INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER
Replies
-
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
-
-
And one of his premises - that if you eat 1/2 pounds of food, you will gain 1/2 lb of weight, is simply wrong. I am pretty sure that during my 107lb weight loss, that I have eaten 107 lbs of food. according to this guy, I should have remained the same weight. He doesnt understand digestion, calorie burn, satiation or quite frankly, a whole lot else.5
-
Actually even the bus and onion thing is bizarre - if I want to go across town, it doesnt matter how little it costs, the onion isnt going to get me there.0
-
cross2bear wrote: »And one of his premises - that if you eat 1/2 pounds of food, you will gain 1/2 lb of weight, is simply wrong. I am pretty sure that during my 107lb weight loss, that I have eaten 107 lbs of food. according to this guy, I should have remained the same weight. He doesnt understand digestion, calorie burn, satiation or quite frankly, a whole lot else.
I don't think he actually advocates that. I think he used it as an example of a silly thing to believe if you are going for thermodynamics and likened it to calorie counting so it sounds silly by default. He failed miserably, though, and only managed to show his laughable ignorance. The body DOES count calories in a sense. Calories ARE the common currency of the body. The body deals in energy because that's how it runs, and one of the ways we measure energy is calories. BAM! There is your currency. More energy than your body needs? Store it. Less energy than your body needs? Use stores. He is in serious need for an editor who understands the basics of science. Scratch that, he needs a ghostwriter who understands science enough to manipulate the words in a convincing manner with much higher quality examples to get his ideas across.2 -
Well, if you eat 1/2 lb of lettuce, you will be 1/2 lb heavier. Until your body finishes processing it and excretes the waste. Same thing with 1/2 lb of beef, of 1/2 lb of Oreos, etc. That he doesn't seem to understand - at all - how the body actually processes anything is I don't even know what to call it.3
-
Thanks everyone - lots of interesting reading, discussions and debates here.
I found not doing IF last weekend and having breakfast in the morning just made me hungry and want to eat all day, so more calories going in for sure. I'm just going to stick to IF this weekend as my body seems 'happier' following this regime.
Fasting isn't going to work for everyone - especially for those who think they can then eat more, or eat bad foods in their eating window and still lose weight! However, it is working for me and my body seems to naturally be craving vegetables and protein now rather than carbs.
I do think others like me who aren't naturally attracted to exercise and fitness in general may also benefit from IF - maybe not for anyone who eats a lot of sweet stuff though, as it seems from other posts on here that they find themselves really hungry the whole time - maybe change what you are eating first to more protein, fats and veggies, cut out the obvious sugars and then try IF.
I don't have any 'scientific proof' of what its doing or not doing to my body, but if you do need to lose weight too then maybe just try it for yourself and see whether it works for you.5 -
How do u stop the cravings?
I was really good with the fasting and then got sick and now im totally off of it and really need to get back on it... advise?1 -
Crikey I love food and right now I'm imagining some New Zealand Vogels toast with lashings of butter, avocado and cheese on it or peanut butter and honey - so thats what I'm going to have in exactly 7 minutes - perhaps not that good for the calorie counting but hey it is the weekend
Honestly though, I have been happy with a black coffee and water all morning until now. I really do think its because I have been eating more fats and meats in my eating window that I don't have any hunger cravings at all when fasting. I'm enjoying eating simple tasty things like minced chicken with eggs, spinach, garlic etc fried in some olive oil with Sriracha sauce, or a salad of spinach, beetroot, feta and walnuts with some sliced lamb and a dressing of olive oil, lemon and balsamic vinegar.
I think so long as the food is really flavoursome I don't need so much of it.3 -
ChristinaOne21 wrote: »Thanks everyone - lots of interesting reading, discussions and debates here.
I found not doing IF last weekend and having breakfast in the morning just made me hungry and want to eat all day, so more calories going in for sure. I'm just going to stick to IF this weekend as my body seems 'happier' following this regime.
Fasting isn't going to work for everyone - especially for those who think they can then eat more, or eat bad foods in their eating window and still lose weight! However, it is working for me and my body seems to naturally be craving vegetables and protein now rather than carbs.
I do think others like me who aren't naturally attracted to exercise and fitness in general may also benefit from IF - maybe not for anyone who eats a lot of sweet stuff though, as it seems from other posts on here that they find themselves really hungry the whole time - maybe change what you are eating first to more protein, fats and veggies, cut out the obvious sugars and then try IF.
I don't have any 'scientific proof' of what its doing or not doing to my body, but if you do need to lose weight too then maybe just try it for yourself and see whether it works for you.
It can be a viable option. I'm pretty much method agnostic when it comes to diets, for me as long as it works and it's not harmful then do what works for you. Best of luck to you.
5 -
^Exactly. Cutting a meal out of my day lowers my overall calories, so I like it. But for someone who compensates later it won't work.2
-
MannymanGomez wrote: »Since our body only cares about insulin, we better learn the insulin effect of foods.
Just no. Not even wrong.
2 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MannymanGomez wrote: »Since our body only cares about insulin, we better learn the insulin effect of foods.
Just no. Not even wrong.
So you agree it is all about Insulin.?0 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MannymanGomez wrote: »Since our body only cares about insulin, we better learn the insulin effect of foods.
Just no. Not even wrong.
So you agree it is all about Insulin.?
It's far from that simple.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MannymanGomez wrote: »Since our body only cares about insulin, we better learn the insulin effect of foods.
Just no. Not even wrong.
So you agree it is all about Insulin.?
It's far from that simple.
Exactly. Considering the plethora of hormones and enzymes that come into the equation when it comes to weight management, it woulf be hugely ignorant to single out one specific hormone. Multiple hormones and enzymes supress hsl and cause lipogenesis.3 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »GaleHawkins wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »MannymanGomez wrote: »Since our body only cares about insulin, we better learn the insulin effect of foods.
Just no. Not even wrong.
So you agree it is all about Insulin.?
It's far from that simple.
So true.
There are a lot of cool sounding theories about different ways of eating but today they are more belief systems than hard reproduce able hard scientific facts. What that can be "proven" in a lab may or not apply to the non standard humans. Uncontrollable varies (humans) gives science a fit.
I may find a Way Of Eating that works for me today. I can not say it will or will not work for another human with any validity. I can not even say with validity that what works to give me the best health today will work for me three years down the road. We are dynamic creatures, not static so the best WOE for even me is forever subject to changing.
Thought science we can better understand the WOE that may work best for us but it is only through Trial and Error can we really know the best Way Of Eating for each of us. There are no magic macros that universally fit mankind.
Personally I do find the more I stay away from heavily processed foods the better it is for my health but others may not.2 -
I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.6 -
I commend you for getting back on the nutrition horse! I have been a fan of IF for a couple of years and follow about a 9/14 hour lifestyle. I did kind of get dizzy by all the things you've changed in a week - only because it's hard making (and keeping) so many changes so quickly. Hope this will last....but there's a good chance you will lose some momentum and find yourself falling back into old habits. Don't quit completely or get mad at yourself. I find that working on 1 or 2 bad habits at a time can help you really get rid of them for good and not quick fixes that make you so miserable that you go back to your former bad habits. Good luck - remember it's a journey....you need to find your best lifestyle to make it a lifestyle, and not just a quick fix. 3
-
I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.2 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
5 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »I am no scientist. And generally speaking, I believe weight loss or gain is determined by calories an and calories out.
But I have used IF, or a version of it, off and on for about five months. Here are my observations:
First, there are a lot of things I like about a 16:8 eating schedule. Especially, I find it easier to eat at a deficit when practicing this type of IF. I find that it fits my hunger patterns well, since I am not terribly hungry in the morning , but I have a very hungry time around 3 pm. If I move my breakfast to 3 pm, and then don't eat my 3 pm usual snack, I have already helped keep my deficit.
I have tried both keeping a very strict fast (only water and black coffee) and being more flexible and allowing half and half (30-60 calories) to my coffee.
I cannot explain this with CICO, but I only experience weight loss if I do the strict fast with absolutely nothing but clear liquids. Even if I keep my total daily calories and activity mostly the same (of course we are not in a lab here, and I may be more active one day, and more lazy the next, but my workout schedule is pretty consistent).
So I have to conclude that there might be something hormonal or metabolic going on here other than CICO.
And I have long been a supporter of CICO!!! But the results here make me wonder. Because CICO is not explaining what is happening with my body.
Maybe there is more to all this than we think, and more than the scientists know. After all, 15 years ago scientists were telling me that without a doubt, eating fat would kill me. Now the story is very different.
So I'm waiting to see what the science will tell us in a few years.
Hormones can cause slight, but not significantly large changes, in the CO portion. However, one thing hormones can do is increase or decrease water retention and those difference can be very large. Unfortunately, weight is just too gross of a measure to really figure out what is happening.
As for 15 years ago scientist telling you eating fat would kill you is not correct. Maybe the media told you that or a well-meaning doctor (or most likely a guru with no real background) but science has never said this.
Maybe I should say "science" (in quotes!). Because it seems like the medical/nutrition community takes research and then makes statements that are only partly based on that research! I take it all with a grain of salt (but how large a grain??--because the "science" conclusion on sodium is still up in the air!)
Scientists are making new discoveries every day. Perhaps one day something will further explain the role of hormones, and specifically insulin, in weight loss and nutrition (and thus also further explain what is behind IF).
My point is just that true science continues to emerge with new discoveries every day, and scientists (and doctors) don't know all.
And also, that the human body is unique, dynamic and changing, and that makes conclusions that apply to every situation every time difficult. It seems there is always an exception. Perhaps that is because of some biological drive for preservation of the species that makes our systems elastic.
Just philosophizing. And thinking outside the box.
I imagine one of the issues could be logging as well, but I haven't seen any research that shows any advantage for any timing, including IF, but individuals may notice some difference that may not be a result of what they think they are. These things could include: water fluxuations, less ability to absorb calories when eaten in a large meal, and logging differences (i.e. since you eat more food at one time you might be better at logging and not forgetting).
However, as long as it works for you then stick with it.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions