Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The reason why you lose weight with ANY of those diets is due to caloric restriction. You are not very clear as to what "same calories" means because you can't eat the same amount of calories as before if you expect to lose anything. All three of those choices are valid choices for weight loss and not one of them will achieve a better loss or help you to retain any muscle. As for eating frequency, since weight loss really is all about total calories/calories expended, it doesn't matter whether you eat twice a day or six times per day. It's whatever works for the individual so that they stay sated and not overeat.
If you don't want any muscle to be lost (because your body will not discriminate), then you'll need to work out, doing exercises that promote muscle use and strength.
Lastly, that plan is the best diet - for YOU. If that worked for you, great. But there are others who have used WW and NS and have lost as well. The best diet "bar none" is what you can do FOR LIFE. Feast and famine dieting isn't something that I would do for life, neither would I remove a macro from my diet either.
"You are not very clear as to what "same calories" means because you can't eat the same amount of calories as before if you expect to lose anything."
An example:
A fat person goes on a caloric restriction regiment:
Eats a 1,000 calorie pizza in six slices, each slice representing 6 meals a day. Let's say this is their caloric balance more or less.
Same fat person, eats the entire pizza in one sitting, every 24 hours. Same calories, same macros. The person WILL lose more weight than the above strategy.
Same fat person, eats 2 pizzas in one sitting every 48 hours. Same calories, same macros. The person WILL lose more weight and faster than the above two strategies.
Same fat person, eats 7 pizzas in one sitting every week. Same calories, same macros. The person will lose weight like crazy, far more than the above. Same caloric intake, same macros.
That easy enough to understand? The reason why the lower strategies work better is because the person forces ketosis and burns body fat after the liver glycogen has been depleted (approximately 24-48 hours unless diabetic). The body will not burn body fat, even at a massive caloric deficit, so long as the liver holds glycogen reserves, meaning once carbs/sugar enter the body fat burning ends abruptly. This also is true even if you exercise until the cows come home, all exercising will do is burn the glycogen. To burn fat, you must deplete your glycogen levels first, but if you eat again before that happens, you stop burning fat immediately. It *will* burn muscle (catabolic) though.
It's all about hormones and CICO alone is kind of a dead fad.
If you want to burn off the "reserve", AKA stored fat, you have to empty the regular tank. If your "reserve" is huge, you have to run on empty for longer. It's that simple. If you keep topping off your tank you will never get to the reserve, ever. This is why "calories in, calories out" is not always the case and is important at the same time. If you don't burn off what you eat, where does it go? The reserve.
It's a little more complicated than that and yes, hormones have a lot to do with it but that's the gist of it.
"You are not very clear as to what "same calories" means because you can't eat the same amount of calories as before if you expect to lose anything."
An example:
A fat person goes on a caloric restriction regiment:
Eats a 1,000 calorie pizza in six slices, each slice representing 6 meals a day. Let's say this is their caloric balance more or less.
Same fat person, eats the entire pizza in one sitting, every 24 hours. Same calories, same macros. The person WILL lose more weight than the above strategy.
Same fat person, eats 2 pizzas in one sitting every 48 hours. Same calories, same macros. The person WILL lose more weight and faster than the above two strategies.
Same fat person, eats 7 pizzas in one sitting every week. Same calories, same macros. The person will lose weight like crazy, far more than the above. Same caloric intake, same macros.
That easy enough to understand? The reason why the lower strategies work better is because the person forces ketosis and burns body fat after the liver glycogen has been depleted (approximately 24-48 hours unless diabetic). The body will not burn body fat, even at a massive caloric deficit, so long as the liver holds glycogen reserves, meaning once carbs/sugar enter the body fat burning ends abruptly. This also is true even if you exercise until the cows come home, all exercising will do is burn the glycogen. To burn fat, you must deplete your glycogen levels first, but if you eat again before that happens, you stop burning fat immediately. It *will* burn muscle (catabolic) though.
It's all about hormones and CICO alone is kind of a dead fad.
I never knew that CICO was a fad to begin with. It's not like it's some sort of diet plan, it's the law of thermodynamics that really hasn't been debunked. I've read all of what you posted before (as it's been posted here countless times by other people) but at the end of the day it is CICO, whether you care to admit it or not.
BTW, I've lost a lot of weight, including body fat, without fasting, being in ketosis, or doing any of that stuff. What you wrote about exercise is not true because if you work out at a decent intensity, incorporating strength training and cardio, you can easily deplete whatever glycogen stores you have and your body turns to fat. That glycogen retention thing obviously didn't happen with me and I'm sure I'm no outlier. Strength training helps you to retain muscle. In fact, I am pretty muscular and my body fat is at 22.6% (down from a much higher number).
As for rate of weight loss, we're not in a race here. I lost 70 lbs, it took me about a year, but I've kept it off for more than a year. I'm strong, fit, and better than I've been in years (including my golden 20s). I "exercise til the cows come home" to have a great body, with definition, not just to be thin.
Again, if your plan worked for you, great. It's not the only way to achieve weight loss goals.
I never knew that CICO was a fad to begin with. It's not like it's some sort of diet plan, it's the law of thermodynamics that really hasn't been debunked. I've read all of what you posted before (as it's been posted here countless times by other people) but at the end of the day it is CICO, whether you care to admit it or not.
BTW, I've lost a lot of weight, including body fat, without fasting, being in ketosis, or doing any of that stuff. What you wrote about exercise is not true because if you work out at a decent intensity, incorporating strength training and cardio, you can easily deplete whatever glycogen stores you have and your body turns to fat. That glycogen retention thing obviously didn't happen with me and I'm sure I'm no outlier. Strength training helps you to retain muscle. In fact, I am pretty muscular and my body fat is at 22.6% (down from a much higher number).
As for rate of weight loss, we're not in a race here. I lost 70 lbs, it took me about a year, but I've kept it off for more than a year. I'm strong, fit, and better than I've been in years (including my golden 20s). I "exercise til the cows come home" to have a great body, with definition, not just to be thin.
Again, if your plan worked for you, great. It's not the only way to achieve weight loss goals.
This. Many roads to get to the finish line, which isn't really a finish line, but a jumping off point to how you will maintain the weight loss. You and I both are living proof that you can eat from all the food groups and not only lose weight, but keep it off as well.
I said CICO alone, and yes it is a fad by itself because we are biological beings, not physical ones. That's why I said weight loss is a product of calories, macros and eating frequency. Fasting is huge now because of the eating frequency, and keto is hip now because of the macros. Combine the two (or three) and you are an unstoppable machine.
This. Many roads to get to the finish line, which isn't really a finish line, but a jumping off point to how you will maintain the weight loss. You and I both are living proof that you can eat from all the food groups and not only lose weight, but keep it off as well.
Yes.
I can't even bother going into the scientific mumbo jumbo as I'm a layperson. I just go by what worked for me and what continues to work. For me, it's all about calorie management and exercise management. Having a good balance between the two.
So I'm just meddling around watching Youtube and this commercial comes on with this guy that has ripped abs. He puts on a demonstration with hot frying pan and melting butter. So the guy claims that an idea called "intermittent fasting" is the key to weight loss and burning fat.
So basically that's his whole play. He preaches that if you wake up in the morning, not to pile on breakfast but to wait till around noon so that your body burns stored calories (fat) between that 7am-ish to noon time when you do eat lunch. Basically that's what he describes as intermittent fasting which he does claim, will lose you weight quickly.
Ok, so the guy is no expert. I do not see any credentials, or experience of him helping folks with this method so my bull**** meter is wayyy high. But of course, as always, I'll leave it up to discussion.
If you're with me and feel this is horse manure and just another money-making schemeweigh in. If on the other hand, you do believe he's onto something, also lay down your thoughts, comments, e.t.c
HS
No need to spend any $$ to try fasting. There are no meals to buy or special snacks, etc... You can buy a book I guess, although there is plenty of free info on the internet.
FWIW - fasting works great for me. I limit calories 1-2 days a week and be mindful about what I am eating the rest of the time. Plenty of veggies.
Intermittent fasting (IF) can be EXCELLENT for metabolic problems and gut bacteria issues. Ignore that guy, he's probably just trying to make money, but it can really help.
The paradox is, the same people with metabolic issues are the ones that can really have IF bite them in the butt. They become a low energy, stressed out, hormonal mess. These people generally have leptin problems.
Don't listen to some guys "rules". You don't have to do 16 hours or whatever. Gently start fasting between meals, and extend the fasting period over time. You shouldn't be eating all day anyway. One of the goals here is to get your body used to burning fat for fuel (ketosis) and getting the liver used to producing its own glucose for you. As always, your diet should be nutrient rich, to help you tide over healthily to the next meal.
One of the great things about IF is eating one or two huge healthy meals at once, as big as you want. I've found that low-carb, high-veggie, high-fat/protein meals work best to keep you full. Especially in the context of getting your body used to ketosis, while still providing a ton of energy and nutrients. Eat a big old pot roast and buttered veggies(without the potatoes), or a meaty stir-fry. That's the way to live.
I cannot agree more! IF has helped me curb my appetite. This is the very first time in months (if not years) that I stop binging! No longer crave for sweet/ sugar and junk food. Feeling so great! Amazing results!
Fasting beyond the normal overnight period absolutely wouldn't work for me. I need fuel for my workouts. I'll get faint and my workouts will be impaired. A person can, if they try hard enough, make their body adapt to anything, but the starve and gorge cycle would seriously mess me up.
Location: Finally the house is done and we are in Port St. Lucie!
3,488 posts, read 3,336,268 times
Reputation: 9913
I don't gorge after fasting for 16 hours. The longer the fast, the worse it is on the body to actually gorge.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
