I like the idea it gives you're body a rest when you do 16:8 .
Your body rests when you sleep.
Yes. And you're body needs rest from food.
Are you eating while you sleep?
I had a friend in university who would legit eat while sleepwalking. Her body was able to process that food just fine. She did, however, gain weight.
We ended up having to tie the cupboards and the fridge shut at night so she wouldn't eat us out of house and dorm, though. For some reason, her sleepwalking brain couldn't figure that out.
I sleep-ate once last year around this time. It was a very unsettling experience because I cooked chicken from raw for myself. The thermometer was out so my OCD about stuff like that must still work in my dreams.
I don't recall her actually trying to cook anything, thank God. But all the good stuff? Like the cookies and chocolate and donuts and ice cream and bread? Poof. Gone.
Breakfast as "eating first thing upon waking" isn't unnatural, although there is some evidence to suggest that spiking your insulin up waking isn't the best way to start your day. At the very least it is not the most important meal of the day because there are a lot of people who don't eat breakfast and are in great shape.
1.IF is just not eating for a period of time. The point i was making before is that breakfast didn't exist before it was marketed to us, it was just eating. What i mean by that is... we just ate when we had the foods available and then didn't when we didn't.
2. It's only when people wanted to start making money out of us that we started labeling times of eating as events. The whole eat often and small or 3 meals a day seems counterproductive to me. And while you may disagree because the science is in its infancy you can't really argue with peoples experiences, including my own.
3. You may say it's due to low calories or low body fat etc but i have been experimenting with my body and how it handles foods for years. I am certain that IF has the benefits that people talk about. I've experienced them myself and i think in a number of years the science will catch up.
I also don't remember breakfast being invented by cereal companies. I'm pretty sure the term comes from breaking the fast, i.e., the first time someone eats when waking up. The word goes back to Middle English, so as old as ~1066, though that's just for the English word, not the concept.
Strictly speaking, breakfast itself wasn't invented by cereal companies, it was the myth that breakfast "is the most important meal of the day". That was an advertising slogan (Kellogg's? Post? I forget whose) that was repeated so often that it eventually just became accepted as a fact.
If that was what we being referenced as invented by companies, it was stated in a way that wasn't clear. Framed that way doesn't seem particularly relevant either. That companies may have championed breakfast as most important doesn't show something unusual or wrong in having breakfast. It seemed like there was an implication that breakfast is unnatural.
1. I'm not sure I even know what that means. People didn't use the word breakfast before cereal companies existed? That's just a bizarre claim and one that historical literature can show false.
I’ve been reading up about IF on lean gains. The theory is sound, I’ve recently started following, as has been said ultimately calorie deficit is the proven way.
Hi everyone. I started Keto 1 month ago today, and IF as well. I'm actually SUPER happy with IF. Actually both IF and Keto. I've had a fantastic first month. I vary my times. I typically do 10a-4pm (sometimes it drifts into 6pm)..One thing I've realized about IF...Don't beat yourself up if you drift a little on one day...But I have been 100% good at stopping my nighttime eating...Its crazy how much of a habit that is...had plenty of evenings this month where I found myself opening the fridge door for no apparent reason.
@GuessimGryffindor and @eloisesdad, thanks for sharing your comments and experiences of IF. In case you don't know, we have an MFP Intermittent Fasting Group having many enthused members who would welcome a visit by you and will be available to cheer you on in your IF journeys. Wishing you the best in chasing your fitness, health and wellness goals.
I tried to IF for a week and it was the worst week of my life. I was hangry all day at work.
I think I will stick to counting calories and healthy snacks throughout the day. Lost 20 lbs so far doing this.
Plus I think those around me would prefer that as well
IF has an insane amount of health benefits if done correctly. Plus it helps keep your calories down.
Bit of a weasel wording there. I can say anything has benefits if done correctly.
Amputating legs has insane health benefits if done correctly, e.g., when it saves someone's life because being alive is an insane health benefit compared to being dead.
The overall impression I get on IF is that there are a lot of health benefits touted that end up reducing to be the benefits that come from achieving a healthier body fat.
I'm also a bit leery of people that overly tout its benefits. I've seen shucksters like Fung claim autophagy and low protein keto means the morbidly obese can lose weight without having loose skin - that none of his patients ever have loose skin. I've yet to see him publish his remarkable finds in a dermatology journal.
I don’t know what you mean by Weasel wording.. sounds like your trying to insult me but okay...
And yes is stand by if it’s done right. Fasting for a few hours is not going to give you the results required. You have to follow the protocol in order for it to kick in, that’s why when you sleep, even though you are technically fasting it’s really fasting now is it!
That’s a big leap.... Fungs claims about excess skin to fasting is BS. People have been fasting for 1000’s of years. Fung didn’t invent it.
Lastly, I use it, my clients use it and they notice a difference, lean or not.
I find this stuff fascinating, but why would our bodies be programmed to start working better after a specific number of hours of fasting had passed? What would be the evolutionary advantage to making us pass up food in a world where, if we wait too long, there might not be food available at that point and we would risk going too long without food? It would be like the Universe asking us to play chicken!
It is important to bring up that fasting has been done for 1000’s of years because from a evolutionary point of view we are conditioned to live quite comfortably without food for long periods of time. It has been shown that after a certain time of non eating your body suddenly switches to its hunter gatherer mode and you find yourself more alert with improved cognitive performance. This was purely so we can could hunt food more efficiently. But it also made room for other functions that body intakes when in a fasted stay.
remember breakfast hasn’t been something we’ve done for long.. after all it was invented by companies trying to sell us food. People who say they can’t do it are not really being honest with themselves, a more accurate reply would be, I don’t want to because I enjoy eating breakfast.
There are so many things the body does and improves when I’m a state of discomfort. Half our issues today are based on the fact we don’t make ourselves uncomfortable. We sit for far too long. Everything is too convenient. Even down to having hot water.
Breakfast has been a regular part of eating since the 17th century for the masses...for the wealthy, much earlier...like medieval days.
IF has an insane amount of health benefits if done correctly. Plus it helps keep your calories down.
Bit of a weasel wording there. I can say anything has benefits if done correctly.
Amputating legs has insane health benefits if done correctly, e.g., when it saves someone's life because being alive is an insane health benefit compared to being dead.
The overall impression I get on IF is that there are a lot of health benefits touted that end up reducing to be the benefits that come from achieving a healthier body fat.
I'm also a bit leery of people that overly tout its benefits. I've seen shucksters like Fung claim autophagy and low protein keto means the morbidly obese can lose weight without having loose skin - that none of his patients ever have loose skin. I've yet to see him publish his remarkable finds in a dermatology journal.
I don’t know what you mean by Weasel wording.. sounds like your trying to insult me but okay...
And yes is stand by if it’s done right. Fasting for a few hours is not going to give you the results required. You have to follow the protocol in order for it to kick in, that’s why when you sleep, even though you are technically fasting it’s really fasting now is it!
That’s a big leap.... Fungs claims about excess skin to fasting is BS. People have been fasting for 1000’s of years. Fung didn’t invent it.
Lastly, I use it, my clients use it and they notice a difference, lean or not.
I find this stuff fascinating, but why would our bodies be programmed to start working better after a specific number of hours of fasting had passed? What would be the evolutionary advantage to making us pass up food in a world where, if we wait too long, there might not be food available at that point and we would risk going too long without food? It would be like the Universe asking us to play chicken!
It is important to bring up that fasting has been done for 1000’s of years because from a evolutionary point of view we are conditioned to live quite comfortably without food for long periods of time. It has been shown that after a certain time of non eating your body suddenly switches to its hunter gatherer mode and you find yourself more alert with improved cognitive performance. This was purely so we can could hunt food more efficiently. But it also made room for other functions that body intakes when in a fasted stay.
remember breakfast hasn’t been something we’ve done for long.. after all it was invented by companies trying to sell us food. People who say they can’t do it are not really being honest with themselves, a more accurate reply would be, I don’t want to because I enjoy eating breakfast.
There are so many things the body does and improves when I’m a state of discomfort. Half our issues today are based on the fact we don’t make ourselves uncomfortable. We sit for far too long. Everything is too convenient. Even down to having hot water.
Breakfast has been a regular part of eating since the 17th century for the masses...for the wealthy, much earlier...like medieval days.
I tried to IF for a week and it was the worst week of my life. I was hangry all day at work.
I think I will stick to counting calories and healthy snacks throughout the day. Lost 20 lbs so far doing this.
Plus I think those around me would prefer that as well
It is very much a "whatever works for you" thing, and in this case it clearly doesnt work for you!
But you made me think - practicing IF has lead me to actually appreciate hunger, and realise just how much of the time I never felt it.
I wont eat today until 12-13:00, and last ate yesterday around 18:30. I am at this moment beginning to feel hungry. Its not uncomfortable, its not distracting and Im not hangry, Im just aware that Im getting hungry and will be eating soon.
There is something strangely comforting about it.
When I eat (and I wont eat a huge amount) it will be genuinely satisfying, and I will feel full again until dinner.
Its very much a "1st world issues" thing, realising Ive rarely actually been hungry, but its something Im enjoying the experience of none the less.
I like the idea it gives you're body a rest when you do 16:8 .
Your body rests when you sleep.
Yes. And you're body needs rest from food.
Are you eating while you sleep?
Just seen this... it feels like you’ve shot yourself in the foot here... sleeping is fasting, Your body is doing many things on top of that I am sure you are aware. A lot of these processes are believed to happen during a woken fast too. All people fast around sleeping as this is the whole part of it. Otherwise fasting 16:8 would be impossible.
Your body enjoys a rest from food. I don’t really get why you guys don’t think that’s logical.
It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?
I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
It is a healthier way of eating and just because a small handful of people on here don’t believe that, doesn’t make it any less true.
If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works.
I want people to remember this is a forum. The people on here are not experts. They act like the are but they are not. Question everything, even what I say and find out for yourself.
It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?
I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
Only if you redefine things never called "intermittent fasting" and not done for the reasons IF is promoted now "intermittent fasting."
Over human history and cultures, people had a whole slew of different eating schedules and fasting for religion (or due to scarcity) type practices. (The way I eat is consistent with that, same with many others not on the IF bandwagon.)
The claim that everyone ate the way you currently do until recently is clearly false.
I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
It is a healthier way of eating and just because a small handful of people on here don’t believe that, doesn’t make it any less true.
If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works.
I want people to remember this is a forum. The people on here are not experts. They act like the are but they are not. Question everything, even what I say and find out for yourself.
It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?
An eating pattern has been around longer than eating patterns? Do you realize that's a contradiction?
Fasting for religious and other holiday reasons is not IF, it is just fasting.
Your body enjoys a rest from food. I don’t really get why you guys don’t think that’s logical.
I don't know that anyone is saying is logical or illogical. Presenting it that way is really deflating your claims to an absurd level - no one here is going to say it is illogical or even without or against evidence that a body should not be constantly eating food - no one is making that claim. If you want to say, "sometimes, don't eat", obviously no one is arguing that, and if you're trying to make that anyone's response to you, you're strawmanning their objections.
What people are saying is unevidenced (not illogical) are the large claims of the benefits of IF some practicioners and worse, quacks, make about it.
What people are saying IF won't do is (since these seem to be claims or implied claims of some IF proponents)
1. Automatically cause a calorie deficit.
2. Fix unknown hormonal issues preventing weight loss.
3. Cause weight loss without a calorie deficit.
4. Improve one's relationship with food.
"It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?"
I bolded the most relevant bits.
Your response ("If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works") is not actually responsive at all, and does not address my points about your body not actually spending more time digesting when I'm not eating within a window (or for people who like more frequent smaller meals).
Instead, you merely make unsupported claims that your preferred way of eating is superior.
I again don't see why that's a claim you feel a need to make, but it would be helpful if you would respond to my actual points.
And again, traditionally human eating patterns were dictated by culture and varied depending on the culture. People did not try to distinguish themselves by claiming a special personal eating window or insisting their personal diets were superior (well, probably some did, but it would have been unusual in most traditional cultures and within the context of Western Christian culture it would usually have been more of a hypocritical moral stance (I'm the humblest, look at how very humble I am!). European Christian culture (among others) did have various "fasts" which sometimes meant not eating, but much more often meant cutting out specific foods. But you already claimed that stuff done in the Middle Ages and after does not matter.
It’s pretty obvious that you two don’t like IF and because of this your don’t like hearing that IF is better than a “conventional” way of eating.
I don’t need to prove myself to you or anyone.
You guys are so intent on claiming IF has no benefits that even if I did provide you with studies to show evidence that IF is effective you’d shoot it down.
This is not my way of eating, it’s the way of eating for millions of people.
What’s upset you the most is that I’ve called you out as just people who post on forums. The way you write is as if you know for a fact that IF doesn’t work. But you are not qualified to do so.
Unless you guys are biologists i suggest you stop making claims you know that IF doesn’t work as there are many far far more qualified individuals who would disagree with you completely.
I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
It is a healthier way of eating and just because a small handful of people on here don’t believe that, doesn’t make it any less true.
If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works.
I want people to remember this is a forum. The people on here are not experts. They act like the are but they are not. Question everything, even what I say and find out for yourself.
It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?
An eating pattern has been around longer than eating patterns? Do you realize that's a contradiction?
Fasting for religious and other holiday reasons is not IF, it is just fasting.
Your body enjoys a rest from food. I don’t really get why you guys don’t think that’s logical.
I don't know that anyone is saying is logical or illogical. Presenting it that way is really deflating your claims to an absurd level - no one here is going to say it is illogical or even without or against evidence that a body should not be constantly eating food - no one is making that claim. If you want to say, "sometimes, don't eat", obviously no one is arguing that, and if you're trying to make that anyone's response to you, you're strawmanning their objections.
What people are saying is unevidenced (not illogical) are the large claims of the benefits of IF some practicioners and worse, quacks, make about it.
What people are saying IF won't do is (since these seem to be claims or implied claims of some IF proponents)
1. Automatically cause a calorie deficit.
2. Fix unknown hormonal issues preventing weight loss.
3. Cause weight loss without a calorie deficit.
4. Improve one's relationship with food.
That makes absolutely no sense. IF has existed since humans existed. You think we could just walk outside and buy raw meat? We’d go for days without food. Just because we didn’t do it intentionally does mean it’s not IF. IF is just not eating for prolonged periods of time. The only reason it’s set at these hours is because the benefits don’t kick in until after this period.
Our bodies are quite happy and comfortable not eating for long stretches and this is why we should do it. Because it’s how humans function best. It’s how we were designed. We were never supposed to sit on a couch all day and eat constantly this is why so many people are dying, over weight and in pain.
I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
Only if you redefine things never called "intermittent fasting" and not done for the reasons IF is promoted now "intermittent fasting."
Over human history and cultures, people had a whole slew of different eating schedules and fasting for religion (or due to scarcity) type practices. (The way I eat is consistent with that, same with many others not on the IF bandwagon.)
The claim that everyone ate the way you currently do until recently is clearly false.
I didn’t invent IF, it’s been around for 1000’s of years, long before any regular eating patterns. It’s been practiced in many religions and festivals since the invention of said beliefs.
Only if you redefine things never called "intermittent fasting" and not done for the reasons IF is promoted now "intermittent fasting."
Over human history and cultures, people had a whole slew of different eating schedules and fasting for religion (or due to scarcity) type practices. (The way I eat is consistent with that, same with many others not on the IF bandwagon.)
The claim that everyone ate the way you currently do until recently is clearly false.
That makes absolutely no sense. IF has existed since humans existed. You think we could just walk outside and buy raw meat? We’d go for days without food.
First, it would be helpful if you could quote the way others do, rather than at the end of your post.
On to the point, it seems to be some "paleo man" thing. Probably even paleo humans did not go days without eating regularly, however. (For example, we can look at hunter gatherer cultures more recently.) Were periods of scarcity more common in various other times than now? Sure. That does not support your claim that everyone before the current era did what is now called IFing -- i.e., eating within a window. Also, what paleo humans did isn't particularly relevant, IMO. There's no reason to assume it was optimal. That's why the various false claims spread about their diets (i.e., the whole "paleo" thing) and way of eating is especially annoying.
Throughout most of human history, culture (plus what food was available, whether the culture was agricultural or not, etc.) likely has determined eating patterns. These varied just as cultures have varied. We did not just eat when we felt like it because humans are communal and culturally-based creatures and we would have had regular eating times, which varied.
Our bodies are quite happy and comfortable not eating for long stretches and this is why we should do it. Because it’s how humans function best. It’s how we were designed. We were never supposed to sit on a couch all day and eat constantly this is why so many people are dying, over weight and in pain.
I find it bizarre that you think "fasting" for 16 hours, part of which is sleep time, is "not eating for long stretches of time." I also think we can function fine with an IF schedule and it might be a good tool for some to control cals. But that does not make it "how humans function best" and you have not provided any evidence of that. The actual studies are all over the place and some indicate that an IF schedule that involves skipping breakfast and putting most calories later in the day is worse for us than other ways of eating (while eating more in the morning is better). I'm skeptical about that too -- right now there's no consistent evidence that timing makes much of a difference, and certainly not one that would overrule known benefits (such as eating with other people, eating in a way that works better with your personal schedule or makes it easier for you to avoid overeating -- and those vary between people).
Finally, it's certainly not how we were "designed" (that we were "designed" requires a religious claim, it's not how evolution works) and there's no evidence that that's how humans function best. It might be a strategy that works for individuals. (As I explained, I currently eat in a similar pattern on Fridays through Sundays, I just think it's absurd to call it fasting, and I do it for convenience, not because I think it's healthier than how I eat on other days. At other times of my life I've naturally eaten in a pattern you'd call IF and not, and neither has seemed healthier -- in fact I usually eat better with 3 meals.)
Replies
I don't recall her actually trying to cook anything, thank God. But all the good stuff? Like the cookies and chocolate and donuts and ice cream and bread? Poof. Gone.
Agreed. From Breakfast: A History (Heather Ardnt Anderson, Altamira Press, 2013, P. 6) https://books.google.ca/books?id=5LghYCqDJw8C&printsec=frontcover&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false:
"It was not until the 15th century that "breakfast" came into use in written English to describe a morning meal..."
The first cereal companies got started in the 1800s.
I think I will stick to counting calories and healthy snacks throughout the day. Lost 20 lbs so far doing this.
Plus I think those around me would prefer that as well
Breakfast has been a regular part of eating since the 17th century for the masses...for the wealthy, much earlier...like medieval days.
It is very much a "whatever works for you" thing, and in this case it clearly doesnt work for you!
But you made me think - practicing IF has lead me to actually appreciate hunger, and realise just how much of the time I never felt it.
I wont eat today until 12-13:00, and last ate yesterday around 18:30. I am at this moment beginning to feel hungry. Its not uncomfortable, its not distracting and Im not hangry, Im just aware that Im getting hungry and will be eating soon.
There is something strangely comforting about it.
When I eat (and I wont eat a huge amount) it will be genuinely satisfying, and I will feel full again until dinner.
Its very much a "1st world issues" thing, realising Ive rarely actually been hungry, but its something Im enjoying the experience of none the less.
Just seen this... it feels like you’ve shot yourself in the foot here... sleeping is fasting, Your body is doing many things on top of that I am sure you are aware. A lot of these processes are believed to happen during a woken fast too. All people fast around sleeping as this is the whole part of it. Otherwise fasting 16:8 would be impossible.
Your body enjoys a rest from food. I don’t really get why you guys don’t think that’s logical.
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?
It is a healthier way of eating and just because a small handful of people on here don’t believe that, doesn’t make it any less true.
If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works.
I want people to remember this is a forum. The people on here are not experts. They act like the are but they are not. Question everything, even what I say and find out for yourself.
Only if you redefine things never called "intermittent fasting" and not done for the reasons IF is promoted now "intermittent fasting."
Over human history and cultures, people had a whole slew of different eating schedules and fasting for religion (or due to scarcity) type practices. (The way I eat is consistent with that, same with many others not on the IF bandwagon.)
The claim that everyone ate the way you currently do until recently is clearly false.
Fasting for religious and other holiday reasons is not IF, it is just fasting.
I don't know that anyone is saying is logical or illogical. Presenting it that way is really deflating your claims to an absurd level - no one here is going to say it is illogical or even without or against evidence that a body should not be constantly eating food - no one is making that claim. If you want to say, "sometimes, don't eat", obviously no one is arguing that, and if you're trying to make that anyone's response to you, you're strawmanning their objections.
What people are saying is unevidenced (not illogical) are the large claims of the benefits of IF some practicioners and worse, quacks, make about it.
What people are saying IF won't do is (since these seem to be claims or implied claims of some IF proponents)
1. Automatically cause a calorie deficit.
2. Fix unknown hormonal issues preventing weight loss.
3. Cause weight loss without a calorie deficit.
4. Improve one's relationship with food.
"It just seems weird to call not eating while you sleep "fasting."
I see no reason to think my body "enjoys" a rest from food. Digestion takes longer if you eat more, so the difference between a bunch of small meals or 2 big ones (or grazing within a window or whatever) seems minimal to me.
Lately, I eat at around 6:30, 12, and 9 on Mon-Thurs, and at around noon and whenever dinner time is (earlier) on Friday through Sunday. My Friday through Sunday schedule just naturally fits in a common IF pattern, although I have other reasons for it (it allows for 2x a month Friday work lunches, dinner at restaurant on Fri or Sat, and either a bigger brunch or bigger dinner on Sunday, and on Friday through Sunday I can eat dinner earlier without having to eat it at work (and often eat before a play or a concert)). I don't really think I "fast" more on Friday through Sunday in reality -- I eat about the same amount, and I spend the same amount of time not eating. In any case, my body does not seem to "enjoy" one pattern more than the other. Why the need to claim your way of doing things is superior?"
I bolded the most relevant bits.
Your response ("If you seriously believe that allowing your digestive system a break from processing food is not beneficial then you don’t understand how the body works") is not actually responsive at all, and does not address my points about your body not actually spending more time digesting when I'm not eating within a window (or for people who like more frequent smaller meals).
Instead, you merely make unsupported claims that your preferred way of eating is superior.
I again don't see why that's a claim you feel a need to make, but it would be helpful if you would respond to my actual points.
And again, traditionally human eating patterns were dictated by culture and varied depending on the culture. People did not try to distinguish themselves by claiming a special personal eating window or insisting their personal diets were superior (well, probably some did, but it would have been unusual in most traditional cultures and within the context of Western Christian culture it would usually have been more of a hypocritical moral stance (I'm the humblest, look at how very humble I am!). European Christian culture (among others) did have various "fasts" which sometimes meant not eating, but much more often meant cutting out specific foods. But you already claimed that stuff done in the Middle Ages and after does not matter.
I don’t need to prove myself to you or anyone.
You guys are so intent on claiming IF has no benefits that even if I did provide you with studies to show evidence that IF is effective you’d shoot it down.
This is not my way of eating, it’s the way of eating for millions of people.
What’s upset you the most is that I’ve called you out as just people who post on forums. The way you write is as if you know for a fact that IF doesn’t work. But you are not qualified to do so.
Unless you guys are biologists i suggest you stop making claims you know that IF doesn’t work as there are many far far more qualified individuals who would disagree with you completely.
Our bodies are quite happy and comfortable not eating for long stretches and this is why we should do it. Because it’s how humans function best. It’s how we were designed. We were never supposed to sit on a couch all day and eat constantly this is why so many people are dying, over weight and in pain.
First, it would be helpful if you could quote the way others do, rather than at the end of your post.
On to the point, it seems to be some "paleo man" thing. Probably even paleo humans did not go days without eating regularly, however. (For example, we can look at hunter gatherer cultures more recently.) Were periods of scarcity more common in various other times than now? Sure. That does not support your claim that everyone before the current era did what is now called IFing -- i.e., eating within a window. Also, what paleo humans did isn't particularly relevant, IMO. There's no reason to assume it was optimal. That's why the various false claims spread about their diets (i.e., the whole "paleo" thing) and way of eating is especially annoying.
Throughout most of human history, culture (plus what food was available, whether the culture was agricultural or not, etc.) likely has determined eating patterns. These varied just as cultures have varied. We did not just eat when we felt like it because humans are communal and culturally-based creatures and we would have had regular eating times, which varied.
I find it bizarre that you think "fasting" for 16 hours, part of which is sleep time, is "not eating for long stretches of time." I also think we can function fine with an IF schedule and it might be a good tool for some to control cals. But that does not make it "how humans function best" and you have not provided any evidence of that. The actual studies are all over the place and some indicate that an IF schedule that involves skipping breakfast and putting most calories later in the day is worse for us than other ways of eating (while eating more in the morning is better). I'm skeptical about that too -- right now there's no consistent evidence that timing makes much of a difference, and certainly not one that would overrule known benefits (such as eating with other people, eating in a way that works better with your personal schedule or makes it easier for you to avoid overeating -- and those vary between people).
Finally, it's certainly not how we were "designed" (that we were "designed" requires a religious claim, it's not how evolution works) and there's no evidence that that's how humans function best. It might be a strategy that works for individuals. (As I explained, I currently eat in a similar pattern on Fridays through Sundays, I just think it's absurd to call it fasting, and I do it for convenience, not because I think it's healthier than how I eat on other days. At other times of my life I've naturally eaten in a pattern you'd call IF and not, and neither has seemed healthier -- in fact I usually eat better with 3 meals.)