Intermittent fasting: sounds bad
gallicinvasion
Posts: 1,015 Member
I have been seeing more people talk about intermittent fasting as a weight lost tactic. This seems....unhealthy. Where have people gotten this idea recently?
20
Replies
-
What seems unhealthy about it? It's naturally in line with how some people prefer to eat.33
-
All they are doing is limiting their window of eating. Unless you're talking 5:2???10
-
The unhealthy thing about IF is to think about not eating all the time as something unhealthy or extreme, and needing a term for it to make it palatable (sorry but not sorry for the silly pun).9
-
It's just a way of timing meals that makes it easier for some people to maintain a calorie deficit. 16:8 (fasting 16 hours, eating in an 8-hour window), 18:6, or 20:4 (approaching one-meal-a-day) are popular splits, as is 5:2 (5 days eating at maintenance, 2 days eating low-calorie to create the desired weekly deficit).
Why do you think any of the above would be unhealthy, provided one is meeting their nutritional and caloric needs? Have you never skipped breakfast? That's essentially what the least restrictive form of IF amounts to.10 -
janejellyroll wrote: »What seems unhealthy about it? It's naturally in line with how some people prefer to eat.
I guess I don't understand the preferred length of fasting time. I was picturing it as a kind of Ramadan-style "don't eat between sunup and sundown" kind of thing. What's the time-window like?7 -
Some people naturally eat within16/8. Some people use IF as a tool to help them create a calorie deficit.
That's all it is. Nothing magical. Some people find it helpful because they are able to stick to their Calorie allotment better using IF.
I personally don't do it though.
Weight loss comes from creating a calorie deficit.
IF isn't a miracle, keto isn't magical, vegan isn't Superior for weight loss. Weight loss comes down to a Calorie deficit. However one wishes to create that deficit is up to them. Some like IF . Some like keto, whatever. But it all comes down to calories for weight loss.16 -
It's just a way of timing meals that makes it easier for some people to maintain a calorie deficit. 16:8 (fasting 16 hours, eating in an 8-hour window), 18:6, or 20:4 (approaching one-meal-a-day) are popular splits, as is 5:2 (5 days eating at maintenance, 2 days eating low-calorie to create the desired weekly deficit).
Why do you think any of the above would be unhealthy, provided one is meeting their nutritional and caloric needs? Have you never skipped breakfast? That's essentially what the least restrictive form of IF amounts to.
I guess the only one that sounds iffy to me is the 20:4 split. Although come to think of it, I bet our neanderthal ancestors often had to get by with one meal a day or less. I just feel like it seems better to have small meals at a time, helping keep the body fueled but not overloading it at any one time.10 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »I have been seeing more people talk about intermittent fasting as a weight lost tactic. This seems....unhealthy. Where have people gotten this idea recently?
I don't think so. I fast including overnight sleep time between 16 to 18 hours per day. I eat lots of fruit and veggies, calcium, fiber, protein, etc. during my eating time.
Unhealthy to me is when I weighed just about 40 lbs heavier and was on blood pressure meds.13 -
There are lots of versions of IF, some a little extreme and others pretty tame. One of the most common, 16:8, is just skipping breakfast, which lots of people do naturally anyway. And contrary to popular belief, breakfast isn't "the most important meal of the day".
The reason it can be helpful for weight loss is that it allows people to save calories for when they are most hungry and enjoy more substantial meals, which can help keep them on track and adhere to their calorie goal. If someone is more comfortable with regular meals, and doesn't like to eat big meals, then obviously it wouldn't be helpful for them. 17 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »I have been seeing more people talk about intermittent fasting as a weight lost tactic. This seems....unhealthy. Where have people gotten this idea recently?
It's an eating style, not a diet...?9 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »It's just a way of timing meals that makes it easier for some people to maintain a calorie deficit. 16:8 (fasting 16 hours, eating in an 8-hour window), 18:6, or 20:4 (approaching one-meal-a-day) are popular splits, as is 5:2 (5 days eating at maintenance, 2 days eating low-calorie to create the desired weekly deficit).
Why do you think any of the above would be unhealthy, provided one is meeting their nutritional and caloric needs? Have you never skipped breakfast? That's essentially what the least restrictive form of IF amounts to.
I guess the only one that sounds iffy to me is the 20:4 split. Although come to think of it, I bet our neanderthal ancestors often had to get by with one meal a day or less. I just feel like it seems better to have small meals at a time, helping keep the body fueled but not overloading it at any one time.
It's all a matter of personal preference. I don't IF, but I do eat a small-ish breakfast and lunch, maybe a snack if I'm peckish, in order to save plenty of calories for the evening meal with my family. Otherwise, I'm looking at their full plates compared to mine green with envy (that's what happens when you have a husband 8 inches taller than you and two teenage boys ) 6 small meals a day makes me feel as if all I've done is snack all day and never had a proper meal. 24 -
It's not any more or less inherently "bad" than 6 meals throughout the day. It's just a schedule/structure for when you eat. What you eat, how much, etc etc is all entirely up to you. IMO, whether it's good or bad is more about whether that structure helps or hurts (makes difficult) the process for the individual.
Side note -
There are many ways to implement IF. Some break it down by day (16/8 or similar), others by day (5/2), etc. Some of the more extreme version probably do come with more things to be careful of/watch out for, but I'm not sure I'd say any of them are necessarily unhealthy, especially over relatively short periods of time.5 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »What seems unhealthy about it? It's naturally in line with how some people prefer to eat.
I guess I don't understand the preferred length of fasting time. I was picturing it as a kind of Ramadan-style "don't eat between sunup and sundown" kind of thing. What's the time-window like?
It varies. When I tried it I did 18 (not eating)/6 (eating). I wound up not sticking with it, but it didn't feel particularly unhealthy. Other people eat for more or less time during the day. My impression is that hardly anyone is doing a Ramadan-style fast (without water) or anything that feels really difficult to them. Lots of the people who are doing this are people who were already fine skipping breakfast, it's just a more structured way to do what they naturally prefer.6 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »What seems unhealthy about it? It's naturally in line with how some people prefer to eat.
I guess I don't understand the preferred length of fasting time. I was picturing it as a kind of Ramadan-style "don't eat between sunup and sundown" kind of thing. What's the time-window like?
The timeline is whatever you want it to be. Most of my life I was never a breakfast eater, I've just never been hungry in the morning. But when I started trying to lose weight, I started eating breakfast because everyone always says "breakfast is the most important meal of the day". Now, I skip breakfast, because I'm honestly not hungry, and then just don't allow myself a snack after dinner. So in essence, my fasting schedule seems to be about 18:6 most days. Sometimes I skip lunch too if I'm not hungry and then get to indulge in a bigger dinner. It works for me, I've managed to lose over 70lbs so far.18 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »It's just a way of timing meals that makes it easier for some people to maintain a calorie deficit. 16:8 (fasting 16 hours, eating in an 8-hour window), 18:6, or 20:4 (approaching one-meal-a-day) are popular splits, as is 5:2 (5 days eating at maintenance, 2 days eating low-calorie to create the desired weekly deficit).
Why do you think any of the above would be unhealthy, provided one is meeting their nutritional and caloric needs? Have you never skipped breakfast? That's essentially what the least restrictive form of IF amounts to.
I guess the only one that sounds iffy to me is the 20:4 split. Although come to think of it, I bet our neanderthal ancestors often had to get by with one meal a day or less. I just feel like it seems better to have small meals at a time, helping keep the body fueled but not overloading it at any one time.
Meal timing and frequency, barring medical reasons, is personal preference. I can't eat small meals, I prefer larger ones.10 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »I have been seeing more people talk about intermittent fasting as a weight lost tactic. This seems....unhealthy. Where have people gotten this idea recently?
Many are combining keto and IF. I signed up today because my nutritionist/health coach recommended a paleo diet but recently recommended IF. They told me that IF has many health benefits and speeds up recovery and the healing process.
Also said that it triggers autopathy, the process that filters out dysfunctional and damaged cells. That it improves heart function, boosts metabolism, reduces oxidative stress, hair, skin, nails and insulin resistance, stimulates brain function. They told me to aim for 22 hours aday of fasting to get all of these benefits.
This is why people are doing it because they have been told that it will fix everything. But I had to reassess what I was hearing and reading. I decided that I would eat 3 meals aday and follow along here. I'm not going to do the keto/IF combo or fast 22 hours daily. I think MFP is going to be a better fit for me.18 -
Some people just prefer to eat 1-2 big meals a day instead of all through the day. I guess my diet is 16-15/8-9, but mainly because I usually eat my breakfast at around 09:00 and my last meal at around 17:00-18:00. I find it more difficult to get full until about dinner (also related to very low blood pressure) and feel fine afterwards. So this just happens automatically. I do eat constantly during daytime though, lots of little snacks, vegetables, slices of bread, whatever.2
-
The human body adapts easily to long periods of time without food...I think most studies have shown you don't start to reduce metabolic function until after about 3 days of fasting (on average). There are some documented health advantages such as improvements in autophagy and inflammation reduction, but most people doing IF are doing it for the ease of calorie reduction that comes naturally with skipping meals/snacks for part of the day.
Most of human history is cycle of feast or famine based on season or weather or other food availability factors. Many countries and cultures still eat in such a manner. Technology such as refrigeration and mass transportation has made food widely available all the time in developed areas, but the human body does not require constant access to food to survive and thrive. Eating once a day or even every other day is not harmful assuming sufficient intake is achieved to meet nutritional needs.5 -
I need my 3 meals & snacks, so it doesn't appeal to me, but I know many people who are of a healthy weight and skip breakfast or just have breakfast and dinner. I think it's just personal preference.3
-
gallicinvasion wrote: »I have been seeing more people talk about intermittent fasting as a weight lost tactic. This seems....unhealthy. Where have people gotten this idea recently?
Many are combining keto and IF. I signed up today because my nutritionist/health coach recommended a paleo diet but recently recommended IF. They told me that IF has many health benefits and speeds up recovery and the healing process.
Also said that it triggers autopathy, the process that filters out dysfunctional and damaged cells. That it improves heart function, boosts metabolism, reduces oxidative stress, hair, skin, nails and insulin resistance, stimulates brain function. They told me to aim for 22 hours aday of fasting to get all of these benefits.
This is why people are doing it because they have been told that it will fix everything. But I had to reassess what I was hearing and reading. I decided that I would eat 3 meals aday and follow along here. I'm not going to do the keto/IF combo or fast 22 hours daily. I think MFP is going to be a better fit for me.
I think you got auto-corrected, and I'm commenting in case someone wants to Google it. It's "autophagy".
(I'm a skeptic about the alleged benefits, and a stickler about research. ).
15 -
I actually find it strange that it's even given a name. It's more like, eat when you are hungry so you can save your calories. Without realizing it, I'm an intermittent faster as I hardly ever eat before 12. I dont really recommend doing it if you are hungry in the morning though.14
-
Some people find the constant eating (breakfast, mid-morning snack, lunch, mid-afternoon snack, dinner, dessert) to be more troubling than IF. Some people (particularly those with digestive issues) find giving your digestive track a chance to rest works better.
Also, if you are interested in the effects of hormones on metabolism and appetite (insulin, leptin, gherlin), you need periods where those hormones are elevated and also periods where those hormone levels return to lower levels to reassert the balance to your bodies control system. If you eat too often you are just constantly ringing the bell.24 -
It really depends on how well a person eats in their eating window. If they are only consuming 800 calories of ok food, it's probably bad. If they are eating towards their calorie goals with adequate protein and micronutrients, its probably a good thing.
I think most of the research is still in its infancy using animal models. So claims tend to be over the top a bit. I still don't think I have seen any metabolic ward studies regarding the benefits of IF. Or studies with IF that don't involved weight loss. A lot of the claims are generally coming from the weight loss, irrespective of doing IF.9 -
I've recently decided to start going on (my own variation of) an IF eating pattern.
I naturally do not like breakfast. I always want to enjoy a nice, full dinner. I don't need much at lunch. This pattern works well in ALL areas of my life from "normal" work weeks, to traveling, to track days, to race weekends.
Sure, meal prep and calorie counting work - when I'm at home and have the time to do it, BUT, Mar-Oct, that doesn't work so well when I'm on the road and at the track 3 out of 7 days more weeks than not and still trying to work a full week plus my side hustle.
I chose not to do a true fast in that I still have my morning coffee+creamer once I start work, and I allow myself a small plant/nut/protein based snack (~150-200cal) in the afternoon if I'm getting hungry.
Then, I don't worry about dinner - I enjoy what I feel like eating that day, and even fast food won't exceed my calories for the day (not that it's common, but just an example).
I've only just finished my first couple weeks of this, but the scale has started to drop and after a few days (since this tends to follow my natural eating patter anyways) my hunger adjusted and is very tolerable at this point, unlike trying to eat 3-5 small meals a day that always left me hungry.
Also, my morning workouts are not suffering in any way, either, whereas on the small meal plan, if I was in much of a noticeable deficit, my workouts started to suffer within a couple days. The full dinner leaves me with enough fuel that I've actually been feeling really good during my workouts. Energy during the day hasn't suffered one bit either, in fact, if anything, I've felt more energetic most of the day.10 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »I have been seeing more people talk about intermittent fasting as a weight lost tactic. This seems....unhealthy. Where have people gotten this idea recently?
It's quite a faddish thing right now, but there's nothing inherently "healthy" or "unhealthy" about it. The risks and benefits are both greatly overstated. Some people find it helpful for satiety/adherence, others find that it has quite the opposite effect.
For the vast majority of people, meal timing is all but completely irrelevant as long as you're consuming adequate calories and nutrients.22 -
I IF when I get above my maintenance range. For me, that means skipping breakfast.10
-
I naturally gravitate towards towards an IF schedule, but not intentionally. I wake up and exercise, and aside from creamer in my coffee, I have no calories until afternoon (I'm not hungry until 12-2PM, depending on the day). Get most of my calories in between 1-9PM on most days. Works for me! I don't feel restricted whatsoever.3
-
I'm confused by it too. If you are eating breakfast and having a light lunch and then a substantial dinner and consume the same number of calories in a shorter period of time, why does it work? I'm sure it is more involved involved than that. Does it matter what foods you consume and is there a calorie target. I know a lot of people seem to believe it broke though a weight plateau for them.1
-
elsie6hickman wrote: »I'm confused by it too. If you are eating breakfast and having a light lunch and then a substantial dinner and consume the same number of calories in a shorter period of time, why does it work? I'm sure it is more involved involved than that. Does it matter what foods you consume and is there a calorie target. I know a lot of people seem to believe it broke though a weight plateau for them.
You need to be in a calorie deficit to lose weight. It doesn't matter of you eat those in 1 hour or in 16 hours. Some people find that IF leaves them feeling less hungry, because they get one or two big meals during a shorter period of time rather than smaller meals throughout the whole day. There is nothing magical about it.19 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »It's just a way of timing meals that makes it easier for some people to maintain a calorie deficit. 16:8 (fasting 16 hours, eating in an 8-hour window), 18:6, or 20:4 (approaching one-meal-a-day) are popular splits, as is 5:2 (5 days eating at maintenance, 2 days eating low-calorie to create the desired weekly deficit).
Why do you think any of the above would be unhealthy, provided one is meeting their nutritional and caloric needs? Have you never skipped breakfast? That's essentially what the least restrictive form of IF amounts to.
I guess the only one that sounds iffy to me is the 20:4 split. Although come to think of it, I bet our neanderthal ancestors often had to get by with one meal a day or less. I just feel like it seems better to have small meals at a time, helping keep the body fueled but not overloading it at any one time.
Our body is a wonderful thing. It has evolved several systems of fuel usage and storage. This is why we are so adapted to all kinds of situations. Your body is almost always fueled in normal situations. If food is scarce, it has several kinds of fuel reserves. If food is overabundant, it has several kinds of fuel storage mechanisms. This is why we get to do whatever we want with our food timing and it wouldn't be unhealthy unless we're underfeeding long term or have specific medical abnormalities that are made worse by fasting.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions