- 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: Intermittent Fasting thoughts
Posted on 5/2/18 at 2:56 pm to lsu777
Posted on 5/2/18 at 2:56 pm to lsu777
quote:
show one study where it is not about calories or macros in healthy individuals who don't already have metabolic damage. Its all about calories and macros unless you already have a health problem.
Thank you for proving my point. There is no state in the country where obesity is less than 20%, and over 100 million Americans have either diabetes or prediabetes. I'm not saying calorie restriction does not work, but the science is clear that the mechanisms and effectiveness for the majority of people trying to lose weight with IF is the reduction of serum insulin levels.
This post was edited on 5/2/18 at 3:02 pm
1
Posted on 5/2/18 at 3:12 pm to tommy2tone1999
uhhhh bull shite, the science is clear in over half a dozen studies on IF that the reason they are losing weight is because of calorie restriction and that the only advantage of IF over a traditional calorie restriction is that people tend to lose from low blood flow places like the love handles and stomach when on IF. Here is the latest study that was done, this one was on 5:2 vs traditional caloric restriction.
Study
Synopsis from "TheGuerillachemist"
Study
Synopsis from "TheGuerillachemist"
quote:
Just saw this Sunday night and it’s very interesting for a pilot study. In this study involving 24 obese men(no exercise, just diet) researchers either had subjects follow a standard 500kcal/d deficit 7 days a week diet or eating 600kcal/d for 2 non-consecutive days a week(5:2), and compared the results on weight loss. The other 5 days were ad libitum eating. The results were very interesting: no significant difference in weight loss, waist circumference blood lipids, blood pressure or fasting blood glucose levels. Measurements were checked after 3 and 6 months. Average weight loss was 5.5kg for the standard group and 5.3kg for the 5:2 group. Worth noting while not statistically significant, the 5:2 group had a greater reduction in waist circumference(8.0 +/- 4.5cm vs 6.4 +/- 5.8cm for standard group). Something is clearly working following a 5:2 diet with slightly higher kcal deficit and is worth investigating further. Nutr Diet. 2018 Feb;75(1):65-72. doi: 10.1111/1747-0080.12372. Epub 2017 Aug 9.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 3:35 pm to lsu777
quote:
Study
The study you cited was funded by Dietitians Association of Australia who favors neither calorie restriction nor IF. Here is the commentary on that study.
LINK
quote:
Intermittent fasting focuses on kilojoule-counting (quantity), rather than the kinds of foods eaten (quality). While being a healthy weight for you is one measure of health, making small tweaks to your current diet, like focusing on eating more fruit and vegetables, can lead to big changes in your health. Given that less than seven per cent of Australians currently meet the target of five serves of vegetables each day, there are clear improvements we can make to our everyday eating patterns – and for most Australians, this should be the focus.
So apparently they are confused as well about what is IF and what is calorie restriction. The bottom line on this study is that calorie counting AND IF both are counter to their profession...
quote:
For nutrition advice tailored to you, see an Accredited Practising Dietitian. They’re passionate about translating the latest evidence on healthy eating into practical, everyday advice and tips, and can support you on your journey towards better health.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 4:10 pm to tommy2tone1999
so now we are going to decipher a study that has been extremely well received by the scientific community because who funded it? I understand if it showed some crazy results or if it showed what they wanted but it didn't and its been reviewed and picked apart and nobody I have scene has questioned the results based on who funded it.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 4:31 pm to lsu777
quote:
nobody I have scene has questioned the results based on who funded it.
quote:
scene
Completely off topic but I've seen you do this like 10 times, it's seen not scene.
Carry on.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 4:39 pm to lsu777
First off, NO scientific study is universally accepted in the scientific community. They get argued about and shot down daily. Secondly, every group who funds research brings their own agenda to the lab and especially in the interpretation of results. Funding sources are ALWAYS called into question as a possible bias on such studies. The study showed that BOTH IF and calorie restriction are effective. I said that exact same thing. You however argue that it is ONLY calorie restriction and that lowering serum insulin to allow the body to utilize fat stores is basically a myth. Again, I don't disagree that calorie restriction plays a role in IF, but it is by no means the only factor, nor is it the major factor. Hell even your go to guy, Martin Berkhan acknowledges the reduction in insulin is the big deal in IF.
LeanGains.com - Intermittent fasting and stubborn fat loss
So here is my citation of a scientific study
Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men.
Edit: A more plainly worded conclusion the from full text of the study:
LINK
LeanGains.com - Intermittent fasting and stubborn fat loss
quote:
How can intermittent fasting then selectively target stubborn body fat more effectively than other diets? Well, to target stubborn body fat we need to activate b2-receptors while deactivating a2-receptors. Intermittent fasting achieves this by the following mechanisms.
1. Fasting increases catecholamine levels.
2. Fasting increases abdominal subcutaneous blood flow, which means that catecholamines will have an easier time reaching those hard-to-get areas.
3. The low insulin level reached during the fast inhibits a2-receptors. A greater time spent in the low insulin state equals a greater time spent in a state where fat can be mobilized from stubborn areas. Now you’re probably thinking “why not just go on a low carb diet” to keep insulin low, but keep in mind that triglycerides inhibit HSL in a similar manner as insulin.
4. My research has indicated that the ideal state of fat burning is reached after 12-18 hours of fasting. Coupled with high levels of catecholamines, increased blood flow to stubborn regions, and low insulin for a2-receptor inhibition, this time interval is the “golden age” of stubborn fat mobilization.
quote:
My personal experience is that intermittent fasting helps with stubborn fat loss compared to a conservative diet. This little anecdote is obviously riddled with confounders, and maybe even wishful thinking, but if you take a look at some pictures from my younger days (and here), you’ll see that I was quite lean during the modelling days. However, I still had some fat covering the lower ab region and never really seemed to lean out well no matter how hard I tried. Sure, I would lose weight when I cut calories, but not from the right areas. I always ended up getting extremely lean legs, arms and shoulders. I also lost a lot of muscle in my desperate attempts to get good abs, but that might just boil down to me dieting like a retard.
So here is my citation of a scientific study
Effect of intermittent fasting and refeeding on insulin action in healthy men.
quote:
Insulin-mediated whole body glucose uptake rates increased from 6.3 +/- 0.6 to 7.3 +/- 0.3 mg.kg(-1).min(-1) (P = 0.03), and insulin-induced inhibition of adipose tissue lipolysis was more prominent after than before the intervention (P = 0.05). After the 20-h fasting periods, plasma adiponectin was increased compared with the basal levels before and after the intervention (5,922 +/- 991 vs. 3,860 +/- 784 ng/ml, P = 0.02). This experiment is the first in humans to show that intermittent fasting increases insulin-mediated glucose uptake rates, and the findings are compatible with the thrifty gene concept.
Edit: A more plainly worded conclusion the from full text of the study:
LINK
quote:
In conclusion, the findings that intermittent fasting increases insulin sensitivity on the whole body level as well as in adipose tissue support the view that cycles of feast and famine are important as an initiator of thrifty genes leading to improvements in metabolic function
This post was edited on 5/2/18 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 5/2/18 at 5:34 pm to L S Usetheforce
quote:
L S Usetheforce
Once you get used to 16:8, start shrinking your times a few times a week. I found that once I was able to get over the mental hurdle and got used to being hungry, I could push myself for longer fasted periods.
These days I am on a 16:8 and then go at least 1 or 2 days where I skip lunch and just eat one main meal around 5 pm. Once or twice a month I will do a full 24 hour fast.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 5:44 pm to Azazello
You definitely have to work up to it. I started with just 16:8 and now have added 24hr fasts twice a week.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 7:01 pm to tommy2tone1999
I realize who sponsors a study should come into play, I was just saying this particular study showed pretty much what we already knew from previous studies and pretty much the opposite of what those paying wanted it to show.
And I apologize, I was in a bad mood earlier and was being a dick, sorry.
As far as insulin playing a role, that was what I was talking about when I mentioned stubborn fat. I actually 100% agree with you that insulin plays a role it's just that for 99% of the people on this board or that are reading this board it doesn't matter when it comes to body comp imo. I say this because of the stats you mentioned earlier. If you are 20%+ body fat, things like that don't really matter. Calories and protein do. Once below a true 15% and closer to 12% and below it plays a much bigger role, but again people use the iifym approach for shows all the time.
The reason I focus on weekly calories and daily protein and promote a care free form of IF is because for most this over whelms then. Hell this conversation especially your last post will freak done out. Giving them just to things to track and putting them on a heavy lifting program is going to put 99% on their way to achieving their goals.
And I apologize, I was in a bad mood earlier and was being a dick, sorry.
As far as insulin playing a role, that was what I was talking about when I mentioned stubborn fat. I actually 100% agree with you that insulin plays a role it's just that for 99% of the people on this board or that are reading this board it doesn't matter when it comes to body comp imo. I say this because of the stats you mentioned earlier. If you are 20%+ body fat, things like that don't really matter. Calories and protein do. Once below a true 15% and closer to 12% and below it plays a much bigger role, but again people use the iifym approach for shows all the time.
The reason I focus on weekly calories and daily protein and promote a care free form of IF is because for most this over whelms then. Hell this conversation especially your last post will freak done out. Giving them just to things to track and putting them on a heavy lifting program is going to put 99% on their way to achieving their goals.
Posted on 5/2/18 at 8:58 pm to lsu777
Understood. No harm, no foul. I’ve tried the calorie counting and FOR ME, it worked, but only for a while. I figure between calorie restriction and reducing insulin that should cover every one. I’m a biologist, so I geek out on studies, but not everyone speaks the same language I do. I’m not close to 20% BF (yet). Right now I just trying to shed some pounds, but I see where you’re coming from.
This post was edited on 5/2/18 at 8:59 pm
Posted on 5/2/18 at 9:53 pm to tommy2tone1999
I'm an engineer so I geek out on the studies too lol. I could sit here and discuss all the science behind everything with you for hours but honestly all it would do it confuse 90% of the people that read it.
But yea reducing insulin in general is great for health and so is ridding the body of preservatives and foods that cause reactions. But in general for 90+% of the people they will be able to get down to 15% or so with simple small caloric deficit and high protein combined with heavy lifting.
Btw martin just announced when his book finally hots the shelves. Finally happening.
But yea reducing insulin in general is great for health and so is ridding the body of preservatives and foods that cause reactions. But in general for 90+% of the people they will be able to get down to 15% or so with simple small caloric deficit and high protein combined with heavy lifting.
Btw martin just announced when his book finally hots the shelves. Finally happening.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 6:23 am to lsu777
down 10lbs in a week and a half....not sure if that's healthy
but i can confirm what you guys were dick measuring over(j/k
), i've seen a faster reduction in belly fat compared to past weight loss. Usually i'd have to be running 3x's a week and as of right now, all i'm doing is IF watching was lsu777 told me to watch.
but i can confirm what you guys were dick measuring over(j/k
), i've seen a faster reduction in belly fat compared to past weight loss. Usually i'd have to be running 3x's a week and as of right now, all i'm doing is IF watching was lsu777 told me to watch. Posted on 5/3/18 at 7:33 am to Black
well he is right in that having a low resting blood sugar does tend to help traditionally lower blood flow areas release fat to be burned. In a lot of ways we were saying the same thing, i just tend to say don't worry about it because from what I have scene, it will happen on its own.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 8:17 am to lsu777
well what you've told me over the last week or so helped me not OCD out if i miss a certain macro. I think that me just eating better in general has helped a bunch but as ya'll said, the IF has helped get it away from the belly
Posted on 5/3/18 at 8:46 am to Black
Most people get too deep into the weeds. I've tried the macro approach, counting calories, etc. Some people can do it, for me it was too tedious. I keep it super simple.
1. 16:8 with a few longer fasts sprinkled in.
2. Eat mostly protein and fat, carbs come from green veggies.
3. Only eat my starchy carbs (rice & sweet potatoes) around workouts.
4. No processed carbs and try to eat little to no sugar.
5. Limited dairy (I eat some greek yogurt every now and then)
6. When I cheat, it's almost always thin crust pizza or tacos, and I try to crush my workouts on those days.
1. 16:8 with a few longer fasts sprinkled in.
2. Eat mostly protein and fat, carbs come from green veggies.
3. Only eat my starchy carbs (rice & sweet potatoes) around workouts.
4. No processed carbs and try to eat little to no sugar.
5. Limited dairy (I eat some greek yogurt every now and then)
6. When I cheat, it's almost always thin crust pizza or tacos, and I try to crush my workouts on those days.
Posted on 5/3/18 at 8:54 am to lsu777
Bout time. With all the info on the website he just copy that and make a book
Posted on 5/3/18 at 9:20 am to Azazello
What Azazello said is pretty much what I’ve been doing. I eat more carbs and less meat and fat.
Posted on 5/5/18 at 9:50 am to lsu777
quote:
lsu777
Please don’t let me misinterprete your statements. I’ve been watching and reading a lot of IF stuff.
I have zero problems doing the 16-8. I find it easy and have gotten my macros down.
My question has to do with what to drink while fasting. Are any artificial sweeteners ok? I love my coffee and usually nurse a 32 ounce amount from about 6:30 am to noon. Can I add any sweetener to my coffee? If so, which one(s) and how much?
Is sugar free gum an issue? Lol
I feel like a dumbass because, depending on the source, there seems to be different opinions. Ultra strict or a little loose.
FYI- I’ve been hitting the weights since I was 15 years old. I’m 51 now and have only taken significant time off if I was injured.
Thanks!
Posted on 5/5/18 at 10:33 am to Paluka
Enjoy the Splenda in your coffee and the sugar free gum if you are doing this for body composition.
If all you care about is maximizing the health benefits then sure, skip the rest. But damn you have to live a little.
You will still get 80% or so of the health benefits by having the coffee and gum so enjoy it.
If all you care about is maximizing the health benefits then sure, skip the rest. But damn you have to live a little.
You will still get 80% or so of the health benefits by having the coffee and gum so enjoy it.
Posted on 5/5/18 at 11:32 am to lsu777
Thanks brother. Much appreciated.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News