Intermittent fasting, I don’t get it

1356

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    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 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.

    Actually it's a 2-rule diet for me , but the simplicity is indeed what I love about it.

    Rule # 1: No eating outside the 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. window. Water or black coffee only.

    Rule # 2: The MFP calorie quota is sacrosanct, my North Star. I hardly ever go over the number, and rarely am under by more than 20.

    I take Rule 2 more seriously than Rule 1. Rule 2 is the cornerstone of my diet.

    With no other rules or guidelines, that delivers weight loss for me within 5 % of what MFP says it should be. Very happy with that. And I figure I can scale it up when I get to maintenance - a few hundred more cals, same basic plan. It's rigid, but at the same time, unfussy.

    My rule when I was losing was your rule #2 plus my rule #1 (3 meals, no snacks). Like you, I took rule #2 the most seriously, but mostly did both. I lost faster than MFP predicted throughout my weight loss, and pretty much every week until I was quite close to goal (and well within the normal weight numbers). I was never hungry.

    All of this while eating 3 meals in a manner that would not fit an IF pattern at all. So it's calories. IF for some can be a good way to stick to cals, but for others different patterns work better.
  • Annie_01
    Annie_01 Posts: 3,096 Member
    I started cutting my carbs (due to a carb sensitivity).

    When I cut these foods for some reason lost my appetite upon waking... Don't know why, it just happened.

    I kept seeing all this stuff on IF, saw the word fasting (thought it was fasting, like biblical text) and thought "Hell no." Didn't realize I was already doing IF.

    Personally, I don't feel there's any real benefit to it for me. It's like others have stated... It's skipping breakfast...I honestly don't understand the hype!

    I don't IF on purpose, I eat when hungry (listen to my body's hunger signals). If I do get hungry upon waking or shortly after, I eat!

    I would never starve myself or go hungry no matter what the supposed benefit could be. I don't get that one!

    For me it is more than just skipping breakfast. It is an aid in helping me control my eating habits. I have always had the problem of once I ate breakfast I was hungry for the rest of the day and always looking for my next bite of food. IF, TRE, skipping breakfast(whatever anyone wants to call it) has been a way for me to get in control.

    I also don't starve myself or go hungry. I try to keep my eating time between 11am and 7pm. However if I am hungry at 10:30am I will go ahead and eat and then try to get back on schedule. Just as if I couldn't eat dinner until 7:30pm I would not skip that meal and go to bed starving. I think people have to use common sense no matter what their WOE is.

    I have never claimed that IF,TRE or skipping breakfast holds any miracle powers. It is nothing more that a way that I have found works for me. I don't claim that it will cure anything not that it will work for everyone. I just know that it has been a useful tool for me.

    I know that some people find success with eating several small meals a day. I have tried that and found that it left me thinking about food constantly. It just didn't work for me. Several other WOE also failed. I finally feel as if I have put together a plan that will work for me not only while losing weight but also to help control my weight afterwards.

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Annie_01 wrote: »
    I started cutting my carbs (due to a carb sensitivity).

    When I cut these foods for some reason lost my appetite upon waking... Don't know why, it just happened.

    I kept seeing all this stuff on IF, saw the word fasting (thought it was fasting, like biblical text) and thought "Hell no." Didn't realize I was already doing IF.

    Personally, I don't feel there's any real benefit to it for me. It's like others have stated... It's skipping breakfast...I honestly don't understand the hype!

    I don't IF on purpose, I eat when hungry (listen to my body's hunger signals). If I do get hungry upon waking or shortly after, I eat!

    I would never starve myself or go hungry no matter what the supposed benefit could be. I don't get that one!

    For me it is more than just skipping breakfast. It is an aid in helping me control my eating habits. I have always had the problem of once I ate breakfast I was hungry for the rest of the day and always looking for my next bite of food. IF, TRE, skipping breakfast(whatever anyone wants to call it) has been a way for me to get in control.

    I think this is common. I only object when people think it's everyone. I go without eating about 6 hours after breakfast and it's no big thing. I often go without eating 8 or 9 hours after lunch, and it's no big thing.
    I also don't starve myself or go hungry. I try to keep my eating time between 11am and 7pm.

    For me this would mean eating only at work, which would not work for me, I prefer eating at home. On Monday through Thursday it would be way easier to skip lunch than try to fit a window (on Fridays we have work lunch, so I usually skip breakfast and just don't run in the morning).
    I have never claimed that IF,TRE or skipping breakfast holds any miracle powers. It is nothing more that a way that I have found works for me. I don't claim that it will cure anything not that it will work for everyone. I just know that it has been a useful tool for me.

    And no one objects to this.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,264 Member
    RC4655 wrote: »
    I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.

    I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??

    I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.

    I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.

    Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?

    What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.


    I dont think you will. How on earth would that work? What would be so magical about eating dinner before 5:00?

    and given my N=1 showed perfectly good results not doing so, I dont think I would.

    Besides which, is totally impractical suggestion for me - I dont finish work till 5:30, my husband doesnt finish work till 7 pm - we very rarely eat before 7.

    Total calorie intake matters, not meal timing.

    Meal timing only matters if it helps you achieve a calorie deficit.