Intermittent fasting
sunandmoons
Posts: 415 Member
Hello!
I have lost weight doing intermittent fasting..meaning not eating after 7 pm and then eating at noon or 1 pm the next day.. I dont get hungry in the morning and its easy for me to do and actually was doing it without trying. I still count the alloted calories from MFP. Mornings are the busiest time for me so it I dont even think about food. I know its not for everyone. Whats your take on this?
I have lost weight doing intermittent fasting..meaning not eating after 7 pm and then eating at noon or 1 pm the next day.. I dont get hungry in the morning and its easy for me to do and actually was doing it without trying. I still count the alloted calories from MFP. Mornings are the busiest time for me so it I dont even think about food. I know its not for everyone. Whats your take on this?
0
Replies
-
I think it's fantastic if you're trying to drop BF/weight.
Not exactly the best strategy if you're trying put on as much mass as possible, as its harder for me to eat as much in such a small window.
But if it works, don't fix it
0 -
I do 18:6 and I absolutely love it. Starting the 5:2 soon.
0 -
Intermittent Fasting is about nothing but convenience. As long as you're eating your alloted calories within a 24 hr period, it doesn't matter how and when you eat them.0
-
Do whatever works for you. I naturally stop eating about 6-7 and don't eat until 10-11 the next day. HOWEVER, I found when I tried to label it, or consciously do it, my brain denied.0
-
Thank you for your replies!! I feel better when fasting. It makes me more accountable for what I do eat. Seem as though I have more energy. Your right though, if I was to purposely try it my brain would fail too. It seems to work very well when I dont think about it and it just happens that way. However, I think it gives your digestion a chance to rest. I do drink two 24 ounces of water in between.0
-
I am all for IF,, good groups on here too.0
-
Thanks! I will check it out.0
-
I've been doing the 16:8 version for about a week and its worked great so far!! I'm never hungry so for me, its a good plan.
0 -
That's pretty much what I do. I've always been a natural no-breakfast eater, so I use that to my advantage. I normally eat for the first time between noon and 1, and then I'm done by about 7. If it helps you, I say go for it.0
-
Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.0
-
I use IF and I find it helps allocate calories to the times I'm most likely to over eat and keeps me within them. On a bulk, this could be difficult.0
-
I adore IF. I'm 17:7. Between IF and keto, I'm not hungry.
Great group... http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/49-intermittent-fasting0 -
I adore IF. I'm 17:7. Between IF and keto, I'm not hungry.
Great group... http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/49-intermittent-fasting
+1 for 17:7.
I intentionally set out to do 16:8, but I prefer 17:7 for some reason.
0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.
**Please note there are fewer risks for men fasting than women. I've seen no evidence or studies that list any risks for women doing 16:8. I however would not personally recommend women fast for longer on a regular basis (unless it's for religious or spiritual reasons). The potential risks start to pile on when women fast longer than 16 hours and increase the longer you go. Please research the risks before attempting regular longer fasts.
I very much enjoyed 16:8. I found it an effective maintenance woe.0 -
I used to do a really small window as my hunger dictated, about 18:6, but I started working out more and now range anywhere from 12:12 to 16:8.
I basically just ... don't eat breakfast until I'm hungry, and stop eating early. It's not something I knew was a "thing" until I came onto MFP. I just found it was the best way for me to control my appetite.0 -
PeachyCarol wrote: »<snip>I basically just ... don't eat breakfast until I'm hungry, and stop eating early. It's not something I knew was a "thing" until I came onto MFP. I just found it was the best way for me to control my appetite.
+10 -
IF, or "skipping breakfast" as it used to be called, is excellent for those who like to eat that way. Eating pattern is a matter of preference. One can also adapt to other patterns if wnated/needed.
Just rememeber that everybody fasts when sleeping, that's what "breakfast" alludes to.
And giving the digestive system a "rest" beyond that, isn't necessary, as the digestive system is made for - well, digestion.0 -
The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.
**Please note there are fewer risks for men fasting than women. I've seen no evidence or studies that list any risks for women doing 16:8. I however would not personally recommend women fast for longer on a regular basis (unless it's for religious or spiritual reasons). The potential risks start to pile on when women fast longer than 16 hours and increase the longer you go. Please research the risks before attempting regular longer fasts.
I very much enjoyed 16:8. I found it an effective maintenance woe.
Can you speak to what these increased risks are? Do they affect all or most women? Or just women in a specific subset and if so what is that subset?
I've read a good deal about alternate day fasting and 5:2 plans, and from what I've read, they don't seem to have considerable increased risks for most women and they often have 24 hour fasts. In fact, they can have additional benefits such as increased insulin sensitivity and decreasing levels of IGF-1. So I'd really like to know more about the risks to which you're referring. Please share.
0 -
Another 18:6er here.
:drinker:
"If you're happy and you know it, clap your hands...!"0 -
I tend to eat one meal a day. The only time I get in trouble with it is if I get hungry later in the day and refuse to eat a second meal that day. That kicks in the sugar cravings and when I don't give in, I often wake up feeling like crap next day.0
-
lindsey1979 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.
**Please note there are fewer risks for men fasting than women. I've seen no evidence or studies that list any risks for women doing 16:8. I however would not personally recommend women fast for longer on a regular basis (unless it's for religious or spiritual reasons). The potential risks start to pile on when women fast longer than 16 hours and increase the longer you go. Please research the risks before attempting regular longer fasts.
I very much enjoyed 16:8. I found it an effective maintenance woe.
Can you speak to what these increased risks are? Do they affect all or most women? Or just women in a specific subset and if so what is that subset?
I've read a good deal about alternate day fasting and 5:2 plans, and from what I've read, they don't seem to have considerable increased risks for most women and they often have 24 hour fasts. In fact, they can have additional benefits such as increased insulin sensitivity and decreasing levels of IGF-1. So I'd really like to know more about the risks to which you're referring. Please share.
http://paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/#comments
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/women-and-intermittent-fasting/#axzz3mL8qR1W2
0 -
I heard IF was not good with women, so I never went down that route - as the point of my weight loss is to try to get pregnant. So for me it wasn't worth taking the risk. However, I've never personally tried it so couldn't say one way or the other.0
-
lindsey1979 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.
**Please note there are fewer risks for men fasting than women. I've seen no evidence or studies that list any risks for women doing 16:8. I however would not personally recommend women fast for longer on a regular basis (unless it's for religious or spiritual reasons). The potential risks start to pile on when women fast longer than 16 hours and increase the longer you go. Please research the risks before attempting regular longer fasts.
I very much enjoyed 16:8. I found it an effective maintenance woe.
Can you speak to what these increased risks are? Do they affect all or most women? Or just women in a specific subset and if so what is that subset?
I've read a good deal about alternate day fasting and 5:2 plans, and from what I've read, they don't seem to have considerable increased risks for most women and they often have 24 hour fasts. In fact, they can have additional benefits such as increased insulin sensitivity and decreasing levels of IGF-1. So I'd really like to know more about the risks to which you're referring. Please share.
http://paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/#comments
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/women-and-intermittent-fasting/#axzz3mL8qR1W2
I've read those articles and I did know that IF may not produce as good as results as it did for men, but I didn't interpret that nearly as much as a "risk". More of a "hey, this may not work all that well for you." And, at least for me, that's wasn't the case at all -- I found it shockingly easy and had great results -- though I only found that with 5:2. I never did ADF and didn't find any noticeable differences with 16:8 or 14:10. My insulin sensitivity did improve, but that also may have been from the weight loss.
The only "risk" I knew about which is one of the ones mentioned in both articles was the possibility of affecting hormonal issues for those pregnant or trying to get pregnant. Since I was neither at the time, I didn't worry about it. I've never read of any other real risk. Thanks for sharing.
0 -
Alternate day fasting works better, if that's your thing. I'm an ADFer and the weight just sheds off without you trying.0
-
IF, has been a great eating pattern for me.0
-
It's more of my general disclaimer for any female reading these forums.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.
**Please note there are fewer risks for men fasting than women. I've seen no evidence or studies that list any risks for women doing 16:8. I however would not personally recommend women fast for longer on a regular basis (unless it's for religious or spiritual reasons). The potential risks start to pile on when women fast longer than 16 hours and increase the longer you go. Please research the risks before attempting regular longer fasts.
I very much enjoyed 16:8. I found it an effective maintenance woe.
Can you speak to what these increased risks are? Do they affect all or most women? Or just women in a specific subset and if so what is that subset?
I've read a good deal about alternate day fasting and 5:2 plans, and from what I've read, they don't seem to have considerable increased risks for most women and they often have 24 hour fasts. In fact, they can have additional benefits such as increased insulin sensitivity and decreasing levels of IGF-1. So I'd really like to know more about the risks to which you're referring. Please share.
http://paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/#comments
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/women-and-intermittent-fasting/#axzz3mL8qR1W2
I've read those articles and I did know that IF may not produce as good as results as it did for men, but I didn't interpret that nearly as much as a "risk". More of a "hey, this may not work all that well for you." And, at least for me, that's wasn't the case at all -- I found it shockingly easy and had great results -- though I only found that with 5:2. I never did ADF and didn't find any noticeable differences with 16:8 or 14:10. My insulin sensitivity did improve, but that also may have been from the weight loss.
The only "risk" I knew about which is one of the ones mentioned in both articles was the possibility of affecting hormonal issues for those pregnant or trying to get pregnant. Since I was neither at the time, I didn't worry about it. I've never read of any other real risk. Thanks for sharing.
My research in medical articles (and the kinds of things linked above, thanks for linking) found next to no risk of hormonal issues for women doing 18:6. Once you start fasting longer on a regular basis, it showered hormonal issues to increase. Not just fertility, but hormones control all sorts of functions in our bodies and getting them off balance (as I think anyone in the menopause range can attest to...) is not something I want to risk. I worked SUPER hard putting muscle and bone mass back on, I personally don't want to do ANYTHING to increase my risk. Whether you take hormonal birth control, have had a hysterectomy... all these things affect our risks. Men simply don't have to consider this. All they have to consider is whether they have the willpower to fast longer than 24 hours.
Many women coming to these forums to read these threads are young women (some even younger than 18!) who probably don't want to take chances with their hormones. I just feel obligated to note that 16:8 (for those interested in trying IF) does not have the potential risks of others. I didn't mean to sound overly alarmist.
0 -
It's more of my general disclaimer for any female reading these forums.lindsey1979 wrote: »lindsey1979 wrote: »The_Invisible_Boy wrote: »Luv IF. During the week I just one meal a day or a very small window. On my days off usually a bigger window. I feel much better eating this way too! Every once in a while I fast for around 40 hours.
**Please note there are fewer risks for men fasting than women. I've seen no evidence or studies that list any risks for women doing 16:8. I however would not personally recommend women fast for longer on a regular basis (unless it's for religious or spiritual reasons). The potential risks start to pile on when women fast longer than 16 hours and increase the longer you go. Please research the risks before attempting regular longer fasts.
I very much enjoyed 16:8. I found it an effective maintenance woe.
Can you speak to what these increased risks are? Do they affect all or most women? Or just women in a specific subset and if so what is that subset?
I've read a good deal about alternate day fasting and 5:2 plans, and from what I've read, they don't seem to have considerable increased risks for most women and they often have 24 hour fasts. In fact, they can have additional benefits such as increased insulin sensitivity and decreasing levels of IGF-1. So I'd really like to know more about the risks to which you're referring. Please share.
http://paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/#comments
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/women-and-intermittent-fasting/#axzz3mL8qR1W2
I've read those articles and I did know that IF may not produce as good as results as it did for men, but I didn't interpret that nearly as much as a "risk". More of a "hey, this may not work all that well for you." And, at least for me, that's wasn't the case at all -- I found it shockingly easy and had great results -- though I only found that with 5:2. I never did ADF and didn't find any noticeable differences with 16:8 or 14:10. My insulin sensitivity did improve, but that also may have been from the weight loss.
The only "risk" I knew about which is one of the ones mentioned in both articles was the possibility of affecting hormonal issues for those pregnant or trying to get pregnant. Since I was neither at the time, I didn't worry about it. I've never read of any other real risk. Thanks for sharing.
My research in medical articles (and the kinds of things linked above, thanks for linking) found next to no risk of hormonal issues for women doing 18:6. Once you start fasting longer on a regular basis, it showered hormonal issues to increase. Not just fertility, but hormones control all sorts of functions in our bodies and getting them off balance (as I think anyone in the menopause range can attest to...) is not something I want to risk. I worked SUPER hard putting muscle and bone mass back on, I personally don't want to do ANYTHING to increase my risk. Whether you take hormonal birth control, have had a hysterectomy... all these things affect our risks. Men simply don't have to consider this. All they have to consider is whether they have the willpower to fast longer than 24 hours.
Many women coming to these forums to read these threads are young women (some even younger than 18!) who probably don't want to take chances with their hormones. I just feel obligated to note that 16:8 (for those interested in trying IF) does not have the potential risks of others. I didn't mean to sound overly alarmist.
Fair enough, but a lot I've read liken those "risks" to the hormonal shifts you see in a prolonged caloric deficit too. And I haven't seen anything on other systems like 5:2. If the "risks" were substantial for such fasts you'd think that we'd see such hormonal problems in groups that regularly practice 24 hour fasts such as certain sects of jews, muslims, etc. And, as far as I know, the women in those groups haven't been found to have any more substantial hormonal shifts than others.
I'm not sure I'd go as far to say it's alarmist, but just that the research in human women is very, very scant -- which even Stefani points out. So, a "risk" seems like a very strong word to me in this context.
0 -
-
That's my natural tendency, and while I always have coffee in the AM, sometimes I eat a bit, sometimes I don't. It works well for me to have a big meal at night; that way once a day I fill my belly to the satisfaction point and so I rarely feel deprived. "Six small meals a day" was a living hell for me, as I was never satisfied yet had to think about food constantly. So I am not purely 18:6 though I was for months at a time.0
-
michelle7673 wrote: »That's my natural tendency, and while I always have coffee in the AM, sometimes I eat a bit, sometimes I don't. It works well for me to have a big meal at night; that way once a day I fill my belly to the satisfaction point and so I rarely feel deprived. "Six small meals a day" was a living hell for me, as I was never satisfied yet had to think about food constantly. So I am not purely 18:6 though I was for months at a time.
Same here. Also realized recently that my petite mother has eaten this way for over 20 years; just what she's always done!
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions