Intermittent Fasting

Anyone doing intermittent fasting?
«1

Replies

  • bluesheeponahill
    bluesheeponahill Posts: 169 Member
    Yes! I’m doing the 16:8 right now. I stop eating around 6-7pm and I’ve been slowing pushing eating towards 12pm. Some days it works others it doesn’t but still some form of 16 or 18 hour fasts. :)
  • Kupla71
    Kupla71 Posts: 1,566 Member
    Yes. I've been doing 16:8 for about 2 weeks now. It's getting easier. I used to struggle a bit in the evenings even though I had dinner at 7-8pm. I was used to snacking at night so this has eliminated that habit. I haven't lost much weight yet. I'm on the low side of my usual weight range though. I'm going to keep it up for at least another month before I draw any conclusions about whether it's working.
  • lisamerrison
    lisamerrison Posts: 90 Member
    I was thinking about doing this and signed up to a free trial on simple. Which is rubbish. I was also concerned about eating late in the morning because we all know that our metabolism doesn’t kick in until we’ve started eating. Also I feel really sick if I don’t eat in the morning
  • nsk1951
    nsk1951 Posts: 1,304 Member
    That's EXACTLY one of the reasons why I do "IT" .. to let my digestive system get a rest. I've read that it takes many hours for your digestion to complete it's cycle ... Digestion starts in your mouth when you chew the food you are eating, then it continues as it passes through to the stomach and enters the small intestine and the emptying of the large intestine could actually take you into the next day! ... I don't wait around for the digestion to get all the way through but do try to let my stomach get a rest! ...

    I think a lot of people mis-state metabolism when the mean digestion.
  • psuLemon
    psuLemon Posts: 38,431 MFP Moderator
    nsk1951 wrote: »
    That's EXACTLY one of the reasons why I do "IT" .. to let my digestive system get a rest. I've read that it takes many hours for your digestion to complete it's cycle ... Digestion starts in your mouth when you chew the food you are eating, then it continues as it passes through to the stomach and enters the small intestine and the emptying of the large intestine could actually take you into the next day! ... I don't wait around for the digestion to get all the way through but do try to let my stomach get a rest! ...

    I think a lot of people mis-state metabolism when the mean digestion.

    You don't need to "let your digestion" rest. That is a fundamental function of your body. And doing IF means you will generally have larger meals during your feeding window, which takes longer to digest vs smaller more frequent meals.


    OP, I eat two meals a day most days. So i "IF". I do it because i need large meals. But I don't follow a strict feeding, non feeding schedule.
  • Chef_Barbell
    Chef_Barbell Posts: 6,644 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    nsk1951 wrote: »
    That's EXACTLY one of the reasons why I do "IT" .. to let my digestive system get a rest. I've read that it takes many hours for your digestion to complete it's cycle ... Digestion starts in your mouth when you chew the food you are eating, then it continues as it passes through to the stomach and enters the small intestine and the emptying of the large intestine could actually take you into the next day! ... I don't wait around for the digestion to get all the way through but do try to let my stomach get a rest! ...

    I think a lot of people mis-state metabolism when the mean digestion.

    You don't need to "let your digestion" rest. That is a fundamental function of your body. And doing IF means you will generally have larger meals during your feeding window, which takes longer to digest vs smaller more frequent meals.


    OP, I eat two meals a day most days. So i "IF". I do it because i need large meals. But I don't follow a strict feeding, non feeding schedule.

    This is for me too... I prefer larger meals to feel full for a long time. I never subscribed to any added benefits from eating this way except being able to control my calories better. 🤷‍♀️

  • azuki84
    azuki84 Posts: 212 Member
    edited September 2022
    done both. can't do IF anymore because i rather not eat 2600-3000 in 2 separate sessions, rather just eat 500-600 5 times a day
  • Am trying the IF but its hard I swear with my shifts 7am to 3 pm , 8:30am to 5pm, 2pm to 10pm and have 2 kids traveling to school and after school there at work with me its ruff hard to keep up
  • driganezis
    driganezis Posts: 15 Member
    Yes, i am doing the 16/8 module for about 43 weeks now. IF helped me a lot to maintain my slightly calorie deficit (350 cals) without difficulty, in order to loose about 0,35kg per week. Till now i have lost 15kg and 16cm in my waist circumference.
  • spygirl2014
    spygirl2014 Posts: 53 Member
    As a way of controlling my eating window and perhaps shining a light on WHAT I eat, I've found occasional fasting helpful. I'm not strict about following a so many days per week schedule though. I think it will be a good tool for maintenance after I get to GW. That's what it is though-- a tool. Not for everyone, but if it works for you without creating stress, add it to the toolbox.
  • Cinder333
    Cinder333 Posts: 39 Member
    I did intermittent fasting for about a month and lost 6 pounds without trying. I was doing a 16:8 window. I actually found it to be the easiest thing I have tried. I stopped doing it because I had an illness, but I am starting back up today. I felt so much better when I was doing it, but I know it isn't for everyone. Also, for me I think the 6 pounds (now 4 because I gained 2 back when I quit) was probably about the max I will lose without now looking at calories. My plan is to do the fasting again while also tracking my calories. For me I think (hope) it will be easier to eat at a deficit during a smaller window.

    My biggest issue BY FAR is a terrible Cherry Coke habit. That is what I really need to fix.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,263 Member
    edited October 2022
    Agreed with above. Our metabolism is always
    JBanx256 wrote: »
    we all know that our metabolism doesn’t kick in until we’ve started eating.

    The definition of metabolism is: the chemical processes that occur within a living organism in order to maintain life.

    If your metabolism were to stop, you'd die. Immediately. It doesn't "kick in" at any particular time; it's constant, 24/7/365 functions going on inside your body, every second of every day, until you kick the bucket. Full stop. Fasting does not change that one iota.



    Maybe "kick in" was meant to mean metabolic rate "increases" which it does through the thermic effect of food which also increases body temp and breathing.
  • I've been doing IF on and off for a number of years. When I'm on, I find that I get tons of energy, more focus, and more drive. I do lose a lot of weight, too, but that's not really why I do it.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,349 Member
    nsk1951 wrote: »
    That's EXACTLY one of the reasons why I do "IT" .. to let my digestive system get a rest. I've read that it takes many hours for your digestion to complete it's cycle ... Digestion starts in your mouth when you chew the food you are eating, then it continues as it passes through to the stomach and enters the small intestine and the emptying of the large intestine could actually take you into the next day! ... I don't wait around for the digestion to get all the way through but do try to let my stomach get a rest! ...

    I think a lot of people mis-state metabolism when the mean digestion.

    And the rest - full digestion takes up to 36 hours.

    8ctratxo99fw.png
  • Kupla71
    Kupla71 Posts: 1,566 Member
    I've been doing IF for about 2 months now. I eat between noon and 8pm and then fast till noon. So basically I don't eat after dinner and I skip breakfast. It's been working rather well for me. I think the biggest help is not snacking at night. That used to pile on the calories. I am keeping my calories in check while doing IF.

    IF was recommended by my dietician. I asked her if people lose weight only because they eat fewer calories or is there actually something about the fasting itself that helps people lose weight. She said that there's actually something about the fasting that seems to help in addition to the lower amount of calories that is usually consumed. She explained the mechanism that gets triggered but I can't remember it.

    In any case I have had good results with IF. I was just trying to restrict calories before and I was having a hard time with it. I think what I like about IF is it allow me to feel full during the day which is a welcome feeling and also reminds me what hunger feels like when I'm fasting. Before I would always have a kind of unsatisfied feeling. Not full. Not hungry. I kind of forgot what full and hungry felt like. I like having the 2 sensations.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,869 Member
    Kupla71 wrote: »
    IF was recommended by my dietician. I asked her if people lose weight only because they eat fewer calories or is there actually something about the fasting itself that helps people lose weight. She said that there's actually something about the fasting that seems to help in addition to the lower amount of calories that is usually consumed. She explained the mechanism that gets triggered but I can't remember it.
    You lose weight because of calorie deficit. Longer fasting periods runs the risk of losing more muscle mass than a non-IF calorie restricted plan.

    Scientists from the University of Bath in the United Kingdom recently headed an international collaboration between research institutions in the U.K., Switzerland, and Taiwan to conduct a study investigating the specific effects of intermittent fasting.

    Echoing previous research, the team’s findings suggest that alternate-day fasting and daily energy restriction are similarly effective for weight loss.

    However, while weight loss from daily energy restriction mostly came from reducing body fat, for those who were fasting, just half of the total weight loss came from body fat. The other half came from fat-free mass.


    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/intermittent-fasting-no-better-than-calorie-restriction-for-weight-loss
  • BartBVanBockstaele
    BartBVanBockstaele Posts: 623 Member
    Anyone doing intermittent fasting?
    A few years ago, I tried that for a few days. It made me quite ill very fast. I stopped after a few days and bore the consequences for quite a bit longer. Aside from that, I find it needlessly complicates matters. I track my calories, which is easy to do, and then adapt how much I consume to the weight loss I see by standing on the scale and taking into account that weight varies naturally by looking at longer periods of time while recording at least daily so I can look at sliding periods of time.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,263 Member
    edited October 2022
    Kupla71 wrote: »
    IF was recommended by my dietician. I asked her if people lose weight only because they eat fewer calories or is there actually something about the fasting itself that helps people lose weight. She said that there's actually something about the fasting that seems to help in addition to the lower amount of calories that is usually consumed. She explained the mechanism that gets triggered but I can't remember it.
    You lose weight because of calorie deficit. Longer fasting periods runs the risk of losing more muscle mass than a non-IF calorie restricted plan.

    Scientists from the University of Bath in the United Kingdom recently headed an international collaboration between research institutions in the U.K., Switzerland, and Taiwan to conduct a study investigating the specific effects of intermittent fasting.

    Echoing previous research, the team’s findings suggest that alternate-day fasting and daily energy restriction are similarly effective for weight loss.

    However, while weight loss from daily energy restriction mostly came from reducing body fat, for those who were fasting, just half of the total weight loss came from body fat. The other half came from fat-free mass.


    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/intermittent-fasting-no-better-than-calorie-restriction-for-weight-loss

    Intermittent versus daily calorie restriction: which diet regimen is more effective for weight loss?

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1467-789X.2011.00873.x

    These findings suggest that these diets are equally as effective in decreasing body weight and fat mass, although intermittent CR may be more effective for the retention of lean mass.

    For me Time Restricted Eating is about health and not weight loss.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,869 Member
    ^ That is a much older review (2011). Note it says:

    "Body composition changes were only assessed in four of the intermittent CR trials included in this review."

    "To date, there are no moderate-term trials (13 to 24 weeks) of intermittent CR, so no comparisons between diets could be made for longer intervention periods."

    "It is important to note, however, that comparing values for fat mass and fat free mass between studies is difficult as different techniques were employed to assess these parameters. More specifically, the majority of daily CR trials implemented dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while the majority of intermittent CR trials employed bioelectrical impedance analysis. It is well known that DXA and MRI are vastly more accurate techniques for the assessment of fat mass and fat free mass when compared to bioelectrical impedance analysis."
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,263 Member
    ^ That is a much older review (2011). Note it says:

    "Body composition changes were only assessed in four of the intermittent CR trials included in this review."

    "To date, there are no moderate-term trials (13 to 24 weeks) of intermittent CR, so no comparisons between diets could be made for longer intervention periods."

    "It is important to note, however, that comparing values for fat mass and fat free mass between studies is difficult as different techniques were employed to assess these parameters. More specifically, the majority of daily CR trials implemented dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while the majority of intermittent CR trials employed bioelectrical impedance analysis. It is well known that DXA and MRI are vastly more accurate techniques for the assessment of fat mass and fat free mass when compared to bioelectrical impedance analysis."

    I agree that BIA is generally not as reliable. That's not to say that the differences found were inaccurate in the comparable results, only that DXA and MRI would have possibly been more accurate to find the exact base line to start with. If a study had 2 groups using different methods comparing CR with TRF then that would not be comparable but if the groups were using the same methodology, then the differences would/could be used, lets not throw out the baby with the bath water. Like I said I get your point and I agree that BIA generally is not as accurate. Cheers
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,263 Member
    edited October 2022
    You bring up a good point.


    If a study was performed by a group of scientists comparing CR with IF/TRF and used different methods ie: DXA for CR and BIA for IF then that isn't comparable or honest in the least and it's been known that the two methods generate different results, then that would/should have been found pretty quickly when peer reviewed exposing that variation in the results, I mean any scientist worth their salt would have seen that immediately, or at least you think they would have. I'm sure those comparisons aren't happening, just a thought if it was. Cheers.
  • Retroguy2000
    Retroguy2000 Posts: 1,869 Member
    edited October 2022
    @neanderthin

    Just to clarify, I'm not anti-IF. If people find that IF with calorie deficit works for them, great. I've done short term IF myself often, up to 16 hour fasts.

    I know for myself that longer term fasts wouldn't work for me, including because I want to have enough energy for my workouts. I also don't want to take the risk of losing more muscle mass.

    Ann has commented here before too that older people benefit from more frequent protein intake, which is something else to consider for people considering longer term fasts.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 10,263 Member
    edited October 2022
    @neanderthin

    Just to clarify, I'm not anti-IF. If people find that IF with calorie deficit works for them, great. I've done short term IF myself often, up to 16 hour fasts.

    I know for myself that longer term fasts wouldn't work for me, including because I want to have enough energy for my workouts. I also don't want to take the risk of losing more muscle mass.

    Ann has commented here before too that older people benefit from more frequent protein intake, which is something else to consider for people considering longer term fasts.

    Right, thanks for your personal thoughts on the subject.

    Yeah, I'm not an advocate for pretty much all fasting that isn't within a 24-hour cycle and in tandem with our circadian rhythm which work together, so any longer-term fasting isn't something I would be interested in for similar reasons you have or Ann. I find the health improvements from just time restricted feeding TRF to be my preference and when I talk about this subject that is my focus. Cheers.

    EDIT: I'm not an advocate of OMAD (one meal a day) either, just for clarification.