Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Are short fasts really helpful for burning fat?
Replies
-
Correct...LexZeAgent2016 wrote: »you don't need to fast to burn fat,
Does not apply to everyone...LexZeAgent2016 wrote: »no eating will leave you low on energy and make you feel low and grumpy to,
Good strategy but does not apply to everyone...LexZeAgent2016 wrote: »maybe eat smaller healthier meals,
All great strategies but what do they have to do with fasting...?LexZeAgent2016 wrote: »your body does need fat, switch to brown foods as in wholegrain bread and rice etc, when you train, do core training, burpees and situps, do 60 second bursts with 30 second rest in between regardless of how many, do at least 3 sets in one go each day, it will take about 4 weeks for you to start noticing your body tighten up, hope this helps,
Intermittent fasting is not starving the body...LexZeAgent2016 wrote: »look after your body doesnt mean starving it...0 -
rainbow198 wrote: »When I was IF'ing, I was a breakfast skipper. I tried skipping lunch, I also tried skipping dinner. Neither worked well for me as all I did was think about food. Breakfast was easy. I have tried IF'ing again and could not do any of the meals. Possibly because I am at my ideal weight and my body knows it does not need to, or could I just be out of practice? Who knows...
A similar thing happen to me. Once I got to my ideal body size I had to extend my eating window.
When I had more body fat I could naturally IF and do light/moderate fasted workouts easier.
I still IF naturally since I'm not hungry in the early morning or after dinner, but instead of eating all of my calories in 4 - 6 hours, it's more like 8 or 9 hours most days.
Interesting ... Since my body fat is around 24% (less now) I guess I have a ways to go. At what level body fat are people calling it an ideal weight? My target is 15%.
This chart looks pretty legit...
0 -
LexZeAgent2016 wrote: »you don't need to fast to burn fat, no eating will leave you low on energy and make you feel low and grumpy to, maybe eat smaller healthier meals, your body does need fat, switch to brown foods as in wholegrain bread and rice etc, when you train, do core training, burpees and situps, do 60 second bursts with 30 second rest in between regardless of how many, do at least 3 sets in one go each day, it will take about 4 weeks for you to start noticing your body tighten up, hope this helps, look after your body doesnt mean starving it...
I don't think you understand how intermittent fasting works. It isn't starving oneself at all it is just moving your calories. Also my experience with working out has been completely different than what you describe. When I skip dinner I feel great in the morning and energy isn't an issue. I lost ground for a while on doing HIIT, but that is no longer true and it was really only a desire not to push. I probably have a bit less in the bursts but my endurance seems better. In fact in longer runs I don't even get side aches and don't feel the desire to stop running. It did take a couple of weeks to be completely comfortable working out fasted, but I never experienced a lack of energy problem.
I'm not against core training although I prefer bodyweight calisthenics, such as pullups, pushup, planks and dips. Situps aren't a good exercise but windshield wipers are brutal hard. I'm not knocking your method as it has advantages too. I have a damaged elbow that wouldn't have happened if I was doing what you suggest.
When I started this thread I wasn't sure fasting was worth the effort, however my body fat seems to be melting away. Even my wife stated I seem to be shirking too fast. There is really something with the short fasts that is helping me. That doesn't mean it is for everyone though. A year ago I couldn't have done it as I just had too much hunger all the time.
Yea, IF is a great way to maintain a deficit.
Well it probably would be if I didn't add an extra 400kc of nuts to my breakfast and a few hundred more calories at lunch! However I'm well aware that a lot of people use IF to create a caloric deficit. My workouts are getting harder though so that might be having more impact than I realize too. Especially the runs tends to rack up the calories. My point though is that I'm not starving myself and I don't feel like I'm starving myself. However I'm also only doing IF a few times a week right now. Fasted workouts are most days I workout though.
If you are losing weight/fat you are in a deficit...0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »I'm finding skipping dinner sometimes to be working well. Pushing three meals into two isn't much of a sacrifice. Short term though I've lost too much weight too fast. Now I need to just try and hold the weight loss.
When I was IF'ing, I was a breakfast skipper. I tried skipping lunch, I also tried skipping dinner. Neither worked well for me as all I did was think about food. Breakfast was easy. I have tried IF'ing again and could not do any of the meals. Possibly because I am at my ideal weight and my body knows it does not need to, or could I just be out of practice? Who knows...
When i tried 16:8 IF, i struggled a lot. I never got past the hunger pains and had really bad breath. I am a huge breakfast person, so it just didnt fit my lifestyle. 3 large meals is much better for me.
But i agree it can be very beneficial to create a deficit.
Why would you have bad breath? I do a16:8 which is perfect for me! Gosh, I hope my breath doesn't stink! Lol
I never took the time to understand why it occurred, but it seemed to be frequent with many users.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
queenliz99 wrote: »I'm finding skipping dinner sometimes to be working well. Pushing three meals into two isn't much of a sacrifice. Short term though I've lost too much weight too fast. Now I need to just try and hold the weight loss.
When I was IF'ing, I was a breakfast skipper. I tried skipping lunch, I also tried skipping dinner. Neither worked well for me as all I did was think about food. Breakfast was easy. I have tried IF'ing again and could not do any of the meals. Possibly because I am at my ideal weight and my body knows it does not need to, or could I just be out of practice? Who knows...
When i tried 16:8 IF, i struggled a lot. I never got past the hunger pains and had really bad breath. I am a huge breakfast person, so it just didnt fit my lifestyle. 3 large meals is much better for me.
But i agree it can be very beneficial to create a deficit.
Why would you have bad breath? I do a16:8 which is perfect for me! Gosh, I hope my breath doesn't stink! Lol
I never took the time to understand why it occurred, but it seemed to be frequent with many users.
Odd, I've seen keto people refer to "keto breath", but not IF people. I would imagine it's a similar process as well as diabetics; when you start breaking down ketones as fuel, you tend to exhale acetone. I believe someone had posted that IF can lead to transient ketosis (although I don't remember what their supporting evidence was for that).1 -
I call it "hungry breath."
The main causes are reduced saliva and increased stomach acid but increased acetones can also be a factor.
Normal brushing supplemented by chewing gum and/or mints should keep it under control.
https://drbilbeisi.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/hungry-why-we-get-bad-breath-on-an-empty-stomach/1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I call it "hungry breath."
The main causes are reduced saliva and increased stomach acid but increased acetones can also be a factor.
Normal brushing supplemented by chewing gum and/or mints should keep it under control.
https://drbilbeisi.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/hungry-why-we-get-bad-breath-on-an-empty-stomach/
Ah, interesting.0 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I call it "hungry breath."
The main causes are reduced saliva and increased stomach acid but increased acetones can also be a factor.
Normal brushing supplemented by chewing gum and/or mints should keep it under control.
https://drbilbeisi.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/hungry-why-we-get-bad-breath-on-an-empty-stomach/
Yep, I do those things plus regular check ups with my dentist. My hubby has never told me my breath is smelly, that's why I asked. Thanks for the link!!0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »I call it "hungry breath."
The main causes are reduced saliva and increased stomach acid but increased acetones can also be a factor.
Normal brushing supplemented by chewing gum and/or mints should keep it under control.
https://drbilbeisi.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/hungry-why-we-get-bad-breath-on-an-empty-stomach/
Yep, I do those things plus regular check ups with my dentist. My hubby has never told me my breath is smelly, that's why I asked. Thanks for the link!!
I frequently chewed gum, brush 2x a day and I still had the issue. But that is interesting why it occurred.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.
What does TDEE mean?0 -
amybluefish wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I lost the majority of my weight doing Alternate day Fasting.
Monday-500 calories
Tuesday-TDEE
Wednesday-500 calories
Thursday-TDEE and so on.
When i first started i found it easier to diet every second, rather than 7 days a week.
ETA: It was a 24 hour fast from dinner till dinner the next night.
What does TDEE mean?
Total Daily Energy Expenditure. Its your total daily burn including exercise, everything.
This is a good calculator that will tell you what yours is
http://scoobysworkshop.com/calorie-calculator/
Basically, if you eat less than your tdee you will lose weight, eat more you will gain. Eat exactly you will maintain.
0 -
You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.0 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.1 -
Carlos_421 wrote: »I call it "hungry breath."
The main causes are reduced saliva and increased stomach acid but increased acetones can also be a factor.
Normal brushing supplemented by chewing gum and/or mints should keep it under control.
https://drbilbeisi.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/hungry-why-we-get-bad-breath-on-an-empty-stomach/
Morning breath.0 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
0 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/199439853 -
I don't know if this has been said. Yes, this works. You will lose weight. You fast every other day. It keeps your metabolism in a state of shock. You still need to workout.0
-
iManifestGoals wrote: »I don't know if this has been said. Yes, this works. You will lose weight. You fast every other day. It keeps your metabolism in a state of shock. You still need to workout.
You still need a calorie deficit, too. Your metabolism doesn't need a shock however unless you need CPR.3 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.
I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.
0 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.
I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.
I do IF but I don't eat more calories than I need. I would gain weight. I have proof.3 -
I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times
0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.
I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.
I do IF but I don't eat more calories than I need. I would gain weight. I have proof.
I don't think I said I eat more calories than I need, clearly I don't. I said I eating more than before since I added IF. That is by intent and it hasn't slowed my weight loss. In fact I'm trying to slow down the weight loss a little because it has been a little two fast. I don't like all the loss skin that is developing.0 -
stylistchicky wrote: »You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.
So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.
The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.
In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.
I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.
Meal timing is completely irrelevant. You can extrapolate that from this study. You eat 2 meals in an 8 hour window. If you stretchef that out over time and increased meals to 4 or 6, it wouldnt change the amount you lose. Calories being held constant is the biggest determinating factor.
If you want to challenge it, eat 4000 calories a day for a month while fasting.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times
You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times
You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.
I guess, I'm not either. Black coffee for me then.0 -
queenliz99 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times
You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.
I guess, I'm not either. Black coffee for me then.
I've read that if you stay under 50 calories it is still classified as fasting, so a bit of milk in your coffee may not hurt. Not sure how accurate this info is though.. I read it on one of the Intermittent fasting forums.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »queenliz99 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times
You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.
I guess, I'm not either. Black coffee for me then.
I've read that if you stay under 50 calories it is still classified as fasting, so a bit of milk in your coffee may not hurt. Not sure how accurate this info is though.. I read it on one of the Intermittent fasting forums.
50 calories is so little, it's hardly any energy at all. Someone may chime in on this. Curious now.0 -
I do IF between 8pm and noon but still drink Crystal Light or Diet Soda after 8 so there are some negligible calories. Just chiming in. Don't know if it's technically correct but it works for me.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions