Opinions on Intermittent Fasting?

2

Replies

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I hated it. I always struggled with intense hunger, bad breath and tiredness. I do much better with 3 large meals. But I am also a huge breakfast eater.

    What is IF to you, if it is not compatible with breakfast and 2 more large meals?

    I should have added, i was doing 16:8
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I hated it. I always struggled with intense hunger, bad breath and tiredness. I do much better with 3 large meals. But I am also a huge breakfast eater.

    What is IF to you, if it is not compatible with breakfast and 2 more large meals?

    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.
  • inertiastrength
    inertiastrength Posts: 2,343 Member
    I skip breakfast so I do an accidental fast due to personal preference but I don't have a "stop" eating time. I really hate the idea of following someone else's rules for my body so I make my own.
  • sardelsa
    sardelsa Posts: 9,812 Member
    It's not for me. I like to eat every few hours.. and clearly what I am doing works for me. But many people find success with it.
  • notreallychris
    notreallychris Posts: 501 Member
    I do 16:8 IF. It helps me keep my calories in check by only eating in an 8 hour window ILO "x number" of meals a day. I kept my calorie goal the same when switching to IF. It's just a different eating pattern. Basically I stop eating at 8-8:30, sleep, skip breakfast, and eat lunch around noon after I go to the gym, then dinner when I get home. All of my calories are used up in these 2 meals. Eating this way works for me.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    edited July 2017
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I hated it. I always struggled with intense hunger, bad breath and tiredness. I do much better with 3 large meals. But I am also a huge breakfast eater.

    What is IF to you, if it is not compatible with breakfast and 2 more large meals?

    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.
  • jusjoking
    jusjoking Posts: 56 Member
    I dont do "intermittent fasting" in any kind of official sense. That being said, on my days off from work I dont eat anything until around noon or 1p.m. and then again at maybe 5pm and maybe again around 8 or 9 pm. So I assume thats pretty close to "16:8" intermittent fasting

    On work days I eat at 730am, 1030, 130pm and then around 6-7pm.

    So I guess I do a form of IF on 3 days per week lol.

    Personally I doubt it makes any difference at all as long as whatever you choose fits your preferences and schedule etc. Me personally, there is simply no way I am going to eat 7 times per day. Id rather stretch it out to 2-4 meals and then actually eat something

    Some people simply cant get going in the morning without breakfast though so they wouldnt do well trying to eat their first meal at noon or whatever.

    I doubt there is any real "right or wrong" way to structure your meals. There are people being successful who are using every approach possible.

    One thing I will say. Intermittent fasting has a nice benefit as far as being more flexible for stuff like vacations and changes in schedule etc. I just went on vacation for 3 days and we left at like 9am and drive for over 3 hours etc. I think my first meal was at maybe 1:30ish PM. I wasnt even THAT hungry and certainly wasnt fainting away.

    If you eat 2000 calories per day, divided into 3 meals. Thats around 670 cals/meal. That makes it way easier to travel and vacation etc because you can walk into a restaurant and enjoy a meal with your family without worrying too much about eating too much.

    If you follow IF it probably makes it way easier to go out to the occasional dinner with family etc because you can just eat lightly during the day to "save up" some calories for that last meal

    Peace, JJ
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I hated it. I always struggled with intense hunger, bad breath and tiredness. I do much better with 3 large meals. But I am also a huge breakfast eater.

    What is IF to you, if it is not compatible with breakfast and 2 more large meals?

    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.
    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.)
  • ActionAnnieJXN
    ActionAnnieJXN Posts: 116 Member
    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. :-)
  • fuzzylop72
    fuzzylop72 Posts: 651 Member
    edited July 2017
    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.
  • RuNaRoUnDaFiEld
    RuNaRoUnDaFiEld Posts: 5,864 Member
    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.

  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,389 MFP Moderator
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    kommodevaran wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I hated it. I always struggled with intense hunger, bad breath and tiredness. I do much better with 3 large meals. But I am also a huge breakfast eater.

    What is IF to you, if it is not compatible with breakfast and 2 more large meals?

    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.
    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.)

    Glad that works for you. It doesn't for me.
  • mulecanter
    mulecanter Posts: 1,792 Member
    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.

Categories