Flirting with Intermittent Fasting

Late last summer, we ran into Johnathan Zaragoza at City Mouse in the Ace Hotel. We decided to have dinner together, but before we sat down, we exclaimed about a dozen times, “You look fantastic,” and he did.

Zaragoza revealed his secret, which I’m sure he has no problem with me sharing: intermittent fasting. He goes without food for 18 hours every day and eats only during a six-hour window afternoon to early evening.

Fasting has always seemed to me to be a reasonable exercise in self-care. Very rarely, I’ve gone for a few days without eating; more recently, I’ve experimented with 12-hour fasts. At the moment, I’m giving the 18-hour fast a try.

But why fast at all?

I’m cautious about food fads (The ketchup diet! Fruitarianism!), of course, but intermittent fasting is working for some people I know and there seems some scientific basis for avoiding food for most of the day.

• “Between meals…our insulin levels will go down and our fat cells can then release their stored sugar, to be used as energy. We lose weight if we let our insulin levels go down. The entire idea of IF is to allow the insulin levels to go down far enough and for long enough that we burn off our fat.”
[https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-surprising-update-2018062914156]

• Intermittent fasting and restricted eating windows tend to lead to weight loss—but that's because people following these regimens end up eating less. These approaches also can lead to improvements in body composition, cholesterol, and blood sugar metabolism…
[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-intermittent-fasting-work/]

• “…blood pressure, HDL and LDL cholesterol levels, and insulin sensitivity were improved, and waist circumference decreased more with intermittent fasting than with equivalent weight loss with other methods, but this was not universal. Intermittent fasting reduces markers of inflammation that are associated with atherosclerosis, the etiology of heart attacks and strokes.
[https://www.ladydocscornercafe.com/article/intermittent-fasting--is-there-any-scientific-basis-for-it/#sthash.RPRuQwTC.dpbs]

I’m not entirely convinced that going without food for 12, 16 or 18 hours is really such a great plan, but my doctor says I should lose about ten or so pounds, and my cholesterol is a touch high, so I’m giving intermittent fasting a shot.

As all of us are so consistently overfed, going without chow for a block of hours every day is not such a huge sacrifice…and I would much rather be hungry than stuffed.

In addition to intermittent fasting, Zaragoza is also off the booze…an admirable act of self-discipline, which for me is a bridge too far.

I have been doing this for the last 2 years and it is difficult to start out. But it has gotten better with time. The important thing is to get your body into Ketosis DAILY. So you have to refrain from getting any fat/carbs/protein in your window. It is really tough. I am a South Indian vegetarian and don't drink. So I thought I was 'healthy'. Wrong! The South Indian diet is unsuited for a temperate climate and accompanied with a sedentary lifestyle. Too much carbs. So I had to drastically change my eating.

I do a 16 hr intermittent fast 4 days a week (eat between 1 pm and 9 pm), and do a 24 hour fast 3 days a week (go dinner to dinner). Also I have switched from regular rice to parboiled rice completely (half the Glycemic Index of regular white rice), and make sure I eat some kind of protein with EVERY meal. It is the mix of fat/carbs/protein that will keep you from getting an insulin spike, like you would if you have no protein in the meal.

Also, I try not to eat out more than 2-3 times a week. The best way to control your diet is to cook for yourselves. All my numbers have improved significantly since I started doing this. HDL is higher, LDL and triglycerides are lower, A1C is lower, blood pressure is stable. So add me as another proponent of this method to prevent chronic problems caused by diet.

I also practice intermittent fasting following the 16 hr fast/ 8hr eating window which is not difficult to follow. I just skip breakfast and eat lunch and dinner. The reason why I think it works is that you don't need food in your stomach all day which if not used as energy turns to fat. Also spiking your insulin levels each time you eat. You need to give your body a break to digest food and that's where intermittent fasting comes to play.

I believe corporate marketing(dairy / cereal industries) was behind the idea of 3 square meals a day is needed for human health.

polster wrote:I also practice intermittent fasting following the 16 hr fast/ 8hr eating window which is not difficult to follow. I just skip breakfast and eat lunch and dinner. The reason why I think it works is that you don't need food in your stomach all day which if not used as energy turns to fat. Also spiking your insulin levels each time you eat. You need to give your body a break to digest food and that's where intermittent fasting comes to play.

I'm guessing you have a lot more experience with intermittent fasting than I do, but some IF regimens I've looked over stress that breakfast should be a big meal because you burn off the calories during the day. You need less calories/energy at night, of course, and pretty much none when you're sleeping.

I tried it for about 10 months. I essentially worked on a 16 hour fast but it was 16 hours from my last meal, so my "eating window" varied based on when I ate my last meal and also on what I did coming off my allotted once a week cheat day. Over that period, I did both breakfast and not breakfast fasts.

I hated it.

I only kept at it for ten months for all the reasons cited. If even some of the benefits were true--energy, dementia stay-off, heart health, etc., etc., how could one not, it seemed.

I did not lose weight or lose weight because of the fast. I tended to still eat 3 meals; for instance if I ate my first meal at lunch, I would have a snackish meal before dinner.

You think a lot about eating.

There is always some point, any day, when you would be hungry. You understand the meaning of the word, hangry.

It puts a lot of pressure on social interactions. Between breakfast and dinner, overall, I would prefer eating breakfast, but it eliminated nearly all family meals and put a crimp on going out generally.

I'm still tempted to try again, because, again, the benefits seem so strong. I'm not in the least tempted by the keto diet, but IF is supposed to give the same impact without all the problems of keto. Yet, for the reasons cited, I have not tried again.

Here's a link to a good, recent, interview on Chicago tonight with a local scientist who has been researching this for some time: https://news.wttw.com/2020/01/07/247-fo ... -followers

My basic takeaway from the interview is that there is no hard evidence of any health benefits or detriments. It's just another way that, for some people, helps them limit caloric intake. Some people do better if they limit what they can eat; others do better if they limit the time when they can eat. Just different approaches to the same goal.

19:5 (Fast 5) is my default for about 5 almost 6 years w/ a lot of OMAD thrown in because I don't have an appetite. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xHQbg4xH9lw

I have been off-track since the holidaze so may go for a OMAD tomorrow (1 meal w/in 24 hrs).


It's lovely that IF no longer has to be treated like Fight Club.

Vital Information wrote:I essentially worked on a 16 hour fast but it was 16 hours from my last meal, so my "eating window" varied based on when I ate my last meal and also on what I did coming off my allotted once a week cheat day. Over that period, I did both breakfast and not breakfast fasts.

I hated it.

The "moving window" is also my approach. With any "dietary" program, flexibility is very important to me, so somedays I may skip breakfast and other days dinner, just so it works out to 16-18 hours in a generalized fasting mode. And I don't stick to it everyday; I break the routine as necessary.

One thing is for sure, I always leverage the usual sleep time to boost overall fasting time. Eating a few hours before going to bed is probably a bad idea any way.

It doesn't really seem necessary to hold to either the same window everyday or even to the program itself everyday. However, it may be better to follow the same routine every day...or is it?

At any rate, I definitely don't hate the regimen, not yet at least, and I am feeling some positive benefits.

David Hammond wrote:

polster wrote:I also practice intermittent fasting following the 16 hr fast/ 8hr eating window which is not difficult to follow. I just skip breakfast and eat lunch and dinner. The reason why I think it works is that you don't need food in your stomach all day which if not used as energy turns to fat. Also spiking your insulin levels each time you eat. You need to give your body a break to digest food and that's where intermittent fasting comes to play.

I'm guessing you have a lot more experience with intermittent fasting than I do, but some IF regimens I've looked over stress that breakfast should be a big meal because you burn off the calories during the day. You need less calories/energy at night, of course, and pretty much none when you're sleeping.

In my opinion the eating window doesnt matter if its night or morning and you are still sticking to 16 fast/8 eating window. The issue some people who try intermittent fasting have is:

1 - People eat more calories in the 8 hour feeding window than they do when not fasting at all. i.e. snacking throughout the eating window as well not adjusting your eating habits of junk food and sugary drinks will actually lead to weight gain instead of your target weight loss. At the end of the day its still about calories in vs. calories out.

2 - Some individuals just don't stick to a schedule and say will fast 1 day and the next day eat all day or at different hours. This is why the same people who say I go to the gym but not consistently cant get any results. I believe for intermittent or fasting in general to be effective you need a routine that you follow consistently at least for a month to see its effects on yourself.

3 - Another thing is people are serious on trying this way eating on liquid side when intermittent fasting I would suggest to cut out all alcohol and any juice (or sugary drinks). Just drink and increase your normal intake of water, unsweetened tea, unsweetened / no milk coffee. Drinking more water will increase the health benefits as well as make you feel fuller longer which as an issue for those who just start intermittent fasting.

Am I alone is finding this entire discussion incredibly ironic? Fasting, giving up liquor, other severe dietary restrictions bandied about on a blog arguably devoted to gluttony, fried chicken, italian beef, and all manner of deliciousness?

Really folks, take this elsewhere, alot of us really enjoy eating, not "not eating".

polster wrote: Some individuals just don't stick to a schedule and say will fast 1 day and the next day eat all day or at different hours. This is why the same people who say I go to the gym but not consistently cant get any results. I believe for intermittent or fasting in general to be effective you need a routine that you follow consistently at least for a month to see its effects on yourself.

Generally, consistency is a good thing. Here’s the thing, though: most of the medical professionals who’ve spoken on this topic seem to agree that the best results come after 12 hours. So, if you usually go 16 hours, but feel that you can go up to 18 or so (as I’m doing at this very moment), isn’t that a good thing, albeit inconsistent?

Further on this point, is consistency of physiological benefit? We’re told that sleeping during roughly the same timeframe every night is good for quality of sleep. Does this apply to IF? If you fast/eat during the same hours every day, is that really better than letting the day’s activities govern fasting and eating?

Hell if I know.

champs2005 wrote:Am I alone is finding this entire discussion incredibly ironic? Fasting, giving up liquor, other severe dietary restrictions bandied about on a blog arguably devoted to gluttony, fried chicken, italian beef, and all manner of deliciousness?

Really folks, take this elsewhere, alot of us really enjoy eating, not "not eating".

I disagree as even though the forum is mostly about gluttony, fasting and dieting goes with the eating/food theme as well. Some in the new years seek to improve their overall health and well being and even enjoy the occasional fried chicken seek some balance into their eating habits.

One can practice intermittent fasting and still enjoy pizza, burgers, and other junk food. This is just a topic on eating that in my opinion belongs on this foodie forum as well. Not everyone is seeking this advice but it’s still useful to those that do.

Yes, the thread could be seen as ironic but the discussion is absolutely appropriate here. We'd suggest that if you don't want to read it, just avoid it. It's a single thread, so it should be easy enough to do so. I think we all have certain threads that we just never read.

Thanks,

=R=
for the Moderators

Jonah wrote:Here's a link to a good, recent, interview on Chicago tonight with a local scientist who has been researching this for some time: https://news.wttw.com/2020/01/07/247-fo ... -followers

My basic takeaway from the interview is that there is no hard evidence of any health benefits or detriments. It's just another way that, for some people, helps them limit caloric intake. Some people do better if they limit what they can eat; others do better if they limit the time when they can eat. Just different approaches to the same goal.

Thanks for posting the link, Jonah.

What was a little difficult to reconcile was this doctor's statement that it's basically an issue of "calories in/calories out," and "just another matter of calorie restriction." The host then asks if there are any other benefits besides weight loss (right around 4:25), and the doc proceeds to list abundant benefits, including lowering insulin levels/resistance, "it routinely lowers blood pressure," lowers triglycerides and bad cholesterol, raises good cholesterol, has protective effects against diabetes, etc.

So it seems IF is more than just eating less and losing more.

Here's another way to think about the potential benefit of intermittent fasting, particularly if it's structured so that you don't eat for several hours before going to bed. Looking into this has led me to believe lately that what's most important about the timing of eating is being active after eating. The traditional "postprandial stroll," for example, or other physical activity --- even if it's just being on one's feet walking around the workplace or doing house or yard work --- within a couple of hours after eating is beneficial for reducing blood triglyceride levels, for example. One is less likely to be physically active after dinner or after post-dinner snacking. I've been keeping an eye out for news reports on the potential benefits of IF, but lately I've come to think that it's less important to block out 12 or more hrs per day of no caloric intake than to try to minimize caloric intake if you know you will be physically inactive for quite some time afterward, e.g., for most people, from some time in the evening through some time in the morning.

It seems to me, then, that if an IF regimen that prohibits eating after lunch is going to be too unpleasant from a family, social, or personal perspective, another option is to plan some physical activity -- on a treadmill or exercise bike, moving around the house, going for a walk, etc. --- after dinner.

Katie wrote:Here's another way to think about the potential benefit of intermittent fasting, particularly if it's structured so that you don't eat for several hours before going to bed. Looking into this has led me to believe lately that what's most important about the timing of eating is being active after eating. The traditional "postprandial stroll," for example, or other physical activity --- even if it's just being on one's feet walking around the workplace or doing house or yard work --- within a couple of hours after eating is beneficial for reducing blood triglyceride levels, for example. One is less likely to be physically active after dinner or after post-dinner snacking. I've been keeping an eye out for news reports on the potential benefits of IF, but lately I've come to think that it's less important to block out 12 or more hrs per day of no caloric intake than to try to minimize caloric intake if you know you will be physically inactive for quite some time afterward, e.g., for most people, from some time in the evening through some time in the morning.

It seems to me, then, that if an IF regimen that prohibits eating after lunch is going to be too unpleasant from a family, social, or personal perspective, another option is to plan some physical activity -- on a treadmill or exercise bike, moving around the house, going for a walk, etc. --- after dinner.

Total agreement and one of the many reasons why we take the El to dinner when we're dining downtown. The walk (anywhere from a half-mile to a mile and one-half or more) after dinner is now something I feel I need. Unless it's very cold, we don't drive and we don't take Ubers: it just feels uncomfortable eating a sizeable dinner and then sitting down (again) for the ride home. The walking to and from the train gets the one of us with a Fitbit up to her 10k steps and it gets me digesting dinner.