Intermittent Fasting
Replies
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »18:6 MOST days. Now 70 lbs down...I have been obese all my adult life, tried and failed SOOO many diets. I have lost more than ever since discovering IF and it is staying off. 19 months in....still have more to lose. With this tool I can excitedly say this will be the year I reach 100 lbs lost.
It really has changed my relationship with food. I enjoy it now instead of hating it. I can easily turn down sub par food and "goodies". It's not worth the calories. Once I got used to fasting different lengths of time (14 to 20, to a very occasional 72 hour fast) I can control when I eat. Sometimes I am busy and just have time for some water and I can eat enough later...no problem. Sometimes I am around a lot of food for a period of time (camping, weddings, trips to see family) and I eat a bit more and gain a few lbs....no problem. It just comes off again pretty quickly once I get back to it. It has really helped me take a lot of anxiety around eating out of my life.
Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
Intermittent Fasting - in and of itself - will have had little or nothing to do with your improved health and everything to do with the fact that you have lost the weight. Kudos to you for that!
But know that you would likely have experienced the same improvements had you successfully used any other method of calorie reduction. There's no magic or special benefits to IF - it's just another method that some people find helps them reduce their caloric intake to lose weight.
For the record, I've been doing IF for four decades. Long before it was a 'thing' or even had a fancy name. I've just never been a breakfast person. Give me a cup of coffee and I'm good until noon!
Over that time, I gained weight, maintained weight and lost weight eating in this same pattern, because weight management really *is* all about the amount of calories consumed, and nothing at all to do with when they're consumed.
Okay so what you are really saying in a nutshell is you think it was because of the weight loss. I dont disagree with it and never said I did either.
Didn't say you did.
I was responding to what I had bolded from your previous post, namely:Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
The only part fasting played into your scenario was that you lost weight because of it. The fasting - in and of itself - did not afford you any extra benefits. It created a calorie deficit for you which, in turn, facilitated the weight loss. My point was that the same results can also be achieved through *any* method that restricts calories, which isn't limited solely to fasting.
Getting into a healthy weight range by whatever method one chooses can only be accomplished through a reduction in caloric intake. And improved health markers such as you have experienced are the most common (and most awesome!) side effects of doing so. But it is a direct result of having lost the weight rather than the method chosen to do so.
You are going way beyond the oft-espoused view on MFP threads that "Fasting doesn't contribute anything to weight loss beyond helping some people eat less calories", and taking a position that fasting literally has no benefits at all, for weight loss or anything else, aside from helping some people eat less.
You're entitled to your view, but many, including many doctors, would strongly disagree.
Confused as to where I said (or implied) that fasting doesn't have benefits at all. I do know that fasting is done for religious purposes, for example. My post was in reference to weight reduction only and, as such, there has been zero evidence that IF somehow increases the rate of loss over-and-above what an identical calorie deficit using a method other than IF would produce.
I agree there's little compelling evidence that IF produces more weight loss than the same calories eaten in another way. But when you get to inflammation, GI issues, and some health markers like fasting glucose and other indicators of metabolic syndrome - that's another thing, which, as I read it, was the point you were responding to.
My doc recommended IF not for weight loss but for fasting glucose, BP and assorted other things, and they improved immediately, waaaaaay before I put serious weight loss on the board. Exactly as he said they would. On days when I'm not doing IF, my BP is 10-12 points higher at bedtime and my pulse is anywhere from 5-20 points faster. You've got to think all that extra internal pounding adds up to something over time and that not making the body work so hard to digest food all the time and at night has benefits.
I am in @hobbitses333 's camp: whatever is causing the weight loss with my IF regimen, I'm happy with it, and if it's 100 % calories, so be it, as is probably the case -- no problem with that but there are other benefits to IF besides making weight loss via calorie control easier.
I stated above that there is some corollary evidence for improvement of insulin sensitivity and that would translate into improved BG. My n=1 is similar in that my BG numbers, both fasting and BG and the even more important maker, A1c both improved after starting IF and have remained good for 5 years. I also lost 25 more lbs over the next 2 years. So, I'm sure that was a major factor in keeping those numbers good.
But when you get into the rationale re: the bolded above, I think you are headed solidly into woo territory. I've never seen any evidence to back up the idea of the body over working or needing rest from digestion processes.
You keep referencing these "other benefits". Are you talking about the link to improved BG and insulin sensitivity? If not, what are these "other benefits" you speak of?
The part you bolded was the last sentence in a paragraph noting that on days when I do IF my blood pressure and pulse readings at night are lower than otherwise. Try it for yourself - BP & pulse measurement - take them at night on both IF and non-IF days a few times and compare the numbers. You might be in for a pleasant surprise. 128/80 vs 118/76 for me, on my most recent IF and non-IF day.
Improvement in insulin sensitivity is well worth the ticket to the IF dance for anyone with creeping BG / A1C. To me that is the key "other benefit".
My acid reflux disappeared the day I started IF and the only time it returned was after a three day trip in which I wasn't doing IF at all. It went away as soon as I got back on the IF train. My GI tract seems to really like IF. Many people have experienced similar GI results, according to the various boards out there, and improvement with IBS.
These are the other benefits of which I speak. I'd be content with just the obvious main benefit of calorie discipline; these are nice extras.
I see no change in BP I can attribute to eating. Of course I have slightly higher readings here and there but BP can be influenced by so many things. I ate dinner tonight which I have not done in over 2 weeks. My BP was slightly lower than it was 5 days ago and lower than 10 days ago. The differences are minor though and I really would not want my BP to get much lower. It is 103/61 right now.
I am not saying you are wrong but if you are right whatever is making the difference for you I do not see it in me. If it is related to insulin sensitivity it might explain it. I run the other way. If I am not careful I can have hypoglycemic reactions to eating.
4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »18:6 MOST days. Now 70 lbs down...I have been obese all my adult life, tried and failed SOOO many diets. I have lost more than ever since discovering IF and it is staying off. 19 months in....still have more to lose. With this tool I can excitedly say this will be the year I reach 100 lbs lost.
It really has changed my relationship with food. I enjoy it now instead of hating it. I can easily turn down sub par food and "goodies". It's not worth the calories. Once I got used to fasting different lengths of time (14 to 20, to a very occasional 72 hour fast) I can control when I eat. Sometimes I am busy and just have time for some water and I can eat enough later...no problem. Sometimes I am around a lot of food for a period of time (camping, weddings, trips to see family) and I eat a bit more and gain a few lbs....no problem. It just comes off again pretty quickly once I get back to it. It has really helped me take a lot of anxiety around eating out of my life.
Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
Intermittent Fasting - in and of itself - will have had little or nothing to do with your improved health and everything to do with the fact that you have lost the weight. Kudos to you for that!
But know that you would likely have experienced the same improvements had you successfully used any other method of calorie reduction. There's no magic or special benefits to IF - it's just another method that some people find helps them reduce their caloric intake to lose weight.
For the record, I've been doing IF for four decades. Long before it was a 'thing' or even had a fancy name. I've just never been a breakfast person. Give me a cup of coffee and I'm good until noon!
Over that time, I gained weight, maintained weight and lost weight eating in this same pattern, because weight management really *is* all about the amount of calories consumed, and nothing at all to do with when they're consumed.
Okay so what you are really saying in a nutshell is you think it was because of the weight loss. I dont disagree with it and never said I did either.
Didn't say you did.
I was responding to what I had bolded from your previous post, namely:Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
The only part fasting played into your scenario was that you lost weight because of it. The fasting - in and of itself - did not afford you any extra benefits. It created a calorie deficit for you which, in turn, facilitated the weight loss. My point was that the same results can also be achieved through *any* method that restricts calories, which isn't limited solely to fasting.
Getting into a healthy weight range by whatever method one chooses can only be accomplished through a reduction in caloric intake. And improved health markers such as you have experienced are the most common (and most awesome!) side effects of doing so. But it is a direct result of having lost the weight rather than the method chosen to do so.
You are going way beyond the oft-espoused view on MFP threads that "Fasting doesn't contribute anything to weight loss beyond helping some people eat less calories", and taking a position that fasting literally has no benefits at all, for weight loss or anything else, aside from helping some people eat less.
You're entitled to your view, but many, including many doctors, would strongly disagree.
Confused as to where I said (or implied) that fasting doesn't have benefits at all. I do know that fasting is done for religious purposes, for example. My post was in reference to weight reduction only and, as such, there has been zero evidence that IF somehow increases the rate of loss over-and-above what an identical calorie deficit using a method other than IF would produce.
I agree there's little compelling evidence that IF produces more weight loss than the same calories eaten in another way. But when you get to inflammation, GI issues, and some health markers like fasting glucose and other indicators of metabolic syndrome - that's another thing, which, as I read it, was the point you were responding to.
My doc recommended IF not for weight loss but for fasting glucose, BP and assorted other things, and they improved immediately, waaaaaay before I put serious weight loss on the board. Exactly as he said they would. On days when I'm not doing IF, my BP is 10-12 points higher at bedtime and my pulse is anywhere from 5-20 points faster. You've got to think all that extra internal pounding adds up to something over time and that not making the body work so hard to digest food all the time and at night has benefits.
I am in @hobbitses333 's camp: whatever is causing the weight loss with my IF regimen, I'm happy with it, and if it's 100 % calories, so be it, as is probably the case -- no problem with that but there are other benefits to IF besides making weight loss via calorie control easier.
I stated above that there is some corollary evidence for improvement of insulin sensitivity and that would translate into improved BG. My n=1 is similar in that my BG numbers, both fasting and BG and the even more important maker, A1c both improved after starting IF and have remained good for 5 years. I also lost 25 more lbs over the next 2 years. So, I'm sure that was a major factor in keeping those numbers good.
But when you get into the rationale re: the bolded above, I think you are headed solidly into woo territory. I've never seen any evidence to back up the idea of the body over working or needing rest from digestion processes.
You keep referencing these "other benefits". Are you talking about the link to improved BG and insulin sensitivity? If not, what are these "other benefits" you speak of?
The part you bolded was the last sentence in a paragraph noting that on days when I do IF my blood pressure and pulse readings at night are lower than otherwise. Try it for yourself - BP & pulse measurement - take them at night on both IF and non-IF days a few times and compare the numbers. You might be in for a pleasant surprise. 128/80 vs 118/76 for me, on my most recent IF and non-IF day.
Improvement in insulin sensitivity is well worth the ticket to the IF dance for anyone with creeping BG / A1C. To me that is the key "other benefit".
My acid reflux disappeared the day I started IF and the only time it returned was after a three day trip in which I wasn't doing IF at all. It went away as soon as I got back on the IF train. My GI tract seems to really like IF. Many people have experienced similar GI results, according to the various boards out there, and improvement with IBS.
These are the other benefits of which I speak. I'd be content with just the obvious main benefit of calorie discipline; these are nice extras.
So, in your n=1 you experiences BP and pulse measurement improvements. Great. I have, in the past, monitored both these things, resting pulse because I had a fitbit and BP because when I was 35 lbs heavier, my BP floated a little high. IF made no difference. And I never had any issue with acid reflux. I think you are ascribing results to IF that are either coincidental, monitoring errors or one off experiences. I have never seen any research on IF that claimed these benefits. And I try to read any research that is published on this topic.
Just because things happen coincidentally doesn't indicate causation. In light of the lack of research replicating these results, they are at best suspect as a proscription and could just be coincidence. Have you considered the possibility that it your weight loss that is driving these results on the macro rather than "I took my pulse and BP on this night vs. this night". Who knows what additional factors influenced those results?
Just for the record, I have practiced IF for about 10 years on and off. The one consistency is that the lower my body weight and BF%, the better my metrics, IF or not.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
What, like Fung? Fung will say absolute tripe like fasting prevents loose skin from massive weight loss. I mean, he's a doctor and disagrees with the idea of IF having no benefits above a deficit.snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »18:6 MOST days. Now 70 lbs down...I have been obese all my adult life, tried and failed SOOO many diets. I have lost more than ever since discovering IF and it is staying off. 19 months in....still have more to lose. With this tool I can excitedly say this will be the year I reach 100 lbs lost.
It really has changed my relationship with food. I enjoy it now instead of hating it. I can easily turn down sub par food and "goodies". It's not worth the calories. Once I got used to fasting different lengths of time (14 to 20, to a very occasional 72 hour fast) I can control when I eat. Sometimes I am busy and just have time for some water and I can eat enough later...no problem. Sometimes I am around a lot of food for a period of time (camping, weddings, trips to see family) and I eat a bit more and gain a few lbs....no problem. It just comes off again pretty quickly once I get back to it. It has really helped me take a lot of anxiety around eating out of my life.
Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
Intermittent Fasting - in and of itself - will have had little or nothing to do with your improved health and everything to do with the fact that you have lost the weight. Kudos to you for that!
But know that you would likely have experienced the same improvements had you successfully used any other method of calorie reduction. There's no magic or special benefits to IF - it's just another method that some people find helps them reduce their caloric intake to lose weight.
For the record, I've been doing IF for four decades. Long before it was a 'thing' or even had a fancy name. I've just never been a breakfast person. Give me a cup of coffee and I'm good until noon!
Over that time, I gained weight, maintained weight and lost weight eating in this same pattern, because weight management really *is* all about the amount of calories consumed, and nothing at all to do with when they're consumed.
Okay so what you are really saying in a nutshell is you think it was because of the weight loss. I dont disagree with it and never said I did either.
Didn't say you did.
I was responding to what I had bolded from your previous post, namely:Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
The only part fasting played into your scenario was that you lost weight because of it. The fasting - in and of itself - did not afford you any extra benefits. It created a calorie deficit for you which, in turn, facilitated the weight loss. My point was that the same results can also be achieved through *any* method that restricts calories, which isn't limited solely to fasting.
Getting into a healthy weight range by whatever method one chooses can only be accomplished through a reduction in caloric intake. And improved health markers such as you have experienced are the most common (and most awesome!) side effects of doing so. But it is a direct result of having lost the weight rather than the method chosen to do so.
You are going way beyond the oft-espoused view on MFP threads that "Fasting doesn't contribute anything to weight loss beyond helping some people eat less calories", and taking a position that fasting literally has no benefits at all, for weight loss or anything else, aside from helping some people eat less.
You're entitled to your view, but many, including many doctors, would strongly disagree.
Oh, he also says skeptics have no reason to criticize Paltrow's Goop for selling jade eggs - literally said there's no study on jade eggs, so skeptics are excessive in saying it is wrong to use them. Not exactly a stellar case for why doctors should be listened to about diet or how to use scientific reasoning.
1. Fung is a quack
2. Fung is a doctor
Therefore 3, All doctors are quacks?
I looked up Paltrow's jade egg thing and wish I hadn't
Not sure why you'd want to show off how bad you are at formal logic as a retort...
Fung is pretty popular in IF.
A lot of doctors know very little about nutrition, particularly getting into a specialty like chrononutrition that would study IF.
A lot of doctors are surprisingly poor at reading scientific research, or understanding science as a process in general.
It follows that it is easily possible for many doctors to strongly agree with something about diet and the doctors still be the ones wrong.6 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »hobbitses333 wrote: »18:6 MOST days. Now 70 lbs down...I have been obese all my adult life, tried and failed SOOO many diets. I have lost more than ever since discovering IF and it is staying off. 19 months in....still have more to lose. With this tool I can excitedly say this will be the year I reach 100 lbs lost.
It really has changed my relationship with food. I enjoy it now instead of hating it. I can easily turn down sub par food and "goodies". It's not worth the calories. Once I got used to fasting different lengths of time (14 to 20, to a very occasional 72 hour fast) I can control when I eat. Sometimes I am busy and just have time for some water and I can eat enough later...no problem. Sometimes I am around a lot of food for a period of time (camping, weddings, trips to see family) and I eat a bit more and gain a few lbs....no problem. It just comes off again pretty quickly once I get back to it. It has really helped me take a lot of anxiety around eating out of my life.
Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
Intermittent Fasting - in and of itself - will have had little or nothing to do with your improved health and everything to do with the fact that you have lost the weight. Kudos to you for that!
But know that you would likely have experienced the same improvements had you successfully used any other method of calorie reduction. There's no magic or special benefits to IF - it's just another method that some people find helps them reduce their caloric intake to lose weight.
For the record, I've been doing IF for four decades. Long before it was a 'thing' or even had a fancy name. I've just never been a breakfast person. Give me a cup of coffee and I'm good until noon!
Over that time, I gained weight, maintained weight and lost weight eating in this same pattern, because weight management really *is* all about the amount of calories consumed, and nothing at all to do with when they're consumed.
Okay so what you are really saying in a nutshell is you think it was because of the weight loss. I dont disagree with it and never said I did either.
Didn't say you did.
I was responding to what I had bolded from your previous post, namely:Health markers, GI issues and inflammation has improved immensely... some will say it was the fasting, others will say it was the weight loss....either way, I will take it!
The only part fasting played into your scenario was that you lost weight because of it. The fasting - in and of itself - did not afford you any extra benefits. It created a calorie deficit for you which, in turn, facilitated the weight loss. My point was that the same results can also be achieved through *any* method that restricts calories, which isn't limited solely to fasting.
Getting into a healthy weight range by whatever method one chooses can only be accomplished through a reduction in caloric intake. And improved health markers such as you have experienced are the most common (and most awesome!) side effects of doing so. But it is a direct result of having lost the weight rather than the method chosen to do so.
You are going way beyond the oft-espoused view on MFP threads that "Fasting doesn't contribute anything to weight loss beyond helping some people eat less calories", and taking a position that fasting literally has no benefits at all, for weight loss or anything else, aside from helping some people eat less.
You're entitled to your view, but many, including many doctors, would strongly disagree.
Confused as to where I said (or implied) that fasting doesn't have benefits at all. I do know that fasting is done for religious purposes, for example. My post was in reference to weight reduction only and, as such, there has been zero evidence that IF somehow increases the rate of loss over-and-above what an identical calorie deficit using a method other than IF would produce.
I agree there's little compelling evidence that IF produces more weight loss than the same calories eaten in another way. But when you get to inflammation, GI issues, and some health markers like fasting glucose and other indicators of metabolic syndrome - that's another thing, which, as I read it, was the point you were responding to.
My doc recommended IF not for weight loss but for fasting glucose, BP and assorted other things, and they improved immediately, waaaaaay before I put serious weight loss on the board. Exactly as he said they would. On days when I'm not doing IF, my BP is 10-12 points higher at bedtime and my pulse is anywhere from 5-20 points faster. You've got to think all that extra internal pounding adds up to something over time and that not making the body work so hard to digest food all the time and at night has benefits.
I am in @hobbitses333 's camp: whatever is causing the weight loss with my IF regimen, I'm happy with it, and if it's 100 % calories, so be it, as is probably the case -- no problem with that but there are other benefits to IF besides making weight loss via calorie control easier.
I stated above that there is some corollary evidence for improvement of insulin sensitivity and that would translate into improved BG. My n=1 is similar in that my BG numbers, both fasting and BG and the even more important maker, A1c both improved after starting IF and have remained good for 5 years. I also lost 25 more lbs over the next 2 years. So, I'm sure that was a major factor in keeping those numbers good.
But when you get into the rationale re: the bolded above, I think you are headed solidly into woo territory. I've never seen any evidence to back up the idea of the body over working or needing rest from digestion processes.
You keep referencing these "other benefits". Are you talking about the link to improved BG and insulin sensitivity? If not, what are these "other benefits" you speak of?
The part you bolded was the last sentence in a paragraph noting that on days when I do IF my blood pressure and pulse readings at night are lower than otherwise. Try it for yourself - BP & pulse measurement - take them at night on both IF and non-IF days a few times and compare the numbers. You might be in for a pleasant surprise. 128/80 vs 118/76 for me, on my most recent IF and non-IF day.
Improvement in insulin sensitivity is well worth the ticket to the IF dance for anyone with creeping BG / A1C. To me that is the key "other benefit".
My acid reflux disappeared the day I started IF and the only time it returned was after a three day trip in which I wasn't doing IF at all. It went away as soon as I got back on the IF train. My GI tract seems to really like IF. Many people have experienced similar GI results, according to the various boards out there, and improvement with IBS.
These are the other benefits of which I speak. I'd be content with just the obvious main benefit of calorie discipline; these are nice extras.
I didn't respond to the part about acid reflux. I do think meal timing can be beneficial to people with acid reflux. I think it is mostly related to how long before bed you stop eating. So if you find that you need to stop 4 hours before bed then it wouldn't matter if you ate 3 traditional meals during the day spaced over 12 hours so long as the last one was done early enough.
If I eat a large dinner more than a few days in a row my AR will return and I will need medication to control it again. I assume that is still the case. I haven't tested that theory again now that most of my excess weight is gone.2 -
I didn't respond to the part about acid reflux. I do think meal timing can be beneficial to people with acid reflux. I think it is mostly related to how long before bed you stop eating. So if you find that you need to stop 4 hours before bed then it wouldn't matter if you ate 3 traditional meals during the day spaced over 12 hours so long as the last one was done early enough.
If I eat a large dinner more than a few days in a row my AR will return and I will need medication to control it again. I assume that is still the case. I haven't tested that theory again now that most of my excess weight is gone.
I would say for me, total lack of acid reflux since starting IF is due to how long before bed I stop eating. My cutoff for food is 7 pm, and I usually go to sleep around 1 - that's 6 solid hours to process the food and get it out of my stomach, hence the good results. I doubt the morning side of IF has anything to do with it.
I suspect the BP/pulse benefits I've gotten are the same thing. 7 hrs without food at night definitely impacts both readings at 1 am for me, in a big way. And here's the additional interesting thing. After not eating after 7 pm, which is most days for me, I usually wake up with a pulse around 50-56, versus 60-63 when I eat closer to bedtime. I have to think it is healthy to have a CV system working less hard not only in the evening but then when I'm sleeping. Combined, that's 14 hours of reduced stress on my heart and arteries and such; that has to be a good thing.
I assume the same benefits would accrue to a simple "no eating after dinner" plan as a 16:8 type program. The morning part of IF, I don't see as important. I do the morning part of IF so I can have two big meals - basically shifting breakfast calories into lunch for a bigger lunch - and because I dislike burning through 15-20 % of my calorie quota before the day's even really started. But the dinner-to-bedtime expanse of non-eating time I see as being very valuable beyond just calorie compliance.
It does sound like the BG / A1C benefits might be more specific to IF with its 16-20 hr fasts. So saith my doctor, and I have no reason to doubt it as my #'s have improved. While the metabolic benefits of IF haven't been proven yet, and may never be, like other people I have no reason to argue with the results. Sometimes "it's working" is good enough, whether or not the complex causalities and correlations of dieting have all been ironed out to everyone's satisfaction.2 -
Going to bed at 1 is probably unusually late. I could never regularly eat at 7 if I wanted to cook at home as I normally leave work at 7 or after, but I can eat at 5 if I eat a work. If I eat at 5 and go home at 7 or 7:30 (which means I get home at 8 or 8:30), then I have a relaxing evening and go to bed at 10:30 or 11.
Again, I've had no issues with IR or BP, including when I ate at 9-10.
I find it irritating for some to claim that I would have been better off eating earlier when my job did not permit that (and when they had issues I never had). I also find it rude to ignore that the vast majority of people with full time jobs and commutes cannot eat at 5-7. I could not get home before 8 or 8:30 and if I cooked I'd eat at 9.
It sounds like your issues are more about fasting before bedtime and specific conditions not -- as you claim -- all being better off fasting for a specific amount of time.2 -
I have made no claim that "all" would be better off doing some specific thing. The only thing that "all" who are dieting need to do is maintain a calorie deficit. There are a lot of ways to do that.
IF is one way to do it. It works for some people, and not others. Like most diet strategies.
This is an IF thread, so sharing personal experiences with IF would seem germane and on point. Of course personal experiences will not necessarily apply to the next person. Everyone has to find their own path. How could it be otherwise?
At no time, in this thread or any other thread, have I ever said that "all" would be better off fasting for a specific amount of time, or fasting at all. There are many people who can't do IF, don't want to, or don't like it. But this is an IF thread, so ... personal experiences and successes are appropro, yes? There are an infinite number of ways to approach IF; everyone who's gonna try IF has to find their own way with it, and will experience different benefits in different ways, and more to the point, will have to figure out a way to make the time-structured nature of IF work with their own life and work schedules. No two people are the same in this regard.2 -
I didn't respond to the part about acid reflux. I do think meal timing can be beneficial to people with acid reflux. I think it is mostly related to how long before bed you stop eating. So if you find that you need to stop 4 hours before bed then it wouldn't matter if you ate 3 traditional meals during the day spaced over 12 hours so long as the last one was done early enough.
If I eat a large dinner more than a few days in a row my AR will return and I will need medication to control it again. I assume that is still the case. I haven't tested that theory again now that most of my excess weight is gone.
I would say for me, total lack of acid reflux since starting IF is due to how long before bed I stop eating. My cutoff for food is 7 pm, and I usually go to sleep around 1 - that's 6 solid hours to process the food and get it out of my stomach, hence the good results. I doubt the morning side of IF has anything to do with it.
I suspect the BP/pulse benefits I've gotten are the same thing. 7 hrs without food at night definitely impacts both readings at 1 am for me, in a big way. And here's the additional interesting thing. After not eating after 7 pm, which is most days for me, I usually wake up with a pulse around 50-56, versus 60-63 when I eat closer to bedtime. I have to think it is healthy to have a CV system working less hard not only in the evening but then when I'm sleeping. Combined, that's 14 hours of reduced stress on my heart and arteries and such; that has to be a good thing.
I assume the same benefits would accrue to a simple "no eating after dinner" plan as a 16:8 type program. The morning part of IF, I don't see as important. I do the morning part of IF so I can have two big meals - basically shifting breakfast calories into lunch for a bigger lunch - and because I dislike burning through 15-20 % of my calorie quota before the day's even really started. But the dinner-to-bedtime expanse of non-eating time I see as being very valuable beyond just calorie compliance.
It does sound like the BG / A1C benefits might be more specific to IF with its 16-20 hr fasts. So saith my doctor, and I have no reason to doubt it as my #'s have improved. While the metabolic benefits of IF haven't been proven yet, and may never be, like other people I have no reason to argue with the results. Sometimes "it's working" is good enough, whether or not the complex causalities and correlations of dieting have all been ironed out to everyone's satisfaction.
I have not tried to narrow down the exact amount of time I need. I may try to do that at some point. Very often I do not eat after 3pm. When I do eat is is usually 300 or less calories and I avoid fat and fiber. On any night I know I will be drinking alcohol I will go ahead and take medication. That doesn't happen very often anymore.
Is there a chance your change in BP is related to water/beverages consumed with your later meals/snacks? I am generally not thirsty at night even when I eat so I do not consume much. I have also broken myself from being so heavy-handed with the salt shaker. I think these days I would choke on the amount of salt I used to think was just right. I finally decided that even if it presented no immediate health risk I was violating the general principle of moderation.1 -
I have made no claim that "all" would be better off doing some specific thing. The only thing that "all" who are dieting need to do is maintain a calorie deficit. There are a lot of ways to do that.
IF is one way to do it. It works for some people, and not others. Like most diet strategies.
This is an IF thread, so sharing personal experiences with IF would seem germane and on point. Of course personal experiences will not necessarily apply to the next person. Everyone has to find their own path. How could it be otherwise?
At no time, in this thread or any other thread, have I ever said that "all" would be better off fasting for a specific amount of time, or fasting at all. There are many people who can't do IF, don't want to, or don't like it. But this is an IF thread, so ... personal experiences and successes are appropro, yes? There are an infinite number of ways to approach IF; everyone who's gonna try IF has to find their own way with it, and will experience different benefits in different ways, and more to the point, will have to figure out a way to make the time-structured nature of IF work with their own life and work schedules. No two people are the same in this regard.
Well said. Keeping in mind that people can share their own experiences, but those experiences won't work for everyone. Read what others have to say...and do what works best for you and your lifestyle. Adapt when needed! The point is to decide for yourself what information is worth more exploration.0 -
ravengirl2014 wrote: »Definitely! I practice 8hr eating 16hr fast...I am having serious results! Not even 2 weeks...6 pds!!!😱 Loving it!!!
I am doing the 6hr eating and 18 hour fast. I eat between 2 pm and 8 pm. But if same results in the 16:8 i may change to that ... Would be nice to have a couple extra hours. My results are 10 lbs in 20 days just added walking so we will see what happens!1 -
JennyJMartin75 wrote: »ravengirl2014 wrote: »Definitely! I practice 8hr eating 16hr fast...I am having serious results! Not even 2 weeks...6 pds!!!😱 Loving it!!!
I am doing the 6hr eating and 18 hour fast. I eat between 2 pm and 8 pm. But if same results in the 16:8 i may change to that ... Would be nice to have a couple extra hours. My results are 10 lbs in 20 days just added walking so we will see what happens!
You should not get the same results going forward regardless of amount of time fasting. Not unless you weigh well over 400 pounds which is the only time it is a good idea to lose 3.5 pounds per week.
More likely much of your initial weight loss was water weight and your weight will slow down to more closely match the rate of loss you selected when you went through the MFP guided set-up.
Weight loss is dictated by the calorie deficit so if 2 more hours will be more comfortable for you and you stay around your calorie goal nothing will negatively change from what was going to happen.4 -
I have made no claim that "all" would be better off doing some specific thing. The only thing that "all" who are dieting need to do is maintain a calorie deficit. There are a lot of ways to do that.
We totally agree. But I believe this particular tangent occurred because you took exception to someone pointing out that it is not generally agreed that merely doing IF (or as I prefer to call it, since it's not actually fasting, TRE) did not have all kind of amazing health benefits that one would supposedly be passing up and not able to access if one did not do IF.
As I pointed out, that's not true, and not only are the studies on IF (or TRE) inconclusive to date, but if anything they indicate that certain kinds may be more likely to have the effects than others (and typically it's the more commonly promoted "skip breakfast and eat your cals in a later window" versions that seem not to have any particular benefits in the studies).
Not saying that is conclusive either, of course. I know eating later importantly can be very helpful for some in controlling calories, so for them that should be the key factor.This is an IF thread, so sharing personal experiences with IF would seem germane and on point. Of course personal experiences will not necessarily apply to the next person. Everyone has to find their own path. How could it be otherwise?
That's great, but one of the experiences is that it can be inconvenient to try to fit TRE into one's life and that other ways to control cals (and to deal with some of the same things that people use IF for -- like realizing being a little hungry is not a big deal or that one can wait to eat or that one doesn't need to snack) may work well instead, there's no reason to decide one must do IF or that you are a failure or missing out on health benefits if it doesn't work for you.
Like I said, I'm currently doing a form of it, and I currently like it, since based on my current life it fits well and makes it easier to control cals. But I don't notice any other benefits that exceed what I got from simply controlling cals and having planned meal times, no snacking, which is what I did when losing weight. And during that period, feeling like I had to find a way to eat in a narrower window would have likely been counterproductive. That is my personal experience.0 -
I have not tried to narrow down the exact amount of time I need. I may try to do that at some point. Very often I do not eat after 3pm. When I do eat is is usually 300 or less calories and I avoid fat and fiber. On any night I know I will be drinking alcohol I will go ahead and take medication. That doesn't happen very often anymore.
Is there a chance your change in BP is related to water/beverages consumed with your later meals/snacks? I am generally not thirsty at night even when I eat so I do not consume much. I have also broken myself from being so heavy-handed with the salt shaker. I think these days I would choke on the amount of salt I used to think was just right. I finally decided that even if it presented no immediate health risk I was violating the general principle of moderation.
As far as acid reflux goes, I think it's a great idea to try to isolate the amount of time needed between last bite of food and bedtime to corral it. For me, that turns out to be around 4 hours. Less than that can bring the AR back, depending on what I ate. So experimentation does pay off. At no time until I started the zero calories after dinner thing did I realize that AR could so easily be stomped; there's a lotta Prilosec I'd like to have not taken over the years, but that's water under the bridge. Going forward, I don't expect to need it as long as I keep up with the IF thing.
As far as BP & pulse, I think what you said is the key. On the average day when I'm observing the 7 pm food cutoff, I drink little at night because there's no food, i.e. sodium, screaming for balancing. On days when I eat at night it of course include beverages too, and the sodium from the night food combined with the additional liquid may be what keeps the BP and pulse up. You know how they tell heart failure and similar patients to lay off the salt and minimize the fluid intake since it stresses their CV system - I think, for me, the 7 pm food cutoff puts that destressing into operation such that by the time I go to sleep, and all night, I have less sodium and fluid in my system, and it shows up dramatically on my BP and pulse readings. What's also kinda interesting is that when I go to the doctor, I have to remember to eat and drink something, else, since the appointments are usually 8 or 9 am - I am walking into it from a fast from the previous day at 7 pm, and my pulse, BP and everything else are waaaay healthier-looking than they really are once I've been reloaded with food, sodium, and fluids. So for me, fasting mimics the recommendations of cardiologists for patients with heart conditions to take stress off their CV systems, though I don't have heart issues. Maybe this will all pay off some day in the future as a heart attack that didn't happen, or something. If it doesn't, fasting still helps me with calorie compliance. so it's basically heads I win, tails I win with IF.
That was the point I was getting at earlier in the thread. Long stretches of time w/o food give me great BP and pulse readings - or more colloquially, less internal stress and pounding on my body, my cardiovascular system in particular. Most likely it's because less food = less sodium = less fluid = lower BP/pulse, not exactly a wild assertion, just cardio 101 stuff. My wife gets the same BP and pulse results from IF. So there's n=2.
Sodium: I switched to lower sodium a few years ago and have felt better ever since! Normally I'm in the 1,500 to 2,000 mg/day range, not super hardcore, just careful. Salt is an acquired taste beyond the natural sodium that occurs in foods, which is orders of magnitude less than any processed or restaurant served meal, and it can be unaquired in a few weeks. Just like sugar. You get used to being deluged with them, and you also get used to being undeluged with them. I highly recommend trying it. No one IRL ever listens to me re: the benefits of shaking off the sodium and sugar habits, and that's their business, but I try to keep my salt low and added sugar very low, and feel much better as a result. Also, salt and sugar tend to be copiously present in processed junky calorie-dense foods, so consciously cutting back on both and adjusting to life without a lot of them impacts calories too for me. You can only eat so many carrots and blackberries.0 -
Just remember on the acid reflux that the absence of symptoms is not necessarily the absence of problems. If you have had it for a long time you may need to get it really checked out. I was pretty relieved (other than the cost) when I was scoped last year and everything is fine.2
-
I do 15:9 some days and other days 16:8 it all depends on how hungry I am that morning...I have noticed it's killed my appetite. Been eating a lot less calories but would still like to try and eat at my BMR.0
-
Even though you're fasting you still have to have at least a 500 calorie deficiency from your TDEE "maintenance calories".
0 -
JennyJMartin75 wrote: »ravengirl2014 wrote: »Definitely! I practice 8hr eating 16hr fast...I am having serious results! Not even 2 weeks...6 pds!!!😱 Loving it!!!
I am doing the 6hr eating and 18 hour fast. I eat between 2 pm and 8 pm. But if same results in the 16:8 i may change to that ... Would be nice to have a couple extra hours. My results are 10 lbs in 20 days just added walking so we will see what happens!
You should not get the same results going forward regardless of amount of time fasting. Not unless you weigh well over 400 pounds which is the only time it is a good idea to lose 3.5 pounds per week.
More likely much of your initial weight loss was water weight and your weight will slow down to more closely match the rate of loss you selected when you went through the MFP guided set-up.
Weight loss is dictated by the calorie deficit so if 2 more hours will be more comfortable for you and you stay around your calorie goal nothing will negatively change from what was going to happen.
I agree 💯👍0 -
A lot of great info being shared!1
-
Been doing IF for 2 weeks now. It helps me a lot with the weight loss. Also the MFP app helps me with getting more familiar with the food i'm taking.3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions