Fasting For 12 Hours Per Day
Options
Replies
-
This is another one of those post hoc ergo procter hoc things isn't it. Just because someone loses weight while eating at a certain hours-per-day ratio, doesn't mean they lost weight *because* they 'fasted'.
Now, certainly, having a certain 'window' of eating each day may help some regulate their calorie intake, but that doesn't mean it's the fasting itself causing the weight loss, it's the regulation of the caloric intake. And these kinds of 'fasting' regimens certainly do not work for all of us. For me: I have breakfast early, usually exercise in the morning, have lunch about 6 hours after breakfast, am active during the afternoon, and consume most of my calories at night because I'm hella hungry by then. My eating window can be all of the 16 hours I'm up.8 -
Don't most people fast for 12 hours or so? I eat dinner around 8:30 in the evening...I don't eat breakfast until around 8:30/9 in the morning. Doesn't really seem like a "fast" to me...I'm still eating breakfast, lunch, snacks, dinner, etc and could most certainly and have most certainly gained, lost, and maintained weight eating this way.
I used to do 16:8, but I didn't know that was an actual thing...just never ate until the lunch hour...actually ate that way most of my adult life and got fat doing it as well.
IF is an eating protocol...it doesn't default to a weight loss deficit.4 -
Thoughts? Anyone Doing This Already?
“Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
I stopped reading at that point. It's not possible to lose weight without restricting calories. Period. Unless of course you have some sort of medical condition causing the weight loss.
Anyone doing IF will tell you the same thing, eat more calories than you burn and you're going to gain weight. IF is a way of eating not a way of losing weight. However, used in conjunction with calorie restriction it is supposed to aid in fat loss. I'm in my 2nd month of doing it at maintenance level of calories and have seen no loss or gain. Whether or not it's helped overall fat loss is impossible to tell at this point. Takes more time than that. Just like any fad diet, if you eat more than you burn, you gain. If you eat less than you burn, you lose. It's that simple.
3 -
No matter what you do to lose weight you have to be keeping your calories at a deficit whether that is from restricting calories, burning enough to keep your calories at a deficit or a combination of both (no, you don't HAVE to exercise to lose weight). I do IF, but I wouldn't consider 12:12 fasting since most people are asleep for those 7-8 hours out of the 12. I think 16:8 is pretty common. Personally, I do 18:6 most of the time because I enjoy having bigger meals, but I could certainly over eat and gain weight in a 6 hour feeding window because all it takes is consuming more calories than I need to maintain. I still count calories every day.5
-
Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/12 -
catherineg3 wrote: »Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/
Yeah, well I did 16:8 for much of my life...didn't know it was a thing, but I never ate anything until lunch around 12:30 or 1 PM, snacks, and dinner around 8:30 PM....gained about 40-50 Lbs doing that because I was over consuming calories...ie not restricting my calorie intake.
IF is a feeding protocol...it doesn't default to a calorie deficit to lose weight. People lose weight, gain weight, and maintain weight doing IF.7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »Don't most people fast for 12 hours or so?
Seriously! I mean, I actually don't, I eat at 6, noon, and around 9 most days, but I have and it didn't matter. It's far easier for me to eat lots of food eating between 12 and, say, 9 (a nine hour window) than just eating three meals spaced so I can eat breakfast and dinner at home.
Calling a break of 12 hours without eating a fast seems super weird to me.
When I was younger and didn't like having breakfast I'd normally eat only between around noon or 1 and dinner (which was often earlier than it is now, since I'd often get dinner at work).4 -
-
Intermittent fasting is a means to help with satiety and adherence. For some people it works well; for others it sucks. It's very trendy and all the fad right now, but there's no magic beyond the satiety/adherence aspects. Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss - stick to your calorie goal and eat in a pattern that works best for you in terms of overall satisfaction and workout performance. Everything else is majoring in the minors.
You lose weight via a caloric deficit, not when or how often you eat.2 -
I've been experimenting with 16:8 fasting (eat for an 8 hour window) since New Years. For me it's been more of a discipline thing. I'm bad with making promises I don't keep so sticking with a "I can only eat between 4pm–12am" is a challenge that I'm trying to uphold, to better myself for other life challenges not even related to weight loss. Kind of a daily Lent. I'm under no illusion that I'll lose more weight this way (and honestly, I naturally tend to bulk-eat in the evening anyway so this isn't too far out of my league ) but it's really helped in training my mind that I can actually set rules for myself and follow them. Important thing is, I'm eating the calories allotted to me that day. When you eat them makes no difference.
So, from my anecdotal evidence, fasting hasn't done diddly in how I'm losing weight, how my energy is, etc. I'm using it as a mental disciplinary device, and honestly it's helping me in that regard. And really, I think that's really how it should be used. Heck, the many religions that have fasting days aren't doing it because God is their Weight Watchers coach.
~VL4 -
Before I started counting calories I would eat most of my calories at night.
After I started counting calories I still eat most of my calories at night.
Whatevs3 -
8 of those 12 hours you're sleeping. I'd say something like 80+% of the population "fasts" for 12 hours each day. Doesn't really help them lose weight. At all.4
-
Spliner1969 wrote: »Thoughts? Anyone Doing This Already?
“Simply sticking to a 12-hour eating window could be the key to losing weight without restricting calories
I stopped reading at that point. It's not possible to lose weight without restricting calories. Period. Unless of course you have some sort of medical condition causing the weight loss.
Anyone doing IF will tell you the same thing, eat more calories than you burn and you're going to gain weight. IF is a way of eating not a way of losing weight. However, used in conjunction with calorie restriction it is supposed to aid in fat loss. I'm in my 2nd month of doing it at maintenance level of calories and have seen no loss or gain. Whether or not it's helped overall fat loss is impossible to tell at this point. Takes more time than that. Just like any fad diet, if you eat more than you burn, you gain. If you eat less than you burn, you lose. It's that simple.
I wouldn't say *anyone*. There's plenty of crazies around in any way of eating who think laws of physics don't apply to their diet of choice.7 -
catherineg3 wrote: »Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/
You know what the problem is? THIS DOESN'T APPLY TO HUMANS.
We have a pretty good brain in our heads. We know when and where we get food. We don't start rummaging around looking for food when we restrict access, because we ourselves decided to restrict our access when we IF.7 -
COME ON. Of course you walk to the kitchen and back to check and see if the food is on your plate and ready to eat!!! *SEE*, extra steps!!!2
-
catherineg3 wrote: »Is it really "that simple"? no, but if you are going to be so closed minded that you stop reading as soon as something challenges your preconceived notions, you will never learn.
(from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) most people in the initial study thought their eating window was about 12 hours, but when it was actually tracked, more than half had an eating window of 15 hours or more. Also, he did get best results with feeding restricted to an 8-9 hour window, but even 12 hours was enough to see some positive results.
However, in the mice studies, ALL ELSE WAS EQUAL, same exact diet and same exact calorie intake, the group with TIME Restricted eating to 8 or 9 hour window DID NOT GET OVERWEIGHT, while the group that was allowed to eat throughout the day and evening GOT FAT or if they both groups started as fat, the time restricted group LOST WEIGHT. SAME CALORIES, same environment, same exact food type. This is the data from actual scientific studies with control groups.
I would say that @tirowow may be moving in the right direction:tirowow12385 wrote: »The study didn't logged the calories the mice burned so I'm skeptical of their findings lol. Me thinks the restricted mice group we're generally hungrier and move about more subconsciously in the cage as the survival/hunting instinct for sustenance kicked in while the ones who had access for food just laze about so they were fatter.
Bingo! Same calories in, but more calories burned, *DOES* fit the standard CICO equation. And this is exactly what was observed: the "hungry" mouse IS more active: "that is exactly we see even in these mice and rats. They become more active towards the end of their fasting cycle, and they go look for food even an hour or two before they're supposed to get food, they will get up and then start looking around." (also from bulletproof interview with Dr. Panda) So here's the thing, they weren't Forcing the mice to do a certain amount of daily exercise, so that was not considered as a "requirement" within the study. But they did notice the time-restricted mice had better muscle mass and performed better on physical tests.
And there is a correlation to human studies. This makes people FEEL BETTER, sleep better, more energetic, therefore: more active & burning more calories, though officially there is no specific requirement to do so. His mom is a good example, she was going for daily walks before starting, but after a couple months of time restricted eating, she just felt better and WANTED to take longer walks.
and, just to play devil's advocate, it was also observed in human studies that when they cut ALL evening food, people just skipped calories that typically came from drinking alcohol, desserts and late night snacks without replacing them with more calories during the day. With a restricted eating schedule, the participants in the study were told not to count calories or restrict food intake other than through time, but they still ended up eating less, so less time = fewer calories = lose weight.
here's my reference if you're interested: https://blog.bulletproof.com/satchin-panda-part-2/
Intriguing AF! This explains why I rather workout on an empty stomache than when full and suppose to be full of energy. I just wanted to hunt food all this time2 -
For me 12 hour fasting is called "sleeping" (plus adjacent activities...) I have done it all my life almost without exception, unintentionally, and my highest BMI was 39. People can fit amazing amounts of food in the time window they have for eating them.
Consuming less energy than you burn causes weight loss. I have heard that there are people for whom IF helps with adherence (helps eat less food, consistently over time), for others it's a food group restriction, etc. I count calories as a way to be certain of my deficit and lose weight, and to learn proper portion sizes for the future. For many, calorie coutning helps with adherence because it lets you eat anything you want any time you want, within your calorie allowance, others hate the restirction of counting calories... As long as you are getting proper nutrition (and macro and calorie counting helps with that for me as well), work to find what is sutainable for you... You will find people who failed or succeeded with any eating plan.5 -
Eat whenever you like within whatever time frime you want. It comes down to CICO. Every. Single. Time.3
-
I practice intermittent fasting out of personal preference. My window is 1pm-10pm although I'm not strict on closing it; I've eaten in bed plenty of times.
It comes down to calories in and calories out. I had this same feeding schedule when I was 240lbs and now at 155lbs. It's literally ONLY about calories.2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »
My eating habits are exactly the same way. I have had absolutely no issues gaining weight with that routine either.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 916 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions