5 hour fast?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

I used to be a member of the "you have to eat all the time or your metabolism will slow down" cult, so I would eat every couple of hours. That didn't really work for me, because I felt like I could never have a full meal, only table scraps.

I've done IF and I liked how it made me want to eat healthy foods during my feeding window. Being really hungry made me want to have real food, not junk.

Ultimately the IF thing made me a bit too crabby though.

There's no real science behind IF, IMHO. I think the reason it supposedly works is because there's just only so much you can cram into your face in a five hour window (at least in my case!)

What's worked best for me is breakfast, lunch, and dinner. You know, the old-fashioned way. I try not to do snacks unless it's something very tiny like a piece of fruit or a low calorie protein drink.

Everyone is different. If you want to try IF for a while and see how you feel, and don't have medical issues that would make it a bad idea, why not give it a shot?

Um? I eat three meal a day with no snack so I probably only spend 90 minutes a day actually eating - would that count??? ; ) xx

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.

In my opinion you can find sources on the internet that help you argue for/against anything you want even that Men In Black is based on a true story!

End of day just do whatever works best for you!

Losing weight should be done by initiating a lifestyle change - maybe fasting will help you lose weight faster or whatever, but it is unrealistic to keep doing that for the rest of your life, in order to maintain a weight loss. We should be teaching ourselves how to eat properly, in order to lose weight and keep it off. And fasting, is not eating properly.

The idea of intermittent fasting is that it is actually sustainable. People can do it for the rest of their life. Although it's more for longterm health benefits than for weight loss - research is suggesting it helps people live longer and helps prevent diseases like heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, etc. But weight loss also tends to happen.

There is a fairly poplular group called Fast-5. Where you eat all your caloires in any 5 hour time period during the day you want to and then don't eat anything for 19 hours. It touts that it should help with controling your blood sugar and help with hypothyroidisim.

It seems counter intuitive to me, isn't the point of controlling blood sugar trying to keep it even so it doesn't crash too low or spike too high? Seems like your blood sugar would be totally crashed not eating for 19 hours, and then would spike terribly when you do eat.

I did the 19/5 thing yesterday completely by chance. I have no input on this "starvation mode" thing, but here's what happened:

Previous night, around 6, stopped eating.
Didn't eat until 1 pm the next day.
Ate about 600-300 calories every couple of hours between 1 and 6.
Woke up at 3 AM hungry the next day.

Pros: With exercise and eat back, netted around 1200 calories. Satisfied my fat girl urge to eat constantly for a day, which I will admit was rather awesome. Also, Dog the Bounty Hunter was on at 3 AM.
Cons: Metabolism is definitely off. 3 AM?

Overall I liked my fast but I think I personally need a more constant stream of calories to maintain my metabolism (aka not get ridiculously hungry the next day). I think I would do this again if I wanted to eat a ridiculous amount in a ridiculously small time, but for me it'll be rare!

Good luck finding what works for you, OP!

It seems counter intuitive to me, isn't the point of controlling blood sugar trying to keep it even so it doesn't crash too low or spike too high? Seems like your blood sugar would be totally crashed not eating for 19 hours, and then would spike terribly when you do eat.

Well, the studies done so far show a reduction in blood sugar for people who do intermittent fasting (although I'm not sure about the five hour thing - in the documentary they were focused on people who reduced calorie intake every other day, or at weekends). It's an interesting documentary, and talks about the science behind it - you can see it on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSh6Ot8d7bU (that's just part 1, but you can click to the rest of the parts).

I have been eating all my calories between 9am-4pm..Nothing after 4pm and it works for me. I have been walking more and if I get hungry after 4pm, I just drink more water and do things around the house or exercise to occupy my time. I actually feel better doing it this way.... I lost 1.8 lbs since Monday..I usually don't weigh myself except once every Monday but I wanted to see how I was doing on this intermittent fasting diet so I weighed this morning. I always make sure that my totals are always under for sugar and carbs....I eat lots of protein...stay away from breads.... Good luck with this and thanks to Sidesteal ..I didn't know that about the starvation mode and storing fat...Thats good info. Good luck to you!

Losing weight should be done by initiating a lifestyle change - maybe fasting will help you lose weight faster or whatever, but it is unrealistic to keep doing that for the rest of your life, in order to maintain a weight loss. We should be teaching ourselves how to eat properly, in order to lose weight and keep it off. And fasting, is not eating properly.

The idea of intermittent fasting is that it is actually sustainable. People can do it for the rest of their life. Although it's more for longterm health benefits than for weight loss - research is suggesting it helps people live longer and helps prevent diseases like heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, etc. But weight loss also tends to happen.

You can do anything for the rest of your life if you don't mind doing it. But who actually wants to do that for the rest of their life?
If you learn how to eat properly, you will have long term health benefits - there is no reason to fast.