Intermitteant Fasting 20/4

Options
runwayreborn
runwayreborn Posts: 4 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
I have been doing IF about for two years but it has some setback about occasionl overeating. I'm wondering if anyone has expereinces of both eating the same amount of food regulary and intermiteetantly and see which one has a better result of losing weight?

Replies

  • sijomial
    sijomial Posts: 19,811 Member
    Options
    My weight tracks my average calorie balance whether I eat in a 5:2, 16:8 or 3 meals and 3 snacks a day style.

    5:2 allowed me to stick to my weight loss calories easier than daily calorie restriction and had some benefits with most of my exercise being fully fuelled. (Also tried 6:1 at goal weight but no real benefit in terms of compliance with a weekly goal.)

    Strict 16:8 made sticking to my weight maintenance calories feel very restrictive. Irritated the hell out of me TBH!
    Also clashed with some of my exercise fuelling needs.

    16:8 on days when it suits me and eating "normally" when it suits me feels far more natural but still allows me to eat the majority of my calories in the evening which is my preference as well as tailoring my intake timing to suit my longer duration exercise.
  • runwayreborn
    runwayreborn Posts: 4 Member
    Options
    I agree that it's all about math between in and out and the ptifall of longer fasting is overesting. But still I'm losing weight each week and am afraid of eating reguarly. I feel also sticking to IF restrictive in many ways; not only food but exercise or other daily routine focused on fasting rather than living fully if you know what I meant.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 33,963 Member
    Options
    runwayreborn wrote: »
    I agree that it's all about math between in and out and the ptifall of longer fasting is overesting. But still I'm losing weight each week and am afraid of eating reguarly. I feel also sticking to IF restrictive in many ways; not only food but exercise or other daily routine focused on fasting rather than living fully if you know what I meant.

    Well, that is a psychological block, because there is no science whatsoever behind 20/4 being a significantly "better" way to eat for weight loss.

    Eat the way (on the schedule) that you like to eat. Three meals a day, spaced out for three to six hours in between is the way I grew up and the way I still find the easiest. Some days I have a snack in the middle of the day, some days I have dessert after dinner. . .it's all about the calorie numbers, full stop. If I am eating Enough with my meals, I'm fine. If I'm not, I tend to over-eat on one of them.
  • MikePfirrman
    MikePfirrman Posts: 3,307 Member
    Options
    I do fasting everyday just because of CICO. Honestly, I believed that
    CICO was all that mattered.

    But last year, I was been told (in language that I can't quite understand) by some very smart folks -- one that runs the top cancer research center in North America -- how important fasting is in resetting your metabolic pathways. I would trust his opinion because I know some of the work he's doing -- he's inventing metabolomic analytical tools which, in real time, can monitor changes at a cellular level (and in your microbiome) based on what you feed it and do to it, in order to make treatments more effective. Things that had never been done before.

    I don't know that 20 hours is important. I'd say anything over 12, like 16, is sufficient. But I also believe weight loss still primarily comes from CICO.
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,902 Member
    Options
    runwayreborn wrote: »
    I agree that it's all about math between in and out and the ptifall of longer fasting is overeating. But still I'm losing weight each week and am afraid of eating reguarly. I feel also sticking to IF restrictive in many ways; not only food but exercise or other daily routine focused on fasting rather than living fully if you know what I meant.

    I lose weight just fine on 12:12. I get heartburn with big meals. Yesterday I had seven small meals/snacks. 6-7 is typical for me.

    I just need to focus on the types of food that fill me up the best for the least calories and most enjoyment.
  • Derf_Smeggle
    Derf_Smeggle Posts: 611 Member
    Options
    I've been practicing IF/TRF off and on for a few years. Over the past 6 months, I restarted doing 16/8. In the last 6 weeks, or so, I've been on the 20/4 schedule. I'm flexible with it. Usually, once a week I'm closer to 16/8, poor whatever I'm comfortable with for that day.

    I don't practice for weight loss, but for the proposed benefits to cardiovascular health, neuroplasticity, and other gene expressions related to quality of life. Anecdotally, I've seen my cholesterol drop while actively practicing.

    The current science suggests that IF is no more effective for weight loss than other methods when calorie intake is controlled. People separated into groups, IF and control, on a 1500 calorie intake all lost the same percentages of weight. Some people find IF helps them maintain their calorie restriction.

    I'm eating between a 500-750 net calorie deficit each day on top of practicing IF. Over three months I've dropped roughly 20 pounds. I'm on target to be down 24 pounds by end of month 4.
  • Walkywalkerson
    Walkywalkerson Posts: 453 Member
    Options
    I'm a fan of IF - it makes it easier for me to control my calories and it fits in with my lifestyle.
    I play around with 20/4 and 16/8 and have a day sometimes 2 days off over the weekend depending on my plans.
    My weightloss has been much better with 20/4 as it helps me eat less calories throughout the day and I enjoy having a big meal of pretty much whatever I fancy.
    Eating 3 meals a day plus snacks doesn't work for me at all - I usually overeat and stay constantly hungry throughout the day.

Categories