IF and women
Replies
-
I’ve been using various fasting methods for years, primarily, as a tool to reduce chronic inflammation. As a general rule, I am not a breakfast eater so 16:8 was already close my normal routine. During periods where inflammation is uncontrollable by normal means, I tend toward much more aggressive forms of water fasting.
IMO while fasting is an excellent tool, it’s not a silver bullet and can head down the wrong road quickly if not planned and done in a nutritionally sound way. Prolonging the fasting window can lead to excessive calorie restriction or binge eating. Personally, I didn’t go beyond 18:6 before talking with my PCP out of concern that I couldn’t even get in an absolute minimum of 1200 calories.1 -
I've never understood why not eating in the morning has become this newfound 'diet' with a fancy name. I've been doing it for years because I'm not hungry in the morning and it allows me to save calories. Simple.
right there with you...
we live on a farm, and eat dinner early because well, we go to bed early. we also basically get up in the middle of the night as far as most people are concerned LOL Neither of us eat breakfast. Sometimes we will but even then its not till 10 or so? and we usually count it as our lunch (when you get up at 3am, it kind of IS your lunch LOL) so for us.. brunch 10/11ish dinner 5ish. put livestock in their barns and feed them about 630 (earlier in winter when its darker earlier). were in bed usually by 7. usually asleep by 8. up at 3. So, you could call it IF for us if you wanted but its just our routine and our daily life and the schedule we keep because of ....animals and his full time job on top of it LOL sometimes i have my cookies in bed while we watch tv LOL
and lemme tell ya... i could fit a WHOLE lot more calories in that 9-10 hours that i do eat, than i actually DO. wouldnt even take much effort LOL5 -
I've never understood why not eating in the morning has become this newfound 'diet' with a fancy name. I've been doing it for years because I'm not hungry in the morning and it allows me to save calories. Simple.
Because it is not actually the same thing as simply "skipping a meal". While it does cut calories (as would skipping a meal), many people are doing it for other health benefits (there is plenty of research, articles, and books on this) which requires understanding the difference between simply "skipping a meal" and actually reaching the goal fasting window (which has been mentioned as 12 hours minimum) for the other health benefits. Also because, not all IF is 16:8 (the version you are calling skipping a meal). There are various ways to do IF. With some, one does not eat anything for a whole day, or only has one meal for a day (OMAD). Water fasts, OMAD, and calorie restricted fasts are often done 2 or 3 times a week (5:2 or 4:3). And, some people even Alternate Day Fast.
So the purpose of having a name, is because it is a multifaceted thing which needs an identifier in order to refer to it.4 -
I don't eat breakfast, mostly because I don't like it, so I guess I'm unintentionally practicing IF. And I've lost 71 pounds. Sooooo.... Seems to be "effective"0
-
Iwannabeapunkrockmom wrote: »I don't eat breakfast, mostly because I don't like it, so I guess I'm unintentionally practicing IF. And I've lost 71 pounds. Sooooo.... Seems to be "effective"
i didnt eat breakfast most of my life and ballooned up to almost 400 pounds.
7 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »I've never understood why not eating in the morning has become this newfound 'diet' with a fancy name. I've been doing it for years because I'm not hungry in the morning and it allows me to save calories. Simple.
Because it is not actually the same thing as simply "skipping a meal". While it does cut calories (as would skipping a meal), many people are doing it for other health benefits (there is plenty of research, articles, and books on this) which requires understanding the difference between simply "skipping a meal" and actually reaching the goal fasting window (which has been mentioned as 12 hours minimum) for the other health benefits. Also because, not all IF is 16:8 (the version you are calling skipping a meal). There are various ways to do IF. With some, one does not eat anything for a whole day, or only has one meal for a day (OMAD). Water fasts, OMAD, and calorie restricted fasts are often done 2 or 3 times a week (5:2 or 4:3). And, some people even Alternate Day Fast.
So the purpose of having a name, is because it is a multifaceted thing which needs an identifier in order to refer to it.
I don't believe intermittent fasting has any other benefits besides helping to create a deficit. I know there are certain youtube 'experts' who say it does but there is no solid proof of it. It's just a simple calorie saving tool that has been made complicated in order to make money.9 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »I've never understood why not eating in the morning has become this newfound 'diet' with a fancy name. I've been doing it for years because I'm not hungry in the morning and it allows me to save calories. Simple.
Because it is not actually the same thing as simply "skipping a meal". While it does cut calories (as would skipping a meal), many people are doing it for other health benefits (there is plenty of research, articles, and books on this) which requires understanding the difference between simply "skipping a meal" and actually reaching the goal fasting window (which has been mentioned as 12 hours minimum) for the other health benefits. Also because, not all IF is 16:8 (the version you are calling skipping a meal). There are various ways to do IF. With some, one does not eat anything for a whole day, or only has one meal for a day (OMAD). Water fasts, OMAD, and calorie restricted fasts are often done 2 or 3 times a week (5:2 or 4:3). And, some people even Alternate Day Fast.
So the purpose of having a name, is because it is a multifaceted thing which needs an identifier in order to refer to it.
Peer-reviewed long term research in humans? Please provide links.7 -
The number of disagrees on my comment is funny to me. All I did was explain why it has a name, and what it is, in so far as how it is different from simply "skipping a meal." IF as a practice overall IS more diverse than just, skipping a meal, that is a fact - but okay..I don't believe intermittent fasting has any other benefits besides helping to create a deficit. I know there are certain youtube 'experts' who say it does but there is no solid proof of it. It's just a simple calorie saving tool that has been made complicated in order to make money.
That is fine. Believe whatever you like. There are books and research done on the topic you can read or not - and you could still believe or disbelieve that. It doesn't matter to me. I was simply pointing out that it is not the same thing as your skipping breakfast (because that is disinformation for someone who IS interested in it), and since it has methods and rules, it needs a name to identify it. Also, I disagree that it is made complicated. It is really fairly simple.kshama2001 wrote: »Peer-reviewed long term research in humans? Please provide links.
I think the longest trial I came across on humans (back when I was actually researching the topic) was 1 year.. Most were 3-6 months. However yes they are peer reviewed. I am not going to redo the research to provide links because frankly I don't care if anyone here agrees or disagrees with the health benefits associated to IF. You have google if it is that important to you. This is not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with ME, my comment was not an argument for or against IF, nor was I sharing my opinions on IF, or promoting the health claims - so I have no reason to attempt to prove anything. I was simply explaining that there are people who do believe in the health claims, and thus weight loss is not the only reason people do it. Further, my material point was that if one wants to do it, they should not be confused by someone saying, "oh that just means you skip breakfast," because that is inaccurate.
6 -
IF is a way of life that fits into my life style, helps to create a calorie deficit which in turn has helped me lose 39lbs.
The best thing of all for me is that it helps me control my appetite which is what made me fat for most of my adult life.
I feel less bloated and look much better.
There are studies that IF has many other benefits to control diabetes, enhance longevity and a host of other diseases.
I wouldn't know where to begin to find a study to prove it - and quite honestly I don't care.
Finding a 'diet' that works for YOU is the most important thing - it's never right for everyone.
I don't understand all the hate and snippy comments surrounding IF on MFP.
4 -
If you weren't such a heretic you wouldn't have got so many dislikes. You need to get your priorities straight.ChaoticMoira wrote: »The number of disagrees on my comment is funny to me. All I did was explain why it has a name, and what it is, in so far as how it is different from simply "skipping a meal." IF as a practice overall IS more diverse than just, skipping a meal, that is a fact - but okay..I don't believe intermittent fasting has any other benefits besides helping to create a deficit. I know there are certain youtube 'experts' who say it does but there is no solid proof of it. It's just a simple calorie saving tool that has been made complicated in order to make money.
That is fine. Believe whatever you like. There are books and research done on the topic you can read or not - and you could still believe or disbelieve that. It doesn't matter to me. I was simply pointing out that it is not the same thing as your skipping breakfast (because that is disinformation for someone who IS interested in it), and since it has methods and rules, it needs a name to identify it. Also, I disagree that it is made complicated. It is really fairly simple.kshama2001 wrote: »Peer-reviewed long term research in humans? Please provide links.
I think the longest trial I came across on humans (back when I was actually researching the topic) was 1 year.. Most were 3-6 months. However yes they are peer reviewed. I am not going to redo the research to provide links because frankly I don't care if anyone here agrees or disagrees with the health benefits associated to IF. You have google if it is that important to you. This is not an issue of agreeing or disagreeing with ME, my comment was not an argument for or against IF, nor was I sharing my opinions on IF, or promoting the health claims - so I have no reason to attempt to prove anything. I was simply explaining that there are people who do believe in the health claims, and thus weight loss is not the only reason people do it. Further, my material point was that if one wants to do it, they should not be confused by someone saying, "oh that just means you skip breakfast," because that is inaccurate.
0 -
I used to do IF easily pre kids where i maintained my weight at 53 kg. Post kids and i cant wake up in the morning without feeling like im starving in the morning and struggling to maintain at 69 kg, no IF.
I definitely think it helps to keep calories regular, no issues as a woman tbh as window was 16:80 -
Walkywalkerson wrote: »Finding a 'diet' that works for YOU is the most important thing - it's never right for everyone.
I don't understand all the hate and snippy comments surrounding IF on MFP.
I don't understand it either. This is hardly the first time I have seen people make negative comments on the boards about IF. There always seems to be a few people when the topic comes up who appear to have some issue about it.
Nobody ever really says why they take issue with it though, so I find it a mystery.
Inevitably weight loss comes from calorie restriction. If someone wants to use fasting as their method of doing that why is that an issue?neanderthin wrote: »If you weren't such a heretic you wouldn't have got so many dislikes. You need to get your priorities straight.
HAHAHA
2 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »Walkywalkerson wrote: »Finding a 'diet' that works for YOU is the most important thing - it's never right for everyone.
I don't understand all the hate and snippy comments surrounding IF on MFP.
I don't understand it either. This is hardly the first time I have seen people make negative comments on the boards about IF. There always seems to be a few people when the topic comes up who appear to have some issue about it.
Nobody ever really says why they take issue with it though, so I find it a mystery.
Inevitably weight loss comes from calorie restriction. If someone wants to use fasting as their method of doing that why is that an issue?neanderthin wrote: »If you weren't such a heretic you wouldn't have got so many dislikes. You need to get your priorities straight.
HAHAHA
I think the reason people take issue with it is the beliefs (not backed by science in any way, shape, or form by the way) that people have in regards to IF. I've heard everything from that it cures cancer to that it cures infertility to that it extends your life to that you can eat absolutely whatever and how much you want, and you'll never gain weight. We're trying to express that all of these things are, as of now, factually incorrect, regardless of what fasters may believe. Biology really doesn't care what you believe, it's still gonna do its thing.11 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »Walkywalkerson wrote: »Finding a 'diet' that works for YOU is the most important thing - it's never right for everyone.
I don't understand all the hate and snippy comments surrounding IF on MFP.
I don't understand it either. This is hardly the first time I have seen people make negative comments on the boards about IF. There always seems to be a few people when the topic comes up who appear to have some issue about it.
Nobody ever really says why they take issue with it though, so I find it a mystery.
Inevitably weight loss comes from calorie restriction. If someone wants to use fasting as their method of doing that why is that
Let the haters hate- it works for me so I don't really care 😁
I'm 46yrs old with a life time of being on 'diets' this is the first time I've ever felt control over my appetite.
I don't think it's a magic 'diet' I think it helps control calorie intake = winner!
3 -
[/quote]
I think the reason people take issue with it is the beliefs (not backed by science in any way, shape, or form by the way) that people have in regards to IF. I've heard everything from that it cures cancer to that it cures infertility to that it extends your life to that you can eat absolutely whatever and how much you want, and you'll never gain weight. We're trying to express that all of these things are, as of now, factually incorrect, regardless of what fasters may believe. Biology really doesn't care what you believe, it's still gonna do its thing.[/quote]
People choose to hear what they want to suit their own narrative.
Weight loss placebos are everywhere- diets claiming an easy fix without counting calories.
Usually with some 'scientific' bollocks on YouTube to back it up 🙄
IF for most is about appetite control which for me is what helps me lose weight and reduce calories.
Simple CICO for most obese people doesn't work.
If it did then there wouldn't be a 'crisis'
1 -
Walkywalkerson wrote: »
I think the reason people take issue with it is the beliefs (not backed by science in any way, shape, or form by the way) that people have in regards to IF. I've heard everything from that it cures cancer to that it cures infertility to that it extends your life to that you can eat absolutely whatever and how much you want, and you'll never gain weight. We're trying to express that all of these things are, as of now, factually incorrect, regardless of what fasters may believe. Biology really doesn't care what you believe, it's still gonna do its thing.[/quote]
People choose to hear what they want to suit their own narrative.
Weight loss placebos are everywhere- diets claiming an easy fix without counting calories.
Usually with some 'scientific' bollocks on YouTube to back it up 🙄
IF for most is about appetite control which for me is what helps me lose weight and reduce calories.
Simple CICO for most obese people doesn't work.
If it did then there wouldn't be a 'crisis'
[/quote]
I think you're confusing CICO with calorie counting. Calorie counting alone isn't enough often, sure. We need to find strategies to control both sides of the equation and IF can be a good method for some to control the CI side.
Weight-loss will still be determined by CICO, no matter the strategy chosen.
No one here is disputing IF can be a valid strategy for weight control. It's when other claims are thrown about that people start to get a bit more... sensitive 🙂12 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »I think the reason people take issue with it is the beliefs (not backed by science in any way, shape, or form by the way) that people have in regards to IF. I've heard everything from that it cures cancer to that it cures infertility to that it extends your life to that you can eat absolutely whatever and how much you want, and you'll never gain weight. We're trying to express that all of these things are, as of now, factually incorrect, regardless of what fasters may believe. Biology really doesn't care what you believe, it's still gonna do its thing.
In my opinion most of those claims are because weight loss in general has been tied to each one of those things. And they are actually based in science when you consider it in that capacity. Obesity has been linked to cancer, infertility in women and any number of life threatening illnesses which could lead to earlier death. So yes it would be misleading to say IF cures/does these things, but not wrong to say weight loss may cure/fix these things.
Why not just make the clarification, rather than bashing ones method of reaching their a health goal?
And yes, I have come across people in forums and facebook groups who mistakenly think they can eat whatever they want on non fasting times and lose weight, which is of course not true.
What I don't understand is, that is no different than someone counting calories incorrectly. Nobody makes snippy comments about them doing that. They are helpful, and advise them so that they can do it correctly. Why is IF any different? It works to lose weight, when done correctly. So why not just be helpful?sollyn23l2 wrote: »We're trying to express that all of these things are, as of now, factually incorrect, regardless of what fasters may believe.
I haven't actually seen fasters here on the forums making any special health claims.
I do know some believe in certain health claims. But I don't see what they believe as being an issue unless they are telling someone else that "the belief" is a fact. I haven't seen that happening.
3 -
Walkywalkerson wrote: »Let the haters hate- it works for me so I don't really care 😁
I'm 46yrs old with a life time of being on 'diets' this is the first time I've ever felt control over my appetite.
I don't think it's a magic 'diet' I think it helps control calorie intake = winner!
I am happy it is working for you. That IS all that matters.
4 -
[/quote]Walkywalkerson wrote: »
Simple CICO for most obese people doesn't work.
If it did then there wouldn't be a 'crisis'
CICO isnt a diet plan. It's a formula. nothing more nothing less. for losing weight, gaining weight, maintaining weight. The obesity epidemic in this county has far more aspects to it than 'CICO'.
for any of those reasons for controlling calories listed above, a person has to determine how best (for them and their lifestyle) to meet that formula. For me, it's simple calorie counting. I've lost a LOT of weight that way. For others, IF. Still others, Keto, traditional low carb, whatever other diet method they may select. Many cycle through in popularity and come and go. Some work very well with those with certain health concerns or issues. The key is to find the way of eating that works for you, helps you meet your goal, and that you can sustain long term, most likely through maintenance.
I don't have anything against IF. It wouldn't work for me, but that's not the point. I do not believe it has any 'magical' properties- any more so than any other way of eating as a way to help limit the number of calories a person takes in. And that still comes down to the person having the willpower to stay within their calories, at the end of the day.
5 -
I have done IF (technically - not according to the rules because I put dairy in my coffee which 'breaks the fast' per the really crazy people who think IF is magic) in just about every configuration, from OMAD to just skipping breakfast. I've also eaten every 2 hours, eaten 3 meals and 2 snacks a day. What's worked for me has changed as my weight and life/activity have. I haven't exploded. My uterus is fine. My weight loss has stayed consistent the whole way along.
I think a whole lot of people want to be told exactly what to do, and even exactly what to eat. I think that feels easier. I also don't think it's all that useful, overall. What works doesn't just vary by person, but it varies within that person based on a thousand factors.
Try IF. If it works, keep doing IF. If it doesn't or stops working do something else. Nothing here is written in stone. You can change your mind and your tactic any time.6 -
I'm not quoting massive walls of text - but I'd like to respond to those of you that have stated that I'm confused about CICO.
Just to clarify I didn't say it was a diet plan and I am aware that it is a formula.
What I did say is that it is not easy to follow hence the obesity 'crisis'.
And that what works for YOU is the answer not a one size fits all blanket approach.
I don't think IF holds any magic - like I said before it controls my appetite and cravings which are the main reasons I'm overweight.
It works for me.
I don't practice it like a religion, life happens, weekends out happen, pizza and wine happen 🤣
But any way to reduce calories in a way that doesn't feel like torture is fine by me.
3 -
I'm not quoting massive walls of text - but I'd like to respond to those of you that have stated that I'm confused about CICO.
Just to clarify I didn't say it was a diet plan and I am aware that it is a formula.
What I did say is that it is not easy to follow hence the obesity 'crisis'.
sure, CI is more than CO for lots of people, hence the obesity crisis
but your post does seem a confusion about CICO..
CICO isn't something you follow, it is something that happens to everyone, ie CICO determines whether you lose, gain, maintain weight over time regardless of which strategy you follow
Or if you follow any particular strategy at all.
6 -
People are confused because like you said CICO isn't a strategy it's a description of a thermodynamic law, nothing more. I think people in general would like to get beyond that and talk about dieting, just a guess though.3
-
Walkywalkerson wrote: »IF is a way of life that fits into my life style, helps to create a calorie deficit which in turn has helped me lose 39lbs.
The best thing of all for me is that it helps me control my appetite which is what made me fat for most of my adult life.
I feel less bloated and look much better.
There are studies that IF has many other benefits to control diabetes, enhance longevity and a host of other diseases.
I wouldn't know where to begin to find a study to prove it - and quite honestly I don't care.
Finding a 'diet' that works for YOU is the most important thing - it's never right for everyone.
I don't understand all the hate and snippy comments surrounding IF on MFP.
There's no hate towards IF per se. What many of us dislike is claims about benefits that aren't backed up. I commented because someone touted the "benefits" of IF and when I asked for more information was told to google it.
Yeah, that's persuasive.8 -
kshama2001 wrote: »There's no hate towards IF per se. What many of us dislike is claims about benefits that aren't backed up. I commented because someone touted the "benefits" of IF and when I asked for more information was told to google it.
Yeah, that's persuasive.
Good grief. I didn't tout anything. I wasn't attempting to convince anyone of these benefits. I simply mentioned that some people were using IF for the "touted" benefits, and according that system, they would need to know the rules and structure around doing so. That was enough to annoy a number of people. That is kind of my point. If someone IS doing it with those benefits in mind, they'd hardly be received in a very helpful or positive manner since my just mentioning it's existence bothers so many.
And yeah, not persuasive, cause I am not advocating anything, not trying to persuade anyone on anything. Have no interest or intention of doing so.
3 -
paperpudding wrote: »I'm not quoting massive walls of text - but I'd like to respond to those of you that have stated that I'm confused about CICO.
Just to clarify I didn't say it was a diet plan and I am aware that it is a formula.
What I did say is that it is not easy to follow hence the obesity 'crisis'.
sure, CI is more than CO for lots of people, hence the obesity crisis
but your post does seem a confusion about CICO..
CICO isn't something you follow, it is something that happens to everyone, ie CICO determines whether you lose, gain, maintain weight over time regardless of which strategy you follow
Or if you follow any particular strategy at all.
🤣
So what is your point
You're right and I'm wrong?
You do you and stop trolling.
0 -
Walkywalkerson wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I'm not quoting massive walls of text - but I'd like to respond to those of you that have stated that I'm confused about CICO.
Just to clarify I didn't say it was a diet plan and I am aware that it is a formula.
What I did say is that it is not easy to follow hence the obesity 'crisis'.
sure, CI is more than CO for lots of people, hence the obesity crisis
but your post does seem a confusion about CICO..
CICO isn't something you follow, it is something that happens to everyone, ie CICO determines whether you lose, gain, maintain weight over time regardless of which strategy you follow
Or if you follow any particular strategy at all.
🤣
So what is your point
You're right and I'm wrong?
You do you and stop trolling.
*peeks in*
You have absolutely no idea what trolling is, do you?
8 -
Walkywalkerson wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »I'm not quoting massive walls of text - but I'd like to respond to those of you that have stated that I'm confused about CICO.
Just to clarify I didn't say it was a diet plan and I am aware that it is a formula.
What I did say is that it is not easy to follow hence the obesity 'crisis'.
sure, CI is more than CO for lots of people, hence the obesity crisis
but your post does seem a confusion about CICO..
CICO isn't something you follow, it is something that happens to everyone, ie CICO determines whether you lose, gain, maintain weight over time regardless of which strategy you follow
Or if you follow any particular strategy at all.
🤣
So what is your point
You're right and I'm wrong?
You do you and stop trolling.
my point was that you misunderstood what CICO was.
It isnt calorie counting
and It isnt a matter of me doing me - sure, what strategy to achieve the CICO I want is up to me - the strategy would be something I follow (for most of us on MFP, some form of calorie counting, since it is primarily a calorie counting site) but CICO isnt something you follow, it is a basic science equation that happens for everyone, with or without any particular strategy11 -
What kind of intermittent fasting?
16:8? That's a pretty normal eating schedule for many people. I personally don't really consider that fasting.
5:2? I tried it. It worked and it also royaly screwed up my cycle so I had to stop.1 -
ChaoticMoira wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »There's no hate towards IF per se. What many of us dislike is claims about benefits that aren't backed up. I commented because someone touted the "benefits" of IF and when I asked for more information was told to google it.
Yeah, that's persuasive.
Good grief. I didn't tout anything. I wasn't attempting to convince anyone of these benefits. I simply mentioned that some people were using IF for the "touted" benefits, and according that system, they would need to know the rules and structure around doing so. That was enough to annoy a number of people. That is kind of my point. If someone IS doing it with those benefits in mind, they'd hardly be received in a very helpful or positive manner since my just mentioning it's existence bothers so many.
And yeah, not persuasive, cause I am not advocating anything, not trying to persuade anyone on anything. Have no interest or intention of doing so.
Perhaps your intent was something different from what you actually wrote:ChaoticMoira wrote: »I've never understood why not eating in the morning has become this newfound 'diet' with a fancy name. I've been doing it for years because I'm not hungry in the morning and it allows me to save calories. Simple.
Because it is not actually the same thing as simply "skipping a meal". While it does cut calories (as would skipping a meal), many people are doing it for other health benefits (there is plenty of research, articles, and books on this) which requires understanding the difference between simply "skipping a meal" and actually reaching the goal fasting window (which has been mentioned as 12 hours minimum) for the other health benefits. Also because, not all IF is 16:8 (the version you are calling skipping a meal). There are various ways to do IF. With some, one does not eat anything for a whole day, or only has one meal for a day (OMAD). Water fasts, OMAD, and calorie restricted fasts are often done 2 or 3 times a week (5:2 or 4:3). And, some people even Alternate Day Fast.
So the purpose of having a name, is because it is a multifaceted thing which needs an identifier in order to refer to it.3
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