16:8 Fasting + Counting calories

Of course-16:8 is just a time frame that you're eating in, it has nothing to do with weight loss by itself though, unless you're also at the correct calorie deficit for your weight loss goals. Tracking calories will help you to create that needed deficit

It’s all about calories in vs calories out! I was doing this fasting schedule in the months of January and February and had a lot of success! I thought I could start having breakfast and be okay and my weight loss slowed a lot! For me, skipping breakfast and having a larger lunch and dinner works better for me than trying to eat less calories at lunch and dinners but have breakfast. I’m going back to the 16:8 schedule! For me I was eating 11-7 but honestly didn’t eat after about 5:30 PM.

A lot of things can impact hunger cues. One of them can be meal timing. Another can be macro ratios.

Each of us has to experiment, within the limits set by our calorie allotments, with things like meal timing, food choice, and macro ratios to find the best way of making dieting the most pleasant experience possible. There's no one right way to do it.

So, saying that, it might be that it's not so much when you're eating as what you're eating. It might be a combination of the two. It's going to take some experimentation on your part to figure out your dieting happy place.

As long as eating 1600 calories puts you in a deficit, you're free to finding your best path to eating those calories in a way that makes them work to your liking.

I do 16-8 or 20-4 depending on what’s my body is telling me. If I’m hungry I’ll eat, if not I won’t. I no longer say OMG ITS 12 I MUST EAT.

I’ve found I crave more nuts / cheese and tend to eat a little of both before dinner or incorporate diary into my dinner. It helps keep me incredibly satatied.

imisscake93 wrote: »

Is it okay to practice 16:8 fasting and also counting my calories. During my window of eating (1PM - 8PM) I try to hit at least 1600 calories then fast. I exercise moderately for now because my body is sore.

The counting calories is more important than the intermittent fasting. If IF helps you eat less, than that's good, but it's not magic.

imisscake93 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

I find the idea that one needs the help of "experienced practitioners" to eat 16:8 or what not kind of odd. You just need to try it (if interested) and see if it works for you.

OP, one question is if you were less hungry eating the same calories on a different schedule or if the calorie limitation is new to you. If it's new, you might just want to get used to it, but also considering whether it's the right number might be worthwhile -- how many lbs did you tell MFP you planned to lose per week?

When I first started I felt hungry at times I'd been used to sometimes grabbing a snack, and I found it helpful to just eat raw veg in those periods for a few days until I started feeling fine just eating at my planned meals.

All of it is very new to me, I’ve never counted calories or considered fasting until two weeks ago. Unfortunately I do not have a way to weigh myself yet, whoever is shipping the scale I ordered is taking their sweet time.

My starting weight was 220 pounds and MFP calculated that with moderate exercise and 1600 calories a day I would be 210 in a month. As I said, I can’t weigh myself but I’ve noticed weight loss in my face and neck a little. Also older clothes that were a bit too tight are fitting better. So what I’ve been doing is definitely helping, but like I said I have a huge problem with being hungry.

Something I forgot to mention in the original post is that I do a “zig zag diet”, where I have cheat days (Friday & Saturday) and eat 1800-2000 calories. I read it keeps you from “plateauing”, any advice on that?

Totally understandable, many people don't pay attention to how much or when they eat and so doing so is a big adjustment. I wasn't criticizing you for asking a question, just wondering at the guy who thinks you can't get advice without going to a private group for "experienced practioners of 16:8." Many of us here have successfully lost a lot of weight and understand what you are going through, and many also have tried different eating schedules (and even do schedules similar to 16:8).

I've done a 2 meals a day schedule (still do most weekends), and decided that most of the time for me I prefer eating 3 meals a day, but not snacking is something that I find extremely helpful. As I said, at first I found it difficult (and some never like it), but it only took me a brief period of time to adjust.

You should know that MFP's goal assumes you won't exercise (unless you put in moderately active) -- if you put in sedentary and then estimated the exercise you will do, the exercise is not actually included in your calories (on MFP you log it and eat those calories back when you exercise). If you said "moderately active," never mind, then that's right. It also sounds like you are going for 2 lb/week. If so, you can eat a bit more and lose, and if the hunger continues to be an issue it's an option. You could adjust the goal to 1.5 lbs, for example, and get 1850 cal.

That said, no need to assume it's a problem yet -- I'd say try consuming some low cal veg when you are hungry, perhaps. Are there specific times when it is an issue? For many of us used to snacking it's a mental thing.

Oh, on the zig-zag it probably makes no difference on plateauing but can make dieting easier. When I started I had one day a week (usually Friday, sometimes Saturday) where I ate maintenance (I usually didn't, but I could) and would have typically a larger dinner. That I knew I could eat a dinner out (even if I still ate reasonably) and not worry made it mentally easier. 2 at 1800-2000 seems reasonable, but if you are cutting cals for that it could explain why it's tougher on other days. But again you should give it time and see if you adjust, as people often do.