I don't get intermittent fasting.
Replies
-
I have done IF for years. I typically drink my cup of coffee first thing when I wake up but then I don't eat until lunch which is usually around 1-2pm. I workout in a fasted state before I eat lunch. I generally sleep from 10pm-8am so it's not hard for me to fast until lunch. I generally eat lunch, snack, dinner, snack and stop eating after 9:30pm. It works well for me but I can understand how it may not be for everyone. I have lost 85 pounds doing this along with a lower carb diet (100g/day). I used to do a 24 hour fast a couple times a year but that was SO much harder for me.2
-
I first heard about IF as the 5:2 plan, when you really are seriously restricting calories for a couple of days. I didn't enjoy that much, because I obsessed about the tiny amount of calories on those 2 days. However, at some point I started skipping breakfast, just having coffee. Not pure fasting, because I do take cream in my coffee (and even coffee has a couple of calories). The caffeine keeps my from feeling hungry.
I have gone until 4 pm before deciding to eat lunch. Then I ate at 4 pm and could have sworn I was starving when it was dinnertime at 7:30. So there is definitely something IN ME that gets very eager after the first bite of food, so waiting as late as I can to have that first bite is useful for keeping calories down. I didn't realize this was also a kind of IF, I just tell people "I don't eat breakfast."
The only problem I have with this way of eating is fitting in exercise. I can get really hungry if I'm doing regular cardio, particularly in the morning. Luckily my current schedule tends to push cardio to the mid day, so it's less of an issue now. But that is why 4 pm can be the first time I eat at times, because I don't like to eat and then go straight for a run. Oh wait, the other problem is that I LOVE breakfast food, so it can be hard to keep eating this way when I'm with other people and they are enjoying pancakes at 9 a.m.1 -
I always subscribed to breakfast is the most important meal of the day and went from being slim in my teens and twenties, to the higher side of healthy but heavier than I was comfortable with in my 30s. I lost the 15 lbs I wanted to counting calories and eating breakfast. But I struggled to stick to my calorie goal. I sometimes skipped breakfast because I was running late and realized when I did, I didn't get all that hungry and had more calories left for later in the day. So I started doing it on purpose around a year ago. Have noticed no change in my health, fitness, digestion, TDEE, or anything else because of it. Just more food to eat at the end of the day when I really want to eat.1
-
lisawolfinger wrote: »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.
Don't confuse or complicate things.
Weight loss is purely calories in against the amount of calories burnt off.2 -
Most of my adult life (I'm 64now) I unknowingly IF-ed eating within a 4 hr window later in the day, and 5:2-ed with tue and wed low days most of the time. (I would have the odd buscuit with my morning coffee some days)
No reason, that was just how I ate. I don't snack on a regular basis either, and, though I have been fat (relatively speaking) I have never been over the normal BMI range. (Answering the thin question upthread)
In fact, when I decided I wanted to lose weight in 2008/9 I opted not to use MFP, because it had meals listed, in favour of a site that one just listed food without timing, because I couldn't be bothered figuring out how to realign meals into the way I ate.
It was only when I was in maintenance and figured out I needed more protein that I started eating more frequently. I found it a struggle for years, still do at times as food early in the day just doesn't interest me.
Now I have a protein bar (mimics the biscuits of old) and fruit for breakfast, yogurt or cottage cheese and fruit or veg for lunch, and the majority of my calories later in the day to get my 80-100g of protein.
Tue and Wed are still lower days, but not as low as 500 cal. (My week has a natural undulation)
I too read about the degenerative brain and fasting study, but haven't changed my way of eating because of it despite my age.
Reading through what I have just typed it reads as though I don't like food very much- I love food, and am an excellent and adventurous cook. I've realized over time I just dislike feeling full for most of the day- it slows me down.
IF, in its many forms, may be a fad term, but the style of eating is not new, and if it can help with calorie control and satiation for some, That is good- isn't it?
Cheers, h.0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »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.
Agreed.0 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »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.
Any fat burning you do needs to be more specifically defined.
Are you talking body fat or dietary fat?
The driver of how much net body fat gets burnt is caloric intake, not the macro composition of one's diet.
If you're eating a ketogenic diet, you're going to burn more fat because you're eating more dietary fat, but that doesn't mean you're burning more body fat.
All of us burn from our fat stores while not eating (during rest), regardless of eating patterns, macro balance, or even caloric intake. The net result of what happens on the scale, however, will still come down to overall energy balance.5 -
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 hit 387lb skipping breakfast and am currently 233lb and still don't eat until mid afternoon
It all comes down to calorie intake, I was clearly eating more than I needed
I don't believe many of the so called benifits to IF I eat this way purely because once I have something to eat the hunger kicks in
2 -
lisawolfinger wrote: »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?
.
I have issues with hypoglycemia but ironically never happens before I eat mid afternoon
My worst episode was in hospital 1 hour after eating some roast beef and a few carrots.,.... My blood sugar hit 1.1
The hospital had me eating every hour of the day, sucked ads as i had to be given anti emetics to be able to eat meals
When they happen now, usually late afternoon/evening I'll be able to get it under control by chasing the high carb ( glucose) item with a protien
0 -
I put off eating everyday for as long as possible, usually around 1-2pm. I don't call it fasting though as i drink tea with an added 160ish calories of milk all morning which keeps the hunger at bay.
I skip breakfast because i prefer to save those calories for later in the day when I'm actually properly hungry, plus i like having dessert every night.
ETA: Once i eat that first bit of food, it's like the hunger monster has been unleashed. I go from "meh, I'm peckish" to "When is the next damn meal". It's so *kitten* annoying!! So, the longer i put off eating, the better it is for mind AND body.4 -
I have skipped breakfast for well over 30 years. I did not know it was a 'thing' until I came to MFP.
On work days I eat two meals between about 12 and 6pm. On home days I prefer to eat one huge meal about 4pm. I get my calories in either way.
I have been slim for most of my life, gaining weight for the first time about eight years ago when I gave up smoking and ate everything in sight.
I don't think I would eat this way if it wasn't so easy for me to do. I don't feel hungry and I have heaps of energy. I don't use the words IF to describe how I eat. It just is what it is.0 -
IF is a blanket term used for everything from eating windows like 16:8 or the like, to fasting 24 hours 1 or 2 times a week to establish a calorie deficit. In terms of the first, I have seen little evidence of there being positive effects other than an eating pattern that I happen to prefer. In terms of the other, there is some evidence of it providing other health benefits beyond simply losing fat. It also is a way that people who consistently eat the same thing can establish a calorie deficit simply by cutting out the calories of 2 meal during the 24-hour fast period one or two times a week without logging. While I have done that, my tendency is not to consistently eat the same sort of things, so it is an ineffective way for me to establish a calorie deficit. Neither will cause fat loss faster than eating at a similar weekly calorie deficit. I wouldn't really call them a fad expect in terms of those who portray them at doing something magical to boost metabolism resulting in faster fat loss than a similar calorie deficit established in other ways eating with other patterns.1
-
Thanks guys - OP here, not trying to mock, just saying - I don't get it. I see it on the boards - lots of folks saying things like, "oh my weight loss really kickstarted when I found IF" or recommending it to folks who are hitting plateaus. I also do low carb (again, not keto), but look up a lot of LC type recipes and end up on a keto blog here or there and see a lot of cross pollination between the two lifestyles. When I read about keto, I see what supporters are getting at, I just prefer to just keep carbs to a minimum to help me keep my calorie deficit and moderate cravings, and don't really see any value in putting my body into any kind of magic state. When I read about IF, all I can think is "that sounds like a really fancy way to say you skip breakfast", lol. I can totally see why it would help an individual moderate calories - I also am a person who prefers satisfying meals, so I typically don't snack, and split my 1400 calories into approx 200-500-700 since I like to enjoy nice hearty dinner with my SO. I don't really see how it would help any given person lose weight vs. a comparable diet where a person eats breakfast. I'm also asking because I could also pretty easily skip breakfast and eat two 700-700 meals instead, but wasn't sure there was any point to it, yknow? I guess my assessment was pretty accurate for how most reasonable people think of it, with some obvious outliers who think it's some kind of magic. I also admit I found the term "fasting" a little ridiculous to refer to skipping one meal, but if it works for people's mentalities, than that's great. I think I'm going to stick to what I'm doing now, but appreciate the folks who took the time to explain to me. I've been at this for 10 weeks and have lost 8.6 pounds, so relatively steady (I'm 155 and 4'11"), so guess it's always good to look into "well, if I just cut 30 more carbs, or skipped breakfast, would I be losing faster?". Sounds like the answer is no...4
-
Thanks guys - OP here, not trying to mock, just saying - I don't get it. I see it on the boards - lots of folks saying things like, "oh my weight loss really kickstarted when I found IF" or recommending it to folks who are hitting plateaus. I also do low carb (again, not keto), but look up a lot of LC type recipes and end up on a keto blog here or there and see a lot of cross pollination between the two lifestyles. When I read about keto, I see what supporters are getting at, I just prefer to just keep carbs to a minimum to help me keep my calorie deficit and moderate cravings, and don't really see any value in putting my body into any kind of magic state. When I read about IF, all I can think is "that sounds like a really fancy way to say you skip breakfast", lol. I can totally see why it would help an individual moderate calories - I also am a person who prefers satisfying meals, so I typically don't snack, and split my 1400 calories into approx 200-500-700 since I like to enjoy nice hearty dinner with my SO. I don't really see how it would help any given person lose weight vs. a comparable diet where a person eats breakfast. I'm also asking because I could also pretty easily skip breakfast and eat two 700-700 meals instead, but wasn't sure there was any point to it, yknow? I guess my assessment was pretty accurate for how most reasonable people think of it, with some obvious outliers who think it's some kind of magic. I also admit I found the term "fasting" a little ridiculous to refer to skipping one meal, but if it works for people's mentalities, than that's great. I think I'm going to stick to what I'm doing now, but appreciate the folks who took the time to explain to me. I've been at this for 10 weeks and have lost 8.6 pounds, so relatively steady (I'm 155 and 4'11"), so guess it's always good to look into "well, if I just cut 30 more carbs, or skipped breakfast, would I be losing faster?". Sounds like the answer is no...
The use of fasting to refer to this is that is it extends ones overnight fast that is all. Just because the fast is only 16 hours does not make it not fasting. Having said that, I agree that they are some who present it as some sort of magic way of eating that overcomes the basic rules of calories in needing to be less than calories out. That is the issue of the various other things you have mentioned as well, but again, not everyone looks at them as some way to overcome CI<CO. Some simply see even low carb, keto, and others as ways to eat that work for them.
3 -
Yeah, most of the time I hear the word “fast” it’s used medically - as in “come to your appointment fasted” and I assume that most people know that means they don’t have to skip like 3 meals prior to the appointment.3
-
I do it to keep me from overeating. I like to eat tell full so if I start early I will overeat. It also is cheap (eating nothing for a meal is cheap). It also takes less meal planning for the meals you skip. It does give the heart a break from digesting food. My heart rate is 40-45bpm while fasted in the mornings and as soon as I eat something it will go to 55-60bpm (I've measured this numerous times and that happens every time). Some claim it increases human growth hormone production and also that it promotes autophagy which cleans out cells, and also it is supposed to help with insulin resistance since it causes periods of time of low insulin since there is not food consumption to drive insulin levels up. I've measured my blood sugar levels many times while fasted and I don't think I've ever gone under 70 after a 20-hr fast.
I've lost 57-lbs doing a 20:4 IF routine. I'm not sure if it is just form losing the weight and sleeping better (no snoring now) and being more diligent with taking supplements, but I don't hardly get sick anymore whereas I used to get sick all the time. I do feel much better during the day if I fast than if I eat carbs earlier in the day which will make me very hungry and give me an afternoon crash. I never get an afternoon crash if I fast through lunch. Those are some of the things I've noticed while fasting. I've also maintained for two years now mostly doing a 16:8 IF diet.
It's been a very good thing for me. Eating a lot of small meals for me would be extremely difficult because I would never get to eat tell satiety. If that works for someone, that is fine but that doesn't work very well for me at all. It is much less pain for me to just not eat anything and then to be able to eat tell full later. I eat ad libitum in my four hour eating window. I don't count calories or measure anything and it is very nice not having to do that. I just follow the bathroom scale. If it's not going the right way, I get back on a 20:4 and I lose. If that didn't work, I would shorten the eating window tell it did.1 -
I found that I feel better by not eating breakfast at "breakfast time" and consume food within a smaller window of time. I wouldn't say I was fasting as I still try to eat a certain amount of kcals but it has stopped me eating for eating's sake.0
-
I started IF not because I thought it would be good for weight loss, but because of the health benefits I became convinced of. It is currently being used in endocrinology in some areas to manage insulin resistance and stabilize blood sugar levels, thus decreasing the incidence of T2 diabetes. Part of the theory as I understand it is that our bodies were created for times of feast and famine - autophagy occurs during fast(cellular level removal of waste from cells), reduced oxidative stress and body inflammation have been found during IF, recent findings also suggest improvement over markers that are related to cardiac health (triglycerides, total and LDL cholesterols & inflammatory markers). These are evidenced based benefits of IF. That being said, some of the studies have been animal based and not tested on humans, especially the cardiac involvement. Weight loss is sort of the icing on the cake if you will. The thought behind the weight loss benefit is that, since we continually 'feast', our bodies have lost the 'memory' of how to access our fat stores since there is never a need. IF helps the body relearn how to do that, especially on 24 hour fasts where no calories are consumed during the fast. People tend to think of fasting as not eating food, while true fasting is no intake of calories, only liquids without calories. When I started IF, I admit my joints felt better, I lost weight easily and enough weight that I had to back off to fasting once /week instead of twice while eating at least the same amount of calories/week if not more. IF is more than a way to lose weight. Evidence based information does support it for healthier lifestyle.8
-
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?
Perhaps you are taking the term "Fast" to mean a 24 hour period of time. Breakfast is called that because it Breaks the Fast of having been asleep without food. So 24 hours is not a required time for a fast according to that.
Being someone who fasts for religious reasons myself I do understand the confusion. : )3 -
People with some kinds of cancer are also put on a low carb diet (fasting is very low carb). Some cancers love sugar. Some imaging methods for some cancers include infusing the body with sugar with some attached elements that can be picked up with imaging. The sugar goes to where the cancer is or maybe it is where there is no sugar after it is consumed. I'm not sure but I have a friend who did this imaging about two months ago.
Low carb diets are a WOE for certain types of epilepsy also since it can control it and it has been used for other brain disorders as mentioned previously in this thread.
I personally don't like a LC diet because it is too restrictive and I think there are good nutrients being missed but for some who have certain disorders, I think it is a better WOE than eating more carbs. I do think fasting, at least occasionally, does have some additional health benefits as people have mentioned. If nothing else, I think it teaches a person some self control. I've fasted for religious purposes once a month for my entire adult life. Before I did IF as a weight loss tool, I was amazed at my realization of how much my life revolved around eating when the monthly fast came up and I found myself trying to perform the fast (24-hr dry fast). If your a Bible believer, it is recorded there that Christ's Apostles couldn't cast a devil out of a person on one occasion. They were told by Christ that "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting". Matt 17:21. I do believe fasting does give our spirit more control over our bodies and does bring spiritual strength also.6 -
Watched this video on Amazon Prime yesterday - very enlightening on the benefits of fasting and how various cultures and medical professionals have used it to treat a range of diseases and ailments - https://www.amazon.com/Science-Fasting-Sylvie-Gilman/dp/B07586WBDK5
-
People with some kinds of cancer are also put on a low carb diet (fasting is very low carb). Some cancers love sugar. Some imaging methods for some cancers include infusing the body with sugar with some attached elements that can be picked up with imaging. The sugar goes to where the cancer is or maybe it is where there is no sugar after it is consumed. I'm not sure but I have a friend who did this imaging about two months ago.
Fasting is not low carb (technically its low everything) - it's not a diet. I'm eating plenty of carbs, and eat my meals within a reduced time frame3 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »People with some kinds of cancer are also put on a low carb diet (fasting is very low carb). Some cancers love sugar. Some imaging methods for some cancers include infusing the body with sugar with some attached elements that can be picked up with imaging. The sugar goes to where the cancer is or maybe it is where there is no sugar after it is consumed. I'm not sure but I have a friend who did this imaging about two months ago.
Fasting is not low carb (technically its low everything) - it's not a diet. I'm eating plenty of carbs, and eat my meals within a reduced time frame
QFT. Friday I had 300 grams of carbs within a five hour eating window. Definitely now low carbing.3 -
livingleanlivingclean wrote: »People with some kinds of cancer are also put on a low carb diet (fasting is very low carb). Some cancers love sugar. Some imaging methods for some cancers include infusing the body with sugar with some attached elements that can be picked up with imaging. The sugar goes to where the cancer is or maybe it is where there is no sugar after it is consumed. I'm not sure but I have a friend who did this imaging about two months ago.
Fasting is not low carb (technically its low everything) - it's not a diet. I'm eating plenty of carbs, and eat my meals within a reduced time frame
It is low everything including carbs while your fasting. The point was that your blood sugar will be low while fasting and will also not be as elevated if eating low carb as it would be if eating more carbs. The discussion was on caners liking sugar.3 -
I don’t IF every day, but on days where I know I will have a high calorie dinner, I do it. For things like the holiday season or special events, it’s a godsend. I’m not hungry until I eat like something like someone else mentioned, so if I can wait until lunch, all the better1
-
I used IF nearly every day when I first started to get my weight under control, and, honestly, having an eating schedule really worked for me. I tried to eat like a "normal" person (three meals a day) after I lost my weight the first time. I ended up grazing continuously through the day and gaining the weight back. So, I've gone back to doing what works, except I'm not going to try going back to three meals a day once I hit my goal. I'm a late-evening eater, so I don't eat until 4:00 or 5:00 pm most days and finish my eating by 10:00pm. I still manage to eat 1300 calories during those 5 hours, because (as noted), I can't just eat a meal and be done for a few hours. When I hit my goal this time, I'm going to continue with the IFing, because that WOE really suits my personality. Different things work for different people.3
-
bernadettenz wrote: »I have skipped breakfast for well over 30 years. I did not know it was a 'thing' until I came to MFP.
On work days I eat two meals between about 12 and 6pm. On home days I prefer to eat one huge meal about 4pm. I get my calories in either way.
I have been slim for most of my life, gaining weight for the first time about eight years ago when I gave up smoking and ate everything in sight.
I don't think I would eat this way if it wasn't so easy for me to do. I don't feel hungry and I have heaps of energy. I don't use the words IF to describe how I eat. It just is what it is.
A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet!
0
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
- 427 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