Author Topic: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian  (Read 3432 times)

jlcnuke

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #50 on: April 16, 2018, 05:52:39 AM »
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...
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 05:54:35 AM by jlcnuke »
Delta card referral, 10k extra for both of us (60k total bonus miles for you) http://refer.amex.us/JEFFRCP8UT?XLINK=MYCP

cerat0n1a

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 973
  • Location: England
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2018, 07:43:24 AM »

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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2018, 07:50:21 AM »
I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, itís 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. Itís not rocket science, despite all the ďsecretsĒ people are claiming to have in this thread. You donít 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.

Thereís 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 itís 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.

« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 07:54:52 AM by use2betrix »

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2018, 08:08:05 AM »
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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2018, 08:20:51 AM »
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 itís not *just* in/out....I believe what they mean is itís not just the  IN. I think we can all agree on that part at least. ďInĒ matters, but equally important is what happens between the ďinĒ and the ďoutĒ, 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 ďoutĒ, and we control the ďinĒ, which can in turn control the metabolism...which controls the ďoutĒ...etc etc. Iím going to have a cup of tea and aspirin now.

jlcnuke

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #55 on: April 16, 2018, 08:30:31 AM »

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...).
Delta card referral, 10k extra for both of us (60k total bonus miles for you) http://refer.amex.us/JEFFRCP8UT?XLINK=MYCP

cerat0n1a

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 973
  • Location: England
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #56 on: April 16, 2018, 08:47:38 AM »
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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #57 on: April 16, 2018, 08:51:14 AM »

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.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 08:55:58 AM by Lmoot »

jlcnuke

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #58 on: April 16, 2018, 09:22:00 AM »

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.
Delta card referral, 10k extra for both of us (60k total bonus miles for you) http://refer.amex.us/JEFFRCP8UT?XLINK=MYCP

Dabnasty

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 588
  • Age: 28
  • Location: North Carolina
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #59 on: April 16, 2018, 09:31:13 AM »

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

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #60 on: April 16, 2018, 12:12:09 PM »
I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, itís 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. Itís not rocket science, despite all the ďsecretsĒ people are claiming to have in this thread. You donít 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.

Thereís 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 itís 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #61 on: April 16, 2018, 12:38:59 PM »
I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, itís 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. Itís not rocket science, despite all the ďsecretsĒ people are claiming to have in this thread. You donít 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.

Thereís 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 itís 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.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 12:41:46 PM by Lmoot »

o2bfree

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #62 on: April 16, 2018, 01:24:32 PM »
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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1562
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #63 on: April 16, 2018, 01:43:27 PM »
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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 955
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #64 on: April 16, 2018, 01:57:44 PM »
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

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #65 on: April 16, 2018, 02:03:31 PM »

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

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 85
  • Location: England
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #66 on: April 16, 2018, 02:11:40 PM »
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.
In pursuit of the freedom to make my own responsibilities.
Blogging at https://deathtocomplacency.com

o2bfree

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #67 on: April 16, 2018, 02:24:56 PM »
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

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 31
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #68 on: April 16, 2018, 02:25:26 PM »
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

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #69 on: April 16, 2018, 02:26:45 PM »
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

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #70 on: April 16, 2018, 02:28:40 PM »
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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #71 on: April 16, 2018, 02:48:13 PM »
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 itís 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 canít 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 ďďcarbyĒ sometime beforehand (within a few hours is fine), or Iím fighting vomit.

use2betrix

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 794
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #72 on: April 16, 2018, 03:27:47 PM »
I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, itís 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. Itís not rocket science, despite all the ďsecretsĒ people are claiming to have in this thread. You donít 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.

Thereís 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 itís 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 Iíve been gaining hard Iíve 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 - itís 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 ďrulesĒ are pretty standard person to person, but thereís 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:

« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 03:29:42 PM by use2betrix »

Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #73 on: April 16, 2018, 05:08:26 PM »
Oh good god...why am I daring to post in this thread??
Ugh. Here goes.

A huge modulating factor that tends to get lost in the semantic shit show if CICO debates is the affect of some diets on appetite, which has a far more profound impact on the CICO equation for most people than the metabolic modulation effects some diets may possibly have. Yes, diets modulate the CO portion of the equation, but not by a notable amount for the vast vast majority of people.

Diets that put people into ketosis, like IF usually does, often have a significant suppressing impact on appetite and cravings. Thatís why so many people report a lot of success, because their appetite is affected, so itís easier to stick to it. Itís not true for everyone, but for many.

The success of a diet in terms of fat loss does ultimately come down to CICO, when accounting for all factors contributing to both sides of the equation, but the most effective diets are always the ones that are the most sustainable, and sustaining a deficit is a lot easier when you arenít crawling up the walls with cravings.

For me, a vegetarian diet works best to keep me satiated in fewer calories. Personally, IF drives me to insane sugar cravings and makes me miserable. My body doesnít like ketosis.
After losing 70lbs at a consistent pace over 4.5 years from obese down to a BMI of under 20, Iíve learned a lot about how my body responds to different styles of eating, and appetite modulation has the biggest impact.

tennisray

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 34
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #74 on: April 17, 2018, 08:06:22 AM »
I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, itís 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. Itís not rocket science, despite all the ďsecretsĒ people are claiming to have in this thread. You donít 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.

Thereís 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 itís 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 donít you think calorie intake would have the largest effect on our obesity epidemic? Yes, there will be negatives on that focus, but donít 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #75 on: April 17, 2018, 08:49:52 AM »
I am amazed at the amount of people here arguing beyond calorie intake, itís 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. Itís not rocket science, despite all the ďsecretsĒ people are claiming to have in this thread. You donít 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.

Thereís 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 itís 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 donít you think calorie intake would have the largest effect on our obesity epidemic? Yes, there will be negatives on that focus, but donít 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 donít 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 itÖAnd thatís 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 youíre 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. Iíd 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 theyíre 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 doesnít automatically lead to more healthy choices.


all4kc

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #76 on: April 17, 2018, 10:00:11 AM »
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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 519
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #77 on: April 17, 2018, 10:54:24 AM »
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.

Thatís why I keep saying itís 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.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 10:56:25 AM by Lmoot »

jlcnuke

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 494
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #78 on: April 17, 2018, 11:17:11 AM »
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.

Thatís why I keep saying itís 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.
Delta card referral, 10k extra for both of us (60k total bonus miles for you) http://refer.amex.us/JEFFRCP8UT?XLINK=MYCP

Malkynn

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Intermittent fasting experience: both effective and mustaschian
« Reply #79 on: April 18, 2018, 06:52:59 AM »
[quote author=Lmoot link=topic=90771.msg1975017#msg1975017 date= same level. At the end of
My big problem with counting calories is  that for some people they treat it as a shortcut, and donít 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 itÖAnd thatís 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 youíre 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. Iíd 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 theyíre 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 doesnít automatically lead to more healthy choices.
[/quote]

You are pointing out two issues

1: the success of a weight loss diet will depend largely on how easily the person can sustain it, and nutrient dense foods tend to be more satisfying, which means that healthier diets that are calorie restricted tend to be more sustainable than calorie restricted diets made up of less nutritious foods. This is why ďhealthyĒ foods tend to be conflated with ďdietingĒ

2: health is conflated with weight loss
Yes, weight loss is necessary to improve your health if you are unhealthy due to excess weight.
However, in no way does that mean that weight loss itself is fundamentally healthy. A combo of cigarettes and cocaine is a highly effective method for losing weight and staying thin, Iíve worked with plenty of models on the C&C diet and they were pros at weight control.
Likewise, massive long term  weight loss often produces various forms of malnutrition. Iíve been steadily losing for years and my doctor watches my electrolytes closely because itís hard to maintain proper nutrient balance on a calorie restricted diet, even just a small calorie deficit.

ďHealthĒ is also not some static state of ideal being.
On the contrary. Health is actually a state of illness that we are all trying to combat.
After about the age of 25, we start basically deteriorating and our lifestyle helps modulate how quickly and in what capacities we deteriorate. At no point are we actually ďhealthyĒ in a sense of having no health problems.

So your ideal diet depends on what your goals are.
Weight loss just takes center stage these days in terms of health because obesity related illness is the single largest health challenge and economic burden on the western world, but just because fat has a monopoly on the health discourse these days doesnít mean itís the whole story.