RustedFox Rants: "Intermittent Fasting"

[RustedFox]

Okay. Is it just me, or do you guys get the sense that the "intermittent fasting" craze that all the muggles can't seem to shut their muggle-mouths about is really just "eating the way a person should normally eat"?

They say these amazingly obvious things like: "I eat breakfast and then I don't eat anything until dinner, and then eat a small volume, only until I'm juuust full, and then I fast until breakfast." I feel so much better and I lost so much weight, robbledy-robbledy-robble.

Really? Wow. So... eat reasonably-sized meals, maybe don't eat a Biggie-Sized Wendy's meal every day at lunch, and you'll arrive at dinner appropriately hungry? What a radical concept! You mean you DON'T feel like a sluggish, semi-hibernating Grizzly throughout the waking hours because you don't stuff yourself to lethargy 3-4 times a day? Wow, you must really be ONTO something here, Osler! You mean you wake up hungry for a hot breakfast, and can't wait to make yourself that steel-cut oatmeal dish that someone posted on their momBlog? Alert the media! Call CNN!

Food is good. Don't eat until you're overstuffed, and don't eat again until you're hungry.

Radical idea, I know.

This rant wasn't as creative as it could be. I'm hoping to make up for it in the thread with some sharp ones.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[deleted813736]

yes

 

[Rekt]

Okay. Is it just me, or do you guys get the sense that the "intermittent fasting" craze that all the muggles can't seem to shut their muggle-mouths about is really just "eating the way a person should normally eat"?

They say these amazingly obvious things like: "I eat breakfast and then I don't eat anything until dinner, and then eat a small volume, only until I'm juuust full, and then I fast until breakfast." I feel so much better and I lost so much weight, robbledy-robbledy-robble.

Really? Wow. So... eat reasonably-sized meals, maybe don't eat a Biggie-Sized Wendy's meal every day at lunch, and you'll arrive at dinner appropriately hungry? What a radical concept! You mean you DON'T feel like a sluggish, semi-hibernating Grizzly throughout the waking hours because you don't stuff yourself to lethargy 3-4 times a day? Wow, you must really be ONTO something here, Osler! You mean you wake up hungry for a hot breakfast, and can't wait to make yourself that steel-cut oatmeal dish that someone posted on their momBlog? Alert the media! Call CNN!

Food is good. Don't eat until you're overstuffed, and don't eat again until you're hungry.

Radical idea, I know.

This rant wasn't as creative as it could be. I'm hoping to make up for it in the thread with some sharp ones.

Sounds like they're doing it wrong. I do IF, but no one really knows I do since I'm not annoying. I fast for 18 hours. If a person eats any calories in their fast window then they're faking IF.

 

[RustedFox]

Sounds like they're doing it wrong. I do IF, but no one really knows I do since I'm not annoying. I fast for 18 hours. If a person eats any calories in their fast window then they're faking IF.

This thought occurred to me as well. They just can't wait to open their flytrap to let you know how they're intermittent fasting, but they're also... not fasting.

 

[DeadCactus]

Intermittent fasting is pretty different from a typical eating rhythm in the developed world (maybe with the exception of some religious practices). I don’t know what the people you’re describing are doing.

 

[Angry Birds]

I advise IF for my patients, but you are right: it annoys me when people claim to do IF when, in fact, they describe it like you did.
I myself never lost my residency weight until I started IF. It changed my life. I eat in a very small window of the day, usually <4 hours, often just one big meal a day. After that, zero calories go in my belly.
It works.

 

[Groove]

I tried intermittent fasting and hated it. I hate that "ketosis brain" fuzzy headedness. I also lost way too much muscle mass. I was in a foul mood too. I do agree that it is effective for losing weight though.

 

[DeadCactus]

I personally find intermittent fasting to be plausible and intellectually appealing to my understanding of human physiology. I also think there is interesting biochemical and animal research supporting it. But I think we have to acknowledge both the multiple challenges in researching human nutrition and that there is no real convincing evidence that all the various specific diets are doing anything more than paving a path to calorie restriction.

 

[partypantss]

Okay. Is it just me, or do you guys get the sense that the "intermittent fasting" craze that all the muggles can't seem to shut their muggle-mouths about is really just "eating the way a person should normally eat"?

They say these amazingly obvious things like: "I eat breakfast and then I don't eat anything until dinner, and then eat a small volume, only until I'm juuust full, and then I fast until breakfast." I feel so much better and I lost so much weight, robbledy-robbledy-robble.

Really? Wow. So... eat reasonably-sized meals, maybe don't eat a Biggie-Sized Wendy's meal every day at lunch, and you'll arrive at dinner appropriately hungry? What a radical concept! You mean you DON'T feel like a sluggish, semi-hibernating Grizzly throughout the waking hours because you don't stuff yourself to lethargy 3-4 times a day? Wow, you must really be ONTO something here, Osler! You mean you wake up hungry for a hot breakfast, and can't wait to make yourself that steel-cut oatmeal dish that someone posted on their momBlog? Alert the media! Call CNN!

Food is good. Don't eat until you're overstuffed, and don't eat again until you're hungry.

Radical idea, I know.

This rant wasn't as creative as it could be. I'm hoping to make up for it in the thread with some sharp ones.

I mean, what you described isn't even IF though..

 

[WilcoWorld]

Okay. Is it just me, or do you guys get the sense that the "intermittent fasting" craze that all the muggles can't seem to shut their muggle-mouths about is really just "eating the way a person should normally eat"?

They say these amazingly obvious things like: "I eat breakfast and then I don't eat anything until dinner, and then eat a small volume, only until I'm juuust full, and then I fast until breakfast." I feel so much better and I lost so much weight, robbledy-robbledy-robble.

Really? Wow. So... eat reasonably-sized meals, maybe don't eat a Biggie-Sized Wendy's meal every day at lunch, and you'll arrive at dinner appropriately hungry? What a radical concept! You mean you DON'T feel like a sluggish, semi-hibernating Grizzly throughout the waking hours because you don't stuff yourself to lethargy 3-4 times a day? Wow, you must really be ONTO something here, Osler! You mean you wake up hungry for a hot breakfast, and can't wait to make yourself that steel-cut oatmeal dish that someone posted on their momBlog? Alert the media! Call CNN!

Food is good. Don't eat until you're overstuffed, and don't eat again until you're hungry.

Radical idea, I know.

This rant wasn't as creative as it could be. I'm hoping to make up for it in the thread with some sharp ones.

There's a reason it's called "breakfast" because you're breaking your fast.

So glad that the blogosphere "discovered" this revolutionary idea

 

[bravotwozero]

Intermittent fasting is pretty different from a typical eating rhythm in the developed world (maybe with the exception of some religious practices). I don’t know what the people you’re describing are doing.

Bingo. More specifically, the idea that you need to eat 3 meals a day is an entirely modern concept, and completely bogus. Most of humanity survived, thrived actually, on eating 1-2 meals per day, which was common practice amongst the romans and the persians.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

There's a reason it's called "breakfast" because you're breaking your fast.

So glad that the blogosphere "discovered" this revolutionary idea

Most IF has you skip breakfast since an 8-10 hour fast doesn't accomplish much (if anything).

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

 

[bravotwozero]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

Yep

 

[turkeyjerky]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

My feeling is that it's more complicated that that. In the end, physics matters. Calories in vs calories out. The question is how does the type of diet actually influence one's eating patterns. Frequent small meals (whether classic calorie cutting or typical fatass grazing) leave one feeling ravenous most of the day and probably lead to poor adherence to the diet. My bias is that it's simply that intermittent fasting and time restricted eating are easier to adhere to, since, after some acclimation, it's really not that hard to go w/o eating for moderately long periods of time. As far as keto or atkins go, I doubt most people are able to eat that many calories due to satiety and so on, but it's hard to adhere to in the long run.

People always seem to over-focus on the hormonal effects on metabolism, but fail to acknowledge the effects on behavior (including physical activity, but probably more importantly feeding).

All diets work in the short term, but most fail in the long term.

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

Is this a really poor way of saying that people don't know how to count the caloric content of food correctly or are you actually claiming the laws of physics don't apply to humans?

 

[Franzd'Epinay]

Interesting simple article on whether a calorie is a calorie: Defending Thermodynamics in a Diet Debate

tl;dr: maybe.

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

My feeling is that it's more complicated that that. In the end, physics matters. Calories in vs calories out. The question is how does the type of diet actually influence one's eating patterns. Frequent small meals (whether classic calorie cutting or typical fatass grazing) leave one feeling ravenous most of the day and probably lead to poor adherence to the diet. My bias is that it's simply that intermittent fasting and time restricted eating are easier to adhere to, since, after some acclimation, it's really not that hard to go w/o eating for moderately long periods of time. As far as keto or atkins go, I doubt most people are able to eat that many calories due to satiety and so on, but it's hard to adhere to in the long run.

People always seem to over-focus on the hormonal effects on metabolism, but fail to acknowledge the effects on behavior (including physical activity, but probably more importantly feeding).

All diets work in the short term, but most fail in the long term.

Some of the IF stuff is based around insulin's effects on metabolism (which you do mention).

That said, most of the folks that I know who are really big into IF absolutely mention behavioral affects as well.

If you really want to get into the nitty gritty of it:

https://forums.studentdoctor.net/threads/how-to-reduce-the-cost-of-health-care-in-the-united-states-and-worldwide.1362955/

 

[bravotwozero]

Is this a really poor way of saying that people don't know how to count the caloric content of food correctly or are you actually claiming the laws of physics don't apply to humans?

It's not that simple. I suggest you read "The case against sugar' By Gary Taubes, who is an actual physicist from Harvard. While he does not deny the laws of physics, he makes a great case for why its application to weight loss is not as useful.

 

[Birdstrike]

Okay. Is it just me, or do you guys get the sense that the "intermittent fasting" craze that all the muggles can't seem to shut their muggle-mouths about is really just "eating the way a person should normally eat"?

They say these amazingly obvious things like: "I eat breakfast and then I don't eat anything until dinner, and then eat a small volume, only until I'm juuust full, and then I fast until breakfast." I feel so much better and I lost so much weight, robbledy-robbledy-robble.

Really? Wow. So... eat reasonably-sized meals, maybe don't eat a Biggie-Sized Wendy's meal every day at lunch, and you'll arrive at dinner appropriately hungry? What a radical concept! You mean you DON'T feel like a sluggish, semi-hibernating Grizzly throughout the waking hours because you don't stuff yourself to lethargy 3-4 times a day? Wow, you must really be ONTO something here, Osler! You mean you wake up hungry for a hot breakfast, and can't wait to make yourself that steel-cut oatmeal dish that someone posted on their momBlog? Alert the media! Call CNN!

Food is good. Don't eat until you're overstuffed, and don't eat again until you're hungry.

Radical idea, I know.

This rant wasn't as creative as it could be. I'm hoping to make up for it in the thread with some sharp ones.

Most diets are simply ways to get people to trick themselves into eating less calories. Whether it's making a point to not eat for specific periods of time, reducing carbs, reducing fats, calorie counting, or eliminating meat, whatever....they all involve reducing the amount of calories we eat.

It's really hard to eat less than you burn, and very easy to eat a more than you burn. We you do the former, your body punishes you with the feeling of hunger. When you do the latter, there's either no signal from your body, or even a reward signal of satiety.

Food was scarce, and life expectancy low, for the majority of our evolution. Starvation was a much greater risk than complications of obesity at the end of a long life. Getting overweight or obese wasn't a luxury for most early humans, so we didn't evolve with a shutoff button, for overeating. That's why it's so hard. Our evolution essentially biases us towards being overweight or obese.

I use the app My Fitness Pal. It's allowed me to drop my BMI 5-7 points into the normal range, and keep it down, for the past 3 years. I'm all for whatever works for a given individual.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Most diets are simply ways to get people to trick themselves into eating less calories. Whether it's making a point to not eat for specific periods of time, reducing carbs, reducing fats, calorie counting, or eliminating meat, whatever....they all involve reducing the amount of calories we eat.

It's really hard to eat less than you burn, and very easy to eat a more than you burn. We you do the former, your body punishes you with the feeling of hunger. When you do the latter, there's either no signal from your body, or even a reward signal of satiety.

Food was scarce, and life expectancy low, for the majority of our evolution. Starvation was a much greater risk than complications of obesity at the end of a long life. Getting overweight or obese wasn't a luxury for most early humans, so we didn't evolve with a shutoff button, for overeating. That's why it's so hard. Our evolution essentially biases us towards being overweight or obese.

I use the app My Fitness Pal. It's allowed me to drop my BMI 5-7 points into the normal range, and keep it down, for the past 3 years. I'm all for whatever works for a given individual.

So, in your particular case, are you saying BBQ in < Running out?

 

[Birdstrike]

So, in your particular case, are you saying BBQ in < Running out?

Definitely, dude. I've got a 26.2 mile race coming up in 7 days and haven't thrown any hunks of meat on the smoker in months. Sure as hell will after next Saturday, though!

 

[Dr.Bruh]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

Yeah but my understanding is when you actually look at the literature in which these diets are all compared and calories are equated there is no difference in weight loss. Which suggests that any success with any one of these diets is likely do that that person just being in total calorie deficit. There isn't anything magic or intrinsic about any of these diets that makes one better than the other. Assuming you're in a caloric deficit an individual should just use whatever diet method is most sustainable and easy for them to adhere too.

 

[Matthew9Thirtyfive]

I do IF. I eat from the time I wake up until about 3 hours before bed, and then I fast. Technically that’s intermittent.

 

[partypantss]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

"The calorie deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked?" Care to expand on that? Since I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim here. I'm pretty certain that any human that eats less calories than they use on a day to day basis is going to lose weight. How can this be debunked? Plenty of people have lost large amounts of weight by simply eating less than they use. How could someone possibly not?

 

[sloh]

"The calorie deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked?" Care to expand on that? Since I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim here. I'm pretty certain that any human that eats less calories than they use on a day to day basis is going to lose weight. How can this be debunked? Plenty of people have lost large amounts of weight by simply eating less than they use. How could someone possibly not?

It's hardly been debunked. Gary Taubes is not a reliable source for nutrition. Even in the natural bodybuilding community (who have to get absolutely shredded and peeled) he's considered a fool.

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject's dietary intake was immediately cut in half to about 1,560 kilocalories per day. During the starvation period, the subjects received two meals per day designed to induce the same level of nutritional stress for each participant. Since each subject had distinct metabolic characteristics, the diet of each man was adjusted throughout the starvation period to produce roughly a 25% total weight loss over the 24-week period."

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67361733102-1/fulltext

"total diet replacement (825–853 kcal/day formula diet for 3–5 months).

At 12 months, we recorded weight loss of 15 kg or more in 36 (24%) participants in the intervention group and no participants in the control group (p<0·0001). Diabetes remission was achieved in 68 (46%) participants in the intervention group and six (4%) participants in the control group (odds ratio 19·7, 95% CI 7·8–49·8; p<0·0001). Remission varied with weight loss in the whole study population, with achievement in none of 76 participants who gained weight, six (7%) of 89 participants who maintained 0–5 kg weight loss, 19 (34%) of 56 participants with 5–10 kg loss, 16 (57%) of 28 participants with 10–15 kg loss, and 31 (86%) of 36 participants who lost 15 kg or more.

Our findings show that, at 12 months, almost half of participants achieved remission to a non-diabetic state and off antidiabetic drugs. Remission of type 2 diabetes is a practical target for primary care."

 

[Birdstrike]

"The calorie deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked?" Care to expand on that? Since I'm not really sure what you're trying to claim here. I'm pretty certain that any human that eats less calories than they use on a day to day basis is going to lose weight. How can this be debunked? Plenty of people have lost large amounts of weight by simply eating less than they use. How could someone possibly not?

Eating too much will cause one to gain weight. Not eating enough will cause one to lose weight. Doing either, whether purposeful or due to neglect, will have the predicted consequence. Anyone claiming to have "debunked" this likely has a book, diet plan or some other fad to sell.

 

[turkeyjerky]

As I'm sure that there are a decent number of people on the board who adhere to IF/TRF, I'm curious how others reconcile this with the irregular hours we work?

I've lost a substantial (eg 15-20 lbs) two or three times in my life using a one meal a day eating plan (during college after the freshman 15 and during 3rd year of residency) and for the past several years I've done this occaisionally for a month or two whenever I notice my weight starting to creep up again. However, I always have trouble at work on overnight or early morning shifts (eg times I typically would not be either eating or awake at home).

 

[partypantss]

Eating too much will cause one to gain weight. Not eating enough will cause one to lose weight. Doing either, whether purposeful or due to neglect, will have the predicted consequence. Anyone claiming to have "debunked" this likely has a book, diet plan or some other fad to sell.

Yep. I just wanted to hear that poster's explanation lol What a ridiculous thing to try claiming.

 

[Apollyon]

Hey, go on the starvation diet - none of the food you like, and not at any of the time you want it. The kilos melt off like magic!

 

[HoosierdaddyO]

Personally a really big fan of true IF or time restricted eating... the science and physiology behind it all just makes sense. I sometimes can go for a few months before my lifestyle gets all messed up and stressed and then I just start the “see-food” diet”. But when personally doing IF which was a 20 hour fast and 4 hour feast, after the first few weeks which can be rough and grumpy and hungry... you really start seeing the changes plus out of no where your food cravings just disappear... you don’t even really think about food... so many amazing podcasts on YouTube by real PhD folks with real credentials in sports nutrition and physiology etc. the enemy is sugar and insulin. Sugar spikes which then cause insulin spikes and all of the unhealthy sequelae from having these insulin crest and troughs throughout the day!!! No one thing works for everyone, but IF def works for me... and if done right you’re essentially in a pretty constant stat of ketosis and lipolysis

 

[partypantss]

There was a great review article I saw about a year ago on NEJM that delved into the huge range of health benefits they've been finding associated with intermittent fasting. Really worth looking at if at all interested in the topic. Some of this stuff is so crazy it would sound like total BS if it wasn't coming from a place like NEJM. Improved cognition, longevity, better response to cancer therapys, reduced neurodegen, better surgical recovery, stuff is nuts if even half of this is true.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmra1905136

 

[Brigade4Radiant]

I lost 65 lbs on intermittent fasting so I’m a big fan.

 

[DoctwoB]

Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and Other Parameters in Patients With Overweight and Obesity

This randomized clinical trial examines the effect of 16:8-hour time-restricted eating on weight loss and metabolic risk markers.

jamanetwork.com

A lot of the benefits of fasting have been seen more in pre-clinical then clinical studies. As seen above in what is probably the best clinical trial (albeit limited), Weight loss is similar to regular calorie restriction.

My 2cents are I agree with some of the above posters. Weight loss comes down to maintaining a persistent caloric deficit. Many of the diets that people swear by are tools to reach that end. Whole foods? You get more satiated with 500cal of chicken and broccoli and quinoa then 500cal of pasta. Paleo? Same. Keto? same + possible benefits of ketosis increasing satiety and reducing hunger. Intermittent fasting? By restricting eating window many will reduce calories. A lot of the things that people talk about (insulin levels, glycemic index, etc etc etc) are factors that effect hunger, but ultimately what matters is what you put in your mouth. I think any or all of these diets are fine, but we are all different individuals and proselytizing one of these as gospel is foolish, it's all about what works best for you and is sustainable.

There probably are some benefits to periodic fasting (especially longer periods) and longer term calorie restriction based on non-human data, but proving them with a years/decades long human trial would be near impossible when accounting for adherence. Which brings me to the next point, which is nutrition research is for the most part a pile of steaming garbage, with poor adherence, small sample sizes, shoddy statistics, and short duration/follow up, so we shouldn't be dogmatic about anything since our pile of data is so poor.

Personally I found that Keto helped me lose weight, but I found it hard to maintain ( I love fruit) and I never got the benefit of satiety that others got, I still had to consciously restrict calories. I currently find 5/2 or 6/1 intermittent fasting while eating reasonably low carb is the sweet spot for me of effective and sustainable. When trying to cut weight I'll do one 42 hour fast/week and one day of 500cal or less. When maintaining I'll do 1 day of 500 cal or less.

 

[bravotwozero]

Which brings me to the next point, which is nutrition research is for the most part a pile of steaming garbage, with poor adherence, small sample sizes, shoddy statistics, and short duration/follow up, so we shouldn't be dogmatic about anything since our pile of data is so poor.

Now there's something we can all agree on!

This cuts both ways though, especially with dogma peddled by medical establishment, that consuming fat is necessarily bad for you, or that otherwise healthy individuals show eat a low sodium diet. The research used to back these statements is equally shoddy.

 

[DoctwoB]

Now there's something we can all agree on!

This cuts both ways though, especially with dogma peddled by medical establishment, that consuming fat is necessarily bad for you, or that otherwise healthy individuals show eat a low sodium diet. The research used to back these statements is equally shoddy.

Agreed. Many of the longstanding dogmas are based on slim to no evidence. Some of my favorites include: Breakfast being the most important meal, fat makes you fat, dietary cholesterol as a main driver of total cholesterol, high carb/low fat as the "standard" diet, and so on.

 

[turkeyjerky]

Agreed. Many of the longstanding dogmas are based on slim to no evidence. Some of my favorites include: Breakfast being the most important meal, fat makes you fat, dietary cholesterol as a main driver of total cholesterol, high carb/low fat as the "standard" diet, and so on.

The breakfast thing is interesting. When you look into it, it basically all stems from a push by the agricultural and cereal industries to increase consumption in the early 1900s.

 

[Birdstrike]

Every year or two, a new diet trend becomes popular. It has less to do with science, than it does who's got a book, product, or diet plan to sell. It's no different than trends in other industries where people need to convince you to buy new stuff, to replace your old stuff. The goal is not to transfer something better of theirs to replace something inferior of yours. The goals is to transfer your money to wallet of theirs. This year's "best thing ever," is next year's "not good enough."

 

[Birdstrike]

As someone who's in the past gained a large amount of weight and then lost it (with great difficulty) another problem I see on this subject, is that people confuse "difficulty" with "complexity."

Losing weight can be incredibly difficult. But the solution is not complex. You don't need the nutritional equivalent of rocket science to do it. It's incredibly simple. But the incredible simplicity of the solution doesn't make enacting it any less difficult.

 

[Birdstrike]

How did I lose 70 pounds and keep it off for 3 years and going?

I changed my focus from having goals, to having a system. Goals are worthless, without a system. The system needs to be the goal.

I stopped being jazzed about beer and hot wings, and got psyched about running 5K's, 10Ks, marathons and committed to a system of reduced food intake. I didn't do it for health, to "live longer" or improve my cholesterol, although those are possible side effects. I did it because the system makes me feel better, live better and enjoy life better. I set goals along the way, but I remind myself daily, adhering to the system daily is more important than any goal along the way. If the system gets off the rails, no problem; I get back on track as soon as I can. Mission accomplished. Any day I'm on my system is a victory. If I happen to beat the neighborhood cross-country runner-kid at the local 5K, that's great. If not, it doesn't matter, because I'm feeling better and living better.

 

[DoctwoB]

How did I lose 70 pounds and keep it off for 3 years and going?

I changed my focus from having goals, to having a system. Goals are worthless, without a system. The system needs to be the goal.

I stopped being jazzed about beer and hot wings, and got psyched about running 5K's, 10Ks, marathons and committed to a system of reduced food intake. I didn't do it for health, to "live longer" or improve my cholesterol, although those are possible side effects. I did it because the system makes me feel better, live better and enjoy life better. I set goals along the way, but I remind myself daily, adhering to the system daily is more important than any goal along the way. If the system gets off the rails, no problem; I get back on track as soon as I can. Mission accomplished. Any day I'm on my system is a victory. If I happen to beat the neighborhood cross-country runner-kid at the local 5K, that's great. If not, it doesn't matter, because I'm feeling better and living better.

It's funny though, as in the prior post you decry fad diets while in the next post you talk about the importance of having a system that regulates food intake. What is Intermittent fasting or ketogenic diet or whole foods or whole30 or paleo or (insert diet here) if not a system that you live by that limits your caloric intake? I think any diet that is sustainable that leads to reduced caloric intake (and ideally consumption of whole/healthyish foods) is a good one, and that will be variable person to person.

Congrats on the weight loss BTW.

 

[dadaddadaBATMAN]

Yep. I just wanted to hear that poster's explanation lol What a ridiculous thing to try claiming.

To be clear I don't agree with the idea that calories in calories out is a myth, If you take a person and an identical clone and give one more caloric intake, the high intake one will end up heavier. but I do agree with the general sentiment that it is more complicated than that.

To start, calories in, calories out ignores multiple complications a more nuanced model takes into account.

Shove calories into a kid with a short gut and you'll get a nutritionally rich mixture of stool out the other end.
Shove calories into a kid with type 1 diabetes (who magically didn't die from dka or dehydration) and they won't gain a ton of weight.

Calories stored is the important part for gaining or losing weight. This could be abstracted from calories in, calories absorbed, calories stored, calories wasted, calories used. More complicated models would also include behavior like hunger, food seeking behavior, and various psychological aspects contributing to eating.


On a more practical note, it doesn't matter what your mode or treatment is if it doesn't work when it's applied. Usain Bolt could run 30mph for a brief stretch at his peak during a 100m. The fact that it's possible doesn't mean that it's practical or easily achievable for most people. While eating a few hundred calories less a day is not the same as being an olympian, it flatly doesn't seem to work on the majority of people who end up noncompliant.

Saying calories in, calories out with a smirk on my face while I run a marathon or lift weights might make me feel morally superior to the "stupid" people who can't get as thin as I am, but it doesn't solve a major public health problem. The diets you are making fun of seem to have addressed some of the behavioral aspects for some people, even if they don't work for everyone.

From a personal perspective, I followed a ketogenic diet for a few months to lose weight I gained in college and found it useful. I did not mind the high fat aspect, and it seemed like I got fewer migraines, though that might have been a placebo effect.

I still follow a pretty sugar restricted diet (typically <30g a day of actual sugar), and few things have made me feel better. I do eat a bunch of saturated fats, but I think the research indicating this is a problem is mostly garbage, although that could be said for most nutritional data (through no fault of the nutritionists, but rather their subjects).

 

[Birdstrike]

It's funny though, as in the prior post you decry fad diets while in the next post you talk about the importance of having a system that regulates food intake. What is Intermittent fasting or ketogenic diet or whole foods or whole30 or paleo or (insert diet here) if not a system that you live by that limits your caloric intake? I think any diet that is sustainable that leads to reduced caloric intake (and ideally consumption of whole/healthyish foods) is a good one, and that will be variable person to person.

Congrats on the weight loss BTW.

I think you misunderstood my point. My point was not to "decry" any particular diet. Whatever works, works. My point was that the ones that work all have a common thread of reducing the amount of caloric content one eats. The point is, there's not really such thing as a "fad diet." There are only diets that work for you and diets that don't. The so called fad diets either cause you to eat less, or they don't.

In my opinion, there's no magic sauce that allows one to hit the easy button, then lose weight and keep it off. But if using the "latest greatest" diet works for someone, then I'm all for it. And if believing there is something special about a particular diet helps someone commit, then I'm okay with that too. Whatever works. What I don't think is likely to work, is the belief that there's some magic diet out there that will make it easy. And that's what most of them sell.

But that's just my opinion, based on what worked for me. If you have an equally effective system for yourself, I'm all for it.

 

[Birdstrike]

From a personal perspective, I followed a ketogenic diet for a few months to lose weight I gained in college and found it useful. I did not mind the high fat aspect, and it seemed like I got fewer migraines, though that might have been a placebo effect.

I still follow a pretty sugar restricted diet (typically <30g a day of actual sugar), and few things have made me feel better. I do eat a bunch of saturated fats, but I think the research indicating this is a problem is mostly garbage, although that could be said for most nutritional data (through no fault of the nutritionists, but rather their subjects).

I know you weren't responding to me, but I'm going to answer anyways. In other words, you're saying you found a system which works for you, that took some commitment, that some people might want to try, that might work for some, but might not work for everyone. That's awesome. You found a system that works for you. There's no shame in that game.

But it doesn't sound like it came with a magic easy button. That's my point. Not that "everyone should run a marathon" or "do exactly what I do." What I do wouldn't work for 99.9% of people. My point is that people should find something that works for them, expecting that what works is going to look a lot like work.

But that's only my opinion. It's worth what you're paying for it.

 

[Fart Daddy Smooth]

Can't say i agree with the chart. At least some of those diets aren't focused on cutting calories, and there's no evidence that people consuming them are in 'caloric deficits'. The caloric deficit theory of weight loss has been debunked, and shown to be unsuccessful in the long run.

Eliminating whole groups of foods will likely reduce caloric intake over the long term. Any successful weight loss plan intends to have you eat less, it's tautological. They just differ in their approach. Many paths to the top of Mt Fuji, and all that

On topic: I lost 40 college pounds about 10 years ago and kept them off thanks to IF. Feel great too. But the advocates have become so annoying I just say " I'm not hungry in the morning andfeel better this way" when asked and leave it at that. I'm skeptical of the metabolic effects - to me it works because for 16+ hours you're not snacking or consuming liquid calories. Boom, that's it, no more complex than that

 

[RustedFox]

Eliminating whole groups of foods will likely reduce caloric intake over the long term. Any successful weight loss plan intends to have you eat less, it's tautological. They just differ in their approach. Many paths to the top of Mt Fuji, and all that

On topic: I lost 40 college pounds about 10 years ago and kept them off thanks to IF. Feel great too. But the advocates have become so annoying I just say " I'm not hungry in the morning andfeel better this way" when asked and leave it at that. I'm skeptical of the metabolic effects - to me it works because for 16+ hours you're not snacking or consuming liquid calories. Boom, that's it, no more complex than that

Your username gets me every time.