Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CougarAries t1_j2efqeu wrote

Reply to comment by StevenTM 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

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.

−1

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

2

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.

1

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.

1

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.

1