Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Please help with this argument- Intermittent fasting related
Replies
-
I didn't read the whole thread, yet but I will because i think IF has health benefits important to ME. When my DH was hospitalized for weeks last year I was not eating dinner because I didnt want to cook for 1. I ate breakfast, lunch at the hospital. Nothing again until the next morning. 15 lbs lost, blood sugar improved so much I cut my diabetes meds way back. This could have been from the weight loss, but my arthritis pain went away, and so did my urge incontinence. That was the biggest shocker of all. Now that I'm back to eating through the day I've gained back only a few lbs, but my arthritis is back and so is the incontinence. I want those benefits again. But this is for me. I don't try to push my ideas on others. We are all different.
Often losing weight/eating at a deficit has benefits if one is overweight even before significant weight loss. I think that's likely the explanation for your experience. But it is true that the studies I've seen about IF are more likely to show a benefit for meals eaten earlier in the day (something about circadian rhythm) vs. late in the day (even though the latter can be very beneficial for some in controlling cals too).
Here's one interesting study: https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(18)30253-5 (For some reason my link isn't posting right, so you have to cut and paste it.)
(I will note that despite this, I ate 3 meals, no snacking, and dinner quite late -- I would usually go from a lunch around noon to dinner around 9, which was just about as long as the fast period between the end of dinner and when I'd eat in the morning some days, and lost weight quite easily and without hunger, so I don't think eating late is a big problem at all if someone finds that an easier schedule. Generally I think people pursue a strategy that is easiest for them specifically to achieve goals, as that will be easier to maintain.)
I find the circadian angle interesting. Before artificial light made daytime a 24 hour period, we probably slept whole lot more. What do you not do while you're sleeping? Eat. Much like we exercise to try and replace an overall less active lifestyle, maybe fasting is a way to mitigate all those extra hours we are now awake when we probably didn't used to be...
I suspect it was more typical to just eat when it was light too, as it's hard to eat when dark and there are no artificial lights to make it seem light inside (I also think there were likely communal rhythms to eating). Both of those would naturally limit amounts eaten (as would food scarcity, of course). Much less mindless eating because food is there or because you walk through the kitchen and notice something that looks delicious.
Also, your post made me think about this cool book on the history of sleeping patterns: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2005/jul/30/featuresreviews.guardianreview80 -
I fast periodically. At noon, I will have completed a 24 hour fast. The truth is that most people do not have the discipline or self regulation to fast. I won't get into the many benefits of fasting because if you haven't done your own research, I'd just be wasting my time... The geniuses here are much more credible than any documented research and you should trust their opinions. My husband has done many fasts over several days. My longest has been a 41 hour fast. I maintain 105 pounds at 5 foot tall.
I lol'ed, cheeky
Did someone flag you though? 2 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »I fast periodically. At noon, I will have completed a 24 hour fast. The truth is that most people do not have the discipline or self regulation to fast. I won't get into the many benefits of fasting because if you haven't done your own research, I'd just be wasting my time... The geniuses here are much more credible than any documented research and you should trust their opinions. My husband has done many fasts over several days. My longest has been a 41 hour fast. I maintain 105 pounds at 5 foot tall.
I lol'ed, cheeky Did someone flag you though?
Lol, no! Why?!? 😉1 -
I fast periodically. At noon, I will have completed a 24 hour fast. The truth is that most people do not have the discipline or self regulation to fast. I won't get into the many benefits of fasting because if you haven't done your own research, I'd just be wasting my time... The geniuses here are much more credible than any documented research and you should trust their opinions. My husband has done many fasts over several days. My longest has been a 41 hour fast. I maintain 105 pounds at 5 foot tall.
There are many promising things fasting "may" be good for, sadly, at the moment the only thing we know for sure is it helps with controlling energy in. I am certainly no "genius", just pretty good at sifting through the bs...4 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »
I don't agree with this ^.
I would say instead that there are many very knowledgeable people here at MFP whose experienced stories can be useful to others, and, there are credible forms of documented research available to support the findings in the MFP community posts.
4 -
I fast periodically. At noon, I will have completed a 24 hour fast. The truth is that most people do not have the discipline or self regulation to fast. I won't get into the many benefits of fasting because if you haven't done your own research, I'd just be wasting my time... The geniuses here are much more credible than any documented research and you should trust their opinions. My husband has done many fasts over several days. My longest has been a 41 hour fast. I maintain 105 pounds at 5 foot tall.
I am not an authority on most people. You really should not try to be either. It could be that most people would not even attempt to fast without a medical requirement.
I am not sure why you would want to be fasting. You are at a very lean weight which means that once your glycogen is used up your body may burn through a lot more protein which it will take from muscle. This is a serious negative for overall fitness.10 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »
I don't agree with this ^.
I would say instead that there are many very knowledgeable people here at MFP whose experienced stories can be useful to others, and, there are credible forms of documented research available to support the findings in the MFP community posts.
There are no credible forms of documented research of any additional benefits to humans beyond energy control. There are some studies that show correlation with improved insulin sensitivity and reduced hunger signaling. I have not seen definitive studies on these benefits yet (although my n=1 experience shows it to be true for me).
Any additional benefits have only shown in animal studies and are unproven in humans at this time. It is an interesting area for additional study.
As of today, that is where the evidence stands despite the claims of advocates like the person you quoted.3 -
fitnessguy266 wrote: »
I don't agree with this ^.
I would say instead that there are many very knowledgeable people here at MFP whose experienced stories can be useful to others, and, there are credible forms of documented research available to support the findings in the MFP community posts.
There are no credible forms of documented research of any additional benefits to humans beyond energy control. There are some studies that show correlation with improved insulin sensitivity and reduced hunger signaling. I have not seen definitive studies on these benefits yet (although my n=1 experience shows it to be true for me).
Any additional benefits have only shown in animal studies and are unproven in humans at this time. It is an interesting area for additional study.
As of today, that is where the evidence stands despite the claims of advocates like the person you quoted.
For the person that disagreed, feel free to post the studies that prove me wrong. Credible, peer reviewed, high participant ones and multiple. One study not replicated is pretty meaningless.
I'll read them with an open discerning mind.6 -
I read that a 16 hour fast helps cells renew themselves.1
-
Annie it would be more helpful if you posted link to where you read that.
I mean, one can read all sorts of things but obviously that doesn't make them correct.4 -
I fast periodically. At noon, I will have completed a 24 hour fast. The truth is that most people do not have the discipline or self regulation to fast. I won't get into the many benefits of fasting because if you haven't done your own research, I'd just be wasting my time... The geniuses here are much more credible than any documented research and you should trust their opinions. My husband has done many fasts over several days. My longest has been a 41 hour fast. I maintain 105 pounds at 5 foot tall.
I think I am like most people: I have the discipline and self regulation to do things that matter to me.
Fasting is not one of them.
I maintain at a healthy BMI without doing that and see no benifit to me in attempting it.
( if others find a benifit in fasting, for sensible lengths of time, thats fine)
Not getting the need for sarcastic remarks about geniuses on here being more credible than documented research - research which you would be wasting your time supplying
Yeah, right.
9 -
-
I read about cell renewal...it is called autophogy I think. I like 6/8. At worstt it is an easy way to cut calories, at best it it has health benefits...or so they think.
I have gone back to it and lost a few pounds over Christmas.
Like all thinks we need to do what works for us.
Annie x
2 -
My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits3
-
My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
And your body not burning hot (whatever that means) having anti-aging benefits? First I've ever heard of that. And I've heard a lot. Do you have any links to where this was being alleged?
4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?6 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I can accept that explanation. Very well thought out and articulated response as always Ann.2 -
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
I agree with this. Humans have not changed. Our environment on the other hand has changed dramatically.
1 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).
Agreed that selection applies to variations that have arisen (for lack of a better term) randomly - some variations enhance survival, so those with that variation have better survival odds. I probably phrased it badly, but the main point was not the magnitude of odds or shifts, but rather that humans having hunger (but no opposite "fasting urge") is not in itself a sign that fasting would have no benefits.
My point was that selection doesn't design organisms to an optimum, it "rewards" variations that have a survival advantage with the prize of survival. With a long history of mostly food shortage rather than surplus, it seems like humans would've had little selection pressure toward developing a physiological "fasting urge" . . . although it's interesting that many traditions include fasting, from a cultural standpoint.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).
Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).
Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.
Again, this seems to assume that evolution must proceed incrementally (which, oddly given your overall position, seems more aligned with the idea that evolution proceeds according to design than not). If we agree that mutations are random and aren't headed anywhere by design, there is no need for them to take a series of genetic changes down the hill and up the other side. It's possible (maybe less likely, but still possible) for dramatic mutations to occur that would allow the organism to leap across the valley without walking down the hill and up the other side.0 -
lynn_glenmont wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).
Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.
Again, this seems to assume that evolution must proceed incrementally (which, oddly given your overall position, seems more aligned with the idea that evolution proceeds according to design than not). If we agree that mutations are random and aren't headed anywhere by design, there is no need for them to take a series of genetic changes down the hill and up the other side. It's possible (maybe less likely, but still possible) for dramatic mutations to occur that would allow the organism to leap across the valley without walking down the hill and up the other side.
When speaking of it in forms of algorithms, there are cases where, no, there could not be such a leap because an evolutionary algorithm will have a limit on how far a mutation can cross a solution space.
In nature rather than in math, there could be the possibility of say, several hundred mutations happening at once in an organism to reach one particular state, but the probability tends to be such that even if a million size population was born every second for the length of time the universe has existed, it still would be unlikely.
Yes, evolution is incremental. It isn't a designer, it is a tinkerer - it cobbles together what already works. Design would be the type of thing that can produce what isn't incremental.
How I'm reading your take on evolution sounds more like the hopeful monsters of saltation, not the kind of evolution of the Modern Synthesis that's descended from Darwinism.0 -
It's pretty clear from what I've studied on IF is that there are solid benefits to IF but they're not in the fat loss realm. There's no metabolic advantage in IF (like any other fad diet). I may help people feel better if they have GI issues and may help people who feel the need to have large meals. You aren't going to burn fat any faster, it's still deficit or not.
If eating like that suits you, do it. If you have GI issues, try it. Otherwise meh.1 -
I can tell you what worked for me. After I came out of the hospital, I IF and lost 10 pounds in a month and a half. I started out 16:8, then advanced to 20:4. I ate what I wanted, (junk included, although I'm not a big junk eater) no portion control, (but after awhile my body automatically wanted to eat small portions) no exercise, (doctors order) no calorie counting, but I lost the weight. (Now I did add vitamins to make sure I got some nutritionist in) no imagine how much more I would lose if I added exercise and cut the junk out completely.5
-
magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »magnusthenerd wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »My takeaway from IF is it gives you're body a break from all the food you consume. Since your body isn't burning hot all the time, that provides anti-aging benefits
Your body (and more specifically, your digestive tract) doesn't need a break. That would be like saying your heart and lungs need a break, too.
In addition, calories equal, I'm not sure why it would take less total time to digest the same cals (and even the same foods) if they were consumed in one huge meal vs. 3 smaller ones.
It seems like you'd get meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time + meal + shorter digestion time vs. huge meal + long digestion time -- no reason the times wouldn't equal each other.
Also, if you want to reduce digestion time, you can eat faster digested foods (like quick carbs) and avoid slower foods that take more work to digest (protein and fiber), but of course no one would recommend that (absent a health issue).
Indeed, one reason I personally could not regularly do OMAD (not saying it's not a great choice for others) is because I would not be able to eat enough protein and fiber and vegetables on a regular basis (based on what I consider desirable, at least) in one meal. My own appetite/digestive system would likely rebel.
Especially since even in people who make no attempt to do IF, they are not eating 24 hrs a day. Most folks probably "fast" for at least 8 hours, and I believe I've read it typically takes more than 24 hrs for a meal to pass all the way through your stomach and both intestines.
Considering that most (if not all?) of our organs and body systems are running 24/7 keeping us alive on auto-pilot, it seems illogical to me that just one system - the digestive system - needs occasional or regular breaks for us to reach optimum health. What would be the evolutionary advantage to that?
To add to the bolded, when I hear these claims, I always wonder at what point is the "break" no longer a benefit and then become a detriment? Obviously, the body needs calories both for energy, and to continue to perform vital functions, so if we did need such a break, then when does the body decide it needs food again? I also question why humans feel hunger if our body actually got such remarkable benefits from fasting.
Wellll . . . I don't IF, wouldn't (uncongenial to my preferences), and think it's waaay over-hyped for the level of sound evidence. So don't get me wrong, here.
But, to the bolded, as far as I understand it, natural selection is unlikely to optimize. It's all about satisficing, i.e., adequate results, or rather odds-shifting in the direction of marginally better results.
Humans (and other animals) have many behaviors that are sub-optimal, and, as their context changes, even harmful (all other things equal, that context change will create pressure for different natural selection outcomes).
For most of our history, there was food shortage, so hunger is a useful motivator, lest we simply conserve energy and starve where we sit/sleep. There are reasons to believe that our impulses are poorly shaped for lucky regions'/people's now over-ample food supply, and reduced need for physical activity: Perhaps it would be useful if we had more of an "anti-hunger" that made us feel icky if over maintenance calories.
I think your overall point is right, just that that last bit expects more of natural selection than it's likely to deliver. :flowerforyou:
I agree with most of this, but I think the passage I bolded is a bit off. Natural selection can only choose among the genetic variations it's offered. If it happens that all the genetic variations available are within a narrow range, then you get a shift in the odds toward marginally better results. If there are more dramatic differences among the genetic variations available, then you can get more dramatic results (assuming that one or more of the variations have a survival advantage).
Interestingly, there are certain optimizations natural selection will never achieve because the solution space is unreachable without first having a worse solution. Like if you had a hill and valley lay out with high points representing better, evolution will never walk down a valley to go up a hill inside it, even if that hill might be the highest point around.
I've had the misfortune of discussing (arguing) with advocates of Intelligent Design, and I've often told them that I would instantly accept Intelligent Design if they could show me just one case of such a trait that meets that pattern - getting worse at first to get better in the long run.
Again, this seems to assume that evolution must proceed incrementally (which, oddly given your overall position, seems more aligned with the idea that evolution proceeds according to design than not). If we agree that mutations are random and aren't headed anywhere by design, there is no need for them to take a series of genetic changes down the hill and up the other side. It's possible (maybe less likely, but still possible) for dramatic mutations to occur that would allow the organism to leap across the valley without walking down the hill and up the other side.
When speaking of it in forms of algorithms, there are cases where, no, there could not be such a leap because an evolutionary algorithm will have a limit on how far a mutation can cross a solution space.
In nature rather than in math, there could be the possibility of say, several hundred mutations happening at once in an organism to reach one particular state, but the probability tends to be such that even if a million size population was born every second for the length of time the universe has existed, it still would be unlikely.
Yes, evolution is incremental. It isn't a designer, it is a tinkerer - it cobbles together what already works. Design would be the type of thing that can produce what isn't incremental.
How I'm reading your take on evolution sounds more like the hopeful monsters of saltation, not the kind of evolution of the Modern Synthesis that's descended from Darwinism.
I guess without practical examples there's no way of knowing whether we're thinking of valleys and hills on the same magnitude. The discussion started on the issue of whether there could possibly be benefits from fasting given that there have not developed genetically preferred fasting behaviors, and my objection was that such an argument actually pictures evolution as pursuing some goal. We seem to have strayed far from that issue.
ETA: and again, this seems self-contradictory. You say evolution isn't a designer (which I agree with) and then you imbue it with an aim, a goal, a plan of attack to solve problems, which has you, I suspect, unintentionally in agreement with advocates of intelligent design theory:It isn't a designer, it is a tinkerer - it cobbles together what already works.
Evolution doesn't care what already works, because it doesn't care about anything. It doesn't think. It doesn't have intention. It doesn't tinker. It doesn't really do anything. It's just an unavoidable consequence of genetic inheritance, random mutations, and the fact that sometimes a mutation is more beneficial for survival of the genes.
3 -
Saw this post on Reddit. Did you get some good answers?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions