Intermittent fasting

lukejoycePT wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

pierinifitness wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

pierinifitness wrote: »

Those of us who practice IF and don’t have eating disorders such as binging never gain weight practicing IF and know at a personal level the benefits received that others can do nothing other than scratch their head in doubt because they haven’t experienced the same.

I’ve never gained weight practicing IF (disregarding normal fluctuations day.)

You're lucky man, I fast 16 hours a day and yet i can gain 2lbs over a weekend if i allow myself to fall off the wagon. We are talking over 3000 calories here though haha.

I would suggest that "falling off the wagon" is a low-level eating disorder. This might generate some "hate mail" responses so let me define an eating disorder (albeit a low-level one) as eating more or less than necessary given your healthy goals. With that definition, I've had low-level eating disorders in my past and I gained weight.

I don't buy the cheat meal mentality preferring instead to use the treat meal moniker and then only in the context of a weekly timeline rather than a single day. So, a big calorie day needs to be evaluated, in my world, in the context of my feeding week.

Can't see comments from people I've blocked so if my response does not consider these comments.

This is all my way of thinking applicable to how I fuel my body currently and how I'm maintaining while continuing being an IF practitioner even in maintenance land, for 97 of 104 days, since I arrived in maintenance land on February 20th.

There's no turning back for me, easier to maintain that chisel it off at my age.

I would think making up your own alternate definitions of clinically defined words makes communication a bit difficult, no?

lukejoycePT wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I don't understand the claim that it's impossible to gain doing IF if you don't have a bingeing disorder.

Because IF is magik and if the magik doesn't work on you then there must be something seriously wrong with you.

IF isn’t magic, nobody says it is. But it has many amazing benefits but because it doesn’t suit your lifestyle you refuse to entertain the idea that it works. Which is fine, but I suggest you do some actual research on up to date peer reviewed studies.

Some of the folks you are lecturing have been doing IF for some time

The research into issues like autophagy and telomeres is in its very early stages so is theoretical. Studies that even hint at causality are animal studies and therefore not something to bank on just yet. That some doctors have decided to increase their fame and profitability by doubling down on a new field (that hasn't been proven or disproved yet) doesn't automatically make a theory a fact. If someone enjoys eating in an IF schedule and hopes they will also profit from these theoretical benefits, that's awesome. But saying the benefits are proven is not only inaccurate, it could lead people who struggle using an IF schedule to stick with it anyway, possibly stay overweight due to that struggle, and end up negating any theoretical benefits by remaining overweight (which is a proven health risk )

I agree with most of what you are saying. I myself have been fasting for years, It’s a part of my job to research this stuff and the link I posted shows proven results on non animal tests. SOME of these studies have been proven. Those who do IF know what it does because you can literally feel it. Especially those with Tummy trouble like myself and a number of my clients.

I’m not saying it’s this magic pill. I am staying that it has proven positive benefits.

I did 16:8 for around 2 years. Didn't feel anything. Except happy that I had more calories for right after dinner by skipping breakfast.

I've also done lots of research on it. I've seen human studies that certain venues claimed were "proof" but have always found them lacking myself.

And if some studies show Thing A has a benefit, and other studies show no evidence of that benefit, then Thing A is not "proven" to be beneficial. It's still being studied. Sometimes studies seem to prove something, but if other studies fail to replicate it, it's not proven, it's still theoretical. That's not to say that interested parties can't decide to bank on one side of the debate eventually panning out, but TBH you can find a handful of studies that conclude pretty much anything. It's a preponderance of peer-reviewed conclusions over a long period of time that proves something.

I mean, I suspect we're dealing with semantics and definitions here. If you said you'd seen some promising research and are seeing results in your clients so you recommend it to everyone, I think that makes sense. But I'm sorry, saying it's proven to have health benefits is factually incorrect, as per the scientific method. The diet and fitness industries have unfortunately warped understanding of how the scientific method works.

Regardless, it's an awesome tool for some people to get their eating under control. And hopefully OP has gotten something out of the debate this has turned into!

From the studies I have read recently and the fact that Rhonda Patrick is an advocate of IF, for the reasons I have stated. I trust her judgement as a DR and scientist. I honestly believe that IF has some real heal benefits beyond fat loss. Studies are one thing but results are another and I have seen them.

I don’t think it works for everyone and some people would hate it. But I stand by my posts on it.

My first instinct is to again argue the word "proven" but I'd even be annoying myself at this point

Can I ask what results outside of weight loss you've seen, that you are qualified to recognize? What health benefits do you see in your clients that can't be attributed to the weight loss itself?

kimny72 wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

kimny72 wrote: »

pierinifitness wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

pierinifitness wrote: »

Those of us who practice IF and don’t have eating disorders such as binging never gain weight practicing IF and know at a personal level the benefits received that others can do nothing other than scratch their head in doubt because they haven’t experienced the same.

I’ve never gained weight practicing IF (disregarding normal fluctuations day.)

You're lucky man, I fast 16 hours a day and yet i can gain 2lbs over a weekend if i allow myself to fall off the wagon. We are talking over 3000 calories here though haha.

I would suggest that "falling off the wagon" is a low-level eating disorder. This might generate some "hate mail" responses so let me define an eating disorder (albeit a low-level one) as eating more or less than necessary given your healthy goals. With that definition, I've had low-level eating disorders in my past and I gained weight.

I don't buy the cheat meal mentality preferring instead to use the treat meal moniker and then only in the context of a weekly timeline rather than a single day. So, a big calorie day needs to be evaluated, in my world, in the context of my feeding week.

Can't see comments from people I've blocked so if my response does not consider these comments.

This is all my way of thinking applicable to how I fuel my body currently and how I'm maintaining while continuing being an IF practitioner even in maintenance land, for 97 of 104 days, since I arrived in maintenance land on February 20th.

There's no turning back for me, easier to maintain that chisel it off at my age.

I would think making up your own alternate definitions of clinically defined words makes communication a bit difficult, no?

lukejoycePT wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I don't understand the claim that it's impossible to gain doing IF if you don't have a bingeing disorder.

Because IF is magik and if the magik doesn't work on you then there must be something seriously wrong with you.

IF isn’t magic, nobody says it is. But it has many amazing benefits but because it doesn’t suit your lifestyle you refuse to entertain the idea that it works. Which is fine, but I suggest you do some actual research on up to date peer reviewed studies.

Some of the folks you are lecturing have been doing IF for some time

The research into issues like autophagy and telomeres is in its very early stages so is theoretical. Studies that even hint at causality are animal studies and therefore not something to bank on just yet. That some doctors have decided to increase their fame and profitability by doubling down on a new field (that hasn't been proven or disproved yet) doesn't automatically make a theory a fact. If someone enjoys eating in an IF schedule and hopes they will also profit from these theoretical benefits, that's awesome. But saying the benefits are proven is not only inaccurate, it could lead people who struggle using an IF schedule to stick with it anyway, possibly stay overweight due to that struggle, and end up negating any theoretical benefits by remaining overweight (which is a proven health risk )

I agree with most of what you are saying. I myself have been fasting for years, It’s a part of my job to research this stuff and the link I posted shows proven results on non animal tests. SOME of these studies have been proven. Those who do IF know what it does because you can literally feel it. Especially those with Tummy trouble like myself and a number of my clients.

I’m not saying it’s this magic pill. I am staying that it has proven positive benefits.

I did 16:8 for around 2 years. Didn't feel anything. Except happy that I had more calories for right after dinner by skipping breakfast.

I've also done lots of research on it. I've seen human studies that certain venues claimed were "proof" but have always found them lacking myself.

And if some studies show Thing A has a benefit, and other studies show no evidence of that benefit, then Thing A is not "proven" to be beneficial. It's still being studied. Sometimes studies seem to prove something, but if other studies fail to replicate it, it's not proven, it's still theoretical. That's not to say that interested parties can't decide to bank on one side of the debate eventually panning out, but TBH you can find a handful of studies that conclude pretty much anything. It's a preponderance of peer-reviewed conclusions over a long period of time that proves something.

I mean, I suspect we're dealing with semantics and definitions here. If you said you'd seen some promising research and are seeing results in your clients so you recommend it to everyone, I think that makes sense. But I'm sorry, saying it's proven to have health benefits is factually incorrect, as per the scientific method. The diet and fitness industries have unfortunately warped understanding of how the scientific method works.

Regardless, it's an awesome tool for some people to get their eating under control. And hopefully OP has gotten something out of the debate this has turned into!

From the studies I have read recently and the fact that Rhonda Patrick is an advocate of IF, for the reasons I have stated. I trust her judgement as a DR and scientist. I honestly believe that IF has some real heal benefits beyond fat loss. Studies are one thing but results are another and I have seen them.

I don’t think it works for everyone and some people would hate it. But I stand by my posts on it.

My first instinct is to again argue the word "proven" but I'd even be annoying myself at this point

Can I ask what results outside of weight loss you've seen, that you are qualified to recognize? What health benefits do you see in your clients that can't be attributed to the weight loss itself?

I'd be interested in the seeing same thing if it is something other than anecdotes. In my long time of doing IF, I haven't gotten a single "result" other than calorie control.

It's helping me break my addiction to food. That's why I do it.

Whoa...The amount of woo's in this thread are incredibly high, people get way too emotional about this, my goodness. Just chill for a hot second, geez.

I don't formally intermittently fast, but I do skip breakfast, with the exception of perhaps black coffee and the occasional latte, and that's been fantastic for weight loss. The meals I do get to have are more satisfying, and your body gets used to it quick. Plus I prefer dessert anyways haha.

Do I think IF does any magic above regular CICO? No. Do I think that it's useful? Absolutely. Not only that, it likely helps regulate the latent weight in your body from food and water a little better, so you see more consistent loss on the scale, which is a challenge when dieting. Regulate when you eat, and your body will regulate when it digests. If you are a person that takes daily bowel movements, this is helpful.

It isn't the only way to lose weight, but it is a good way to get yourself in a routine that aids it. Plus there are some auxiliary benefits. Fasted cardio is definitely better for weight loss, there is research showing that. I have a hard time with it, but I definitely don't eat enough anyways. Getting your body to not crave breakfast is also probably just healthy for life unless you plan to have strenuous physical activity in the morning. I will likely be bringing back breakfast at maintainence, but that's because I plan on starting to work out first thing in the morning when I get there, otherwise I think it's honestly better. You're adapting your body to eat less, which is a lifestyle change that would probably be conducive to long term success. And your body absolutely gets used to it after a month or so.

Spadesheart wrote: »

Whoa...The amount of woo's in this thread are incredibly high, people get way too emotional about this, my goodness. Just chill for a hot second, geez.

I don't formally intermittently fast, but I do skip breakfast, with the exception of perhaps black coffee and the occasional latte, and that's been fantastic for weight loss. The meals I do get to have are more satisfying, and your body gets used to it quick. Plus I prefer dessert anyways haha.

Do I think IF does any magic above regular CICO? No. Do I think that it's useful? Absolutely. Not only that, it likely helps regulate the latent weight in your body from food and water a little better, so you see more consistent loss on the scale, which is a challenge when dieting. Regulate when you eat, and your body will regulate when it digests. If you are a person that takes daily bowel movements, this is helpful.

It isn't the only way to lose weight, but it is a good way to get yourself in a routine that aids it. Plus there are some auxiliary benefits. Fasted cardio is definitely better for weight loss, there is research showing that. I have a hard time with it, but I definitely don't eat enough anyways. Getting your body to not crave breakfast is also probably just healthy for life unless you plan to have strenuous physical activity in the morning. I will likely be bringing back breakfast at maintainence, but that's because I plan on starting to work out first thing in the morning when I get there, otherwise I think it's honestly better. You're adapting your body to eat less, which is a lifestyle change that would probably be conducive to long term success. And your body absolutely gets used to it after a month or so.

2 points of disagreement with your post that I have. First, woos do not indicate emotion, just disagreement. You read in whatever emotion you wish.

Secondly, fasted cardio is no better for weight loss than cardio in a fed state. If you think there are studies that prove otherwise, please post them. All the studies I have seen have shown no difference or advantage for fasted cardio. Fat/weight loss comes down to energy deficit, whether one trains fasted or fed.

pierinifitness wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

pierinifitness wrote: »

Those of us who practice IF and don’t have eating disorders such as binging never gain weight practicing IF and know at a personal level the benefits received that others can do nothing other than scratch their head in doubt because they haven’t experienced the same.

I’ve never gained weight practicing IF (disregarding normal fluctuations day.)

You're lucky man, I fast 16 hours a day and yet i can gain 2lbs over a weekend if i allow myself to fall off the wagon. We are talking over 3000 calories here though haha.

I would suggest that "falling off the wagon" is a low-level eating disorder.

So "falling off the wagon" (ie, going off of) any diet, whether it be just calorie counting, eating my 3 meals a day, low carb, low fat, clean eating, paleo, etc. = "low-level eating disorder"?

I think that's a nutty claim, but at least it would be consistent and not as odd as insisting that going off IF (skipping breakfast!) = eating disorder.

This might generate some "hate mail" responses so let me define an eating disorder (albeit a low-level one) as eating more or less than necessary given your healthy goals. With that definition, I've had low-level eating disorders in my past and I gained weight.

Pointing out inconsistencies is not "hate mail," sorry.

You are being inconsistent in that you make the radical insistence that it's impossible to overeat on IF without an eating disorder (as a claim about the benefits of IF and messed up ness of those who said it required more to avoid overeating), and then when called on it claim that ANYONE who overeats has an eating disorder (which is IMO a silly claim but whatever, at least it's not insulting people who have different preferences about how to eat).

I don't buy the cheat meal mentality preferring instead to use the treat meal moniker and then only in the context of a weekly timeline rather than a single day. So, a big calorie day needs to be evaluated, in my world, in the context of my feeding week.

One can gain weight by overeating a small amount per day or by eating the same as always but becoming less active (common way people gain as they age).

This is all my way of thinking applicable to how I fuel my body currently and how I'm maintaining while continuing being an IF practitioner even in maintenance land, for 97 of 104 days, since I arrived in maintenance land on February 20th.

104 days is not a long time and by your own admission you've regained before.

lukejoycePT wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

lukejoycePT wrote: »

NovusDies wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I don't understand the claim that it's impossible to gain doing IF if you don't have a bingeing disorder.

Because IF is magik and if the magik doesn't work on you then there must be something seriously wrong with you.

IF isn’t magic, nobody says it is. But it has many amazing benefits but because it doesn’t suit your lifestyle you refuse to entertain the idea that it works. Which is fine, but I suggest you do some actual research on up to date peer reviewed studies.

lol. I have done what you call IF for more than 20 years. Try again.

Other doctors have claimed all kinds of things including "leaky guts". I am not going to chase down the peer-reviewed studies. If you have some to link do it. I have seen this debate MANY MANY times here and quite frankly I am not interested in chasing things down anymore.

ETA: I am also not going to continue to contribute clicks for advertising dollars for these sites that summarize for blogs and videos.

The link I gave you to DR Rhonda Patrick’s website has so many peer reviewed articles of both negative and positive results for fasting and other protocols such as Keto etc. Her job is to literally find the truth and talk to those who study.

Just because you fast for 20 years doesn’t mean you know what fasting does to your body.

Fasting is excellent for health. Nutrition is not just about fat loss. It’s about health.

Fasting is not nutrition and from what I've seen for some it interferes with good nutrition.

Does fasting occasionally have some benefits? Maybe, the jury is out.

Is eating in a specific window daily beneficial vs. not, without regard to anything else? I've seen no convincing evidence of that, at all, and certainly nothing justifying this claim it's healthier and more important than other inputs (like nutrition).

Certainly the current push for 8 hr or 6 hr or 4 hr eating windows isn't backed up by any traditional diets. Something like not eating when it's dark or occasional periods of short term fasts would be more consistent with historical practices.

I get that shorter eating windows can make calorie control easier (I think for the same reason I like not snacking and skip breakfast when I plan a larger dinner), but claiming it's somehow superior or healthier is not supported. (And it's not actual fasting or some kind of ridiculous test of will. IMO, OMAD on a healthy diet would require gorging to a point I couldn't manage.)

bluesheeponahill wrote: »

Same. It’s helped me not fear missing out on food. I find it much easier to skip breakfast and ensure my calories are good for lunches and dinners. It’s important to ensure even IF you get a decent calorie intake for day in. No point restricting hugely doing it if you’re just going to over eat later.

For example, lunch is about 350 calories, dinner is about 350-400 calories. 2 coffees later and a snack and a glass of wine, I’m up 1200 calories, sometimes over. Sometimes under. It all meets up by the weeks end.

I'm not scared of missing out on food, but I find lots of snacking or small meals make me unsatisfied.

How you eat also might make me feel that way (and how I eat might make you feel that way, people are different, which is why I'm arguing the IF is not superior for all POV).

I like a breakfast of about 400-500 cals (at 6:30, after running), I like a lunch of about 350-550 cals at around 12, and I like a dinner of around 700-800 cals if I am at a deficit, at around 9, but I sometimes split that into dinner plus 200 cal dessert (not lately). I haven't done 1200 since I got my exercise up, and I hate snacking so prefer 3 more spread out meals. For me snacking (even in a window) would make it more difficult to hit calories, I gained my weigh mostly by eating lunch and dinner and snacking in-between (and not being active).

For me hunger is driven by habit but I believe for others hunger is driven by when they start eating. I just ask for the respect to admit that's not true for all and some are like me. A significant majority of the maintainers on the Weight Control Registry eat the dreaded breakfast, after all (and most are active).