FASTING, love it or hate it?
Replies
-
-
Is that like when my cracked iPhone screen repairs itself? Cellular....regeneration?
Omg lol, but no. Fasting for 24 hours can reverse the loss of stem cell function in the gut that accompanies aging.[/quote]
Really? I would love to see the studies that show this. How interesting!!6 -
-
It's probably the Valter Longo thing.2
-
He's got a book! He's got a $300 diet plan! He's got a rugged 5 o' clock shadow and never smiles in his pictures! What more can you ask for?????13 -
IRelCanonical wrote: »
He's got a book! He's got a $300 diet plan! He's got a rugged 5 o' clock shadow and never smiles in his pictures! What more can you ask for?????
U!
4 -
I've seen some mice and rat studies that showed that rodents intestinal stem cells regenerated better (?) in a lab setting after they were fasted for 24 hours. Not sure how that transfers to real life, or if similar studies have shown the same in humans. I've never seen any demographic data suggesting people who go through periods of fasting live longer, not sure if anyone's even attempted to do that.
I haven't banged on about my obsession with the Blue Zones recently, so I'll add that I don't remember any evidence of fasting in the Blue Zones data. I don't remember them discussing meal timing at all, but I'd think they would've mentioned if there were a pattern of 24hr or longer fasts in any of those areas.7 -
I've seen some mice and rat studies that showed that rodents intestinal stem cells regenerated better (?) in a lab setting after they were fasted for 24 hours. Not sure how that transfers to real life, or if similar studies have shown the same in humans. I've never seen any demographic data suggesting people who go through periods of fasting live longer, not sure if anyone's even attempted to do that.
I haven't banged on about my obsession with the Blue Zones recently, so I'll add that I don't remember any evidence of fasting in the Blue Zones data. I don't remember them discussing meal timing at all, but I'd think they would've mentioned if there were a pattern of 24hr or longer fasts in any of those areas.
Some of them have fasting practices (religious based) and availability/type of food often varies depending on time of year, but neither the extended fasts that seem so popular today nor the trendy eating window one. And they vary, it's not one of the things that are common to the various blue zones. Also, religious fasting practices can mean not eating during certain hours (Ramadan) or not eating certain foods for an extended period of time (Orthodox Lent and other fast days), they don't always mean complete fasts (although they can -- usually that kind of thing is rarer in terms of timing or mostly practiced by people like those living in monasteries, etc.).
I think what the blue zones help tell us is the big picture when it comes to heathful living (and it has a lot of factors), but everyone today wants some specific magic bullet that then must be the solution and the OneBestWay to do eating.
What I do think is that human cultures until recently have had natural restrictions on how much they eat vs how much they need in most cases. Activity level being higher is one of these, as is food availability and that food tends to be consumed in a community rather than individually and thus at communal times (which vary depending on the culture and perhaps the time of year).
Also, in less developed parts of the world, daylight may play more of a role than it does in the current US (although I'd suggest our normal work schedules is a bigger part of this, so making people feel like eating at the times convenient to them or when they can most easily participate in communal eating (with the family or friends) seems kind of a negative thing to me). But, yeah, eating before and after work with the family = not as advanced and disciplined or what not. ;-)5 -
To elaborate on what I just said, I see it as somewhat similar to what Michael Pollan is arguing here: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/unhappy-meals/
I know Pollan's thing about what "real food" is goes against MFP norms, and I wouldn't use precisely the same language or say one has to approach eating his way, but I find his way of thinking about it helpful.
Basically, don't obsess about finding the best foods based on criteria (should I eat kale or spinach) and instead eat a variety of whole foods, ideally cooked well. Don't worry about low fat vs. low carb vs. paleo, etc., it doesn't really matter, and it just makes it all harder and more charged. (I'd say that going along with that is don't worry about "oh, I'm eating something processed" if the overall diet is a generally healthy one, or never eating sweets, although obviously most of the diet would be other kinds of foods.)
Following from that logic I'd say don't think you have to follow specific eating regiments (although if they help you specifically, great). Probably that doesn't matter much either, and it adds stress.
I'm someone who enjoys tracking things and trying things, but even so I think it can make things really hard for many people if they are told "to eat healthy you MUST [insert list]" and increasingly "eat only within as narrow a window as possible" is becoming part of that, and can lead to failure or people feeling like if that's not how they want to eat there's some problem or they are failing.
Instead, eating within a window should be a tool that is great if it makes eating well and sustainably easier for someone, but absolutely not inherently better or to be pushed on others. In particular, people SHOULD NOT be told that if it's not what they like or some magical overeating prevention tool for them that there is something wrong with them.
To answer the question, then, I LOVE fasting when it's a tool that helps someone and is enjoyed by that person. I HATE fasting if it's used to claim superiority (oh, my fasting is so advanced, or I can fast longer than others) or people are told they can't be healthy without it or should add it even if they find it makes things more difficult or have failed if they don't like it or can overeat doing it. Many people who come here struggle with all or nothing thinking, and this is one thing that can add to it (if I can't fast in a particular way than I obviously can't be healthy so eh, I'll not do anything. That's again a really bad message to convey.7 -
I just started intermittent fasting on a 16/8 schedule where I limit eating to 10a-6pm. I’ve heard that Keto would help me lose weight faster but I’m not doing Keto because I’d like the flexibility of eating what I want as long as I watch my macros. Also, I used to have an unhappy stomach that grumbled and made weird noises all the time but that’s stopped completely since I started IF.1
-
To elaborate on what I just said, I see it as somewhat similar to what Michael Pollan is arguing here: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/unhappy-meals/
I know Pollan's thing about what "real food" is goes against MFP norms, and I wouldn't use precisely the same language or say one has to approach eating his way, but I find his way of thinking about it helpful.
Basically, don't obsess about finding the best foods based on criteria (should I eat kale or spinach) and instead eat a variety of whole foods, ideally cooked well. Don't worry about low fat vs. low carb vs. paleo, etc., it doesn't really matter, and it just makes it all harder and more charged. (I'd say that going along with that is don't worry about "oh, I'm eating something processed" if the overall diet is a generally healthy one, or never eating sweets, although obviously most of the diet would be other kinds of foods.)
Following from that logic I'd say don't think you have to follow specific eating regiments (although if they help you specifically, great). Probably that doesn't matter much either, and it adds stress.
I'm someone who enjoys tracking things and trying things, but even so I think it can make things really hard for many people if they are told "to eat healthy you MUST [insert list]" and increasingly "eat only within as narrow a window as possible" is becoming part of that, and can lead to failure or people feeling like if that's not how they want to eat there's some problem or they are failing.
Instead, eating within a window should be a tool that is great if it makes eating well and sustainably easier for someone, but absolutely not inherently better or to be pushed on others. In particular, people SHOULD NOT be told that if it's not what they like or some magical overeating prevention tool for them that there is something wrong with them.
To answer the question, then, I LOVE fasting when it's a tool that helps someone and is enjoyed by that person. I HATE fasting if it's used to claim superiority (oh, my fasting is so advanced, or I can fast longer than others) or people are told they can't be healthy without it or should add it even if they find it makes things more difficult or have failed if they don't like it or can overeat doing it.
QFT! I know some love to post their accomplishments to validated their methodology. It only validates it for them and can only be used as a possible example of an approach that may resonate with other.
My personal history and approach was varied. Sometimes I utilized IF, other times I didn't. Other than that, I ate a variety of foods, with a focus on protein while following no specific diet. I naturally tend to eat lower carb, around 100 to 150 grams. I am 68.
Over the time that I have focused on my weight and fitness, it has been an on and off thing for the last 8 years. In that time I first lost about 15 lbs. Kept that off for 6 years. Then got more focused again, as I was still at an overweight BMI, and lost 10 more. Kept that off for a year. Then retired to Oaxaca, Mexico where there is a ton of fresh fruit and veggies and I live in the City, no need for a car. I do a lot of walking around the city every day. Lost another 10 lbs just from the activity increase and such a great diet!!
I weight train 4 days per week, have my BF% down around 20 and my BMI at 24 and am in the best shape of my life both aesthetically and fitness. My labs are all in the ideal range for several years running.
Beyond a reasonable focus, none of this required tons of discipline or dedication and didn't require any special "feeding window", diet or following a bunch of arbitrary rules and methods. It was just a matter of deciding what my goals were and working towards them in a way that included relaxation and enjoyment along the way. To me, the one who can achieve health in the most enjoyable and stress free way wins!11 -
To elaborate on what I just said, I see it as somewhat similar to what Michael Pollan is arguing here: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/unhappy-meals/
I know Pollan's thing about what "real food" is goes against MFP norms, and I wouldn't use precisely the same language or say one has to approach eating his way, but I find his way of thinking about it helpful.
Basically, don't obsess about finding the best foods based on criteria (should I eat kale or spinach) and instead eat a variety of whole foods, ideally cooked well. Don't worry about low fat vs. low carb vs. paleo, etc., it doesn't really matter, and it just makes it all harder and more charged. (I'd say that going along with that is don't worry about "oh, I'm eating something processed" if the overall diet is a generally healthy one, or never eating sweets, although obviously most of the diet would be other kinds of foods.)
Following from that logic I'd say don't think you have to follow specific eating regiments (although if they help you specifically, great). Probably that doesn't matter much either, and it adds stress.
I'm someone who enjoys tracking things and trying things, but even so I think it can make things really hard for many people if they are told "to eat healthy you MUST [insert list]" and increasingly "eat only within as narrow a window as possible" is becoming part of that, and can lead to failure or people feeling like if that's not how they want to eat there's some problem or they are failing.
Instead, eating within a window should be a tool that is great if it makes eating well and sustainably easier for someone, but absolutely not inherently better or to be pushed on others. In particular, people SHOULD NOT be told that if it's not what they like or some magical overeating prevention tool for them that there is something wrong with them.
To answer the question, then, I LOVE fasting when it's a tool that helps someone and is enjoyed by that person. I HATE fasting if it's used to claim superiority (oh, my fasting is so advanced, or I can fast longer than others) or people are told they can't be healthy without it or should add it even if they find it makes things more difficult or have failed if they don't like it or can overeat doing it.
QFT! I know some love to post their accomplishments to validated their methodology. It only validates it for them and can only be used as a possible example of an approach that may resonate with other.
My personal history and approach was varied. Sometimes I utilized IF, other times I didn't. Other than that, I ate a variety of foods, with a focus on protein while following no specific diet. I naturally tend to eat lower carb, around 100 to 150 grams. I am 68.
Over the time that I have focused on my weight and fitness, it has been an on and off thing for the last 8 years. In that time I first lost about 15 lbs. Kept that off for 6 years. Then got more focused again, as I was still at an overweight BMI, and lost 10 more. Kept that off for a year. Then retired to Oaxaca, Mexico where there is a ton of fresh fruit and veggies and I live in the City, no need for a car. I do a lot of walking around the city every day. Lost another 10 lbs just from the activity increase and such a great diet!!
I weight train 4 days per week, have my BF% down around 20 and my BMI at 24 and am in the best shape of my life both aesthetically and fitness. My labs are all in the ideal range for several years running.
Beyond a reasonable focus, none of this required tons of discipline or dedication and didn't require any special "feeding window", diet or following a bunch of arbitrary rules and methods. It was just a matter of deciding what my goals were and working towards them in a way that included relaxation and enjoyment along the way. To me, the one who can achieve health in the most enjoyable and stress free way wins!
Bolded and quoted for emphasis.8 -
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Kibbe! Delicious!! I grew up with a family of Lebanese friends. I was always happy to be invited for dinner when it was kibbe, kousa and baba ganoush.
Mu OH also grew up with a family of Lebanese friends and the first dish he requested I cook for him was kibbe. However, this kibbe was cooked.2 -
kshama2001 wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Kibbe! Delicious!! I grew up with a family of Lebanese friends. I was always happy to be invited for dinner when it was kibbe, kousa and baba ganoush.
Mu OH also grew up with a family of Lebanese friends and the first dish he requested I cook for him was kibbe. However, this kibbe was cooked.
holy heck. kibbe is freaking amazing. i've never tried it cooked though, only raw. i've seen it breaded and fried but...meh.1 -
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Maybe they meant "ewww" and picked "woo" because it rhymes
My family was terrified of undercooked meat for some reason while I was growing up, so I have a strong negative association with raw/undercooked meat. All of it was cooked well done for a couple of decades. That's loosened up a lot now, my dad's allowed to leave some pink when he cooks burgers and steaks now. But raw would've been scandalous!
We bought into "the most important meal of the day" stuff when I was a kid. But now even when I'm not doing IF, I delay eating a bit and limit the calories now.2 -
I'm neutral. I did a once weekly water only fast when I was in college. I thought at the time that it helped me control my weight. I don't currently fast, but I'm not against it if it helps others maintain their deficit. To each their own, I say.2
-
kshama2001 wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Kibbe! Delicious!! I grew up with a family of Lebanese friends. I was always happy to be invited for dinner when it was kibbe, kousa and baba ganoush.
Mu OH also grew up with a family of Lebanese friends and the first dish he requested I cook for him was kibbe. However, this kibbe was cooked.
Yes, there are 2 different ones. Cooked and raw cured with salt and spices. I've had both both 5he raw cures one is my favorite!2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.
pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Man! If I could only get an insightful I would bat for the cycle on this post!4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Man! If I could only get an insightful I would bat for the cycle on this post!
Can I PM it to you instead?3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Man! If I could only get an insightful I would bat for the cycle on this post!
Can I PM it to you instead?
Well my inbox might be a little crowded from all the other expressions of appreciation for my inspirations. But you can try...7 -
I never understood why raw/rare was such a turn off to people with my upbringing. I couldn't get enough and had gotten into trouble for stealing the raw lamb. I had no concept of cost lol.RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Maybe they meant "ewww" and picked "woo" because it rhymes
My family was terrified of undercooked meat for some reason while I was growing up, so I have a strong negative association with raw/undercooked meat. All of it was cooked well done for a couple of decades. That's loosened up a lot now, my dad's allowed to leave some pink when he cooks burgers and steaks now. But raw would've been scandalous!
We bought into "the most important meal of the day" stuff when I was a kid. But now even when I'm not doing IF, I delay eating a bit and limit the calories now.
4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Man! If I could only get an insightful I would bat for the cycle on this post!
You're pretty much taking home the gold in this thread Well done
*Fistbump*
As we say in Oaxaca, muchas gracias mi hermano!2 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Man! If I could only get an insightful I would bat for the cycle on this post!
You're pretty much taking home the gold in this thread Well done
*Fistbump*
As we say in Oaxaca, muchas gracias mi hermano!
De nada mi amigo!4 -
This thread is closed for moderator review.
May I suggest that everyone take a few moments to review the Community Guidelines and ensure your posts are made with them in mind? No, really - please take a moment to actually read them. :flowerforyou:
Link here: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines
A friendly reminder: repeated violations of any guideline can lead to a member losing access to the community.
4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K 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
- 426 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