I don't get intermittent fasting.

Options
So, obviously keto and IF are the fad diets du jour. I've done a lot of research and thought about keto, and don't want to get into it, but I simply don't GET intermittent fasting.

First of all, the 16/8 deal is just....skipping breakfast? TBH I don't really see how that's fasting or why that would have any metabolic effect. I fast once a year for religious reasons (I'm jewish and fast for 24 hours on Yom Kippur), and it's an actual 24 hour fast. I don't really see how waiting til lunch counts as a fast. Plus some people have bulletproof coffee (i.e. coffee with butter) as breakfast during a fast. Like, you're not fasting if you eat a stick of butter during it.

While I may or may not agree with other fad diets, I at least see what people are trying to get out of it. With intermittent fasting, I just don't get what the goal of it even is. Is it just that if you eat less often you'll consume less calories? TBH I eat low carb (not keto) and I do see that it's easier for me to wait between meals vs. when I was eating higher carb BUT I stlil enjoy eating all my meals an the occasional snack.

With IF I dont even get what the dogma is supposed to be - can someone explain?
«13

Replies

  • CarvedTones
    CarvedTones Posts: 2,340 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    You just have to ignore the semantics of the word "fast". I do the other flavor of IF sometimes - 5:2. That's 5 days of normal eating and 2 "fast" days where you restrict to about a single meal's worth of calories, which I usually eat as a single meal. The idea there is that you eat meals at maintenance levels but have 17 a week instead of 21 to produce the deficit. Neither method has any benefits with regard to metabolism.
  • jemhh
    jemhh Posts: 14,261 Member
    Options
    Yeah, I just think of it as skipping breakfast too. Like many things, it's an old concept with a snappy new name. Add in some dubious claims about its health benefits and you have a rage.

    (I am not anti IF. I don't really care about it either way.)
  • Francl27
    Francl27 Posts: 26,371 Member
    Options
    I don't believe any of the claims about how it's better for your metabolism or whatnot.. but it is much easier for me to indulge a bit and still be within my calories when I'm not out 400 calories by 9am already.

    Unfortunately I'm typically starving by 10am, so that just doesn't work for me.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Anon2018 wrote: »
    First of all, the 16/8 deal is just....skipping breakfast? TBH I don't really see how that's fasting or why that would have any metabolic effect. I fast once a year for religious reasons (I'm jewish and fast for 24 hours on Yom Kippur), and it's an actual 24 hour fast. I don't really see how waiting til lunch counts as a fast. Plus some people have bulletproof coffee (i.e. coffee with butter) as breakfast during a fast. Like, you're not fasting if you eat a stick of butter during it.

    I agree that it's silly to call it a fast or equate it with fasting (most do not, but I have seen that), but I don't see what's not to get. It's an eating schedule. Some find it easier to control calories if they only eat during a particular window. They may find they aren't really hungry at other times, so why eat then just because it's expected, and they may find that if they start eating only within a window they aren't hungry at other times as a result.

    I think it's similar to how I don't snack and so don't really think about eating outside of meal times. (I've tried not eating breakfast, which I used to do, and get the benefits, but I enjoy eating both breakfast and dinner so no IF for me.)

    I think the metabolic stuff is largely nonsense too, but I do think many people may find they naturally control calories if they limit their window. Many others log and do IF. It's like how some find low carbing makes them naturally eat less and others find it makes it easier but do better logging too.

    Oh, I still have to log, for sure.

    It's quite easy for me to go over my calories, no matter what my meal timing is.
  • TeaBea
    TeaBea Posts: 14,517 Member
    Options
    jemhh wrote: »
    Yeah, I just think of it as skipping breakfast too. Like many things, it's an old concept with a snappy new name. Add in some dubious claims about its health benefits and you have a rage.

    (I am not anti IF. I don't really care about it either way.)

    Everything old is new again. Even 5:2 IF is recycled. It used to be called the Rotation Diet. Anything to make a buck.

    OP - if an eating schedule helps you stay on track, or if eliminating a macro (keto) helps you stay on track that will help with weight loss. However, have a maintenance plan in place.
  • nowine4me
    nowine4me Posts: 3,985 Member
    Options
    I certainly don’t follow IF strictly, but do find it’s been helpful to skip breakfast and wait to eat until lunch. It’s saves me about 300 calories a day that I now eat in the late afternoon when I’m really hungry.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,874 Member
    Options
    IF is just an eating preference...it's not a "diet". I have a body builder friend who does IF...he's not "dieting"...he's bulking. It's just an eating preference.
  • ogtmama
    ogtmama Posts: 1,403 Member
    Options
    I did.
  • alteredsteve175
    alteredsteve175 Posts: 2,718 Member
    Options
    I do it for the same reason as many others. Calorie control. I tend to overeat after dinner in the evening. I consume less calories if I don't have the first meal until 2 pm for later.
  • GottaBurnEmAll
    GottaBurnEmAll Posts: 7,722 Member
    Options
    Read my edit with an eye towards what I said. He's questioning some of the claims, not the people who IF.
  • Lisa8823168
    Lisa8823168 Posts: 139 Member
    Options
    So I am confused...those of you who don't typically eat breakfast, and have not eaten it for years, are actually then doing a fast (between dinner the night before and your next meal) as outlined in many of the web sites that discuss it. How many hour then is it between your dinner and next meal? Could you be fasting but just do it naturally and never put a label on it? Curious too...are those of you who do this "naturally"...not a breakfast eater, on the thin side? Could it be that your unlabeled, I just don't like breakfast routine, have helped your digestive health over the years, helping you stay in a good weight status but you did it unknowing?

    I am not trying to imply anything in particular...just thinking a bit deeper and outside the box. Wondering if there are more similarities than differences in it.