Intermittent Fasting

Does it matter where the 16hours of fasting occurs? In other words, can I have my breakfast as long as I stop eating early enough to have 16 hours of fasting?

twinmom_112002 wrote: »

Does it matter where the 16hours of fasting occurs? In other words, can I have my breakfast as long as I stop eating early enough to have 16 hours of fasting?

I think it depends on how much of the hormone manipulation you buy into. If you're all in, then you want your fast window to include your morning hours when insulin production is naturally lower.

If you're only IFing to restrict when you eat in an effort to help control how much you eat (i.e. get in and stay in a deficit), then your window can start and stop be whenever you want.


ETA - full disclose, the above is based on what I've read on IF, and none of what I've read has been actual studies. I ain't got time for that. I read people I believe to be knowledgeable and respected on the topic in question, and glean knowledge from them.

The research on intermittent fasting that I've read has been pretty interesting. I remember reading one study on mice where 2 groups were given the same calorie amounts, but one group's intake was restricted to an 8 hour window while the other group had 24 hour access to the food. The mice with restricted eating, despite consuming the same number of calories weighed less than the group that could eat whenever it wanted.

twinmom_112002 wrote: »

Does it matter where the 16hours of fasting occurs?

It doesn't. Do what works for you.

Everyone is different, and some people respond very well to occasional fasting. Others are a mess if they try it.

I think part of it has to do with eating habits growing up. Growing up I rarely ate breakfast - even before athletic events. In high school I usually didn't eat until after school. A decade later I'm looking to get back in shape and so I try to do the responsible thing and eat breakfast. Bad idea! To this day if I eat too much too early I'm thrown off for the rest of the day. I can't fall asleep without something fatty before bed, either. It's how my body works, and I accept that. I lost the weight and kept it off, and fasting has been a part of it.

I've done periods of fasting off and on, usually just from listening to my body. It's very common for me not to eat until 1-2pm, or even early evening. A few times a year I'll even take a day off. Not by force, just because I feel like it.

Hey, if the weight is coming off, you aren't hurting yourself, and it's something you can see working long term, then go for it.

carrie197618 wrote: »

Hi, I am doinh IF and my feeding window is from 8 am to 4 pm. I need to eat in the morning else I really can't function. But after 4 pm strangely my hunger pangs are gone esp if I have protein in my last meal. So is it ok if I don't fast in the morning??its still IF what I am doing right???
Honestly I am only doing it for fat loss and with the feeding window being smaller it's easier to be within my calories

sure, choose whatever window works for you...

cajuntank wrote: »

Looked like a super interesting read until the author started espousing the same ideology Gary Taubes does about insulin (in several of the author's articles). Honestly, after that, my B.S. meter pegged out and everything thereafter was "insert Charlie Brown's teacher talking here". I don't discount all of the health aspects mentioned, but again, when someone starts cherry picking parts of studies to fit their scientifically discounted "science", while leaving the rest of it out (so it fits their mantra) or outside of context that the study was done, it should automatically throw up a red flag.

This is straight from the author himself...

"This then is The Cruel Hoax of the Low Fat, Low Calorie Diet that we have all be told to follow. It. Just. Does. Not. Work. Eating less does not result in weight loss. It is cruel because so many of us have believed in it. It is cruel because all of our ‘trusted health sources’ tell us it is true. It is cruel because when it fails, we blame ourselves. We need to throw this theory into the garbage where it belongs.

Let me state it as plainly as I can. Eating too much does not cause obesity. Exercising too little does not cause obesity. Therefore, eating less and moving more will not cure obesity. It is proven. Accept it."

Another quote from the author...

"The question is NOT how to balance calories, the question is how to balance our hormones. In most cases, the crucial question is not how to reduce calories but how to reduce insulin."

I will just leave this in response to his insulin blaming.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

Well, I agree that, in the end, it's all about the CICO equation.
However, hormones do help us stay within our calorie limit, or make it very hard to do so.

I know that when I skip breakfast, I am not hungry for the rest of the day.
Eating breakfast makes me ravenous, and I will eat at least half my calories before noon. (and still be hungry)

So while I also disagree with his statements that calorie counting doesn't work (science says it does), calorie counting can be more difficult if we don't take into account how our hormones affect our appetites (and for some, moods as well).

I think at least the info about the effect fasting has on our various hormones was worth reading...

IF helps many people stay in their calorie range.

You can still gain weight while practicing IF if you overeat.....

annaskiski wrote: »

cajuntank wrote: »

Looked like a super interesting read until the author started espousing the same ideology Gary Taubes does about insulin (in several of the author's articles). Honestly, after that, my B.S. meter pegged out and everything thereafter was "insert Charlie Brown's teacher talking here". I don't discount all of the health aspects mentioned, but again, when someone starts cherry picking parts of studies to fit their scientifically discounted "science", while leaving the rest of it out (so it fits their mantra) or outside of context that the study was done, it should automatically throw up a red flag.

This is straight from the author himself...

"This then is The Cruel Hoax of the Low Fat, Low Calorie Diet that we have all be told to follow. It. Just. Does. Not. Work. Eating less does not result in weight loss. It is cruel because so many of us have believed in it. It is cruel because all of our ‘trusted health sources’ tell us it is true. It is cruel because when it fails, we blame ourselves. We need to throw this theory into the garbage where it belongs.

Let me state it as plainly as I can. Eating too much does not cause obesity. Exercising too little does not cause obesity. Therefore, eating less and moving more will not cure obesity. It is proven. Accept it."

Another quote from the author...

"The question is NOT how to balance calories, the question is how to balance our hormones. In most cases, the crucial question is not how to reduce calories but how to reduce insulin."

I will just leave this in response to his insulin blaming.

http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/index.php/free-content/free-content/volume-1-issue-7-insulin-and-thinking-better/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/

Well, I agree that, in the end, it's all about the CICO equation.
However, hormones do help us stay within our calorie limit, or make it very hard to do so.

I know that when I skip breakfast, I am not hungry for the rest of the day.
Eating breakfast makes me ravenous, and I will eat at least half my calories before noon. (and still be hungry)

So while I also disagree with his statements that calorie counting doesn't work (science says it does), calorie counting can be more difficult if we don't take into account how our hormones affect our appetites (and for some, moods as well).

I think at least the info about the effect fasting has on our various hormones was worth reading...

I've always skimmed insulin theories prior to my current situation. I ate at a nice deficit, lifted, ran, for 2 postpartum years (with a few breaks) and varied about 3-5 pounds one way or the other. I could not lose it and free days during which I indulged in sugary things left me feeling insatiable for a few days. I had, unlike ever in the past, accumulated weight around my belly (affectionately called The Buddha Belly). It would not leave. No amount of running, lifting, and eating at a deficit was cutting it. I was very, very happy to discover and read about insulin resistance at that point. Since then - late March - I've lost almost 20 pounds. It obviously isn't the case for everyone - and wasn't for me in the past, but I'd never been technically overweight before. I've always had to go on cutting restrictions to see my abs, but there's a big difference between wanting your abs to show and having a buddha belly.

I didn't finish (potty training detour). My overall point is that many will never see problems with the functioning of their insulin and metabolic system. But when you do, it's great information.

Furthermore, the folks I respect and thus read who write about this - Lyle McDonald, Peter Attia et al. - none of them say insulin is "bad". They say that its proper functioning is paramount to overall health.

michelleborda1 wrote: »

Thank you all for your insight on this. When I was my most comfortable weight, I did intermittent fasting which many thought was starvation, it just didn't have a real name back then. I was "schooled" instead to eat every few hours, small meals, clean, years ago.

I have that pesky 7 pounds I want to lose. I have been reading up on this and purchased a book from Lyle McDonald after I watched his one hour youtube that touches upon women, weight, and IF.

When you do the fasting, does it exclude coffee? I am talking black, with a tiny bit of cream, half a cup to get the morning started.

Thanks again.

Seven pounds is nothing. If you want to lose it, set you goals to lose a half pound a week and stick to your calorie allotment.

Intermittent fasting is not a weight loss program, it's eating all your allotted calories within a certain window. You won't lose weight on it if you eat maintenance calories, and you will gain weight if you consistently eat over your total daily energy expenditure. You will only lose weight on it if you eat less calories than you burn.

You will lose weight on any way of eating as long as you eat less calories than you burn.

rybo wrote: »

The health benefits of IF go far beyond just being used as a weight loss tool. As usual, people try to make it what they want. You can lose, gain or maintain weight while on the various IF protocols. Since this is primarily a weight loss site many people try to use it for that, but that isn't the only reason to try IF. I haven't needed to lose weight for years but it's been one of the best things I've done with my eating habits.

You can lose, gain or maintain while on any various dietary protocols. Setting aside any medical condition, weight loss is always about eating less calories than you burn.

That said, IF seems to work well for a lot of people when it comes to weight management because, from what I've heard, their hunger is curbed, thus helping them meet their calorie goals. A friend of mine practiced IF with just one huge nutritious meal a day between 4 and 5 p.m. each day, and she was never hungry at any other time and had plenty of energy.

SugarySweetheart wrote: »

I don't believe fasting is good for your body. I have done it several times and it only causes my metabolism to slow down.

What was your calorie intake during the fasting, and how long did you fast?

I ask because, generally, metabolic adaptation is the result of prolonged severe calorie restriction, not fasting in and of itself.

At this time it appears IF is pretty inconclusive. Dietry adherence/preferable may be more important.

http://www.alanaragon.com/an-objective-look-at-intermittent-fasting.html

michelleborda1 wrote: »

Critterbug: Could you elaborate on what worked for your 20 pound weight loss? Thank you!

Background (you may not need to do this): I read a bit about insulin resistance, noted that I exhibited a lot of the symptoms since my pregnancy, so I suspect it started then. The symptoms I had were low energy, hunger, and sugar cravings after meals that had, say, >40-50g carbs (primarily dinner, though the meal should have been filling), fat accumulation in my midsection (had never happened to me before), calories in/cal out not computing, and I'd had mysteriously low milk supply for the duration of nursing. As it turns out, fenugreek is given to increase insulin sensitivity, as well as increase supply. I had no idea insulin was implicated in milk production.

I started a keto diet (sbout 50g carbs/day) on March 28th. The first week I lost about 4-5 of the total pounds (17 lb specifically - was at 18 1 week ago), so most of that was likely water. Nonetheless, there has been a steady decline since week 1 obviously. My deficit (not daily intake) is between 600 and 900 cal/day. If I start to feel run down, I eat more and if I feel fine, I don't. I run 2-3x/wk and lift 2x/wk. I've never found exercise to be the quickest way to lose scale weight, but it becomes especially important as you approach the last 10-20 pounds (for me, at least) in terms of how the weight loss ends up actually looking and feeling. Strong vs. empty. I'm in the process of adding a sweet potato a few times a week and a piece of fruit after intense exercise or prior to a hard workout. I am definitely responding better to carbs than I was prior to doing keto.

I am indescribably grateful to the information I found about insulin resistance. Otherwise I'd still be spinning my wheels, working out, eating at a deficit, feeling hungry and moody, and not seeing any girth reduction. BUT I've never had to cut carbs to under 100-150g pre-pregnancy, though I think I might have always been carb-sensitive.

My point is... it worked well for me, but you may not need to do that biologically. I spent 2 years saying, "I'm just going to keep working out and eating at a deficit. I know this works, so I'm just going to keep doing it." But it wasn't working. And I'm very happy I switched my approach. Lesson learned... what worked for me 5 years ago or 10 years ago, etc., 2 months ago, may not be the Answer today.

My advice would be... if you're just starting out, start with a diet that makes you happy - a mix of whatever you want within your calorie goals. That's the simplest and easiest solution. And if that works - your hunger is controlled, you have the energy you need, you're seeing results - then there's no need to switch to something more restrictive. But if, after a few months, you aren't seeing results and it doesn't seem like your results match your deficit and effort, switch your macros around and see if it helps...

ETA: As this is about intermittent fasting...
I usually don't eat between 8PM and 1PM - that's just based on when I like to eat, so IF comes naturally. Though if I do feel like I need to eat at 11AM, I do. Breakfast makes me hungry, though.

michelleborda1 wrote: »

Thank you so much Critterbug. I am not a foodie, so the IF is easy for me from 8:00 p.m. until 12:00 noon. Like many, I fell into the mantra of "eat every few hours to rev the metabolism" but found myself hungrier. I am sure that type of eating works for many, but it just doesn't for me. I stumbled upon IF a week ago and thought 'this is how I used to eat, 10 pounds ago.' Ding ding ding, right?

I am a runner, and I realize that lifting weights is important as is cardio and diet. I came back onto myfitnesspal about 3 weeks ago, and I realized that even though portions seemed small to me, I was going over what I should be eating.

It is odd how many think the body goes into starvation mode if it is not fed every few hours. While I am considered thin, I have those vanity pounds to lose and I think I may have stumbled upon "everything old is new again," as in going back to what worked for me, which was IF.

Thanks for sharing your journey. Continued success!!!

Haha I believed that meal frequency myth for a while, too, including that your body could only process - I think, 30g - of protein at a time and after 3 hours, it needed to be reproteined. And ate casein at night. Hahaha That didn't last and my strength and muscles did not suffer for it. You might enjoy this article, then:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/research-review/meal-frequency-and-energy-balance-research-review.html#more-1389

Thanks for the good wishes! Same to you!