How is IF different then anorexia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP ~ if you have concerns, don't do it. You need to learn how to be your best self. Focus on that.

Op here- it’s not for me. I eat good things when I’m hungry. My step daughter wants us to adopt this for her approach to eating. I actually asked because I wanted folks to show me how it was different. I want to not project my issues on to her.
I ordered the obesity code & will read it.

Why does she want to do IF? If she’s at a healthy weight, it would send up red flags for me, too. She must have given you some reason she wants to do it. I agree that you should tread lightly because you obviously are super triggered by the entire concept of IF. PS I discussed it with my endo, who said it was fine for me to experiment with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes- everyone has rules. But if the rules are ‘don’t eat’ that’s a disorder

This is a stretch here. You could also say the rule for IF is “eat later”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP ~ if you have concerns, don't do it. You need to learn how to be your best self. Focus on that.

Op here- it’s not for me. I eat good things when I’m hungry. My step daughter wants us to adopt this for her approach to eating. I actually asked because I wanted folks to show me how it was different. I want to not project my issues on to her.
I ordered the obesity code & will read it.

How old is she?
I would tread lightly. First you’re a step. Second you have a lot of issues surrounding food.

[Anonymous]

Most people do ok on IF. Some lose weight, some don't. A few get quite sick, including me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anorexia is a serious mental heath disorder. Fasting for health/wellness/spirituality has been done since the beginning of time (see Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, etc).

Most people wash their hands for health and safety reasons. Some people with a mental health disorder wash their hands compusivley.

Compulsive behavior resulting from mental disease is completely different from a voluntary behavior to improve health or wellness.

Excellent description.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP ~ if you have concerns, don't do it. You need to learn how to be your best self. Focus on that.

Op here- it’s not for me. I eat good things when I’m hungry. My step daughter wants us to adopt this for her approach to eating. I actually asked because I wanted folks to show me how it was different. I want to not project my issues on to her.
I ordered the obesity code & will read it.

How old is she?
I would tread lightly. First you’re a step. Second you have a lot of issues surrounding food.

There are lots of flavors of IF. Some people restrict eating on 2-3 days a week. Others simple create an 8-10 hr eating window each day and don’t eat outside that. Would you find it acceptable if she said she would eat 8:30-6:30 pm daily?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

I actually feel that my experience with IF is more that it started out with a rule (as lifestyle changes often do), but now it is second nature, unlike other diet alternatives. IF basically showed me that I'm better off eating from 12-8pm usually. It's not something I consciously have to do anymore, it simply is just eating my first meal of the day when I get hungry (which is usually around lunch time.) I'm not sure if people have the impression that most IF followers are staring at the clock, waiting for the seconds to tick down to the opening of their window... but that's not the case for me. If I was actually hungry and it was a difficult feat to wait until a certain time every single day, I absolutely would not do it. And that's the biggest difference between IF and everything else that might be out there, because it's not actually a choice I have to force myself to make. So basically, in order to take away the stigma, I should just stop labeling it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

I actually feel that my experience with IF is more that it started out with a rule (as lifestyle changes often do), but now it is second nature, unlike other diet alternatives. IF basically showed me that I'm better off eating from 12-8pm usually. It's not something I consciously have to do anymore, it simply is just eating my first meal of the day when I get hungry (which is usually around lunch time.) I'm not sure if people have the impression that most IF followers are staring at the clock, waiting for the seconds to tick down to the opening of their window... but that's not the case for me. If I was actually hungry and it was a difficult feat to wait until a certain time every single day, I absolutely would not do it. And that's the biggest difference between IF and everything else that might be out there, because it's not actually a choice I have to force myself to make. So basically, in order to take away the stigma, I should just stop labeling it.

OOPS I am the last PP here, but NOT the keto person. I'm just a regular person (no keto, vegetarian, etc.) who eats from about 12-8 most days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

People are getting defensive because you are claiming that everyone is as disordered as you are if they pay attention to their eating at all. It is offensive and, yes, you seem obtuse. Because your eating rules are destructive and unhealthy, you refuse to see that some “rules,” like no snacking between meals or no eating after 7 pm, can be helpful AND healthful for people like me who have struggled with weight gain and insulin resistance. I have lost weight doing IF and i feel fine when I eat this way. I still eat about 1300-1400 calories a day and have energy to work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

People are getting defensive because you are claiming that everyone is as disordered as you are if they pay attention to their eating at all. It is offensive and, yes, you seem obtuse. Because your eating rules are destructive and unhealthy, you refuse to see that some “rules,” like no snacking between meals or no eating after 7 pm, can be helpful AND healthful for people like me who have struggled with weight gain and insulin resistance. I have lost weight doing IF and i feel fine when I eat this way. I still eat about 1300-1400 calories a day and have energy to work out.

Yeah... no. I really have no eating "rules," other than the habits I've built over time in trying to eat what makes me feel good and gives me energy for workouts, life, etc. That's the first time on this thread I've said anything about how I eat, so I'm not sure where you're getting the bolded from. Oh, right, you're projecting.

(FWIW, the earlier PP who said IF started out as a rule for her but is now just habit sounds totally reasonable. It makes sense that what she does works for her, and she's not defense about it. No issue there.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

People are getting defensive because you are claiming that everyone is as disordered as you are if they pay attention to their eating at all. It is offensive and, yes, you seem obtuse. Because your eating rules are destructive and unhealthy, you refuse to see that some “rules,” like no snacking between meals or no eating after 7 pm, can be helpful AND healthful for people like me who have struggled with weight gain and insulin resistance. I have lost weight doing IF and i feel fine when I eat this way. I still eat about 1300-1400 calories a day and have energy to work out.

I agree with this. Even the title is inflammatory.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I actually find it more shocking that people are so uncomfortable with something as simple as skipping breakfast. Is it completely unfathomable to you that some people just don't get as hungry in between meals? It does not matter if you are eating small, frequent meals or larger, less frequent meals. If you are taking in the right amount of calories and nutrients, you're good to go. It is amazing to me that people want to label that disordered. Are you assuming that people doing IF are severely restricting calories or something?

I couldn't care less if people skip breakfast. It's creating rules around it that strikes me as problematic. If you're not hungry for breakfast, then don't eat it. But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry. If they were, they wouldn't need to label their eating with anything. They'd just eat when they're hungry. That's not IF.

People who are on keto diet (like me) are not naturally hungry in the morning, or ever, at least not to the same extent as people who can only efficiently burn carbs.

So I don't specifically do IF, but what I end up doing is IF.

BTW, I don't think 'rules' are problematic. I think the American way of an eating free for all is problematic/disordered. French people, for example, are sticklers for rules around food. As a rule, they don't snack between meals. They don't eat lunch at their desk. They don't drink their calories; they mostly drink water (and sure some wine). It doesn't mean they have eating disorders.

No. What you end up doing is *eating when you're hungry* (and also on a fairly restrictive diet, which keto is).

It strikes me, in these myriads threads on IF that have suddenly popped up, that the pro-IF crowd is very black and white on this issue. You either "get it" or you're "obtuse." And yet, it's not an all or nothing thing. People can have disordered thoughts around food ("cheat meals") and still not have full blown anorexia or bulimia, to the extent that they require inpatient treatment. The frank unwillingness to see the other side at all is problematic. I understand the IF mentality because I used to restrict my eating. I completely get the appeal: so much less to think about around food, in some ways. This one big rule and that's it. Easy, peasy. That so many people get SO defensive when folks say, hey, isn't that kind of restrictive, belies the supposed peace with food they claim IF brings.

People are getting defensive because you are claiming that everyone is as disordered as you are if they pay attention to their eating at all. It is offensive and, yes, you seem obtuse. Because your eating rules are destructive and unhealthy, you refuse to see that some “rules,” like no snacking between meals or no eating after 7 pm, can be helpful AND healthful for people like me who have struggled with weight gain and insulin resistance. I have lost weight doing IF and i feel fine when I eat this way. I still eat about 1300-1400 calories a day and have energy to work out.

Yeah... no. I really have no eating "rules," other than the habits I've built over time in trying to eat what makes me feel good and gives me energy for workouts, life, etc. That's the first time on this thread I've said anything about how I eat, so I'm not sure where you're getting the bolded from. Oh, right, you're projecting.

(FWIW, the earlier PP who said IF started out as a rule for her but is now just habit sounds totally reasonable. It makes sense that what she does works for her, and she's not defense about it. No issue there.)

Your “habits” = our “rules”. You’re just not telling yourself that. Semantics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anorexia is a serious mental heath disorder. Fasting for health/wellness/spirituality has been done since the beginning of time (see Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha, etc).

Most people wash their hands for health and safety reasons. Some people with a mental health disorder wash their hands compusivley.

Compulsive behavior resulting from mental disease is completely different from a voluntary behavior to improve health or wellness.

Excellent description.

So now intermittent fasters are doing it for the same reasons as Jesus!