Meals

1235

Replies

  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,917 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    The answer to your question is shown in the following study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27737674. This study demonstrates how "intermittent fasting", or IF, works.

    By limiting your "eating window" to a limited time span, you create a "fasting" period for the remainder of the day, which allows your body to go into efficient fat-burning.

    So, for example, in the study above, the "eating window" was within an 8-hr time period. This is also known as intermittent fasting.

    For me, it's a very effective strategy. I've noticed a huge difference if I eat within the established eating window. Also, note that there is also no reduction in food intake. Whatever food you were planning to eat that day is not reduced...just needs to be within the feeding window. I get such huge gains in weight loss for virtually little effort with intermittent fasting.

    So, yes. Meal timing is associated to weight loss effectiveness.

    I've done IF for years now but if I don't also regulate my calorie intake I gain weight. IF is not a weight loss plan in itself and you still have to be eating at the correct calorie deficit for your weight loss goals while doing it. What many people find though is that doing an eating window is a simple way to help keep calories in check. If I eat in the morning I tend to graze the rest of the day. But, when I break my fast at noon or later then I don't graze/snack and it's easier to hit my calorie targets.

    The effectiveness of intermittent fasting has to do with it's ability to improve insulin sensitivity and reboot metabolism. For example, this is shown in the following study, where those with deranged metabolisms demonstrated greater improvement of weight loss through intermittent fasting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Right. ;)

    Nope. Your metabolism does not need rebooting, and not everyone is insulin sensitive. Fasting is personal preference and works for some people, and not for others.

    That study you posted was done on "Thirty-four resistance-trained males," but did not provide weight, age, etc. How does that even apply here? In fact, the question was general with no details as to whether the OP is a "resistance-trained" male. All we know is he's 19 years old.
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    The answer to your question is shown in the following study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27737674. This study demonstrates how "intermittent fasting", or IF, works.

    By limiting your "eating window" to a limited time span, you create a "fasting" period for the remainder of the day, which allows your body to go into efficient fat-burning.

    So, for example, in the study above, the "eating window" was within an 8-hr time period. This is also known as intermittent fasting.

    For me, it's a very effective strategy. I've noticed a huge difference if I eat within the established eating window. Also, note that there is also no reduction in food intake. Whatever food you were planning to eat that day is not reduced...just needs to be within the feeding window. I get such huge gains in weight loss for virtually little effort with intermittent fasting.

    So, yes. Meal timing is associated to weight loss effectiveness.

    I've done IF for years now but if I don't also regulate my calorie intake I gain weight. IF is not a weight loss plan in itself and you still have to be eating at the correct calorie deficit for your weight loss goals while doing it. What many people find though is that doing an eating window is a simple way to help keep calories in check. If I eat in the morning I tend to graze the rest of the day. But, when I break my fast at noon or later then I don't graze/snack and it's easier to hit my calorie targets.

    The effectiveness of intermittent fasting has to do with it's ability to improve insulin sensitivity and reboot metabolism. For example, this is shown in the following study, where those with deranged metabolisms demonstrated greater improvement of weight loss through intermittent fasting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Right. ;)

    Nope. Your metabolism does not need rebooting, and not everyone is insulin sensitive. Fasting is personal preference and works for some people, and not for others.

    That study you posted was done on "Thirty-four resistance-trained males." How does that even apply here?

    I posted two studies, one of men and the other women, as well as different metabolic performance levels. Demonstrates IF works along a spectrum of types.

    Nobody said it didn't work.

    It works for some people, not for everyone. And,it will only work as to weight loss if you're in a calorie deficit.

    You'll catch me intermittently fasting in a cold day in hell because that type of eating plan does not work for me when it comes to calorie control, which is the one necessary component to weight loss.

    Not sure why you responded with "nobody said it didn't work". All I did was respond to your previous concern, that one of the studies was done on resistance trained males. And all I said was I also provided another study on women with different metabolic type...demonstrating effectiveness of IF across various conditions. Your MFP profile says that your weight is creeping back. So, not sure what you mean by your strategy working for you. Just saying.

    Whoa. LOL! Feeling better about yourself now?

    To be exact, my profile says:
    I joined My Fitness Pal for support on this "getting healthier" journey. My highest weight was 220 when I was in my twenties, right after my mother passed away. When I was 40, I lost all the weight. However, weight started creeping back on over the last five years, 33 pounds to be exact, and I decided to get back on track.

    I have lost 44 pounds, been maintaining for a few years now, and I think I might be exactly where I need to be. I am n longer afraid of the bulk/cut process.
    I suppose for people who like to take digs, I should preface that first paragraph with a date. Right?

    Oh, I think you forgot to read the paragraph after that, which has been true for the last three years and is true today. ;);)

    So.....

    Your premise is that intermittent fasting works and you've posted studies which you believe back up your claim.

    I tell you nobody is saying that it DOES NOT work. What people, including me, are basically saying that (1) what works for one person may not work for another and (2) for any plan to work for weight loss you have to eat at a calorie deficit. In other words, if you are eating at a surplus on IF (or any other way of eating) you will not lose weight.

    Your studies do not apply to more than the smaller groups of people, such as those resistance training dudes. :)

    There were dudes in the obese women doing IF study I provided? Really? Where?

    That's not what I said, and you know it. ;)

    I am referring to your one male study as an example.

    So, tell me.....do you believe that intermittent fasting works for everyone? Is there some kind magic to it? Do tell. :)

    Magic? I highly doubt it.
    Scientific evidence with broad spectrum of types of subjects, however....indeed quite compelling.

    Based on the studies you provided, why do you think that IF would work for a 19 year old male? Why do you think those studies even apply to a 19 year old male who has provided no information at all?

    Not compelling at all.

    So, your conclusion is that intermittent fasting does not work for 19 year old males.

    You fail to grasp that intermittent fasting - in and of itself - has no direct bearing on weight loss, unless it helps the person remain in a caloric deficit. If this is the case it is the deficit that drives the reduction in body weight, not when the food was or wasn't consumed.

    Instead of "opinion", please show a study that demonstrates your point. The studies I provided disqualifies your statement...ahem.."opinion".

    Please point out specifically where this is so? I'm just not seeing it.

    Let me put it another way:

    I've been using Intermittent Fasting (16:8) for almost 2 years now. Feel free to have a look at my profile page.

    In that time period, I lost 75 lbs, reached my goal weight and have been in maintenance since.

    Neither my metabolism nor I are deluded enough not to realize that had I chosen to do so, I could have easily doubled my calorie consumption within my daily 8-hour IF 'eating window,' and had that been the route I chose, I would likely be 75 lbs *over* my starting weight, instead.

    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    The answer to your question is shown in the following study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27737674. This study demonstrates how "intermittent fasting", or IF, works.

    By limiting your "eating window" to a limited time span, you create a "fasting" period for the remainder of the day, which allows your body to go into efficient fat-burning.

    So, for example, in the study above, the "eating window" was within an 8-hr time period. This is also known as intermittent fasting.

    For me, it's a very effective strategy. I've noticed a huge difference if I eat within the established eating window. Also, note that there is also no reduction in food intake. Whatever food you were planning to eat that day is not reduced...just needs to be within the feeding window. I get such huge gains in weight loss for virtually little effort with intermittent fasting.

    So, yes. Meal timing is associated to weight loss effectiveness.

    I've done IF for years now but if I don't also regulate my calorie intake I gain weight. IF is not a weight loss plan in itself and you still have to be eating at the correct calorie deficit for your weight loss goals while doing it. What many people find though is that doing an eating window is a simple way to help keep calories in check. If I eat in the morning I tend to graze the rest of the day. But, when I break my fast at noon or later then I don't graze/snack and it's easier to hit my calorie targets.

    The effectiveness of intermittent fasting has to do with it's ability to improve insulin sensitivity and reboot metabolism. For example, this is shown in the following study, where those with deranged metabolisms demonstrated greater improvement of weight loss through intermittent fasting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Right. ;)

    Nope. Your metabolism does not need rebooting, and not everyone is insulin sensitive. Fasting is personal preference and works for some people, and not for others.

    That study you posted was done on "Thirty-four resistance-trained males," but did not provide weight, age, etc. How does that even apply here? In fact, the question was general with no details as to whether the OP is a "resistance-trained" male. All we know is he's 19 years old.
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    The answer to your question is shown in the following study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27737674. This study demonstrates how "intermittent fasting", or IF, works.

    By limiting your "eating window" to a limited time span, you create a "fasting" period for the remainder of the day, which allows your body to go into efficient fat-burning.

    So, for example, in the study above, the "eating window" was within an 8-hr time period. This is also known as intermittent fasting.

    For me, it's a very effective strategy. I've noticed a huge difference if I eat within the established eating window. Also, note that there is also no reduction in food intake. Whatever food you were planning to eat that day is not reduced...just needs to be within the feeding window. I get such huge gains in weight loss for virtually little effort with intermittent fasting.

    So, yes. Meal timing is associated to weight loss effectiveness.

    I've done IF for years now but if I don't also regulate my calorie intake I gain weight. IF is not a weight loss plan in itself and you still have to be eating at the correct calorie deficit for your weight loss goals while doing it. What many people find though is that doing an eating window is a simple way to help keep calories in check. If I eat in the morning I tend to graze the rest of the day. But, when I break my fast at noon or later then I don't graze/snack and it's easier to hit my calorie targets.

    The effectiveness of intermittent fasting has to do with it's ability to improve insulin sensitivity and reboot metabolism. For example, this is shown in the following study, where those with deranged metabolisms demonstrated greater improvement of weight loss through intermittent fasting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Right. ;)

    Nope. Your metabolism does not need rebooting, and not everyone is insulin sensitive. Fasting is personal preference and works for some people, and not for others.

    That study you posted was done on "Thirty-four resistance-trained males." How does that even apply here?

    I posted two studies, one of men and the other women, as well as different metabolic performance levels. Demonstrates IF works along a spectrum of types.

    Nobody said it didn't work.

    It works for some people, not for everyone. And,it will only work as to weight loss if you're in a calorie deficit.

    You'll catch me intermittently fasting in a cold day in hell because that type of eating plan does not work for me when it comes to calorie control, which is the one necessary component to weight loss.

    Not sure why you responded with "nobody said it didn't work". All I did was respond to your previous concern, that one of the studies was done on resistance trained males. And all I said was I also provided another study on women with different metabolic type...demonstrating effectiveness of IF across various conditions. Your MFP profile says that your weight is creeping back. So, not sure what you mean by your strategy working for you. Just saying.

    Whoa. LOL! Feeling better about yourself now?

    To be exact, my profile says:
    I joined My Fitness Pal for support on this "getting healthier" journey. My highest weight was 220 when I was in my twenties, right after my mother passed away. When I was 40, I lost all the weight. However, weight started creeping back on over the last five years, 33 pounds to be exact, and I decided to get back on track.

    I have lost 44 pounds, been maintaining for a few years now, and I think I might be exactly where I need to be. I am n longer afraid of the bulk/cut process.
    I suppose for people who like to take digs, I should preface that first paragraph with a date. Right?

    Oh, I think you forgot to read the paragraph after that, which has been true for the last three years and is true today. ;);)

    So.....

    Your premise is that intermittent fasting works and you've posted studies which you believe back up your claim.

    I tell you nobody is saying that it DOES NOT work. What people, including me, are basically saying that (1) what works for one person may not work for another and (2) for any plan to work for weight loss you have to eat at a calorie deficit. In other words, if you are eating at a surplus on IF (or any other way of eating) you will not lose weight.

    Your studies do not apply to more than the smaller groups of people, such as those resistance training dudes. :)

    There were dudes in the obese women doing IF study I provided? Really? Where?

    That's not what I said, and you know it. ;)

    I am referring to your one male study as an example.

    So, tell me.....do you believe that intermittent fasting works for everyone? Is there some kind magic to it? Do tell. :)

    Magic? I highly doubt it.
    Scientific evidence with broad spectrum of types of subjects, however....indeed quite compelling.

    Based on the studies you provided, why do you think that IF would work for a 19 year old male? Why do you think those studies even apply to a 19 year old male who has provided no information at all?

    Not compelling at all.

    So, your conclusion is that intermittent fasting does not work for 19 year old males.

    You fail to grasp that intermittent fasting - in and of itself - has no direct bearing on weight loss, unless it helps the person remain in a caloric deficit. If this is the case it is the deficit that drives the reduction in body weight, not when the food was or wasn't consumed.

    I'm not going to repeat the conclusion of the studies. Scroll up and re-read. Comparison of IF with others not doing it showed results that were favourable to IF. As in meal timing makes a difference. Simple.

    Like this one?
    Last observation carried forward analysis showed that IER and CER are equally effective for weight loss: mean (95% confidence interval ) weight change for IER was -6.4 (-7.9 to -4.8) kg vs -5.6 (-6.9 to -4.4) kg for CER (P-value for difference between groups = 0.4). Both groups experienced comparable reductions in leptin, free androgen index, high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, total and LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, blood pressure and increases in sex hormone binding globulin, IGF binding proteins 1 and 2. Reductions in fasting insulin and insulin resistance were modest in both groups, but greater with IER than with CER; difference between groups for fasting insulin was -1.2 (-1.4 to -1.0) μU ml(-1) and for insulin resistance was -1.2 (-1.5 to -1.0) μU mmol(-1) l(-1) (both P = 0.04).
    which clearly states NO statistically significant difference in weight loss which you can't seem to understand?
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,534 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    I look forward to your published study, peer-reviewed of course, validating your opinions.

  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.

    Yeah, that's right. If you ignore reading the study, then the conclusions don't exist.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,360 Member
    Here's my publication on what a p-value of 0.4 means in this context.

    The difference between groups has no statistical significance.
    If the same people did the exact same study again with different subjects, there would be a very real chance that the IER group would NOT have higher weight loss.
    You using this statistically insignificant difference in ways as if it shows IF is better is not valid and assuming you know what p-values are about which you said you did, means you willfully misrepresent the things your links say.
    Conclusion: Your zealotry is showing.

    Peer reviewed.
  • SLLRunner
    SLLRunner Posts: 12,943 Member
    edited December 2016
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    I look forward to your published study, peer-reviewed of course, validating your opinions.

    Now I'm beginning to wonder if you are trying to humor everyone.

    You are the one opining that meal timing matters as to weight loss, therefore IF is the way to lose weight, so the onus is on you to post relevant studies backing up your claim.

    Your studies do not do that.

    Meanwhile, you still have not answered how your studies apply to the OP, or anyone else. ;)
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    I look forward to your published study, peer-reviewed of course, validating your opinions.

    I'm still awaiting your published study, peer-reviewed of course, of how one "reboots" their metabolism and by what mechanism said "reboot" is done.

    Well, I did. I provided one study that showed that. Perhaps it was too challenging of a read for you. Here's another one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    I look forward to your published study, peer-reviewed of course, validating your opinions.

    Now I'm beginning to wonder if you are trying to humor everyone.

    You are the one opining that meal timing matters as to weight loss, therefore IF is the way to lose weight, so the onus is on you to post relevant studies backing up your claim.

    Your studies do not do that.

    Meanwhile, you still have not answered how your studies apply to the OP, or anyone else. ;)

    I did provide an answer. With scientific studies, that demonstrated differences between IF and other conditions. Those differences being either weight loss or improving health bio markers. Shows the impact of meal timing.

  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    What's that got to do with answering OP's question. You say not everyone can stick to IF....so that disqualifies meal timing? How?

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,360 Member
    Noel_57 wrote: »
    @AnvilHead But she is all facts, And we are all opinions. ;)

    rfllzhnnff3j.gif
  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,534 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.

    Yeah, that's right. If you ignore reading the study, then the conclusions don't exist.

    I read the full study. Did you? Based on your conclusions which extend beyond the parameters of the study, I'm guessing that you either: didn't read the study, didn't understand the study, or don't understand the limitations of the study.

    As for your two studies that "prove" the metabolism "reboots" both are from 1990, and neither are available in full text, just the abstracts. Abstracts are a snapshot of a study that provide some information to determine if someone would be interested in reading the full study. They do not describe the full process of methodological choices, nor provide enough information to consider possible limitations of the study.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,360 Member
    edited December 2016
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    I look forward to your published study, peer-reviewed of course, validating your opinions.

    I'm still awaiting your published study, peer-reviewed of course, of how one "reboots" their metabolism and by what mechanism said "reboot" is done.

    Well, I did. I provided one study that showed that. Perhaps it was too challenging of a read for you. Here's another one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717

    Yes, I admit it is quite challenging. As hard as I look, I can't find the term "reboot" in there anywhere. Could you maybe highlight the relevant portion of the study where they explain a "reboot"? Thanks, that'd be great.
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.

    Yeah, that's right. If you ignore reading the study, then the conclusions don't exist.

    I read the full study. Did you? Based on your conclusions which extend beyond the parameters of the study, I'm guessing that you either: didn't read the study, didn't understand the study, or don't understand the limitations of the study.

    As for your two studies that "prove" the metabolism "reboots" both are from 1990, and neither are available in full text, just the abstracts. Abstracts are a snapshot of a study that provide some information to determine if someone would be interested in reading the full study. They do not describe the full process of methodological choices, nor provide enough information to consider possible limitations of the study.

    Abstracts are shown, while the rest of the articles are behind a paywall...unless of course you have access, like university library or part of a professional society.

  • nutmegoreo
    nutmegoreo Posts: 15,534 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.

    Yeah, that's right. If you ignore reading the study, then the conclusions don't exist.

    I read the full study. Did you? Based on your conclusions which extend beyond the parameters of the study, I'm guessing that you either: didn't read the study, didn't understand the study, or don't understand the limitations of the study.

    As for your two studies that "prove" the metabolism "reboots" both are from 1990, and neither are available in full text, just the abstracts. Abstracts are a snapshot of a study that provide some information to determine if someone would be interested in reading the full study. They do not describe the full process of methodological choices, nor provide enough information to consider possible limitations of the study.

    Abstracts are shown, while the rest of the articles are behind a paywall...unless of course you have access, like university library or part of a professional society.

    I have access to two university library databases. Neither are available.
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.

    Yeah, that's right. If you ignore reading the study, then the conclusions don't exist.

    I read the full study. Did you? Based on your conclusions which extend beyond the parameters of the study, I'm guessing that you either: didn't read the study, didn't understand the study, or don't understand the limitations of the study.

    As for your two studies that "prove" the metabolism "reboots" both are from 1990, and neither are available in full text, just the abstracts. Abstracts are a snapshot of a study that provide some information to determine if someone would be interested in reading the full study. They do not describe the full process of methodological choices, nor provide enough information to consider possible limitations of the study.

    Abstracts are shown, while the rest of the articles are behind a paywall...unless of course you have access, like university library or part of a professional society.

    I have access to two university library databases. Neither are available.

    The library access I have does.

  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,360 Member
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    nutmegoreo wrote: »
    Conclusion: dietary compliance is the greatest factor in reaching one's goals. The method of calorie reduction is completely irrelevant if the individual is unable/unwilling to follow the diet.

    ETA: Intermittent fasting is one method by which to reach said caloric deficit, so long as one watches their calorie consumption during their eating window. Can it work? Yes. Is it guaranteed to work? Of course not.

    Your conclusion (opinion) was disqualified in the studies I provided.

    How so? Which study disqualified what I said?

    Scroll up and read the conclusion comparison IF to other subjects. Meal timing made a difference.

    That doesn't disqualify dietary compliance or calorie deficit.

    Yeah, that's right. If you ignore reading the study, then the conclusions don't exist.

    I read the full study. Did you? Based on your conclusions which extend beyond the parameters of the study, I'm guessing that you either: didn't read the study, didn't understand the study, or don't understand the limitations of the study.

    As for your two studies that "prove" the metabolism "reboots" both are from 1990, and neither are available in full text, just the abstracts. Abstracts are a snapshot of a study that provide some information to determine if someone would be interested in reading the full study. They do not describe the full process of methodological choices, nor provide enough information to consider possible limitations of the study.

    Abstracts are shown, while the rest of the articles are behind a paywall...unless of course you have access, like university library or part of a professional society.

    I have access to two university library databases. Neither are available.

    Since you have access to university library databases, maybe when you get a chance you could go in there and try to find the part in the studies where they actually talk about "reboots". Maybe it's just not in the abstracts she keeps linking. I'd be fascinated to discover which published researchers actually believe in "reboots". I'd love to check their library of published works and see if maybe they've also scientifically documented the existence of the Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny and Santa Claus.
  • fruttibiscotti
    fruttibiscotti Posts: 990 Member
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    SLLRunner wrote: »
    @fruttibiscotti, I think this is what you are missing:
    There is neither magic nor science in your mistaken belief that IF, in and of itself - without an appropriate caloric deficit being maintained through diet - has *any* direct bearing whatsoever on weight management.

    A person can do IF all they want, but if they are eating more calories than they expend while doing IF, they will not lose weight, they will gain. IF is not an automatic tool to helping everyone stick to their calorie goals to lose weight, but it certainly is a way of life for many.

    IF is most certainly a working eating plan for many, but not for everyone. Not everyone can stick to IF, but they have the power to chose a plan that will help them stick to a calorie deficit.

    I look forward to your published study, peer-reviewed of course, validating your opinions.

    I'm still awaiting your published study, peer-reviewed of course, of how one "reboots" their metabolism and by what mechanism said "reboot" is done.

    Well, I did. I provided one study that showed that. Perhaps it was too challenging of a read for you. Here's another one. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717

    Yes, I admit it is quite challenging. As hard as I look, I can't find the term "reboot" in there anywhere. Could you maybe highlight the relevant portion of the study where they explain a "reboot"? Thanks, that'd be great.

    "led to considerable alterations in basal metabolism including a significant (mean 3.6%) increase in resting metabolic rate"