Intermittent Fasting
Replies
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
So it's important to eat fewer calories than I burn off in order to lose the weight/fat within the window that I consume my calories?
It doesnt matter if you use intermittent fasting or not,its your choice. yes,you need to eat less than you burn to lose weight/fat. so if you want to lose weight/fat input your info into MFP set it to how much you want to lose(if over 75lb 2lb a week is fine otherwise set anything lower than that to 1-1.5 and below 25 to .5), eat back some of your exercise calories(because your deficit is already built in when you enter your info,so 50-75% should be good.)
you also want to net the calories mfp gives you after exercise. so say mfp(myfitness pal) gives you 1500 calories to eat,and you exercise and burn 400 calories, you can eat 400 calories or a part of those back,or you can eat 1900 calories and burn the 400 to net the 1500. I also use a food scale to weight everything in grams(I learned for me this is the best way to be accurate),pick accurate entries(cross reference with packaging,food website and the usda) since food packaging can be off by up to 25%. if you have a lot to lose you may not need to weigh everything but once you get closer to your goal weight,you will need to be more accurate,especially if you arent losing/plateau..
so if you do intermittent fasting, its still about CICO(calories in vs calories out). if you eat more than you burn you gain,if you eat the same you maintain weight. weight loss is also not linear so some weeks you may lose,others you may not,and some you may gain for many reasons(usually its water retention).2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
Thank you for the wonderful explanation. I made the mistake of assuming that everyone was eating at a deficit. For newbies, like me, we don't know that the info on IF is "cow flop."0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
So it's important to eat fewer calories than I burn off in order to lose the weight/fat within the window that I consume my calories?
It doesnt matter if you use intermittent fasting or not,its your choice. yes,you need to eat less than you burn to lose weight/fat. so if you want to lose weight/fat input your info into MFP set it to how much you want to lose(if over 75lb 2lb a week is fine otherwise set anything lower than that to 1-1.5 and below 25 to .5), eat back some of your exercise calories(because your deficit is already built in when you enter your info,so 50-75% should be good.)
you also want to net the calories mfp gives you after exercise. so say mfp(myfitness pal) gives you 1500 calories to eat,and you exercise and burn 400 calories, you can eat 400 calories or a part of those back,or you can eat 1900 calories and burn the 400 to net the 1500. I also use a food scale to weight everything in grams(I learned for me this is the best way to be accurate),pick accurate entries(cross reference with packaging,food website and the usda) since food packaging can be off by up to 25%. if you have a lot to lose you may not need to weigh everything but once you get closer to your goal weight,you will need to be more accurate,especially if you arent losing/plateau..
so if you do intermittent fasting, its still about CICO(calories in vs calories out). if you eat more than you burn you gain,if you eat the same you maintain weight. weight loss is also not linear so some weeks you may lose,others you may not,and some you may gain for many reasons(usually its water retention).
None of this is true, rather a myth.... your body needs to burn all its sugar/carb stores before it taps into the fat storage, and this can take 48 hours. so if you are not eating a regular low carb, high fat diet than you would need to fast for up to 48 hours to start burning fat as a source of energy.1 -
I am really loving the 16:8. Forces me to meal prep, which has always been my issue.
Starting weight: 198
3/15- 195 (down 3)
3/22-
3/291 -
Scochrane86 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
So it's important to eat fewer calories than I burn off in order to lose the weight/fat within the window that I consume my calories?
It doesnt matter if you use intermittent fasting or not,its your choice. yes,you need to eat less than you burn to lose weight/fat. so if you want to lose weight/fat input your info into MFP set it to how much you want to lose(if over 75lb 2lb a week is fine otherwise set anything lower than that to 1-1.5 and below 25 to .5), eat back some of your exercise calories(because your deficit is already built in when you enter your info,so 50-75% should be good.)
you also want to net the calories mfp gives you after exercise. so say mfp(myfitness pal) gives you 1500 calories to eat,and you exercise and burn 400 calories, you can eat 400 calories or a part of those back,or you can eat 1900 calories and burn the 400 to net the 1500. I also use a food scale to weight everything in grams(I learned for me this is the best way to be accurate),pick accurate entries(cross reference with packaging,food website and the usda) since food packaging can be off by up to 25%. if you have a lot to lose you may not need to weigh everything but once you get closer to your goal weight,you will need to be more accurate,especially if you arent losing/plateau..
so if you do intermittent fasting, its still about CICO(calories in vs calories out). if you eat more than you burn you gain,if you eat the same you maintain weight. weight loss is also not linear so some weeks you may lose,others you may not,and some you may gain for many reasons(usually its water retention).
None of this is true, rather a myth.... your body needs to burn all its sugar/carb stores before it taps into the fat storage, and this can take 48 hours. so if you are not eating a regular low carb, high fat diet than you would need to fast for up to 48 hours to start burning fat as a source of energy.
So why do people who don't IF and do consume regular carb intake lose fat/weight while in calorie deficit ?0 -
Scochrane86 wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
So it's important to eat fewer calories than I burn off in order to lose the weight/fat within the window that I consume my calories?
It doesnt matter if you use intermittent fasting or not,its your choice. yes,you need to eat less than you burn to lose weight/fat. so if you want to lose weight/fat input your info into MFP set it to how much you want to lose(if over 75lb 2lb a week is fine otherwise set anything lower than that to 1-1.5 and below 25 to .5), eat back some of your exercise calories(because your deficit is already built in when you enter your info,so 50-75% should be good.)
you also want to net the calories mfp gives you after exercise. so say mfp(myfitness pal) gives you 1500 calories to eat,and you exercise and burn 400 calories, you can eat 400 calories or a part of those back,or you can eat 1900 calories and burn the 400 to net the 1500. I also use a food scale to weight everything in grams(I learned for me this is the best way to be accurate),pick accurate entries(cross reference with packaging,food website and the usda) since food packaging can be off by up to 25%. if you have a lot to lose you may not need to weigh everything but once you get closer to your goal weight,you will need to be more accurate,especially if you arent losing/plateau..
so if you do intermittent fasting, its still about CICO(calories in vs calories out). if you eat more than you burn you gain,if you eat the same you maintain weight. weight loss is also not linear so some weeks you may lose,others you may not,and some you may gain for many reasons(usually its water retention).
None of this is true, rather a myth.... your body needs to burn all its sugar/carb stores before it taps into the fat storage, and this can take 48 hours. so if you are not eating a regular low carb, high fat diet than you would need to fast for up to 48 hours to start burning fat as a source of energy.
are you saying cico is a myth? if this were the case then I would have never lost any fat at all,because I dont fast for long and I also dont do a lot of high impact exercises that would deplete my glycogen stores. I eat high carb low fat per drs orders.and as for keto you burn the fat you consume as a fuel source,not just stored fat.its all about CICO, it has nothing to do with how you eat.
I have went from a 38-40 inch waist to a 27 inch waist. my hips were 48 down to 37. your body does not need to burn all its carbs to tap into fat(carbs are sugar).Ive lost plenty of weight as so have many others. A keto diet high in fat could literally kill me due to my health issue.
a calorie deficit is science,its physics if you expend more energy than you take in you will create a negative energy balance(weight loss),if you take in more energy than you expand you have a positive energy supply(you gain).I know Im not a special snowflake and I also have a metabolic disorder and Im still losing fat.I measure myself just to be sure. fat is lost in a deficit of calories. or it can be lost doing whats called a recomp as well.4 -
DeeDiddyGee wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
Thank you for the wonderful explanation. I made the mistake of assuming that everyone was eating at a deficit. For newbies, like me, we don't know that the info on IF is "cow flop."
everyone that loses weight/fat is in a deficit(or doing whats called a recomp but thats another subject). but some people think if they eat a certain way they will lose weight. some think if they eat "healthy" or "clean" they will lose weight(I was one of those people), others think paleo is the way to go and others think keto. They come here and say Im eating this way but not losing weight,why?
It comes down to they are either eating more than they think,they dont track calories or a combo of many factors. a lot of people dont know that all it takes is a caloric deficit. I have eaten stuff I like all through my deficit and still lost weight and still lose, its slow but its just how my body works.. some thing eating certain ways and exercise will make them lose weight,again if you are eating more than your body burns you will gain weight as you cant out exercise a bad diet.
There are a lot of people here who are vegan or vegetarian and are overweight.They will tell you they gained weight eating too much and lost it by eating less and moving more. There are also people here who cant workout but still lost weight due to a calorie deficit. point is it doesnt matter how you eat,or what you eat(for most people albeit a medical issue) it all boils down to CICO,even for those with health issues.They just have to find what works for them and where their CICO equation is.
if you find that IF works for you and keeps you in your calorie allowance then eat that way,find what works for you.2 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
Thank you for the wonderful explanation. I made the mistake of assuming that everyone was eating at a deficit. For newbies, like me, we don't know that the info on IF is "cow flop."
everyone that loses weight/fat is in a deficit(or doing whats called a recomp but thats another subject). but some people think if they eat a certain way they will lose weight. some think if they eat "healthy" or "clean" they will lose weight(I was one of those people), others think paleo is the way to go and others think keto. They come here and say Im eating this way but not losing weight,why?
It comes down to they are either eating more than they think,they dont track calories or a combo of many factors. a lot of people dont know that all it takes is a caloric deficit. I have eaten stuff I like all through my deficit and still lost weight and still lose, its slow but its just how my body works.. some thing eating certain ways and exercise will make them lose weight,again if you are eating more than your body burns you will gain weight as you cant out exercise a bad diet.
There are a lot of people here who are vegan or vegetarian and are overweight.They will tell you they gained weight eating too much and lost it by eating less and moving more. There are also people here who cant workout but still lost weight due to a calorie deficit. point is it doesnt matter how you eat,or what you eat(for most people albeit a medical issue) it all boils down to CICO,even for those with health issues.They just have to find what works for them and where their CICO equation is.
if you find that IF works for you and keeps you in your calorie allowance then eat that way,find what works for you.
Your info is so helpful for a newbie. I will stay with IF for 3 weeks and make adjustments if necessary. I also didn't realize just how much I was eating-CI- until I started keeping this diary with MFP.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
So it's important to eat fewer calories than I burn off in order to lose the weight/fat within the window that I consume my calories?
It doesnt matter if you use intermittent fasting or not,its your choice. yes,you need to eat less than you burn to lose weight/fat. so if you want to lose weight/fat input your info into MFP set it to how much you want to lose(if over 75lb 2lb a week is fine otherwise set anything lower than that to 1-1.5 and below 25 to .5), eat back some of your exercise calories(because your deficit is already built in when you enter your info,so 50-75% should be good.)
you also want to net the calories mfp gives you after exercise. so say mfp(myfitness pal) gives you 1500 calories to eat,and you exercise and burn 400 calories, you can eat 400 calories or a part of those back,or you can eat 1900 calories and burn the 400 to net the 1500. I also use a food scale to weight everything in grams(I learned for me this is the best way to be accurate),pick accurate entries(cross reference with packaging,food website and the usda) since food packaging can be off by up to 25%. if you have a lot to lose you may not need to weigh everything but once you get closer to your goal weight,you will need to be more accurate,especially if you arent losing/plateau..
so if you do intermittent fasting, its still about CICO(calories in vs calories out). if you eat more than you burn you gain,if you eat the same you maintain weight. weight loss is also not linear so some weeks you may lose,others you may not,and some you may gain for many reasons(usually its water retention).
You brought up my next question- Exercise calories. So are you saying that since losing 50 pounds is my goal I should eat all of the 1900 calories or stay with what MFP gave me to start or somewhere in between while following IF?0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »DeeDiddyGee wrote: »Ok. So if I understand it correctly I have not eaten for the past 13 hours. If I were to eat now I would be on a 13:11 plan?
That is correct; however, keep in my mind that fat doesn't start burning until you've fasted for at least 12 hours. I am not a pro -- this is pretty consistent with what I've read.
no, your body uses glycogen and fat as a fuel source. you burn fat in a deficit.meal timing has nothing to do with losing fat.you dont have to fast for 12 hrs to start burning fat. you lose fat/weight in a deficit,you can lose fat with exercise,you can lose it sitting on your butt,as long as you have a deficit thats all that matters.
you can do any kind of fasting and if you arent eating less than you burn you wont lose weight/fat.IF is not a magical weight loss way of eating,IF for some makes it easier to keep with their deficit and helps prevent them from over eating.not everyone does IF and they still lose weight.
if it took 12 hrs to start burning fat,for those people who didnt fast for 12 hrs,then they would stay fat? doesnt make much sense does it? most of whats out there on IF about fat burning and weight loss is cow flop. you still have to be in a deficit. if you want to eat your meals in a 12 hr period and fast 12 hrs fine,if you want to do 16:8,13:11,5:2 go ahead.
So it's important to eat fewer calories than I burn off in order to lose the weight/fat within the window that I consume my calories?
It doesnt matter if you use intermittent fasting or not,its your choice. yes,you need to eat less than you burn to lose weight/fat. so if you want to lose weight/fat input your info into MFP set it to how much you want to lose(if over 75lb 2lb a week is fine otherwise set anything lower than that to 1-1.5 and below 25 to .5), eat back some of your exercise calories(because your deficit is already built in when you enter your info,so 50-75% should be good.)
you also want to net the calories mfp gives you after exercise. so say mfp(myfitness pal) gives you 1500 calories to eat,and you exercise and burn 400 calories, you can eat 400 calories or a part of those back,or you can eat 1900 calories and burn the 400 to net the 1500. I also use a food scale to weight everything in grams(I learned for me this is the best way to be accurate),pick accurate entries(cross reference with packaging,food website and the usda) since food packaging can be off by up to 25%. if you have a lot to lose you may not need to weigh everything but once you get closer to your goal weight,you will need to be more accurate,especially if you arent losing/plateau..
so if you do intermittent fasting, its still about CICO(calories in vs calories out). if you eat more than you burn you gain,if you eat the same you maintain weight. weight loss is also not linear so some weeks you may lose,others you may not,and some you may gain for many reasons(usually its water retention).
You brought up my next question- Exercise calories. So are you saying that since losing 50 pounds is my goal I should eat all of the 1900 calories or stay with what MFP gave me to start or somewhere in between while following IF?
start off with whatever mfp gives you,the 1900 was just an estimate for an example. since exercise is an estimate,if mfp does gives you 1900 calories and burn off 400 then yes you eat some of those back most eat 50-75% of their exercise calories back,in case the calculations are off .you want to net 1900 calories after exercise. now if mfp gives you 1900 to lose weight and you eat say 2100, you will need to burn 200 calories but you wouldnt eat those back because you already ate those 200 calories and your net is still 1900.
I hope Im explaining this easily enough? if not let me know. now in a month or so if you are not losing weight,you can eat less exercise calories,or drop your calories MFP gives you by 100 calories and try from there. some people need to eat a little less than mfp gives them,some can eat a little more,it depends on the person.for some mfp is spot on. so start with mfp gives you and make sure your net calories are the same after you exercise. if I have confused you let me know. I sometimes tend to do that to people without trying lol1 -
Okay.. so a little over a week ago I had said the below.. here I am now, a little over a week into IF and down another 7lbs as of today. This totals 13lbs in about 2 weeks, pretty much effortlessly.
I switched over to strictly keto from my "zone" macros. I'm sometimes IF 16:8, sometimes 18:6, depending on when I eat lunch. Today I did a 19:5 and I honestly wasn't even "hungry" like I used to be hungry. Running on fat energy is frickin amazing.I've been doing 16/8 IF now for an entire week without really knowing that's what I was doing! Now that I know the term and the benefits, I'm in! I'm tracking calorie intake and I'm about at 1300 or so cal/day on a goal of zone ratio 30p/30c/40f. I dropped a little over 5lbs in the first week, but I'm going to guess most of it is inflammatory loss. I'll update everyone weekly!2 -
^^^correcting the above.
I've now been IF for about 2 wks1 -
Okay.. so a little over a week ago I had said the below.. here I am now, a little over a week into IF and down another 7lbs as of today. This totals 13lbs in about 2 weeks, pretty much effortlessly.
I switched over to strictly keto from my "zone" macros. I'm sometimes IF 16:8, sometimes 18:6, depending on when I eat lunch. Today I did a 19:5 and I honestly wasn't even "hungry" like I used to be hungry. Running on fat energy is frickin amazing.I've been doing 16/8 IF now for an entire week without really knowing that's what I was doing! Now that I know the term and the benefits, I'm in! I'm tracking calorie intake and I'm about at 1300 or so cal/day on a goal of zone ratio 30p/30c/40f. I dropped a little over 5lbs in the first week, but I'm going to guess most of it is inflammatory loss. I'll update everyone weekly!
when you switch to keto the big weight drop is mostly water and glycogen at first. but if you are doing 30/30/40 (these are percentages)then you are not doing keto. keto is low carb(less than 50g net) and high fat. keto should be somewhere around 60-75% of calories from fat ,15-30% of calories from protein, and 5-10% of calories from carbs. some do 80f/10p/10c.0 -
I tried IF for 3 days, but I am so hungry in the morning so today I quit again. But I wonder, how many days/weeks did it took you to get used to IF?0
-
I'm doing IF (16:8) since March 1st and I've lost some weight but because I'm comsuming a calories deficit. I'm doing IF because it's easiest for me not to overeat in this way. During my fast period I always have a coffee with milk.1
-
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »when you switch to keto the big weight drop is mostly water and glycogen at first. but if you are doing 30/30/40 (these are percentages)then you are not doing keto. keto is low carb(less than 50g net) and high fat. keto should be somewhere around 60-75% of calories from fat ,15-30% of calories from protein, and 5-10% of calories from carbs. some do 80f/10p/10c.
Right.. I understand zone vs keto macro percentages. I WAS doing zone macros, now doing keto macros - 10c:25p:65f.
0 -
I know I'm "in" late, but have been doing 16:8 for about a week now and lost about 5 lbs so far!
Missing eating my cereal in the mornings, but loving the results!2 -
NYCDutchess wrote: »Has anyone had any success with this and KEPT it off after going back to eating on a regular basis?
Anytime that have maintained my weight without MFP it has been with IF. I cannot recommend it enough. I'm usually hungry by lunchtime, but I've never had headaches or anything like that. I think the trick is to eat enough carbs at dinner that you have enough glycogen to get you through until your next meal. Something like 100 grams of carbs should do it.0 -
CharlieBeansmomTracey wrote: »when you switch to keto the big weight drop is mostly water and glycogen at first. but if you are doing 30/30/40 (these are percentages)then you are not doing keto. keto is low carb(less than 50g net) and high fat. keto should be somewhere around 60-75% of calories from fat ,15-30% of calories from protein, and 5-10% of calories from carbs. some do 80f/10p/10c.
Right.. I understand zone vs keto macro percentages. I WAS doing zone macros, now doing keto macros - 10c:25p:65f.
gotcha. that wasnt included in your last posts.0 -
ive been reading about this for the last year.. i never seem to be able do it more than a few days. if i skip breakfast would i still be able have my morning coffee?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 895 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions