- I'm an avid runner for decades, do other exercises, would be called athletic, have a demanding job (wish it were less), sometimes travel for work, very active with kids. never been overweight by BMI standards - though would like to lose those 10 lbs that slowly creeped up last decade. Eat clean 90% of time, no processed foods, try to be low sugar,

- But I have bad genetics - diabetes on both side. So been borderline normal/pre-diabetes for decades. . . recently pre-diabetes/diabetes was often hungry - though would fight the urge.

Recently tried IF - 16:8 about 2-3 times a week, often just 14:10, and 1-2 days fully normal. It has finally changed blood sugar issues. As a side benefit - saw those few extra pounds start to come off really easy - which they never have done in the past - no matter how much I restrict calories in past diets. . I'm not restricting calories with this. I'm not hungry. Easy to keep my exercising going - actually doing more. My kids don't notice restrictions except I don't eat past dinner.

For those with insulin issues and/or genetics for diabetes - highly recommend.

Anonymous wrote:I'm the OP of the "hangry" thread. 5'11, 34 year old female, 50 pounds of baby weight to lose.

The fasting idea is really appealing to me. I'm not that hungry in the morning anyway. I'm usually too busy making breakfast/serving breakfast for my toddler and baby, plus cleaning and unloading the dishwasher, etc etc. I usually don't eat until well into the morning and even then I'm not famished.

So, this might work for me. I freaking hate finding healthy breakfast ideas too. I just want a bowl of cereal if anything.

Can someone point me to a website with more info on WHY this "works"?

Or, can someone write up a book summary for me?

I have weight to lose, two babies at home, and therefore no time to read a book about this.

OP, please stop calling 50lbs "baby weight". You need to be honest in order to determine why you put on that much weight and how to take it off.

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

That's a good point.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

Please stop. Do you know what is phenomenally disordered? The obesity rate in this country.

No one's disagreeing that the obesity rate is too high. I'm guessing that the people responding negatively are the healthy, athletic, normally/cleanly eating people who think you're all batshit and out of control (which is why you force yourselves to control this, in the typical eating disorder fashion.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

OMG, give it up. Please just stop. The vast majority of intermittent fasters are not doing anything "phenomenally disordered." I don't feel like parsing every posting, but a 16-8 schedule is not phenomenally disordered, and neither is a 5-2 schedule in which you take in 500 calories on your "fast" day. There may be one person here who posts about longer or more frequent fasting, but "intermittent fasting" is not inherently disordered and you should not feel disturbed.

Not sure why you think it's only one person posting.
16:8, sure.
Not eating more than 500 calories a day, two days a week? Messed up.
Eating only between 10a-2p? Messed up.
This is disordered eating and it can ruin your life (and your children's lives, and your relationships with them). Trust me. Or don't, and keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

OP here.

I have not been doing IF consistently (the most I've done is 3 days in a row?) but it is going SO WELL.

Before (last month on Whole30)
big, heathy fat breakfast, like people say to do. I was not hungry, but everyone said to eat so I did: sausage, sauerkraut, sweet potatoes, avocado.

I would be hungry by 10/10:30. Sometimes by 9:30.

Now: I do not eat until 10:00, sometimes later. I have tea and hot water with lemon. I work out at 6am. I start to feel hungry around 10:30/11.

I stop eating at 7am.

That's good, right?!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, thanks for the info.

Tell me the truth. Did your nutritionist seriously recommend carnation breakfast and margarine or was that hyperbole?

And I’m sure you’re a wonderful mother to your DD.

Seriously both are on the sheet as dairy/fat option. As is low fat granola. On top of three meals 2 snacks are recommended and here are some recommended snacks:

Pizza rolls, 6 totino's pepperoni pizza rolls, 12oz Coca Cola
Half bagel with lox,
4 Fid Newtons with 1 cup whole milk
1 banana, 1tbsp peanut butter, 2 package graham crackers(4 squares)

No joke, there are Oreos listed as snacks, 4 Oreos or 4 chips ahoy!

Did she give me a wrong sheet? Like for a toddler?

You need a new nutritionist.

Better yet, she needs a Registered Dietician, not a nutritionist. Dieticians are far better educated (& far less likely to be quacks!).

Coca Cola???

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, thanks for the info.

Tell me the truth. Did your nutritionist seriously recommend carnation breakfast and margarine or was that hyperbole?

And I’m sure you’re a wonderful mother to your DD.

Seriously both are on the sheet as dairy/fat option. As is low fat granola. On top of three meals 2 snacks are recommended and here are some recommended snacks:

Pizza rolls, 6 totino's pepperoni pizza rolls, 12oz Coca Cola
Half bagel with lox,
4 Fid Newtons with 1 cup whole milk
1 banana, 1tbsp peanut butter, 2 package graham crackers(4 squares)

No joke, there are Oreos listed as snacks, 4 Oreos or 4 chips ahoy!

Did she give me a wrong sheet? Like for a toddler?

You need a new nutritionist.

Better yet, she needs a Registered Dietician, not a nutritionist. Dieticians are far better educated (& far less likely to be quacks!).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

Please stop. Do you know what is phenomenally disordered? The obesity rate in this country.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

OMG, give it up. Please just stop. The vast majority of intermittent fasters are not doing anything "phenomenally disordered." I don't feel like parsing every posting, but a 16-8 schedule is not phenomenally disordered, and neither is a 5-2 schedule in which you take in 500 calories on your "fast" day. There may be one person here who posts about longer or more frequent fasting, but "intermittent fasting" is not inherently disordered and you should not feel disturbed.

Anonymous wrote:For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

If you only shift your schedule by a few hours, that's one thing. I suspect posters are referring to those eating between 10-2 or not eating 2 days a week.

It is really disturbing to think that our society condones that and doesn't recognize it for what it is, which is phenomenally disordered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fasting was common throughout human history. People living 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 years ago did not stop every two hours for a snack and there lives were 100 times more arduous than the lives we live today.

Eating 2 or 3 meals per day isn't fasting, despite the catchy name. You don't have to eat snacks. Now, aren't you healthier?

Early humans did not get 2-3 meals every day on a regular basis. There are still hunter-gatherer societies living today and they may miss a meal if the hunt fails or if they fail to find enough roots for everybody. They may not call it IF, but that is how humans ate for most of our history. Feast, famine, feast famine, etc. Now we do it artificially and call it IF.

Feast-famine cycles are only speculative, and there are populations, historically and today, that only eat diets of plenty.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4031802/

In any event, skipping a meal or fasting for a day is not famine. It's another form of calorie restriction. For those who enjoy weight loss from it, great!

For the comments about the kids/daughters watching this, I have girls and they have no idea I've been doing this for 5 months. They don't notice that I wait a few hours until I eat breakfast and they don't notice that I don't snack at night. Otherwise, they see me eat what they do and don't see any dieting whatsoever. They would be exposed to more if I was cutting out certain food groups and they saw me not eating those at dinner or counting calories or whatever. My routine hasn't changed enough for them to see anything negative or to think I'm dieting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. For those who have been doing IF, a couple questions...

1. Did you just jump right into it and fast for 2 days? How rough a start is it? I work and have young kids and worry about being angry and/or unfocussed.
2. If you fast for entire days or multiple days, do you also exercise? Only exercise on days you eat? Or don't exercise at all?

Thanks.

1. I started with 12, then 14, then 16, then 18, then 24 hour fasts. Took a couple of months to get to 24. Just doing 14 was a big accomplishment for me at first!

2. I do two 36-42 hour fasts most weeks. Amazingly, exercising while fasted is great!!! I have more energy and growth hormone spikes when you feast after fasting, so it's great for muscle growth too.

Despite what Dr. Fung says, fasting is not a long-term, sustainable diet.

That would have been news to both of my Indian grandmothers and women of their generation. They kept weekly religious no-food fasts for almost their entire adult lives and lived into their nineties.

Weekly religious fasts are typically a day, right? Or Ramadan, which is a limited fast over a month? Not eating only 2 or 3 days out of the week, as PP is doing. Sorry, that's abusing your body and it will catch up to you.

Not the pp, but another Hindu Indian poster and my mom and grandparents also fasted 2 days a week for pretty much their entire adult lives. Not just one day a year, not just a set few weeks a year but all the time. My cousin also fasts, though he only does a once a week fast.

It's very common for Hindus to fast at least one day a week, every week. Some do more like 2 or 3 days, it's up to them.

I doubt these people do intense exercise and/or work office jobs.

You clearly do not know many Indians.

Actually, I do. PP, were the mom and grandparents you mention physically active people?

How about dropping your assumptions about an whether Hindus are physically active or not?

Since you must know- my mom was an immigrant to this country that came here with less than $10. Worked multiple jobs for long hours as a nurse which is quite physically demanding.

My father died when I was a kid and she became a single mom to me and my siblings working even more hours than before to provide for us.

My grandfather worked a physically demanding job and the household chores my grandmother did- well let’s just say no washing machine to launder the clothes, no dishwasher, hand grinding whole spices, etc. Not exactly just sitting around.

Like I said, fasting is very common in Hinduism and has been for centuries. It’s written about in the Vedas which is over 5,000 years old.

Suggesting that people are actually MORE active today, with all of our modern conveniences, than in the past is ridiculous.

Fasting was common throughout human history. People living 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 years ago did not stop every two hours for a snack and there lives were 100 times more arduous than the lives we live today.

Eating 2 or 3 meals per day isn't fasting, despite the catchy name. You don't have to eat snacks. Now, aren't you healthier?

Early humans did not get 2-3 meals every day on a regular basis. There are still hunter-gatherer societies living today and they may miss a meal if the hunt fails or if they fail to find enough roots for everybody. They may not call it IF, but that is how humans ate for most of our history. Feast, famine, feast famine, etc. Now we do it artificially and call it IF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here. For those who have been doing IF, a couple questions...

1. Did you just jump right into it and fast for 2 days? How rough a start is it? I work and have young kids and worry about being angry and/or unfocussed.
2. If you fast for entire days or multiple days, do you also exercise? Only exercise on days you eat? Or don't exercise at all?

Thanks.

1. I started with 12, then 14, then 16, then 18, then 24 hour fasts. Took a couple of months to get to 24. Just doing 14 was a big accomplishment for me at first!

2. I do two 36-42 hour fasts most weeks. Amazingly, exercising while fasted is great!!! I have more energy and growth hormone spikes when you feast after fasting, so it's great for muscle growth too.

Despite what Dr. Fung says, fasting is not a long-term, sustainable diet.

That would have been news to both of my Indian grandmothers and women of their generation. They kept weekly religious no-food fasts for almost their entire adult lives and lived into their nineties.

Weekly religious fasts are typically a day, right? Or Ramadan, which is a limited fast over a month? Not eating only 2 or 3 days out of the week, as PP is doing. Sorry, that's abusing your body and it will catch up to you.

Not the pp, but another Hindu Indian poster and my mom and grandparents also fasted 2 days a week for pretty much their entire adult lives. Not just one day a year, not just a set few weeks a year but all the time. My cousin also fasts, though he only does a once a week fast.

It's very common for Hindus to fast at least one day a week, every week. Some do more like 2 or 3 days, it's up to them.

I doubt these people do intense exercise and/or work office jobs.

You clearly do not know many Indians.

Actually, I do. PP, were the mom and grandparents you mention physically active people?

How about dropping your assumptions about an whether Hindus are physically active or not?

Since you must know- my mom was an immigrant to this country that came here with less than $10. Worked multiple jobs for long hours as a nurse which is quite physically demanding.

My father died when I was a kid and she became a single mom to me and my siblings working even more hours than before to provide for us.

My grandfather worked a physically demanding job and the household chores my grandmother did- well let’s just say no washing machine to launder the clothes, no dishwasher, hand grinding whole spices, etc. Not exactly just sitting around.

Like I said, fasting is very common in Hinduism and has been for centuries. It’s written about in the Vedas which is over 5,000 years old.

Suggesting that people are actually MORE active today, with all of our modern conveniences, than in the past is ridiculous.

Fasting was common throughout human history. People living 1,000, 5,000, 10,000 years ago did not stop every two hours for a snack and there lives were 100 times more arduous than the lives we live today.

Eating 2 or 3 meals per day isn't fasting, despite the catchy name. You don't have to eat snacks. Now, aren't you healthier?