Intermittent Fasting, yae or nay?

100df

dwd9191 wrote: »

Fasting is a lazy way to do this. Not the most efficient, or most beneficial. Everyone has their own way. I believe it over complicates the simplicity of what a healthy lifestyle program involves.

While I will cop to lazy, my use of IF is not part of my lazy ways. Trying to eat 5-6 times a day on not that many calories is more complicated for me. IF is a preference. Not a character flaw.

stevencloser

A lazy way that overcomplicates things? What?

amusedmonkey

Yea for some, nay for others. It's a calorie management tool, just like finding your macro sweet spot that makes dieting easier for you. And just like macros, meal timing/number is personal. Different people respond to different strategies. If you find it makes dieting easier, then yea. If it makes dieting feel like a struggle, no need to be stubborn and make things harder for yourself, just try something else until you find something that works.

RunHardBeStrong

gia07 wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is not to loose weight. It is just an eating schedule.

For example, you just put off your "break fast" till later in the morning and then eat your "break fast" and all the rest of your calories up to a point in the day, like ending food intake at 6:00 .p.m. You start at 11:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m.

I basically have been eating like this all my life and found that it has name. And I always always exercise fasted.

This. It still comes down to calories in vs. calories out. I personally prefer lunch, supper and a snack between if needed. If I eat in the morning, I just end up eating all day long and never seem to get full then go over calories.

dubird

alypri wrote: »

gia07 wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is not to loose weight. It is just an eating schedule.

For example, you just put off your "break fast" till later in the morning and then eat your "break fast" and all the rest of your calories up to a point in the day, like ending food intake at 6:00 .p.m. You start at 11:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m.

I basically have been eating like this all my life and found that it has name. And I always always exercise fasted.

This. It still comes down to calories in vs. calories out. I personally prefer lunch, supper and a snack between if needed. If I eat in the morning, I just end up eating all day long and never seem to get full then go over calories.

Exactly. Everyone's different. For me, if I don't have something in the morning, I get super hungry and a blood sugar drop around lunch. So I have a fiber brownie in the morning. Same thing every morning, but it's extra fiber that I need and such a low calorie amount I'm not overdoing it. And just enough to last me to lunch.

amber68rose556

I'm doing 16:8 eating from noon to 8pm, i have coffee before 12, and workout at the gym. I find as long as i'm not starving and dont make bad choices at lunch i appreciate those extra kcals at lunch and dinner.

sandiikat

alypri wrote: »

gia07 wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is not to loose weight. It is just an eating schedule.

For example, you just put off your "break fast" till later in the morning and then eat your "break fast" and all the rest of your calories up to a point in the day, like ending food intake at 6:00 .p.m. You start at 11:00 a.m. and end at 6:00 p.m.

I basically have been eating like this all my life and found that it has name. And I always always exercise fasted.

This. It still comes down to calories in vs. calories out. I personally prefer lunch, supper and a snack between if needed. If I eat in the morning, I just end up eating all day long and never seem to get full then go over calories.

I am the same way!

sandiikat

stevencloser wrote: »

A lazy way that overcomplicates things? What?

Lol same thought here.

amusedmonkey

sanrocha8 wrote: »

stevencloser wrote: »

A lazy way that overcomplicates things? What?

Lol same thought here.

Yeah, I scratched my head too.

dottyb1tchmouse

I've had good results with it in the past, I would just eat 1 big meal a day and then maybe a snack or two. I was probably undereating a little but I felt satisfied and lost about 10 pounds doing that.

AnvilHead

IF is a matter of personal preference. It's no more or less efficient in terms of weight loss compared to any other eating schedule - it's a matter of whether it fits your life for satiety and adherence. I more or less fall into a 16:8 pattern, but it's not a conscious decision of trying to adhere to IF - it's just how I eat for the most part. I don't sweat it if I break the "window" and eat earlier or later because it doesn't really make any difference as long as the calories are equal.

feisty_bucket

Negative_X wrote: »

lithezebra wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is one of the things you can do to promote the formation of new brain cells.
https://www.ted.com/talks/sandrine_thuret_you_can_grow_new_brain_cells_here_s_how?language=en

On top of this, Autophagy activity in the body (our bodies natural cellular repair/breakdown/maintenance crew) is dramatically increased, as well as Human Growth Hormone release, mitochondria biogensis, improved insulin sensitivity and more efficient fat utilization in the body.*

_Thanks_ to both of you. In these IF threads, I'm always hoping to see somebody talk about cellular changes but they rarely deliver.
-
Uh, anyways, IF rocks. Thursday will be a 24-hr fast for me, starting about now.

RodaRose

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415001865

Recent findings indicate that meal timing is crucial, with both intermittent fasting and adjusted diurnal rhythm of feeding improving health and function, in the absence of changes in overall intake. Lowered intake of particular nutrients rather than of overall calories is also key, with protein and specific amino acids playing prominent roles. Nutritional modulation of the microbiome can also be important, and there are long-term, including inter-generational, effects of diet.

The metabolic, molecular, and cellular mechanisms that mediate both improvement in health during aging to diet and genetic variation in the response to diet are being identified. These new findings are opening the way to specific dietary and pharmacological interventions to recapture the full potential benefits of dietary restriction, which humans can find difficult to maintain voluntarily.

The drug companies are looking for a drug that can get the same results that IF'ers are getting.

75in2013

stevencloser wrote: »

A lazy way that overcomplicates things? What?

Exactly my thoughts

eviegreen

Like a few others, 16:8 is basically my natural eating pattern. I've never been a big breakfast eater and I prefer to save my calories for lunch and (a big) dinner. The one time I went off this pattern and started eating breakfast, I found it difficult to lose because I'd still feel hungry around dinner. So I think daily IF (16:8, 20:4, or 23:1) are great for some folks who normally spread out their meals, but not for me since I've always been fat naturally eating on that schedule.

I do, however, eat on the 5:2 intermittent fasting schedule (eating at maintenance 5 days a week, 500 calories for 2), and have had great success with it. Being able to eat a little extra on gym days has been great for my overall mood, and it really has made losing these last 15 much more bearable than when I was doing a daily deficit.

As with anything, YMMV, but a lot of people find success with an IF schedule that works for them. It's definitely worth trying a few and seeing what suits.

MyPrimalLife

i used to do 18:6 and LOVED It. but i tried again recently (had stopped for a while, long story) and it was very difficult for me. i am now as close to diabetes as i can get without actually being diabetic, so i think my blood sugar levels need to regulate before i can do it again. my goal is to be back to 18:6 by the end of the year.