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.
One of my violin students is a physician, and I asked him about Intermittent Fasting. This is not his specialization so naturally he would repeat what (little) he was taught regarding nutrition in med school. I wanted to run it by everyone.
He mentioned metabolism. If you don't eat, the body slows down. And I have noticed that on the rare occasions when I eat a bit at lunch, I do seem to lose more. What is this about?
One of my violin students is a physician, and I asked him about Intermittent Fasting. This is not his specialization so naturally he would repeat what (little) he was taught regarding nutrition in med school. I wanted to run it by everyone.
He mentioned metabolism. If you don't eat, the body slows down. And I have noticed that on the rare occasions when I eat a bit at lunch, I do seem to lose more. What is this about?
This is false. When you restrict calories and eat regularly metabolism slows down, that is proven as with many of the biggest loser contestants. I was watching a video the other day where they interviewing one of the biggest loser contestants. He stated that while he was on the program, they would work out up to 40 hours a week, ouch. Once he lost the weight, went home and went back to his regular life, he gained a lot of the weight right back with a vengeance, not being able to sustain the same level of exercise and he was still eating right. This is documented not just with this one guy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535969
When you DON'T eat at all, metabolism actually speeds up for up to 4 days. This mechanism is innate in all humans. When ancient man (cavemen) did not have anything to eat for an extended period, he needed the capability to find food. Yet again, it is a hormone that is responsible for this, serum norepinephrine. I had never even heard of this. Of course, IF is not extended fasting, but the process starts after a certain number of hours, not days.
This is false. When you restrict calories and eat regularly metabolism slows down, that is proven as with many of the biggest loser contestants. I was watching a video the other day where they interviewing one of the biggest loser contestants. He stated that while he was on the program, they would work out up to 40 hours a week, ouch. Once he lost the weight, went home and went back to his regular life, he gained a lot of the weight right back with a vengeance, not being able to sustain the same level of exercise and he was still eating right. This is documented not just with this one guy. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22535969
When you DON'T eat at all, metabolism actually speeds up for up to 4 days. This mechanism is innate in all humans. When ancient man (cavemen) did not have anything to eat for an extended period, he needed the capability to find food. Yet again, it is a hormone that is responsible for this, serum norepinephrine. I had never even heard of this. Of course, IF is not extended fasting, but the process starts after a certain number of hours, not days.
I lose weight like crazy every time I go on a fast that's longer than 24 hrs.
I fast 23 hours a day, but sometimes if I eat a small amount at lunch time, I seem to lose more in the next 48 hours. I wonder if this is related to a slowed metabolism.
Just a pound and some ounces, not a lot.
Last edited by KaraZetterberg153; 03-07-2019 at 05:11 PM..
The problem is if you're losing weight you're doing so by restricting calories. What effect the same CR has when eating three times a day versus OMAD is really just speculative since there's just not much data on that. E.g., if you do 5/2 IF which results in caloric restriction does the metabolic effect effectively reset every time you eat? Maybe, but that's speculative. There's more studies on LC and not LC. LC results in initial weight loss but over the course of a year, there's no statistical difference between LC and non-LC diet. There's just not the same data set for IF.
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.
