I don't get intermittent fasting.

Anon2018

So, obviously keto and IF are the fad diets du jour. I've done a lot of research and thought about keto, and don't want to get into it, but I simply don't GET intermittent fasting.

First of all, the 16/8 deal is just....skipping breakfast? TBH I don't really see how that's fasting or why that would have any metabolic effect. I fast once a year for religious reasons (I'm jewish and fast for 24 hours on Yom Kippur), and it's an actual 24 hour fast. I don't really see how waiting til lunch counts as a fast. Plus some people have bulletproof coffee (i.e. coffee with butter) as breakfast during a fast. Like, you're not fasting if you eat a stick of butter during it.

While I may or may not agree with other fad diets, I at least see what people are trying to get out of it. With intermittent fasting, I just don't get what the goal of it even is. Is it just that if you eat less often you'll consume less calories? TBH I eat low carb (not keto) and I do see that it's easier for me to wait between meals vs. when I was eating higher carb BUT I stlil enjoy eating all my meals an the occasional snack.

With IF I dont even get what the dogma is supposed to be - can someone explain?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

livingleanlivingclean

It's not a diet... It's an eating schedule. It helps some people stick to their deficit - personally, I can ignore hunger until I start to eat, so waiting to break my fast helps me feel more satisfied during the day. It also let's me eat a big dinner and dessert, which I enjoy.

JaydedMiss

IF isnt a diet its an eating schedule. I IF because i get hungry at night and can easily just not eat through the day and have all my food calories left for bulky delicious food at night vs a sad bowl of like popcorn and guilt if it takes me over my goals.

CarvedTones

You just have to ignore the semantics of the word "fast". I do the other flavor of IF sometimes - 5:2. That's 5 days of normal eating and 2 "fast" days where you restrict to about a single meal's worth of calories, which I usually eat as a single meal. The idea there is that you eat meals at maintenance levels but have 17 a week instead of 21 to produce the deficit. Neither method has any benefits with regard to metabolism.

GottaBurnEmAll

Anon2018 wrote: »

So, obviously keto and IF are the fad diets du jour. I've done a lot of research and thought about keto, and don't want to get into it, but I simply don't GET intermittent fasting.

First of all, the 16/8 deal is just....skipping breakfast? TBH I don't really see how that's fasting or why that would have any metabolic effect. I fast once a year for religious reasons (I'm jewish and fast for 24 hours on Yom Kippur), and it's an actual 24 hour fast. I don't really see how waiting til lunch counts as a fast. Plus some people have bulletproof coffee (i.e. coffee with butter) as breakfast during a fast. Like, you're not fasting if you eat a stick of butter during it.

While I may or may not agree with other fad diets, I at least see what people are trying to get out of it. With intermittent fasting, I just don't get what the goal of it even is. Is it just that if you eat less often you'll consume less calories? TBH I eat low carb (not keto) and I do see that it's easier for me to wait between meals vs. when I was eating higher carb BUT I stlil enjoy eating all my meals an the occasional snack.

With IF I dont even get what the dogma is supposed to be - can someone explain?

I don't get all the fuss around it either.

I skip breakfast and have for years because eating an early breakfast seems to turn on an appetite switch in me, and makes me want to eat more during the day.

When I skip breakfast and just drink my morning tea, I'm fine not eating until some time in the afternoon and have much better control over my appetite. I noticed this some time back in the 90's. I still overate for my calories, mind you, but it was a start.

There's a lot of silliness people are pushing regarding the whole thing, and really, it's just another tool to make it easy for people to control their caloric intake. I should say some people. Some other people thrive on eating breakfast.

Other than that, ignore all the nonsense.

jemhh

Yeah, I just think of it as skipping breakfast too. Like many things, it's an old concept with a snappy new name. Add in some dubious claims about its health benefits and you have a rage.

(I am not anti IF. I don't really care about it either way.)

Francl27

I don't believe any of the claims about how it's better for your metabolism or whatnot.. but it is much easier for me to indulge a bit and still be within my calories when I'm not out 400 calories by 9am already.

Unfortunately I'm typically starving by 10am, so that just doesn't work for me.

lemurcat12

Anon2018 wrote: »

First of all, the 16/8 deal is just....skipping breakfast? TBH I don't really see how that's fasting or why that would have any metabolic effect. I fast once a year for religious reasons (I'm jewish and fast for 24 hours on Yom Kippur), and it's an actual 24 hour fast. I don't really see how waiting til lunch counts as a fast. Plus some people have bulletproof coffee (i.e. coffee with butter) as breakfast during a fast. Like, you're not fasting if you eat a stick of butter during it.

I agree that it's silly to call it a fast or equate it with fasting (most do not, but I have seen that), but I don't see what's not to get. It's an eating schedule. Some find it easier to control calories if they only eat during a particular window. They may find they aren't really hungry at other times, so why eat then just because it's expected, and they may find that if they start eating only within a window they aren't hungry at other times as a result.

I think it's similar to how I don't snack and so don't really think about eating outside of meal times. (I've tried not eating breakfast, which I used to do, and get the benefits, but I enjoy eating both breakfast and dinner so no IF for me.)

I think the metabolic stuff is largely nonsense too, but I do think many people may find they naturally control calories if they limit their window. Many others log and do IF. It's like how some find low carbing makes them naturally eat less and others find it makes it easier but do better logging too.

GottaBurnEmAll

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Anon2018 wrote: »

First of all, the 16/8 deal is just....skipping breakfast? TBH I don't really see how that's fasting or why that would have any metabolic effect. I fast once a year for religious reasons (I'm jewish and fast for 24 hours on Yom Kippur), and it's an actual 24 hour fast. I don't really see how waiting til lunch counts as a fast. Plus some people have bulletproof coffee (i.e. coffee with butter) as breakfast during a fast. Like, you're not fasting if you eat a stick of butter during it.

I agree that it's silly to call it a fast or equate it with fasting (most do not, but I have seen that), but I don't see what's not to get. It's an eating schedule. Some find it easier to control calories if they only eat during a particular window. They may find they aren't really hungry at other times, so why eat then just because it's expected, and they may find that if they start eating only within a window they aren't hungry at other times as a result.

I think it's similar to how I don't snack and so don't really think about eating outside of meal times. (I've tried not eating breakfast, which I used to do, and get the benefits, but I enjoy eating both breakfast and dinner so no IF for me.)

I think the metabolic stuff is largely nonsense too, but I do think many people may find they naturally control calories if they limit their window. Many others log and do IF. It's like how some find low carbing makes them naturally eat less and others find it makes it easier but do better logging too.

Oh, I still have to log, for sure.

It's quite easy for me to go over my calories, no matter what my meal timing is.

TeaBea

jemhh wrote: »

Yeah, I just think of it as skipping breakfast too. Like many things, it's an old concept with a snappy new name. Add in some dubious claims about its health benefits and you have a rage.

(I am not anti IF. I don't really care about it either way.)

Everything old is new again. Even 5:2 IF is recycled. It used to be called the Rotation Diet. Anything to make a buck.

OP - if an eating schedule helps you stay on track, or if eliminating a macro (keto) helps you stay on track that will help with weight loss. However, have a maintenance plan in place.

nowine4me

I certainly don’t follow IF strictly, but do find it’s been helpful to skip breakfast and wait to eat until lunch. It’s saves me about 300 calories a day that I now eat in the late afternoon when I’m really hungry.

cwolfman13

IF is just an eating preference...it's not a "diet". I have a body builder friend who does IF...he's not "dieting"...he's bulking. It's just an eating preference.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

I've always skipped breakfast and not eaten until 1-2pm.

The last year or so people keep telling me that I IF 16:8

I've eaten that way for 13 years long before they added a stupid title it.

drakeshattuck

For me, when I tell myself I'm fasting, that gives me a mindset of eating NOTHING during those hours except for water and for me, coffee too. The real effect for me is that it keeps me from snacking. MOST people snack unless they are working on their diet and fitness so to me in means a lot more than skipping breakfast.

Also, I feel wonderful when I give my digestive track a rest. Yeah, I get hungry but the fasting trains me to do without food and my hunger is now just hunger and not the type of pangs you get when you are actually experiencing food addiction withdrawal symptoms.

ogtmama

The word breakfast actually literally means to break fast...as in start eating again after not eating for several hours just so long as we're getting all touchy about what a fast even is.

I use IF because the earlier I eat in the morning the hungrier I am all day. I like to have a good solid snack at the end of the day instead of breakfast in the morning when I could care less anyway.

If it's not helpful to you don't do it. I don't see why you need to mock what other people find helpful.

GottaBurnEmAll

I honestly didn't see the OP as mocking.

I saw him more as questioning some of the more outlandish claims made regarding IF.

It really is no more than what you've said, but if you poke around some of the darker corners of the internet, the stuff they'd have you believe about it would make your head spin.

ogtmama

I did.

alteredsteve175

I do it for the same reason as many others. Calorie control. I tend to overeat after dinner in the evening. I consume less calories if I don't have the first meal until 2 pm for later.

GottaBurnEmAll

Read my edit with an eye towards what I said. He's questioning some of the claims, not the people who IF.

Lisa8823168

So I am confused...those of you who don't typically eat breakfast, and have not eaten it for years, are actually then doing a fast (between dinner the night before and your next meal) as outlined in many of the web sites that discuss it. How many hour then is it between your dinner and next meal? Could you be fasting but just do it naturally and never put a label on it? Curious too...are those of you who do this "naturally"...not a breakfast eater, on the thin side? Could it be that your unlabeled, I just don't like breakfast routine, have helped your digestive health over the years, helping you stay in a good weight status but you did it unknowing?

I am not trying to imply anything in particular...just thinking a bit deeper and outside the box. Wondering if there are more similarities than differences in it.

GottaBurnEmAll

I was a 210 pound breakfast skipper.

My eating window had nothing to do with how many calories I was consuming.

I used to eat between noon and 8:00.

I now eat between 2:00 and 8:00.

There's nothing special about IF. For me, I did eat less than I had been eating, but I still ate more than my body needed.

RuNaRoUnDaFiEld

lisawolfinger wrote: »

So I am confused...those of you who don't typically eat breakfast, and have not eaten it for years, are actually then doing a fast (between dinner the night before and your next meal) as outlined in many of the web sites that discuss it. How many hour then is it between your dinner and next meal? Could you be fasting but just do it naturally and never put a label on it? Curious too...are those of you who do this "naturally"...not a breakfast eater, on the thin side? Could it be that your unlabeled, I just don't like breakfast routine, have helped your digestive health over the years, helping you stay in a good weight status but you did it unknowing?

I am not trying to imply anything in particular...just thinking a bit deeper and outside the box. Wondering if there are more similarities than differences in it.

I eat my "Breakfast" around 2pm, tends to be greek yoghurt with nuts, seeds and fruits added.

Around 5pm I eat "Lunch" Tends to be ham or chicken with stir fried veg

Around 8pm I have my "Dinner" Fish and veg with noodles/ramen. Or chickpea and potato curry etc.

Leaves me a few hundred for snacks or wine before bed at 10.30am. I'm up at 6.30am

I've never been over weight but I have maintained a healthy BMI of 19-20 for 13 years now. My battle was under eating.

ogtmama

GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »

Read my edit with an eye towards what I said. He's questioning some of the claims, not the people who IF.

That's fair. It's also entirely possible that as a mother of two teenagers it is very easy for me to add an obnoxious tone that might not have been intended.

me0231

OP, I don't believe it's some magical fat burning fad or anything. I doubt it has a huge effect on anything really, but I think many of us on this particular forum on mfp have some disordered eating issues of some sort. What IF taught me is to stop thinking about food all the time. I learned that I can easily skip a meal and not die of hunger. I think it's more mental than anything.

It was especially noticeable a couple of weeks ago when we visited in laws and their whole day revolves around eating. They get up and think what to do for breakfast. The minute the last bite is down they start planning what restaurant to have lunch at. 'If we go there, then can we still eat this for dinner or should we go out for dinner and have that for lunch?' etc. You get the idea.

In any case that's what it did for me. Plus I enjoy eating more calories in one go than have a bunch of smaller meals.

maggibailey

I agree with all of the above, particularly that I can ignore feeling hungry until I start eating and then food really is all I think about. And IF let’s me just eat a normal meal with my family at night even when my husband has done the cooking with his much thinner frame in mind. In my case it makes dieting not feel like a diet at all.

Lounmoun

Anon2018 wrote: »

With IF I dont even get what the dogma is supposed to be - can someone explain?

I don't follow the IF type eating schedule but my understanding from what others say is that restricting the consumption of their calories to a much shorter time period/later in the day helps them not to overeat. I don't do that but I get how that can be helpful. I think a lot of people share meals with others later in the day so it is easier to eat bigger meals or drink socially. A lot of people are rushed in the mornings so it is easier to skip eating then and eat when they have more time.

I think the bulletproof diet is a seperate fad diet that throws around the term intermittent fasting and a lot of other diet buzz words like low carb, high fat. I think a lot of dubious claims come from that diet. I think a lot of people get mixed up over various diets that make a lot of promises.

Lisa8823168

Now I am curious, after statement about the calorie control concept and/or the later day breakfast" routine. Thinking about not just calories but the nutrients/macros in meals, particularly carbs. I have read the IF shuts down glucose production for several hours, lowering blood glucose levels. Do any of you ever have issues with that?

Also, if you are practicing Keto...the concept of IF would make more sense then to those who do not. Depends on you nutritional belief system. The concept of Keto is to burn fat instead of carbs for energy...helping to drop weight. When researching, a common theme of IF is that the body burns more fat during the fast. Not going into details here (you can all read about that online), but if that is the case...then IF for those on Keto makes good sense...it promotes the concept of fat burning. For those NOT doing Keto, it would not seem to be as easy to understand or seem to be as helpful.

That said, if the OP is not subscribing to the idea of Keto, then the concept of IF would also not make sense.

Aside from that...as an older woman with a family history of various medical concerns, I will say this...The National Institute on Aging announced in 2012 that fasting for one or two days a week may also help stave off Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and other degenerative brain conditions.

Again...likely many others who say no...but when you age or if you become sick...and there is no pill to fix you...reaching out to alternative methods at least gives you hope. I am not sure that we always have to GET the value or even the reasons that someone may decide to do it. Sometimes...its just about hope.

klowieislyfe1

I'm not sure I believe it does anything metabolically, it's just easier for me not to eat early on because I'm not much of a breakfast person anyway, and I prefer to have most of my calories for dinner so it helps me keep my intake lower.

Hamsibian

It's nothing new. Fasting has been done in all sorts of cultures and religions since the beginning of time. There might be some additional benefits, I don't know, but I think the best thing about it is that it debunks the myth that eating breakfast in the morning is a must...this is coming from someone who loves breakfast. It's just not necessary.

It doesn't mean that people are necessarily healthier. I know when Ramadan is in the summer, people tend to eat less but more filling/nutrient dense foods since the window of eating is very short. When it is in the winter, and sunset is at 4:30pm...it's like goulash and knafa paradise.

WhereIsPJSoles

I’m down with IF having a name and some legitimacy even though I’m not currently doing it and have no plans to. For years I maintained a good weight easily by skipping breakfast and without fail every single time my body and/or diet was brought up and I said I didn’t eat breakfast I would be told how horrible that was and my metabolism would be so slow. Which is a weird thing to have people admire your weight one moment and then be told how unhealthy you are in the next breath. Now I could be like “look it up, people do it”