16/8 fasting

post reply Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss
[Post New]12/12/2018 10:33
quote
TwistdMike
Member Offline
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:For those of you who follow IF, what do you think or have you read The Obesity Code?

I have read both the Obesity Code and the Diabetes Code, and they make sense to me. I do the 16/8 pattern of eating with a weekly 24-hour fast. The weight is slowly coming off and my HA1c readings are getting better. I don't think I'd want to do the longer fasts that Dr. Fung espouses, though.


The shorter vs. longer fasts have the same benefits for health, it just takes longer to realize the results.
[Post New]12/12/2018 10:42
quote
Anonymous
I have no problem doing a 36 hour fast. I get a little hungry around the 24 hour mark and sip on mug of water w/apple cider vinegar and lemon. After that I'm good to keep going. My 36 hour fasts sometimes go more to the 40 hour mark because I'm not in the habit of eating breakfast anymore. But I wouldn't want to go much longer that. The multi day fasts that some people do are not even a goal for me, I know I won't even attempt that.

I never get dizzy, weak, shaky, feel sick or starving, etc. If I did I would be doing shorter fasts. Just find what is comfortable/doable for your body. We are all different, it's not a competition.

[Post New]12/12/2018 10:47
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You won't lose weight if you still cram your normal amount of calories into your eating window. Weight loss always is and always will be nothing more than expending more calories than you take in and being in a deficit. If you won't be limiting your calories by eating this way, it's not going to do anything for you. .


Yes and no. Calories burned is actually a function of calories eaten. This complex function makes calorie counting hard. Also calories burned is a function of hormonal and metabolic health.


If you eat more than your body burns, you gain. If you eat less, you lose. It's not that hard.


Yes, but it's also not all that formulaic. What I have to do now to lose weight at 52 is different than what I had to do at 25.

There are individual differences in BMR that the generic calorie counters do not and can not accurately take into account.

One thing is clear, though. If you create a calorie deficit you WILL lose weight. IF helps you to do just that.
[Post New]12/12/2018 12:13
quote
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:You won't lose weight if you still cram your normal amount of calories into your eating window. Weight loss always is and always will be nothing more than expending more calories than you take in and being in a deficit. If you won't be limiting your calories by eating this way, it's not going to do anything for you. .


Yes and no. Calories burned is actually a function of calories eaten. This complex function makes calorie counting hard. Also calories burned is a function of hormonal and metabolic health.


If you eat more than your body burns, you gain. If you eat less, you lose. It's not that hard.


Yes, but it's also not all that formulaic. What I have to do now to lose weight at 52 is different than what I had to do at 25.

There are individual differences in BMR that the generic calorie counters do not and can not accurately take into account.

One thing is clear, though. If you create a calorie deficit you WILL lose weight. IF helps you to do just that.

I used to be a big proponent of just calories in/calories out. Middle age was a reality check.
[Post New]12/12/2018 15:58
quote
Anonymous
Getting old does not help in loosing weigth.
post reply Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss
Message Quick Reply
Go to: 

Search   Recent Topics   Hottest Topics