intermittent fasting 16:8
Options
Replies
-
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 -
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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 919 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions