Intermittent fasting vs small meals...
sethbrezo
Posts: 12 Member
Does IF really aid weight loss or does it come down to more total calories out than in at the end of the day?
0
Replies
-
It's all about your calories.
Choose whichever works for you4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nothing aids weightloss. Consistently eating less tham you burn causes weightloss. Different strategies, including meal timings and other boundaries can make it easier to consistently eat less.
You can "do IF" and eat small meals - just keep your eating within the parameters of the "protocol" you choose.3 -
So the so-called science behind IF isn't accurate? It comes down to calories? Of course, eating twice a day is convienent.0
-
-
It comes down to logic, reason, real science - calories in, calories out. Whatever eating/exercise scheme that feels the least of a burden, effort, deprivation for you, is the best regimen for you.5
-
Does IF really aid weight loss or does it come down to more total calories out than in at the end of the day?
IF is just a meal timing thing...people lose, maintain, and gain doing IF...
Weight management comes down to calories.
I used to never eat breakfast and inadvertently did 16:8 (didn't know it was a thing)...put on 40-50 Lbs eating that way because I was over consuming calories. Weight management is about energy coming in vs energy being expended.
IF is beneficial for some in regards to energy adherence.1 -
There is new research that points to other benefits from IF but none relates to weight loss. Like someone above, I like it because I like bigger meals!
0 -
Does IF really aid weight loss or does it come down to more total calories out than in at the end of the day?
Whatever method helps you consistently maintain a deficit.
There aren't scientific peer reviewed studies for most diets. For example: if you read the 5:2 diet book by Michael Mosley his "evidence" for 5:2 is based on his personal results. 1 person does not make it proof. Losing weight alone would have helped certain health markers. Eating a different type of diet (say Mediterranean) would help people with certain medical conditions. Starting an exercise program also helps health markers. Too many factors to say it's just that one thing. Besides, paying for studies cuts into book profits.1 -
JerSchmare wrote: »For me, IF helps with calorie adherence. I eat at noon, then dinner. That’s it. Two huge meals. I like my belly full, so it really helps.
It used to be called skipping breakfast before they came up with a fancy name for it.
Exactly! Same here.0 -
There has been many trials done about low carb diets that proves that for a same amount of calories the amount of carbohydrates consumed does play a role. That's because of how the body metabolizes each macronutrient. Check out Atkins book and Dr. Berg on YT. I know I will be criticized but I am just pointing to the information, do your own research and make your own conclusion! Dr. Berg really stresses the importance of meal timing with IF to regulate insulin and aid fat loss. To me, it makes sense that a diet based on real foods (and by real food I mean not processed like flour and sugar) provides the most nutrition for a given amount of calories. Everything in moderation, I am not saying to never ever treat yourself, but the base of your diet should consist of real food.
This site though promotes weight loss by calorie counting. I do believe that a calorie deficit is always necessary to weight loss, but I do also believe that the food comprised in your diet influence the processes that occurs in digestion to a certain degree. If you can eat anything within your calorie allowance and be satisfied with it, then go for it! Personally, I am not satisfied on a low fat high carb diet, I find myself always craving more food, especially sweets.14 -
Does IF really aid weight loss or does it come down to more total calories out than in at the end of the day?
Weight loss or gain is all about calories. Different diets, meal schedules, macro splits work for people because they make it easier to eat the right amount of calories. That's why accurately logging is so useful, you can see all the data, compare good days to bad, and figure out what will work best for you.2 -
That's what happens when a crackpot chiropractor thinks he knows something about weight loss and physiology.There has been many trials done about low carb diets that proves that for a same amount of calories the amount of carbohydrates consumed does play a role. That's because of how the body metabolizes each macronutrient. Check out Atkins book and Dr. Berg on YT. I know I will be criticized but I am just pointing to the information, do your own research and make your own conclusion! Dr. Berg really stresses the importance of meal timing with IF to regulate insulin and aid fat loss. To me, it makes sense that a diet based on real foods (and by real food I mean not processed like flour and sugar) provides the most nutrition for a given amount of calories. Everything in moderation, I am not saying to never ever treat yourself, but the base of your diet should consist of real food.
This site though promotes weight loss by calorie counting. I do believe that a calorie deficit is always necessary to weight loss, but I do also believe that the food comprised in your diet influence the processes that occurs in digestion to a certain degree. If you can eat anything within your calorie allowance and be satisfied with it, then go for it! Personally, I am not satisfied on a low fat high carb diet, I find myself always craving more food, especially sweets.
Berg is full of crap, and meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss. You lose weight by eating less calories than you burn over time, and what time of the day you eat them has nothing to do with it other than helping some people with satiety and adherence. Berg either has no clue or is willfully ignorant of the actual role of insulin in the body.
As far as the low-carb "trials" and how the body metabolizes each nutrient, it has been proven that there is no 'metabolic advantage' to a ketogenic diet. Actual, properly-conducted, peer-reviewed studies have shown that when protein and calories are held constant, the amount of carbohydrates in the diet are irrelevant. But crackpots like Berg, Fung, et al like to cherry-pick the facts and cite silly pseudoscience in an attempt to further their agendas.
Intermittent fasting is quite the fad right now (along with keto), and as such it has a lot of mystical magick and wizardry ascribed to it - none of which is true.
If you eat less calories than you burn, you'll lose weight. Period. Whether that's via 10 small meals or one big meal per day, it doesn't matter - at least in terms of actual weight loss. Calories in < Calories out. The difference comes in satiety, adherence, energy levels, workout performance, etc., which is where meal timing should be determined by the individual in terms of what fits their lifestyle/preferences best. Everything else is majoring in the minors.6 -
Tblackdogs wrote: »There is new research that points to other benefits from IF but none relates to weight loss. Like someone above, I like it because I like bigger meals!
Yeah. I like a big lunch and look forward to it.1 -
Tblackdogs wrote: »There is new research that points to other benefits from IF but none relates to weight loss. Like someone above, I like it because I like bigger meals!
Yeah. I like a big lunch and look forward to it.
If that's what works best for you and helps you stick to your calorie goal without being miserable, go with it.
I pretty much always don't eat breakfast until around lunch time. I eat a decent-sized meal then, maybe a small mid-afternoon snack, then a big (1000-1500 calorie) dinner. Not because there's any magic in that eating pattern, but because it works for me and allows me to stay the course without being hungry/unsatisfied.
Let's say that hypothetically we could assign a concrete percentage of "optimal" to your diet (or workout routine, for that matter). Doing something that's 60% optimal 90% of the time will give you much better results than doing something that's 90% optimal 60% of the time. The two biggest factors which determine your success or failure will be adherence and consistency. So do what you can adhere to, do it consistently and have patience.1 -
Tblackdogs wrote: »There is new research that points to other benefits from IF but none relates to weight loss. Like someone above, I like it because I like bigger meals!
Yeah. I like a big lunch and look forward to it.
If that's what works best for you and helps you stick to your calorie goal without being miserable, go with it.
I pretty much always don't eat breakfast until around lunch time. I eat a decent-sized meal then, maybe a small mid-afternoon snack, then a big (1000-1500 calorie) dinner. Not because there's any magic in that eating pattern, but because it works for me and allows me to stay the course without being hungry/unsatisfied.
Let's say that hypothetically we could assign a concrete percentage of "optimal" to your diet (or workout routine, for that matter). Doing something that's 60% optimal 90% of the time will give you much better results than doing something that's 90% optimal 60% of the time. The two biggest factors which determine your success or failure will be adherence and consistency. So do what you can adhere to, do it consistently and have patience.
I like that example. Thanks!0 -
both for the win !!!!!
I do IF when I am at work as its easy to not eat and then I can have a massive dinner when I get home and enjoy making food with multiple components that would normally push the calorie limit over the edge ... but when I work from home ... the house full of food is impossible for me to behave, even if I have regular meals .... so instead I have 60000 smaller grazing meals throughout the day.
Meal timing, is justa away of managing your calories ... but its CICO that matter0 -
It's laso easier to live a regular life with IF. It allows me to be able to eat out, eat big dinner with my family, without thinking about size.0
-
-
JerSchmare wrote: »For me, IF helps with calorie adherence. I eat at noon, then dinner. That’s it. Two huge meals. I like my belly full, so it really helps.
It used to be called skipping breakfast before they came up with a fancy name for it.
Except that "skipping breakfast" is only one IF method. There's also 5:2 and 20/4 (skipping breakfast, snacks, and lunch?), Fast 5, Eat,Stop,Eat, and others.
I began doing IF years ago when people looked at you like you were crazy, and the word "fasting" instilled fear and anxiety. I did it because it helped me immensely in controlling my calorie intake, as it still does. But you can certainly still gain if you overeat during your eating window, whatever that might be.2 -
Thank you for all the great advice. I enjoy IF b/c it allows me to have a good handle on my calories, but it's also nice to know that if I feel like eating breakfast, I won't be doomed for that day (as long as my cals are under). I do feel like I have better focus when I only enjoy a cup of coffee for breakfast, but the weekends are less structured being at home so I'm tempted to enjoy some eggs or a fruit smoothie with the kids.0
-
10 meals totaling 2K calories eaten every hour while you're awake is identical as
2 meals totaling 2k calories eating in a 4 hour window1 -
I prefer 2 larger meals vs smaller ones so I practice IF to help me adhere. It's personal preference really.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.9K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.2K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 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
- 4.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions