Intermittent Fasting

squatsandlipgloss
squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
I have been eating healthy and exercising for almost 4 months now (haven't missed a day of exercise) and lost 32+ lbs so far.

I am going to try Intermittent Fasting tomorrow 16/8, because I have heard a lot of good things about it. It is not that I am not losing weight right now but I wouldn't mind kicking it up a notch. I don't really eat all day, I usually have breakfast after 9 and have diner before 7, so my window now is 10 hours, so decreasing the window with 2 hours won't be too hard for me I think.

Anyone have experience with IF? And any tips for me? Eat different? Keep it all the same? Try a smaller window? Caloric intake is about 1,500 - 1,600 and I do Insanity.

Replies

  • rduhlir
    rduhlir Posts: 3,550 Member
    I do believe that there is a 5:2 group on here.

    I am not against it (it just would be very hard for me to do it becaus I LOVE FOOD lol) but if what you are doing is working then why change it? Sorry...I have a "if it isn't broken why fix it" mentality lol.
  • dexter4564
    dexter4564 Posts: 86 Member
    I don't have first hand experience, but a friend of mine tried intermittent fasting and lost a bit of weight. Never asked if he managed to keep it off though.
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    I do believe that there is a 5:2 group on here.

    I am not against it (it just would be very hard for me to do it becaus I LOVE FOOD lol) but if what you are doing is working then why change it? Sorry...I have a "if it isn't broken why fix it" mentality lol.

    Isn't 5:2 a totally different thing though? I thought that was eating more one day than the next? IF is eating all your calories within a smaller time frame. So for example you eat all your calories from 10 to 6 or 11 to 7.
  • melaniecheeks
    melaniecheeks Posts: 6,349 Member
    5:2 is a different sort of IF to the restricted window of eating your suggesting. But there are plenty of other mfp users who do that( try searching eat sto eat) so you could find some support and advice on here.
  • phatguerilla
    phatguerilla Posts: 188 Member
    I think women are suggested to start with a 14 fast, even if you want to change to 16 hours in the future it would be good to start with 14 not such a shock to the system. You will be hungry the first couple of days at first. Good luck!
  • rduhlir
    rduhlir Posts: 3,550 Member
    I do believe that there is a 5:2 group on here.

    I am not against it (it just would be very hard for me to do it becaus I LOVE FOOD lol) but if what you are doing is working then why change it? Sorry...I have a "if it isn't broken why fix it" mentality lol.

    Isn't 5:2 a totally different thing though? I thought that was eating more one day than the next? IF is eating all your calories within a smaller time frame. So for example you eat all your calories from 10 to 6 or 11 to 7.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but 5:2 is 5 days eating at maintenance and 2 days eating at 500 calories...which would still be a IF version yes?

    Either way:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/49-intermittent-fasting
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/8005-5-2-fasting
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    I think women are suggested to start with a 14 fast, even if you want to change to 16 hours in the future it would be good to start with 14 not such a shock to the system. You will be hungry the first couple of days at first. Good luck!

    As I've stated in my OP, I already have a 14 hour "fast" (unintentionally) every day, since I never have breakfast before 9am and usually eat before 7pm. So going to a 16 hour fast won't change too much I think? Thanks for the kind words!
  • kusterer
    kusterer Posts: 90 Member
    There have been a few recent looooong threads on fasting that turned out mostly to be about IF. I do it, 12 to 8, mostly because I am not hungry before or after that.

    I have lost 20 lbs in 11 weeks, almost all from logging, because I was doing IF before that, just eating more and losing less. When my son was about your age, he started eating one meal a day, and has been trim for the 12 years since. Counterintuitively, exercise before eating seems to feel better, and I have read here that some research says it also work better.

    But.
    You say you have lost 32 pounds in under 4 months, and that you have had diet-caused loss-regain cycles before. IF if you like. But I think it would not be a good idea, at least for me if I was in your situation, to "kick it up a notch" from how fast you're already losing.
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    I do believe that there is a 5:2 group on here.

    I am not against it (it just would be very hard for me to do it becaus I LOVE FOOD lol) but if what you are doing is working then why change it? Sorry...I have a "if it isn't broken why fix it" mentality lol.

    Isn't 5:2 a totally different thing though? I thought that was eating more one day than the next? IF is eating all your calories within a smaller time frame. So for example you eat all your calories from 10 to 6 or 11 to 7.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but 5:2 is 5 days eating at maintenance and 2 days eating at 500 calories...which would still be a IF version yes?

    Either way:

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/49-intermittent-fasting
    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/groups/home/8005-5-2-fasting

    Thanks for the info, I had no idea what 5:2 really was. Doesn't sound like something for me since it requires calorie restriction, I'm all about eating enough!
  • alanlmarshall
    alanlmarshall Posts: 587 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compliance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    There have been a few recent looooong threads on fasting that turned out mostly to be about IF. I do it, 12 to 8, mostly because I am not hungry before or after that.

    I have lost 20 lbs in 11 weeks, almost all from logging, because I was doing IF before that, just eating more and losing less. When my son was about your age, he started eating one meal a day, and has been trim for the 12 years since. Counterintuitively, exercise before eating seems to feel better, and I have read here that some research says it also work better.

    But.
    You say you have lost 32 pounds in under 4 months, and that you have had diet-caused loss-regain cycles before. IF if you like. But I think it would not be a good idea, at least for me if I was in your situation, to "kick it up a notch" from how fast you're already losing.

    Thanks so much for the kind words and tips. I have to say though that the first months I lost faster than the past month. The past month I have "only" lost about 6 lbs. This is why I want to try IF. I also read that exercising before your eating window is a good idea, I am a bit scared but I will also try that. I will look for the threads you are talking about!
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)
  • phatguerilla
    phatguerilla Posts: 188 Member
    I think women are suggested to start with a 14 fast, even if you want to change to 16 hours in the future it would be good to start with 14 not such a shock to the system. You will be hungry the first couple of days at first. Good luck!

    As I've stated in my OP, I already have a 14 hour "fast" (unintentionally) every day, since I never have breakfast before 9am and usually eat before 7pm. So going to a 16 hour fast won't change too much I think? Thanks for the kind words!

    Sorry I misread and thought you were fasting 10 hours, my bad. 16 should be an easy transition so.
  • AbsoluteNG
    AbsoluteNG Posts: 1,079 Member
    I do believe that there is a 5:2 group on here.

    I am not against it (it just would be very hard for me to do it becaus I LOVE FOOD lol) but if what you are doing is working then why change it? Sorry...I have a "if it isn't broken why fix it" mentality lol.

    Isn't 5:2 a totally different thing though? I thought that was eating more one day than the next? IF is eating all your calories within a smaller time frame. So for example you eat all your calories from 10 to 6 or 11 to 7.

    No it's not. Intermittent fasting is a general term for all types of fasts ranging from leangains 16/8, Mosley's 5:2, and alternate date fasting. I believe the term came about in many research papers.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    Your calorie needs are your calorie needs, regardless of when or how often you eat. It has nothing to do with faster, more productive fat loss.

    The success with IF (no matter which style you choose) comes from compliance. It is lots easier for some people to eat larger meals less frequently and maintain their calorie intake.

    It's still about calories in/calories out. There's no magical number of hours to wait between meals or magical eating "schedule". The one that works best is the one YOU can stick to and feel satiated.
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    Your calorie needs are your calorie needs, regardless of when or how often you eat. It has nothing to do with faster, more productive fat loss.

    The success with IF (no matter which style you choose) comes from compliance. It is lots easier for some people to eat larger meals less frequently and maintain their calorie intake.

    It's still about calories in/calories out. There's no magical number of hours to wait between meals or magical eating "schedule". The one that works best is the one YOU can stick to and feel satiated.

    Thanks a lot for your input, when I first heard of IF about 1.5 years ago, I also thought it was weird. I came across a lot of studies and people that said that even with the same amount of calories they'd lose faster when they had a smaller window. This might just be a psychological thing though. I have absolutely no experience with this, but I guess I'll find out! Won't hurt I guess.
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    I do believe that there is a 5:2 group on here.

    I am not against it (it just would be very hard for me to do it becaus I LOVE FOOD lol) but if what you are doing is working then why change it? Sorry...I have a "if it isn't broken why fix it" mentality lol.

    Isn't 5:2 a totally different thing though? I thought that was eating more one day than the next? IF is eating all your calories within a smaller time frame. So for example you eat all your calories from 10 to 6 or 11 to 7.

    No it's not. Intermittent fasting is a general term for all types of fasts ranging from leangains 16/8, Mosley's 5:2, and alternate date fasting. I believe the term came about in many research papers.

    Thanks for that, I had no idea. I used to be on a big low carb message board and there they would always use the term IF as a way of eating with the 5-8 hour eating window. And also read numerous articles where this type of fasting is refered to as IF, but I digress. So, JUDDD is also a type of IF then?
  • BarackMeLikeAHurricane
    BarackMeLikeAHurricane Posts: 3,400 Member
    I do 20/4 and have been doing it for quite a while. I eat from 7pm-11pm. I basically just snack and eat whatever I feel like (within my calorie/macro budget) for four hours then go to sleep. I like to go lift right before I eat when possible.
  • phatguerilla
    phatguerilla Posts: 188 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    Your calorie needs are your calorie needs, regardless of when or how often you eat. It has nothing to do with faster, more productive fat loss.

    Fasting changes your bodies hormonal responses and can increase fat loss.
  • skinnyinnotime
    skinnyinnotime Posts: 4,078 Member
    There is a group on here that does IF, one of my lovely friends in on there, go find it, they'll tell you everything you need to know.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    Your calorie needs are your calorie needs, regardless of when or how often you eat. It has nothing to do with faster, more productive fat loss.

    The success with IF (no matter which style you choose) comes from compliance. It is lots easier for some people to eat larger meals less frequently and maintain their calorie intake.

    It's still about calories in/calories out. There's no magical number of hours to wait between meals or magical eating "schedule". The one that works best is the one YOU can stick to and feel satiated.

    Thanks a lot for your input, when I first heard of IF about 1.5 years ago, I also thought it was weird. I came across a lot of studies and people that said that even with the same amount of calories they'd lose faster when they had a smaller window. This might just be a psychological thing though. I have absolutely no experience with this, but I guess I'll find out! Won't hurt I guess.

    Thing is, lots of people also tout the "eat five or six meals a day" thing. I couldn't do that - I tried. I am happiest when I eat two big meals a day. I would love it if some of the IF people had long-term studies that prove a significant difference, but it just isn't so. If food is completely accounted for in detail (meaning in a scientific way, as in - these people are sequestered and fed on specific schedules, and all eat the exact same things...) and if the fat loss was faster in IF plans - don't you think it would be a much more touted "plan"? If it were such a successful strategy - with no other variables - we all would be able to lose weight at some "faster" (whatever that is) rate.

    So, I guess I could call myself an IFer, but really, I just eat at a small deficit and since that doesn't allow me a truckload of food, I had to find a method that worked for me to use long-term. I do better when I don't spend a lot of time in the kitchen looking for my next snack. And I feel better longer with a meal that's 700-1000 calories.
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    Thanks everyone for your thoughts and experiences on this topic. If it doesn't increase the fat loss, I will be happy if it will keep me full longer and it will help me take my mind off of food for a bit. I am afraid that I will become obsessed with food (weighing and calorie counting) but that's a whole nother topic ;)
  • squatsandlipgloss
    squatsandlipgloss Posts: 595 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    Your calorie needs are your calorie needs, regardless of when or how often you eat. It has nothing to do with faster, more productive fat loss.

    The success with IF (no matter which style you choose) comes from compliance. It is lots easier for some people to eat larger meals less frequently and maintain their calorie intake.

    It's still about calories in/calories out. There's no magical number of hours to wait between meals or magical eating "schedule". The one that works best is the one YOU can stick to and feel satiated.

    Thanks a lot for your input, when I first heard of IF about 1.5 years ago, I also thought it was weird. I came across a lot of studies and people that said that even with the same amount of calories they'd lose faster when they had a smaller window. This might just be a psychological thing though. I have absolutely no experience with this, but I guess I'll find out! Won't hurt I guess.

    Thing is, lots of people also tout the "eat five or six meals a day" thing. I couldn't do that - I tried. I am happiest when I eat two big meals a day. I would love it if some of the IF people had long-term studies that prove a significant difference, but it just isn't so. If food is completely accounted for in detail (meaning in a scientific way, as in - these people are sequestered and fed on specific schedules, and all eat the exact same things...) and if the fat loss was faster in IF plans - don't you think it would be a much more touted "plan"? If it were such a successful strategy - with no other variables - we all would be able to lose weight at some "faster" (whatever that is) rate.

    So, I guess I could call myself an IFer, but really, I just eat at a small deficit and since that doesn't allow me a truckload of food, I had to find a method that worked for me to use long-term. I do better when I don't spend a lot of time in the kitchen looking for my next snack. And I feel better longer with a meal that's 700-1000 calories.

    Do you pay attention to what you eat? Do you eat healthy or only care about calories? The way you describe your day sounds really good... 2 big meals and not worry about snacks and planning and preparing and constantly have food on your mind...
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,416 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    Your calorie needs are your calorie needs, regardless of when or how often you eat. It has nothing to do with faster, more productive fat loss.

    The success with IF (no matter which style you choose) comes from compliance. It is lots easier for some people to eat larger meals less frequently and maintain their calorie intake.

    It's still about calories in/calories out. There's no magical number of hours to wait between meals or magical eating "schedule". The one that works best is the one YOU can stick to and feel satiated.

    Thanks a lot for your input, when I first heard of IF about 1.5 years ago, I also thought it was weird. I came across a lot of studies and people that said that even with the same amount of calories they'd lose faster when they had a smaller window. This might just be a psychological thing though. I have absolutely no experience with this, but I guess I'll find out! Won't hurt I guess.

    Thing is, lots of people also tout the "eat five or six meals a day" thing. I couldn't do that - I tried. I am happiest when I eat two big meals a day. I would love it if some of the IF people had long-term studies that prove a significant difference, but it just isn't so. If food is completely accounted for in detail (meaning in a scientific way, as in - these people are sequestered and fed on specific schedules, and all eat the exact same things...) and if the fat loss was faster in IF plans - don't you think it would be a much more touted "plan"? If it were such a successful strategy - with no other variables - we all would be able to lose weight at some "faster" (whatever that is) rate.

    So, I guess I could call myself an IFer, but really, I just eat at a small deficit and since that doesn't allow me a truckload of food, I had to find a method that worked for me to use long-term. I do better when I don't spend a lot of time in the kitchen looking for my next snack. And I feel better longer with a meal that's 700-1000 calories.

    Do you pay attention to what you eat? Do you eat healthy or only care about calories? The way you describe your day sounds really good... 2 big meals and not worry about snacks and planning and preparing and constantly have food on your mind...

    I do pay attention to what I eat, and I eat 12 of my meals at home every week. Homemade, mostly whole foods. My macros are set to 45% Fats 25%Protein and 30% Carbs. That's the way I naturally like to eat...and it allows me to feel full and satiated. My sugar consumption is limited (for the most part) to less than 1Tb a day. Usually once a week I'll have dessert - you know, the 400-500 calorie type of sugary deliciousness. I have a beer every day, so I guess that counts as sugar, though :tongue:

    I'm pretty much at maintenance, have been for five years. I finally stopped trying to do some magical plan, and just one day started eating the way I used to when I was young - like 20 years old and younger. Two meals a day works for me. I'm amazed at how I feel naturally content this way. I've been doing this for two years now. It's the only way I can keep the weight off.
  • alanlmarshall
    alanlmarshall Posts: 587 Member
    IF itself will not increase weight loss, it is still calories in/calories out. For some, it makes compiance easier. Make sure you eat enough during your feeding window.

    I will definitely make sure to eat as much as I do now, don't think I could survive on less! I did read and hear that "fasting" longer periods will give your body more time to burn the fat. Not too educated on this topic yet, so I am going to give it a shot for a few weeks so I can see for myself how and if it works for me :)

    No evidence of that. There is some evidence of beneficial hormonal changes, but that is all.
  • mazekah
    mazekah Posts: 52
    You are so awesome in your commitment! I have found that fasting takes a toll on me physically after a day. Sometimes I just do lunchtime to lunchtime. I know when I fast for spiritual reasons that helps with the hunger. Good luck!

Categories