We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
Is Intermittent Fasting really as easy as people claim?
Replies
-
Yes, it is. I eat for 16 hours, fast for 8. Easiest diet in the world.11
-
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
Anyone who has done IF for any length of time will tell you it's a matter of calories.
I've done it for years and lose at a rate that equals my calorie deficit. Same with intentionally gaining and maintaining.
8 -
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
Here's the thing. You absolutely cannot in any way shape or form not obey the laws of nature. You have to be under your maintenance calories (which it appears you've interchanged here with "necessary caloric intake") over the long term in order to burn stored energy (mostly fat, but also other tissue). You cannot create energy. You can only use it or store it for later use. Your source of energy is from the food you eat or from your tissue. It cannot come from nothing.
It may sound trivial and obvious, but the problem with attributing fat loss to anything other than an energy deficit is that when people fail (or succeed), they won't really know why.
IF deserves neither the credit nor the blame for fat loss or lack of fat loss. It is simply a way of eating and nothing more.
For what it's worth, when I'm strictly working on cutting, I use IF as a method of eating so as to allow myself bigger meal portions for satiety - to control hunger. It is a tool, not a diet. There is no magic. It's not insulin spikes or lack thereof. It simply helps control my energy intake so that I use all of my food energy and some of my stored energy each day. If you don't use what you eat, you store it. If you use exactly what you eat (maintenance), you neither burn stored energy or add stored energy.
People respond to things like this because claiming that it's not about calories is patently false.21 -
Silentpadna wrote: »
Here's the thing. You absolutely cannot in any way shape or form not obey the laws of nature. You have to be under your maintenance calories (which it appears you've interchanged here with "necessary caloric intake") over the long term in order to burn stored energy (mostly fat, but also other tissue). You cannot create energy. You can only use it or store it for later use. Your source of energy is from the food you eat or from your tissue. It cannot come from nothing.
It may sound trivial and obvious, but the problem with attributing fat loss to anything other than an energy deficit is that when people fail (or succeed), they won't really know why.
IF deserves neither the credit nor the blame for fat loss or lack of fat loss. It is simply a way of eating and nothing more.
For what it's worth, when I'm strictly working on cutting, I use IF as a method of eating so as to allow myself bigger meal portions for satiety - to control hunger. It is a tool, not a diet. There is no magic. It's not insulin spikes or lack thereof. It simply helps control my energy intake so that I use all of my food energy and some of my stored energy each day. If you don't use what you eat, you store it. If you use exactly what you eat (maintenance), you neither burn stored energy or add stored energy.
People respond to things like this because claiming that it's not about calories is patently false.
Preach!4 -
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
I'm jumping on the, "No," bandwagon here too.
I've essentially done 16:8 for most of my life, like I said in my post on Page 1.
It's still about a calorie deficit. You've been doing this for less than a month and in fact, you have been eating at a calorie deficit. Please open up your Food diary to "Public" so we can take a look at it. If you haven't been logging food, and all you did was change your hours of eating, then you just chanced upon eating less.
This kind of post you made is going to get refuted because it's simply not true in any way.
10 -
OP, follow IF or not, but be sure to set up your MFP profile with your current stats, activity level, and appropriate weekly weight loss goal (2 lbs/week is only for those with 75+ lbs to lose). Accurately log your calories during your eating window (whether that be 8 hours, 12 hours, or 24 hours
), and make sure you consistently stay within your goal. Sometimes the problem people are seeking to address with IF is that they are simply trying to eat too few calories to support their current body mass and hunger & fatigue become issues.
My 13 year old inadvertently does IF, because he often doesn't want breakfast, but I assure you he eats the full amount of calories a boy his age requires during his preferred eating window and perfectly maintains his weight. 5 -
I did IF twice. The first time, I lost 15 pounds in a month? The second time, I actually gained 6 pounds. IF is a bit tough for me to do as I can't function without breakfast and work an 8-5 job. That means that my window was always 7-3pm which was not optimal for me as I am a 3 square meals type gal. I think IF works best if the feeding window does not interfere with your normal feeding schedule.3
-
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
Relying on people like the person I have quoted here that have severely limited experience with a particular WoE is a very bad idea. A good deal of people will think they have the answer when they have inflated losses due to water weight depletion. The people to listen to are the people who lose 1 and 2 pounds per week for months at a time and I bet most of them (like me) will tell you it is all about maintaining a consistent calorie deficit. Anything else you need like eating 2 meals instead of 3 are just tools to help you maintain that deficit.15 -
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
So you have MFP set for your maintenance calories and have been weighing & logging your food so as to know (not guess or assume) that you are not in a calorie deficit?6 -
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
Odd, I've been doing IF for years, and I got overweight. How is that possible? Can't be because of the 3 or so bags of crisps per week or hard candy, as I was doing IF after all. What did I do wrong?7 -
ladystrick11 wrote: »I did IF twice. The first time, I lost 15 pounds in a month? The second time, I actually gained 6 pounds. IF is a bit tough for me to do as I can't function without breakfast and work an 8-5 job. That means that my window was always 7-3pm which was not optimal for me as I am a 3 square meals type gal. I think IF works best if the feeding window does not interfere with your normal feeding schedule.
If I did IF and ate my first meal at 10:30, I could eat until 6:30 pm. If I get stuck in meetings until 7 pm, do I stop even though I may have only eaten 600 calories?0 -
Silentpadna wrote: »
... If you use exactly what you eat (maintenance), you neither burn stored energy or add stored energy.
I actually need to clarify this because somebody (like me) will notice the error and nitpick like I'm about to do.
It would be more accurate to say this:
"If you use exactly what you eat (maintenance) over a given period of time, whatever stored energy you burn will be made up in stored energy added".
Obviously your body is not a perfect machine with minute by minute input = output. So your body is using available energy from wherever it can in the moment. Over a given window, if Input > Output, then Input - Output = Excess energy stored (in the form of fat and lean tissue - like muscle). If Output > Input, then Output - Input = Excess energy burned (from stored energy in the form of fat and lean tissue).
So if your body is not digesting processing food (an oversimplification), it's likely burning fat. In any case, the body's means of managing energy is a complex, and amazing thing. But even with that, it cannot create its own. The energy balance is still a law of nature that we cannot violate.3 -
If I did IF and ate my first meal at 10:30, I could eat until 6:30 pm. If I get stuck in meetings until 7 pm, do I stop even though I may have only eaten 600 calories?
Again, there is no magic to the schedule.
If a schedule doesn't work for your lifestyle it isn't going to help you. A SCHEDULE helps some people who do have mostly reliable hours in the workday. It helps some people to have a rule about not snacking after dinner (for example,) or a rule about sticking to their two meals, or whatever it is about IF that makes sense time-wise or psychologically.
Conversely, if a particular schedule works most of the time that's good enough. There is no magic. Eat your allotted calories, no matter what time it is. 600 calories to end your day just because it's 30 minutes (or two hours, etc.) past your schedule? - can you see the flaw in that?
I go off-schedule all the time. I'm still maintaining my weight because calories.
8 -
If I did IF and ate my first meal at 10:30, I could eat until 6:30 pm. If I get stuck in meetings until 7 pm, do I stop even though I may have only eaten 600 calories?
There are people who graze all day long and people who have 1 hour eating windows. It doesn't matter.
When I was in my weight loss mode I did it two ways. I ate from the time I got up to the time I went to bed. 5-6 small meals or snacks. Maintained my weight loss as predicted by my deficit.
When I went to IF (because I wanted larger portions at meals) I maintained my weight loss exactly as predicted by my deficit.
There was no difference. Scientific studies show no difference. They both worked for me because the underlying science was the deficit, not the method.
You want to do IF, go for it. But it sits on top of the foundation of energy balance. Without that, it's a schedule. By itself it makes no difference.5 -
Of course it's true; if it wasn't then they wouldn't be allowed to put it on the internet, right? :laugh:4
-
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
I've done IF all of my adult life, so for decades, and you most definitely *do* have to remain in a calorie deficit in order to lose weight. The one and only benefit that IF has for some people is if it helps them remain in that deficit. That's it. That's all. Anyone who claims additional or magical fasting benefits really doesn't have a grasp on the simple premise that drives *all* weight loss, which is consuming less calories than your body can burn in a day.11 -
Calories are still going to be king.
I chose a variation of IF that works for me, and helps keep me in a (very small) deficit regardless of if it's a normal work week, or I'm traveling for work, at the track, or at a race weekend. I chose this plan because, when I'm on the road all the time, keeping accurate calorie counts was nearly impossible. This helped keep me from gaining, and I still had a very slow loss.
If I want to lose at an appreciable rate, however, I still need to watch calories and eat within those limits. There's no magic window of time that will overrule how much you consume when you are eating.4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Not an IF er here but I'd say that you'd still need to track what you're eating so that you don't go over your calorie goals. Coz if you do, you will get fat regardless of how many hours you fast.
That being said, I know one woman who has very successfully been doing 5:2 IF for the last few years and she no longer really logs her food but she knows that on her very low calorie days all she can eat is like a few carrot sticks during the day and one small meal at dinner to make sure she's under the 500 cal limit (or whatever it is, i'm not sure I can't remember, she did tell me when I was asking ages ago). It's kind of become intuitive for her, but she did track it when she started. Also the non-fasting days because we all know how easy it is to go way over in calories!!!
0 -
If I did IF and ate my first meal at 10:30, I could eat until 6:30 pm. If I get stuck in meetings until 7 pm, do I stop even though I may have only eaten 600 calories?
to stop would be very unhealthy. you need to eat all your calories, if you can`t fit them in your narrow window change the window a little or eat more often within that window. or bigger meals. but to function and maintain your body you need to eat all teh calories recommended by MFP (and add exercise cals) because that is what you should eat to LOSE the weight.3 -
AnnabellaxRinger wrote: »
I did this same type of post, OP and I will tell you that people who don't IF will tell you constantly that you have to be in a calorie deficit - which is fine. I'll add you and we can discuss it further, since the forums aren't the best platform for this (as you'll soon find). I'm on day like 16-18 (can't keep track) of 16:8 and even with breaking my fast twice, I'm down 14 pounds and although I'm not overeating, I'm not "under my necessary caloric intake" either.
I also started a group for women who are into IF - so if you're interested, I'll send you a request to add!
I IF'ed and reached my highest weight of 210 pounds. There was no fancy name for it, it was just my normal eating pattern. I'd been eating in that pattern since the '90's.
I lost weight eating in that pattern too.
The difference between gaining in an eating window and losing in an eating window? Controlling my calories.
I'm back to working on vanity weight, and IF no longer works for me since I'm hungry in the morning. Guess what? I still lose weight by sticking to calorie control and can regulate my hunger by sticking to a meal schedule.6 -
I did it for a little while and considered it a fad and quit. I think people who binge and can't control their eating find it most helpful to have a small eating window .. they are all or nothing personalities.4
-
I'll jump on this - yes, it's a tool. No, it's not magic. Calorie deficit is still king.
While on deployment, I slammed 10 lbs on my frame while only eating once per day. Why? Because I was overeating like a fiend during that singular meal, understanding that it would be the only food to carry me for the next 15 to potentially 30 hours. Because the necessity for sleep, for accomplishing the work day and standing watch, hygiene and all that other grand stuff overrode eating until I was faced with the CVN-71 Chilli Bar and all of its glorious, high calorie offerings.
Over the last year, I've packed my weight on further even though I inadvertently follow this 16/8 program (didn't even know that was a thing, really. It just seems like the normal eating schedule I grew up with). Why? Because snacking on high caloric snacks, and being too lazy to log my calories.
Every time I've lost weight, it's been thanks to logging and realizing that yes, I am at my calorie goal, and no, I really don't need yet another five chocolate chip cookies (despite the fact that humidity around here eats them alive in a matter of days and oh they're so delicious and fresh and must be dealt with before they go bad) and I should grab my water instead. And feed those cookies to my daughter, because she's a damned stick and is powered by smiles and sugar.7 -
to stop would be very unhealthy. you need to eat all your calories, if you can`t fit them in your narrow window change the window a little or eat more often within that window. or bigger meals. but to function and maintain your body you need to eat all teh calories recommended by MFP (and add exercise cals) because that is what you should eat to LOSE the weight.
Thank you. I wish my schedule would accommodate this style of eating. I know I would love to eat fewer meals with more calories.0 -
IF can be a great tool, and I do believe there are benefits to fasting (beyond weight loss). But NO, it doesn’t give you a license to eat whatever you want in the 8 hour window. You still need to be in a deficit3
-
The eight hour window in intermittent fasting is definitely not anything goes. For me it helps me eat less calories because three meals are put into a compact 8 hours.3
-
IF can be a great tool, and I do believe there are benefits to fasting (beyond weight loss). But NO, it doesn’t give you a license to eat whatever you want in the 8 hour window. You still need to be in a deficit
I read this article:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/fasting-benefits
that makes all sorts of claims that seem suspect but they link to references. I followed a few and they are actual peer reviewed studies. Some are small and many are on animals with the assumption that it may also happen with humans. A skeptic could probably find a study that refutes the findings of each of them. It is very difficult to know what to believe.
Bring on the woos (even though I said I am not sure whether to believe it or not). :laugh:2 -
I agree with many who have said IF can contribute to weight loss, but that is only in conjunction with a negative calorie intake delta against expetiture.
To me this seems like an unsustainable fad. Are you going to eat this way the rest of your life? My guess is no. Once you start eating at different times, for one reason or another, your “diet” has the potential to be shot.
It seems far better to simply say you are going to stay within a certain calorie window over the whole day, and it doesn’t matter when you eat those calories.
To me IF seems like a solution for people who want to feel hungry and weigh themselves when they have the least amount of food in their bodies. That is not real weight loss; just cheating the scale to feel better about yourself. Real improvement requires actual effort.4 -
CarvedTones wrote: »
I read this article:
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/fasting-benefits
that makes all sorts of claims that seem suspect but they link to references. I followed a few and they are actual peer reviewed studies. Some are small and many are on animals with the assumption that it may also happen with humans. A skeptic could probably find a study that refutes the findings of each of them. It is very difficult to know what to believe.
Bring on the woos (even though I said I am not sure whether to believe it or not). :laugh:
Click-bait title of the blog: "8 Health Benefits of Fasting Backed By Science" sure is catchy, isn't it?
If they were *truly* "backed by science" words like "could" and "may" in these apparently 'proven' benefits wouldn't exist. That should be your first clue and, imo, completely negates anything else this blog has to say. It's completely contradictory.
Animal studies do not always translate well when replicated on humans, and the small amount of human studies noted here are extremely limited and not proof of anything at this point.
To be clear, I've been doing IF for over 4 decades, so I'm obviously a fan. The only benefit that I've seen is that it can help me control my caloric intake for weight management. Nothing more.
Tl;dr? The best that can be garnered from this is that there might be the potential for some benefits. Might be potential. That's it. But these theories (because, at this point, that's really all they are) need to be subjected to rigorous human trials before "8 Health Benefits of Fasting Backed By Science" has a hope of becoming anything more than just disingenuous, misleading click-bait fodder.
3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Click-bait title of the blog: "8 Health Benefits of Fasting Backed By Science" sure is catchy, isn't it?
If they were *truly* "backed by science" words like "could" and "may" in these apparently 'proven' benefits wouldn't exist. That should be your first clue and, imo, completely negates anything else this blog has to say. It's completely contradictory.
Animal studies do not always translate well when replicated on humans, and the small amount of human studies noted here are extremely limited and not proof of anything at this point.
To be clear, I've been doing IF for over 4 decades, so I'm obviously a fan. The only benefit that I've seen is that it can help me control my caloric intake for weight management. Nothing more.
Tl;dr? The best that can be garnered from this is that there might be the potential for some benefits. Might be potential. That's it. But these theories (because, at this point, that's really all they are) need to be subjected to rigorous human trials before "8 Health Benefits of Fasting Backed By Science" has a hope of becoming anything more than just disingenuous, misleading click-bait fodder.
It definitely bothered me that one of tier claims was increased weight loss and higher metabolism, which I think have both been pretty thoroughly debunked. The longevity claim is hard to be sure about. Lots of anecdata seems to indicate that it applies to humans to a lesser degree, but most of the examples are of people who have a lifestyle that includes abstinence from smoking and/or drinking and mental conditioning that helps them handle what little stress they have very well.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions