The Money Mustache Community
General Discussion => Welcome and General Discussion => Topic started by: jjandjab on April 11, 2018, 11:07:56 AM
-
My wife and I are both in our mid 40s with three teens. As of late 2017 both of us would be classified as overweight, although me more so than her. Over the years we have tried lots of thing to lose weight consistently, but neither of us loves to exercise. At least the "working-out" type of exercise. We have bought various Beachbody programs and bought gym memberships and home workout equipment. I did complete P90x about 7 years ago and then ran a marathon, but that level of exercise commitment was too much to maintain...
Just before the New Year our oldest teen had brought the family to a low point of 2017 (amongst many bad decisions last year) and both my wife and I were wallowing in stress/self-pity mode while pigging out. After reaching our heaviest weights in more than 15 years, we finally said lets do this 5:2 fasting and set aggressive goals. I wanted to go from 212 lbs (5'10") down to 180 in 2018. She wanted to go from 155 lbs (5'6") down to 140.
Well lo and behold, by eating one 500-600 meal on two days a week (or some other division of the calories, I just like the one bigger meal), we have both seen dramatic results. Our only exercise has been walking, albeit sometimes nice long ones. But not HIIT or weights or cardio or pilates or hot yoga (actually occasional yoga/stretching)
From Dec 29 to now, I'm down 24 pounds to 188. My wife already reached her goal and is at 138. It has truly been amazing. We have paid attention to our eating on the other 5 days as well, but we have still gone out on date nights for drinks and burgers. I had a huge turkey club with bacon and sweet chill Doritios last weekend (not too many though). There is nothing, except maybe large plates of cheese and crackers - because we can't control ourselves, that we have given up completely. And out grocery bill is way down from eating less!
We tried calorie restriction and eating healthier in the past - but never had results like this. There is something mentally reassuring about saying ok, I am going to be amazingly good today and just have one healthy salad, coffee and water. Tomorrow I can have the other stuff I want... The old way we would try to eat salads every day and steamed veges, and then it would quickly lose its luster.
And there is nothing to buy!! No videos. No containers. No shakes. No special bars. It was actually hilarious having this conversation with a neighbor who has tried everything. She just didn't get it - wait, what book do I have to buy for this? There must a thermogenic snack to help you right? Ah it was funny
So anyway, just interesting. I know it's all the rage in the press but for us it really has worked for health, general well being and saving cash. Nice combo....
Let me know if anyone else has tried and had results. I hope to check in again when I get to my goal...
-
I used the 5:2 diet to lose 20lbs back in 2015. I read the book and read a lot on the website - https://thefastdiet.co.uk/
The weight crept up again in 2017 after some issues kept me from my usual exercise routine, so I started back on 5:2 on 2/12, and have lost 18lbs since then. I cheated a bit - this is my fifth week doing 4:3 instead of 5:2, and it hasn't been a problem. I find it gets easier as the weather warms up a bit.
I find myself eating less (or, at least, not overeating) on my regular days. I don't count calories, per se, but I don't feel the need to snack all the time just because there's food around.
This is what's in my desk drawer at the moment :)
-
I had good luck with IF last year. In the Spring of 2017 I did three 36-hour fasts every week. I did that for about six weeks. Lost a bunch of excess weight and flab. This was combined with lo-carb / keto eating on the alternating days. I've kept the weight off since then by doing five 20-hour fasts, essentially eating one meal a day on work days.
-
Basically you are eating one healthy meal two days a week and that’s all you eat for the day?
That’s so great you both did this together and had such wonderful results. I’ve been working out almost every day for months now and I love how strong I feel but man I feel like it makes me hungry all the time. I lose weight by diet alone and none at all when I work out. I love the strength I have but I want to drop a few pounds. I’m whining here but this is what happens with me. I hate being hungry and I will just eat enough to stop the hunger pains but then I find I’m eating every 2-3 hours. On the rare occasion my stomach is empty but I don’t feel hungry I won’t eat but that’s not every often. I’m healthy but I think I’m obsessed with the number on the scale which I should ignore. A few pounds ago was my lowest ever adult weight and I haven’t seen that number in a month. But yet I am more lean and I feel great. I just want that number back and I’m thinking the only way I can do that and still work out is to go hungry for longer stretches.
How big is that one salad on those days, are you hungry soon after? I am intrigued by this fasting stuff and I’m assuming you can adjust so you don’t feel like you’re depriving yourself?
-
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.
-
https://www.dietdoctor.com/intermittent-fasting
-
My wife and I are both in our mid 40s with three teens. As of late 2017 both of us would be classified as overweight, although me more so than her. Over the years we have tried lots of thing to lose weight consistently, but neither of us loves to exercise. At least the "working-out" type of exercise. We have bought various Beachbody programs and bought gym memberships and home workout equipment. I did complete P90x about 7 years ago and then ran a marathon, but that level of exercise commitment was too much to maintain...
Just before the New Year our oldest teen had brought the family to a low point of 2017 (amongst many bad decisions last year) and both my wife and I were wallowing in stress/self-pity mode while pigging out. After reaching our heaviest weights in more than 15 years, we finally said lets do this 5:2 fasting and set aggressive goals. I wanted to go from 212 lbs (5'10") down to 180 in 2018. She wanted to go from 155 lbs (5'6") down to 140.
Well lo and behold, by eating one 500-600 meal on two days a week (or some other division of the calories, I just like the one bigger meal), we have both seen dramatic results. Our only exercise has been walking, albeit sometimes nice long ones. But not HIIT or weights or cardio or pilates or hot yoga (actually occasional yoga/stretching)
From Dec 29 to now, I'm down 24 pounds to 188. My wife already reached her goal and is at 138. It has truly been amazing. We have paid attention to our eating on the other 5 days as well, but we have still gone out on date nights for drinks and burgers. I had a huge turkey club with bacon and sweet chill Doritios last weekend (not too many though). There is nothing, except maybe large plates of cheese and crackers - because we can't control ourselves, that we have given up completely. And out grocery bill is way down from eating less!
We tried calorie restriction and eating healthier in the past - but never had results like this. There is something mentally reassuring about saying ok, I am going to be amazingly good today and just have one healthy salad, coffee and water. Tomorrow I can have the other stuff I want... The old way we would try to eat salads every day and steamed veges, and then it would quickly lose its luster.
And there is nothing to buy!! No videos. No containers. No shakes. No special bars. It was actually hilarious having this conversation with a neighbor who has tried everything. She just didn't get it - wait, what book do I have to buy for this? There must a thermogenic snack to help you right? Ah it was funny
So anyway, just interesting. I know it's all the rage in the press but for us it really has worked for health, general well being and saving cash. Nice combo....
Let me know if anyone else has tried and had results. I hope to check in again when I get to my goal...
I've done a modified intermittent fasting (16 off 8 on) for several years now. I have a horrible metabolism and it has done a great job of helping me maintain my weight (from the weekend beers and cheat meal(s)). I've also started integrating a 24 hour fast at the beginning of the week (usually Sunday evening to Monday evening) and that has also really helped. IF is great, because after a few weeks you forget you're even skipping breakfast.
-
Basically you are eating one healthy meal two days a week and that’s all you eat for the day?
That’s so great you both did this together and had such wonderful results. I’ve been working out almost every day for months now and I love how strong I feel but man I feel like it makes me hungry all the time. I lose weight by diet alone and none at all when I work out. I love the strength I have but I want to drop a few pounds. I’m whining here but this is what happens with me. I hate being hungry and I will just eat enough to stop the hunger pains but then I find I’m eating every 2-3 hours. On the rare occasion my stomach is empty but I don’t feel hungry I won’t eat but that’s not every often. I’m healthy but I think I’m obsessed with the number on the scale which I should ignore. A few pounds ago was my lowest ever adult weight and I haven’t seen that number in a month. But yet I am more lean and I feel great. I just want that number back and I’m thinking the only way I can do that and still work out is to go hungry for longer stretches.
How big is that one salad on those days, are you hungry soon after? I am intrigued by this fasting stuff and I’m assuming you can adjust so you don’t feel like you’re depriving yourself?
I find this link to be the best, clearest explanation. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/the-5-2-diet-guide
Yes it can be adjusted and you can move days around if something comes up - for instance my wife will move her fast day if it ends up on her bookgroup day so she can enjoy the snacks and wine...
My salad gets pretty big with greens and veggies, but also meat and croutons and dressing to feel more full. I skip cheese since it has lots of calories. But a 600 calorie salad can get pretty big... We also make lots of low calories soup to help out on the bad hunger days.
What you describe is how I personally have felt. I could do hard core gym workouts, but I was always hungry and I had a hard time balancing those things. I would always end up giving in to eating too much. I mentally and physically find it much easier to eat less and workout less. Even with a 2 hour walk I get far less hungry than a 25 minute cardio or strength workout.
Good luck if you try it
-
I think for decades we had it beat into our head that you MUST eat 3 meals a day, that skipping meals was unhealthy. And I think this is at least partially what has helped contribute to the obesity problem in the US. People became so obsessed with eating regularly that they missed the obvious, don't eat if you're not hungry.
For awhile now, I have intentionally skipped breakfast. Not always, but most days I do not typically eat before noon. Then it's usually a small lunch, and my main meal is at night. Although there are times when I eat a larger lunch and a smaller dinner, or maybe no dinner at all (or sometimes no lunch at all). And then there are times when I do eat breakfast, then skip lunch, and eat dinner. Sometimes my meals are relatively healthy (meats and veggies), and sometimes not. And I do eat my share of junk food and regularly drink beer and bourbon. The bottom line is I listen to my body and eat when I'm hungry and try not to when I'm not. I am in my early 40's, 6'01", and about 170 lbs currently. It sounds simple and straightforward, but it works for me.
Oh, and just for reference, as for exercise, I primarily stick to yoga and outdoor activities. I used to be an avid weightlifting and at times weighted 30 - 40 lbs more than now. All the heavy weights took a toll on my body, so I tend to avoid it now and focus more on mobility, flexibility, and just getting outside and doing the things I enjoy (biking, hiking, etc).
-
Calories in < calories used = weight loss.
My understanding is that this is not true. The body reacts differently to incoming calories based on insulin response. If you eat something that cannot fuel the brain and bodily functions (very low carb) the body will break down fat reserves to get the fuel. Also if you eat something the body cannot digest, your equation is wrong on its face.
I realize this is a slippery slope and diet is right up there now with politics and religion as banned Thanksgiving conversation.
OP - I have done the IF thing for a while. As of late, it has stopped working for me as well as it once did. I think I am getting lazy and supplementing my fasting time by eating more during feed time. Your post is a reminder to get back on track.
A revelation for me was how good it can feel to be in a fasted state. I used to freak out if I was hungry for an hour or two. After the "hanger" passes, I feel fantastic! I work fasted training in whenever I can - no energy loss whatsoever. Of course that is because I have plenty of "reserves," haha.
-
I’ve been working out almost every day for months now and I love how strong I feel but man I feel like it makes me hungry all the time. I lose weight by diet alone and none at all when I work out.
This is SO TRUE with me as well. A few months ago I ran an experiment with myself. I ran 5 kilometers per day for 10 consecutive days. Weight lost: 0 lbs! My undermining, sneaky, petulant body must've added those calories back without my being fully aware. The ONLY way I can lose any weight at all is being extra vigilant on my intake. IF is the easiest way for me to do that.
-
Calories in < calories used = weight loss.
My understanding is that this is not true. The body reacts differently to incoming calories based on insulin response. If you eat something that cannot fuel the brain and bodily functions (very low carb) the body will break down fat reserves to get the fuel. Also if you eat something the body cannot digest, your equation is wrong on its face.
I realize this is a slippery slope and diet is right up there now with politics and religion as banned Thanksgiving conversation.
OP - I have done the IF thing for a while. As of late, it has stopped working for me as well as it once did. I think I am getting lazy and supplementing my fasting time by eating more during feed time. Your post is a reminder to get back on track.
A revelation for me was how good it can feel to be in a fasted state. I used to freak out if I was hungry for an hour or two. After the "hanger" passes, I feel fantastic! I work fasted training in whenever I can - no energy loss whatsoever. Of course that is because I have plenty of "reserves," haha.
Well, your understanding is wrong then. Physics doesn't care how the body processes matter or energy, only that the the equations balance in the end (what goes in = what goes out + what is used up). Don't forget, calories can be "used" to provide something leaving the body in physical form just like they go in the body. The calories that go in are going to match the calories that go out if there isn't going to be a change in the mass of the object.
-
There is a huge internet fight between the "calories in >>> calories out" people and the keto/paleo/lo-carb people. Just saying "wrong" does not resolve the argument. There is plenty of good science supporting how carb restriction manipulates insulin levels and kicks the body into ketosis and fat burning. IF really supercharges this process. I personally have had great success doing keto and lo-carb, but if other people want to eat differently that's fine with me.
-
Calories in < calories used = weight loss.
My understanding is that this is not true. The body reacts differently to incoming calories based on insulin response. If you eat something that cannot fuel the brain and bodily functions (very low carb) the body will break down fat reserves to get the fuel. Also if you eat something the body cannot digest, your equation is wrong on its face.
I realize this is a slippery slope and diet is right up there now with politics and religion as banned Thanksgiving conversation.
OP - I have done the IF thing for a while. As of late, it has stopped working for me as well as it once did. I think I am getting lazy and supplementing my fasting time by eating more during feed time. Your post is a reminder to get back on track.
A revelation for me was how good it can feel to be in a fasted state. I used to freak out if I was hungry for an hour or two. After the "hanger" passes, I feel fantastic! I work fasted training in whenever I can - no energy loss whatsoever. Of course that is because I have plenty of "reserves," haha.
I would agree that the equation above isn't quite accurate because it depends on how the calories are "used"
Calories in < calories out = weight loss would be more accurate, but it still oversimplifies a complex process. While the equation may be true, we don't really know what the calories out number is, all we can do is estimate. Add to it that we don't know exactly how the types of foods we eat and when we eat them will effect that number.
We can make a reasonable estimate of the calories out and if you track your calories and stay under that number you should lose weight but not 100% of the time. Variations in thyroid activity, metabolism, even room temperature can effect calories out.
-
More on topic I've had interest in fasting but have never really committed to it. My goals are pretty much the opposite in that I don't want to lose weight and sometimes I struggle just to get enough calories. I eat 3000+/day but on weekends I "cheat?" and eat as little as I want.
I'm still interested in fasting for other reasons though. I haven't read up on it for some time but I do remember reading studies showing potential benefits to physical and mental wellbeing and longevity in particular. I think it's extra interesting that it has been incorporated in many religions and I wonder if the origins of religious fasting are based in these benefits.
-
I’ve never read up on this topic before so this is interesting. I’ve always thought of fasting as deprivation and hunger pains.
I’m going to try the 16:8 approach. That appeals to my natural way of eating the closest. Noon to 8 pm is what I’ll go for. Late night snacking is the hardest and I don’t like going to bed hungry but I’ll give this a try for ahwile and see what happens.
-
I've been doing the 16:8 for years but mostly out of laziness. Wake up around 8am, go walk the dog, go do some exercise, presto it's noon and I haven't eaten yet...
-
I had to read this several times in order to realize that 5:2 with 500 calories doesn't mean fasting five days a week and then going 500 calories a day for two days...
Imagine my shock when I CTRL-F'd and found no results yet in the thread for the phrase "starvation"! Lol.
-
I'm aiming for something sustainable as a permanent diet, so I've been experimenting with a very liberal IF baseline of 12:12 but striving for 8:16 when I can. On work days, instead of having cereal for breakfast I'm just having tea and not eating till lunch, then trying to have supper no later than 8 p.m. On Saturday the spread is more like 10 a.m. to mid-evening (around 8:30 or 9:00).
I find that if I have a large meal early in the day that's slightly to the protein and fat side (i.e. bacon and eggs with one slice of toast, if any), I can go 6-8 hours before going "Oh. It's getting dark. Guess I should eat something." In general, though, there are no restrictions on what I can eat, just when.
Weight is coming off slowly, but more importantly it's staying off.
-
There was a recent meta study that got a lot of press for finding that no one diet is better than any other at helping people lose weight and keep it off. What it found was pople who were successful at dieting all had one thing in common: they were able to find a plan that worked for them and they were able to stick to for years.
It sounds like you’ve found a plan you can stick to. Good for you! Who cares if it is a gimmick, as far as diet gimmicks go this one seems pretty unobjectionable.
Keep it up!
-
My lifestyle probably isn't considered an intermittent fast, but I incorporate some of the ideas. Incorporate what you like, and no worries if this sounds horrible, haha!
Principals of my diet:
- Only calories I consume each day are within an 8 hour window. For me, this generally means 11am-7pm
- Exception is that from wakeup till 11am I drink herbal tea, and I put MCT oil in the tea. MCT oil is an odorless and tasteless derivative of coconut oil.
- Around 11am I have a massive salad...spinach, carrots, cabbage, bell peppers, onions, green onions, sunflower seeds, walnuts, almonds, quinoa, black beans, feta cheese, hard boiled egg, and homemade dressing.
- Afternoon I have a bowl of homemade granola with almond milk.
- I make peanut butter balls with tons of oatmeal, flax, and chia seeds in them. Freeze them for snacks throughout the day as well.
- Dinner time foods vary, but often we make mexican, or asian stir fry, or fish.
- Tea with MCT oil most common drink in the morning. Water most common drink after my salad around 11
- I can deviate from this diet whenever I want. I just think it's nice to set a good baseline routine. If it's a family holiday party,
obviously I'm going to enjoy everyones awesome food, drink some beer, and not worry about what time it is:) Or if I just can't ake dinner till 8 for whatever reason, who cares. But 75% of days I'm in my routine.
Why do I do this:
- I sleep better when I have a healthy and consistent diet
- digesting food takes a lot of work for the body. By consuming my calories in a set window, it gives my body large swathes of the 24 hour cycle where it doesn't have to deal with digesting food.
- The MCT oil is loaded with calories, and is all fat, and because each tablespoon is 130 calories, two little tablespoons throughout the morning is virtually nothing for my body to digest, but it's super filling. Because it's all fat, there's no insulin needed to be generated to convert sugars, so no energy spikes and dips. It prevents hunger and gives me steady energy all morning long.
- Those salads are f#$#ing delicious, and incredibly healthy, and because it's whole food, not processed, again, no big insulin spikes. Sustains me a long time
- Because there's vitually nothing processed being bought, my food bills are very reasonable despite eating pretty much nothing but fresh veggies/nuts/seeds/fruits/fish/eggs/a little cheese.
How it simplifies my life:
- Every Sunday I spend an hour chopping veggies like a champ in the late morning. Make an enormous salad bar, my whole family eats salad and often even invite the neighbors. Afterwards I fill up about 8 one-quart mason jars full of salads, and I'm set for salads the whole week long. Sunday lunch with family/friends + lunches all week for me in one morning.
- Every few weeks I'll making another gallon of granola...one hour. This lasts several weeks.
- Every few weeks I make tons of peanut butter balls...one hour....Again, several weeks worth
- So basically, all I have to do each day is make dinner, but sometimes my wife will make it, so we spread out the work there. It basically automates a healthy diet.
-
Calories in < calories used = weight loss.
My understanding is that this is not true. The body reacts differently to incoming calories based on insulin response. If you eat something that cannot fuel the brain and bodily functions (very low carb) the body will break down fat reserves to get the fuel. Also if you eat something the body cannot digest, your equation is wrong on its face.
I realize this is a slippery slope and diet is right up there now with politics and religion as banned Thanksgiving conversation.
OP - I have done the IF thing for a while. As of late, it has stopped working for me as well as it once did. I think I am getting lazy and supplementing my fasting time by eating more during feed time. Your post is a reminder to get back on track.
A revelation for me was how good it can feel to be in a fasted state. I used to freak out if I was hungry for an hour or two. After the "hanger" passes, I feel fantastic! I work fasted training in whenever I can - no energy loss whatsoever. Of course that is because I have plenty of "reserves," haha.
I would agree that the equation above isn't quite accurate because it depends on how the calories are "used"
Calories in < calories out = weight loss would be more accurate, but it still oversimplifies a complex process. While the equation may be true, we don't really know what the calories out number is, all we can do is estimate. Add to it that we don't know exactly how the types of foods we eat and when we eat them will effect that number.
We can make a reasonable estimate of the calories out and if you track your calories and stay under that number you should lose weight but not 100% of the time. Variations in thyroid activity, metabolism, even room temperature can effect calories out.
But the point is still true, it’s entirely about caloric deficit vs surplus. While some eating habits are healthier than others; you will loose weight in a caloric deficit no matter what you’re consuming or how you’re consuming it. Any fighter who does weight cuts can confirm this.
I believe that any temporary fad diet can be counterproductive. Creating eating habits that can be maintained consistently for years and years is my preference.
Defining healthy eating does have variance and I am not saying that intermittent fasting doesn’t have a place in a healthy consistent diet.
-
I am not saying that intermittent fasting doesn’t have a place in a healthy consistent diet.
The evidence that time restricted eating and/or intermittent fasting & fasting mimicking diets is good for the health of rodents is pretty overwhelming, I would say (reductions in cancer, cardiovascular problems, all cause mortality vs controls with the same caloric input - lots of studies.) Much harder to do those experiments in humans and not all rat/mouse findings transfer to people, but the same mechanisms - autophagy etc. are all present and preliminary studies have given positive looking results.
-
I am not saying that intermittent fasting doesn’t have a place in a healthy consistent diet.
The evidence that time restricted eating and/or intermittent fasting & fasting mimicking diets is good for the health of rodents is pretty overwhelming, I would say (reductions in cancer, cardiovascular problems, all cause mortality vs controls with the same caloric input - lots of studies.) Much harder to do those experiments in humans and not all rat/mouse findings transfer to people, but the same mechanisms - autophagy etc. are all present and preliminary studies have given positive looking results.
Yeah, that's a big factor driving me towards consuming most of my calories in a set window each day. Hopefully as I get better at it I can shrink that window a bit, and add some longer fasts in there. Regardless, it's fun trying new things and seeing how the body responds. Our body is an amazing machine.
-
There was a recent meta study that got a lot of press for finding that no one diet is better than any other at helping people lose weight and keep it off. What it found was pople who were successful at dieting all had one thing in common: they were able to find a plan that worked for them and they were able to stick to for years.
It sounds like you’ve found a plan you can stick to. Good for you! Who cares if it is a gimmick, as far as diet gimmicks go this one seems pretty unobjectionable.
Keep it up!
Yes this is how my wife and I feel so far, being a few months into it with results that we were looking for. We've tried so many things - again even just the daily calorie restriction or daily exercise favored by some - but they just ween't sustainable for us. I love the challenge of going almost 36 hours with only one small meal, once even going for the full 36 hours with just water and coffee, because it has been working. And for us it seems to be mentally and physically doable long term - for me, this is easier than a 45 minute HIIT workout...
And from things I've learned on this board - I liked the comment about the growing up being told one MUST eat 3 meals (heck even 5 small meals recently). I have always been "overweight" since 5th grade and this might be contributing... Sort of like how I grew up in a family (as did my wife) where free spending, buying huge houses, new cars, etc was the norm. And we had done that - but we are now are seeing the beauty of cutting back on that too :)
-
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.
It's not quite that simple, as the body has "set point" weights where it likes to stay.
This means that if you are at a set point, simply cutting 100 calories a day won't result in losing 10 lbs a year. (Conversely, adding 100 cals a day won't make you gain 10 lbs either.)
At a setpoint in both directions, it takes a lot more calorie changes because of the body's efficiency in changing food to heat, or whatever.
I've learned quite a few things like this in my 40-something years on the planet. It's pretty fascinating. What works for person A won't necessarily work for person B. What works for person A when they are 20 might not work when they are 40, and that might not work when they are 60. Meds, hormones, stress. Also, the type of calorie matters too. I can eat more calories if I eat more fat/ fewer carbs, and maintain weight. (As a woman in my late 40s.)
When I was in my early 30s and losing weight, I was using weight watchers. Simply cutting calories worked wonders for me, and worked far better for me than my friends in their 60s. But eventually, I got to my goal weight. I added calories. I started dropping weight EVEN FASTER. Added more calories, eventually found the right number to gain a few lbs back to a comfortable spot and maintain my weight.
My most recent discovery = wheat. I started having digestive problems with wheat a little over a year ago. When I eliminated, I dropped about 8 lbs. I was already at a healthy weight. I did not cut carbs - I replaced the whole wheat with other carbs, like oats, rice (brown and white), potatoes, corn tortillas.
Back to the OP, intermittent fasting. It's not really for me. I've done it here and there, but it's really hard on my body and my brain. I get light headed and cranky. Studies show that IF doesn't always work the same for women as men.
Little brief on the setpoint, with a link to the original study.
https://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/01/how-many-extra-calories-cause-weight-gain/
-
So I have been practicing intermittent fasting on and off for the last 3 years. When I got married at 22 years old I weighed 230 lbs and in a year got down to 200 lbs without any change in exercise or diet except for changing my eating window to a 10 hour limit. It worked very well. I had to get off of it when I started a hard weight lifting schedule and honestly regret it because I gained a good amount of weight back. I am now on an 8 hour eating window but have really been finding a lot of other benefits to IF besides the weight loss.
The main thing that got me into IF is the results they had on fruit flies and mice who they forced to fast intermittently. They tripled their lifespans!! They explained it as giving the body a chance to take a break so that the digestive system doesn't wear on your cells and body all day long. If my body is a complex machine that makes sense. Give it a break part of the day and it will last longer.
The other thing I love about IF is the fact that it isn't expensive, complicated or time-consuming. There is nothing to buy, nothing to prepare, no mental baggage like when you meal prep and can be done no matter what role or job you have. When I had a strict diet and I had to travel for work, I couldn't maintain my diet or workout schedule. That's not the case with IF.
Learning to IF has allowed me to learn and try different types of fasting. These routines have really helped me learn to detox my body. It's been fun to experiment with this form of lifestyle and I plan on doing more. Check out "The Science of Fasting" documentary on Amazon Prime if you really want to be challenged. I really believe there is so much knowledge we have lost here in the west that we need to re-find.
I really enjoyed and have learned a lot from Thomas DeLauer (https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTdelauer). Check out how much weight he lost following IF. Take a look at all the other facets of fasting and how you can use it to live better and longer.
I'll end with this. Our body stores toxins in fat cells, when you fast you break those down and expel them. I don't think there has ever been a time in our history of humans when we have been more exposed to toxins than today and don't want to find out what will happen to us if we don't learn to detox from these regularly. I will veer on the side of safety and practice fasting and IF.
-
Calories definitely count but if your body isn't able to burn fat because you are in a constant state of high insulin you will not lose weight. Fasting or low carb dieting or whatever you choose to do to lower your insulin levels while still being mindful of calories in/calories out seems to work for many people. Nice job with your success!
-
Calories in < calories used = weight loss.
My understanding is that this is not true. The body reacts differently to incoming calories based on insulin response. If you eat something that cannot fuel the brain and bodily functions (very low carb) the body will break down fat reserves to get the fuel. Also if you eat something the body cannot digest, your equation is wrong on its face.
I realize this is a slippery slope and diet is right up there now with politics and religion as banned Thanksgiving conversation.
OP - I have done the IF thing for a while. As of late, it has stopped working for me as well as it once did. I think I am getting lazy and supplementing my fasting time by eating more during feed time. Your post is a reminder to get back on track.
A revelation for me was how good it can feel to be in a fasted state. I used to freak out if I was hungry for an hour or two. After the "hanger" passes, I feel fantastic! I work fasted training in whenever I can - no energy loss whatsoever. Of course that is because I have plenty of "reserves," haha.
I would agree that the equation above isn't quite accurate because it depends on how the calories are "used"
Calories in < calories out = weight loss would be more accurate, but it still oversimplifies a complex process. While the equation may be true, we don't really know what the calories out number is, all we can do is estimate. Add to it that we don't know exactly how the types of foods we eat and when we eat them will effect that number.
We can make a reasonable estimate of the calories out and if you track your calories and stay under that number you should lose weight but not 100% of the time. Variations in thyroid activity, metabolism, even room temperature can effect calories out.
But the point is still true, it’s entirely about caloric deficit vs surplus. While some eating habits are healthier than others; you will loose weight in a caloric deficit no matter what you’re consuming or how you’re consuming it. Any fighter who does weight cuts can confirm this.
I believe that any temporary fad diet can be counterproductive. Creating eating habits that can be maintained consistently for years and years is my preference.
Defining healthy eating does have variance and I am not saying that intermittent fasting doesn’t have a place in a healthy consistent diet.
It is true, I'm not questioning that but the type of food does impact what constitutes a calorie deficit. Your maintenance calorie requirement can go up or down depending on individual physiology and exercise/eating habits (including timing). Another way to put it; if you're maintenance calorie requirement is 2000/day and you eat 1900, you will lose weight. But that 2000 calorie requirement is not static, the type of food you eat can change that number. If we don't know what our actual maintenance calorie number is, Calories in < calories out doesn't have quite as much meaning.
To be fair the online calculators that take your weight, height, age, sex and activity level and spit out an estimated maintenance calorie requirement are probably close enough for most people, especially if they eat a reasonably healthy diet and are in good health. But say you go on the twinkie diet, your hormones, metabolism and digestive system can be affected.
-
I do a lax version of 16:8 intermittent fasting most weekdays, a habit retained after trying a monthlong IF experiment. I basically don't eat after dinner (beer and wine excluded from this, I did say it was lax), only have a cup of green tea for breakfast, then eat lunch around noon. I'm in decent shape but sometimes struggle with beer related pudginess, and I find I consistently run about 8-10 pounds lighter when on this plan with no other changes to lifestyle. I tolerate it well (don't get cranky or droopy) so it's been easy to stick with. I don't find I need breakfast to go sit in front of a computer.
I'm pretty sure my laxness means I don't really get into the true "fasted state" (14+ hours without calories) too often, so it's probably more about just restricting calories. But hey, that works too. I mean to try mixing in a 24 hour fast once a week to see how that works.
The most beneficial change is that I've broken the habit of needing to eat at regular times or whenever the tiniest hunger pang hits. Turns out hunger is not a crisis, just a sensation you can learn to easily tolerate. I think there is value in experiencing a little voluntary discomfort and building some will power too. It's been particularly interesting traveling with others since starting this. It's kind of amazing how often most people need to eat something and how frantic or cranky they get when that is delayed.
I also find I eat better now and enjoy it more. With just 2 meals a day a bad meal is almost offensive (I wasted a precious meal on that?!). Plus since I love breakfast foods I do breakfast for dinner a couple times a week. Hell yea.
-
Man, our plan is almost identical.
I wonder how much of the benefit I'm losing for the fast by putting a couple tablespoons of oil in my tea in the morning before I have my lunch?
My only true fast is from 7pm to about 8am, so 13 hours. Then from 8-11am I'm slowly consuming 1-2 tablespoons of MCT oil. That's a couple hundred calories, but hardly any volume, and very easy for the body to process.
-
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.
It's not quite that simple, as the body has "set point" weights where it likes to stay.
This means that if you are at a set point, simply cutting 100 calories a day won't result in losing 10 lbs a year. (Conversely, adding 100 cals a day won't make you gain 10 lbs either.)
At a setpoint in both directions, it takes a lot more calorie changes because of the body's efficiency in changing food to heat, or whatever.
I've learned quite a few things like this in my 40-something years on the planet. It's pretty fascinating. What works for person A won't necessarily work for person B. What works for person A when they are 20 might not work when they are 40, and that might not work when they are 60. Meds, hormones, stress. Also, the type of calorie matters too. I can eat more calories if I eat more fat/ fewer carbs, and maintain weight. (As a woman in my late 40s.)
When I was in my early 30s and losing weight, I was using weight watchers. Simply cutting calories worked wonders for me, and worked far better for me than my friends in their 60s. But eventually, I got to my goal weight. I added calories. I started dropping weight EVEN FASTER. Added more calories, eventually found the right number to gain a few lbs back to a comfortable spot and maintain my weight.
My most recent discovery = wheat. I started having digestive problems with wheat a little over a year ago. When I eliminated, I dropped about 8 lbs. I was already at a healthy weight. I did not cut carbs - I replaced the whole wheat with other carbs, like oats, rice (brown and white), potatoes, corn tortillas.
Back to the OP, intermittent fasting. It's not really for me. I've done it here and there, but it's really hard on my body and my brain. I get light headed and cranky. Studies show that IF doesn't always work the same for women as men.
Little brief on the setpoint, with a link to the original study.
https://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/01/how-many-extra-calories-cause-weight-gain/
YES YES YES! Are you me? Boy, is this true! I was plump, but not overweight, in my teens (5'4" 128-130lbs on a small boned frame). I didn't eat a lot of food, but I ate a lot of crap when I did eat, and I didn't exercise. Then I went to college and still ate a lot of crap for a couple years, but exercised regularly and lost a ton of weight. In my late 20s and 30s, I was an inconsistent exerciser, but got much healthier with my eating. Weight fluctuated, but still seemed to generally follow a pattern... if I lapsed into eating more sugar/simple carbs, I gained a bit. If not, weight was stable.
Then came my 40s. All of a sudden, I could NOT maintain weight eating like I had been. Unless I dramatically increased sugar/carbs, I lost weight. Exercise actually made me gain weight if it built muscle, but without that I had to eat like a teenage male wrestler to stay above 100 lbs, which was physically impossible b/c my digestion is so slow. At the same time, I completely lost my hunger response. I almost never felt hungry. I forced myself to eat, even when I had no appetite. In desperation, I started adding TONS of fat calories to my diet to avoid adding sugar and carbs. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie, right? Wrong, not with my body! I was glopping quarter cups...QUARTER CUPS! of olive or nut oils on my food, adding butter, etc....and I COULD NOT GAIN WEIGHT.
My body stayed stuck at 100-101lbs no matter how many calories I poured on, or how much aerobic exercise I did or did not do. Light weight training could bump it to 103/04lbs, but I had to struggle to maintain that muscle mass.
This continued for 3 full years. It was kind of scary. Especially because I have overweight friends and family who I am absolutely certain regularly ate lower calorie than I did, and they couldn't LOSE weight.
Individual bodies most definitely are unique and process food differently.
After about 3 years, I gave up with the oil. I couldn't take it anymore and went back to eating lower calorie, with moderate fat, high fiber/veggie, moderate protein, low sugar/carbs, just like in my 20s and 30s. Nothing happened for several months...I didn't gain weight or lose it...I stayed stuck at 100-101 lbs. Then randomly, with NO CHANGE IN HABITS, I suddenly gained 9lbs in 10 days! That's almost 1 lb/day! With zero change in diet or exercise habits!
I mean, WTF?
A calorie is a calorie is a calorie is only true once your body actually uses it, and my body definitely uses different types of foods differently. In my case, what I've found is that adding tons of fat calories seems to send my metabolism into hyper-compensation to the point that it then burns calories to a counter productive extent. Adding the equivalent calories in sugar or simple carbs OTOH, will eventually cause me to gain weight, but because I have a sugar processing endocrine disorder, this is not an option for me. I think a combination of my personal body chemistry, plus hormonal/endocrine disorder, just makes my body run strangely.
So I'm constantly worrying about every damn mouthful of food, and weighing myself daily, just like I did during the periods of my life when I was young and 25lbs heavier. I was on vacation recently for only 5 days. I did eat somewhat fewer calories than usual, but the problem was that I ate almost 0 carbs/sugar. I exercised LESS than usual. Result? I DROPPED 1 lb per DAY, and had to struggle for 3 weeks afterward to force my body back up to its healthier, 109lb set point.
I really envy people whose bodies just lose or gain based on any old type of calorie they add or cut. That would make my life would be a hell of a lot easier.
-
I'm healthy BMI, but if I found that I'd gained weight, IF would probably be one of the first things I'd try. I've always thought it sounds pretty sensible, and a good way of reducing your calories for CICO if you're bad at remembering to actually count the calories. Plus, it fits in with Mustachianism through Stoicism, because you're experiencing voluntary discomfort, especially the first few times you do it as you get used to feeling hungry. Also, it doesn't require you to buy any special weight-loss food or diet food at a premium, or any special equipment.
-
Just read recently that skipping meals can contribute to gallstone issues. Anyone have any problems?
-
Also, it doesn't require you to buy any special weight-loss food or diet food at a premium, or any special equipment.
That's one of the things I like about it. It actually saves you money as you lose the fat.
-
I really envy people whose bodies just lose or gain based on any old type of calorie they add or cut. That would make my life would be a hell of a lot easier.
I'd trade you in a heartbeat for my opposite problem ;-)
The idea that you can eat whatever you want and not worry about weight seems like a dream to me...
-
I really envy people whose bodies just lose or gain based on any old type of calorie they add or cut. That would make my life would be a hell of a lot easier.
I'd trade you in a heartbeat for my opposite problem ;-)
The idea that you can eat whatever you want and not worry about weight seems like a dream to me...
I know, right? I thought that in my youth, too. Just goes to show. Now, one bout of gastrointestinal flu and I'm close to hospitalization weight. I'm quite worried about going into old age this thin, since many of my overweight relatives dwindled to weak twigs as they aged.
-
I’ve had a habit lately of eating crudités after small meals. I hate restricting my diet, so my strategy is to add as many healthy choices as possible, to crowd out the bad choices (ex: I sip tea and water all day, so less room for juices and soda), without actually getting rid of bad choices. So if I want pizza, I eat pizza, but maybe just two slices and afterwards I immediately down a platter of crudités, 8oz of water, ending with a cup of tea. Not only does it fill me up then and there, but it allows me to go longer between meals without feeling hungry. Plus it’s all natural and nothing goes to waste.
Eating large quantities of raw food everyday gives me energy and just gives me an overall sense of wellness (even if I did have that cup of peanut butter and fudge ice cream for breakfast. The complex carbs and fiber in the produce helps regulate my blood sugar and mitigate the damage (both physical and psychological), of having peanut butter fudge ice cream for breakfast.
A typical crudités platter (I try to eat 2 a day, after each normal meal; yes, typically it keeps me full enough that I only have to eat twice per day):
- bed of mixed super greens (spinach, baby kale, Swiss chard, arugula etc)
- 1 whole carrot, halved
- 2 6-inch pieces of celery
- 3 radishes
- a few pieces of broccoli (blanched, because too raw does bad things to my tummy...I’ll dip a whole head in boiling water for up to a minute, and cut from that for the week)
- beets (pickled, because I can’t stand the taste of raw beets)
- 1-2 servings of fruit (citrus if meal contained a lot of cholesterol
- sometimes if I had a light meal beforehand, I’ll include a healthful fat, such as nuts, or a hard boiled egg, or some avocado.
Except for occasionally some thin sliced cucumber in a baggie with black and cayenne pepper, garlic salt, olive oil and vinegar, I don’t eat dressings with the crudités. It took a while to “reprogram” myself to appreciate natural flavors (vs “natural” flavoring and other flavor additives) again, but now I am addicted to the fresh and simple flavors and textures and focus on eating each ingredient, one at a time (rinsing my mouth with sips of water from my bottle between each vegetable/fruit). I work from home so can take my time, crunching and munching for as long as I want. It can take me as long as 30 min to get through a platter (takes longer to chew raw food than cooked). Being forced to slowly eat also allows my brain to catch up with my stomach.
-
The people who can stick with the intermittent fasting programs have more self-discipline than I do. It appears that the health benefits are well established, so if you can pull it off, great!
I tried it a couple of times when experimenting with my diet, and while I found I was able to tolerate 600 calorie days, it was not a fun experience.
After more digging, I came across evidence that much of the benefits from caloric restriction come from protein restriction:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/caloric-restriction-vs-plant-based-diets/
Specifically animal protein restriction:
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/caloric-restriction-vs-animal-protein-restriction/
I've ended up with a mostly plant based diet to get rid of weight and improve the numbers on my blood work. I didn't think I'd be able to stick with that to be honest, but having a one day a month eat-anything-I-please escape hatch has helped. But what has really helped is that my body has re-programmed my brain to crave eating more whole plant foods. Things I once fantasized about (KFC, fried eggs) are now quite disgusting to me.
My bet is that a combination of a plant focused diet with some intermittent fasting would be better still, but I have yet to see a study on that.
As for the argument that weight gain is simply a physical process that involves the energy balance of calories, well, remarkably enough there's evidence that this is not the case:
Correlational study: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/chicken-big-poultry-and-obesity/
Experimental: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/chicken-big-poultry-and-obesity/
-
Basically you are eating one healthy meal two days a week and that’s all you eat for the day?
That’s so great you both did this together and had such wonderful results. I’ve been working out almost every day for months now and I love how strong I feel but man I feel like it makes me hungry all the time. I lose weight by diet alone and none at all when I work out. I love the strength I have but I want to drop a few pounds. I’m whining here but this is what happens with me. I hate being hungry and I will just eat enough to stop the hunger pains but then I find I’m eating every 2-3 hours. On the rare occasion my stomach is empty but I don’t feel hungry I won’t eat but that’s not every often. I’m healthy but I think I’m obsessed with the number on the scale which I should ignore. A few pounds ago was my lowest ever adult weight and I haven’t seen that number in a month. But yet I am more lean and I feel great. I just want that number back and I’m thinking the only way I can do that and still work out is to go hungry for longer stretches.
How big is that one salad on those days, are you hungry soon after? I am intrigued by this fasting stuff and I’m assuming you can adjust so you don’t feel like you’re depriving yourself?
I started fasting a few years ago, and I definitely noticed a decrease in appetite both during fasting days and on non-fasting days. Now I often forget to eat at the normal times, and end up skip lunch because it's 3pm when I realize I haven't eaten as I never noticed I was hungry and at that point I might as well just wait till supper. That said it took a while to get to that state. So yes it should help with you constantly eating/feeling hungry but expect there to be a transition period, I think it took 1-2 months for me.
A lot of it I think is probably mental, once you've fasted for longer periods of time you realize what actual hunger is and so get less bothered by what you currently think of as hunger when you haven't eaten in a few hours.
If you wanted to try it out, you could google the Warrior Diet as it's generally seen as more suited to a heavy workout then the 5:2 diet. Essentially you fast every day for 16-20 hours, workout, then get all your calories in the remaining 4-8 hours.
If you feel hungry every few hours you might also want to look into what you eat and how much water you drink. Drinking more water helps a lot with feeling full, and eating less carbs but more fat/protein would also help keep you feeling full.
-
- Every Sunday I spend an hour chopping veggies like a champ in the late morning. Make an enormous salad bar, my whole family eats salad and often even invite the neighbors. Afterwards I fill up about 8 one-quart mason jars full of salads, and I'm set for salads the whole week long.
Whoa!! Super great idea! I'm using glass Pyrex bowls and whatnot...but the idea of a ready made salad in a jar is fantastic.
-
Calories in < calories used = weight loss.
This is a very 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.
-
I'm also experimenting with IF, and what I'm doing is a 24-hour fast where you go from dinner on one night, to dinner the following night...no breakfast or lunch. Today was the first time I went all 24 hours, over the past couple of months I've managed an 18 or 22 hour fast. I started this after looking at the website Eat Stop Eat.
Because for me it's not the physical hunger that matters (because there isn't much really), it's the psychological thing that gets in my way. Habits and rules (you must eat breakfast!) are hard to break. And looking at my watch to see what time it is gets annoying (why? no one is starving here people, seriously, there's plenty to live off of).
I find that it helps with weight loss in a way that doesn't feel like constantly having to decide what to eat. You just eat healthful foods the other days (which I do anyway, but just too much of them). My tolerance for portion size goes down too, which is helpful.
In short - easy to do and effective (for me at any rate).
-
I'm not into fad diets. Calories in < 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'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.
This isn't really true. There are many factors that go into weight loss/gain that go beyond calories in vs calories out. You can for instance build muscle while shedding fat using IF, which from a calories in/out situation should be impossible. That said for the vast majority of people it doesn't make much of a difference and looking at total calories for the week is more then good enough.
There are plenty of studies that show IF is better then a constant caloric deficit, but the truth is there simply aren't enough good human studies to come to a consensus. It's likely not going to be a big difference in terms of weightloss either way but there are also a number of other health benefits beyond weight loss that make IF an attractive option. In the end the best weight loss diet is the one you stick to.
-
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.
This isn't really true. There are many factors that go into weight loss/gain that go beyond calories in vs calories out. You can for instance build muscle while shedding fat using IF, which from a calories in/out situation should be impossible. That said for the vast majority of people it doesn't make much of a difference and looking at total calories for the week is more then good enough.
There are plenty of studies that show IF is better then a constant caloric deficit, but the truth is there simply aren't enough good human studies to come to a consensus. It's likely not going to be a big difference in terms of weightloss either way but there are also a number of other health benefits beyond weight loss that make IF an attractive option. In the end the best weight loss diet is the one you stick to.
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.
Sent from my XT1635-01 using Tapatalk
-
I'm not into fad diets. Calories in < 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.
-
I'm not into fad diets. Calories in < 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
-
My lifestyle probably isn't considered an intermittent fast, but I incorporate some of the ideas. Incorporate what you like, and no worries if this sounds horrible, haha!
Principals of my diet:
- Only calories I consume each day are within an 8 hour window. For me, this generally means 11am-7pm
- Exception is that from wakeup till 11am I drink herbal tea, and I put MCT oil in the tea. MCT oil is an odorless and tasteless derivative of coconut oil.
- Around 11am I have a massive salad...spinach, carrots, cabbage, bell peppers, onions, green onions, sunflower seeds, walnuts, almonds, quinoa, black beans, feta cheese, hard boiled egg, and homemade dressing.
- Afternoon I have a bowl of homemade granola with almond milk.
- I make peanut butter balls with tons of oatmeal, flax, and chia seeds in them. Freeze them for snacks throughout the day as well.
- Dinner time foods vary, but often we make mexican, or asian stir fry, or fish.
- Tea with MCT oil most common drink in the morning. Water most common drink after my salad around 11
- I can deviate from this diet whenever I want. I just think it's nice to set a good baseline routine. If it's a family holiday party,
obviously I'm going to enjoy everyones awesome food, drink some beer, and not worry about what time it is:) Or if I just can't ake dinner till 8 for whatever reason, who cares. But 75% of days I'm in my routine.
Why do I do this:
- I sleep better when I have a healthy and consistent diet
- digesting food takes a lot of work for the body. By consuming my calories in a set window, it gives my body large swathes of the 24 hour cycle where it doesn't have to deal with digesting food.
- The MCT oil is loaded with calories, and is all fat, and because each tablespoon is 130 calories, two little tablespoons throughout the morning is virtually nothing for my body to digest, but it's super filling. Because it's all fat, there's no insulin needed to be generated to convert sugars, so no energy spikes and dips. It prevents hunger and gives me steady energy all morning long.
- Those salads are f#$#ing delicious, and incredibly healthy, and because it's whole food, not processed, again, no big insulin spikes. Sustains me a long time
- Because there's vitually nothing processed being bought, my food bills are very reasonable despite eating pretty much nothing but fresh veggies/nuts/seeds/fruits/fish/eggs/a little cheese.
How it simplifies my life:
- Every Sunday I spend an hour chopping veggies like a champ in the late morning. Make an enormous salad bar, my whole family eats salad and often even invite the neighbors. Afterwards I fill up about 8 one-quart mason jars full of salads, and I'm set for salads the whole week long. Sunday lunch with family/friends + lunches all week for me in one morning.
- Every few weeks I'll making another gallon of granola...one hour. This lasts several weeks.
- Every few weeks I make tons of peanut butter balls...one hour....Again, several weeks worth
- So basically, all I have to do each day is make dinner, but sometimes my wife will make it, so we spread out the work there. It basically automates a healthy diet.
Can you post the recipe for the peanut butter balls? I used to make peanut butter brownies from PB, honey, eggs, baking soda and butter. Your snacks sound more interesting.
-
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.
-
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...
-
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)?
-
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.
-
I'm not into fad diets. Calories in < 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.
-
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.
-
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...).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I predict whichever theory anyone chooses will most assuredly not keep them from dying at some point. ;)
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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?
-
^ 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 (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.
-
Well if there are two thinks I love it's capsaicin and ginger (plus salt, I learned when I fixed our sewer pipe and officially became a brown noser). Plus I usually drink liquids all morning. I've been spiking the ol coffee with cinnamon, maybe it's time to add capsaicin too :D
-
If losing weight isn't saving you money why the hell would you do it? Never understood the diet (industry).
-
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?
I'm pretty sure most of the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" comes from breakfast cereal companies trying to push their products.
I'm much like you, simply not hungry in the mornings so it's very rare that I'll eat breakfast. If you're not hungry then don't eat.
Strangely I love all breakfast foods, so I quite often have those foods for supper.
-
Thanks for starting this thread. I never really considered fasting, and a lot it makes sense at least in theory. For the first time in years, I went maybe 16 hours without eating (I typically eat every 3 hours during the day) and realized that it didn't kill me and didn't feel that bad. I was kind of surprised.
I do a lot of exercise, and I can see the limits of this where you need the additional energy for a hard bike ride, for example. But the fat does seem sufficient to power you along in an aerobic state without too much issue. I'm intrigued enough to try it for a month or so.
For the record, I've always been focused on the basic calorie in calorie out analysis. But the point about fasting that makes sense to me is that our bodies evolved to handle food scarcity (or at least irregular consumption), so the body shouldn't struggle at all to tap fat as stored energy when no food is available, which is the entire point of fat anyway.
-
A lot of things have been said about nutrition for years that are based on nothing...as in almost *everything* that’s ever been said for years about nutrition is based on nothing.
I'll agree with that. The only consistent advice has been exercise=yes and eat lots of vegetables especially green leafy ones. So I consider all other advice to be at least 80% full of shit.
But skipping breakfast and lunch saves time and money, so that makes it seem like a worthy experiment. Also, when I say it like that,I'm pretty sure most of the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" comes from breakfast cereal companies trying to push their products.
I realize that things that save time and money are generally good for you and bad for people who make money off you, so maybe this will be effective!
-
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?
I'm pretty sure most of the "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" comes from breakfast cereal companies trying to push their products.
I'm much like you, simply not hungry in the mornings so it's very rare that I'll eat breakfast. If you're not hungry then don't eat.
Strangely I love all breakfast foods, so I quite often have those foods for supper.
The John Kellogg founder of Kellogg's cereal also thought eating cereal for breakfast would keep people from masturbating and desiring sex.
Edward Bernays was also involved with bacon and eggs for breakfast food.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_relations_campaigns_of_Edward_Bernays
It is all lies!
-
Ha!! Just started doing IF a couple of weeks ago and my second thought was - my portion of the food budget should be going down now!
-
Just thought I'd chime in with my experience. I was overweight and wanted to do something about it. I started IF, eating during an 8 hour window during the day (usually 11AM-7PM), ate healthier foods (eat food, not too much, mostly plants --no other specific restrictions), and exercised daily (ran 30 minutes every day). I lost about 40 lbs in 8 months (around 5 lbs a month average).
Oh, and since I have a huge sweet-tooth, I ate a CRAP-TON of fruit during this process. Like 2 apples and 3 oranges a day, sometimes...
Now I'm lean, feel great, and still run every day. I have maintained my current weight for about 6 months now. I don't IF anymore, but I never eat after 8PM.