6 ms·

> My blood ketones during my fasting are through the roof, over 1.5 mmol/L after 15 hours of fasting, which indicates deep nutritional ketosis and an indication

> My blood ketones during my fasting are through the roof, over 1.5 mmol/L after 15 hours of fasting, which indicates deep nutritional ketosis and an indication that lypolisis is efficient. The problem is that there isn't any real data, on an epidemiological level, that says this matters. I don't mean to be offensive, it's just a weird obsession with the Keto community I don't really understand. Same with insulin spikes. They just don't matter. It's averages over a long period of time that matter. If you're eating two large meals, you're still releasing a lot of insulin, you're still doing the same amount of fat storage, you're just timing it differently. If that works for you, great. > I can tell you this would not happen if I ate 6 small meals per day. And I know because I measured myself. But it’s also how the body works ... ketosis happens after the liver’s glycogen stores are depleted, which takes 10-12 hours and the switch to burning fat isn’t very efficient and getting less so with age. Your body needs a break from food in order to mobilize the energy in your adipose tissue. This is a semantic construction that is not supported by the science. You are correct that you would not measure nearly as high blood ketone levels, but you are incorrect in the idea that you wouldn't consume essentially the same amount of fat over the same amount of time given the same caloric inputs. Most people also go into ketosis while they are sleeping. > With 6 small meals what actually happens is constant hunger because you’re interrupting lipolysis every time you eat. This doesn't matter. Given the same energy requirements and the same energy inputs you're going to burn the same amount of fat over a 24 hour period regardless of when those inputs come. Anything else is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. > This happens even with the ketogenic diet, because even meat triggers a hormonal response, small but not insignificant. Yes, keto is actually a low protein diet as much as a high fat diet. Most people ignore the first part. > Also speaking from my own experience, I suffered from hunger at night, which made me binge. Switched to IF, hunger is now gone. Sounds like a paradox but it really isn’t. This is great, and a very real reason for people to try IF/Keto/Other diets. But it does not suggest anything other than a compliance hack that is working well for you.

JanSt 8y ago
> If you're eating two large meals, you're still releasing a lot of insulin, you're still doing the same amount of fat storage, you're just timing it differently. If that works for you, great. Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. > This is a semantic construction that is not supported by the science. It is. See insulin vs glucagon. > but you are incorrect in the idea that you wouldn't consume essentially the same amount of fat over the same amount of time given the same caloric inputs It's about your metabolism not CICO. > Most people also go into ketosis while they are sleeping. Well it won't be a deep ketosis. The longer your fast, the lower the insulin, the more body fat will be used. > This doesn't matter. Given the same energy requirements and the same energy inputs you're going to burn the same amount of fat over a 24 hour period regardless of when those inputs come. Anything else is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It absolutely does matter, because your body does not burn a static amount of calories but adapts to the situation. Slowing metabolism is real. If you can't burn energy (low caloric input but frequent meals), your body will do what it needs to survive. > Yes, keto is actually a low protein diet as much as a high fat diet. Most people ignore the first part. Yes! > This is great, and a very real reason for people to try IF/Keto/Other diets. But it does not suggest anything other than a compliance hack that is working well for you. While it's anecdotal, there are good reasons for this effect. You don't need to go low carb for a healthy diet, but cutting insulin raising foods for periods of time does have its merit. Take no more than 3 meals a day and leave 12+ hours food-free. Will do wonders for most people.
- wdewind 8y ago
  > Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. Right but what happens when you no longer inputting calories and thus no longer have high insulin? Then you start burning the fat again. You can only keep your insulin levels pathologically elevated if you are eating enough to support that over the long term, regardless of when you eat. Again, your body is very good at supplementing energy needs with fat when it needs to. Again there is no study showing meal time having any impact when calories are balanced, and several confirming the opposite. > It absolutely does matter, because your body does not burn a static amount of calories but adapts to the situation. Slowing metabolism is real. If you can't burn energy (low caloric input but frequent meals), your body will do what it needs to survive. Your body adapts to a short term situation (a meal and the small post-prandial period) but in the long term (24 hour period) it makes zero difference. > Slowing metabolism is real. Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand. To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Maybe it would change, but this would be a massive massive change in our understanding of how the human body deals with energy.
  - dorfsmay 8y ago
    > To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ Again difc in body composition in humans, but references to previous studies showing difference in mass in mice: https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/bmi2.pdf https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/...

JanSt 8y ago

> If you're eating two large meals, you're still releasing a lot of insulin, you're still doing the same amount of fat storage, you're just timing it differently. If that works for you, great. Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. > This is a semantic construction that is not supported by the science. It is. See insulin vs glucagon. > but you are incorrect in the idea that you wouldn't consume essentially the same amount of fat over the same amount of time given the same caloric inputs It's about your metabolism not CICO. > Most people also go into ketosis while they are sleeping. Well it won't be a deep ketosis. The longer your fast, the lower the insulin, the more body fat will be used. > This doesn't matter. Given the same energy requirements and the same energy inputs you're going to burn the same amount of fat over a 24 hour period regardless of when those inputs come. Anything else is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. It absolutely does matter, because your body does not burn a static amount of calories but adapts to the situation. Slowing metabolism is real. If you can't burn energy (low caloric input but frequent meals), your body will do what it needs to survive. > Yes, keto is actually a low protein diet as much as a high fat diet. Most people ignore the first part. Yes! > This is great, and a very real reason for people to try IF/Keto/Other diets. But it does not suggest anything other than a compliance hack that is working well for you. While it's anecdotal, there are good reasons for this effect. You don't need to go low carb for a healthy diet, but cutting insulin raising foods for periods of time does have its merit. Take no more than 3 meals a day and leave 12+ hours food-free. Will do wonders for most people.

wdewind 8y ago
> Yes, but your body won't be able to use it's stored fat in the presence of insulin. If you keep that up long enough, you can only burn calories coming in. If you eat a lot of meals AND a caloric deficit your body needs to decrease your metabolism, mostly heat, thus cold hands and feet. Right but what happens when you no longer inputting calories and thus no longer have high insulin? Then you start burning the fat again. You can only keep your insulin levels pathologically elevated if you are eating enough to support that over the long term, regardless of when you eat. Again, your body is very good at supplementing energy needs with fat when it needs to. Again there is no study showing meal time having any impact when calories are balanced, and several confirming the opposite. > It absolutely does matter, because your body does not burn a static amount of calories but adapts to the situation. Slowing metabolism is real. If you can't burn energy (low caloric input but frequent meals), your body will do what it needs to survive. Your body adapts to a short term situation (a meal and the small post-prandial period) but in the long term (24 hour period) it makes zero difference. > Slowing metabolism is real. Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand. To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Maybe it would change, but this would be a massive massive change in our understanding of how the human body deals with energy.
- dorfsmay 8y ago
  > To be very clear, the proof required for what you are suggesting is a study with a minimum of 2 groups eating the same exact meals but at different times, and being forced to finish the entire meal and experiencing different outcomes. This has never happened, and based on our current understanding of metabolism never will. Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/wurjhns/vol8/iss1/4/ Again difc in body composition in humans, but references to previous studies showing difference in mass in mice: https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/bmi2.pdf https://nature.berkeley.edu/garbelottoat/wp-content/uploads/...