Reply to How is IF different then anorexia?

Forum Index » Diet, Nutrition & Weight Loss

Reply to "How is IF different then anorexia? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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? [/quote]

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. [b] But I don't buy for a second that everyone, or even most people doing IF are just naturally not hungry[/b].  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.[/quote]

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.

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

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. [/quote]

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.[/quote]
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. 
[/quote]
I agree with this. Even the title is inflammatory. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics