intermittent fasting 16:8
leahcollett1
Posts: 807 Member
Hi EVERYONE,
I have been doing this for 5 days now, my hours are 12 till 8pm. which works great for me, as i have early nights.. the 6.30 wake up for work though is killer to fast till 12 so recently budged it forward to 11 until 7pm doing much better.
anyone else on this train?
I have been doing this for 5 days now, my hours are 12 till 8pm. which works great for me, as i have early nights.. the 6.30 wake up for work though is killer to fast till 12 so recently budged it forward to 11 until 7pm doing much better.
anyone else on this train?
5
Replies
-
Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.33
-
Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
more effective for what? IF is simply an eating schedule - people use IF to lose, gain or maintain their weight.18 -
I don't really follow a strict eating window, but my normal preferences put me in something like a 10am - 6pm feed window (which is 16:8 ish, if my math is right). I know that (rough) timeframe is "better for me" so I try to pay attention to it, but I don't force it on myself if there's reason to eat outside it.6
-
i definitely am better with an eating window - because it feels like i can eat more normally during that window than say 12 hours.8
-
leahcollett1 wrote: »Hi EVERYONE,
I have been doing this for 5 days now, my hours are 12 till 8pm. which works great for me, as i have early nights.. the 6.30 wake up for work though is killer to fast till 12 so recently budged it forward to 11 until 7pm doing much better.
anyone else on this train?
I’m an IF practitioner which has been very effective and efficient for me in achieving my current goals.
I started a topic discussion elsewhere here at. MFP which I just shut down due to naysayer comments.
I wish you the best in your IF journey and will be privately cheering for you.11 -
thank you very much!
0 -
I started doing IF accidentally a few years ago when I realized I wasn't hungry in the morning and was just eating out of habit, so I decided to skip breakfast. It really did work great to control my appetite and made it easier to hit my calorie goal.
Then a few months ago, I started waking up hungry. I ignored it for a few days but it persisted, so I started eating a little in the AM and spreading my calories out more. Luckily, I'm in maintenance now so I have more calories to play with! Either way, my calorie needs/macro preferences are the same.
Some people do find it's an awesome tool for appetite control, others find they simply do better with a more traditional pattern.
If you struggle with the eight hour window, feel free to expand it a little bit. While there are theories out there about additional benefits, there is no consistent data showing any benefit to IF other than appetite control. So if scooching your window earlier leaves you struggling at night, it may be that 15:9 is perfect for you, even if you can't technically call it "IF". Play around with it
Congrats on getting started, and good luck!!!10 -
I'm someone who uses IF for appetite control. Eating breakfast just makes me too hungry throughout the rest of the day. So IF is perfect for me to stay within my calorie budget.
Good luck!6 -
That's about what I do. I try to stick with it, but also go by what I'm feeling too. Sometimes I make it to 11 or later, sometimes I eat earlier. I'm not super strict to following it. It has helped to get me out of a stall that I was stuck in for a month (losing and gaining the same couple of pounds)1
-
Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
Part of weight-management is managing the behavior, it's not just the calories. Managing good behavior on days at 600 calories is not sustainable for everybody. Regular 16:8 can be tough and that seems to work for the OP.Hi EVERYONE,
I have been doing this for 5 days now, my hours are 12 till 8pm. which works great for me, as i have early nights.. the 6.30 wake up for work though is killer to fast till 12 so recently budged it forward to 11 until 7pm doing much better.
anyone else on this train?
I do it from 12pm to 8pm as well most of the time. Some days waiting until noon is very tough, other days it isn't. Just have to make adjustments to make it work for you. I've been doing it for about 6-months now and I very much love it and see some good results that I believe IF did approve upon. I'm also seeing it in my blood-work which was a nice bonus.1 -
JAYxMSxPES wrote: »Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
Part of weight-management is managing the behavior, it's not just the calories. Managing good behavior on days at 600 calories is not sustainable for everybody. Regular 16:8 can be tough and that seems to work for the OP.Hi EVERYONE,
I have been doing this for 5 days now, my hours are 12 till 8pm. which works great for me, as i have early nights.. the 6.30 wake up for work though is killer to fast till 12 so recently budged it forward to 11 until 7pm doing much better.
anyone else on this train?
I do it from 12pm to 8pm as well most of the time. Some days waiting until noon is very tough, other days it isn't. Just have to make adjustments to make it work for you. I've been doing it for about 6-months now and I very much love it and see some good results that I believe IF did approve upon. I'm also seeing it in my blood-work which was a nice bonus.
what you stated is psychology vs physiology though. it is just the calories for weight management. behavior is mental. IF could be worse for those trying to lose weight or could help adhere to a calorie deficit or whatever their goal is. its all preferential.
that isn't from IF though, thats from the calorie deficit it brought9 -
pinggolfer96 wrote: »JAYxMSxPES wrote: »Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
Part of weight-management is managing the behavior, it's not just the calories. Managing good behavior on days at 600 calories is not sustainable for everybody. Regular 16:8 can be tough and that seems to work for the OP.Hi EVERYONE,
I have been doing this for 5 days now, my hours are 12 till 8pm. which works great for me, as i have early nights.. the 6.30 wake up for work though is killer to fast till 12 so recently budged it forward to 11 until 7pm doing much better.
anyone else on this train?
I do it from 12pm to 8pm as well most of the time. Some days waiting until noon is very tough, other days it isn't. Just have to make adjustments to make it work for you. I've been doing it for about 6-months now and I very much love it and see some good results that I believe IF did approve upon. I'm also seeing it in my blood-work which was a nice bonus.
what you stated is psychology vs physiology though. it is just the calories for weight management. behavior is mental. IF could be worse for those trying to lose weight or could help adhere to a calorie deficit or whatever their goal is. its all preferential.
that isn't from IF though, thats from the calorie deficit it brought
For sure. I was just pointing out that the OP said the 16:8 works for her. So while something on paper might technically better, if that behavior can't be maintained it doesn't matter. If one can do the simple things correctly, then they're usually in a good place.
I think there's a lot of research left to be done on IF and ADF that will eventually show IF versus traditional is better. Dr. Berardi has already done this in a non-academic manner and shown that IF with the calorie deficit is better than calorie deficit alone at 6-meals a day. I think some others have shown this but I don't believe a formal peer-reviewed study has been conducted. If it has I just haven't seen it. I can say myself that at 220lbs using IF, I am leaner than I was at 198 and I was training similarly enough at the time. IF doesn't have to bring a calorie deficit, not sure why those two relationships are made. One just has less time to consume everything they need.
I believe there is actual research on ADF that shows it is better at losing and managing weight than traditional. But again, it's then back to behavioral and what somebody can actually manage to. Some folks need those 4 to 6 meals per day to manage their calorie deficit, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of what you can manage to the majority of the time.7 -
Something to consider is that unless you're specifically trying to attain some kind of 'fasted state' or something there's nothing to say you can't move a couple of hundred calories outside of your eating window if it makes things easier.
If eating (for example) 200 calories mid-morning and 1400 calories during your eating window is easier for you do maintain than saving all 1600 then the results are going to be the same. Sure we won't be able to apply the label of 'IF' to what you're doing, but why make things harder than they need to be?
I found personally that having a small breakfast (10-15% of calories) in the morning and a snack (5-10% of calories) in the afternoon was ideal for me as it left me with the bulk (75-85%) of my calories when I was most hungry at night.
In short I changed my eating habits to fit me rather than trying to change me to fit into a prescribed eating pattern.
G'luck.8 -
JAYxMSxPES wrote: »I believe there is actual research on ADF that shows it is better at losing and managing weight than traditional. But again, it's then back to behavioral and what somebody can actually manage to. Some folks need those 4 to 6 meals per day to manage their calorie deficit, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of what you can manage to the majority of the time.
Not ADF, but 5:2 IF - year long study: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/intermittent-fasting-vs-traditional-dieting/
No significant difference in weight loss and/or cardiometabolic risk factors between traditional calorie restriction and IF.
Excerpt:...So what are the conclusions and the practical implications of this year-long randomized controlled trial comparing 5:2 intermittent fasting vs traditional dieting?
Well, based on the results, we can conclude that 5:2 intermittent fasting is as effective, but not more effective than daily caloric restriction for weight loss and weight maintenance as well as for improving cardiometabolic risk factors in free-living middle-aged men and women with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
However, 5:2 intermittent fasting can result in increased feelings of hunger relative to traditional dieting (although research suggests that this isn’t always the case) and may potentially create more adverse events, including dizziness, mild headache, mild nausea, and temporary sleep disturbance...6 -
I have found IF is easier for me to stick within my calories. I was never satisfied with small meals, and would want to snack. But with IF I have two bigger meals and a snack if needed. Much more satisfying to have larger meals.7
-
Just started IF and im loving this. I dont feel the need to snack as much. Brought some structure to my eating5
-
kellycrev2969 wrote: »Just started IF and im loving this. I dont feel the need to snack as much. Brought some structure to my eating
I love IF too! It has also given me structure. Even if I am having not a great eating day as long as I keep it within 6 or 8 hours I feel in control of my eating. How I gained weight was my eating was not controlled, I was an all or nothing person.
Plus for me counting calories/points, etc. does not appeal to me.
Prior to doing IF a bad eating day would be eating from morning to bedtime...so on average over 12 hours of eating.
IF is so flexible in my opinion.
1 -
IF is basically skip breakfast right?0
-
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
There are LOTS of versions/iterations of IF. Skipping breakfast is one such version.1 -
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.5 -
I've been doing IF for years now, in its various forms. When I use IF it helps me keep my calories in check and I enjoy doing it. Currently doing 16:8IF, with an eating window of 11am-7pm.2
-
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.
Holy smoke, I can barely handle 18 hours without eating some days:)1 -
JAYxMSxPES wrote: »I believe there is actual research on ADF that shows it is better at losing and managing weight than traditional. But again, it's then back to behavioral and what somebody can actually manage to. Some folks need those 4 to 6 meals per day to manage their calorie deficit, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a matter of what you can manage to the majority of the time.
Not ADF, but 5:2 IF - year long study: https://www.myoleanfitness.com/intermittent-fasting-vs-traditional-dieting/
No significant difference in weight loss and/or cardiometabolic risk factors between traditional calorie restriction and IF.
Excerpt:...So what are the conclusions and the practical implications of this year-long randomized controlled trial comparing 5:2 intermittent fasting vs traditional dieting?
Well, based on the results, we can conclude that 5:2 intermittent fasting is as effective, but not more effective than daily caloric restriction for weight loss and weight maintenance as well as for improving cardiometabolic risk factors in free-living middle-aged men and women with obesity and metabolic syndrome.
However, 5:2 intermittent fasting can result in increased feelings of hunger relative to traditional dieting (although research suggests that this isn’t always the case) and may potentially create more adverse events, including dizziness, mild headache, mild nausea, and temporary sleep disturbance...
That's very interesting, but keep in mind it's just one study. Thanks for sharing. I'm hoping that more studies are being done and then we can look at the total body of evidence. I would love to read the full study, unfortunately I can only find the abstract which doesn't give enough information of the full study. Specifically I'd like to know more about the participants, the wide age range is curious to me and I'm wondering if there are any outliers by age group. More specifics into how their diets and exercise were controlled, if at all. Abstracts are useful, but don't provide everything.
There's enough strong "anecdotal" results, for a lack of better words, from people like Dr. Berardi that suggests there's more to IF that the study referenced doesn't touch. Yes I refer back to him because weight management is his specialty and he gains nothing by promoting IF; he was already successful in that field long before IF came around. My brother-in-law was working with a dietitian that suggested IF and some dietary changes to him. He went on IF without cleaning up his diet at all, he drinks a lot of beer too, and is visibly leaner and his bloodwork results for cholesterol and blood sugar have improved significantly. With no dietary or exercise changes, he's leaner and has improved health markers. I've experienced the same. Why is that? And I know the counter to that is why would calorie restriction over the course of a day versus a refined eating window make a difference? It should't at least and I would agree with that point. For a long time I actually thought it was a ridiculous concept too and then I tried it without changing any other variable in my life. I guess I could say that I drink more bourbon now than previously, but surely that's not the answer.
Anyway, it's really an interesting topic to me and I think that if it's something that will be studied more and more. In the meantime, if it's something that fits a person's lifestyle I believe it's worth trying.0 -
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.
he didn't eat for 380 days? like...no intake?0 -
Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
I wouldn't put much faith in diet "studies."
I read the 5:2 book by Mosely (he's a publicist, not a dietician or medical doctor). The "facts" in his book are based on his personal results. The problem with that is people can see health improvements from exercise alone, weight loss alone, or changes in diet alone. Combine those 3 factors (along with genetics).....publish a book and attribute 100% of health improvements to the 5:2 diet. This is good for book $ales.7 -
Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
I wouldn't put much faith in diet "studies."
I read the 5:2 book by Mosely (he's a publicist, not a dietician or medical doctor). The "facts" in his book are based on his personal results. The problem with that is people can see health improvements from exercise alone, weight loss alone, or changes in diet alone. Combine those 3 factors (along with genetics).....publish a book and attribute 100% of health improvements to the 5:2 diet. This is good for book $ales.
You have a good point actually. First, you have to read the actual study. If it's not a primary or secondary source peer-reviewed article, then in academia it would be considered an opinion based on the writer's interpretation. My professors would have failed any paper I wrote if the source was not a primary or secondary source article, in some cases they only allowed primary source.
Secondly, you have to consider the larger body of work and if there is only one piece of peer-reviewed work then it's probably not enough. For instance, there is at least one piece of research suggesting Creatine can help neurological disorders in humans. But you don't see doctor running out to prescribe Creatine to people with Parkinsons. Right? More work needs to be done still on that topic. Unless it's something that is so staggering absolute, but I can say that as it relates to nutrition and exercise; there are not a lot of absolutes. There seem to be more "maybe" or "strong maybes / strongly suggested" but not as many absolutes. Consider the source. Consider the hypothesis of the source. Consider the participants used. Consider the intervention used. There's a lot that goes into it, a reason why citing abstracts is not always great.0 -
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.
he didn't eat for 380 days? like...no intake?
If so, at least he didn't need as many pallbearers at his funeral.
2 -
Actually studies indicate that the better way of intermittent fasting is 5:2. 5 days normal (no overeating!) calorie intake, 2 days at 600 calories per day (for women). Apparently it is more effective.
I wouldn't put much faith in diet "studies."
I read the 5:2 book by Mosely (he's a publicist, not a dietician or medical doctor). The "facts" in his book are based on his personal results. The problem with that is people can see health improvements from exercise alone, weight loss alone, or changes in diet alone. Combine those 3 factors (along with genetics).....publish a book and attribute 100% of health improvements to the 5:2 diet. This is good for book $ales.
Its been a while since I read the book and watched the documentary, but didn't he also start walking more during that time as well? I seem to remember that mentioned somewhere. I've done 5:2 and liked it, but it's just a way to restrict calories, nothing magical about it
3 -
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.
he didn't eat for 380 days? like...no intake?
I'm thinking it may be this individual: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm
If so, he did get multi-vitamins, yeast (not sure what purpose this served), and potassium.0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.
he didn't eat for 380 days? like...no intake?
I'm thinking it may be this individual: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm
If so, he did get multi-vitamins, yeast (not sure what purpose this served), and potassium.janejellyroll wrote: »raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
The longest fast on record is around 380 days and I think he went from over 400 pounds down to about 188 pounds I think. He said he felt terrific and was medically supervised.
he didn't eat for 380 days? like...no intake?
I'm thinking it may be this individual: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/07/24/3549931.htm
If so, he did get multi-vitamins, yeast (not sure what purpose this served), and potassium.
Yeah, the yeast for the first 10 months has me scratching my head. From what I understand it (fasting) is most difficult during the first twenty four hours and gets easier after that.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