Intermittent fasting

concordancia wrote: »

Intermittent fasting is a tool to limit your calories by limiting the time you are allowed to eat. It works just as well to limit your calories by counting them and in fact some people end up overeating with intermittent fasting because they think they can eat however much they want and restricting the time will magically make the calories not matter.

IF/TRE is too often said to work by limiting your calories by limiting the amount of time you are allowed to eat. For some that may be true but it really depends on what your protocol is as well as what you personally can eat. If you are doing 16:8 where you limit your eating to an 8 hour window (which many people do even without consciously "doing IF) do you really think the reason it is working for them is because there is no way they could get all their calories in within an 8 hour window? Or even a 6 hour window in 18:6?

I have done 20:4 pretty much daily since June 2018 with days here and there where I may do 16:8 or 22:2 or OMAD depending on timing in my day. I have been eating a ketogenic diet and have zero issues "getting all my calories in" for the amount they matter. I have been getting DEXAscans every 3-6 months since June 2018 when I started 20:4 IF/TRE and even seeing my RMR drop from just over 2,000 to just over 1800, I still eat between 2200-2800 calories a day (some days even in the 3000 range) just within the 20%P/75%F when I was a more traditional ketogenic way of eating and now as I am more of a ketovore approach that is 35%P/60%F. Most days are in the 2500-2800 range for me and whether I am eating in the rare 8 hour window, rare 2 hour or OMAD window or my normal 4 hour window, that doesn't change.

At my peak weight I was 405 pounds (6' tall). When I got my first DEXA I was 286 pounds and 34.6% body fat. 3 months later it was 28.1% body fat. Another 3 months and it was 23.1%. Another 4 months and it was 11.9%. and currently I am at 10.5% without any real exercise (and I drive forklift, not a physical job).

I, and many others, don't eat less because I eat in a smaller window that others. I eat the same and my body does what it does with the nutrition I give it and these days I have been weight stable at 180-185 for nearly 2 years.

I know for some people, it might limit the number of calories they might eat because of what they eat. I mean, to get the same caloric content you would get from eating a half pound of pork belly or sausage, you would need to eat over 2 pounds of things like yellowfin tuna sashimi or baked cod or even a pound of salmon. Personally I don't have a problem eating 2+ pounds of meat a day but for some that would certainly be a limiting factor.

Seems easy enough to try. I usually go about 16-17 hours without eating these days, but am not aware of any existing inflammation issues or how I would know if they had improved, so for me it just means I can eat 2 bigger meals vs 3 meals (since I already did not eat between meals due to personal preference).

Speakeasy76 wrote: »

I have read more recently that IF can be good for reducing inflammation. I'm not interested in IF for weight loss (although do sleep better if I cut off eating a few hours before bed), but am now wondering if I should fast for say 12-14 hours (which is pretty doable) to help with inflammation.

What kind of inflammation? I only ask because "inflammation" seems to be one of the more recent and trendy diet/fitness industry buzzwords.

I have blood work done a few times per year to determine inflammation levels in my body as I have gouty arthritis. It recently came back very low, which I attribute to having given up alcohol...which I also attribute to not having any flare ups recently...not even a fakey flare. I've done IF on and off for various reasons over the years and I've never noticed it changing the inflammation levels in my blood work.