RtuDtu t1_j2ay47n wrote
Reply to comment by TheKnightOfDoom in Intermittent Fasting significantly reduced systolic blood pressure (SBP), but not diastolic blood pressure (DBP). The effects are likely due to weight loss. by glawgii
it gets to a point where you don't want to eat breakfast as it makes you feel bloated. Once I started after a few weeks I couldn't stop even if I wanted because I don't like how I feel when I eat breakfast
CougarAries t1_j2bck2r wrote
I loathe breakfast since starting IF like 10 years ago. I'm not hungry when I wake up, and if I eat something, I get hangry 3 or 4 hours later.
After getting used to skipping breakfast, Im now not hungry until like 2 or 3pm. And not ravenously hungry, but more like, "I guess I could eat something."
Unfortunately, I'm getting old enough (Late 30s) where IF isn't enough to keep the weight off alone anymore. I guess I need to work out too now.
StevenTM t1_j2e198b wrote
IF works just fine for people over 40, what on Earth are you on about?
Edit: and no, a "slowing metabolism" is not a thing that exists before your 60s, on average, and it's not the reason people gain more weight in middle age (late 30s - early 50s), or have more trouble losing it. Barring medical conditions, your metabolism slows at a predictable rate, but is mostly stable between age 20-60.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
> these results strongly suggest we may no longer be able to blame weight gain in middle age on a slowed metabolism.
just_tweed t1_j2f3fna wrote
NEAT, however, might change. I'm eating the same or less, workout more than I used to, but I've gotten 10kg fatter over the last 20 years or so. I just spontaneously move a lot less, and have less energy overall.
StevenTM t1_j2f9usi wrote
And you seem self-aware enough to know that that's a factor, but still don't compensate for it by eating less or exercising more. I'm not sure what to do with that information tbh
just_tweed t1_j2fhm94 wrote
Well, it's something that people miss or misunderstand when they talk about "metabolism slowing", that it's actually probably NEAT and/or just becoming more sedentary in general. A good thing to remember as you age.
CougarAries t1_j2efqeu wrote
Just stating my own personal experience. Maybe if you're over 40 and you want to drop some weight IF works, but I've been on IF for a long time now, so my goal hasn't been to lose weight, but just to maintain. And I don't know if you know this, metabolisms slow down pretty noticably by the time you hit 40, so maintaining weight requires a little more effort than when you're 30.
StevenTM t1_j2ehvyb wrote
I am aware.. that it's mostly pseudoscience. "Metabolism" refers to basal metabolic rate. From the Mayo Clinic:
> Metabolism is the process by which the body changes food and drink into energy. During this process, calories in food and drinks mix with oxygen to make the energy the body needs. The number of calories a body at rest uses to do these things is known as basal metabolic rate, also called basal metabolism.
BMR differs by 100-200 kcal per day between a 25 and a 55 year old who are both 180cm/6" and 80kg/176lbs (declining with age). It differs by 300 kcal per day for those doing a lot of exercise.
https://www.calculator.net/bmr-calculator.html
Harvard also disagrees with your statement:
> Adulthood (20 to 60 years): Total and basal expenditure and fat-free mass were all stable from ages 20 to 60, regardless of sex.
> What’s more, these results strongly suggest we may no longer be able to blame weight gain in middle age on a slowed metabolism.
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/surprising-findings-about-metabolism-and-age-202110082613
CougarAries t1_j2ezpcx wrote
And 100kcal a day excess equates to a pound gained every 20 days or 18 lbs a year.
That's some fascinating research though that changes a lot of preconceived notions about aging.
Either way, my religiously followed 18:6 fasting schedule that I've followed for 10 years isn't enough to keep maintenance anymore, and whether that be diet or activity related, I can no longer rely on just IF and need to supplement it with some other form of lifestyle change no matter how you argue it. I'm definitely significantly healthier going into 40 because of it, but it's not a magic bullet that solves everything.
[deleted] t1_j2f7p8c wrote
[deleted]
StevenTM t1_j2f8f4u wrote
That (100-200) was the difference between 25 and 55. The difference between 25 and 35 is at most 60 kcal. 60*365/7000=3.129 kg gained per year if you consume a fixed amount of calories daily every day, but almost nobody does. So if you maintain the same activity level, you'll just naturally need a bit less. If you count calories, run a BMR calculator using updated values every 5 years.
IF helps you lose weight by reducing cravings and snacking. You still need to apply CICO, IF just makes it easier to do so. I guarantee that if you consume the exact amount of calories that is required for your daily lifestyle (say 2350), you will neither lose, nor gain, weight, regardless if you eat 8 meals a day or OMAD.
Again: IF helps with cravings and hunger. You need to reduce your caloric intake (relative to body weight) as you age, but not by a lot. But obviously a 30 year old should neither be consuming as much as they were when they were 17, (and super active/developing) nor should they continue consuming as much when they're 70 as they did when they were 24, when they're likely to be way more sedentary.
CougarAries t1_j2fsh7w wrote
That's my point, is that focusing only on a IF schedule was previously enough to initially lose then later maintain weight, and now I need to do a little more, including tracking CICO which I never previously had to do.
BoerZoektVeuve t1_j2ctjy6 wrote
How do you deal with the Ramadan breath that comes with an empty stomach?
Sculptasquad t1_j2cwtea wrote
Man Ramadan fasting is like the antithesis of healthy fasting. Our circadian rhythm is activated by light* and our insulin sensitivity is at its best in the morning. Eating all your food after the sun has gone down is like asking for hyperglycemia.
​
BoerZoektVeuve t1_j2d02pn wrote
I know, I wasn’t talking about Ramadan fasting but thanks for the explanation, I understand the confusion. I meant the bad breath.
Ashamed-Simple-8303 t1_j2deppk wrote
> Unfortunately, I'm getting old enough (Late 30s) where IF isn't enough to keep the weight off alone anymore. I guess I need to work out too now.
Not really. exercise is almost irrelevant in terms of energy burnt. I still advise to work out as in strength training combined with functional training (eg balance). building muscle will only get harder with age and it will help a lot with common problems at age especially better balance. More muscle also means more calories burnt when sleeping or watching TV.
What you really need to address is not how much you eat and exercise but what you eat. And here the common advice is usually just poor or even outright harmful, namley low fat. low fat it terrible because it means high carb which means high insulin response. And insulin makes your body store fat and prevent fat from burning.
Second issue is that high fat is too general. You need to go high saturated fat (eg animal fats mostly). mono-unsaturated (olive oil) to an extend is also ok but for sure avoid any highly processed plant oils. polyunsaturated fats (eg. plant oils aka PUFA) are THE cause for arteriosclerosis (full biochemical pathway is pretty much known). The problem is that we feed your animals "crap" especially pigs and chickens but also farmed fish like salmon. So these meats usually also contain too much PUFAs and need to best be avoided. what remains is meat from ruminants that ate gras (beef, sheep/lamb, venison).
What you must avoid under all circumstances is any deep fried food most notably french fries. the repeatedly cooked plant oils used fir frying in most places are unstable and result in toxic products which the deep fried food is drenched in.
TheKnightOfDoom t1_j2az356 wrote
Due to my work I'm gonna start eating at 5pm stop at 11pm. Eventually I want to do just one massive meal a day.
Sculptasquad t1_j2cwx6c wrote
Your bowel is not going to appreciate an OMAD set up. If you do not have issues with anal fissures or hemorrhoids right now, you will get them when you sit down to eliminate an entire day's worth of waste in one sitting...
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/anal-fissure/symptoms-causes/syc-20351424
[deleted] t1_j2d1x21 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2et66a wrote
[removed]
kerridge t1_j2d70jq wrote
Tha dietary system takes a long break with omad. So it's possible that the opposite is true to what you say, as during that long break it has more time to rest and recover.
Sculptasquad t1_j2dh0nf wrote
Massive volumes of matter passing through your colon and rectum is directly associated with an increased risk of rectal issues such as fissures, tearing, hemorrhoids etc.
Compare passing 500 grams of waste twice a day to passing 2 kg once every two days.
kerridge t1_j2dhoj4 wrote
Although there is likely an association, this will be due to lack of fibre, for example not eating enough vegetables with food. As a vegetarian, I have done massive shits all my life and suffer with zero such issues. If the mass is impacted but if you eat enough fibre it's gonna be absolutely fine. and the time to recover is absolutely going to help. Stop spreading faecal related FUD!
[deleted] t1_j2dp836 wrote
[removed]
StevenTM t1_j2e1cu5 wrote
Not everybody poops twice a day on a 3-meal diet?
Sculptasquad t1_j2exzgb wrote
Which would mean an even larger buildup.
StevenTM t1_j2f77qz wrote
They also don't all have hemorrhoids, fissures, or tearing..
[deleted] t1_j2f0a1g wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments