INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Replies
-
frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Good points @frankiesgirlie .
It would be nice if there was solid dieting science out there that factored in all the human differences but that is not likely to happen.
Trial and error is about as good as it gets. Sure the science that we have is very helpful but just can not be used in cookie cutter manner. Even for the same person the best way of eating can change from time to time.3 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Good points @frankiesgirlie .
It would be nice if there was solid dieting science out there that factored in all the human differences but that is not likely to happen.
Trial and error is about as good as it gets. Sure the science that we have is very helpful but just can not be used in cookie cutter manner. Even for the same person the best way of eating can change from time to time.
The science is very clear.
Total calories consumed over long periods of time are all that matter. How one accomplishes a calorie deficit, maintains one, or chooses to eat in order to stay on one are up to interpretation.
We know that meal timing does not have an effect on the way our bodies assimilate and use energy over long periods of time. These, however, are generally considered important factors in maintaining satiety and thus staying on a calorie deficit.
As i stated in my previous posts, these are undeniable facts. Trying to do anything special outside of the above, or trying to say that it is "the only way" are silly. The only factors that matter are total calories consumed.
We are the same species, and not considering some sort of outlying medical condition, eating the foods you enjoy so that you can sustain a calorie deficit and eating at the timed intervals which keep you most satiated is all that matters.
No one was attacking the OP, just simply saying that she is not receiving extra benefits from eating within a short period of time. Just as those who eat 10 meals, 6 meals, 3 meals, and so on have no advantage.6 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Those weren't scientific views though, that was the media pushing woo and fearmongering. Now, you see that sort of junk of FB, tumbr, instagram and blogs.
You take real proven evidence with a grain of salt....oh dear.
Ps...fat and sugar are not to blame for obesity, too many calories are. I've been morbidly obese and I sure as hell won't blame either for that. I blame me. I shoved the food into my mouth. Sugar and fat didn't just dive on in there. I used to believe in woo until I started reading scientific studies and applied the science to myself. Yes, CICO actually works. I have to weigh my food and log diligently for it to work, but it works. Diets such as low carb and even IF are a way of achieving CICO.
I do IF (I eat within a 6 hour window. All it does is help me adhere to my calorie intake since I have a smaller window in which I cram all my calories.
Do you have proof for the following statement that you made?:
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
5 -
It was in the Huffington Post and NPR about 2 days ago.
3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »One more thing to add; if people never correct you or me, how are we expected to become a better version of ourselves? I learned a lot by smarter people than me correcting my non sense. I continue to learn by people calling me out on my non sense. I readily admit i am not the most knowledgeable person here but i do feel i have a solid foundation. So i am not sure about others but i am always trying to get smarter than i was today.
But I have no way of knowing if they are smarter??
...if it comes from me its true 83% of the time
Do you have evidence to support this claim?
<runsawayquickly>frankiesgirlie wrote: »83%? Not too shabby.
Disappointed in both of you for not knowing where that statistic comes from.
0 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »One more thing to add; if people never correct you or me, how are we expected to become a better version of ourselves? I learned a lot by smarter people than me correcting my non sense. I continue to learn by people calling me out on my non sense. I readily admit i am not the most knowledgeable person here but i do feel i have a solid foundation. So i am not sure about others but i am always trying to get smarter than i was today.
But I have no way of knowing if they are smarter??
...if it comes from me its true 83% of the time
Do you have evidence to support this claim?
<runsawayquickly>frankiesgirlie wrote: »83%? Not too shabby.
Disappointed in both of you for not knowing where that statistic comes from.
Is it because 83% of statistics are made up on the spot?2 -
cerise_noir wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Those weren't scientific views though, that was the media pushing woo and fearmongering. Now, you see that sort of junk of FB, tumbr, instagram and blogs.
You take real proven evidence with a grain of salt....oh dear.
Ps...fat and sugar are not to blame for obesity, too many calories are. I've been morbidly obese and I sure as hell won't blame either for that. I blame me. I shoved the food into my mouth. Sugar and fat didn't just dive on in there. I used to believe in woo until I started reading scientific studies and applied the science to myself. Yes, CICO actually works. I have to weigh my food and log diligently for it to work, but it works. Diets such as low carb and even IF are a way of achieving CICO.
I do IF (I eat within a 6 hour window. All it does is help me adhere to my calorie intake since I have a smaller window in which I cram all my calories.
Do you have proof for the following statement that you made?:
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Actually, I am positive science was involved, but what people don't look at are the parameters and bounds of the study. I have no doubt that IF works and the studies would support that. But it doesn't work based on many of the parameters that people think. It works by calorie control.2 -
Alatariel75 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »One more thing to add; if people never correct you or me, how are we expected to become a better version of ourselves? I learned a lot by smarter people than me correcting my non sense. I continue to learn by people calling me out on my non sense. I readily admit i am not the most knowledgeable person here but i do feel i have a solid foundation. So i am not sure about others but i am always trying to get smarter than i was today.
But I have no way of knowing if they are smarter??
...if it comes from me its true 83% of the time
Do you have evidence to support this claim?
<runsawayquickly>frankiesgirlie wrote: »83%? Not too shabby.
Disappointed in both of you for not knowing where that statistic comes from.
Is it because 83% of statistics are made up on the spot?
Exactly.3 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »I've been an intermittent faster for about 35 years. I came to practice it organically because I noticed in high school if I ate breakfast I had trouble staying awake during my first two classes, so I first stopped eating breakfast, then later stopped eating lunch. My family thought of me as a skinny big eater because I was thin but ate a big dinner, and then snacked while watching tv.
I didn't have a name for it back then but later in life (around 2000,I think) someone told me they read a book that was about how I ate.
It was "the warrior diet" by Ori Hofmekler.
I read it, and I'm not sure if his science or premise is correct, but it's how I've always eaten.
I've never been overweight as far as BMI, but have yo yoed up and down 15 or so lbs. at 5'9".
I'm currently at about 150 with a goal of 140ish.
I do believe that I lose weight with it for 2 reasons. It gives me more energy during my daily fast, I do a daily 16:8, and therefore I move more in general and workout more. Plus, the compacted time frame makes a deficit easier.
The times I have gained back the weight has still been about not watching my calories though, not some "magical" IF science. At least that's what I believe.
It does make it easier for me to eat at a deficit, but I don't know if it effects my weight loss in any other way other than calorie goal compliance.
I had a problem with sleep earlier this year and was sleeping no more than 2-3 hours per night and I found it impossible to fast at that time.
But now that my sleep is back to normal Im back on IF and am working on losing the last 10 lbs with it.
It's not for everybody, that's for sure.
But if it seems to be working for you I encourage you to continue OP.
I never had any kind of problems with it, but I've read that some woman do.
Good luck to you!
I used to do this same type of fasting, started while in college. Not intentionally, somehow I never felt hungry after having evening tea. And I didn't know this was IF until recently.
Unlike you I eat breakfast, lunch and snacks in between and with evening tea but absolutely nothing afterwards. I was never overweight, but had gained 10 to 15 pounds during the last two years when I started snacking/eating more in the evenings. That's when I started calorie counting and found MFP. Calorie counting and a bit of exercising has helped me reach my goal weight.
1 -
rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Good points @frankiesgirlie .
It would be nice if there was solid dieting science out there that factored in all the human differences but that is not likely to happen.
Trial and error is about as good as it gets. Sure the science that we have is very helpful but just can not be used in cookie cutter manner. Even for the same person the best way of eating can change from time to time.
The science is very clear.
Total calories consumed over long periods of time are all that matter. How one accomplishes a calorie deficit, maintains one, or chooses to eat in order to stay on one are up to interpretation.
We know that meal timing does not have an effect on the way our bodies assimilate and use energy over long periods of time. These, however, are generally considered important factors in maintaining satiety and thus staying on a calorie deficit.
As i stated in my previous posts, these are undeniable facts. Trying to do anything special outside of the above, or trying to say that it is "the only way" are silly. The only factors that matter are total calories consumed.
We are the same species, and not considering some sort of outlying medical condition, eating the foods you enjoy so that you can sustain a calorie deficit and eating at the timed intervals which keep you most satiated is all that matters.
No one was attacking the OP, just simply saying that she is not receiving extra benefits from eating within a short period of time. Just as those who eat 10 meals, 6 meals, 3 meals, and so on have no advantage.
I understand how you currently feel about IF. Once I felt the same way about IF. After studying the science behind IF and actually trying IF I came to understood scientifically how it can work and that it did actually work to help me lose weight.
How many times a week did you do IF and for how many months if you are speaking on the subject from real personal experience before you decided IF did not work for you?
No one is saying that one can defeat CICO with IF. One's hormone levels are for real a factor in the ease to store/loose fat.
5 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
Good points @frankiesgirlie .
It would be nice if there was solid dieting science out there that factored in all the human differences but that is not likely to happen.
Trial and error is about as good as it gets. Sure the science that we have is very helpful but just can not be used in cookie cutter manner. Even for the same person the best way of eating can change from time to time.
The science is very clear.
Total calories consumed over long periods of time are all that matter. How one accomplishes a calorie deficit, maintains one, or chooses to eat in order to stay on one are up to interpretation.
We know that meal timing does not have an effect on the way our bodies assimilate and use energy over long periods of time. These, however, are generally considered important factors in maintaining satiety and thus staying on a calorie deficit.
As i stated in my previous posts, these are undeniable facts. Trying to do anything special outside of the above, or trying to say that it is "the only way" are silly. The only factors that matter are total calories consumed.
We are the same species, and not considering some sort of outlying medical condition, eating the foods you enjoy so that you can sustain a calorie deficit and eating at the timed intervals which keep you most satiated is all that matters.
No one was attacking the OP, just simply saying that she is not receiving extra benefits from eating within a short period of time. Just as those who eat 10 meals, 6 meals, 3 meals, and so on have no advantage.
I understand how you currently feel about IF. Once I felt the same way about IF. After studying the science behind IF and actually trying IF I came to understood scientifically how it can work and that it did actually work to help me lose weight.
How many times a week did you do IF and for how many months if you are speaking on the subject from real personal experience before you decided IF did not work for you?
No one is saying that one can defeat CICO with IF. One's hormone levels are for real a factor in the ease to store/loose fat.
What? I have no clue what you're talking about.5 -
If there's no material to store, your hormone levels can be whatever they want they won't be able to store anything.3
-
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »Wow EvgeniZyntx you have posted 24256 comments on this site.There you go - at least there's something in this world that can be measured and quantified.
Are you qualified yourself to call James Clear's fasted state fat burning information mumbo jumbo? It was my understanding from reading a number of websites on the matter that this information comes from scientific facts and tests - but I will check it out as we all know you can't believe everything you read on the net.
Yes, actually, I am*.
Other than various degrees in the biomedical field and research in biology - there is also a strong published research body of evidence that meal timing and meal frequency have a very small, if any effect on weight loss directly through fat burning. Any strong statement to the contrary just fails to take that into consideration.
Having said that, IF may be a useful tool for some and I certainly support it - what I do not support is ineffectual pseudo-science statements.
And I apologise if my words seemed harsh.
The intent is not to criticise IF - I think it can be a very useful strategy. I just dislike the built up arguments to justify it that sound more like a belief system than a study of published work.
*and despite the fact that I have a stronger relevant medical background than that blogger, please do not accept information based on degrees or claims of qualifications. Look closely at the evidence and learn from biology and research - not blogs, not forum posts but a body of evidence. Keep asking, is this really how this works...26 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »ChristinaOne21 wrote: »Thanks, for your feedback.
In regards to food being so available these days I totally agree - however my new mantra is "just because it's there doesn't mean I have to eat it!"
You sound like you are a lot more motivated than me
Does eating healthily, with less calories than you burn and exercising regularly all come naturally to you? Did you also start off where I am now? Or have you always had a good relationship with what goes in your mouth and with keeping fit?
Those things do not come naturally to me at all unfortunately - especially the exercise part
You are right though, it should be pretty simple if you follow that formula.
It will be interesting to see how I progress with Intermittent Fasting and whether I stick to it. So far so good and I'm feeling better for it already, but I am also eating better and actually doing a bit of exercise now too!
I am loving counting calories on this website - it really opens my eyes to what's not been working for me. All this researching has been great too, as I can now see everything from a more holistic view of where I was going wrong.
I actually thought I was a 'healthy' eater - takeaways and sugary foods only on rare occasions, lots of salads and veggies, vogels bread - not white, trim milk - not fat, eating in - not out etc. However I wasn't aware, or maybe just in denial of how a lot of the 'good' foods and the seemingly small things I add to them, along with the all day grazing and sometimes nibbles and cheese platters with drinks before dinner - have all been adding up. My friends all seem to eat the same, if not more than me, and are all slim and trim. But the fact is they are probably only over-indulging when we see each other and then go back home to their exercise and diet regimes and active jobs.
My couch potato comment is badly worded - I wonder if I can edit it? Some of it came from my reading a heap of websites on the benefits of IF and how intermittent fasting may make you eat fewer meals (as in my case) and unless I overcompensate by eating much more during my 2 meals, I will end up taking in fewer calories. So I may not always be actively reducing my calorie intake, but with IF I am always passively reducing it
Below is an extract from one website that made sense to me and explains the 'fat burning' from fasting:
How Does Intermittent Fasting Work?
To understand how intermittent fasting leads to fat loss we first need to understand the difference between the fed state and the fasted state.
Your body is in the fed state when it is digesting and absorbing food. Typically, the fed state starts when you begin eating and lasts for three to five hours as your body digests and absorbs the food you just ate. When you are in the fed state, it’s very hard for your body to burn fat because your insulin levels are high.
After that timespan, your body goes into what is known as the post–absorptive state, which is just a fancy way of saying that your body isn’t processing a meal. The post–absorptive state lasts until 8 to 12 hours after your last meal, which is when you enter the fasted state. It is much easier for your body to burn fat in the fasted state because your insulin levels are low.
When you’re in the fasted state your body can burn fat that has been inaccessible during the fed state.
Because we don’t enter the fasted state until 12 hours after our last meal, it’s rare that our bodies are in this fat burning state. This is one of the reasons why many people who start intermittent fasting will lose fat without changing what they eat, how much they eat, or how often they exercise. Fasting puts your body in a fat burning state that you rarely make it to during a normal eating schedule.
Read More Here: http://jamesclear.com/the-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting
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.
@EvgeniZyntx if your intent of making medially false statements is to harm other posters and/or the objectives of MFP I do wish you would stop at once. If you truly do not understand IF then I wish you would study the subject so you can medically understand how and why it works before you post on the subject again. Thanks
? Perhaps you mean medically?
No, I am very circumspect to make no medical claims, Gale. In fact, if you read my history I am someone who consistently and strongly recommends that people reach out and adhere to advice provided by medical professionals acquired from face to face consultations.
In this case, this isn't about medical information. Someone posted some questionable explanations around fat metabolism due to IF which do not hold in isocaloric experiences and I pointed that out. This is about biology and metabolic function.
Your attempt to then question my character, attribute negligent or harmful intent or even poor understanding is not welcome, please stick to the content itself.
If you wish to factually discuss the biology around IF and the research - go ahead, post up. I'm sure we can have an interesting conversation.
But speaking of "medical information" there is even old evidence that low meal frequency may affect some people quite negatively - Young et al., in one of the earlier papers, found that glucose tolerance decreased on one meal for extended periods thus indicating an adverse effect of at least some diets with lower meal frequency for some (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/5116180).
So - clearly the evidence isn't that IF is a panacea for all.
Now then @GaleHawkins, post up or but keep the character insults out of it.
22 -
frankiesgirlie wrote: »rainbowbow wrote: »I really don't understand why people feel the need to disagree on a weight loss forum. I thought the whole point of this site was to encourage and motivate. If the "IF-plan" is working for someone, don't try to pick it apart. Not everything has to be broken down and scrutinized for your entertainment. To the original poster, keep on doing whatever works for you. If someone tries to discredit it...it's more "their" problem than yours. For me, I'm going to continue trying the plan for 8 weeks. ~ Namaste
Because, science. It's not a "problem" or an "attack"; its intellectual discussion on a topic where nonsense and woo woo are generally given free reign.
The great thing about MyfitnessPal is that it opens users up to discussions they might not have with their friends, coworkers, family, or others who are generally ignorant about biology, nutrition, kinesiology, and more.
Scientific views change ALL the TIME. That's why eggs are good for you, eggs are bad for you. That's also why my low fat diet of the 90s which I did lose weight, is now gone and a high fat diet rage has replaced it.
It's also been written that scientists were paid to "blame" the US obesity problem on fat by the sugar industry.
Please don't ask for citations, as I spend very little time reading scientific research, for reasons stated above.
So, I take the science with a grain of salt and just through trial and error, do what works for me.
The only science I truly believe in through real life trial and error, is it doesn't matter if you eat fat, sugar, flour, meat, no meat, or snicker bars, the answer to weight loss is quite simply burning more calories than you consume, and each person has to find their own way as to how to stick to that mathematical equation.
For some people it mean eliminating one of the above food/macro groups. Or eating more of one of the above food groups/macronutrients.
My "way" is IF, and I've been practicing it for 35 years and have always maintained a healthy BMI--if you believe in that broad "science".
The actual science of nutrition hasn't changed course much anymore than the science of biology or chemistry has. It has, of course, evolved as we learn new things and correct old errors and refine our methods and tools but it's the gurus that keep changing things to make money by confusing people who don't know the foundations of nutrition.
As far as the Sugar Council's involvement 60 years ago, that's well over blown. They may have had some influence on certain things but science is NOT all that influenced by outside money and power, and certainly not for 6 decades, if that was the case Evolution would have stopped being a field of study decades ago and we wouldn't know the role of smoking in cancer. The reason why the theory that sugar was a factor or a cause of heart disease did not get much credibility is because the research didn't provide much support for it at the time, and if it really did bear fruit no amount of money from a US lobby group would have stopped that line of study. However, it makes great conspiracy theory fodder.
7 -
The whole concept of IF is old news around here - I believe there are groups on MFP dedicated to it. Its simply a style of eating, and one which I seem to be able to follow without difficulty. BUT....I got fat eating the IF way, and I cant help but reiterate that the overarching concept of weight loss is to burn more calories than you take in, no matter what time of day you take them in! I can overeat in the 8 hours of non fasting just as easily as I can if I eat 3,6 or 10 meals a day - it doesnt make a lick of difference.
I have now lost over 100lbs eating a form of IF - I dont eat breakfast - I just plug in my coffee intravenous. I eat a small lunch, and save most of my calories for 6pm and later. I basically have a 4 hour window for eating, from 6-10pm. BUT....I also count my calories for those 4 hours, and as long as I am in a calorie deficit, I am good.
If IF helps control your appetite, and that in turn allows you to remain in a calorie deficit, then hurrah for you. But its still the calories and not when you eat them.7 -
I found this interesting post on Calories on a Pro Intermittent Fasting Site.
https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/calorie-counting/
The Common Currency
by Jason Fung | posted in: Health and Nutrition, Hormonal Obesity, Insulin
Currency (money) is useful because it represents mutually agreed upon means of measurement and exchange. That is, if we all accept American dollars as our currency of exchange, then items as disparate as a bus or an onion can be all measured in the same units. The bus is expensive and costs more dollars and the onion is cheaper and costs less dollars. But everything is measured in dollars and both parties accept dollars as the currency of exchange.krugerrand-gold-coin
If one party decides to deal in dollars and the other accepts sea shells (as used historically in some primitive cultures) or salt, then it is impossible to deal. There is no common currency. The buyer wants to use dollars and the seller wants sea shells. No deal. Both parties need to agree on how to trade. That is the value of a common currency, whether it is dollars, sea shells, Bitcoins or gold. There is only power as long as the two parties agree.
It is just like a common language. English is particularly useful because many people speak it. Therefore, in the United States, it is very likely that you can speak English and somebody understands you. In China, Mandarin is more useful than English, again because both people are able to speak it.
Microsoft dominated the software wars because it was the most popular, which automatically made it the most useful. It sure wasn’t the blue screen of death, or Microsoft Bob that made it useful. Man, I hated that stupid paperclip. Made me want to poke my own eyes out. But Microsoft was the common standard, which made it useful.MicrosoftBob
But this post is about nutrition and obesity. So, what is the common currency of weight gain? Most people think that ‘calories’ fulfills this role of common currency. Sugar contains a certain number of calories and lettuce has less calories. We imagine, therefore that these calorically ‘expensive’ and ‘cheap’ foods can be measured on the same currency of calories.
There are other ways, of course to measure different foods. You could simply weigh them. So 1/2 a pound of sugar is the same as 1/2 a pound of lettuce. This is simply a different currency. You could make the same First Law of Thermodynamics argument for weight as for calories. If you eat 1/2 pound of food, whether sugar or lettuce, you must gain 1/2 pound of weight. After all, how can your body gain more weight? Does weight come from thin air? How can it gain less weight? The weight of food simply disappears? Thermodynamics is a law, not a general suggestion. In both cases (weight and calories), the confusion arises from misunderstandings about thermodynamics and body fat.
What’s crucially important, though, is to see if the body ‘cares’ about calories. Does the body have some mechanism to count calories? Does the body have sensors to detect calories? Do we have an internal bomb calorimeter to measure calories and change behavior/ metabolism based on calories? No, no and no.
Your body doesn’t give a hoot about calories. Calories are not an accepted currency in our body. It does not count calories so why should you? A calorie is a calorie. So what? Who cares? Certainly not your body. Consider two foods of equal caloric value. On the one hand, you have a bit of sugary soda, and on the other is a plate of lettuce. Calories are identical. OK. So what? When you eat those two foods, does your body somehow measure these calories? No.
200 Calories
200 Calories
The metabolic effect of those two foods is completely and utterly different. Sugar will stimulate insulin. It will not activate any of the other satiety hormone. It does not activate stretch receptors in the stomach (satiety signal). It does not activate peptide YY, cholecystokinin (satiety hormones). A piece of steak, on the other hand, will do all those things. Therefore, you feel full after eating the steak, but not sated at all with the soda.
So, why do we pretend that all calories are equal? There’s nothing equal about them. Calories are not the common currency of the body. It’s like we’re walking around with a bunch of sea shells in our pockets and trying to buy a hamburger in Philadelphia. Everybody wants dollars and we want to pay in sea shells. The burger guy don’t care about sea shells. Our body don’t care about calories.
The same applies to the weight of food, or the volume of food.
InsulinIndex1
Insulin Index
Your body doesn’t weigh the food coming in, and doesn’t care. The key is that eating a pound of lettuce and a pound of sugar produces completely different metabolic responses. In one case, the body may burn off that energy, and the other case, it may decide to store that fat. Weight is not the common currency.
No, our body gains or loses fat according to detailed hormonal instructions from our brain. So what does our body respond to? Insulin. The rise and fall of insulin is the main stimulus to weight gain. So, food that stimulate insulin are typically more fattening (cookies). Those that do not (kale) are typically not fattening at all. If the body cares about insulin (and other hormones, but mostly insulin), then we need to use the common currency, speak the common language of the body. Insulin. We can translate foods into insulin effect instead of calories. Marty Kendall at www.optimisingnutrition did just that.
He has constructed the best food insulin index available. You can estimate a foods insulin effect based on net carbs (carbs- fibre) + 0.54 protein. Even then, this formula only accounts for about 50% of the known insulin effect, so there is still much more we need to learn. The least insulinogenic diet is low carb, high fibre, moderate protein, high in natural fats. In other words, a real food, LCHF diet.
The same goes for counting carbohydrates. You body certainly responds to carbohydrates, but it doesn’t count them. Some carbohydrates will stimulate insulin and others will not. That means that all carbohydrates are not equal. Highly processed carbohydrates are very stimulating to glucose and insulin. Minimally processed carbohydrates have very little glucose or insulin effect.
So remember, the common currency of the body is not calories. But neither is it dietary fat, protein or carbohydrates. It’s not fibre. It’s not ketones.GL
The only currency the body really cares about is insulin. If you want to lose weight, reduce insulin. If you want to gain weight, increase insulin. That’s the common currency. Since our body only cares about insulin, we better learn the insulin effect of foods.7 -
Fung is a nut job.10
-
-
Please don't cut and paste entire articles here, it's very annoying when you are on the phone app. Thanks.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions