intermittent fasting

[Anonymous]

Seriously 50lbs of baby fat? Even if you had quadruplets, there is nothing baby fat about that. The whole country is living in some delusional world where 22kg is baby fat. My OB in Europe would yell at me if I gained 22 kg during my pregnancy and say that I am putting my unborn child at risk.

[Anonymous]

There is a big difference between IF and eating disorders. Maybe the PP who is disbelieving had an anorexic family member and cannot see or hear beyond the disorder eating she is familiar with. This is not that.

This is about addressing insulin resistance through managing the timing of eating. That in combination with good eating can result in improved health and weight outcomes.

The guidance to eat less, move more and eat small amounts around the clock does not work for everyone and it is beyond imbecilic to insist you know all the answers for everyone.

[Anonymous]

What is great about fasting is that it is healthy for you, but might not be the best weight loss tool. It builds up AGE which is very beneficial to our bodies. Even Drs who are against fasting as a weight loss tend to agree that it has health benefits for certain health conditions. For losing weight the benefit, imo, is that it might make it easier to say no to food, rather than becoming some starving monk on Mount Sinai or similar. People who have tried it will attest that you are actually not hungry after 24 hours of fasting. I am not sure if there is much health benefit for 16:8. But, if you have insulin issues and are not yet on insulin shots it might save you from becoming diabetic. That is what I have learned from my research about it and trying it on and off. It is improving my muscle aches and headaches and breathing issues. But, to each their own. For people going on and on about it being a disorder, it might only be a disorder if a person already has eating issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

It really is not. And by far out society does not condone this at all, that is a false statement. In fact our society condones just the opposite non stop eating and snacking, how is that not messed up? What is disordered is eating non stop, humans are not meant to eat this much at all. I wonder why is it hard for you to even contemplate educating yourself a little about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

It really is not. And by far out society does not condone this at all, that is a false statement. In fact our society condones just the opposite non stop eating and snacking, how is that not messed up? What is disordered is eating non stop, humans are not meant to eat this much at all. I wonder why is it hard for you to even contemplate educating yourself a little about it?

DP. Anecdotally, I know of a few people who have done IF and have regretted it, because their metabolism changed for the worse. I also know people who have done Atkins (years ago) and keto (more recently), some with success and most not. Sure, some people do better with frequent smaller meals and others do better with larger meals. Too many calories, though, whether spread out through the day or consolidated, are too many calories. Both IF and keto/low carb are really different ways to suppress appetite, allowing a person to more easily eat less overall. Both of them can work for some people and be harmful for others. And in the end, if someone is modifying their diet to lose weight, then a maintenance diet will be different than the weight loss diet. Keto, IF, low carb, whatever, are not long-term, sustainable, forever diets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

It really is not. And by far out society does not condone this at all, that is a false statement. In fact our society condones just the opposite non stop eating and snacking, how is that not messed up? What is disordered is eating non stop, humans are not meant to eat this much at all. I wonder why is it hard for you to even contemplate educating yourself a little about it?

DP. Anecdotally, I know of a few people who have done IF and have regretted it, because their metabolism changed for the worse. I also know people who have done Atkins (years ago) and keto (more recently), some with success and most not. Sure, some people do better with frequent smaller meals and others do better with larger meals. Too many calories, though, whether spread out through the day or consolidated, are too many calories. Both IF and keto/low carb are really different ways to suppress appetite, allowing a person to more easily eat less overall. Both of them can work for some people and be harmful for others. And in the end, if someone is modifying their diet to lose weight, then a maintenance diet will be different than the weight loss diet. Keto, IF, low carb, whatever, are not long-term, sustainable, forever diets.

PP you replied to. Finally someone with some common sense. Yes, they are weight loss tools, and people need to figure out what works for them if they wish to lose weight. None are meant to be used for years and years and as a life style. Eating healthy and in moderation, with some physical activity should be a health goal for all.

[Anonymous]

Just to chime in on maintenance - I believe IF recommends 5:2 for weight loss and 6:1 for maintenance. So once you reach your goal, you fast one day a week and only eat 500 cals that day (or 600 for males).

The 5:2 plan has been really helpful for me. I spent a full year eating nutritious meals, moderate amounts, not losing a pound of weight after my last child was born. Once I started IF and fasted two days a week, the weight melted off. I’m almost at my goal (fitting into my regular pre-kids clothing) and couldn’t be happier.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

It really is not. And by far out society does not condone this at all, that is a false statement. In fact our society condones just the opposite non stop eating and snacking, how is that not messed up? What is disordered is eating non stop, humans are not meant to eat this much at all. I wonder why is it hard for you to even contemplate educating yourself a little about it?

DP. Anecdotally, I know of a few people who have done IF and have regretted it, because their metabolism changed for the worse. I also know people who have done Atkins (years ago) and keto (more recently), some with success and most not. Sure, some people do better with frequent smaller meals and others do better with larger meals. Too many calories, though, whether spread out through the day or consolidated, are too many calories. Both IF and keto/low carb are really different ways to suppress appetite, allowing a person to more easily eat less overall. Both of them can work for some people and be harmful for others. And in the end, if someone is modifying their diet to lose weight, then a maintenance diet will be different than the weight loss diet. Keto, IF, low carb, whatever, are not long-term, sustainable, forever diets.

PP you replied to. Finally someone with some common sense. Yes, they are weight loss tools, and people need to figure out what works for them if they wish to lose weight. None are meant to be used for years and years and as a life style. Eating healthy and in moderation, with some physical activity should be a health goal for all.

I'lm the pp who used the phenomenally disordered language, and I agree wholeheartedly.

[Anonymous]

Why is IF not sustainable? Between getting everyone ready for the day and morning meetings, 12 noon is perfect time to start my meal. I don't feel hungry before that. I have plenty of tea and coffee. Eating breakfast has me starving by mid morning.

And if some people want to eat low carb or gluten free or vegetarian or vegan, and it works for them, who are we to declare it is not sustainable????

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is great about fasting is that it is healthy for you, but might not be the best weight loss tool. It builds up AGE which is very beneficial to our bodies. Even Drs who are against fasting as a weight loss tend to agree that it has health benefits for certain health conditions. For losing weight the benefit, imo, is that it might make it easier to say no to food, rather than becoming some starving monk on Mount Sinai or similar. People who have tried it will attest that you are actually not hungry after 24 hours of fasting. I am not sure if there is much health benefit for 16:8. But, if you have insulin issues and are not yet on insulin shots it might save you from becoming diabetic. That is what I have learned from my research about it and trying it on and off. It is improving my muscle aches and headaches and breathing issues. But, to each their own. For people going on and on about it being a disorder, it might only be a disorder if a person already has eating issues.

This is interesting to hear. I've been doing 16:8 for 2 weeks now and the scale hasn't budged at all. I guess I'm not really eating fewer calories, I'm just eating them within a shortened period of time.

[Anonymous]

I wanted to thank OP and all the folks who responded to this. I have so, so much weight to lose and traditional "reducing" has made me kind of crazy. I can literally only lose weight while I’m pregnant (not because I’m trying to; I’m huge and whatever metabolic changes occur in pregnancy make me lose weight). In the month I’ve been doing 16:8, I’ve lost three inches off my waist, and my shape is slightly different overall.

I have so many pounds to go and it might cease working as a weight loss tool, but the idea that I might thwart diabetes is amazing. So thanks all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why is IF not sustainable? Between getting everyone ready for the day and morning meetings, 12 noon is perfect time to start my meal. I don't feel hungry before that. I have plenty of tea and coffee. Eating breakfast has me starving by mid morning.

And if some people want to eat low carb or gluten free or vegetarian or vegan, and it works for them, who are we to declare it is not sustainable????

I've been doing 5:2 for three weeks, and it's sustainable like nothing I've tried before. The fast days are, obviously, very uncomplicated--a small lunch and dinner. On nonfast days, I'm *finally* eating what everyone else is eating, just in smaller portions so I can meet my TEED of 1500 calories.

If I were on one of my usual diets, I'd be counting the days, but the time with this plan is just flying by. I have about 3 lbs to go til I go on maintenance (one 500-calorie day).

I absolutely can live with this plan.

[Anonymous]

I've been doing some reading about 16:8 and it seems like it could really work for me. I'm a terrible breakfast eater so rather than eating whatever junky carb I usually eat to check the breakfast box, I think I could make do with iced green tea or coffee (unsweetened) until lunch at the office, then eat lunch/snack/dinner/snack & done by 8 p.m.

Folks who have followed the 16:8 plan, do you do it 7 days a week from the beginning or start with maybe just week days and build up?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wanted to thank OP and all the folks who responded to this. I have so, so much weight to lose and traditional "reducing" has made me kind of crazy. I can literally only lose weight while I’m pregnant (not because I’m trying to; I’m huge and whatever metabolic changes occur in pregnancy make me lose weight). In the month I’ve been doing 16:8, I’ve lost three inches off my waist, and my shape is slightly different overall.

I have so many pounds to go and it might cease working as a weight loss tool, but the idea that I might thwart diabetes is amazing. So thanks all.

You and I are so similar - I always lost weight when pregnant and my face and everything looked so much thinner, but the rest of the time trying to focus on eating all clean (no change to weight), adding in exercise (just hungrier), anything else = obsessing about food.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

It really is not. And by far out society does not condone this at all, that is a false statement. In fact our society condones just the opposite non stop eating and snacking, how is that not messed up? What is disordered is eating non stop, humans are not meant to eat this much at all. I wonder why is it hard for you to even contemplate educating yourself a little about it?

DP. Anecdotally, I know of a few people who have done IF and have regretted it, because their metabolism changed for the worse. I also know people who have done Atkins (years ago) and keto (more recently), some with success and most not. Sure, some people do better with frequent smaller meals and others do better with larger meals. Too many calories, though, whether spread out through the day or consolidated, are too many calories. Both IF and keto/low carb are really different ways to suppress appetite, allowing a person to more easily eat less overall. Both of them can work for some people and be harmful for others. And in the end, if someone is modifying their diet to lose weight, then a maintenance diet will be different than the weight loss diet. Keto, IF, low carb, whatever, are not long-term, sustainable, forever diets.

PP you replied to. Finally someone with some common sense. Yes, they are weight loss tools, and people need to figure out what works for them if they wish to lose weight. None are meant to be used for years and years and as a life style. Eating healthy and in moderation, with some physical activity should be a health goal for all.

Actually, real doctors , not just a fools on the internet would disagree with you. Great Ted Talk on the subject. You can also look at through a number of tudies the NIH puts out on this topic. Or you can just carry on in blissful ignorance. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other.

https://youtu.be/4UkZAwKoCP8