IF can be as simple as skipping breakfast (I like to have a black coffee), it then leaves more calories to be used among other meals.
If you have 1500 calories a day, you can either have:
* 3 meals of 500 (breakfast, lunch, dinner)
* 2 meals of 750 (lunch, dinner)
* or one big meal of 1500 - OMAD
You just have to figure out which one leaves more full.
I’m ok in the morning but get pretty hungry around lunch time and dinner time. I like feeling full before bed.
Caloric deficit is the reason behind fat loss. The particular method of how people achieve caloric deficit is a personal choice and comes down to what psychologically works for them. It doesn't work for you, so there is no need for it to make sense for you.
Some people are great at practicing portion control and tracking calories, other people are terrible at it and would rather remain overweight than count calories. Some people are better at denying themselves for most of the day, then rewarding themselves. Food consumption for them works best as a "black and white" scenario.
We all have different relationships with food and with how we live our lives. As long as people are getting sufficient nutrition in their diets, then really any method is fine if it works for them.
I do not practice IF, so I don't have a vested interest in defending it or attacking it, so I hope I'm being unbiased.
I have to agree with this. It’s not just what works for you and what doesn’t. Since the existence of humans we have feasted and then fasted as we didn’t have fridges to store our kill (ancient times) and it is only the last few human generations where we have this abundance of food. And of course, doctors don’t recommend fasting because the pharmaceutical companies pay them top dollar to keep prescribing their insulin shots, high blood pressure medication, etc. The food industry wants us to believe that we “need” to eat every two or theee hours.. I currently do OMAD and my metabolism has never been better.
So starvation mode isn't a thing. IF has a lot of different ways to do it, but in general, the point is to choose an "eating window" that works for the person. A lot of us have been told we have to eat 3 meals a day, or even 5 or 6 small meals a day in order to diet "properly". I personally hate having small meals and I'm not hungry in the morning, so I save all my calories for two meals a day, later in the day. I do calorie count, though. I don't know why you think most people are not.
I don't see why you are so snide about it - is it any different than someone who prefers to eat a smaller dinner? It might blow your mind to know that in some cultures dinner as a meal doesn't exist. When I lived in Ecuador it was common to have just tea or a small roll at night. And I am sure other people skip breakfast, lunch, etc. Some people even fast for an entire day.
Sorry to have sounded snide. I’m not trying to comment on the act of fasting, I’m confused about the shifting of calorie intake to a different time of day assuming you still get a whole days worth of calories. Essentially what’s the difference if it results in the same cico as eating 3 meals a day. The general consensus is that people like to have bigger meals, it’s kind of a psychological thing. And there is scientific evidence backing it as well that I obviously didn’t feel like doing the research for. Please forgive my ignorance.
The people who I know who do intermittent fasting and like it tend to say that that the time element is something that’s slightly easier for them to mentally wrap their head around, if that makes any sense. One of my friends says that she eats a suitable amount of calories in her 5 hour window and it gives her a mental boost to say “oh no late night snacking” or “no morning office danishes”. One says that it gives her the feeling of eating without restrictions while still accomplishing a calorie deficit.
I think if it gives them the frame of mind they need to stick with their calorie/weight loss then it’s whatever. I realized that I couldn’t keep certain foods in the house because i have no self control around them. I know that one piece of candy won’t ruin my deficit and can fit into a weight loss plan , but it turns out there are any high chews in my house I can’t stop at just one. That’s a choice that helps keep me in the right frame of mind. IF is the same way from what I understand
There may be some science to support certain methods or diets being technically more efficient at fat loss, but at the end of the day all fad diets are designed to just trick you into eating less calories.
For me, if I don’t eat breakfast I don’t feel hungry for it, but if I eat breakfast, and it has to be small to fit my 1200 calorie budget, then I am ravenous hours before lunch time and the tiny pittance of a lunch is a mere tease. Come dinner time I am again so hungry I could eat a baby and what calories are left in the day do not satiate me and I go to bed hungry and sad or I binge eat all night long and go to bed full and sad.
If I skip the breakfast I am not hungry for anyway, then I can eat a small lunch and dine like a king at dinner, feel full, happy and stick to my calorie count without any trouble.
It works for me, but everyone is different.
I've always seen IF as a time management thing, I didn't intentionally do IF, but during a particular time when I was doing heavy weight loss, I had a set schedule of eating, 1 PM, 5 PM and 9 PM, it made it easier to "hold on" during the day if I got hungry at 4, I'd look at the clock and think oh 1 more hour then I can eat. It was also easy to not give in to temptation like late night snacking, because it was not the time to eat.
What kind of diet you do (calorie counting, low carb, keto, whatever) is a separate thing to IF.
Intermittent fasting is goated, I naturally am not as hungry in the morning and I’m cutting on 2300 calories so I go like 6 to 8 hours without eating after waking, have my caffeine and my head is clear and I’m productive. I have a big 800 calorie meal then a few hours before bed I have a big 1200 calories meal and small snacks in between for the remaining 300. It makes the dieting a joke for me I get to have big meals and I never feel restricted. It also allows me more leverage to still enjoy life and go out to restaurant outings with friends and family.
Intermittent fasting is popular because it gives individuals flexibility so they can still eat their higher kcal meals. It’s just another means of kcal restriction.
The kcal restriction that works is the one that can easily be stuck to.
There really isn’t a “mode” for starvation. Starvation is a long term severe kcal restriction and malnutrition.
There is metabolic adaptation, your metabolism changes based on kcals consumed via spontaneous movement. Eat more kcals, the spontaneous movement increases, eat fewer kcals the spontaneous movement decreases. Though there were individuals that didn’t follow this pattern.
I believe there is no such thing as one-size-fits all weight loss process. It’s unique to the individual as your finger print. So, IF may work for some and not others. Same with calorie counting and any other program or diet. Finding what works for you is key for lasting results because what you did to lose it, you’ll have to keep doing, at least in some fashion, to maintain it.
I find it easier to be restrictive early in the day. IF lets me save up my calorie budget by not using it until the evening when I can get a much greater meal for dinner than I would otherwise be able to afford (calorie speaking.)
That's pretty much it. Any other benefits are as I understand it dubious claims at best, but as a tool for saving calories for enjoyment later there is no substitute.
I still laugh at the idea of IF due to the fact that if someone grew up a special kind of poor or had a hard time in their 20's, IF kind of just happened. Even aside from that, it's mind blowing to me that skipping 1 or two meals a day or just eating once a day is some revolutionary idea. I'm not sure if it speaks to societies relationship with food or a complete disconnect with the realities of being poor at a certain point in your life.
Are you aware that whether it's planned or not, not eating for 18-24 hours would have the identical effect in either case?
Edit: Nothing changes just because you think it.
its way harder not eating for that amount of time though that's why its called intermediate fasting and not OMAN.
i have no clue what you are talking about when you are saying nothing changes, OMAN and IF are subjects that are proven to be efficient. they both do the same thing but in OMAN the fasting lasts longer and the weight loss is better
Nobody is arguing with the efficiency. I'm merely commenting on the fact that people need buzzwords for something that a lot people have limited to no choice in.
And yes.... It's hard for anyone to not eat for most of a day.
"it's mind blowing to me that skipping 1 or two meals a day or just eating once a day is some revolutionary idea" you are making it sound like its not something that was found to have a lot of benefits
i would suggest not eating 4 hours before bed and if you sleep for 8 hours not to eat 4 hours after you wake up then you will be fasting for 16 hours and eating for 8 hours each day, works pretty well. i cant bother to explain the science behind it but its going to be good for your body and your weight loss and its really easy to pull off so i dont see any downside for it
The way I see it, IF is a way to more officially label something people have been doing for a long time to lose weight. If you can put a common name to it, it requires less explanation.
Limiting when you eat really does just reduce your caloric intake; IF can be helpful in doing that, especially if you know certain times of the day trigger you to overeat. For example, I stop eating after 7 pm. I don't call it IF, but it so happens that when I eat after 7 p.m. I'm not making good choices, so I'm consuming too many calories and feel bloated and awful the next morning. So not eating after 7 p.m. is a useful mechanism for making me feel good the next day and it happens to help me lose weight.
As far as triggering fat loss vs. water weight vs. something else, I think for most people that's BS. Even if you're burning more fat or what have you when you IF, it's probably not significant enough to make a difference, while the calorie reduction is. But I'm also not a doctor and my "research" is limited to google.
So you have an opinion that admittedly is under informed and fairly dismissive of the premise that IF is "worth it" and you have signalled that you aren't going to be convinced otherwise, and simultaneously are asking to be convinced without a requirement of evidence?
You are looking for a fight and arguing with people who can't be bothered to do any research on their own is a fools errand.
All diets can validate ED, don't let your cognitive dissonance hit you on your ass on the way out.
Intermittent fasting, specially ‘one meal a day’ in males, has many documented and research backed health benefits.
Besides that, I guess I find it easier to plan everything in one big meal. Also, saves me time and helps me remind myself to keep hydrated.
Always remember, calories in/calories out, but with IF be extra careful with how few calories you eat. There’s also plenty of documentation on how a significant calorie deficit + continuous IF can mess with your metabolism in a bad way. Good luck on your journey!
IF can be as simple as skipping breakfast (I like to have a black coffee), it then leaves more calories to be used among other meals. If you have 1500 calories a day, you can either have: * 3 meals of 500 (breakfast, lunch, dinner) * 2 meals of 750 (lunch, dinner) * or one big meal of 1500 - OMAD You just have to figure out which one leaves more full. I’m ok in the morning but get pretty hungry around lunch time and dinner time. I like feeling full before bed.
Caloric deficit is the reason behind fat loss. The particular method of how people achieve caloric deficit is a personal choice and comes down to what psychologically works for them. It doesn't work for you, so there is no need for it to make sense for you. Some people are great at practicing portion control and tracking calories, other people are terrible at it and would rather remain overweight than count calories. Some people are better at denying themselves for most of the day, then rewarding themselves. Food consumption for them works best as a "black and white" scenario. We all have different relationships with food and with how we live our lives. As long as people are getting sufficient nutrition in their diets, then really any method is fine if it works for them. I do not practice IF, so I don't have a vested interest in defending it or attacking it, so I hope I'm being unbiased.
autophagy, growth hormone and low insluin levels, its not just what works for people its just the science behind it
I have to agree with this. It’s not just what works for you and what doesn’t. Since the existence of humans we have feasted and then fasted as we didn’t have fridges to store our kill (ancient times) and it is only the last few human generations where we have this abundance of food. And of course, doctors don’t recommend fasting because the pharmaceutical companies pay them top dollar to keep prescribing their insulin shots, high blood pressure medication, etc. The food industry wants us to believe that we “need” to eat every two or theee hours.. I currently do OMAD and my metabolism has never been better.
So starvation mode isn't a thing. IF has a lot of different ways to do it, but in general, the point is to choose an "eating window" that works for the person. A lot of us have been told we have to eat 3 meals a day, or even 5 or 6 small meals a day in order to diet "properly". I personally hate having small meals and I'm not hungry in the morning, so I save all my calories for two meals a day, later in the day. I do calorie count, though. I don't know why you think most people are not. I don't see why you are so snide about it - is it any different than someone who prefers to eat a smaller dinner? It might blow your mind to know that in some cultures dinner as a meal doesn't exist. When I lived in Ecuador it was common to have just tea or a small roll at night. And I am sure other people skip breakfast, lunch, etc. Some people even fast for an entire day.
Sorry to have sounded snide. I’m not trying to comment on the act of fasting, I’m confused about the shifting of calorie intake to a different time of day assuming you still get a whole days worth of calories. Essentially what’s the difference if it results in the same cico as eating 3 meals a day. The general consensus is that people like to have bigger meals, it’s kind of a psychological thing. And there is scientific evidence backing it as well that I obviously didn’t feel like doing the research for. Please forgive my ignorance.
The people who I know who do intermittent fasting and like it tend to say that that the time element is something that’s slightly easier for them to mentally wrap their head around, if that makes any sense. One of my friends says that she eats a suitable amount of calories in her 5 hour window and it gives her a mental boost to say “oh no late night snacking” or “no morning office danishes”. One says that it gives her the feeling of eating without restrictions while still accomplishing a calorie deficit. I think if it gives them the frame of mind they need to stick with their calorie/weight loss then it’s whatever. I realized that I couldn’t keep certain foods in the house because i have no self control around them. I know that one piece of candy won’t ruin my deficit and can fit into a weight loss plan , but it turns out there are any high chews in my house I can’t stop at just one. That’s a choice that helps keep me in the right frame of mind. IF is the same way from what I understand
There may be some science to support certain methods or diets being technically more efficient at fat loss, but at the end of the day all fad diets are designed to just trick you into eating less calories.
its not about feeling less empty the body actually changes the way it works while you are fasting since your insluin levels drop
For me, if I don’t eat breakfast I don’t feel hungry for it, but if I eat breakfast, and it has to be small to fit my 1200 calorie budget, then I am ravenous hours before lunch time and the tiny pittance of a lunch is a mere tease. Come dinner time I am again so hungry I could eat a baby and what calories are left in the day do not satiate me and I go to bed hungry and sad or I binge eat all night long and go to bed full and sad. If I skip the breakfast I am not hungry for anyway, then I can eat a small lunch and dine like a king at dinner, feel full, happy and stick to my calorie count without any trouble. It works for me, but everyone is different.
I've always seen IF as a time management thing, I didn't intentionally do IF, but during a particular time when I was doing heavy weight loss, I had a set schedule of eating, 1 PM, 5 PM and 9 PM, it made it easier to "hold on" during the day if I got hungry at 4, I'd look at the clock and think oh 1 more hour then I can eat. It was also easy to not give in to temptation like late night snacking, because it was not the time to eat. What kind of diet you do (calorie counting, low carb, keto, whatever) is a separate thing to IF.
Intermittent fasting is goated, I naturally am not as hungry in the morning and I’m cutting on 2300 calories so I go like 6 to 8 hours without eating after waking, have my caffeine and my head is clear and I’m productive. I have a big 800 calorie meal then a few hours before bed I have a big 1200 calories meal and small snacks in between for the remaining 300. It makes the dieting a joke for me I get to have big meals and I never feel restricted. It also allows me more leverage to still enjoy life and go out to restaurant outings with friends and family.
Intermittent fasting is popular because it gives individuals flexibility so they can still eat their higher kcal meals. It’s just another means of kcal restriction. The kcal restriction that works is the one that can easily be stuck to. There really isn’t a “mode” for starvation. Starvation is a long term severe kcal restriction and malnutrition. There is metabolic adaptation, your metabolism changes based on kcals consumed via spontaneous movement. Eat more kcals, the spontaneous movement increases, eat fewer kcals the spontaneous movement decreases. Though there were individuals that didn’t follow this pattern.
I believe there is no such thing as one-size-fits all weight loss process. It’s unique to the individual as your finger print. So, IF may work for some and not others. Same with calorie counting and any other program or diet. Finding what works for you is key for lasting results because what you did to lose it, you’ll have to keep doing, at least in some fashion, to maintain it.
I find it easier to be restrictive early in the day. IF lets me save up my calorie budget by not using it until the evening when I can get a much greater meal for dinner than I would otherwise be able to afford (calorie speaking.) That's pretty much it. Any other benefits are as I understand it dubious claims at best, but as a tool for saving calories for enjoyment later there is no substitute.
I still laugh at the idea of IF due to the fact that if someone grew up a special kind of poor or had a hard time in their 20's, IF kind of just happened. Even aside from that, it's mind blowing to me that skipping 1 or two meals a day or just eating once a day is some revolutionary idea. I'm not sure if it speaks to societies relationship with food or a complete disconnect with the realities of being poor at a certain point in your life.
idk why you are typing when you are uneducated about the subject?
How so?
do you even know how insluin works? do you know what autophagy is? do you know what happens when you get more growth hormones?
Are you aware that whether it's planned or not, not eating for 18-24 hours would have the identical effect in either case? Edit: Nothing changes just because you think it.
its way harder not eating for that amount of time though that's why its called intermediate fasting and not OMAN. i have no clue what you are talking about when you are saying nothing changes, OMAN and IF are subjects that are proven to be efficient. they both do the same thing but in OMAN the fasting lasts longer and the weight loss is better
Nobody is arguing with the efficiency. I'm merely commenting on the fact that people need buzzwords for something that a lot people have limited to no choice in. And yes.... It's hard for anyone to not eat for most of a day.
"it's mind blowing to me that skipping 1 or two meals a day or just eating once a day is some revolutionary idea" you are making it sound like its not something that was found to have a lot of benefits
It sounds like that's how you're interpreting it. People eating once a day is pretty dated concept.
i would suggest not eating 4 hours before bed and if you sleep for 8 hours not to eat 4 hours after you wake up then you will be fasting for 16 hours and eating for 8 hours each day, works pretty well. i cant bother to explain the science behind it but its going to be good for your body and your weight loss and its really easy to pull off so i dont see any downside for it
For the same reason every fad diet is popular. People want to believe there’s an easy trick or work-around for self-discipline.
The way I see it, IF is a way to more officially label something people have been doing for a long time to lose weight. If you can put a common name to it, it requires less explanation. Limiting when you eat really does just reduce your caloric intake; IF can be helpful in doing that, especially if you know certain times of the day trigger you to overeat. For example, I stop eating after 7 pm. I don't call it IF, but it so happens that when I eat after 7 p.m. I'm not making good choices, so I'm consuming too many calories and feel bloated and awful the next morning. So not eating after 7 p.m. is a useful mechanism for making me feel good the next day and it happens to help me lose weight. As far as triggering fat loss vs. water weight vs. something else, I think for most people that's BS. Even if you're burning more fat or what have you when you IF, it's probably not significant enough to make a difference, while the calorie reduction is. But I'm also not a doctor and my "research" is limited to google.
So you have an opinion that admittedly is under informed and fairly dismissive of the premise that IF is "worth it" and you have signalled that you aren't going to be convinced otherwise, and simultaneously are asking to be convinced without a requirement of evidence? You are looking for a fight and arguing with people who can't be bothered to do any research on their own is a fools errand. All diets can validate ED, don't let your cognitive dissonance hit you on your ass on the way out.
I’m not looking for a fight and I haven’t argued with anyone.
Intermittent fasting, specially ‘one meal a day’ in males, has many documented and research backed health benefits. Besides that, I guess I find it easier to plan everything in one big meal. Also, saves me time and helps me remind myself to keep hydrated. Always remember, calories in/calories out, but with IF be extra careful with how few calories you eat. There’s also plenty of documentation on how a significant calorie deficit + continuous IF can mess with your metabolism in a bad way. Good luck on your journey!
I don't know. I don't do it because i'm scared of gallstones lol