Intermittent Fasting
teebsters
Posts: 10 Member
Hi fellow IF-ers,
I have hit a plateau for awhile so I am trying intermittent fasting again (goal is weight loss).
Similar to keto, is there a "way/method/check" to determine if your body is hitting the "fasting weight loss" stage (i.e. on keto you can use the strips to see if body is in ketosis).
I'm hoping to get near my goal by new years...it's such a struggle.
Thanks in advance!
I have hit a plateau for awhile so I am trying intermittent fasting again (goal is weight loss).
Similar to keto, is there a "way/method/check" to determine if your body is hitting the "fasting weight loss" stage (i.e. on keto you can use the strips to see if body is in ketosis).
I'm hoping to get near my goal by new years...it's such a struggle.
Thanks in advance!
15
Replies
-
I hate to burst your IF-bubble but human studies have been limited and there's little to suggest IF does anything for weight loss in the absence of a calorie deficit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374764
It's not a "hot tip" by any stretch but the best way I know to get things moving in the right direction is to consistently eat at a deficit. For me that means locking down my logging being diligent with my portion control.16 -
IF works by making it easier to stick to your calorie goal. What exactly are looking to find a way to measure?12
-
What is a "fasting weight loss stage"? I thought people lose weight when they eat less calories than they burn. And people can gain fat even on ketosis.10
-
I'm a dedicated IFer. There is one way guaranteed to get you to lose weight, count your calories and make sure you are eating less that you are burning. IF is really more of a hunger control mechanism, you still need to make sure you are in a caloric deficit in order to lose weight. For me, I know my diet is on track if I'm not really hungry until about 11 Am with just a cup of coffee, then lunch, then usually some fruit, then dinner.29
-
Yeah, I agree with everyone else. I have done IF for years but there is no proven measurable fat loss zone for IF, it's just a convenient way for people to eat. I have two larger meals and a couple snacks usually.7
-
There is no "fasting weight loss stage". Weight loss comes from a caloric deficit sustained over time, regardless of what time of the day you eat.
I've done 16/8 IF for years. My weight loss (or lack thereof) corresponds with my calorie intake. There's no magic to it. It just makes it easier for me to adhere to because it fits the eating pattern I'm most comfortable with.13 -
Thanks everyone; yes I understand I need to be consuming at a calorie deficit, which I am doing.
I guess I assumed your body would change its fat burning process, similar to ketosis.
Thanks for clearing that up.8 -
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of hype and woo out there about IF right now. It can be a valid strategy to help with satiety/adherence (works well for some, horribly for others), but a lot of the benefits beyond that are speculative and not yet proven by scientific research.Thanks everyone; yes I understand I need to be consuming at a calorie deficit, which I am doing.
I guess I assumed your body would change its fat burning process, similar to ketosis.
Thanks for clearing that up.13 -
I hate to burst your IF-bubble but human studies have been limited and there's little to suggest IF does anything for weight loss in the absence of a calorie deficit.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26374764
It's not a "hot tip" by any stretch but the best way I know to get things moving in the right direction is to consistently eat at a deficit. For me that means locking down my logging being diligent with my portion control.
The latest human trials do indeed suggest IF impacts weight loss, perhaps significantly, as well as several key health markers:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118302535
https://m.ufhealth.org/news/2018/intermittent-fasting-leads-significant-weight-loss-slows-aging-uf-research-review-finds
14 -
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of hype and woo out there about IF right now. It can be a valid strategy to help with satiety/adherence (works well for some, horribly for others), but a lot of the benefits beyond that are speculative and not yet proven by scientific research.Thanks everyone; yes I understand I need to be consuming at a calorie deficit, which I am doing.
I guess I assumed your body would change its fat burning process, similar to ketosis.
Thanks for clearing that up.
When your body goes into ketosis because you haven't eaten for 16+ hours (IF) your insulin levels will drop, insulin tells your body to use carb calories, in absence of high insulin your body will start using fat cells for energy. So in theory you would use the calories at the same rate the only difference is what kind of energy you use. This is also very dependent on the persons body I know people that can use fat cells really quickly and vice versa.
Also if your in a calorie deficiency your body might go into starvation mode and start using muscle cells for energy so I think IF worth it just to avoid the starvation mode.17 -
barmaley_bl wrote: »
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of hype and woo out there about IF right now. It can be a valid strategy to help with satiety/adherence (works well for some, horribly for others), but a lot of the benefits beyond that are speculative and not yet proven by scientific research.Thanks everyone; yes I understand I need to be consuming at a calorie deficit, which I am doing.
I guess I assumed your body would change its fat burning process, similar to ketosis.
Thanks for clearing that up.
When your body goes into ketosis because you haven't eaten for 16+ hours (IF) your insulin levels will drop, insulin tells your body to use carb calories, in absence of high insulin your body will start using fat cells for energy. So in theory you would use the calories at the same rate the only difference is what kind of energy you use. This is also very dependent on the persons body I know people that can use fat cells really quickly and vice versa.
Also if your in a calorie deficiency your body might go into starvation mode and start using muscle cells for energy so I think IF worth it just to avoid the starvation mode.
If you lose weight through IF, it's because you have created a calorie deficit. So choosing IF for weight loss to avoid "starvation mode" due to a deficit makes zero sense.
Also, "starvation mode" in the way you're describing it, isn't a real thing.10 -
1) That's not how it works: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/barmaley_bl wrote: »When your body goes into ketosis because you haven't eaten for 16+ hours (IF) your insulin levels will drop, insulin tells your body to use carb calories, in absence of high insulin your body will start using fat cells for energy. So in theory you would use the calories at the same rate the only difference is what kind of energy you use. This is also very dependent on the persons body I know people that can use fat cells really quickly and vice versa.
2) Substrate utilization is irrelevant to fat loss.
1) A calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight/fat.barmaley_bl wrote: »Also if your in a calorie deficiency your body might go into starvation mode and start using muscle cells for energy so I think IF worth it just to avoid the starvation mode.
2) "Starvation mode" is a myth: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
In the context of the OP, there is no such thing as a "fasting weight loss stage" which is specifically brought about by IF, so there's no way to check for it since it doesn't exist.
10 -
barmaley_bl wrote: »
Unfortunately, there’s a lot of hype and woo out there about IF right now. It can be a valid strategy to help with satiety/adherence (works well for some, horribly for others), but a lot of the benefits beyond that are speculative and not yet proven by scientific research.Thanks everyone; yes I understand I need to be consuming at a calorie deficit, which I am doing.
I guess I assumed your body would change its fat burning process, similar to ketosis.
Thanks for clearing that up.
When your body goes into ketosis because you haven't eaten for 16+ hours (IF) your insulin levels will drop, insulin tells your body to use carb calories, in absence of high insulin your body will start using fat cells for energy. So in theory you would use the calories at the same rate the only difference is what kind of energy you use. This is also very dependent on the persons body I know people that can use fat cells really quickly and vice versa.
Also if your in a calorie deficiency your body might go into starvation mode and start using muscle cells for energy so I think IF worth it just to avoid the starvation mode.
Insulin doesn't "tell" your body to use "carb calories". Once your food is digested, and your blood sugar rises, insulin is released into your bloodstream to transport the sugar into your cells, wherever it's needed or will be stored. Insulin is the bus, not the dispatch.
And starvation mode, when it's used to mean a short term reaction to low calories, is a myth.10 -
1) That's not how it works: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/barmaley_bl wrote: »When your body goes into ketosis because you haven't eaten for 16+ hours (IF) your insulin levels will drop, insulin tells your body to use carb calories, in absence of high insulin your body will start using fat cells for energy. So in theory you would use the calories at the same rate the only difference is what kind of energy you use. This is also very dependent on the persons body I know people that can use fat cells really quickly and vice versa.
2) Substrate utilization is irrelevant to fat loss.
1) A calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight/fat.barmaley_bl wrote: »Also if your in a calorie deficiency your body might go into starvation mode and start using muscle cells for energy so I think IF worth it just to avoid the starvation mode.
2) "Starvation mode" is a myth: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
In the context of the OP, there is no such thing as a "fasting weight loss stage" which is specifically brought about by IF, so there's no way to check for it since it doesn't exist.
And you don't go into ketosis in 16 hours.6 -
Re starvation mode. I don't recall if he named that but Ancel Keys did the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. 36 men were feed about 1500 calories a day which was called Semi-starvation. Their metabolism dropped, they had some mental illness and felt very cold even in the summer. So is this the same as Starvation Mode or is it a myth? I have seen the study and I keep seeing that "starvation mode is a myth". So I am confused by this apparent conflict.1
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »
1) That's not how it works: https://weightology.net/insulin-an-undeserved-bad-reputation/barmaley_bl wrote: »When your body goes into ketosis because you haven't eaten for 16+ hours (IF) your insulin levels will drop, insulin tells your body to use carb calories, in absence of high insulin your body will start using fat cells for energy. So in theory you would use the calories at the same rate the only difference is what kind of energy you use. This is also very dependent on the persons body I know people that can use fat cells really quickly and vice versa.
2) Substrate utilization is irrelevant to fat loss.
1) A calorie deficit is the only way to lose weight/fat.barmaley_bl wrote: »Also if your in a calorie deficiency your body might go into starvation mode and start using muscle cells for energy so I think IF worth it just to avoid the starvation mode.
2) "Starvation mode" is a myth: https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/starvation-mode/
In the context of the OP, there is no such thing as a "fasting weight loss stage" which is specifically brought about by IF, so there's no way to check for it since it doesn't exist.
And you don't go into ketosis in 16 hours.
I suppose if you were very low carb for a while you possibly could but I agree. When I shut down carbs I hadn't even started feeling bad yet at 16 hours.1 -
Re starvation mode. I don't recall if he named that but Ancel Keys did the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. 36 men were feed about 1500 calories a day which was called Semi-starvation. Their metabolism dropped, they had some mental illness and felt very cold even in the summer. So is this the same as Starvation Mode or is it a myth? I have seen the study and I keep seeing that "starvation mode is a myth". So I am confused by this apparent conflict.
When people say "starvation mode" on here, they're talking about how one won't lose weight, even in a calorie deficit if the deficit is too steep. That isn't what was observed in the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. When you look at that study, you can see that the men clearly lost weight.
Starvation, and the attendant physical changes observed by Keys, is real. That isn't the same thing as the common diet concept known as "starvation mode."10 -
Re starvation mode. I don't recall if he named that but Ancel Keys did the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. 36 men were feed about 1500 calories a day which was called Semi-starvation. Their metabolism dropped, they had some mental illness and felt very cold even in the summer. So is this the same as Starvation Mode or is it a myth? I have seen the study and I keep seeing that "starvation mode is a myth". So I am confused by this apparent conflict.
There is a myth that if you eat too low (often just a tiny bit too low), your body "holds onto fat and won't lose any weight." Sometimes it is even claimed that you might lose weight as a result. That's a myth. It's also very often understood as what "starvation mode" is, and is commonly referenced by people who believe this happens on MFP (typically newbies).
It is true that "metabolic adaptation" happens, which means your metabolism will tend to drop as you get underweight or with a big deficit after time passes or even with a smaller deficit over a longer period of time (especially if you don't have much fat to lose). People vary in how prone they are to this, but the main point is that it doesn't cause weight gain or even weight loss to stop while one is at a deficit. Some might call this starvation mode, but usually it refers to the mythical idea discussed in my first paragraph.7 -
I have 16:8 IF for years, It works for me as I am a night time eater.
I wasn't ever aware I was IF until joining MFP 4 years ago.
I just thought I was skipping breakfast.
Give it a try to see if it helps you stick to your calories. Some like me find it great, others feel starving then want to eat everything around them.6 -
Re starvation mode. I don't recall if he named that but Ancel Keys did the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. 36 men were feed about 1500 calories a day which was called Semi-starvation. Their metabolism dropped, they had some mental illness and felt very cold even in the summer. So is this the same as Starvation Mode or is it a myth? I have seen the study and I keep seeing that "starvation mode is a myth". So I am confused by this apparent conflict.
There is a myth that if you eat too low (often just a tiny bit too low), your body "holds onto fat and won't lose any weight." Sometimes it is even claimed that you might lose weight as a result. That's a myth. It's also very often understood as what "starvation mode" is, and is commonly referenced by people who believe this happens on MFP (typically newbies).
It is true that "metabolic adaptation" happens, which means your metabolism will tend to drop as you get underweight or with a big deficit after time passes or even with a smaller deficit over a longer period of time (especially if you don't have much fat to lose). People vary in how prone they are to this, but the main point is that it doesn't cause weight gain or even weight loss to stop while one is at a deficit. Some might call this starvation mode, but usually it refers to the mythical idea discussed in my first paragraph.
Thanks, this^^ is what my understanding is but I was finding it difficult to research a myth.1 -
I don't see a problem with trying IF to see if it gets you back on track if stalled or if you just feel like checking it out. What's the worst that can happen? If it helps it it helps and if it doesn't it doesn't. I guess I just don't get the logic of "you know you can do the same thing by limiting calories". I don't think we are all cut out to do the same WOE or weight loss plan. I do draw the line at any plans that require a buy in or a weight loss pill.2
-
I don't see anyone saying that others should not try IF to see if they like it or find it helpful.
I just see people clarifying that there's no need to do it if you DON'T like it or find it helpful, and also clarifying that you don't need to fast for a certain period of time for it to start working, since you lose weight the same way everyone does, through a calorie deficit.
I strongly agree that on the individual level eating schedules can be extremely helpful. I find mine to be, even though it wouldn't qualify as IF. Many people who don't call it IF similarly would say they find it extremely helpful to go with their bodies' natural preferences and skip breakfast.6 -
I don't see anyone saying that others should not try IF to see if they like it or find it helpful.
I just see people clarifying that there's no need to do it if you DON'T like it or find it helpful, and also clarifying that you don't need to fast for a certain period of time for it to start working, since you lose weight the same way everyone does, through a calorie deficit.
I strongly agree that on the individual level eating schedules can be extremely helpful. I find mine to be, even though it wouldn't qualify as IF. Many people who don't call it IF similarly would say they find it extremely helpful to go with their bodies' natural preferences and skip breakfast.
So much this.
I used to IF until very recently when it suddenly stopped working for me. Like a PP, I started getting hungry earlier in the day (usually around 3 or so hours after waking, but I get up very early) than I had been previously. Trying to ignore it didn't work and only led to migraines.
Since IF'ing had helped me regulate my intake and appetite throughout the day, I had to turn to something else to do the same.
I now find that an eating schedule works perfectly for me.3 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't see anyone saying that others should not try IF to see if they like it or find it helpful.
I just see people clarifying that there's no need to do it if you DON'T like it or find it helpful, and also clarifying that you don't need to fast for a certain period of time for it to start working, since you lose weight the same way everyone does, through a calorie deficit.
I strongly agree that on the individual level eating schedules can be extremely helpful. I find mine to be, even though it wouldn't qualify as IF. Many people who don't call it IF similarly would say they find it extremely helpful to go with their bodies' natural preferences and skip breakfast.
So much this.
I used to IF until very recently when it suddenly stopped working for me. Like a PP, I started getting hungry earlier in the day (usually around 3 or so hours after waking, but I get up very early) than I had been previously. Trying to ignore it didn't work and only led to migraines.
Since IF'ing had helped me regulate my intake and appetite throughout the day, I had to turn to something else to do the same.
I now find that an eating schedule works perfectly for me.
16:8 works for me because I'm generally not terribly hungry in the morning, and if I eat an early breakfast it sets the hunger signals in motion, making it harder to meet my calorie goals throughout the day. I also like having lots of calories for a big dinner and ice cream for dessert afterward. With that said, I treat it as a general rule, not a religion - if for some reason I'm hungry outside that 8 hour window, or circumstances dictate that I eat at a different time, I eat. I've done it that way for years and don't see any magical effects other than the fact that it helps me stick to my calorie goals. I never thought it was a particularly big thing until it became the latest fad and everybody started jumping on the bandwagon extolling all these miraculous health virtues that I never knew existed and have never experienced myself through years of doing it.
I think it can be a useful tool for some people (if your eating patterns fit it well), and an unnecessary hindrance which makes adherence more difficult for others.6 -
I also IF I usually eat between 10am-3/4pmish.
It allows me to have larger calorie meals as I'm not hungry in the morning. It also seems to help curb my night snacking and I don't know why - either its a mental thing and I don't eat after 4pm (because thats a mental cutoff) or it's the larger calorie dinner that keeps me satiated which it's probably this:)2 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I don't see anyone saying that others should not try IF to see if they like it or find it helpful.
I just see people clarifying that there's no need to do it if you DON'T like it or find it helpful, and also clarifying that you don't need to fast for a certain period of time for it to start working, since you lose weight the same way everyone does, through a calorie deficit.
I strongly agree that on the individual level eating schedules can be extremely helpful. I find mine to be, even though it wouldn't qualify as IF. Many people who don't call it IF similarly would say they find it extremely helpful to go with their bodies' natural preferences and skip breakfast.
So much this.
I used to IF until very recently when it suddenly stopped working for me. Like a PP, I started getting hungry earlier in the day (usually around 3 or so hours after waking, but I get up very early) than I had been previously. Trying to ignore it didn't work and only led to migraines.
Since IF'ing had helped me regulate my intake and appetite throughout the day, I had to turn to something else to do the same.
I now find that an eating schedule works perfectly for me.
16:8 works for me because I'm generally not terribly hungry in the morning, and if I eat an early breakfast it sets the hunger signals in motion, making it harder to meet my calorie goals throughout the day. I also like having lots of calories for a big dinner and ice cream for dessert afterward. With that said, I treat it as a general rule, not a religion - if for some reason I'm hungry outside that 8 hour window, or circumstances dictate that I eat at a different time, I eat. I've done it that way for years and don't see any magical effects other than the fact that it helps me stick to my calorie goals. I never thought it was a particularly big thing until it became the latest fad and everybody started jumping on the bandwagon extolling all these miraculous health virtues that I never knew existed and have never experienced myself through years of doing it.
I think it can be a useful tool for some people (if your eating patterns fit it well), and an unnecessary hindrance which makes adherence more difficult for others.
It was weird. I used to get up at 4:30 and not be hungry until some time around noon-2:00 or so. And then that changed suddenly. Now I get hungry around 7:30 - 9:00.
Eating that first bite still does turn on my appetite switch for the day, which was one good thing about rolling with not eating until I was hungry later in the first place. Anyway, the thing I've found helpful is having a schedule with a rough sketch of calories allotted to each eating time, because I know the next time food is coming and can just put off that annoying munch monster knowing I'm still on track and everything's fine and food will eventually be coming.3 -
It was weird. I used to get up at 4:30 and not be hungry until some time around noon-2:00 or so. And then that changed suddenly. Now I get hungry around 7:30 - 9:00.
Eating that first bite still does turn on my appetite switch for the day, which was one good thing about rolling with not eating until I was hungry later in the first place. Anyway, the thing I've found helpful is having a schedule with a rough sketch of calories allotted to each eating time, because I know the next time food is coming and can just put off that annoying munch monster knowing I'm still on track and everything's fine and food will eventually be coming.
This is sorta what I do. I'm not usually hungry until 10am ish and then I schedule 3/4pm dinner and for whatever reason having that scheduled and approx amount of calories I'll spend on eating seems to keep my mental apitite controlled if you will. I do know that focusing a bit on what keeps me satiated helps but I'm talking about that mental/bored/emotional whatever one wants to call it eating, that just seems to be under control with a schedule.0 -
Thanks everyone; yes I understand I need to be consuming at a calorie deficit, which I am doing.
I guess I assumed your body would change its fat burning process, similar to ketosis.
Thanks for clearing that up.
If you aren't losing weight, than you aren't in a deficit. Are you logging food? Are you using a food scale? How long have you been plateaued?1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions