We are pleased to announce that on March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor will be introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the upcoming changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
20:4 Intermittent Fasting
deenav19
Posts: 1 Member
MFP needs to offer the option of 20:4 IF. It is the best for our bodies and should not be excluded.
2
Replies
-
You can adjust your meals in MFP food and exercise settings to suit your needs.
20:4 isn’t for me nor many others.
Cheers, h.7 -
What's the problem?
You have meal templates for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks. The site doesn't police what time you have those meals, and I assume four meal templates is sufficient for a four hour eating window.
20:4 wouldn't work for me with my workout schedule and protein intake, so I guess I'll miss out on "the best for our bodies". Oh well.7 -
OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.7 -
OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.1 -
OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.
12:12? That's hilarious. When I post that I do IF 12:12, I am doing so ironically.10 -
I agree with @Retroguy, i.e. what's the problem?
MFP actually supports up to six customizable "meals". I use only five: Breakfast, Lunch, Dinner, Snacks and Pre/Post Workout. I often will skip one or more of those meals.
I would think you could customize meals for your needs. e.g. Name each meal to indicate when in the 20:4 cycle it occurs. You could name meals for the hour of the day, or simply "first", "second",..., "last".
I'm curious, what feature would you need to support 20:4 IF?
In any case, take @AnnPT77's advice if you want some feature acted upon.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »OP:
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.
12:12? That's hilarious. When I post that I do IF 12:12, I am doing so ironically.
For some more amusement, read the explanation 😎
3 -
I agree, MFP explanations are hilarious, well done. lol2
-
I eat every 2-3 hours after doing IF for years. It’s been the easiest weight loss journey since.
Plus I get to build muscle at the same time.
At the end of the day it’s always cals in vs cals out, simple as that.3 -
kshama2001 wrote: »OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.
12:12? That's hilarious. When I post that I do IF 12:12, I am doing so ironically.
Does MFP call 12:12 IF though or just an eating style??
I agree it is really silly calling it any form of IF.
I have posted many times that IF is not for me - but many times, without trying, I would eat 12:12 - thats something really common for many people - eat breakfast at, say, 8:00 and have dinner finished by 8 pm
Surely not a pattern or style people need to label.
4 -
and sure, OP if you want to eat to a 20:4 style, do so - but it isnt best for our bodies or any other universal benifit3
-
kshama2001 wrote: »OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.
12:12? That's hilarious. When I post that I do IF 12:12, I am doing so ironically.
Maybe someone from MFP saw this and thought YOU were serious about this and this was a thing
I personally want a 0:24 option as I eat whenever I feel like it.
6 -
paperpudding wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.
12:12? That's hilarious. When I post that I do IF 12:12, I am doing so ironically.
Does MFP call 12:12 IF though or just an eating style??
I agree it is really silly calling it any form of IF.
I have posted many times that IF is not for me - but many times, without trying, I would eat 12:12 - thats something really common for many people - eat breakfast at, say, 8:00 and have dinner finished by 8 pm
Surely not a pattern or style people need to label.
See above screenshot: first option under “select your fasting goal”
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »and sure, OP if you want to eat to a 20:4 style, do so - but it isnt best for our bodies or any other universal benifit
Maybe explain why the science behind time restricted eating it's not a benefit on any level, just a thought.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »OP: If you want MFP to change how the intermittent fasting support works, post that here:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/categories/feature-suggestions-and-ideas
The MFP staff don't read every post in the MFP Community forums, so they won't see your post here. Here, only other regular MFP posters are reading, and we can't do any more about this than you can.
Though IF is fine for those who prefer it, I disagree fervently with "It is the best for our bodies". There's a lot of research on fasting recently, but IMO the results are far from definitive at this point. A few profit-seeking prophets are overselling already, though. Maybe they'll turn out to be right on the merits, I don't know . . . but I don't think it's demonstrated yet. Obviously, your mileage varies.
Note to long-time free MFP users: There's a new feature in premium MFP to support IF schedules. I don't know how it works, but I've seen that it's there. I'm guessing that's what OP is complaining about.
There are only three options right now: 12:12, 14:10 and 16:8
So yeah, that seems to be what the OP is complaining about.
12:12? That's hilarious. When I post that I do IF 12:12, I am doing so ironically.
Does MFP call 12:12 IF though or just an eating style??
I agree it is really silly calling it any form of IF.
I have posted many times that IF is not for me - but many times, without trying, I would eat 12:12 - thats something really common for many people - eat breakfast at, say, 8:00 and have dinner finished by 8 pm
Surely not a pattern or style people need to label.
See above screenshot: first option under “select your fasting goal”
Agreed - that is really silly then
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »and sure, OP if you want to eat to a 20:4 style, do so - but it isnt best for our bodies or any other universal benifit
Maybe explain why the science behind time restricted eating it's not a benefit on any level, just a thought.
There isnt clear scinece supporting this as a universal benifit - and real life shows us many people do fine on many different eating schedules.3 -
-
paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »and sure, OP if you want to eat to a 20:4 style, do so - but it isnt best for our bodies or any other universal benifit
Maybe explain why the science behind time restricted eating it's not a benefit on any level, just a thought.
There isnt clear scinece supporting this as a universal benifit - and real life shows us many people do fine on many different eating schedules.
I'm going to assume your talking about weight loss and I agree with that premise. A shorter window could cause many people to overeat, no doubt about that, or, it could create a more satiating effect and people eat less and lose some weight and everything in between including the fact that CICO is the only thing that dictates weight gain or loss. Time restricted eating (TRE) as far as the science is concerned has nothing to do with weight loss or dieting but has more to do with the time our bodies are in a state of feeding or fasting and the effect that has on our physiology. Cheers1 -
So, I read a few articles about intermittent fasting, and I think I'll try the 5:2 intermittent fasting regimen where you fast 2 days a week - maybe like on a Tuesday and Thursday.
https://www.nia.nih.gov/news/research-intermittent-fasting-shows-health-benefits0 -
Well, 5:2 isn't something a person just tries out of curiosity, and the link you provided have a hard time vetting hard data from IF when there's weight loss because health markers improve from the loss of weight and longevity is well, impossible to substantiate in this context without a controlled trial which means comparing 2 or more groups with very controlled parameters, ideally in a ward setting where everything is accounted for, even sleep and the longevity part would include the study to run for a few decades and I don't think people would like that. If your doing it because you believe it could help you lose weight, well that's a different thing but there's probably easier ways of going about it. Good luck with it though. Cheers.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »and sure, OP if you want to eat to a 20:4 style, do so - but it isnt best for our bodies or any other universal benifit
Maybe explain why the science behind time restricted eating it's not a benefit on any level, just a thought.
There isnt clear scinece supporting this as a universal benifit - and real life shows us many people do fine on many different eating schedules.
I'm going to assume your talking about weight loss and I agree with that premise. A shorter window could cause many people to overeat, no doubt about that, or, it could create a more satiating effect and people eat less and lose some weight and everything in between including the fact that CICO is the only thing that dictates weight gain or loss. Time restricted eating (TRE) as far as the science is concerned has nothing to do with weight loss or dieting but has more to do with the time our bodies are in a state of feeding or fasting and the effect that has on our physiology. Cheers
No I am not just talking about weight loss but also general health and well being.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »and sure, OP if you want to eat to a 20:4 style, do so - but it isnt best for our bodies or any other universal benifit
Maybe explain why the science behind time restricted eating it's not a benefit on any level, just a thought.
There isnt clear scinece supporting this as a universal benifit - and real life shows us many people do fine on many different eating schedules.
I'm going to assume your talking about weight loss and I agree with that premise. A shorter window could cause many people to overeat, no doubt about that, or, it could create a more satiating effect and people eat less and lose some weight and everything in between including the fact that CICO is the only thing that dictates weight gain or loss. Time restricted eating (TRE) as far as the science is concerned has nothing to do with weight loss or dieting but has more to do with the time our bodies are in a state of feeding or fasting and the effect that has on our physiology. Cheers
No I am not just talking about weight loss but also general health and well being.
Ok, again, what science are you referring to. Cheers.1 -
Exactly what I already said: There isnt clear scinece supporting this as a universal benifit - and real life shows us many people do fine on many different eating schedules.3
-
You're using your conclusion as the evidence that science isn't clear. That's a logical fallacy considering no science was actually provided or discussed. No worries, we'll just move on. Cheers.
1 -
yes it was a general statement
if you want a detailed debate and you can show all your studies showing your way is best for everyone - there is a debate section for that.
Move on to there if you want
Bye.
5 -
Wow. I don't want anything except for you to back up your assertion. Words have meaning. Cheers.
0 -
I wasn't clear in my post what I meant by 5:2. I don't intend a total fast on those days, as in no food for 24 hours. I intend to have a larger than average calorie deficit 2 days a week. So, for example, if I were aiming for a one-pound loss per week, I might try for a 750-1,000 calorie deficit on a couple days with a lower deficit the other five days, instead of having a 500 calorie deficit 7 days/week.neanderthin wrote: »Well, 5:2 isn't something a person just tries out of curiosity, and the link you provided have a hard time vetting hard data from IF when there's weight loss because health markers improve from the loss of weight and longevity is well, impossible to substantiate in this context without a controlled trial which means comparing 2 or more groups with very controlled parameters, ideally in a ward setting where everything is accounted for, even sleep and the longevity part would include the study to run for a few decades and I don't think people would like that. If your doing it because you believe it could help you lose weight, well that's a different thing but there's probably easier ways of going about it. Good luck with it though. Cheers.
My comment probably doesn't belong here, as it doesn't really relate to intermittent fasting as most people understand it, especially not the 20:4 IF that the OP is talking about.
1 -
No worries, most people think IF is a diet and are mostly confused on the reasons to try IF. Personally I'm not a fan of fasts that involve not eating over days and not really a fan of OMAD either. Anyway I hope your successful losing weight. Cheers
0 -
frankwbrown wrote: »
I wasn't clear in my post what I meant by 5:2. I don't intend a total fast on those days, as in no food for 24 hours. I intend to have a larger than average calorie deficit 2 days a week. So, for example, if I were aiming for a one-pound loss per week, I might try for a 750-1,000 calorie deficit on a couple days with a lower deficit the other five days, instead of having a 500 calorie deficit 7 days/week.neanderthin wrote: »Well, 5:2 isn't something a person just tries out of curiosity, and the link you provided have a hard time vetting hard data from IF when there's weight loss because health markers improve from the loss of weight and longevity is well, impossible to substantiate in this context without a controlled trial which means comparing 2 or more groups with very controlled parameters, ideally in a ward setting where everything is accounted for, even sleep and the longevity part would include the study to run for a few decades and I don't think people would like that. If your doing it because you believe it could help you lose weight, well that's a different thing but there's probably easier ways of going about it. Good luck with it though. Cheers.
My comment probably doesn't belong here, as it doesn't really relate to intermittent fasting as most people understand it, especially not the 20:4 IF that the OP is talking about.
Well, while 5:2 is not 20-4, it certainly is IF, and in fact is the first form of IF I ever heard of
0 -
frankwbrown wrote: »
I wasn't clear in my post what I meant by 5:2. I don't intend a total fast on those days, as in no food for 24 hours. I intend to have a larger than average calorie deficit 2 days a week. So, for example, if I were aiming for a one-pound loss per week, I might try for a 750-1,000 calorie deficit on a couple days with a lower deficit the other five days, instead of having a 500 calorie deficit 7 days/week.neanderthin wrote: »Well, 5:2 isn't something a person just tries out of curiosity, and the link you provided have a hard time vetting hard data from IF when there's weight loss because health markers improve from the loss of weight and longevity is well, impossible to substantiate in this context without a controlled trial which means comparing 2 or more groups with very controlled parameters, ideally in a ward setting where everything is accounted for, even sleep and the longevity part would include the study to run for a few decades and I don't think people would like that. If your doing it because you believe it could help you lose weight, well that's a different thing but there's probably easier ways of going about it. Good luck with it though. Cheers.
My comment probably doesn't belong here, as it doesn't really relate to intermittent fasting as most people understand it, especially not the 20:4 IF that the OP is talking about.
It sort of relates, conceptually: MFP doesn't support 5:2 in the new IF options, but premium MFP does let a person have different calorie goals on different days of the week. (I'm not suggesting a person needs premium to do IF, since anyone can distribute their calories as they wish, and use the weekly average to control, or variations on that theme. I'm just pointing out that some support features for that kind of IF exists, even though it's not in the IF section.)
I have to admit, I'm not sure why a person needs the new IF features, either: If I wanted to limit the times during which I eat, I'd just eat when I wanted to. Maybe tracking when one is compliant vs. not is useful? I don't know. Since I've never done IF, I don't really have the expertise, so saying "I don't get it" isn't any kind of Deep Thought.😆
FWIW @frankwbrown, I know of at least one guy who used to participate here who found 5:2 pretty perfect for him. IIRC, he didn't enjoy eating below maintenance, found it easier to go hard 2 days a week vs. kinda hard most every day; and found that 5:2 helped him fuel his aggressive athletic schedule more effectively, since he could time the deficit to have less impact on endurance work.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 440 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions