- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Do people still believe: dieting, starvation mode, body hold onto fat.
Posted on 4/3/14 at 5:43 pm to BRgetthenet
Posted on 4/3/14 at 5:43 pm to BRgetthenet
Same here. Mainly because I can easily go until 3-4 without eating my first bite of food .. regardless of when I wake up.
Then dinner around 8-9.
Then pretty much done for the night unless I drink a lot, ha.
Then dinner around 8-9.
Then pretty much done for the night unless I drink a lot, ha.
0
Posted on 4/3/14 at 6:43 pm to Boats n Hose
quote:
When you skip breakfast, remember you're coming off of 8ish+ hrs of no calorie intake. All you're setting yourself up to do is overcompensate with the next meal. Your body will go into "starvation mode" to an extent because you still need energy and you haven't taken anything in 16 hours. You're better off eating breakfast. Taking in less than you burn will cause you to lose weight, but there are healthier ways of doing it.
The most important part of losing weight is burning off calories. You can only healthily cut so much out on the intake side before you start depriving yourself of necessary amounts of vitamins, essential AAs, essential FA, etc.
I think you're trying to explain things you don't understand
I highly disagree with you. Especially the first paragraph. Why is 8ish hours of no intake ok? but not 16?
I do agree that extremely cutting caloric intake will only set you up for failure in the long run. But what if I skip breakfast while not cutting my caloric intake extremely? As in getting my calories in during my 8 hour window of eating?
I'm just saying I haven't eaten breakfast in 8 months and only eat 3 big meals between then times of 1-9pm. Other than that, I'm not eating. I'm training hard 3 days a week. I've lost 20 lbs of fat (which I'm pretty sure I'm sub 10% right now), and put on muscle mass and gained strength throughout the entire process. I also know of hundreds of others who have done and do the same thing.
Read this: LINK
quote:
Myth: Fasting tricks the body into "starvation mode".
Truth
Efficient adaptation to famine was important for survival during rough times in our evolution. Lowering metabolic rate during starvation allowed us to live longer, increasing the possibility that we might come across something to eat. Starvation literally means starvation. It doesn't mean skipping a meal not eating for 24 hours. Or not eating for three days even. The belief that meal skipping or short-term fasting causes "starvation mode" is so completely ridiculous and absurd that it makes me want to jump out the window.
Looking at the numerous studies I've read, the earliest evidence for lowered metabolic rate in response to fasting occurred after 60 hours (-8% in resting metabolic rate). Other studies show metabolic rate is not impacted until 72-96 hours have passed (George Cahill has contributed a lot on this topic).
Seemingly paradoxical, metabolic rate is actually increased in short-term fasting. For some concrete numbers, studies have shown an increase of 3.6% - 10% after 36-48 hours (Mansell PI, et al, and Zauner C, et al). This makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. Epinephrine and norepinephrine (adrenaline/noradrenaline) sharpens the mind and makes us want to move around. Desirable traits that encouraged us to seek for food, or for the hunter to kill his prey, increasing survival. At some point, after several days of no eating, this benefit would confer no benefit to survival and probably would have done more harm than good; instead, an adaptation that favored conservation of energy turned out to be advantageous. Thus metabolic rate is increased in short-term fasting (up to 60 hours).
Again, I have choosen extreme examples to show how absurd the myth of "starvation mode" is - especially when you consider that the exact opposite is true in the context of how the term is thrown around.
This post was edited on 4/3/14 at 6:46 pm
Posted on 4/3/14 at 6:56 pm to bbrou33
When you do that, does it count protein shakes? How much do you eat in your window? I could do it but I drink a protein shake before bed and after gym which would fall out of the window
Posted on 4/3/14 at 6:59 pm to bbrou33
flexible dieting / IIFYM (If It Fits Your Macros), is the simpliest and easiest way to go about fat loss. meal timing doesn't have any affect on your body composition, so eat 6 times a day, 3 times a day, once a day....as long as you take in the right amount in that 24 hour period, doesnt matter. btw, ive lost about 20 lbs since December while gaining muscle and strength
Posted on 4/3/14 at 7:08 pm to MrAwesome
quote:
meal timing doesn't have any affect on your body composition,
I think it has some beneficial affects if done correctly.
I don't disagree with you about flixible dieting/IIFYM. I follow IIFYM 100%. I love it. But I feel combined with Intermittent fasting and carb cycling, I'm achieving my goals way more than ever. Including eating 6 times a day, etc.
I just know this works for my body. Everyone is different.
quote:
tduecen
If it has calories and you take it in within the fasting window, then you aren't following intermittent fasting.
Posted on 4/3/14 at 7:35 pm to bbrou33
Ah, 
because I go to gym at 3 in morning I usually drink a protein shake before and after and eat a banana and an apple, then lunch is usually a lean meat.... Alcohol is what mainly gets me obviously
because I go to gym at 3 in morning I usually drink a protein shake before and after and eat a banana and an apple, then lunch is usually a lean meat.... Alcohol is what mainly gets me obviously
Posted on 4/3/14 at 7:38 pm to bbrou33
From a science standpoint, I'm just telling you, it's unneccessary.
The longer you go without eating, you'll eventually start breaking down muscle. It's not much and you probably replenish it when you eat. But the bottom line is when you eat has no effect on weight loss other than whatever it may do mentally. It's all intake-output. 100%.
Do what works for you. But what the OP saying is just false.
The longer you go without eating, you'll eventually start breaking down muscle. It's not much and you probably replenish it when you eat. But the bottom line is when you eat has no effect on weight loss other than whatever it may do mentally. It's all intake-output. 100%.
Do what works for you. But what the OP saying is just false.
Posted on 4/3/14 at 8:26 pm to Rust Cohle
It's a genius concept. More calories out than in means weight loss
It's a concept that's been around since Adam and Eve
Fasting and fad diet bullshite doesn't matter. Bottom line is your body needs carbs and protein and fat. Just keep it within your maintenance calories.
If you work out and do cardio you need carbs
All my buddies that do paleo and low carb bullshite are always fluctuating and are still fat
It's a concept that's been around since Adam and Eve
Fasting and fad diet bullshite doesn't matter. Bottom line is your body needs carbs and protein and fat. Just keep it within your maintenance calories.
If you work out and do cardio you need carbs
All my buddies that do paleo and low carb bullshite are always fluctuating and are still fat
Posted on 4/3/14 at 9:05 pm to Rust Cohle
I think it just depends. I know that if I eat 2,000 calories a day that I will gain weight. Even when working out. I try to stay in the 1,500 range.
But I bust it with nice meals and alcohol.
Just a regular weekday for me though is 1,500 or less
But I bust it with nice meals and alcohol.
Just a regular weekday for me though is 1,500 or less
Posted on 4/3/14 at 9:38 pm to Goldrush25
Gold rush that's not true. People lose the same amount of muscle regardless of the rate of fat loss, until BF is less than 5%, then without fat you will use more muscle. It's a gold standard for body builders to cut weight using ketosis where the body thinks it's starving and primarily burns fat. They also incorporate fasting, and find this is the best way to lose fat with minimal muscle loss. The idea is that when your body switches from glucose to fat that more muscle lost, so they steady burn fat and don't have a transition period.
Vor you say eating sensibly works for 90% but 62% of the u.s. is overweight or obese
This is a good post with a few studies, one suggesting that metabolism actually increases for 2 days with no food. [link=(www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/761810-the-starvation-mode-myth-again
)]LINK[/link]
Vor you say eating sensibly works for 90% but 62% of the u.s. is overweight or obese
This is a good post with a few studies, one suggesting that metabolism actually increases for 2 days with no food. [link=(www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/761810-the-starvation-mode-myth-again
)]LINK[/link]
This post was edited on 4/3/14 at 9:51 pm
Posted on 4/3/14 at 9:39 pm to BayouBandit24
Mr awesomes post is 100% accurate
This post was edited on 4/3/14 at 9:39 pm
Posted on 4/3/14 at 10:47 pm to Rust Cohle
quote:
Vor you say eating sensibly works for 90% but 62% of the u.s. is overweight or obese
I'd say well over 62% don't eat sensibly.
Just look at the drive thru line at mcdonalds any given day.
Posted on 4/4/14 at 6:38 am to Boats n Hose
Im sure there all getting salads and dasanis!
I guess he meant 90% of people who are normal weight maintain by sensible diets.
Here is a great lecture that's easy to watch. It's about why we get fat and how calories in vs calories out is not the case for everyone.
LINK
I guess he meant 90% of people who are normal weight maintain by sensible diets.
Here is a great lecture that's easy to watch. It's about why we get fat and how calories in vs calories out is not the case for everyone.
LINK
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:01 am to Rust Cohle
Did Charlie Kelly write the thread title?
Posted on 4/4/14 at 7:47 am to Rust Cohle
quote:
I guess he meant 90% of people who are normal weight maintain by sensible diets.
What I mean is, absent some sort of "condition" (glandular issue, whatever), the basics are the same for the remainder of the population. Diet and exercise. There is no need to over-complicate with intricate schedules and formulas.
Most people can get more than enough nutrition on fewer calories than they are consuming. Reduce the amount of red meat and/or fried foods. Reduce alcohol consumption. Eat lesser amounts. You really don't have to completely eliminate anything, imo.
And exercise. Burn calories.
Every person's metabolism is a little different and the amount of reduction in calories and exercise may vary . . . slightly. But it's basically the same.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News