Intermittent Fasting
Options
Replies
-
lowcarbmale wrote: »Monk_E_Boy wrote: »I’ve been doing IF (specifically One Meal A Day) for just shy of 4 months now. I’ve lost a little over 50 pounds so far, although I still have plenty to go.
There is a TON of science behind why IF is so much more than simply a tool to help easily maintain a calorie deficit, although it definitely does that too.
It’s all about baselining your insulin levels for extended periods of time to auto target your energy stores, and slowly adjust your body’s weight set point. It resolves insulin resistance, gives you more consistent energy throughout the day, makes workouts more effective (both in intensity level increases from higher levels of adrenaline, and in the fact that if you’re fasted, all the energy you’re using to do the workout is being pulled from your storage), and a slew of other benefits.
Personally, I’ve been loving every minute of it.
Good luck in your journey!
Please feel free to share any of the science in the form of studies on humans that you feel prove this point. Honestly, I think you may find it a challenge to find any.
The rest of your assertions are pretty much nonsense. It can help improve insulin sensitivity. It does nothing for improving workouts and energy substrate during workouts is immaterial. Fat loss is a factor of overall energy balance. Your post reads like you've read too many blogs and not enough evidence.
This was published in NATURE in 2018
Title: Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men
Quote:
(ER = Energy restriction)Greater weight and fat loss was achieved with intermittent ER.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2017206
While this does not apply directly to daily IF, it shows that there is a significant difference between just continously reducing calories to a low amount or to mix it up a little bit (the second works better). IF does that on a daily basis.
I wonder if you actually read the article. It does not cover intermittent fasting in any way. It references intermittent energy restriction where participants were put on a 7 week at energy restriction, 2 week at maintenance calories cycle compared to the control group that was on continuous energy restriction. So, not intermittent fasting. Intermittent calorie restriction.
That the group that had breaks from energy restriction did better is no surprise. There is a sticky post here all about diet breaks and their benefits including proof data.
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10604863/of-refeeds-and-diet-breaks/p1
14 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »Monk_E_Boy wrote: »I’ve been doing IF (specifically One Meal A Day) for just shy of 4 months now. I’ve lost a little over 50 pounds so far, although I still have plenty to go.
There is a TON of science behind why IF is so much more than simply a tool to help easily maintain a calorie deficit, although it definitely does that too.
It’s all about baselining your insulin levels for extended periods of time to auto target your energy stores, and slowly adjust your body’s weight set point. It resolves insulin resistance, gives you more consistent energy throughout the day, makes workouts more effective (both in intensity level increases from higher levels of adrenaline, and in the fact that if you’re fasted, all the energy you’re using to do the workout is being pulled from your storage), and a slew of other benefits.
Personally, I’ve been loving every minute of it.
Good luck in your journey!
Please feel free to share any of the science in the form of studies on humans that you feel prove this point. Honestly, I think you may find it a challenge to find any.
The rest of your assertions are pretty much nonsense. It can help improve insulin sensitivity. It does nothing for improving workouts and energy substrate during workouts is immaterial. Fat loss is a factor of overall energy balance. Your post reads like you've read too many blogs and not enough evidence.
This was published in the International Journal of Obesity in 2018
This is one of the most prestigious journals on this topic in the world.
Title: Intermittent energy restriction improves weight loss efficiency in obese men
Quote:
(ER = Energy restriction)Greater weight and fat loss was achieved with intermittent ER.
Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/ijo2017206
While this study does not apply directly to daily IF, it shows that there is a significant difference between just continously reducing calories to a low amount or mixing it up a little bit with strict fasting and maintenance phases.
Right, the study does not apply to daily IF. Why use it to support IF?The intermittent approach in the present study differs fundamentally from intermittent fasting. In intermittent fasting paradigms, weight loss occurs over time if energy intake during ad libitum feeding periods is not sufficient to compensate for the substantially reduced energy intake on ‘fasting’ days.45 In contrast, energy intake was prescribed in both the ER and energy balance blocks in the present study, to create distinct periods of weight loss and maintenance. Given that this is the first application of an intermittent model using 2:2-week blocks of ER and energy balance, direct comparisons with other studies are not possible.
IF is an eating schedule. If you like it, do it. People have skipped breakfast and/or lunch for ages. It's not a new concept, just new marketing.13 -
Monk_E_Boy wrote: »I’ve been doing IF (specifically One Meal A Day) for just shy of 4 months now. I’ve lost a little over 50 pounds so far, although I still have plenty to go.
There is a TON of science behind why IF is so much more than simply a tool to help easily maintain a calorie deficit, although it definitely does that too.
It’s all about baselining your insulin levels for extended periods of time to auto target your energy stores, and slowly adjust your body’s weight set point. It resolves insulin resistance, gives you more consistent energy throughout the day, makes workouts more effective (both in intensity level increases from higher levels of adrenaline, and in the fact that if you’re fasted, all the energy you’re using to do the workout is being pulled from your storage), and a slew of other benefits.
Personally, I’ve been loving every minute of it.
Good luck in your journey!
Please feel free to share any of the science in the form of studies on humans that you feel prove this point. Honestly, I think you may find it a challenge to find any.
The rest of your assertions are pretty much nonsense. It can help improve insulin sensitivity. It does nothing for improving workouts and energy substrate during workouts is immaterial. Fat loss is a factor of overall energy balance. Your post reads like you've read too many blogs and not enough evidence.
Here are two to get you started, let me know if you want more.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/2 -
Please feel free to share any of the science in the form of studies on humans that you feel prove this point. Honestly, I think you may find it a challenge to find any.
Another one for you
Published in the Journal Obesity in 2017
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.22065Emerging findings suggest that the metabolic switch from glucose to fatty acid‐derived ketones represents an evolutionarily conserved trigger point that shifts metabolism from lipid/cholesterol synthesis and fat storage to mobilization of fat through fatty acid oxidation and fatty acid‐derived ketones, which serve to preserve muscle mass and function. Thus, IF regimens that induce the metabolic switch have the potential to improve body composition in overweight individuals. [...]
Haters gonna hate.
10 -
Try it. What’s the worst that could happen?2
-
By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags15 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags
Well the burden of proof is on those making the claims of benefit but, I'll play.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
11 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags
Well the burden of proof is on those making the claims of benefit but, I'll play.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
This. It's up to those making the claim to prove it, not in the reverse.
Edited to add: Say, for example, you were to make a claim that a new planet - complete with humanoid life - has been discovered in our solar system. By your standard of proof, unless I could prove you wrong, that planet and its population exists merely because you say so?
12 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags
Well the burden of proof is on those making the claims of benefit but, I'll play.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
Ignoring the animal studies (because you said you wanted human ones), and any and all “modified fasting” scenarios (because that’s not what we’re talking about here), it seems like the study you provided is fairly clear on its opinion of IF:
“It appears that almost any intermittent fasting regimen can result in some weight loss. Among the 13 intervention trials included in this review, 11 (84.6%) reported statistically significant weight loss ranging from 1.3% in a cross-over trial with a 2 week intervention23 to 8.0% in a 1-arm trial of 8 weeks duration.13”4 -
Monk_E_Boy wrote: »lowcarbmale wrote: »By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags
Well the burden of proof is on those making the claims of benefit but, I'll play.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
Ignoring the animal studies (because you said you wanted human ones), and any and all “modified fasting” scenarios (because that’s not what we’re talking about here), it seems like the study you provided is fairly clear on its opinion of IF:
“It appears that almost any intermittent fasting regimen can result in some weight loss. Among the 13 intervention trials included in this review, 11 (84.6%) reported statistically significant weight loss ranging from 1.3% in a cross-over trial with a 2 week intervention23 to 8.0% in a 1-arm trial of 8 weeks duration.13”
Notice the key word 'can' in the bolded above.
And no one argues that IF can result in weight loss for some people. For those in which this does occur, it happens solely because they were in a caloric deficit during that time. IF works *exactly* the same way as any other method that restricts caloric intake. There's no magic, no additional benefits that can be shown.
PS: I've been doing IF for decades. Long before it had a name and became trendy.
14 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags
Well the burden of proof is on those making the claims of benefit but, I'll play.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
Thank you. Appreciate it.In two of these studies, there was significantly reduced insulin concentrationsThe most recent of these reviews (2014) found that intermittent fasting regimens demonstrated 3–8% reductions in body weight after 3–24 weeks in comparison to energy restriction, which demonstrated 4–14% reductions in weight after 6–24 weeks.Results from these intervention trials of modified fasting regimens suggest that these eating patterns result in weight loss, with modest and mixed effects on glucoregulatory markers, lipids and inflammatory markers.Another cross-over study compared the effect of consuming one afternoon meal per day for 8 weeks and reported 4.1% weight loss in comparison to an isocaloric diet consumed as three meals per day
I mean... are you sure you want to use that study against intermittent fasting?
This is great. You guys are posting some studies I haven't read before. Everybody learns. Everybody wins.1 -
nice!"snickerscharlie wrote:PS: I've been doing IF for decades. Long before it had a name and became trendy.
Now THAT is a bold claim after all the quotes we just posted.snickerscharlie wrote: »IF works *exactly* the same way as any other method that restricts caloric intake.9 -
You completely misunderstood the MATADOR study. That proved that taking diet breaks (eating at maintenance) improved weight loss. It said nothing about fasting.14
-
That's what I say in my post. read it again.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You completely misunderstood the MATADOR study. That proved that taking diet breaks (eating at maintenance) improved weight loss. It said nothing about fasting.While this study does not apply directly to daily IF, it shows that there is a significant difference between just continously reducing calories to a low amount or mixing it up a little bit with strict fasting and maintenance phases.3 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »
That's what I say in my post. read it again.GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »You completely misunderstood the MATADOR study. That proved that taking diet breaks (eating at maintenance) improved weight loss. It said nothing about fasting.While this study does not apply directly to daily IF, it shows that there is a significant difference between just continously reducing calories to a low amount or mixing it up a little bit with strict fasting and maintenance phases.
What's that bit about strict fasting in there for? The MATADOR study doesn't mention it.8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's that bit about strict fasting in there for? The MATADOR study doesn't mention it.
The methology is explained in the paper. Losing more than 1 kg / week is pretty strict.4 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »What's that bit about strict fasting in there for? The MATADOR study doesn't mention it.
The methology is explained in the paper. Losing more than 1 kg / week is pretty strict.
Yes, I read the paper. There's nothing in the methodology mentioning fasting.10 -
When they talk about INT it means intermittent energy restriction. They continue to sayThe term ‘intermittent energy restriction’ has become almost synonymous with the term ‘intermittent fasting’During ER, energy intake was equivalent to 67% of weight maintenance requirements in both groups. Body weight, fat mass (FM), fat-free mass (FFM) and resting energy expenditure (REE) were measured throughout the study.
aaaand I'm out of this thread.12 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »Monk_E_Boy wrote: »lowcarbmale wrote: »By the way: I believe the burden of proof to show that intermittent fasting does have the same effect as continuous eating lays on your side, not ours.
The most logic thing to assume is that when you do things differently you can't expect to get the same results.
Therefore I would really be interested in studies that investigate this topic on humans and come to the conclusion that intermittent fasting (16/4, 20/4, 23/1, alternate day fasting etc.) do not create metabolic changes in human beings.
@mmapags
Well the burden of proof is on those making the claims of benefit but, I'll play.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/
Ignoring the animal studies (because you said you wanted human ones), and any and all “modified fasting” scenarios (because that’s not what we’re talking about here), it seems like the study you provided is fairly clear on its opinion of IF:
“It appears that almost any intermittent fasting regimen can result in some weight loss. Among the 13 intervention trials included in this review, 11 (84.6%) reported statistically significant weight loss ranging from 1.3% in a cross-over trial with a 2 week intervention23 to 8.0% in a 1-arm trial of 8 weeks duration.13”
Notice the key word 'can' in the bolded above.
And no one argues that IF can result in weight loss for some people. For those in which this does occur, it happens solely because they were in a caloric deficit during that time. IF works *exactly* the same way as any other method that restricts caloric intake. There's no magic, no additional benefits that can be shown.
PS: I've been doing IF for decades. Long before it had a name and became trendy.
If intermittent fasting works for fat loss solely because it restricts calories, can you please explain to me the results of this study that matched calories between the two groups? I must be missing something...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/
6 -
No. The intermittent energy restriction is vs. continuous energy restriction. It means that they are taking diet breaks.
Read the actual paper and see what they did with the test subjects instead of trying to make it be about what you want it to be about.
You should have read further from the part you quoted. It went on to say this:The intermittent approach in the present study differs
fundamentally from intermittent fasting.13
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 399 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 978 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions