I'm on an IF facebook group and a lot of people do "OMAD," or one meal a day fasts. So instead of 16:8, they're fasting 20:4 or 22:2. I personally stick to 16:8 b/c that's what's feasible for me on a regular basis and I don't want this to be a temporary diet. On the weekends I often find myself being able to push beyond the 16 hour mark so if it feels good, I'll do more of a 18:6 or 19:5. But OP, to your question, the point of IF is for your body to regulate its appetite so that you don't want to consume as many calories during those 8 (or however many) hours that you're eating. If you're basically consuming 3 meals worth of calories in the 8 hours, then it's kind of pointless.

IF that skips dinner will truly be hardcore. I skip breakfast and lost a lot of weight. But I would deeply worry if I had to skip dinner.

The only time I was successful at IF, I moved my window up to include breakfast. If I waited until afternoon my body was ravished and craving. 8am-4pm is a better window for me. I make better choices.

I do 16-8 and it feels very natural to me. I have never been a breakfast eater. I drink water and black coffee in the morning and I'm good until lunch. I usually feel no need to snack after lunch. I eat nothing else after dinner.

Anonymous wrote:Isn't every diet a gimmick to make it science based? I am actually serious. I was thought you are better off skipping dinner, now skipping breakfast is in fashion.

To be fair, with IF you could skip either breakfast or dinner.

I have always skipped breakfast because all I really want in the morning is coffee with cream. I think the "best" diet is the one that fits with your body's rhythms and chemistry. We do not all digest things the same way, so there's no one best eating schedule or food list that applies to all people.

Isn't every diet a gimmick to make it science based? I am actually serious. I was thought you are better off skipping dinner, now skipping breakfast is in fashion.

Anonymous wrote:What’s the difference between IF and skipping breakfast (with the added caveat that you don’t snack after dinner)? Is it just a gimmicky diet to make it sound science-based?

I think the “science based” part of IF has to do with the way your body processes glucose after a certain number of hours of not eating. I’ve formally done 16:8 fasting for almost 2 years. I was never a big breakfast eater and after 3 kids in 6 years had 20 pounds to lose. In order to successfully fast, I found that I needed to change what I ate, particularly for dinner, to be higher in protein and fat and lower in white carbs or my fast was difficult. 18 months later I hVe lost 20 pounds and kept it off and will probably eat this way forever.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the difference between IF and skipping breakfast (with the added caveat that you don’t snack after dinner)? Is it just a gimmicky diet to make it sound science-based?

No, it is not the same as skipping breakfast. IF is about decreasing your feeding window. So you can have breakfast and lunch but skip dinner.

Yes, it's the same thing as skipping breakfast. Or skipping dinner. It's a new way to skip meals with permission.

Yes. It may sound dumb but it helped me to get past that old "breakfast is the most important meal" thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s the difference between IF and skipping breakfast (with the added caveat that you don’t snack after dinner)? Is it just a gimmicky diet to make it sound science-based?

No, it is not the same as skipping breakfast. IF is about decreasing your feeding window. So you can have breakfast and lunch but skip dinner.

Yes, it's the same thing as skipping breakfast. Or skipping dinner. It's a new way to skip meals with permission.

I have done IF for two weeks now. 16:8. I only drink green tea or water during 16 hours period. As body adjusts more I expect to not even drink green tea during that period. During the 8 hours eating window I am eating no processed sugary or salty food. The process has helped me lose 5lb. The energy levels are higher everyday.

Anonymous wrote:What’s the difference between IF and skipping breakfast (with the added caveat that you don’t snack after dinner)? Is it just a gimmicky diet to make it sound science-based?

No, it is not the same as skipping breakfast. IF is about decreasing your feeding window. So you can have breakfast and lunch but skip dinner.

Anonymous wrote:You are describing a 16:8 fast, which is basically the same. Lots of IF do longer ones.

I'm fasting right now! It's my once ib a while fast and it always makes me feel good.

You are describing a 16:8 fast, which is basically the same. Lots of IF do longer ones.

What’s the difference between IF and skipping breakfast (with the added caveat that you don’t snack after dinner)? Is it just a gimmicky diet to make it sound science-based?