We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Intermittent fasting
Replies
-
@lemurcat2
What on earth are you on about? I only presented my experience. At no point was I dissing yours. I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. I was basically saying it works for some and doesn’t for others, it’s up to the person to find the best way to have a calorie Deficit.5 -
20 -
OooohToast wrote: »
Same for me - it turned out my brain needed to have it proved to it that I didnt need to Eat All Day. My understanding of hunger has been reset which has then supported CICO overall.
@Ogtmama & @OooohToast its the same for me. I found I was eating breakfast purely because it was breakfast time and not because I was hungry. But then it was like I'd kicked my hunger in the balls and it was fighting back. IF has helped me realise when I'm hungry and not just thirsty, bored, emotional etc. I'll eat breakfast on a fasting day if I want and I'm able to naturally wait for an evening meal.
Sometimes, I still think of food if I'm thirsty or bored but I'll drink more water or do something. The emotional hunger is still a thing but being able to recognise it then puts me back in control. Most of the time
I know it's not for everyone and some people might have a medical reason for not doing it. I checked with my GP first and so far it's working for me but only because I'm also weighing food, counting calories, being active, being mindful of my food choices and dedication to having a weekly calorie deficit.5 -
bluesheeponahill wrote: »@lemurcat2
What on earth are you on about? I only presented my experience. At no point was I dissing yours. I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. I was basically saying it works for some and doesn’t for others, it’s up to the person to find the best way to have a calorie Deficit.
I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming your way of eating would be superior for all (and I don't think that's in my comment). I don't think you were -- I think we are in agreement that different eating patterns work for different people. I do think some others are claiming that IF is inherently superior or should work better for all.5 -
I personally do IF. I’ve not been much of a breakfast eater. During my eating time I still eat healthy and consider the calories I’m in-taking. The problem I have observed, is that when you are listening to the “experts”, they talk about during your feasting time calories don’t matter. Well in my opinion… That’s a big fat lie! Because calories do matter and you can’t do intermittent fasting and think oh I can eat 5000 cal during my feasting time and think that you will lose weight. I believe that it gets confusing to those trying to get healthy by saying things like that. You still have to stick with any calorie range that you can lose weight with. When the “experts” say stuff like that I think it puts a thought in your brain that say oh well I’m only eating during this eight hour window I can eat whatever it doesn’t matter because I’m fasting for the 16 hour window… Yeah that doesn’t work :-).5
-
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.
You are actually correct about the fasted cardio. There is a lot of literature, but I read a meta analysis and on the whole it's apparently bunk. Neat! The stuff I had previously read indicated that it primed your body to be better able to mobilize internal fat stores, which in part explains why people who fast long term, with adequate body weight, stop getting hungry at some point.
Also a few woos indicates disagreement. 10+ indicates someone struck a nerve hahaha.
0 -
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.)
This is true. On maintainence, during exercise days, a healthy consumption for me will be over 2800. Eating that much food in a 6 hour window daily would be awful, especially with high protein goals. Egg whites are amongst the most protein dense foods, and I would have to have like 7 cups to just fit my protein. Or 7 cups of low fat cottage cheese. Or 8 chicken breasts. Or 9 protein shakes. Or 9 pork chops. 6 hours is not enough time.
Great for losing weight, but could be prohibitively challenging later.1 -
I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming your way of eating would be superior for all (and I don't think that's in my comment). I don't think you were -- I think we are in agreement that different eating patterns work for different people. I do think some others are claiming that IF is inherently superior or should work better for all.
It is so pervasive here to think that because something is superior for you that makes it superior for the next person. Some people thrive on 6 meals a day. I tried it years ago when I believed in the "keep the metabolism going" nonsense. As I recall I didn't even make it a week because I could not contain my hunger. I don't personally understand how eating more often helps one person and eating less often helps another (including me) but it doesn't matter. Everyone needs to find their own lane.
7 -
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.
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).
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).
104 days is not a long time and by your own admission you've regained before.
5 -
It is so pervasive here to think that because something is superior for you that makes it superior for the next person. Some people thrive on 6 meals a day. I tried it years ago when I believed in the "keep the metabolism going" nonsense. As I recall I didn't even make it a week because I could not contain my hunger. I don't personally understand how eating more often helps one person and eating less often helps another (including me) but it doesn't matter. Everyone needs to find their own lane.
Agreed! I mean there's a logic to all of these things. They all work, and they work for different reasons. If you can power through the 6 meal thing, maintaining your calorie goal, you're ensuring you don't increase the capacity of your stomach by a dramatic amount, as you would having larger meals. People who diet for a month or two will find that if they try to eat what they were before, they get full much quicker, and feel like bursting if they ate the same amount. Now if you make your meals even smaller and spread them out over a day, you're literally making it prohibitively difficult to binge eat. If you've been a volume eater all of your life, this can be a powerful tool. However, if you can't handle that mentally, it's not for you. I personally would much rather have 2 satisfying meals and some sort of decent dessert, with likely some added protein shakes in-between.0 -
I think the logic behind 6 mini meals or grazing (neither of which work for me) is that if you avoid ever getting hungry there's no tendency to overeat. I actually know a guy who is quite obese who tried dieting by skipping breakfast and lunch and then would overeat and not lose, so for him it would probably have been better to try smaller meals, who knows (this was before IFing was a thing).
For me, larger meals are more satisfying (2 or 3, usually 3), and there's no risk of overeating because I know from habit what a reasonable size is, and I learned that by logging for a time. When I started logging my eyes would be bigger than my stomach (or my needs, since I tend to eat what's on my plate), but I'd trust the calorie counts I wanted would be sufficient and found they were.
A lot of the common sense advice, both "eat lots of small meals" and "limit your consumption to a narrower eating window," as well as other things like "always eat breakfast" or "never eat after X:00" or "avoid high cal foods" are really just ways that sometimes work for people who aren't counting calories to reduce consumption easily. They only work to the extent they address why you tend to overeat, of course. For someone not hungry in the morning and hungrier after they eat, eating breakfast can be counterproductive. For people like me who find a bunch of small meals not satisfying and full meals much more so, grazing is a bad strategy. For people (also like me) who eat late because we get home late but only a balanced meal and not lots of uncontrolled snacking, the advice about not eating after a certain time is similarly useless, or even counterproductive (I'd be stuck worrying about eating dinner at all or trying to bring dinner to work).0 -
In addition to being excessively hungry 6 meals doesn't fit my personality. I find it tedious to plan so many meals even if some of them are snacks. I don't want or even like thinking about food that much. Less meals, or in my case one big meal, is less hassle. I get all of my nutritional needs over in a very large and filling meal. Other than having a snack later which is usually a few pieces of lunch meat and occasionally some chips I don't have to think about food again until tomorrow.
2 -
rvfamilyfour wrote: »I was diagnosed with diabetes in April and knew I did not want to take insulin. I started to do a bunch of research. I learned that I could lose weight safely and get my diabetes under control with my diet. I studied a bunch of topics on carbs, sugars, calorie intake, exercise, the failure of low fat diets, etc. I even talked with a dietitian.
As I continued my research I came across Dr. Jason Fung. His books and videos confirmed what I learned in my research. He has written about fasting and the obesity epidemic and after reading his book it just all clicked for me. You can watch his video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0
I started out lowering my carb intake (as a carb addict this was a little difficult). I also had to learn what foods to eat-foods that I thought were really healthy ended up being heavy with carbs. It took me about two weeks to get this under control. My cravings decreased significantly. Over the next two weeks I worked on intermittent fasting (16 hours of not eating and eating three meals with-in an 8 hours window). I kept my calorie amount and my carbs in check. I lost about 9lbs. Then the next week I tried a 24 hour fast. I ate dinner, then did not eat again until dinner the next night. I thought it was going to be really hard but it ended up being easier than I thought. Dr. Fung details why you may get headaches, etc and what needs to be done to fix those issues. Since the fast went well a few days later I tried it again (he recommends 2 to 3 24 hr fast a week). I will now fast twice a week unless I hit a plateau.
I also added exercise to my weekly routine. This was actually the hardest part for me. I hate exercising! I started by taking the dog for long walks. I set a routine and tried to do it faster each time. Now 7 weeks later I am at the pool twice a week for water aerobics and once a week for strength training. I also do yoga on Sundays with my daughter and try to take the dog for a walk 3 times a week.
I have now lost 14 lbs and I am down a pants size. My last diabetes check was great.
There are lots of different programs out there. I have probably been on most of them. This time I don't want it to be a diet. I want to make a lifestyle change so that I can be healthy for the rest of my life. This time I have taken my weight issues seriously- being diagnosed with diabetes will do that- and took the time to research the problem. I am never going to try the next fad diet, I am not even going to try what the govt program says to do because they have admitted that pushing the low fat diet was a major factor for the obesity problem. The facts are clear on how the body processes food and that is why I have changed my eating habits to eat, fast and exercise the way Dr. Fung suggests.
Good luck everyone...
Lisa
@rvfamilyfour - congrats on finding a woe that works for you, losing 14lb and improving your markers.1 -
betsymoomoo wrote: »It's helping me break my addiction to food. That's why I do it.
Bingo!!! This is me as well, I could literally eat from morning to bedtime easily, IF has really ingrained in me not eating after supper, it is such a habit now I don't even think about it anymore.
Funny thing is about 15 years ago I used to work out faithfully early in the morning before work, not eat after supper and then just eat breakfast when I got to work (didn't know it was IF:))...ironically I weighed less then so IF for me just revitalized what I used to do and it seems to be working.
Now I do not count calories and I lost 20 lbs last year doing IF hardcore now since winter I have kind of being looser with it and still have 10 lbs left to go which is coming off slowly (extremely slow) but whatever, even if I lost 1 lb. per month I am okay with that. I am not interested in doing hardcore "dieting" for sure.
0 -
I prefer macro timing to intermittent fasting, in my experience. I have tried intermittent fasting with fasted cardio first thing in the morning, with the goal of avoiding gluconeogenesis. I'm not convinced it does this. At the same time I feel sluggish when doing cardio on an empty stomach.
I am a "six meals a day" guy because I believe it keeps you anabolic, and the body's default state (when insulin is low) is catabolic/fat burning. Therefore, whenever I'm NOT eating (such as overnight), my body replenishes my glycogen stores by pulling from stored fat. This means I'm accomplishing the effect of muscle building throughout the day and fat burning throughout the night.
Just my $.02.11 -
LegendaryOrange wrote: »I prefer macro timing to intermittent fasting, in my experience. I have tried intermittent fasting with fasted cardio first thing in the morning, with the goal of avoiding gluconeogenesis. I'm not convinced it does this. At the same time I feel sluggish when doing cardio on an empty stomach.
I am a "six meals a day" guy because I believe it keeps you anabolic, and the body's default state (when insulin is low) is catabolic/fat burning. Therefore, whenever I'm NOT eating (such as overnight), my body replenishes my glycogen stores by pulling from stored fat. This means I'm accomplishing the effect of muscle building throughout the day and fat burning throughout the night.
Just my $.02.
You won't burn fat if you are not in a calorie (energy) deficit. For most people the largest majority of energy expended is just keeping you alive and that is around the clock whether fasted or not.
I am not the foremost expert on glycogen replenishment but I believe it comes from carb intake only (or mostly) and none from stored fat.
5 -
Assuming insulin level is low, fat stores can be tapped by the body. The body undergoes gluconeogenesis to create glucos from stored fat. Then the glucose is transformed into glycogen to replenish muscles and the liver, as well as to feed the brain.
And yes, fat loss is dependent on being in a caloric deficit.3 -
LegendaryOrange wrote: »Assuming insulin level is low, fat stores can be tapped by the body. The body undergoes gluconeogenesis to create glucos from stored fat. Then the glucose is transformed into glycogen to replenish muscles and the liver, as well as to feed the brain.
And yes, fat loss is dependent on being in a caloric deficit.
Fat stores will be tapped regardless of insulin levels if there is an energy deficit.
The body creates glycogen from carbohydrates. If it does not then the now famous ketosis would never occur.2 -
If you're eating food, creating a rise in insulin, you're not in a deficit at the moment. The body will process the consumed food and cannot tap fat stores. Once insulin comes back down fat stores can be tapped if needed.
Fat can become glucose via gluconeogenesis. Fat is not just turned to energy via ketosis. Then the glucose is converted into glycogen.1 -
-
"Most of the time, of course, a calorie is a calorie, and we do not maintain that, in carbohydrate restriction, metabolic advantage always occurs, but only 1) that it can occur (11), 2) that it is not excluded by a correct thermodynamic analysis, and 3) that, because of the importance of obesity, it is sensible to try to identify the conditions under which it can occur and to maximize the effect. "
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/2/276/4633078
Numerous ways a state ketosis (eating lower carbs and fasting for at least 15 hours before a work out) will cause an extra 150-300 calorie deficit compared to the same amount of calories in a higher carb lifestyle.
I could go through a bunch of explanations but fact of the matter is, if you're drinking a gatorade or even a sugar free drink and your insulin goes up, you will not burn fat. You will burn glycogen out of your muscles and liver storage and there can be up to like 1800 calories in there. It depends on if the mere taste of sweetness triggers insulin release and other than a continuous blood glucose meter probably won't know if stevia, or monkfruit does that to you.
You spike your insulin, you'll burn fat, later on. That workout will have no impact on your fat. You might get lucky and burn some later, but if you're spiking your insulin on meals and snacks, you are sabotaging yourself. I would go through the mechanisms but if you strongly disagree with me, you're not going to believe any of what I have to say, so arguing is pointless. I've been doing enough looking over various studies, and I'm incredibly confident that overly simplified calories in = calories out as the ONLY mechanism is hurting people because they overwork themselves at the gym and drink blood sugar spiking electrolyte drinks, and sabotage their metabolism.
Get enough sleep, keep up your electrolytes, fast, hopefully do a low carb diet, you'll be amazed at your energy levels after a while, and how fast the weight drops off and we're figuring out the mechanisms, but it is a real phenomena. I deleted like 8 descriptors like how Tumeric and Coffee can help with lypolisis, or how ketone strips and breath meters are literally measuring ketones that you are expelling outside of the ATP, so those are free calories you didn't even have to burn.
If you want to keep it simple stupid, I can understand that, but our bodies are hugely complex machines and fact of the matter is ketones might as well be the key to toning your body.17 -
LegendaryOrange wrote: »If you're eating food, creating a rise in insulin, you're not in a deficit at the moment. The body will process the consumed food and cannot tap fat stores. Once insulin comes back down fat stores can be tapped if needed.
Fat can become glucose via gluconeogenesis. Fat is not just turned to energy via ketosis. Then the glucose is converted into glycogen.
This are mostly micro processes that happen all day long. If, at the end of a day, or a week or whatever period you want to choose, you've taken in less energy than you have expended, there will be a net fat loss.
I guess I'm having trouble understanding what the point of manipulating insulin levels is. There is no evidence that keto or IF or any other method of eating has a metabolic advantage for fat loss. And there are many studies and meta analyses that say they do not.9 -
LegendaryOrange wrote: »I prefer macro timing to intermittent fasting, in my experience. I have tried intermittent fasting with fasted cardio first thing in the morning, with the goal of avoiding gluconeogenesis. I'm not convinced it does this. At the same time I feel sluggish when doing cardio on an empty stomach.
I am a "six meals a day" guy because I believe it keeps you anabolic, and the body's default state (when insulin is low) is catabolic/fat burning. Therefore, whenever I'm NOT eating (such as overnight), my body replenishes my glycogen stores by pulling from stored fat. This means I'm accomplishing the effect of muscle building throughout the day and fat burning throughout the night.
Just my $.02.
That isn't how it works. Whether you eat 6 meals or 1 meal, if calories are the same, than digestion or nutrient storage times would be the same. With smaller meals, your body will digest then nutrients faster; with large meals it's longer. Overall, there is no difference.
If you are concerned about muscle building, than keeping insulin low is a poor idea; insulin prevents protein breakdown and increases nutrient uptake. Keto diets are a terrible and inefficient for muscle building and at best have only been shown to be effective for maintaining muscle, albeit, all those studies are on overweight/obese individuals.
Post meal consumption, your body blunts lipolysis (fat burning) and induces storage via several mechanics/hormonal reactions. As digestion occurs, your body will either oxidize the available nutrients or pull from stored fat/glycogen (mostly fat unless you are anaerobic where it needs glycogen).
And, you would have no idea whether or not you "prevent" glucogenogensis. And furthermore, trying to prevent a natural physiological process is not something in your control (unless you are having carb heavy meals). And if you take it one step further, even the link you posted said no to worry about the process.... like in the first few sentences. So you are worrying about something you have no control over and I suspect, something you might want to research a bit more on.7 -
mmapags, that's my point.1
-
Psu, by eating all the time my insulin remains elevated, not low. Admittedly, this reduces the amount my body taps into fat stores throughout the day...for the sake of a more consistently anabolic state. Then, as I rest at night, insulin stays low for a long window of time, and since I'm in a caloric deficit overall while having depleted glycogen, the body turns to gluconeogenesis to support the replenishing of glycogen stores. Day over day, week over week, this supports muscle building and fat burning, rather than compromising one for the other.6
-
Makaiookami wrote: »"Most of the time, of course, a calorie is a calorie, and we do not maintain that, in carbohydrate restriction, metabolic advantage always occurs, but only 1) that it can occur (11), 2) that it is not excluded by a correct thermodynamic analysis, and 3) that, because of the importance of obesity, it is sensible to try to identify the conditions under which it can occur and to maximize the effect. "
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/2/276/4633078
Numerous ways a state ketosis (eating lower carbs and fasting for at least 15 hours before a work out) will cause an extra 150-300 calorie deficit compared to the same amount of calories in a higher carb lifestyle.
I could go through a bunch of explanations but fact of the matter is, if you're drinking a gatorade or even a sugar free drink and your insulin goes up, you will not burn fat. You will burn glycogen out of your muscles and liver storage and there can be up to like 1800 calories in there. It depends on if the mere taste of sweetness triggers insulin release and other than a continuous blood glucose meter probably won't know if stevia, or monkfruit does that to you.
You spike your insulin, you'll burn fat, later on. That workout will have no impact on your fat. You might get lucky and burn some later, but if you're spiking your insulin on meals and snacks, you are sabotaging yourself. I would go through the mechanisms but if you strongly disagree with me, you're not going to believe any of what I have to say, so arguing is pointless. I've been doing enough looking over various studies, and I'm incredibly confident that overly simplified calories in = calories out as the ONLY mechanism is hurting people because they overwork themselves at the gym and drink blood sugar spiking electrolyte drinks, and sabotage their metabolism.
Get enough sleep, keep up your electrolytes, fast, hopefully do a low carb diet, you'll be amazed at your energy levels after a while, and how fast the weight drops off and we're figuring out the mechanisms, but it is a real phenomena. I deleted like 8 descriptors like how Tumeric and Coffee can help with lypolisis, or how ketone strips and breath meters are literally measuring ketones that you are expelling outside of the ATP, so those are free calories you didn't even have to burn.
If you want to keep it simple stupid, I can understand that, but our bodies are hugely complex machines and fact of the matter is ketones might as well be the key to toning your body.
Even with the small increases in EE from Keto diets, there hasn't been show any fat loss. Additionally, those increases are largely thought to come from the initial production of ketones as a fuel substrate. And with some longer studies, it shows that those increase are pretty much gone after a week or two.
Also, with your comparison of gaterode or other pure sugar. If you did the same thing with butter, your body wouldn't burn fat from storage, it would oxidize the nutrients available.
In the end, the only studies debating keto vs low fat that show increase loss are in ad libitum eating/recall studies where food intake isn't monitored.6 -
Makaiookami wrote: »"Most of the time, of course, a calorie is a calorie, and we do not maintain that, in carbohydrate restriction, metabolic advantage always occurs, but only 1) that it can occur (11), 2) that it is not excluded by a correct thermodynamic analysis, and 3) that, because of the importance of obesity, it is sensible to try to identify the conditions under which it can occur and to maximize the effect. "
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/86/2/276/4633078
Numerous ways a state ketosis (eating lower carbs and fasting for at least 15 hours before a work out) will cause an extra 150-300 calorie deficit compared to the same amount of calories in a higher carb lifestyle.
I could go through a bunch of explanations but fact of the matter is, if you're drinking a gatorade or even a sugar free drink and your insulin goes up, you will not burn fat. You will burn glycogen out of your muscles and liver storage and there can be up to like 1800 calories in there. It depends on if the mere taste of sweetness triggers insulin release and other than a continuous blood glucose meter probably won't know if stevia, or monkfruit does that to you.
You spike your insulin, you'll burn fat, later on. That workout will have no impact on your fat. You might get lucky and burn some later, but if you're spiking your insulin on meals and snacks, you are sabotaging yourself. I would go through the mechanisms but if you strongly disagree with me, you're not going to believe any of what I have to say, so arguing is pointless. I've been doing enough looking over various studies, and I'm incredibly confident that overly simplified calories in = calories out as the ONLY mechanism is hurting people because they overwork themselves at the gym and drink blood sugar spiking electrolyte drinks, and sabotage their metabolism.
Get enough sleep, keep up your electrolytes, fast, hopefully do a low carb diet, you'll be amazed at your energy levels after a while, and how fast the weight drops off and we're figuring out the mechanisms, but it is a real phenomena. I deleted like 8 descriptors like how Tumeric and Coffee can help with lypolisis, or how ketone strips and breath meters are literally measuring ketones that you are expelling outside of the ATP, so those are free calories you didn't even have to burn.
If you want to keep it simple stupid, I can understand that, but our bodies are hugely complex machines and fact of the matter is ketones might as well be the key to toning your body.
So let me get this straight. If I spike my insulin all day, maybe having a bit of candy or sugary drink, I won't lose fat? What will happen? Will I put on weight? That would be great for underweight people struggling to put on weight or keep their weight steady (there are many of us especially in the gaining section) all we'd have to do is have a bit of candy between meals to keep our weight up. Also I have candy before, during and after my workouts. I have zero issues losing weight, and have got down pretty lean too...provided I am eating the right amount of calories to do so.8 -
And I'm not trying to play God with gluconeogenesis. I just know that I've experienced known side effects of gluconeogenesis after a protein-heavy breakfast when doing intense cardio later. I've tried fasted cardio to see if it results in the same side effects and I've had mixed results. Overall I'm just not sold on fasted cardio and I feel better off doing cardio after my typical breakfast. As we all know the calories burned matter above all else. Fasted cardio just hasn't been for me.1
-
LegendaryOrange wrote: »And I'm not trying to play God with gluconeogenesis. I just know that I've experienced known side effects of gluconeogenesis after a protein-heavy breakfast when doing intense cardio later. I've tried fasted cardio to see if it results in the same side effects and I've had mixed results. Overall I'm just not sold on fasted cardio and I feel better off doing cardio after my typical breakfast. As we all know the calories burned matter above all else. Fasted cardio just hasn't been for me.
What side effects are there to GNG?
Also, what kind of diet do you follow? Are you high carb, low carb, or in the middle?
And to point out, unless you are eating carbrs literally all day, you are not in a "anabolic state" all day long. Many carbs will metabolize, especially when consumed in small amounts, withing an hour. If anything, evenly spreading protein would be more ideal due to mTOR activation. But even so, in a deficit, it won't be significantly different and your lifting protein would have much greater impacts on muscle building.0 -
What side effects are there to GNG?
Also, what kind of diet do you follow? Are you high carb, low carb, or in the middle?
And to point out, unless you are eating carbrs literally all day, you are not in a "anabolic state" all day long. Many carbs will metabolize, especially when consumed in small amounts, withing an hour. If anything, evenly spreading protein would be more ideal due to mTOR activation. But even so, in a deficit, it won't be significantly different and your lifting protein would have much greater impacts on muscle building.
An ammonia smell to my sweat is a dead giveaway that I've strayed off into gluconeogenesis and am no longer burning immediately available glycogen. This begins about 30 minutes into my cardio, after muscle and liver glycogen stores have been depleted, and particularly if I have not fasted.
When I am trying to lose weight I am strict low carb, low fat, high protein. When I reach my goal I bring up (healthy) fat but still tend to keep carbs relatively low (though I do work them in more frequently).1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.7K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions