intermittent fasting

20percy14

Has anyone had an experience or luck with intermittent fasting? or the 5:2 diet. Im looking at starting this but Im concerned that my already super slow metabolism will be worsened by the lack of food. Im worried that when I start eating again my body will just hold onto it because of 'starvation mode'

Any thoughts?

DannehBoyy

You should subscribe to these guys in the link below. They know their stuff and they're really funny

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzfsaXsV-T4

_lyndseybrooke_

Wowza. Okay, here we go...

1. There's no such thing as "starvation mode." It's a myth. There is such a thing as metabolic adaptation, but that's a whole other thing and nothing you need to worry about right now (or ever).

2. You do not need to fast to lose weight. Cut it out with these fad diets and keep it simple: moderate calorie deficit and exercise. If you pick up heavy things and put them back down, even better.

3. Your metabolism is probably not slow. "I have a slow metabolism" is an excuse for being overweight that just won't cut it around here. You became overweight just like the rest of us - by eating too much.

4. Weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. Meal timing makes NO difference. If you're eating 1500 calories per day, you can spread that over 6 meals at 2 hour intervals or you can eat it all at once and you'd still get the same results.

5. You need these threads:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1235566-so-you-re-new-here?hl=so+you're+new
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

TestingFun01

Starvation mode doesn't exist. I eat once a day and I'm not starving.

Fasting is personal preference. Eat at a caloric deficit to lose weight. That's it.

13bbird13

This may or may not be helpful, but from experience I'd say be REAL careful with any kind of "fasting". I had a day this week when I just plain wasn't hungry... I had breakfast, lunch, and dinner pretty much as usual, but it happened to be a day that relied heavily on veggies and plant protein with a little turkey and hard-boiled egg thrown in, and at bedtime when I clicked the "done" button on MFP I saw that I was 500 calories under my daily goal. Hmm... usually this is not a problem, and I had no past experience on how to deal with it. But I wasn't hungry and I didn't want to eat just to make the numbers happier, so I went to bed.

Felt like I'd been hit by an economy car the next morning... still able to get up and function, but NOT in good form. Around 10am after breakfast had kicked in and I'd had some nuts for a snack, I was okay, but next time I see that I'm that far under, which is kind of an unplanned fast, I will definitely eat something whether I'm hungry or not.

ladyofthelakeontario

I do IF and 5:2. For me, it's a great tool for managing my calorie goals on a weekly basis, vs a daily one, that works well in my lifestyle. My eating window is either 10-6 or 12-8, depending on the day, and then the two days of eating around 500 calories. You still need a calorie deficit if your goal is to lose weight, and IF will do nothing for you if you aren't getting that deficit. (A friend of mine actually gained weight doing 5:2 because she was going crazy on her feast days)

However, since you are concerned about your metabolism, I think it would might be worth running the plan by your health care provider before starting.

Kalikel

Some people swear by it. I haven't tried it.

Check it out. If it works for you, great! If not, you can always switch.

Everyone has to find the way that works for them.

Good luck!

cajuntank

Wowza. Okay, here we go...

1. There's no such thing as "starvation mode." It's a myth. There is such a thing as metabolic adaptation, but that's a whole other thing and nothing you need to worry about right now (or ever).

2. You do not need to fast to lose weight. Cut it out with these fad diets and keep it simple: moderate calorie deficit and exercise. If you pick up heavy things and put them back down, even better.

3. Your metabolism is probably not slow. "I have a slow metabolism" is an excuse for being overweight that just won't cut it around here. You became overweight just like the rest of us - by eating too much.

4. Weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. Meal timing makes NO difference. If you're eating 1500 calories per day, you can spread that over 6 meals at 2 hour intervals or you can eat it all at once and you'd still get the same results.

5. You need these threads:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1235566-so-you-re-new-here?hl=so+you're+new
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

^^This. Intermittent Fasting (although I would nit pick and say it is not a fad diet) is basically a "protocol" of eating. It is just a way to achieve your caloric deficit that some people have found easier to do through eating less frequently per day than your "normal 3-4 times a day people". But like mentioned, regardless if you eat 6 times a day or 1 time a day, your overall caloric intake vs caloric output is all that matters from a weightloss perspective.

hookilau

Wowza. Okay, here we go...

1. There's no such thing as "starvation mode." It's a myth. There is such a thing as metabolic adaptation, but that's a whole other thing and nothing you need to worry about right now (or ever).

Can I get the short version on this?
I've mined through a ton of threads & got lost in the gifs :blushing:

MississippiMama87

I could never have days where I only eat 500 calories, but I do like trying to push back my first meal of the day for as long as possible. It helps me stay within my calorie goal.

I just wait to eat breakfast until I'm truly hungry which normally ends up being around 11 am.

WalkingAlong

I like intermittent fasting. I wouldn't call it a fad diet or dangerous. There are several books about it, if you want to read up before trying it. I've been doing alternate days of 300-600 calories and then 1900-2200ish, though the 'off days' I'm pretty unrestricted.

One study found that adaptive thermogenesis is temporary:

Weight Watchers:
http://www.weightwatchers.com/util/art/index_art.aspx?tabnum=1&art_id=35501
Metabolism after Weight Loss
The good news is that after the weight-loss goal is achieved and weight has stabilized, it does not appear that the dip in metabolism is permanent. Several rigorous studies done at the University of Alabama in Birmingham showed that metabolism goes back to expected levels with sustained weight loss,4 discounting the theory that a lowered metabolism helps to explain the common phenomenon of weight regain following weight loss.

The study it referenced:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11063433?dopt=Abstract
CONCLUSIONS:
"Energy restriction produces a transient hypothyroid-hypometabolic state that normalizes on return to energy-balanced conditions. Failure to establish energy balance after weight loss gives the misleading impression that weight-reduced persons are energy conservative and predisposed to weight regain. Our findings do not provide evidence in support of adaptive metabolic changes as an explanation for the tendency of weight-reduced persons to regain weight."

mz_getskinny

I don't do intermittent fasting on purpose...it just happens to be the way I like to eat. I'm not hungry in the mornings, but I like to eat at night. I don't eat until 12 and then have dinner at 5:30 and a late night snack right before 8:00. So every day I technically "fast" from 8 p.m. until 12 p.m. the next day.

I like that it gives me a shorter window of opportunity to get my calories in. If I start eating when I wake up and have to space out 1300 calories from 7 AM to 8 PM, I would fail, no question. That is just the way I prefer to eat, and the way I get the best results. It really doesn't matter what time you eat, as long as you stay within your calories for the day.

4HBGladu

IF should be researched and learned to be properly executed. It's not a quicker path to weight loss, an excuse to binge eat junk food and it's not starving yourself.

orangesmarties

Has anyone had an experience or luck with intermittent fasting? or the 5:2 diet. Im looking at starting this but Im concerned that my already super slow metabolism will be worsened by the lack of food. Im worried that when I start eating again my body will just hold onto it because of 'starvation mode'

Any thoughts?

Yes! Yes! Yes! I fast 20 hrs a day, with an eating window of between 4pm and 8pm. It is awesome! I didn't really get on with 5:2, but this is mending my relationship with food. It was causing me a lot of stress and worry and now I've just compressed it into a 4 hour slot. I wouldn't stress about metabolism or starvation mode - I've eaten normally some days, or even eaten like I used to eat, and never fluctuated by more than 2 lbs of water weight that dropped off within a day. Good luck!

dannyxtyler

I did intentionally only eat from 12pm-8am. I had lunch, maybe a snack, then dinner, but that's it. It definitely helped me to re-learn what hunger feels like. Now, I eat when I'm hungry (truly hungry), whether my first meal is at 7am or 2pm. Whatever works for you.

Foamroller

First off, you are the expert of YOUR body. Just because some eating or dieting plan worked for someone else, does not mean it will work for your body.

I have worked out 2x a week the first year, then 3-5x a week for 2 years, since october 2013 I maintained a 1200-1500 kcal a day dieting regime with NO WEIGHT LOSS. I used to be skinny eating all I wanted.

I'm now on week 2 on the 5:2 and I love it!. Already lost 6 lbs (3kg). I can still workout on fasting days, albeit with a bit lower intensity. I do the high intensive (Hiit) workouts on feeding days.

The main point of the IF is to have longer periods with NO INTAKE, preferably from 16-20 hours. That gives you a window of eating from 8-4 hours. Some people claim the max benefits of IF comes after the 18 hours fasting.

When I realized what the 5:2 is, I was "whoa, this sounds familiar". It turns out I never liked breakfast. When I was skinny (and young) I almost never had breakfast. So I'm reverting to my old eating habit. For me the 5:2 works very well with my exercise plan combined with drinking fibers as a pre-meal.

Not only has the fasting helped me loose weight, it also helped me reduce my appetite on feed days. I used to struggle to keep to 1000-1200 kcal. It's not hard anymore to eat less. I even enjoy a bit of snack here n there on feed days.

There are many different ways to execute this eating plan. If you're really interested in trying it out, I suggest do some research, buy the book, look at vids on Youtube, google it... That way you can make up your own opinions, instead of relying on what others think or feel.

There really isn't a lot to loose just to try, except dropping some meals and feeling hungry (you won't die or faint).


Good luck:)

FatAsianNerd

Hodge twins aka "FastingTwins" on YouTube are hilarious. They know some of their stuff is "bro-science" crap but I've followed some of their advice and I've gotten some good results.

I've started intermittent fasting 3 days ago and I'm not going to lie, it's been a struggle. I'm sticking with it though because it has helped me push through a plateau after having been, rather trying my best, at following a cyclical ketogenic diet throughout the last month or so.

Yes, my food choices may be limited and some of what one may see on there aren't too healthy (hot dogs, etc.), but I feel it's kept me in check so far and the fact that it's working has kept me motivated in keeping this up. I don't know how long I'm going to be keeping this up but once I reach my goals, I'll probably start being less and less exclusive of my diet choices.

I'm not just gonna jump into everything and start gorging anything I see though.

Anyway, so far this IF thing is working well for me, as it has complemented my keto routine really effectively.

La5Vega5Girl

Has anyone had an experience or luck with intermittent fasting? or the 5:2 diet. Im looking at starting this but Im concerned that my already super slow metabolism will be worsened by the lack of food. Im worried that when I start eating again my body will just hold onto it because of 'starvation mode'

Any thoughts?

I do I.F. for some reasons which are unrelated to weight loss. I have BPD and I find that I.F. helps (along with medication) to keep me mentally stable.

I LOVE I.F. I eat my last meal of the day at 6:00 p.m. and then do not eat again until the next day after I work-out, which is 12:00 noon when I break my fast. so I fast for 18 hours per day and "feast" or eat for 6 hours per day.

I am not STARVING when I break my fast. after I work-out, I eat a very healthy high-protein meal, but I never overeat. my body is used to it. at the beginning, I did find it was a little difficult to make it the full 18 hours, and in fact, started with a 16- hour fast and 8-hour eating window. I also work-in a 24-hour fast every week. (this is where I will eat at 6:00 p.m. for the last time, as usual, then not eat again until 6:00 p.m. the following evening. I do not work-out during that 24-hour period. it is for rest.)

also, I take BCAA before my work-out every day, so I am not working-out on a completely empty stomach. but BCAA does not have calories or carbs, so I can still be considered fasted.

I love the way I feel when I do this lifestyle (it is NOT a diet) - I feel more clear-headed, I have more energy, and I do not fall into depressions as easily. like I said, this isn't really for weight loss on my part (although yes I am trying to lose weight) it is for a variety of other reasons. you can do research and find out more. I love it, but it's not for everyone. my husband hates it and can't do it. he HAS to have breakfast.

vismal

Here's my take on intermittent fasting. I used IF to lose the majority of my weight. It was a serious game changer for someone whose biggest hurdle in weight loss was a HUGE appetite. The large meals followed by 16-18 hours of fasting worked great for me. I also worked night shift so setting my feeding window to 4pm-12am made it easier on me. Some days I'd try and eat 2000 calories in a day but my day was 11am-8am the following morning. That's a a lot of VERY small meals. It was also nice not having to live out of tupperware. I ate one meal at home, one meal at work, and that was it. Coffee, tea, water throughout the fast. When I was "on the fast" I was hungry but never tempted because food simply wasn't an option for me.

Now I know that calories for the day are really what matter and that if I broke my fast early the world wouldn't come crashing down nor would the fasting fairy make me fat again and make my muscles fall off. That being said, I kept my feeding window incredibly strict. Unless it was a special occasion (holiday, birthday, etc) I simply didn't eat before 4pm. Being strict helped me with compliance. Again, I was less tempted to eat outside my window simply because it was outside my window.

These days I still use IF for fat loss phases of my diet. I spend 2/3-3/4 of my year in a muscle building phase which I choose not to do IF. While you can do IF during a bulk (muscle building phase) it would be a lot of calories in a small window. I still eat the majority of my calories between 4 and midnight but I do usually have some kind of snack in the morning and another in the afternoon.

My best advice to anyone curious about fasting is to try it. If you do try it, give it two weeks. That's usually enough time to adjust to it. Some people feel awful at first but this usually passes. Some people simply never adjust or don't feel good from doing IF. This is fine. No one way of eating is right for everyone. Meal timing is all about finding which scheme will lead to you having the best compliance with keeping your calories in check. For me, and many others, IF is the absolute best way to be compliant. Give it a go, if you like it then stick with it, if not, keep trying to find what eating plan works best for you!

shabaity

I practice it and it works well for me. I will warn you be very aware of what your body is doing blood sugar etc. However it does make it easier for me as I'm not spreading out my 1670 calories over 16 hours just 8-9.

fluffyasacat

I'm fasting (500 calories) every other day and it's working great for me. Started mid August and have had a steady 2lbs weight loss per week. On feed days I have no trouble keeping calories under 2200 but sometimes I've struggled to eat over 1600 as my appetite has naturally decreased. Most fast days I'll skip breakfast (just coffee) and have a big salad with some lean protein to keep me from feeling hungry and then do the same for dinner.

For me the drawcard is that I don't have to feel like every damn day is diet day forever. If I want to eat an 800 calorie meal I can do it, just not every day. My weekly deficit eating this way is about 4500 calories.

J72FIT

Wowza. Okay, here we go...

1. There's no such thing as "starvation mode." It's a myth. There is such a thing as metabolic adaptation, but that's a whole other thing and nothing you need to worry about right now (or ever).

2. You do not need to fast to lose weight. Cut it out with these fad diets and keep it simple: moderate calorie deficit and exercise. If you pick up heavy things and put them back down, even better.

3. Your metabolism is probably not slow. "I have a slow metabolism" is an excuse for being overweight that just won't cut it around here. You became overweight just like the rest of us - by eating too much.

4. Weight loss is calories in vs. calories out. Meal timing makes NO difference. If you're eating 1500 calories per day, you can spread that over 6 meals at 2 hour intervals or you can eat it all at once and you'd still get the same results.

5. You need these threads:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1235566-so-you-re-new-here?hl=so+you're+new
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1080242-a-guide-to-get-you-started-on-your-path-to-sexypants

^^This. Intermittent Fasting (although I would nit pick and say it is not a fad diet) is basically a "protocol" of eating.

Exactly, not a fad diet... more like an eating pattern...

Unknown

This content has been removed.

williams969

I don't do intermittent fasting on purpose...it just happens to be the way I like to eat. I'm not hungry in the mornings, but I like to eat at night. I don't eat until 12 and then have dinner at 5:30 and a late night snack right before 8:00. So every day I technically "fast" from 8 p.m. until 12 p.m. the next day.

I like that it gives me a shorter window of opportunity to get my calories in. If I start eating when I wake up and have to space out 1300 calories from 7 AM to 8 PM, I would fail, no question. That is just the way I prefer to eat, and the way I get the best results. It really doesn't matter what time you eat, as long as you stay within your calories for the day.

I'm another "accidental" IF-er. Actually, it was just in the last week or so that I realized--"Hey, I AM an IF-er! And...it's NOT weird." I've never been a big breakfast at 6 or 7 am person (sometimes, but it's rare). Sure, there's one day every few weeks where I really want a McMuffin, but for the most part (and I will never give up am coffee, EVER lol), I'm breaking my fast around 11am or noon. I stop eating for the night around 7 or 8pm. It's natural for me.

It's not something I advertise, either, maybe for the sometimes negative feedback from others who don't fully understand it. In fact, my diary "looks" totally normal--breakfast, lunch, snacks, dinner, etc. are all there. It's just the "when" that may be different than others' schedules. No biggie--it works for me. I still eat the same deficit as anyone else would--just makes me more compliant with it.

taiyola

I have done IF a couple of times as 5:2. This was mainly because I kept over-eating, even when I wasn't hungry. I found it helped a lot for making me realise when I was hungry.

I would do it again - it's a tool for me to use when I start to get greedy and eat for the sake of it cos I'm bored etc!

WalkingAlong

I'm breaking my fast around 11am or noon. I stop eating for the night around 7 or 8pm.

I'm not sure I'd call that intermittent fasting so much as just 'skipping breakfast'. I think that's how a huge part of the world eats.

williams969

I'm breaking my fast around 11am or noon. I stop eating for the night around 7 or 8pm.

I'm not sure I'd call that intermittent fasting so much as just 'skipping breakfast'. I think that's how a huge part of the world eats.

I guess I'm confused, then. Is that not 16:8 IF?

Tydeclare44

I've never done IF but have read up a lot about it. From what I've heard, This should be more about convenience in lifestyle rather than weight loss. The main point (again, form what I've seen) Is the fact that you can getup in the morning and just go, don't have to worry about bringing 6 tupperwares with you, and then eat your calories when you are allotted. Naturally, this will lead to weight loss from satiation and your body cleaning your proverbial cupboards for energy. But like I said, I wouldn't chose this strictly for weight loss. If it doesn't seem like it would fit in your daily life, I wouldn't start it

WalkingAlong

I guess I'm confused, then. Is that not 16:8 IF?

I guess you're right. It's how I tend to eat naturally, too, that's part of why it doesn't seem like a fasting protocol to me.

http://dailyburn.com/life/health/intermittent-fasting-methods/

libbydoodle11

bump to read later

williams969

I guess I'm confused, then. Is that not 16:8 IF?

I guess you're right. It's how I tend to eat naturally, too, that's part of why it doesn't seem like a fasting protocol to me.

http://dailyburn.com/life/health/intermittent-fasting-methods/

I think there's a point to be made about the "naturallness" so to speak of different protocols. A given eating style should be sustainable and well matched to the person. Even 5:2, JUDDD, etc. can fit very well to certain people's lifestyles.

How many people we know that like to "bank" calories during the week for a bigger feast on, say, a weekend night out. Those EOD/5:2 protocols may be right up their alley, and can feel like a natural way of eating for them. It's not my thing, but that doesn't discount it, nonetheless.