How is IF different then anorexia?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

[Anonymous]

Op here- interesting read. FWIW I’ve identified myself every time I’ve posted on this thread so not everyone commenting with questions is me.
She is 19. She has been a vegan, vegetarian, no carb, juice cleans ect kinda kid. Lots of experimenting with food intake. I’d say she’s likely slightly underweight (no scales in the house) so I don’t know. We can’t really stop her from doing anything. She’s an adult. My main concern was that she couldn’t tell me anything about IF other than eating less hours of the day. She can certainly do whatever she wants- but I’d like to know more of the thoughts & process behind it all. I’ve ordered the book & will check it out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

There it is again: we "eat all day." No. I eat when I'm hungry. Stop acting like people who don't do IF are just slurping from a trough 24-7.

Also: habits are similar to rules, sure. The difference is that if I eat something that's out of habit, it's not an issue. Breaking rules, though, is often different for people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

There it is again: we "eat all day." No. I eat when I'm hungry. Stop acting like people who don't do IF are just slurping from a trough 24-7.

Also: habits are similar to rules, sure. The difference is that if I eat something that's out of habit, it's not an issue. Breaking rules, though, is often different for people.

Just stop already. Don’t do it if you don’t like it.
FWIW I break the IF “rules” every time I’m on vacation, there is a special birthday, maybe I need to take a medication on a full stomach, and it’s NOT AN ISSUE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

There it is again: we "eat all day." No. I eat when I'm hungry. Stop acting like people who don't do IF are just slurping from a trough 24-7.

Also: habits are similar to rules, sure. The difference is that if I eat something that's out of habit, it's not an issue. Breaking rules, though, is often different for people.

Oh what, you don’t want people assuming you eat all day? Kind of like you assume anyone who does IF is disordered? Talk about hypocritical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

There it is again: we "eat all day." No. I eat when I'm hungry. Stop acting like people who don't do IF are just slurping from a trough 24-7.

Also: habits are similar to rules, sure. The difference is that if I eat something that's out of habit, it's not an issue. Breaking rules, though, is often different for people.

Oh what, you don’t want people assuming you eat all day? Kind of like you assume anyone who does IF is disordered? Talk about hypocritical.

I've said there's overlap, not that anyone who does IF is disordered. Again with the all or nothing thinking.

[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.

You’re being an armchair psychologist and projecting your food control issues. That’s why people are getting defensive.
You seem to be the one going on and on about how you are at peace with food but it doesn’t present that way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

There it is again: we "eat all day." No. I eat when I'm hungry. Stop acting like people who don't do IF are just slurping from a trough 24-7.

Also: habits are similar to rules, sure. The difference is that if I eat something that's out of habit, it's not an issue. Breaking rules, though, is often different for people.

No one literally "eats all day." When people say the phrase, they mean someone who eats meals throughout the day and perhaps also snacks throughout the day.

People who do intermittent fasting limit eating to a certain window. (say 2-8, or 5-8 or whatever).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

SO much of this debate is about semantics. Some people are immediately reacting to fasting = starving. They are assuming that the human body needs/wants to be fed regularly (every few hours) and if you do not do this, you are depriving yourself. But that's completely false and a lot of PPs on this thread are acting superior because they eat all day. Your body doesn't go into "starvation mode" within a few hours - that's all crap.

There it is again: we "eat all day." No. I eat when I'm hungry. Stop acting like people who don't do IF are just slurping from a trough 24-7.

Also: habits are similar to rules, sure. The difference is that if I eat something that's out of habit, it's not an issue. Breaking rules, though, is often different for people.

If you have any interest in IF (which I assume you don’t), the Obesity Code talks a lot about blood sugar and the effect fasting has on the body. For someone who has type 2 diabetes running in our family, this was the main reason I started to do it. So the “rules” that you are so bothered by came into being because the body has a physical reaction to fasting. At 14 hours you start to see a result, etc. It has a lot to do with biology and insulin.

[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.

You’re being an armchair psychologist and projecting your food control issues. That’s why people are getting defensive.
You seem to be the one going on and on about how you are at peace with food but it doesn’t present that way.

hahahahaha.

[Anonymous]

I started IF a few months back and finally lost those last few pounds. The 16:8 method gives me a natural discipline that really works. I love it!

But I personally think the 5:2 is a bit disordered. I don’t like the idea of only eating 500 calories a day twice a week.

[Anonymous]

DH lost more than 40 pounds on IF; it has become an exercise in self-control and a compulsion for him. He has a skim iced latte for breakfast, and generally an iced tea and a piece of fruit for lunch. If he does need to eat a lunch for social reasons on some days, he will make it a half salad or sandwich. Dinner is always a low calorie option, generally fish. He does not eat bread anymore, and generally not have dessert, or only share one when necessary socially. He walks most places. I stay slim through consistent exercise and some portion control, though not anywhere near as restrictive. For example, I will have a breakfast mocha and then eat an actual lunch. And I cook/eat with for the children, who generally prefer meat. I do have a minor concern about the example the IF sets for our teenage daughter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DH lost more than 40 pounds on IF; it has become an exercise in self-control and a compulsion for him. He has a skim iced latte for breakfast, and generally an iced tea and a piece of fruit for lunch. If he does need to eat a lunch for social reasons on some days, he will make it a half salad or sandwich. Dinner is always a low calorie option, generally fish. He does not eat bread anymore, and generally not have dessert, or only share one when necessary socially. He walks most places. I stay slim through consistent exercise and some portion control, though not anywhere near as restrictive. For example, I will have a breakfast mocha and then eat an actual lunch. And I cook/eat with for the children, who generally prefer meat. I do have a minor concern about the example the IF sets for our teenage daughter.

What you describe is not IF.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I started IF a few months back and finally lost those last few pounds. The 16:8 method gives me a natural discipline that really works. I love it!

But I personally think the 5:2 is a bit disordered. I don’t like the idea of only eating 500 calories a day twice a week.

Yeah. I did 16:8 for awhile and it was fine, no issues. I've been doing 18:6 and I can tell I'm getting more compulsive/weird about it. But probably someone who is less susceptible to disordered eating would be fine with it. There's a lot of variation in terms of IF and just how people are going to respond to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DH lost more than 40 pounds on IF; it has become an exercise in self-control and a compulsion for him. He has a skim iced latte for breakfast, and generally an iced tea and a piece of fruit for lunch. If he does need to eat a lunch for social reasons on some days, he will make it a half salad or sandwich. Dinner is always a low calorie option, generally fish. He does not eat bread anymore, and generally not have dessert, or only share one when necessary socially. He walks most places. I stay slim through consistent exercise and some portion control, though not anywhere near as restrictive. For example, I will have a breakfast mocha and then eat an actual lunch. And I cook/eat with for the children, who generally prefer meat. I do have a minor concern about the example the IF sets for our teenage daughter.

What you describe is not IF.

+1