Anonymous wrote:I plateaued with 5 more pounds of baby weight to lose. Was doing IF along with 5-6 miles of stroller walks in the morning.

I decided to try eating breakfast again. I started eating a small breakfast after exercising. I’m now down 3 pounds in 2-3 weeks.

Anyone experience this?

There's some limited research (a lot of it is conjecture) that says that skipping a post-workout snack could decrease progesterone, which would decrease BBT and metabolism.

There is also some research out there that says that intense fasted exercise is bad for reproductive aged women--of course, it is mostly done on rats, because why study us when our menstrual cycles are so confusing. This doesn't sound applicable to you exactly, though a 5-6 mile stroller walk is quite long. When I was running 5-6 miles without first eating breakfast (and then not eating until lunch), my period stopped, even though I really didn't lose any weight (wasn't trying to).

Basically, exercising in the morning and not eating until lunch doesn't send a good signal to your body that your environment is good for making babies, so it slows that stuff down.

The other alternative explanation is that by having breakfast, you are more energized throughout the day and are moving more.

Another is that you are naturally eating a bit less for lunch and dinner.

This all still fits into the whole CICO thing and demonstrates why shouting CICO over and over is stupid. You can't accurately measure calories in (since it is calories absorbed) and you especially can't measure calories out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.


Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

well, yes and no. Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.

many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.

Totally different point. Sure some calories have more nutritional benefits and will keep you full longer/make you feel better but at the end of the day a calorie is nothing more than a unit used to measure how much energy food give you. An apple can give you 100 cal of energy just like a piece of chocolate any energy not used from this food will be stored at fat.

Again not arguing that there can be health benefits to fasting but at the end of the day your body needs X calories to survive. If you eat that many you stay the same weight. if you eat too many you store that energy for later in the form of fat. If you eat too few calories you burn your energy stores.

Disagree with this. Go on a low carb diet. Eat more calories by eating mostly bacon, eggs and steak. You’ll lose weight rapidly and lose more and more. That diet alone proves that it’s not just calories in / calories out.

Lol. I can assure you I would have no problem at all to get fat on this diet. It's really not hard to overeat high calories foods. Dropping carbs is no magic bullet.

If you ate 3,000 pounds of only bacon you’d lose weight. Rapidly. Which proves it’s not just calories in / calories out. Of course that wouldn’t be healthy but you’d lose weight without carbs.

No, you would not and I hope you are just trolling. If not, I would strongly suggest that you inform yourself a little bit more on nutrition. I am currently cutting weight and have my carbs set at 235g per day. I have been consistently losing 1.5lbs of fat a week. And you know why? Because I am in a calorie deficit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.


Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

well, yes and no. Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.

many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.

Totally different point. Sure some calories have more nutritional benefits and will keep you full longer/make you feel better but at the end of the day a calorie is nothing more than a unit used to measure how much energy food give you. An apple can give you 100 cal of energy just like a piece of chocolate any energy not used from this food will be stored at fat.

Again not arguing that there can be health benefits to fasting but at the end of the day your body needs X calories to survive. If you eat that many you stay the same weight. if you eat too many you store that energy for later in the form of fat. If you eat too few calories you burn your energy stores.

Disagree with this. Go on a low carb diet. Eat more calories by eating mostly bacon, eggs and steak. You’ll lose weight rapidly and lose more and more. That diet alone proves that it’s not just calories in / calories out.

Lol. I can assure you I would have no problem at all to get fat on this diet. It's really not hard to overeat high calories foods. Dropping carbs is no magic bullet.

If you ate 3,000 pounds of only bacon you’d lose weight. Rapidly. Which proves it’s not just calories in / calories out. Of course that wouldn’t be healthy but you’d lose weight without carbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.


Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

well, yes and no. Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.

many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.

Totally different point. Sure some calories have more nutritional benefits and will keep you full longer/make you feel better but at the end of the day a calorie is nothing more than a unit used to measure how much energy food give you. An apple can give you 100 cal of energy just like a piece of chocolate any energy not used from this food will be stored at fat.

Again not arguing that there can be health benefits to fasting but at the end of the day your body needs X calories to survive. If you eat that many you stay the same weight. if you eat too many you store that energy for later in the form of fat. If you eat too few calories you burn your energy stores.

Disagree with this. Go on a low carb diet. Eat more calories by eating mostly bacon, eggs and steak. You’ll lose weight rapidly and lose more and more. That diet alone proves that it’s not just calories in / calories out.

Lol. I can assure you I would have no problem at all to get fat on this diet. It's really not hard to overeat high calories foods. Dropping carbs is no magic bullet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.


Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

well, yes and no. Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.

many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.

Totally different point. Sure some calories have more nutritional benefits and will keep you full longer/make you feel better but at the end of the day a calorie is nothing more than a unit used to measure how much energy food give you. An apple can give you 100 cal of energy just like a piece of chocolate any energy not used from this food will be stored at fat.

Again not arguing that there can be health benefits to fasting but at the end of the day your body needs X calories to survive. If you eat that many you stay the same weight. if you eat too many you store that energy for later in the form of fat. If you eat too few calories you burn your energy stores.

Disagree with this. Go on a low carb diet. Eat more calories by eating mostly bacon, eggs and steak. You’ll lose weight rapidly and lose more and more. That diet alone proves that it’s not just calories in / calories out.

Anonymous wrote:

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.


Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

well, yes and no. Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.

many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.

Totally different point. Sure some calories have more nutritional benefits and will keep you full longer/make you feel better but at the end of the day a calorie is nothing more than a unit used to measure how much energy food give you. An apple can give you 100 cal of energy just like a piece of chocolate any energy not used from this food will be stored at fat.

Again not arguing that there can be health benefits to fasting but at the end of the day your body needs X calories to survive. If you eat that many you stay the same weight. if you eat too many you store that energy for later in the form of fat. If you eat too few calories you burn your energy stores.

While “starvation mode” is a myth, cortisol is not. When you put your body in a stressful situation like IF, cortisol spikes and your body can hold on to weight. I just finished a Huberman Lab podcast with Dr Layne Norton (11/7/22) on nutrition where they discuss IF and timing of protein. It’s worth a listen.

Fasting for 16-18 hours a day isn't starving yourself. It's a pretty normal way for humans to exist. It's healthy for the gut and for cancer prevention.


That’s nuts.

No its not, tons of peer reviewed, serious medical research has shown the benefits of longer periods without food. What's nuts is thinking that you're going to die if you dont eat every 2 hours. Unless you're an infant, its not necessary.

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.


Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

well, yes and no. Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.

many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:IF is just a different way of reducing calories. If you go back to eating breakfast but you are still in a deficit then you will still keep losing. Has nothing to do with IF.

But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.

Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Your body can start to think you’re starving with IF so holds onto calories for dear life, and it can slow your metabolism. That’s been my experience/perception, anyway.

Starvation mode is a myth

Doctors who publish papers disagree with you.

Links?

Water weight.

Anonymous wrote:Fasting for 16-18 hours a day isn't starving yourself. It's a pretty normal way for humans to exist. It's healthy for the gut and for cancer prevention.

That’s nuts.

Fasting for 16-18 hours a day isn't starving yourself. It's a pretty normal way for humans to exist. It's healthy for the gut and for cancer prevention.

Yes, I lose weight when I eat actual meals instead of starving myself.