Intermittent fasting vs calorie counting for women
Replies
-
-
janejellyroll wrote: »
Fung, I assume.8 -
Weight is lost by eating less calories than your body burns. How you achieve that, and getting proper nutrition requirements, is individual choice.8
-
quiksylver296 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Fung, I assume.
I wish he would take it down a notch.
There's nothing wrong with a diabetic/pre-diabetic using IF if it makes it easier for them to manage their weight (assuming their medical issues don't preclude it), but I hate the idea that it's the *only* way for people in this group to manage their weight. As someone who tried IF and hated it and was trending towards pre-diabetic in my overweight state, hearing that IF was the only way I could lose weight might have discouraged me from even trying (and what do you know, I managed to lose weight eating morning, noon, and night).12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »quiksylver296 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
Fung, I assume.
I wish he would take it down a notch.
There's nothing wrong with a diabetic/pre-diabetic using IF if it makes it easier for them to manage their weight (assuming their medical issues don't preclude it), but I hate the idea that it's the *only* way for people in this group to manage their weight. As someone who tried IF and hated it and was trending towards pre-diabetic in my overweight state, hearing that IF was the only way I could lose weight might have discouraged me from even trying (and what do you know, I managed to lose weight eating morning, noon, and night).
Right?!? But you don't make money without a "hook."12 -
If you have elevated insulin levels IF can be one of the only ways to get insulin low enough to burn fat. If no insulin issues there would be no noticeable difference
It seems you don't really have a clear understanding of the physiology involved. You're statement almost might have made sense, although incomplete if you had said "elevated blood glucose levels". And the whole "get insulin levels low enough to burn fat" is just nonsensical.
When a person eats, they need insulin to get the nutrients to the cells or they die. Thus why T1D people take insulin. In people who are insulin resistant, IF can increase insulin sensitivity and help prevent T2D. But the root cause is not insulin. The root cause in the majority of cases is being overweight and inactive (yes, there are some outliers who are T2D at a normal weight). The onset of T2D can be caused by the overproduction of insulin due to insulin resistance which then results in too high BG levels.
Weight loss, exercise and, to some degree, IF and a lower carb diet can all help to correct insulin sensitively issues before they become T2D and can help those that are T2D lower or eliminate medication use. Your statement would indicate a benefit from more study of exactly how all this works.12 -
joyanna2016 wrote: »Counting calories with IF is very important for another reason that I experience that has not yet been mentioned....eating too little ! IF helps with hunger so well that sometimes you just dont feel hungry especially if you try to limit your simple carbs when you do eat. It's important to count calories to make sure you are reaching your healthy calorie goal each day.
This was an extremely important note to add! I IF 16:8, eating 11a-7p and keep around a 1200-1400 daily caloric intake. There are many times I am either not hungry or get fuller faster when it is meal time. When I added extra miles to my exercise and kept the same caloric intake, I gained weight. Sometime you have to eat whether you are hungry or not (or even up your calories to a lesser deficit) to keep your metabolism in check. There is a thread on this site that talks about eating more to lose more that summarizes this topic much better than I did!
I don't even understand what this means? If you eat 1200-1400 and are losing, then add more miles on the same calories, you wouldn't gain weight. What are you saying?
8 -
There is actually nothing magical about intermittent fasting it works the same way as calorie counting. It all comes down to the amount of energy "calories" you expend or take in. By reducing the amount of hours you eat you could be automatically reducing calories. Its a big "easier" for some people since over eating is normally tied to habit, emotion, stress, and culture.5
-
So if calorie counting works do your thing!3
-
Hi guys. I started IF (24/5) 16:8 along with logging calories in the app (keeping a little deficit) and working out cardio for Atleast 40min a day.
I did 6 days IF 16:8 & 1 day 14:10. I have only lost 1 pound so far. Any recommendations or comments as I read people loose 2-5 pounds a week on IF....0 -
Fitness_t_k wrote: »Hi guys. I started IF (24/5) 16:8 along with logging calories in the app (keeping a little deficit) and working out cardio for Atleast 40min a day.
I did 6 days IF 16:8 & 1 day 14:10. I have only lost 1 pound so far. Any recommendations or comments as I read people loose 2-5 pounds a week on IF....
What do you mean by "a little" deficit? If you lost a pound in about a week - which is really not a long enough time period to evaluate a weight loss trend, not even close - that would imply about a 500 calorie daily deficit.
IF doesn't make any material difference in weight loss rate, at the same constant calorie intake. At constant calories, one would reasonably expect the same weight loss rate from OMAD (one meal a day) and all-waking-hours grazing on small snacks, and everything in between. (For some people, IF it makes sticking with a specific calorie goal easier . . . for others, harder).
If a pound a week continues to be your average weekly loss, that's great. Two pounds a week is about the maximum even a quite obese person should be trying to lose, unless under very close medical supervision for health issues and nutritional adequacy. Five pounds a week is pretty ridulous, for health risk, and also unsustainability.
It's your calorie level (and your accuracy in tracking it) that determines weight loss, not what time of day or how many times a day you eat, at any given calorie level.
Cardio may or may not increase weight loss; it depends on how you manage your weight loss process. For sure, managing the intake side of the equation (what you eat) makes much more difference for many/most people than a normal, short amount of exercise. Typical exercise, half an hour to an hour, usually in the low hundreds of calories per day, is equivalent to a serving of peanut butter and a banana, or thereabouts . . . or a bottle of Coke and a couple Oreos.7 -
Fitness_t_k wrote: »Hi guys. I started IF (24/5) 16:8 along with logging calories in the app (keeping a little deficit) and working out cardio for Atleast 40min a day.
I did 6 days IF 16:8 & 1 day 14:10. I have only lost 1 pound so far. Any recommendations or comments as I read people loose 2-5 pounds a week on IF....
What AnnP wrote. Losing 2lbs per week requires you to eat 7000 calories less per week, or 1000 per day. Most people, especially those that don't have much to lose can't do that.
Losing 5lbs per week would mean eating 17500 calories less per week, or 2500 less per day. To still get kind of proper nutrition, your energy needs per day would need to be at least 4000 calories per day.
I ran some numbers for you, assuming you're female, 170cm and 40 years old. In order to get a natural calorie burn of 4000 calories per day you'd need to be about 580lbs. I'm not kidding. Does that sound anywhere like you?
Another assumption, if you think you could do this via sports. Lets again assume you're 170cm tall, female, 40 years old and 200lbs. It's a nice number. Then you'd have to eat 1974 calories each day to neither gain nor lose weight. To get your 2500 calorie deficit, you'd need to burn 2500 by means of sport each day. You see where this is going, right? Lets use running and weight x distance x 0.64. So you'd need to run 20 miles every single day. If you don't like running but prefer walking then you'd need to walk 42 miles every day. Is that realistic you think?4 -
16:8 with a reasonable calorie deficit, food logging, and 40 mins of cardio is pretty standard IF dieting, and you're getting good results from it - a pound a week. Ignore the misinformation you've been reading about people losing > 2 lbs per week because that barely exists, and certainly not 5 lbs/week. Having those kinds of expectations is demoralizing and unrealistic unless you are hundreds of pounds overweight, for the reasons other people discussed above.
Go pick up a piece of fatty meat or some sticks of butter that weigh a pound and think about the fact that you eliminated that from your body this week. It's work well done, so just keep doing what you're doing. You could probably bump that up to 1.5 lbs/week, or in the short term even 2 lbs/week, but understand that you'll be getting much less food and are much more likely to abandon the effort before achieving your goals. 1 lb/week is pretty much the sweet spot for sustainable dieting for many people. It's the right balance of mild deprivation with sufficient reward to keep plugging away at it.6 -
Makes a difference for me! When I get up I dont even think about food, the easiest time of day for me to skip breakfast and use the calories I would normally have eaten and add them to my dinner instead that way I can have abit extra and fill me for longer. Before when I ate breakfast i swear it made me feel so hungry afterwards i have no idea why! I was literally hungry all day. I am coping so well now with just 2x meals a day. Less hungrier, less cravings.2
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
- 426 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