Help me lose the rest of this fat (please)

[LiftinginIT]

Intermittent versus continuous energy restriction on weight loss and cardiometabolic outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials - Journal of Translational Medicine

Background This systematic review and meta-analysis summarized the most recent evidence on the efficacy of intermittent energy restriction (IER) versus continuous energy restriction on weight-loss, body composition, blood pressure and other cardiometabolic risk factors. Methods Randomized...

translational-medicine.biomedcentral.com

Intermittent Energy Restriction for Weight Loss: A Systematic Review of Cardiometabolic, Inflammatory and Appetite Outcomes - PubMed

Current guidelines for obesity treatment recommend reducing daily caloric intake for weight loss. However, long-term weight loss continues to be an issue in obesity management. Alternative weight loss strategies have increased in popularity, such as intermittent energy restriction (IER), a type...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Intermittent Fasting and Fat Mass: What Is the Clinical Magnitude?

Clinical studies addressing the benefits of intermittent fasting (IF) diets have evoked interest in the treatment of obesity. Herein, the overall effects of IF regimens on fat-mass loss are explained in a brief review through a recent literature update. To date, human studies show a reduction in...

www.mdpi.com

A randomized controlled trial to isolate the effects of fasting and energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic health in lean adults - PubMed

Intermittent fasting may impart metabolic benefits independent of energy balance by initiating fasting-mediated mechanisms. This randomized controlled trial examined 24-hour fasting with 150% energy intake on alternate days for 3 weeks in lean, healthy individuals (0:150; <i>n</i> = 12). Control...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Early time-restricted eating compared with daily caloric restriction: A randomized trial in adults with obesity - PubMed

E-TRE+DCR was found to be an acceptable dietary strategy, resulting in similar levels of adherence and weight loss compared with DCR alone.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss - PubMed

Among patients with obesity, a regimen of time-restricted eating was not more beneficial with regard to reduction in body weight, body fat, or metabolic risk factors than daily calorie restriction. (Funded by the National Key Research and Development Project [No. 2018YFA0800404] and others...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

theres more but i believe this should be sufficient

Going through a lot of these you are citing as fact almost all of them say to some degree or another that the tests were inconclusive and that more long duration study was required to come to any real scientific result.

The only commonality that is even really mentioned across studies you've cited here is that there did not appear to be any difference between fasting or non. These are also not closed tests and by that I mean these individuals are not monitored 24/7.

With that said how much of the results here are tainted by overweight unmotivated individuals that may not have even tried? Or even honored the test for what it was supposed to represent?

So you taking a bunch of likely already lazy overweight people (its clear they mention selecting obese people as a part of this) and minus their measurable vitals the entire study is dependent upon them actually following the program. One you cited had well over 100 people drop out.

How many people have you seen pick up a diet today and be off it tomorrow? If the information relies primarily on human behavior its likely these results are wildly tainted - with laziness.

Theres a clip floating around with Lee Priest joking about how he'd give someone a program on Day 1 and by Day 4 or whatever they are asking him when its going to change... this is just reflective of how unreliable people are when it comes to sticking to the plan and executing it.

 

[TomJ]

Going through a lot of these you are citing as fact almost all of them say to some degree or another that the tests were inconclusive and that more long duration study was required to come to any real scientific result.

The only commonality that is even really mentioned across studies you've cited here is that there did not appear to be any difference between fasting or non. These are also not closed tests and by that I mean these individuals are not monitored 24/7.

With that said how much of the results here are tainted by overweight unmotivated individuals that may not have even tried? Or even honored the test for what it was supposed to represent?

So you taking a bunch of likely already lazy overweight people (its clear they mention selecting obese people as a part of this) and minus their measurable vitals the entire study is dependent upon them actually following the program. One you cited had well over 100 people drop out.

How many people have you seen pick up a diet today and be off it tomorrow? If the information relies primarily on human behavior its likely these results are wildly tainted - with laziness.

yes, but the raw data is consistent across every single human randomized control trial on the subject.
and they consistently point to "Intermittent fasting has no benefit in fat loss over any other form of calorie restriction" we arent talking about whether IM is easier to adhere to for fat and lazy people, we are looking to answer the question do you lose more fat with IM" and the answer is a definite no.

several of the studies i posted do a very good job at accounting for human variance, and i believe one of them even has the participants serve as their own control, looking at maintenance, traditional daily restriction, and IM restriction. If that study wasnt included in the ones i posted i can go look for it.

 

[LiftinginIT]

yes, but the raw data is consistent across every single human randomized control trial on the subject.
and they consistently point to "Intermittent fasting has no benefit in fat loss over any other form of calorie restriction" we arent talking about whether IM is easier to adhere to for fat and lazy people, we are looking to answer the question do you lose more fat with IM" and the answer is a definite no.

several of the studies i posted do a very good job at accounting for human variance, and i believe one of them even has the participants serve as their own control, looking at maintenance, traditional daily restriction, and IM restriction. If that study wasnt included in the ones i posted i can go look for it.

I'd argue that the raw data is consistent because human behavior is consistent, not because there is anything better or worse done in those ensuing trials. All the ones you've cited here were performed by the same organization. Though I do want to express my appreciation for you sharing them. No info as bad info.

For this I'd want to see a smaller study, motivated individuals that want the end goal.

Shuffling in a bunch of cattle to pretend like they are starving themselves for a few days with no monitored dietary intake and no monitored exercise to ensure those variables are being performed is only going to show you what we already know in that humans are inherently lazy.

It takes a lot of willpower to literally not eat in a scenario where you are heavily predisposed to eating, do you think all 600 people in the study have that kind of will if they already lacked will enough to land themselves in an obese category?

Personally I have been fasting on and off for many months and I can at least conclude that most of the fears around it, based on my own experience seem unfounded. No real strength drop-off and my numbers are pretty decent. No real energy issues. If the fasting did nothing more than allow me to operate at a hard deficit, then at a minimum it did its job, anything else is just extra.

My opinion is the bodybuilding world is so fixated on size and growth that any suggestion that you wouldn't eat (AKA grow) makes you a pariah. Science or not.

 

[CJ]

yes, but the raw data is consistent across every single human randomized control trial on the subject.
and they consistently point to "Intermittent fasting has no benefit in fat loss over any other form of calorie restriction" we arent talking about whether IM is easier to adhere to for fat and lazy people, we are looking to answer the question do you lose more fat with IM" and the answer is a definite no.

several of the studies i posted do a very good job at accounting for human variance, and i believe one of them even has the participants serve as their own control, looking at maintenance, traditional daily restriction, and IM restriction. If that study wasnt included in the ones i posted i can go look for it.

Psssst... Should I break his heart and link some METABOLIC WARD studies that show keto and low carb diets to be of no extra benefit, and possibly detrimental, to fat loss and body composition?

 

[LiftinginIT]

Psssst... Should I break his heart and link some METABOLIC WARD studies that show keto and low carb diets to be of no extra benefit, and possibly detrimental, to fat loss and body composition?

I'd be down to read it, but again, for every study you have that is going to point to no benefit, there will be another that will. Same shit as the fasting.

 

[CJ]

I'd be down to read it, but again, for every study you have that is going to point to no benefit, there will be another that will. Same shit as the fasting.

Then show those studies. Find studies that show fasting is any better than simple daily calorie restriction.

There is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

 

[CJ]

High-carb or low-carb, that is a question

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men

Background: The carbohydrate–insulin model of obesity posits that habitual consumption of a high-carbohydrate diet sequesters fat within adipose tissue because of hyperinsulinemia and results in adaptive suppression of energy expenditure (EE). ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Calorie for calorie, dietary fat restriction results in more body fat loss than carbohydrate restriction in people with obesity

Dietary carbohydrate restriction has been purported to cause endocrine adaptations that promote body fat loss more than dietary fat restriction. We selectively restricted dietary carbohydrate versus fat for 6 days following a 5 day baseline diet in 19 ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[LiftinginIT]

Psssst... Should I break his heart and link some METABOLIC WARD studies that show keto and low carb diets to be of no extra benefit, and possibly detrimental, to fat loss and body composition?

You guys must not be reading the same stuff im reading. This was provided by the NIH.

A metabolic ward study of a high protein, very-low-energy diet - PubMed

Seven obese women were placed on a liquid formula diet providing 560 kcal (2.4 MJ) and 70 g protein daily and studied under metabolic ward conditions for four weeks. The diet was well tolerated and hunger sensations were minimal. Mean weight loss was 10.47 kg for the four weeks. A positive...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[LiftinginIT]

So again, a study directly contradicting that a low carb high protein diet does not equate to weight loss.

 

[CJ]

View attachment 46770


You guys must not be reading the same stuff im reading. This was provided by the NIH.

Rapid weight loss. How much was fat, water, lean tissue?

One of my studies has the same basic statement as you circled, but DEXA showed that FAT LOSS was similar, so the extra weight loss is predictably water and lean tissue

 

[CJ]

So again, a study directly contradicting that a low carb high protein diet does not equate to weight loss.

We're talking FAT LOSS. Nobody is arguing water weight is initially lost on fasts and/or carb restriction.

 

[TomJ]

Personally I have been fasting on and off for many months and I can at least conclude that most of the fears around it, based on my own experience seem unfounded. No real strength drop-off and my numbers are pretty decent. No real energy issues.

I know a lot of people that have had success with some sort of time restricted feeding regimen. But be careful you arent associating your own personal bias to the subject due to your perceived positive experience. Theres no telling how your strength and performance metrics would look in comparison if you spent the same timeframe eating with a different regimen since youre essentially a N=1 study.

If the fasting did nothing more than allow me to operate at a hard deficit, then at a minimum it did its job, anything else is just extra.

Thats totally fine, contrary to how it may sound, im not against intermittent fasting or any other form of TRF at all. If that methodology is what fits your personal life variables and leads to the easiest adherence, then thats awesome.

I just make sure to make it clear that a lot of the buzz words from the TRF/IF promoters/"gurus" are all absolute bullshit. such as the effect of increased GH secretion, autophagy, ect. And that, from a performance standpoint, if muscle gain and physical performance are a priority as well, or over, fatloss, then fasting will be undoubtedly detrimental in progress and performance metrics.

 

[LiftinginIT]

Rapid weight loss. How much was fat, water, lean tissue?

One of my studies has the same basic statement as you circled, but DEXA showed that FAT LOSS was similar, so the extra weight loss is predictably water and lean tissue

Maybe in a trial only lasting a few weeks where there was no physical activity for the subjects, just diet and the water and lean tissue argument doesnt hold up long term because your body really only holding 5-10lbs of water that it can reasonably drop.

We're talking FAT LOSS. Nobody is arguing water weight is initially lost on fasts and/or carb restriction.

I am also talking fat loss. That trial was only 4 weeks and those women didnt even exercise so of course any actual drop in size is going to be marginal.

Ya'll's points make sense in the short term but in my opinion do not stand up against long term weight loss. If that was the case then I would just be dropping and putting on the same 70lbs of water weight.

The level of motivation I think is the determining factor in success both in the study and on a personal experience level. If I am fasting and I am going hard all the time I am simply going to see better results than someone who is fasting and is otherwise putting zero effort.

 

[TomJ]

Maybe in a trial only lasting a few weeks where there was no physical activity for the subjects, just diet and the water and lean tissue argument doesnt hold up long term because your body really only holding 5-10lbs of water that it can reasonably drop.




I am also talking fat loss. That trial was only 4 weeks and those women didnt even exercise so of course any actual drop in size is going to be marginal.

Ya'll's points make sense in the short term but in my opinion do not stand up against long term weight loss. If that was the case then I would just be dropping and putting on the same 70lbs of water weight.

The level of motivation I think is the determining factor in success both in the study and on a personal experience level. If I am fasting and I am going hard all the time I am simply going to see better results than someone who is fasting and is otherwise putting zero effort.

exercise doesnt matter.

its intake vs expenditure.

I could get in contest ready shape (less than 7% bf) without going to the gym or doing a single second of cardio.

it would suck absolute balls, but its important to remember "exercise" is just another means to balancing the equation of in = out.

more out is the same as less in.

 

[LiftinginIT]

exercise doesnt matter.

its intake vs expenditure.

I could get in contest ready shape (less than 7% bf) without going to the gym or doing a single second of cardio.

it would suck absolute balls, but its important to remember "exercise" is just another means to balancing the equation of in = out.

more out is the same as less in.

Its tough to say exercise doesnt matter and then on the following line say its intake vs. expenditure because exercise has a direct impact on expenditure. It is expenditure by definition via forcibly burning calories.

If you dont exercise, sure, you can operate on a deficit, but those operating on a deficit while exercise will naturally widen the deficit, its just common sense.

 

[CJ]

The level of motivation I think is the determining factor in success both in the study and on a personal experience level. If I am fasting and I am going hard all the time I am simply going to see better results than someone who is fasting and is otherwise putting zero effort.

But your results will pale in comparison to someone who is in a small daily calorie deficit and trains.

You're on the road to becoming the dreaded skinny-fat, or worse, the yo-yo dieter.

 

[TomJ]

Its tough to say exercise doesnt matter and then on the following line say its intake vs. expenditure because exercise has a direct impact on expenditure. It is expenditure by definition via forcibly burning calories.

If you dont exercise, sure, you can operate on a deficit, but those operating on a deficit while exercise will naturally widen the deficit, its just common sense.

expenditure is more than just exercise, its simply existing. exercise is only a very small portion of total expenditure.


cutting 500 calories out of your diet is the exact same thing as burning an additional 500 through exercise.

the point im making is that these study participants not participating in any formal intentional exercise is an entirely irrelevant point

 

[CJ]

Its tough to say exercise doesnt matter and then on the following line say its intake vs. expenditure because exercise has a direct impact on expenditure. It is expenditure by definition via forcibly burning calories.

If you dont exercise, sure, you can operate on a deficit, but those operating on a deficit while exercise will naturally widen the deficit, its just common sense.

Yeah, that's exactly what he said.

 

[LiftinginIT]

But your results will pale in comparison to someone who is in a small daily calorie deficit and trains.

You're on the road to becoming the dreaded skinny-fat, or worse, the yo-yo dieter.

And again, cant continue with some sort of educated response, instead reverts to some level of insult. Lol.

Where I am asking you to prove your point, this is what you guys reduce it to every time.

 

[CJ]

And again, cant continue with some sort of educated response, instead reverts to some level of insult. Lol.

It's not an insult, it's what happens to most who follow extreme diets.

Where I am asking you to prove your point, this is what you guys reduce it to every time.