INTERMITTENT FASTING - A LIFESTYLE MAKEOVER

1…1415171920

Replies

  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    frankiesgirlie wrote: »
    I never said anything about throwing anything out of a window. I only suggested that posters read an article. An article that is now posted on MFPs blog.
    Are posters afraid to read an article? I don't think so, at least not the ones I know.
    My point was to be open to new concepts. To read all sides, and not just the studies that confirm what you already believe.
    Also, to question what you read, as you don't necessarily know why it was written, or the researcher's motivation.
    It's not a new concept. Reading and making up your own mind.

    I read it, and I made up my mind. It's a blog, say no more.
  • frankiesgirlie
    frankiesgirlie Posts: 669 Member
    Good. You read. You made up your own mind.
    No more parroting.
  • frankiesgirlie
    frankiesgirlie Posts: 669 Member
    Food companies funding their own research is something everyone should be aware of.
  • ChristinaOne21
    ChristinaOne21 Posts: 49 Member
    Too funny I just tried to swear and it changed the word to 'kitten'. How sweet - that instantly made me feel warm and fluffy and no longer angry and hurting as much - amazing how words can make such an impact for the better or for the worse :)
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    OP, you can do this!
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Christina, you're doing really well!
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,432 MFP Moderator
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    Too funny I just tried to swear and it changed the word to 'kitten'. How sweet - that instantly made me feel warm and fluffy and no longer angry and hurting as much - amazing how words can make such an impact for the better or for the worse :)

    That is exactly why we made the spam filter to say kitten. Or at least that is what i am sticking with.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,342 Member
    edited October 2016
    psulemon wrote: »
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    Too funny I just tried to swear and it changed the word to 'kitten'. How sweet - that instantly made me feel warm and fluffy and no longer angry and hurting as much - amazing how words can make such an impact for the better or for the worse :)

    That is exactly why we made the spam filter to say kitten. Or at least that is what i am sticking with.

    It's hilarious when the result sounds worse than the original post. "I need a damn good kick in the *kitten*" for instance. Or "does my *kitten* look big in these pants?"
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    frankiesgirlie wrote: »
    The research regarding sugar that I spoke about earlier in this thread is featured on MFPs blog today if anyone wants to read it. Harvard study.
    The science is only as reliable as the intentions and honesty of the "respected" scientists and researchers.
    Sugar is fine. Then sugar causes cancer.
    Fat makes you fat, now fat is healthy.
    Eggs are bad. Eggs are good.
    Coffee is good. Coffee is bad.
    And no folks, I'm not talking about gravity or if the earth is flat.
    I'm talking about diet and nutrition.

    I certainly was led astray in the late 80's and early 90's by what I was told about sugar and fat. And it has been hard to shake that out of my head, since those were my years of early adulthood when I was still forming beliefs, etc. Facts can be twisted to support any agenda. So we have to be careful, and we have to keep an open mind to new discoveries/interpretations, etc, and filter everything carefully!

    I think that what we will find is not so much that the things we think we know about nutrition are wrong, but that as scientists discover more, it will more fully explain what is going on in a given body.

    For instance, I believe "calories in calories out (CICO)" is a tried and true scientific fact. But I think also that our scientists have not yet discovered all the ins and outs of the human body which can affect the "calories out" part of the equation.

    So when we think that the reason for weight loss is something other than "CICO", it is likely one of the "not completely known" parts of the calories out part. It may be an unknown thyroid problem, or it may be some sort of hormonal problem that scientist have not yet discovered, or something genetic, or who knows!

    I am not making excuses here as I have always been, and still am at a fit and at a healthy weight (except for a couple of years, right before I discovered MFP). But even tracking calories and exercise carefully, I can see that the calories out portion of my equation changed as I went into perimenopause. One day, science will explain why it changed--insulin resistance with hormonal shift, change in metabolism with hormonal shift, etc. I don't know what the cause is, but the change is without a doubt real.

    So none of us should act like we have all the answers, and that other people don't know what they are taking about.

    OP, I am sorry to derail. I just don't like closed minds and couldn't stop myself.

    Good luck to you on your journey. IF is an excellent tool, for whatever reason. And you are getting some excellent advice here outside of our derailing argument!

  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    edited October 2016
    tigerblue wrote: »
    I think that what we will find is not so much that the things we think we know about nutrition are wrong, but that as scientists discover more, it will more fully explain what is going on in a given body.

    For instance, I believe "calories in calories out (CICO)" is a tried and true scientific fact. But I think also that our scientists have not yet discovered all the ins and outs of the human body which can affect the "calories out" part of the equation.

    So when we think that the reason for weight loss is something other than "CICO", it is likely one of the "not completely known" parts of the calories out part. It may be an unknown thyroid problem, or it may be some sort of hormonal problem that scientist have not yet discovered, or something genetic, or who knows!

    I am not making excuses here as I have always been, and still am at a fit and at a healthy weight (except for a couple of years, right before I discovered MFP). But even tracking calories and exercise carefully, I can see that the calories out portion of my equation changed as I went into perimenopause. One day, science will explain why it changed--insulin resistance with hormonal shift, change in metabolism with hormonal shift, etc. I don't know what the cause is, but the change is without a doubt real.

    So none of us should act like we have all the answers, and that other people don't know what they are taking about.

    OP, I am sorry to derail. I just don't like closed minds and couldn't stop myself.

    The point to remember, though, is even if there are physical elements (whether currently known or yet to be discovered) that may affect the CO portion of CICO, that, in and of itself, does not invalidate CICO. If you consistently eat less than your body burns, you will lose weight. ;)

    Certain people may need their CO to be a bit higher than someone else with the same stats in order to achieve the same rate of weight loss. For some people, hypothyroid issues or menopause, for example, *can* slow down metabolism somewhat and disrupt the normal CI to CO ratio.

    I think what does a disservice, though, is when people insist that they can't lose weight because their metabolism is all screwed up and therefore CICO just doesn't work for them. All it really means is that for them they are simply eating more than they're burning regardless of any underlying causes. It behooves them to investigate any potential physical issues with their doctor before declaring that they are simply unable to lose weight using CICO. :)
  • ChristinaOne21
    ChristinaOne21 Posts: 49 Member
    tigerblue wrote: »
    So none of us should act like we have all the answers, and that other people don't know what they are taking about. OP, I am sorry to derail. I just don't like closed minds and couldn't stop myself.

    Hi Tigerblue - all good from my end - I love all the 'derailing' as I'm getting so much information and help from you all - especially the debates.

    I agree it is too easy to be lead in one direction by someone who speaks a convincing argument that you want to hear to fit into your own agenda. Going off the diet subject here - but this article below shows how a scarily high amount of Americans choose to believe everything they read on FB - crazy conspiracy theorists Trump fans...

    Donald Trump supporter certain he will win election http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11721153

    It reminds me of another thread on here where so many people choose to believe CICO to the enth degree and think so long as they keep within their calorie deficit they can put whatever manufactured, bad fats, sugar laden, full of preservatives etc crap they like into their mouths with no ill health effects .... because thats what they've read somewhere and want to fit into their own agenda.
  • GaleHawkins
    GaleHawkins Posts: 8,159 Member
    CICO is just an expression like GIGO. Sure it works but outside of an expensive lab the only way we can compute it is after the fact with a set of bathroom scales.
  • ChristinaOne21
    ChristinaOne21 Posts: 49 Member
    Thanks SnickersCharlie - definitely no-one I have seen on this thread is ignoring the nutritional side of CICO and thats why this post has ended up being so invaluable - some of the other posts on MFP though do make interesting reading :)

    Personally all the things I love to eat that are off my 'healthy options' list take up all my calories for the day and also leave me feeling hungry and wanting more darn it!
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    CICO is just an expression like GIGO. Sure it works but outside of an expensive lab the only way we can compute it is after the fact with a set of bathroom scales.

    No one advocates eating garbage 24/7, so not certain what your analogy has to do with the point at hand.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    Thanks SnickersCharlie - definitely no-one I have seen on this thread is ignoring the nutritional side of CICO and thats why this post has ended up being so invaluable - some of the other posts on MFP though do make interesting reading :)

    Personally all the things I love to eat that are off my 'healthy options' list take up all my calories for the day and also leave me feeling hungry and wanting more darn it!

    If you choose to exclude them from your diet because that's what works best for you, more power to ya! ;)

    But for others, having a little bit of a 'forbidden' food and working it into their overall calories for the day may mean that they are less likely to feel deprived which, if done for long enough, can make people binge on the very thing they've so carefully been avoiding.

    Still others find that if they allow a little bit, next thing they know they've hovered the whole thing.

    The trick to weight management is finding the particular combination that works best for you. But all ways of eating - however dissimilar they may seem on the surface - have CICO at their core.
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    edited October 2016
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    tigerblue wrote: »
    I think that what we will find is not so much that the things we think we know about nutrition are wrong, but that as scientists discover more, it will more fully explain what is going on in a given body.

    For instance, I believe "calories in calories out (CICO)" is a tried and true scientific fact. But I think also that our scientists have not yet discovered all the ins and outs of the human body which can affect the "calories out" part of the equation.

    So when we think that the reason for weight loss is something other than "CICO", it is likely one of the "not completely known" parts of the calories out part. It may be an unknown thyroid problem, or it may be some sort of hormonal problem that scientist have not yet discovered, or something genetic, or who knows!

    I am not making excuses here as I have always been, and still am at a fit and at a healthy weight (except for a couple of years, right before I discovered MFP). But even tracking calories and exercise carefully, I can see that the calories out portion of my equation changed as I went into perimenopause. One day, science will explain why it changed--insulin resistance with hormonal shift, change in metabolism with hormonal shift, etc. I don't know what the cause is, but the change is without a doubt real.

    So none of us should act like we have all the answers, and that other people don't know what they are taking about.

    OP, I am sorry to derail. I just don't like closed minds and couldn't stop myself.

    The point to remember, though, is even if there are physical elements (whether currently known or yet to be discovered) that may affect the CO portion of CICO, that, in and of itself, does not invalidate CICO. If you consistently eat less than your body burns, you will lose weight. ;)

    Certain people may need their CO to be a bit higher than someone else with the same stats in order to achieve the same rate of weight loss. For some people, hypothyroid issues or menopause, for example, *can* slow down metabolism somewhat and disrupt the normal CI to CO ratio.

    I think what does a disservice, though, is when people insist that they can't lose weight because their metabolism is all screwed up and therefore CICO just doesn't work for them. All it really means is that for them they are simply eating more than they're burning regardless of any underlying causes. It behooves them to investigate any potential physical issues with their doctor before declaring that they are simply unable to lose weight using CICO. :)

    Well said!

    It is also a disservice to discount the struggles of a person whose metabolism is not working as it should, for whatever unknown reason!

    It is good to remember that all those BMR charts are based on algorithms, averages, bell curves, etc. and that there is no way that my body, height, frame size, organ size (a huge determinant of bmr in my understanding), bone density, body composition, etc. will line up exactly with the number that those equations spit out. That is a starting point only. Watching what happens with your body is the only proof.

    And, the point I am making is that we still don't know exactly what goes into an individual bmr.

    Where I go wrong is getting bogged down in the "why" of it all. That doesn't matter much in the end.

    Oh, and one more thing--the whole reason I jumped into this discussion: IF only works for me if I fast completely (clear liquids only) for the fasting period. Even coffee creamer will cause it not to work (50 -60 calories). So that is not explained by CICO. Not enough difference in the calories there. Something else going on???? Perhaps science will explain it in a few years.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Pedant moment:

    Metabolism is not any one thing. Metabolism is a collection of things. If someone has something wrong with one metabolic process (which can in turn affect other metabolic processes), they have a medical issue which needs looking into.

    As for basal metabolic rates, while their are individual variances, the deviation from the norm is not that widespread. It's merely, IIRC at most 6-7% different.

    As for your statements about IF working and not working, I can't make any sense out of what you expect it to be doing for you. It's about meal timing, nothing more.
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Pedant moment:

    Metabolism is not any one thing. Metabolism is a collection of things. If someone has something wrong with one metabolic process (which can in turn affect other metabolic processes), they have a medical issue which needs looking into.

    As for basal metabolic rates, while their are individual variances, the deviation from the norm is not that widespread. It's merely, IIRC at most 6-7% different.

    As for your statements about IF working and not working, I can't make any sense out of what you expect it to be doing for you. It's about meal timing, nothing more.

    IF can make managing a deficit easier for some. Some people find it easier to eat two big meals closer together rather than three meals and a snack spread out across the day.

    There is also some argument for it helping a person's body to manage insulin better which might aid weight loss for some.

    For me if I had absolutely nothing during the fasting period other than water or black coffee, it worked and I lost. If, however, I ate the same total calories, but included cream in my coffee during my fast, I did not lose. Even on the same calorie goal. So there seems to be something going on in addition to CICO in that case. Of course, I don't live in a lab, and it is hard to say that EVERYTHING else was EXACTLY the same.

    And again, that bmr chart is still based only on averages.

    Maybe someday science will explain the outliers. That is my point.

    And I don't consider myself an outlier, really. I am not too far off the charts--maybe 10% deviation. Which could be explained by a number of common variables.

    The point--if we knew and understood everything in our natural world, science (the scientific process) would no longer be necessary. But we don't, and hypotheses, and even theories are proven and disproven all the time, and new hypotheses and theories are formed.

    And that is science.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    snickerscharlie wrote: »
    ChristinaOne21 wrote: »
    Thanks SnickersCharlie - definitely no-one I have seen on this thread is ignoring the nutritional side of CICO and thats why this post has ended up being so invaluable - some of the other posts on MFP though do make interesting reading :)

    Personally all the things I love to eat that are off my 'healthy options' list take up all my calories for the day and also leave me feeling hungry and wanting more darn it!

    If you choose to exclude them from your diet because that's what works best for you, more power to ya! ;)

    But for others, having a little bit of a 'forbidden' food and working it into their overall calories for the day may mean that they are less likely to feel deprived which, if done for long enough, can make people binge on the very thing they've so carefully been avoiding.

    Still others find that if they allow a little bit, next thing they know they've hovered the whole thing.

    The trick to weight management is finding the particular combination that works best for you. But all ways of eating - however dissimilar they may seem on the surface - have CICO at their core.

    The bolded is me.. If i don't have/eat it, I don't miss it or really even think about it. If it's in the house, that binge worthy food is all i can think about until I've eaten it ALL. Outta sight, outta mind for me.

  • ChristinaOne21
    ChristinaOne21 Posts: 49 Member
    edited October 2016
    Me too - I ate 2 scones the other night as I couldn't have them in the house teasing me :wink:

    I just hoovered a few things whilst reading this blog in fact - rice cakes, vegemite, butter and cheese and I just want more!

    I think I'm so hungry because I ate dinner too late last night and it included carbs such as potato and bread, which always seems to make me hungrier the next morning.

    I need to revamp my schedule and diet to get back on track - not easy when I'm cooking for others who are coming home for an early lunch and not wanting to eat until late though and I need to make them all the calorie laden things because they have been working physically all day. My willpower gets a good bashing with so much temptation in the house.

    Anyway, I don't know whether I could do this at all without intermittent fasting so I'm still 100% into this.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    I cant remember the last time my hubby and i ate dinner together at home. He likes to eat late, and i like to eat early, only because i can't hang out til 7-8pm (when he has dinner) without snacking and going over my calories!
  • tigerblue
    tigerblue Posts: 1,526 Member
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    I cant remember the last time my hubby and i ate dinner together at home. He likes to eat late, and i like to eat early, only because i can't hang out til 7-8pm (when he has dinner) without snacking and going over my calories!

    I have the same issue--my boys and husband don't all get home and settled until after 6:30, so our dinner is always late--7:30ish. That is one reason IF helped me. I moved my "breakfast" to the afternoon, to keep me from snacking on junk food. Then I could make it to 7 or 8 for dinner. I'm not currently doing IF because I am eating at maintenance right now, and as long as my breakfast is small I am okay calorie wise. Plus, I missed my coffee with cream terribly! But if I cut again, I will probably do it.
  • snickerscharlie
    snickerscharlie Posts: 8,578 Member
    tigerblue wrote: »
    Christine_72 wrote: »
    I cant remember the last time my hubby and i ate dinner together at home. He likes to eat late, and i like to eat early, only because i can't hang out til 7-8pm (when he has dinner) without snacking and going over my calories!

    I have the same issue--my boys and husband don't all get home and settled until after 6:30, so our dinner is always late--7:30ish. That is one reason IF helped me. I moved my "breakfast" to the afternoon, to keep me from snacking on junk food. Then I could make it to 7 or 8 for dinner. I'm not currently doing IF because I am eating at maintenance right now, and as long as my breakfast is small I am okay calorie wise. Plus, I missed my coffee with cream terribly! But if I cut again, I will probably do it.

    I don't eat breakfast. My first meal of the day is lunch, usually between 12 and 1pm.

    But a cup of coffee in the morning? You betcha!

    And the world is a safer place because of it. ;)
This discussion has been closed.

Categories