Intermittent Fasting
Options
Replies
-
@kommodevaran,
How are you doing? Your notion of calories in- calories out is very simplistic and it doesn't completely work that way. It is a lot more complicated than energy going in and out of a system. First off, when you say that weight management comes down to CICO, you are assuming that all calories are created equal and I'm here to tell you that this is not the case; not all calories are created equal. 100 calories from pure sugar will spike insulin and other lesser hormones and it has no nutritional value. 100 calories from blueberries will have a lesser effect on insulin and it is packed with nutrients, fiber, polyphenols, and beneficial enzymes. The calories from the sugar will tend to lead to weight gain while the calories from the blueberries will support weight maintenance and lead to weight loss if eaten within the right context of a healthy diet for that individual. When you say only CICO matter for weight management, you are completely disregarding the biochemical, epigenetic, and the microbiome effects that foods have; you can’t do that. Don’t get me started on the brain; the sugar will activate the nucleus accumbens(the addiction center of the brain), the kale will not. You have the same 100 calories but totally different effects on the body. Also, I’m speaking to relation to the majority of the people; of course there are genetic freaks out there that can lose weight eating McDonald's below maintenance.
“Energy balance is under biological control, not conscious control. How did people 100’s of years ago control their weight before the notion of calorie counting was even invented?” Dr. David Ludwig. Yes, calories matter but you don’t have to control them. If you eat the right foods, your body will take care of the energy expenditure part for you. Don’t miss this point, more calories in equal weight gain and vice versa but you don’t have to count the calories yourself. Eat healthily and the body will take care of burning those calories for you.
The abstract of the study below proves that calories are not created equal which challenges the notion that only CICO matter. I’m saying it’s the type of calories that matter. Two groups were followed for 18 months and they ate the same amount of calories. Wow, a rare long term nutritional study; Super! Group one was low carb and higher fat. Group two was low fat. Guess who lost the most weight? The low carb higher fat group did and they did substantially, the calories were the same. This study was literally published 2 weeks ago. These are initial findings; wait for the full report to come out if you are interested.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2017/08/16/ajcn.117.157115.abstract
Your first 2 paragraphs are flat out nonsense but the third one is a real doozy. Did you even bother to look at the citation you linked to? Here's their objective:Objective: We sought to evaluate intrapericardial-fat (IPF) and extrapericardial-fat (EPF) changes during weight-loss interventions by different dietary regimens
Somehow you think the study proved this:The abstract of the study below proves that calories are not created equal which challenges the notion that only CICO matter
Do you not understand how research works? There is no way you can draw the conclusion that you did. The study wasn't set up "prove that calories are not created equal."
Also you claimed this:
Nope, wrong. It says that both groups lost 3.7kg. We also don't have access to the methods section so we don't know how they accounted for calories.Guess who lost the most weight? The low carb higher fat group did and they did substantially, the calories were the same.6 -
FickleFruitBat wrote: »I really recommend talking to your doctor about your weight loss plan if you haven't already. You probably already know this but fasting can be dangerous at worst, ineffective long term at best. Even if you can do it safely, at what cost? You'd be much happier and healthier filling up on vegetables, protein, and getting a moderate work out in to cut down on calories every day instead of drastically depriving your body one day a week. You absolutely don't have to go without eating to lose weight and in my opinion, doing so is setting yourself up for failure later when your body gets overwhelmed by fatigue and hunger.
- 52lbs over a year eating 3 square meals a day
You gotta nourish to flourish friend! Good luck and listen to your body. What works for everyone is different.
I don't think you understand what intermittent fasting is. People who use this method still get all of their daily calories, it's just within a limited time window.3 -
FickleFruitBat wrote: »I really recommend talking to your doctor about your weight loss plan if you haven't already. You probably already know this but fasting can be dangerous at worst, ineffective long term at best. Even if you can do it safely, at what cost? You'd be much happier and healthier filling up on vegetables, protein, and getting a moderate work out in to cut down on calories every day instead of drastically depriving your body one day a week. You absolutely don't have to go without eating to lose weight and in my opinion, doing so is setting yourself up for failure later when your body gets overwhelmed by fatigue and hunger.
- 52lbs over a year eating 3 square meals a day
You gotta nourish to flourish friend! Good luck and listen to your body. What works for everyone is different.
I don't think you understand intermittent fasting at all. Intermittent fasting is a timing tool that allows people who enjoy larger meals an easier means of adhering to their calorie goals by limiting the amount of hours they eat per day. That's it. People use it for losing weight, maintaining weight, and gaining weight/muscle all by calorie manipulation. I eat 1600 calories a day across 8 hours. I am hardly depriving myself. There is no overwhelming sense of fatigue or hunger.3 -
cheryljanine wrote: »I just started the 16:8 over the weekend. I was worried about skipping breakfast and starting my eating day at 11:00. I didn't feel hungry at all. I have no idea why, I wake up every morning thinking about what I will eat first thing. I had read that women may not lose a lot of weight but their measurements may change. That is what I hope for. So far so good, on day 4 and still feeling good. I have to stop eating at 6:30 and that has not been a problem.
IF is nothing more than a timing tool. If you want to change your shape or lose weight you will still need to achieve a calorie deficit. A progressive lifting routine will help with shape as well.2 -
First off, when you say that weight management comes down to CICO, you are assuming that all calories are created equal and I'm here to tell you that this is not the case; not all calories are created equal.
Oh? Are you confusing "all calories are equal" with "all foods are equal"? Hint: no one thinks all foods are the same; that's not what "all calories are equal" means.100 calories from pure sugar will spike insulin
(1) Why would anyone consume 100 calories of just sugar, blech, straw man. Oh, wait, I guess I've done that, while doing a triathlon, during the bike portion, in the form of gels. Kind of blech still, but the fast carb action was kind of the point.
(2) Why does it matter if insulin is spiked.it is packed with nutrients...
Why is "packed with" the current dieting/pop nutrition jargon? I think it's an unattractive usage.
Anyway, yes, some foods have more micronutrients than others, and some are those you may need and some may be already present in your diet. That's why all foods are not the same. This, again, has zero to do with what kommodevaran said or the statement that a calorie is a calorie.The calories from the sugar will tend to lead to weight gain while the calories from the blueberries will support weight maintenance and lead to weight loss if eaten within the right context of a healthy diet for that individual.
Nope. What matters for weight gain/loss/maintenance is overall calories. I did not gain weight from consuming the gel because I ate sugar on its own, and if I put 100 calories of sugar in coffee over the course of a day (although I wouldn't, because I think sweetened coffee is barbaric), and still ate a healthful calorie appropriate diet, it would make no difference that I ate that sugar.
Indeed, if I stuck to calories, I could lose on a terrible diet, high sugar or no.
More significantly, you do know this thread is about IF, right? What does your rant have to do with IF?
____________________________
Back to IF, I found something similar -- eating only 3 meals, no snacking -- really helpful, and am currently experimenting with skipping breakfast (something I used to do) and eating 2-3 meals closer together in time. Part of this is to try to improve my hunger signals, which aren't great.5 -
About to go to my part time job tonight... only have had a small amount of almonds and lots of water... doing great.0
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think2 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ?
No.
Plus, IF is just "fasting" for 16 or 18 hours or eating a couple of very low calorie days per week while overall eating no less than you otherwise would on a calorie deficit.0 -
MFP at its best right here....4
-
About to go to my part time job tonight... only have had a small amount of almonds and lots of water... doing great.
As far as I know the second food hits your lips your fast is over. So those almonds ended your fast. But you will still benefit from saving the bulk of your calories for a certain time for instance if you have problems overeating at night, saving your calories for the end of the day can keep you from going over, that's not considered fasting though if you eat anything at all during the fast, I would consider it saving your calories for the end of the day.0 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
The studies that I have read (I'm sorry, I don't have a link handy... I'm at work) say that you must fast for upwards of 60 hours to see ANY change in your metabolism, and at that, they have shown that the decrease after 60 hours is around 7%...0 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.0 -
Glad to get that out of the way. But learning never stops. How on earth does not eating for a day seem logical, and why would your body need a rest from eating?Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.3 -
It can be a "day free of food"... There are different protocols. You're talking about daily schedule (16:8, 19:5, 20:4 - the warrior diet, 23:1 - one meal a day) but there are also weekly schedules like alternate day fasting or 5:2 meaning eating for five days and fasting for two days (anything longer than that is prolonged fasting but that's not IF anymore).Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.
1 -
I think most of us have picked up things like that. And it's exactly things like that, that makes weight management and maintaining good health so difficult.Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
Glad to get that out of the way. But learning never stops. How on earth does not eating for a day seem logical, and why would your body need a rest from eating?Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Hmm sorry I'm kinda just rattling off stuff iv heard over the years. It's a mix I suppose of different things maybe iv tried / heard over the years. Iv done paleo before so that got me thinking well, cavemen didn't eat everyday as there wasn't always food. So is intermittent fasting perhaps what the body is used to dealing with ?
Resting the body: while it's not busy digesting food it can get busy clearing toxins, etc
Yes I realise I sound silly but it's all stuff I kinda think. Mainly just things iv picked up over the years
It is true that food was sparse in many periods of our history, you don't have to go back more than a hundred years, or just pick any time or place of war or crisis, so to survive, we have deeply ingrained the urge to eat at every opportunity. But we didn't evolve TO an environment of scarcity, we evolved IN an environment of scarcity. We are highly adaptible, and we have clever brains - so clever that we've managed to rid ourselves of the problem of food scarcity, and instead have a problem of too much food, which is very difficult to handle because of our instincts to just eat. But we are also so clever that we can manage to navigate this new, strange environment, if we buckle down, educate ourselves, create small pockets free of constant temptation, and get in good eating and exercise habits.
Paleo, and intermittent fasting, in fact, any diet or meal structure, or set of food rules, or social or cultural eating norms, are ways - more or less successful and effective ways - to navigate an environment of abundance. It's possible to eat yourself to death. The peeps on "My 600 pounds life" aren't freaks, they are normal people without boundaries. We need some kind of structure, in order to not eat all the time. But we also need a structure that fits in with the rest of our life, our preferences, our work, family and social life, food we can attain and afford, food we like to eat. This is why we so often advice people not to jump on any fad, but think and pick something that sounds reasonable and doable. The problem with doing a fad isn't usually that it's dangerous in itself, but that you'll rebound and do really stupid things afterwards, because we can't handle the stress of self-imposed, and totally unnecessary, deprivation, in an environment of plenty.
Your liver "clears toxins" just fine even if your intestines are busy digesting food. The systems are designed to do those things. If you have any toxins in your body that your liver can't handle, you need a doctor's visit, not a fast.
To sum this long-winding thing up - read up on reliable sources and train your common sense. It will serve you well for the rest of your life.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 923 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions