Anonymous wrote:
But there are benefits of fasting, even if 15/16 hours. Eating 9-6 is still plenty of time to eat.
Not saying there aren't benefits, but if you lose weight by "fasting"/skipping a meal then it is all due to reduction in calories not because you didn't eat for 16 hrs. If you you needs 2000 cal to maintain it's current weight then you could eat your those calories in 2 hrs, 8 hr, or 24 hours and guess what you will stay the same weight.
well, yes and no.
Its also like saying calories are calories and it doesn'tmatter what you eat. We know now that's not true and different foods have different effects. Longer periods without food generally correlates to better insulin sensitivity which correlates to less fat storage. it can also help with hunger itself---once you get used to it, you realize that snacking all the time isnot necessary, maybe even adding to your hunger so if overeating is a problem then IF can be good.
many other health benefits accrue from reducing the number of times you eat a day, including/esp autophagy. I think a reasonable approach is that of Dr. Valter Longo, who encourages a 14 hour period (overnight really); a mediterranean diet, and occasional short fasts for autophagy purposes. Fasting essentially halts the production of IFG1, which is a growth signalling hormone--and that causes everything to grow, including tumors. This is why fasting is being studied in cancer patients. That being said, for most people most of the time there's not a huge benefit to fasting 18 hours versus 14. I do IF mainly because I have a low caloric need daily and prefer to get most of my calories in two meals rather than 3 plus a snack, which would limit me to 400 calorie meals.