Quote:
Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen
Funny that the only study I quoted was from the very study used by your snake oil salesman which was used to mislead people into thinking that they can have a quick 30% reduction in BMR (his words). "Big food" is ironic as you're getting information from a guy literally trying to sell you on his next book so he can make that sweet sweet cash.
|
You do realize that this so-called snake-oil salesmen is more qualified to speak on this subject than you are, correct? And has actually worked with patients and researched fasting, insulin, weight loss and the myriad of other issues involved with the modern diet, correct?
Though it is hilarious how the circle gang loves to jump on what I said. Basic fact is that a reduction in calories will equal a reduction in BMR short term, and especially long-term. Therefore for a healthy person, eating a healthy diet, one would think that your diet and the foods that you choose should be based around maintaining or increasing your BMR. This is where IF and Keto come in, and have been PROVEN to work. Unlike of course the standard cut calories to lose weight approach.
Also, a big part of calorie restriction over a long-period of time is the subsequent loss of muscle tissue. Which of course as anyone will know will play a major part in lowering your BMR as well since it is widely known that increased muscle mass means your BMR will be higher.
Of course, then one would have to turn around and actually admit that fasting has been shown to help maintain muscle mass.
Quote:
Recent clinical evidence bears out the fact that repeated fasting does not cause muscle loss. In a 2010 study of alternate daily fasting, patients were able to lose significant fat mass with no change in lean mass. In this schedule, subjects eat normally on feeding days, and alternate that with a day of fasting. In addition, numerous metabolic benefits, such as reduced cholesterol, triglycerides and waist circumference were noted along with the weight loss.
A more recent 2016 study compares a strategy of intermittent fasting with daily calorie restriction – the conventional method of weight loss suggested by most health professionals. While both groups lost a comparable amount of weight, the intermittent fasting group lost only 1.2 kg of lean mass compared to 1.6 kg in the calorie restriction group. Comparing the percentage increase in lean mass, the fasting group increased by 2.2% compared to 0.5% in the calorie restriction group, implying that fasting may be up to 4 times better at preserving lean mass according to this measure. Importantly, the fasting group lost more than double the amount of the more dangerous visceral fat
Despite the concerns that fasting may cause loss of muscle, the long human experience as well as human clinical trials show the exact opposite. Intermittent fasting seems to preserve lean tissue better than convention weight loss methods. Thinking again about gluconeogenesis, at first glance, this seems counterintuitive. If intermittent fasting causes gluconeogenesis (turning protein into glucose) how can it possibly be better at preserving muscle? Part of the answer lies in the fact that gluconeogenesis does not start until approximately 24 hours after the last meal. The other part of the answer lies in the hormonal adaptation to fasting – the counter regulatory surge.
|
From the snake doctor himself, but of course you can read the actual study if it suits your views.
https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-fasting-burn-muscle
Either way, I will stop derailing a thread that actually had decent merit to begin with.