Merged Intermittent Fasting -- Good Idea or Not?

[EHocking]

Think of fat more as a feedback. maintaining basal metabolism isn't the only way to burn energy, and the more fat you have the less likely you are to exert a lot of energy in other activities (you are heavier, you get hot fast, and the less you do the more muscle mass you lose). Goes back to my earlier point, what and how much you eat, isn't as important is how much you burn,...at least with respect to your weight, overall health is another issue entirely.

The Mayo clinic, amongst others, would disagree with you.

Cutting calories through dietary changes seems to promote weight loss more effectively than does exercise and physical activity.
​

It is a simple observation that combining calorie restriction with exercise helps maintain the weight loss.

Again, from the Mayo,

While diet has a stronger effect on weight loss than physical activity does, physical activity, including exercise, has a stronger effect in preventing weight gain and maintaining weight loss.
... Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose 1 pound. So if you cut 500 calories from your diet each day, you'd lose about 1 pound a week (500 calories x 7 days = 3,500 calories)...
​

Crux of the diet being discussed is just that. Restricting caloric intake to 1/4 of "normal" intake 2 days a week generally will result in weight loss.
So the diet for me eating 4,000 fewer calories per week than I normally resulted in losing about 1/2kg a week - without doing anything else.

My problem with this diet is that my weight seems to have platueaued. Rather ironically, it is because I have increased my muscle mass because of the increase in hard exercise that I am also doing with the diet.

 

[Trakar]

The Mayo clinic, amongst others, would disagree with you.

Cutting calories through dietary changes seems to promote weight loss more effectively than does exercise and physical activity.
​

It is a simple observation that combining calorie restriction with exercise helps maintain the weight loss.

Again, from the Mayo,

While diet has a stronger effect on weight loss than physical activity does, physical activity, including exercise, has a stronger effect in preventing weight gain and maintaining weight loss.
... Because 3,500 calories equals about 1 pound (0.45 kilogram) of fat, you need to burn 3,500 calories more than you take in to lose 1 pound. So if you cut 500 calories from your diet each day, you'd lose about 1 pound a week (500 calories x 7 days = 3,500 calories)...
​

Crux of the diet being discussed is just that. Restricting caloric intake to 1/4 of "normal" intake 2 days a week generally will result in weight loss.
So the diet for me eating 4,000 fewer calories per week than I normally resulted in losing about 1/2kg a week - without doing anything else.

My problem with this diet is that my weight seems to have platueaued. Rather ironically, it is because I have increased my muscle mass because of the increase in hard exercise that I am also doing with the diet.

While I definitely respect the Mayo Clinic's research, I am speaking primarily about my own experiences. Restricting calories alone does very little for me other than make me tired, lethargic and irritable. Additionally, once I struggle through losing the weight I was trying to lose by caloric deprivation even meager increases in caloric intake seems to be diverted to adding the recently lost weight back on, rather than remedying the tired, lethargic and irritable feelings. I have noticed, however, that when I increase my physical activity, my moods grow increasingly positive and energetic, and I'm not near as hungry so I do tend to eat less of the empty calories even if I do eat a little bit more in my regular meals. More importantly, the fat comes off quicker and it doesn't come back unless circumstances limit my activities levels.

 

[GlennB]

Except this doesn't happen. If you measure it, overweight people have higher metabolic rates. It's not the other way around.

Here's an n=1.

Ah, OK. This was mentioned upthread but I didn't quite take it in. Interesting video, too, especially the part where she learns that blaming things on her "slow metabolism" was probably a rationalisation all along.

So is there actually anything resembling a "fast metabolism" that tends to keep certain types slim, or is it all an urban myth?

 

[The Don]

Ah, OK. This was mentioned upthread but I didn't quite take it in. Interesting video, too, especially the part where she learns that blaming things on her "slow metabolism" was probably a rationalisation all along.

So is there actually anything resembling a "fast metabolism" that tends to keep certain types slim, or is it all an urban myth?

I'm not a doctor and I do not know BUT speaking personally I consume a lot of calories and I'm comparatively slim. Part of this is due to the fact that I'm quite selective about my calories and tend to go for bulk rather then concentrated calories (not too much fat or refined sugars, quite a lot of veggies) but I burn a fair number of calories during the day because I cannot sit still. The 200, 300, 400 calories a day I burn shuffling, wriggling and waggling are probably the difference between weighing 80kg and weighing 100kg.


Maybe people with "fast metabolisms" burn a lot more calories than people who are very sedentary.

 

[MikeG]

.......My problem with this diet is that my weight seems to have platueaued. Rather ironically, it is because I have increased my muscle mass because of the increase in hard exercise that I am also doing with the diet.

There, in a nutshell, is why weight is NOT what people should be measuring. Your waist/ height ratio is the more accurate predictor of health outcomes, and a better indicator of whether you are the right size. Keep your waist (measured at the navel) down below 50% of your height.

 

[MikeG]

Religious fasting means generally total abstinance.......

No it doesn't. Religious fasts are only a variation on intermittent fasting. Ramadan involves not eating between sunrise and sunset for a month, for instance. Lent involves giving up certain foods (for a lunar month, I think).

 

[GlennB]

I'm not a doctor and I do not know BUT speaking personally I consume a lot of calories and I'm comparatively slim. Part of this is due to the fact that I'm quite selective about my calories and tend to go for bulk rather then concentrated calories (not too much fat or refined sugars, quite a lot of veggies) but I burn a fair number of calories during the day because I cannot sit still. The 200, 300, 400 calories a day I burn shuffling, wriggling and waggling are probably the difference between weighing 80kg and weighing 100kg.


Maybe people with "fast metabolisms" burn a lot more calories than people who are very sedentary.

Right, they're monumental fidgets (like me).

But, given the relatively slow rate at which moderate activity burns extra calories, it's still hard to see relentless fidgeting accounting for much.

Example, very ballpark:

My basal Kcal consumption appears to be ~85/hr
Moderate walking adds ~170/hr on top of this.
170kcal ~ a ham sandwich, thin slices and light on ham.

It would seem that upping my food intake by a thin ham sandwich per day should cover my fidgeting kcal output, leading to weight gain. Conversely, an overweight non-fidgeter could get the equivalent 'benefit' by skipping that one sandwich per day, yet it certainly seems to be much harder than that to lose weight.

 

[The Don]

Right, they're monumental fidgets (like me).

But, given the relatively slow rate at which moderate activity burns extra calories, it's still hard to see relentless fidgeting accounting for much.

Example, very ballpark:

My basal Kcal consumption appears to be ~85/hr
Moderate walking adds ~170/hr on top of this.
170kcal ~ a ham sandwich, thin slices and light on ham.

It would seem that upping my food intake by a thin ham sandwich per day should cover my fidgeting kcal output, leading to weight gain. Conversely, an overweight non-fidgeter could get the equivalent 'benefit' by skipping that one sandwich per day, yet it certainly seems to be much harder than that to lose weight.

I don't know how reliable this study is or what it considers fidgeting:

Studies done at the National Institute of Health show that fidgeters burn as many as 800 calories a day more than laid-back subjects

http://www.postbulletin.com/fidgete...cle_e0a15f65-b71b-57ef-a767-2d6e9061b08c.html

Even that one thin sandwich a day adds up over the course of the year and the non-fidgeter has to consciously not eat it, the fidgeter is burning the calories.

 

[GlennB]

I don't know how reliable this study is or what it considers fidgeting:

http://www.postbulletin.com/fidgete...cle_e0a15f65-b71b-57ef-a767-2d6e9061b08c.html

Even that one thin sandwich a day adds up over the course of the year and the non-fidgeter has to consciously not eat it, the fidgeter is burning the calories.

Ah, 800 cals, that puts a different complexion on it.

 

[Pixel42]

If that were true, then it would suggest that people could lose weight just by turning the thermostat down a few degrees, which also seems unlikely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-25849628

Central heating may make you fat, say researchers

Having the central heating on may be contributing to our ballooning waistlines, Dutch researchers suggest.

They say higher temperatures in homes, offices and hospitals provide more comfort, but mean bodies no longer need to burn extra calories to keep warm.

 

[pakeha]

^
Ninja'd yet again.

 

[eerok]

There, in a nutshell, is why weight is NOT what people should be measuring.

I agree with this.

Your waist/ height ratio is the more accurate predictor of health outcomes, and a better indicator of whether you are the right size. Keep your waist (measured at the navel) down below 50% of your height.

For me, any calculations that include height will be skewed, because I've got the Scottish build: short, very muscular legs and a long torso. (I'm 6'2" with only a 32" inseam for bicyles and 30" for pants.) I've also been more muscular than usual through most of my life, which has made me heavier (though not actually overweight) compared to the norm. That's the thing about the norm--it's a generality, and we are all individually quite specific.

I think that body fat percentage measured with calipers is a more objective way to determine one's healthy degree of bulk.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I think that body fat percentage measured with calipers is a more objective way to determine one's healthy degree of bulk.

It is entirely vain, but I have taken a far less scientific approach that will likely lead to either anorexia or morbid obesity: How do I look?

If I look better then I feel better. I am concerned with health, but really I just want to not have a gut in pictures and look good whether I'm wearing a suit or jeans and a polo. That's the main reason I work out and diet. Vanity.

 

[pakeha]

It is entirely vain, but I have taken a far less scientific approach that will likely lead to either anorexia or morbid obesity: How do I look?

If I look better then I feel better. I am concerned with health, but really I just want to not have a gut in pictures and look good whether I'm wearing a suit or jeans and a polo. That's the main reason I work out and diet. Vanity.

I'd put that high on my priorities, too.
Yes, health and heart.
But absolutely yes to the vanity.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I'd put that high on my priorities, too.
Yes, health and heart.
But absolutely yes to the vanity.

It may not be healthy, but it's honest.

And it could lead to healthy, right?

 

[pakeha]

Yes, of course.
There's no point in ruining one's health to achieve an aesthetic goal.
It's why the 5:2 regimen is so attractive.
With common sense and patience there's no reason to expect anything other than improved health from such a diet.
As well as an improved figure!

 

[EHocking]

While I definitely respect the Mayo Clinic's research, I am speaking primarily about my own experiences.

With all due respect, the one thing I've found to be confounding is people's personal experiences with diet and exercise vs medical studies.
This is not to start a but this area is full of anecdotes.

Restricting calories alone does very little for me other than make me tired, lethargic and irritable.

Perhaps you're doing it wrong?

My wife had this problem when she started the 5:2 diet, but will a little adjustment, scuh as having breakfast and a snack during the day, she sorted that out. She does Pilates or Yoga on fast days without problems.
I eschew breakfast and lunch on fast days but still manage an hours or two cycling without difficulty.

Again, the beauty of the 5:2 diet is its flexibility.

Additionally, once I struggle through losing the weight I was trying to lose by caloric deprivation even meager increases in caloric intake seems to be diverted to adding the recently lost weight back on, rather than remedying the tired, lethargic and irritable feelings.

Which is one of the benefits of the 5:2 diet. You're not constantly depriving your body of calories - only intermittently. You can eat what you like on the other days of the week and still burn fat.

And, as the Mayo articles note, exercise is best combined with dieting in order to maintain the weight loss.

I have noticed, however, that when I increase my physical activity, my moods grow increasingly positive and energetic, and I'm not near as hungry so I do tend to eat less of the empty calories even if I do eat a little bit more in my regular meals. More importantly, the fat comes off quicker and it doesn't come back unless circumstances limit my activities levels.

Just as per the Mayo articles I cited. Exercise helps maintain the weight loss.

 

[EHocking]

There, in a nutshell, is why weight is NOT what people should be measuring. Your waist/ height ratio is the more accurate predictor of health outcomes, and a better indicator of whether you are the right size. Keep your waist (measured at the navel) down below 50% of your height.

Indeed. I initially (and quit rapidly) lost 5 kilos on the 5:2 diet, but I've put 1kg back on and seems to have stabilised around 85kg.

According to most BMI index calculators I am overweight.
I'm 180cm high and should weigh 81kg .
But since I've lost 10cm from my waist I ignore BMI for the waste of time that it is.

And this seems to be the problem in the diet/exercise game.
Most people seems to fixate on a single option or measure or cause/fix and neglect to take all factors into the equation.

The reason I started the 5:2 diet (first time I've ever bothered with a diet) is for the possible future health benefits that are indicated by intermittent fasting. A few cms off my midriff is merely a perk.

While quitting smoking after 39 years may have probably future health benefits, I'm happy to stack the deck in my favour with a diet change that hardly requires any effort to maintain.

 

[tyr_13]

I thought I'd chime in with my results trying the fasting diet again.

I couldn't do it.

I mean, I tried to 'fast' a couple of days, but what happened is that I got extremely tired, irritable, irrationally sad, huge headaches, and the night after one of those days I slept for twelve hours. I'm one of those people who is always kinda hungry and am used to that, but the day after even failed fasting I'd be ravenous.

I have to do something though. I have a bad back, my knee is going, as is one of my elbows. Working out harder is becoming less and less of an option for me so calorie reduction is going to be key. I already platued once at 255lbs, and it took a ton of work to get down to 249, but I've slipped back to 261. Sure I have a lot more muscle mass than I used to, but I've still got man boobs and my navel measurement is 47". (Measured relaxed correct?)

I really want to get into shirtless shape because I want to see if I can do it, and it opens up so many more costume options. Plus if I can't control my job, my love life, or well, most anything else in my life I'd like to control my weight.

 

[Pixel42]

Five years ago I lost over 2 stone (about 30 pounds) in four months by eating smaller portions, cutting out bread and cake altogether, going for more walks and putting up with going to bed hungry for weeks on end. I'm pretty sure it was the bolded part which was the key.

I don't think it's possible to lose weight without having to put up with being hungry. Hunger pangs are, after all, your body's way of telling you that it's used up the food you've eaten and if you don't eat more soon it's going to have start raiding stored fat for energy - but that, of course, is what you want it to do. You just have to grit your teeth and put up with the hunger pangs and any other physical symptoms. At least on the 5:2 diet you only have to do that two days out of every seven, instead of every day like with other diets.