Meals
Replies
-
fruttibiscotti 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.
0 -
@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?
0 -
-
fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.3 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.2 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
0 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.3 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.3 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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"
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
Oh fun! I don't know if I want to find a paper disproving Santa Claus this close to Christmas though. All the disappointed children
fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
I'll file a complaint with them on Tuesday.1 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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"
≄ "reboot".1 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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"
≄ "reboot".
I don't understand what the issue is that you are having. The evidence shows a jump in performance from baseline when using IF. I clearly pointed that out to you.
0 -
nutmegoreo wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
Oh fun! I don't know if I want to find a paper disproving Santa Claus this close to Christmas though. All the disappointed childrenfruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
I'll file a complaint with them on Tuesday.
So, I guess it all ends with resorting to ridicule.
0 -
fruttibiscotti 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?
No, you are twisting my words.
I said meal timing does not matter as to weight loss, and that not everyone can stick to intermittent fasting.
You're saying that meal timing does matter and IF is the way to lose weight, yet you don't really provide any real backup as to why you believe that to be true the population in general. And, remember, me, you, and many others here, and especially the OP, are most likely the general population wherein those studies do not apply.
The bottom line is that you can do IF all you want, adhere to a certain "meal timing" from here to eternity, and you will not lose weight unless you have used that plan to create a calorie deficit. Now, if one can do that, wonderful! However, just because one person, or even many, can successfully do IF does not mean that others can as well.4 -
fruttibiscotti 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?
No, you are twisting my words.
I said meal timing does not matter as to weight loss, and that not everyone can stick to intermittent fasting.
You're saying that meal timing does matter and IF is the way to lose weight, yet you don't really provide any real backup as to why you believe that to be true the population in general. And, remember, me, you, and many others here, and especially the OP, are most likely the general population wherein those studies do not apply.
The bottom line is that you can do IF all you want, adhere to a certain "meal timing" from here to eternity, and you will not lose weight unless you have used that plan to create a calorie deficit. Now, if one can do that, wonderful! However, just because one person, or even many, can successfully do IF does not mean that others can as well.
What evidence do you have to back up your claim, where you say: " me, you, and many others here, and especially the OP, are most likely the general population wherein those studies do not apply."???0 -
.0
-
.0
-
fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.fruttibiscotti wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
Did you read the paragraph after that one, or were you just looking for something specific to attack on a personal level?
I've been primarily staying out of this because these conversations become circular. IF works as long as you remain in a calorie deficit. It can be helpful for a number of specific scenarios. I have seen people who feel that their BED is better managed with IF. If a person tends to prefer a larger meal, having a smaller window will reduce the amount of grazing. It can take some time to adapt to different eating hours than one is used to, but it can work. Whether IF works for an individual, it is still the calorie deficit that leads to weight loss.
What "paragraph after that one" are you referring to?
The paragraph after the one you are referring to in her profile in the text of yours that I highlighted.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
Reread her profile.
You read it. Have fun.
I did read it. Your dig at her was unwarranted.
Help me understand where the requisite information that either aligns or refutes the points provided by the studies I provided to help answer the question the OP had regarding meal timing?
And please explain why it is okay for you to take a jab at someones weight loss as a part of this thread?0 -
P<0.5 means LMAO at this thread1
-
fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
How long have you been doing IF for?
Several years ago when I was overweight and a prediabetic, I stumbled onto an IF group over on a low carb site. The group was doing IF before it was well known or popular. Before Mosley or Varady or Berkhan brought IF to the main stream. It was a tight knit group of mostly overweight and obese women who were outliers, following Dr. Johnson's little known alternate day IF plan. It wasn't even really called intermittent fasting back then but JUDDD (Dr. Johnson's Up Day Down Day Diet).
Following that plan and hanging out with that amazing community of woman, I lost around 50lbs and improved all my blood work panels/health markers. But the thing is-we were all losing weight because we were eating at a calorie deficit, not because we were doing IF. Our calorie intakes were still dictating how much weight we lost-IF just made it easier for us to adhere to our calorie deficits.
Since then, over the past few years, I've done other variations of IF-sometimes while tracking calorie intake and other times while not. And if I'm not mindful of my calories and I eat over my maintenance levels-I gain weight, regardless if I'm doing IF or not.
I love IF but I've been doing it long enough to know what it is, and what it isn't.
Meal timing/frequency is a preference thing and does not matter in terms of weight loss. Eating at the correct calorie intake for your weight goals is the only thing that matters for weight loss, weight maintenance and weight gain.5 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
How long have you been doing IF for?
Several years ago when I was overweight and a prediabetic, I stumbled onto an IF group over on a low carb site. The group was doing IF before it was well known or popular. Before Mosley or Varady or Berkhan brought IF to the main stream. It was a tight knit group of mostly overweight and obese women who were outliers, following Dr. Johnson's little known alternate day IF plan. It wasn't even really called intermittent fasting back then but JUDDD (Dr. Johnson's Up Day Down Day Diet).
Following that plan and hanging out with that amazing community of woman, I lost around 50lbs and improved all my blood work panels/health markers. But the thing is-we were all losing weight because we were eating at a calorie deficit, not because we were doing IF. Our calorie intakes were still dictating how much weight we lost-IF just made it easier for us to adhere to our calorie deficits.
Since then, over the past few years, I've done other variations of IF-sometimes while tracking calorie intake and other times while not. And if I'm not mindful of my calories and I eat over my maintenance levels-I gain weight, regardless if I'm doing IF or not.
I love IF but I've been doing it long enough to know what it is, and what it isn't.
Meal timing/frequency is a preference thing and does not matter in terms of weight loss. Eating at the correct calorie intake for your weight goals is the only thing that matters for weight loss, weight maintenance and weight gain.
There's a reason why the term IF stands for intermittent FASTING. It's not called IE, intermittent EATING. Why do you think the word FASTING is being used? Obviously, because fasting is actually occurring.
0 -
fruttibiscotti wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
How long have you been doing IF for?
Several years ago when I was overweight and a prediabetic, I stumbled onto an IF group over on a low carb site. The group was doing IF before it was well known or popular. Before Mosley or Varady or Berkhan brought IF to the main stream. It was a tight knit group of mostly overweight and obese women who were outliers, following Dr. Johnson's little known alternate day IF plan. It wasn't even really called intermittent fasting back then but JUDDD (Dr. Johnson's Up Day Down Day Diet).
Following that plan and hanging out with that amazing community of woman, I lost around 50lbs and improved all my blood work panels/health markers. But the thing is-we were all losing weight because we were eating at a calorie deficit, not because we were doing IF. Our calorie intakes were still dictating how much weight we lost-IF just made it easier for us to adhere to our calorie deficits.
Since then, over the past few years, I've done other variations of IF-sometimes while tracking calorie intake and other times while not. And if I'm not mindful of my calories and I eat over my maintenance levels-I gain weight, regardless if I'm doing IF or not.
I love IF but I've been doing it long enough to know what it is, and what it isn't.
Meal timing/frequency is a preference thing and does not matter in terms of weight loss. Eating at the correct calorie intake for your weight goals is the only thing that matters for weight loss, weight maintenance and weight gain.
There's a reason why the term IF stands for intermittent FASTING. It's not called IE, intermittent EATING. Why do you think the word FASTING is being used? Obviously, because fasting is actually occurring.
I wish you the best of luck as you work towards your goals.6 -
She'll argue about that too.
7 -
crzycatlady1 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »crzycatlady1 wrote: »fruttibiscotti wrote: »nutmegoreo wrote: »fruttibiscotti 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.
How long have you been doing IF for?
Several years ago when I was overweight and a prediabetic, I stumbled onto an IF group over on a low carb site. The group was doing IF before it was well known or popular. Before Mosley or Varady or Berkhan brought IF to the main stream. It was a tight knit group of mostly overweight and obese women who were outliers, following Dr. Johnson's little known alternate day IF plan. It wasn't even really called intermittent fasting back then but JUDDD (Dr. Johnson's Up Day Down Day Diet).
Following that plan and hanging out with that amazing community of woman, I lost around 50lbs and improved all my blood work panels/health markers. But the thing is-we were all losing weight because we were eating at a calorie deficit, not because we were doing IF. Our calorie intakes were still dictating how much weight we lost-IF just made it easier for us to adhere to our calorie deficits.
Since then, over the past few years, I've done other variations of IF-sometimes while tracking calorie intake and other times while not. And if I'm not mindful of my calories and I eat over my maintenance levels-I gain weight, regardless if I'm doing IF or not.
I love IF but I've been doing it long enough to know what it is, and what it isn't.
Meal timing/frequency is a preference thing and does not matter in terms of weight loss. Eating at the correct calorie intake for your weight goals is the only thing that matters for weight loss, weight maintenance and weight gain.
There's a reason why the term IF stands for intermittent FASTING. It's not called IE, intermittent EATING. Why do you think the word FASTING is being used? Obviously, because fasting is actually occurring.
I wish you the best of luck as you work towards your goals.
Thanks! Wish you lots of luck, too.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions