Intermittent Fasting

Options
sandman12292019
sandman12292019 Posts: 2 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Any opinions on this. I've heard some people who say they have had great results. Any thoughts?

Replies

  • Melh1969
    Melh1969 Posts: 29 Member
    Options
    I believe it has been the key to my success. I have dinner around 6pm and don't eat again until 8:30am daily. I've lost close to 80 pounds over the past year and a half. I also track my food with MFP in order to make sure I have a deficit, but I really believe the IF brings everything together.
  • kimny72
    kimny72 Posts: 16,013 Member
    Options
    sandman12292019 wrote: »
    Any opinions on this. I've heard some people who say they have had great results. Any thoughts?

    Do you mean for weight loss?

    If IF makes it easier for you to stick to your calorie deficit, it will work. Some people do better containing their appetite to a shorter period of time, so IF helps them. Other people either find their appetite better controlled by consistent eating throughout the day, or might have exercise or work schedules that would make restricting eating times difficult, so it won't help them.

    Regardless of when you eat, calories determine weight loss/gain/maintenance. Eating schedules, macro distributions, food types, etc can affect appetite/satiety, compliance, and energy to make it easier or tougher.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,110 Member
    Options
    If you are someone who has trouble with eating the right amount of calories to lose weight, and you don't mind either delaying your first meal or eating your last meal a while before bed, no reason not to at least try it.

    I've done "intermittent fasting" pretty much all my life...well, since eighth grade when I started swimming on the swim team. We had 5AM-7:30AM practice. I didn't get breakfast until after second period at school, so around 10AM. Lunch at noon, dinner at 4PM, bed by 7:30-8PM. So it worked for me then and I just carried that forward.

    Now I'm up at 4AM, first meal at around 8AM, snack midday, dinner at 4PM, bed at 8PM. Same as forty years ago.

    When I gained all the weight I was eating all day long, little snacks, dessert after dinner, donuts in the morning, etc. Being on a meal schedule has always worked better for me. No snacking, nothing after dinner.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    Options
    It can help control calories for some. A quick search will yield literally hundreds of threads on this topic that may provide some very useful info for you.
  • bgilden555
    bgilden555 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    If you can push through the hunger pains the first few weeks they will go away in time. I used to just eat whatever whenever and now in my 40's my metabolism has slowed down. I'm up at 5:00am and not eating until 9am is tough some days. I usually eat from 9am-6:00pm(15 hr fast) and track what i eat and it is working much better for me. I cheat on a Friday or Saturday night if I go out or just eat the next day from lunch time to dinner time.
  • Scottgriesser
    Scottgriesser Posts: 172 Member
    Options
    1000's of other posts on the topic. Short answer:

    Some like it, some don't. If it helps you hit caloric goals, great. If not, don't do it.

    All it is is an eating schedule. Nothing fancy about it.
  • NovusDies
    NovusDies Posts: 8,940 Member
    Options
    If you goal is to lose weight then you need to find your path of least resistance. Cutting down to 2 meals can be that for some people because you can eat larger amounts of food or have more treat food.

    If after a short time you cannot adjust to it then you should move on to something that will feel easier for you. When experimenting with different methods the goal is to have a plan that requires very little willpower on your part to get through most days. Weight loss takes a very long time and considering that most efforts end in failure easier is better.
  • lgfrie
    lgfrie Posts: 1,449 Member
    edited July 2019
    Options
    IF is great! My wife and I have been doing the 16:8 version for months (an 8 hour eating window, from 11 am to 7 pm). IF isn't magic - you still have to hit the same calorie deficit target, and you get no "bonus" weight loss for IF vs non-IF. It doesn't suit everyone's schedule or preferences, but when it's a good fit, it does have a few real advantages:

    By compacting your meals into a window of 8 hours, you basically get 2 main meals instead of 3. So, for instance, if you're on 1500 cals/day and let's assume for the sake of discussion no snacking, instead of 3 500 calorie meals, you get 2 750 calorie meals. You can do a lot with 750 calories per meal and it feels less like you're "dieting". That reduces the craving for off days and cheat meals, because you're getting full-sized meals constantly, so there's rarely that sense of "I just had a bland piece of chicken with steamed vegetables, I need an off day!" Thus, IF can really help with staying on plan and not going off the rails.

    If nighttime eating or snacking is the problem, IF can be a good solution. For us, we have a "zero calorie" policy after 7 pm. We never eat a single calorie after dinner, just water or black coffee. We haven't eaten after dinner in at least two months. And we were huge nighttime snackers! But you have to really commit to not eating outside the window even when you're hungry to reap the rewards.

    The first 2 weeks were kinda hard, especially at night, but then it gets easier. We have much less appetite than we had before IF. Not only does your body get used to just not being fed constantly, but your mind adapts too. IF trains you to learn to ignore minor hunger pangs and to break that association between "I'm a little hungry" and "MUST HAVE FOOD NOW". Very oddly, after not eating a thing after 7 pm we never wake up hungry anymore. Actually, we're just much less hungry overall on IF and getting used to not eating food is useful. Those 12 hour fasts for bloodwork that used to seem so horrible are a complete non-event now LOL

    So, I recommend IF, but it's important to internalize that IF doesn't cause you to lose more weight than you'd lose eating the same calories in a different way. Actually, I do lose weight a little faster with IF, but I think that's because without all that food bogging me down, I'm more active and energetic, so I think my TDEE might've gone up a bit. But I don't want to encourage the idea that IF will automatically lead to accelerated weight loss; I think that's probably very person specific.
  • jjpptt2
    jjpptt2 Posts: 5,650 Member
    edited July 2019
    Options
    You need to be a little more specific with your question. There are lots of forms of IF... and the claimed benefits pretty much run the gamut.

    Assuming you're talking about something like 16:8... the vast majority of the claimed benefits fall somewhere between gimmicky sales nonsense and dramatically overstated. The only "benefit" that actually matters (assuming no underlying issues/problems) is whether or not it helps you stay on track regarding your diet and exercise goals. And that's something that will vary greatly person to person.
  • drip321
    drip321 Posts: 1 Member
    edited August 2019
    Options
    It’s just scheduled eating ... with a fancy name. Ultimately you need to be in a calorie deficit that’s all . Burning more calories then you are consuming. Whatever way you do it or how you divide your calories through out the day is up to you !! Hope it helps you

Categories