Intermittent Fasting - are there any side effects?
Replies
-
richarebello wrote: »Hey guys ,
I've been reading a lot about intermittent fasting and it seems to have sooo many benefits.
Has anyone tried it? Are there any cons? Especially for women.
Would appreciate any advice!
Thanks!
I practice IF along with keto! Many benefits to both, however everyone's body responds differently. Do your research on IF, there's alot of great info out there. My goal is to drop BF% not necessarily weigh.. I drink my BCAA'S because I work out alot, and do fasted cardio at times. Best of luck!
BCA's don't really do much at all, and fasted cardio may actually be less helpful the energized cardio, as you can't push as hard or as long. probably only make a difference if you are doing cardio for 45+ minutes in duration, or at high intensity though.1 -
richarebello wrote: »@Nama_Slay would I need to take BCAAs if I'm only interested in weight loss and work out like thrice a week?
All the info I've found on IF is that it's magical. So I just wanted to know the flipside from people who've tried it
No. BCAAs were a buzz supplement a while back, but newer information is showing them to be largely pointless - they don't really do anything.
Everyone has their own opinion, but Thanks!
FYI: Facts =/= opnion3 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »@jjpptt2
But yeah, like I said, if there's literally no difference between calorie control thought the day vs calorie control in 8 hours, then I might as well give myself a break and eat like I did.
But, that is the point of IF. There IS a difference.
Unfortunately, you're asking this question on MyFitnessPal, where ANYTHING that goes beyond CICO is bunk according to most people on the forum. That being said, it is true that if you're consuming more calories that you burn, that you aren't going to lose weight.
But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc? Of course it is true that weight loss cannot happen without a calorie deficit. But to claim that anything beyond CICO is just a gimmick to lower your calorie content shows a remarkable lack of thought beyond a MFP sound bite.
You're right about MFP's general tendencies to dismiss anything beyond CICO and heavy lifting.
I think the body is incredibly adaptive, and whatever might happen over a short period of time (like 4-6 hours) of specific conditions is most likely to be undone when those conditions change. I also think that whatever might happen over short periods of time is probably going to be irrelevant when viewed in the big picture of weeks, months, years.
But I'm very open to learning. I've read a lot of people advocate IF, but I've not seen any studies that support/prove it's merits. If you have links, I'd love to do some more reading.
But by the letter of the law, you're point is correct. There is a difference, and I over simplified my response. The question is whether or not that difference is meaningful for the average dieter.5 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »@jjpptt2
But yeah, like I said, if there's literally no difference between calorie control thought the day vs calorie control in 8 hours, then I might as well give myself a break and eat like I did.
But, that is the point of IF. There IS a difference.
Unfortunately, you're asking this question on MyFitnessPal, where ANYTHING that goes beyond CICO is bunk according to most people on the forum. That being said, it is true that if you're consuming more calories that you burn, that you aren't going to lose weight.
But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc? Of course it is true that weight loss cannot happen without a calorie deficit. But to claim that anything beyond CICO is just a gimmick to lower your calorie content shows a remarkable lack of thought beyond a MFP sound bite.
No, I don't believe the body reacts the same way to everything, but I strongly believe that these differences are largely irreverent because the differences are so small in the grand scheme of things they're not worth the hassle. We're not weighing ourselves on a jeweler's scale after all. If you do the chicken dance before every meal you'll burn more calories and produce more weight loss in the long term, but is that 1 extra pound lost every two years worth keeping up the routine? To some, it may be, and all power to them, but it does not make that much of a difference for someone who chooses not to do this.11 -
I did it for 6 months. Didn't want to lose weight really except for a tiny bit of fat. I really wanted to tone
. I worked out in the morning 3 x a week and 3 x a week in the evening. I didn't track regularly and tried to eat healthily with the occasional treat Worked really well for the first three months.. as i used to skip breakfast a lot anyway.
However; i had a couple of really busy months at work and upped the number of hours between meals from 12 - 14 to 16. It completely messed me up.. my sleep suffered my eczema flared, i developed IBS for the first time ever (haven't had it since) and I am almost positive that it was down to the IF as it calmed down again after stopping..
Main issue for me was i was getting up at 5 am and not eating until 2pm. I had dinner quite late as i was never hungry after a lunch at 3pm. I was also consuming way way more sugar.
I think it works but you have to be really in tune with your own biological needs and if you work out in the morning take a vit supplement and bcaas as it helps you get your nutritional needs.
I still practice some form of intermittent fasting - i eat dinner at 8pm/ 9pm roughly and don't eat breakfast until 9.. it suits my biological clock and my body is quite happy ( I am studying so have got a little softer but not too much so.) But i would recommend letting your GP know what you are doing (and keep an eye on your periods too..)
As mentioned before: on other posts- it is all about calories. I used to prefer having big dinners so it worked okay for me.. (12 hours no longer) but now i have a low cal breakfast (as i wake at 5am - waiting that long for lunch was problematic).
2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »My personal rule of thumb: dieting is hard enough, no need to make it harder. Find the easiest way that keeps you in a deficit consistently and you will have the best results. This way may change or you may decide to tweak some stuff along the way to make it even easier, but it's important to make sustainability and long term weight maintenance your goal and push away any information clutter outside of pure curiosity. As someone who's lost a lot of weight I can tell you the more you complicate it the harder you make it for yourself. The worst diet that you are able to keep up is much better than the best diet that you can't stick to, because weight loss benefits outweigh any minute differences diets can produce for most people.
Yes, I agree with this.
You may well find that IF helps, so if you think you might like it (many people find it easier to have a smaller eating window), I'd give it a chance, but I wouldn't drive yourself crazy with rules that you think you need to follow to maximize losses -- the differences are non-existent to small, and sustainability is the key! I really like 3 meals a day and find it way easier if I don't snack (and so have larger and more satisfying meals), so do that. But others will like different things and what you enjoy may also change over time.3 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »@jjpptt2
But yeah, like I said, if there's literally no difference between calorie control thought the day vs calorie control in 8 hours, then I might as well give myself a break and eat like I did.
But, that is the point of IF. There IS a difference.
Unfortunately, you're asking this question on MyFitnessPal, where ANYTHING that goes beyond CICO is bunk according to most people on the forum.
I don't think anything that goes beyond CICO is bunk. For example, I think nutrition is very important for health, that exercise is important for health beyond the effect on calories, and that choosing a way to eat that is sustainable is very important (and that is the benefit of IF for some). I also think sleep is important, protein is important, and understanding what foods or combinations of foods are satiating to you is important.
In fact, that CICO is not all that matters to me is exactly why I don't do something like OMAD, and would find even 2 meals a day difficult -- I would find it difficult to hit my protein goals and, especially, eating the amount of vegetables I think are desirable for me doing that, as I would feel overstuffed.
In any event, I ALSO think the idea that it makes a meaningful difference whether you consume 1200 calories in a window between 12 and 8 pm vs. three meals at 7, noon, and 8, as I said above, is, yes, bunk.But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
Oh? Then link some that address the two options I gave and genuinely control calories so they are equal, and show a meaningful difference. I'm interested and would review them. The main studies I've seen are the opposite -- some show that eating most calories just before bed (or in the evening) have a negative effect on weight loss, although other studies disagree with that.
The insulin thing just doesn't make sense, since you would not have increased insulin in your system more during one of the options than the other.To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc?
It seems to me that you don't understand that CICO includes all that. If a food has a higher TEF, that's part of CO, and if a diet increases your overall energy, then that's part of CO also. If a food cannot be digested in full, that reduces CI.
Most of this stuff doesn't have any kind of meaningful effect, though, so to tell people they have to do a bunch of stuff they may dislike or does not work with their lifestyle to lose is not only a lie, but hurting people by making weight loss harder.5 -
The thing I found with IF: I'm naturally a volume eater, I like to eat big meals. I used to eat 5-7 small meals a day, I was hangry all the time, it sucked. I tried out IF and easily fell into 16/8-18/6 and I loved the 2 big meals and 1 small snack. I'm hardly hungry and as long as I don't try to push past 20 hours I don't get hanrgy.
I started doing IF while I was losing weight and I do think it can help with managment and I have continued into mantenance. I've been doing IF for 3 ish years now.
I will also say it isn't for everyone. If you fall into it naturally then go for it but if you are fighting to stay in your window don't do it. IF isn't for everyone and no even at 3 years I haven't seen any amazing side effects of IF other than not wanting to kill everyone around me because I'm hungry. Keep things simple, don't fight what your body wants to do naturally, don't expect miracles, but yes it is worth giving a try.3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »ldeoprecor wrote: »But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
Oh? Then link some that address the two options I gave and genuinely control calories so they are equal, and show a meaningful difference. I'm interested and would review them. The main studies I've seen are the opposite -- some show that eating most calories just before bed (or in the evening) have a negative effect on weight loss, although other studies disagree with that.
The studies I've seen referenced show a statistically significant, but not particularly meaningful 5-7% advantage Meaning that at best, in a 4-6 hour IF window 2140 calories is equivalent to 2000 calories over a 16-18 hour window.
Interesting, yes, statistically significant, yes. Meaningful, No not really. And not really applicable or useful for someone getting 1200 calories. Much more meaningful or interesting for someone whose daily requirements run in the 3500-5000 range, because at that point, additional efficiencies kick in due to digestive pathway speed and metabolic limitations.
But it's really an apples to oranges... or Oranges to Cantaloupes comparison.1 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »@jjpptt2
But yeah, like I said, if there's literally no difference between calorie control thought the day vs calorie control in 8 hours, then I might as well give myself a break and eat like I did.
But, that is the point of IF. There IS a difference.
Unfortunately, you're asking this question on MyFitnessPal, where ANYTHING that goes beyond CICO is bunk according to most people on the forum. That being said, it is true that if you're consuming more calories that you burn, that you aren't going to lose weight.
But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc? Of course it is true that weight loss cannot happen without a calorie deficit. But to claim that anything beyond CICO is just a gimmick to lower your calorie content shows a remarkable lack of thought beyond a MFP sound bite.
The bolded is a gross oversimplification of the discussions we have here.
It is never the point that anything outside of CICO is considered bunk. The point is generally that focusing on CICO is ultimately the key to weight loss, other stuff could be relevant but is almost always inconsequential and can be sussed out focusing on calories and real-world results anyway.
And when we talk about CICO we are ALWAYS talking about weight, health is an entirely different and commonly acknowledged story.
I've seen some studies that show it's possible there are some minor advantages to a smaller eating window, but nothing that proved anything. Would love it if you could link to some of the ones you are referencing, maybe I missed them.4 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc? Of course it is true that weight loss cannot happen without a calorie deficit. But to claim that anything beyond CICO is just a gimmick to lower your calorie content shows a remarkable lack of thought beyond a MFP sound bite.
Differences in metabolism usually end up affecting ci, co, or both. They don't affect energy balance dynamics.2 -
stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »ldeoprecor wrote: »But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
Oh? Then link some that address the two options I gave and genuinely control calories so they are equal, and show a meaningful difference. I'm interested and would review them. The main studies I've seen are the opposite -- some show that eating most calories just before bed (or in the evening) have a negative effect on weight loss, although other studies disagree with that.
The studies I've seen referenced show a statistically significant, but not particularly meaningful 5-7% advantage Meaning that at best, in a 4-6 hour IF window 2140 calories is equivalent to 2000 calories over a 16-18 hour window.
Most of what I've seen is all over the place, so I think anyone claiming clear advantage is full of it (I don't mean you, obviously). I'd love to read the studies to see the rationale. Personally I've seen more (which I am also skeptical of and, more significantly, think is outweighed by what works for a person's lifestyle) suggesting that morning eating is positive vs. actual eating window makes a huge difference.
Here's a discussion of studies relating to eating window and meal timing: http://caloriesproper.com/meal-timing-and-peripheral-circadian-clocks/3 -
richarebello wrote: »richarebello wrote: »So @amusedmonkey assuming I stick to my 1200 calorie plan and workout, will IF facilitate the weight-loss ? That's essentially what I wanted to know.
If I can use it to stick to my calorie goal, focus in my macros AND benefit from the hormone manipulation, then isn't it a win-win ?
No. 1200 cals in 6-8 hours vs 1200 cals in 12-14 hours makes no difference to weight loss.
Oh dayum. Then maybe I should just schedule my eating and ensure I don't snack in between. As opposed to going to bed hungry and waking I'm starving
Honestly, whether there is some extra advantage to IF or not, that's only relevant if you can comfortably stick to it. You are still young and have an awesome opportunity to figure out a way to eat that you will be able to easily and enjoyably hit the correct calories for the rest of your life. Struggling to get to your goal weight and then having no idea how to maintain it will just set you on the yo-yo path for the long haul.
Set your goal to lose 1 lb per week and start logging, accurately and consistently. Focus on how you feel from day to day, how easy or how much of a struggle it was to hit your calorie goal, how much energy did you have. You will start to see patterns - I do better when I eat more protein. I feel like crap on days I don't eat breakfast. When I try not to snack in the afternoon I'm too sleepy and make bad choices at dinner. If I eat too close to bedtime I can't sleep. Stuff like that. Then just start tweaking what you're doing until you figure it out.
Also make sure 1200 cals is appropriate for you. That is the absolute minimum, and at the very least you should be logging your exercise and eating back at least some of those calories.
There are probably lots of different variations on meal timing and schedules, macro distribution, etc that have subtle benefits, and I'd bet the amount of benefit is different for diff people depending on all sorts of other variables that there is no possible way to track. So focus on what you can, and good luck :drinker:3 -
richarebello wrote: »richarebello wrote: »So @amusedmonkey assuming I stick to my 1200 calorie plan and workout, will IF facilitate the weight-loss ? That's essentially what I wanted to know.
If I can use it to stick to my calorie goal, focus in my macros AND benefit from the hormone manipulation, then isn't it a win-win ?
No. 1200 cals in 6-8 hours vs 1200 cals in 12-14 hours makes no difference to weight loss.
Oh dayum. Then maybe I should just schedule my eating and ensure I don't snack in between. As opposed to going to bed hungry and waking I'm starving
Honestly, whether there is some extra advantage to IF or not, that's only relevant if you can comfortably stick to it. You are still young and have an awesome opportunity to figure out a way to eat that you will be able to easily and enjoyably hit the correct calories for the rest of your life. Struggling to get to your goal weight and then having no idea how to maintain it will just set you on the yo-yo path for the long haul.
Set your goal to lose 1 lb per week and start logging, accurately and consistently. Focus on how you feel from day to day, how easy or how much of a struggle it was to hit your calorie goal, how much energy did you have. You will start to see patterns - I do better when I eat more protein. I feel like crap on days I don't eat breakfast. When I try not to snack in the afternoon I'm too sleepy and make bad choices at dinner. If I eat too close to bedtime I can't sleep. Stuff like that. Then just start tweaking what you're doing until you figure it out.
Also make sure 1200 cals is appropriate for you. That is the absolute minimum, and at the very least you should be logging your exercise and eating back at least some of those calories.
There are probably lots of different variations on meal timing and schedules, macro distribution, etc that have subtle benefits, and I'd bet the amount of benefit is different for diff people depending on all sorts of other variables that there is no possible way to track. So focus on what you can, and good luck :drinker:
Thanks so much for the advice! @kimny72 .
Will follow this and figure out the patterns. The last thing I'd want to do is reach a yo yo phase.2 -
ldeoprecor wrote: »@jjpptt2
But yeah, like I said, if there's literally no difference between calorie control thought the day vs calorie control in 8 hours, then I might as well give myself a break and eat like I did.
But, that is the point of IF. There IS a difference.
Unfortunately, you're asking this question on MyFitnessPal, where ANYTHING that goes beyond CICO is bunk according to most people on the forum. That being said, it is true that if you're consuming more calories that you burn, that you aren't going to lose weight.
But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc? Of course it is true that weight loss cannot happen without a calorie deficit. But to claim that anything beyond CICO is just a gimmick to lower your calorie content shows a remarkable lack of thought beyond a MFP sound bite.
No...but energy balance by far and away is what is most important...all that other stuff is pretty much majoring in the minors. The "benefits" aren't particularly material or meaningful for the average Joe/Jane trying to lose a little weight.2 -
"richarebello wrote: »"richarebello wrote: »So @amusedmonkey assuming I stick to my 1200 calorie plan and workout, will IF facilitate the weight-loss ? That's essentially what I wanted to know.
If I can use it to stick to my calorie goal, focus in my macros AND benefit from the hormone manipulation, then isn't it a win-win ?
No. 1200 cals in 6-8 hours vs 1200 cals in 12-14 hours makes no difference to weight loss.
Oh dayum. Then maybe I should just schedule my eating and ensure I don't snack in between. As opposed to going to bed hungry and waking I'm starving
There are probably lots of different variations on meal timing and schedules, macro distribution, etc that have subtle benefits, and I'd bet the amount of benefit is different for diff people depending on all sorts of other variables that there is no possible way to track. So focus on what you can, and good luck :drinker:
I completely agree, and I would also like to add that there are also benefits that differ depending on trackable variables that produce results that aren't always consistent with the research. For example, there is a subtle benefit on paper to doing high intensity interval training. When I attempted that, I noticed a steep decrease in my NEAT. I was moving less on days I attempted HIIT and my overall calorie burn was about 100-120 calories lower than a sedentary day. That decrease in activity wiped out any EPOC and exceeded it into the other direction of burning less, so in my case it was something I hated that did the exact opposite of what you would expect it to do - it decreased my calories burned. Who cares if it increased my EPOC when it didn't produce actual increase in overall calorie burn, it had a very bad effort to benefit ratio so it had to go.
On the other hand, I introduced walking around the house while waiting for stuff and just randomly. Yes, it's a detail and it only gives me about 100 extra calories, that's like a banana, not worth it right? Wrong. I do it without thinking, it doesn't take any mental effort, and I get an extra snack out of it, so it's completely worth it to me because it has a great effort to benefit ratio. Someone else may find it a hassle to run around like a headless chicken every time they put something in the microwave, so for them it would not be a good addition to their routine because it would have a bad effort to benefit ratio.
This is real life, this isn't a lab. Life is made of individuals, research papers are made of averages under controlled conditions that don't always account for the mental (or even some physical) sides of it.2 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »ldeoprecor wrote: »@jjpptt2
But yeah, like I said, if there's literally no difference between calorie control thought the day vs calorie control in 8 hours, then I might as well give myself a break and eat like I did.
But, that is the point of IF. There IS a difference.
Unfortunately, you're asking this question on MyFitnessPal, where ANYTHING that goes beyond CICO is bunk according to most people on the forum. That being said, it is true that if you're consuming more calories that you burn, that you aren't going to lose weight.
But, to say that there is no difference between 1200 calories in a restricted time frame and an open time frame is ignorant. Multiple peer reviewed studies support the efficacy of IF. It's not just a gimmick to keep your calories lower.
To those that disagree, I have a question. Do you honestly believe the incredibly complex metabolism process can be summed up by just CICO? That our bodies react in the EXACT same way to all different diets, meal types, food types etc? Of course it is true that weight loss cannot happen without a calorie deficit. But to claim that anything beyond CICO is just a gimmick to lower your calorie content shows a remarkable lack of thought beyond a MFP sound bite.
No...but energy balance by far and away is what is most important...all that other stuff is pretty much majoring in the minors. The "benefits" aren't particularly material or meaningful for the average Joe/Jane trying to lose a little weight.
I wonder if he ever heard of black box systems...2 -
What are dangers of eating less? Can’t think of any. I do 1550 cal, one meal a day. Working just fine.
2 -
rfrenkel77 wrote: »What are dangers of eating less? Can’t think of any. I do 1550 cal, one meal a day. Working just fine.
Malnutrition is a danger of eating less. 1550 plus I am assuming you are exercising is not a healthy approach to weight loss.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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