Intermittent fasting, I don’t get it

2456

Replies

  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread,

    Is there??

    I saw more of people, including me, acknowledging it works well for some people , even if they dont do it themsleves.

    In fact your post seems dismissive of other options eg It's the opposite of the "6 meals a day" approach in which you're constantly nibbling while dreaming of your next cheat meal

    I probably could be described as eating 6 meals a day - although I see them as 3 meals and snacks, but could be called 6 different size meals (or more or less, my number per day varies)
    But that isnt constantly nibbling nor do I spend all my time thinking of my next (non existent) cheat meal :*

    Sure, it works well for you.
    It wouldnt for me - and my way has worked well for me for over 5 years.

    but I made no derogatory comments about that WOE - unlike yourself who made above comment about 6 meals per day WOE

    It wasn't my purpose to dis anyone else's WOE; perhaps there was some literary license involved ;) Ultimately each individual has to find what works for him/her; we'd all be on the same diet if there was one Best Plan.
  • jwalcutt1
    jwalcutt1 Posts: 5 Member
    I think you would be surprised at how many people dont eat in that small of a window. Most people will wake up for work and have breakfast or at least coffee with cream and sugar (this starts your eating window since it has calories) then to eat everything for the day within 8 hours of that is tough. I fast when I can because I like it. It can be hard for me because I'm a resturant manager and my work day changes every day. I find this helps balance that for me and helps me focus on not eating to late.
  • howan
    howan Posts: 27 Member
    lgfrie wrote: »
    There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread, so allow me to present an alternative viewpoint, as a person who has been doing 16:8 for five months, after trying various other diet efforts over the years that weren't nearly as effective (i.e. they "failed", whereas this effort has been extremely successful and is still going as strong today as the day I started it).

    Yes, IF is not "magic". It's just another Way Of Eating. There are many of those.

    Yes, you still need a calorie quota. I've been using the MFP-supplied calorie quota and pairing that with an IF structure. There are people who say you can just eat what you want on IF, but that doesn't make sense. Obviously, you will lose weight in accordance with your calorie deficit, no matter how and when you choose to eat.

    Yes, the impact on insulin, diabetes, etc, can be debated, and some of the rampant online discussion about that stuff seems to have more of a "pop science" hype flavor than real medical value.

    So ... then why IF?

    1. First and foremost...

    That you so much for this! I had planned to try this way of eating several months ago, but life got in the way (lots of travel to visit my father who was very ill). Am ready to try again and your explanation of the process has helped cement it for me. I never thought of myself as much of a snacker, but the cold reality is that I do consume quite a lot in the evenings - popcorn, glass or two of wine, cheese and crackers... - and getting a hard shut-off point for eating really ingrained would be enormously helpful.

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    howan wrote: »
    lgfrie wrote: »
    There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread, so allow me to present an alternative viewpoint, as a person who has been doing 16:8 for five months, after trying various other diet efforts over the years that weren't nearly as effective (i.e. they "failed", whereas this effort has been extremely successful and is still going as strong today as the day I started it).

    Yes, IF is not "magic". It's just another Way Of Eating. There are many of those.

    Yes, you still need a calorie quota. I've been using the MFP-supplied calorie quota and pairing that with an IF structure. There are people who say you can just eat what you want on IF, but that doesn't make sense. Obviously, you will lose weight in accordance with your calorie deficit, no matter how and when you choose to eat.

    Yes, the impact on insulin, diabetes, etc, can be debated, and some of the rampant online discussion about that stuff seems to have more of a "pop science" hype flavor than real medical value.

    So ... then why IF?

    1. First and foremost...

    That you so much for this! I had planned to try this way of eating several months ago, but life got in the way (lots of travel to visit my father who was very ill). Am ready to try again and your explanation of the process has helped cement it for me. I never thought of myself as much of a snacker, but the cold reality is that I do consume quite a lot in the evenings - popcorn, glass or two of wine, cheese and crackers... - and getting a hard shut-off point for eating really ingrained would be enormously helpful.

    I'm kind of curious why you think the IF approach for this would be easier than just not snacking.

    IF for me would be difficult every day, as I really prefer to eat after I run and I run first thing in the morning, so that means breakfast by 6:30 or 7 at the latest (since I have to go to work after that). 8 hours after that would be 3, and obviously I can't have dinner that early. It is extremely rare that I get off work before 7, so I eat dinner somewhat late (commute home, cooking). But I avoid snacking in the evenings since that's also a good way for me to eat habitually rather than due to real hunger, and I feel more satisfied with 3 reasonable-sized meals than meals plus snacks.

    This approach for me means I don't eat after my planned dinner (if I have dessert it's immediately after dinner), but it's not IFing.

    Not saying I don't think IFing is a good approach for some people, as I certainly do. It might well be great for you. But it's not the only approach that addresses thinking about/wanting to eat all the time or at night or whatever it is. It seems like any kind of planned schedule would do that.
  • howan
    howan Posts: 27 Member
    edited August 2019
    [/quote]

    I'm kind of curious why you think the IF approach for this would be easier than just not snacking.

    IF for me would be difficult every day, as I really prefer to eat after I run and I run first thing in the morning, so that means breakfast by 6:30 or 7 at the latest (since I have to go to work after that). 8 hours after that would be 3, and obviously I can't have dinner that early. It is extremely rare that I get off work before 7, so I eat dinner somewhat late (commute home, cooking). But I avoid snacking in the evenings since that's also a good way for me to eat habitually rather than due to real hunger, and I feel more satisfied with 3 reasonable-sized meals than meals plus snacks.

    This approach for me means I don't eat after my planned dinner (if I have dessert it's immediately after dinner), but it's not IFing.

    Not saying I don't think IFing is a good approach for some people, as I certainly do. It might well be great for you. But it's not the only approach that addresses thinking about/wanting to eat all the time or at night or whatever it is. It seems like any kind of planned schedule would do that.
    [/quote]

    You've seemed to have worked out why IF wouldn't work for *you*. I have a varying schedule, so IF would make things simpler for me. On days I have meetings, I'm rarely home much later than 7, so the 8pm cut-off would be fine. Also, I tend to work out in the early evenings, so eating beforehand wouldn't be an issue.

    I don't do well with most diets, so for me an eating plan that's just a window of time where I consume all of my calories suits me very well.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited August 2019
    lgfrie wrote: »
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    howan wrote: »
    lgfrie wrote: »
    There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread, so allow me to present an alternative viewpoint, as a person who has been doing 16:8 for five months, after trying various other diet efforts over the years that weren't nearly as effective (i.e. they "failed", whereas this effort has been extremely successful and is still going as strong today as the day I started it).

    Yes, IF is not "magic". It's just another Way Of Eating. There are many of those.

    Yes, you still need a calorie quota. I've been using the MFP-supplied calorie quota and pairing that with an IF structure. There are people who say you can just eat what you want on IF, but that doesn't make sense. Obviously, you will lose weight in accordance with your calorie deficit, no matter how and when you choose to eat.

    Yes, the impact on insulin, diabetes, etc, can be debated, and some of the rampant online discussion about that stuff seems to have more of a "pop science" hype flavor than real medical value.

    So ... then why IF?

    1. First and foremost...

    That you so much for this! I had planned to try this way of eating several months ago, but life got in the way (lots of travel to visit my father who was very ill). Am ready to try again and your explanation of the process has helped cement it for me. I never thought of myself as much of a snacker, but the cold reality is that I do consume quite a lot in the evenings - popcorn, glass or two of wine, cheese and crackers... - and getting a hard shut-off point for eating really ingrained would be enormously helpful.

    I'm kind of curious why you think the IF approach for this would be easier than just not snacking.

    IF for me would be difficult every day, as I really prefer to eat after I run and I run first thing in the morning, so that means breakfast by 6:30 or 7 at the latest (since I have to go to work after that). 8 hours after that would be 3, and obviously I can't have dinner that early. It is extremely rare that I get off work before 7, so I eat dinner somewhat late (commute home, cooking). But I avoid snacking in the evenings since that's also a good way for me to eat habitually rather than due to real hunger, and I feel more satisfied with 3 reasonable-sized meals than meals plus snacks.

    This approach for me means I don't eat after my planned dinner (if I have dessert it's immediately after dinner), but it's not IFing.

    Not saying I don't think IFing is a good approach for some people, as I certainly do. It might well be great for you. But it's not the only approach that addresses thinking about/wanting to eat all the time or at night or whatever it is. It seems like any kind of planned schedule would do that.

    I think that's true. Except for IF people on unusual schedules (like working night shift, etc.) or one meal per day programs, IF pretty much boils down to not snacking at night, and sacrificing breakfast to get two bigger meals.Elimination of snacking can easily be done without omitting breakfast, and is where I started; the elimination of breakfast came later for me. Taking a very strict, zero-calorie approach to eating after dinner has been life-transformative for me, and does not feel like deprivation at all now. I'm used to it and like it, and hope to do it for the rest of my life, excluding the occasional social event where it's just not feasible.

    I'm different in that snacking after dinner was a rare thing for me. My danger zone for snacking was later afternoon and early evening at work (where food is always around), especially if it was a day I was stuck there extra late and either felt sorry for myself or was suffering from writer's block. ;-) By not snacking, I eliminated this. I like the size of my meals and didn't need to make them bigger on an average day, but I tend to not register food I snack on, I still want the same meals, so cutting out snacking and just having those meals cut cals. Having a window that included the between lunch and dinner period wouldn't have helped me with cals at all.

    This is why everyone should figure out the approach that works for them.
  • amusedmonkey
    amusedmonkey Posts: 10,330 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    howan wrote: »
    lgfrie wrote: »
    There's a lot of disdain or at least gentle dismissal for IF in this thread, so allow me to present an alternative viewpoint, as a person who has been doing 16:8 for five months, after trying various other diet efforts over the years that weren't nearly as effective (i.e. they "failed", whereas this effort has been extremely successful and is still going as strong today as the day I started it).

    Yes, IF is not "magic". It's just another Way Of Eating. There are many of those.

    Yes, you still need a calorie quota. I've been using the MFP-supplied calorie quota and pairing that with an IF structure. There are people who say you can just eat what you want on IF, but that doesn't make sense. Obviously, you will lose weight in accordance with your calorie deficit, no matter how and when you choose to eat.

    Yes, the impact on insulin, diabetes, etc, can be debated, and some of the rampant online discussion about that stuff seems to have more of a "pop science" hype flavor than real medical value.

    So ... then why IF?

    1. First and foremost...

    That you so much for this! I had planned to try this way of eating several months ago, but life got in the way (lots of travel to visit my father who was very ill). Am ready to try again and your explanation of the process has helped cement it for me. I never thought of myself as much of a snacker, but the cold reality is that I do consume quite a lot in the evenings - popcorn, glass or two of wine, cheese and crackers... - and getting a hard shut-off point for eating really ingrained would be enormously helpful.

    I'm kind of curious why you think the IF approach for this would be easier than just not snacking.

    IF for me would be difficult every day, as I really prefer to eat after I run and I run first thing in the morning, so that means breakfast by 6:30 or 7 at the latest (since I have to go to work after that). 8 hours after that would be 3, and obviously I can't have dinner that early. It is extremely rare that I get off work before 7, so I eat dinner somewhat late (commute home, cooking). But I avoid snacking in the evenings since that's also a good way for me to eat habitually rather than due to real hunger, and I feel more satisfied with 3 reasonable-sized meals than meals plus snacks.

    This approach for me means I don't eat after my planned dinner (if I have dessert it's immediately after dinner), but it's not IFing.

    Not saying I don't think IFing is a good approach for some people, as I certainly do. It might well be great for you. But it's not the only approach that addresses thinking about/wanting to eat all the time or at night or whatever it is. It seems like any kind of planned schedule would do that.

    I think what attracts people is that it's a one rule diet. This one rule can replace several making dieting simpler and mores traightforward. It's not for me because the thought of hitting my protein in two meals feels more daunting than attractive, and I also dislike the rigidity of having to limit my food variety. The variety point applies more to OMAD, but still applies if I chose to have two meals. I like the option of having 3-5 meals because I really enjoy different foods and sometimes I want to have them all in one day. If I can fit them all in, why would I not? I don't always have several small meals, but I like that the option is there. No clock watching is another plus. If I'm hungry in the morning I like being able to eat in the morning. I value flexibility above all else, but some people value rigid structure.
  • howan
    howan Posts: 27 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    howan wrote: »
    You've seemed to have worked out why IF wouldn't work for *you*. I have a varying schedule, so IF would make things simpler for me. On days I have meetings, I'm rarely home much later than 7, so the 8pm cut-off would be fine. Also, I tend to work out in the early evenings, so eating beforehand wouldn't be an issue.

    I don't do well with most diets, so for me an eating plan that's just a window of time where I consume all of my calories suits me very well.

    I wasn't at all suggesting it wouldn't be a good approach for you, just asking why it seems to be the default for "I struggle with snacking at night" when one can just decide not to snack at night without eating in a window. The assumption often seems to be that people not eating within a window eat constantly when they are awake, and of course that's not true.

    Just eliminating snacking at night isn't enough. I don't tend to eat huge amounts at one sitting, so getting rid of one meal PLUS snacking at night is bound to have more of an effect. And there does seem to be some credibility to the fasting increasing metabolism, but even if it is just reducing over-all caloric consumption, that would be useful.