Intermittent fasting
Options
Replies
-
@lemurcat2
What on earth are you on about? I only presented my experience. At no point was I dissing yours. I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. I was basically saying it works for some and doesn’t for others, it’s up to the person to find the best way to have a calorie Deficit.5 -
20 -
OooohToast wrote: »I don't know why but when I eat early in the morning it seems like I am starving all day long. Putting off my first meal until noon helps me keep my calories in check and makes my day more pleasant. No magic though...I still have to watch my intake❤
Same for me - it turned out my brain needed to have it proved to it that I didnt need to Eat All Day. My understanding of hunger has been reset which has then supported CICO overall.
@Ogtmama & @OooohToast its the same for me. I found I was eating breakfast purely because it was breakfast time and not because I was hungry. But then it was like I'd kicked my hunger in the balls and it was fighting back. IF has helped me realise when I'm hungry and not just thirsty, bored, emotional etc. I'll eat breakfast on a fasting day if I want and I'm able to naturally wait for an evening meal.
Sometimes, I still think of food if I'm thirsty or bored but I'll drink more water or do something. The emotional hunger is still a thing but being able to recognise it then puts me back in control. Most of the time
I know it's not for everyone and some people might have a medical reason for not doing it. I checked with my GP first and so far it's working for me but only because I'm also weighing food, counting calories, being active, being mindful of my food choices and dedication to having a weekly calorie deficit.5 -
bluesheeponahill wrote: »@lemurcat2
What on earth are you on about? I only presented my experience. At no point was I dissing yours. I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. I was basically saying it works for some and doesn’t for others, it’s up to the person to find the best way to have a calorie Deficit.
I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming your way of eating would be superior for all (and I don't think that's in my comment). I don't think you were -- I think we are in agreement that different eating patterns work for different people. I do think some others are claiming that IF is inherently superior or should work better for all.5 -
I personally do IF. I’ve not been much of a breakfast eater. During my eating time I still eat healthy and consider the calories I’m in-taking. The problem I have observed, is that when you are listening to the “experts”, they talk about during your feasting time calories don’t matter. Well in my opinion… That’s a big fat lie! Because calories do matter and you can’t do intermittent fasting and think oh I can eat 5000 cal during my feasting time and think that you will lose weight. I believe that it gets confusing to those trying to get healthy by saying things like that. You still have to stick with any calorie range that you can lose weight with. When the “experts” say stuff like that I think it puts a thought in your brain that say oh well I’m only eating during this eight hour window I can eat whatever it doesn’t matter because I’m fasting for the 16 hour window… Yeah that doesn’t work :-).5
-
Spadesheart wrote: »Whoa...The amount of woo's in this thread are incredibly high, people get way too emotional about this, my goodness. Just chill for a hot second, geez.
I don't formally intermittently fast, but I do skip breakfast, with the exception of perhaps black coffee and the occasional latte, and that's been fantastic for weight loss. The meals I do get to have are more satisfying, and your body gets used to it quick. Plus I prefer dessert anyways haha.
Do I think IF does any magic above regular CICO? No. Do I think that it's useful? Absolutely. Not only that, it likely helps regulate the latent weight in your body from food and water a little better, so you see more consistent loss on the scale, which is a challenge when dieting. Regulate when you eat, and your body will regulate when it digests. If you are a person that takes daily bowel movements, this is helpful.
It isn't the only way to lose weight, but it is a good way to get yourself in a routine that aids it. Plus there are some auxiliary benefits. Fasted cardio is definitely better for weight loss, there is research showing that. I have a hard time with it, but I definitely don't eat enough anyways. Getting your body to not crave breakfast is also probably just healthy for life unless you plan to have strenuous physical activity in the morning. I will likely be bringing back breakfast at maintainence, but that's because I plan on starting to work out first thing in the morning when I get there, otherwise I think it's honestly better. You're adapting your body to eat less, which is a lifestyle change that would probably be conducive to long term success. And your body absolutely gets used to it after a month or so.
2 points of disagreement with your post that I have. First, woos do not indicate emotion, just disagreement. You read in whatever emotion you wish.
Secondly, fasted cardio is no better for weight loss than cardio in a fed state. If you think there are studies that prove otherwise, please post them. All the studies I have seen have shown no difference or advantage for fasted cardio. Fat/weight loss comes down to energy deficit, whether one trains fasted or fed.
You are actually correct about the fasted cardio. There is a lot of literature, but I read a meta analysis and on the whole it's apparently bunk. Neat! The stuff I had previously read indicated that it primed your body to be better able to mobilize internal fat stores, which in part explains why people who fast long term, with adequate body weight, stop getting hungry at some point.
Also a few woos indicates disagreement. 10+ indicates someone struck a nerve hahaha.
0 -
lukejoycePT wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »
IF isn’t magic, nobody says it is. But it has many amazing benefits but because it doesn’t suit your lifestyle you refuse to entertain the idea that it works. Which is fine, but I suggest you do some actual research on up to date peer reviewed studies.
lol. I have done what you call IF for more than 20 years. Try again.
Other doctors have claimed all kinds of things including "leaky guts". I am not going to chase down the peer-reviewed studies. If you have some to link do it. I have seen this debate MANY MANY times here and quite frankly I am not interested in chasing things down anymore.
ETA: I am also not going to continue to contribute clicks for advertising dollars for these sites that summarize for blogs and videos.
The link I gave you to DR Rhonda Patrick’s website has so many peer reviewed articles of both negative and positive results for fasting and other protocols such as Keto etc. Her job is to literally find the truth and talk to those who study.
Just because you fast for 20 years doesn’t mean you know what fasting does to your body.
Fasting is excellent for health. Nutrition is not just about fat loss. It’s about health.
Fasting is not nutrition and from what I've seen for some it interferes with good nutrition.
Does fasting occasionally have some benefits? Maybe, the jury is out.
Is eating in a specific window daily beneficial vs. not, without regard to anything else? I've seen no convincing evidence of that, at all, and certainly nothing justifying this claim it's healthier and more important than other inputs (like nutrition).
Certainly the current push for 8 hr or 6 hr or 4 hr eating windows isn't backed up by any traditional diets. Something like not eating when it's dark or occasional periods of short term fasts would be more consistent with historical practices.
I get that shorter eating windows can make calorie control easier (I think for the same reason I like not snacking and skip breakfast when I plan a larger dinner), but claiming it's somehow superior or healthier is not supported. (And it's not actual fasting or some kind of ridiculous test of will. IMO, OMAD on a healthy diet would require gorging to a point I couldn't manage.)
This is true. On maintainence, during exercise days, a healthy consumption for me will be over 2800. Eating that much food in a 6 hour window daily would be awful, especially with high protein goals. Egg whites are amongst the most protein dense foods, and I would have to have like 7 cups to just fit my protein. Or 7 cups of low fat cottage cheese. Or 8 chicken breasts. Or 9 protein shakes. Or 9 pork chops. 6 hours is not enough time.
Great for losing weight, but could be prohibitively challenging later.1 -
bluesheeponahill wrote: »@lemurcat2
What on earth are you on about? I only presented my experience. At no point was I dissing yours. I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. I was basically saying it works for some and doesn’t for others, it’s up to the person to find the best way to have a calorie Deficit.
I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming your way of eating would be superior for all (and I don't think that's in my comment). I don't think you were -- I think we are in agreement that different eating patterns work for different people. I do think some others are claiming that IF is inherently superior or should work better for all.
It is so pervasive here to think that because something is superior for you that makes it superior for the next person. Some people thrive on 6 meals a day. I tried it years ago when I believed in the "keep the metabolism going" nonsense. As I recall I didn't even make it a week because I could not contain my hunger. I don't personally understand how eating more often helps one person and eating less often helps another (including me) but it doesn't matter. Everyone needs to find their own lane.
7 -
pierinifitness wrote: »lukejoycePT wrote: »pierinifitness wrote: »Those of us who practice IF and don’t have eating disorders such as binging never gain weight practicing IF and know at a personal level the benefits received that others can do nothing other than scratch their head in doubt because they haven’t experienced the same.
I’ve never gained weight practicing IF (disregarding normal fluctuations day.)
You're lucky man, I fast 16 hours a day and yet i can gain 2lbs over a weekend if i allow myself to fall off the wagon. We are talking over 3000 calories here though haha.
I would suggest that "falling off the wagon" is a low-level eating disorder.
So "falling off the wagon" (ie, going off of) any diet, whether it be just calorie counting, eating my 3 meals a day, low carb, low fat, clean eating, paleo, etc. = "low-level eating disorder"?
I think that's a nutty claim, but at least it would be consistent and not as odd as insisting that going off IF (skipping breakfast!) = eating disorder.This might generate some "hate mail" responses so let me define an eating disorder (albeit a low-level one) as eating more or less than necessary given your healthy goals. With that definition, I've had low-level eating disorders in my past and I gained weight.
Pointing out inconsistencies is not "hate mail," sorry.
You are being inconsistent in that you make the radical insistence that it's impossible to overeat on IF without an eating disorder (as a claim about the benefits of IF and messed up ness of those who said it required more to avoid overeating), and then when called on it claim that ANYONE who overeats has an eating disorder (which is IMO a silly claim but whatever, at least it's not insulting people who have different preferences about how to eat).I don't buy the cheat meal mentality preferring instead to use the treat meal moniker and then only in the context of a weekly timeline rather than a single day. So, a big calorie day needs to be evaluated, in my world, in the context of my feeding week.
One can gain weight by overeating a small amount per day or by eating the same as always but becoming less active (common way people gain as they age).This is all my way of thinking applicable to how I fuel my body currently and how I'm maintaining while continuing being an IF practitioner even in maintenance land, for 97 of 104 days, since I arrived in maintenance land on February 20th.
104 days is not a long time and by your own admission you've regained before.
5 -
bluesheeponahill wrote: »@lemurcat2
What on earth are you on about? I only presented my experience. At no point was I dissing yours. I think you’ve misread what I’ve said. I was basically saying it works for some and doesn’t for others, it’s up to the person to find the best way to have a calorie Deficit.
I didn't mean to suggest you were claiming your way of eating would be superior for all (and I don't think that's in my comment). I don't think you were -- I think we are in agreement that different eating patterns work for different people. I do think some others are claiming that IF is inherently superior or should work better for all.
It is so pervasive here to think that because something is superior for you that makes it superior for the next person. Some people thrive on 6 meals a day. I tried it years ago when I believed in the "keep the metabolism going" nonsense. As I recall I didn't even make it a week because I could not contain my hunger. I don't personally understand how eating more often helps one person and eating less often helps another (including me) but it doesn't matter. Everyone needs to find their own lane.
Agreed! I mean there's a logic to all of these things. They all work, and they work for different reasons. If you can power through the 6 meal thing, maintaining your calorie goal, you're ensuring you don't increase the capacity of your stomach by a dramatic amount, as you would having larger meals. People who diet for a month or two will find that if they try to eat what they were before, they get full much quicker, and feel like bursting if they ate the same amount. Now if you make your meals even smaller and spread them out over a day, you're literally making it prohibitively difficult to binge eat. If you've been a volume eater all of your life, this can be a powerful tool. However, if you can't handle that mentally, it's not for you. I personally would much rather have 2 satisfying meals and some sort of decent dessert, with likely some added protein shakes in-between.0 -
I think the logic behind 6 mini meals or grazing (neither of which work for me) is that if you avoid ever getting hungry there's no tendency to overeat. I actually know a guy who is quite obese who tried dieting by skipping breakfast and lunch and then would overeat and not lose, so for him it would probably have been better to try smaller meals, who knows (this was before IFing was a thing).
For me, larger meals are more satisfying (2 or 3, usually 3), and there's no risk of overeating because I know from habit what a reasonable size is, and I learned that by logging for a time. When I started logging my eyes would be bigger than my stomach (or my needs, since I tend to eat what's on my plate), but I'd trust the calorie counts I wanted would be sufficient and found they were.
A lot of the common sense advice, both "eat lots of small meals" and "limit your consumption to a narrower eating window," as well as other things like "always eat breakfast" or "never eat after X:00" or "avoid high cal foods" are really just ways that sometimes work for people who aren't counting calories to reduce consumption easily. They only work to the extent they address why you tend to overeat, of course. For someone not hungry in the morning and hungrier after they eat, eating breakfast can be counterproductive. For people like me who find a bunch of small meals not satisfying and full meals much more so, grazing is a bad strategy. For people (also like me) who eat late because we get home late but only a balanced meal and not lots of uncontrolled snacking, the advice about not eating after a certain time is similarly useless, or even counterproductive (I'd be stuck worrying about eating dinner at all or trying to bring dinner to work).0 -
In addition to being excessively hungry 6 meals doesn't fit my personality. I find it tedious to plan so many meals even if some of them are snacks. I don't want or even like thinking about food that much. Less meals, or in my case one big meal, is less hassle. I get all of my nutritional needs over in a very large and filling meal. Other than having a snack later which is usually a few pieces of lunch meat and occasionally some chips I don't have to think about food again until tomorrow.
2 -
rvfamilyfour wrote: »I was diagnosed with diabetes in April and knew I did not want to take insulin. I started to do a bunch of research. I learned that I could lose weight safely and get my diabetes under control with my diet. I studied a bunch of topics on carbs, sugars, calorie intake, exercise, the failure of low fat diets, etc. I even talked with a dietitian.
As I continued my research I came across Dr. Jason Fung. His books and videos confirmed what I learned in my research. He has written about fasting and the obesity epidemic and after reading his book it just all clicked for me. You can watch his video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpllomiDMX0
I started out lowering my carb intake (as a carb addict this was a little difficult). I also had to learn what foods to eat-foods that I thought were really healthy ended up being heavy with carbs. It took me about two weeks to get this under control. My cravings decreased significantly. Over the next two weeks I worked on intermittent fasting (16 hours of not eating and eating three meals with-in an 8 hours window). I kept my calorie amount and my carbs in check. I lost about 9lbs. Then the next week I tried a 24 hour fast. I ate dinner, then did not eat again until dinner the next night. I thought it was going to be really hard but it ended up being easier than I thought. Dr. Fung details why you may get headaches, etc and what needs to be done to fix those issues. Since the fast went well a few days later I tried it again (he recommends 2 to 3 24 hr fast a week). I will now fast twice a week unless I hit a plateau.
I also added exercise to my weekly routine. This was actually the hardest part for me. I hate exercising! I started by taking the dog for long walks. I set a routine and tried to do it faster each time. Now 7 weeks later I am at the pool twice a week for water aerobics and once a week for strength training. I also do yoga on Sundays with my daughter and try to take the dog for a walk 3 times a week.
I have now lost 14 lbs and I am down a pants size. My last diabetes check was great.
There are lots of different programs out there. I have probably been on most of them. This time I don't want it to be a diet. I want to make a lifestyle change so that I can be healthy for the rest of my life. This time I have taken my weight issues seriously- being diagnosed with diabetes will do that- and took the time to research the problem. I am never going to try the next fad diet, I am not even going to try what the govt program says to do because they have admitted that pushing the low fat diet was a major factor for the obesity problem. The facts are clear on how the body processes food and that is why I have changed my eating habits to eat, fast and exercise the way Dr. Fung suggests.
Good luck everyone...
Lisa
@rvfamilyfour - congrats on finding a woe that works for you, losing 14lb and improving your markers.1 -
betsymoomoo wrote: »It's helping me break my addiction to food. That's why I do it.
Bingo!!! This is me as well, I could literally eat from morning to bedtime easily, IF has really ingrained in me not eating after supper, it is such a habit now I don't even think about it anymore.
Funny thing is about 15 years ago I used to work out faithfully early in the morning before work, not eat after supper and then just eat breakfast when I got to work (didn't know it was IF:))...ironically I weighed less then so IF for me just revitalized what I used to do and it seems to be working.
Now I do not count calories and I lost 20 lbs last year doing IF hardcore now since winter I have kind of being looser with it and still have 10 lbs left to go which is coming off slowly (extremely slow) but whatever, even if I lost 1 lb. per month I am okay with that. I am not interested in doing hardcore "dieting" for sure.
0 -
I prefer macro timing to intermittent fasting, in my experience. I have tried intermittent fasting with fasted cardio first thing in the morning, with the goal of avoiding gluconeogenesis. I'm not convinced it does this. At the same time I feel sluggish when doing cardio on an empty stomach.
I am a "six meals a day" guy because I believe it keeps you anabolic, and the body's default state (when insulin is low) is catabolic/fat burning. Therefore, whenever I'm NOT eating (such as overnight), my body replenishes my glycogen stores by pulling from stored fat. This means I'm accomplishing the effect of muscle building throughout the day and fat burning throughout the night.
Just my $.02.11 -
LegendaryOrange wrote: »I prefer macro timing to intermittent fasting, in my experience. I have tried intermittent fasting with fasted cardio first thing in the morning, with the goal of avoiding gluconeogenesis. I'm not convinced it does this. At the same time I feel sluggish when doing cardio on an empty stomach.
I am a "six meals a day" guy because I believe it keeps you anabolic, and the body's default state (when insulin is low) is catabolic/fat burning. Therefore, whenever I'm NOT eating (such as overnight), my body replenishes my glycogen stores by pulling from stored fat. This means I'm accomplishing the effect of muscle building throughout the day and fat burning throughout the night.
Just my $.02.
You won't burn fat if you are not in a calorie (energy) deficit. For most people the largest majority of energy expended is just keeping you alive and that is around the clock whether fasted or not.
I am not the foremost expert on glycogen replenishment but I believe it comes from carb intake only (or mostly) and none from stored fat.
5 -
Assuming insulin level is low, fat stores can be tapped by the body. The body undergoes gluconeogenesis to create glucos from stored fat. Then the glucose is transformed into glycogen to replenish muscles and the liver, as well as to feed the brain.
And yes, fat loss is dependent on being in a caloric deficit.3 -
LegendaryOrange wrote: »Assuming insulin level is low, fat stores can be tapped by the body. The body undergoes gluconeogenesis to create glucos from stored fat. Then the glucose is transformed into glycogen to replenish muscles and the liver, as well as to feed the brain.
And yes, fat loss is dependent on being in a caloric deficit.
Fat stores will be tapped regardless of insulin levels if there is an energy deficit.
The body creates glycogen from carbohydrates. If it does not then the now famous ketosis would never occur.2 -
If you're eating food, creating a rise in insulin, you're not in a deficit at the moment. The body will process the consumed food and cannot tap fat stores. Once insulin comes back down fat stores can be tapped if needed.
Fat can become glucose via gluconeogenesis. Fat is not just turned to energy via ketosis. Then the glucose is converted into glycogen.1 -
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
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions