[dead]
Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
41–50 of 169 posts
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#42The intermittent fasting group adhered to the prescribed eating interval 6.1 days per week. In the calorie restriction group, 68 percent achieved the calorie reduction target over six months. The intermittent fasting group lost more weight, reducing body weight by an average of 3.56 percent in six months, which was significant. Under calorie restriction, body weight fell by an average of 1.78 percent, which was not s…
You should change the title to more accurately reflect that. The first question someone has when reading that title is "effective at what?" and there's room in the title for it to say so without the reader having to click through.
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#43“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…
The only challenge of intermittent fasting for the masses if anyone happens to need to take medication in the morning that requires some food. Moving the eating window isn't always ideal.
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've done both. I can attest that intermittent fasting, at least for me, is WAY more sustainable ... and actually makes maintaining a calorie deficit easier too. 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 le…
It's very interesting once you experiment with it. I had a much easier time fasting between 8pm -> 5pm, then from 8pm to noon.
I've not really tried fasting, at least not deliberately. I do notice that the times I get hungry differ depending on whether I'm at home or at work. Expectation of when you are going to eat does seem to factor into it somehow.
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#45If you're a diabetic like me I'd recommend don't do intermittent fasting. I almost died. My blood sugar goes from 300+ to 50ish some days and when I tried this I never felt hunger. I felt like I was about to slip in a coma all day.
That's interesting! How long were your fasts?
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#46In my homeless youth I intermittently fasted out of no choice. I was really skinny.
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#47Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction
It's not, but the title is extremely misleading. You MUST be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. What the study shows is that simply by doing intermittent fasting, people naturally tend to eat fewer total calories per day, and can end up in a caloric deficit. 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…
Good to note it's not impossible to be in a calorie deficit and not lose weight. Lipedema for instance makes it impossible to lose fat on the legs and arms. Hard to get a diagnostic for it too. Other than that your comment is right, you can also not lose weight when doing IF, it's all about calories in calories out.
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#48“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've done both. I can attest that intermittent fasting, at least for me, is WAY more sustainable ... and actually makes maintaining a calorie deficit easier too. 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 le…
Years ago I did some experimenting on myself, including increasing to gain weight, and at least for me hunger seems to mostly be a function of relative emptiness from recent maximum fullness.
Sounds odd, but let's say I filled my stomach to 90% of my total capacity, then a few hours later I've digested down to 45% capacity and that's when I get hungry. That's -50% of the last maximum. If I spend a week or two restricting what I ate to a maximum of 60% capacity, I'd only get hungry around 30%, also -50%. But with less total calories eaten.
(numbers made up just to give an idea what it felt like)
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think for a lot of people (me included), the primary advantage is in ease of measurement. It's hard to count calories accurately. It's very easy to look at the clock and determine if it's between 1300-1900 hours
That's Time Restricted Feeding, which is not quite the same as intermittent fasting. An example would be doing a 36 hour fast, twice per week.
And the actual title of the study is 'Effect of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss' which describes a concept that is basically the colloquial definition of intermittent fasting.
The popular term 'intermittent fasting' usually describes time restricted eating, with a fasting period usually between 16-20 hours.
Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction
#50Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction
It's not, but the title is extremely misleading. You MUST be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. What the study shows is that simply by doing intermittent fasting, people naturally tend to eat fewer total calories per day, and can end up in a caloric deficit. 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…
Personal take here -- I try to time-restrict eating. I'll brush my teeth right after dinner and essentially close off eating. Git commit. Git push. Done.
The nice thing about this is how it prevents snacking at night because you're in an "off" state that is binary. I cant trick myself into thinking a tiny bit will be OK, because any tiny bit wrecks the binary state of fasting.