Are There Any Intermittent Fast Survivors Here?

[HoneyBeeNYC]

I have a lifelong history of weight issues, but for now, I'll restrict my observation to the most recent: in 2011, I lost 25 pounds, mostly by IFing for three days. I'd eat 1-2 skimpy meals in three days and the other four, eat moderately. In fact, I'd say I did the No S diet for four days a week - with the other three as IF. It was extremely grueling but I lost 25 pounds. I gained back 5 pretty quickly and was happy with the 20 pounds. Kept that off until last year when 10 more crept back. Now I'm here.

Two questions - One, are there any other "survivors" here?

Now I have a second question, which just occurred to me. I think that when you IF a lot, your body becomes very crafty, very efficient, at putting calories into your fat cells. Whereas if you ate the same amount of calories, but spread out among smaller meals, your body would fuel your muscles, your bones, etc.

I think IFing is very unhealthy and makes you fatter than you would be. But maybe I'm just hating on IFing and making stuff up. What do you think?

[Bullisaba]

I try to keep a 14 hour gap between dinner and breakfast because there does seem to be some health benefits associated with fasting. I have not tried doing longer fasts so I don't know about weight loss (or gain).

Restricting myself to 2 skimpy meals per day on a regular basis would be grueling for me too.

I like No S because it isn't grueling, it isn't always easy however I feel I can do this for the rest of my life.

[kaalii]

my first diet, a year ago was IF... but 16/8 IF... no starving involved... but for the first month or two i was craving food in the evenings so much...

however, it cleaned out my night snacking habit and i have lost some kilos slowly but surely... the rest of the weight went off with calorie counting+continued 16/8 IF....

like bullisaba, i still eat late breakfast and relatively early dinner...
so i do have around 14 hours in a day im not eating most of the days... even sdays... this became an effortless habit...
oh, and i never binged in the 8hour feeding period, so that's why it maybe worked for the weight loss...

i have never wanted even to try other styles of IF - like 5/2 or worse... i have no problem with a little bit of hunger but that feels like starving...

[noni]

My second attempt at No S was combined with IF 2X 24hr fasts (or close to it). I lost almost 30 pounds, a record for me that brought me to a normal BMI. My weekends were almost always gluttonous, so near the end of my one and a half years of doing this, the weight I lost, started creeping back up. No surprise, as I was well into my 50's and only 5'2". With the holiday close by, it was the perfect storm to go under and drop everything. I gained it all back, and maybe another 1 or 2 pounds as well.

IFing was difficult at first, but after a few weeks, it got easier. I drank coffee with a bit of cream in the morning, then water and hot tea (nothing else in it) throughout the fasting day. I always ate dinner at night. And No S kept me from overeating on weekdays.

Sometimes I think about doing it again, but I'm afraid of messing up the status quo. I lost 10 lbs so far with only using No S this time and my weekends are finally calmer, so the next thing I'd like to examine are my calorie dense plates. Doing No S the rest of my life sounds sane and doable, but I don't think I would be able to do IF the rest of my life, at least not the type of IF I was doing. So why would I do it? Just to lose weight a little faster? It would come back when I gave it up again anyway, which is inevitable.

[LifeisaBlessing]

I definitely consider myself an IF survivor! Like noni, I was doing the 2x24-hour fast approach. It did work great (at first), but honestly, after awhile, the fatigue just got to me! That, and it wasn't very doable with unexpected situations. When I could plan out my two fasts ahead of time during the week, everything went smoothly. When life inevitably happened, all my best laid plans were turned on their head, and my IF schedule got thrown out of whack. In the end, the fatigue and inconvenience (and the research concerning affects on women) convinced me to give it up.

[MaggieMae]

I did the 16:8 version. I didn't lose more than a few pounds because I ate like pig during my " feeding window". I do like the health benefits of fasting so I'll probably do it occasionally but not for weight loss.

[HoneyBeeNYC]

My second attempt at No S was combined with IF 2X 24hr fasts (or close to it). I lost almost 30 pounds, a record for me that brought me to a normal BMI. My weekends were almost always gluttonous, so near the end of my one and a half years of doing this, the weight I lost, started creeping back up. No surprise, as I was well into my 50's and only 5'2". With the holiday close by, it was the perfect storm to go under and drop everything. I gained it all back, and maybe another 1 or 2 pounds as well.

IFing was difficult at first, but after a few weeks, it got easier. I drank coffee with a bit of cream in the morning, then water and hot tea (nothing else in it) throughout the fasting day. I always ate dinner at night. And No S kept me from overeating on weekdays.

Sometimes I think about doing it again, but I'm afraid of messing up the status quo. I lost 10 lbs so far with only using No S this time and my weekends are finally calmer, so the next thing I'd like to examine are my calorie dense plates. Doing No S the rest of my life sounds sane and doable, but I don't think I would be able to do IF the rest of my life, at least not the type of IF I was doing. So why would I do it? Just to lose weight a little faster? It would come back when I gave it up again anyway, which is inevitable.

I'm confused. I thought that No S explicitly forbids starving or IFing or skipping meals.

[HoneyBeeNYC]

I did the 16:8 version. I didn't lose more than a few pounds because I ate like pig during my " feeding window". I do like the health benefits of fasting so I'll probably do it occasionally but not for weight loss.

Right, I think everyone does that: stuff after starving. And what are these benefits of fasting? I'd like to see a reputable source and not just something on some so-called healthy living blog that backs this up with real science.

Like I said, I have no way of proving this, but I think after a period of starving your body becomes very efficient at converting every calorie into fat. I also think starving has muscle wasting properties.

[kaalii]

I did the 16:8 version. I didn't lose more than a few pounds because I ate like pig during my " feeding window". I do like the health benefits of fasting so I'll probably do it occasionally but not for weight loss.

Right, I think everyone does that: stuff after starving.

nope...
because 16:8 version is not starving (if you are eating enough during the 8 hour period, of course)...

[HoneyBeeNYC]

I did the 16:8 version. I didn't lose more than a few pounds because I ate like pig during my " feeding window". I do like the health benefits of fasting so I'll probably do it occasionally but not for weight loss.

Right, I think everyone does that: stuff after starving.

nope...
because 16:8 version is not starving (if you are eating enough during the 8 hour period, of course)...

I'm specifically referring to genuine starving - when you get ravenous.

[kaalii]

I did the 16:8 version. I didn't lose more than a few pounds because I ate like pig during my " feeding window". I do like the health benefits of fasting so I'll probably do it occasionally but not for weight loss.

Right, I think everyone does that: stuff after starving.

nope...
because 16:8 version is not starving (if you are eating enough during the 8 hour period, of course)...

I'm specifically referring to genuine starving - when you get ravenous.

that is not genuine starving because you are being sufficiently fed.
starving as you are using it is hyperbole (exaggerated expression) of being very hungry.
on noS you can be very hungry, too. at least some people are sometimes reporting it.
it is also not always followed by overeating.

and emotional hunger and craving is then something else.

[MaggieMae]

The benefits of fasting that I've read about and was interested in was resting the pancreas and the digestive system in general. I think you're right about the body wanting to hold onto calories/fat if it senses starvation, but I've read( haha, again who knows if it's accurate) that it takes72 hours before the body starts to switch to' starvation mode'.

[e-lyn]

I dabbled with IF but was never able to make it a habit. I've read about the benefits and can see it working due to the general caloric restriction of eating within a certain restricted time window. But I do better with a regular schedule of food. That's how I lost 60 pounds on Weight Watchers. It became a habit to eat a certain number of points at for each meal and snack. But I couldn't maintain the weight loss. Because I snacked so often I was unable to have normal sized meals and stay within my maintenance points range. I believe that the small meals and unsatisfying snacks led to my downfall.

Interestingly, with No S I have dinner around 6:00 and don't have breakfast until around 9:00 in the morning. So I generally have a 12+ hour fasting schedule that I never planned. Sometimes I'm a bit hungry at some point after dinner, but I'm never hungry first thing in the morning. Weird! Whether this all translates into weight loss for me remains to be seen.

[HoneyBeeNYC]

Interestingly, with No S I have dinner around 6:00 and don't have breakfast until around 9:00 in the morning. So I generally have a 12+ hour fasting schedule that I never planned. Sometimes I'm a bit hungry at some point after dinner, but I'm never hungry first thing in the morning. Weird! Whether this all translates into weight loss for me remains to be seen.

Right, technically when you put off your break[space]fast is literally breaking a fast, but I don't count it as IFing, because of the psychological ease. Human eating habits are as much psychological as anything else. If it's not a stressor, and effort, it's not what I'm referring to here.

What I meant was something that took a concerted willful effort to pull off. I did it to the tune of 25 pounds, but I put half back, and it looks as though I'm not alone. The body will always win over the will.

[krawford13]

I too am interested in the health benefits of intermittent fasting and have tried to do 16/8 but found it difficult to maintain. Martin Berkhan of Leangains.com now recommends a 14 hour fasted phase for his female clients. He calls it the "sweet spot" for women. This is something I can easily do, so my eating window is 9-7. So in that time I can easily follow the No S diet. Dr. Mercola is big on IF.

[Merry]

Interesting--I've never read about IF, but many days my "eating window" on NoS is around 8-9 hours. I tend to get some things done first and eat breakfast around 10, lunch around 1-2 (some days as late as 3), and then dinner is usually around 6 or 7.

I think if my goal was *only* to eat during a certain window though, that my days would look like S days--free-for-all, LOL!

[HoneyBeeNYC]

Interesting--I've never read about IF, but many days my "eating window" on NoS is around 8-9 hours. I tend to get some things done first and eat breakfast around 10, lunch around 1-2 (some days as late as 3), and then dinner is usually around 6 or 7.

I think if my goal was *only* to eat during a certain window though, that my days would look like S days--free-for-all, LOL!

I would clock the fast from the time you finish eating. So if you finish eating at 8PM or so, and don't eat until 10, that's a gap of 14 hours. I don't know when you go to sleep so I'll say 11PM. For 3 hours your body is digesting & preparing for sleep. Eight hours sleep (?). Three hours to breakfast - that's the real part of the fast IMO.

I only broke this down as a thought experiment which to me illustrates that the true fasting part is the last part, when your stomach is empty and you are awake.

This thought experiment helped me to clarify what, really, a fast is. So my rough definition would be: the time that the body goes without food, after digesting, when the stomach is empty, while awake, when the body uses its stored energy, and goes into energy deficit. Perhaps that is wordy but it works for me.

And as a veteran of many such fasts, I am convinced that doing it a lot as a means of weight loss is mind and body destroying, and the body will always rebel. Bigtime.

This being the internet I must add the following: YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY, and please don't take this personally.

[HoneyBeeNYC]

Caloric Restriction for longevity debunked:

http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/diet-nutrition/64

The link to the study is in the article. The article is OK but the stupid journalist still wrote this annoying sentence: "The results may come as good news for those who want to have their cake and live long enough to eat it too, although there is still much to be determined on the controversial subject."

No no no no no. The study demonstrated the exact opposite: "The WNPRC monkeys [the ones in the original study] ate an unhealthy diet high in sugar, while the NIA group [this study] were fed a much more balanced, healthy diet. Designer of the NIA study, Don Ingram explains that “when we began these studies, the dogma was that a calorie is a calorie. I think it’s clear that the types of calories the monkeys ate made a profound difference."

My takeaway: it's better to starve than eat junk. Best of all, eat a healthy, high quality diet, in moderation.

[pinkhippie]

I think I naturally tend to eat a somewhat IF eating window lifestyle, especially with No S. I have never been a breakfast eater. ( Except when pregnant or nursing) I was raised that way by hippie parents. We did not eat breakfast.

So, with No S, and my work schedule I typically don't eat breakfast, eat an early lunch around 10:45 then dinner around 5 and then what I call breakfast an hour or two after dinner. Usually a bowl of cereal. I have always eaten that way back before i lost touch with my natural eating signals through pregnancy and nursing. I feel like eating breakfast puts me out of touch with my natural hunger signals for some reason.

I guess on average that works out to be about a 15/16 hour fast. But I don't think of it that way.

I have tried the other hardcore ways of fasting and I think that has been a disaster for me. I do end up eating way more because my body feels so deprived.

The way you did it OP sounds extremely grueling. I wouldn't be able to do that.

[kaalii]

So I generally have a 12+ hour fasting schedule that I never planned. Sometimes I'm a bit hungry at some point after dinner, but I'm never hungry first thing in the morning.

me too!
and if i force myself to eat too early my breakfast im more hungry all day... especially for snacks and junk food...
so im not listening to breakfast-first-thing-in-the-morning advice and break my fast when my body tells me to (because it also depends on the level of activity i have on a given morning)...

[LuxJones]

I looked into it and it seemed really beneficial, so I did it last August, hoping to lose five pounds. I followed a pretty easy one, the '8 hour diet'. (basically just skipping breakfast and not eating after dinner most days of the week.) It should have been either good or neutral, but I gained five, so ten up from where I was hoping. So I went back to the way I had been eating before--pretty much three meals, but with a little more extra than NoS. But the really creepy thing is that over the next few months I gained nearly twenty more! I kept cutting things, and I still kept gaining. Really weird. I have been breastfeeding for nearly three years, so I think my metabolism is pretty wacky, and maybe got thrown off by the month of IF. Anyway, I just did 21 days of NO S, and I lost three pounds, so at least I have pulled back from the crazy gain.

[lpearlmom]

Weird & frustrating lux! I only did IF for a short time but gained too. Not for me!

Wb to sanity!

[Merry]

Interesting--I've never read about IF, but many days my "eating window" on NoS is around 8-9 hours. I tend to get some things done first and eat breakfast around 10, lunch around 1-2 (some days as late as 3), and then dinner is usually around 6 or 7.

I think if my goal was *only* to eat during a certain window though, that my days would look like S days--free-for-all, LOL!

I would clock the fast from the time you finish eating. So if you finish eating at 8PM or so, and don't eat until 10, that's a gap of 14 hours. I don't know when you go to sleep so I'll say 11PM. For 3 hours your body is digesting & preparing for sleep. Eight hours sleep (?). Three hours to breakfast - that's the real part of the fast IMO.

I only broke this down as a thought experiment which to me illustrates that the true fasting part is the last part, when your stomach is empty and you are awake.

This thought experiment helped me to clarify what, really, a fast is. So my rough definition would be: the time that the body goes without food, after digesting, when the stomach is empty, while awake, when the body uses its stored energy, and goes into energy deficit. Perhaps that is wordy but it works for me.

And as a veteran of many such fasts, I am convinced that doing it a lot as a means of weight loss is mind and body destroying, and the body will always rebel. Bigtime.

This being the internet I must add the following: YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY, and please don't take this personally.

I usually sleep from about 12 or 1-9, and eat about an hour after I get up.

Not sure I follow what you are trying to calculate (the resting metabolism while sleeping is still drawing on calories to run the body systems), but anyway, I'm really not trying to follow an IF--I just observed that the "eating window" mentioned happens to coincide fairly closely with the pattern I've naturally come to as I do No-S and no longer snack all evening as I used to. (And feel better not going to bed stuffed any more! Why did I ever do that? LOL!)

[HoneyBeeNYC]

After reading this:

https://www.pacifichealthlabs.com/blog/ ... o-do-that/

" In individuals who moderately reduced their daily caloric intake, 91% of the loss was fat and only 9% was muscle. But in subjects who severely reduced their daily caloric intake, fat represented 48% of the total weight loss and muscle 42%."

I am now officially opposed to IFing.

For me. Your mileage may vary. Do what you think is best for you. But I'm off the reservation.

PS Something more about muscle, etc. Sorry, I can't find the URL and I didn't book mark it (I hate when that happens) but from memory, the woman had DXA scans done, did a leg routine, limited her caloric intake to 1500 calories (in No S terms ate moderately but didn't starve), and after three months she had lost fat in her legs. Interestingly the muscle showed no growth - but she had maintained her muscles, while losing fat, which resulted in a dramatic aesthetic difference.

It's only one woman but still. Do resistance exercise, eat moderately, lose fat. Starve - lose muscle and fat.

[Shuggernaut]

This thought experiment helped me to clarify what, really, a fast is. So my rough definition would be: the time that the body goes without food, after digesting, when the stomach is empty, while awake, when the body uses its stored energy, and goes into energy deficit. Perhaps that is wordy but it works for me.

With all due respect, it seems like you have taken it upon yourself to redefine the word "fast," based on your own unsuccessful attempts at making it a sustainable part of a weight management program. From the quote above, it sounds as if you don't consider it a real fast unless you're aware of and unhappy about the fact that you have to wait a while before eating. Luckily, human physiology disagrees with this definition.

It's not just about weight loss. Multiple studies have shown that long-term caloric restriction is the single most effective intervention for increasing longevity. Happily, similar benefits can be enjoyed through intermittent fasting. Restricting eating to a daily time window of approximately 8 hours is a beneficial and relatively easy way to do this. By simply waiting to take your first meal around 9 or 10 in the morning, and your last around 5 or 6 in the evening, you will experience the benefits of intermittent fasting. If you are so inclined, from time to time (no more than once a week), you might also try a 24-hour fast. The easiest way I've found to do this is to eat normally one day, ending with the evening meal, then only drink water, tea, or coffee the next day, and then enjoy a normal supper.

Again, this is about more than just weight loss. The body's metabolic machinery is not designed to process food around the clock. Independent of other factors, nothing is more preventive against the most deadly chronic diseases (cancer, heart disease, type 2 diabetes... even Alzheimer's) than long-term caloric restriction. Intermittent fasting is the easiest way to achieve this.

(Your concerns about muscle loss can be easily countered with some moderate strength training and incorporating a bit more protein into one's meals.)

[LifeisaBlessing]

IF is one of a multitude of ways to achieve long-term caloric restriction. And NoS is another! And while IF definitely has some benefits (which have already been mentioned in the thread), it also has some drawbacks--especially for women.

Some women may or may not experience the down sides to IF, but it's important to know about them so informed decisions can be made whether to undertake IF, or (in my case at one time) to continue with it. All I needed to hear was how IF can cause fatigue (which I experienced), sleep problems (which I experienced), and hormonal problems (which I was beginning to experience) in females. That was it for me!

[HoneyBeeNYC]

Multiple studies have shown that long-term caloric restriction is the single most effective intervention for increasing longevity.

Cite one.

The study that was done on monkeys was riddled with errors.

http://www.myhealthwire.com/news/diet-nutrition/64

[HoneyBeeNYC]

This thought experiment helped me to clarify what, really, a fast is. So my rough definition would be: the time that the body goes without food, after digesting, when the stomach is empty, while awake, when the body uses its stored energy, and goes into energy deficit. Perhaps that is wordy but it works for me.

With all due respect, it seems like you have taken it upon yourself to redefine the word "fast,"

With equal respect, I think my definition of the word "fast" works pretty well, and I frankly resent your unpleasant hint that I'm offering it as an excuse for my failure to enjoy starving.

[Shuggernaut]

No offense or unpleasant hints intended... just providing information gleaned from my own research and experience that I felt relevant and worthwhile. The famous "Okinawa Longevity Study," among others, demonstrated the benefits of long-term caloric restriction on increased longevity and reduced morbidity. These benefits have been shown to be largely replicable through the practice of intermittent fasting. The following sources provide references to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that support intermittent fasting...

https://authoritynutrition.com/10-healt ... t-fasting/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... evity.aspx

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting- ... z4EoBXEsae

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/31/3/363.extract

The book that sold me on the validity of intermittent fasting was an excellent biography about an old-world, Vaudeville strongman. It's called, "The Mighty Atom: The Spiritual Journey of Joseph L. Greenstein." This book is long-since out of print, but I took good notes from the copy I borrowed from the library, and have made them available online. The information on fasting begins on page 12...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByGBT ... kJKQVRGVVE

I agree that intermittent fasting may not work as well for some as it does for others. Whether this is a result of physiology or psychology--or a combination thereof--I won't presume to state on another's behalf. At any rate, I sincerely wish you and everyone else here the very best, in our common--but very personal--quests for better health.

[YeagerMeister]

I've been doing IF in one form or the other for years. I don't eat breakfast, and having a diet that's rich in "good fats" helps with IF, as you'll not feel hungry as often.

[HoneyBeeNYC]

No offense or unpleasant hints intended... just providing information gleaned from my own research and experience that I felt relevant and worthwhile. The famous "Okinawa Longevity Study," among others, demonstrated the benefits of long-term caloric restriction on increased longevity and reduced morbidity. These benefits have been shown to be largely replicable through the practice of intermittent fasting. The following sources provide references to peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that support intermittent fasting...

https://authoritynutrition.com/10-healt ... t-fasting/

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... evity.aspx

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting- ... z4EoBXEsae

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/31/3/363.extract

The book that sold me on the validity of intermittent fasting was an excellent biography about an old-world, Vaudeville strongman. It's called, "The Mighty Atom: The Spiritual Journey of Joseph L. Greenstein." This book is long-since out of print, but I took good notes from the copy I borrowed from the library, and have made them available online. The information on fasting begins on page 12...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=0ByGBT ... kJKQVRGVVE

I agree that intermittent fasting may not work as well for some as it does for others. Whether this is a result of physiology or psychology--or a combination thereof--I won't presume to state on another's behalf. At any rate, I sincerely wish you and everyone else here the very best, in our common--but very personal--quests for better health.

The Okinawa diet was all about caloric restriction, not fasting.

I took a look at the Authority Nutrition link. It struck me as the usual advocacy article composed of cherry picked data, all of which are beside the point. You can "prove" that IFing improves certain metabolic pathways. No surprise. But does IFing on a consistent basis improve health, does it promote weight loss? The evidence says no. I can "prove" that smoking and drinking actually produce some beneficial effects. That proves nothing.

Did you even bother to read the links I provided? Did you read about the study that indicated that people lose muscle rather than fat if they eat 500 calories a day?

[lpearlmom]

I think it's fine if someone wants to do IF and I also think it's fine if someone would rather not. I personally do not find fasting enjoyable and don't care if it would help me to live to 100. I'm all about quality over quantity in those situations. I do not care if I'll live a few more years if that means being miserable for those few years.

This may be one of those times we just have to agree to disagree! 😀

[Shuggernaut]

The Okinawa diet was all about caloric restriction, not fasting.

I took a look at the Authority Nutrition link. It struck me as the usual advocacy article composed of cherry picked data, all of which are beside the point. You can "prove" that IFing improves certain metabolic pathways. No surprise. But does IFing on a consistent basis improve health, does it promote weight loss? The evidence says no. I can "prove" that smoking and drinking actually produce some beneficial effects. That proves nothing.

Did you even bother to read the links I provided? Did you read about the study that indicated that people lose muscle rather than fat if they eat 500 calories a day?

Yes, the Okinawa study was--in part--about caloric restriction (though not extreme), and as I pointed out, the benefits of this degree of caloric restriction can largely be replicated by following some form of intermittent fasting (or strict No-S).

As for the article you seem to think you debunked, what evidence do you have that the data was cherry-picked? There is a great deal of evidence--both clinical and anecdotal--that intermittent fasting can yield tremendous health benefits. Did you read the studies referenced in the articles I provided? Your smoking and drinking analogy is ridiculous, and doesn't merit a response.

I think this all boils down to semantics, and your choice to assign an extreme, home-made definition to the word "fast." Of course a 500-calorie per day diet would result in muscle loss... but that's not fasting, it's starving. I am not advocating anything of the sort. And of course, adopting a diet that requires one to fast for days at a time would be unsustainable (and unnecessary) for just about anybody. On the other hand, combining the wisdom of a conscientious, No-S styled eating pattern with an 8-to-10 hour daily eating window, as I described above, will gently provide adequate caloric restriction, concomitant with small-but-potent periods of fasting (14 to 16 hours per day, which is plenty to let the body's "machinery" rest).

I apologize to anyone bothered by the apparent contentiousness of this conversation. I am not emotionally invested in whether or not somebody else agrees with my point of view, or that of the researchers whose studies support it. What I do feel is an obligation to provide valid and valuable information when I see inaccuracies being shared, which could result in poor health consequences for people who buy into it.

In exiting this thread, I will sum up my position by responding to the original post, which said, "I think IFing is very unhealthy and makes you fatter than you would be. But maybe I'm just hating on IFing and making stuff up. What do you think?" I think the original poster is, in fact, "hating on" an extreme form of intermittent fasting (with good reason), and has made up an extreme definition of the concept of fasting, to that end. Intermittent fasting, practiced moderately and diligently, is evidence-based and clinically proven to produce positive health outcomes in terms of not only increased longevity, but also overall decreased morbidity (lower risk of many chronic disease conditions, including diabetes, cancer, and heart disease).

HoneyBeeNYC, it's probably hard to tell by reading on an internet forum, but I don't harbor any hard feelings over our disagreement on this issue. I think you've been spot-on with many other insights and observations on this discussion board, and I do wish you the very best in all of your endeavors.

[ironchef]

I like Krista's [url=https://www.stumptuous.com/rant-66-dece ... -fast-club]take on this. Of course, I just broke the first rule

[HoneyBeeNYC]

I looked into it and it seemed really beneficial, so I did it last August, hoping to lose five pounds. I followed a pretty easy one, the '8 hour diet'. (basically just skipping breakfast and not eating after dinner most days of the week.) It should have been either good or neutral, but I gained five, so ten up from where I was hoping. So I went back to the way I had been eating before--pretty much three meals, but with a little more extra than NoS. But the really creepy thing is that over the next few months I gained nearly twenty more! I kept cutting things, and I still kept gaining. Really weird. I have been breastfeeding for nearly three years, so I think my metabolism is pretty wacky, and maybe got thrown off by the month of IF. Anyway, I just did 21 days of NO S, and I lost three pounds, so at least I have pulled back from the crazy gain.

Lux, w/o a DXA scan, I'm just guessing, but I think that you may have lost muscle, which made eating even the same amount of calories as before a weight-gaining prospect.

Add to that people don't eat the same amount of calories. They eat more. This is the body's natural response to starvation.

Fasting is starvation with lipstick. No mammal would do this voluntarily. There must be a reason for that.

[HoneyBeeNYC]

"Your smoking and drinking analogy is ridiculous, and doesn't merit a response."

My point about smoking and drinking was, I thought, obvious. But the person didn't want to listen, so I will repeat my point. Studies have been done on certain metabolic effects of smoking. I'm not kidding.... Here they are:

http://www.livescience.com/15115-5-heal ... sease.html

....I'm kidding. Smoking is terrible for you. But in the middle of that wreck, there are metabolic changes being made, one or two of which might under certain bizarre circumstances, be healthful. I think the one about Parkinson's disease is interesting....

So it is with fasting. And sorry, not going to get into a soul-sucking internet exchange about the definition of fasting. Go to any pro-fasting site and you'll see a definition that adds up to temporary starvation.

This leads to muscle (and probably bone) loss. Women have less of both to begin with. IFing is very bad for women.

Edit: Yes, I read the links. They were all about rats, and various metabolic responses to caloric restriction. Which is exactly my point: something that is harmful can have a metabolically beneficial effect even if it is on the whole harmful.

[Shuggernaut]

... not going to get into a soul-sucking internet exchange ...

Agreed. Best of luck with whatever's working for you.