Opinions on Intermittent Fasting?
Replies
-
I don't think 16 hours is a long fast. It's just having the last meal a few hours before I go to bed, and the first meal a few hours after I get up. I eat whenever I want to, but I always manage to get in three meals per day. Usually breakfast is 0800-1100, dinner 1500-1800 (and lunch somewhere in the middle). Yeah, that's 10 hours, but when I have an early breakfast, I tend to eat the other meals earlier too. And the meals are eaten more frequently through the day. And it doesn't matter. I don't eat this way to get a medal. And I don't get more or less hungry or lethargic; I eat the same amount of food/calories - I ate 6 meals a day while losing weight and had the same energy. This is just tidier and takes my mind off eating. (I still think a lot about food. But I like food.)kommodevaran wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
I should have added, i was doing 16:8
But that makes it even more confusing. I'm doing 16:8, and I split my intake into 1/4 for breakfast, 1/4 for lunch and 1/2 for dinner.
I think you are making it more complicated. When i was doing 16:8, I was always starving, etc... I do much better with 3 big meals at what most people think of, when you talk breakfast, lunch and dinner (in terms of times). I typically eat meals between 0600-0800, 1100-1200 and 1700-1900.
Fasting for 16 hours, just didn't find my personality and always made me hungry, lethargic, etc... I find better compliance and enjoyment eating more frequently and not fasting for long periods of time.0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
Your link is a whole load of Woo
Where does it prove that IF reduces the chance of cancer or gives your digestive system a break?
I have no issue with IF, I take issue with people claiming all sorts of things about it with out proving them.
I eat 16:8 most days as it suits my busy work life. I'm day off today so don't IF.
It is a way to make your calories fit your day better and some people find it helps them reduce hunger.
This is probably the best info I have seen on IF including some pretty good research results. Its a video so it will take up some of your time but its pretty interesting. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs
Also, what is "Woo"?5 -
hacktothefuture wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
Your link is a whole load of Woo
Where does it prove that IF reduces the chance of cancer or gives your digestive system a break?
I have no issue with IF, I take issue with people claiming all sorts of things about it with out proving them.
I eat 16:8 most days as it suits my busy work life. I'm day off today so don't IF.
It is a way to make your calories fit your day better and some people find it helps them reduce hunger.
This is probably the best info I have seen on IF including some pretty good research results. Its a video so it will take up some of your time but its pretty interesting. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs
Also, what is "Woo"?
Bovine Feces.6 -
hacktothefuture wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
Your link is a whole load of Woo
Where does it prove that IF reduces the chance of cancer or gives your digestive system a break?
I have no issue with IF, I take issue with people claiming all sorts of things about it with out proving them.
I eat 16:8 most days as it suits my busy work life. I'm day off today so don't IF.
It is a way to make your calories fit your day better and some people find it helps them reduce hunger.
This is probably the best info I have seen on IF including some pretty good research results. Its a video so it will take up some of your time but its pretty interesting. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs
Also, what is "Woo"?
Also known as "bro science" woo refers to claims relating to health and wellbeing which aren't back up by reputable sources of evidence such as peer reviewed studies. Peddlers of woo often use non-verified sources to back up their claims such as the Internet or YouTube...6 -
I did the "every other day" or "alternate day" form of intermittent fasting for a few months about a year or so ago. I had good success with it - in fact, I lost a lot faster and had much better adherence with that than I do with a normal, moderate daily deficit approach.
Something about knowing that "if I can just get through today, I can eat normally tomorrow" really helped me to stick with it. I didn't binge on my normal days, but I ate what I wanted within reason. Then on my low days, I sipped on chicken broth, and ate filling foods like watermelon and popcorn just to get through it. My limit on high days was 1800, and on low days it was 600, which gave me a two day average of 1200.
Doing it this way was much easier than continually starving on a 1200 calorie diet, day after day, which I cannot do and have to eat more than that on a normal regimen. However, I eventually stopped doing it because the low days were hard as heck, so I gradually kept raising calories on those days until ultimately I was back to a normal diet. And that was the end of that, lol!
But I'm starting back with the alternative day plan (what I call "HI-LO", lol) as of today in order to drop some pounds quickly in preparation for surgery. HI-LO is super hard on the "LO" days, but it works for me, and it works FAST. And my misery is mitigated somewhat by the idea that "tomorrow, I can eat like a normal human". That makes it doable, at least for a few months. Oh, and I did not regain the weight I lost doing HI-LO before. I simply went back to normal dieting and carried on. I'm down 90 lbs and have maintained that loss for several years. But now I need to lose the rest and get as fit as I can for health reasons. So HI-LO, here I come. Anyone who wants to be my HI-LO buddy, send me a FR! Today is LO. :-)0 -
There was a meta-analysis published in 2015 with good weight loss, blood pressure, and insulin sensitivity results (but study sizes were all very small). Abstract: http://www.fasebj.org/content/29/1_Supplement/117.4.short.
I don't fast personally and I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I could imagine it is useful for many people.
1 -
hacktothefuture wrote: »RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
Your link is a whole load of Woo
Where does it prove that IF reduces the chance of cancer or gives your digestive system a break?
I have no issue with IF, I take issue with people claiming all sorts of things about it with out proving them.
I eat 16:8 most days as it suits my busy work life. I'm day off today so don't IF.
It is a way to make your calories fit your day better and some people find it helps them reduce hunger.
This is probably the best info I have seen on IF including some pretty good research results. Its a video so it will take up some of your time but its pretty interesting. https://youtube.com/watch?v=Ihhj_VSKiTs
Also, what is "Woo"?
The video isn't available in the UK where I am.
You can just give me the links to the research results as I am not really interested in videos. It is someones interpretation of the research. I prefer to read them myself and form my own opinions.
Woo, as explained by a couple of others means it isn't real/true. It's diet myth or just pure snake oil. It has no scientific basis.
I'll repeat, there is nothing wrong with IF or Ketosis. It's just nothing more than a WOE.
2 -
kommodevaran wrote: »
I don't think 16 hours is a long fast. It's just having the last meal a few hours before I go to bed, and the first meal a few hours after I get up. I eat whenever I want to, but I always manage to get in three meals per day. Usually breakfast is 0800-1100, dinner 1500-1800 (and lunch somewhere in the middle). Yeah, that's 10 hours, but when I have an early breakfast, I tend to eat the other meals earlier too. And the meals are eaten more frequently through the day. And it doesn't matter. I don't eat this way to get a medal. And I don't get more or less hungry or lethargic; I eat the same amount of food/calories - I ate 6 meals a day while losing weight and had the same energy. This is just tidier and takes my mind off eating. (I still think a lot about food. But I like food.)kommodevaran wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »
I should have added, i was doing 16:8
But that makes it even more confusing. I'm doing 16:8, and I split my intake into 1/4 for breakfast, 1/4 for lunch and 1/2 for dinner.
I think you are making it more complicated. When i was doing 16:8, I was always starving, etc... I do much better with 3 big meals at what most people think of, when you talk breakfast, lunch and dinner (in terms of times). I typically eat meals between 0600-0800, 1100-1200 and 1700-1900.
Fasting for 16 hours, just didn't find my personality and always made me hungry, lethargic, etc... I find better compliance and enjoyment eating more frequently and not fasting for long periods of time.
Glad that works for you. It doesn't for me.2 -
I fast from 10 pm to 7am. It works really well because then I can sleep through the night.9
-
I've tried fasting and not fasting. I find the later works better. It's about controlling your psyche as much as anything. I find that when I get too hungry I can rationalize ANYTHING and end up eating too much later in the day. Better to keep the beast in the cage.2
-
mulecanter wrote: »I've tried fasting and not fasting. I find the later works better. It's about controlling your psyche as much as anything. I find that when I get too hungry I can rationalize ANYTHING and end up eating too much later in the day. Better to keep the beast in the cage.
agreed. While I do skip breakfast (because I'm not hungry) if I'm busy or starving and I cant eat lunch the few times I "tried to make it" to dinner, I did not "make it to dinner" lol0 -
RuNaRoUnDaFiEld wrote: »
What benefits would they be?It works. It's what I use to stay lean year around. IF is for health benefits and the weight loss/weight control is in my opinion a side affect. Note IF is not a diet there is nothing off limits, it doesn't restrict calories so your not starving yourself if done properly. Any questions add me and fire away.
Good luck #mind_body_soul_mbs
Fasting allows for your digestive system to reduce inflammation from constantly working. This allows you immune system to focuse on it's main purpose recovery and regeneration. Fasting is the most researched form of eating. It has been proven to reduce the changes of obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, heart disiese and cancer. Weight loss / maintenance is just a side affect in my opinion..
Lol...I did IF (16:8) by default for years because I never ate breakfast. I became obese eating this way...I also had hypertension when I was eating this way, and I was pre-diabetic.1 -
Fasting is not eating. Not eating is starving. Nobody likes to starve. We all like to eat. Wehave to eat. But we shouldn't eat too much. Not eating all the time is one way to make it easier to not eat too much. Intermittent fasting doesn't mean not eating. It means not eating all the time. The idea behind it is to control your eating better, NOT to become so hungry that you end up eating too much.mulecanter wrote: »I've tried fasting and not fasting. I find the later works better. It's about controlling your psyche as much as anything. I find that when I get too hungry I can rationalize ANYTHING and end up eating too much later in the day. Better to keep the beast in the cage.
This is true and illustrates why I find the term IF so ridiculous. Unless we eat in our sleep, we fast at night by default.I fast from 10 pm to 7am. It works really well because then I can sleep through the night.2 -
Once I break my fast, I'm constantly hungry. Increasing the length of my fast makes it easier to stick to my calorie goal.
There are no magical benefits for health or fat loss.3 -
thoughts/personal opinions/ etc on intermittent fasting??
I'm undecided about the health benefits that are often mentioned with regards to IF, but I do it as it is easier for me to maintain a calorie deficit by eating this way. I sometimes do the 5:2 especially if I know I'm going to have a heavy eating day during the week because of reasons. Otherwise I try to stick to eating only in the evening.
So IF works for me. I do have friends who really like having three meals a day evenly spaced out and that works for them. It's all good.
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Once I break my fast, I'm constantly hungry. Increasing the length of my fast makes it easier to stick to my calorie goal.
There are no magical benefits for health or fat loss.
Same here. I can delay starting to eat for the day. No problem but once I start, I'm hungry.
0 -
trigden1991 wrote: »Once I break my fast, I'm constantly hungry. Increasing the length of my fast makes it easier to stick to my calorie goal.
There are no magical benefits for health or fat loss.
Same here. I can delay starting to eat for the day. No problem but once I start, I'm hungry.
Yup, me three. It's like the first bit of food wakes up the "Feed me!" monster.
3 -
To each it's own, I lost 50 lbs eating 5 to 6 small meals every 3 hours, I'm up very early and as soon as I open my eyes I'm hungry so I listen and respect my body, and it sure has paid me back
Nothing extreme, no gimmicks or magic potions, I've been maintaining for 8+ years! 0 -
I do IF just because of my work schedule. I normally eat supper around 7 and don't eat again until noon or later the next day. I never realized some folks get so... aggressive over this. Lawd.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