Intermittent Fasting when you're always on the go?

JenMarieD87

I'm starting IF again. I want to do 20:4 with one meal and one snack but I feel like my schedule makes it tricky. My typical routine is to grab fast food at some point during the day, snack here and there and eat a meal when I get home for the night usually at 10 or 11pm. So it's going to be a big change. I wake up around 11 or 12. Work 1-430pm as a home health aid. Then I do doordash from like 5pm-10pm. I eat dinner when i get home and i go to bed at 2-3am. If this were your schedule, where would you put your 4 hour window???? I prefer eating at home but I'm only here late at night besides when I'm asleep.😅

Retroguy2000

The simple answer is, I wouldn't do IF. It's irrelevant for weight loss. You're obviously having issues fitting it in your schedule, and the main point of doing IF is if it works for you. Swap the fast food for something healthier, bring healthier snacks to your work, and you're probably well on the way to a calorie deficit just from that.

1BlueAurora

Unless there's a 12:12 intermittent fasting schedule, I think IF is impossible with your work schedule. I'd just use MyFitnessPal's calorie goal and eat when you can. I could see you eating breakfast at 12 PM, eating a big snack in that teenie-tiny 30 minute window between 4:30 and 5:00 PM (half a sandwich, an apple, a boiled egg, whatever fits in your calorie limit), then eat your dinner within your calorie allowance at 10:30 PM. No snacks after that. My opinion is that if you have 3 times you eat, you'll be in a better position to have a more level energy level throughout your day. I know if I eat one meal a day, with or without a snack, I run out of steam and feel awful.

tomcustombuilder

Then don’t do IF. There is no benefit. Your overall Weekly calories determine fat loss or gain and not meal timing..

frhaberl

Curious whether there were any drivers for you wanting to try IF other than weight loss. As others are observing, it seems like it might be difficult to implement with your schedule and it is possible to be successful at weight loss without IF. Are there other benefits you're looking for that we may not be recognizing?

I tend to agree that it seems a bit simpler to fit 3 meals into your schedule and know that I benefit from more sustained energy when I space out my calories through the day. FYI, I sometimes skip or go light on breakfast calories when I know I have calorie heavy lunch/dinner plans, but I don't put any restriction on when I consume calories. I typically eat between the hours of 8 am and 9 pm, but only because that's when I'm not asleep.

I did want to chime in on the "switch from fast food to something healthy" comments. I know it's a fairly safe generalization that fast food isn't the healthiest option available, but I also know that it's sometimes the most accessible option available. If that's the case for you, I'd encourage you to not feel like you have to stop eating fast food. There are some healthier options at most fast food places that could be a good substitute while you figure out other accessible options. I think there was a recent post about what fast food options people have found that fit into their MFP goals, or you can list out the fast food places you usually frequent and people can comment on some options available at those places.

If you are looking for alternatives to fast food that feel accessible from a time/cost/portability standpoint, there are also posts that go into detail on those. It can also be helpful to know if you have any dietary restrictions/dislikes if you want more specific advice.

Best wishes!

yirara

If you have kidneys and a liver there's no need to delox, because these organs are doing this for you. Everything 'detox' is woo and does nothing for health nor weightloss.

neanderthin

TRE (time restricted eating) like 12:12 or 16:8 are generally totally misunderstood. Reading through most posts here people believe it's main goal is to help control food intake, and that is a benefit for some people and some people do lose weight, no doubt about it. The problem with that is you see in the responses here, like, well if it doesn't work for you then don't do it, or, the only thing that matters is a calorie deficit and IF doesn't do anything. TRE also has nothing to do with what a person eats or how much they eat and only when people eat. It's shouldn't come as a shock if we replace junk with whole food satiety increases and helps the whole process of getting healthier as well, so do that, imo.

The main goal (science) of TRE are it's lifelong metabolic benefits that become more efficacious as we age, especially those last years when healthspan become much more relevant than simply our lifespan.

When we eat or more simply put, the time when we aren't stuffing our faces with food include metabolic processes that work in harmony with our physiology or basically our normal biological processes. More simply put, is the body is either in an anabolic state or a catabolic state and there benefits for both but having more time in a catabolic state, generally will allow blood sugar to remain at base line for a longer period of time, which for the most part increases insulin sensitivity, so basically better blood sugar control. The brain loves ketones and ketones also cross the BBB (blood brain barrier) and have shown to have neuroprotective benefits and everyone uses ketones everyday, mostly when we sleep and in that catabolic state and it's just not something that happens when someone is on a ketogenic diet. TRE also works in harmony with our circadian rhythm and helps maximize cell breakdown and regeneration, basically cell turnover. These are just the basics but any research on the subject will get into a lot more detail and benefits if anyone was even a little curious, most aren't though.

Anyway the point is TRE is an accumulative effect that really has no immediate utility for any detectable or noticeable benefit, with maybe the exception where it helps some people control their excess food intake which is mostly but not all from the hormonal effect on glucagon which can increase satiety much like a GLP-1(glucagon-peptide 1) does in Ozempic for example. Other than that the long term effects like better insulin sensitivity, cellular health which is directly correlated to longevity and brain health are like I said are going to be mostly noticeable and beneficial as we age. I suspect though, that most people and main stream media will continue to think it's just a fad and doesn't really have any value if it doesn't work for weight loss.