5 hour fast?

magerum

I agree about the starvation mode. What you're doing by eating this way is sending signals to your body that you will only get to eat at certain times. Your body reacts by storing fat because it thinks it will only get food at these times. Do yourself a favor and eat several small meals and snacks everyday. This will lead to optimal (and healthy) weight loss!

Short term fasting does not slow down metabolism. Net fat storage does not occur in a calorie deficit.

Exact-o-mundo

magerum

I agree about the starvation mode. What you're doing by eating this way is sending signals to your body that you will only get to eat at certain times. Your body reacts by storing fat because it thinks it will only get food at these times. Do yourself a favor and eat several small meals and snacks everyday. This will lead to optimal (and healthy) weight loss!

*Shake my head*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start storing fat after not getting food for a few hours.

Not sure if sarcastic or ignorant.

*Shake my head harder than you*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start "STARVING" until you have not had food for "Weeks" along with depleting existing fat reserves.

You can NOT store fat by not eating.

Fat is stored when insulin takes excess blood glucose and further breaks it down to triglycerides that can penetrate the cell wall barrier. In order to have excess blood glucose, you must EAT foods that are digested into blood glucose.

By not eating, aka "starving", you enter a state called Ketosis, also known as fat-burning-mode.

Lol

I second the lolz

Blessedmommy_2x

Is there a medical reason to do this?

My approach has always been eating 5-6 small meals a day spaced out with a few hours in between each meal/snack, with lots of water & not eating a few hours before bed. I would not want to eat all my calories {and that many cals} in such a short time span.

epmck11

Is there a medical reason to do this?

My approach has always been eating 5-6 small meals a day spaced out with a few hours in between each meal/snack, with lots of water & not eating a few hours before bed. I would not want to eat all my calories {and that many cals} in such a short time span.

Is there a medical reason to do this?

That's all good and there's nothing wrong with it, but there's no added benefits to doing what you're doing over eating all of your calories in just one meal before bed.

clobercow

I agree about the starvation mode. What you're doing by eating this way is sending signals to your body that you will only get to eat at certain times. Your body reacts by storing fat because it thinks it will only get food at these times. Do yourself a favor and eat several small meals and snacks everyday. This will lead to optimal (and healthy) weight loss!

*Shake my head*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start storing fat after not getting food for a few hours.

Not sure if sarcastic or ignorant.

*Shake my head harder than you*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start "STARVING" until you have not had food for "Weeks" along with depleting existing fat reserves.

You can NOT store fat by not eating.

Fat is stored when insulin takes excess blood glucose and further breaks it down to triglycerides that can penetrate the cell wall barrier. In order to have excess blood glucose, you must EAT foods that are digested into blood glucose.

By not eating, aka "starving", you enter a state called Ketosis, also known as fat-burning-mode.

I can't figure out if you're arguing with me or the person I quoted, but if me, I have nothing to respond to since you didn't contradict anything that I posted...

Edit: Re-reading this post, I honestly can't figure out what you're even talking about...

What I'm saying is:

You don't store fat when you don't eat. The idea of starvation mode, and metabolic downturn, is a dogmatic myth.

There is plenty of research to back this up.

clobercow

Is there a medical reason to do this?

My approach has always been eating 5-6 small meals a day spaced out with a few hours in between each meal/snack, with lots of water & not eating a few hours before bed. I would not want to eat all my calories {and that many cals} in such a short time span.

Is there a medical reason to do this?

That's all good and there's nothing wrong with it, but there's no added benefits to doing what you're doing over eating all of your calories in just one meal before bed.

You're right about this. Maintaining the caloric deficit is key. However, holding that deficit as long as possible before consuming food helps progress. Eating fewer times with less time in-between meals helps in many ways to aid fat loss.

tmauck4472

Starvation Mode!!!!!!!

Ugggg, seriously?

Sidesteal

Starvation Mode!!!!!!!

Ugggg, seriously?

He was trolling.

tmauck4472

Starvation Mode!!!!!!!

Ugggg, seriously?

He was trolling.

got that I guess I should have read more before posting. LOL

epmck11

I agree about the starvation mode. What you're doing by eating this way is sending signals to your body that you will only get to eat at certain times. Your body reacts by storing fat because it thinks it will only get food at these times. Do yourself a favor and eat several small meals and snacks everyday. This will lead to optimal (and healthy) weight loss!

*Shake my head*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start storing fat after not getting food for a few hours.

Not sure if sarcastic or ignorant.

*Shake my head harder than you*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start "STARVING" until you have not had food for "Weeks" along with depleting existing fat reserves.

You can NOT store fat by not eating.

Fat is stored when insulin takes excess blood glucose and further breaks it down to triglycerides that can penetrate the cell wall barrier. In order to have excess blood glucose, you must EAT foods that are digested into blood glucose.

By not eating, aka "starving", you enter a state called Ketosis, also known as fat-burning-mode.

I can't figure out if you're arguing with me or the person I quoted, but if me, I have nothing to respond to since you didn't contradict anything that I posted...

Edit: Re-reading this post, I honestly can't figure out what you're even talking about...

What I'm saying is:

You don't store fat when you don't eat. The idea of starvation mode, and metabolic downturn, is a dogmatic myth.

There is plenty of research to back this up.

Sources? There is research that fasting for more than a few days does in fact slow down your metabolism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

The key is that it is long term fasting, not short term fasting, that sends the body into starvation mode.

bongbunny

Does anyone on here eat 5 hours a day and fast for 19 hours? Yes, getting all your calories in during that 5 hour time frame? Just wondering....

Generally speaking, yes, I do. I eat from 2-7 pm. I deviate at times, but generally stick to that window. I don't know why you asked, but if you are even remotely interested in intermittent fasting, I suggest doing a little self-experimentation to see if it works for you.

clobercow

I agree about the starvation mode. What you're doing by eating this way is sending signals to your body that you will only get to eat at certain times. Your body reacts by storing fat because it thinks it will only get food at these times. Do yourself a favor and eat several small meals and snacks everyday. This will lead to optimal (and healthy) weight loss!

*Shake my head*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start storing fat after not getting food for a few hours.

Not sure if sarcastic or ignorant.

*Shake my head harder than you*

It takes much longer than that to go into "starvation" mode. Your body doesn't start "STARVING" until you have not had food for "Weeks" along with depleting existing fat reserves.

You can NOT store fat by not eating.

Fat is stored when insulin takes excess blood glucose and further breaks it down to triglycerides that can penetrate the cell wall barrier. In order to have excess blood glucose, you must EAT foods that are digested into blood glucose.

By not eating, aka "starving", you enter a state called Ketosis, also known as fat-burning-mode.

I can't figure out if you're arguing with me or the person I quoted, but if me, I have nothing to respond to since you didn't contradict anything that I posted...

Edit: Re-reading this post, I honestly can't figure out what you're even talking about...

What I'm saying is:

You don't store fat when you don't eat. The idea of starvation mode, and metabolic downturn, is a dogmatic myth.

There is plenty of research to back this up.

Sources? There is research that fasting for more than a few days does in fact slow down your metabolism: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473

The key is that it is long term fasting, not short term fasting, that sends the body into starvation mode.

http://pmj.bmj.com/content/49/569/203.abstract

Yes, I know that link is extreme and not at all necessary.

The term starvation mode is a scare-tactic term. In reality, fat metabolism is normal and natural from not eating. I do not suggest it's necessary to fast longer than 48 hours, but the idea of eating every two hours because of that scary term is stupid.

Sure some lean mass is metabolized on extended fasts, but it's a VERY small amount, and fasting is a very good option for obese people, especially those who need to drop weight quickly for urgent health needs. Otherwise, eating once or twice per day in a 6-8 hour feeding window is normal. I try to eat only once per day. I don't seem to be getting fatter (look at my ticker). I don't prefer to use myself as an example. There are many sources that are legitimate if you take some time and look. I always suggest people educate themselves rather than listening to others. I do see the irony in that.

opuntia

I occasionally have a fast day where I eat only one or two light meals, and I guess that is within 5 hours, although I've never deliberately worked out that timeframe. On the days I do this, I have considerably fewer calories than normal - it just gives my body a rest and clears my mind, and gives my general health and wellbeing a boost.

My dad eats only one meal a day, in the evening, and a big meal, with wine, and snacks, so he probably consumes all his daily calories within 5 hours. Is this now seen as healthier than spreading one's eating throughout the day?

shiftysheep

I train fasted & eat all my calorie in a 4 hour window between 1pm & 5pm.

clobercow

I occasionally have a fast day where I eat only one or two light meals, and I guess that is within 5 hours, although I've never deliberately worked out that timeframe. On the days I do this, I have considerably fewer calories than normal - it just gives my body a rest and clears my mind, and gives my general health and wellbeing a boost.

My dad eats only one meal a day, in the evening, and a big meal, with wine, and snacks, so he probably consumes all his daily calories within 5 hours. Is this now seen as healthier than spreading one's eating throughout the day?

The question is complicated with out enough data to answer. Fasting and caloric deficit has health benefits. So does carbohydrate control and whole natural foods.

You can look into how food and hormones work together to effect mood, cravings, fat loss, fat gain ect.

In other words, the answer isn't simple.

opuntia

The question is complicated with out enough data to answer. Fasting and caloric deficit has health benefits. So does carbohydrate control and whole natural foods.

You can look into how food and hormones work together to effect mood, cravings, fat loss, fat gain ect.

In other words, the answer isn't simple.

Ah, fair enough. I am aware of the health benefits of fasting and caloric deficit - just not of having one's full quota of calories in a condensed time frame. That's something I'd never come across before.

clobercow

The question is complicated with out enough data to answer. Fasting and caloric deficit has health benefits. So does carbohydrate control and whole natural foods.

You can look into how food and hormones work together to effect mood, cravings, fat loss, fat gain ect.

In other words, the answer isn't simple.

Ah, fair enough. I am aware of the health benefits of fasting and caloric deficit - just not of having one's full quota of calories in a condensed time frame. That's something I'd never come across before.

Logically, if you fast (especially on a regular basis), you're moving meals closer together.

opuntia

Logically, if you fast (especially on a regular basis), you're moving meals closer together.

Ratio-wise, you mean? If you fast for one day and eat normally the next, your meals during that day would be spaced the same as they used to be, but the fast day would mean that ratio-wise they were closer together.

But my point was simply that the only fasting benefits I've heard of are to do with reducing one's overall calories, not of having all one's meals in a squished-together time frame. If anyone happens to have any links on why this is beneficial, I'd be interested to read them.

docktorfokse

Logically, if you fast (especially on a regular basis), you're moving meals closer together.

Ratio-wise, you mean? If you fast for one day and eat normally the next, your meals during that day would be spaced the same as they used to be, but the fast day would mean that ratio-wise they were closer together.

But my point was simply that the only fasting benefits I've heard of are to do with reducing one's overall calories, not of having all one's meals in a squished-together time frame. If anyone happens to have any links on why this is beneficial, I'd be interested to read them.

It kind of surprises me how unheard-of intermittent fasting is on this site, what with all the far less studied weight loss methods being discussed regularly.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

clobercow

Logically, if you fast (especially on a regular basis), you're moving meals closer together.

Ratio-wise, you mean? If you fast for one day and eat normally the next, your meals during that day would be spaced the same as they used to be, but the fast day would mean that ratio-wise they were closer together.

But my point was simply that the only fasting benefits I've heard of are to do with reducing one's overall calories, not of having all one's meals in a squished-together time frame. If anyone happens to have any links on why this is beneficial, I'd be interested to read them.

It kind of surprises me how unheard-of intermittent fasting is on this site, what with all the far less studied weight loss methods being discussed regularly.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x/full

What even more people fail to realize is that IF is just structured eating. The actual food is still just as important.