Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Do we intermittently fast already?
FiberousJ
Posts: 82 Member
in Debate Club
I hear about how intermittent fasting is so beneficial. But people who skip breakfasts are already fasting unintentionally, right? Just imagine if someone goes to sleep around 11 pm. They ate their last meal around 8 pm. Then they wake up and have no time to eat, so they head to work and then have their first meal around noon.
That's already 16 hours of fasting without trying. So how is intentionally fasting for 16 hours different than fasting for 16 hours just because you were busy?
That's already 16 hours of fasting without trying. So how is intentionally fasting for 16 hours different than fasting for 16 hours just because you were busy?
2
Replies
-
It isn't different 🙂
But how long the fasting window is will vary: I used to skip breakfast too, but I still had an evening snack between 10 and 11PM, so my fasting only lasted 13hrs, which isn't a commonly used schedule I think. It still helped me control my calories though.
Intermittent fasting isn't magic, it just makes it easier for some people to stick to their calorie goal.11 -
Not eating for 16 hours by skipping breakfast or not eating for 16 hours by deliberately practicing some eating window schedule - no different.
Except, I suppose, the 16 hours doesnt have to mean skipping breakfast somebody might have breakfast and lunch and then not eat dinner or something and that way not eat for 16 hours.4 -
It isn't different.
People just decided to call it something so they could sell books and write blogs about it.19 -
There isn't. Which is funny because you'll have people that say don't eat after 7pm or food will turn into fat. There's really no difference of eating to 7pm and then not eating again till 7am versus eating till 11pm and not eating again till 11am. The time spacing is the same. I eat that way. No morning food for me till about after 12pm (due to schedule and because I have plenty of glycogen from storing it the night before).
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
It isn't different. I've been skipping breakfast since before 16:8 was a thing. It works for me, so why not?4
-
It isn't different, but for someone like me who loves to eat, I have to purposely, mindfully and with great effort not eat after 6:00pm and before 10:00am to get an 8 hour eating window (16 hour fast). It's not easy when I wake up at 6:30am too, I get hungry quicker in the morning but have to work like heck mentally and drink lots of water to wait until my eating window.
On days when I'm busy, it's easy to forget to eat anything until 1:00pm sometimes, but of course, that's not everyday.0 -
Intermittent fasting is way cooler than skipping breakfast, that's why it has a separate name.
(I'm joking. Others have already answered: Not eating for X hours is not eating for X hours, no matter what a person calls it. The physical effects would be exactly the same. Words have power, but not in that particular way. Calling it something different could affect how the person feels about it, and have psychological impact on compliance, or something. I suspect that would be individual.)
Also, it interests me to hear that people who skip breakfast are doing that unintentionally. Hmm.
(I know, that's not what you meant OP, I'm still joking. Apologies if it's inappropriate!).
4 -
I hear about how intermittent fasting is so beneficial. But people who skip breakfasts are already fasting unintentionally, right? Just imagine if someone goes to sleep around 11 pm. They ate their last meal around 8 pm. Then they wake up and have no time to eat, so they head to work and then have their first meal around noon.
That's already 16 hours of fasting without trying. So how is intentionally fasting for 16 hours different than fasting for 16 hours just because you were busy?
It's not...
I rarely ate breakfast in my 20s and most of my 30s...but there wasn't a cool name for it.4 -
Sheila00000 wrote: »It isn't different, but for someone like me who loves to eat, I have to purposely, mindfully and with great effort not eat after 6:00pm and before 10:00am to get an 8 hour eating window (16 hour fast). It's not easy when I wake up at 6:30am too, I get hungry quicker in the morning but have to work like heck mentally and drink lots of water to wait until my eating window.
On days when I'm busy, it's easy to forget to eat anything until 1:00pm sometimes, but of course, that's not everyday.
Can I ask why you are doing this if it requires great effort?
It sounds really difficult and unpleasant for you - to what purpose?
I get that some people find intermittent fasting/not eating breakfast/ stopping eating at x time a useful and easy strategy or natural pattern - but doesnt sound like this is so for you
which would make me wonder if it is a strategy that is worth pursuing for you.
5 -
I’m a natural breakfast skipper, always have been since I was old enough to have autonomy over such things. Lunch is generally about 1:30pm, because that’s when I get hungry enough that I need to eat. Dinner around 7pm and I’m not a snacker. So, yes, I’m unintentionally ‘intermittent fasting’ on a roughly 18:6 schedule. 🤷♀️
But reading through this thread made me wonder - what’s the difference in that and just living a ‘normal’ life of 3 meals a day.
Very few everyday meals take longer than 20 minutes to eat, so doesn’t that amount to only an hour spent actually eating per day on a 3 meal schedule?
Hence that’s effectively a 23:1 fast! Do people really snack constantly? Probably not.
In terms of the alleged ‘benefits’ or ‘magic’ of any fasting protocol it puts it in perspective. Zero difference in the overall result if the breaks between eating are spaced out or artificially lumped together for some perceived ‘advantage’.
2 -
that's not a 23:1 fast by my understanding.
23:1 would mean you don't eat for 23 continuous hours and only ate within 1 hour.
Not you spent 1 hour cumalative total eating and 23 hours total not eating.2 -
That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.1 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
It's a lot easier/more practical to say "I won't eat between 7PM and 11AM, than to say "I will spend max. 1 hour eating per day". I have no intention of timing my meals
(PS: the number of hours actually spent eating aren't really what's being counted when looking at the intermittent fasting schedules. I agree fasting isn't 'magic' but the implications of fasting/eating windows and time spent eating are different)0 -
I actually think it's not that different. Mostly IFing seems to be about controlling an urge to snack or mindless eating outside of a specific window. When I was losing weight, I had a personal rule about only 3 meals, no snacking, and that achieved the same thing. I'm currently eating only 2 meals most days (that normally fall into a common IF pattern), but it's not meaningfully different in effect than eating the 3 meals.3
-
Well, the number of meals/snacks is different than the time spent eating though. I agree that limiting the number of mealtimes can help control calories, it's a strategy I use currently as well.1
-
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
Yes I agree there is no magic to it - but I also think we should use a term to mean what it means.
Intermittent Fasting is about continuous hours of not eating - it isn't about how long is spent actually eating each meal.
2 -
I technically do IF. Sometimes I technically do OMAD and some snacks.. Technically.
Reality? I just eat when I'm hungry. Which is not before noon and occasionally not until dinner if I'm really hungry. The rest of the reality is that I very much enjoy a really big meal, sometimes, rather than more less big meals/snacks. I also started going to bed earlier rather than staying up, getting tired, and then sensory and 'keep me awake' seeking and eating. that means my typical eating window is between 2 and 8 hours long.
The only reason these are 'diet strategies' for me is that I don't eat when I'm not freaking hungry, anymore. Eating when I wasn't hungry was a good part of what got me obese and kept me obese.
If I wake up at 6 am hungry some morning, I will eat.
That said if you want to debate, I do IF 'wrong' - or would if I cared - because I put milk in my coffee first thing, and that 'breaks the fast' or some nonsense.
6 -
I skip breakfast most days as it helps budget my calories easier and more enjoyable.
But I'm not rigid about eating schedules or meal timings as fixed rules make my life harder and less pleasant for no benefit. For example, I skipped breakfast yesterday but had two lunches either side of a long bike ride.
No, I don't believe going 16 or 17 hours without food compared to what would be normally for me 11 or 12 hours between dinner and breakfast time has any significance.
The "magic" of time restricted eating seems to be to provide a subject and income for disgraced chiropractors to talk claptrap on YouTube.
A less cynical insight would be that for people who aren't calorie counting restricting the time period when they allow themselves to eat has a decent chance of reducing their overall calorie consumption.
8 -
18:6 for me which starts at 4pm.0
-
SnifterPug wrote: »It isn't different. I've been skipping breakfast since before 16:8 was a thing. It works for me, so why not?
For sure, right?1 -
I IF 12:12
4 -
BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?1 -
neanderthin wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?
What magic do you think there is to IF?2 -
Well - for the magical part:
https://youtu.be/NLl0DZBP2Wo
And more on IF recent study results:
https://youtu.be/7o_Qd7tcB3E
I think the reference to no magic is the fact that many zealots program it is more than just a different way of eating, that it causes extra changes that enhance fat loss, and that, as commented on already, something as simple as a little cream in the morning coffee will ruin the whole thing and break your fast too early and make you miss out on the benefits you could have had.6 -
neanderthin wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?
What magic do you think there is to IF?
There is no magic and I never said there was. I was asking what research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF. Maybe you could chime in if you like.1 -
Well - for the magical part:https://youtu.be/NLl0DZBP2Wo
And more on IF recent study results:https://youtu.be/7o_Qd7tcB3E
I think the reference to no magic is the fact that many zealots program it is more than just a different way of eating, that it causes extra changes that enhance fat loss, and that, as commented on already, something as simple as a little cream in the morning coffee will ruin the whole thing and break your fast too early and make you miss out on the benefits you could have had.
He's using autophagy when comparing to calorie restriction and autophagy doesn't even commence in fasting until the 48-72 hour stage. He did get to 36 hrs to show autophagy pitfalls.....If he talked about IF in general and argued against the scientific research then he might be more believable. I admit I didn't watch the second video. He just wanted to win and make a video. Basically let me baffle you with bullsh1t. Scientific data looks a little different.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?
What magic do you think there is to IF?
There is no magic and I never said there was. I was asking what research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF. Maybe you could chime in if you like.
I guess I read your reply wrong - I'm in the 'no magic' camp myself - IF just happens to fit my normal eating pattern and helps me restrict calories pretty effortlessly.2 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »BarbaraHelen2013 wrote: »That was kind of the point!
Since we mostly agree that there is no magic to IF other than for those who find it an easier way to restrict their calorie intake, then it makes no difference if the total hours spent ‘not eating’ are contiguous or not.
I find this interesting. So basically you've done your due diligence, researched the science and have come to the conclusion there's no magic. Can you tell us what you mean by that?
What magic do you think there is to IF?
There is no magic and I never said there was. I was asking what research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF. Maybe you could chime in if you like.
I guess I read your reply wrong - I'm in the 'no magic' camp myself - IF just happens to fit my normal eating pattern and helps me restrict calories pretty effortlessly.
Hey, that's cool. Yes IF can help with calorie restriction, but it doesn't have to, and if it works into you schedule all the better.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Well - for the magical part:https://youtu.be/NLl0DZBP2Wo
And more on IF recent study results:https://youtu.be/7o_Qd7tcB3E
I think the reference to no magic is the fact that many zealots program it is more than just a different way of eating, that it causes extra changes that enhance fat loss, and that, as commented on already, something as simple as a little cream in the morning coffee will ruin the whole thing and break your fast too early and make you miss out on the benefits you could have had.
He's using autophagy when comparing to calorie restriction and autophagy doesn't even commence in fasting until the 48-72 hour stage. He did get to 36 hrs to show autophagy pitfalls.....If he talked about IF in general and argued against the scientific research then he might be more believable. I admit I didn't watch the second video. He just wanted to win and make a video. Basically let me baffle you with bullsh1t. Scientific data looks a little different.
Then you missed the referenced study on the 2nd video.
The study can be found here for your own enjoyment: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2771095
Recommending to rewatch the 1st video since you may not have been paying attention - if you think autophagy doesn't commence until 48-72 hrs - because the studies he referenced shows it most certainly does.
Since you said "research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF." - perhaps you could share what this research is for IF that shows it provides more benefits than what calorie restriction and resulting weight loss would provide on it's own?5 -
neanderthin wrote: »Well - for the magical part:https://youtu.be/NLl0DZBP2Wo
And more on IF recent study results:https://youtu.be/7o_Qd7tcB3E
I think the reference to no magic is the fact that many zealots program it is more than just a different way of eating, that it causes extra changes that enhance fat loss, and that, as commented on already, something as simple as a little cream in the morning coffee will ruin the whole thing and break your fast too early and make you miss out on the benefits you could have had.
He's using autophagy when comparing to calorie restriction and autophagy doesn't even commence in fasting until the 48-72 hour stage. He did get to 36 hrs to show autophagy pitfalls.....If he talked about IF in general and argued against the scientific research then he might be more believable. I admit I didn't watch the second video. He just wanted to win and make a video. Basically let me baffle you with bullsh1t. Scientific data looks a little different.
Then you missed the referenced study on the 2nd video.
The study can be found here for your own enjoyment: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2771095
Recommending to rewatch the 1st video since you may not have been paying attention - if you think autophagy doesn't commence until 48-72 hrs - because the studies he referenced shows it most certainly does.
Since you said "research the person did that was in complete contradiction to the research of IF." - perhaps you could share what this research is for IF that shows it provides more benefits than what calorie restriction and resulting weight loss would provide on it's own?
Thanks haybales, I appreciate the link. Couldn't access the complete study, but the Dr's that commented on the study had quite a few concerns with the study. Also if you could link me to the references in the first video to autophagy, I couldn't find or see them, that would be great.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions