Fasting For 12 Hours Per Day
Replies
-
Before I started counting calories I would eat most of my calories at night.
After I started counting calories I still eat most of my calories at night.
Whatevs3 -
8 of those 12 hours you're sleeping. I'd say something like 80+% of the population "fasts" for 12 hours each day. Doesn't really help them lose weight. At all.4
-
Spliner1969 wrote: »Thoughts? Anyone Doing This Already?
“Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
I stopped reading at that point. It's not possible to lose weight without restricting calories. Period. Unless of course you have some sort of medical condition causing the weight loss.
Anyone doing IF will tell you the same thing, eat more calories than you burn and you're going to gain weight. IF is a way of eating not a way of losing weight. However, used in conjunction with calorie restriction it is supposed to aid in fat loss. I'm in my 2nd month of doing it at maintenance level of calories and have seen no loss or gain. Whether or not it's helped overall fat loss is impossible to tell at this point. Takes more time than that. Just like any fad diet, if you eat more than you burn, you gain. If you eat less than you burn, you lose. It's that simple.
I wouldn't say *anyone*. There's plenty of crazies around in any way of eating who think laws of physics don't apply to their diet of choice.7 -
catherineg3 wrote: »Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/
You know what the problem is? THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO HUMANS.
We have a pretty good brain in our heads. We know when and where we get food. We don't start rummaging around looking for food when we restrict access, because we ourselves decided to restrict our access when we IF.7 -
COME ON. Of course you walk to the kitchen and back to check and see if the food is on your plate and ready to eat!!! *SEE*, extra steps!!!2
-
catherineg3 wrote: »Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/
Intriguing AF! This explains why I rather workout on an empty stomache than when full and suppose to be full of energy. I just wanted to hunt food all this time2 -
For me 12 hour fasting is called "sleeping" (plus adjacent activities...) I have done it all my life almost without exception, unintentionally, and my highest BMI was 39. People can fit amazing amounts of food in the time window they have for eating them.
Consuming less energy than you burn causes weight loss. I have heard that there are people for whom IF helps with adherence (helps eat less food, consistently over time), for others it's a food group restriction, etc. I count calories as a way to be certain of my deficit and lose weight, and to learn proper portion sizes for the future. For many, calorie coutning helps with adherence because it lets you eat anything you want any time you want, within your calorie allowance, others hate the restirction of counting calories... As long as you are getting proper nutrition (and macro and calorie counting helps with that for me as well), work to find what is sutainable for you... You will find people who failed or succeeded with any eating plan.5 -
Eat whenever you like within whatever time frime you want. It comes down to CICO. Every. Single. Time.3
-
I practice intermittent fasting out of personal preference. My window is 1pm-10pm although I'm not strict on closing it; I've eaten in bed plenty of times.
It comes down to calories in and calories out. I had this same feeding schedule when I was 240lbs and now at 155lbs. It's literally ONLY about calories.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
My eating habits are exactly the same way. I have had absolutely no issues gaining weight with that routine either.0 -
bendyourkneekatie wrote: »This is another one of those post hoc ergo procter hoc things isn't it.
no. it is actually based on scientific studies.6 -
catherineg3 wrote: »bendyourkneekatie wrote: »This is another one of those post hoc ergo procter hoc things isn't it.
no. it is actually based on scientific studies.
it worked for the mice because they were more active (looking for food) - you cannot extrapolate that response to humans - i.e. IF DOES NOT automatically make a person become more active.8 -
catherineg3 wrote: »bendyourkneekatie wrote: »This is another one of those post hoc ergo procter hoc things isn't it.
no. it is actually based on scientific studies.
it worked for the mice because they were more active (looking for food) - you cannot extrapolate that response to humans - i.e. IF DOES NOT automatically make a person become more active.
When I restrict too much, I have the opposite effect. I believe studies done on adaptive thermogenesis touch on this point too. Eating less tends to equate to moving less (in humans)3 -
Eat whenever you like within whatever time frime you want. It comes down to CICO. Every. Single. Time.
I think CICO is a hard reality that some people just can't wrap their minds around. Not saying the OP is one of those people, but it is likely the reason so many people try so hard to find a fad diet to replace CICO. It's a real bummer when you find out that you've been eating 3x what your body needs to be at a healthy weight without even trying. Then when they calculate what their calorie deficit needs to be and realize how much of the junk they are used to eating they can eat and still loose weight they start looking for fad diets instead. Then someone tells them IF or Keto, or <insert diet type here> burns fat without trying and they are all over it. Reality will set in when they fail, and eventually if they want to be successful CICO is what will work. It's the only thing that does work. IF, Keto, Low Carb, all can compliment CICO but cannot replace it. The rest is personal preference.8 -
I've had great success in regards of reaching my caloric goals by eating once a day, usually at around 8 pm. Certainly something one has to figure out oneself, what eating schedule works best.1
-
I've been eating breakfast around 7.30am, lunch around 12.30pm and dinner by 7pm my whole life, including when I had a BMI of 30 and now maintaining a healthy BMI. I guess I want to say both that 12:12 is a very non-remarkable eating schedule and not a fast, and that it has been entirely unrelated to my weight.1
-
I am a calories in calories out girl. It never fails me. But I do wonder about things like KETO. I am not interested in doing KETO, but I eat lunch with a woman who does, and she eats an enormous amount of food, and and has shrunk from a size 16 to a 4. Yesterday she ate 2 rib eye steaks for lunch! How does that work?2
-
I am a calories in calories out girl. It never fails me. But I do wonder about things like KETO. I am not interested in doing KETO, but I eat lunch with a woman who does, and she eats an enormous amount of food, and and has shrunk from a size 16 to a 4. Yesterday she ate 2 rib eye steaks for lunch! How does that work?
I could eat 2 rib-eye steaks for lunch and still have room to spare on IIFYM. Some days with my exercise burns my goal is around 3000 calories with a 500 calorie deficit.2 -
I think OP has left the conversation and has maybe also left MFP. Either she has been wooed away or was a troll all along. The 12 "fast" thing certainly stirred it up, but it was the "none of this works without exercise comment" that left me SMH and wondering. Or maybe she really was that new?
When I was a kid - fasting meant not eating for days. It was more of a spiritual thing than a weight-loss strategy. I don't get what "12 hour fast" even means. (ok, i get that 12 hour "eating window" aka daytime ... but COME ON!)4 -
wouldn't 12 hours fasting a day be really really easy like 8 hours sleep + don't eat 2 hours before sleep + don't eat for 2 hours after you wake up? like a really normal pattern of eating?3
-
wouldn't 12 hours fasting a day be really really easy like 8 hours sleep + don't eat 2 hours before sleep + don't eat for 2 hours after you wake up? like a really normal pattern of eating?
Seems like it to me.
I don't have an issue with people wanting to eat 1 or 2 big meals a day instead of spreading out their consumption. You can overeat in 1 meal or in 12 hours. Bop on down to your favorite burger shack for lunch a couple of times a week and get the triple bacon cheese mammoth, bucket o fries and slam down a drink the size of a child. Then add on breakfast, snacks, fancy coffee drinks, dinner. Most people only have to eat a couple extra hundred calories over their maintenance level to gain weight though. It is pretty easy if you aren't paying any attention to calories be it it 6 hours, 12 hours or 18 hours "eating windows".2 -
tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol
Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Just like us ... none of this works without exercise!
Yes it does.
When I worked in Aged Care there were people that did. NO exercise, I mean NONE, not even roll over in bed, because they were in a semi coma and tube fed.
They sometimes lost weight.
What happened, of course, is that the tube feeds were insufficient calories and if they lost significant amount of weight over 3 month period, their amount was increased accordingly.
But the idea that you can't lose weight without exercise - wrong.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions