What about intermittent fasting

Bigfla wrote: »

So you haven't read Dr Fung's books then? You might learn something if you did!

Also, he's a consultant nephrologist with a clinic in a poorer part of Toronto. He has seen thousands of patients over the years that he can probably divide into 2 categories. There are those who take his IF/LCHF advice and survive, and those who don't or can't and die early as a result, except that in the process lose their sight, suffer appalling rashes and undergo amputations among other horrors.

Along with obesity and type II diabetes, kidney disease is one of those categorised as metabolic syndrome. So before any weight loss program becomes meaningful, you have to understand its ability to counter metabolic syndrome. Obesity is a symptom, it is not a disease in its own right - that is Dr Fung's principal point. As I said before; since there are no analogues in the human body that detect and control calorie intake, CICO as a control method is irrelevant where control of diseases within metabolic syndrome is concerned.

As for proof that CICO doesn't work in the long-term for nearly everybody, look around you. There are two reasons that 2/3 of the people you see are overweight. The first is the travesty of the 1980s American Nutritional Guidelines. The second is that nearly all of them know CICO doesn't work because it is extremely likely most of them have tried it at some time or other and been disappointed. We're all bombarded with it, Weight Watchers, Jenny Craig, those ridiculous diet shake things and all the rest to include the CICO based "advice" from MFP!

If you don't believe the second reason is true, ask yourself why the diet food companies are still in business and thriving.

OK, mate, that's me done, I'm out. I wish you well.

To the bolded, that IS his point, and the point is most certainly up for debate. It is very easy to make the argument that obesity is the disease, not a symptom. There are tons of people right here on MFP who lost weight without changing the composition or schedule of their diet and saw many of the symptoms of metabolic syndrome disappear. There are traditional cultures all over the world eating a high carb diet (veggies, fruits, grains, beans, wine, etc) on a traditional schedule who do not struggle with obesity and do not exhibit any of the metabolic syndrome diseases.

The problem with arguing that the old guidelines didn't work is that most people never actually followed the old guidelines. WW, Jenny Craig , diet shakes aren't "CICO", they are diet plans that try to force people to eat in a way they don't want to. They fail because people don't stick to them.

I would also argue that I know a lot of people who lost weight back in the day with WW and kept it off, because it taught them to stop and look at what they were eating and determine if it was worth the "points", so they learned what foods filled them up and what foods didn't and now eat with purpose. The problem with WW is they keep changing the rules to get more customers and often put out a plan that makes no sense in the process.

If you do a quick search of the forums, you'll find many of us have read Dr. Fung's work and that we have been debating it for years. You are not the first person to bring him up, and basing your argument on the fact that we aren't familiar with him isn't strong ground to start on.

*

To the OP: I did IF for about 2 years, I realized I wasn't hungry in the AM so I kind of accidentally ended up doing 16:8. It was a great way to control my appetite and avoid "opening the flood gates" of thinking about food until later in the day. But a few months ago, I started waking up really hungry, and after trying to power through it for a few weeks decided to go back to eating a little something in the morning. If I get to the point again where I'm not hungry in the morning I'd happily go back to it. But other than appetite/hunger signals I didn't personally find any additional benefits, like calorie needs, energy, that sort of thing. Sorry your thread turned into an argument. I hope it keeps working well for you!

Bigfla wrote: »

Thanks, ccdragon, lemurcat and snickerscharlie.

Sorry, but I get very tired of your kind of feedback and the arrogant assumption that you're an expert and I'm an idiot. I have been fighting overweight for more than 50 years. I assure you, as night follows day, that CICO doesn't work having suffered its disappointments many times.

Come on, guys, you can do better than come up with charts like that one above. You can't really believe any physiological process is as simple as that, can you, really?? The thought that has bothered me for a very long time is that if the CICO theory is right, why does it always fail in the long term?


Finally, I'd ask you to refrain from contributing to this thread until you are better informed. Thanks.

I'd consider myself pretty knowledgeable on the subject, being one of the few who've figured out how to maintain my weight loss for the long term so I'll chime in-ccdragon, lemurcat and snickerscharlie (and cwolfman) are absolutely correct. And I say this as someone who did IF for years.

It's a tool that's useful for some people, to help them keep their calories in check. But it doesn't do anything magical besides that. I have years of blood work panels and health exams, (I get complete workups/exams twice a year)-some with IF and some without. There is no significant differences in any of my markers between my IF days and my non-IF times. What has made a difference though has been my weight loss. That normalized my pre-diabetic glucose number. That improved my cholesterol numbers etc.

IF was a tool that helped me achieve CICO a little bit easier, but I eventually got bored with it and stopped using it. Nothing has changed without it though, I've just shifted my calories around to different meal times. I'm still in excellent health and I'm still at a healthy BMI. My last blood work panel, done without IF being a factor, was great. As were my other health markers (waist ratio, blood pressure etc).