scientific backing..especially for us women. Hormones are evil at times and can totally slow your metabolism to a halt. A few months ago, I had started on a daily workout plan for a solid month and reduced calories and did not lose a single pound. I lost my motivation. It's crazy how one week on this diet has jump-started my weightloss.

    There are several reasons why you lost 5 lbs the first week; you decreased carbs which depletes glycogen/water, you probably consumed less calories which means modifications to sodium (generally) and a reduction in calories would reduce waste in your GI system. But there is some fat loss if you achieved a deficit. The biggest being modifications to carbs.

    Hormones wont slow a metabolism to a halt but it can slow it a bit. But in all reality, most people find a way to achieve a deficit where the previously could not.

    I believed that I mentioned in my original post that I believed the reduction to Carbs was the biggest factor in the weight loss, and I agree a deficit in calories also is a huge contributor. However, I have always been naturally thin and didn't start to gain weight (skinny fat) until I started getting a little older. So, hormones can definitely slow down metabolism more than a bit. Maybe I exaggerated when I said "halt". Kudos to you for correcting me. *clap *clap
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,324 Member
    booncey wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    booncey wrote: »
    I started it a week ago and it is definitely working for me too. I'm not sure what exactly is working, but I believe cutting out the carbs is the huge kicker. I start my eating window at 12pm and eat high protein, some fat, and vegetables for 2 meals and a few snacks of nuts or cheese if I have cravings in between my two meals. I have a banana with peanut butter to end my eating window at 8pm and don't eat again until 12pm the next day. The banana is really the only carb I consume during a weekday. My trainer did tell me to have a cheat meal on the weekend, which is something to look forward to and keeps me on track during the week. I have only done 40 minutes of cardio last week and lost 5 pounds on this diet. I don't really think it is water weight either. I am 42 and within my normal weight range...but out of shape, so I'm sure that there is some scientific backing..especially for us women. Hormones are evil at times and can totally slow your metabolism to a halt. A few months ago, I had started on a daily workout plan for a solid month and reduced calories and did not lose a single pound. I lost my motivation. It's crazy how one week on this diet has jump-started my weightloss.

    There are several reasons why you lost 5 lbs the first week; you decreased carbs which depletes glycogen/water, you probably consumed less calories which means modifications to sodium (generally) and a reduction in calories would reduce waste in your GI system. But there is some fat loss if you achieved a deficit. The biggest being modifications to carbs.

    Hormones wont slow a metabolism to a halt but it can slow it a bit. But in all reality, most people find a way to achieve a deficit where the previously could not.

    I believed that I mentioned in my original post that I believed the reduction to Carbs was the biggest factor in the weight loss, and I agree a deficit in calories also is a huge contributor. However, I have always been naturally thin and didn't start to gain weight (skinny fat) until I started getting a little older. So, hormones can definitely slow down metabolism more than a bit. Maybe I exaggerated when I said "halt". Kudos to you for correcting me. *clap *clap

    Yes, reducing your carbs cause you to lose some weight...water weight that is. Reduction in calories caused the fat loss though.