Anyone else doing internment fasting?
Replies
-
So, will the same amount of calories be consumed daily whether fasting or not?0
-
Why would I be against it if I admin a group for it and follow it myself? Why would I say its great that you found something that works for you? My point was your "comments about it training your body to only eat when it needs to" or " you still eat your same calories but give your body a digestive break" or " while your fasting your body turns to your fat stores" being benefits or speeding up loss are completely false. It's the calorie deficit and nothing more if you're losing weight. Your body is always storing and burning fat regardless of fasting or not.8
-
Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Do you think you'll be able to keep the weight off once the fasting stops?
Yes because once you hit your goal weight you adjust your calories accordingly1 -
Ahh.. great. I hope I wasn't the one who set you off about not reading the entire thread before posting. Not my intent. This method is just new to me so I asked the question.0
-
Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Do you think you'll be able to keep the weight off once the fasting stops?
for myself, this is how I eat now, it flows with my eating style anyway as a night eater, and since there hasn't been shown any negative consequences to fasting as long as you get your calories and nutrients I for one just plan to eat like this and have for years.2 -
It really isn't ONLY about calorie deficit, it is so much more complex than that. IF automatically gives you some reduction in calories, but the more important part of the equation is eating frequency.
The key to weight loss is a calorie deficit. And unless you have 150 pounds to lose, you should not be losing 3 pounds a week.
The simple example I use is that lets suppose 1600 calories per day gives me a nice calorie deficit.
If calories are all that matter then I should see the same results whether I eat one 1600 calorie meal per day as I would if I eat 500 calories three times over the course of many hours of the day plus a tiny 100 cal snack. It won't. The second case leaves one always wanting more and with much less time in a fasted state.
14 -
Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Ahh.. great. I hope I wasn't the one who set you off about not reading the entire thread before posting. Not my intent. This method is just new to me so I asked the question.
No I just want to make sure no one thinks im claiming thing that I didnt. I just have struggled and finally found something that works.
so im just excited and wanting to see if other had the same results. 2 -
That's cool. I hope it does work out for you! :-)1
-
The key to weight loss is amount of time in a fasted state. If you're not in a fasted state you're not burning fat. That is why IF helps. From what I understand it takes somewhere around 12 hours after your last intake of food.
I do a daily 23 hour fast and lose an average of 3 pounds per week, 160 in total.
In the past focusing only on calories and exercise I could never get past 20-30 pounds. It works in the short run but is not sustainable for most. There is ample evidence of that.
The other benefit to an IF plan like one-meal-per-day which is what I do, is that it's easy and liberating. No more obsession with calories. Clears your mind and frees up time and money. It changed my life.
how do you explain people who use IF to maintain or bulk ???8 -
tashygolean730 wrote: »Why would I be against it if I admin a group for it and follow it myself? Why would I say its great that you found something that works for you? My point was your "comments about it training your body to only eat when it needs to" or " you still eat your same calories but give your body a digestive break" or " while your fasting your body turns to your fat stores" being benefits or speeding up loss are completely false. It's the calorie deficit and nothing more if you're losing weight. Your body is always storing and burning fat regardless of fasting or not.
My comment wasnt directed to you. 0 -
Im reading and responding in general not directly at anyone. Tashgolean0
-
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
how do you explain people who use IF to maintain or bulk ???
I've been only on the weight loss side of the coin so a much different objective, but have read about bodybuilders using IF as well. I could be mistaken but I was under the impression they did so more to burn fat and cut, not so much to bulk up. But you'd have to ask those who do it about what specific routine they use.
3 -
I have lost weight doing IF and not doing IF and my weight loss isnt any better doing IF than when Im not doing IF. I also have a metabolic disorder among other health issues. Also when I fast (usually 16:8) it doesnt make me any less hungrier either. like today I walked to town and back(almost 3 miles) I did that fasted and was starved by the time I got back.
so no fasting for me today. but most days I do fast and some days Im not hungry until later on and others I'm hungry when I first wake up.Its going to be one of those per person based type things. for some it may curb appetite until later in the day and others it may not. you just have to find and do what works for you.3 -
It really isn't ONLY about calorie deficit, it is so much more complex than that. IF automatically gives you some reduction in calories, but the more important part of the equation is eating frequency.
The simple example I use is that lets suppose 1600 calories per day gives me a nice calorie deficit.
If calories are all that matter then I should see the same results whether I eat one 1600 calorie meal per day as I would if I eat 500 calories three times over the course of many hours of the day plus a tiny 100 cal snack. It won't. The second case leaves one always wanting more and with much less time in a fasted state.
Some people prefer many small meals and some prefer two large meals. Whether many small meals make you hungrier or not, as long as you don't continue to add calories to your day, you get the same result. The fasted state time doesn't do anything. IF doesn't naturally give you less calories unless you choose to lower your caloric intake. How do you explain how people intentionally gain weight on OMAD (one meal a day), if their 23 hours of fasting time should be causing extra fat burning?4 -
chrissymoore06 wrote: »
No I just want to make sure no one thinks im claiming thing that I didnt. I just have struggled and finally found something that works. so im just excited and wanting to see if other had the same results.
It really is awesome. I no longer have a thyroid. So my caloric output is naturally lower than others with similar stats. But IF lets me enjoy larger meals within my goal range without feeling too deprived.1 -
The key to weight loss is amount of time in a fasted state. If you're not in a fasted state you're not burning fat. That is why IF helps. From what I understand it takes somewhere around 12 hours after your last intake of food.
I do a daily 23 hour fast and lose an average of 3 pounds per week, 160 in total.
In the past focusing only on calories and exercise I could never get past 20-30 pounds. It works in the short run but is not sustainable for most. There is ample evidence of that.
The other benefit to an IF plan like one-meal-per-day which is what I do, is that it's easy and liberating. No more obsession with calories. Clears your mind and frees up time and money. It changed my life.
you burn fat even when you are not in a fasted state, most fat is burned at rest.5 -
The key to weight loss is amount of time in a fasted state. If you're not in a fasted state you're not burning fat. That is why IF helps. From what I understand it takes somewhere around 12 hours after your last intake of food.
I do a daily 23 hour fast and lose an average of 3 pounds per week, 160 in total.
In the past focusing only on calories and exercise I could never get past 20-30 pounds. It works in the short run but is not sustainable for most. There is ample evidence of that.
The other benefit to an IF plan like one-meal-per-day which is what I do, is that it's easy and liberating. No more obsession with calories. Clears your mind and frees up time and money. It changed my life.
Your body is always burning and storing fat. If it isn't you need to go to hospital. Please share your ample evidence. Peer reviewed controlled studies on humans, not internet blogs.6 -
chrissymoore06 wrote: »I never said i lost three pounds in a week. I said i lost three pounds in three weeks.
no another person did so they quoted that person.0 -
chrissymoore06 wrote: »It take 8 hours to digest a meal fully
Depends on how much you eat.
Eating less frequently does not "give your body a break."
I like not snacking for the same reason many enjoy shorter eating windows -- I tend to think about food or want to eat only when I am used to eating, so I am not tempted by food outside of my normal meal times (when I tend to eat normal meals).
I find it really easy to do a 2 meal/day skipping breakfast schedule (18:6 or 16:8, I guess, although I am not so fancy), so find the idea you would have to work up to that kind of puzzling. (I've done an occasional full day fast for religious reasons and didn't find that a big deal either, although I wouldn't do it for weight loss.)
I think IF is a good strategy for many to control calories, just like not snacking is for me. I don't see how your body works harder digesting 1500 calories eaten at 6, 12, and 8, say, vs. 1500 calories in one meal. And yes, I've read quite a bit about IFing.3 -
chrissymoore06 wrote: »I dont starve myself I just eat from 8 am to 6 pm then wait till 8 am the following day to eat again.
I'm sure no one thinks you are starving yourself, why would they?And yes your body is always burning but can do it better if its not also trying to digest big meals. I am going on what my dr and research has taught me.
This makes no sense to me -- meals are bigger when you eat only one or two than if you spread the same calories over 3 or more.
I eat 3 because I like bigger meals, but also find it easier to get in the protein and vegetables I want on 3 meals (I just can't eat that much protein at a time (I know that's not an issue for many) and aim for 100+ grams). I think eating 2 meals or 1 meal works fabulously for others.3 -
How is eating from 8 am- 6pm now called IF? That's what doctors and ADA have ALWAYS recommended - to stop eating after 6/7 p.m. So...is this just another one of those things that are no different than the rest but has a fancy new name?4
-
Three pages and NO ONE has made a joke about "internment fasting" which would seem like a pretty easy target.
I am tremendously disappointed--both in myself and this community.3 -
It really isn't ONLY about calorie deficit, it is so much more complex than that. IF automatically gives you some reduction in calories, but the more important part of the equation is eating frequency.
The simple example I use is that lets suppose 1600 calories per day gives me a nice calorie deficit.
If calories are all that matter then I should see the same results whether I eat one 1600 calorie meal per day as I would if I eat 500 calories three times over the course of many hours of the day plus a tiny 100 cal snack. It won't. The second case leaves one always wanting more and with much less time in a fasted state.
No.7 -
Things like IF and LCHF are just strategies, different tools in the toolbox. It's like running with different brands of shoes. You might be more comfortable with a certain brand/model of shoe, but it doesn't change the essential nature of running. Proselytizers of one strategy are like those insufferable boors who kept pushing "minimalist" shoes on everybody.10
-
I'm close to 60 and have been intermittent fasting for a couple of months and have lost over 10 lbs. This has occurred while working out harder than I was before I started. The only problems was the amount of hunger/eating I was doing during the eating part of the day, and that's why I'm back here.0
-
Lone_wolf46 wrote: »So, will the same amount of calories be consumed daily whether fasting or not?
Yes that is the way it is supposed to go, at least for my fast ( I call it a fast but it's really just how I eat, it works for me and has for years now, helps me control night eating), which is 16 hours on 8 hours off and I consume 1400 calories or more within that time period. I also exercise 5 days a week and eat back those calories as well.0 -
Things like IF and LCHF are just strategies, different tools in the toolbox. It's like running with different brands of shoes. You might be more comfortable with a certain brand/model of shoe, but it doesn't change the essential nature of running. Proselytizers of one strategy are like those insufferable boors who kept pushing "minimalist" shoes on everybody.
But they are how feet were made! Everyone needs to wear them all the time! [/sarcasm]
I do 5:2 fasting. It's mostly just an experiment to see if it helps/hinders my goals (which is actually to mostly maintain for right now). And it allows me to eat more during non-fasting days. Which I like.0 -
It really isn't ONLY about calorie deficit, it is so much more complex than that. IF automatically gives you some reduction in calories, but the more important part of the equation is eating frequency.
The simple example I use is that lets suppose 1600 calories per day gives me a nice calorie deficit.
If calories are all that matter then I should see the same results whether I eat one 1600 calorie meal per day as I would if I eat 500 calories three times over the course of many hours of the day plus a tiny 100 cal snack. It won't. The second case leaves one always wanting more and with much less time in a fasted state.
Completely incorrect - Time in fasted state is not what drives weight loss - it's net calorific balance.
Re: your example. A 1600 calories deficit in one meal or spread over the day will yield the same results - meal timing makes no difference.The second case leaves one always wanting more and with much less time in a fasted state.
Wanting more is subjective and irrelevant to the argument since you've specified that the hypothetical day contains 1600 calories, no more and no less.5 -
Not always at the same rate though. Carb's are by far the preferred fuel, once the carb's are used up fat burning takes over and goes way up.tashygolean730 wrote: »
Your body is always burning and storing fat. If it isn't you need to go to hospital. Please share your ample evidence. Peer reviewed controlled studies on humans, not internet blogs.
7 -
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.
I've been only on the weight loss side of the coin so a much different objective, but have read about bodybuilders using IF as well. I could be mistaken but I was under the impression they did so more to burn fat and cut, not so much to bulk up. But you'd have to ask those who do it about what specific routine they use.
Ok, I'll answer my question for you - the only difference in losing vs. gaining is the calorie intake - someone eating at a calorie deficit (whether following IF or not) will lose weight and someone eating at a surplus (IF or not) will gain. as others have said, there is nothing magical about IF that makes you lose weight in the absence of a calorie deficit.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 395.8K Introduce Yourself
- 44.1K Getting Started
- 260.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.3K Food and Nutrition
- 47.6K Recipes
- 232.8K Fitness and Exercise
- 448 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.2K Motivation and Support
- 8.2K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 17 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.4K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions