IF and women

iolaanne05

I did IF for awhile. I was doing 16:8. I felt great, but I lost zero weight or inches. Probably because I still ate a full days worth of calories during that 8hr window.
My body type is endomorph... so apparently I'm supposed to eat light meals every 4hrs to keep my metabolism revved up.
However if I have over indulged in carbs.. a good 16:8 fast really helps burn those carbs off!

ccrdragon

iolaanne05 wrote: »

I did IF for awhile. I was doing 16:8. I felt great, but I lost zero weight or inches. Probably because I still ate a full days worth of calories during that 8hr window.
My body type is endomorph... so apparently I'm supposed to eat light meals every 4hrs to keep my metabolism revved up.
However if I have over indulged in carbs.. a good 16:8 fast really helps burn those carbs off!

Yes, calories still count even when doing IF or any other diet. I naturally eat in an 8 hour window from noon to 8 pm, and I got fat eating that way because I was eating more calories than I needed to eat.

As an aside, somatotypes (like endomorph) are scientifically meaningless. Eating many small meals in a day will not 'rev up' your metabolism, just like eating 1 or 2 meals in a day will not slow your metabolism down.

callsitlikeiseeit

iolaanne05 wrote: »

My body type is endomorph... so apparently I'm supposed to eat light meals every 4hrs to keep my metabolism revved up.
However if I have over indulged in carbs.. a good 16:8 fast really helps burn those carbs off!

can you tell them which area to leave from your body too? I mean, if we're just going to make stuff up now ....

heck, 80% of the time i do 16:8 naturally, even got fat doing it! i didn't realize i could give orders to my body. been doing it wrong all these years!

lorib642

VeryKatie wrote: »

What kind of intermittent fasting?
16:8? That's a pretty normal eating schedule for many people. I personally don't really consider that fasting.

5:2? I tried it. It worked and it also royaly screwed up my cycle so I had to stop.

If it is the semantics would you prefer time restricted eating?

My dr tells me to fast for blood tests and does not mean over 16 hours

kshama2001

lorib642 wrote: »

VeryKatie wrote: »

What kind of intermittent fasting?
16:8? That's a pretty normal eating schedule for many people. I personally don't really consider that fasting.

5:2? I tried it. It worked and it also royaly screwed up my cycle so I had to stop.

If it is the semantics would you prefer time restricted eating?

My dr tells me to fast for blood tests and does not mean over 16 hours

From a semantic point of view, yes, I would prefer Time Restricted Eating (TRE).

I get confused when people just say "fasting." I do understand what people mean when they say IF, but think TRE is a better term.

ChaoticMoira

kshama2001 wrote: »

Perhaps your intent was something different from what you actually wrote:

Nope. I wrote exactly what I meant.
1. IF is not the same thing as just skipping a meal.
2. Many people use it for the the other health benefits that are being researched and studied.
3. There are guidelines based upon the type of IF you are doing, and your goals in doing it.

You don't have to believe in the research (nor do I) for those statements to be true.