Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Are short fasts really helpful for burning fat?

1568101114

Replies

  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
    I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.

    So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.

    The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.

    In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.

    I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.

    I do IF but I don't eat more calories than I need. I would gain weight. I have proof.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,056 Member
    I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times :confounded:
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
    I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.

    So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.

    The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.

    In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.

    I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.

    I do IF but I don't eat more calories than I need. I would gain weight. I have proof.

    I don't think I said I eat more calories than I need, clearly I don't. I said I eating more than before since I added IF. That is by intent and it hasn't slowed my weight loss. In fact I'm trying to slow down the weight loss a little because it has been a little two fast. I don't like all the loss skin that is developing.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,058 MFP Moderator
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
    I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.

    So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.

    The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.

    In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.

    I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.

    Meal timing is completely irrelevant. You can extrapolate that from this study. You eat 2 meals in an 8 hour window. If you stretchef that out over time and increased meals to 4 or 6, it wouldnt change the amount you lose. Calories being held constant is the biggest determinating factor.

    If you want to challenge it, eat 4000 calories a day for a month while fasting.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,058 MFP Moderator
    I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times :confounded:

    You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    psulemon wrote: »
    I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times :confounded:

    You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.

    I guess, I'm not either. Black coffee for me then.
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,056 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times :confounded:

    You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.

    I guess, I'm not either. Black coffee for me then.

    I've read that if you stay under 50 calories it is still classified as fasting, so a bit of milk in your coffee may not hurt. Not sure how accurate this info is though.. I read it on one of the Intermittent fasting forums.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    queenliz99 wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    I drink tea with milk all morning and don't usually eat anything til 1pm. I'm assuming because i have milk that this would not be classified as IF, right? I just cannot drink black tea/coffee, I've tried many times :confounded:

    You are taking in calories so no, you are not doing IF.

    I guess, I'm not either. Black coffee for me then.

    I've read that if you stay under 50 calories it is still classified as fasting, so a bit of milk in your coffee may not hurt. Not sure how accurate this info is though.. I read it on one of the Intermittent fasting forums.

    50 calories is so little, it's hardly any energy at all. Someone may chime in on this. Curious now.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,324 Member
    I do IF between 8pm and noon but still drink Crystal Light or Diet Soda after 8 so there are some negligible calories. Just chiming in. Don't know if it's technically correct but it works for me.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    Typically on a fasting day I start fasting at 1pm and then go to about 7:30am the next morning. Sometimes a little longer. That puts the fast in the 18 hour range. Water, black coffee and maybe some diet soda is all I take during the fast period.

    I've ordered a blood glucose tester and when I get it I might play around will meals that don't bump my blood sugar. I keep changing things all the time.
  • Return2Fit
    Return2Fit Posts: 226 Member
    edited September 2016
    dykask wrote: »
    I'm talking about fast less than 2 days in length, probably more like 16 hours most of the time.

    Let's say you eat lunch, then nothing until breakfast the next morning. Maybe 20 hours of fasting. I've tried this and it isn't that hard to pull off and my general experience is it does seem to promote fat loss.

    What do you think? Does a short fast really help with fat loss or is it harmful someway?
    My experience is yes.
    I fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
    The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
    Good Luck!

  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    Return2Fit wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    I'm talking about fast less than 2 days in length, probably more like 16 hours most of the time.

    Let's say you eat lunch, then nothing until breakfast the next morning. Maybe 20 hours of fasting. I've tried this and it isn't that hard to pull off and my general experience is it does seem to promote fat loss.

    What do you think? Does a short fast really help with fat loss or is it harmful someway?
    My experience is yes.
    I fast from 8pm until 12pm - a 16 hour daily fast. Again, I seemed to have gotten results, but my fasts include clean eating, calorie control and regular exercise. My belief is that Intermittent Fasting aids in fat loss.
    The science is fuzzy, and just let the egg-heads debate. Try it for yourself, and post your results.
    Good Luck!

    I'm impressed by how good I feel now after about 15 hours into the fast. It is hard to judge if it is really helping with burning fat, but I'm sure it isn't hurting. I think a lot of my fat loss is coming from reduced refined sugar consumption rather than the fasting. It seems after I reached a certain point with refined sugar consumption and my body just started adjusting. It is possible that the fasts are extending that though or improving the fat loss. However, at this point I'm starting to think about increasing my workout during my fasting hours as I have more energy on the fasting morning. I think my metabolism has gone up because I'm eating a little more, have more energy and am still losing weight. I know that will balance out at some point.

    The hard part is about 2 or 3 hours in the evening if I skip supper in the evening. It isn't horrible or anything but it seems to take my body a little while to become comfortable. I have hunger for a while but it is mild but noticeable. I think if I started doing the IF everyday, those issues would go away in a few days. However social situations interfere.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,058 MFP Moderator
    Hornsby wrote: »
    I do IF between 8pm and noon but still drink Crystal Light or Diet Soda after 8 so there are some negligible calories. Just chiming in. Don't know if it's technically correct but it works for me.

    When I was reading on leangains, drinks less than 10ish calories were acceptable.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,058 MFP Moderator
    dykask wrote: »
    Typically on a fasting day I start fasting at 1pm and then go to about 7:30am the next morning. Sometimes a little longer. That puts the fast in the 18 hour range. Water, black coffee and maybe some diet soda is all I take during the fast period.

    I've ordered a blood glucose tester and when I get it I might play around will meals that don't bump my blood sugar. I keep changing things all the time.

    Are you diabetic?
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,917 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    psulemon wrote: »
    You know, I fast everyday after breakfast 8am until after my workout which is about 230pm...everyday really even if I don't workout but I go to the gym every day even if its for a 30 min swim.
    I had read doing that burns fat. Some argue you don't have enough fuel to get through a workout. I dont find the lack of fuel to be a problem. I have been doing that for about a month and it kicked up my weight loss.

    So fasting doesn't burn more fat than convention 3 or 6 meals a day, but it is a way of controlling calories. And unless you are keto, you should have enough glycogen stored to last quite bit of time and give you the ability to get through a workout.

    The problem with more meals is higher average blood glucose and of coarse insulin. IF is a way of limiting the amount of time that blood sugars are elevated giving a much longer period of non-eating levels of blood sugar and hormones. So I think there is a real difference in the amount of fat that can be burned. Presumably it is also because this has a positive impact on metabolism. (Or it could be that that many meals has a negative impact for some on metabolism.) I'm sure that is highly variable, but in least my case it seems to be true. I just hope it lasts because right now, the weight is falling off easy.

    In your case, it's more related the ability to control your diet more tightly and potentially decrease calories over time. But meal frequency has NO impact on weight loss (outside of personal preference). When it eat bigger meals, it takes longer to digest and you have extended periods of lipogenesis than you would with smaller meals.


    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

    Not meal frequency, the time spent in the daily fast. For me there is a very noticeable difference be 12 hours and 16 to 20 hours. The study you gave was about increasing meal frequency not about reducing the window of eating and isn't revenant to what I'm talking about.

    I've actually increased the amount of calories I'm eating. On days after I fast I also add the missed calories back into the diet. Generally the meal I'm skipping is a low calorie meal even if I eat it, mostly I just eat salad for dinner when I eat it. It has nothing to do at all with calorie control. I believe the fasts are improving my metabolism. I definitely have more energy late in a short fast.

    I'm doing IF too and have for a long time. You're wrong.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2016
    I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.

    The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.

    Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.

    On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    I'm not diabetic or a mindless grazer. I know very well how much I'm eating. I have more than replaced all the calories I cut before and I'm not using IF to cut calories. Tomorrow I will eat back the calories I didn't eat today. I probably do by eating walnuts and additional fruit. If I had eaten tonight I would have probably had a large salad with beans and maybe a piece of salmon. So the fasting doesn't account for much calorie loss.

    I'm interested in tacking blood sugar because my fasting glucose levels are often slightly high. (~5.6 mmol/L) My normal glucose levels have tested low. (~ 4.4 mmol/L) I'm just curious what is going on and what to learn how to control it.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    I bet for a lot of people who tend to mindlessly graze IF cuts calories more than they realize, in addition to helping with control and (for some) hunger issues. I could easily cut calories by skipping breakfast and not replacing all of the calories (I know from experience I do fine with and without breakfast). So far my pleasure from breakfast outweighs my curiosity about eating windows and desire to eat more at other times of the day, although this could change.

    The claim that your body burns more calories if you eat less often makes no more sense than the idea that if you eat every few hours you will stoke it. On the other hand, I do think for many people finding an eating pattern they like and which helps control eating will help with energy, especially if you are someone who tends to the spike and crash thing.

    Anyway, point is it is one strategy that works well for many.

    On the other hand, as psulemon suggested, if someone wants to try eating way above likely TDEE and documenting it in a trustworthy way, I'd be interested!

    That isn't the claim. (Bolded) The claim is your body has more time to burn off the excess sugars and move on to consuming fats. It isn't the calories it is where the calories are coming from. It takes energy for the body to store fat and it take energy for the body to use fat. So there is probably a slight advantage over just burning the glucose coming from the digestive track, but that isn't the motivation.