281–290 of 388 posts
From dawn to sunset. Suppose sunrise is 5:30 and sunset is 6 pm. Does that mean you get up at 5 am, eat quickly, then eat again from 6pm until bedtime?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think intermittent fasting is easier to implement for the average person. It's much easier to tell someone that they can eat as much as they want, but only between 6-8pm (one meal a day). It's difficult to tell someone you can eat 3 meals but no more than 1500 calories in total. Once I start eating, I don't want to stop (until I'm full). But the point at which I'm full is way beyond my calorie limit if I am eating…
>It's much easier to tell someone that they can eat as much as they want, but only between 6-8pm (one meal a day). If eating is part of your social or work life as it is for most people then not really. Or you're going to sit there sipping water while your family or your colleagues eat or have drinks which is miserable
Anecdata: I have followed IF with a 1100 calorie deficit per day by only eating 1200 calories at dinner for 3 months. This translated to more than 1kg weight loss per week, pretty reliably. Overall I lost 17kg. I adjusted the TDEE and calorie values as needed to maintain the weight loss speed. The weight loss was extremely fast, but so was the rate at which I lost lean mass. This makes sense, as I didn't exercise muc…
I read somewhere that IF was beneficial for men, but for women there was no proven benefit, and a possible negative effect.
> Subjects had a significant reduction in body mass index, waist circumference, and improvement in blood pressure Would really like to see this compared to another group with a similar level of calorie restriction but without the intermittent fasting. The question with intermittent fasting is really just "is it better than plain old calorie restriction". Seems like there's some evidence that points to "yes" and some…
I think intermittent fasting is easier to implement for the average person. It's much easier to tell someone that they can eat as much as they want, but only between 6-8pm (one meal a day). It's difficult to tell someone you can eat 3 meals but no more than 1500 calories in total. Once I start eating, I don't want to stop (until I'm full). But the point at which I'm full is way beyond my calorie limit if I am eating…
Fasting is ”easier” because you can get away with caring less about that stuff though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's much easier to tell someone that they can eat as much as they want, but only between 6-8pm (one meal a day). If eating is part of your social or work life as it is for most people then not really. Or you're going to sit there sipping water while your family or your colleagues eat or have drinks which is miserable
> 14 subjects with metabolic syndrome who fasted (no eating or drinking) from dawn to sunset for more than 14 h daily for four consecutive weeks it says no drinking as well, so not sure about the water, but I was surprised to read it, maybe they just meant drinks other than water.
I IF from post-dinner to lunch every day, and only drink water and plain coffee.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think intermittent fasting is easier to implement for the average person. It's much easier to tell someone that they can eat as much as they want, but only between 6-8pm (one meal a day). It's difficult to tell someone you can eat 3 meals but no more than 1500 calories in total. Once I start eating, I don't want to stop (until I'm full). But the point at which I'm full is way beyond my calorie limit if I am eating…
Well that depends on what you eat ofcourse! If you’re concious about what you put in yourself designing meals that you won’t be able to finish is easy! (think bodybuilders fish and broccoli as an example or a bit of meat and tonns of cabbage etc). Fasting is ”easier” because you can get away with caring less about that stuff though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Compared to not-eating and drinking? No.
How so? Wouldn't most pathogens be food or water borne if you're not in a crowded city in close proximity to other humans or livestock? Either way I don't see how what you say is true. If I stop eating or drinking how does that make me catch the flu or something the immune response helps against? It seems having it active when I eat would be the most useful, which is why I wondered why it worked how it does.
In that eating and drinking is essential, and for the primitive man, not guaranteed everyday...
>If I stop eating or drinking how does that make me catch the flu or something the immune response helps against?
It just makes you die in a couple months from not eating, and a week or so from not drinking :-)