Intermittent fasting, I don’t get it

thelandkraken

Pretty much what the title says. I’ve seen all these posts about how 16:8 changed people’s lives, and I want to understand. Is it really so normal to be eating more than 8 hours a day anyway? I feel really stupid but I don’t understand how it’s different from just a normal day.

Hannahwalksfar

Me neither. It’s a bit of a gimmick and the same rules still apply just in a smaller timeframe

totem12

I can't really eat big portions and don't like to snack, so if I did it it would essentially mean skipping a meal. So I guess it would work, but it's hardly some fancy diet.

karsei01

It's pretty much about that one skipped meal. But if that say cuts your daily intake by 500, thats a pound a week

karsei01

But it's like every other "diet". There ain't no magic trick.
Say keto, yes it workes, but studies finds that high protein is the key, and low fat gives slightly worse results than low carbs.
The real thing that makes it work, is that you are thinking about what you eat, and then eat less, cleaner better food and so on.

IF works for me, beacause I can have large dinner and stuff with my family, and still be able to have a redusced inntake for the day.

thelandkraken

IF wouldn’t mean a skipped meal, though. If I understand right and it’s eating for an 8 hour window, that’s my normal meals anyway. Breakfast at 10 because I’m not hungry before that, lunch at 12, and dinner at 5.

I’m sorry if I’m being dense I just don’t get how it’s different from the norm, but I feel I must be missing something because of all the people who swear by the results of it.

SugaSugaNooo

I dabble with 16/8 as well. My daily calories haven't changed, but mentally I find the 8 hour window easier than say a 12-15 hour eating window which I would normally have had. It stops me obsessing about what to eat next and my lunch and dinners are now a little more substantial.

But as said, my total calories have not changed, I just find it easier to control my day. No magic to it though.

SugaSugaNooo

@thelandkraken do you not eat anything after 5pm? Previously I would have breakfast at 7 and my last snack could be as late as 10pm (12-15hrs). Now I eat between 12-8 (8hrs).

paperpudding

thelandkraken wrote: »

IF wouldn’t mean a skipped meal, though. If I understand right and it’s eating for an 8 hour window, that’s my normal meals anyway. Breakfast at 10 because I’m not hungry before that, lunch at 12, and dinner at 5.

I’m sorry if I’m being dense I just don’t get how it’s different from the norm, but I feel I must be missing something because of all the people who swear by the results of it.

well in that case, no, not much different from your norm.

My norm on the other hand - coffee around 7:30, breakfast around 8:30, last night snack around 10:00,sometimes later.

So would be quite a change for me

(one incidentally, that I have no intention of making

manderson27

I find not eating between 8pm and 1pm the next day just suits me.

You can call it IF but it is just the way I eat and it helps me keep calories for when I am hungriest which is the evening meal.

I am not a morning person anyway, I can barely be civil in the am let alone actually prepare and eat a breakfast If I do eat breakfast I find it kicks off my appetite and I am hungrier for the rest of the morning than if I don't eat.

So IF is not something that suits everyone, if you enjoy your breakfast then don't even bother trying it. If however you can take or leave eating in the morning or you are forcing it down because you think you should eat, then maybe a form of IF would suit you and help you stick to your calorie goal.

BarbaraHelen2013

thelandkraken wrote: »

IF wouldn’t mean a skipped meal, though. If I understand right and it’s eating for an 8 hour window, that’s my normal meals anyway. Breakfast at 10 because I’m not hungry before that, lunch at 12, and dinner at 5.

I’m sorry if I’m being dense I just don’t get how it’s different from the norm, but I feel I must be missing something because of all the people who swear by the results of it.

I guess how suitable it is varies from one person to another. Your lifestyle works with the meal timings for you. But, perhaps if you’re up at 6am, grabbing a quick breakfast and then leave for a commute at 6:45, lunch break at 1pm or so, then maybe don’t get home until 8pm from the reverse commute things would look a little different? I’m guessing not everyone can have dinner at 5pm, for example due to work commitments or other family commitments.

thelandkraken

Thank you everyone for explaining it to me!

From what you've all said, it's probably not for me as I naturally eat within 7-8 hours anyway, but I appreciate the different perspectives and reasoning.

Redordeadhead

thelandkraken wrote: »

Thank you everyone for explaining it to me!

From what you've all said, it's probably not for me as I naturally eat within 7-8 hours anyway, but I appreciate the different perspectives and reasoning.

Actually quite the opposite: it IS for you because you're actually already doing it. As explained above though, it's not magic and doesn't automatically result in weight loss. It's just an eating schedule.

jayemes

I'm not a breakfast person, so I skip breakfast and don't eat till noon or one, then have a big dinner around 6 and stop eating by 7. In practice I'm doing IF. In reality I don't eat in the morning because if I do I reach for bread and more bread and bagels and toast and muffins and... well, you get it. I wind up adding a whole bunch of calories I don't need and don't add anything good to my day. Also I'm an evening snacker, so if I mentally decide I'm going to stop eating a say 7, I have another reason to quit the mindless snacks in front of the TV.
So for me doing 18:6ish just gives me another tool to control the amount of calories going in and helps me slip through the toughest most nutrient poor times of my day

CardinalComb

One of the theories is that eating (anything) spikes insulin and you don't burn fat while insulin is high. Having a long stretch where you aren't eating means you are burning fat for a longer period of time. I've been eating 1 meal a day for the past 2 weeks and it fits my lifestlye. It actually makes my day easier - I don't have to think of what to eat for breakfast and lunch. Also don't have to actually cook those meals and wash dishes.

NovusDies

Meal timing should be a pretty boring discussion normally. But now thanks to the internet it is exciting and has numbers between colons. Also, thanks to the internet, there are tall tales of things associated with it that can't be proven but people believe because someone said it happened to them.

But hey... I am on the internet so I am impressive now because I have eaten practically no AM meals for almost 3 decades. I am an early pioneer of a diet revolution.

All I care about is picking the easiest path forward for myself to achieve my goals. That should be all anyone cares about because most weight loss efforts fail. Why would anyone risk adding something to their plan that doesn't directly benefit them? Oh right... the internet.

I encourage everyone to spend time experimenting and finding their easiest path forward. If you want to try skipping a meal or eating 6 meals give it a try for a week or two and see what works.

mmapags

chrisduncan6679 wrote: »

One of the theories is that eating (anything) spikes insulin and you don't burn fat while insulin is high. Having a long stretch where you aren't eating means you are burning fat for a longer period of time. I've been eating 1 meal a day for the past 2 weeks and it fits my lifestlye. It actually makes my day easier - I don't have to think of what to eat for breakfast and lunch. Also don't have to actually cook those meals and wash dishes.

All that insulin spiking stuff is a bunch of nonsense. Yes, insulin does rise after a meal and yes it does blunt lipolysis. But how long it rises for depends on how much you eat, not how often. And there is only a net fat loss through any diet method if one is in an energy (calorie) deficit. If calories are held equal, all the insulin manipulation in the world isn't going to make any difference at the end of the day.

apullum

It's just a routine that works for some people, nothing more than that. The only reasons you hear so much about it are because:

• some of the people for whom it works are very vocal about how well it worked *for them*, and
• a smaller subset of that population makes dubious claims that it has special benefits *for everybody*

There's nothing wrong with telling anyone who cares to listen about what works for you, but we do see a lot of the conversation being dominated by that small minority making pseudoscientific claims.

Bottom line is that it's fine to follow IF if you want to, and no reason to follow it if you don't want to.

Tedebearduff

Just google it and read.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/intermittent-fasting-guide

amusedmonkey

It's different for those who used to start eating early and stop eating late, so starting a little bit later could make lunch or dinner larger so it feels like they aren't dieting, and stopping earlier could mean controlling late-night snacking. Any strategy that helps a person diet easier is a good strategy.

I don't think the 8 hour version would benefit me much as a weight loss strategy because I generally stop eating early and my breakfast sometimes exists and other times doesn't, so doing 8 hours isn't much different from how I already eat.

It's less about the time window and more about the structure and setting rules and boundaries. It's easier to skip breakfast for most people than skipping other meals. Eating a slightly later breakfast and a slightly earlier lunch is also easier than more extreme time windows, which is why the 8 hour rule is the most widely adopted. (some intermittent fasting diets use 4 or 6 hours, and some only allow one meal every 24 hours). Those 8 (or 6, or 4, or whatever) hours are well defined so that no diet "bargaining" happens. I completely understand why it would work for people who thrive on structure. They like structure, but some rule-based diets are too heavy on the rules and restrictions. IF provides the needed structure without the restrictions, and with one simple rule.

I use a similar structure occasionally when I have evening plans. I don't count hours, but I skip breakfast, have a light lunch (or none), and that means I have enough calories for dinner to enjoy my evening. I don't need a defined time frame because I know if I eat too much during the day I would need to watch my food for dinner, which isn't very fun when I'm trying to have fun.

To better understand how those people feel, imagine you decided to start eating breakfast at 12 and dinner at 3 or 4. You might feel good that you can eat the same way you did before and still lose weight because you're skipping a meal and splitting your calories between 2 meals. Alternatively, imagine eating breakfast at 12, lunch at 2, and dinner and 4. Even on a low calorie diet you most likely won't be hungry because you don't have to wait long between meals. Most people who love this diet are usually hungry or restricted when they diet, so it offers a neat solution that to them feels life changing.

GU0679T

Back in 1920's Keto diet was used for Epilepsy in children. The Epilepsy child would be admitted to the hospital, so their vitas could be tracked, the first day they would fast 24 hours then 1/3 calories -eggnog (dietitian derived) would be allowed. Then the second day, after fasting another 24 hours then 2/3 calories eggnog would be allowed. Then the third day Keto diet for all meals. This probably has nothing to do with your diet, if your not on Keto, I think it is a good way to reset, hospital excluded.