Is this true about Intermittent Fasting??

Muscleflex79

I've always been a big believer in IIFYM and CICO. Recently did some reading up on IF and repeatedly came across the claim that our bodies don't truly enter a "fasted state" where they can burn body fat instead of food until AFTER 12 hours of no eating (hence the need to fast). Any truth in this or is it woo???

rybo

It's not "woo", but it's also not really relevant to fat loss in the way you are wanting it to be. IIFYM, CICO and IF are not exclusive to each other. While there may be certain physiological things that happen in a fasted state, and yes it normally takes about 12 hours or more to reach, if you aren't averaging being in a caloric deficit, IF will not make you lose weight. It's an eating pattern that MAY be used for weight loss, but it doesn't provide weight loss intrinsically.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

GottaBurnEmAll

Look_Its_Kriss wrote: »

I was always under the impression that IF was a lifestyle choice that helped aid people in a method of CICO and IIFYM, I have never really heard of it being something that burns fat any faster then anything else getting people to the same CICO goal

For practical purposes, that's all it is. It's a way a lot of people (me included) manage their appetites.

I think there are complicated hormonal reasons for this, but it's majoring in the minors. Plenty of people manage to lose weight just fine without practicing IF. I see no need to do it unless it meets your personal preferences.

PaulaWallaDingDong

Muscleflex79 wrote: »

I've always been a big believer in IIFYM and CICO. Recently did some reading up on IF and repeatedly came across the claim that our bodies don't truly enter a "fasted state" where they can burn body fat instead of food until AFTER 12 hours of no eating (hence the need to fast). Any truth in this or is it woo???

Intermittent fasting has nothing to do with entering a "fasted state to burn fat instead of food." It's a means of calorie control. If you don't take in enough calories to support your present weight, your body WILL be using fat stores for energy.

rybo

One more thing I'd like to add and encourage more people to read about are the benefits of IF that aren't fat loss/weight loss related. There is SO much anecdotal misconception that floats around these boards, but lots of good legitimate information to be found on the internet.

GottaBurnEmAll

rybo wrote: »

One more thing I'd like to add and encourage more people to read about are the benefits of IF that aren't fat loss/weight loss related. There is SO much anecdotal misconception that floats around these boards, but lots of good legitimate information to be found on the internet.

And I will reiterate that those benefits are majoring in the minors if they don't fit your preferences and are difficult to comply with.

IF isn't for everyone. If it suits your preferences and you reap those benefits, then great.

If you feel better not doing IF, then you're better off doing something that you can comply with.

Adherence trumps whatever benefits IF could confer.

And I say this as someone who naturally IF's.

Muscleflex79

thanks everyone! great info!

rybo - do you have any links or websites you'd recommend for the most legitimate info online regarding IF??

crzycatlady1

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

rybo wrote: »

One more thing I'd like to add and encourage more people to read about are the benefits of IF that aren't fat loss/weight loss related. There is SO much anecdotal misconception that floats around these boards, but lots of good legitimate information to be found on the internet.

And I will reiterate that those benefits are majoring in the minors if they don't fit your preferences and are difficult to comply with.

IF isn't for everyone. If it suits your preferences and you reap those benefits, then great.

If you feel better not doing IF, then you're better off doing something that you can comply with.

Adherence trumps whatever benefits IF could confer.

And I say this as someone who naturally IF's.

Agree. I do IF but it's not some magical weight loss plan or anything-it just helps me keep my calories in check because I have less time in the day to eat. If it helps you with your calorie adherence and you don't mind doing it then it can be a nice tool. But, there's plenty of people here who are very successful with their weight and health goals that don't do IF.

Also, for what it's worth-I've been doing IF in one form or another for around 5 years now. I haven't noticed any special health benefits from doing it.

crzycatlady1

rybo wrote: »

One more thing I'd like to add and encourage more people to read about are the benefits of IF that aren't fat loss/weight loss related. There is SO much anecdotal misconception that floats around these boards, but lots of good legitimate information to be found on the internet.

I've been doing IF for around 5 years now and I haven't noticed any benefits from it, except it helps me with calorie adherence.

sijomial

Woo - you burn fat anytime you are in a calorie deficit, you also burn dietary fat (as opposed to body fat) even when you aren't in a calorie deficit.
Fat burning doesn't have to be forced, it's normal.

I've done both 5:2 and 16:8 IF protocols, one helped me for adherence and the other didn't.
It's hard to get impartial research on it from sites promoting their particular protocol as often there's a huge amount of cherry picking going on.

One of the sources that impressed me the most as being most science based was Dr Krista Varady. Unfortunately that was on ADF which is likely to appeal to fewer people than 5:2 or intra day fasting periods.

trigden1991

For the majority of people, IF helps with adherence to a calorie deficit. In some cases (very lean people), fasted cardio is a tool to reduce stubborn fat.

crzycatlady1

sijomial wrote: »

Woo - you burn fat anytime you are in a calorie deficit, you also burn dietary fat (as opposed to body fat) when you aren't in a calorie deficit.
Fat burning doesn't have to be forced, it's normal.

I've done both 5:2 and 16:8 IF protocols, one helped me for adherence and the other didn't.
It's hard to get impartial research on it from sites promoting their particular protocol as often there's a huge amount of cherry picking going on.

One of the sources that impressed me the most as being most science based was Dr Krista Varady. Unfortunately that was on ADF which is likely to appeal to fewer people than 5:2 or intra day fasting periods.

I did ADF for my weight loss phase and yeah, it's not a plan that appeals to a lot of people-it's pretty hard core lol

SadDolt

you lose more water weight

TimothyFish

Food stays in your gut for quit some time after you eat, so yes it is true that it takes a while to reach a "fasted state." For weight loss I don't know that it matters. A calorie deficit equals fat loss whether you are in a fasted state or not. But for training it is something to consider. Some athletes do a portion of their training in a fasted state with the theory being that doing so will train their bodies to get energy from fat more efficiently. Their hope is that as they deplete their glycogen stores that they can convert fat more quickly and be able to perform at a peak level for longer.