16 hour fasts

AliCatz
AliCatz Posts: 4 Member
edited November 22 in Getting Started
Anyone do the 16 hour fasts every day? If so add me please!

Replies

  • AliCatz
    AliCatz Posts: 4 Member
    Anyone? Lost 3.5 lbs so far in 2 weeks.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    I do - it's not a big deal, I just eat breakfast, lunch an dinner 3-4 hours apart. Isn't that pretty normal?
  • alteredsteve175
    alteredsteve175 Posts: 2,726 Member
    I'm on a 16/8 schedule most days. Add me if you like.
  • livingleanlivingclean
    livingleanlivingclean Posts: 11,751 Member
    edited November 2017
    Pretty much... Im not pedantic about it as meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss, "fasting" just happens to fit my schedule.
  • notreallychris
    notreallychris Posts: 501 Member
    I do it too. Just a way of eating that helps me control calorie intake. Been doing it for almost a year now.
  • SassyCalyGirl
    SassyCalyGirl Posts: 1,932 Member
    I do also. Just fits my schedule well . I don't like to eat late at night and I'm up early but don't eat right away. So it just works out
  • diaskenu
    diaskenu Posts: 5 Member
    16/8 has been really helpful for me. I just have to stay consistent with it.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,458 Member
    That said, I eat 16:8 most of the time, purely because I like to have a couple big meals and if I spread them 5-7 hours apart it works for me. I've eaten that way all my life...they just decided to name it IF. ::shrug::
  • bossmanbing2102
    bossmanbing2102 Posts: 25 Member
    I’m thinking of doing the 16 hour fast maybe twice a week. Is that enough for weight loss ?
  • Faiz031
    Faiz031 Posts: 81 Member
    Tried it, didn't work for me. Now just doing a low calorie diet and working much better, lost nearly 10kg in 6 months.
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    bossmanbing2102 wrote: »
    I’m thinking of doing the 16 hour fast maybe twice a week. Is that enough for weight loss?

    No.
  • Lean59man
    Lean59man Posts: 714 Member
    bossmanbing2102 wrote: »
    I’m thinking of doing the 16 hour fast maybe twice a week. Is that enough for weight loss ?

    It's not for weight loss.
  • Good_Morning_Glory
    Good_Morning_Glory Posts: 226 Member
    I started just cutting out my evening snack, as it really was mindless eating and I’m never hungry in the morning. I don’t really think of it as a fast, just eating a couple to three meals with no snacking. I’m way less hungry. I’m still pretty new at this though, and only cut the snacking because it helps limit my calories. :)
  • Aint2Proud2Meg
    Aint2Proud2Meg Posts: 193 Member
    I do but I'm not strict. Some days I don't eat until 6 pm, some days it's more like 3pm. I just like saving my cals for the end of the day. Always up for more friends. Sent OP a request.
  • Aint2Proud2Meg
    Aint2Proud2Meg Posts: 193 Member
    livingleanlivingclean wrote: »
    bossmanbing2102 wrote: »
    I’m thinking of doing the 16 hour fast maybe twice a week. Is that enough for weight loss ?

    Calorie deficit is required for weight loss. Meal timing is irrelevant.

    QFT
  • Aint2Proud2Meg
    Aint2Proud2Meg Posts: 193 Member
    bossmanbing2102 wrote: »
    I’m thinking of doing the 16 hour fast maybe twice a week. Is that enough for weight loss ?

    Cico is where it's at. Love your username!
  • jenna_nicolo
    jenna_nicolo Posts: 62 Member
    I usually only eat between 6-10pm if I can help it, it's just always been my internal eating schedule. I don't get hungry during the week at work and sometimes I go out to lunch on the weekends but then that's typically my one meal of the day, sometimes with a snack later. It's definitely the easiest way for me to stay in a deficit or maintain weight, depending on where I'm at with my goals.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    edited November 2017
    cmriverside wrote: »
    CWShultz27105 wrote: »
    +1

    Was doing the 12 hour fast but saw the research (somewhere in here) about truly needing to do it for 14 hours for the really positive effects to happen. So, I moved on up the totem pole....doing 16 hours now (from 7PM until the following morning at 11AM). It really does fit my schedule. The only thing that might be an issue is that I really enjoy training in the morning but can not train fasted. So, I train at lunch. I go to lunch after 1PM so I have enough time to get some protein and then my carbs in before the training session. The gym is one mile down the street....so no issues there.

    I really enjoy this - so far!

    There aren't any benefits gained by fasting for 16 hours as opposed to 10 or 12 hours...not sure what you think is happening, but it's simply a way to schedule feedings. There still has to be a calorie deficit for weight loss - and the loss isn't greater by fasting for fewer or more hours.

    Here:

    http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10615049/alan-aragon-on-intermittent-fasting

    Considering he didn't mention weight loss at all, he likely wasn't referring to the weight loss aspect of it, which Alan is commenting on, and so many others assume is the only reason it's being done.

    It's the other health marker improvements that have been seen in the research studies beyond just what macro/diet makeup provide on their own. Blood pressure, cholesterol, insulin response, ect.

    Now, those studies didn't examine like every 2 hr differences to decide that ah-ha, 16 hrs is the minimum or had the max effects.
    They went from normal all day meal eating compared to 16 hr fast to see the differences.

    So ya, some people probably get those other improvements at 12 hrs, some may need even more than 16.
    But 16 is what studies looked at, so why not start there to start testing.
    My BP and insulin have improved, cholesterol not so much it seems, then again the concern over that had changed and just waiting for Dr's to catch up with research.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories