21–30 of 169 posts
Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction
Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.
Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction
Please people, do not simply think that intermittent fasting makes you lose weight. If you still have a propensity to eat junk food or just a lot of food even in fasting windows, you could still be gaining weight or staying at maintenance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.
Intermittent fasting that leads to weight loss is a form of calorie restriction.
(There are zero studies that show that time restricted eating causes a greater weight loss effect compared to other eating plans when calorie deficit is equated between the groups)
“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.
As someone who has been doing, IF for 11 years and has moved to OMAD (more or less) I’d say…not really Yeah, you might gorge yourself on occasion and have one our two day surplus, but it’s not something that anyone would regularly do because it’s not only uncomfortable, but it also messes with your gut. So in function while you’re correct, it is possible theoretically to ingest the same calories in a tiny window of e…
But it works only if junk food and processed foods are stopped.
“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…
Hunger is a weird thing. People tend to assume that if you don't eat you'll just get hungrier and hungrier. The reality is that hunger comes in waves. If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. And the longer you don't eat, the less hungrier you get. I think this is because those waves of hunger tend to correspond to your eating habits. So if you're accustomed to eating lunch, you feel hungry around lunch time etc.
After a period of adaptation, when this just becomes the new normal, you can find that when it comes time to eat you just don't want to eat all that much either. It's weird, but cool, and seems to work well for a lot of people.
Then there is metabolic adaptation, which is thought to be the biggest contributor to people re-gaining any weight that they've lost. What happens is that after dropping around 10% of your body mass, your body kicks in a survival mechanism whereby it lowers your resting metabolic rate to adapt and try to slow the weight loss. This means that two people who weigh the exact same, one of which just dropped a bunch of weight to get there, will require different caloric intakes just to maintain their weight. The person who just cut weight will need 300 - 400 fewer calories per day than the person who didn't.
If you cut weight just by caloric restriction alone, this is DISASTROUS, because you are hungry and weak and miserable ... and you need to eat even less just to keep the weight off.
Which is why crash diets don't work. You start by making sacrifices, which is uncomfortable, and then when metabolic adaptation kicks in you stop seeing results unless you make even more sacrifices. People can't stick with it so they stop dieting and very quickly and easily regain the weight.
Intermittent fasting not only helps with hunger control, but there is research that suggests that it can also increase resting metabolic rate, which can help to counteract metabolic adaptation.
But even if it didn't boost RMR, the fact that it helps with hunger control and maintaining a calorie deficit alone would make it more sustainable for more people than just trying to eat less in general.
Not surprised. I have been doing intermittent fasting combined with increased cardio activity, significantly reducing sugar intake (only source is from fruits and occasional/once a month indulgences) , and mild increase in fish consumption while reducing beef consumption. So far, 20 lb weight loss in 3-4 month period. Cholesterol levels were “borderline” prior to weight loss (no statins Rx’d). Fasting glucose normal.…
At the end of the day, it’s all about the numbers — my intake is 1600kcal, and estimated expenditure is 2240kcal – and whatever makes it easy to stick to the plan. For me it’s ice cream.
I'm curious what the result would be if you add a cheatmeal every 3-4 days.
Note: This is regulated by leptin as far as I know - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin
> Leptin’s main function is to help regulate the long-term balance between your body’s food intake and energy use (expenditure). Leptin helps inhibit (prevent) hunger and regulate energy balance so that your body doesn’t trigger a hunger response when it doesn’t need energy (calories).
As far as I'm aware. Eating less for a longer time and you're body will reduce energy expenditure and etc..
PS. If you want to lose weight, you want your energy expenditure to be as high as possible ;)
PS2. Not an expert. Read a lot about it and this seemed to theory seemed to fit my practical experience with losing weight ( -25 kg. in about 6 months. | from > 100 kg to ~ 77kg )
I think I found the original source: https://bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/bodyweight-regulation...
“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…
I don't believe it's as simple as what's the net -ve because with TRE the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) does not reduce like with calorie restricted eating, so the net -ve is higher with TRE even when the calorie intake is the same. Also, reducing the BMR has other negative effects because the body does away with key repairing processes to live with the reduced availability of energy.