intermittent fasting 16:8
Replies
-
I'm doing IF and I'm an overnight nurse so I IF from 4pm to 9am and sometimes until 2am. After doing it a few days you become so use to it!!1
-
Until 2pm.. sorry not 2am.... sometimes I only eat one meal a day. But I have a hard time getting all my macros in!!0
-
You’ll get a lot if you read this completely and not the the summary as one naysayer here did when I posted it elsewhere at MFP recently:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/pdf/12967_2016_Article_1044.pdf4 -
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
Could be skip dinner, could be one meal a day, could be alternate day fasting/5:2, which means you eat low calories on the "fast" days. I'm sure there are others. The proponent of one method (eat stop eat) says he thinks of it as intermittent eating, not intermittent fasting.
I actually don't think it's that different from what I do, which is eat only at meal times and don't snack. That means I get to have bigger meals (the size that works for me) and don't really think about eating between them. So it's my way of controlling appetite.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.
This is obviously not IF. "intermittent"="occurring at irregular intervals; not continuous or steady."1 -
People doing IF don't always keep regular intervals always. Some will keep a schedule for 3 or 4 days and then insert a one to three day fast. It kind of falls into a "if it feels good do it" category.0
-
People doing IF don't always keep regular intervals always. Some will keep a schedule for 3 or 4 days and then insert a one to three day fast. It kind of falls into a "if it feels good do it" category.
Okay, but even if that is true . . . . there is a big difference between a 1-3 day "it feels good" fast and a medically supervised 380 fast.6 -
The 380 day guy lost a lot of weight and was supervised but that comment was more trivia than being informative0
-
pierinifitness wrote: »You’ll get a lot if you read this completely and not the the summary as one naysayer here did when I posted it elsewhere at MFP recently:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/pdf/12967_2016_Article_1044.pdf
Thanks for that.Conclusions: Our results suggest that an intermittent fasting program in which all calories are consumed in an 8-h
window each day, in conjunction with resistance training, could improve some health-related biomarkers, decrease
fat mass, and maintain muscle mass in resistance-trained males.
I actually had some time yesterday and reviewed the JISSN site and found IF articles. The studies I found pretty much said the same thing. The one thing that really caught my eye is the comment about maintaining muscle mass. When comparing IF with CR to just CR, the IF with CR participants seem to maintain their muscle mass better than just CR. Although weight management might be similar enough, managing lean muscle mass better is actually a big bonus if that's something you care about. Improving health-related biomarkers is also pretty critical as well and I do know people personally that have done IF, include me, that have seen the biomarker improvement. I really hope IF research continues, it's pretty interested.
4 -
This is interesting:
https://content.iospress.com/articles/nutrition-and-healthy-aging/nha170036
DESIGN:
Obese subjects (n = 23) participated in an 8-h time restricted feeding intervention (ad libitum feeding between 10:00 to 18:00 h, water fasting between 18:00 to 10:00 h) for 12 weeks. Weight loss and other outcomes were compared to a matched historical control group (n = 23).
There is an effort to spin it as a success (Varady is a long-time promoter of IF):
"RESULTS:
Body weight and energy intake decreased in the time restricted group (–2.6% ± 0.5; –341 ± 53 kcal/d) relative to controls over 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Systolic blood pressure decreased in the time restricted feeding group (–7 ± 2 mm Hg) versus controls (P < 0.05). Fat mass, lean mass, visceral fat mass, diastolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, and homocysteine were not significantly different from controls after 12 weeks (no group×time interaction).
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that 8-h time restricted feeding produces mild caloric restriction and weight loss, without calorie counting. It may also offer clinical benefits by reducing blood pressure."
However, read the whole thing -- I will present some comments for those who don't feel like it (from here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/19770172 or http://caloriesproper.com/intermittent-fasting-and-goalposts/)
"The intervention was basically 16:8 intermittent fasting with a later eating window. The study had essentially no control group, so they compared their results to a "matched historical control group" which isn't really a thing in science.
Tl;dr: they ate less, moved more, and didn't lose any body fat. They lost 2.6% of their body weight, which appears to be water weight..? But more importantly, they were eating less, exercising more, and experienced no apparent improvements in nearly any measured biometric. No change in fat mass, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, etc., etc.
Actually, it's rare for none of these things to improve with even modest weight loss. In other words, it seems more likely that their "late Time-Restricted Feeding" regime may have been harmful, but the modest weight loss offset any actual harmful effects from manifesting...."7 -
This is interesting:
https://content.iospress.com/articles/nutrition-and-healthy-aging/nha170036
DESIGN:
Obese subjects (n = 23) participated in an 8-h time restricted feeding intervention (ad libitum feeding between 10:00 to 18:00 h, water fasting between 18:00 to 10:00 h) for 12 weeks. Weight loss and other outcomes were compared to a matched historical control group (n = 23).
There is an effort to spin it as a success (Varady is a long-time promoter of IF):
"RESULTS:
Body weight and energy intake decreased in the time restricted group (–2.6% ± 0.5; –341 ± 53 kcal/d) relative to controls over 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Systolic blood pressure decreased in the time restricted feeding group (–7 ± 2 mm Hg) versus controls (P < 0.05). Fat mass, lean mass, visceral fat mass, diastolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, and homocysteine were not significantly different from controls after 12 weeks (no group×time interaction).
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that 8-h time restricted feeding produces mild caloric restriction and weight loss, without calorie counting. It may also offer clinical benefits by reducing blood pressure."
However, read the whole thing -- I will present some comments for those who don't feel like it (from here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/19770172 or http://caloriesproper.com/intermittent-fasting-and-goalposts/)
"The intervention was basically 16:8 intermittent fasting with a later eating window. The study had essentially no control group, so they compared their results to a "matched historical control group" which isn't really a thing in science.
Tl;dr: they ate less, moved more, and didn't lose any body fat. They lost 2.6% of their body weight, which appears to be water weight..? But more importantly, they were eating less, exercising more, and experienced no apparent improvements in nearly any measured biometric. No change in fat mass, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, etc., etc.
Actually, it's rare for none of these things to improve with even modest weight loss. In other words, it seems more likely that their "late Time-Restricted Feeding" regime may have been harmful, but the modest weight loss offset any actual harmful effects from manifesting...."
It often makes a big difference if one reads and interprets a study in its entirety rather than just gleaning the points which reinforce what they want to believe.8 -
I am in love with IF. Started a week or so ago. Most days I do 16:8 and others 20:4.2
-
This is interesting:
https://content.iospress.com/articles/nutrition-and-healthy-aging/nha170036
DESIGN:
Obese subjects (n = 23) participated in an 8-h time restricted feeding intervention (ad libitum feeding between 10:00 to 18:00 h, water fasting between 18:00 to 10:00 h) for 12 weeks. Weight loss and other outcomes were compared to a matched historical control group (n = 23).
There is an effort to spin it as a success (Varady is a long-time promoter of IF):
"RESULTS:
Body weight and energy intake decreased in the time restricted group (–2.6% ± 0.5; –341 ± 53 kcal/d) relative to controls over 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Systolic blood pressure decreased in the time restricted feeding group (–7 ± 2 mm Hg) versus controls (P < 0.05). Fat mass, lean mass, visceral fat mass, diastolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, and homocysteine were not significantly different from controls after 12 weeks (no group×time interaction).
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that 8-h time restricted feeding produces mild caloric restriction and weight loss, without calorie counting. It may also offer clinical benefits by reducing blood pressure."
However, read the whole thing -- I will present some comments for those who don't feel like it (from here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/19770172 or http://caloriesproper.com/intermittent-fasting-and-goalposts/)
"The intervention was basically 16:8 intermittent fasting with a later eating window. The study had essentially no control group, so they compared their results to a "matched historical control group" which isn't really a thing in science.
Tl;dr: they ate less, moved more, and didn't lose any body fat. They lost 2.6% of their body weight, which appears to be water weight..? But more importantly, they were eating less, exercising more, and experienced no apparent improvements in nearly any measured biometric. No change in fat mass, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, etc., etc.
Actually, it's rare for none of these things to improve with even modest weight loss. In other words, it seems more likely that their "late Time-Restricted Feeding" regime may have been harmful, but the modest weight loss offset any actual harmful effects from manifesting...."
It often makes a big difference if one reads and interprets a study in its entirety rather than just gleaning the points which reinforce what they want to believe.
You mean like bolding that one comment above and ignoring all the other "gems" from that same article? Such as:I may come across as harsh on Intermittent Fasting (IF) and I'd like to be clear about something. I'm not saying IF will make you gain body fat or die a slow and painful death. I am saying the quality of evidence presented in human studies suggesting it will benefit you somehow is #weaksauce. Further, I don't really like the idea of huge refeeds. Like, how can 2000 kcals in one sitting be remotely healthy?
Metabolic. Mayhem.
You may have noticed many guru's sliding away from "intermittent fasting" and "skipping breakfast" and toward promoting a more circadian-appropriate feeding pattern. That's because it's about when you eat, not the precise duration of the feeding window.
The studies have been done:
Jacobs & Hirsh showed that eating all your food for breakfast is more conducive to weight loss than eating all your food for dinner.
Melatonin sensitizes the system, priming your body for optimal nutrient partitioning in the morning.
Metabolism is gimped at night.
"early Time-Restricted Feeding" (eTRF) works even in the absence of weight loss.
Your metabolism is naturally more ketogenic with an earlier feeding window.
The guy who says that IF evidence in that article is weaksauce also says that eating 2000 kcal is not healthy and meal timing matters for weight loss?0 -
He then follows that up by saying to go over to Patreon to find out why that's also #weaksauce.
The author's not saying that it's better for weight loss, he's saying the gurus are saying it's better for weight loss.6 -
JAYxMSxPES wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »You’ll get a lot if you read this completely and not the the summary as one naysayer here did when I posted it elsewhere at MFP recently:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/pdf/12967_2016_Article_1044.pdf
Thanks for that.Conclusions: Our results suggest that an intermittent fasting program in which all calories are consumed in an 8-h
window each day, in conjunction with resistance training, could improve some health-related biomarkers, decrease
fat mass, and maintain muscle mass in resistance-trained males.
I actually had some time yesterday and reviewed the JISSN site and found IF articles. The studies I found pretty much said the same thing. The one thing that really caught my eye is the comment about maintaining muscle mass. When comparing IF with CR to just CR, the IF with CR participants seem to maintain their muscle mass better than just CR. Although weight management might be similar enough, managing lean muscle mass better is actually a big bonus if that's something you care about. Improving health-related biomarkers is also pretty critical as well and I do know people personally that have done IF, include me, that have seen the biomarker improvement. I really hope IF research continues, it's pretty interested.
My own little experience with health markers-years ago I lost 50ish pounds with an IF protocol and all my health markers improved, including correcting a health issue. Fast forward through several years of maintenance, while doing various IF protocols during that time, and twice a year blood work panels showed similar results. Then this year happened-went off my maintenance plan, completely stopped IF in any form and gained around 10lbs (I also stopped eating my veggie/fruit heavy woe and went on a 'I don't care, give me all the food' woe
'. Had blood work done in October and saw my best cholesterol numbers ever.
I'm now back to refocusing on maintenance and to lose the extra pounds (really they're vanity pounds, I like wearing size 4 jeans), and IF because that's what helps me keep my calories in check, but I don't think IF does anything magical for me in terms of health markers.5 -
JAYxMSxPES wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »You’ll get a lot if you read this completely and not the the summary as one naysayer here did when I posted it elsewhere at MFP recently:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/pdf/12967_2016_Article_1044.pdf
Thanks for that.Conclusions: Our results suggest that an intermittent fasting program in which all calories are consumed in an 8-h
window each day, in conjunction with resistance training, could improve some health-related biomarkers, decrease
fat mass, and maintain muscle mass in resistance-trained males.
I actually had some time yesterday and reviewed the JISSN site and found IF articles. The studies I found pretty much said the same thing. The one thing that really caught my eye is the comment about maintaining muscle mass. When comparing IF with CR to just CR, the IF with CR participants seem to maintain their muscle mass better than just CR. Although weight management might be similar enough, managing lean muscle mass better is actually a big bonus if that's something you care about. Improving health-related biomarkers is also pretty critical as well and I do know people personally that have done IF, include me, that have seen the biomarker improvement. I really hope IF research continues, it's pretty interested.
My own little experience with health markers-years ago I lost 50ish pounds with an IF protocol and all my health markers improved, including correcting a health issue. Fast forward through several years of maintenance, while doing various IF protocols during that time, and twice a year blood work panels showed similar results. Then this year happened-went off my maintenance plan, completely stopped IF in any form and gained around 10lbs (I also stopped eating my veggie/fruit heavy woe and went on a 'I don't care, give me all the food' woe '. Had blood work done in October and saw my best cholesterol numbers ever.
I'm now back to refocusing on maintenance and to lose the extra pounds (really they're vanity pounds, I like wearing size 4 jeans), and IF because that's what helps me keep my calories in check, but I don't think IF does anything magical for me in terms of health markers.
I agree completely. IF is a great way of eating for many people who find it suits how they prefer to manage their meals and calories. But this illustrates the big hole in the "IF alone (or any other way of eating when not required for a specific condition) improved my health markers" claims when accompanied by weight loss. Weight loss alone improves health markers across a broad range of eating styles, so why the emphasis on eating a specific way or in specific windows for the improvement rather than the common denominator across many ways of achieving better health through weight loss?4 -
If you read the research study I posted, no health marker improvements were noted. Seems like, I recall, there was actually a testosterone decrease. The major benefit was fat loss while maintaining muscle mass.
I thought this was a good study that became apparent to me in reading the entire document snd not just the few summary paragraphs.
I agree with the circadian comment so we must pick our window and its duration smartly and 100 percent compliance isn’t necessary for success. And CICO deficit must be present.3 -
JAYxMSxPES wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »You’ll get a lot if you read this completely and not the the summary as one naysayer here did when I posted it elsewhere at MFP recently:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5064803/pdf/12967_2016_Article_1044.pdf
Thanks for that.Conclusions: Our results suggest that an intermittent fasting program in which all calories are consumed in an 8-h
window each day, in conjunction with resistance training, could improve some health-related biomarkers, decrease
fat mass, and maintain muscle mass in resistance-trained males.
I actually had some time yesterday and reviewed the JISSN site and found IF articles. The studies I found pretty much said the same thing. The one thing that really caught my eye is the comment about maintaining muscle mass. When comparing IF with CR to just CR, the IF with CR participants seem to maintain their muscle mass better than just CR. Although weight management might be similar enough, managing lean muscle mass better is actually a big bonus if that's something you care about. Improving health-related biomarkers is also pretty critical as well and I do know people personally that have done IF, include me, that have seen the biomarker improvement. I really hope IF research continues, it's pretty interested.
Are you saying your biomarkers have improved using IF, with no weight loss?3 -
This is interesting:
https://content.iospress.com/articles/nutrition-and-healthy-aging/nha170036
DESIGN:
Obese subjects (n = 23) participated in an 8-h time restricted feeding intervention (ad libitum feeding between 10:00 to 18:00 h, water fasting between 18:00 to 10:00 h) for 12 weeks. Weight loss and other outcomes were compared to a matched historical control group (n = 23).
There is an effort to spin it as a success (Varady is a long-time promoter of IF):
"RESULTS:
Body weight and energy intake decreased in the time restricted group (–2.6% ± 0.5; –341 ± 53 kcal/d) relative to controls over 12 weeks (P < 0.05). Systolic blood pressure decreased in the time restricted feeding group (–7 ± 2 mm Hg) versus controls (P < 0.05). Fat mass, lean mass, visceral fat mass, diastolic blood pressure, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, HOMA-IR, and homocysteine were not significantly different from controls after 12 weeks (no group×time interaction).
CONCLUSION:
These findings suggest that 8-h time restricted feeding produces mild caloric restriction and weight loss, without calorie counting. It may also offer clinical benefits by reducing blood pressure."
However, read the whole thing -- I will present some comments for those who don't feel like it (from here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/19770172 or http://caloriesproper.com/intermittent-fasting-and-goalposts/)
"The intervention was basically 16:8 intermittent fasting with a later eating window. The study had essentially no control group, so they compared their results to a "matched historical control group" which isn't really a thing in science.
Tl;dr: they ate less, moved more, and didn't lose any body fat. They lost 2.6% of their body weight, which appears to be water weight..? But more importantly, they were eating less, exercising more, and experienced no apparent improvements in nearly any measured biometric. No change in fat mass, cholesterol, triglycerides, glucose, insulin, etc., etc.
Actually, it's rare for none of these things to improve with even modest weight loss. In other words, it seems more likely that their "late Time-Restricted Feeding" regime may have been harmful, but the modest weight loss offset any actual harmful effects from manifesting...."
It often makes a big difference if one reads and interprets a study in its entirety rather than just gleaning the points which reinforce what they want to believe.
You mean like bolding that one comment above and ignoring all the other "gems" from that same article? Such as:I may come across as harsh on Intermittent Fasting (IF) and I'd like to be clear about something. I'm not saying IF will make you gain body fat or die a slow and painful death. I am saying the quality of evidence presented in human studies suggesting it will benefit you somehow is #weaksauce. Further, I don't really like the idea of huge refeeds. Like, how can 2000 kcals in one sitting be remotely healthy?
Metabolic. Mayhem.
You may have noticed many guru's sliding away from "intermittent fasting" and "skipping breakfast" and toward promoting a more circadian-appropriate feeding pattern. That's because it's about when you eat, not the precise duration of the feeding window.
The studies have been done:
Jacobs & Hirsh showed that eating all your food for breakfast is more conducive to weight loss than eating all your food for dinner.
Melatonin sensitizes the system, priming your body for optimal nutrient partitioning in the morning.
Metabolism is gimped at night.
"early Time-Restricted Feeding" (eTRF) works even in the absence of weight loss.
Your metabolism is naturally more ketogenic with an earlier feeding window.
The guy who says that IF evidence in that article is weaksauce also says that eating 2000 kcal is not healthy and meal timing matters for weight loss?
As I mentioned when first bringing up that author (who is a researcher and PhD), he does believe that meal timing and circadian rhythm and sleep are all things that may be relevant to weight loss, and has discussed at length various studies and why he thinks so. He also has a variety of other views.
As I also said, I find him quite interesting, and he challenges my knee jerk views on some things (like that meal timing does not matter). But the important thing is that, as here, he discusses the studies in depth. The points here that AnvilHead was referencing were in the study in question, as well as the spin the authors of the study gave, that was misleading. I'm not sure how the other views of the calorieproper blogger are all that relevant, but I also don't think they deserve your scorn.8 -
Lol at anyone who thinks IF does anything itself/ directly that is physiologically beneficial....
It’s a preference way of eating and thats it...5 -
Laugh away then6
-
-
raven56706 wrote: »IF is basically skip breakfast right?
Yes. But some reason it's been given a fancy name to make it sound more complicated than it actually is3 -
I have found some very interesting and compelling information from a number of sources. You can check out Dietdoctor.com, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Berg, Dr John Bergman, to mention only a few.16
-
I have found some very interesting and compelling information from a number of sources. You can check out Dietdoctor.com, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Berg, Dr John Bergman, to mention only a few.
"Interesting" "compelling" and based in actual science are two very different things, sadly.
May I respectfully suggest you look beyond the glossy surface and dig a little deeper on your sources? Or you can enter those names in the search engine here for lots of factual information.
10 -
I have found some very interesting and compelling information from a number of sources. You can check out Dietdoctor.com, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Berg, Dr John Bergman, to mention only a few.
this has got to be a troll who started a new account just to post this list of the most non-credible sources out there!!3 -
I have found some very interesting and compelling information from a number of sources. You can check out Dietdoctor.com, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Berg, Dr John Bergman, to mention only a few.
I have read some of these doctor's books and found them informative. Don't don't waste your time searching MFP for any meaningful information on any of them. Many on MFP have a knee jerk reaction to these names because they are in conflict with they way they see the world. Any conversation with their names in it will likely peg out the woo meter and circle the the drain with adjectives like quake.14 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I have found some very interesting and compelling information from a number of sources. You can check out Dietdoctor.com, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Berg, Dr John Bergman, to mention only a few.
"Interesting" "compelling" and based in actual science are two very different things, sadly.
May I respectfully suggest you look beyond the glossy surface and dig a little deeper on your sources? Or you can enter those names in the search engine here for lots of factual information.
I was trying to avoid being ridiculed which seems to be the way in this thread.
I have been educating myself in IF/EF for a long time.
I'm inclined to believe there are significant benefits, especially when you consider that
"The 2016 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Japan’s Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi for his discoveries of the underlying mechanisms of a physiological process called autophagy. Autophagy is a natural process by which the body degrades and recycles damaged cells, proteins and toxins...... This is the body’s way of cleaning house. It happens during starvation, calorie restriction, and fasting."
http://lifespa.com/fasting-research-wins-nobel-prize-medicine-right/
9 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I have found some very interesting and compelling information from a number of sources. You can check out Dietdoctor.com, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Berg, Dr John Bergman, to mention only a few.
"Interesting" "compelling" and based in actual science are two very different things, sadly.
May I respectfully suggest you look beyond the glossy surface and dig a little deeper on your sources? Or you can enter those names in the search engine here for lots of factual information.
I was trying to avoid being ridiculed which seems to be the way in this thread.
I have been educating myself in IF/EF for a long time.
I'm inclined to believe there are significant benefits, especially when you consider that
"The 2016 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Japan’s Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi for his discoveries of the underlying mechanisms of a physiological process called autophagy. Autophagy is a natural process by which the body degrades and recycles damaged cells, proteins and toxins...... This is the body’s way of cleaning house. It happens during starvation, calorie restriction, and fasting."
http://lifespa.com/fasting-research-wins-nobel-prize-medicine-right/
Can I ask how long you've been researching IF? Because I've been involved in IF protocols for around 7 years now, and while it's been a helpful tool for me to manage my calorie intake, nothing about my experience or research of IF has led me to believe there's any significant benefits beyond that.
(as a reference point I got involved in IF back when it was mostly an unknown, I connected with a small group of dieting 'outliers' who were doing JUDDD, which is ADF. This was before Mosley and Varady brought IF to the mainstream, and Berkhan was a small time blogger).
7 -
This conversation is going to keep going in circles until people are willing/able to post complete thoughts with full context. Simply saying there are or are not benefits is largely meaningless. What benefits are we talking about? To whom? Under what circumstances? How do you know? etc.5
-
For clarity, I have also done IF for literally decades - long before it was even a thing or had a name.
For me, following a 16:8 window by skipping a breakfast I wasn't hungry for anyway, allowed me to save my calories for later in the day when I actually *was* genuinely hungry.
But it should be noted that I managed to get obese even though I was following this IF protocol. Why? I was simply eating too many calories in that window of time.
I also lost all that extra weight (75lbs) while using IF, too. The only difference was in the amount of calories I ate.
To me, IF - when used in conjunction with a calorie deficit - can be a valuable tool for some to help manage their weight. But calories will always dictate the success or failure of this method. There are no proven 'extra' benefits that IF brings to the table that would, in isolation, affect weight loss without the requisite deficit being in place as well.12
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