Intermittent Fasting
ShowingUp4me
Posts: 11 Member
Replies
-
Yes, only been 4 weeks, so still figuring out what works for me. With my work schedule, I do 20:4 on weekdays and 16:8 (or 18:6 depending on activities) on weekends. Losing about a pound per week which works for me so far. I’m still researching though, lots of info out there.6
-
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.
4 -
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.1
-
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 morning2
-
lisamerrison wrote: »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
That is untrue.9 -
lisamerrison wrote: »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
If you feel sick if you don't eat in the morning, that's an excellent reason not to do OMAD, IMO.
But if your metabolism doesn't kick in, you're dead, essentially. Metabolism runs all the time. It's probably not exactly even every minute of every day, but it tends to be a sort of steady-ish caloric foundation with daily life activity and exercise much more peak-and-valley on top of that base.
Sure, there's a bit of a perk up in calories burned by the digestive process after eating, but that's far from "metabolism doesn't kick in until we've started eating". If you're breathing, thinking, heart is beating, and that sort of thing, your metabolism is clicking along, burning calories . . . even when you're asleep.10 -
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.4 -
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.3 -
I lost almost 40 pounds last year doing IF 12:12.8
-
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. 🤷♀️
2 -
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 day2
-
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 up0
-
I lost most of the 72 lbs I lost doing IF. I always feel better when I’m doing it. Good luck!8
-
lisamerrison 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.
7 -
Hi everyone 🌺
My name is Gabby, 48 years old. I was fat, 83kg & 163 cm. I was depressed,sad most of the time.
I have been on intermittent fasting since February. After 12 weeks I have lost 19 kg. My weight is 64 kg and my life is changed now.
Lunch - 12.30 pm
Snack- 14.30 pm
Dinner - 17.30.
Intermittent fasting gave me a nice skin, more energy ,less weight and happiness. It was easy for me because I am not hungry during the morning. Intermittent fasting is not for the people who can not skip the breakfast.
Fell free to add me, I will be happy to share my experience with anyone 🌺18 -
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.2
-
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.3
-
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.3 -
Agreed with above. Our metabolism is alwayslisamerrison 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.0 -
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.3
-
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.
1 -
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.3 -
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.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.
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-loss1 -
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.ShowingUp4me wrote: »Anyone doing intermittent fasting?1 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »
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.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.
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.1 -
^ 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."0 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »^ 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. Cheers0 -
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.0 -
@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.0 -
Retroguy2000 wrote: »@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.1
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