Intermittent fasting vs calorie counting for women

AprilSue wrote: »

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

What is the source for this information?

Weight is lost by eating less calories than your body burns. How you achieve that, and getting proper nutrition requirements, is individual choice.

janejellyroll wrote: »

quiksylver296 wrote: »

janejellyroll wrote: »

AprilSue wrote: »

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

What is the source for this information?

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."

sklaw31 wrote: »

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?

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.

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.