Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian

[jlcnuke]

No, it really is true. Unless you've found the secret to creating energy or matter from nothing (in violation of the rules of our universe as we know then), then you just simply don't understand what is happening.

You're making several assumptions there - the main one being that the only way for mass to leave the body is by being burned it as fuel, which is simply not true. The body is perfectly capable of getting rid of both liquids and solids without violating any of the laws of thermodynamics.

As a simple example, the human body is typically around 60% water, but there's wide variation in that number and the prostaglandin set of hormones regulate fluid levels. Some people can have 10+ kg of excess fluid stored in cavities, body tissues etc. Dealing with that can give a significant weight loss in spite of the zero calorific value of the water.

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

[cerat0n1a]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

OK, i have a degree in Physics. Please explain how losing 1 kg of water from the body provides any non-zero number of calories out (or Joules if you prefer)?

[use2betrix]

I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, it’s no wonder our country is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

My wife has balanced out all of our meals and done the math for many many years. She counts every calorie, protein, carb, fat. She pre makes all our meals. We are constantly adjusting calories and macros based on our current needs. It’s not rocket science, despite all the “secrets” people are claiming to have in this thread. You don’t have to fast or starve or cut out some foods you love entirely. I still have ice cream practically every week. Macros have their place, but calories are the ultimate deciding factor.

There’s no science to not being fat and no special tricks. Stop stuffing so much garbage in your mouth. Period.

In this pic below she does this with every meal we eat aside from the occasional cheats on the weekend. We have actually done this trial and error to a science that it’s clear many here are not remotely on the same level. At the end of the day - the number on the scale is calories. Obviously where they come from makes a huge difference for other ways. Muscle mass, energy, curbing hunger, mental focus, etc.

[wenchsenior]

I'm not into fad diets. Calories in &lt; calories used = weight loss.

This is a very inaccurate and misleading statement that implies weight loss is a simple as eating less. Gary Taubes wrote a great research book called "Good Calories, Bad Calories" and in it he mentions how if it were that simple just eating 25 or so extra calories a day would add up to over 20 pounds of weight gain over a decade. That doesn't happen though because our metabolism is an incredibly advanced system. The types of calories eaten can, and do, influence metabolism. There are plenty of other factors that influence metabolism that we still don't thoroughly understand.

You don't seem to understand how calories are used... Calories in less than calories out works 100% of the time. A change in metabolism changes how calories are used, not the facts of physics.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

I fully understand the physics. The statement is still a simplification that is commonly used to imply, "Just eat less," which is isn't how it works completely.

The statement I made is factual. Claims that it isn't are not.  You can eat next to nothing today and gain weight, you can eat like a pig today and lose weight. None of that changes the fact that calories in less than calories out will result in weight loss.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk

LOL You must be a hit at parties.

[Lmoot]

I may regret this, but I am going to weigh in here....yes, calories in/out is the determining factor of gain/loss of FAT (not necessarily weight), but the source of those calories can potentially impact metabolism, which could affect rate of output.

So when some are saying it’s not *just* in/out....I believe what they mean is it’s not just the  IN. I think we can all agree on that part at least. “In” matters, but equally important is what happens between the “in” and the “out”, and learning about how we can control that factor through diet and exercise. It is entirely possible that someone taking in more calories than someone else (or even measured against themselves, in a different health stage), could lose more weight.

I think we all mostly agree, but semantics got in the way. When it comes down to it, fat is the product of the calories in/out equation...metabolism drives the “out”, and we control the “in”, which can in turn control the metabolism...which controls the “out”...etc etc. I’m going to have a cup of tea and aspirin now.

[jlcnuke]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

OK, i have a degree in Physics. Please explain how losing 1 kg of water from the body provides any non-zero number of calories out (or Joules if you prefer)?

Sure, explain how the 1 kg of water was "lost', and I can explain how it's accounted for with calories (pro-tip, things aren't just "lost" spontaneously with no change in energy use which I'm sure one of those classes that you took to get a degree in physics would have taught you since there are multiple laws of physics associated with that concept...).

[cerat0n1a]

Sure, explain how the 1 kg of water was "lost', and I can explain how it's accounted for with calories (pro-tip, things aren't just "lost" spontaneously with no change in energy use which I'm sure one of those classes that you took to get a degree in physics would have taught you since there are multiple laws of physics associated with that concept...).

Try reading (and understanding) Lmoot's post above. The body is not 100% fat. Water does not burn.

[Lmoot]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

OK, i have a degree in Physics. Please explain how losing 1 kg of water from the body provides any non-zero number of calories out (or Joules if you prefer)?

Sure, explain how the 1 kg of water was "lost', and I can explain how it's accounted for with calories (pro-tip, things aren't just "lost" spontaneously with no change in energy use which I'm sure one of those classes that you took to get a degree in physics would have taught you since there are multiple laws of physics associated with that concept...).

I think issue was taken with how you initially worded the absoluteness of in/out. It made it sound as if it were easy equation (easy to solve and control) and it is not always, which you alluded to a little bit later in terms of the different ways calories can exit or be used by the body.  While the equation itself is simple, solving it is not so. The effects of basal metabolism is something still being studied to this day and it can have a major impact on fat gain/loss. Metabolic disorders are proof that it is not just simple in and out.

Someone with a metabolic issue could take in less calories, and kinetically expend more calories (through measured activity), than someone with a normal/ fast metabolism, and still gain more, or not lose as much, fat. And for that person, it is not simple. Yes, the person with higher metabolism, even if they are doing less kinetic exercise, at the end of the equation may have more of an output of calories when you add in calories lost through basal metabolic activity. In/out is just a very simplified version of a more detailed equation in the middle.

[jlcnuke]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

OK, i have a degree in Physics. Please explain how losing 1 kg of water from the body provides any non-zero number of calories out (or Joules if you prefer)?

Sure, explain how the 1 kg of water was "lost', and I can explain how it's accounted for with calories (pro-tip, things aren't just "lost" spontaneously with no change in energy use which I'm sure one of those classes that you took to get a degree in physics would have taught you since there are multiple laws of physics associated with that concept...).

I think issue was taken with how you initially worded the absoluteness of in/out. It made it sound as if it were easy equation (easy to solve and control) and it is not always, which you alluded to a little bit later in terms of the different ways calories can exit or be used by the body.  While the equation itself is simple, solving it is not so. The effects of basal metabolism is something still being studied to this day and it can have a major impact on fat gain/loss. Metabolic disorders are proof that it is not just simple in and out.

Someone with a metabolic issue could take in less calories, and kinetically expend more calories (through measured activity), than someone with a normal/ fast metabolism, and still gain more, or not lose as much, fat. And for that person, it is not simple. Yes, the person with higher metabolism, even if they are doing less kinetic exercise, at the end of the equation may have more of an output of calories when you add in calories lost through basal metabolic activity. In/out is just a very simplified version of a more detailed equation in the middle.

It can actually be fairly easy to solve for any given person. Reduce caloric intake and/or increase caloric usage until weight loss is achieved. You can do that by just reducing caloric intake (reduced sufficiently, anyone will lose weight regardless of their metabolism), by just increasing caloric usage (exercise enough and anyone will lose weight regardless of their metabolism), or some combination of the two (generally considered to be the ideal solution). Beyond that you can try and "tweak" things to optimise X, Y, Z, etc factors that influence how your individual metabolism functions, but the basic method that works 100% of the time (consume less, use more) is still the simplest method.  Tons of people, however, focus on the "tweak" gimmicks and forget that the core of the issue is consumption vs use.  Maybe Jon Doe's metabolism will increase slightly by fasting twice a week and his caloric intake will be less than his calories out that week. Maybe Jane Doe will eat 20% more calories per week if she fasts twice a week and will gain weight because she had more calories in than out. The calories in vs calories out still rules the equation. Whether you exercise 3 hours per day, fast intermittently, do yoga, or sit on a couch all week, you'll gain weight by having more calories in than out and you'll lose weight by having fewer calories in than out.

Sure, "use" varies tons. One person can consume 4k calories a day and lose weight while another will gain weight consuming 1/2 that many calories. That's a variation in their use of calories, but doesn't change the fact that the one gaining weight is consuming more than they're using while the one losing weight is using more than they're consuming.

[Davnasty]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

OK, i have a degree in Physics. Please explain how losing 1 kg of water from the body provides any non-zero number of calories out (or Joules if you prefer)?

Sure, explain how the 1 kg of water was "lost', and I can explain how it's accounted for with calories (pro-tip, things aren't just "lost" spontaneously with no change in energy use which I'm sure one of those classes that you took to get a degree in physics would have taught you since there are multiple laws of physics associated with that concept...).

I think issue was taken with how you initially worded the absoluteness of in/out. It made it sound as if it were easy equation (easy to solve and control) and it is not always, which you alluded to a little bit later in terms of the different ways calories can exit or be used by the body.  While the equation itself is simple, solving it is not so. The effects of basal metabolism is something still being studied to this day and it can have a major impact on fat gain/loss. Metabolic disorders are proof that it is not just simple in and out.

Someone with a metabolic issue could take in less calories, and kinetically expend more calories (through measured activity), than someone with a normal/ fast metabolism, and still gain more, or not lose as much, fat. And for that person, it is not simple. Yes, the person with higher metabolism, even if they are doing less kinetic exercise, at the end of the equation may have more of an output of calories when you add in calories lost through basal metabolic activity. In/out is just a very simplified version of a more detailed equation in the middle.

Precisely

I'm not into fad diets. Calories in < calories used = weight loss. The laws of physics don't change.  If gimmicks help you make that happen, more power to you.  At least one doctor that was recommending intermittent fasting did their own study which showed it was on par, or worse, in general, compared to consistently eating the same average calorie deficit (I'd link but it's been a while since I looked it up last so I don't remember her name). Others show some positives for it. The general medical advice out there is still that moderate caloric deficit is the most healthy way to lose weight from all the doctors I've talked to/read. So that's what I stick with when losing weight.

If you don't know what "calories used/out" is you don't know what a moderate caloric deficit is. Your statement may be accurate but was misleading. More relevant to the conversation, IF can impact this number.

Not to mention what most people really mean when they say "lose weight" is "lose fat". Specific diets can effect the rate at which you lose fat vs. muscle.

[tennisray]

I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, it’s no wonder our country is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

My wife has balanced out all of our meals and done the math for many many years. She counts every calorie, protein, carb, fat. She pre makes all our meals. We are constantly adjusting calories and macros based on our current needs. It’s not rocket science, despite all the “secrets” people are claiming to have in this thread. You don’t have to fast or starve or cut out some foods you love entirely. I still have ice cream practically every week. Macros have their place, but calories are the ultimate deciding factor.

There’s no science to not being fat and no special tricks. Stop stuffing so much garbage in your mouth. Period.

In this pic below she does this with every meal we eat aside from the occasional cheats on the weekend. We have actually done this trial and error to a science that it’s clear many here are not remotely on the same level. At the end of the day - the number on the scale is calories. Obviously where they come from makes a huge difference for other ways. Muscle mass, energy, curbing hunger, mental focus, etc.

Well put...you guys must be engineers or accountants!  I wish I could be so detailed.  When I am cutting weight, i do use Myfitnesspal and that helps.  I think you are right, but it's hard to get people to change their ideas on food.  It's very emotional for most people.  It's human nature to believe that "I am the exception to the rule and I can't lose weight no matter what I do".  If people would try cutting calories instead of the quick fix, then we would have less of an obesity epidemic.  Losing weight is very simple...but it is very hard to do!

[Lmoot]

I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, it’s no wonder our country is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

My wife has balanced out all of our meals and done the math for many many years. She counts every calorie, protein, carb, fat. She pre makes all our meals. We are constantly adjusting calories and macros based on our current needs. It’s not rocket science, despite all the “secrets” people are claiming to have in this thread. You don’t have to fast or starve or cut out some foods you love entirely. I still have ice cream practically every week. Macros have their place, but calories are the ultimate deciding factor.

There’s no science to not being fat and no special tricks. Stop stuffing so much garbage in your mouth. Period.

In this pic below she does this with every meal we eat aside from the occasional cheats on the weekend. We have actually done this trial and error to a science that it’s clear many here are not remotely on the same level. At the end of the day - the number on the scale is calories. Obviously where they come from makes a huge difference for other ways. Muscle mass, energy, curbing hunger, mental focus, etc.

Well put...you guys must be engineers or accountants!  I wish I could be so detailed.  When I am cutting weight, i do use Myfitnesspal and that helps.  I think you are right, but it's hard to get people to change their ideas on food.  It's very emotional for most people.  It's human nature to believe that "I am the exception to the rule and I can't lose weight no matter what I do".  If people would try cutting calories instead of the quick fix, then we would have less of an obesity epidemic.  Losing weight is very simple...but it is very hard to do!

I don't think that the people here, anyway, are making excuses. But if one only focuses on calories (which is actually what has been pushed for many years) they could be hindering, or missing out on opportunities to make their metabolism more efficient (meaning you could take in more calories and maintain your fat...or take in the same amount of calories, but exercise less...if that's a goal of yours).

It's almost just as dangerous to focus on a calorie-driven diet plan, as it is to ignore it. Because to focus on calorie intake (instead of just focusing on downing healthful foods, regardless of calories), means some folks might equate a lower-calorie food as more healthful than a more nutrient-dense but higher calorie food. Food is not just made up of calories...there are also sugars, carbs, proteins, fiber, and fats. Health researches are finding more and more, that it's more important to get the right combinations and ratios of the above, than it is to stay under a specific caloric intake. That is why blood tests are taken to test metabolic health, and are considered more of an accurate indication of health than BMI. Skinny people with low calorie lifestyle, can still have a disastrous metabolism.

[o2bfree]

A year or so ago, I started doing a 24-hour fast once a week by skipping dinner one night, then breakfast the next morning. My main motivation is to give my digestive tract a break. It also seems to help me keep off about 6 pounds.

Hunger pangs seem the worst around 4-6 pm, especially knowing that I won't be getting a food reward when I get home. One thing that helps me with the hunger is fennel tea made from fennel seeds. Green tea is supposed to be good, too, but I don't like the caffeine later in the day, plus it tends to make me queasy on an empty stomach.

[wenchsenior]

A year or so ago, I started doing a 24-hour fast once a week by skipping dinner one night, then breakfast the next morning. My main motivation is to give my digestive tract a break. It also seems to help me keep off about 6 pounds.

Hunger pangs seem the worst around 4-6 pm, especially knowing that I won't be getting a food reward when I get home. One thing that helps me with the hunger is fennel tea made from fennel seeds. Green tea is supposed to be good, too, but I don't like the caffeine later in the day, plus it tends to make me queasy on an empty stomach.

'

Yeah...no green tea without food for me either.  And also not with eggs.  Green tea is tricky stuff.

[Rubic]

Green tea is supposed to be good, too, but I don't like the caffeine later in the day, plus
it tends to make me queasy on an empty stomach.

Have you tried drinking decaf green tea in the afternoon?

[Slow2FIRE]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

OK, i have a degree in Physics. Please explain how losing 1 kg of water from the body provides any non-zero number of calories out (or Joules if you prefer)?

Sure, explain how the 1 kg of water was "lost', and I can explain how it's accounted for with calories (pro-tip, things aren't just "lost" spontaneously with no change in energy use which I'm sure one of those classes that you took to get a degree in physics would have taught you since there are multiple laws of physics associated with that concept...).

I think issue was taken with how you initially worded the absoluteness of in/out. It made it sound as if it were easy equation (easy to solve and control) and it is not always, which you alluded to a little bit later in terms of the different ways calories can exit or be used by the body.  While the equation itself is simple, solving it is not so. The effects of basal metabolism is something still being studied to this day and it can have a major impact on fat gain/loss. Metabolic disorders are proof that it is not just simple in and out.

Someone with a metabolic issue could take in less calories, and kinetically expend more calories (through measured activity), than someone with a normal/ fast metabolism, and still gain more, or not lose as much, fat. And for that person, it is not simple. Yes, the person with higher metabolism, even if they are doing less kinetic exercise, at the end of the equation may have more of an output of calories when you add in calories lost through basal metabolic activity. In/out is just a very simplified version of a more detailed equation in the middle.

It can actually be fairly easy to solve for any given person. Reduce caloric intake and/or increase caloric usage until weight loss is achieved. You can do that by just reducing caloric intake (reduced sufficiently, anyone will lose weight regardless of their metabolism), by just increasing caloric usage (exercise enough and anyone will lose weight regardless of their metabolism), or some combination of the two (generally considered to be the ideal solution). Beyond that you can try and "tweak" things to optimise X, Y, Z, etc factors that influence how your individual metabolism functions, but the basic method that works 100% of the time (consume less, use more) is still the simplest method.  Tons of people, however, focus on the "tweak" gimmicks and forget that the core of the issue is consumption vs use.  Maybe Jon Doe's metabolism will increase slightly by fasting twice a week and his caloric intake will be less than his calories out that week. Maybe Jane Doe will eat 20% more calories per week if she fasts twice a week and will gain weight because she had more calories in than out. The calories in vs calories out still rules the equation. Whether you exercise 3 hours per day, fast intermittently, do yoga, or sit on a couch all week, you'll gain weight by having more calories in than out and you'll lose weight by having fewer calories in than out.

Sure, "use" varies tons. One person can consume 4k calories a day and lose weight while another will gain weight consuming 1/2 that many calories. That's a variation in their use of calories, but doesn't change the fact that the one gaining weight is consuming more than they're using while the one losing weight is using more than they're consuming.

This suggestion completely fails on the behavioral aspects for a majority of the obese people.
"Just do it" is only good for Nike and software.

For the most part, the people who can follow your "advice" have zero need for anyone to tell them how to modify their weight because they are already capable of doing so (and likely already have done so if they needed to).

Just about every adult who is obese "knows" to lose weight they should get active and not stuff themselves with calorie dense foods.  The basic concepts, as such, are well understood and have just about nothing to do with the actual behavioral problems that are really what need to be overcome in order for someone to make headway on a weight loss program (and maintenance afterwards).

Habits such as "intermittent fasting" can play a role in positive outcomes for some people.  I am helping a family member right now follow a 15:9 style of intermittent fasting (15hrs with no eating, 9hrs to get your meals and snacks in) because it directly addresses how they specifically were intaking too many calories - constant snacking from wake up time to bed time over a 16hr period.  Quite a few of the unneeded calories are now no longer a part of their diet because their eating time is compressed into a shorter window.  They were never one to sit down and pig out on a giant feast and had no idea how many calories they were consuming as snacks outside of meal times.

[BookLoverL]

I think the thing is that CICO absolutely does always work when you get right down to it. BUT there are complicating factors. These might include: some foods fill you up more for the same calories, i.e. the body won't send more hunger signals as soon afterwards; some people have a medical condition or take drugs which throw their hunger signals off; some people have slower or faster metabolisms; etc. But this doesn't mean CICO is broken, only that some people might have to work harder to eat a small enough amount and/or exercise enough to fulfil it. There's also the issue of how convenient it is to get food (don't keep junk food in your cupboards if you always end up eating it all), and of boredom eating and emotional eating.

Of course, CICO always functioning doesn't mean that it's wise to give your entire allotment of calories to boiled rice or something. You would lose weight that way, but you would soon run into the health problem of malnutrition. This is why it's important to include a diverse range of foods in your diet, including fruit and veg for vitamins and minerals, something for protein so your muscles don't waste away, fat for essential fatty acids for energy, etc. Otherwise you will get malnourished. Of course, if you have an allergy or intolerance to something, you should also avoid that food if you don't want to get a bad reaction.

[o2bfree]

Yeah...no green tea without food for me either.  And also not with eggs.  Green tea is tricky stuff.

For sure. The first time I tried matcha (the whipped-up kind) was on an empty stomach in a formal Japanese setting. The queasiness hit all at once and all I could think was "Oh God, I'm gonna mess up this awesome tatami mat..." Fortunately, the feeling passed.

I've read it's the tannins that can irritate the stomach.

[Sorinth]

A year or so ago, I started doing a 24-hour fast once a week by skipping dinner one night, then breakfast the next morning. My main motivation is to give my digestive tract a break. It also seems to help me keep off about 6 pounds.

Hunger pangs seem the worst around 4-6 pm, especially knowing that I won't be getting a food reward when I get home. One thing that helps me with the hunger is fennel tea made from fennel seeds. Green tea is supposed to be good, too, but I don't like the caffeine later in the day, plus it tends to make me queasy on an empty stomach.

Not having enough salt can also be a cause of hunger pains. I've done a few longer fasts 60-70hrs, and sprinkling in some salt in a glass of water can really help.

[o2bfree]

Green tea is supposed to be good, too, but I don't like the caffeine later in the day, plus
it tends to make me queasy on an empty stomach.

Have you tried drinking decaf green tea in the afternoon?

I believe that decaf still has the tannins that cause the queasiness. I can drink coffee in the afternoon if I want with no problem at all.

[o2bfree]

A year or so ago, I started doing a 24-hour fast once a week by skipping dinner one night, then breakfast the next morning. My main motivation is to give my digestive tract a break. It also seems to help me keep off about 6 pounds.

Hunger pangs seem the worst around 4-6 pm, especially knowing that I won't be getting a food reward when I get home. One thing that helps me with the hunger is fennel tea made from fennel seeds. Green tea is supposed to be good, too, but I don't like the caffeine later in the day, plus it tends to make me queasy on an empty stomach.

Not having enough salt can also be a cause of hunger pains. I've done a few longer fasts 60-70hrs, and sprinkling in some salt in a glass of water can really help.

Good idea to try -thanks!

[Lmoot]

I find that with tea (true, not herbal) I have to have had something substantial within a couple hours beforehand or I get nauseated. For me it’s even worse with black tea. And yeah, Matcha is potent on an empty stomach.

Someone above said tea is tricky and boy are they right. I have to time when I drink my tea, and I drink at least 3 cups of true tea every day. I can’t drink it too close to eating fruits and veggies because it can block absorption of certain nutrients, but I have to have something fatty and or ““carby” sometime beforehand (within a few hours is fine), or I’m fighting vomit.

[use2betrix]

I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, it’s no wonder our country is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

My wife has balanced out all of our meals and done the math for many many years. She counts every calorie, protein, carb, fat. She pre makes all our meals. We are constantly adjusting calories and macros based on our current needs. It’s not rocket science, despite all the “secrets” people are claiming to have in this thread. You don’t have to fast or starve or cut out some foods you love entirely. I still have ice cream practically every week. Macros have their place, but calories are the ultimate deciding factor.

There’s no science to not being fat and no special tricks. Stop stuffing so much garbage in your mouth. Period.

In this pic below she does this with every meal we eat aside from the occasional cheats on the weekend. We have actually done this trial and error to a science that it’s clear many here are not remotely on the same level. At the end of the day - the number on the scale is calories. Obviously where they come from makes a huge difference for other ways. Muscle mass, energy, curbing hunger, mental focus, etc.

Well put...you guys must be engineers or accountants!  I wish I could be so detailed.  When I am cutting weight, i do use Myfitnesspal and that helps.  I think you are right, but it's hard to get people to change their ideas on food.  It's very emotional for most people.  It's human nature to believe that "I am the exception to the rule and I can't lose weight no matter what I do".  If people would try cutting calories instead of the quick fix, then we would have less of an obesity epidemic.  Losing weight is very simple...but it is very hard to do!

I don't think that the people here, anyway, are making excuses. But if one only focuses on calories (which is actually what has been pushed for many years) they could be hindering, or missing out on opportunities to make their metabolism more efficient (meaning you could take in more calories and maintain your fat...or take in the same amount of calories, but exercise less...if that's a goal of yours).

It's almost just as dangerous to focus on a calorie-driven diet plan, as it is to ignore it. Because to focus on calorie intake (instead of just focusing on downing healthful foods, regardless of calories), means some folks might equate a lower-calorie food as more healthful than a more nutrient-dense but higher calorie food. Food is not just made up of calories...there are also sugars, carbs, proteins, fiber, and fats. Health researches are finding more and more, that it's more important to get the right combinations and ratios of the above, than it is to stay under a specific caloric intake. That is why blood tests are taken to test metabolic health, and are considered more of an accurate indication of health than BMI. Skinny people with low calorie lifestyle, can still have a disastrous metabolism.

Personally - as someone who focuses on bodybuilding - I treat my macros with more importance than calories, as the calories fall into place. My macro ratio above is very dependent on my goals. My goals (bulking/cutting) are mostly just dependent on my carb intake. When I’ve been gaining hard I’ve been as high as 4000+ calories. Eating 4000 calories of healthy food is 1000x more miserable than 2000 calories of healthy foods (my maintenance is probably around 2800 calories typically)

Muscle mass also plays a huge determining factor in calories burned vs something like - BMI. Someone 200lbs with 5% BF will burn more calories than 200lbs and 25% BF.

Again - it’s all trial and error dependent on person to person. I can give someone a guideline but people need to decide what works best for them. In general, a lot of “rules” are pretty standard person to person, but there’s a lot of factors also unique person to person. For EVERY person though, once you figure out your maintenance level, you drop 500/day past that, you should lose a lb a week, and vice versa.

On average - they say to lose a lb you have to be in approximately a 3500 calorie deficit. I.e. 500 calories a day would be a 1lb per week weight loss. As I mentioned earlier, my maintenance is usually around 2800 calories. I spent some time at about 2000-2200 calories per day, and naturally that 3500/lb was pretty dang accurate. See below:

[tennisray]

I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, it’s no wonder our country is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

My wife has balanced out all of our meals and done the math for many many years. She counts every calorie, protein, carb, fat. She pre makes all our meals. We are constantly adjusting calories and macros based on our current needs. It’s not rocket science, despite all the “secrets” people are claiming to have in this thread. You don’t have to fast or starve or cut out some foods you love entirely. I still have ice cream practically every week. Macros have their place, but calories are the ultimate deciding factor.

There’s no science to not being fat and no special tricks. Stop stuffing so much garbage in your mouth. Period.

In this pic below she does this with every meal we eat aside from the occasional cheats on the weekend. We have actually done this trial and error to a science that it’s clear many here are not remotely on the same level. At the end of the day - the number on the scale is calories. Obviously where they come from makes a huge difference for other ways. Muscle mass, energy, curbing hunger, mental focus, etc.

Well put...you guys must be engineers or accountants!  I wish I could be so detailed.  When I am cutting weight, i do use Myfitnesspal and that helps.  I think you are right, but it's hard to get people to change their ideas on food.  It's very emotional for most people.  It's human nature to believe that "I am the exception to the rule and I can't lose weight no matter what I do".  If people would try cutting calories instead of the quick fix, then we would have less of an obesity epidemic.  Losing weight is very simple...but it is very hard to do!

I don't think that the people here, anyway, are making excuses. But if one only focuses on calories (which is actually what has been pushed for many years) they could be hindering, or missing out on opportunities to make their metabolism more efficient (meaning you could take in more calories and maintain your fat...or take in the same amount of calories, but exercise less...if that's a goal of yours).

It's almost just as dangerous to focus on a calorie-driven diet plan, as it is to ignore it. Because to focus on calorie intake (instead of just focusing on downing healthful foods, regardless of calories), means some folks might equate a lower-calorie food as more healthful than a more nutrient-dense but higher calorie food. Food is not just made up of calories...there are also sugars, carbs, proteins, fiber, and fats. Health researches are finding more and more, that it's more important to get the right combinations and ratios of the above, than it is to stay under a specific caloric intake. That is why blood tests are taken to test metabolic health, and are considered more of an accurate indication of health than BMI. Skinny people with low calorie lifestyle, can still have a disastrous metabolism.

I agree with everything you wrote. Sorry if it came across as invalidating the nuances. But don’t you think calorie intake would have the largest effect on our obesity epidemic? Yes, there will be negatives on that focus, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.  I focus on macros, as well, since I am into bodybuilding too. I IF on a 16-8 schedule. Yes, there may be some benefit to IF, but I think the biggest factor is that it makes it easier for me to stick to my macros. Anything else(inc testosterone) would be just gravy.

[Lmoot]

I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, it’s no wonder our country is in the midst of an obesity epidemic.

My wife has balanced out all of our meals and done the math for many many years. She counts every calorie, protein, carb, fat. She pre makes all our meals. We are constantly adjusting calories and macros based on our current needs. It’s not rocket science, despite all the “secrets” people are claiming to have in this thread. You don’t have to fast or starve or cut out some foods you love entirely. I still have ice cream practically every week. Macros have their place, but calories are the ultimate deciding factor.

There’s no science to not being fat and no special tricks. Stop stuffing so much garbage in your mouth. Period.

In this pic below she does this with every meal we eat aside from the occasional cheats on the weekend. We have actually done this trial and error to a science that it’s clear many here are not remotely on the same level. At the end of the day - the number on the scale is calories. Obviously where they come from makes a huge difference for other ways. Muscle mass, energy, curbing hunger, mental focus, etc.

Well put...you guys must be engineers or accountants!  I wish I could be so detailed.  When I am cutting weight, i do use Myfitnesspal and that helps.  I think you are right, but it's hard to get people to change their ideas on food.  It's very emotional for most people.  It's human nature to believe that "I am the exception to the rule and I can't lose weight no matter what I do".  If people would try cutting calories instead of the quick fix, then we would have less of an obesity epidemic.  Losing weight is very simple...but it is very hard to do!

I don't think that the people here, anyway, are making excuses. But if one only focuses on calories (which is actually what has been pushed for many years) they could be hindering, or missing out on opportunities to make their metabolism more efficient (meaning you could take in more calories and maintain your fat...or take in the same amount of calories, but exercise less...if that's a goal of yours).

It's almost just as dangerous to focus on a calorie-driven diet plan, as it is to ignore it. Because to focus on calorie intake (instead of just focusing on downing healthful foods, regardless of calories), means some folks might equate a lower-calorie food as more healthful than a more nutrient-dense but higher calorie food. Food is not just made up of calories...there are also sugars, carbs, proteins, fiber, and fats. Health researches are finding more and more, that it's more important to get the right combinations and ratios of the above, than it is to stay under a specific caloric intake. That is why blood tests are taken to test metabolic health, and are considered more of an accurate indication of health than BMI. Skinny people with low calorie lifestyle, can still have a disastrous metabolism.

I agree with everything you wrote. Sorry if it came across as invalidating the nuances. But don’t you think calorie intake would have the largest effect on our obesity epidemic? Yes, there will be negatives on that focus, but don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.  I focus on macros, as well, since I am into bodybuilding too. I IF on a 16-8 schedule. Yes, there may be some benefit to IF, but I think the biggest factor is that it makes it easier for me to stick to my macros. Anything else(inc testosterone) would be just gravy.

My big problem with counting calories is  that for some people they treat it as a shortcut, and don’t take the time to actually learn about all the other things that make up a healthful diet. And it tricks some people into thinking they can eat unhealthy things, just less of it…And that’s all they eat and are hungry revert back to bad habits.

Honestly, what helps me maintain my weight is filling my day with healthful food. As much as I can get into my body with no regard to calories. Counting calories works for many people, no doubt, if they are trying to lose fat. But if health is what you’re measuring (via blood chemistry), calories are secondary IMO. Like I mentioned earlier, someone can have a horrific low cal diet that gives them low HDL and other risk factors for heart disease. I’d rather if someone is going to go over calories, they do it on oils, and avocado, and nuts, than go under calories eating fat free yogurts thickened with pectin, and, lower fat brownie treats full of preservatives and alternatives. There is a reason why companies get rich selling the low-cal dream....they figure if they do what it takes to get the calories within a sought-after range, while still making it palatable, people will ignore the other things...and often times they’re right.

Historically, education is proven time and time again, to be the salvation of a society, and offering the easy homework of CICO while it can make someone lose weight, it doesn’t automatically lead to more healthy choices.

[all4kc]

There was a teacher in Iowa a few years ago that wanted to prove CICO.  He ate only Mcdonald's food everyday for 90 days straight.  He had his students plan his 3 meals a day with a 2,000 calorie daily limit.  He also did some light walking for 45 minutes, 4-5 days a week.  As a result, he lost 37 pounds and cut his cholesterol by 79 points. 

[Lmoot]

There was a teacher in Iowa a few years ago that wanted to prove CICO.  He ate only Mcdonald's food everyday for 90 days straight.  He had his students plan his 3 meals a day with a 2,000 calorie daily limit.  He also did some light walking for 45 minutes, 4-5 days a week.  As a result, he lost 37 pounds and cut his cholesterol by 79 points.

What was his HDL? According to more emerging research someone with a higher total cholesterol and HDL could have a lower risk of diseases than someone with lower total cholesterol and a lower HDL number. If most of the redection came from the HDL column, then that is potentionally more terrible than if there was no change...or even went up slightly.

That’s why I keep saying it’s not simple arithmetic. Balance and combination of foods can completely affect how your body processes, absorbs and eliminates....all the way down to the molecular level.

[jlcnuke]

There was a teacher in Iowa a few years ago that wanted to prove CICO.  He ate only Mcdonald's food everyday for 90 days straight.  He had his students plan his 3 meals a day with a 2,000 calorie daily limit.  He also did some light walking for 45 minutes, 4-5 days a week.  As a result, he lost 37 pounds and cut his cholesterol by 79 points.

What was his HDL? According to more emerging research someone with a higher total cholesterol and HDL could have a lower risk of diseases than someone with lower total cholesterol and a lower HDL number. If most of the redection came from the HDL column, then that is potentionally more terrible than if there was no change...or even went up slightly.

That’s why I keep saying it’s not simple arithmetic. Balance and combination of foods can completely affect how your body processes, absorbs and eliminates....all the way down to the molecular level.

a. Losing weight is just simple arithmetic.
b. Eating healthy is not just simple arithmetic.
c. Modifying a person's metabolism is not just simple arithmetic.
d. Changing a person's behavior is not just simple arithmetic.

Losing weight is "easy", everything else is where things get complicated. If you weigh 400 lbs, I'm sure any doctor would be happy with you losing weight, even if your diet was just McDonald's. Losing weight AND developing healthy habits would be preferable in the eyes of most however.

[use2betrix]

So - while I am still adamant on the calories in/calories out aspect as I have personally proven works for me, countless times, I decided to give some reasonable intermittent fasting a shot in an effort to control hunger. I don’t get super hungry in the mornings anyways, but get super hungry in the afternoons. I am cutting out my breakfast (1 cup egg whites, 2 eggs, 1 Ezekiel bread muffin) and also cutting out the 4 hard boiled eggs I would eat in the afternoon. I am replacing those calories, by eating two of my lunch meals (one at noon and one at 4 pm).

So my meals will now be:
Noon - lunch
2 pm - protein shake
4 pm - same meal as lunch
6 pm - protein shake
8 pm - dinner

So I am essentially fasting 16 hrs - from 8 pm to noon. Today was my first day and I was surprisingly not as starving as I expected by noon. It was manageable. For my 4 pm meal - I actually only ate half my potatoes since I wasn’t that hungry.

My goal for this is to help maintain my planned diet. Prior, sometimes I would get so hungry in the afternoons id need some rice cakes or oatmeal before I could work out, thus adding in unaccounted for calories.

Here’s a breakdown of my calories/macros for an average day:

[anotherAlias]

So - while I am still adamant on the calories in/calories out aspect as I have personally proven works for me, countless times, I decided to give some reasonable intermittent fasting a shot in an effort to control hunger. I don’t get super hungry in the mornings anyways, but get super hungry in the afternoons. I am cutting out my breakfast (1 cup egg whites, 2 eggs, 1 Ezekiel bread muffin) and also cutting out the 4 hard boiled eggs I would eat in the afternoon. I am replacing those calories, by eating two of my lunch meals (one at noon and one at 4 pm).

So my meals will now be:
Noon - lunch
2 pm - protein shake
4 pm - same meal as lunch
6 pm - protein shake
8 pm - dinner

So I am essentially fasting 16 hrs - from 8 pm to noon. Today was my first day and I was surprisingly not as starving as I expected by noon. It was manageable. For my 4 pm meal - I actually only ate half my potatoes since I wasn’t that hungry.

My goal for this is to help maintain my planned diet. Prior, sometimes I would get so hungry in the afternoons id need some rice cakes or oatmeal before I could work out, thus adding in unaccounted for calories.

Here’s a breakdown of my calories/macros for an average day:

Good luck.  I started fasting 14-16 hrs a day last year and was surprised that my afternoon hungry fits all but disappeared.  In my case, I just pushed back my breakfast and eliminated a morning snack.  Somehow that flipped some switch that keeps me from wanting to snack all afternoon.  I can't explain it but it works for me so I keep at it.

[Seadog]

Nowhere did I say that the calories out have to be as a result of using them as fuel, calories can be used as sweat, food for mosquitos, excrement, anything you'd like. The fact is that calories in < calories out = weight loss. Show me any example where that wasn't true and you'll demonstrate how to violate the laws of physics. That's just how things work...

If you want to be pedantic, yes that's correct, but in terms of weight loss and actionable advice it's beyond fucking useless.

The reason being is that all 3 of those items are at best within your control directly to a minority degree, and depending on the circumstance, the resultant one with be a function of the other two, while simultaneously all working in concert.

Calories in is governed by hunger, which is governed by activity levels, body temp, types of food eaten, and a host of other aspects. Sure you can just "not eat", but you're fighting 2 million years of survivalist evolution, and not a viable long term strategy. Are you saying everyone at a healthy weight has been famished their entire life? How do you reduce calories in, while maintaining calories out?

Calories out is determined by activity levels, but also how much and the type of food you've recently eaten, temperature, stress, how rested you are, and a host of other factors. If the body has less calories than it wants, then you can become slow, lethargic, body temp drop a bit, basically all sorts of things to reduce your calorie burn. You could say just keep exercising, but it's like being up for 3 days straight. Eventually the body says no more energy to run as it says no more wakey time. How can you ensure calories out exceeds calories in without energy levels/BMR/Body temp/wakefulness crashing?

Weight loss is determined by energy balance as you insinuated, but also hormonal changes. Why do bears about to hibernate and pregnant women put on fat? Why, even if they eat the exact same calories as before, do they *still* put on fat, while at the same time the above energy conserving tricks kick in? It's because the body has made fat retention a priority. Aside from what I've mentioned, what causes the body to prioritize fat creation/retention?

I also highly recommend the book "Good Calories, Bad Calories". It's filled with interesting studies, but is a bit on the technical side. Studies where calories in people with stable weights were replaced with fat, protein or carbs, and if all calories were equal, you'd expect no change in weight, but that wasn't the case.

Studies where people were not hungry on a sub-sustenance protein/fat diet, but add in 500 kcals *extra* of carbs, and then they are starving.

The above "fat first" body prioritizing gets some mention, and all in all it's a great book. He compared the body to a 6 sided teeter-totter. If you change one thing such as fewer calories, than a host of other things will try and compensate to ensure nothing in the body changes. (massive hunger, lower BMR, more tired, etc.)

I find the whole topic fascinating. You have very highly educated people on both sides, hundreds of studies many of which show conflicting results.

[SachaFiscal]

I've lost weight both with intermittent fasting (1 or two 20-24 hour fasts per week) and calorie restriction (restricting to 1200-1400 calories).  Also with some exercise in both cases.

I think the intermittent fasting worked because it put me in a calorie deficit. But also the intermittent fasting seemed to improve my mental acuity and stamina, and improve my skin (looks younger).  I read about autophagy and that seems like a really good reason to do it.  Also it helped reduce cravings for me.

Now I'm doing both intermittent fasting and calorie counting to lose the last bit of weight that I haven't been able to lose. Also I'm trying to increase my activity level. I try to eat an average of 1200-1400 calories a week and use intermittent fasting to do that.  Some days I'll go over on my calories so I'll do a fast day (20 hour fast) to compensate.  I usually fast from 6pm the previous day to 2-4pm the next day.  I've tried limiting my cals to 500 on fast days but it's really too hard sometimes. I end up eating 800-1000 instead.  I'm eating a healthy diet that is mostly plant-based.  I cook most of my meals so the calorie estimates are more accurate then if I was eating out a lot.

I've lost about 10lbs so far and probably am just going to see if I can lose 5 more.  I do feel like this way of eating is sustainable for me.



 

[OurTown]

I'm back on 20 hour fasts on workdays and I love it.  All of my meals (evening & weekend) are low-carb / keto.  I feel fantastic.

[starguru]

For those who do IF diets, can you exercise on fast days?  I’m interested in trying this but wonder if moderate to heavy exercise would make it impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[use2betrix]

For those who do IF diets, can you exercise on fast days?  I’m interested in trying this but wonder if moderate to heavy exercise would make it impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My fast is 15-16 hrs. For me it actually works far better because I go to the gym around 6 pm. My fast is from 8ish pm til noonish. So I get a couple good meals in before the gym.

My wife does cardio in the morning fasted with no issue.

[Sorinth]

For those who do IF diets, can you exercise on fast days?  I’m interested in trying this but wonder if moderate to heavy exercise would make it impossible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never had a problem working out while fasted, though you probably won't set any personal bests. If your goal is weight loss it's even recommended to workout before ending your fast.

[Penn42]

My brother has been doing a IF type thing where he only eats between 2pm and 8pm.  Eats whatever he wants, but only those hours.  He said at first he loved it, but it's getting harder.  I work in construction and there's no way I could make it through 7 of my 8 hours before hitting 2 so I could eat. 

My trick when it comes to food consumption is I don't snack.  I have prescribed meal times and that's when I eat.  Breakfast before work.  Yogurt during morning break.  Lunch.  A piece of fruit when I get home.  And dinner.  I budget for my meals basically.  I know how much food I have and how much I'll allow myself to have and when.  Then I simply don't eat more or at other times.  Works good for me.

[big_slacker]

Basics first. No point in doing IF if you don't know what your maintenance calories are and if you don't know how to eat whole, natural foods and avoid sugars and other nutrient poor foods.

I always wonder on these threads how many of the 'experts' or advice givers are actually fit or have helped others IRL become fit. I bring this up because I know a lot of real life overweight people that are experts in all things fad diet.

FWIW I think IF can be a good tool and I know many including myself who have used it with varying results. Personally I find that it only works well for me if I LOAD UP on the final meal of the day. I feel nice and sharp the next morning. If I don't load up that last meal I feel crappy and foggy mid morning before the first meal. If I'm going to work out fasted the next day I do a BCAA drink to prevent muscle catabolism.

[use2betrix]

Basics first. No point in doing IF if you don't know what your maintenance calories are and if you don't know how to eat whole, natural foods and avoid sugars and other nutrient poor foods.

I always wonder on these threads how many of the 'experts' or advice givers are actually fit or have helped others IRL become fit. I bring this up because I know a lot of real life overweight people that are experts in all things fad diet.

FWIW I think IF can be a good tool and I know many including myself who have used it with varying results. Personally I find that it only works well for me if I LOAD UP on the final meal of the day. I feel nice and sharp the next morning. If I don't load up that last meal I feel crappy and foggy mid morning before the first meal. If I'm going to work out fasted the next day I do a BCAA drink to prevent muscle catabolism.

Couldn’t agree more. I give advice and input to diet and weightlifting around here, but the way some people talk in these threads, I’m confident that I’m near the bottom in terms of fitness levels compared to most the experts around here.

Need to take more advice here seriously so I can get to the level many of the others here must be at.

Here’s a pic from a couple weeks ago. 190lbs here.

[OurTown]

I look nothing like that. ^ ^ ^  Nor do I expect to in my lifetime.

That being said, I did drop a significant amount of weight (from IF and low-carb), and I did lose several inches off my waistline.  I am no longer quite so gross and blubberous.  I could definitely use some toning, and from what I have read men pushing age 50 would really benefit from some basic weight training.  So, seriously, maybe some of you super buff guys could tell me how to begin.  Just the basics.  Or send me a link with the basics.

[mm1970]

Basics first. No point in doing IF if you don't know what your maintenance calories are and if you don't know how to eat whole, natural foods and avoid sugars and other nutrient poor foods.

I always wonder on these threads how many of the 'experts' or advice givers are actually fit or have helped others IRL become fit. I bring this up because I know a lot of real life overweight people that are experts in all things fad diet.

FWIW I think IF can be a good tool and I know many including myself who have used it with varying results. Personally I find that it only works well for me if I LOAD UP on the final meal of the day. I feel nice and sharp the next morning. If I don't load up that last meal I feel crappy and foggy mid morning before the first meal. If I'm going to work out fasted the next day I do a BCAA drink to prevent muscle catabolism.

Couldn’t agree more. I give advice and input to diet and weightlifting around here, but the way some people talk in these threads, I’m confident that I’m near the bottom in terms of fitness levels compared to most the experts around here.

Need to take more advice here seriously so I can get to the level many of the others here must be at.

Here’s a pic from a couple weeks ago. 190lbs here.

Um...I'm pretty sure many of the people commenting here, rather than being "experts", are, perhaps, experts on their own particular bodies in what works and what doesn't.

"Calories in/ Calories out" is awesome and all, and often works, but the people I most hear screaming from the rooftops about it these days are...dudes.  And ... young dudes.

Luckily for me, I didn't even hit 190 lbs at peak pregnancy weight.

Everyone's got different goals.  I'm fit and healthy and at a good weight - took a lot of experimentation to get here, 'cuz ya know, a post-baby/ pre-menopausal female body ain't the same as a dude's body.  And also - two post-baby/ pre-menopausal bodies aren't the same as each other.

Like this weekend at the half marathon...lots of people (men and women) can run a half on a few cups of water, no fueling.  Then they can scarf down all. the. carbs. after - no prob!  I have to drink at LEAST 40 oz of water during the race and suck down 3 Gu's (yuck) ...every 40 minutes or I can feel the blood sugar crash.  However, for the rest of the day, I'm really not hungry.  Give me some protein and a little fruit.  Handful of crackers.  Big salad.  I'm good.

When it comes to calories in/ calories out, I still feel like many people have lost sight of what a serving is supposed to look like.  And we all in general eat too many carbs.  But that's not true of everyone.

[use2betrix]

Basics first. No point in doing IF if you don't know what your maintenance calories are and if you don't know how to eat whole, natural foods and avoid sugars and other nutrient poor foods.

I always wonder on these threads how many of the 'experts' or advice givers are actually fit or have helped others IRL become fit. I bring this up because I know a lot of real life overweight people that are experts in all things fad diet.

FWIW I think IF can be a good tool and I know many including myself who have used it with varying results. Personally I find that it only works well for me if I LOAD UP on the final meal of the day. I feel nice and sharp the next morning. If I don't load up that last meal I feel crappy and foggy mid morning before the first meal. If I'm going to work out fasted the next day I do a BCAA drink to prevent muscle catabolism.

Couldn’t agree more. I give advice and input to diet and weightlifting around here, but the way some people talk in these threads, I’m confident that I’m near the bottom in terms of fitness levels compared to most the experts around here.

Need to take more advice here seriously so I can get to the level many of the others here must be at.

Here’s a pic from a couple weeks ago. 190lbs here.

Um...I'm pretty sure many of the people commenting here, rather than being "experts", are, perhaps, experts on their own particular bodies in what works and what doesn't.

"Calories in/ Calories out" is awesome and all, and often works, but the people I most hear screaming from the rooftops about it these days are...dudes.  And ... young dudes.

Luckily for me, I didn't even hit 190 lbs at peak pregnancy weight.

Everyone's got different goals.  I'm fit and healthy and at a good weight - took a lot of experimentation to get here, 'cuz ya know, a post-baby/ pre-menopausal female body ain't the same as a dude's body.  And also - two post-baby/ pre-menopausal bodies aren't the same as each other.

Like this weekend at the half marathon...lots of people (men and women) can run a half on a few cups of water, no fueling.  Then they can scarf down all. the. carbs. after - no prob!  I have to drink at LEAST 40 oz of water during the race and suck down 3 Gu's (yuck) ...every 40 minutes or I can feel the blood sugar crash.  However, for the rest of the day, I'm really not hungry.  Give me some protein and a little fruit.  Handful of crackers.  Big salad.  I'm good.

When it comes to calories in/ calories out, I still feel like many people have lost sight of what a serving is supposed to look like.  And we all in general eat too many carbs.  But that's not true of everyone.

Ah yes - the obligatory “because I’m a woman it’s so much different” response.

Here’s my wife. 5’1, 118 lbs. squats 185x8 (can do perfect reps at 225)

She has done the EXACT same workout as me for the last 6 years (we lift together). She eats the same macronutrient ratio as me, just on a smaller scale. The only difference is that I have more muscle and less fat, because I’m a male. She is a perfect example of my identical training and diet in a females body.

Yeah - there’s virtually nothing different just because she’s “a woman.”

Obvious aside to the people that have health conditions. Yes - she isn’t post pregnancy, and hasn’t gone through menopause, however what’s the excuse for the other vast majority of people who are overweight/obese who also don’t fit that category? I know several post pregnancy women who are overweight and also eat total garbage (have worked with many) but then they claim “oh my baby made me fat” while I literally sit there and watch them eat their Burger King or other fast food every night for dinner.

[OurTown]

Why am I reminded of "Rex-kwon-do" in Napoleon Dynamite?

Back on topic, I'm doing the 20/4 fasts on work days and I barely even notice it.  That has kept me essentially in weight maintenance for over a year.  (I'm 5'11", and I've been at or around 167 lbs since early 2017).  I tried a 3 day extended fast ("EF") and it wasn't as bad as you might think.  Around the end of day 2 I got a little "peckish" so I had some bone broth. 

[crxpilot]

I predict whichever theory anyone chooses will most assuredly not keep them from dying at some point.  ;)

[toganet]

My wife and I started doing a ketogenic diet about 1.5 years ago and have had great results.  Well, she has had great results -- over 50lbs lost, initially just due to keto, which led to increased energy and confidence, which led to increased exercise and now a serious kickboxing addiction :).  For me, I dropped about 20 lbs in the first 6 months, plateaued, and then crept back to within 10lbs of my max. 

So, I started doing IF about a month ago, and shortly thereafter increased my exercise from "barely any" to 4-5x weekly, mostly running & yoga, but I'll be adding some weight training in next week.  Already down ~5lbs, and hoping to lose another 15-20, though I am mostly focused on other measurables.

One comment I will make WRT the CICO debate: What about the calories output into the toilet?  Not every calorie consumed gets digested.  Simply chewing more will increase the availability of calories.  Consider the sweet potato -- depending on how it is cooked, it has a different amount of available calories.  So as tempting as it might be to simplify an incredibly complex system down to an equation, I prefer to listen to my body, make small experiments, and find what works for me.  YMMV.

[NorthernBlitz]

It's not quite IF, but Time Restricted Eating appears to have some benefits. I've heard Rhonda Patrick talk about it and I'm interested in learning about the science.

Here's a youtube link to a discussion she had with Dr. Stachin Panda on the topic. It's also part of her Found My Fitness podcast. I have it downloaded, but haven't had a chance to listen to it yet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R-eqJDQ2nU&t=5s

I've been trying to limit my own food consumption to a 9 hour window (10 AM - 7 PM). I've only been doing it for a week or two, so I don't have any real data yet. I can say that I'm down 3-5 pounds and the two weeks have included cheating on weekends, a large family function on one weekend, and a series of work related events with poor food choices. I think that my weight loss would be higher if I had been eating better in my "feeding window" over these two weeks. But, I also think I'd typically be up 3-5 pounds over a similar span.

[mm1970]

Ah yes - the obligatory “because I’m a woman it’s so much different” response.

Here’s my wife. 5’1, 118 lbs. squats 185x8 (can do perfect reps at 225)

She has done the EXACT same workout as me for the last 6 years (we lift together). She eats the same macronutrient ratio as me, just on a smaller scale. The only difference is that I have more muscle and less fat, because I’m a male. She is a perfect example of my identical training and diet in a females body.

Yeah - there’s virtually nothing different just because she’s “a woman.”

Obvious aside to the people that have health conditions. Yes - she isn’t post pregnancy, and hasn’t gone through menopause, however what’s the excuse for the other vast majority of people who are overweight/obese who also don’t fit that category? I know several post pregnancy women who are overweight and also eat total garbage (have worked with many) but then they claim “oh my baby made me fat” while I literally sit there and watch them eat their Burger King or other fast food every night for dinner.

Um, yay for you?  Or, yay for your wife?  Is she menopausal?  Are you just ignoring everything else that I wrote?  Seems like you have an agenda to push.

Your kind of coming off as a know-it-all jerk, and you need to give people credit for knowing their own bodies.  I'm assuming, for example, that the folks here who say they are healthy and point out what works for them are...you know...actually telling the truth.

I also assume that overweight people who say they eat healthy and exercise regularly...are also telling the truth.   Because "eat healthy" doesn't necessarily mean the right calories AND "a calorie is not a calorie" and sleep deprivation can do crap for your weight, let me tell ya.  Plus: goals and all.  Not everyone has the same goals.

My niece is really into power lifting.  First she did the standard high protein diet, now she's a vegan.  She's pretty badass and buff.  That's her thing.

I try to come from a place of kindness, I guess.  Because I've been there - and it's hard.  Then you figure it out.  But then something happens (you get sick, get pregnant, get a new job, menopause), and it gets hard again.  Then what worked the first time doesn't work again.  The super sucky thing about being obese is that once you've gotten there, you've done permanent damage to your body.  It will never react/ perform like the body of someone who was never overweight.  (Dr. Barbara Berkeley  is an obesity doc - her book "Refuse to Regain" was an eye-opening book about how people who are "never overweight" can consume more, and differently - particularly carbs - than people who were "formerly overweight".  Simply by having been overweight or obese, you've changed how your body reacts to carbs.)  In any event, that's why it's super important (in my mind) to pay attention to our kids.  Fat cells multiply at certain times in your life, particularly teenage years.  If you are obese as a teenager?  You are never getting rid of those fat cells.  You can shrink them...but you'll never be "normal".

It's a bummer really.  Still, you have to do your best to get regular exercise (which is good for you), and eat healthfully (which is good for you). 

[use2betrix]

Ah yes - the obligatory “because I’m a woman it’s so much different” response.

Here’s my wife. 5’1, 118 lbs. squats 185x8 (can do perfect reps at 225)

She has done the EXACT same workout as me for the last 6 years (we lift together). She eats the same macronutrient ratio as me, just on a smaller scale. The only difference is that I have more muscle and less fat, because I’m a male. She is a perfect example of my identical training and diet in a females body.

Yeah - there’s virtually nothing different just because she’s “a woman.”

Obvious aside to the people that have health conditions. Yes - she isn’t post pregnancy, and hasn’t gone through menopause, however what’s the excuse for the other vast majority of people who are overweight/obese who also don’t fit that category? I know several post pregnancy women who are overweight and also eat total garbage (have worked with many) but then they claim “oh my baby made me fat” while I literally sit there and watch them eat their Burger King or other fast food every night for dinner.

Um, yay for you?  Or, yay for your wife?  Is she menopausal?  Are you just ignoring everything else that I wrote?  Seems like you have an agenda to push.

Your kind of coming off as a know-it-all jerk, and you need to give people credit for knowing their own bodies.  I'm assuming, for example, that the folks here who say they are healthy and point out what works for them are...you know...actually telling the truth.

I also assume that overweight people who say they eat healthy and exercise regularly...are also telling the truth.   Because "eat healthy" doesn't necessarily mean the right calories AND "a calorie is not a calorie" and sleep deprivation can do crap for your weight, let me tell ya.  Plus: goals and all.  Not everyone has the same goals.

My niece is really into power lifting.  First she did the standard high protein diet, now she's a vegan.  She's pretty badass and buff.  That's her thing.

I try to come from a place of kindness, I guess.  Because I've been there - and it's hard.  Then you figure it out.  But then something happens (you get sick, get pregnant, get a new job, menopause), and it gets hard again.  Then what worked the first time doesn't work again.  The super sucky thing about being obese is that once you've gotten there, you've done permanent damage to your body.  It will never react/ perform like the body of someone who was never overweight.  (Dr. Barbara Berkeley  is an obesity doc - her book "Refuse to Regain" was an eye-opening book about how people who are "never overweight" can consume more, and differently - particularly carbs - than people who were "formerly overweight".  Simply by having been overweight or obese, you've changed how your body reacts to carbs.)  In any event, that's why it's super important (in my mind) to pay attention to our kids.  Fat cells multiply at certain times in your life, particularly teenage years.  If you are obese as a teenager?  You are never getting rid of those fat cells.  You can shrink them...but you'll never be "normal".

It's a bummer really.  Still, you have to do your best to get regular exercise (which is good for you), and eat healthfully (which is good for you).

Honestly - I just get really sick of people making excuses, like it’s any easier for anyone else. I could be 250 lbs and fat and gross if I didn’t care and I’d love every bit of the 1000 calories of ice cream I would eat every day. People are like “oh work stresses me out.”

You know what? I’ve worked about 675 hours of OVERTIME just this year. Yes, overtime! I’ve still made it to the gym on my planned days, I still eat my healthy balanced meals. I’ve had 3 hernias and skin cancer in my 20’s. I LOVE food and could easily eat twice what I do.

I hear excuses why people are fat, lazy, out of shape, etc all the time. It’s rather insulting to people who don’t make excuses and actually fight through all of that and still manage. It’s not any harder to eat 2000 calories than 4000. In fact, it’s less time consuming for those who are so “busy.”

If someone is fat or out of shape, I could not care less if they don’t care, but it’s insulting to me when they make excuses like it’s somehow “so much easier” for anyone else.

Unless youve worked 675 hrs of overtime this year in a super stressful environment, sorry but it’s just a BS excuse for someone who is just lazy or doesn’t care.

Again, if they don’t care, I don’t care, but don’t go spouting off making excuses like it’s not possible or somehow so much easier for everyone else.

[Radagast]

So intermittent fasting versus breakfast? I have always read "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" and "eat breakfast for health and optimal weight" and yadda yadda. But I only eat breakfast for that reason. I honestly do not feel hungry in the morning, and I have enough fat to cushion me through a 1-month famine and still be a healthy body weight, which I reckon is two weeks longer than necessary. I can easily concentrate my meals in the noon-8:00 pm region, or probably even 3-7 areawith minimal effort. After reading this thread I ate nothing from 8:00 pm to 12:30 and did not feel any strain. But there is about a 100% chance I will be hungry at some point between 4 and 9 regardless of what I ate earlier in the day.

So... intermittent fasting vs. breakfast?

[Lmoot]

^ Studies have shown that you can do things other than eating, to boost or prevent a decrease of morning metabolism; like drinking a lot of water immediately after waking up. According to this study, water can increase metabolism for an hour or longer, by up to 30%. https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/88/12/6015/2661518

Capsaicin and gingerols can also possibly boost your metabolism. I'm not hungry in the morning either, and I don't like the idea of eating when I'm not hungry....and I love the idea of eating when I'm hungry :) So in the morning I usually drink 2 cups of hot water, with grated and strained fresh ginger root, lemon zest and juice from half a lemon, and a couples pinches of cayenne pepper. The pepper also makes me feel satiated (similar to how coffee does); something possibly to do with a temporary release of endorphins after eating spicy food.