Intermittent Fasting
Replies
-
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 -
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.21 -
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/
9 -
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?7 -
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.19 -
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?
First, congratulations!!
Second, you’ve obviously found a pattern of eating/not-eating, combined with ‘what’ you’re eating, that has successfully kept your cells insulin sensitive! That’s fantastic!
For anyone struggling to achieve what you have, I would recommend IF. It’s a very straightforward way to reach the same goal.18 -
Monk_E_Boy wrote: »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/
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.
12 -
Monk_E_Boy wrote: »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/
While that is a really interesting study, the two things that struck me were that it was done on already trained athletes and the calorie intake was self-reported and not controlled.
Still interesting though.6 -
Monk_E_Boy wrote: »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/
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?7 -
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?12 -
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 no12 -
Monk_E_Boy wrote: »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/
While that is a really interesting study, the two things that struck me were that it was done on already trained athletes and the calorie intake was self-reported and not controlled.
Still interesting though.
I think so too!
Here’s a different one where the eating was more controlled.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/4 -
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.
17 -
This content has been removed.
-
modusoperandi1412 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.
I just had to create an account because of the things you've been saying in this thread.
Directly after eating, yes, the energy your body uses for a large part comes from exactly what you've eaten.
Which is exactly why a calorie deficit works. By eating less energy total over a day than your body needs that day you force it to use the stores. It's simple subtraction. And for that it is completely irrelevant when and how often you eat.
Is that to say that a calorie is just a calorie? That 100 calories of candy is the same as 100 calories of broccoli, as far as your simple subtraction is concerned?
Science disagrees.16 -
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/12 -
Well two perfectly logical explanations exist:
1. The body's hormones are capable of creating or destroying matter and energy at the whim of the intermittent fasting participant.
2. Some people in the study's sample were insulin resistant, and the reduction in insulin caused a reduction in their appetite, and subsequently a reduction in caloric intake that was not captured by the study.
If I were a gambling man, which I am, I would lay my money on number 2.
Also, those of us who are insulin resistant, 100 cals of candy will have different effects on our appetite (and balance, and heart rate, and the jack - hammer that it can trigger inside of our crania) than 100 cals of broccoli, but those differences do not include a greater metabolic advantage in terms of the energy derived from eating one vs. the other.14 -
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?9 -
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?
It's not in any of the physiology books I've studied.
We need to vote in an official Fungicide Carrier.9 -
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.20 -
@Monk_E_Boy They will never agree to what you are saying. That would mean that they would have to change their own behavior which they don't want to do. Sadly, arguing with reason, facts or research based knowledge won't change that.17
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
- 175.9K 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
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions