The FastDay Forum

Oh I DO so sympathise with you Ballykins!

Thanks Callyanna, I apologise for falling short of my normally tolerant self but I do not appreciate sustained attacks on what I have never claimed to be anything more than my own personal experience. This is an individual, and hugely important journey for most of us and helping and supporting each other along the way, for me, is more important than rubbishing the opinions of others.

I rest my case, m'lud

Ballerina x

I totally agree with you @Ballerina there is room enough for us all to find what works best for us. We can be supportive of each other's efforts too rather than being unhelpful. There is no one right way, as our bodies respond differently.

And this does go back to what Caroline said in her first post ...

Thanks girls, and thank you Caroline for all your work behind the scenes gathering information, scientific and otherwise to keep us all informed, I really appreciate your efforts and I know most of the forum do,as well.

Ballerina x

And this does go back to what Caroline said in her first post ...

Exactly, shame that was trampled over so ungraciously, thanks SD

Ballerina x

Hi all:

It is a shame this tent tolerates no opinions that are different than those held by the initial inhabitants. But I will ignore the attacks on me, the snide comments and the suggestion that I am some how a bad person for not agreeing that 16:8 is the best thing since sliced bread (and butter).

My opinion is simple - 16:8 is only what someone does with it. My opinion is much more eloquently and concisely portrayed in this post - have at the poster! - post127343.html#p127343

Aw,look,this is the same argument rehashed. If you do not have a calorie deficit, you will not lose weight. However, this is a good way of applying a modest calorie restriction, as is 5:2, without as much pain as a 24/7 calorie controlled diet.

Men lose weight more easily, women need more complicated strategies...plus eating less & less can end in disaster. I've been in the company of an anorexic over the last few months & it's painful watching her struggle.

We are all grown ups here. Let everyone find their own path.

[Tracieknits]

If we want to focus on losing weight and only losing weight, of course you eat less. The question is not whether to eat less, but HOW to eat less. 16:8 is a strategy that aids hunger management, which is necessary from a practical standpoint, because when you eat less, you generally get hungry. How to deal with hunger without eating more (which is how many people deal with hunger, which is not a successful weight loss strategy) is one of the things that 16:8 helps you with.

There's also the fat-burning mode of the body and exercising before you break your fast and leptins and all that body-chemistry stuff for the more scientifically minded among us (which I am most times), but for me, 16:8 is more about hunger management than it is about magical things where an 8 hour eating window trumps eating less than your TDEE in order to lose weight.

I 16:8 I use it alongside 5:2 (36hours) and wey hey weekends. It has helped me to reach my target and I am hoping for a bit more now. I cannot express the gratitude I feel for @ballerina who showed me the light.

16:8 means eating a light lunch, a healthy snack or two and a sensible dinner. Simples. I cannot possibly go over my TDEE following that woe. Please don't think that it is licence to eat as MUCH as you want

Hmm, think I had better invest in a bigger tent! I'm planning a huuuuge fridge, with all manner of lovely good things to eat and drink, BUT it will be firmly locked for 16 hours a day! To keep you occupied while you wait for it to be unlocked are a variety of exercise equipment, a coffee bar (just black coffee though I'm afraid) and a library of all the books from the book club that we probably haven't got around to reading yet...

You won't need to lock it at all if you restack all of that stuff in front of the fridge door as a motivating part of a HIIT exercise. Two birds, one stone.

My 16:8 is more like 23.5:.5 as those savored fast day calories just don't take that long to ingest.

Does applying a 16:8 approach make a noticeable difference on feast days?

Still waiting for my Varaday book to arrive.

I did 5:2 strictly to get my weight down. Now, I am doing 16:8 twice a week in maintenance, and it is enough to keep my weight in check. I just love these WOEs and I thank the people who have presented them here. I did buy the 8 hour diet book, and he had definite suggestions of how to go about it. I figure as long as my meals are balanced, and my weight stays down, I'm where I want to be!

Going to try 16.8 once this week. I've also changed 5:2 to 6:1 due to sleep disturbance.
One other thing which I think Caroline is getting at is there is evidence of 16:8 having an effect on appetite.
I'm all for that! It's certainly worth a try.
So this week is One normal fast (today), and one 16.8. I will report on how it goes. Also watching my carbs.

cheers to all in the tent
Jo

[Tracieknits]

I like 16:8 because it helps me have a bit of control.

First, I'm skipping breakfast, so there's a few hundred calories shaved off of my daily eating. Since eating tends to make me hungrier, I'm also not having any sugary midmorning pastry snacks, which is an ancient bad habit of mine - so potentially another couple hundred calories NOT eaten. I do not eat a larger lunch because I skipped breakfast. I do not generally snack between lunch and dinner, and I don't find I eat a larger dinner on 16:8 days. So I'm keeping that calorie deficit I made by not eating in the morning.

Secondly, I'm getting in a fast window of about 16 hours, which should have some positive effect on my blood chemistry. Thirdly, if I exercise before breaking my fast, which I generally do, then I am using up my glycogen stores and turning on fat-burning mode.

So it's all good, in my book. All the bases covered.

Ah, good to know I'm doing the right things. Never got my head around the 16:8 thread. However, read Leangains & thought this would work well with training.