I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[user68677878]

LOL OK each to their own hell

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Kohsamida said:

I agree with what you've said for the most part, but you're basically making my point for me ???? Remember, we're talking about the efficacy of CICO diets vs Insulin Model diets.  By definition, CICO diets ignore the role that food has on hormonal balance (i.e.: insulin), and insist that reducing "calories-in" below "calories-out" is all that's necessary for fat loss.  From what you've said, it sounds like you agree with me that this is a fallacy.  There is more to effective fat loss than calories, and the key element is insulin being low enough that it doesn't interfere with lipolysis.

 

You're right and I agree that insulin does not have to be low 24/7.  As you indicate in your example, 16.5 hours of relative low insulin levels will work.  My point is simply that insulin is a key player here and CICO diets, by definition, ignore this fact.

 

I hope you also agree that, unless stored body fat can be efficiently accessed during a diet, an energy deficit will occur, and, based on the 1st law of thermodynamics, the body will have to correct this imbalance by reducing basal metabolic rate.  IMO, This is the main reason that CICO diets fail in the long run.  As the BMR drops, they may be restricting calories but "calories out" will now be dropping further, so even though they have cut "calories-in", it's entirely possible that they will not only lose no fat, but might even start gaining fat as BMR drops!  The only way to avoid this, as far as I know is to assure that high insulin levels do not interfere with lipolysis.

 

What's even worse is that many people on a CICO diet will get frustrated after a few days or weeks as their BMR goes down, they start feeling like crap, and they see no significant weight loss.  In their reduced metabolic state when they finally give up on the diet and resume eating as they did before attempting the diet, they will actually put on more weight than when they started the diet even if the calories consumed are the same as before the diet (because of the reduced BMR).  

 

The vast majority of dieters "yo-yo" up and down in weight from one failed diet to the next, and the net result each time is that they gain a little more body fat then they originally had...IMO, that's what's given rise to the current obesity epidemic.  I think CICO diets play a role in promoting obesity as described above.

  

I hope you appreciate I'm not advocating low carb diets necessarily.  I'm just saying that lowering carbohydrates sufficiently when dieting is the best way to control insulin response simply because insulin response is particularly sensitive to carbohydrates compared with fats and proteins

  

The only thing I disagree with is your comment about dietary fat having a significant effect on insulin response.  There's a very low insulin response to dietary fats.  And, insulin response to dietary proteins is only moderate (unless over-consumed, and thus converted to glucose).

No what I am saying a basic CICO will work because it already lowers carbs because you just get less of them in your body when your restricting calories. My diet for the last 5 months was CICO and it worked up until the last bit of fat. Now its hard, but that is not because its a CICO diet but because going to single digits is not something the body likes doing. (though for some its easier then others)

 

There is far more to it then just insulin response your body knows how lean you are and just holds on to certain points. Those points are different for everyone.

 

Why CICO and low carb fail is when people stop it and go back to the lifestyle they had before the diet. That is causes the Yo Yo. Has nothing to to with BMR or insulin just giving up on a diet. If you do CICO or low carb and have gotten the weight you want.. you just cant go back to what you did before. You will have to change things like how much you eat and it cant be the same as what you ate before. That was how you got fat in the fist place.

 

I was not talking about dietary fat, i was talking to our own body fat. That graph shows that fat people have a different insulin response then lean people on the same meal. If you lean out you will also have a better insulin respons. 

 

I have already posted in this topic the Mc Donalds and twinky diet, both were high in carbs and crap and the people still lost weight on it proving CICO. (not that I would recommend it to anyone as its not healthy).

 

In the last 7 years I gained back 5 to 10 kg a few times when I fell of the wagon and always lost it again without problems with basic CICO. So I absolutely don't see a problem with CICO as long as you make sure you drop the processed carbs. 

 

I actually feel like crap on low carb and would drop out of it, so for some people its just not good. 

 

 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, porphyry said:

LOL OK each to their own hell

My hell was being fat, solved that problem.

[stephenterry]

20 hours ago, robblok said:

I think all diets fail without lifestyle changes. I mean if your low carb and stop low carb then you gain it back too. The low carb is a lifestyle change. Same as eating a different diet and exercising was one for me.

 

But I was asking for bodysetpoint evidence and there is none. I don't know if i burn as much as before I only know i can keep it off by eating right. But I do know that the latest research on body setpoints has shown that it can be adjusted upwards (unfortunately) but not downwards. So I wonder why you claim something the top researchers have not been able to confirm.

I'm positive there is a correlation between life-style changes, weight loss, and being able to maintain a lower body-weight. I have demonstrated that myself after losing 20 kilos over one year and keeping the weight off in the last six months. So we're on the same page. 

 

However, you - like myself - have to ask yourself whether what you achieved is sufficient evidence of a causal effect, or a by-product of the weight loss process  - in my case IF - that has triggered the body to respond and 'accept' the lower body weight?  

 

I would suggest that  - for me - the body's metabolic rate has been maintained at the rate utilised whilst in an IF mode - i.e. not slowing down - and therefore whilst I eat more 'healthily' now and exercise more regularly, it is also not causal evidence that this is the SOLE cause of maintaining a lower body weight.

 

IMO, In simple terms, using calories as a unit of energy, with most weight loss diets where calorie intake is restricted, the body slows down the metabolic rate during the process to stop the dieter from starving themselves to death owing to the 'perceived' reduction in the food supply. However, if zero calories are ingested on a IF water-only program, there is no insulin spike and the body is 'forced' to consume fat and, in doing so, there is scientific empirical evidence to demonstrate that metabolic rate is increased to achieve that. See Ketosis.

 

[robblok]

32 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I'm positive there is a correlation between life-style changes, weight loss, and being able to maintain a lower body-weight. I have demonstrated that myself after losing 20 kilos over one year and keeping the weight off in the last six months. So we're on the same page. 

 

However, you - like myself - have to ask yourself whether what you achieved is sufficient evidence of a causal effect, or a by-product of the weight loss process  - in my case IF - that has triggered the body to respond and 'accept' the lower body weight?  

 

I would suggest that  - for me - the body's metabolic rate has been maintained at the rate utilised whilst in an IF mode - i.e. not slowing down - and therefore whilst I eat more 'healthily' now and exercise more regularly, it is also not causal evidence that this is the SOLE cause of maintaining a lower body weight.

 

IMO, In simple terms, using calories as a unit of energy, with most weight loss diets where calorie intake is restricted, the body slows down the metabolic rate during the process to stop the dieter from starving themselves to death owing to the 'perceived' reduction in the food supply. However, if zero calories are ingested on a IF water-only program, there is no insulin spike and the body is 'forced' to consume fat and, in doing so, there is scientific empirical evidence to demonstrate that metabolic rate is increased to achieve that. See Ketosis.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say but you cannot compare a short fast with a extended diet. If you reduce your calories it takes a long time for the body to slow down the metabolic rate. So you cannot compare a short fast with an extended period of low calories.

 

I am not sure if my metabolic rate has slowed down or gone faster, I do know that once I eat enough not to lose weight and not to gain weight I am not hungry. So for me that is acceptable. 

 

I told you before I have looked hard about the body set point that we are talking about and there is no proof we can adjust it downwards. I really wish there was. Even me keeping it off for many years does not garantee that.

 

Because a body set point is more then staying on one weight it means you even stay on that weight if you eat more then you burn. Your body will then ramp up the metabolic rate to burn more. I am not sure that is the case with me. 

 

Because you brought it up again I read some more into it some people indeed say you can reset the setpoint. I would like to believe it, though others still say its impossible.

 

Just that I kept my weight off does not mean I changed my set point. I changed my diet, im sure that if i went back to the fast food and alcohol my set point would go up again. So is it really a set point change.

[Chou Anou]

On 8/5/2018 at 6:32 AM, simon43 said:

shift a little residual fat from my abs

This is not something real. "Spot reducing" is a myth and has NO basis in science.

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, robblok said:

I agree with a lot of what you say but you cannot compare a short fast with a extended diet. If you reduce your calories it takes a long time for the body to slow down the metabolic rate. So you cannot compare a short fast with an extended period of low calories.

 

I am not sure if my metabolic rate has slowed down or gone faster, I do know that once I eat enough not to lose weight and not to gain weight I am not hungry. So for me that is acceptable. 

 

I told you before I have looked hard about the body set point that we are talking about and there is no proof we can adjust it downwards. I really wish there was. Even me keeping it off for many years does not garantee that.

 

Because a body set point is more then staying on one weight it means you even stay on that weight if you eat more then you burn. Your body will then ramp up the metabolic rate to burn more. I am not sure that is the case with me. 

 

Because you brought it up again I read some more into it some people indeed say you can reset the setpoint. I would like to believe it, though others still say its impossible.

 

Just that I kept my weight off does not mean I changed my set point. I changed my diet, im sure that if i went back to the fast food and alcohol my set point would go up again. So is it really a set point change.

I quite agree that I cannot compare a short fast with an extended period of low calories. I'm not doing so. Since well before April 11th, when I first started to record my daily progress, I've been practising a 18-6 window and more recently a 20-4 window, plus a 3 day WO fast in order to now reach my weight target of 72 kilos (175cm high), from 78k. Whether it is the most healthy option at my age, is debatable.

 

In fact, I consider it stupid, and not in my long term interest, but now having reached my weight and kept it there, by keeping a watching brief over what I consume, my next goal is to obtain a flat stomach, by isometric (non-weight) resistance training. I consider building and maintaining muscle tissue as probably the most important progress towards my longevity - plus not riding a motorbike around CM... 

 

What your post indicates to me is that the most positive effect has been to eat 'more healthily', and in doing so, your body has adapted to that regime. I would suggest that this is the key factor in setting your ideal body weight, because you are maintaining this new weight whilst consuming your daily calories. If you fall off the wagon, but then return to your eating pattern, IMO, the body would return to that regime weight.  

 

Clearly, that's evidence of a correlation between what we eat and what we weigh, but not the sole causation. The human body is much more complex than that.

 

[stephenterry]

34 minutes ago, Chou Anou said:

This is not something real. "Spot reducing" is a myth and has NO basis in science.

Link please. This is a serious discussion, and needs to be expanded and clarified.

 

As I understand it, the body does not specify where fat is lost, it could be anywhere. However, by focusing on different bodily muscle groups, it is possible to build muscle tissue, as can be demonstrated quite easily.

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Link please. This is a serious discussion, and needs to be expanded and clarified.

 

As I understand it, the body does not specify where fat is lost, it could be anywhere. However, by focusing on different bodily muscle groups, it is possible to build muscle tissue, as can be demonstrated quite easily.

He is quite right that spot reducing does not help. doing abb exercises wont burn fat on the abs. I think that is what he is referring too. This has been proven not to work (ok there are some limited options but they don't really count)

[robblok]

9 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I quite agree that I cannot compare a short fast with an extended period of low calories. I'm not doing so. Since well before April 11th, when I first started to record my daily progress, I've been practising a 18-6 window and more recently a 20-4 window, plus a 3 day WO fast in order to now reach my weight target of 72 kilos (175cm high), from 78k. Whether it is the most healthy option at my age, is debatable.

 

In fact, I consider it stupid, and not in my long term interest, but now having reached my weight and kept it there, by keeping a watching brief over what I consume, my next goal is to obtain a flat stomach, by isometric (non-weight) resistance training. I consider building and maintaining muscle tissue as probably the most important progress towards my longevity - plus not riding a motorbike around CM... 

 

What your post indicates to me is that the most positive effect has been to eat 'more healthily', and in doing so, your body has adapted to that regime. I would suggest that this is the key factor in setting your ideal body weight, because you are maintaining this new weight whilst consuming your daily calories. If you fall off the wagon, but then return to your eating pattern, IMO, the body would return to that regime weight.  

 

Clearly, that's evidence of a correlation between what we eat and what we weigh, but not the sole causation. The human body is much more complex than that.

 

The times i fell of the wagon were mostly health related. I always have problems sleeping and when its really bad I have no mood for anything. I had a long bout of that last year so first my training suffered and stopped, then the bad foods came back. Now its all gone and more even.

 

A flat belly can be helped with ab exercises however as long as there is fat there (and its possible there is) you won't get that flat belly. Its even possible that abb exercises make your belly stick out a bit more. I know my abs stick out (thankfully not in a fat way). 

 

For me and most males the abs are the hardest to get lean its mainly where the last little bit of fat is stored. To get that really lean you have to go to extremes. Meaning single digit bodyfat. This is for many not attainable and a fight i constantly try to win. This goes well beyond normal dieting. 

 

Unless of course you mean something else with flat belly 

[stephenterry]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

He is quite right that spot reducing does not help. doing abb exercises wont burn fat on the abs. I think that is what he is referring too. This has been proven not to work (ok there are some limited options but they don't really count)

Yeah, I know - I agreed with that. However, it is also a truism that Abs muscle tissue can be strengthened by resistance training, and it's just as likely that the body would 'get around to' using up fat around the abdomen at some point. Visceral abdomen fat is the most difficult for men to lose, and  I suspect many males give up after a while. 

[BobBKK]

I recently did a 5 day total fast and lost 1.5 kilo. I was gutted as it was very hard work (first 3 days the worst) but I thought it would be much more than that. I only eat once a day so I guess I'm on an intermittent fast and I'v eaten like that for 20 odd years. Never lost a gram doing it that way unfortunately. I eat at around 6/7pm and then nothing until 24 hours later.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, BobBKK said:

I recently did a 5 day total fast and lost 1.5 kilo. I was gutted as it was very hard work (first 3 days the worst) but I thought it would be much more than that. I only eat once a day so I guess I'm on an intermittent fast and I'v eaten like that for 20 odd years. Never lost a gram doing it that way unfortunately. I eat at around 6/7pm and then nothing until 24 hours later.

That you did not lose weight while eating one time a day shows you eat too much that one time. Its sad to say but that is the fact. But eating 1 time a day does have benefits according to IF (intermittent fasting).

 

The 5 day fast loss of 1.5 did it stay off ? I mean most of it is water weight as you start to burn your glycogen and with it release water. 

 

Maybe its time (if you want of course) to try to change what you eat and a bit less. 

 

You say you eat 1 time a day but do you drink a lot (and I don't mean just alcohol). My problem has long been fruit juices, sirups and so on. I got it pretty much under control now but you would be amazed how many calories you can drink. Its even worse if you drink a lot of alcohol.

 

 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Yeah, I know - I agreed with that. However, it is also a truism that Abs muscle tissue can be strengthened by resistance training, and it's just as likely that the body would 'get around to' using up fat around the abdomen at some point. Visceral abdomen fat is the most difficult for men to lose, and  I suspect many males give up after a while. 

Yes the body gets to a point where it starts to burn fat on the belly unfortunately its the last point it starts to burn fat. Believe me been trying to get perfect abs for ages. The upper abs are good. Lower abs just flat. I was amazed at how much fat i could lose around the abs. 

 

But when you do ab exercises you do help blood flow through the abs. Some people use Yohimbe for losing fat around the abs. But it takes a special protecol (have to take a certain amount and fasted and then do cardio). I have tried it. There are some supplements that activate the receptors on fat cells that make it easier to burn them, i used them saw some difference but not a huge difference. 

 

Abs will always be hard, but nothing wrong with getting good abs. You should get an Ab wheel. Its one of the few gimmicks that really do work and they are not expensive.

[stephenterry]

4 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I recently did a 5 day total fast and lost 1.5 kilo. I was gutted as it was very hard work (first 3 days the worst) but I thought it would be much more than that. I only eat once a day so I guess I'm on an intermittent fast and I'v eaten like that for 20 odd years. Never lost a gram doing it that way unfortunately. I eat at around 6/7pm and then nothing until 24 hours later.

Sorry to hear that, Bob, after working so hard, for 5 days - albeit a loss of 1.5 kilos (if not just bodily water) is still pretty good providing you have stayed at that weight.  Perhaps you could provide a bit more detail, age, height, weight, health - and what you normally eat and drink. 

 

I would suggest that good nutrition would be the key to unlocking your impasse - providing of course you need to lose weight.

[BobBKK]

Just now, robblok said:

That you did not lose weight while eating one time a day shows you eat too much that one time. Its sad to say but that is the fact. But eating 1 time a day does have benefits according to IF (intermittent fasting).

 

The 5 day fast loss of 1.5 did it stay off ? I mean most of it is water weight as you start to burn your glycogen and with it release water. 

 

Maybe its time (if you want of course) to try to change what you eat and a bit less. 

 

You say you eat 1 time a day but do you drink a lot (and I don't mean just alcohol). My problem has long been fruit juices, sirups and so on. I got it pretty much under control now but you would be amazed how many calories you can drink. Its even worse if you drink a lot of alcohol.

 

 

I eat once time a day for 20 odd years as it suited my career lifestyle in UK. I didn't even know it was intermittent fasting, I just did it. 1.5 kilo went back when I stopped the 5 day fast. It could be alchohol... I used to drink just weekends but since retiring I drink daily, but not massively. That might be habit now. I avoid juices and fizzy drinks. My father was a lot fatter than I am (Thais refer to me as pompui rather than ouan) but Im 10 kilo up from when I came here 10 years ago. Im convinced Im trying to fight genetics  lol.

[robblok]

6 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I eat once time a day for 20 odd years as it suited my career lifestyle in UK. I didn't even know it was intermittent fasting, I just did it. 1.5 kilo went back when I stopped the 5 day fast. It could be alchohol... I used to drink just weekends but since retiring I drink daily, but not massively. That might be habit now. I avoid juices and fizzy drinks. My father was a lot fatter than I am (Thais refer to me as pompui rather than ouan) but Im 10 kilo up from when I came here 10 years ago. Im convinced Im trying to fight genetics  lol.

I am not sure what you call not massively but half a liter of beer has 184 calories. (still not that much) but if you take like a liter a day it really does add up. 

 

Believe me its possible to fight genetics my dad is fat (belly at least) and I got fat on pizza and alcohol in 2011. It was so bad that I did not want to be on pictures anymore. Others might have said it was not to bad but for me it was. I hated it made the choice to change and changed. 

 

Maybe if you change a bit what you eat try more vegetables / salads to fill you up. Also you got stuff like physilium husk that can help a bit with feeling full. Though if you eat once a day you seem to have no problem with not feeling full. 

 

Do you do any form of exercise ? Its not great for losing weight but if you combine both it works a lot better.  But in the end it always takes some effort if that was not the case everyone would be slim.

[BobBKK]

24 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am not sure what you call not massively but half a liter of beer has 184 calories. (still not that much) but if you take like a liter a day it really does add up. 

 

Believe me its possible to fight genetics my dad is fat (belly at least) and I got fat on pizza and alcohol in 2011. It was so bad that I did not want to be on pictures anymore. Others might have said it was not to bad but for me it was. I hated it made the choice to change and changed. 

 

Maybe if you change a bit what you eat try more vegetables / salads to fill you up. Also you got stuff like physilium husk that can help a bit with feeling full. Though if you eat once a day you seem to have no problem with not feeling full. 

 

Do you do any form of exercise ? Its not great for losing weight but if you combine both it works a lot better.  But in the end it always takes some effort if that was not the case everyone would be slim.

Very good advice. BTW my BP really did benefit from the 5 day fast it came down 5 points from 130/90 to 125/85 so I don't doubt the overall benefits.

[Kohsamida]

On 6/17/2019 at 11:06 AM, robblok said:

I think all diets fail without lifestyle changes. I mean if your low carb and stop low carb then you gain it back too. The low carb is a lifestyle change. Same as eating a different diet and exercising was one for me.

 

But I was asking for bodysetpoint evidence and there is none. I don't know if i burn as much as before I only know i can keep it off by eating right. But I do know that the latest research on body setpoints has shown that it can be adjusted upwards (unfortunately) but not downwards. So I wonder why you claim something the top researchers have not been able to confirm.

Great point Robblok; short term diets are meaningless unless they are followed up with lifestyle changes that caused excess fat in the first place.

 

Regarding body set point, I guess it depends on how you define "set-point".  I think of the relationship between insulin and leptin as causing a set-point with regard to one's natural body fat percentage.  They both work together in opposing ways to regulate glucose homeostasis and thereby control the natural level of stored body fat percentage for an individual.

 

When glycogen stores are maxed out, the increased insulin stimulates conversion of glucose into triglycerides.   Importantly, the degree of glucose-stimulated insulin secretion by the pancreas is a direct function of body fat.

 

Countering this, fat storage cells (adipocytes) produce leptin, which acts as a negative feedback control.  Leptin is secreted in direct proportion to the amount of stored body fat, and binds to receptors in the brain.  The exact mechanism is unknown but it's understood that leptin causes a reduction in food intake, and an increase in energy expenditure.

 

So, the purpose of these two hormones, acting together, seems to be for the purpose of creating an baseline "set-point" in terms of body fat percentage. 

 

Of course, this doesn't imply that the baseline set-point will be ideal.  Everybody is unique; for some that natural set-point may be a body fat percentage of 15% or under, and they will have very little problem maintaining a healthy body-fat percentage, whereas for others, it may be 25% or greater, and they will struggle to maintain a healthy BF percentage.

 

There is a lot that is unknown at present about the intricacies of the insulin / leptin relationship but it seems that the body-fat set-point that results is more or less fixed for each person thorough their life.  The only thing that seems able to change it is insulin or leptin receptor insensitivity which of course is not good.  Maybe somebody knows more than me but I don't know of anyway it can be changed in a positive way.

 

That's not to say a person can't achieve a healthy BF% if their set point is 25%+, it just means they'll have to work harder than someone who naturally is 15% or under.

[VincentRJ]

The concept of a 'body set point' seems rather misleading. Isn't adaptability a major principle of evolution and survival?

 

Surely a 'set point' would disadvantage anyone, from a survival perspective, considering the great variability of circumstances in the natural environment that our ancestors had to deal with.

 

However, it does make sense that the metabolic system of an overweight person will have adjusted to those changes in conditions over time, to the best of its ability, and will have got used to dealing with the frequent snacks and excessively large meals of tasty junk food.

 

When a person begins to reduce his calorie intake in a significant way, as a result of fasting for example, or just skipping meals, or eating half the usual quantity of each meal, it is to be expected that the body will initially react in a way that attempts to maintain the body fat, which it considers to be a normal state of affairs.

 

The effect of this natural reaction will initially not only cause one to feel hungry most of the time, but also lethargic, lacking in energy, and generally feeling 'not good'.

 

The key is, perseverance and will power. It's impossible to put on weight, and impossible to 'not reduce weight', if the 'calories out' exceed the 'calories in'. However, to ensure that the 'calories out' exceed the 'calories in', it is necessary to exert some will power, and force oneself to get up from the couch and do some exercise, unless one is fasting continuously of course, like Angus Barbieri did, who fasted continuously for more than a year under medical supervision, from June 1965.

 

If one is fasting for long periods, one must lose weight even if one lies on the couch for most of the day feeling totally lethargic.

 

Having applied one's will power and self control, to maintain a restricted diet and regular exercise over a significant period of time, one's body and metabolism will adjust to the 'new norm', and the initial feelings of hunger, and lethargy, and/or muddled thinking, will gradually disappear.

 

[robblok]

7 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

The concept of a 'body set point' seems rather misleading. Isn't adaptability a major principle of evolution and survival?

 

Surely a 'set point' would disadvantage anyone, from a survival perspective, considering the great variability of circumstances in the natural environment that our ancestors had to deal with.

 

However, it does make sense that the metabolic system of an overweight person will have adjusted to those changes in conditions over time, to the best of its ability, and will have got used to dealing with the frequent snacks and excessively large meals of tasty junk food.

 

When a person begins to reduce his calorie intake in a significant way, as a result of fasting for example, or just skipping meals, or eating half the usual quantity of each meal, it is to be expected that the body will initially react in a way that attempts to maintain the body fat, which it considers to be a normal state of affairs.

 

The effect of this natural reaction will initially not only cause one to feel hungry most of the time, but also lethargic, lacking in energy, and generally feeling 'not good'.

 

The key is, perseverance and will power. It's impossible to put on weight, and impossible to 'not reduce weight', if the 'calories out' exceed the 'calories in'. However, to ensure that the 'calories out' exceed the 'calories in', it is necessary to exert some will power, and force oneself to get up from the couch and do some exercise, unless one is fasting continuously of course, like Angus Barbieri did, who fasted continuously for more than a year under medical supervision, from June 1965.

 

If one is fasting for long periods, one must lose weight even if one lies on the couch for most of the day feeling totally lethargic.

 

Having applied one's will power and self control, to maintain a restricted diet and regular exercise over a significant period of time, one's body and metabolism will adjust to the 'new norm', and the initial feelings of hunger, and lethargy, and/or muddled thinking, will gradually disappear.

 

You should read up a bit, there is data on body setpoints. Most say it cant be lowered (good from an evolutionary standpoint). It can only be adjusted upwards, or at least that was the latest research.

 

A body set point does not mean you can't go below it its only hard to do. 

[rumak]

On 8/8/2018 at 1:32 PM, gusincebu said:

 

Are you in thailand ... where do you get the bone broth ?
We get it brought from Oz , but would like a local source .

Sent from my SM-T535 using Tapatalk
 

 

electric crock pot ( 700 baht)..........  hormone and antibiotic free chicken ( betagro ) .  they have bones but if not eat meat off chicken first........... put in pot (we break up the bones a bit) with good water and plenty of garlic and  about 1 cup of vinegar........... slow cook all day         YOU will be the "local source" 

store in glass jars and drink as needed .   add salt.   and vegies if you want

NOTE:  just saw that this is a very old thread.   did not read yet...so sorry if this has been covered elsewhere

Edited June 18, 2019 by rumak

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, robblok said:

You should read up a bit, there is data on body setpoints. Most say it cant be lowered (good from an evolutionary standpoint). It can only be adjusted upwards, or at least that was the latest research.

 

A body set point does not mean you can't go below it its only hard to do. 

As I've already said, the term 'set point' is misleading because it implies there is a natural biological control point which is 'set' and which therefore must be very difficult to overcome, if not impossible. An example of a true 'set point' is a person's height. There's nothing you can do to become shorter or taller. Your height is set, when an adult.

 

In terms of weight, the term 'set point' seems to be used to describe a 'biological tendency', which I think is a more accurate and more helpful term.

 

The following article addresses some of these issues, although it still uses the term 'set point'.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2990627/
 

"In a world of abundance, a prudent lifestyle and thus cognitive control (i.e., ‘from instinct to intellect’) are preconditions of efficient biological control, a stable body weight, and thus maintenance of a set point. This idea is true even in those people who may have an efficient intake or metabolism of food energy."

 

"Searching for the genetic background of excess weight gain in a world of abundance is misleading since the possible biological control is widely overshadowed by the effect of the environment. As a consequence, environmental factors rather than the physiology (including the genetic background) have to be addressed to tackle population-wide, non-syndromic human obesity."

 

My advice is, forget 'set points'. You can demolish them using your intellect, commonsense, will power and self control. ????

[Kohsamida]

On 6/18/2019 at 9:19 PM, VincentRJ said:

The concept of a 'body set point' seems rather misleading. Isn't adaptability a major principle of evolution and survival?

 

Surely a 'set point' would disadvantage anyone, from a survival perspective, considering the great variability of circumstances in the natural environment that our ancestors had to deal with.

 

However, it does make sense that the metabolic system of an overweight person will have adjusted to those changes in conditions over time, to the best of its ability, and will have got used to dealing with the frequent snacks and excessively large meals of tasty junk food.

 

When a person begins to reduce his calorie intake in a significant way, as a result of fasting for example, or just skipping meals, or eating half the usual quantity of each meal, it is to be expected that the body will initially react in a way that attempts to maintain the body fat, which it considers to be a normal state of affairs.

 

The effect of this natural reaction will initially not only cause one to feel hungry most of the time, but also lethargic, lacking in energy, and generally feeling 'not good'.

 

The key is, perseverance and will power. It's impossible to put on weight, and impossible to 'not reduce weight', if the 'calories out' exceed the 'calories in'. However, to ensure that the 'calories out' exceed the 'calories in', it is necessary to exert some will power, and force oneself to get up from the couch and do some exercise, unless one is fasting continuously of course, like Angus Barbieri did, who fasted continuously for more than a year under medical supervision, from June 1965.

 

If one is fasting for long periods, one must lose weight even if one lies on the couch for most of the day feeling totally lethargic.

 

Having applied one's will power and self control, to maintain a restricted diet and regular exercise over a significant period of time, one's body and metabolism will adjust to the 'new norm', and the initial feelings of hunger, and lethargy, and/or muddled thinking, will gradually disappear.

 

I don't think there is anything misleading about the term "set point" at all.  Say that to someone who spends their whole life diligently battling obesity, while another person can seemingly eat anything they want and never become obese.  It’s not necessarily a matter of will power and perseverance.  There’s is also an underlying metabolic cause to obesity for many people.

 

As I see it, the relationship between insulin and leptin is a good example of a natural metabolic “set point” unique to every individual.  It’s not something you can change through will power anymore than you can change how many hours of sleep you need.  It varies from individual to individuals.  It’s “hard-wired” into each of us and doesn’t change.

 

True, one who is naturally prone to a high BF% can overcome it through will power and perseverance, but their specific insulin/leptin relationship will remain unchanged, and so their effort will be a life-long one.  No big deal, that’s just life, but it’s unfair to say that metabolic “set points” or predispositions, or whatever you want to call it, don’t exist.

Edited June 20, 2019 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

On 6/18/2019 at 9:19 PM, VincentRJ said:

...unless one is fasting continuously of course, like Angus Barbieri did, who fasted continuously for more than a year under medical supervision, from June 1965.

 

If one is fasting for long periods, one must lose weight even if one lies on the couch for most of the day feeling totally lethargic.

 

Having applied one's will power and self control, to maintain a restricted diet and regular exercise over a significant period of time, one's body and metabolism will adjust to the 'new norm', and the initial feelings of hunger, and lethargy, and/or muddled thinking, will gradually disappear. ...

 

IMO, severe fasting (water fasts) should not be thought of as a form of dieting at all (except for medical issues; i.e: Barbieri, advanced diabetes, etc).  It's not a sound, short term fix to "loose a few pounds"; in all likelihood you'll gain them back again unless you follow up with a long-term healthy nutritional strategy.  And it is not a nutritional strategy since a fast, by it's nature, can not be long term.  

 

Rather, fasting is a very specific way to make long-term modifications in how our bodies use foods and stored body fat as fuel.  A properly conducted fast can literally cause long-term changes to the hormonal pathways of fat and carbohydrate metabolism.

 

The term often used to describe what happens during a fast metabolically is "fat adaptation" or "keto adaptation".  It requires that fasting be severe enough that ketone bodies are produced, and that's not the most pleasant thing to experience initially.  So, most people won't attempt a true fast or will quit before the fast has had a chance to work.  The thing is, most people come so close to achieving adaptation (even if they don't know what that is) but quit just when they're about to get a payoff for their struggle!  

 

In my own experience, 3-5 days of water fasting is the optimal window for adaptation to take place (you can do it on a regular keto diet with under 50 grams of carbs too but it will take a lot longer).  Many people get to 48 hours (which for me is the absolute worst part of a fast) and then quit, not realizing they've gotten through the worst of it.

 

Unfortunately, You can not really achieve fat adaptation with most intermittent fasting protocols because carbs need to be below 50 grams per day to produce sufficient ketone bodies that allow adaptation to occur.

 

No affront to IF intended here; IMO, intermittent fasting is a very healthy long-term strategy for weight control and metabolic health for many, and one to consider for after an adaptation-fast, but it's not going to do much at improving the body's long-term efficiency at using stored fat as fuel since ketone bodies play a big role in the adaptation process .  

 

Improving the body's long-term efficiency at using stored fat as fuel should really be the goal if one is to fast because once the body becomes fat adapted, and you re-introduce normal levels of carbs back into your diet, there will be far less tendency to store them as body fat, and far more tendency to use them as fuel (importantly, even when you resume consuming carbs!).  So, this is not only of interest only to obese people but to endurance athletes as well, and many elite athletes are beginning to embrace the idea of fat-adaptation for this reason.

 

A fast should be thought of as a period of time where you are training your body just like an athlete lifts weights to get stronger; there's a relatively short time-frame to this, and then you go back to using carbs in a sound long-term nutritional plan again.

 

A long term nutritional strategy I personally like is Intermittent fasting (2 meals per day with carbs, protein, and fats that meet your needs and preferences), and periodic 72 hour water-only fasts (I do them every month or every other month).  What ever nutritional strategy you embrace, becoming fat adapted will benefit it greatly IMO.

 

Look, I'm not advocating fasting for everyone.  I'm just saying, I have been an athlete all of my life, always tended to be overweight, personally dealt with some pretty serious metabolic-related health issues during that time, tried lots of diets, and, for me, this strategy has been the one that made a BIG difference in my life, and once I embraced this very simple idea of "keto adaptation", I've never been concerned about obesity, or other health issues I had faced in the past (and a couple of them were pretty damn serious), and since I became keto-adapted, I have never felt the need to go on a diet to "loose a few pounds", and no longer have to feel guilty about eating foods that give me pleasure, which is really how life should be!

 

All I'm saying is that if you are obese or leaning in that direction and/or you have health issues that are metabolically related, or you simply want to make you body process fuels and use body fat in an optimal way, do some open-minded, unbiased research from reliable sources (not health gurus on YouTube) and see if this might not be something to seriously consider...for the right reason.

 

Just remember, fasting should not be about loosing a few pounds; it should be about training your body to use body fat as fuel more efficiently.

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by Kohsamida

[VincentRJ]

8 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

I don't think there is anything misleading about the term "set point" at all.  Say that to someone who spends their whole life diligently battling obesity, while another person can seemingly eat anything they want and never become obese.  

I have frequently said that to overweight women. What I've found is that such people get into a state of denial about the fundamental concept that one can't become overweight without eating too much. They use examples of people they know, who they 'think or imagine' eat the same amount of food as they do, but are not overweight.

 

Such overweight people seem unable, or psychologically unwilling, to grasp that fundamental concept that, whilst it is possible for some people to eat too much of certain types of food and not put on weight, because of their individual and perhaps unusual metabolism, it's not possible for someone to put on weight without eating too much, because that would defy the laws of physics.

 

Quote

It’s not necessarily a matter of will power and perseverance.  There’s is also an underlying metabolic cause to obesity for many people.

 

Very misleading. Will power and perseverance are required for all your achievements in life, whether it's winning a marathon race, passing exams at school or university, gaining promotion in your job, sticking with a job which you don't like because you need the money, building muscles in the gym so you can attract the opposite sex, stopping smoking, eventually after several attempts, and so on, and so on.

 

There is also a tendency to simplify causes. Metabolism is a contributing cause of obesity, but without the individual's cooperation with his/her metabolic tendencies, such as gorging on too much junk food, obesity cannot occur.

 

Quote

As I see it, the relationship between insulin and leptin is a good example of a natural metabolic “set point” unique to every individual.  It’s not something you can change through will power anymore than you can change how many hours of sleep you need.  It varies from individual to individuals.  It’s “hard-wired” into each of us and doesn’t change.

 

It would be very difficult to change anything which you believe is a 'hard-wired set point'. Your height is a 'hard-wired set point'. Would any 'shorty' be silly enough to pay for a diet that claimed it could increase his height?

 

Obesity is in a different category. Describing it as 'hard-wired' would have a nocebo effect (the opposite of placebo). If you want to do your best to discourage obese people from even attempting to lose weight, then that's the way to do it.
 

Edited June 20, 2019 by VincentRJ

[VincentRJ]

6 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

IMO, severe fasting (water fasts) should not be thought of as a form of dieting at all (except for medical issues; i.e: Barbieri, advanced diabetes, etc).  It's not a sound, short term fix to "loose a few pounds"; in all likelihood you'll gain them back again unless you follow up with a long-term healthy nutritional strategy.  And it is not a nutritional strategy since a fast, by it's nature, can not be long term.  

 

Rather, fasting is a very specific way to make long-term modifications in how our bodies use foods and stored body fat as fuel.  A properly conducted fast can literally cause long-term changes to the hormonal pathways of fat and carbohydrate metabolism.

 

The term often used to describe what happens during a fast metabolically is "fat adaptation" or "keto adaptation".  It requires that fasting be severe enough that ketone bodies are produced, and that's not the most pleasant thing to experience initially.  So, most people won't attempt a true fast or will quit before the fast has had a chance to work.  The thing is, most people come so close to achieving adaptation (even if they don't know what that is) but quit just when they're about to get a payoff for their struggle!  

 

In my own experience, 3-5 days of water fasting is the optimal window for adaptation to take place (you can do it on a regular keto diet with under 50 grams of carbs too but it will take a lot longer).  Many people get to 48 hours (which for me is the absolute worst part of a fast) and then quit, not realizing they've gotten through the worst of it.

 

Unfortunately, You can not really achieve fat adaptation with most intermittent fasting protocols because carbs need to be below 50 grams per day to produce sufficient ketone bodies that allow adaptation to occur.

 

No affront to IF intended here; IMO, intermittent fasting is a very healthy long-term strategy for weight control and metabolic health for many, and one to consider for after an adaptation-fast, but it's not going to do much at improving the body's long-term efficiency at using stored fat as fuel since ketone bodies play a big role in the adaptation process .  

 

Improving the body's long-term efficiency at using stored fat as fuel should really be the goal if one is to fast because once the body becomes fat adapted, and you re-introduce normal levels of carbs back into your diet, there will be far less tendency to store them as body fat, and far more tendency to use them as fuel (importantly, even when you resume consuming carbs!).  So, this is not only of interest only to obese people but to endurance athletes as well, and many elite athletes are beginning to embrace the idea of fat-adaptation for this reason.

 

A fast should be thought of as a period of time where you are training your body just like an athlete lifts weights to get stronger; there's a relatively short time-frame to this, and then you go back to using carbs in a sound long-term nutritional plan again.

 

A long term nutritional strategy I personally like is Intermittent fasting (2 meals per day with carbs, protein, and fats that meet your needs and preferences), and periodic 72 hour water-only fasts (I do them every month or every other month).  What ever nutritional strategy you embrace, becoming fat adapted will benefit it greatly IMO.

 

Look, I'm not advocating fasting for everyone.  I'm just saying, I have been an athlete all of my life, always tended to be overweight, personally dealt with some pretty serious metabolic-related health issues during that time, tried lots of diets, and, for me, this strategy has been the one that made a BIG difference in my life, and once I embraced this very simple idea of "keto adaptation", I've never been concerned about obesity, or other health issues I had faced in the past (and a couple of them were pretty damn serious), and since I became keto-adapted, I have never felt the need to go on a diet to "loose a few pounds", and no longer have to feel guilty about eating foods that give me pleasure, which is really how life should be!

 

All I'm saying is that if you are obese or leaning in that direction and/or you have health issues that are metabolically related, or you simply want to make you body process fuels and use body fat in an optimal way, do some open-minded, unbiased research from reliable sources (not health gurus on YouTube) and see if this might not be something to seriously consider...for the right reason.

 

Just remember, fasting should not be about loosing a few pounds; it should be about training your body to use body fat as fuel more efficiently.

 

You're making things unnecessarily complicated. All you have to do if you want to lose weight, is first work out what constitutes a healthy diet, consume the healthy diet in quantities that result in a weight loss, and exercise more.

 

If the weight loss is too slow and doesn't meet your expectations, then introduce periods of fasting, and/or exercise even more.

 

Don't bother counting calories. Use the scales. If you are not losing weight, then eat even less and/or exercise more until you see the weight reducing on the scales. Preferably, weigh yourself on the scales always after you have defecated, in order to get an accurate assessment. ????
 

[Kohsamida]

17 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I have frequently said that to overweight women. What I've found is that such people get into a state of denial about the fundamental concept that one can't become overweight without eating too much. They use examples of people they know, who they 'think or imagine' eat the same amount of food as they do, but are not overweight.

 

Such overweight people seem unable, or psychologically unwilling, to grasp that fundamental concept that, whilst it is possible for some people to eat too much of certain types of food and not put on weight, because of their individual and perhaps unusual metabolism, it's not possible for someone to put on weight without eating too much, because that would defy the laws of physics.

 

 

Very misleading. Will power and perseverance are required for all your achievements in life, whether it's winning a marathon race, passing exams at school or university, gaining promotion in your job, sticking with a job which you don't like because you need the money, building muscles in the gym so you can attract the opposite sex, stopping smoking, eventually after several attempts, and so on, and so on.

 

There is also a tendency to simplify causes. Metabolism is a contributing cause of obesity, but without the individual's cooperation with his/her metabolic tendencies, such as gorging on too much junk food, obesity cannot occur.

 

 

It would be very difficult to change anything which you believe is a 'hard-wired set point'. Your height is a 'hard-wired set point'. Would any 'shorty' be silly enough to pay for a diet that claimed it could increase his height?

 

Obesity is in a different category. Describing it as 'hard-wired' would have a nocebo effect (the opposite of placebo). If you want to do your best to discourage obese people from even attempting to lose weight, then that's the way to do it.
 

As I clearly stated in my post, I’m not denying that will power and perseverance are required to deal with obesity.  My point is simply that metabolic set-points do in fact exist, and they play a critically important role in our survival.  There’s nothing misleading at all in the term.  

 

It seems that you enjoy debating semantics.  That’s OK I guess but I don’t have the patience or time for that.  Set-points (or whatever you prefer to call it) are a scientific reality, and it makes no more sense to debate that then it does to debate whether the sun rises and sets everyday.

 

Most homeostatic states require biological set-points for our survival.  They vary widely from one individual to another and they remain fixed throughout life.  The number of hours an individual must sleep is governed by a set point.  Baseline body temperature is governed by a set point.  And blood glucose homeostasis (and thus natural body fat percentage) is another critically important set-point.

 

Theres nothing an individual can do to change them.  It’s important to recognize this because it’s a basic biological truth that’s been with us since the dawn of time, and we probably wouldn’t be here today if that weren’t so.

 

That doesn’t mean an obese person can’t solve their problem but it does mean that a woman with a deluded body image shouldn’t try to look like a super-thin swimsuit model if her healthy set point is to carry more weight.   For many people THAT can be just as big of a health issue as obesity...so, yeah, set-points exists for a reason and it’s important to recognize that simple fact.

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Kohsamida

[Kohsamida]

20 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

You're making things unnecessarily complicated. All you have to do if you want to lose weight, is first work out what constitutes a healthy diet, consume the healthy diet in quantities that result in a weight loss, and exercise more.

 

If the weight loss is too slow and doesn't meet your expectations, then introduce periods of fasting, and/or exercise even more.

 

Don't bother counting calories. Use the scales. If you are not losing weight, then eat even less and/or exercise more until you see the weight reducing on the scales. Preferably, weigh yourself on the scales always after you have defecated, in order to get an accurate assessment. ????
 

...And you grossly over-simplify what can be a very vexing problem for many.  Not directing this at you personally but I think it’s a little pompous and arrogant when some infer that those people who fail on a CICO-only diet have nobody to blame but themselves.  Most weight loss diets have one major problem and that is simply the immutable first law of thermodynamics:  Calories-in and calories-out must be in homeostatic balance, and the body is designed to do everything it can to maintain this balance, and thus prevent you from creating a deficit.

 

The specific type of fasting protocol I described is designed to solve this problem.  It is not a weight loss diet in itself.  It's purpose is only to redefine the hormonal pathways of fat and carbohydrate metabolism; to make your body more adapted at accessing and using stored body fat as a primary fuel source, which it normally is not very efficient at doing. 

 

Now here is the important point:  This adaptation does not go away when you end the fast; the body maintains this adaptation in the long-term if periodic fasts are performed. 

 

In this adapted state, a CICO diet can actually work well and the reason is simply that even though you are cutting dietary calories, the body is now more efficiently able to access and use stored body fat as fuel, thus an energy deficit does not occur or at least is greatly minimized so metabolic slowdown is no longer an issue.  Now, a CICO diet can actually be quite effective.

 

And there is a bonus to this too.  Over time, with every fast you become even more adapted.  What this means is that you eventually reach a point where a weight-loss diet no longer is even necessary.  In essence, you become diet-free because you now have a vastly improved metabolic engine!  

 

I know there are many naysayers and I was one of them when I first explored the science that’s under all of this but simply put, it works!  There’s nothing complicated about it, and nothing radical about it either. This protocol is very simply a way to optimize your metabolic engine, and I mean that exactly as written.  It works for the obese as well as for the highly tuned athlete, and everyone in between.  

 

I’ve been doing this now for several years in conjunction with a 16:8 (2 meals a day).  I have not felt the need to do a weight-loss diet since I started this protocol (and before I was constantly on one diet or another to lose fat).  I don’t watch calories at all now and eat all I want.  I eat smart and avoid processed foods particularly with sugar, but basically I eat whatever I want and just try to have a healthy balance of carbs, protein and fats.  Pretty simple.  That’s it.  And I'm a lot happier person than I ever was before, and much more healthy too (according to my doctor and my blood panels).

 

I need to fast once a month or every two months to maintain adaptation but that's a very small price to pay for being free from diets.  I don’t feel deprived at all and I am a very active person ( I compete in triathlon).  I used to have a big weight problem.  I no longer do.  IT WORKS FOR ME, and I think it can work for most people.

 

I’m saying all of this to share something I think can benefit many people, whether or not they are dealing with obesity.  I don’t ask anyone to believe me; I’m only trying to inspire people to explore this concept with an open mind.  Take it for what it’s worth.

 

Oh and BTW...throw away your bathroom scale LOL!  You don't need one, or a tape measure or anything but a full-length mirror.  Everything you need to know about your body composition can be gleaned from seeing yourself naked in a full-length mirror.  It's brutally honest and accurate.  If you're out of shape, nothing else will be as motivating (or shocking) ... Believe me!  ????

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Kohsamida

[VincentRJ]

9 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

As I clearly stated in my post, I’m not denying that will power and perseverance are required to deal with obesity.  My point is simply that metabolic set-points do in fact exist, and they play a critically important role in our survival.  There’s nothing misleading at all in the term.  

 

It seems that you enjoy debating semantics.  That’s OK I guess but I don’t have the patience or time for that.  Set-points (or whatever you prefer to call it) are a scientific reality, and it makes no more sense to debate that then it does to debate whether the sun rises and sets everyday.

 

With all due respect, you seem rather confused to me. 'Set point' is a general term used in common language. It is more relevant in engineering than biology. Scientific terms need to be precise.

 

Our scientific understanding of biological processes is very limited due to their enormous complexity. When we thought we'd cracked the human genome, it was only about 10% of it, consisting of protein encoding genes. The other 90% was considered to be 'junk' DNA.

 

It's now thought this 'junk DNA' does serve a purpose, but we're not sure. There is still scientific controversy. Here are two conflicting views.
https://www.rdmag.com/news/2019/02/genomics-researchers-say-junk-dna-key-advancing-medicine
https://www.bionews.org.uk/page_96101