User Panel
Posted: 2/5/2020 2:19:41 PM EDT
I'm 57 years old and having a bitch of a time dropping body fat. The standard for maintaining a low body fat % used to be to eat 5-6 small meals throughout the day. The theory was it kept your metabolism burning hot by never letting your body go into starvation mode. The latest trend is toward Intermittent Fasting. That helps you reduce daily caloric intake by limiting the time you eat to a small, specific window.
I'm looking for opinions. Which one is better at lowering body fat % and why? (For those who think we already have enough IF threads, I'm curious as to why people think one is better than the other.) |
|
The only thing that actually matters is eating LESS calories than you burn if you are trying to lose weight. How you schedule that calorie intake is unimportant
|
|
If your thinking is just to reduce calories then either plan is ok but IF seems to be better for your health.
To process food and get it into the individual cells your body produces insulin. The insulin level says up for a while then goes back down. Frequent eating keeps the insulin level up. Seems that this might help to bring on diabetes in people who are predisposed to it. The cells lose their sensitivity to the insulin and need more of it so the body creates more and eventually even that is not enough. The new thinking is that rather than giving more insulin, to stop frequent feeding and the cells can and do 'reset' to the normal settings. Jason Fung MD is one of the best sources of information on this. Also, if you are eating a 'normal' amount of carbs then you may want frequent small meals as the carbs promote hunger. People (me too) who eat 'low carb' don't feel hungry as often as those on a 'normal' eating plan. |
|
If you have insulin resistance, intermittent fasting. Works best, at least for me.
|
|
Quoted:
If your thinking is just to reduce calories then either plan is ok but IF seems to be better for your health. To process food and get it into the individual cells your body produces insulin. The insulin level says up for a while then goes back down. Frequent eating keeps the insulin level up. Seems that this might help to bring on diabetes in people who are predisposed to it. The cells lose their sensitivity to the insulin and need more of it so the body creates more and eventually even that is not enough. The new thinking is that rather than giving more insulin, to stop frequent feeding and the cells can and do 'reset' to the normal settings. Jason Fung MD is one of the best sources of information on this. Also, if you are eating a 'normal' amount of carbs then you may want frequent small meals as the carbs promote hunger. People (me too) who eat 'low carb' don't feel hungry as often as those on a 'normal' eating plan. View Quote |
|
There's an old bodybuilder's tale concerning many small meals and increasing your metabolism. There is zero science to back that up.
As stated above there is some health benefits to IF, and IMO for ME it's kind of a "reset" to my relationship with food...I LOVE to eat IF reminds me I can miss a meal and not die, and not lose muscle. That's kind of off topic, but at any rate. Either method can reduce overall calories, but ultimately you have to choose which works best for you based on a few things: -Are you interested in the suggested health benefits of IF? -Does your schedule support many small meals? -Mentally, would you prefer to eat one large meal or many small ones? For example, for me 6 small meals is terrible mentally. I never feel full. I'm always a little hungry and it wears me down. I'd rather be hungry in the morning, have the hunger pass, then eat a nice filling meal at night then go to bed. |
|
Quoted:
There's an old bodybuilder's tale concerning many small meals and increasing your metabolism. There is zero science to back that up. As stated above there is some health benefits to IF, and IMO for ME it's kind of a "reset" to my relationship with food...I LOVE to eat IF reminds me I can miss a meal and not die, and not lose muscle. That's kind of off topic, but at any rate. Either method can reduce overall calories, but ultimately you have to choose which works best for you based on a few things: -Are you interested in the suggested health benefits of IF? -Does your schedule support many small meals? -Mentally, would you prefer to eat one large meal or many small ones? For example, for me 6 small meals is terrible mentally. I never feel full. I'm always a little hungry and it wears me down. I'd rather be hungry in the morning, have the hunger pass, then eat a nice filling meal at night then go to bed. View Quote In my case all three of your questions suggest IF is best for me. I definitely want the health advantages. My schedule does NOT support a lot of small meals and when I eat I like LARGE meals. (Part of the reason I need to drop BF%) |
|
The Renaissance Diet (https://www.jtsstrength.com/) breaks it down into 5 principles from most to least important (read; most easily to least effective)
1 - Calorie Balance 2 - Macronutrient amounts 3 - Nutrient timing 4 - Food composition 5 - Supplements Look into IF and you'll find studies that mark insulin sensitivity through fasting. |
|
"The standard for maintaining a low body fat % used to be to eat 5-6 small meals throughout the day"
BB's meal frequency is more concerned with promoting muscle growth. Especially if they are either working out twice a day and/or on the juice Their marcos i.e. low fat but high protein and complex carbs is where the low body fat component comes more into play, although they do put on plenty of bulk on the offseason. Such diets are not practical for most people and not that conductive for maintaining low body fat for most people on a long-term basis. |
|
I enjoy the macro tracking just for fun. Maybe start there.
its surprising at times if you track it well. Some days you thought you ate a lot and nothing. Other days a half of cheesecake really adds up. |
|
Like others have said. Calories in vs calories out is what ultimately matters.
But... I am no expert so you guys who are please be gentile. I have been “intermittent fasting” or “skipping breakfast“ my whole life. I just never liked eating first thing in the morning. When I want to drop weight quickly I have learned the magic doesn’t really happen until fasting for 16-18hrs. I can knock 15lbs off in 4 weeks easily by just by not eating until 5pm everyday and lowering the calorie count to 2500. Fasting makes tracking the deficit easier because I eat it all in one big meal and a whey/fruit smoothie. |
|
I will be 47 in April and have dropped 30 lbs since Intermittent Fasting beginning Aug. 1 of last year.
Went from 205-175. I eat about anything in reason from 12p-6p daily. As long as I cut my eating of by 6, I am good. I wish I would have started this years ago. |
|
Its math. Calories in vs out. For most it makes 0 difference. If you aren't losing you eat too much or have bad t3 or t4 levels.
Shut your piehole, do cardio, and check your hormones. My body doesn't convert t4 to t3 very well so i do what any guy would do. I buy underground t3 off the internet from a bro in moldova. Only for cutting. I can maintain easily but losing fat is tough. Your other option would be clenbuterol but that's maybe a bridge too far. |
|
I've been doing IF again, but not to lose weight.
Makes me feel "lighter" in the morning, if that makes sense. Breaking the fast with a massive lunch is also extremely satisfying. |
|
Quoted:
I've been doing IF again, but not to lose weight. Makes me feel "lighter" in the morning, if that makes sense. Breaking the fast with a massive lunch is also extremely satisfying. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, definitely makes sense and that nice big satisfying meal is a huge selling point for me too. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I've been doing IF again, but not to lose weight. Makes me feel "lighter" in the morning, if that makes sense. Breaking the fast with a massive lunch is also extremely satisfying. I always feel better when I'm doing IF, but inevitably I start losing weight in the summer and need to start eating breakfast again to keep my calories high enough. |
|
Quoted:
My only issue with it, is if I am working out in the afternoon I'm usually feeling pretty full. Nothing like burping up lunch the whole time. I always feel better when I'm doing IF, but inevitably I start losing weight in the summer and need to start eating breakfast again to keep my calories high enough. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've been doing IF again, but not to lose weight. Makes me feel "lighter" in the morning, if that makes sense. Breaking the fast with a massive lunch is also extremely satisfying. I always feel better when I'm doing IF, but inevitably I start losing weight in the summer and need to start eating breakfast again to keep my calories high enough. I don't have issues keeping cals high enough no matter what |
|
Quoted:
Yeah I have the same problem with afternoon workouts. If I eat later than 2 it's a real problem, if I eat before that I'm okay. I don't have issues keeping cals high enough no matter what View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've been doing IF again, but not to lose weight. Makes me feel "lighter" in the morning, if that makes sense. Breaking the fast with a massive lunch is also extremely satisfying. I always feel better when I'm doing IF, but inevitably I start losing weight in the summer and need to start eating breakfast again to keep my calories high enough. I don't have issues keeping cals high enough no matter what I'll be inhaling three lunches just trying to hold weight and he's nibbling on half a PB sandwich. He was 150 lbs at over 6' tall to start the summer last year, he ended the summer at 140 lbs. I'm way better than I was years ago, but my problem now is not using shit food to try to fill calories. "Damn, I'm 500 short for the day....better half a bow of ice cream and chocolate syrup". |
|
I am 48yo I’m 6’3”. I went from 320 to 250 in about 18 months. I have also increased my strength. To be fair I have been into powerlifting the majority of my adult life and started this in an untrained state.
Keto and intermittent fasting have the same goal. To achieve the lowest possible blood sugar. Keto by avoiding the spike of carbs or IF by going long periods of time with no food. With no spikes you only get the base amount from your pancreas. The only way to get lower would be with metformin. Based on this calories in vs out is relevant but not the entire story. Everyone fasts sleeping. I found it best to just keep slowly increasing that number. Two hours before bed 8 sleeping then two in the morning gets you a 12 hour fast. Then increase from there. 16 hours is a solid goal. I shoot for 20. When I do eat I avoid carbs. I enjoy the weekends and if I want some carbs or three meals that’s when I do it. I also plan the hardest work outs for the weekends to burn the calories. |
|
Look up HGH and intermittent fasting.
Dr. Jason Fung has some articles as well as YouTube videos on the subject. |
|
I am 58 years old and have been doing the low carb diet for the last 2 plus years. I run 2 miles 2-3 times a week and do abs and an upper workout 2-3 times a week. Had a stubborn belly roll that wouldn't go away. I started intermittent fasting a month ago. I work 12 hour days and only do it when I work. I stop eating at 7pm and start eating at 1 pm the next day( lunch and dinner only). With my schedule (pittman) I work 15 days out of 30. I am up to 18 hrs fasting. I am finely dropping the stubborn belly fat. I am 6' tall and now weigh 177 lbs. (I was 203lbs when I started).
|
|
Quoted:
I'm 57 years old and having a bitch of a time dropping body fat. The standard for maintaining a low body fat % used to be to eat 5-6 small meals throughout the day. The theory was it kept your metabolism burning hot by never letting your body go into starvation mode. The latest trend is toward Intermittent Fasting. That helps you reduce daily caloric intake by limiting the time you eat to a small, specific window. I'm looking for opinions. Which one is better at lowering body fat % and why? (For those who think we already have enough IF threads, I'm curious as to why people think one is better than the other.) View Quote |
|
Quoted:
If you have body fat you will never go into 'starvation mode' until the body fat supply is depleted. Your body will burn the fat first. It's what it was designed to do. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm 57 years old and having a bitch of a time dropping body fat. The standard for maintaining a low body fat % used to be to eat 5-6 small meals throughout the day. The theory was it kept your metabolism burning hot by never letting your body go into starvation mode. The latest trend is toward Intermittent Fasting. That helps you reduce daily caloric intake by limiting the time you eat to a small, specific window. I'm looking for opinions. Which one is better at lowering body fat % and why? (For those who think we already have enough IF threads, I'm curious as to why people think one is better than the other.) There is a difference between people with fast and slow metabolisms (provided their thyroid and other related systems are working fine), but it's also way overstated. It's about the equivalent of a tall glass of chocolate milk per day from one extreme to the other. |
|
Quoted:
The only thing that actually matters is eating LESS calories than you burn if you are trying to lose weight. How you schedule that calorie intake is unimportant View Quote That said, if following one of those diets is the process to help you achieve that, and if it works for you, it works for you. I wouldn't want to stop that. But when people bring out their ketosis sticks and talk all about the chemistry, without reading a single peer reviewed paper from the actual medical industry, I just cringe. I don't say anything because I don't want to undermine their mind-game that's working. But yea, it really is all about the calories. |
|
Quoted:
This. In the end, it really is all about the calories. the reason Keto works? It has dick-all to do with Ketosis chemistry, and everything to do with the fact that carbs have a LOT of calories. The AMA journal articles on Keto diets and scientifically controlled tests point it out. Same thing with the micro-fasting. The human body is insainly good at figuring out how to pull and store calories. That said, if following one of those diets is the process to help you achieve that, and if it works for you, it works for you. I wouldn't want to stop that. But when people bring out their ketosis sticks and talk all about the chemistry, without reading a single peer reviewed paper from the actual medical industry, I just cringe. I don't say anything because I don't want to undermine their mind-game that's working. But yea, it really is all about the calories. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that actually matters is eating LESS calories than you burn if you are trying to lose weight. How you schedule that calorie intake is unimportant That said, if following one of those diets is the process to help you achieve that, and if it works for you, it works for you. I wouldn't want to stop that. But when people bring out their ketosis sticks and talk all about the chemistry, without reading a single peer reviewed paper from the actual medical industry, I just cringe. I don't say anything because I don't want to undermine their mind-game that's working. But yea, it really is all about the calories. Not all calories are the same. There are plenty of peer reviewed studies and videos by leading academics in the keto thread. You should read it |
|
Quoted:
This. In the end, it really is all about the calories. the reason Keto works? It has dick-all to do with Ketosis chemistry, and everything to do with the fact that carbs have a LOT of calories. The AMA journal articles on Keto diets and scientifically controlled tests point it out. Same thing with the micro-fasting. The human body is insainly good at figuring out how to pull and store calories. That said, if following one of those diets is the process to help you achieve that, and if it works for you, it works for you. I wouldn't want to stop that. But when people bring out their ketosis sticks and talk all about the chemistry, without reading a single peer reviewed paper from the actual medical industry, I just cringe. I don't say anything because I don't want to undermine their mind-game that's working. But yea, it really is all about the calories. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
The only thing that actually matters is eating LESS calories than you burn if you are trying to lose weight. How you schedule that calorie intake is unimportant That said, if following one of those diets is the process to help you achieve that, and if it works for you, it works for you. I wouldn't want to stop that. But when people bring out their ketosis sticks and talk all about the chemistry, without reading a single peer reviewed paper from the actual medical industry, I just cringe. I don't say anything because I don't want to undermine their mind-game that's working. But yea, it really is all about the calories. |
|
I also really enjoy eating and rinky dink meals just suck. Eating breakfast just screwed up my calorie counts enough that it was hard to stay under my goals and not be miserable.
Now I don't eat until after 5 so I can eat a decent amount of food and I really enjoy what I'm eating. For supper I had a large bowl of hash made from brussel sprouts, a little bacon, onion, radishes, and carrots with ground beef added in. It was amazing. |
|
Just for the heck of it, I've been doing the Carnivore diet and IF for exactly 8 weeks. Down from 205 to 183 in that time without even trying.
Age 52. Strength is down a bit but not bad - training is more irregular, so it might be that. IF window is usually 16:8 to 20:4. Very, very minimal cheats in the 8 weeks. I don't count calories; I just eat until I'm full. Usually 2 meals. Typical day might be a big ribeye, 4-6 hamburger patties, 6 eggs and bone broth. Salmon, ground beef or bison, chicken quarters, NY strip, and various pork cuts are other protein sources in the rotation. |
|
Quoted: Those studies actually show that various diets are better at losing fat and retaining muscle. Keto is one of them. Not all calories are equal when it comes to how your body reacts to them. View Quote Keto was a complete fail for me. I had gotten down to mid-190s a couple summers in a row using basic Paleo (no grains, lots of veggies, fish, and meat) and wanted to get to the 180s. Bought into the keto hype and just kept adding more fat and limiting carbs. I ended up not dropping the weight in the summers and staying 200-205, then started edging up over 210 again in the winters. I was taking in more calories, especially fat, but it was not satiating to me. I'm at 191 now, partially from not trying to eat 150-180g of protein per day since I stopped going to the gym a month ago due to COVID risks and partially because I swore off sweets and alcohol for Lent and then was also started a Lenten fasting regime - light lunch and normal dinner. I was at 215 2 months ago. I wore a suit from 2003 this weekend. Yeah, I can't bench 5x5 215 today and I have lost some muscle, but I have also dropped A LOT of bodyfat and I look way better. I just started running again last week and am doing some pushups/air squats/etc a couple days per week, but no home gym gear b/c I live within 5 miles of 4 base gyms I'll take the way I am today over where I was 2 months ago. That said, I would really like to be able to squat, deadlift, and bench again. Maybe when fitness supplies are back in stock. I'll have to reconfigure my converted/finished garage to do it though and I am lazy... |
|
|
Fasting (during Lent) and gyms being closed resulted in rapid weight loss for me. It will probably take me months of lifting to put it back on.
Fasting while also lifting, based on previous experience, resulted in definition with no noticeable weight loss. Folks I know have had a very similar experience. This doesn't necessarily make it science, but you did ask for opinions. |
|
Quoted: If your thinking is just to reduce calories then either plan is ok but IF seems to be better for your health. To process food and get it into the individual cells your body produces insulin. The insulin level says up for a while then goes back down. Frequent eating keeps the insulin level up. Seems that this might help to bring on diabetes in people who are predisposed to it. The cells lose their sensitivity to the insulin and need more of it so the body creates more and eventually even that is not enough. The new thinking is that rather than giving more insulin, to stop frequent feeding and the cells can and do 'reset' to the normal settings. Jason Fung MD is one of the best sources of information on this. Also, if you are eating a 'normal' amount of carbs then you may want frequent small meals as the carbs promote hunger. People (me too) who eat 'low carb' don't feel hungry as often as those on a 'normal' eating plan. View Quote This nails it. This is how I changed my entire composition eating the same amount of calories. Frequent eating equals frequent insulin spikes. Getting to eat bigger meals kept me full longer and I dont even think about food. Nor do I need to watch the clock to eat every couple hours. I was stuck at a body weight for weeks until I found IF and articles on fat loss and insulin spikes. |
|
|
|
I started Keto Jan 2019, by April 2019 I had lost 45 pounds with no changes other than diet.
I do not lift, work at desk but am active outside when off work. Keto lends itself to IF, I often do it without planning to. If you get enough fat in your meal you can go a really long time and not feel hungry. Many days I eat a big brunch then a medium sized early dinner. No snacks and no hunger No matter how diet you have to count everything you eat and be calorie deficit. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.