Intermittent Fasting doesn't work PART 3

What is going on I've warriors so today we have Intermittent fasting doesn't work part three Yes, because it's cool To just say hey look. I'm a Contrarian I'm somebody who who's I'm so I think so outside of the box That I could tell you that the thing that you think works because people are telling you that it works Doesn't and I got the evidence to prove it a Cherry-pick study that I just completely do not understand here. We go. Let's go into this video So you guys could take a look at what? What miss? Melissa net and yell says about intermittent fasting And why it doesn't work Let's watch a new clinical trial carried out by the University of California Suggests that intermittent fasting doesn't work Do you understand what doesn't work mean and what works means What something doesn't work that means it completely does not do Anything it doesn't work. You don't lose weight on it. You gain weight on it That's what doesn't works doesn't work means that that's not what people say when they talk about intermittent fasting for them for intermittent fasting to work it has to Completely be better than every single diet that has ever existed Ever if it isn't then it just doesn't work. Well, what if it lose you lose weight? With intermittent fasting just as well as if you were to eat three meals a day while counting calories But then you don't you're not having to count calories with intermittent fasting because it creates this like natural caloric deficit for you That means it doesn't work like that's so annoying. Let's continue the study carried out on 116 people over a 12-week period Found there was no significant difference between those that ate within an eight-hour window and those that didn't Okay No significant difference between those that ate within a eight-hour window and Eight hours and those that Didn't right. So basically It worked just as well. That's what you want to say. It worked just as well as someone who Was doing a caloric restriction. Now. This is the Website that she is using as a reference I find this super interesting when people have the websites with the headlines Behind them, but they don't actually have the study the study was from the from the JAMA Journal, and I have the study here But I find it interesting where people like to use the thing that reported on the study and not the study itself Why don't you use the study itself? You know, the thing that's reporting on the study is going to be sensationalized, right? So if I look at this study and I read this here The study found no evidence that time-restricted eating works as a weight loss strategy How? Incorrect is this? It's crazy because This is a study here and this study does not not show that it doesn't work In fact, it shows that there is no significant statistical difference between eating three meals a day with caloric control meaning that they were given a caloric control that they needed to follow and Intermittent fasting ad Limitum which means that they were able to eat as much as they want during their 8-hour window But just needed a fast for 16 hours They didn't even measure the calorie intake nor tell them what they needed to eat or how they needed to eat or how many? calories yet the weight loss was statistically non-significant and that to this woman and to CNBC is an indicator that it Doesn't work as a weight loss strategy I'm so confused as to what what the meaning of work is What the meaning of work or doesn't work is with these anti intermittent fasting Videos and and and articles do you understand what the meat that concept of work is it does work if You don't even count calories Another group eats three meals a day. They do count calories to ensure that they're within the calorie Deficit that they need to be for weight loss yet intermittent fasting Still loses weight just as well as the three meal a day people without counting calories So we don't even know if they over ate and then I find it weird That the people that were doing this study the researchers were like, oh my god, this was against our theory We theorized that intermittent fasting would make you lose more weight We just we the the laws of thermodynamics we didn't think that they existed with with intermittent fasting So this actually went against our theory. I always I'm always cautious to believe Researchers that say they theorized that their theory was something based off of nothing that has ever been shown before in research history So they theorized that intermittent fasting would be better than caloric restriction even against the thermodynamics that we already know exists with calorie deficit, so How is that your theory it to me is a misleading way that the researchers tried to kind of say? Hey, look, I'm so unbiased about this that I was actually believing it would work. I don't believe in that I don't I don't buy it. You're a researcher, you know calories in versus calories out matter 100% there is nothing that you're going to lose if you're not at a caloric deficit So I'm not buying the fact that you theorize something that is not even has been shown in the scientific literature You're a researcher. There's no way that that should be your theory at all So one I don't I don't buy that to The intermittent fasting group still lost more weight and more body fat. Yes Was it statistically significant that we get a p-value of 0.05 for the difference between the group? No, we got a p-value of 0.07 for the weight loss between the group in terms of the differences But they still lost more the data still showed that more What weight was lost by the intermittent fasting group more fat mass was lost by the intermittent fasting group Even though it wasn't statistically significant and by statistical significance just so you guys understand when people tell you always Show that there's no significant difference it's not that it isn't a Difference that the difference itself isn't significant which it wasn't because the intermittent fasting group didn't lose That much more weight right for example, if we look at the weight change here, it looks like the caloric restriction group lost at an average of 0.65 kilograms while the intermittent fasting group lost at an average of minus 1.81 Kilograms right so that that's still more that's still more That's not that much more But it's still more and on top of that still being more the intermittent fasting group did not control for calories They just ate whatever they wanted, but just did an intermittent fasting Regimen and this was 12 weeks with 116 people 55 in one group and I believe 59 in the time restricted Eating group right and if you look at fat mass the loss for fat mass with the calorie CMT which is a Caloric I forget what how they broke it down Consistent meal timing guys. All right, the consistent meal time is TRE to a time restricted eating fat mass. They lost an average of 0.03 while the intermittent fasting group lost an average of 0.48. I don't know if you can see it on this. I'm looking at the chart It might be cut off my apologies, but it says 0.48 for the intermittent fasting group, but it is Statistically significant because there's a 0.3 P value not a 0.05 has to be 0.05 or less or it won't be considered Statistically significant. So that just means that it isn't they can't determine that the weight loss necessarily happened due to the intervention because there's so many of the different variables like not controlling for Protein intake not controlling for you know resistance training not control. There's so many different variables So they can't 100% say that this is a statistical significance that proves that it was simply because of the intervention But to pretend that there's it doesn't work at all while at the same time it they lost more weight on paper Average wise they lost more body fat on paper Average wise and they didn't even control for their calories yet. They lost Weight still and more than the caloric restriction group that controlled for calories and they even stated in the study that the Retention for the intermittent fasting group was super high. So the participants were okay with doing it They loved doing it and they didn't drop out But there was a very low dropout rate for the time restricted eating group Which means it was a comfortable thing for them to do. They enjoyed doing it for weight loss They wanted to continue to do it for weight loss. They lost weight significantly Significant not statistically significantly different than the caloric restriction group, but they lost more weight on paper than they did Now one thing they did lose more lean muscle mass, right? That was one of the thing but they didn't actually check for muscle hydration, which is like the water retention that's inside the muscle tissue That's that's sometimes put in there that sometimes held in there with glycogen and stuff like that. They didn't really Separate that so we there's that they didn't have them do resistance training. They didn't check to see the protein intake of The intermittent fasting group so they could have been not eating as much protein because that all matters Protein synthesis requires an increase of Requires a good amount of protein at least 0.7 to 0.8 grams of protein per lean body mass. It requires you know resistance training to Facilitate muscle retention to help with that. So There's a lot of things wrong done in this study, even though it's a randomized control clinical control trial But there's a lot of things wrong my only gripe is how do you look at this study? There's a lot of there's a lot wrong done here because they didn't control for calories with the intermittent fasting group Which they should but how can you look at this study? See that one group was able to eat as much as they want another group had to control calories yet. They both lost a statistically Statistically the same Amount of weight but slightly on paper the the the amount of weight lost the most was from the intermittent fasting group who did not control for calories and Look at this and say that means that intermittent fasting doesn't work I'm so confused I'm literally confused because you do understand that Intermittent fasting is not just this this biological like tool that people could use for weight loss it's also a Structural tool if someone could not control for calories And when controlling for cattle calories for so many people can be tedious and yet still lose weight How is that not a? Positive for intermittent fasting. How is that not showing that intermittent fasting actually does work structurally for a lot of people When the majority of people in these studies, they they don't the dropout rate is low They they report lower hunger. They tend to report lower hunger from intermittent fasting contrary to what people think Oh, they fast and they must be super hungry They report lower hunger because their body becomes used to fasting after a week and a half They report lower hunger. So how how is it that they're they tend to not be as hungry? They don't drop out Sometimes their dropout rates are less than the caloric restriction group That has to constantly be paying attention to the calories yet They're still losing the same amount the same amount of weight as a caloric restriction group That is paying attention to the calories and that is showing that intermittent fasting doesn't work We got it. We got to tackle all these people that do these videos man because they'll stand in front of the Sensationalized article and not the study and then tell you it shows that it doesn't work when that is not what it's saying It's not saying that It's not what what is work for? What is something working for? What are they expecting to see 50 pounds more loss than the caloric restriction group? Is that what they're saying? Do they want it to defy the laws of thermodynamics? Because that's not what intermittent fasting does intermittent fasting creates a good structure for you to do something on a consistent Basis and stick to it because you like it you don't drop out and It's not as tedious as Kess constantly counting calories because you spent you you you become And you put yourself at a caloric deficit in a much easier way By just doing intermittent fasting and fasting for a certain amount of time which allows for you not to overeat so in my opinion that shows that it works and Then when we look at the actual data, they still end up losing more weight every single time They lose more weight and and they they lose more body fat, even if it's not statistically significant They always on paper lose more than the caloric restriction group that are paying attention to their calories ran over alright guys Hit that like button hit that subscribe button share this share this because there's gonna be a lot of people that come to you And say yo, I saw this article on CNBC say man intermittent fasting don't work You got to stop doing that thing show them this so they understand that what they're they're Distorting what the word work even means by this time by by now like what what what what does work mean? We don't know. It's an abstract word now the word work what works what does it who knows? We don't know anyways Let's go ahead hit that like button hit that subscribe button share this video because it's super important for anybody friends family that think that What you're doing is not working because of stuff like this Let them see what the real data tells you let them see what the real data tells you and I will see you tomorrow Peace out guys. Thank you so much