Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Please help with this argument- Intermittent fasting related
Replies
-
no.
i graze all day. i'm 37, and i've been asked recently if i'm old enough to drink.
genes. good genes
Apparently raw vegan diets do it as well. I'm not raw vegan but I do do IF 5 days a week.
and i do mostly meat and bakery.
point being IF does not slow aging.3 -
no.
i graze all day. i'm 37, and i've been asked recently if i'm old enough to drink.
genes. good genes
Apparently raw vegan diets do it as well. I'm not raw vegan but I do do IF 5 days a week.
and i do mostly meat and bakery.
point being IF does not slow aging.
Do you know this for a fact?0 -
no.
i graze all day. i'm 37, and i've been asked recently if i'm old enough to drink.
genes. good genes
Apparently raw vegan diets do it as well. I'm not raw vegan but I do do IF 5 days a week.
and i do mostly meat and bakery.
point being IF does not slow aging.
Do you know this for a fact?
Does IF impact telomeres or telomerase?4 -
no.
i graze all day. i'm 37, and i've been asked recently if i'm old enough to drink.
genes. good genes
Apparently raw vegan diets do it as well. I'm not raw vegan but I do do IF 5 days a week.
So you are just asserting stuff? Cool.9 -
no.
i graze all day. i'm 37, and i've been asked recently if i'm old enough to drink.
genes. good genes
Apparently raw vegan diets do it as well. I'm not raw vegan but I do do IF 5 days a week.
So you are just asserting stuff? Cool.
Prefixed buy the word 'apparently', can post links like this one if we're doing that:
https://www.meetup.com/HealthyPlanet/messages/67357092/
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/75-Year-Old-Woman-Defies-Aging-Process-With-Raw-Vegan-Diet-441035953.html0 -
no.
i graze all day. i'm 37, and i've been asked recently if i'm old enough to drink.
genes. good genes
Apparently raw vegan diets do it as well. I'm not raw vegan but I do do IF 5 days a week.
So you are just asserting stuff? Cool.
Prefixed buy the word 'apparently', can post links like this one if we're doing that:
https://www.meetup.com/HealthyPlanet/messages/67357092/
https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/75-Year-Old-Woman-Defies-Aging-Process-With-Raw-Vegan-Diet-441035953.html
Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.8 -
Think what you want and feel free to not do IF or anything else you don't believe in. Interesting that the anti-IF crowd are so bothered by it. If you don't believe in it why do you care so much about it?3
-
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.9 -
I did intermittent fasting for a while and I may do it again. I used it as a way to break my food addiction. It's harder to eat as much in a smaller window and it also made me obsess less about food when I knew exactly what time my next meal was.
Aside from that I don't know the benefits.4 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?3 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:22 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
One of the oldest ladies in the world credit whiskey, cigarettes, and the company of men.12 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
One of the oldest ladies in the world credit whiskey, cigarettes, and the company of men.
So now we just need 20 mice - give 10 vodka and hot dogs, 10 whiskey and cigarettes, see which live longer. I'm not sure how to address "the company of men" with mice, lots of variables there. Might need to revisit the research if the first test is inconclusive
10 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
Hey if it works... You gotta experiment until you find what works for you. Took me years to get to heavy lifting + IF (with correct cals/macro deficit/surplus). I've only ever cut on it and it's been very effective, going to bulk with it from next week which will be interesting.0 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
Okay...here is what I think...again for what it's worth. The vast majority of people that join MFP or any site that deals with weight loss is looking for that mystic miracle cure that will cause them to lose weight quickly and painlessly. They will grab on to anything that sounds like it might give them the mystic miracle sure that they are looking for regardless if it sounds to good to be true or even if it is healthy or is suitable for them. Most of these people will fail because they didn't do the research nor take the time to see if it fits their lives. They end up miserable and eventually give up and go their own way to find they next mystic miracle cure or they give up entirely on weight loss and gain even more.
I think many people in these "great debates" feel as if they are trying to help those people. I get it even though it might be nice to hold a reasonable conversation that doesn't turn in to an all out battle. It is what it is when you are dealing in the world of the internet!
I read these forums with the intent of finding topics to research on my own. I just won't accept the "gospel" in some stranger on the internet when it comes to my life. Sad part is...there are a lot of people that visit this site that just want easy answers without having to do the work.
The above is just my own personal opinions and are not scientific nor written in stone.
8 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
I need to consult her and do some comparative analysis to my scotch, beer, bacon plan.6 -
@Annie_01 As someone who chased one unicorn after another only to feel like a failure every time the latest "thing that is the best and healthiest way to eat/supplement/exercise" didn't work for me, I wish someone had smacked me upside the head with the real bare-bones truth 15 years ago
so yes, that's pretty much where I'm coming from. 12 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
I need to consult her and do some comparative analysis to my scotch, beer, bacon plan.
I mean, we can add 10 more mice to my experiment <nods>.
I feel confident Ms. White would wholeheartedly support your plan as well!10 -
Think what you want and feel free to not do IF or anything else you don't believe in. Interesting that the anti-IF crowd are so bothered by it. If you don't believe in it why do you care so much about it?
I will quote myself from a post upthread (which I assume you read, it was recent) that addresses this:
"Agree with this. I'd note that this is often why there is perceived (not real) pushback on these threads. Those of us saying that there are alternatives to IF and that you shouldn't feel bad if it's not right for you or if you like another way of eating better are simply saying that finding out the why and best/easiest way to eat to achieve goals is helpful and an individual process. There is no need to try to fit an IF window if that's not what helps you, but if it is that's great (whether one likes using the fancy name or not). Sadly, because it's now a fad the threads tend to turn into "it's the best thing ever and everyone should do it" vs. not. When people say "it's about finding a schedule that works for you and figure out what's easiest for you" vs. "if you don't do it, you clearly don't care about learning discipline" or what not, there's no debate and no pushback at all."
Asserting that IF has miraculous anti aging effects based on what was absolutely no evidence at all (people say I look younger than I am) is precisely the kind of claim that is not evidence based and will get pushback.
If you like it, do it. Skipping breakfast and having a bigger and earlier dinner often works for me on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.8 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
One of the oldest ladies in the world credit whiskey, cigarettes, and the company of men.
Winston Churchill lived to 90 despite all sorts of bad habits, and as for looking young, everyone compares his appearance with newborns!
(For those who may be dense, obviously this is tongue in cheek.)11 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
One of the oldest ladies in the world credit whiskey, cigarettes, and the company of men.
Winston Churchill lived to 90 despite all sorts of bad habits, and as for looking young, everyone compares his appearance with newborns!
(For those who may be dense, obviously this is tongue in cheek.)
Clearly my pipe/cigar data will be foundational for future generations. My pappy lived to the respectable age of 96 and credited moonshine, oatmeal, and pickled pig's feet.5 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
The wellness industry is full of people trying to convince people to do stuff based on their n=1 experience that they might not even be interpreting correctly. There are myriad variables that affect aging, and "looking" younger doesn't actually mean you are healthier or going to live longer. Too many people waste too much time making decisions based on other people's random experiences, rather than just focusing on the facts.
And I did IF for awhile. Now I'm not, but I'm totally open to going back to it. Most of the people in this thread do IF or have done it in the past. We just kind of have a thing about people taking blog postings and a mouse study and selling it as "research suggests". And people who stay overweight for years because they are trying to follow a plan someone sold to them as "better" with little proof.
Betty White credits vodka and hot dogs, so that's what I'm going with. It's just as likely to be correct :drinker:
I need to consult her and do some comparative analysis to my scotch, beer, bacon plan.
I mean, we can add 10 more mice to my experiment <nods>.
I feel confident Ms. White would wholeheartedly support your plan as well!
I smell a sit-com!4 -
IMO...for what it's worth...exercise will do more for slowing down the aging process than eating within a certain window. Combine that with a healthy diet that is appropriate for what you are trying to accomplish then that will assist in hopefully aid in slowing down that aging process.
For me...and I speak only for me...it is not about looking younger it is about feeling younger and being able to stay mobile as I age. Then there is that "bucket list" that I still want to accomplish.
I do IF/TRE/SkipBreakfast/Whateveryouwanttocallit. It fits my lifestyle and has helped me get to where I want to be. I am under no illusions though that it is some mystic way of eating that will make me look 20 years younger...I am 67 and I own every wrinkle that I have.
I didn't start doing it for anti-aging reasons either I did it to burn as much fat as possible (Leangains). The fact that people regularly tell me I look a lot younger than I am I credit to IF seeing as there is research saying that it does that. maybe it doesn't and maybe it's the lifting - or a combination of both. I don't really care as long as it works.
The fact that the notion of IF having any benefits at all appears to be upsetting people is interesting though... If you know what works for you why care so much about what other people are doing?
Okay...here is what I think...again for what it's worth. The vast majority of people that join MFP or any site that deals with weight loss is looking for that mystic miracle cure that will cause them to lose weight quickly and painlessly. They will grab on to anything that sounds like it might give them the mystic miracle sure that they are looking for regardless if it sounds to good to be true or even if it is healthy or is suitable for them. Most of these people will fail because they didn't do the research nor take the time to see if it fits their lives. They end up miserable and eventually give up and go their own way to find they next mystic miracle cure or they give up entirely on weight loss and gain even more.
I think many people in these "great debates" feel as if they are trying to help those people.
Pretty much. I think the main point that is made is that there's no one-size-fits-all way to do it, so finding what works for you is the most important thing rather than buying into a notion that whatever the current fad is MUST be followed or else you cannot succeed.
I struggled with trying to eat lots of meals at one point (when that was in fashion) and psyched myself out of just starting plenty of times trying to figure out first whether I was supposed to eat before or after a workout and what. I've found that trying to follow rules from someone other than me doesn't work, and understanding it's just calories plus whatever I find, based on my own experience, works best is the way to go. Based on some comments in some of the IF threads, I get the sense that some people feel -- and are being told -- that if you don't like IF, then you are a failure or aren't doing it right, and that's a bad message.
Your message I agree with, as I've said lots of times I would consider IF a schedule that is easier for some people (including me on some days) and not too different than my own preference for always eating no more than 3 meals, no snacking, as for me snacking tends to = mindless eating. I'm not sure why eating in a narrower window is perceived as so much easier for some than just not snacking but there's no reason why I should, since what works for me works for me and what works for you works for you. I totally believe that the narrow eating window is easier for some and that some find they are hungrier if they eat in the morning. I just don't believe -- and of course you have never said -- that eating in a window makes one superior or healthier or more disciplined or is the only way to learn to deal with mild hunger, etc.I get it even though it might be nice to hold a reasonable conversation that doesn't turn in to an all out battle. It is what it is when you are dealing in the world of the internet!
I think most of the people you are probably talking about -- including me! -- are actually trying to have a reasonable conversation and I'm not sure why you think otherwise or feel that it's wrong to make the points we are. What I think it not helpful is making comments about the discipline or eating habits of those for whom IF was not the end-all cure-all of overeating, and that tends to come from the more extreme IF advocates, IME. And certainly I don't see anything negative about defending others from those kinds of comments.4 -
Think what you want and feel free to not do IF or anything else you don't believe in. Interesting that the anti-IF crowd are so bothered by it. If you don't believe in it why do you care so much about it?
Maybe, just maybe some of us are our siblings' keepers and think that people should avoiding asserting things without sufficient evidence both because they can waste some people's time (which if you're concerned about life enhancement, should also be a concern) or other resources chasing false benefits, and simply because truth is its own value?
Like, if I say, sure, there's a potato right now floating around Mars, and it listens to every sad thought you have, so maybe try not to be sad - is that proclamation hurting anyone? Probably not. I sure hope though some people are going to tell me such a proclamation is full of it unless I have some rather interesting evidence. I also wouldn't think them doing so qualifies as bothered - I say it seems too strong a word.10 -
It"'s funny to me how the people who believe that IF is only a way of scheduling when you eat and who believe that weight loss is just about CICO are so dismissive of the possibity of any other benefits from IF than just weight loss.
It's seems that the argument is that, since there is no scientifically acceptable proof that there are other benefits, there can't possibly be any other benefits, which is pure nonsense. There can be benefits that just haven't been proven yet
I know that since I started doing IF over 3 months ago that I have been better able to control my wt, even when I haven't strictly followed my IF schedule and have not strictly limited my cal intake, which contradicts the premise that it's only about scheduling and CICO
I'm not trying to make the case that there actually are other benefits to IF but to dismiss any possibilty that there "may" be other benefits is shortsighted and bigoted
Agreed. Every person who dismisses the current studies because most were conducted on rodents or the human sample size was small is doing exactly this. If it were cancer research and a drug was found that eliminated tumors in mice within weeks wouldn’t most people view that as incredibly promising and be excited to see more human trails happen ASAP? I think so
Every time I post any of the confirmed studies the majority of responses on MFP (including in this thread) dismiss them as insufficient and basically invalid with no mention of the promise found or need to look into it more. It’s ridiculous to me.
No one has said IF is best for everyone. It isn’t magic. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to try and see if they experience additional benefits.
I personally stopped doing IF when I started running early morning. Waiting too long to eat after interfered with my recovery. When I did IF it was an easy way for my to stay in my calories and I found that I got better sleep when I did IF. I experienced none of the health benefits being explored in the studies I posted in this thread - I don’t believe that proves they don’t exist for anyone though. I think, like anything, more research is needed and NOTHING will work for everyone universally the same.2 -
It"'s funny to me how the people who believe that IF is only a way of scheduling when you eat and who believe that weight loss is just about CICO are so dismissive of the possibity of any other benefits from IF than just weight loss.
It's seems that the argument is that, since there is no scientifically acceptable proof that there are other benefits, there can't possibly be any other benefits, which is pure nonsense. There can be benefits that just haven't been proven yet
I know that since I started doing IF over 3 months ago that I have been better able to control my wt, even when I haven't strictly followed my IF schedule and have not strictly limited my cal intake, which contradicts the premise that it's only about scheduling and CICO
I'm not trying to make the case that there actually are other benefits to IF but to dismiss any possibilty that there "may" be other benefits is shortsighted and bigoted
Agreed. Every person who dismisses the current studies because most were conducted on rodents or the human sample size was small is doing exactly this. If it were cancer research and a drug was found that eliminated tumors in mice within weeks wouldn’t most people view that as incredibly promising and be excited to see more human trails happen ASAP? I think so
Every time I post any of the confirmed studies the majority of responses on MFP (including in this thread) dismiss them as insufficient and basically invalid with no mention of the promise found or need to look into it more. It’s ridiculous to me.
No one has said IF is best for everyone. It isn’t magic. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to try and see if they experience additional benefits.
I personally stopped doing IF when I started running early morning. Waiting too long to eat after interfered with my recovery. When I did IF it was an easy way for my to stay in my calories and I found that I got better sleep when I did IF. I experienced none of the health benefits being explored in the studies I posted in this thread - I don’t believe that proves they don’t exist for anyone though. I think, like anything, more research is needed and NOTHING will work for everyone universally the same.
To the bolded: Actually, no.
Speaking as survivor of advanced cancer, and someone who has followed research fairly closely as a consequence, I would not react that way at all.
Overwhelmingly, most "promising" drug trials in vitro or in animals come to naught, or are found to be positively dangerous. I don't want a quick progression to human trials; I think the current US process overall is pretty good (with various stages of trials, proceeding from repeated/successful in vitro, to repeated/successful animal trials, to safety trials in the most extreme populations (frankly, people who are likely to die soon anyway), to trials about dosage and side effects, and finally to double-blind trials (if at all possible) comparing the new drugs to the most effective current treatments. This takes quite a while. Sometimes people die who could've benefitted . . . in the rare cases where the drug proves out. And other lives are saved by not putting out some dangerous treatment before the evidence is in.
And I certainly would not be advocating that people around me try some new treatment, or telling people that they will experience definite, specific benefits, based on an early animal trial and not much else.
The difference here is that IF is (in most healthy people) likely to be harmless at worst, so there's no reason not to try it, if it sounds doable for a particular person. It's still the case, IMO, that advocating that IF has definite, specific benefits based on a mouse study and one's n=1 experience, is not a reasonable thing to do.
I have any number of health practices that I think work well for me, and that are likely to be harmless in any relatively healthy person, that I don't try to tell other people will assuredly have the benefits I seek from them, because the proof just isn't there. If I over-advocate for things, beyond where the science sits in my best understanding, I make the whole body of people who do what I do look like we're dishonest or lacking in insight. That doesn't make converts. IMO, the most effective advocate is the one who tells the balanced story as best they are able.
Further, I've frequently described my oddball health practices on threads here, pointing out why I'm trying them, why I think they're safe (with any conditions I know of, if there are any), being very clear that there's no proof (or limited evidence) and that it's speculative. I can't recall every being attacked for these oddball views; at most sometimes people have asked questions about my thinking, and I've answered. NBD. Sometimes they say they don't want to try those things, because reasons. Also NBD.
I'd also note that - even though I personally wouldn't consider IF at this stage because it wouldn't suit me at all - I have suggested it on threads as something other people might want to try, if they think it might help them.
Eventually, there may be sound evidence that IF has the benefits its early advocates expect of it, in humans. We aren't there yet.16 -
It"'s funny to me how the people who believe that IF is only a way of scheduling when you eat and who believe that weight loss is just about CICO are so dismissive of the possibity of any other benefits from IF than just weight loss.
It's seems that the argument is that, since there is no scientifically acceptable proof that there are other benefits, there can't possibly be any other benefits, which is pure nonsense. There can be benefits that just haven't been proven yet
I know that since I started doing IF over 3 months ago that I have been better able to control my wt, even when I haven't strictly followed my IF schedule and have not strictly limited my cal intake, which contradicts the premise that it's only about scheduling and CICO
I'm not trying to make the case that there actually are other benefits to IF but to dismiss any possibilty that there "may" be other benefits is shortsighted and bigoted
Agreed. Every person who dismisses the current studies because most were conducted on rodents or the human sample size was small is doing exactly this. If it were cancer research and a drug was found that eliminated tumors in mice within weeks wouldn’t most people view that as incredibly promising and be excited to see more human trails happen ASAP? I think so
Every time I post any of the confirmed studies the majority of responses on MFP (including in this thread) dismiss them as insufficient and basically invalid with no mention of the promise found or need to look into it more. It’s ridiculous to me.
No one has said IF is best for everyone. It isn’t magic. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to try and see if they experience additional benefits.
I personally stopped doing IF when I started running early morning. Waiting too long to eat after interfered with my recovery. When I did IF it was an easy way for my to stay in my calories and I found that I got better sleep when I did IF. I experienced none of the health benefits being explored in the studies I posted in this thread - I don’t believe that proves they don’t exist for anyone though. I think, like anything, more research is needed and NOTHING will work for everyone universally the same.
To the bolded: Actually, no.
Speaking as survivor of advanced cancer, and someone who has followed research fairly closely as a consequence, I would not react that way at all.
Overwhelmingly, most "promising" drug trials in vitro or in animals come to naught, or are found to be positively dangerous. I don't want a quick progression to human trials; I think the current US process overall is pretty good (with various stages of trials, proceeding from repeated/successful in vitro, to repeated/successful animal trials, to safety trials in the most extreme populations (frankly, people who are likely to die soon anyway), to trials about dosage and side effects, and finally to double-blind trials (if at all possible) comparing the new drugs to the most effective current treatments. This takes quite a while. Sometimes people die who could've benefitted . . . in the rare cases where the drug proves out. And other lives are saved by not putting out some dangerous treatment before the evidence is in.
And I certainly would not be advocating that people around me try some new treatment, or telling people that they will experience definite, specific benefits, based on an early animal trial and not much else.
The difference here is that IF is (in most healthy people) likely to be harmless at worst, so there's no reason not to try it, if it sounds doable for a particular person. It's still the case, IMO, that advocating that IF has definite, specific benefits based on a mouse study and one's n=1 experience, is not a reasonable thing to do.
I have any number of health practices that I think work well for me, and that are likely to be harmless in any relatively healthy person, that I don't try to tell other people will assuredly have the benefits I seek from them, because the proof just isn't there. If I over-advocate for things, beyond where the science sits in my best understanding, I make the whole body of people who do what I do look like we're dishonest or lacking in insight. That doesn't make converts. IMO, the most effective advocate is the one who tells the balanced story as best they are able.
Further, I've frequently described my oddball health practices on threads here, pointing out why I'm trying them, why I think they're safe (with any conditions I know of, if there are any), being very clear that there's no proof (or limited evidence) and that it's speculative. I can't recall every being attacked for these oddball views; at most sometimes people have asked questions about my thinking, and I've answered. NBD. Sometimes they say they don't want to try those things, because reasons. Also NBD.
I'd also note that - even though I personally wouldn't consider IF at this stage because it wouldn't suit me at all - I have suggested it on threads as something other people might want to try, if they think it might help them.
Eventually, there may be sound evidence that IF has the benefits its early advocates expect of it, in humans. We aren't there yet.
But no one said that others should try it or that they would experience “definite” benefits. You’re getting ahead of yourself there. People ONLY pointed out that there is some promising research around potential health benefits that aren’t limited to weight loss.
My mother survived stage 3 colon cancer. I had skin cancer found very early and eliminated in a single procedure. I would be excited to see something new being explored and researched because that’s how advancement is made. It all has to start somewhere.
Just my two cents1 -
Most people might - most people are also ignorant of how inapplicable rodent research is - and it is less applicable when it comes to diet than cancer.It"'s funny to me how the people who believe that IF is only a way of scheduling when you eat and who believe that weight loss is just about CICO are so dismissive of the possibity of any other benefits from IF than just weight loss.
It's seems that the argument is that, since there is no scientifically acceptable proof that there are other benefits, there can't possibly be any other benefits, which is pure nonsense. There can be benefits that just haven't been proven yet
I know that since I started doing IF over 3 months ago that I have been better able to control my wt, even when I haven't strictly followed my IF schedule and have not strictly limited my cal intake, which contradicts the premise that it's only about scheduling and CICO
I'm not trying to make the case that there actually are other benefits to IF but to dismiss any possibilty that there "may" be other benefits is shortsighted and bigoted
Agreed. Every person who dismisses the current studies because most were conducted on rodents or the human sample size was small is doing exactly this. If it were cancer research and a drug was found that eliminated tumors in mice within weeks wouldn’t most people view that as incredibly promising and be excited to see more human trails happen ASAP? I think so
Every time I post any of the confirmed studies the majority of responses on MFP (including in this thread) dismiss them as insufficient and basically invalid with no mention of the promise found or need to look into it more. It’s ridiculous to me.
No one has said IF is best for everyone. It isn’t magic. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to try and see if they experience additional benefits.
I personally stopped doing IF when I started running early morning. Waiting too long to eat after interfered with my recovery. When I did IF it was an easy way for my to stay in my calories and I found that I got better sleep when I did IF. I experienced none of the health benefits being explored in the studies I posted in this thread - I don’t believe that proves they don’t exist for anyone though. I think, like anything, more research is needed and NOTHING will work for everyone universally the same.
A lot of people here on MFP, particularly in the debate section understand this about rodent studies. If you posted cancer cure research on rats here, it would probably get some "ah, interesting", not "well we have a cure".
9 -
It"'s funny to me how the people who believe that IF is only a way of scheduling when you eat and who believe that weight loss is just about CICO are so dismissive of the possibity of any other benefits from IF than just weight loss.
It's seems that the argument is that, since there is no scientifically acceptable proof that there are other benefits, there can't possibly be any other benefits, which is pure nonsense. There can be benefits that just haven't been proven yet
I know that since I started doing IF over 3 months ago that I have been better able to control my wt, even when I haven't strictly followed my IF schedule and have not strictly limited my cal intake, which contradicts the premise that it's only about scheduling and CICO
I'm not trying to make the case that there actually are other benefits to IF but to dismiss any possibilty that there "may" be other benefits is shortsighted and bigoted
Agreed. Every person who dismisses the current studies because most were conducted on rodents or the human sample size was small is doing exactly this. If it were cancer research and a drug was found that eliminated tumors in mice within weeks wouldn’t most people view that as incredibly promising and be excited to see more human trails happen ASAP? I think so
Every time I post any of the confirmed studies the majority of responses on MFP (including in this thread) dismiss them as insufficient and basically invalid with no mention of the promise found or need to look into it more. It’s ridiculous to me.
No one has said IF is best for everyone. It isn’t magic. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to try and see if they experience additional benefits.
I personally stopped doing IF when I started running early morning. Waiting too long to eat after interfered with my recovery. When I did IF it was an easy way for my to stay in my calories and I found that I got better sleep when I did IF. I experienced none of the health benefits being explored in the studies I posted in this thread - I don’t believe that proves they don’t exist for anyone though. I think, like anything, more research is needed and NOTHING will work for everyone universally the same.
To the bolded: Actually, no.
Speaking as survivor of advanced cancer, and someone who has followed research fairly closely as a consequence, I would not react that way at all.
Overwhelmingly, most "promising" drug trials in vitro or in animals come to naught, or are found to be positively dangerous. I don't want a quick progression to human trials; I think the current US process overall is pretty good (with various stages of trials, proceeding from repeated/successful in vitro, to repeated/successful animal trials, to safety trials in the most extreme populations (frankly, people who are likely to die soon anyway), to trials about dosage and side effects, and finally to double-blind trials (if at all possible) comparing the new drugs to the most effective current treatments. This takes quite a while. Sometimes people die who could've benefitted . . . in the rare cases where the drug proves out. And other lives are saved by not putting out some dangerous treatment before the evidence is in.
And I certainly would not be advocating that people around me try some new treatment, or telling people that they will experience definite, specific benefits, based on an early animal trial and not much else.
The difference here is that IF is (in most healthy people) likely to be harmless at worst, so there's no reason not to try it, if it sounds doable for a particular person. It's still the case, IMO, that advocating that IF has definite, specific benefits based on a mouse study and one's n=1 experience, is not a reasonable thing to do.
I have any number of health practices that I think work well for me, and that are likely to be harmless in any relatively healthy person, that I don't try to tell other people will assuredly have the benefits I seek from them, because the proof just isn't there. If I over-advocate for things, beyond where the science sits in my best understanding, I make the whole body of people who do what I do look like we're dishonest or lacking in insight. That doesn't make converts. IMO, the most effective advocate is the one who tells the balanced story as best they are able.
Further, I've frequently described my oddball health practices on threads here, pointing out why I'm trying them, why I think they're safe (with any conditions I know of, if there are any), being very clear that there's no proof (or limited evidence) and that it's speculative. I can't recall every being attacked for these oddball views; at most sometimes people have asked questions about my thinking, and I've answered. NBD. Sometimes they say they don't want to try those things, because reasons. Also NBD.
I'd also note that - even though I personally wouldn't consider IF at this stage because it wouldn't suit me at all - I have suggested it on threads as something other people might want to try, if they think it might help them.
Eventually, there may be sound evidence that IF has the benefits its early advocates expect of it, in humans. We aren't there yet.
But no one said that others should try it or that they would experience “definite” benefits. You’re getting ahead of yourself there. People ONLY pointed out that there is some promising research around potential health benefits that aren’t limited to weight loss.
My mother survived stage 3 colon cancer. I had skin cancer found very early and eliminated in a single procedure. I would be excited to see something new being explored and researched because that’s how advancement is made. It all has to start somewhere.
Just my two cents
I think really the term we are disagreeing with here is "promising". You are characterizing the research as promising, we are suggesting it's not really though.
As someone with both cancer and Alzheimers in my family tree, I can assure you that there are mouse/rat studies all the time that seem to point to a cure for both. I have seen that "excitement" in family members who don't want to have to worry about it anymore, along with the subsequent disappointment that for 20 years, none of those hopeful animal studies have resulted in a bonafide cure.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/04/10/522775456/drugs-that-work-in-mice-often-fail-when-tried-in-people
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642860/
https://www.nature.com/news/misleading-mouse-studies-waste-medical-resources-1.14938
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/tips-for-understanding-studies/animal-lab-studies/
As far as small sample sizes, in addition to the science of statistics almost completely invalidating small sample sizes usefulness, another problem with those is that they are almost always similar people representing a narrow demographic from the same place, not that that is ever mentioned in all the articles getting people excited about "promising new research".
In all seriousness, if you get hopeful at every mouse study that shows a positive result, you would think that we were just about to cure everything all the time. I truly do wish those studies warranted hope, but they rarely do. It would be like living on a busy highway running to the window every time you hear a car going by hoping it's a Lamborghini. Could it technically be one? Sure, I guess. But you're more likely to just end up exhausted and never see one.
There are plenty of people right now who don't believe that science is worth listening to anymore, because people don't understand that one rodent study or one dietary study on 40 ice fisherman in Greenland is not really promising science, and they get exhausted trying to keep track of what the truth is.7 -
It"'s funny to me how the people who believe that IF is only a way of scheduling when you eat and who believe that weight loss is just about CICO are so dismissive of the possibity of any other benefits from IF than just weight loss.
It's seems that the argument is that, since there is no scientifically acceptable proof that there are other benefits, there can't possibly be any other benefits, which is pure nonsense. There can be benefits that just haven't been proven yet
I know that since I started doing IF over 3 months ago that I have been better able to control my wt, even when I haven't strictly followed my IF schedule and have not strictly limited my cal intake, which contradicts the premise that it's only about scheduling and CICO
I'm not trying to make the case that there actually are other benefits to IF but to dismiss any possibilty that there "may" be other benefits is shortsighted and bigoted
Agreed. Every person who dismisses the current studies because most were conducted on rodents or the human sample size was small is doing exactly this. If it were cancer research and a drug was found that eliminated tumors in mice within weeks wouldn’t most people view that as incredibly promising and be excited to see more human trails happen ASAP? I think so
Every time I post any of the confirmed studies the majority of responses on MFP (including in this thread) dismiss them as insufficient and basically invalid with no mention of the promise found or need to look into it more. It’s ridiculous to me.
No one has said IF is best for everyone. It isn’t magic. And it doesn’t cost anyone anything to try and see if they experience additional benefits.
I personally stopped doing IF when I started running early morning. Waiting too long to eat after interfered with my recovery. When I did IF it was an easy way for my to stay in my calories and I found that I got better sleep when I did IF. I experienced none of the health benefits being explored in the studies I posted in this thread - I don’t believe that proves they don’t exist for anyone though. I think, like anything, more research is needed and NOTHING will work for everyone universally the same.
To the bolded: Actually, no.
Speaking as survivor of advanced cancer, and someone who has followed research fairly closely as a consequence, I would not react that way at all.
Overwhelmingly, most "promising" drug trials in vitro or in animals come to naught, or are found to be positively dangerous. I don't want a quick progression to human trials; I think the current US process overall is pretty good (with various stages of trials, proceeding from repeated/successful in vitro, to repeated/successful animal trials, to safety trials in the most extreme populations (frankly, people who are likely to die soon anyway), to trials about dosage and side effects, and finally to double-blind trials (if at all possible) comparing the new drugs to the most effective current treatments. This takes quite a while. Sometimes people die who could've benefitted . . . in the rare cases where the drug proves out. And other lives are saved by not putting out some dangerous treatment before the evidence is in.
And I certainly would not be advocating that people around me try some new treatment, or telling people that they will experience definite, specific benefits, based on an early animal trial and not much else.
The difference here is that IF is (in most healthy people) likely to be harmless at worst, so there's no reason not to try it, if it sounds doable for a particular person. It's still the case, IMO, that advocating that IF has definite, specific benefits based on a mouse study and one's n=1 experience, is not a reasonable thing to do.
I have any number of health practices that I think work well for me, and that are likely to be harmless in any relatively healthy person, that I don't try to tell other people will assuredly have the benefits I seek from them, because the proof just isn't there. If I over-advocate for things, beyond where the science sits in my best understanding, I make the whole body of people who do what I do look like we're dishonest or lacking in insight. That doesn't make converts. IMO, the most effective advocate is the one who tells the balanced story as best they are able.
Further, I've frequently described my oddball health practices on threads here, pointing out why I'm trying them, why I think they're safe (with any conditions I know of, if there are any), being very clear that there's no proof (or limited evidence) and that it's speculative. I can't recall every being attacked for these oddball views; at most sometimes people have asked questions about my thinking, and I've answered. NBD. Sometimes they say they don't want to try those things, because reasons. Also NBD.
I'd also note that - even though I personally wouldn't consider IF at this stage because it wouldn't suit me at all - I have suggested it on threads as something other people might want to try, if they think it might help them.
Eventually, there may be sound evidence that IF has the benefits its early advocates expect of it, in humans. We aren't there yet.
But no one said that others should try it or that they would experience “definite” benefits. You’re getting ahead of yourself there. People ONLY pointed out that there is some promising research around potential health benefits that aren’t limited to weight loss.
My mother survived stage 3 colon cancer. I had skin cancer found very early and eliminated in a single procedure. I would be excited to see something new being explored and researched because that’s how advancement is made. It all has to start somewhere.
Just my two cents
I'd suggest that attributing looking younger after weight loss without caveats/qualifications, to doing IF would be attributing "definite" benefits to it. JMO, though.
I know that you didn't make that attribution. I should've been more clear that I was responding to you on the research study aspect, and to the thread overall with some of the rest of the post. Apologies for that unclarity. :flowerforyou:7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions