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
Options
Replies
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I have no issue with anyone that does IF, and I wholeheartedly believe it works for some people. I am not anti-IF, but I think its important for people to understand why it works. Feel free to point out any post of mine that calls you or any other IF proponent 'bad guys'. You can look all you want, but you won't find anything because its never happened. I can leave it as "IF works for you" if you can acknowledge that its not magic, and the reason it works is because it helps you to limit calories. If anyone is claiming something is superior, it is you because you are claiming that when calories consumed are equal, meal timing somehow gives another advantage when it comes to weight loss. That is absolutely false, and scientifically inaccurate, yet for some reason you refuse to accept that fact. This is the debate section, so you can call me a "truth defender" if you like, but I am simply calling out false claims that other less informed people could view as truth. False information helps noone, especially in a forum such as this where there are a large number of people looking for good advice. Weight loss can be a battle for some people(as evident by obesity statistics), and its made even harder when there is so much bad information, and claims of miracle diets that aren't backed by any real science.10 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?1 -
It is accurate that there are no sufficient studies to prove whether there are additional benefits beyond calorie control. This is precisely the reason it is specious to claim them. I have done IF for 10+ years and have lots of data. My weight loss track dead on with calorie restriction when I am cutting.
Any other benefits I may or may not think I get are not being experienced in a controlled environment. Thus they are subjective anecdotes. Anecdotes =/= proof.
Edited to add: I would love it if some of these additional less obvious benefits prove out. If would be good for me if they did. But I'm not claiming them until the research is done.6 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I have no issue with anyone that does IF, and I wholeheartedly believe it works for some people. I am not anti-IF, but I think its important for people to understand why it works. Feel free to point out any post of mine that calls you or any other IF proponent 'bad guys'. You can look all you want, but you won't find anything because its never happened. I can leave it as "IF works for you" if you can acknowledge that its not magic, and the reason it works is because it helps you to limit calories. If anyone is claiming something is superior, it is you because you are claiming that when calories consumed are equal, meal timing somehow gives another advantage when it comes to weight loss. That is absolutely false, and scientifically inaccurate, yet for some reason you refuse to accept that fact. This is the debate section, so you can call me a "truth defender" if you like, but I am simply calling out false claims that other less informed people could view as truth. False information helps noone, especially in a forum such as this where there are a large number of people looking for good advice. Weight loss can be a battle for some people(as evident by obesity statistics), and its made even harder when there is so much bad information, and claims of miracle diets that aren't backed by any real science.
I'd be happy to just leave the discussion at that, I can also acknowledge that it's not magic and definitely not for everyone. I (like many others) only go by my own personal experience which is what it is.
No one is touting false information or trying to sell anything - you just even said "I wholeheartedly believe it works for some people" - so maybe someone on here looking for advice could be one of said 'some people' and be put off a method that would work for them by reading this thread...
You are responding to my response to someone else who brought in condescension, tiger repelling rings and labels of irrationality. I agree this has got out of hand am I'm happy to get back to the topic in hand in a mature and open minded fashion.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I have no issue with anyone that does IF, and I wholeheartedly believe it works for some people. I am not anti-IF, but I think its important for people to understand why it works. Feel free to point out any post of mine that calls you or any other IF proponent 'bad guys'. You can look all you want, but you won't find anything because its never happened. I can leave it as "IF works for you" if you can acknowledge that its not magic, and the reason it works is because it helps you to limit calories. If anyone is claiming something is superior, it is you because you are claiming that when calories consumed are equal, meal timing somehow gives another advantage when it comes to weight loss. That is absolutely false, and scientifically inaccurate, yet for some reason you refuse to accept that fact. This is the debate section, so you can call me a "truth defender" if you like, but I am simply calling out false claims that other less informed people could view as truth. False information helps noone, especially in a forum such as this where there are a large number of people looking for good advice. Weight loss can be a battle for some people(as evident by obesity statistics), and its made even harder when there is so much bad information, and claims of miracle diets that aren't backed by any real science.
I'd be happy to just leave the discussion at that, I can also acknowledge that it's not magic and definitely not for everyone. I (like many others) only go by my own personal experience which is what it is.
No one is touting false information or trying to sell anything - you just even said "I wholeheartedly believe it works for some people" - so maybe someone on here looking for advice could be one of said 'some people' and be put off a method that would work for them by reading this thread...
You are responding to my response to someone else who brought in condescension, tiger repelling rings and labels of irrationality. I agree this has got out of hand am I'm happy to get back to the topic in hand in a mature and open minded fashion.
If you are referring to my post, please note that I did not mention irrationality or condescension at all. But yes, I thought the riffs on the tiger ring were pretty lame.
Maybe lay off the accusations and tend to yourself in how you characterize the posts of others?2 -
@PWHF
Re. "I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them."
I've been on this site for years and have frequently stated that IF gave me positive results. I offer the opinion it's a tool worth trying if people are interested.
Although I did the less common 5:2 protocol for weight loss which many people find difficult/impossible/slightly weird it helped me adhere to my weekly calorie goal easier compared to an everyday deficit. But I'm also able to see that many people would and do have the opposite experience.
I've never had the pushback you are getting because I recognise and state very clearly it's a tool that helps some people's adherence and that is all that is actually supported by reputable and relevant studies.
I've even added the anecdote that I believe it helped support my exercise routine better than an everyday deficit (mostly training and recovering at maintenance instead of a deficit) but I can't state positively that it did or gave me superior results as I didn't have a twin brother following a different eating pattern to compare results against. I don't get pushback on that either as I recognise I have no proof, just a feeling and I frame my annecdote accordingly.
Tried 16:8 but gave me no benefit over simply skipping breakfast when I feel like it (most of the time) - I'm an intermittent intermittent faster perhaps?
There really isn't an anti-IF cabal on here, that's just a smokescreen. The pushback you are getting isn't because of IF itself.7 -
A negative from IF that happened to me was when I was transitioning out of it. At a point, I got tired of skipping breakfast and wanted to re-introduce it to my diet. Problem was, I got so used to eating bigger meals that I gained weight initially. Took a while for me to correct that, in all honesty, I still struggle with it.
That said, a positive was, I learned I can wait to eat...5 -
My personal experience:
For about 25 years I have routinely eaten my food in what the internet now calls 18:6 eating pattern. I didn't choose to make it happen it just happened and it wasn't always 18:6 because I was not trying to force a number:number situation but it was mostly close to that.
For most of those 25 years I have gradually increased in weight. I would stabilize in a range for awhile, lose weight, and then gain back more. Rinse and repeat. Other than the 6 meal a day stupidity I tried for 2 weeks this style of eating never helped me stay on a plan or get to a goal. If you continue to make bad choices both in weight loss and in meal selection when gaining this style of eating does nothing to help you.
21 months ago I started losing again. I am not sure when I became aware that skipping breakfast had become a thing called IF but it was at least 2 months in. Again... eating that way has been my habit for a long time. I started see threads on this site called MFP called Intermittent Fasting and I laughed at how seriously people were taking it. It was absurd to me. From my experience there was nothing special about it.
In time I did begin to appreciate what skipping breakfast and eating very little dinner was doing for me. Especially on days that included restaurant or other treat food. I could eat much more food. I could and still do eat a full medium size pizza and still stay inside my calorie goal for the day.
My wife can't skip breakfast without feeling ill. I wish she could because she gets her joy stolen by comparing what she can eat in a meal to what I can eat. Because she has opted to lose slower and I was going faster there have been plenty of times we have eaten the same number of calories in a day but because I eat them in less time I get much bigger portions.
Since August of last year I have meticulously tracked my progress and how it compares to my calorie deficit. Each day I enter my calories and my weight into a spreadsheet. It calculates my logged deficit and once a week my SS calculates my deficit by weight change. Obviously in a week's time you can have very mismatched numbers but if you compare my running rate of loss to my running rate of loss by deficit those numbers are always very close. There is no way to match them perfectly because the bathroom scale rounds up and down, energy expenditure is different from one day to the next, logged food calories are averages, and I have a tendency to log high. However most of the time I am within 100 daily calories of matching. This means for over a year I have watched my weight decline at around 3500 calories per pound. I have seen no measurable fat loss advantage to fasting a little longer everyday.
With that said even my 15 months of tracking is not proof of anything. There is a margin of error because my efforts are not precise enough. I am also motivated only by weight loss not logging every bite I eat precisely to win an argument on the interwebz. I like logging a little over. If there was a small percent advantage I would not be able to see it.
8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
Wait. So you purposely made a bad faith argument that was intentionally ludicruous and disingenuous, but I'm the bad guy because I pointed out the bad faith position is delusional?
I am trying to be a perfectly genuine, honest, and responsive interlocutor. I have yet to see you at all substatiant your near slander of me in saying I'm invalidating your experience or saying IF should be avoided / doesn't work at all.
To go back to the analogy on hopes you can engage it honestly - I've never denied there are no tigers, just as I don't deny people lose weight at times following IF. I'm just saying the reasons it works are not what people are ascribing them to.
Now, when you say your personal experience is supposed to hold more sway than actual research, yeah, I'm going to disagree. Again, not in the sense that I'm saying you didn't lose weight or were delusional about the fact that you did lose it. I am saying it in the sense that you do not have the evidence to attribute the causation to what you want to attribute it to. And at the point that you do not understand that a single person's experience can't have the statistical power to show that causation, yes, your claim is not rational. It is a post hoc / correlation-causation fallacy. People who persist in fallacies are part of what being called irrational means. I'm not saying it to be rude.
Frankly, if someone can point out to me when I am, I take it as useful. Because it is pretty easy to stop being irrational - you discard your fallacious thinking, and suddenly you don't just feel correct, you are correct.8 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
Wait. So you purposely made a bad faith argument that was intentionally ludicruous and disingenuous, but I'm the bad guy because I pointed out the bad faith position is delusional?
I am trying to be a perfectly genuine, honest, and responsive interlocutor. I have yet to see you at all substatiant your near slander of me in saying I'm invalidating your experience or saying IF should be avoided / doesn't work at all.
To go back to the analogy on hopes you can engage it honestly - I've never denied there are no tigers, just as I don't deny people lose weight at times following IF. I'm just saying the reasons it works are not what people are ascribing them to.
Now, when you say your personal experience is supposed to hold more sway than actual research, yeah, I'm going to disagree. Again, not in the sense that I'm saying you didn't lose weight or were delusional about the fact that you did lose it. I am saying it in the sense that you do not have the evidence to attribute the causation to what you want to attribute it to. And at the point that you do not understand that a single person's experience can't have the statistical power to show that causation, yes, your claim is not rational. It is a post hoc / correlation-causation fallacy. People who persist in fallacies are part of what being called irrational means. I'm not saying it to be rude.
Frankly, if someone can point out to me when I am, I take it as useful. Because it is pretty easy to stop being irrational - you discard your fallacious thinking, and suddenly you don't just feel correct, you are correct.
When did I say that?
IF just works for me - better than when I didn't do it. I don't care about 'statistical power' only my own results.
If I near slandered you with my delusional, fallacious thinking, ludicrous and delusional 'bad faith' position then well.. What can I say?!2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.2 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.
I get that you are basing your beliefs on your personal experience. I don't think anyone is confused by that. My point is, I am not going to take your n=1 as proof that IF offers a metabolic advantage when there is no scientific evidence to suggest it does. I naturally practiced IF for a number of years and gained weight during that time. I could easily point to my n=1, but it isn't relevant because I think it is very easy for a person to misattribute blame or praise to certain factors based on personal experience. Unless you are meticulously accounting for every single variable(like the goal is in legitimate scientific studies) then your n=1 doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. I have heard Keto folks claim the same metabolic advantages, and the only thing that has ever really been proven is that weight gain or loss is directly controlled by CICO. I am not trying to pick on IF or Keto people, because I have said numerous times that people should do whatever works for them, but I know why those tools work. They work because they help to limit calories in. That's it, it really isn't any more complicated than that.5 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.
I get that you are basing your beliefs on your personal experience. I don't think anyone is confused by that. My point is, I am not going to take your n=1 as proof that IF offers a metabolic advantage when there is no scientific evidence to suggest it does. I naturally practiced IF for a number of years and gained weight during that time. I could easily point to my n=1, but it isn't relevant because I think it is very easy for a person to misattribute blame or praise to certain factors based on personal experience. Unless you are meticulously accounting for every single variable(like the goal is in legitimate scientific studies) then your n=1 doesn't really mean much in the grand scheme of things. I have heard Keto folks claim the same metabolic advantages, and the only thing that has ever really been proven is that weight gain or loss is directly controlled by CICO. I am not trying to pick on IF or Keto people, because I have said numerous times that people should do whatever works for them, but I know why those tools work. They work because they help to limit calories in. That's it, it really isn't any more complicated than that.
Correct! The other stuff is promising, but the bolded is all we know at the moment...3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.
Will probably be best just to digress from the debate here, I, like you, am not hell bent on proving IF as the superior dieting strategy....only sharing personal experiences that i methodically put together to achieve my results.
You know what's interesting? Almost 10/10 in the scenarios where i competed in shows, and in the network of individuals that are passionate about fitness, or even people adapting a healthy lifestyle.....the individuals that practice IF regularly usually appear healthier with greater physiques than those that don't. Go figure1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.
Will probably be best just to digress from the debate here, I, like you, am not hell bent on proving IF as the superior dieting strategy....only sharing personal experiences that i methodically put together to achieve my results.
You know what's interesting? Almost 10/10 in the scenarios where i competed in shows, and in the network of individuals that are passionate about fitness, or even people adapting a healthy lifestyle.....the individuals that practice IF regularly usually appear healthier with greater physiques than those that don't. Go figure
Yep - 100%1 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.
Will probably be best just to digress from the debate here, I, like you, am not hell bent on proving IF as the superior dieting strategy....only sharing personal experiences that i methodically put together to achieve my results.
You know what's interesting? Almost 10/10 in the scenarios where i competed in shows, and in the network of individuals that are passionate about fitness, or even people adapting a healthy lifestyle.....the individuals that practice IF regularly usually appear healthier with greater physiques than those that don't. Go figure
I was a college athlete, and probably 99% of the time, the greatest athletes did not practice IF. As athletes it was very important to fuel our bodies at all times, and our performances were definitely negatively affected if we didn't. Again, your personal beliefs and experiences do not invalidate science. You are clearly very biased to the point that your vision is clouded. I just feel bad for all those non-IF people you competed against who had lesser physiques and didn't appear as healthy. They(and I) apparently have no idea how to be truly healthy.5 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »fitnessguy266 wrote: »IF has been proving many cellular, fat loss, muscle retaining, and many more benefits far beyond just caloric restriction. I have personally executed many different diet approaches, and IF has proven far superior to any other result wise. My two cents
This is exactly my personal experience as well. I wouldn't bother engaging in the debate here, life is too short. Good on you and enjoy your results
If someone (who lives in the USA, not say India) claimed that they had great success with their tiger repelling ring, would you tell them life is too short when others try to convince them the ring isn't the explanation for their dearth of tiger incidents? If the person valued believing in their tiger ring above all else, you would be giving great advice though. Discussing it with people here would eventually lead them to think differently about that ring.
No it wouldn't, if said person had tried several methods and through trial and error found that the tiger repelling ring worked for them they'd keep doing what they were doing as long as it worked. Flipping it on it's head - if the people trying to convince them valued their opinion above all else and it became apparent that the conversation would just go round in an endless loop the person might decide life is too short to engage in arguing it round in circles.
My conclusion is that I don't care what other people's opinions are of what I'm doing and as long as it brings me goo d results I will keep doing it. If it stops working I'll stop doing it. I'll leave the debating to the debaters and wish you all a nice day.
Sorry, let me put a further qualification on it, and the person is rational.
Saying it works for them is misunderstanding the scenario, or how evidence works. Do... do you understand the whole point is a tiger repelling ring can't be shown to work in a region that doesn't have tigers? I don't want to come off belaboring but your attempts to alter the example scenario comes off as needing this stated explicitly. Changing the scenario doesn't really engage in the argument. It would be like me taking an IF scenario and saying "well what if the person was practicing IF and their feeding window was 20 hours wide and it stopped working? Clearly that would show IF doesn't work."
The point was that I'll take my personal experience and keep doing what I'm doing and choose not to argue to death about it on an Internet forum. The tiger repelling ring (which I didn't bother to Google) I just went with as it is what you likened IF to, you could have easily have said 'flying spaghetti monster' and my response would still have been "I don't care, it works for me, have a nice day".
Call me irrational and tell me I "value believing in my tiger ring above all else", tell the other guy (and anyone else with similar experiences) that their personal experience is 'wrong'. While it's working I'll keep doing it.
I still don't understand the motivation behind being so anti-IF. Surely if you don't think something works just don't do it and if someone asks you about it share your opinion. Why the drive to shut it down so aggressively? What is that about?
Except, I'm not. I'm fine with people doing IF. Don't mischaracterize me to try to make me appear emotional or unreasonable simply because you don't have rational arguments for your own position. Pretty simple, quote me one single post I've made where I've told someone don't do IF besides people who have actually had an issue with how IF worked for them.
To the extent that I am vehement on anything, it is merely that I don't like people doing things for false reasons. It gets pretty close to, if not actually being, the case of someone being lied to, and possibly spreading the lies because they've been convinced. Is that such an odd stance to take? You wouldn't be concerned about someone who believes in magical results from a ring, and particularly if he tried to recruit others into using the rings, particularly if you knew there were ring-makers out there selling rings with obviously false promises, that they know are false?
Are you suggesting that I'm spreading lies and trying to recruit people into IF for the benefit of people selling IF related courses? Do you think I (and other pro IF posters) have some kind of nefarious agenda that you need to swoop in on and defend the fad dieters from?
What are you positioning yourself as in creating that scenario?
I know you didn't quote me in your response, but to the bolded its obvious that there are people out there trying to sell IF based on dubious claims just to make money. I don't necessarily think those are your motives, but I do think that you may have drank a little too much Kool-Aid and are misattributing your results to IF instead of placing the credit where it does belong. That was the point of the whole tiger repelling ring analogy that seemed to completely go over your head. The reason you get called out on it, is because its one thing to believe what you want, but you continue to double down on your belief and you turned a perfectly rational analogy into a completely nonsensical joke. There are people out there looking for advice, and no matter what your motives are, you aren't helping these people because you can't even make a rational argument yourself. IF isn't magic. Its a tool that works for some by limiting caloric consumption. That can help some lose weight because it limits CI, and CICO is what controls weight loss or gain. There is no other magic surrounding it. No unicorns, no tigers, and no FSM.
I can only share my personal experiences like others have tried to only to get very aggressively shut down and told that they are making claims and their personal experiences are somehow wrong. I've been doing the IF + lifting thing for a while now and it's been more effective than when I did just lifting + tracking and adherance.
I got the tiger repelling ring thing and decided to not take it seriously because when someone in a debate tries the position themselves as the authority and categorically right then tried to illustrate that in a patronizing and condescending way then the 'debate' is no longer to be taken seriously.
FWIW those of us that do see results from IF and believe in it see the other side as just as irrational as we are being labelled. It would be good if the topic being debated could be stuck to without calling those who disagree with you deluded and irrational.
As for those appointing themselves the role of truth defenders to protect those looking for advice. If you need to make yourself look and feel like a good guy on the Internet maybe you could find a way of doing it without having to make other people into 'bad guys'. It's not your place to appoint yourselves as judge/jury/executioner and truth police.
Still doing IF, still enjoying the results - My position on this was stated by another poster earlier:
"Why can't you just leave it as, "IF works for me"..? Why must it be further qualified as superior..?"
I'm more than happy to leave it at that and not qualify it as superior. Unfortunately the #cancelIF crowd insist on telling me (and others) that actually it doesn't work for us and our personal experiences are wrong...
I think the #cancelIF crowd is a figment of your imagination. Many of the people that have been posting actually practice IF, me among them. The objection is to unproven N=1 claims of some kind of metabolic advantage.
There is pretty much nobody that has posted here that does not see IF as a valid dietary modality for helping to control calories and possibly improve insulin resistance. If is the other claims of some kind of metabolic advantage based on uncontrolled personal that draws fire. So, I think is specious to frame the discussion in terms of sides and use terms like #cancelIF crowd. Quite honestly, it undermines your credibility.
And yes, I am the one that hit the disagree button for the reasons stated above.
Don't think I had any credibility before, hence the tiger repelling ring (that was OK was it?) and the 'irrational' label.
I'll wait for the next person to come in and state that they have had positive results from IF and see what happens to them.
This debate has ceased to be about IF and become about belligerence and condescension. That's why I'm not taking it seriously any more.
here's something that may get it back on track. There is a post on the LG subreddit linking to a paper on IF.
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
Shall we all get back on topic and behave like adults (myself included)?
"In this review, we have summarized the current evidence for various intermittent energy restriction regimens (IMF and TRF) as treatments for overweight and obesity. In addition, we have identified gaps in the current evidence base and outstanding scientific questions regarding intermittent energy restriction strategies for weight loss. Although IMF diets do not seem to produce greater weight loss than CER, there still exists a need to determine whether IMF influences body composition or metabolic parameters. Studies have not been sufficiently powered to detect differences in these outcomes. It will also be important to conduct larger clinical trials aimed at determining whether it is possible to predict who will be most successful with IMF versus CER."
The bolded is exactly what has been argued this whole time. Where is the proof of these additional weight loss benefits that you keep claiming?
I am only going on my personal experience comparing results from when I did and didn't do IF - and in particular fasted lifting & cardio. The bolded bit to me looks like it's still a bit open. On the flip side my gains are slow on this bulk. I'm considering dropping IF and fasted lifting for this bulk to make the most out of it then reinstate it for the next cut.
Will probably be best just to digress from the debate here, I, like you, am not hell bent on proving IF as the superior dieting strategy....only sharing personal experiences that i methodically put together to achieve my results.
You know what's interesting? Almost 10/10 in the scenarios where i competed in shows, and in the network of individuals that are passionate about fitness, or even people adapting a healthy lifestyle.....the individuals that practice IF regularly usually appear healthier with greater physiques than those that don't. Go figure
If you don't want to debate, stop posting in the debate forum. There are plenty of IF groups to post in if you want everyone to agree with you blindly...7 -
Well, I am certain they do, hence the appearance in the show. Listen....no one here is disputing the "science" behind the IF process, however, what is being debunked is it how the supposed "controlled studies" are a one size fits all outcome for every human being on the planet. The studies provide a "baseline" for a constant, not what will occur 100% of the time....0
-
Just like we all have the same genetic makeup/potential right? Right0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 911 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions