For quite some time I've done 16/8, skipping breakfast and having a mid-afternoon mini-meal, as several people here are also doing. It was OK, not too hard, and it helped me maintain nicely the small weightloss I had achieved. But although I've put on weight again after an operation which stuck me home for quite some time, I'm not so sure it's a bright idea to fast at my age (74), especially as I'm supposed to eat more protein. So now, I have a very mild version of it : I fast 13-14 hours (having a late breakfast), and no afternoon snack, which means 6-7 hours between lunch (main meal of the day) and dinner (light). It works OK for now and it is easier. But for someone who'd be really stuck, it seems very worthwhile to consider "when to eat". _________________ My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 8:18 pm Post subject: It's Really All About Calories In And Calories Out
If you consume less calories than you expend you will lose weight, if you consume more calories than you expend, you will gain weight, if you consume a calorie amount equal to the amount of calories you expend, your weight will remain the same. There are different ways to maintain the calories in and out, No S Diet is an excellent one I have used successfully, and it can be used in conjunction with intermittent fasting, as you are doing, and I do myself. A 12-13 hour window is a pretty good one, and if this is working for you, stay with it. I try to maintain a 16 hour fasting window and an 8 hour consumption window, and the window times can be adjusted to our lifestyles, which can be changeable due to job and social functions. I usually consume two meals in my eating period, with no snacks, and usually end up eating around 1600 calories per day. On weekends and social occasions, I sometimes consume more than that, but with IF, adjustments can be made to stay on track. _________________ Health Is The Greatest Wealth!
I think you totally missed Fung's point, if you read his article at all. He absolutely and emphatically in umpteen posts rejects the calories theory, as well as its efficiency long term (short term it does work, with a staggering proportion of long term failures). His point is that IF (as well as lowering refined carbs intake) helps the body to get rid of excess insulin and promotes gradual recovery from insulin resistance, overweight being due to excess of insulin due to insulin resistance. _________________ My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 4:57 am Post subject: I Read His Article
I said in reply to your post that IF is an effective means to lose weight, but not the only way. It is one of many tools available. But in reality IF is just a tool to reduce calories, whether it is an 16 hour fast, or 24 hour fast. Whatever works for you is what you should do, NO S has been effective for me, I am now using IF for convenience more so than to lose weight. _________________ Health Is The Greatest Wealth!
From the NHANES study in 1977, most people ate was 3 times per day – breakfast, lunch and dinner. I grew up in the 1970s. There were no snacks. (…) Recently Satchin Panda did an interesting study on current eating habits, (…) Essentially, we started eating as soon as we got up, and didn’t stop until we went to bed.
(…) When those overweight individuals eating more than 14 hours per day were simply instructed to curtail their eating times to only 10-11 hours, they lost weight (average 7.2 pounds) and felt better even though they were not instructed to overtly change what they ate, only when they ate.
Merely changing the meal timing and restricting the number of hours you ate, and also by moving to an earlier eating schedule produced huge benefits even in the same person eating the same meals. That’s astounding. (…) Same person. Same number of meals. Same food. Far improved metabolic profile.
I don't even think NoS reduces calories all that much. It didn't for me, depends of course what you were doing before. But its reverting to a time-honored way of eating is what's mostly beneficial. _________________ My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
I think this goes right along with the No S Diet Program, which advocates only eating one plate of food per meal with no seconds and no sweets. The No S Program worked for me, as I went from 217 lbs. to 176 lbs. by adhering to the advice in the program. IF is a tool to eat less by time restriction, but if you overeat during the time period, you end up eating too many calories for weight loss. So, once again, we must find a program that works for us, and No S has worked for me. Actually by eating 3 meals a day following the No S Diet, eating at traditional times of 7AM-12Noon-7PM, with no snacks, you actually fast for 12 hours from 7PM-7AM, which is only 4 hours less than doing the IF 16 hour fast with 8 hour eating period. So, when you look at all aspects of the programs, for me at least, No S works the best, and in the long run is easier to follow. We all walk to a different beat of the drummer, and must find what works for us. _________________ Health Is The Greatest Wealth!
Joined: 06 Oct 2008 Posts: 9450 Location: San Diego, CA USA
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2018 4:46 pm Post subject:
I've read a fair amount on Fung's online work, listened to his videos, and read his book. I remember it standing out to me (and I admit I'm biased) that the first line of defense is three meals a day. I'd say for many in our society, it will be the first and last.
If we want to talk about fasting, Valter Longo is a big name in the fasting world as well, having been the one who actually carried out many of the studies to support the value of fasting. His focuses are on functional (disease free) longevity and increasing the efficacy of chemotherapy, not weight loss, though he does speak to that briefly in his book. I rarely heard him mention it in interviews or in the internet articles I read about or by him. He is more interested in waist size in regards to any size, but even that takes a back seat to periodic 5-day modified fasts and dietary restrictions that might make a body cringe to know of. He does say to maintain "healthy" (that may not be the term he used, but similar) weight. In fact, the other researchers I read on CR through fasting didn't really focus on the weight loss as much as the chemical advantages . It was the prolonged time between eating events that made differences that eating the same calories more often didn't accomplish. Not the the focus the online self-styled weight gurus push. The protocols can be valuable for just about anyone, overweight or not, except those with underweight BMI (some people have that without intending it)n and definitely not for anorexics.
Longo promotes what he calls a Fast Mimicking Diet, or FMD, which allows for reduced eating but still has the same benefits as water fasting and is usually much more acceptable to people than water fasting. (See above regarding man-who examples.) He does not recommend this strategy for people over 70 for sure, and sometimes not over 65. I plan to use it until I'm 70, unless my weight drops precipitously. I'm not holding my breath on that one.
He recommends a daily fast of about 12 hours, which is the protocol he uses. He tends to eat only two meals a day and very lightly in between, which is the protocol for those who need to decrease waist circumference. He admits that fasts of longer periods may be even more beneficial, but recommends eating breakfast early in the day, thus stopping meals long before a regular dinner time, like the 2 p.m. group. But he also recommends having the largest meal of the day at the time it is most social; in our case, it's usually the evening. Ah, the tug of advice back and forth! I think that one is less crucial for longevity. He says there is no doubt that different protocols produce weight loss, but that that is not the total measure of what lead to functional longevity.
He also agrees that protein intake be increased for those over 65 but his recommendation for that is still very modest. He recommends only .37 grams per pound of body weight for most of life, and only a 10-20% increase after 65. So a few mouthfuls of extra protein; he's probably say to get it from beans most days. Obviously, he is an advocate of near-veganism. Not much meal-lovers pizza or burgers on that menu.
For general purposes, plain No S is probably still most people's best bet for weight loss/maintenance and health markers, not because it's as successful as others at weight loss or longevity but because it's a case of the sustainable good trumping (ouch?) the unsustainable perfect.
And if longer overnight fasts are sustainable for a person, so much the better.
As Reinhard said, he leaves the particulars of when and what up to the individual. _________________ Count plates, not calories. Three a day. 9 years & counting
Mar/13-24.9 Stayed at +/- 8-lb. for three years Sept/17 22.8 (but more fluctuation)
There is no S better than Vanilla No S.
Last edited by oolala53 on Mon Jun 11, 2018 6:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Thank you for that interesting post, Oolala. I've heard several podcasts by Longo, and although I won't try it out myself for various reasons, for one thing because of being over 70 and not looking for more problems, I'm very curious about it. Please do keep us updated if and when you try it. I fail to understand how it could possibly work, since when fasting, eating a little is much more difficult than not eating at all. But the guy sounds very trustworthy. _________________ My body is like breakfast, lunch, and dinner. I don't think about it, I just have it. (Arnold Schwarzenegger)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum