Intermittent Fasting

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

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/

sunfastrose wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

I guess I should point out that Calorie Reduction is, in fact, a part of a successful IF regimen. What I’m arguing, is that the idea of Calorie Reduction As Primary... is exactly what its acronym spells out.
Simply reducing calories in (and/or increasing calories out) only works in the short term. We don’t have a weight loss problem in this country, we have a weight re-gain problem. If you don’t address the hormonal aspect of obesity, you won’t be able to fix the problem long-term.

Standard, non-IF eating patterns worked for my 9 months of weight loss and 17 years (so far) of maintenance. Exactly when will it fail?

Nobody is claiming that IF is the only game in town. Just that it's better and easier. lol.

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

snickerscharlie wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

mmapags 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/

Calories were matched? Not according to the last two sentences of the study itself:

Another limitation of the present study is that the energy and macronutrient composition of the diet was based on interview, and this approach has known weaknesses. Because of the limitations of this method, it is possible that differences in energy or nutrient intake between groups could have existed and played a role in the observed outcomes.

jemhh wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

snickerscharlie wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

mmapags 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/

Calories were matched? Not according to the last two sentences of the study itself:

Another limitation of the present study is that the energy and macronutrient composition of the diet was based on interview, and this approach has known weaknesses. Because of the limitations of this method, it is possible that differences in energy or nutrient intake between groups could have existed and played a role in the observed outcomes.

I’m reasonably sure that the last two sentences say that it’s possible that there could have been differences, and not that calories were not matched.
But you’re right, it’s definitely a limitation of that particular study and more studies need to be (and are being!) done.
That being said, assuming that the normal diet group of athletes wasn’t over-eating and then lying about it, and that the IF group of athletes who hadn’t eaten all day weren’t under-eating and then lying about it... some pretty interesting results, no?

well I have done IF for more than 3 decades. even before I knew what it was called. Im just not a breakfast person. most of the time its 16:8 sometimes its 18:6. I lost no more weight eating the same amount of calories than when I wasnt fasting. I saw no differences in health ,inflammation and so on,no matter if I was fasting or not. I gained weight doing IF ,I lost weight and Im now maintaining for the winter months.I also did keto which for me did not work and again fat loss and weight loss wasnt any faster doing keto and IF together either.

I was told to eat breakfast as it would help me to lose weight and boost my metabolism. NOPE didnt work either it just made me more hungry . same thing happens if I dont get enough sleep. Ive had health issues all my life and have done IF since I can remember. never ate breakfast before school,would eat lunch,come home not snack maybe have a piece of fruit it I were lucky and ate a decent sized dinner. I maintained my weight clear up until I hit my almost mid 30s. I then became more sedentary and ate more. IF didnt help me then I still gained weight.It still comes down to calories plain and simple even with IF.

I also have no inuslin issues, no diabetes,no high blood pressure,etc.I have other health issues though and fasting didnt make any difference on any of those and some claims made about IF says it may, for me its a no

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

I guess I should point out that Calorie Reduction is, in fact, a part of a successful IF regimen. What I’m arguing, is that the idea of Calorie Reduction As Primary... is exactly what its acronym spells out.
Simply reducing calories in (and/or increasing calories out) only works in the short term. We don’t have a weight loss problem in this country, we have a weight re-gain problem. If you don’t address the hormonal aspect of obesity, you won’t be able to fix the problem long-term.

If simply managing calories so that you eat less than you burn only works short term, what produces the energy that causes weight gain long term?

And what is the mechanism by which hormones in and of themselves lead to obesity?

Without getting too complicated:
Eating (which for this conversation will be shorthand for “putting something in your mouth that isn’t water/black coffee/tea”) raises insulin up from your personal baseline.
When insulin is up, its job is to store energy. First it refills your glucose (short term storage), and whatever is leftover goes to your fat cells (long term storage). If your fat cells are all too full, new fat cells will be made for extra storage room.
While insulin is raised above your personal baseline, your body can’t effectively access your storage. When insulin is baselined, your body ‘can’ effectively access your storage.
The amount of storage you have built up will largely determine what your personal baseline of insulin is. More storage, higher baseline. Your insulin baseline can also be thought of as the body’s control mechanism for its weight set point, which it will defend vigorously.
So, “eating” often keeps insulin above its baseline. It tells your body to store the incoming energy, without giving your body a chance to access the energy it has already stored. Any energy out, by design of your non-baselined insulin, will largely be provided by the energy you just recently “ate”, as opposed to the energy you’ve been storing.
You tell your body to store energy every time you eat, if you eat often throughout the day that means you’re storing and not pulling from your storage, and over time you need more and more room to store your energy.

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

I guess I should point out that Calorie Reduction is, in fact, a part of a successful IF regimen. What I’m arguing, is that the idea of Calorie Reduction As Primary... is exactly what its acronym spells out.
Simply reducing calories in (and/or increasing calories out) only works in the short term. We don’t have a weight loss problem in this country, we have a weight re-gain problem. If you don’t address the hormonal aspect of obesity, you won’t be able to fix the problem long-term.

If simply managing calories so that you eat less than you burn only works short term, what produces the energy that causes weight gain long term?

And what is the mechanism by which hormones in and of themselves lead to obesity?

Without getting too complicated:
Eating (which for this conversation will be shorthand for “putting something in your mouth that isn’t water/black coffee/tea”) raises insulin up from your personal baseline.
When insulin is up, its job is to store energy. First it refills your glucose (short term storage), and whatever is leftover goes to your fat cells (long term storage). If your fat cells are all too full, new fat cells will be made for extra storage room.
While insulin is raised above your personal baseline, your body can’t effectively access your storage. When insulin is baselined, your body ‘can’ effectively access your storage.
The amount of storage you have built up will largely determine what your personal baseline of insulin is. More storage, higher baseline. Your insulin baseline can also be thought of as the body’s control mechanism for its weight set point, which it will defend vigorously.
So, “eating” often keeps insulin above its baseline. It tells your body to store the incoming energy, without giving your body a chance to access the energy it has already stored. Any energy out, by design of your non-baselined insulin, will largely be provided by the energy you just recently “ate”, as opposed to the energy you’ve been storing.
You tell your body to store energy every time you eat, if you eat often throughout the day that means you’re storing and not pulling from your storage, and over time you need more and more room to store your energy.

You failed to describe how insulin acted independent of energy balance.

Furthermore,


https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

I guess I should point out that Calorie Reduction is, in fact, a part of a successful IF regimen. What I’m arguing, is that the idea of Calorie Reduction As Primary... is exactly what its acronym spells out.
Simply reducing calories in (and/or increasing calories out) only works in the short term. We don’t have a weight loss problem in this country, we have a weight re-gain problem. If you don’t address the hormonal aspect of obesity, you won’t be able to fix the problem long-term.

If simply managing calories so that you eat less than you burn only works short term, what produces the energy that causes weight gain long term?

And what is the mechanism by which hormones in and of themselves lead to obesity?

Without getting too complicated:
Eating (which for this conversation will be shorthand for “putting something in your mouth that isn’t water/black coffee/tea”) raises insulin up from your personal baseline.
When insulin is up, its job is to store energy. First it refills your glucose (short term storage), and whatever is leftover goes to your fat cells (long term storage). If your fat cells are all too full, new fat cells will be made for extra storage room.
While insulin is raised above your personal baseline, your body can’t effectively access your storage. When insulin is baselined, your body ‘can’ effectively access your storage.
The amount of storage you have built up will largely determine what your personal baseline of insulin is. More storage, higher baseline. Your insulin baseline can also be thought of as the body’s control mechanism for its weight set point, which it will defend vigorously.
So, “eating” often keeps insulin above its baseline. It tells your body to store the incoming energy, without giving your body a chance to access the energy it has already stored. Any energy out, by design of your non-baselined insulin, will largely be provided by the energy you just recently “ate”, as opposed to the energy you’ve been storing.
You tell your body to store energy every time you eat, if you eat often throughout the day that means you’re storing and not pulling from your storage, and over time you need more and more room to store your energy.

What exactly is your medical background? Or can you point us to resources that led you to adopt this particular understanding of how the endocrine system works?

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Monk_E_Boy wrote: »

I guess I should point out that Calorie Reduction is, in fact, a part of a successful IF regimen. What I’m arguing, is that the idea of Calorie Reduction As Primary... is exactly what its acronym spells out.
Simply reducing calories in (and/or increasing calories out) only works in the short term. We don’t have a weight loss problem in this country, we have a weight re-gain problem. If you don’t address the hormonal aspect of obesity, you won’t be able to fix the problem long-term.

If simply managing calories so that you eat less than you burn only works short term, what produces the energy that causes weight gain long term?

And what is the mechanism by which hormones in and of themselves lead to obesity?

Without getting too complicated:
Eating (which for this conversation will be shorthand for “putting something in your mouth that isn’t water/black coffee/tea”) raises insulin up from your personal baseline.
When insulin is up, its job is to store energy. First it refills your glucose (short term storage), and whatever is leftover goes to your fat cells (long term storage). If your fat cells are all too full, new fat cells will be made for extra storage room.
While insulin is raised above your personal baseline, your body can’t effectively access your storage. When insulin is baselined, your body ‘can’ effectively access your storage.
The amount of storage you have built up will largely determine what your personal baseline of insulin is. More storage, higher baseline. Your insulin baseline can also be thought of as the body’s control mechanism for its weight set point, which it will defend vigorously.
So, “eating” often keeps insulin above its baseline. It tells your body to store the incoming energy, without giving your body a chance to access the energy it has already stored. Any energy out, by design of your non-baselined insulin, will largely be provided by the energy you just recently “ate”, as opposed to the energy you’ve been storing.
You tell your body to store energy every time you eat, if you eat often throughout the day that means you’re storing and not pulling from your storage, and over time you need more and more room to store your energy.

You failed to describe how insulin acted independent of energy balance.

Furthermore,


https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

Cute meme.
Calories in versus calories out (or “energy balance”) is based entirely on a one compartment theory. That all the calories we eat go into one compartment, and that when we expend energy, we pull it out of that same compartment. The only problem with that theory, is that it’s wrong.
Calories go in and get sent to different places, one of which is easy to get energy back out of, and one of them isn’t (unless your insulin is at baseline).
No one is “creating or destroying matter”, all the calories are accounted for. You just can’t access a portion of them for fuel if your insulin isn’t baselined.
And that, the act of storing energy as fat combined with not allowing access to said stored energy when above baseline, is how insulin affects obesity independently from energy balance.