Intermediate fasting

Joyfullykelli

Been reading about the benefits of fasting. Not for exceptionally long periods of time. No more then 24 hours, then back to eating normally and healthy.

Thoughts?
Experiances?

SideSteel

My thoughts are that you should choose a meal timing and frequency based on personal preference. If eating with an Intermittent Fasting approach helps you to hit your cals/macros more readily, then you should do it. If eating 5-6 meals per day makes it easier for you to hit your cals/macros, then you should do that. Or anything in between/etc.

zaph0d

Agree with above. There seems to be a common misconception that IF has a metabolic advantage. Meal frequency should be decided purely on personal preference and performance.

mfpcopine

Read the FAQs for the Intermittent Fasting (IF) group:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/66-intermittent-fasting

Nanou1975

Every time I don't drink my water, I can feel my body retaining every sip I take, I can only imagine how much my body would "store" each time I tried fasting for a few hours/days.

I have heard from many nutritionists that the only way to lose weight was to eat, but eat healthy and good portions. You can never "starve" your body because the minute you start eating "real food" or unprocessed foods, your body stores all that he needs "just in case".

I would stay clear of fasting as much as possible. That's just my opinion.

ilovedeadlifts

Read the FAQs for the Intermittent Fasting (IF) group:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/forums/show/66-intermittent-fasting

this.
and do more research.
you clearly need to know it isn't Intermediate Fasting if you plan on doing it.

mfpcopine

Agree with above. There seems to be a common misconception that IF has a metabolic advantage. Meal frequency should be decided purely on personal preference and performance.

Right. It doesn't have a magic effect on the metabolism. It's a time-shifting method. For some people, it's easier not to overeat if they aren't constantly having to think about eating and there's some evidence that it's good to give the digestive system some rest, which doesn't happen when people eat six times a day.

It's also not about eating extremely low amounts of calories, although you do have to create a calorie deficit over the week if you're trying to lose weight.

There are many forms of IF and it isn't for everyone. I myself do a very mild form (a 14-hour fast/10-hour eating window) and I only do it a couple of times a week.

medoria

Every time I don't drink my water, I can feel my body retaining every sip I take, I can only imagine how much my body would "store" each time I tried fasting for a few hours/days.

I have heard from many nutritionists that the only way to lose weight was to eat, but eat healthy and good portions. You can never "starve" your body because the minute you start eating "real food" or unprocessed foods, your body stores all that he needs "just in case".

I would stay clear of fasting as much as possible. That's just my opinion.

Fasting is not the same as starving. Stop confusing things. Unless you´ve actually read about IF, the pros and cons, I dont seem the need for you to spreading all this bromance.

MrDude_1

Every time I don't drink my water, I can feel my body retaining every sip I take, I can only imagine how much my body would "store" each time I tried fasting for a few hours/days.

I have heard from many nutritionists that the only way to lose weight was to eat, but eat healthy and good portions. You can never "starve" your body because the minute you start eating "real food" or unprocessed foods, your body stores all that he needs "just in case".

I would stay clear of fasting as much as possible. That's just my opinion.

Thats a bit misguided.
not eating for 16 hours does not make the body "starved"..

think of the millions that skip breakfast for example.. they went to bed at night, slept, woke up, and didnt eat until noon. This is normal for millions of healthy people around the world.

You are correct however that its not good to starve the body.. this means not eating enough for a prolonged period of time.... not "skipping Break-Fast"

RunHardBeStrong

Every time I don't drink my water, I can feel my body retaining every sip I take, I can only imagine how much my body would "store" each time I tried fasting for a few hours/days.

I have heard from many nutritionists that the only way to lose weight was to eat, but eat healthy and good portions. You can never "starve" your body because the minute you start eating "real food" or unprocessed foods, your body stores all that he needs "just in case".

I would stay clear of fasting as much as possible. That's just my opinion.

Fasting is not the same as starving. Stop confusing things. Unless you´ve actually read about IF, the pros and cons, I dont seem the need for you to spreading all this bromance.

I had a long reply to this but you said it much quicker than I would! lol Yes, it's NOT starving yourself. You still eat your weekly allotted calories. I have had great results with IF and suggest whether or not you ever plan on doing it to read it and actually understand it before forming an opinion.

For the OP: I strongly suggest reading the over FAQ's in the group, lots of great info!

rileysowner

It is not some magic thing, it is a way of eating that works for some people. I do two 24 hour fasts a week, and eat at maintenance on the other days. I lose about a pound a week. The advantage for me is on my eating days I can eat a lot more and hence have bigger meals, and going 24 hour from supper to supper breaking the fast with a 500-700 calorie meal is easy for me. I can drink all the water I want, and I do. I just don't consume anything with calories for that 24 hours. For some people that would be a horribly hard thing to do. For me, it is easy. I concur with those who say research it; then if it seems like it would work for you, try it.