Hundreds of Australian children to be starved for science

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I'm not talking about spontaenous generation, I'm talking about the fact that people are not bunsen burners.

Do you acknowledge that there are some skinny people who stay skinny no matter how much they eat?

Why should I? It has no bearing on the topic of this thread. And in regard to the upper part of your post, I am quite aware that effective weight-gain or -loss is very much depending on the individual's physical properties, both genetics as well as occupation. The fact remains: You can't become fat if you do not eat too much.

So you acknowledge genetics and metabolism are a thing.
How do you define "Too much"?

Anything past your resting metabolic rate in addition to your total daily expenditure.

[Madner Kami]

So you acknowledge genetics and metabolism are a thing.
How do you define "Too much"?

Again, I am not going to play your game, just so you can get to whatever endgame you have in mind here. You postulated that a bunch of children are being starved in Australia, which is demonstrably false.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well for starters, source on deprived caloric intake leads to permanent metabolism slowdown?

[Darth Wedgius]

IIRC, the idea behind intermittent fasting is to reduce calories without slowing down the metabolism. That slowdown obviously isn't instantaneous (it doesn't happen between lunch and dinner, for example). It takes time for the body to notice, "hey, brain, where's my sandwich?" Whether the diet does that or not (or in what percentage of cases) is a whole 'nuther question.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

IIRC, the idea behind intermittent fasting is to reduce calories without slowing down the metabolism. That slowdown obviously isn't instantaneous (it doesn't happen between lunch and dinner, for example). It takes time for the body to notice, "hey, brain, where's my sandwich?" Whether the diet does that or not (or in what percentage of cases) is a whole 'nuther question.

Yeah I don't think reduced calories equates to IF.

[Darth Wedgius]

IIRC, the idea behind intermittent fasting is to reduce calories without slowing down the metabolism. That slowdown obviously isn't instantaneous (it doesn't happen between lunch and dinner, for example). It takes time for the body to notice, "hey, brain, where's my sandwich?" Whether the diet does that or not (or in what percentage of cases) is a whole 'nuther question.

Yeah I don't think reduced calories equates to IF.

I don't think you understood what I wrote.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

It's not hard to understand.

[Darth Wedgius]

Then perhaps I didn't understand your response. Could you re-phrase it less ambiguously?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Then perhaps I didn't understand your response. Could you re-phrase it less ambiguously?

Apologies all around. I wasn't trying to retort.

First I was trying to weigh in that I don't think this study's diet outline does that since there is a caloric intake, but I realize that doesn't really matter with IF. Not only that, but you seem to be just talking about IF in general, of which personally I'm skeptical about its effect on metabolism.

I think personally that IF is more of a convenience measure that will help you program your nutrition and control your appetite, but metabolism in general has more to do with how much overall food you eat and what types of nutrients you prioritize (between fats/carbs).