Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j2a53hx wrote

[deleted]

97

BafangFan t1_j2aas1c wrote

Here's my take: your hormones are supposed to be in some form of balance. With modern diet and modern lifestyle, our insulin levels are too high for too much of the day. When you become insulin resistant, your blood insulin levels remain higher for longer.

High insulin levels on their own are damaging to tissues.

Intermittent fasting allows time for insulin levels to come down to safer levels. Eating 6 small means throughout the day, or snacking between meals and late at night, keeps insulin levels too high for too long.

76

aliceroyal t1_j2ahqy1 wrote

I have PCOS with insulin resistance. I can only do IF when medicated with an appetite suppressant but it works pretty well--I see it as a kind of harm reduction, if my body is going to crave calorie-dense food, might as well restrict the amount of time I eat so I'm putting less calories in overall.

13

DirtyJavaMan t1_j2alxnj wrote

Just curious, why do you need the appetite suppressant? Are there benefits to it other than suppressing your appetite?

5

aliceroyal t1_j2amem0 wrote

So it's Ozempic, which does help with blood sugar along with the appetite suppression. It was originally a diabetes drug before celebrities figured out they could use it to lose weight lol.

6

DirtyJavaMan t1_j2anpkm wrote

Oh nice. ozempic also has some cardioprotective effects. thanks for your answer.

4

[deleted] t1_j2ablx8 wrote

[deleted]

−10

BafangFan t1_j2ad1tx wrote

As someone who is insulin resistant and wears a continuous glucose monitor, even low GI foods raise blood glucose, and therefore insulin.

The only food that doesn't raise insulin levels is fat (and maybe alcohol).

Every carbohydrate gets converted into sugar (glucose), as far as our cells are concerned.

16

dontpet t1_j2a69t1 wrote

Most of the chatter I hear and see about intermittent fasting is focused on it just being a good way to cut calories for some. No magic involved.

Whatever works.

30

VicodinMakesMeItchy t1_j2auzbv wrote

I suppose my “hot take” would be that after you’ve fasted for more than 12 hours, you have burned off any glucose plus all of the glycogen stored in your liver. There is no longer any form of carbohydrate to derive energy from, so the body directly mobilizes fat stored inside adipocytes. That produces ketones in the body, which have been shown to have their own beneficial effects.

Eating all day at a calorie deficit will slowly chip away at the fat, but it’s less effective because energy for the missing calories are taken from a constantly-replenished glycogen store, plus some from fat cells. Removing the glycogen store in the liver through fasting and forcing fat cells to provide all of the energy instead, means your calorie deficit is being taken directly from fat stores. Remaining in the glycogen-depleted state for a few hours per day means more fat is burned through for energy in total.

Adding in the fact that excess glycogen stored in the liver is converted into fat and stored in adipocytes, the less glycogen you have overall, the smaller the fat stores in adipocytes will be, and therefore overall weight.

27

just_tweed t1_j2f49p5 wrote

Any sources for 12h? I've seen numbers like 20h, and other data suggesting it might take even a couple of days to fully switch to ketones as fuel.

1

[deleted] t1_j2b6n9o wrote

[removed]

−6

chadwicke619 t1_j2b9ps1 wrote

You’re missing the point. You’re body doesn’t keep track of time in the same way that we do. People who fast stop eating at, say, 8PM. At that time, their body has plenty of glucose to work with, plus there is insulin present. As you get further away from your last meal, you have less and less insulin, and less glucose just floating around, and this applies to everyone. Now, most people wake up and eat, replenishing this glucose that is floating around. Not people who fast, though. They keep on going, until the body just has to start chipping away at fat. People who don’t fast never dip into this zone where they are just walking around, burning fat - they keep the store replenished. People who fast spend a few hours a day in this zone.

5

T6000 t1_j2cjjww wrote

No, I'm not missing the point. Intermittent fasting is just another fad diet that people hope will put them in a caloric deficit. I'd rather eat when I feel like it and still lose weight if I chose to by eating low calorie dense food. Most people won't find sustainability in intermittent fasting or keto.

−4

chadwicke619 t1_j2cphzt wrote

Well, no point debating the fact. You deleted the comment that we are discussing in the first place.

4

amoose-boosh t1_j2fezzj wrote

Do what works for you, what works for some doesn’t work for all. But IF is no more of a fad than the three meal a day diet which most of us follow. For most of human history meals came sporadically - it’s relatively easy to stick to because our physiology evolved to handle it. I’ve personally done IF (OMAD) and stuck with it for over a year.

1

VicodinMakesMeItchy t1_j2bysat wrote

Of course your metabolism has no idea what time it is. It doesn’t matter what time it is—after 12 hours of fasting, you have burned through your glycogen stores. It’s literally just biochemistry.

Get off your bro science high horse. You clearly don’t know as much about metabolic processes as you think you do.

2

D74248 t1_j2b26fr wrote

Here's my hot take.

I listen to my doctor. It helps that a family member in academic medicine tells me that her guidance is in line with recent studies. And by following my doctor's guidance I diet control my T2 diabetes into an A1C in the low to mid 5s. I am now considered by the ADA to be in remission. I didn't get here with CICO.

Intermittent fasting lowers insulin levels.

13

VergesOfSin t1_j2b2buu wrote

Its not that simple. It lowers insulin and keeps it low for hours. That's where a bunch of the benefits come from.

A calorie restricted diet would have you eat 6 small meals a day. That means your insulin never gets a chance to hit basr level, and you'll feel ravenous the whole time.

It is significantly easier to just not eat, than it is to eat less.

12

jmeesonly t1_j2c4j06 wrote

Thank you for speaking truth, in a way that the people in the back seats can understand.

2

Explicit_Tech t1_j2aloo7 wrote

I've been doing intermittent fasting for a long time, maybe almost a decade. It was never for a caloric deficit since I still make up for it 1-2 big meals later. The beneifit was not having the need to constantly raise my insulin levels, which would either make me more hungry or more tired from eating carbs in the morning. What I do now has reduced a significant amount of the fat around my belly area. Was still able to obtain gains too in muscles.

7

AnOddTree t1_j2ahusx wrote

Been fasting for the past 3 years and I've found that there is a huge difference.

6

IcyMiddle t1_j2awyi3 wrote

Well yeah, not eating for three years is bound to have a huge difference!

15

rlaptop7 t1_j2au5om wrote

yeah, as are most of these diet hacks. (keto, looking at you).

But if it works, it works.

5

deluxeassortment t1_j2b292k wrote

Honestly, it seems a lot like every other diet that is basically “don’t eat”, except we’re trying to say that this is healthy. It just seems like any other restriction diet to me

5

lurkerfromstoneage t1_j2csi21 wrote

And what does restriction lead to….? Bingeing. And the cycle continues.

0

Dekutr33 t1_j2d4w63 wrote

Not for everyone. some people can fast and then eat moderate portions when they do eat. It's just self control. Gotta learn healthy ways to resist urges to overeat.

2

DunamesDarkWitch t1_j2avizo wrote

Well yeah, that’s how literally every single diet fad ever created has worked on a basic level

4

intensiveduality t1_j2aw9c7 wrote

Your "hot take" is devoid of any factual information regarding fasting. Go learn about the hormones and processes involved

4

NotLunaris t1_j2c5xqa wrote

My hot take: calories in; calories out is not the end-all be-all of dieting and weight loss. People like to quote the first law of thermodynamics as if the human body operates in a vacuum. Truth is, not all the calories we take in get absorbed by the body. There is the basal metabolic rate, which differs for everybody and can fluctuate day-to-day, as well as the condition and makeup of the gut biome breaking down certain foods and making them more bioavailable. The ability of the stomach to break down foods, and the intestines to absorb them - so many factors determine how many nutrients one can absorb from the food they eat.

It is, therefore, not outlandish - not even anything special, really - to suggest that there is more to weight loss than calories in, calories out. We already know that hormones can have a significant impact on how much fat one is able to gain/lose on the exact same diet in patients with hyper/hypothyroidism. Perhaps IF puts one's body in a state to lose more fat compared to someone who is eating three square meals a day. Perhaps it's not purely calories.

More research is needed, and this is just my humble opinion.

2

deathputt4birdie t1_j2cw6su wrote

My hot take: For 99% of human existence our ancestors ate when they were lucky enough to get food, not whenever they were hungry. Engines always seem to run better lean.

2

nzs_eldarc t1_j2bnnjr wrote

Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand what IF actually does to the body

1

whatisitmooncake t1_j2da3ce wrote

Hot take that is purely wrong. Fasting causes a cascade of changes in the body that affect stuff all the way down to mitochondria. When the body has to switch from glucose to ketones for fuel... it's a big deal.

0