Anyone else doing internment fasting?
Replies
-
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: »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.
Yeah still no. Again if there's so much scientific evidence. Please provide it. I've studied it for years and I've never seen a legit case that remotely proves anything you claim.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: »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.
Of course fat burning takes over but not at a greater calorific rate than that of the previous glycogen usage rate!! The energy conversion rate is dependent upon the energy usage- not the fuel type.2 -
Yes. I basically skip breakfast. I'm not doing it currently, but I have in the past, and it really helps me stay within my calories. I'm not the kind of person who likes snacking a lot. I like big meals, so IF works perfectly for me. I mostly do 16/8 when I notice my weight inching up a bit. It keeps me in check
0 -
Yeah thanks, I've been hearing this about calories all my life and have heard the comment that there is nothing magical about IF from numerous people on this thread. I'm sure nobody claimed it was magical, but whatever.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »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 ???
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.
Wow, a very closed minded group this is, all parroting the same failed unproven strategies. Every scientific study that I have seen does not show CICO alone as THE simple answer for effective long term control of weight.
I post in OMAD REVOLUTION, a more open minded group in case anyone is interested.
13 -
I did it for a while and it worked for a bit but after a couple weeks of that I've been getting super distractedly hungry. I think i'll do Intermittent Fasting intermittently, but it doesn't work for me as a long-term thing. You do you, it's kindof a cool experiment and it seems to work for some people.0
-
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: »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.
No.
At rest your body uses mostly fat for fuel. Carbs are brain and exercise fuel.4 -
I've been doing IF for a few years now. I saw a program by the author of the 5:2 book - Dr. Michael Mosely and looked into it further. I'm part of a great forum about it. There's lots of information here and people doing all sorts of different kinds of IF. It took off early in Europe/Australia but took a while to catch on here in the U.S.
Here is the forum if anyone is interested. https://www.fastday.com/3 -
Yeah thanks, I've been hearing this about calories all my life and have heard the comment that there is nothing magical about IF from numerous people on this thread. I'm sure nobody claimed it was magical, but whatever.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »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 ???
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.
Wow, a very closed minded group this is, all parroting the same failed unproven strategies. Every scientific study that I have seen does not show CICO alone as THE simple answer for effective long term control of weight.
I post in OMAD REVOLUTION, a more open minded group in case anyone is interested.
Post links - I'm here to learn.4 -
Yeah thanks, I've been hearing this about calories all my life and have heard the comment that there is nothing magical about IF from numerous people on this thread. I'm sure nobody claimed it was magical, but whatever.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »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 ???
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.
Wow, a very closed minded group this is, all parroting the same failed unproven strategies. Every scientific study that I have seen does not show CICO alone as THE simple answer for effective long term control of weight.
I post in OMAD REVOLUTION, a more open minded group in case anyone is interested.
Do you see the irony in saying calories are unproven while claiming there's so many studies confirming the things you say all the while not showing a single one?7 -
Yeah thanks, I've been hearing this about calories all my life and have heard the comment that there is nothing magical about IF from numerous people on this thread. I'm sure nobody claimed it was magical, but whatever.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »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 ???
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.
Wow, a very closed minded group this is, all parroting the same failed unproven strategies. Every scientific study that I have seen does not show CICO alone as THE simple answer for effective long term control of weight.
I post in OMAD REVOLUTION, a more open minded group in case anyone is interested.
Lots of people do IF here and love it. It works for them. But for the most part, they know what it is and what it isn't. That's not closed-minded. And CICO IS the lone solution. Getting the correct balance for your goals and preferences is another story, but it's ALL CICO whether you like it or not.10 -
Is how much fuel is left in your gastank at the end of the week dependent on when you last went to the gas station or dependent on how much you fueled it vs. how much you drove?5
-
2016 systematic review covering 9 (human) studies of 981 participants >6 months duration.
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/8/6/354/htm
"with results indicating neither intermittent or continuous energy restriction being superior with respect to weight loss"
9 -
Yeah thanks, I've been hearing this about calories all my life and have heard the comment that there is nothing magical about IF from numerous people on this thread. I'm sure nobody claimed it was magical, but whatever.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »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 ???
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.
Wow, a very closed minded group this is, all parroting the same failed unproven strategies. Every scientific study that I have seen does not show CICO alone as THE simple answer for effective long term control of weight.
I post in OMAD REVOLUTION, a more open minded group in case anyone is interested.
Nope, not closed minded. Just looking for and at evidence based answers. You've been asked to support your claims with scientific studies numerous time. So far, all you do is insist what you say is correct without evidence. As the saying goes "put up or shut up" (no personal insult intended)5 -
stevencloser wrote: »
Yeah thanks, I've been hearing this about calories all my life and have heard the comment that there is nothing magical about IF from numerous people on this thread. I'm sure nobody claimed it was magical, but whatever.Muscleflex79 wrote: »
You can vary the timing and your diet to whatever end you desire.Muscleflex79 wrote: »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 ???
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.
Wow, a very closed minded group this is, all parroting the same failed unproven strategies. Every scientific study that I have seen does not show CICO alone as THE simple answer for effective long term control of weight.
I post in OMAD REVOLUTION, a more open minded group in case anyone is interested.
Do you see the irony in saying calories are unproven while claiming there's so many studies confirming the things you say all the while not showing a single one?
"Closed minded" = "challenges my unfounded opinions with facts"
10 -
I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.10
-
Lone_wolf46 wrote: »Do you think you'll be able to keep the weight off once the fasting stops?
I'll chime in on this one-been doing intermittent fasting in one form or another for around 5 years now-4 of those have been in maintenance. That means I'm one of the very few people who are successfully maintaining weight loss past two years, which is the point where most people fail and weight loss maintenance adherence. I'm also a part of the NWCR, (National Weight Control Registry), and my data is part of their research efforts.2 -
I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Good try.6 -
I've been doing IF for a few years now. I saw a program by the author of the 5:2 book - Dr. Michael Mosely and looked into it further. I'm part of a great forum about it. There's lots of information here and people doing all sorts of different kinds of IF. It took off early in Europe/Australia but took a while to catch on here in the U.S.
Here is the forum if anyone is interested. https://www.fastday.com/
I used to be a part of that forum-great group of people
0 -
chrissymoore06 wrote: »I trust that with my health condition that he is a expert in.That he would know how fasting would effect my thyroid. They have to know how anything would effect the thyroid.
I have hypothyroidism.
Fasting has no affect on it.4 -
Yes, for a few years. Recently I've been doing a 20 hour fast and 4 hour 'feeding' time, but I just have one meal a day and one or two snacks in that 4 hours of time. It has been going great. It's also around 1400-1600 calories every day, but I don't track calories on saturday and sunday or do IF on those two days. I like to think of just eating one or two meals a day, so it will be two meals on saturday and sunday and one meal mon-friday. I'm only really hungry once a day around 4 pm so it works great for me.0
-
I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Am someone with hypothyroidism.
Was fat.... because I ate too many calories.
You?
Clearly don't know what CICO is.15 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Am someone with hypothyroidism.
Was fat.... because I ate too many calories.
You?
Clearly don't know what CICO is.
QFT!5 -
Loving intermittent fasting, working for me and I need perimeters, borders. Do what works best for you. I don't have a whole lot left to lose, but my plateau is broken. Thank you God!1
-
I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.
To kill both quotes here with one suggestion that everyone overlooks in this argument.
Yes CICO applies in all situations, but to think that hormones don't affect it in some cases such that the CICO equation can't be accurately calculated or changes in reaction to said hormonal imbalances is naive on both sides of the debate.3 -
stevencloser wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.
To kill both quotes here with one suggestion that everyone overlooks in this argument.
Yes CICO applies in all situations, but to think that hormones don't affect it in some cases such that the CICO equation can't be accurately calculated or changes in reaction to said hormonal imbalances is naive on both sides of the debate.
But that's NOT the assertion being repeatedly made. The assertion made is always that hormones or what kind of food you're eating or toxins or the moon phases or whatever somehow work OUTSIDE of CICO.6 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.
To kill both quotes here with one suggestion that everyone overlooks in this argument.
Yes CICO applies in all situations, but to think that hormones don't affect it in some cases such that the CICO equation can't be accurately calculated or changes in reaction to said hormonal imbalances is naive on both sides of the debate.
But that's NOT the assertion being repeatedly made. The assertion made is always that hormones or what kind of food you're eating or toxins or the moon phases or whatever somehow work OUTSIDE of CICO.
I agree. That's why I included the other quote too.
Hormone people say CICO doesn't work because of hormones.
CICO people say don't use hormones as an excuse, CICO is absolute.
Biology & physiology says we'll use hormones to change the CICO equation to say whatever we want it to say and the rest of you can argue who is right.1 -
I too have a hypothyroidism, with an insulin-resistance chaser. I've been losing weight steadily. Am I on medication? Yes. Can I lose weight on just the medication? No, I still have to be in a calorie deficit. Do these conditions make my body more efficient, in that I can go about my day on fewer calories than average for my gender/age/weight? Yes. That doesn't mean CICO doesn't work, it just means that I am at the lower end of the spectrum used to generate the online calculators. My CICO output is lower than the average, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply.3
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »I have to join the camp that CICO is NOT the sole determination for weight loss. I am highly educated in the subject and have studied the gut and the brain extensively. Gut health, brain chemistry, hormones (think cortisol as one example) also have an impact. If you think CICO is the only thing that matters to lose weight, I highly suggest you speak to an endocrinologist or hey, ask someone with a thyroid issue. Look them in the face and say, "you're fat because you are eating too many calories." Then duck. When you get back up, read up on the hypothalamus and its function to regulate hormones.
Sorry to burst your bubble but CICO is a logical conclusion based on the laws of physics. The pesky thing about those laws of physics is that they govern all of reality and no hormones can change them.
To kill both quotes here with one suggestion that everyone overlooks in this argument.
Yes CICO applies in all situations, but to think that hormones don't affect it in some cases such that the CICO equation can't be accurately calculated or changes in reaction to said hormonal imbalances is naive on both sides of the debate.
But that's NOT the assertion being repeatedly made. The assertion made is always that hormones or what kind of food you're eating or toxins or the moon phases or whatever somehow work OUTSIDE of CICO.
I agree. That's why I included the other quote too.
Hormone people say CICO doesn't work because of hormones.
CICO people say don't use hormones as an excuse, CICO is absolute.
Biology & physiology says we'll use hormones to change the CICO equation to say whatever we want it to say and the rest of you can argue who is right.
I don't think CICO people say don't use hormones as an excuse.
I think CICO people say that hormones are part of the CICO equation and aren't outside of it. They affect the calories out.
At least, CICO people who understand CICO say that.
At least that's where I'm coming from when I argue with anyone who says CICO is wrong because hormones, or TEF or what have you. It's all part of CICO already.
Obviously, this is what you're saying, but I think most of us know that already.7 -
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.
Page 1, bro. Page 1.kommodevaran wrote: »Sorry, but - I just noticed - internment fasting
Don't lock yourself up to stop yourself from eating 
3
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
- 424 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