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.
Do we intermittently fast already?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
That seems the opposite of how insulin resistance works.
In people with fully functioning pancreas, sugar intake causes insulin spike - that is the point of insulin and what should happen - to control blood sugar.
In people with diabetes , the insulin response is impaired hence less insulin spike in response to sugar intake and therefore poor blood sugar control.
I see no medical reason to encourage people to fast.8 -
I think there is a huge difference psychologically between sticking to a plan that you believe is healthy, and just absentmindedly falling into a pattern because it is easy. If there is a box of donuts when you get to work, the person who skipped breakfast is way more likely to have one (or 2 or 3), than the person on IF is.1
-
I think there is a huge difference psychologically between sticking to a plan that you believe is healthy, and just absentmindedly falling into a pattern because it is easy. If there is a box of donuts when you get to work, the person who skipped breakfast is way more likely to have one (or 2 or 3), than the person on IF is.
Eeeeh. There's a vast gulf between absent mindedly skipping breakfast and absolutely refusing to eat until the clock says X O'clock. I think most of the people here who are 'already' doing IF has a means of calorie control exist in that gulf. I certainly do. I don't eat breakfast because I'm not hungry. If I'm not eating because I'm not hungry, I'm not eating the donuts, either. If I AM hungry I will make a decision to eat something better for me for breakfast. Or decide to work the donut into my calories.
IF is calorie control. Not eating before sometime in the afternoon is part how I achieve that. Not doing it formally and believing the woo about it, or being rigid about it doesn't mean the alternative is 'absentmindedly eat donuts'.
6 -
For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol2
-
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.
Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.4 -
wunderkindking wrote: »lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.
Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.
Can you elaborate.0 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
I will counter that by pointing out that while that is where the word may have originated, in my universe at least it is the meal you have soon after you wake.
So when people say they "skip breakfast" what they are really saying is they eat their first meal some number of hours after getting up, perhaps lunch time.
I am not aware of any but of course some countries of course may use "breakfast" to mean their first meal even if their first meal is dinner, 10 hours after waking, but not here.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »That seems the opposite of how insulin resistance works.
In people with fully functioning pancreas, sugar intake causes insulin spike - that is the point of insulin and what should happen - to control blood sugar.
In people with diabetes , the insulin response is impaired hence less insulin spike in response to sugar intake and therefore poor blood sugar control.
I see no medical reason to encourage people to fast.
The spike is circulating blood glucose. Postprandial blood glucose elevation (spike) is caused by insulins inability to shuttle glucose into cells from the blood because of ineffective/damaged receptors for the uptake of that glucose.
If someone consumes food 3 times a day plus snacks generally they will generate quite a few more insulin responses from beta cells in the pancreas.....overworking those beta cells leads to impaired glucose transport leading to insulin resistance which can last for yrs and be undetected until someone is diagnosed with diabetes. That's why it's important to have a glucose test done and not just a snapshot of circulating blood glucose. More than likely there's quite a few more people with some form of insulin resistance that is currently known.
IF, calorie restriction (weight loss), fasting, low carb are all avenues to reduce the total amount of sugar either by not consuming it, delaying, allowing for less spikes etc......all are working towards reducing IR. The benefits of this is lower overall HbA1c, lower triglycerides, improved cholesterol markers, improved insulin sensitivity etc. basically better overall health.0 -
That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
2 -
lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
.that is not a side point, it is just silly semantics
Context.
Whatever it might technically mean or whatever its word origins were - We all know what is being referred to by the term breakfast
Like shut the cupboard door - well technically it isn't a cupboard, we don't keep cups in it and the word origin is cup board
But, you know, common sense and context.
5 -
paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.1 -
What is thought to be consensus is feeling comfortable and not having to think. When I'm in consensus, it's time to give myself a slap and start some research. imo, Cheers1
-
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Yes it is still popular (aka medical consensus) to believe diabetes is a chronic health condition - because it is.
Blows my mind that people think whatever research they have done somehow trumps medical consensus
When I am in doubt about something I refer to the medical experts, not somehow think I know better.
Time to give myself a slap if I start thinking I am an expert when I am not.
Yes, diabetes association most likely recomends jelly beans as a counteract to hypo's - not as a regular food (unless no sugar version)
5 -
paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Yes it is still popular (aka medical consensus) to believe diabetes is a chronic health condition - because it is.
Blows my mind that people think whatever research they have done somehow trumps medical consensus
When I am in doubt about something I refer to the medical experts, not somehow think I know better.
Time to give myself a slap if I start thinking I am an expert when I am not.
Yes, diabetes association most likely recomends jelly beans as a counteract to hypo's - not as a regular food (unless no sugar version)
The ADA appointed a new CEO in 2018, her name is Tracey Brown. She was the first CEO to have diabetes. Tracey had diabetes for I believe 15 years. She took it upon her self to use some critical thinking and research and came to the conclusion that if this was a disease that involved sugar what would happen if she reduced it and basically took sugar out of her diet for the most part. She quickly came off her diabetes medication and 3 other medications. Basically her diabetes is in full remission. She maintains with a low carb diet. Also as of 2020 the ADA now endorses the low carb diet as an intervention for diabetes. No more jelly beans for her. She didn't believe in consensus either and was the Segway to her current ADA position. Cheers.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Yes it is still popular (aka medical consensus) to believe diabetes is a chronic health condition - because it is.
Blows my mind that people think whatever research they have done somehow trumps medical consensus
When I am in doubt about something I refer to the medical experts, not somehow think I know better.
Time to give myself a slap if I start thinking I am an expert when I am not.
Yes, diabetes association most likely recomends jelly beans as a counteract to hypo's - not as a regular food (unless no sugar version)
The ADA appointed a new CEO in 2018, her name is Tracey Brown. She was the first CEO to have diabetes. Tracey had diabetes for I believe 15 years. She took it upon her self to use some critical thinking and research and came to the conclusion that if this was a disease that involved sugar what would happen if she reduced it and basically took sugar out of her diet for the most part. She quickly came of her diabetes medication and 3 other medications. Basically her diabetes is in full remission. She maintains with a low carb diet. Also as of 2020 the ADA now endorses the low carb diet as an intervention for diabetes. No more jelly beans for her. She didn't believe in consensus either and was the Segway to her current position. Cheers.
I'm not sure what point you are making - I dont dispute at all that some type 2 diabetics can reduce their need for medication, sometimes to none, if they eat a low carb or almost no sugar diet and/or lose weight - it isnt quite in remission, but it is controlled by diet only.
It is still a chronic condition, just now better controlled. It hasnt gone away.
I'm not arguing against a low carb diet for diabetics and I am not aware of anyone else doing so either
Jelly beans are only ever for emergency treatment of hypos - nobody recomends them as a part of a diabetic diet.
None of that is new - it isnt Tracey coming up with something brand new, it is standard medical consensus already
What I dispute is that IF is the way to go about it - the low carb/almost no sugar part wasnt the issue.3 -
Who said IF is the way to go, I don't remember anyone saying that, but that's not to say someone did. I would imagine for the people that are looking to lose weight, they use it like any other tool. If it helps them, where's the harm. Maybe because it's newish to most it's automatically discounted, I'm not sure. People are funny that way.1
-
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Can you share the source for the claim that the ADA recommends jelly beans as a food for diabetics? I did a Google search for this and all I found was some references to specific alternative testing scenarios for gestational diabetes. I am not sure I'm using the right terms to find the scenario you're referring to here. Or are you interpreting the recommendation that they be used in specific blood sugar situations to be an overall recommendation for all diabetics to eat them regularly?1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Can you share the source for the claim that the ADA recommends jelly beans as a food for diabetics? I did a Google search for this and all I found was some references to specific alternative testing scenarios for gestational diabetes. I am not sure I'm using the right terms to find the scenario you're referring to here. Or are you interpreting the recommendation that they be used in specific blood sugar situations to be an overall recommendation for all diabetics to eat them regularly?
I saw it on a plate that had recommended foods on their website, maybe 2015 or so, thought that was weird.
0 -
Just did search and found nothing. paperpudding is probably right and used for hypoglycemia.2
-
neanderthin wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Can you share the source for the claim that the ADA recommends jelly beans as a food for diabetics? I did a Google search for this and all I found was some references to specific alternative testing scenarios for gestational diabetes. I am not sure I'm using the right terms to find the scenario you're referring to here. Or are you interpreting the recommendation that they be used in specific blood sugar situations to be an overall recommendation for all diabetics to eat them regularly?
I saw it on a plate that had recommended foods on their website, maybe 2015 or so, thought that was weird.
It is weird, because I can't find any mention of the ADA ever recommending jelly beans or other candies as a good food for diabetics. I added 2015 to my results and still didn't find anything. Maybe it was a misunderstanding, because there were enough people concerned with sugar in 2015 that I think it would have been a big deal if the ADA was recommending candy to diabetics.1 -
Yeah, for hypoglycemia. here's a link
https://www.diabetes.org/healthy-living/medication-treatments/blood-glucose-testing-and-control/hypoglycemia1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, for hypoglycemia. here's a link
https://www.diabetes.org/healthy-living/medication-treatments/blood-glucose-testing-and-control/hypoglycemia
This is specifically to deal with hypoglycemia, not recommending them as a good general food choice for diabetics.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.
Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.
Can you elaborate.
I'll comment too - I've heard several podcast interviews, or videos debunking other interviews - where the IF advocate said that anything besides fat (or anything) ruined the true IF and you really broke the fast, ruining all the positive benefits of the IF - which usually had some rather fanciful claims as to extra benefits.
In one I recall it was about the creamer in the coffee - and the actual blood tests on a few people (no one had the funds to run a study on this with huge group) showed the small amount of protein, fat, and carbs in a little bit of creamer didn't elevate insulin at all, and blood sugar didn't change any more than it does through normal sitting around doing nothing fluctuations.
Which of course led to what magical thing was IF doing that it stopped doing if it was all about blood sugar and insulin supposedly, and that didn't change.
These are claims of benefits well beyond study results showing an improvement to insulin resistance in those prone to a problem with it. The pseudoscience claims.
6 -
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »That seems extrapolating wrong thing to me.
And diabetics are often advised not to skip meals
And yes, hba1c is gold standard of testing - I dont think there was any dispute on that, not sure why it was mentioned.
Of course they also need to control sugar intake and of course also calories to lose weight.
But I do not agree any sort of IF is best way to achieve that.
It's just another way, not best. Also diabetics are told to eat sugar and the diabetes association had/has jelly beans as a recommendation. I guess it's still popular to continue to believe diabetes is a chronic heath condition. That just blows my mind.
Yes it is still popular (aka medical consensus) to believe diabetes is a chronic health condition - because it is.
Blows my mind that people think whatever research they have done somehow trumps medical consensus
When I am in doubt about something I refer to the medical experts, not somehow think I know better.
Time to give myself a slap if I start thinking I am an expert when I am not.
Yes, diabetes association most likely recomends jelly beans as a counteract to hypo's - not as a regular food (unless no sugar version)
The ADA appointed a new CEO in 2018, her name is Tracey Brown. She was the first CEO to have diabetes. Tracey had diabetes for I believe 15 years. She took it upon her self to use some critical thinking and research and came to the conclusion that if this was a disease that involved sugar what would happen if she reduced it and basically took sugar out of her diet for the most part. She quickly came off her diabetes medication and 3 other medications. Basically her diabetes is in full remission. She maintains with a low carb diet. Also as of 2020 the ADA now endorses the low carb diet as an intervention for diabetes. No more jelly beans for her. She didn't believe in consensus either and was the Segway to her current ADA position. Cheers.
Not sure yet because I can't find any admittance in interviews regarding this point - but purely from some Google images at events that have dates, it appears weight was also lost since taking the job 2018 until the time I see interviews about T2D being in remission early 2020.
If low carb and IF helped to achieve and maintain some weight loss that's great.
Also to be noted though, never appeared greatly overweight anyway.
Not taking away what indeed could have helped with the T2D - but studies have shown that purely having fat loss also helps.
And obviously for some people the low carb is for sure a great benefit anyway.3 -
neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.
Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.
Can you elaborate.
I'll comment too - I've heard several podcast interviews, or videos debunking other interviews - where the IF advocate said that anything besides fat (or anything) ruined the true IF and you really broke the fast, ruining all the positive benefits of the IF - which usually had some rather fanciful claims as to extra benefits.
In one I recall it was about the creamer in the coffee - and the actual blood tests on a few people (no one had the funds to run a study on this with huge group) showed the small amount of protein, fat, and carbs in a little bit of creamer didn't elevate insulin at all, and blood sugar didn't change any more than it does through normal sitting around doing nothing fluctuations.
Which of course led to what magical thing was IF doing that it stopped doing if it was all about blood sugar and insulin supposedly, and that didn't change.
These are claims of benefits well beyond study results showing an improvement to insulin resistance in those prone to a problem with it. The pseudoscience claims.
Good synopsis heybales. IF is really ideal and designed to work with a LCD or a ketogenic diet because a cornerstone of IF is controlling Insulin. If a person is on a LCD or ketogenic diet then insulin management is already in progress and in that respect a person can consume some cream, bone broth, coffee, tea and/or around 500 calories of specific foods (nothing with too much sugar/carbs) without it really effecting a fast. If someone is only using it for a weight loss strategy and consumes a diet which includes lots of carbs and generally eats breakfast and continues with other meals and snacks over the course of a day, pretty much in a continual fed state, then insulin is fairly active all day long. The other cornerstone of IF is fat burning during those hrs of fasting and again if your doing LC then to start utilizing adipose for fuel is quicker. Otherwise that benefit of burning adipose isn't very efficient if your body is still full or using glycogen in muscle and liver and to be totally use up it takes 24-36 hours approx. Basically IF for weight lose for the general population it's about controlling food intake unfortunately that has pretty much no IF benefit, except weight loss, which is fabulous if they can continue but I suspect most won't.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Yeah, for hypoglycemia. here's a link
https://www.diabetes.org/healthy-living/medication-treatments/blood-glucose-testing-and-control/hypoglycemia
yes, absolutely.
That is what I was saying before - for emergency treatment of hypo's - jellybeans and similar are the recomended thing.
Not as regular food though.
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »Who said IF is the way to go, I don't remember anyone saying that, but that's not to say someone did. I would imagine for the people that are looking to lose weight, they use it like any other tool. If it helps them, where's the harm. Maybe because it's newish to most it's automatically discounted, I'm not sure. People are funny that way.
Tsazani did.
He/she said : "Combining LCHF with fasting is how one attacks insulin resistance."
and that was post I responded to, with me saying fasting is not how one attacks insulin resistance and there is no medical reason to encourage it
If people want to do it (safely) for their own personal reasons, that is fine - but putting pseudo medical claims to it is not.
2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.
Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.
Can you elaborate.
I'll comment too - I've heard several podcast interviews, or videos debunking other interviews - where the IF advocate said that anything besides fat (or anything) ruined the true IF and you really broke the fast, ruining all the positive benefits of the IF - which usually had some rather fanciful claims as to extra benefits.
In one I recall it was about the creamer in the coffee - and the actual blood tests on a few people (no one had the funds to run a study on this with huge group) showed the small amount of protein, fat, and carbs in a little bit of creamer didn't elevate insulin at all, and blood sugar didn't change any more than it does through normal sitting around doing nothing fluctuations.
Which of course led to what magical thing was IF doing that it stopped doing if it was all about blood sugar and insulin supposedly, and that didn't change.
These are claims of benefits well beyond study results showing an improvement to insulin resistance in those prone to a problem with it. The pseudoscience claims.
Good synopsis heybales. IF is really ideal and designed to work with a LCD or a ketogenic diet because a cornerstone of IF is controlling Insulin. If a person is on a LCD or ketogenic diet then insulin management is already in progress and in that respect a person can consume some cream, bone broth, coffee, tea and/or around 500 calories of specific foods (nothing with too much sugar/carbs) without it really effecting a fast. If someone is only using it for a weight loss strategy and consumes a diet which includes lots of carbs and generally eats breakfast and continues with other meals and snacks over the course of a day, pretty much in a continual fed state, then insulin is fairly active all day long. The other cornerstone of IF is fat burning during those hrs of fasting and again if your doing LC then to start utilizing adipose for fuel is quicker. Otherwise that benefit of burning adipose isn't very efficient if your body is still full or using glycogen in muscle and liver and to be totally use up it takes 24-36 hours approx. Basically IF for weight lose for the general population it's about controlling food intake unfortunately that has pretty much no IF benefit, except weight loss, which is fabulous if they can continue but I suspect most won't.
Muscle-stored glycogen can't be released into the blood stream for use elsewhere, like when the liver is going low.
As soon as insulin goes down, like 2-4 hrs after an avg meal depending on the spike - your liver can be topped off with carbs and still fat release has occurred and you are back to burning upwards of 90% fat as energy source.
Your body burns a majority of fat already - it is very adept at switching back to fat burning mode.
Very efficient even when burning a combo of carbs and fat like during exercise levels.
Energy source is about rate of use, not if you have carbs available or not.
Eat 1 big meal later in the day and it is elevated longer.
It all comes out as a wash if you equate for calories and macros.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »wunderkindking wrote: »lorrainequiche59 wrote: »For anyone who says they 'skip' breakfast...technically, breakfast is your first meal whether you eat it in the a.m. or p.m. Whenever your first meal, it is technically Break Fast!!! You can call it lunch, supper or snack, but when your fast ends and you put that first morsel in your mouth it is breaking the fasting period however long that may be. Just a side point to the debate lol
Yeah and I technically don't do IF because I put milk in my coffee when I wake up and have broken the fast. Because real IF is rigid pseduo-science.
Also I think everyone here knows that breaking the fast is where calling it breakfast comes from but also know it to typically mean 'morning meal'. It's a cool work though and I like it.
Can you elaborate.
I'll comment too - I've heard several podcast interviews, or videos debunking other interviews - where the IF advocate said that anything besides fat (or anything) ruined the true IF and you really broke the fast, ruining all the positive benefits of the IF - which usually had some rather fanciful claims as to extra benefits.
In one I recall it was about the creamer in the coffee - and the actual blood tests on a few people (no one had the funds to run a study on this with huge group) showed the small amount of protein, fat, and carbs in a little bit of creamer didn't elevate insulin at all, and blood sugar didn't change any more than it does through normal sitting around doing nothing fluctuations.
Which of course led to what magical thing was IF doing that it stopped doing if it was all about blood sugar and insulin supposedly, and that didn't change.
These are claims of benefits well beyond study results showing an improvement to insulin resistance in those prone to a problem with it. The pseudoscience claims.
Good synopsis heybales. IF is really ideal and designed to work with a LCD or a ketogenic diet because a cornerstone of IF is controlling Insulin. If a person is on a LCD or ketogenic diet then insulin management is already in progress and in that respect a person can consume some cream, bone broth, coffee, tea and/or around 500 calories of specific foods (nothing with too much sugar/carbs) without it really effecting a fast. If someone is only using it for a weight loss strategy and consumes a diet which includes lots of carbs and generally eats breakfast and continues with other meals and snacks over the course of a day, pretty much in a continual fed state, then insulin is fairly active all day long. The other cornerstone of IF is fat burning during those hrs of fasting and again if your doing LC then to start utilizing adipose for fuel is quicker. Otherwise that benefit of burning adipose isn't very efficient if your body is still full or using glycogen in muscle and liver and to be totally use up it takes 24-36 hours approx. Basically IF for weight lose for the general population it's about controlling food intake unfortunately that has pretty much no IF benefit, except weight loss, which is fabulous if they can continue but I suspect most won't.
Quite a lot of misunderstandings of how bodies actually work in there.
You are burning fat 24 x 7 and you don't need an absense of carb intake let alone using up all your glycogen to start burning fat. If you have ever seen an athlete hit the wall / bonk you would see what an awful state that is.
The idea that use of carbs and fat is sequential is completely wrong, you are using a blend of both fuels (virtually) all of the time whatever diet or eating schedule you follow. At rest while preparing to start a fitness test in a sports lab while hooked up to gas analyser the vast majority of fuel burned was coming from fat, despite a high carb breakfast and a carb drink before a maximal effort test. Glycogen is a valuable, high performance, but limited resourse and your body seeks to preserve it for when it's most needed. It's not until people are working fairly hard that carbs become the predominant fuel.
Burning fat is normal and doesn't need forcing through dietary choices or food timing.
10
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