Intermittent Fasting Question
Options
Replies
-
@CWShultz27105 - I've been following a lot of different websites lately, trying to find the best for ME. I wasn't directing my post at you. I didn't even see yours until later. We must have been typing at the same time. I have been trying 16/8 for now. Most days I'm successful. Somedays (like today) I am not! LOL!
You're right...it has NOTHING to do with SKIPPING MEALS and all to do with timing of your meals. The longer you fast, the more your body uses stored fat for fuel. When you "feed" you eat the same amount of calories you would normally eat. No reason for your body to give you "HANGER" pains if you feed it the same nourishment as always.0 -
Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »One thing I'd read about IF is that our bodies will burn from recently eaten meals. When you have longer periods where there is no food being eaten, our bodies will take from our fat stores for energy. When you do eat, you eat the same amount of calories, just within a smaller time period depending on what schedule you are on.
Here's an easy to understand article on it, but you can Google it and find many articles about it.
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/
And because you take in the same amount of calories it doesn't matter. If you go to your bank and deposit 10 dollars every hour for 10 hours, do you have more money in your account than if you went once and deposited 100?6 -
The bank is not a living breathing being. Our bodies are. You cannot compare.8
-
CWShultz27105 wrote: »@gita9999 - what is wrong with hangry? LOL!
Everyone is different. This whole topic is just another perfect example of that concept. There are few 'hard and fast rules' here. One of them is Caloric Input excees Caloric Output and you gain weight (and vice versa).
What I find interesting is the mindset of people. It seems to me - and this is my experience - that most people want "just tell me what to do".....I am a huge concept person so feed me the concepts and let me play with them, as I deem appropriate, to see what works for me.
Maybe I am just being a grumpy old man today, but people need to understand that everyone is different and that what works for me may or may not work for you (and, @gita9999 - not directed at you specifically). I think that critical thinking is somehow dormant......
Anyway, I would encourage everyone to play with nutrition....whatever that all might mean.....and find out what works for you. Not for me....not for him....not for her.....but for you. I have been doing this the last three months and I would LOVE to share with everyone that it was a ton of fun. I mean, one week I played with eating 4000 calories a day (a little bit plus, a little bit minus). That was a glorious week!
I am doing IF and enjoy this. 30 years ago I just simply could not eat after 6PM. That was just how I was. Pretty sure that 30 years ago the concept of Intermittent Fasting was not a concept yet. Anyway, it seems to work well for me.
I am also confused (and pretty much likely due to my ignorance) but I did not know that Intermittent Fasting was a way to loose weight by skipping a meal. @malibu927 - am I reading something into your post? And, not being creepy with this - if you do live in Malibu, is Gladstones for Fish (the restaurant) still around? I used to LOVE LOVE LOVE that place. The 'doggie bags' were totally awesome. The things that you can do with aluminium foil....
Ha no, I live in Ohio. I have this name because at the time I drove a Malibu.0 -
Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »The bank is not a living breathing being. Our bodies are. You cannot compare.
Our bodies are bound by the laws of physics, one of which states energy can't appear out of nowhere. Where there's no material left over, none can be stored as fat. If there is not enough to support your body, spare has to be taken out of your reserves.5 -
Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »The bank is not a living breathing being. Our bodies are. You cannot compare.
Well yeah, you can. Cause energy balance. We burn stored fat in a fasted state. If we extend the fast we extend the time we are burning stored fat. When we then ingest food in whatever window we eat in, say an 8 hour window IF, we will store fat while in energy surplus and burn stored fat when not. If in balance at the end of a 24 hour period, no net fat is stored. If in surplus, net fat is stored. If in deficit, stored net fat is burned.
IF may have some insulin sensitivity benefits but it is just an eating schedule and it's primary benefit is helping some people with compliance to hit their calorie goal. This is human physiology and energy balance. We can compare because this is how we operate.3 -
CWShultz27105 wrote: »@gita9999 - what is wrong with hangry? LOL!
Everyone is different. This whole topic is just another perfect example of that concept. There are few 'hard and fast rules' here. One of them is Caloric Input excees Caloric Output and you gain weight (and vice versa).
What I find interesting is the mindset of people. It seems to me - and this is my experience - that most people want "just tell me what to do".....I am a huge concept person so feed me the concepts and let me play with them, as I deem appropriate, to see what works for me.
As you just said, everyone is different, some people are like you and like to "play with," a concept while others may find that if they start playing with a concept, pretty soon they've played it into an intermittent fasting plan where they fast for two minutes between donuts. Or is that just me?
I do better with a few hard and fast rules, so I fast from 6PM to noon and if it means sitting at the table watching the clock for a few minutes, until exactly noon, I do it.
I wanted to second what Jelleigh just said about giving yourself a little time to get used to this plan. I was lightheaded before lunch the first few days and then there was the psychological withdrawal from snacking while watching TV in the evenings. That all passed within a few days.
0 -
Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »The bank is not a living breathing being. Our bodies are. You cannot compare.
Well yeah, you can. Cause energy balance. We burn stored fat in a fasted state. If we extend the fast we extend the time we are burning stored fat. When we then ingest food in whatever window we eat in, say an 8 hour window IF, we will store fat while in energy surplus and burn stored fat when not. If in balance at the end of a 24 hour period, no net fat is stored. If in surplus, net fat is stored. If in deficit, stored net fat is burned.
IF may have some insulin sensitivity benefits but it is just an eating schedule and it's primary benefit is helping some people with compliance to hit their calorie goal. This is human physiology and energy balance. We can compare because this is how we operate.
You actually compare our bodies to a bank? Really?! As far as I know, banks do not burn money. Our bodies burn fuel in calories. And depending on each individual body, that can factor in many different equations. Whereas a bank is a bank. Baffles me how you can compare our bodies to a building.7 -
Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »The bank is not a living breathing being. Our bodies are. You cannot compare.
Well yeah, you can. Cause energy balance. We burn stored fat in a fasted state. If we extend the fast we extend the time we are burning stored fat. When we then ingest food in whatever window we eat in, say an 8 hour window IF, we will store fat while in energy surplus and burn stored fat when not. If in balance at the end of a 24 hour period, no net fat is stored. If in surplus, net fat is stored. If in deficit, stored net fat is burned.
IF may have some insulin sensitivity benefits but it is just an eating schedule and it's primary benefit is helping some people with compliance to hit their calorie goal. This is human physiology and energy balance. We can compare because this is how we operate.
You actually compare our bodies to a bank? Really?! As far as I know, banks do not burn money. Our bodies burn fuel in calories. And depending on each individual body, that can factor in many different equations. Whereas a bank is a bank. Baffles me how you can compare our bodies to a building.
I'm surprised that this is unclear, but yes, to a bank account. Not to an actual building. No banks don't burn money. They store it. Just like our fat stores. They receive deposits and give out withdrawals. Just like our fat stores. It goes on all day 24/7.
You have an account balance (stored fat). You put in deposits (eat food). You make withdrawals (activities that burn calories + BMR). You either have more than you started with in your account (fat stores), the same, or less. Simple really. The variable within an individual may affect either side of the equation, eg. if someone is Insulin Resistant that could affect their deposit side. And and individuals metabolism(BMR) affects the withdrawal side but within that individuals account, balancing the account still applies.
Put in more than you take out? The account (fat stores) grow. Take out more than you put in? The account (fat stores) shrink.10 -
I have been trying 12:12 IF. I don't skip any meals. I just remember what time my last meal was at night and try not to eat until 12 hours later the next morning. I like this better than stopping eating at a specific time at night because my daily schedule varies and also I can't sleep if I'm hungry. So if I don't get home from work until 9pm and I want to have a little snack, I just have to remember not to eat until 9:30 the next day. If I have a bigger meal earlier in the evening, maybe 7pm, then I'm good to go until 7am the next day.
This is about all the structure I can handle but I think it is helping me lose weight. It certainly helps me become more aware of my eating habits. Maybe trying 12:12 would be a way to ease into IF and see if it works for you.2 -
I don't routinely IF, but found it to be really helpful on a recent vacation.
I ate one large meal at a restaurant each evening and otherwise just coffee in the morning. Didn't feel overly hungry, and felt no guilt over wonderful meals each night. Actually lost weight while thoroughly enjoying myself in New Orleans!1 -
Here is my personal anecdotal experience:
I naturally don't eat after 6 (after 5 in daylight saving). I just lose the desire to eat when it starts getting dark. That's how I eat now and that's how I've always eaten. I'm also lazy in the morning. Too lazy to prepare food. So for most of my adult life where breakfast was not prepared for me I've eaten my breakfast after 10 am most of the time and sometimes skipped it altogether. My weight surpassed 300 pounds eating that way, and dipped under 200 pounds eating that way. The difference? To reach a lighter weight I had to count calories.
My usual way of eating (what I learned later was called intermittent fasting) did not protect me against blood pressure, high blood sugar, or high cholesterol. It did not make me automatically thinner than other people. It did not magically rearrange my hormones or give me a higher metabolism (if anything, I burn fewer calories than is expected for my weight). You know what resolved my metabolic syndrome? Weight loss. It had to be deliberate and I had to count calories. You know what resolved my lower metabolism? Increased activity. I have to work harder to achieve a higher burn, but knowing I can have a higher burn is empowering and it's much simpler to go for a walk that burns hundreds of calories than chasing a potential extra 10 calorie burn here or there through overcomplicated regimens that may or may not give us what we're looking for.
Some people find that some changes to their eating schedule or food types helps them achieve a deficit easier. Try it and see, it may be the case for you. The research on the matter is interesting, but I wouldn't rely on it with all the confounding factors involved. It has been hammered into our brains and research was shoved in our faces that people who skipped breakfast tended to be fatter. Now research is being shoved in our faces that people who skip breakfast lose weight. Could it be simply that the change in schedule, in whichever direction, affects spontaneous calorie intake? Who knows. The only thing we can reliably know and trust is our personal experience with how easy/hard something makes it for us personally to achieve a caloric deficit. If weight loss is easier, it's more likely to happen. No reason to overcomplicate things or get lost in minutia.1 -
It's just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat. If you succeed doing it, then it's good.
That's only partly correct. There does seem to be a fair bit of science that suggests the IF regime increases metabolism, lowers insulin levels, increases HGH and so on - all of which can assist in weight loss. If you're interested, there is plenty of reputable studies into this type of activity - when compared to some of the 'fad' type diets that have sprouted over the years.
If you’re going to provide the information, it’s courtesy to link to the studies as well. But IME, I lost exactly the same doing IF than not.
I assume most people can use Google to research topics of interest, but here's a good start: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting#section1
I'm not going to link to all 44 references to studies or articles that are on that page.
While we're on the subject of providing references, can you post anything reliable that says Intermittent Fasting is just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat? 6 -
It's just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat. If you succeed doing it, then it's good.
That's only partly correct. There does seem to be a fair bit of science that suggests the IF regime increases metabolism, lowers insulin levels, increases HGH and so on - all of which can assist in weight loss. If you're interested, there is plenty of reputable studies into this type of activity - when compared to some of the 'fad' type diets that have sprouted over the years.
If you’re going to provide the information, it’s courtesy to link to the studies as well. But IME, I lost exactly the same doing IF than not.
I assume most people can use Google to research topics of interest, but here's a good start: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting#section1
I'm not going to link to all 44 references to studies or articles that are on that page.
While we're on the subject of providing references, can you post anything reliable that says Intermittent Fasting is just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat?
"You can Google it yourself" and "Well can you Prove the opposite" are the most unscientific, copout answers in dialogue history.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »It's just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat. If you succeed doing it, then it's good.
That's only partly correct. There does seem to be a fair bit of science that suggests the IF regime increases metabolism, lowers insulin levels, increases HGH and so on - all of which can assist in weight loss. If you're interested, there is plenty of reputable studies into this type of activity - when compared to some of the 'fad' type diets that have sprouted over the years.
If you’re going to provide the information, it’s courtesy to link to the studies as well. But IME, I lost exactly the same doing IF than not.
I assume most people can use Google to research topics of interest, but here's a good start: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting#section1
I'm not going to link to all 44 references to studies or articles that are on that page.
While we're on the subject of providing references, can you post anything reliable that says Intermittent Fasting is just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat?
"You can Google it yourself" and "Well can you Prove the opposite" are the most unscientific, copout answers in dialogue history.
+10 -
stevencloser wrote: »It's just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat. If you succeed doing it, then it's good.
That's only partly correct. There does seem to be a fair bit of science that suggests the IF regime increases metabolism, lowers insulin levels, increases HGH and so on - all of which can assist in weight loss. If you're interested, there is plenty of reputable studies into this type of activity - when compared to some of the 'fad' type diets that have sprouted over the years.
If you’re going to provide the information, it’s courtesy to link to the studies as well. But IME, I lost exactly the same doing IF than not.
I assume most people can use Google to research topics of interest, but here's a good start: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting#section1
I'm not going to link to all 44 references to studies or articles that are on that page.
While we're on the subject of providing references, can you post anything reliable that says Intermittent Fasting is just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat?
"You can Google it yourself" and "Well can you Prove the opposite" are the most unscientific, copout answers in dialogue history.
+2 You can google non-credible pros and cons for any topic. "You can google it" is a complete non-starter.1 -
The thing that I found - and continue to find - is that, while Google is indeed your friend and mine, there is sooooo much crappola out there. It is interesting to note that you can pretty much find any article to backup whatever point you want to make. Just look hard enough (and sometimes you do not have to do that).
Just because someone wrote something on some web site does not make it correct. For whatever reason (and I know the reason - critical thinking in this awesome land of our's - just does not happen all that often anymore...shoot, blame it on public education) we want to believe things just because we read it.
Anyway, I have my favorite sources for information and they are pretty good at backing up what they say with science. Did I spell that word correctly? LOL! And pretty much whatever is in there I *tend* to believe. But that is just me....0 -
stevencloser wrote: »It's just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat. If you succeed doing it, then it's good.
That's only partly correct. There does seem to be a fair bit of science that suggests the IF regime increases metabolism, lowers insulin levels, increases HGH and so on - all of which can assist in weight loss. If you're interested, there is plenty of reputable studies into this type of activity - when compared to some of the 'fad' type diets that have sprouted over the years.
If you’re going to provide the information, it’s courtesy to link to the studies as well. But IME, I lost exactly the same doing IF than not.
I assume most people can use Google to research topics of interest, but here's a good start: https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting#section1
I'm not going to link to all 44 references to studies or articles that are on that page.
While we're on the subject of providing references, can you post anything reliable that says Intermittent Fasting is just a tool to help you create a calorie deficit by limiting the amount of time you eat?
"You can Google it yourself" and "Well can you Prove the opposite" are the most unscientific, copout answers in dialogue history.
You're completely missing the point here. If you bothered to read back to my original post, I said that there seemed to be a fair bit of science suggesting there is actual benefits (because science) if people cared to look for it. I'm not banging a drum either way, and was making an observation based on what I'd read about IF. I really don't give a rats *kitten* if people Google it or don't, but if they did bother to invest a little time in some research about a topic (weight loss) that could potentially be life-saving or at least life-changing, then they might find that useful time spent.
And if you bothered to analyse any number of the rubbish posts on these forums, you would find plenty of people who are very vociferous in support of their chosen 'diet' - many of which don't have any scientific backing at all. Same goes for @mph323 and @mmapags . +1 and +2 to you guys
My real objection was to the School-Ma'am attitude of @malibu927 who didn't like the fact that I didn't reference my post, academic style. This is social media, not university.5 -
stevencloser wrote: »Jigglypuff9363 wrote: »One thing I'd read about IF is that our bodies will burn from recently eaten meals. When you have longer periods where there is no food being eaten, our bodies will take from our fat stores for energy. When you do eat, you eat the same amount of calories, just within a smaller time period depending on what schedule you are on.
Here's an easy to understand article on it, but you can Google it and find many articles about it.
https://www.nerdfitness.com/blog/a-beginners-guide-to-intermittent-fasting/
And because you take in the same amount of calories it doesn't matter. If you go to your bank and deposit 10 dollars every hour for 10 hours, do you have more money in your account than if you went once and deposited 100?
except if the bank charges you a fee to take the money out, you would get less. Gluconeogenesis is only 67% efficient. You lose more depositing calories into the fat bank fat and then taking it back out again than just using it as it comes in. Might not lose a lot more but there is a fee. You can easily out-eat that fee if not careful.6 -
IF isn't for everyone. I figure you need to get the calorie consumption down one way or another. What is easier for you, eat small meals and not get full and feel that pain or skip eating altogether for a longer time (and feel that pain) and then be able to eat tell full, or share the pain a little both ways simulteneously? I've done a 20:4 and then eat ad libitum in the eating window and that has been WAY easier than the small meals. I have a small enough window that I still get a deficit but I still get to eat tell full each day. That is a sustainable plan for me. Always eating small meals and stopping before full would not be very sustainable for me. I also don't have the hassle of weighing or counting calories.
I've lost 55-lbs doing the 20:4 method starting over two years ago (lost most of it the first 5-months and mostly maintained after that doing a 16:8).
I've got a co-worker who mixed the two approaches by doing a 16:8 and some portion control. He eats about a 600 cal lunch, a 200-cal afternoon snack, a moderate dinner, and a late evening snack. He lost 70-lbs in 4-months doing that!
Do what works for you and what is sustainable because we are in this for the long-haul!0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions