4 ms·

> 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 differentl

by 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/...
  - wdewind 8y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted, and I appreciate you finding studies. > Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ So this study is actually not bad. It has three small flaws that I can find, but is still compelling regardless. It is one of the only studies I have ever seen that did a decent job controlling the food. I'd like to see it repeated and at a larger scale, of course. The flaws are: 1. Malabsorption is a real issue when consuming nearly 2400 calories in a small window. This could be a real confounder with regards to metabolic differences. The malabsorption could be resulting in fewer calories being consumed. 2. Massive withdrawal rate in comparison to other dietary studies. The authors address this, I think reasonably, by concluding that IF is actually really difficult for a lot of people to comply to. This isn't necessarily a strike against IF being metabolically better, but if we dig into exactly why the diet is hard to comply to and force the people who didn't want to comply to comply, we might get different metabolic results. There is a large potential for survivorship bias here. 3. Sample size is tiny blah blah. This doesn't disregard the study but it does limit its applicability. Good find, though, thanks! As for the other two, I don't think they meet the requirements really.
JanSt 8y ago
> 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. No, diabetics have an elevated insulin levels for hours after a meal. Like, after 4 hours it's still at the level a non-diabetic peaks at after 0.5-1 hour. Eating many meals will keep your insulin levels high all-day. > 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. Your body is very bad at burning fat in the presence of insulin. Meal time is only important as to not keep your insulin level elevated all the time. > 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. If you are eating all the time, the short term situation becomes the long term situation, not barely on 24 hour periods but for years on end. This is especially true for diabetics and pre-diabetics, as their insulin level will lower way slower. This is not to say you can't avoid the whole situation by lowering your calories BEFORE you become diabetic. It may actually be the best way, but the science is far from being set because it's such a complex problem. > Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand. It's reversible by either supplementing more food or allowing your body to access its own resources (low insulin!). Increasing caloric demand (exercise!) will help insofar as you're burning of sugar -> less insulin. > 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. While I'm not a fan of isocaloric studys, this should work, yes. You would also have to factor in a lot of other parameters, like established insulin resistance (probably using Kraft-Patterns) > 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. I'm genuinely interested as to what your understanding of insulins / glucagons effect on your body's ability to access fat is.
- wdewind 8y ago
  > No, diabetics have an elevated insulin levels for hours after a meal. Like, after 4 hours it's still at the level a non-diabetic peaks at after 0.5-1 hour. Eating many meals will keep your insulin levels high all-day. I have repeatedly said in this thread this doesn't apply to diabetics, who do have an insulin pathology. Diabetics do need to worry about insulin, non-diabetics do not. > Your body is very bad at burning fat in the presence of insulin. Meal time is only important as to not keep your insulin level elevated all the time. There is no science that disambiguates between large spikes followed by zero food in take (IF), and small spikes continually at the same calorie levels. Please feel free to send any study you think does. > It's reversible by either supplementing more food Again this is only relevant to the post-prandial window. If you are overweight, and have a slow metabolism, and respond by eating a lot of food, you will not successfully "speed up" your metabolism outside of the prandial window. If you are overweight and start dieting, your metabolism with slow down, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows exercise counteracts this, and that the slowdown is reversible when your body fat percentage lowers. > If you are eating all the time, the short term situation becomes the long term situation, not barely on 24 hour periods but for years on end. This is especially true for diabetics and pre-diabetics, as their insulin level will lower way slower. No, this is only true if you are eating all the time and also eating too many calories. . Again, please send a link to a study you think says otherwise. > While I'm not a fan of isocaloric studys, this should work, yes. Why are you not a fan of the only kind of study that could possibly prove your point? And why hasn't this study ever been successfully completed? Why have studies that attempted to do this been unable to show any difference in outcomes? > I'm genuinely interested as to what your understanding of insulins / glucagons effect on your body's ability to access fat is. I don't really know what you're implying here, but I suspect you are still getting hamstrung by the prandial window. Yes, insulin can block your ability to access fat in the short term, no it will not in the long term, and it does not do so entirely either. If you are eating the same number of calories and thus constantly releasing insulin you are blocking some, but not all, lipolysis. Lipolysis is not a binary, nor is insulin release. You can have both of them happening at the same time, even though insulin is blocking some of the lipolysis.

by JanSt 8y ago

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/...
- wdewind 8y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted, and I appreciate you finding studies. > Humans, difference in body composition: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645638/ So this study is actually not bad. It has three small flaws that I can find, but is still compelling regardless. It is one of the only studies I have ever seen that did a decent job controlling the food. I'd like to see it repeated and at a larger scale, of course. The flaws are: 1. Malabsorption is a real issue when consuming nearly 2400 calories in a small window. This could be a real confounder with regards to metabolic differences. The malabsorption could be resulting in fewer calories being consumed. 2. Massive withdrawal rate in comparison to other dietary studies. The authors address this, I think reasonably, by concluding that IF is actually really difficult for a lot of people to comply to. This isn't necessarily a strike against IF being metabolically better, but if we dig into exactly why the diet is hard to comply to and force the people who didn't want to comply to comply, we might get different metabolic results. There is a large potential for survivorship bias here. 3. Sample size is tiny blah blah. This doesn't disregard the study but it does limit its applicability. Good find, though, thanks! As for the other two, I don't think they meet the requirements really.

JanSt 8y ago

> 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. No, diabetics have an elevated insulin levels for hours after a meal. Like, after 4 hours it's still at the level a non-diabetic peaks at after 0.5-1 hour. Eating many meals will keep your insulin levels high all-day. > 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. Your body is very bad at burning fat in the presence of insulin. Meal time is only important as to not keep your insulin level elevated all the time. > 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. If you are eating all the time, the short term situation becomes the long term situation, not barely on 24 hour periods but for years on end. This is especially true for diabetics and pre-diabetics, as their insulin level will lower way slower. This is not to say you can't avoid the whole situation by lowering your calories BEFORE you become diabetic. It may actually be the best way, but the science is far from being set because it's such a complex problem. > Yes but it's also reversible by, shockingly, increasing caloric demand. It's reversible by either supplementing more food or allowing your body to access its own resources (low insulin!). Increasing caloric demand (exercise!) will help insofar as you're burning of sugar -> less insulin. > 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. While I'm not a fan of isocaloric studys, this should work, yes. You would also have to factor in a lot of other parameters, like established insulin resistance (probably using Kraft-Patterns) > 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. I'm genuinely interested as to what your understanding of insulins / glucagons effect on your body's ability to access fat is.

wdewind 8y ago
> No, diabetics have an elevated insulin levels for hours after a meal. Like, after 4 hours it's still at the level a non-diabetic peaks at after 0.5-1 hour. Eating many meals will keep your insulin levels high all-day. I have repeatedly said in this thread this doesn't apply to diabetics, who do have an insulin pathology. Diabetics do need to worry about insulin, non-diabetics do not. > Your body is very bad at burning fat in the presence of insulin. Meal time is only important as to not keep your insulin level elevated all the time. There is no science that disambiguates between large spikes followed by zero food in take (IF), and small spikes continually at the same calorie levels. Please feel free to send any study you think does. > It's reversible by either supplementing more food Again this is only relevant to the post-prandial window. If you are overweight, and have a slow metabolism, and respond by eating a lot of food, you will not successfully "speed up" your metabolism outside of the prandial window. If you are overweight and start dieting, your metabolism with slow down, but the evidence overwhelmingly shows exercise counteracts this, and that the slowdown is reversible when your body fat percentage lowers. > If you are eating all the time, the short term situation becomes the long term situation, not barely on 24 hour periods but for years on end. This is especially true for diabetics and pre-diabetics, as their insulin level will lower way slower. No, this is only true if you are eating all the time and also eating too many calories. . Again, please send a link to a study you think says otherwise. > While I'm not a fan of isocaloric studys, this should work, yes. Why are you not a fan of the only kind of study that could possibly prove your point? And why hasn't this study ever been successfully completed? Why have studies that attempted to do this been unable to show any difference in outcomes? > I'm genuinely interested as to what your understanding of insulins / glucagons effect on your body's ability to access fat is. I don't really know what you're implying here, but I suspect you are still getting hamstrung by the prandial window. Yes, insulin can block your ability to access fat in the short term, no it will not in the long term, and it does not do so entirely either. If you are eating the same number of calories and thus constantly releasing insulin you are blocking some, but not all, lipolysis. Lipolysis is not a binary, nor is insulin release. You can have both of them happening at the same time, even though insulin is blocking some of the lipolysis.