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.
My weight loss journey may be anecdotal, but ultimately eating less and exercising more got me to my goals. Always has. Now whether or not one sticks to it is another thing but the same can be said of any regimen when you think about it.
unfortunately eating less and healthy didn't work for me, but when I changed what I ate (paleo diet now), that works. Like you said though, what works for one doesn't mean it will work for others.
All my weight loss was from calorie restriction and exercise.
I suppose, if you take people who eat for 16 hours a day, if you restrict them to 8 hours of eating time, you would see a difference, but I suspect, they are eating less calories.
I tried fasting for a couple weeks, mainly to see if it would help with blood sugar (it didn't), and no weight change.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
It is significant, at least to me, that in the realm of ideas, if new evidence is found which contradicts old ideas, the new should at least be considered. Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi's research on Autophagy was only given the Nobel Prize two years ago. That's a very short time, but already probably thousands of people have tried fasting and it's free, after all; there are no fees associated with doing it, nothing that must be purchased, and your food bill is also substantially lower.
Comparing the old language to the newer model, a few ideas might bear re-examining:
1. A calorie is a calorie: no, it's not. Thinking in terms of what you eat and more importantly, when you eat is a more effective means of succeeding in weight loss;
2. Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, calorie restrictive diets do not work long term, but result in around +/- 98% failure rate. And yet, doctors keep telling people to follow this "eat less/exercise more" model and blame the patient when it doesn't work. Patients also blame themselves when the reality is, the failure is not some sort of character flaw, but a function of insulin and metabolism.
Change is hard, but repeating the old ways of perceiving this problem is not helping anyone. My sense is that these newer tools are the answer to the obesity epidemic, though actually, fasting has been around forever--we just now know how it works.
The physiology of the human body has not changed in 40,000 years.
I have participated in intermittent fasting, unknowingly for DECADES because I do not feel well if I eat during the day. In the past 20 years my weight has fluctuated wildly and dramatically. For me it does not matter what I eat as long as I keep my calorie intake at about 1500 I will maintain my desired weight. Any more than that and the creep begins. I find that I feel MUCH more satisfied with plenty of animal fat which keeps me fuller longer.
Also for me, going to bed early helps cut down on dangerous "snack time" issues.
So why do people who question calorie reduction as a reliable weight loss method claim that the body goes into starvation mode and slows down the metabolism? I mean, I'd think starvation mode would kick in after a day or so, no?
It takes longer. There's a short kick in energy expenditure and then it falls off. Whether or not achieving a chronic deficit via 16:8 or 20:4 is any different than a standard three meals a day though, that's the question. That's the supposition of IF, but there's no scientific support for it or the claims of increased autophagy. Sure, in mice there's studies. It happens in 24-48 hours in mice. But mice aren't humans. You can't just get a couple hundred humans and put them in a cage with no food and take a few out and dissect them to see what their organs and tissues look like at a cellular level over time spent fasting. I mean, it seems highly improbable that 16:8 in a human would do anything at all when it doesn't in a mouse. Mice are much less adapted to periods of starvation than humans. Most humans can go at least ten days without any major consequences. Mice cannot.
Need a different way. I posted a study that was looking at biological markers from blood draws. It didn't really show a lot though. In mice there were elevated markers in blood plasma at 24-48 hours, which corresponds to the time frame that autophagy does occur in mice verifiable by dissection. In humans those same markers were identifiable in blood plasma in 2-4 days. That could mean doing a 4 day fast every month or so would be a good way of increasing autophagy without chronic caloric deficit. Or they could just be incidental findings.
Also, important to note that autophagy is really about caloric reduction. Fasting was just a way of accomplishing it. When there's a sufficient deficit for a long enough period, the cellular life cycle changes. Division slows down and they spend more time "cleaning house" so to speak. There's a lot of benefits (and a few drawbacks) to that, so it would overall be positive if you could not be in a chronic caloric deficit and trick the body into thinking you were by just not eating for an extra 4-6 hours a day more than a normal three meals a day person does. I don't think it's likely but it would be nice.
Also, important to note that autophagy is really about caloric reduction. Fasting was just a way of accomplishing it. When there's a sufficient deficit for a long enough period, the cellular life cycle changes. Division slows down and they spend more time "cleaning house" so to speak. There's a lot of benefits (and a few drawbacks) to that, so it would overall be positive if you could not be in a chronic caloric deficit and trick the body into thinking you were by just not eating for an extra 4-6 hours a day more than a normal three meals a day person does. I don't think it's likely but it would be nice.
That's what I've been saying all along. It doesn't matter which way you cut it, weight loss can only be achieved if there is a caloric defecit. Which way or how you achieve that is up to you, but at the end of the day if you take in more than what your body needs then you will gain weight. If you eat two 700 calorie meals a day within X period, you're losing not because you ate during a window but because you're eating less than what your body needs to maintain your weight, and you're doing that on a daily basis. Some people like to feel super full twice a day, others prefer a series of mini meals. Which is better can only be determined by you and if eating twice a day helps you stick to a weight loss regimen then that's great.
Congratulations on your success. Statistically you may be in of the two percent that succeed by simply eating less and exercising more. However, should health professionals advise patients to do this if only two percent succeed longterm? Imagine the uproar if a prescription drug only worked two percent of the time. That drug would be yanked from the market.
The alternative? Permanment habit change such as time restricted feeding in which the habit causes people to eat less naturally. My method is the 20-4 where I eat all meals within a four hour window daily. I found that I naturally eat less doing this because I am just not hungry. This has the added benefit of a daily 20 hour fast - triggering a host of benefits such as fat burning, insulin reduction, and autophagy.
Thank you. What you don't realize is that you ARE eating less if you're losing. If the "restrictive feedings" help keep you on track, then that's good. But you're losing because you are eating less.
Diets in general have a high failure rate. Many people innately want to eat as much as they want and not really want to be active. There are exceptions of course but I initially failed because quite simply I stopped watching what I ate, returned to overeating, and didn't do any exercise. Once I became truly committed to weight loss, however, I was completely dialed in and the pounds steadily came off. In 9 months, I lost 70 lbs, surpassing my original goal of 60. I watch what I eat and religiously work out and that's what's helped me have a renaissance - I'm fitter than ever and I'm as lean as I have ever been in a decade. While I do watch calories, I do not obsess over macros and I indulge weekly. People ask me what did I do to lose the weight and I'm honest when I say that I practice portion control and I am far more active.
It is significant, at least to me, that in the realm of ideas, if new evidence is found which contradicts old ideas, the new should at least be considered. Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi's research on Autophagy was only given the Nobel Prize two years ago. That's a very short time, but already probably thousands of people have tried fasting and it's free, after all; there are no fees associated with doing it, nothing that must be purchased, and your food bill is also substantially lower.
Comparing the old language to the newer model, a few ideas might bear re-examining:
1. A calorie is a calorie: no, it's not. Thinking in terms of what you eat and more importantly, when you eat is a more effective means of succeeding in weight loss;
2. Despite anecdotal claims to the contrary, calorie restrictive diets do not work long term, but result in around +/- 98% failure rate. And yet, doctors keep telling people to follow this "eat less/exercise more" model and blame the patient when it doesn't work. Patients also blame themselves when the reality is, the failure is not some sort of character flaw, but a function of insulin and metabolism.
Change is hard, but repeating the old ways of perceiving this problem is not helping anyone. My sense is that these newer tools are the answer to the obesity epidemic, though actually, fasting has been around forever--we just now know how it works.
Eating less ( and watching the daily total caloric count), and increasing my exercise levels have always been my most successful route for losing weight. Nothing dramatic, just better food dietary choices, with a splurge allowed once in a while, this becomes more of a life style choice instead of a "diet" , and this has been the most successful method for me to lose weight and keep it off.
So why do people who question calorie reduction as a reliable weight loss method claim that the body goes into starvation mode and slows down the metabolism? I mean, I'd think starvation mode would kick in after a day or so, no?
Here's an explanation from Dr. Fung on the starvation mode myth. Note the bolded text.
Quote:
The other persistent myth of ‘starvation mode’ is that basal metabolism decreases severely and our bodies ‘shut down’. This too is highly disadvantageous to survival of the human species. If, after a single day of fasting, metabolism decreased, then we would have less energy to hunt or gather food. With less energy, we are less likely to get food. So, another day passes, and we are even weaker, making us even less likely to get food. This is a vicious cycle that the human species would not have survived. It’s stupid. Why would we assume the human body is so stupid? There are, in fact, no species of animals, humans included that are evolved to require three meals a day, everyday. We have already seen in a previous post that resting energy expenditure (REE) goes UP, not down during fasting. Metabolism revs up; it does not shut down.
It’s unclear to me where this myth originated. Daily caloric restriction leads to decreased metabolism so people assumed that this would simply be magnified as food intake dropped to zero. This is wrong. If you rely on food for energy, then decreasing food will lead to decreased energy intake, which will be matched by decreased energy expenditure. However, as food intake goes to zero, the body switches energy inputs from food to stored food (fat). This significantly increases the availability of ‘food’ and this is matched by an increase in energy expenditure.
Brad, I've searched online more than a little bit and it appears that the time frame for autophagy is unclear. It seems like a number of factors are involved, but one source says 12 hours into a fast. I'm hoping that is the way it works in my case as I'm doing 22:2, thus after 12 hours of fasting I'd get around 10 hours where autophagy might occur. Other sources say 36 hours or I think 45 hours. . .?
Can you speak to this? I had Stage 1A ovarian cancer seven years ago and I'm not wanting it to ever return in some other spot. [I'm not trying to be funny, but the *ovarian* cancer can't return because I don't have any ovaries any more. However, once you've been through something like that, every time you stub your toe, you think the cancer has returned.]
Kara, I'm not an expert, but this is from google:
"Autophagy is also achievable through intermittent fasting just as easily as longer fasts. Autophagy begins when liver glycogen is depleted, around 12-16 hours into a fast. The rate of autophagy peaks there, and then drops after about 2 days."
Also, there is some evidence that fasting for at least 13 hours a night reduces breast cancer recurrence by 36 percent.
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.
Autophagy
