Fasting

Hardly a fad Frenchtart. I've been following IF for about 5 or 6 years now.

I don't know if there are, or you perceive there to be, any benefits or 'glory' in water fasting for excessive/extended periods of time.

It's not uncommon for me to fast closer to 18 or 19 hours at the weekend if I am busy, eating at 2/3PM instead of at noon.

I think about 23/24 hours is the longest I've fasted for but doing so was not my intention, thought I had booked a half day at work so left my lunch at home, later turned out it was booked for the following week so I just ate that evening when I got in from work.
 
Some people may very well make it a part of their lifestyle and indeed be informed about nutrition and the like.

Unfortunately a huge amount of people have taken it up temporarily as one of the latest fad diets. The OP may not be one of these and I've seen enough of your posts BennyC to know that you're not. The vast majority of people I run into in RL that have tried it are perpetual fadders (not Irish fathers).
 
There's no point if you eat well, train well and have a well balanced lifestyle. If you work shifts or have a bad schedule for eating, then it can be helpful - however in terms of achieving goals it may do a short term burst in terms of hormonal balance rearrangement, but long term your body adapts so you end up being back in a balanced situation.

Carb cycling is more effective and from research seems to have the most scientific backing.
 
When I started training for the first time in my life I ran a 16/8 fasted/fed protocol concurrently. These days I just break my fast when I start feeling hungry, so it might be 12/12, 14/10 or 16/8 - the main thing I took from doing I.F strictly was that it showed me a lot of what people said about meal timing was irrelevent, and helped me ignore social conventions about what sort of things people 'should' eat when.

Also, science.

nutrient-timing-table_r4-01-1024x837.png
 
Somnambulist said:
When I started training for the first time in my life I ran a 16/8 fasted/fed protocol concurrently. These days I just break my fast when I start feeling hungry, so it might be 12/12, 14/10 or 16/8 - the main thing I took from doing I.F strictly was that it showed me a lot of what people said about meal timing was irrelevent, and helped me ignore social conventions about what sort of things people 'should' eat when.

Also, science.

nutrient-timing-table_r4-01-1024x837.png
Click to expand...

Good post :)

Meal timing is such a non story - like the "anabolic window" after a work out that the sports nutrition keep plugging, it doesn't exist.

The only time that nutrition timing is important is if you're an advanced / elite level sports person or are doing sports like marathons and other endurance events, bodybuilding shows - of course if you're a strength trainer getting the nutrition in the first place is important.
 
I'm trying to lose some weight by fasting as I've found it fits perfectly into my lifestyle, which is hectic in the week.

I can easily go from 8pm to 8pm without eating. I just eat when I get hungry and fast in between.

On Saturday night I ate a lot of Ketley beef at pub and didn't eat again until Sunday night. So far this week I've eaten pasta with pesto on Monday night, having skipped breakfast and lunch, and eaten rice and chili just now, having eaten nothing else all day again.

Tomorrow I'll probably skip breakfast and try and grab some lunch at work, but a black coffee in the mornings, water all day, then a big meal with the family in the evening seems to really suit me. I just don't get that hungry until the evening.

The other reason it suits me is that I'd rather scoff what I like occasionally than eat bland healthy rabbit food regularly throughout the day.

In many ways I eat and look like a lion :p. Let's see how it works out long term.
 
If you saw what many of us eat in a calorie deficit when we're dieting, it's anything but rabbit food. The 'chicken and broccoli' diets are seen as a bit of a joke these days - it's all about getting your nutrients from a variety of sources and understanding there are no good or bad foods in isolation, you can only judge the diet as a whole.

That kind of all-day fasting is... okay if you're tracking your intake to some degree and have a fair bit of fat to lose - creating an enormous deficit is never healthy unless set-up a specific way for a short-term stint, and equally some people just end up binging and eating more than if they'd have spaced their meals out. Calories in v.s. calories out still applies with fasting set-ups, it's simply a case of 'does something like 16/8 or 5:2 promote greater adherence to my diet' which is where the results come from.

Also very long fasts wouldn't be particularly great at all if you're doing any kind of exercise beyond low intensity activity and not eating until hours later. The graphic I posted above still applies but it does presume a modicum of common-sense in that people will be eating stuff somewhere before/after training, splitting their protein intake up a bit etc.
 
Participant said:
The other reason it suits me is that I'd rather scoff what I like occasionally than eat bland healthy rabbit food regularly throughout the day.
Click to expand...

Fasting doesn't mean poor food choices should form the entirety of you caloric intake regularly. You should still be including plenty of nutritious vitamin & mineral rich wholefood in your diet, as you seem to be but just for anyone else reading.

I understand, and know myself, using a fasting approach makes fitting 'fun' foods in to your diet whilst maintaining a calorie deficit quite easy but it doesn't give grounds to negate healthy and sensible eating entirely :)

It is a bit baffling that largely as a society and even as a race we now eat by the clock :rolleyes: of course each to our own and what's adhere-able for one might not be for the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom