Intermittent Fasting
Replies
-
MFP at its best right here....4
-
About to go to my part time job tonight... only have had a small amount of almonds and lots of water... doing great.
As far as I know the second food hits your lips your fast is over. So those almonds ended your fast. But you will still benefit from saving the bulk of your calories for a certain time for instance if you have problems overeating at night, saving your calories for the end of the day can keep you from going over, that's not considered fasting though if you eat anything at all during the fast, I would consider it saving your calories for the end of the day.0 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
The studies that I have read (I'm sorry, I don't have a link handy... I'm at work) say that you must fast for upwards of 60 hours to see ANY change in your metabolism, and at that, they have shown that the decrease after 60 hours is around 7%...0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.0 -
Glad to get that out of the way. But learning never stops. How on earth does not eating for a day seem logical, and why would your body need a rest from eating?Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.3 -
This content has been removed.
-
It can be a "day free of food"... There are different protocols. You're talking about daily schedule (16:8, 19:5, 20:4 - the warrior diet, 23:1 - one meal a day) but there are also weekly schedules like alternate day fasting or 5:2 meaning eating for five days and fasting for two days (anything longer than that is prolonged fasting but that's not IF anymore).Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.
1 -
I think most of us have picked up things like that. And it's exactly things like that, that makes weight management and maintaining good health so difficult.Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
Glad to get that out of the way. But learning never stops. How on earth does not eating for a day seem logical, and why would your body need a rest from eating?Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Hmm sorry I'm kinda just rattling off stuff iv heard over the years. It's a mix I suppose of different things maybe iv tried / heard over the years. Iv done paleo before so that got me thinking well, cavemen didn't eat everyday as there wasn't always food. So is intermittent fasting perhaps what the body is used to dealing with ?
Resting the body: while it's not busy digesting food it can get busy clearing toxins, etc
Yes I realise I sound silly but it's all stuff I kinda think. Mainly just things iv picked up over the years
It is true that food was sparse in many periods of our history, you don't have to go back more than a hundred years, or just pick any time or place of war or crisis, so to survive, we have deeply ingrained the urge to eat at every opportunity. But we didn't evolve TO an environment of scarcity, we evolved IN an environment of scarcity. We are highly adaptible, and we have clever brains - so clever that we've managed to rid ourselves of the problem of food scarcity, and instead have a problem of too much food, which is very difficult to handle because of our instincts to just eat. But we are also so clever that we can manage to navigate this new, strange environment, if we buckle down, educate ourselves, create small pockets free of constant temptation, and get in good eating and exercise habits.
Paleo, and intermittent fasting, in fact, any diet or meal structure, or set of food rules, or social or cultural eating norms, are ways - more or less successful and effective ways - to navigate an environment of abundance. It's possible to eat yourself to death. The peeps on "My 600 pounds life" aren't freaks, they are normal people without boundaries. We need some kind of structure, in order to not eat all the time. But we also need a structure that fits in with the rest of our life, our preferences, our work, family and social life, food we can attain and afford, food we like to eat. This is why we so often advice people not to jump on any fad, but think and pick something that sounds reasonable and doable. The problem with doing a fad isn't usually that it's dangerous in itself, but that you'll rebound and do really stupid things afterwards, because we can't handle the stress of self-imposed, and totally unnecessary, deprivation, in an environment of plenty.
Your liver "clears toxins" just fine even if your intestines are busy digesting food. The systems are designed to do those things. If you have any toxins in your body that your liver can't handle, you need a doctor's visit, not a fast.
To sum this long-winding thing up - read up on reliable sources and train your common sense. It will serve you well for the rest of your life.5 -
This content has been removed.
-
Thank you. I'm glad to hear that. These things aren't taught in school, but they should have been.Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
I think most of us have picked up things like that. And it's exactly things like that, that makes weight management and maintaining good health so difficult.Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
Glad to get that out of the way. But learning never stops. How on earth does not eating for a day seem logical, and why would your body need a rest from eating?Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Hmm sorry I'm kinda just rattling off stuff iv heard over the years. It's a mix I suppose of different things maybe iv tried / heard over the years. Iv done paleo before so that got me thinking well, cavemen didn't eat everyday as there wasn't always food. So is intermittent fasting perhaps what the body is used to dealing with ?
Resting the body: while it's not busy digesting food it can get busy clearing toxins, etc
Yes I realise I sound silly but it's all stuff I kinda think. Mainly just things iv picked up over the years
It is true that food was sparse in many periods of our history, you don't have to go back more than a hundred years, or just pick any time or place of war or crisis, so to survive, we have deeply ingrained the urge to eat at every opportunity. But we didn't evolve TO an environment of scarcity, we evolved IN an environment of scarcity. We are highly adaptible, and we have clever brains - so clever that we've managed to rid ourselves of the problem of food scarcity, and instead have a problem of too much food, which is very difficult to handle because of our instincts to just eat. But we are also so clever that we can manage to navigate this new, strange environment, if we buckle down, educate ourselves, create small pockets free of constant temptation, and get in good eating and exercise habits.
Paleo, and intermittent fasting, in fact, any diet or meal structure, or set of food rules, or social or cultural eating norms, are ways - more or less successful and effective ways - to navigate an environment of abundance. It's possible to eat yourself to death. The peeps on "My 600 pounds life" aren't freaks, they are normal people without boundaries. We need some kind of structure, in order to not eat all the time. But we also need a structure that fits in with the rest of our life, our preferences, our work, family and social life, food we can attain and afford, food we like to eat. This is why we so often advice people not to jump on any fad, but think and pick something that sounds reasonable and doable. The problem with doing a fad isn't usually that it's dangerous in itself, but that you'll rebound and do really stupid things afterwards, because we can't handle the stress of self-imposed, and totally unnecessary, deprivation, in an environment of plenty.
Your liver "clears toxins" just fine even if your intestines are busy digesting food. The systems are designed to do those things. If you have any toxins in your body that your liver can't handle, you need a doctor's visit, not a fast.
To sum this long-winding thing up - read up on reliable sources and train your common sense. It will serve you well for the rest of your life.
That made a lot of sense4 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.
Sometimes it is. There are people who follow one 24 hour fast per week. Depending on whether you went by calendar day or 24 period would determine if you went a "day" without food.
Also you aren't giving your body a "rest"0 -
But if you ate almonds, you weren't fasting.0 -
True.... but I was trying my fist time at I/F... it was suggested to eat almonds, and a piece of fruit... So is wasn't a COMPLETE fast.0
-
kommodevaran wrote: »
But if you ate almonds, you weren't fasting.
The term fasting isn't that prescriptive. It can mean a restriction on foods or limit on foods too.
For example 5:2 intermittent fasting protocol has people eating having two fasting days eating 500 (F) or 600 (M) calories.
Many religious or spiritual fasts also aren't eating nothing.0 -
-
It can be a "day free of food"... There are different protocols. You're talking about daily schedule (16:8, 19:5, 20:4 - the warrior diet, 23:1 - one meal a day) but there are also weekly schedules like alternate day fasting or 5:2 meaning eating for five days and fasting for two days (anything longer than that is prolonged fasting but that's not IF anymore).Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.
5:2 and alternate day fasting don't involve days free of food. You eat on the "fasting" days, just low calories (20 or 25% of maintenance or 500 calories or something like that).
As rybo says you could include a day without eating, I suppose, but that's not 5:2 and seems to be less common than the usual protocols discussed. Also, nothing to do with resting the digestive functions or toxins.0 -
Yes and no. There are people that decide to fast during that two days period and there are people that decide to underfeed (~500-600kcal) during that time - depends on their goals/what they find easier to do/etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »5:2 and alternate day fasting don't involve days free of food. You eat on the "fasting" days, just low calories (20 or 25% of maintenance or 500 calories or something like that).
As rybo says you could include a day without eating, I suppose, but that's not 5:2 and seems to be less common than the usual protocols discussed. Also, nothing to do with resting the digestive functions or toxins.0 -
Yes and no. There are people that decide to fast during that two days period and there are people that decide to underfeed (~500-600kcal) during that time - depends on their goals/what they find easier to do/etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »5:2 and alternate day fasting don't involve days free of food. You eat on the "fasting" days, just low calories (20 or 25% of maintenance or 500 calories or something like that).
As rybo says you could include a day without eating, I suppose, but that's not 5:2 and seems to be less common than the usual protocols discussed. Also, nothing to do with resting the digestive functions or toxins.
I have never seen anything that promoted full fasting during the 2 days in the 5:2 system. If someone chooses to do so, it would change what the system calls for and no longer be the 5:2 that the book is about.
I suppose IF shouldn't be immune to the ways of people doing their own thing. It has enough varieties as is, soon it will next to meaningless because everyone will have a different definition0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
This is exactly what I was getting at. OP, what kind of eating schedule are you aiming for?0 -
It can be a "day free of food"... There are different protocols. You're talking about daily schedule (16:8, 19:5, 20:4 - the warrior diet, 23:1 - one meal a day) but there are also weekly schedules like alternate day fasting or 5:2 meaning eating for five days and fasting for two days (anything longer than that is prolonged fasting but that's not IF anymore).Intermittent fasting isn't a day free of food. It is fasting for part of a day.
Thank you for clarifying for me. In a rush to dispel misinformation I oversimplified
0 -
Yes and no. There are people that decide to fast during that two days period and there are people that decide to underfeed (~500-600kcal) during that time - depends on their goals/what they find easier to do/etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »5:2 and alternate day fasting don't involve days free of food. You eat on the "fasting" days, just low calories (20 or 25% of maintenance or 500 calories or something like that).
As rybo says you could include a day without eating, I suppose, but that's not 5:2 and seems to be less common than the usual protocols discussed. Also, nothing to do with resting the digestive functions or toxins.
I have never seen anything that promoted full fasting during the 2 days in the 5:2 system. If someone chooses to do so, it would change what the system calls for and no longer be the 5:2 that the book is about.
I suppose IF shouldn't be immune to the ways of people doing their own thing. It has enough varieties as is, soon it will next to meaningless because everyone will have a different definition
Yes, this. I've never seen 5:2 as total fasting on the two days, although if the 5 were higher to compensate I suppose it could work okay.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I'm new to this whole I/F.... so all I really did was last meal was Monday 7:00pm, then yesterday all I ate was a small amount of almonds and a apple.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I'm new to this whole I/F.... so all I really did was last meal was Monday 7:00pm, then yesterday all I ate was a small amount of almonds and a apple.
Maybe you should learn more about IF before just deciding to try not to eat? Randomly not eating anything all day is a recipe for uncontrolled binge restrict cycles if you aren't planning what you are doing.
There are two kinds of IF:- You eat your regular amount of calories during a short eating window every day. So for example, if your calorie goal to lose weight is 1800 cals, you would eat those 1800 cals every day between noon and 8PM.
- You eat maintenance calories 5 days a week, and you eat 800 calories the other two. So for example, you would eat 2200 cals M, W, F, S, S and then eat 800 calories on Tues and Thurs.
I'd really recommend you go back and reread some of the replies you got in this thread with people discussing their experiences, and make a reasonable plan for how you are going to do this. IF is not just trying to eat as little as possible. Please take care of yourself, and good luck!1 -
Yes and no. There are people that decide to fast during that two days period and there are people that decide to underfeed (~500-600kcal) during that time - depends on their goals/what they find easier to do/etc.lemurcat12 wrote: »5:2 and alternate day fasting don't involve days free of food. You eat on the "fasting" days, just low calories (20 or 25% of maintenance or 500 calories or something like that).
As rybo says you could include a day without eating, I suppose, but that's not 5:2 and seems to be less common than the usual protocols discussed. Also, nothing to do with resting the digestive functions or toxins.
I have never seen anything that promoted full fasting during the 2 days in the 5:2 system. If someone chooses to do so, it would change what the system calls for and no longer be the 5:2 that the book is about.
I suppose IF shouldn't be immune to the ways of people doing their own thing. It has enough varieties as is, soon it will next to meaningless because everyone will have a different definition
The original creator of the diet actually says that zero calories are better but he chose a random low percentage because he felt it would be better for long term adherence.0 -
TavistockToad wrote: »
I'm new to this whole I/F.... so all I really did was last meal was Monday 7:00pm, then yesterday all I ate was a small amount of almonds and a apple.
Riiiiight.....1 -
Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
Glad to get that out of the way. But learning never stops. How on earth does not eating for a day seem logical, and why would your body need a rest from eating?Avocado_Angel wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Avocado_Angel wrote: »Doesn't fasting make the body go into shock & hold onto any calories you eat ? I'm just wondering cos I'm sure I heard that before
For one, we are talking about intermittent fasting and not fasting, and for two, you're describing starvation mode, which is a myth. And for three, what calories you eat would the body hold on to if you don't eat? Think
Ok thanks that's cleared that up, always been a bit wary about fasting /intermittent fasting but same time curious how it works. Kinda seems logical to have maybe a day here or there free of food. Give the body a rest I suppose.
Hmm sorry I'm kinda just rattling off stuff iv heard over the years. It's a mix I suppose of different things maybe iv tried / heard over the years. Iv done paleo before so that got me thinking well, cavemen didn't eat everyday as there wasn't always food. So is intermittent fasting perhaps what the body is used to dealing with ?
Resting the body: while it's not busy digesting food it can get busy clearing toxins, etc
Yes I realise I sound silly but it's all stuff I kinda think. Mainly just things iv picked up over the years
I've heard that a million times over the years. "When your body is not taking up it's energy digesting food, it moves on to working more efficiently on other bodily processes" or something like that.
Don't shoot the messenger people
This has been floating around for as long as i can remember, and is not my personal opinion, it's just a popular thought in some health circles. 1 -
Just eat cookies 8 hours a day. Fast for 16 hours. Problem solved.
People make this stuff too complicated. Keyboard warriors ☺️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