Alan Aragon on Intermittent Fasting
Replies
-
Breakfast skipping DOES do something good for my hunger hormones. I also like saving all my calories for two tasty meals, instead of 3 sad ones.
And errrrr...not to knock anyone. But in his Women's Book, Lyle McDonald DID have a few words to say about guys who could eat 2500-3000 calories per day and still be 'cutting', trash talking methods women use who have to eat about 1600-1800 calories per day to cut.
Guys, consider what you would do if you only had about 1600 calories per day. Would you eat 6 meals per day (about 266 cal/meal)?.....and not knocking this if you're ok with that, many women are...
But some of us would rather have two 800 calorie meals....
12 -
But having posted that, I agree that I have read some posters who clearly push IF into eating disorder territory.. especially if they are Fung followers.2
-
I intermittent fast daily usually 12 hours ... it just happens naturally ... I just not hungry ... usually by just skipping lunch and having a small breakfast and large dinner I’m more then satisfied0
-
I have anywhere from 2200-2500 calories/day, and I'm still not okay with 6 small meals per day. Small meals don't cut it for me, it's like a continual tease and I'm constantly hungry.annaskiski wrote: »Breakfast skipping DOES do something good for my hunger hormones. I also like saving all my calories for two tasty meals, instead of 3 sad ones.
And errrrr...not to knock anyone. But in his Women's Book, Lyle McDonald DID have a few words to say about guys who could eat 2500-3000 calories per day and still be 'cutting', trash talking methods women use who have to eat about 1600-1800 calories per day to cut.
Guys, consider what you would do if you only had about 1600 calories per day. Would you eat 6 meals per day (about 266 cal/meal)?.....and not knocking this if you're ok with that, many women are...
But some of us would rather have two 800 calorie meals....
I more or less do 16/8 IF* for that very reason. I don't eat breakfast until around noon, because 1) I'm not that hungry in the morning, and 2) if I eat early it gets my hunger going and it's harder to fit the rest of my meals into my calorie goals and still feel satiated. Breakfast is usually somewhere around 500-700 calories, that leaves me room for an afternoon snack and lots of calories left for a big dinner - and maybe some ice cream or whatever afterward.
*I say I 'more or less' do 16/8 because I don't adhere to it like a religion and don't believe any of the magick and wizardry attributed to it. So I guess for me it is actually more like 'breakfast skipping' than 'intermittent fasting', per se. It's just what I've found works best for me in terms of satiety and adherence, but if I happen to be hungry outside of that 'window', I eat. No big deal. It still all comes down to CICO.
4 -
annaskiski wrote: »Breakfast skipping DOES do something good for my hunger hormones. I also like saving all my calories for two tasty meals, instead of 3 sad ones.
And errrrr...not to knock anyone. But in his Women's Book, Lyle McDonald DID have a few words to say about guys who could eat 2500-3000 calories per day and still be 'cutting', trash talking methods women use who have to eat about 1600-1800 calories per day to cut.
Guys, consider what you would do if you only had about 1600 calories per day. Would you eat 6 meals per day (about 266 cal/meal)?.....and not knocking this if you're ok with that, many women are...
But some of us would rather have two 800 calorie meals....
This is another reason IF works for me as a petite woman. I like at least one large meal and I'm also someone who likes to drink some of her calories. A decent sized lunch, some calories for half and half in my tea, and a big dinner? I'm good.2 -
Best thing I've read yet. Intermittent Fasting (IF) has become quite the fad lately and a lot of hocus-pocus has been ascribed to it that's not supported by science:Alright, time for a rant, this time intermittent fasting (IF) gets the spotlight.... I'm sick and tired of hearing about all of these cute, magical qualities IF has beyond allowing some people to better sustain a net caloric deficit for the goal of weight or fat loss. Is it more convenient for some people to eat less frequently? Yes. Is it more sustainable for some people to enjoy larger meals when they eat? Yes. Can it be a simpler, less meticulous way toward a net caloric deficit for some people to include fasting days in a given ad libitum week? Yes. Is IF the magic, universal solution for every dieter? Hell no.
Per the recent claims in various herpaderp vids & other media from gurus & quacks -- does IF have special effects on body comp "buhcuz increased growth hormone"? No. The growth hormone increase as a result of IF is merely the body's stress/survival response to the physiologically 'sensed' threat of famine/starvation. It's the equivalent of the emergency lights of a building turning on when the main power is down. I've said this before, but some folks fail to grasp that skipping meals does not have a net anabolic effect. Maximizing muscle growth is not going to come from nothing but breathing and prayers all day.
Lastly, has the WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE in human research shown special health effects of IF compared to more linear deficits? Overall, the answer is no. Have IF studies on rodents shown cardiometabolic benefits? Yes. Have these benefits panned out in the body of human research comparing IF vs linear patterns? Sorry, but no. In the largest systematic review of IF research to-date, Seimon et al compared the effects of intermittent energy restriction (IER) to continuous energy restriction (CER). They found that overall, the two diet types resulted in “apparently equivalent outcomes” in terms of bodyweight reduction and body composition change. In addition, neither IER or CER was superior to the other at improving glucose control/insulin sensitivity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26384657
Another recent systematic review & meta-analysis, this time on long-term outcomes in IF vs linear dieting, Headland et al concluded the following: "...neither intermittent or continuous energy restriction being superior with respect to weight loss. [...] Blood lipid concentrations, glucose, and insulin were not altered by intermittent energy expenditure in values greater than those seen with continuous energy restriction."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27338458
The take-away: if you prefer to practice some variant of IF and are successfully making or maintaining progress on it, then good for you, stick with it. If you prefer a more conventional or linear dietary pattern with a higher meal frequency and are doing well on it - good for you, stick with that, because the claims of IF's supposed *superiority* do not have strong scientific support.
Not trying to be an *kitten* or derail the thread, but I never know what people mean by this...
When you saynot supported by science
Does that mean it's been disproven, or that there is no proof in support of?0 -
Does that mean it's been disproven, or that there is no proof in support of?
It means that it is conjecture. It is also, IMO, far-fetched to think a few extra hours will achieve a significant medical benefit of note that people who eat regularly are not already getting.
If you are not hungry in the morning and/or if skipping breakfast makes your appetite easier to control there is the benefit.2 -
Does that mean it's been disproven, or that there is no proof in support of?
It means that it is conjecture. It is also, IMO, far-fetched to think a few extra hours will achieve a significant medical benefit of note that people who eat regularly are not already getting.
If you are not hungry in the morning and/or if skipping breakfast makes your appetite easier to control there is the benefit.
However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)0 -
annaskiski wrote: »Does that mean it's been disproven, or that there is no proof in support of?
It means that it is conjecture. It is also, IMO, far-fetched to think a few extra hours will achieve a significant medical benefit of note that people who eat regularly are not already getting.
If you are not hungry in the morning and/or if skipping breakfast makes your appetite easier to control there is the benefit.
However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)
Or it could just be psychological. I haven't seen any evidence one way or the other yet.2 -
IF and Keto are deeply felt principles, along with Paleo, Primal, BPC, 30 Day Food Group Elimination Diets, No Carb/Low Carb, Clean Eating, WW....and every diet under the sun. There's enough diversity and positive pitch for all.
No two programs or weight releasing journeys are the same. If I could turn back time I would never step into the sharky waters of dieting. The brain will always go back to what makes it feel good and what rewards it. I created a new pattern for my life and brain. No more dieting. I couldn't win with dieting so I quit playing the game.
I headed out over the open highway and I'm driving my own vehicle. I had to find a sustainable way of eating for the rest of my life. I no longer blindly follow dieting rules. The road from rebound weight gain and eating it all back can become a dieting addiction.
I track my food so I don't meander too far outside of my normal river banks. I probably wouldn't have to do that .. had I left dieting alone and not messed with my internal hunger/metabolic cues and gained 100 lbs.
No one would buy an expensive vehicle and fuel it with lighter fluid or let it run on fumes. Through dieting and eating it back we fill the world's most complex machine - the human body - with deliberately engineered to be highly craved foods. Foods created in a lab and manufactured in a plant and we really have no idea what's in there. That's triggered the biggest health crisis we've ever had to date.
We carry the same genes as our ancestors but lifestyle changes have brought on the obesity epidemic. Epigenetics is a harsh taskmaster.
The body will fight against you for up to 3 years to maintain your weight releasing. Within 1 year after all of the dieting is done, many rebound with every pound plus friends.
We can't turn back time but we can wind it up again. The change we allow today determines the reality we get. Shawshank it. Bend the bars of the dieting cage back. I took my power back before dieting and thrill eating took it all away. Take your mind and body back. Go back to your original factory settings.
There's no such thing as the finish line.
7 -
annaskiski wrote: »However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)
No because for some people missing breakfast makes them hungrier and hungrier as the day progresses. You can't make assumptions for cause and effect without proper testing and science. As @anvilhead suggests in some people it could be psychological. In other people it could be genetics, adaptation, or a specific medical condition. It could be a combination of 2 or more of those factors too.
4 -
annaskiski wrote: »However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)
No because for some people missing breakfast makes them hungrier and hungrier as the day progresses. You can't make assumptions for cause and effect without proper testing and science. As @anvilhead suggests in some people it could be psychological. In other people it could be genetics, adaptation, or a specific medical condition. It could be a combination of 2 or more of those factors too.
But when evidence lacks, isn't saying there is no effect also an assumption?
If there is no evidence, then we don't know. Period. Anything beyond that is somewhere between an educated assumption and a shot in the dark.4 -
annaskiski wrote: »However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)
No because for some people missing breakfast makes them hungrier and hungrier as the day progresses. You can't make assumptions for cause and effect without proper testing and science. As @anvilhead suggests in some people it could be psychological. In other people it could be genetics, adaptation, or a specific medical condition. It could be a combination of 2 or more of those factors too.
But when evidence lacks, isn't saying there is no effect also an assumption?
If there is no evidence, then we don't know. Period. Anything beyond that is somewhere between an educated assumption and a shot in the dark.
There's a difference between no evidence because no research has been done and no evidence because research has extensively been done and no evidence was found.4 -
BBC...the Science of Fasting0
-
stevencloser wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)
No because for some people missing breakfast makes them hungrier and hungrier as the day progresses. You can't make assumptions for cause and effect without proper testing and science. As @anvilhead suggests in some people it could be psychological. In other people it could be genetics, adaptation, or a specific medical condition. It could be a combination of 2 or more of those factors too.
But when evidence lacks, isn't saying there is no effect also an assumption?
If there is no evidence, then we don't know. Period. Anything beyond that is somewhere between an educated assumption and a shot in the dark.
There's a difference between no evidence because no research has been done and no evidence because research has extensively been done and no evidence was found.
I don't disagree. In many cases, it's nearly impossible to test absolutely that something doesn't happen/exist.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »annaskiski wrote: »However, saying that it 'makes your appetite easier to control", in effect means that those few extra hours have SOME effect on your hormones. (at the very least, ghrelin)
No because for some people missing breakfast makes them hungrier and hungrier as the day progresses. You can't make assumptions for cause and effect without proper testing and science. As @anvilhead suggests in some people it could be psychological. In other people it could be genetics, adaptation, or a specific medical condition. It could be a combination of 2 or more of those factors too.
But when evidence lacks, isn't saying there is no effect also an assumption?
If there is no evidence, then we don't know. Period. Anything beyond that is somewhere between an educated assumption and a shot in the dark.
There's a difference between no evidence because no research has been done and no evidence because research has extensively been done and no evidence was found.
I don't disagree. In many cases, it's nearly impossible to test absolutely that something doesn't happen/exist.
Not hard at all. If the results of an intervention don't differ from random chance, the null hypothesis is not rejected and it's safe to assume that there is no effect.4 -
I loosely follow 16:8 IF. I had a beachbody coach friend that did a one month facebook challenge group with IF and I ended up losing about ten lbs so I just kept going. About six months later I backslid into binge eating self indulgence mode and gained everything back but the last month or so I've been working on it again and making good progress.
I've always thought the "science" of it as it was explained to me was shaky but being on a set schedule is what really helped me. I never get up early enough to eat breakfast so skipping and not eating until 11am really made me relearn how to tell myself 'no' the second I got hungry. I had a tendency to eat some or all of my lunch around 10am and then buying myself something at lunch because I ate it all at 10am. Having a cutoff in the evening makes it better for me to say no to late night snacking and the liquid calories/alcohol. As many mentioned, I can eat more normal meals during the day and if I do splurge, I'm not totally blowing my calorie count out of the water.
So, do I really believe that the last two hours throw my body into "MAX FAT BURNING MODE"? No. But it's really helped me to reevaluate what I eat and when and work towards making better food choices and habits.3 -
But when evidence lacks, isn't saying there is no effect also an assumption?
If there is no evidence, then we don't know. Period. Anything beyond that is somewhere between an educated assumption and a shot in the dark.
You have to identify an effect first otherwise you have no gifts under the tree to try and prove that Santa Claus exists to your 5 yo. As the child gets older it may suspect the truth and stay up to test the SC theory by catching you placing the presents thus proving the true cause and effect.2 -
But when evidence lacks, isn't saying there is no effect also an assumption?
If there is no evidence, then we don't know. Period. Anything beyond that is somewhere between an educated assumption and a shot in the dark.
You have to identify an effect first otherwise you have no gifts under the tree to try and prove that Santa Claus exists to your 5 yo. As the child gets older it may suspect the truth and stay up to test the SC theory by catching you placing the presents thus proving the true cause and effect.
gotcha... ok.0 -
I should follow up to that by saying it is sloppier science to go looking for an effect because you may be biased and may manipulate (intentionally or not) the experiment to find it. Then suddenly you have an IF diet, ACV, Keto insulin power, etc. and science is forced to waste money recreating cause to try and find effect.6
-
OK, so I guess this is the point where I'm not smart enough to stay in this thread. I get lost when I have to figure out how to take a sentence like "there's no science to support point XYZ" and figure out how to make use of that information. In most cases, especially with things like IF, I assume that any claims made in main stream media are highly overstated. But I also believe that where there's smoke there's fire. So it becomes an issue of perceived effort vs perceived benefit. And it's at that point that things become very personal/individual. But everyone just wants to oversimplify things and speak in general, black and white terms saying that there is zero benefit aside from preference/adherence.
It wasn't long ago that the forums spoke that way about nutrient timing (very black and white, virtually no context). Only recently have we started saying that the benefits are relatively small, far outweighed by other factors, and probably only significant to people already pretty lean/accomplished... or with specific athletic/endurance goals.2 -
Maybe I am incorrect, but to me I think there is something to it when you exercise after not eating for a certain amount of hours that puts you in a higher fat burning zone, how could it not...when I exercise in the morning after not intaking any food in my stomach for the past 14 plus hours, how am I able to find the energy to get thru the workout? I will do half hour of kickboxing, plus a 4 km walk all before I eat..where is the energy coming from???
This is nothing new, I remember reading a book called Body for LIfe about 15 years ago and this was mentioned.
5 -
Maybe I am incorrect, but to me I think there is something to it when you exercise after not eating for a certain amount of hours that puts you in a higher fat burning zone, how could it not...when I exercise in the morning after not intaking any food in my stomach for the past 14 plus hours, how am I able to find the energy to get thru the workout? I will do half hour of kickboxing, plus a 4 km walk all before I eat..where is the energy coming from???
This is nothing new, I remember reading a book called Body for LIfe about 15 years ago and this was mentioned.
Your body stores energy for situations exactly like these. Everyone's body does it, whether they're fasting or not.
When you're exercising, the energy you're using never comes from the food that's digesting in your stomach, what you just ate.6 -
OK, so I guess this is the point where I'm not smart enough to stay in this thread. I get lost when I have to figure out how to take a sentence like "there's no science to support point XYZ" and figure out how to make use of that information. In most cases, especially with things like IF, I assume that any claims made in main stream media are highly overstated. But I also believe that where there's smoke there's fire. So it becomes an issue of perceived effort vs perceived benefit. And it's at that point that things become very personal/individual. But everyone just wants to oversimplify things and speak in general, black and white terms saying that there is zero benefit aside from preference/adherence.
It wasn't long ago that the forums spoke that way about nutrient timing (very black and white, virtually no context). Only recently have we started saying that the benefits are relatively small, far outweighed by other factors, and probably only significant to people already pretty lean/accomplished... or with specific athletic/endurance goals.
The question I have for you is where do you draw the line? There are thousands of supplements and dozens of added-bonus diets and jump-starters like cleanses and detoxes. (I am guessing, I don't know the actual counts). Isn't it better to be skeptical until there is proof instead of relying on something that is fake? In the case of IF, which for me is probably one of the more absurd (personal bias admitted), there is nothing wrong with doing it if you can handle it and you understand that it still requires a deficit. Of course if you think it is a miracle cure for something else and you stop taking medicine that you need then it becomes potentially dangerous.
I am not accusing you of this but the "smoke and fire" mindset can be used on big foot too. I guess there is no harm in believing he/she/they exist but if you abandon your job and family to live in the woods there is a problem.
4 -
@kds10Maybe I am incorrect, but to me I think there is something to it when you exercise after not eating for a certain amount of hours that puts you in a higher fat burning zone, how could it not...when I exercise in the morning after not intaking any food in my stomach for the past 14 plus hours, how am I able to find the energy to get thru the workout? I will do half hour of kickboxing, plus a 4 km walk all before I eat..where is the energy coming from???
This is nothing new, I remember reading a book called Body for LIfe about 15 years ago and this was mentioned.
You fuel your exercise from your glycogen and fat reserves.
Very little of your exercise fuel is coming direct from food just eaten unless you are glugging glucose drinks or gels.
Your body may have up to 2000 cals of glycogen stored in your liver and muscles which isn't depleted just from 16 hours of not eating.
It's predominately your exercise intensity that determines the ratio of fat and glycogen used - not whether you are fed or fasted.
2 -
When you google about exercising on an empty stomach vs not...you see about 50/50 pros and cons..whatever! I think for me because I have lost 15 lbs in two months doing this I am just going to continue it.
I keep thinking too back about 15 years ago I never weighed as much as I did now and espeically two years ago (just about 30 lbs more than I am today) and back then I never did fasting but always worked out in the a.m. prior to eating.6 -
OK, so I guess this is the point where I'm not smart enough to stay in this thread. I get lost when I have to figure out how to take a sentence like "there's no science to support point XYZ" and figure out how to make use of that information. In most cases, especially with things like IF, I assume that any claims made in main stream media are highly overstated. But I also believe that where there's smoke there's fire. So it becomes an issue of perceived effort vs perceived benefit. And it's at that point that things become very personal/individual. But everyone just wants to oversimplify things and speak in general, black and white terms saying that there is zero benefit aside from preference/adherence.
It wasn't long ago that the forums spoke that way about nutrient timing (very black and white, virtually no context). Only recently have we started saying that the benefits are relatively small, far outweighed by other factors, and probably only significant to people already pretty lean/accomplished... or with specific athletic/endurance goals.
The question I have for you is where do you draw the line? There are thousands of supplements and dozens of added-bonus diets and jump-starters like cleanses and detoxes. (I am guessing, I don't know the actual counts). Isn't it better to be skeptical until there is proof instead of relying on something that is fake? In the case of IF, which for me is probably one of the more absurd (personal bias admitted), there is nothing wrong with doing it if you can handle it and you understand that it still requires a deficit. Of course if you think it is a miracle cure for something else and you stop taking medicine that you need then it becomes potentially dangerous.
I am not accusing you of this but the "smoke and fire" mindset can be used on big foot too. I guess there is no harm in believing he/she/they exist but if you abandon your job and family to live in the woods there is a problem.
Personally, I consider the source and the argument that source is making. If the source is one that I believe to be trustworthy (admittedly, I read virtually zero studies/abstracts), and if they make an argument that jives with what I think I know, then I'm more apt to give credence to what they are saying. If not, then I probably won't.
As for your bigfoot example... that's exactly my point. With no compelling evidence, there is a chasm of possibilities between "can't possibly exist" and "go live in the woods hoping they'll take you in as one of their own". Same with IF and similar. There's a lot of gray area between it does nothing and it's a miracle that defies the basics of energy balance.2 -
Here are two varying points of view:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/exercising-empty-stomach-secret-weight-loss/
https://healthyliving.azcentral.com/better-exercise-empty-stomach-8900.html
I find in the second article where they state that not eating before exercising might make you feel sluggish for me it is the opposite, I feel more energized on an empty stomach but whatever works...
3 -
When you google about exercising on an empty stomach vs not...you see about 50/50 pros and cons..whatever! I think for me because I have lost 15 lbs in two months doing this I am just going to continue it.
I keep thinking too back about 15 years ago I never weighed as much as I did now and espeically two years ago (just about 30 lbs more than I am today) and back then I never did fasting but always worked out in the a.m. prior to eating.
I mean, if you Google just about anything you're going to see pros and cons. Google will link you to pages telling you that apple cider vinegar is the key to weight loss and that Beyonce is a key Illumanati leader.
If you like exercising on an empty stomach, you should continue to do so. But it's the *exercise* that is doing the trick here, not the empty stomach.8
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.7K 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
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions