Intermittent Fasting!
Replies
-
lowcarbmale wrote: »Lillymoo01 wrote: »lowcarbmale wrote: »Several teaspoons is nuts. I'm talking about maybe a quarter of a teaspoon of salt that you put in like a quarter to half a gallon of water.
Which is what they were saying at the beginning advising against it before you decided to add your two cents worth to confuse what is a stupid and dangerous practice.
Let's agree that some electrolytes in the water are healthy and extreme amounts of salt in water are obviously harmful. This topic is about intermittent fasting and not sea salt. Let's let other people get back to it.
It actually is on topic to the OP about Intermittent Fasting. Someone had responded to the OP talking about drinking salt water as part of their IF routine:chrisf200941 wrote: »I tried sea salt water ,16 hours fasting.so if you sleep for 8 no food for 8 I drink black coffee.lose weight fast.i do this 2 x a week.
The responses given were to dissuade the OP from taking this 'advice' and trying it. The salt water flush (if you'd done a quick google search before responding) is a very dangerous practice used by IF'ers, pro-ana's (and many others) to induce diarrhea to "eliminate toxins" and lose weight. Unfortunately, it's water weight and not fat. It's disingenuous of you to now attempt to deflect the responses being given to that because you were misinformed.12 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »Nobody was talking about too much salt or oceanwater.
If you already eat enough salt that's fine too (I pretty much said exactly that in my post before).
http://anograiner.com/distilled-water-hydration/Hydration is critical to good health and supports a huge number of bodily functions. However, hydration is more complex than simply drinking water. In addition to H2O our bodies require the right balance of electrolytes to adequately absorb and utilise fluid in our cells.
Therefore if your tapwater or whatever water you are drinking regularly doesn't have enough minerals or you do a lot of sports you might want to add some electrolytes (and I'm not talking about sugarwater like g*torate etc.)
There's a thing right now where a "sea salt flush" is promoted as something to do while IFing as a detox. It seems to me that is what the poster who brought it up was talking about, and it's a bad idea, and if taken too far, rather than just making a person puke, it can seriously dehydrate you to the point of needing medical attention. It's dangerous enough to warrant it being rebutted as bad advice on a public forum IMHO.
Luckily, OP has already gotten lots of on-point responses, and if they need more info hopefully they'll pop back in.4 -
The salt thing is honestly ridiculous. Where's the evidence it helps to detox anything? Obviously sodium is needed in order for our brain and body to function but just use it at reasonable quantities with your food and drink water separately. It's completely unnecessary. It sounds like the same thing that has been said for years and years about weight loss that you need to eat 5-6 small meals a day to lose weight and that fasting slows down your metabolism and makes you fat. They're all lies, what we can do is look at science and facts and draw conclusions that are obvious, I have yet to ready any studies that would suggest that a "sea salt flush" or whatever can help your body to detox itself. Just do a good old fast for two weeks or so if you're so desperate to detox yourself and lay off the salt.2
-
I didn't research IF beforehand, but it's just what i naturally do.
(GROSS OVER-SIMPLIFICATION WARNING
my thoughts are: if you have readily available sugars; your body will use those sugars (preferential oxidation). only when the sugars are depleted does your body turn towards burning fat. So for me i like to go as far into every day as i can without eating because i'm in that "running on reserves" mode. the easiest way for me is to skip breakfast (I do have 12 ounces of black coffee, 10 cals) and go as far into every day as i can before i eat lunch.
(/END-RANT
But IF, and Macros, and all of that is just a sub-set of; the overall:
YOU MUST CONSUME LESS CALORIES THAN YOU BURN TO LOSE WEIGHT.
the rest is about how you feel while you do it (and trying to preserve muscle as best as possible).3 -
If anyone doing IF wants to add me please do! 💕1
-
Yep exactly, it's not a "magical" way to lose weight or anything, you still gotta eat the right foods and all but to me it's so much easier not to eat for most of the day rather than spend all that time preparing tiny meals throughout the day, then finding the time to eat it and etc. I work an intense job and it requires all my attention for the majority of my day, I can't take 5 or 6 breaks constantly just to eat.5
-
I didn't research IF beforehand, but it's just what i naturally do.
(GROSS OVER-SIMPLIFICATION WARNING
my thoughts are: if you have readily available sugars; your body will use those sugars (preferential oxidation). only when the sugars are depleted does your body turn towards burning fat. So for me i like to go as far into every day as i can without eating because i'm in that "running on reserves" mode. the easiest way for me is to skip breakfast (I do have 12 ounces of black coffee, 10 cals) and go as far into every day as i can before i eat lunch.
(/END-RANT
But IF, and Macros, and all of that is just a sub-set of; the overall:
YOU MUST CONSUME LESS CALORIES THAN YOU BURN TO LOSE WEIGHT.
the rest is about how you feel while you do it (and trying to preserve muscle as best as possible).
It's not an over-simplification it's completely inaccurate!to say "my thoughts are: if you have readily available sugars; your body will use those sugars (preferential oxidation). only when the sugars are depleted does your body turn towards burning fat."
Using fat for fuel is a completely normal part of daily life and doesn't need you to deplete your (very large) carb stores for it to be used. It's not sequential use of carbs and then fat - your are using both fuels virtually all the time. While sleeping you are running almost entirely on fat as fuel. This carb depletion myth is the basis of much of the woo around IF unfortunately.
Storing and using fat is normal - it's just the balance of the two that matters and that is where your phrase "YOU MUST CONSUME LESS CALORIES THAN YOU BURN TO LOSE WEIGHT." hits the spot.9 -
Notice I was saying when sugars are depleted you turn towards burning fat. Its a shift to more of one or the other... not a on or off switch.1
-
Notice I was saying when sugars are depleted you turn towards burning fat. Its a shift to more of one or the other... not a on or off switch.
Your words - "only when the sugars are depleted does your body turn towards burning fat!"
That statement simply isn't true.
Even when I'm completely carb loaded for a long distance cycling event I'm still burning approx 50% fat during that event at my all day pace.
Activity is the primary driver of the ratio of carbs and fat being used and it's not something that anyone needs to consider or manipulate unless you are doing endurance cardio.
Fat loss is down to calorie balance over time as you stated - not the fuel substrate used at any particular time.
6 -
I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
16 -
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).14 -
Thanks for the support @lowcarbmale
Everyone finds what works for them. Sadly some people end up thinking what works for them is best for others.
I.f. works well for me ... and I'm seeing better than expected results. If people are curious about my experiences with it they are welcome to friend or message me.7 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.14 -
No it's not. A calorie is a unit of energy. The way energy can and will be used is not always the same. You can argue for that, but it's not correct. If you don't believe me ask somebody who studied chemistry or physics.lowcarbmale wrote: »
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.22 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »
No it's not. A calorie is a unit of energy. The way energy can and will be used is not always the same. You can argue for that, but it's not correct. Mass in mass out is a scientifically proven fact.lowcarbmale wrote: »
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.
Just for my own clarification, are you arguing against the First Law of Thermodynamics or am I misunderstanding? To be fair it's early and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet...10 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »
No it's not. A calorie is a unit of energy. The way energy can and will be used is not always the same. You can argue for that, but it's not correct. Mass in mass out is a scientifically proven fact.lowcarbmale wrote: »
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.
Just for my own clarification, are you arguing against the First Law of Thermodynamics or am I misunderstanding? To be fair it's early and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet...
Yes you are misunderstanding.
The First Law of Thermodynamics only applies in isolated systems, which the body is clearly not. In the CICO dogma you ignore several dynamic processes: How much CO2 you breath out, how much H20 you lose through sweat or urine, how much and what kind of waste you produce and how much energy of the food you eat can actually be accessed by the body after taking into account that it needs to be processed by the body first and there sometimes are several steps of conversion to get to the kind of energy you need in the body.
Just for fun let's assume there are three types of inputs u1,u2,u3 to a given system.
u1 represents food that is super easy to digest
u2 represents food that is easy to digest
u3 represents food that is hard to digest
Each input has the value 1=100g of food when it enters.
There is an input-function f1(u1), f2(u2), f3(u3) for each input. For simplicity, let's assume the total amount of energy your body will be able to use is sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3).
To digest u1 (super easy) let's assume no energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 100% of the energy can be used in the body
To digest u2 (easy) let's assume 5% of energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 95% of the energy can be used in the body
To digest u2 (easy) let's assume 20% energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 80% of the energy can be used in the body.
It is clear that sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3) = 1*1 + 0.95*1 + 0.8*1 is less than 3. If it gets all inputs through f1 (sum = 3*1), the result would be 3.
Now replace u1, u2, u3 with fat, protein and carbs and think about it.
Also neglected here is, that some types of food are primarly used for energy purposes ( carbs, fat), while other (protein) have other functions like muscle replacement in the body.
This would add another function f4(u3) which would deduct from the total amount of energy that can be used to "burn energy" inside the body.. so you would receive sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3) - f4(u4)15 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »
No it's not. A calorie is a unit of energy. The way energy can and will be used is not always the same. You can argue for that, but it's not correct. If you don't believe me ask somebody who studied chemistry or physics.lowcarbmale wrote: »
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.
It doesn't matter how the energy is used - whether to power digestion, physical activity, inner cell processes, etc - it is still used and has to come from somewhere. That somewhere is food and drink and ALL of those processes are accounted for in CICO. If you have some proof that it is wrong, please present it here and then fill out your application for the Nobel prize for disproving the laws of thermodynamics.9 -
lowcarbmale wrote: »lowcarbmale wrote: »
No it's not. A calorie is a unit of energy. The way energy can and will be used is not always the same. You can argue for that, but it's not correct. Mass in mass out is a scientifically proven fact.lowcarbmale wrote: »
The dogma here is that all that matters is calories in, calories out, even though fat, carbs and proteins are metabolized differently (with different losses) when converted to energy inside the body. Every statement that goes against that dogma gets wooed. *shrug*I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
CICO is not dogma - it is scientifically proven fact.
Just for my own clarification, are you arguing against the First Law of Thermodynamics or am I misunderstanding? To be fair it's early and I haven't finished my first cup of coffee yet...
Yes you are misunderstanding.
The First Law of Thermodynamics only applies in isolated systems, which the body is clearly not. In the CICO dogma you ignore several dynamic processes: How much CO2 you breath out, how much H20 you lose through sweat or urine, how much and what kind of waste you produce and how much energy of the food you eat can actually be accessed by the body after taking into account that it needs to be processed by the body first and there sometimes are several steps of conversion to get to the kind of energy you need in the body.
Just for fun let's assume there are three types of inputs u1,u2,u3 to a given system.
u1 represents food that is super easy to digest
u2 represents food that is easy to digest
u3 represents food that is hard to digest
Each input has the value 1=100g of food when it enters.
There is an input-function f1(u1), f2(u2), f3(u3) for each input. For simplicity, let's assume the total amount of energy your body will be able to use is sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3).
To digest u1 (super easy) let's assume no energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 100% of the energy can be used in the body
To digest u2 (easy) let's assume 5% of energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 95% of the energy can be used in the body
To digest u2 (easy) let's assume 20% energy is lost to make the energy available to the body, so 80% of the energy can be used in the body.
It is clear that sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3) = 1*1 + 0.95*1 + 0.8*1 is less than 3. If it gets all inputs through f1 (sum = 3*1), the result would be 3.
Now replace u1, u2, u3 with fat, protein and carbs and think about it.
Also neglected here is, that some types of food are primarly used for energy purposes ( carbs, fat), while other (protein) have other functions like muscle replacement in the body.
This would add another function f4(u3) which would deduct from the total amount of energy that can be used to "burn energy" inside the body.. so you would receive sum = f1(u1) + f2(u2) +f3(u3) - f4(u4)
I believe TEF is factored into most calorie calculations and has been shown to make a very small difference in overall energy expenditure. But I don't see how that has anything to do with IF, so I'll leave it at that.
If you'd like to debate the "dogma" of CICO, there are several threads in the Debate forum you could bump.16 -
I believe CICO is dogma ... but "calories burned" is quite complicated.
Around 85% of calories we burn are from digestion and homeostasis. A fever burns more calories than jogging.
Humans are VERY efficient at things like walking. More walking makes a teeny tiny difference in calories burned.
Gut microbes and microbiome in general greatly affect our absorption of calories consumed too.
"Metabolism" is a varied and complicated process and changes as a result of hormonal changes ...
... which is why I like i.f. is promotes the hormones which improve metabolic rates.
In this area ... we can both be right.14 -
I encourage others to read this great healthline article explaining why fasting does burn more fat than 5-6 meals a day, even for the same net daily caloric intake:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-and-weight-loss#section1
Some hormonal changes are highlighted as follows:
Insulin: Insulin increases when we eat. When we fast, insulin decreases dramatically (4). Lower levels of insulin facilitate fat burning.
Human growth hormone (HGH): Levels of growth hormone may skyrocket during a fast, increasing as much as 5-fold (5, 6). Growth hormone is a hormone that can aid fat loss and muscle gain, among other things (7, 8, 9).
Norepinephrine (noradrenaline): The nervous system sends norepinephrine to the fat cells, making them break down body fat into free fatty acids that can be burned for energy (10, 11).
Interestingly, despite what the 5-6 meals a day proponents would have you believe, short-term fasting may actually increase fat burning.
Two studies have found that fasting for about 48 hours boosts metabolism by 3.6-14% (12, 13). However, fasting periods that are longer can suppress metabolism (14).
The article doesn't explain how IF burns more fat, it theorizes that it might.
There are some interesting theories out there about IF and if you'd like to do IF in the hope that some of these theories pan out, I totally get that. But there is simply not enough data that is consistent over multiple studies to say it has definite advantages outside of appetite control. That's all anyone is saying. We just want folks to stop stating things as facts when they are actually theoretical.
FYI, Healthline is an article farm, and the author of that article has a Bachelor's in medicine and "has spent years reading books, blogs and scientific studies on nutrition". I've seen many Healthline articles linked here over the years, and have been disappointed by how little the studies cited in those articles has actually supported the article's point on a regular basis.9 -
Back to the original subject... which I hope my first post was clear but perhaps was not... so to expound:
Personally i do IF because once dinner comes around ... I can't really eat more than 700 calories without feeling stuffed.
I've never been a breakfast guy ... being hungry leading into lunch is annoying but I get by.
It works for me. My body, my personality ... and if others want to try it and discuss anyone is free to friend and/or message me.
... I kind of get into the hunger feelings ... it's a mental game for me. ...its gotten ti the point I'm concerned I'm losing TOO fast.5 -
Back to the original subject... which I hope my first post was clear but perhaps was not... so to expound:
Personally i do IF because once dinner comes around ... I can't really eat more than 700 calories without feeling stuffed.
I've never been a breakfast guy ... being hungry leading into lunch is annoying but I get by.
It works for me. My body, my personality ... and if others want to try it and discuss anyone is free to friend and/or message me.
... I kind of get into the hunger feelings ... it's a mental game for me. ...its gotten ti the point I'm concerned I'm losing TOO fast.
Your intake is 700 calories a day? Not a good idea. Eating at lunchtime will add some calories to your day.6 -
No no that's just how much it takes to feel "full" for me. I eat about 1300 to 1600 a day ... 2 meals and a snack/protein shake
0 -
I tend to eat at 2 or 3 and again 7 p.m. ... I dont time it i just play every day by ear0
-
I basically do 16:8 IF by skipping breakfast. I then eat lunch, have a snack usually a couple pieces of fruit, and then dinner. I just drink some black coffee to get me through the fast which usually isn't a problem. I workout fasted usually. I don't like doing cardio on a full belly.0
-
I credit i.f. for making it easy to eat 1300 cals in a day.1 -
I credit i.f. for making it easy to eat 1300 cals in a day.
I don't think that's necessarily a good thing either.......6 -
I credit i.f. for making it easy to eat 1300 cals in a day.
That's not really something to be proud of.... in your other thread you asked and were told about the health risks of losing weight too rapidly. You shouldn't be looking for easy ways to under eat. As a wise rabbit used to say, "the winner is the one who eats the most and still loses the weight..."10 -
I credit i.f. for making it easy to eat 1300 cals in a day.
I don't think that's necessarily a good thing either.......
cosigned...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
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K 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
- 96.4K 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