cant lose weight??

BlackWidow_ · 13-08-2014 4:58pm

dani049 wrote: »

Its called intermittent fasting and is not unhealthy at all.

I'm definitely not an expert, but I did take a few metabolism and physiology classes at college and I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. There have been studies done on skipping meals and the conclusions are that it has health consequences. Even if you were consuming enough calories during that one hour, going for 23 hours without eating puts a serious strain on your heart.
I don't know where you got the information that this is isn't unhealthy, but I'd side eye any medical professional that would tell you this is fine.

Mellor · 14-08-2014 1:58am

BlackWidow_ wrote: »

I'm definitely not an expert, but I did take a few metabolism and physiology classes at college and I'm pretty sure you're wrong about that. There have been studies done on skipping meals and the conclusions are that it has health consequences. Even if you were consuming enough calories during that one hour, going for 23 hours without eating puts a serious strain on your heart.
I don't know where you got the information that this is isn't unhealthy, but I'd side eye any medical professional that would tell you this is fine.

Where are these studies that show going for 23 hours without eating puts a strain on your heart.

lol at metabolism classes also

lorenzo87 · 14-08-2014 8:56am

Mellor wrote: »

Where are these studies that show going for 23 hours without eating puts a strain on your heart.

lol at metabolism classes also

I don't see what you find so hilarious about somebody educating themselves.

Mellor · 14-08-2014 9:12am

lorenzo87 wrote: »

I don't see what you find so hilarious about somebody educating themselves.

Where was I laughing at one educating themselves. There's nothing wrong with that.

It was the vague pseudoscience and scaremongering of it all.
Metabolism is thrown about as a nonsensical magical spirit living inside of us all. Pairs well with vague ideas that sound serious such as "health consequences" and "strain on your heart".

The whole notion of keeping a metabolism high with frequent meals is largely accepted as bunk. And obviously so to anyone who has even the basic understanding of the relationship of food and energy.

The Rabbit · 14-08-2014 9:17am

I'm far from an expert but to be honest, this seems like a miserable way to live.

It sounds like an eating disorder.

Penny Tration · 14-08-2014 9:30am

Dani, to be honest, I think you should see your GP.

If you're eating that little and not losing weight, it'd be worth getting tests done to see what's going on.

But more importantly - you sound obsessed with weight, calories, inches and scales. Calorie counting has helped me massively, but you sound waaaaaay too obsessed with it.

tenifan · 14-08-2014 10:46am

Mellor wrote: »

It was the vague pseudoscience and scaremongering of it all.
Metabolism is thrown about as a nonsensical magical spirit living inside of us all.

Nothing funnier than the fat girl at work worrying her body "might be going into starvation mode" when she stops seeing results in her latest half-assed diet

Brian? · 14-08-2014 12:04pm

tenifan wrote: »

Nothing funnier than the fat girl at work worrying her body "might be going into starvation mode" when she stops seeing results in her latest half-assed diet

If you have nothing productive to add, don't bother posting.

Dixie Chick · 14-08-2014 12:32pm

tenifan wrote: »

Nothing funnier than the fat girl at work worrying her body "might be going into starvation mode" when she stops seeing results in her latest half-assed diet

Nothing sadder than a keyboard warrior taking a swipe at a person on a health forum

Anyway Dani, I hope you decide to give a couple of weeks of more calories a go. Where you are at now is just no way to be. Maybe you might gain in the short term but your body definitely needs a break from whats going on now.

roseybear · 14-08-2014 1:05pm

Just outta interest, what did u do to lose the 7 stone in the 1st place?

BlackWidow_ · 14-08-2014 2:16pm

Mellor wrote: »

Where are these studies that show going for 23 hours without eating puts a strain on your heart.

lol at metabolism classes also

I can't link you to the articles because boards doesn't let new users do that, I'll put the papers name in brackets

The study I was referring to was specifically looking at skipping breakfast over a sixteen year period. The participants in the study who didn't eat between evening/night time and lunch the next day were noted to have increased risk of corony heart disease. (Prospective Study of Breakfast Eating and Incident Coronary Heart Disease in a Cohort of Male US Health Professionals)

In (A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults) test subjects who ate one meal a day showed higher blood pressure and cholesterol than those on three meals a day, even though they consumed similar numbers of calories overall.

Intermittent fasting seems to be a relatively new diet fad, there doesn't appear to be any long term studies. (Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials) looked at short term alternative day fasting. Subject fasted for 20 hours one day and eat normally the next. They noticed that while male subjects showed some benefits from this regime, female test subjects had increased glucose intolerance. That's an indicator of metabolic distress, and a pretty worrying one.

The handful of articles I've read about intermittent fasting usually use males as the subject, and its apparent from the ones that use females that the benefits of fasting are sex specific. There isn't many studies (that I could find) on the effect of intermittent fasting on reproductive health for women, but its long been know that starvation and severe calorie restriction can cause anything from dysregulated periods to infertility.
There's some interesting animals studies on the subject (Gonadal Transcriptome Alterations in Response to Dietary Energy Intake: Sensing the Reproductive Environment) (Sex-Dependent Metabolic, Neuroendocrine, and Cognitive Responses to Dietary Energy Restriction and Excess)

Most of the articles were on alternate day fasting, the test subject were in some cases encouraged to eat as much as they wanted every other day. The OP isn't even doing that, but going through prolonged fasts everyday and only surviving off 600 calories.
That is not healthy. That is starvation. Part of me can't believe I have to explain this while people go 'lol metabolism' and accuse me of psuedoscience

Mellor · 15-08-2014 4:22am

BlackWidow_ wrote: »

The study I was referring to was specifically looking at skipping breakfast over a sixteen year period. The participants in the study who didn't eat between evening/night time and lunch the next day were noted to have increased risk of corony heart disease. (Prospective Study of Breakfast Eating and Incident Coronary Heart Disease in a Cohort of Male US Health Professionals)

People who simply "skip breakfast" are more likely to have a poor diet in general. More likely to be a co-relation that the cause. Somebody who follows IF would (or rather should) have a much better diet than average.

In (A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults) test subjects who ate one meal a day showed higher blood pressure and cholesterol than those on three meals a day, even though they consumed similar numbers of calories overall.

It would be a lot more beneficial to report all the findings instead of chose the bits you like.

Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.

Conclusions:Normal-weight subjects are able to comply with a 1 meal/d diet.

So the single meal subjects maintained weight, but improved body comp, lost bodyfat. Increased both good and bad cholesterol. The conclusions also notes that the diurnal variation might play a part in the variation in BP, cholesterol etc.

Intermittent fasting seems to be a relatively new diet fad, there doesn't appear to be any long term studies. (Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials) looked at short term alternative day fasting. Subject fasted for 20 hours one day and eat normally the next. They noticed that while male subjects showed some benefits from this regime, female test subjects had increased glucose intolerance. That's an indicator of metabolic distress, and a pretty worrying one.

Againt, selecting a tiny part to report. It was a review of multiple studies, not a single one.

The overall summary was that ADF may decreases the risk of CVD, and also improves metabolic risk factors.

The handful of articles I've read about intermittent fasting usually use males as the subject, and its apparent from the ones that use females that the benefits of fasting are sex specific. There isn't many studies (that I could find) on the effect of intermittent fasting on reproductive health for women, but its long been know that starvation and severe calorie restriction can cause anything from dysregulated periods to infertility.

I fully agree with that. Severe calories restriction is not a good idea. But with IF (or any other meal frequency plan) there shouldn't be a comparative reduction in calories. You should still eat the same food as you would otherwise, just over a smaller window.

Most of the articles were on alternate day fasting, the test subject were in some cases encouraged to eat as much as they wanted every other day. The OP isn't even doing that, but going through prolonged fasts everyday and only surviving off 600 calories.
That is not healthy. That is starvation. Part of me can't believe I have to explain this while people go 'lol metabolism' and accuse me of psuedoscience

You are making a strawman here.
Where did anyone suggest prolonged starving was a good idea?
600 cals is way too little no matter what meal plan you follow. Trying to associate that with IF is ridiculous and highlights how weak your position is. Alternating between binging and starving is a terrible idea and its not IF.
The idea behind IF is you eat the same food as a normal diet. But you spread it over a smaller window, 8 hours is most common, 4 hours less so but also used.

BlackWidow_ · 15-08-2014 11:26am

Mellor wrote: »

It would be a lot more beneficial to report all the findings instead of chose the bits you like.

Againt, selecting a tiny part to report. It was a review of multiple studies, not a single one.

Were you expecting me to write a literature review? You wanted to know why I thought this type of diet can be harmful so I pointed out parts of studies that showed negative effects. You're acting like I hid the original papers from you, but I clearly told you where I found the evidence.

The conclusion I would draw from those studies is that fasting in the short term seems to have some minor benefits and minor negative effects in men, women don't benefit as much and show some harmful effects which could potentially increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes and effect their reproductive cycle. But again I gave you the papers, you're free to draw your own conclusions.

You are making a strawman here.
Where did anyone suggest prolonged starving was a good idea?
600 cals is way too little no matter what meal plan you follow. Trying to associate that with IF is ridiculous and highlights how weak your position is.
Alternating between binging and starving is a terrible idea and its not IF.

My original post was directed at the OP who claimed what she was doing was perfectly healthy, I'm not sure how going back to that point is a strawman?
Also it came across like you were advocating this starving and binging behaviour, since you seemed to take issue with me saying that starving for 23 hours then eating a days worth of calories in one go is unhealthy.

Anyway I don't want to get into a massive debate about this, my point from the beginning was that the OP's pattern of eating was dangerous and we at least seem to agree on that. As for the benefits/risks of IF, its notoriously easy for two people to look at the same data and draw different conclusions. Its worth noting that the IF studies were all short term and extrapolating long term health effects from a three week study isn't a great idea. Totally just my opinion I'd just advise people to eer on the side of caution with this diet trend, particularly if you're female.

dani049 · 25-08-2014 11:58am

Just want to post an update

Since I last posted I stopped doing insanity and upped my calories to about 1350-1500 per day and I'm still the same weight so now I'm even more confused why I wasn't losing any weight when I ate less and burned more!

Stench Blossoms · 25-08-2014 12:05pm

Give it time.

Rome wasn't built in a day.

roseybear · 25-08-2014 12:39pm

dani049 wrote: »

Just want to post an update

Since I last posted I stopped doing insanity and upped my calories to about 1350-1500 per day and I'm still the same weight so now I'm even more confused why I wasn't losing any weight when I ate less and burned more!

I would take this as a chance now to forget about the crazy stuff u were doing the past few weeks, and just take a step back for a min. look at what you're taking in nutrition wise now and think about how you feel - are you tired/full of energy, how's your skin, how's your tummy? now how are your clothes fitting? and finally how are you feeling about your weight and progress? (besides confused). compare all of the above with how you were feeling the day you first posted on this.

You said you lost the weight initially through good diet and exercise and it took a few yrs. how about doing what you did then? when your stressed or worried cortisol is realised which personally I find stalls weight loss (each to their own though). as stench blossoms said Rome isn't built in a day. Don't beat yourself up for enjoying your holidays and adding a bit to the scales, it will come back off as it did for you before

grames_bond · 29-08-2014 10:59am

Chris Pratt put in the best when asked about his weight loss/bulk for guardians:

What you want is instant results when you're out of shape...But when you're in shape, you know it's the result of doing a little bit every day. Moments aren't just moments. A moment might be a week or a month. So instead of 'Boy, I'd love to eat this hamburger right now,' I'm considering a little further into the future. I'm thinking, 'I eat that hamburger and that's 1,200 calories, and I'm gonna work out tomorrow and burn 800 calories. I may as well eat a salad here, still do that workout, and then I'm actually making progress.'

Link

Small changes happen slowly!

PinkLemonade · 29-08-2014 2:52pm

grames_bond wrote: »

Chris Pratt put in the best when asked about his weight loss/bulk for guardians:

Small changes happen slowly!

Not really applicable to the OP as she was eating less than 1000 kcals a day

mcbobbyb · 17-09-2014 3:52pm

Any update OP?

generic2012 · 17-09-2014 4:36pm

Didn't read all posts but here's a video that seems very relevant;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHHzie6XRGk

It's by Layne Norton, a phd, and strength and figure competitor, he has also coached over 1,000 people.

dani049 · 03-12-2014 9:18pm

Completely forgot to post back here.

Shortly after I made this thread I stopped exercising then ended up not tracking my calories either and gained another 2kg over a 3/4 week period

Felt very down so started being strict again...6 days a week exercise and 900-1000 cals intake per day. Lost about 2kg in the first month of that then it went to a halt... I was exercising even more and still not losing anything it was very depressing because I can see there is still lots of body fat to be burned off

I stopped exercising for a few days, purely because my body was feeling burned out, I couldn't push 100% and felt like giving up half way through the exercises and that made me feel worse than not exercising at all!

Well I took a break and have been consistently losing weight now that I am only counting calories and not exercising.

To be honest before I would of said starvation mode is just a load of nonsense but now I really think that's what happened me. I was eating too little for the kind of exercising I was doing and my body was holding onto the fat... That's the only thing that makes sense.

I have since lost all the weight I gained (2kg when I made this post & and the 2kg since then) and an additional 1kg so I'm over the moon. Definitely want to start my fitness again but I'm going to wait til I'm at a point when I am maintaining my weight.

cant lose weight??

Comments