Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Intermittent fasting- just an acceptable way of starving yourself?
aliblain
Posts: 175 Member
in Debate Club
I’ve noticed a few people saying that they are combining different types of IF diet (doing 5:2 and 16:8 for example) or limiting their eating window to a very short time. I like IF but part of me is uneasy about the way it makes skipping meals acceptable. What we reckon? Is IF just a way of people disguising disordered eating as an acceptable diet?
31
Replies
-
No. I just don't eat until 12 every day bc I'm not hungry until then.31
-
No, it's just eating your calories at set times, or if it's 5:2 It's creating your deficit differently.13
-
As long as people are eating the appropriate number of calories and minding their nutrition I don't see any issues. Do some people use IF as a way to disguise eating disorders? Sure, the same way a person may use any other way of eating to do the same. There's nothing about skipping meals that in itself would indicate an increased risk for an eating disorder.
22 -
How is it disordered?
If I eat between 8AM and 4PM, and you eat between 7AM and 6PM, what's the difference? With calories accounted for, there is no difference.
Some people eat once a day. How is that disordered? I'm not being snarky, just don't understand.26 -
I think of 16:8 this way........an old fashioned method of weight management was "don't eat anything after dinner." 16:8 is similar in that you have a manageable window where you don't eat. Breakfast, dinner....it doesn't matter.
5:2 is very low calorie, but just 2 days a week. You're after the same weekly deficit, but you are going about it a different way. This might be really helpful if you go over on weekends on a regular basis.14 -
I think for those that already have disordered eating habits, yes. This can be a way to please the binge/restrict cycle. That is why I had to stop IF. For many though, this is a valid, healthy way to eat. Many people have successfully used IF. I think it is a matter of speaking with your health provider and having an honest discussion with yourself to find what would fit you best personally.29
-
If you are eating a normal number of calories a day or, with 5:2, a week, I see no issues. If it was an excuse to do a very low cal diet, sure, but it's normally not.7
-
IF isn't about skipping meals as in cutting them out, more like renaming them. You're still supposed to be eating the same amount of calories, just in one out of several specified meal schedules, and you can still eat balanced and varied.
Eating in itself is a minefield for people with eating disorders.15 -
IF is perfect for me as I have almost unconsciously done it for most of my life. I have never been much of a breakfast person and struggled for years to eat what has been labelled 'the most important meal of the day', as I often felt sick and unwell afterwards. IF is not about cutting calories. The days calories are still used but are usually spread between 1 or 2 meals, rather than 3. It can actually make those other meals more enjoyable as you have more calories and macros available for them.17
-
This is a debate? Don't many people by nature just eat 16:8?14
-
I like the MYOB diet the best39
-
-
As long as someone's overall calories are within a reasonable range, I don't see how it's any different than any other diet. For some people it's just an easier way to stay in a deficit/within their range than trying to obsess over every little thing they put in their mouth.6
-
I'm really not sure of the point you are trying to debate so here's my questions for clarification...I’ve noticed a few people saying that they are combining different types of IF diet (doing 5:2 and 16:8 for example) or limiting their eating window to a very short time. I like IF but part of me is uneasy about the way it makes skipping meals acceptable. What we reckon? Is IF just a way of people disguising disordered eating as an acceptable diet?
But why isn't skipping meals acceptable?
I did 5:2 to lose my excess weight at a rate of 1lb / week. In what way do you think that was unhealthy or disordered? (Would a daily deficit eating 3 meals a day resulting in 2lb / week loss be more or less unhealthy than my slower rate of loss?)
Would 3 meals at 200 cals have been OK on a fasting day but 2 meals at 300 wasn't? Can you expand why, or if, you think the number of meals, or timing of those meals as opposed to the amount of food eaten is significant?
Or is it that my two meals were lunch and dinner unlike my wife who preferred breakfast and dinner resulting in a longer fasting window for me?
Assuming you do the 16:8 IF style - is it OK for you to skip an early morning breakfast? Alternatively why wouldn't it be OK?
I think you have it backwards about eating disorders, people who already have disordered eating problems may well not be best served by doing IF.
From the 5:2 web site the first category on the list of people who are advised not to do 5:2 is:
"People who are underweight or have an eating disorder"
https://thefastdiet.co.uk/michael-answers-frequently-asked-questions/7 -
I’ve noticed a few people saying that they are combining different types of IF diet (doing 5:2 and 16:8 for example) or limiting their eating window to a very short time. I like IF but part of me is uneasy about the way it makes skipping meals acceptable. What we reckon? Is IF just a way of people disguising disordered eating as an acceptable diet?
What's the difference (in regards to health, nutrition, weight balance or body composition) whether you eat 1500 calories in an 18-hour span or an 8-hour span?
(Hint: nothing)
I think intermittent fasting is a hugely trendy fad right now and the "miracles" of it are highly overstated. With that said, it can be a useful tool for some in terms of satiety, adherence and/or workout performance.19 -
Tacklewasher wrote: »
Mayo, Yoo-hoo, Onion rings and Bacon.16 -
The issue you are having is your looking at eating and meals as more of a societal thing. Putting meals into little buckets of time, for example: Breakfast at 8 am, Lunch at noon, Dinner at 6.
Well that is fine and dandy if that works for you but no one ever said it had to be that way and it sure wasn't that way with our ancestors.
Breakfast simply means to "break the fast". You are breaking the fasting period of when you last ate which in normal circumstances was the night before. It doesn't need to be at any specific time or period during the day. So in reality we all fast a little bit when we sleep for 6 to 8 hours a night and more like 10 hours because most don't eat as soon as they go to sleep or as soon as they wake up. Unless you are one of those who gets up in the middle of the night for a late night snack lol.
People aren't skipping meals when they do intermittent fasting, they are simply eating all their meals in a smaller time frame. What they find is they don't eat as much when the time that they do eat is smaller, helping them keep a calorie deficit.
At the end of the day the best diet is one that works for you.17 -
I don't do intermittent fasting but I don't eat as many meals as some. (I eat a largish brunch and a largish dinner and that works for me.) It's not disordered. There's no reason that I should eat three meals plus snacks a day. As long as I'm not having disordered thoughts or restricting my eating too much it's really not a problem. In the end, I'm an adult and I don't need an excuse or reason to make the way I eat acceptable.5
-
Why do you think it's disordered? Several of the people who do it on here have said they never ate breakfast before IF became a fad. Some people can't eat early or they'll be ill, or they may be tempted to graze/overeat all day. And some just prefer to eat more calories later. If they're getting adequate calories/nutrition, there's nothing wrong.14
-
I just seen an article about IF in a magazine yesterday and the IF was 5:2. I noticed on the 2 days the calorie allowance was only 500 calories. Is that healthy? Also for anyone who has been on the IF plan, have you lost weight faster than if you ate your normal calories 7 days a week? I was wondering since I've been told that losing more than 1 - 1.5 pounds a week is aggressive and the article said most people lose 3-5 pound a week.3
-
janisseshirley wrote: »I just seen an article about IF in a magazine yesterday and the IF was 5:2. I noticed on the 2 days the calorie allowance was only 500 calories. Is that healthy? Also for anyone who has been on the IF plan, have you lost weight faster than if you ate your normal calories 7 days a week? I was wondering since I've been told that losing more than 1 - 1.5 pounds a week is aggressive and the article said most people lose 3-5 pound a week.
People who follow 5:2 will eat at maintenance the remaining days, so it averages out to give them a decent deficit. And unless you have several hundred pounds to lose, nobody should be losing 3-5 pounds every week.13 -
janisseshirley wrote: »I just seen an article about IF in a magazine yesterday and the IF was 5:2. I noticed on the 2 days the calorie allowance was only 500 calories. Is that healthy? Also for anyone who has been on the IF plan, have you lost weight faster than if you ate your normal calories 7 days a week? I was wondering since I've been told that losing more than 1 - 1.5 pounds a week is aggressive and the article said most people lose 3-5 pound a week.
How much weight you lose depends upon how large your caloric deficit is. Intermittent fasting doesn't change anything about that.
That's an example of the mystic aura placed around IF nowadays. It's nothing more than changing the times of day that you eat your calories, there's nothing magical about that. If your calorie goal is 1500 calories per day to lose 1 pound per week (as an example), it doesn't matter if you eat those 1500 calories in 10 meals spaced throughout the day or in one big meal at dinnertime - or anything else in between. It doesn't matter if you choose to alternate between 500 calories one day and 2500 calories the next, that still averages out to 1500 calories per day and in the long run will yield the same results. Fat loss doesn't occur on a discrete day-to-day basis, it occurs on a continuum. We're constantly alternating between anabolism and catabolism, lipogenesis and lipolysis.
5:2 wouldn't work for me because big nope to eating 500 calories per day. Not ever.13 -
janisseshirley wrote: »I just seen an article about IF in a magazine yesterday and the IF was 5:2. I noticed on the 2 days the calorie allowance was only 500 calories. Is that healthy? Also for anyone who has been on the IF plan, have you lost weight faster than if you ate your normal calories 7 days a week? I was wondering since I've been told that losing more than 1 - 1.5 pounds a week is aggressive and the article said most people lose 3-5 pound a week.
It's a 22% deficit overall - actually more reasonable than I'd suggest majority on MFP start at - attempting as fast as possible, getting closer to 50% in many examples I've seen.
People truly fast for a couple days with no issues, no food at all, just water. 500 would be like easy compared to that.
It is actually healthy - did you read the research results?
Or was it a weight loss only article not touching on anything else.
If article said 3-5 lb a week - they probably meant the first week - just like many do starting any diet of eating less.4 -
janisseshirley wrote: »I just seen an article about IF in a magazine yesterday and the IF was 5:2. I noticed on the 2 days the calorie allowance was only 500 calories. Is that healthy? Also for anyone who has been on the IF plan, have you lost weight faster than if you ate your normal calories 7 days a week? I was wondering since I've been told that losing more than 1 - 1.5 pounds a week is aggressive and the article said most people lose 3-5 pound a week.
It's a 22% deficit overall - actually more reasonable than I'd suggest majority on MFP start at - attempting as fast as possible, getting closer to 50% in many examples I've seen.
People truly fast for a couple days with no issues, no food at all, just water. 500 would be like easy compared to that.
It is actually healthy - did you read the research results?
Or was it a weight loss only article not touching on anything else.
If article said 3-5 lb a week - they probably meant the first week - just like many do starting any diet of eating less.
It was in a magazine called 5:2. Mainly it just said how people were losing weight at a faster rate and had various recipes for 500 calorie meal days. There were no research results.5 -
And like anything else that starts out as potentially useful - things are jumped on as a fad and extremes are pushed.
Link on 1st page several posts above yours - has that research.
It proved to be more sustainable than average diet, improved many health markers.
Faster rate? Eh, compared to people attempting, failing, and regaining - yes.
Compared to people not adhering well to another type of diet - yes.
Compared to extreme unreasonable diet - no.5 -
-
I’ve noticed a few people saying that they are combining different types of IF diet (doing 5:2 and 16:8 for example) or limiting their eating window to a very short time. I like IF but part of me is uneasy about the way it makes skipping meals acceptable. What we reckon? Is IF just a way of people disguising disordered eating as an acceptable diet?
Notwithstanding that 5:2 and 16:8 are quite different approaches, this approach to calorie consumption is largely about behaviour. As illustrated in thread neither changes gross calorie intake, but puts some controls around when those calories are consumed. That can help some people.
One smooths intake through the week, the other is essentially Ramadan...
As ever, they're not a panacea. I've regularly found that 5:2 dieters are less effective in the workplace on fasting days. Frequently hangry, which is a pain.7 -
janisseshirley wrote: »I just seen an article about IF in a magazine yesterday and the IF was 5:2. I noticed on the 2 days the calorie allowance was only 500 calories. Is that healthy? Also for anyone who has been on the IF plan, have you lost weight faster than if you ate your normal calories 7 days a week? I was wondering since I've been told that losing more than 1 - 1.5 pounds a week is aggressive and the article said most people lose 3-5 pound a week.
@janisseshirley
Ask yourself why an odd day at 500 (for a woman, 600 for a man) is unhealthy. What do you think happens in that one day to make it unhealthy in the context that you are eating normally 5 days a week?
I lost at the expected rate in line with my modest weekly calorie deficit, as did my wife.
The maths don't support the assertion that people lost 3-5 pounds a week.
For a woman with the mythical daily average maintenance level of 2000 two days a week at 500 cals is a deficit of only 3,000, less than 1lb a week.
Let's assume a particularly large and/or active woman with a TDEE of 3000, weekly deficit is 5000 cals, less than a pound and a half a week.
5lb a week would be 17,500 calories - how on earth could someone generate that deficit in two days?
I think the societal attachment for eating to a set pattern irrespective of hunger or need is one of the factors that drives obesity in a time of plenty and with generally decreasing activity levels.12
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K 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
- 424 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