Intermittent fasting: sounds bad
Replies
-
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 -
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.
It can work for people in several ways:
- If it helps them manage their hunger better, they're more likely to stay within their calorie target
- If it allows them to have more of the foods that would be harder to fit otherwise, they're more likely to stay within their calorie target
- If they like large meals, eating within a window will allow them to have fewer but larger meals, so they're more likely to stay within their calorie target
- If they like several meals clustered closely, it's easier to achieve within a fasting window without having to settle for snack-sized meals, so they're more likely to stay within their calorie target
- If they dislike the act of preparing food, doing it once or twice a day is easier than having to think up and prepare 3-5 meals, so they're more likely to stay within their calorie target
That's how and why it works. People who believe it broke through a weight plateau for them are reading too much into it. They're either not counting calories and spontaneously reduce their calories when they fast, or they're counting calories but have food amnesia. Less time to eat means less opportunity to nibble and forget. They could also just be staying within their calories more consistently. There may even be less food in their system because they're eating richer meals, they may feel less stressed, they may be eating fewer carbs...etc. There could be other reasons, but they all boil down either to calories or to natural bodily functions that affect weight but mean little in terms of fat loss. Intermittent fasting doesn't affect fat loss in any way that any other diet wouldn't.9 -
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.
It helped me lose (and now maintain) because I'm not that hungry in the morning - I can easily get by with a cup of coffee until around noon - 1:00 pm most days. I'd prefer to have more calories in the evening, when I'm at my hungriest, for a nice big dinner and some ice cream for dessert. The only difference between losing weight and maintaining is that I eat a few hundred more calories in those same meals.
If I eat breakfast early in the morning, it turns on my hunger and I'm starving by lunch time, then after a big lunch I have less calories left for dinner and I'm hungry all night afterward. It doesn't work that way for everybody, but that's how it works for me. I do best when I eat "breakfast" around lunch time, have a small mid-afternoon snack, and a big dinner.
There's really nothing confusing about it - it's all about satiety and adherence. Some people are grazers, they do better with multiple small meals throughout the day; others do better with 3, 2, or even 1 big meal per day. Whatever works best to help one stick to their calorie goals is what offers the best chance of success. Trying to white knuckle your way through something that's a bad fit for you is rarely going to last.22 -
It helps me get my eating under control. It doesn't work for everyone (my wife couldn't adjust to it). I don't believe it has any special "magic" to make you lose weight faster but I don't believe it is bad for you either. Before we always had a plethora of food to choose from, our ancestors did not eat 3 meals a day everyday (or even more).
It just depends on works best for your body. And it works like general dieting, a less amount of time to eat leads to calorie restriction, nothing more complicated than that.6 -
Intermittent fasting can be 'bad' or 'good' depending on what you make of it! I use some of the Intermittent fasting strategies on weekends. 1200 calories can only go that far, and on the weekends, I like to indulge a bit more, have some bread and cheese and pizza. IF allows me to enjoy slightly bigger meals by skipping breakfast. Skipping breakfast has always been a "no-no" in my head until IF opened my eyes to a whole new way of thinking. I wasn't ruining my metabolism by skipping breakfast? Wow, how liberating.
Yeah, I don't do the full 5:2 or 18:6, but you can learn the good and throw away the bad from all kinds of fad diets and crazes. I tried 5:2 and it wasn't for me. I have small kids and there's no way I can have the energy to run after them on those fasting days. Didn't work for me and I was hangry and miserable.3 -
I've been told that your body doesn't start metabolizing in earnest in the morning until it's had something to jumpstart it. Is that nonsense, or is there some science to that?13
-
gallicinvasion wrote: »I've been told that your body doesn't start metabolizing in earnest in the morning until it's had something to jumpstart it. Is that nonsense, or is there some science to that?
It is nonsense - your metabolism runs 24/7 regardless of when or what you eat.17 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »I've been told that your body doesn't start metabolizing in earnest in the morning until it's had something to jumpstart it. Is that nonsense, or is there some science to that?
There are some changes/fluctuations related to certain hormones... that part is true. But the impact that has on weight management is exceptionally small.5 -
gallicinvasion wrote: »I've been told that your body doesn't start metabolizing in earnest in the morning until it's had something to jumpstart it. Is that nonsense, or is there some science to that?
If you weren't metabolizing anything, you'd be dead. Now, you may feel like dying in the morning but In pretty sure you're actually alive.10 -
Fasting helped me lose weight and took my mind off of food actually- I only have to plan 2 meals...I don’t eat after 8pm and I wait to eat till after noon, I do drink a lot of water and have a cup of coffee in the morning also. The first couple days I was hungry in the morning so I ate at 10, but after I wasn’t hungry until noon! Try it out4
-
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.
It helped me lose (and now maintain) because I'm not that hungry in the morning - I can easily get by with a cup of coffee until around noon - 1:00 pm most days. I'd prefer to have more calories in the evening, when I'm at my hungriest, for a nice big dinner and some ice cream for dessert. The only difference between losing weight and maintaining is that I eat a few hundred more calories in those same meals.
If I eat breakfast early in the morning, it turns on my hunger and I'm starving by lunch time, then after a big lunch I have less calories left for dinner and I'm hungry all night afterward. It doesn't work that way for everybody, but that's how it works for me. I do best when I eat "breakfast" around lunch time, have a small mid-afternoon snack, and a big dinner.
There's really nothing confusing about it - it's all about satiety and adherence. Some people are grazers, they do better with multiple small meals throughout the day; others do better with 3, 2, or even 1 big meal per day. Whatever works best to help one stick to their calorie goals is what offers the best chance of success. Trying to white knuckle your way through something that's a bad fit for you is rarely going to last.
I skip breakfast but unlike others, I do get hungry thru the morning however I just push thru it. It is worse during the week when I am at work because I am just sitting at a desk but on the weekends way more easier because I am usually working out in the a.m.
IF has taught me that it is okay to feel hunger, I am not going to die from it. It has controlled my eating and even in the past 4.5 months the very odd day that I have blown it, I get right back on track. I honestly think I would not have lost 25 lbs in four months had I not implemented it. I tried everything before: eat small meals thru the day, eat less (which sounds great but you need a strategy for it), don't eat this or that, nothing sustained for me until IF.
I can adjust it as I see fit according to what the day will bring.7
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.5K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.2K Fitness and Exercise
- 382 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.6K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 878 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions