ChrisTheClassic said:

---

Thanks for the reply. That's kinda what I figured. I felt full at dinner tonight and like 30 minutes later was starving again. Just trying not to eat a ton on fasting days. 500 calories feels impossible to me lol. I am just trying to eat healthier and abiding carbs at dinner on fast days. Probably just going to take a little while to get used to

---

One of the things that has helped me is having premade meals on fast days. I haven't eaten a Lean Cuisine in about 20 years but found out that they are a good way to control calories/carbs. There are protein bowls that i found out are the best at keeping me full. Maybe that can help

Eat slow, sip on water while eating, and find something that fills you up to eat at the end. For example, carbs really fill me up and make me feel full. So I might eat some fruit, or a sandwhich at the end of what may be a big meal, but just not satisfying.

ChrisTheClassic said:

---

Thanks for the reply. That's kinda what I figured. I felt full at dinner tonight and like 30 minutes later was starving again. Just trying not to eat a ton on fasting days. 500 calories feels impossible to me lol. I am just trying to eat healthier and abiding carbs at dinner on fast days. Probably just going to take a little while to get used to

---

Add a pile of low starch steamed veggies to dinner. I keep the steam in the bag ones in the freezer so they are always easily accessible. A cup of broccoli or mixed veggies will fill you up and is low cal.

How does this schedule sound for those of you more learned and experienced:

Big lunch on Sunday

Fast at least 24 hours until lunch on Monday, light dinner

Fast at least 16 hours until lunch on Tuesday, light dinner

Fast at least 16 hours until lunch on Wednesday, light dinner

Fast at least 16 hours until lunch on Thursday

Fast at least 24 hours until lunch on Friday, realistically probably not a super healthy dinner

Fast at least 16 hours until lunch on Saturday, dinner and shenanigans likely on Saturday night

Fast at least 12 hours until lunch on Sunday, repeat cycle


In addition to the eating schedule I'd also try to make sure my dinners are as low of an insulin response as possible. Also scheduled so my longest fasts line up with cardio sessions.

Opinions? I'm new to this but excited to give it a try.

I think you'll be surprised by the results. Best of luck.

I think some of y'all need to go easy and ease into doing this for a variety of reasons. One is that if it because an exhausting experience eating only 600 calories in a day (or worse none) you might fail, you might quit.

There have been studies that show that just restricting the period in which you eat can aid in weight loss. That is, they controlled the test subjects (mice) for calories and caloric make-up (high-fat, high sugar) and the only variable was the time in which the mice were fed and the mice on a time-restricted eating plan had less fat and more muscle mass (intervals was 8-12 hours of feeding).

Studies also showed that people on a time-restricted eating plan ate, on average, 20% fewer calories than those that were free to eat whenever they wanted and that people on a time-restricted eating plan saw a reduction in their A1C levels by simply being fasted for 12 hours per day. They also showed that markers for inflammation decreased (inflammation being associated with a whole host of medical ailments, including mood disorders) if the individual did not eat after 7:00PM. In other words, you didn't have to be as mindful about WHAT you ate, just when you ate it. I'm not saying go eat whatever you want, but it's a process to change your habits.

Start simple, like when you eat, and then complicate it further by doing longer fasts or what you eat once you know you can comply with the simplest form of it.

My point is, why are you trying to put in three times the effort for 10-20% more return? Or even if it does net out 50% more return, why are you setting yourself up for the hardest version of the thing from the start when the easiest will probably show some results, if not marked ones?

Quote:

---

In other words, you didn't have to be as mindful about WHAT you ate, just when you ate it. I'm not saying go eat whatever you want, but it's a process to change your habits.

---

My experience 100% supports this. Don't worry about what you eat so much as when. When I do eat, my eating is identical to what it would have been before I started IMF. And to me, that's the great part about it. You still shop the same, cook the same, eat the same thing everyone else is eating, etc. All you have to do is worry about when you do that eating.

So here's a question:

Fung talks about how normal calorie restricted diets kill your metabolic rate (specifically talks about this with the biggest loser contestants).

As others have said, it's almost impossible to NOT reduce your calorie intake doing intermittent fasting, but he says don't binge.

I guess what I'm getting at is how is it that a normal calorie restricted diet where you're eating 1600 calories a day will kill your metabolism but eating one or two meals a day where you only ending up eating 1600 calories won't kill your metabolism?

I think it all has to do with insulin response. When you are eating smaller meals spaced out through the day, your insulin levels are going up and down all the time.

Vernada said:

---

I think it all has to do with insulin response. When you are eating smaller meals spaced out through the day, your insulin levels are going up and down all the time.

---

This is what Fung says happens. After a period of time, your body switches from burning food energy to burning stored fats for energy. Once you are burning fat, you are not in a calorie deficit.

Like said in the previous post, constant triggers to your insulin thoughout the day prevent your body from switching to burning fat. Since it can't switch to fat burning and you don't have enough fuel to run at optimum performance, the body slows metabolism.

And presumably when he says don't "binge" he's saying not to go from eating 500-600 calories or nothing at all to eating 5000 calories on a non-fasted day. In other words maintain a 2500 calorie consumption alternating between consumption and stored fat burn. I may be wrong.

I haven't watched his video, because I'm not overweight and the outright water fasts for longer than a 16 hour period doesn't really benefit me THAT much, but at least with the time restricted eating you consume a regular amount of calories, but truncate the consumption to a specified time frame. So you eat your regular 2000-2500 calories (depending on activity/size).

With weight loss in mind it would be a feed/fast cycle with longer fast periods than a strictly maintenance feed/fast cycle.

Quote:

---

And presumably when he says don't "binge" he's saying not to go from eating 500-600 calories or nothing at all to eating 5000 calories on a non-fasted day. In other words maintain a 2500 calorie consumption alternating between consumption and stored fat burn. I may be wrong.

---

See this is where my question is. In the last couple days I've gone 24 hours without eating (went from lunch Sunday to dinner yesterday, going dinner to dinner today). If I eat a normal meal, I'm only going to eat maybe 800 calories or something like that... is that what I'm supposed to do or am I supposed to eat a big hearty meal to keep my calories closer to a normal level?

And for the record I've found this surprisingly easy. I've done the 5:2 thing before where you eat 600 calories during the day and didn't care for it. This is pretty much one meal a day, and I like it a lot better. Still going a full 24 hours of fasting but I don't have to go a day without eating. I think I can do this a couple times a week.

Need to go back and read a little bit more of the books and get a better understanding of what's allegedly happening.

This has been an interesting read. Been looking at IF a bit.

Has anyone done it while maintaining a pretty heavy workout/weight lifting regimen? Have a buddy who swears by it, another that tells me it is completely exclusive of each other. My own research goes both of ways and my intuition tells me that IF would not mix well with lifting.

Any anecdotes y'all would like to share? TIA

Day 1: Normal eating, begin fast at dinner
Day 2: Don't eat until dinner and make it a 600 calorie meal
Day 3: Eat normal, begin fast at dinner
Day 4: Don't eat until dinner and make it a 600 calorie meal

Cycle through that. Your fast ending meal should be the same as you would normally eat based upon the videos posted. At least that's the way I interpret it. Centering it around dinner makes it a little wonky, because you have a 8-12 hour fast coming up right behind it because you're going to sleep after eating. The other thing is that your metabolism slows down while you sleep and your insulin response becomes worse, so your returns will be negatively impacted. How much, I don't really know, but the discussions I've heard on the topic suggest not eating after 7:00PM to avoid disrupting your circadian rhythm and other body processes. That is to say you don't want to overload on calories that late and you won't want to eat that much coming off a fast.

Basically the way I look at it is like your body is a house, you normally run off the grid (glucose/glycogen, basically carbs), when the power goes out (you stop eating) at some point your body will shift to a back up diesel generator (diesel being your stored fat) and resume as if nothing had changed (why your metabolic rate is not negatively impacted). Upon re-feeding you go back onto the grid (carbs) and cycle between the two until your fat stores are depleted.

At that point you would switch to between a 12/12 (12/12 being the minimum studied) to 16/8 fast/feed cycle to get the benefits of time restricted eating, and not concern yourself so much with calorie intake/fat burn, because you have such a limited amount of time to eat it's unlikely you would. If your conscientious about when you eat, your more likely to be conscientious about what you eat especially because eating something bad is going to make you feel extra bad.

You'll be at a calorie deficit for the week, which is part of the point, but rather than eating 1600 calories a day and utilizing carbs (glycogen/glucose) for fuel you'll switch to stored fat burning for your body's calorie consumption.

If you center the fast around breakfast or lunch, rather than dinner you'd have a situation where you'd get a true 24 hour fast with somewhat regular feeding cycles in between.


As far as lifting, the science says that it should improve your returns.

I'd also say that anyone that wants to do a fast for more than 24 hours, you should be careful and understand what you're doing, because you can cause yourself health problems at some point during a fast due to electrolyte depletion among other things. I haven't done the research, because I have no interest in doing one at this point, but it's something to keep in mind.

Just eat lik you normally would. Don't put too much thought into it.

Tonight I ate my normal dinner. Maybe a little extra but not excessive. Big salad with olive oil and balsamic, a couple smoked chicken thighs, a little pulled pork, some red wine, and some dark chocolate. Pretty hearty meal but I feel full and satisfied not gross.

I could've easily held out until lunch tomorrow if I wanted to.

I only drink black coffee and 64oz of water before lunch every day. Mon and Thu eat a salad with low fat dressing for lunch, or veggie soup if it's cold outside. Chicken or fish or a burger patty and a big pile of steamed veggies for dinner. I lose a couple pounds of week on that plan consistently. It's not a diet for me, it's just my regular pattern now, so I don't feel deprived at all. There are days I get busy and skip lunch and maybe just grab a piece of cheese or some raw veggies in the afternoon to get me to dinner.

There are plenty of other reasons to fast, lots of health benefits as long as you don't overdo it.

I like food and wine too much to do more than a 24 hour fast though.

Reporting in - I decided to give this a shot.

In the last 10 days, I've done 7 days of a 20/4 fast, and was surprised at how easy it was.

Dropped from 209 to 202. Obviously thats not anywhere near 7 pounds of fat loss, but still feels nice.

claym711 said:

---

Reporting in - I decided to give this a shot.

In the last 10 days, I've done 7 days of a 20/4 fast, and was surprised at how easy it was.

Dropped from 209 to 202. Obviously thats not anywhere near 7 pounds of fat loss, but still feels nice.

---

Great job, keep it up! Seeing a 1 on the first digit of the scale is going to be a moment you'll enjoy.

I'm literally about to invest a lot of money to spreading the word about IMF. We've got an obesity problem in this country, and I think a combination of reducing sugar and IMF can fix it for a lot of people. Especially the older crowd!

bagger05 said:

---

Tonight I ate my normal dinner. Maybe a little extra but not excessive. Big salad with olive oil and balsamic, a couple smoked chicken thighs, a little pulled pork, some red wine, and some dark chocolate. Pretty hearty meal but I feel full and satisfied not gross.

I could've easily held out until lunch tomorrow if I wanted to.

---

How's it going, bagger?

Haven't been as disciplined as I'd like to be, but am successfully working in a couple days a week of OMAD and close to a 24 hour fast.

I felt like I was really bad this weekend but didn't see nearly the spike I expected. It hasn't been long so that's probably unrelated to the fasting but was interesting to see.

Yesterday I was having a rough day that turned into one of those "F it, I'm gonna eat what I want" kind of days and I actually didn't have the capacity to put down that much food. I ordered some stuff that wasn't so great for me but couldn't eat much of it at all.

I'm going to Mexico in four weeks and am going to be REALLY disciplined on sticking to at least 16/8 and at least two 22/2 windows during the week. Hoping to shed a few more pounds before I hit the beach.


How long does "adjusting the thermostat" supposedly take? According to Fung a normal CICO eat less move more diet will see you drop down and then bounce back up. So if I wanted to set my thermostat at 175, how long do I have to stay there before the thermostat is set there?

bagger05 said:

---

How long does "adjusting the thermostat" supposedly take? According to Fung a normal CICO eat less move more diet will see you drop down and then bounce back up. So if I wanted to set my thermostat at 175, how long do I have to stay there before the thermostat is set there?

---

The weight creeping back up isn't a quick process. It's more of a long term battle. It seems like they talked about reviewing data after a couple of years and most people had regained the weight, and then some, which is what many of us older people have observed in our personal lives over time.

I suspect you'll want to do some form of modified imf as a lifestyle rather than a short term solution. The good news is that maintenence should be much less restrictive than losing weight. You might be able to eat normally 4 days a week and do some minimal fasting for 3 days a week, or maybe just forego breakfast on an ongoing basis. It seems like something that you will need to play with to dial in exactly what is needed to maintain a stable weight over time.

Seems like a simple way to constrain what you eat that can be easier to adhere to. Most people who need to lose weight don't regulate their intake at all. Any system that manages that for them can be a good tool.

Has anyone studied its efficacy against an equivalent calorie regular diet?

chimpanzee said:

---

Seems like a simple way to constrain what you eat that can be easier to adhere to. Most people who need to lose weight don't regulate their intake at all. Any system that manages that for them can be a good tool.

Has anyone studied its efficacy against an equivalent calorie regular diet?

---

Yes, it's been discussed here and Dr. Fung has talked about it in several of his videos on youtube. Intermittent fasting is more effective that calorie restriction when controlled for calories.

Dr. Benjamin Bikman - 'Insulin vs. Glucagon: The relevance of dietary protein'

I can't get the youtube link to work.

Quote:

---

Dr. Benjamin Bikman earned his Ph.D. in Bioenergetics and was a postdoctoral fellow with the Duke-National University of Singapore in metabolic disorders. He is currently a professor of pathophysiology and a biomedical scientist at Brigham Young University in Utah.

Dr. Bikman's professional focus as a scientist and professor is to better understand chronic modern-day diseases, with a special emphasis on the origins and consequences of obesity and diabetes, with an increasing scrutiny of the pathogenicity of insulin and insulin resistance. He frequently publishes his research in peer-reviewed journals and presents at international science meetings.

Dr. Bikman has long been an advocate of a ketogenic diet in light of the considerable evidence supporting its use as a therapy for reversing insulin resistance. His website InsulinIQ.com promotes dietary clarity, healing, and freedom through evidence-based science about insulin resistance. Employing cell-autonomous to whole-body systems, Dr. Bikman's recent efforts have focused on exploring the intimate associations between the metabolic and immune systems.

---

Dr. Bikman has a website dedicated to the study of insulin and weight/weight loss.

insulinIQ

Can you offer a quick summary of what this dude is all about?

Nevermind downloaded the ebook.

1. Avoid sugar
2. Avoid bread and don't drink your carbs
3. High fat diet
4. Intermittent fasting
5. If you fall off the wagon get back on

Great news. Glad to hear it. I have an appointment in early April and I'm looking forward to seeing my test results.

Curious when people have their eating window. Night time works better for my lifestyle but I've seen some articles suggesting that earlier in the day (circadian fasting) is better.