Intermittent fasting, I don’t get it
Replies
-
cheryldumais wrote: »thelandkraken wrote: »IF wouldn’t mean a skipped meal, though. If I understand right and it’s eating for an 8 hour window, that’s my normal meals anyway. Breakfast at 10 because I’m not hungry before that, lunch at 12, and dinner at 5.
I’m sorry if I’m being dense I just don’t get how it’s different from the norm, but I feel I must be missing something because of all the people who swear by the results of it.
Those who have never been snackers would not understand. When I am working on IF which I do from time to time when my weight is sneaking up a bit I find the first few days are torture because I have gotten used to snacking until I go to bed at night. IF effectively makes me stop eating and I get out of the habit of snacking so much. That's what it does for me. If snacking isn't an issue for you then IF probably won't be of much use to you. There are those who say it has health benefits but that has not been proven to date as far as I know.
@cheryldumais
I am curious about this. For most of my life I have heard people effectively losing weight or managing their weight better by eliminating snacks. This was well before the popularity of the internet or the attempt to formalize meal skipping into a plan.
My question is what is the difference between simply saying no more snacks and setting a window that makes snacking impossible? Both require you to be disciplined.
I am not trying to trip you up I am just curious as to how you see the difference. I am aware that that perception can make two very similar things seem more doable down one path and not the other.
I know this question wasn't for me, but just wanted to share because it's something I find funny about myself. I excel at negotiating with myself. If I tell myself "no snacks", it's very easy for me to eat something 30 minutes later and tell myself "that's not a snack, that's just part of lunch, I meant to eat it earlier but didn't". I don't do intermittent fasting, but certain things are not possible for me to do without either a strong motive (like working to fit in a high calorie meal I really like) or a very specific rule (like one single serving snack per shopping trip non-negotiable). A rule like "don't eat after 7" is the kind of specific rule that would work for me because 7 is clearly defined and there is no way to weasel around it. 7:01 is not 7:00.3 -
I think everyone knows by now that we are all different. We all make our own choices and just because my choice is different from yours, it doesn't make it wrong, or stupid, or crazy, etc.
Eating makes me hungry. I can eat a meal at any of the 3 standard meal times and I feel hungry afterwards. Makes no sense, I know. By only eating at dinnertime, I am not faced with the stomach growling all day. That's just me. It's how I am. Only eating 1 time a day at dinnertime works best for me. I have tea, water, and I put sugar free cream in my coffee. I don't know the "science" behind the fat burning, induction hoopla and that's not the reason I do it.5 -
cheryldumais wrote: »thelandkraken wrote: »IF wouldn’t mean a skipped meal, though. If I understand right and it’s eating for an 8 hour window, that’s my normal meals anyway. Breakfast at 10 because I’m not hungry before that, lunch at 12, and dinner at 5.
I’m sorry if I’m being dense I just don’t get how it’s different from the norm, but I feel I must be missing something because of all the people who swear by the results of it.
Those who have never been snackers would not understand. When I am working on IF which I do from time to time when my weight is sneaking up a bit I find the first few days are torture because I have gotten used to snacking until I go to bed at night. IF effectively makes me stop eating and I get out of the habit of snacking so much. That's what it does for me. If snacking isn't an issue for you then IF probably won't be of much use to you. There are those who say it has health benefits but that has not been proven to date as far as I know.
@cheryldumais
I am curious about this. For most of my life I have heard people effectively losing weight or managing their weight better by eliminating snacks. This was well before the popularity of the internet or the attempt to formalize meal skipping into a plan.
My question is what is the difference between simply saying no more snacks and setting a window that makes snacking impossible? Both require you to be disciplined.
I am not trying to trip you up I am just curious as to how you see the difference. I am aware that that perception can make two very similar things seem more doable down one path and not the other.
This question wasn't asked of me, but I'm gonna chirp in on it.
The difference between "say no to snacks" and setting a window has been profound for me. Of course it is psychological, not physical, I don't deny that. Some people I know have tried the IF window thing and given up on it very quickly. For me, the window as a concept and then as a WOE stuck. It just locked in my brain that I get hour X to hour Y to eat all of my calories, and at no other time does anything but water go in my mouth. I can't say definitively why it worked, but something about having a formal structure - a rule that cannot be broken without crashing the whole IF effort - just clicked with me. In the past, I have tried a bazillion variations on "no snacking" and it always fell apart. I "no snacked" until I was hungry, and then I had an excuse for why I should have a small snack - starving, stress, bad day, been doing good for a while so why not, having a 70 calorie string cheese isn't going to fundamentally alter my weight loss, deprivation is no way to lose weight over time, etc. I had every sensible rationalization a human being can possibly have for suspending the no-snacking rule. And then then next night, I'd have another little snack, because it'd worked out pretty well the previous night and besides, why should I be hungry all the time? Two weeks later, a Party Size bag of Doritos. A month later it was all moot because I was no longer dieting.
I can't exactly explain why this IF-style "NO as in NO as in ZERO calories EVER outside the window, no excuses, no exceptions, just comply" has worked for me where "no snacking" didn't, but it just does. Perhaps "no snacking" is an approach that can break down through incremental small violations and tiny excuses that you barely even notice but that lead to less and less discipline, whereas there is a no-compromise nature to an eating window -- you are either on board or you are not, so it pushes you to stay on board. A line in proverbial sand, I guess. I have had 4 days in the past 4 months when I ate even a molecule of food outside the window. Physically, calorie-wise, it's the same thing as "no snacking", but it's different psychologically. There is always a reason to suspend a "no snacking" rule, but you can almost always comply with a hard-set eating window if you're committed to it.4 -
This is very interesting to read, and I'm glad NovusDies asked.
For me, no snacking is a hard rule, the same kind of rule your windows seem to be. It's easy to follow.
The window would have to be combined with AND no snacking to work for me, and wouldn't add anything structurally to make it easier.
I also found it easy when I was losing to see my calorie limit as a hard rule. I had one day a week where I was allowed to eat to maintenance if I wanted (I usually did not, but I usually had a restaurant meal that I logged loosely). I know some find that overly rigid, but it was really just easier for me (and easy in general) to treat the cal goal (+ logged exercise cal) as a hard stop.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
I'm no expert on the matter. My doctor recommended eating earlier and it has worked well for me. I don't eat at 5:00 either, I mentioned 5:00 as a mealtime in response to another person who mentioned they always ate by 5:00. I have dropped 30 lbs on an IF diet, I try to get my last meal in by 7:30 or 8 but the sooner the better for me. If it doesn't work for others that's fine but I am seeing good results with IF and keeping calories under 1900 for the day. Before doing IF I slowly dropped weight on a 1900 calorie diet, on IF 30 lbs fell off over a couple of months and has stayed off. Works for me.
Sure, finding a schedule that works for you can be helpful. I don't think anyone disagrees with that. Point is it's still cals, and unless you have night snacking issues that cause you to overeat or it interferes with sleep there's nothing bad that happens if you eat dinner late. I ate dinner at 9 the whole time I was losing weight and lost very easily. I do not get home from work most days before 8, and I cook dinner, so I eat at 9 most of the time.
My dad and his wife are retired and often eat at around 5 or 6, and when I stayed with them for a week I didn't find that eating early made any difference.
I agree that it's all about calories. For me it's easier to stay below 1900 calories if I eat all of my meals between noon and 8:00 pm. I'm less hungry that way and less likely to want to snack. I find going to bed earlier helps as well. If I wait until 9:30 to eat dinner, I'm so hungry I tend to overeat. Eating by 6:30 or 7:00 I'm not as hungry and am satisfied with much less food.1 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
I'm no expert on the matter. My doctor recommended eating earlier and it has worked well for me. I don't eat at 5:00 either, I mentioned 5:00 as a mealtime in response to another person who mentioned they always ate by 5:00. I have dropped 30 lbs on an IF diet, I try to get my last meal in by 7:30 or 8 but the sooner the better for me. If it doesn't work for others that's fine but I am seeing good results with IF and keeping calories under 1900 for the day. Before doing IF I slowly dropped weight on a 1900 calorie diet, on IF 30 lbs fell off over a couple of months and has stayed off. Works for me.
I am glad you found a system that works for you. While I believe you believe the part I have put in bolded text above I do not. Studies have proven no weight loss advantage so it is more likely your logging accuracy improved over time if you believe your calories have been the same.
There are many impressionable people out there that cannot sustainably skip meals and so your story could actually do harm for any of them that are trying to lose weight and IF makes them miserable.8 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
I'm no expert on the matter. My doctor recommended eating earlier and it has worked well for me. I don't eat at 5:00 either, I mentioned 5:00 as a mealtime in response to another person who mentioned they always ate by 5:00. I have dropped 30 lbs on an IF diet, I try to get my last meal in by 7:30 or 8 but the sooner the better for me. If it doesn't work for others that's fine but I am seeing good results with IF and keeping calories under 1900 for the day. Before doing IF I slowly dropped weight on a 1900 calorie diet, on IF 30 lbs fell off over a couple of months and has stayed off. Works for me.
No issue with you finding an eating structure that works for you.
Big difference between that and telling people You (as in everyone) loses more when they eat before 5 pm - or do anything that is just your personal preference.
as far as weight loss goes, it is just a personal preference - not some magic insulin reducing or less fat burning at night or whatever thing
(am not saying you said all that but has been said in thread)
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
I guess it's not for you then. I find it very practical and it works for me. I eat less than 1850 calories between noon and 8:00 pm. I'm rarely hungry, my weight has gone from 295 to 245 and with IF I can keep the weight off. On other programs I lose weight and gain it right back. I'm not suggesting it is for everyone. Just saying it works for me.6 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.4 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
I guess it's not for you then. I find it very practical and it works for me. I eat less than 1850 calories between noon and 8:00 pm. I'm rarely hungry, my weight has gone from 295 to 245 and with IF I can keep the weight off. On other programs I lose weight and gain it right back. I'm not suggesting it is for everyone. Just saying it works for me.
Obviously it is not for me - have said that several times myself.
But absolutely no issues with it working for anyone else - until they make claims about it doing things it does not or applying their personal preference to everyone else.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.
I would be asking my doctor why he/she thinks it matters.
Not just using that as an appeal to authority with no explanation.
6 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.
I would be asking my doctor why he/she thinks it matters.
Not just using that as an appeal to authority with no explanation.
I too had my GP recommend eating dinner earlier if possible, and then not eating anything after dinner. In essence, he was recommending IF although he didn't use that phrase. This was before IF became a thing. Around 2005 ish.3 -
paperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.
I would be asking my doctor why he/she thinks it matters.
Not just using that as an appeal to authority with no explanation.
I too had my GP recommend eating dinner earlier if possible, and then not eating anything after dinner. In essence, he was recommending IF although he didn't use that phrase. This was before IF became a thing. Around 2005 ish.
Not eating after dinner is not necessarily IF.
I think a lot of doctors may recommend things based on what they assume are the issue re calories. It's not that uncommon for people to eat in front of the TV or computer at night, so saying "nothing after dinner" is a way of cutting cals.
I've talked about weight loss with my doctor (I was bad about medical treatment when I was fat, since I was ashamed, which I know is terrible, so I saw her when I was in the process of losing and not that overweight). She asked about my diet (which is reasonably healthy and was -- nutrition-wise -- when I was fat too, as I love cooking, love veg, etc., and asked how I was losing. I mentioned my exercise goals and MFP, and she was very enthusiastic about the MFP approach, which I of course thought was great.0 -
Not eating after dinner is not necessarily IF.
I think a lot of doctors may recommend things based on what they assume are the issue re calories. It's not that uncommon for people to eat in front of the TV or computer at night, so saying "nothing after dinner" is a way of cutting cals.
I've talked about weight loss with my doctor (I was bad about medical treatment when I was fat, since I was ashamed, which I know is terrible, so I saw her when I was in the process of losing and not that overweight). She asked about my diet (which is reasonably healthy and was -- nutrition-wise -- when I was fat too, as I love cooking, love veg, etc., and asked how I was losing. I mentioned my exercise goals and MFP, and she was very enthusiastic about the MFP approach, which I of course thought was great.
I don't think it was in relation to weight loss, although that might've been part of it. It was a long time ago and I don't precisely remember. I was having some autoimmune issues back then. My GP brought up the notion of having large periods of the day w/o food as a useful method to take stress off the body (i.e. digesting food) and having more waking hours for healing, whatever that meant. Later, I got shuffled to a rheumatologist who recommended the same thing, along with other things (yoga, cardio, etc etc etc) -- and medications, since autoimmune issues are not resolved with yoga.
I'm not claiming this as a data point for "doctors recommend IF!", just noting that my n=2 experience is that doctors find it advisable to have no-food times during waking hours, for whatever reasons are in their heads at the time.1 -
Not eating after dinner is not necessarily IF.
I think a lot of doctors may recommend things based on what they assume are the issue re calories. It's not that uncommon for people to eat in front of the TV or computer at night, so saying "nothing after dinner" is a way of cutting cals.
I've talked about weight loss with my doctor (I was bad about medical treatment when I was fat, since I was ashamed, which I know is terrible, so I saw her when I was in the process of losing and not that overweight). She asked about my diet (which is reasonably healthy and was -- nutrition-wise -- when I was fat too, as I love cooking, love veg, etc., and asked how I was losing. I mentioned my exercise goals and MFP, and she was very enthusiastic about the MFP approach, which I of course thought was great.
I'm not claiming this as a data point for "doctors recommend IF!", just noting that my n=2 experience is that doctors find it advisable to have no-food times during waking hours, for whatever reasons are in their heads at the time.
No food times during waking hours is a bit vague - and isnt it something just about everyone does anyway?
Nobody eats so constantly that they have no waking hours not eating - do they??
Myself who is far from an intermittent faster - I have breakfast before work, around 8:30, I usually have a snack on the go around 11:oo ish, I have lunch around 1pm, usually nothing else till dinner around 7 pm, and then desert or a snack anywhere between 9 - 10;30 pm while we watch our evening TV.
Without doing any particular structure there are waking hours of non eating - as do most people.
Nothing special or new about that.
6 -
Well it took me three years to drop twenty pounds and in that time I lost it andpaperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.
I would be asking my doctor why he/she thinks it matters.
Not just using that as an appeal to authority with no explanation.
gained it back two or three times using carb loading, keto, Atkins, watching my macro's etc. I researched IF after listening to Charles Poloquin speak on the subject, and after speaking to my doctor and his reasoning of not consuming carbohydrates past 6:00 pm and doing an IF diet, I quickly dropped another 30 lbs and am almost back to a weight I haven't seen in 13 years. I guess you know more than Olympic strength coaches and my doctor so tell us what we should be doing instead of IF and how much success you have had with that method. This thread was started by someone wanting to know about IF. It is reasonable to expect that people will share their stories on such a thread. How that is construed as telling everyone they must do it my way is unclear to me. Someone even said it was "dangerous" to share my story? So what do you suggest instead of IF?
8 -
Go in your App Store, look for an App called Fasten.
Will help.0 -
Well it took me three years to drop twenty pounds and in that time I lost it andpaperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.
I would be asking my doctor why he/she thinks it matters.
Not just using that as an appeal to authority with no explanation.
gained it back two or three times using carb loading, keto, Atkins, watching my macro's etc. I researched IF after listening to Charles Poloquin speak on the subject, and after speaking to my doctor and his reasoning of not consuming carbohydrates past 6:00 pm and doing an IF diet, I quickly dropped another 30 lbs and am almost back to a weight I haven't seen in 13 years. I guess you know more than Olympic strength coaches and my doctor so tell us what we should be doing instead of IF and how much success you have had with that method. This thread was started by someone wanting to know about IF. It is reasonable to expect that people will share their stories on such a thread. How that is construed as telling everyone they must do it my way is unclear to me. Someone even said it was "dangerous" to share my story? So what do you suggest instead of IF?
Not sure why you are now getting snippy and sarcastic
I didn't say I know more than your doctor, I said I would be wanting to know why the doctor thought that. His/ her reasoning is more important than appealing to authority.
And Olympic strength coaches have no relevance to most of us.
I didn't say anyone should or should not be doing anything except IF, how did you get that from what I posted?
I suggest we should all achieve a calorie deficit if we want to lose weight, using whatever style of eating suits us.
How much success I have had with my method, since you asked ( which is really just the method of eating to calorie level with really no other rules) - I lost to goal weight in 2013, over a 10 month period, and have kept at that for nearly 6 years now.
7 -
paperpudding wrote: »
Well it took me three years to drop twenty pounds and in that time I lost it andpaperpudding wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I suspect if you have always eaten within an 8 hour window and typically have your last meal before 5:00 pm, then you won't see additional results but you are probably getting results compared to someone who eats late at night.
I doubt this - but even if it is so ,why would that matter??
I dont need to get results compared to anyone else.
I got the results I wanted eating the calorie level I was given and eating at all sorts of times of day and almost always eating breakfast and very rarely eating dinner before 7 pm and usually something later than that as well.
Even if theoretically I could increase my loss rate by 0.01 lb per week or something by IF why would I want to do that when eating that way is so impractical and undesirable for me and I get good results by eating the way I want?
What I meant was if you eat your last meal by 5:00 pm you will get better results than someone who eats later at night. Eating too close to bed time is not good for weight loss. The earlier you take your last meal the better. Or so I've been told, but it makes sense.
It doesn't actually make sense. You don't stop burning fat overnight, and even if you burned more while being awake between 5 and 11 (or whatever), you would not burn more overall, so the deficit would be the same, the timing of when the calories were burnt would vary.
Also, I suspect the vast majority of people cannot eat so early as 5 pm because they work, not to mention cook. For others it would be odd within their cultures to eat that early (I think that's so in parts of the US, most IMO, and in many European countries, for example). Aspiring to eat that early is unnecessary and would interfere with many people's lives in an unreasonable way.
It was thelandkraken that mentioned eating dinner at 5:00, my response was to him/her. I am not suggesting everyone eat at 5:00. I do not myself. I don't get home from work until 6:30. You may be right about it not mattering. I won't argue with you because I don't know with any degree of certainty, but my doctor thinks it matters so I eat as early as I can and it seems to work for me.
I would be asking my doctor why he/she thinks it matters.
Not just using that as an appeal to authority with no explanation.
gained it back two or three times using carb loading, keto, Atkins, watching my macro's etc. I researched IF after listening to Charles Poloquin speak on the subject, and after speaking to my doctor and his reasoning of not consuming carbohydrates past 6:00 pm and doing an IF diet, I quickly dropped another 30 lbs and am almost back to a weight I haven't seen in 13 years. I guess you know more than Olympic strength coaches and my doctor so tell us what we should be doing instead of IF and how much success you have had with that method. This thread was started by someone wanting to know about IF. It is reasonable to expect that people will share their stories on such a thread. How that is construed as telling everyone they must do it my way is unclear to me. Someone even said it was "dangerous" to share my story? So what do you suggest instead of IF?
Not sure why you are now getting snippy and sarcastic
I didn't say I know more than your doctor, I said I would be wanting to know why the doctor thought that. His/ her reasoning is more important than appealing to authority.
And Olympic strength coaches have no relevance to most of us.
I didn't say anyone should or should not be doing anything except IF, how did you get that from what I posted?
I suggest we should all achieve a calorie deficit if we want to lose weight, using whatever style of eating suits us.
How much success I have had with my method, since you asked ( which is really just the method of eating to calorie level with really no other rules) - I lost to goal weight in 2013, over a 10 month period, and have kept at that for nearly 6 years now.
No snippieness or sarcasm was intended. I was sincerely asking what method you have had success with. You seemed to speak with some authority on the matter and I wanted to know what worked for you.
I cited Charles Poloquin because I am a strength athlete and he is very respected in the strength world and was a very knowledgeable man.
After trying all of the fad diets I too have learned that is calories in versus calories out that matters most. Being a competitive weight lifter for many years meant carrying a lot of extra weight which eventually led to type II diabetes. I have to not only count calories but also avoid carbs.
Congratulations on your success.3 -
paperpudding wrote: »Not eating after dinner is not necessarily IF.
I think a lot of doctors may recommend things based on what they assume are the issue re calories. It's not that uncommon for people to eat in front of the TV or computer at night, so saying "nothing after dinner" is a way of cutting cals.
I've talked about weight loss with my doctor (I was bad about medical treatment when I was fat, since I was ashamed, which I know is terrible, so I saw her when I was in the process of losing and not that overweight). She asked about my diet (which is reasonably healthy and was -- nutrition-wise -- when I was fat too, as I love cooking, love veg, etc., and asked how I was losing. I mentioned my exercise goals and MFP, and she was very enthusiastic about the MFP approach, which I of course thought was great.
I'm not claiming this as a data point for "doctors recommend IF!", just noting that my n=2 experience is that doctors find it advisable to have no-food times during waking hours, for whatever reasons are in their heads at the time.
No food times during waking hours is a bit vague - and isnt it something just about everyone does anyway?
Nobody eats so constantly that they have no waking hours not eating - do they??
This is what I always think. There seems to be this odd assumption among some IFers that if you are are not eating in a window you are just indiscriminantly gobbling food constantly.
Likely all of us spend about the same amount of time eating and not eating, it's just spread out differently.4 -
cheryldumais wrote: »thelandkraken wrote: »IF wouldn’t mean a skipped meal, though. If I understand right and it’s eating for an 8 hour window, that’s my normal meals anyway. Breakfast at 10 because I’m not hungry before that, lunch at 12, and dinner at 5.
I’m sorry if I’m being dense I just don’t get how it’s different from the norm, but I feel I must be missing something because of all the people who swear by the results of it.
Those who have never been snackers would not understand. When I am working on IF which I do from time to time when my weight is sneaking up a bit I find the first few days are torture because I have gotten used to snacking until I go to bed at night. IF effectively makes me stop eating and I get out of the habit of snacking so much. That's what it does for me. If snacking isn't an issue for you then IF probably won't be of much use to you. There are those who say it has health benefits but that has not been proven to date as far as I know.
@cheryldumais
I am curious about this. For most of my life I have heard people effectively losing weight or managing their weight better by eliminating snacks. This was well before the popularity of the internet or the attempt to formalize meal skipping into a plan.
My question is what is the difference between simply saying no more snacks and setting a window that makes snacking impossible? Both require you to be disciplined.
I am not trying to trip you up I am just curious as to how you see the difference. I am aware that that perception can make two very similar things seem more doable down one path and not the other.
Yeah, as someone said I think it has something to do with 7:00 being a very set time which I am not allowed to go over. Also for me I like to feel I can snack if I get hungry during the day but I know it has to be within a set time. It all boils down to each person's schedule and how to split the same number of calories. I view some foods as snack foods and some as meal foods. For example a piece of sugarless candy is not a meal food it is a snack food, lol. It would feel odd to me to have a piece of candy when I'm having a steak. But if I can have it anytime I will eat many pieces whereas if it has to fit in an eating window I might not have time or be hungry enough in my eating window to overdo it.
I don't know, you make a very valid point and I have toyed with the idea of quitting snacks altogether but the rebel in me is unwilling to be that rigid. This is my compromise and I'm still playing with it. Maintenance has become for me trial and error as I attempt to find a pattern that I can live with for life even after 2 years.
5 -
Likely all of us spend about the same amount of time eating and not eating, it's just spread out differently.
@lemurcat2, hi, I'm not sure if you meant everybody spends the same amount of time eating, or that we spend the same amount of time eating as we do when we are not eating.
I think I might disagree with both though.
sorry.
Well in mycase I can say there have been times I spent a lot of time during the day eating, more than probably a lot of people. Part of it is because my teeth just aren't what they used to be, most of it is because I get into a habit of eating all the time in the difficult times of life.
On mfp I am beginning to hear that other people are also spending a lot of their day time in mindless eating too.
But if you meant that "all of us spend about the same amount of time eating" in general over a lifetime, I'm still not sure I could agree with that either.
1 -
Likely all of us spend about the same amount of time eating and not eating, it's just spread out differently.
@lemurcat2, hi, I'm not sure if you meant everybody spends the same amount of time eating, or that we spend the same amount of time eating as we do when we are not eating.
I think I might disagree with both though. sorry.
Well in mycase I can say there have been times I spent a lot of time during the day eating, more than probably a lot of people. Part of it is because my teeth just aren't what they used to be, most of it is because I get into a habit of eating all the time in the difficult times of life.
On mfp I am beginning to hear that other people are also spending a lot of their day time in mindless eating too.
But if you meant that "all of us spend about the same amount of time eating" in general over a lifetime, I'm still not sure I could agree with that either.
I meant the physical time of eating, and not for all people, but for those of us here paying attention to our diets in some way.
Whether you eat your 1600 cal of food in 3 meals or 6 snacks or 1 giant meal, I doubt it makes much difference to the time spent actually eating. (I suppose someone who needs to eat many more cals than someone else may spend more time actually eating, and of course if eating is a chore it may physically take more time (although will the digestion?).
What WILL actually make a difference vs meal timing is food choice -- with that ultraprocessed vs. minimally or non processed study that was discussed a few months ago, some of us speculated that one reason for the difference was the ultraprocessed foods chosen were going to take much less time to eat (and food was freely available during the various meal windows in the study). But in that case taking a bit more time to eat is a good thing, not bad.
Anyway, what I was responding to was the idea that it's important to give your body a break from digestion (or, sometimes, from insulin). But if you have smaller meals, the extent of the insulin increase and time it lasts, and the time of overall digestion will be less than for a larger meal or one gigantic meal. I'd say that your body isn't going to be spending an appreciably larger amount of time digesting if you have several mini meals rather than one giant one, and it's not going to be spending less time digesting if you eat, say, 4 meals in a window vs. 2 or 3 that wouldn't fit in an IF window since they are more spread out. So the "not eating all the time" or "taking a break from digestion" things seem beside the point to me, even if there were some need to rest from digesting (which there might be, we certainly need things like sleep, although other functions like breathing, heart beating, the rest of your organ activity, certain kinds of brain activity, etc., go on all the time).
However, I will concede that I overgeneralized, but I hope this makes my point clearer.1 -
I always found this to be an interesting study:
Highlights
The daily eating pattern in healthy adults is highly variable from day to day
•
More than half of the adults eat for 15 hr or longer every day
•
Sleep duration parallels the fasting duration
•
Reducing the daily eating duration can contribute to weight loss
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00462-38 -
pierinifitness wrote: »I always found this to be an interesting study:
Highlights
The daily eating pattern in healthy adults is highly variable from day to day
•
More than half of the adults eat for 15 hr or longer every day
•
Sleep duration parallels the fasting duration
•
Reducing the daily eating duration can contribute to weight loss
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00462-3
Again - when you say that more than half of adults eat for 15 hours or longer per day - you aren’t talking about active eating: hand to mouth for 15 straight hours. You are talking about people eating on average during a period of 15 hours per day? Whether it be 6 am to 9 pm or 8 am to 11 pm that they might eat their total day’s intake during that time period. And that might be three traditional meals or more or less small meals. Right?
Sleep duration parallels fasting duration. Again, any surprise here? Isn’t most peoples “fast period” due to time spent sleeping? I don’t have a set schedule for “feeding” or whatever you want to call it but sure if I’m sleeping longer my “fasting period” is longer. I really feel like some IF advocates are missing the most basic piece of information, before any of this became trendy or a WOE - when you are a child you learn about Breakfast, which is the first meal of the day and when you BREAK the FAST which just means you’re not sleeping anymore so you eat something. Doesn’t matter if that’s first thing or later in the day.
Reducing daily eating duration only contributes to weight loss if a person eats less calories in the shorter time period than if they did during an unrestricted window.10 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Again - when you say that more than half of adults eat for 15 hours or longer per day - you aren’t talking about active eating: hand to mouth for 15 straight hours. You are talking about people eating on average during a period of 15 hours per day? Whether it be 6 am to 9 pm or 8 am to 11 pm that they might eat their total day’s intake during that time period. And that might be three traditional meals or more or less small meals. Right?
Yep. It's absurd to suggest people are gobbling up food for 15 hours straight, especially people who have found a way to control their eating (those of us in this discussion).
As I said above, I think my sister often grazes (again, she's never been overweight, she eats a generally nutritious diet). When she grazes, she eats a lot of little snacks. If she eats at my place or with her SO, then she will eat dinner (and maybe a little snack later), otherwise she might just snack (but not low nutrition stuff) instead of dinner. She still spends a lot more of her day NOT eating than eating. Her little snack-like meals take less time than an actual meal normally would.
I'd hate so much eating like that, but she likes it.
I often do my meals over the course of 15 hours, since if I run in the morning I want breakfast (if I don't, I usually don't care about breakfast). Because I like to eat meals at home when possible, if I have breakfast and both meals at home, that means 6:30 to 9:30 or even 10 sometimes -- so 15 hours. Am I actually eating for all of those hours? Of course not. I don't eat for about 5 hours between breakfast and lunch, and don't eat for maybe 9 hours between lunch and dinner. So would IF (eating as much as I want within 8 hours) make me eat for a smaller portion of time or automatically reduce how much I eat? Seems unlikely.
In fact, I do IF at least a few days a week normally (although I don't call it that, I call it not having breakfast and eating dinner earlier than usual) because it works for my schedule, and on those days I eat bigger meals and may even eat MORE cals than usual (I tend to do it when I plan to have a restaurant dinner or when we have work lunch).
If I did unrestricted eating for 8 hours a day I could easily eat MORE often than I now do (2 meals and snacks in-between), so I really doubt it would reduce my cals.
Does it work for some people? Absolutely. Is it the best for all or the only alternative to this strawman that everyone else is doing nothing but shoving food in their mouths all day? Of course not.2 -
@WinoGelato, I didn’t “say” anything and should have put what I posted in quotation marks to make it clear. My apologies.3
-
pierinifitness wrote: »I always found this to be an interesting study:
Highlights
The daily eating pattern in healthy adults is highly variable from day to day
•
More than half of the adults eat for 15 hr or longer every day
•
Sleep duration parallels the fasting duration
•
Reducing the daily eating duration can contribute to weight loss
https://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(15)00462-3
I tried to read the study but got no page found.0 -
For some reason after posting the link it doesn't work - here's where the study was mentioned in a Huffington Post article, a place I generally don't frequent:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/you-say-you-eat-three-meals-a-day-this-app-proves-you-wrong_n_5602f3f3e4b00310edf9ba42?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAETO4sG5rokHmlyUQG7-B6Z1Yhvs1Be3zpulPwTqDxDRHV-GDZnXrKGpeZh4yY9q1r4icSAaJ1cBSUOvP0AmO1iwPoP18YBg1wcY2ebxJC1LOETC7zE8gmaPaf1DlHZX7isnjpPFdlLOom90fnAaXVAThrLJK5tJHmboIPKKT_xa0 -
Nope but that's okay. I probably need to stop my reading this morning and get moving.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions