I. F. Question
Replies
-
This is a dup of post I just left in another IF thread that also seemed relevant here too.
IF just controls when you eat, not necessarily how much you eat.
I did 16:8 IF for awhile. It didn't help or hurt my maintenance effort. I stopped doing it simply because I found it inconvenient to try to eat on a schedule.
Most days I just eat OMAD but I don't do this everyday.
I recently fasted for 36 hrs (water, both, coffee and tea only) prior to a colonoscopy and quickly lost 3-4# but immediately gained back after I was able to eat again.
FWIW, the ONLY things that have worked for me to lose and maintain my wt over the past 6 yrs have been logging EVERTHING that I eat/drink on MFP and weighing myself naked EVERYDAY in the morning in order to monitor my progress.
Nothing else really matters for wt loss or maintenance IMO.
5 -
Definitely not. BUT- they’re already in top physical shape. I’m trying to lose weight, and was a bit miffed when I saw I gained a pound after all that activity. But from all the terrific answers I’ve received, I know now that there’s a lot that affects weight fluctuations. I’ll continue to eat clean, make sure I’m in a daily calorie deficit, and keep up the physical activity.coryhart4389 wrote: »Avoiding all the technical stuff, I will give my opinion to your IF question. You stated you play hockey a lot, do you think Brad Marchand or David Pastmak uses IF to increase performance and maintain weight? I would guess no. Why not do what the best do in your chosen activities? Eat a nutritious diet, burn more than you eat, and use playing better hockey as your motivation, JMHO.
Apparently you’re a B’s fan using those guys as examples??? All good- Marchy is one of my favorite players and Pasta is unbelievable skill wise.
Even the "clean" part is probably optional, honestly. Good, well-rounded nutrition is important, and so is eating in a way that you find satisfying/filling. If that's your definition of clean, that's great. But if your definition is some kind of list of good foods to eat, and bad foods to avoid . . . ?
There are lots of definitions of "eating clean". A fair number of those definitions involve things that are irrelevant to weight loss or health, or are majoring in the minors - in very extreme cases, pursuing "clean" by very strict definitions can make it *less* likely a person will have good overall nutrition.
I say that as a long-term vegetarian who thinks it's useful to get plenty of protein/healthy fats, 5-10+ daily servings of varied, colorful veggies/fruits, so I'm not team "eat all the Oreos all day every day" either.
Appropriate calories for one's goals (in your case, not-too-extreme calorie deficit), well-rounded nutrition routinely, regular physical activity: IMO, that's the goods.
I guess "clean" for me right now is a lot of fish, vegetables, greek yogurt, berries, whole grain bread, turkey, string cheese, pork, and some steak too. I also enjoy hummus and carrots, as well as chick peas by themselves. Sunflower seeds as a snack (high sodium I know) but also hydrating well throughout the day. As long as I'm at a deficit every day, I feel good. Plus, if I have a few beers with the boys after hockey I don't feel any guilt!
As long as you're eating a way that makes you happy, gives you overall good nutrition, fits in a few treats, that seems pretty perfect to me. Sodium isn't the devil, if you don't have a health condition that requires you to limit it.
I'm probably twitchy about the subject of "clean eating" . . . having seen people advocate really odd things in its name, sometimes. 😆
Surprisingly my sodium level is perfect. For the last 3 years after a full physical and blood work, it has been. It drives my wife crazy because she thinks I'm a salt-aholic (which is true) but so far so good!!
I'm not sure why this would be surprising.
I'm prescribed 6-10 grams of salt a day to raise my blood pressure and my blood tests always show normal sodium and potassium levels because my heart and kidneys work well.
It's not likely your electrolyte blood panel that would show a problem, it would probably be your blood pressure that would be the first warning sign if you needed to cut back on salt.2 -
Definitely not. BUT- they’re already in top physical shape. I’m trying to lose weight, and was a bit miffed when I saw I gained a pound after all that activity. But from all the terrific answers I’ve received, I know now that there’s a lot that affects weight fluctuations. I’ll continue to eat clean, make sure I’m in a daily calorie deficit, and keep up the physical activity.coryhart4389 wrote: »Avoiding all the technical stuff, I will give my opinion to your IF question. You stated you play hockey a lot, do you think Brad Marchand or David Pastmak uses IF to increase performance and maintain weight? I would guess no. Why not do what the best do in your chosen activities? Eat a nutritious diet, burn more than you eat, and use playing better hockey as your motivation, JMHO.
Apparently you’re a B’s fan using those guys as examples??? All good- Marchy is one of my favorite players and Pasta is unbelievable skill wise.
Even the "clean" part is probably optional, honestly. Good, well-rounded nutrition is important, and so is eating in a way that you find satisfying/filling. If that's your definition of clean, that's great. But if your definition is some kind of list of good foods to eat, and bad foods to avoid . . . ?
There are lots of definitions of "eating clean". A fair number of those definitions involve things that are irrelevant to weight loss or health, or are majoring in the minors - in very extreme cases, pursuing "clean" by very strict definitions can make it *less* likely a person will have good overall nutrition.
I say that as a long-term vegetarian who thinks it's useful to get plenty of protein/healthy fats, 5-10+ daily servings of varied, colorful veggies/fruits, so I'm not team "eat all the Oreos all day every day" either.
Appropriate calories for one's goals (in your case, not-too-extreme calorie deficit), well-rounded nutrition routinely, regular physical activity: IMO, that's the goods.
I guess "clean" for me right now is a lot of fish, vegetables, greek yogurt, berries, whole grain bread, turkey, string cheese, pork, and some steak too. I also enjoy hummus and carrots, as well as chick peas by themselves. Sunflower seeds as a snack (high sodium I know) but also hydrating well throughout the day. As long as I'm at a deficit every day, I feel good. Plus, if I have a few beers with the boys after hockey I don't feel any guilt!
As long as you're eating a way that makes you happy, gives you overall good nutrition, fits in a few treats, that seems pretty perfect to me. Sodium isn't the devil, if you don't have a health condition that requires you to limit it.
I'm probably twitchy about the subject of "clean eating" . . . having seen people advocate really odd things in its name, sometimes. 😆
Surprisingly my sodium level is perfect. For the last 3 years after a full physical and blood work, it has been. It drives my wife crazy because she thinks I'm a salt-aholic (which is true) but so far so good!!
I'm not sure why this would be surprising.
I'm prescribed 6-10 grams of salt a day to raise my blood pressure and my blood tests always show normal sodium and potassium levels because my heart and kidneys work well.
It's not likely your electrolyte blood panel that would show a problem, it would probably be your blood pressure that would be the first warning sign if you needed to cut back on salt.
Yep. Agreed. Your body will pee out the excess, so blood levels will almost always be normal, or you'd most likely be in the hospital. But it can create high blood pressure in some people.1 -
cmriverside wrote: »For people confused by terms 16:8 is 16 hr fast with 8 hr eating window, OMAD is one meal a day. 5:2 is eating regular meals 5 days, restricting calories 2 days/week.
Are you talking to me? Just because I wrote that I sleep eight hours doesn't mean I think I'm supposed to eat the other 16.
16:8, yes. I know what it means.
If eat at 9AM, Noon, and 5PM and then don't eat from 5PM to 9AM, that's 16:8.
For the first time ever, it's dawned on me that just eating the normal schedule that many of us older folk grew up with, is basically 16:8. My mom never let us snack in the evenings; by 6 pm that was it for the night. Old skool IF.2 -
cmriverside wrote: »For people confused by terms 16:8 is 16 hr fast with 8 hr eating window, OMAD is one meal a day. 5:2 is eating regular meals 5 days, restricting calories 2 days/week.
Are you talking to me? Just because I wrote that I sleep eight hours doesn't mean I think I'm supposed to eat the other 16.
16:8, yes. I know what it means.
If eat at 9AM, Noon, and 5PM and then don't eat from 5PM to 9AM, that's 16:8.
For the first time ever, it's dawned on me that just eating the normal schedule that many of us older folk grew up with, is basically 16:8. My mom never let us snack in the evenings; by 6 pm that was it for the night. Old skool IF.
This was us too. That's why the switch to IF was so easy for me, I have never not eaten 16:8 my entire life, I've always been an early dinner eater with no snacking afterwards. However, I did often have evening beverages, like milk in herbal tea, pomegranite juice cut with soda water, things like that. So all I had to do was cut the evening beverages and voila, IF.
I'm now experimenting with more varied IF though, longer fasts, really shaking up the schedule to keep my body, and especially my stomach guessing.2 -
I just copied my own post on "try fast anyone?:
"We see about IF all the time. It become a very highly regarded topic, b/c recent studies proved that IF much more effective than just restricting calories. People who leave IF from their horizon are just short cut their ability to improve health, genetics, epigenetics, life expectancy.
Moreover, the combination of IF and CR are making wonders. So why not to use that a part of our life?... So, talking, writing, discussing it is very important, and, I hope, this site will be one of places where we can obtain some knowledge of it."
And NO. IF does not kill your hard earned muscles. Proteins from muscles might be consumed by the body at very exclusive conditions, only at very prolong fasting. Say more than 5 days. Your body is not stupid that much to start eating itself, when it needs those muscles to perform, to obtain food, to act upon conditions of reality. We would not survive the evolution demands. Remember, that only best adopted and adoptable species get survived. We presently carry their genes. The only reasons not to fast, is if you are really ill, recover from massive injury or olympic athlete training 4 hrs twice a day.0 -
Sorry - nope.
https://youtu.be/0PyBoKSv2tII just copied my own post on "try fast anyone?:
"We see about IF all the time. It become a very highly regarded topic, b/c recent studies proved that IF much more effective than just restricting calories. People who leave IF from their horizon are just short cut their ability to improve health, genetics, epigenetics, life expectancy.
Moreover, the combination of IF and CR are making wonders. So why not to use that a part of our life?... So, talking, writing, discussing it is very important, and, I hope, this site will be one of places where we can obtain some knowledge of it."
And NO. IF does not kill your hard earned muscles. Proteins from muscles might be consumed by the body at very exclusive conditions, only at very prolong fasting. Say more than 5 days. Your body is not stupid that much to start eating itself, when it needs those muscles to perform, to obtain food, to act upon conditions of reality. We would not survive the evolution demands. Remember, that only best adopted and adoptable species get survived. We presently carry their genes. The only reasons not to fast, is if you are really ill, recover from massive injury or olympic athlete training 4 hrs twice a day.
6 -
[/quote]This is 100% untrue. ANY time you fast and lose weight, a percentage of that will be muscle. No exceptions.[/quote]
The above statement is absurdly false. This is the old understanding of autophagy. The statement below is slightly closer to the truth.
[/quote]Wellllll, maybe. A percentage of any meaningful weight loss will be lean tissue. With meaningful weight loss, I'd *want* to lose some lean mass: I've lost almost 60 pounds, just under 1/3 of my body weight. If I still had the blood volume (which is lean tissue) that I had at my high weight, now that I weigh 2/3s as much . . . I don't think that would be a good thing. That's an extreme example, but not the only one.[/quote]
It is inaccurate to state that lean muscle mass is always lost during fasting. In fact, a significant number of studies and papers have demonstrated that lean muscle mass often INCREASES during extended fasts.
It makes a difference as to the level of macroautophagy, microautophagy, or carrier-mediated auotphagy (CMA) occurring in the body. In CMA, growth hormones are released, which promote the INCREASE of lean muscle mass. This research has been confirmed on mice, rats, dogs, humans, and possibly other animals. A 72 hour fast will result in drastically elevated growth hormones (like 3000% above baseline), which results in small increases to lean muscle mass in most situations.
For most people to reach CMA, it will typically take 70 to 100 hours of fasting before. This is where the real "repair" work begins. With intermittent fasting, there will be varying levels of microautophagy and macroautophagy, but no human can reach CMA in 24 hours.
When the body is in CMA, the hunt for amino acids is in overdrive! However, the body does NOT target healthy muscle tissue, but instead seeks out sources for amino acids that are damaged or not needed. Damaged mitochondria are repaired in CMA. Skin tags and other collagen-based skin conditions are broken down for the the amino acids. Extra skin from weight loss (skin and blood vessels are mostly collagen, which are primarily amino acids) is broken down for amino acids (also occurs in macroautophagy). Even foreign bacteria and viruses will be targeted for their amino acids. Aggregated proteins are also targeted, among other amino acid sources.
While autophagy research is still in its infancy (and there is a lot of bad research on autophagy), very little peer-reviewed research argues that the autophagy mechanisms will attack healthy cells before TRUE starvation has set in. I have completed multiple 7-day and 10-day fasts, and I was nowhere close to the point of true starvation where autophagy was targeting health muscle tissue. More work needs to be done on extended fasts, but there is research indicating this would be beyond 30 days for most people.
1
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