Fasting - what works for you?

[WildflowerMama]

I just had company for almost 2 weeks and slipped a bit off the wagon while they were here. I need to get back on track so I thought I'd do a fast for a few days to detox off white flour and sugar and to get back in the swing of things.

I did start the meat and eggs fast today. I know some people do meat and eggs but allow cheese and cream. Others do meat and eggs only - nothing else. Does anyone have experience with this type of fast?

And, what about the Master Cleanse? Does anyone find that effective?

I'm looking for something to do for 3-5 days only and then back to sensible eating.

[Samantha42]

Well, I think M/E without dairy is a good start.

I, personally, am against the master cleanse, because I think the whole purpose of fasting is to experience the benefits of ketosis. A very lowcal plan that does NOT involve ketosis will burn more muscle than a ketogenic plan. I also don't think maple syrup, however natural it may be, is a good idea for someone with carb issues.

So, I recommend M/E... or if you are a more experienced faster you can try a 24 hour water fast. I also think KISS (just simple, meat, veggies, some oils) helps get you back into ketosis quickly. Ketosis is really all you need to break the sugar/flour addiction. I think it's best to follow a plan that isn't too drastic, unless you have some idea of how to break a fast and what to expect.

There are a number of fasting threads here on LCF-- under other plans you can check out the Intermittent Fasting August Thread, or the Make It Fast thread. IF (Intermittent) is based on shorter length fasts (12-36 hours, usually). On Make it Fast, a lot of people do longer term fasting (days-weeks) and some also do the master cleanse there.

Hope that helps!

[Orphalie]

I NEVER fast............

Have lost tons of weight with Dr. A, gained it back a couple of time de to my own ignorance.


The fastest way to get into ketosis is to give your body plenty of fuel so that it is running on max.............just make sure none of it is bad carbs.

What I do when I've fallen off is drink tons of water. Eat steak, eggs, ground hamburger and some fiber. Basicly lots of fat and calories and fiber + water to clean me out.

Many people fasting will take a few days to get into ketosis, I can get myself there in 12 hours.

[greta_viktoria]

I do yogurt fasts once a week. Very effective. However, no ketosis in this case.

[Diana]

I suggest INDUCTION from Atkins... breaks any sugar/flour cravings and you get to eat healthy

[Reggiano]

one day of yogurt only and i lose 3 pounds, everytime!

[weasel!]

It seems there's a lot of talk of fasting here these days. It worries me. Personally, I don't see how it's any better than another crash diet that's been drawing a lot of fire lately, except that at least some fasters eat some fat. Other than that...

Here's part of post I made on another thread this morning.

Originally Posted by weasel!

... following your suggestion, I visited some of the IF threads. There are a lot of LCF WOE threads I haven't visited, but I can say this:

Never on these boards have I seen such a concentration of people struggling with binging, digestive troubles, elimination problems and newly developed food intolerances.

I have had a lot of experience with fasting, in various contexts, in numerous forms, for various lengths of time and for many reasons, including weight loss.

I've known and lived closely with many, many fasters. Many were were slim. These were invariably people who never have a weight problem to begin with. I never knew anyone to become less overfat through fasting. Including myself. No wait, I just remembered someone -- he went from chubby to splintery. That is, not slim -- bony. Then he died.

For weight loss, I think fasting is a bad, bad, bad idea. It makes your body into a fat magnet. It feels like it's terrific for appetite management, but only in the microscopically short term. The rebound is brutal. Just like any other extreme crash diet.

A spiritual motivation does not fundamentally alter the physiological reality. There are plenty of long-standing spiritual disciplines that include fasting. But they are not weight-loss programs. Their aim is not necessarily physical fitness in the sense we're accustomed to in this century. Nor is their result.

If normalizing and naturalizing your relationship with food is a goal for you, you can't do much worse than fasting. If you wish to restore healthy connections between your hunger, appetite, and physiologic needs, to regain the ability to enjoy food for both nurturing and for celebration, stay away from fasting.

[WildflowerMama]

Thank you all for your thoughts!

Vesna, I just wanted to be clear that I'm not fasting for weight loss, I'm just fasting to get myself back on track, to rid myself of cravings etc... then it's right back to sensible eating. Actually, fasting may not be the right word but either way, I agree with you - long term fasting for weight loss does not help develop a healthy relationship with food. But, I think it can be an effective tool in getting back on track. A couple strict eating days following a binge or to help break a stall can be very beneficial. In fact, many dieting experts recommend switching up your diet every now and again so a fast can be a very effective tool when used in the right way.

[weasel!]

WildflowerMama, that said -- "meat and eggs" and "fast" in the same phrase sounds like an oxymoron from the definition of "fasting" that I'm coming from -- it's not an occasional WOE I would worry about, either. My comment is directed more for anyone reading this thread looking for tips on how to eat nothing, or next to nothing.

[WildflowerMama]

Vesna - I agree. I think meat and egg and fast don't go together. I think fast is probably the wrong word but I couldn't think of another one

[Samantha42]

Originally Posted by weasel!

It seems there's a lot of talk of fasting here these days. It worries me. Personally, I don't see how it's any better than another crash diet that's been drawing a lot of fire lately, except that at least some fasters eat some fat. Other than that...

Here's part of post I made on another thread this morning.

I just wanted to say.... there is also a ton of information saying that fasting (short term, as intermittent implies) is amazing for health. I encourage you to read more about studies regarding fasting. As with any ketogenic diet (LC included) there can be gastric distress if you don't eat the right foods. In fact, I think fasting is one of the best ways to find food intolerances. Not to CREATE them. And how many people on LCF have binge problems?

There are people on LCF who have lost weight and maintained that loss using fasting as part of their WOL.

I practice the fast-5 wol, which is where you fast 19 hours and then eat 5 hours. The physiology behind it sounds very sound to me. There is a free ebook explaining why switching between food and fast many hours a day is hard on the body in terms of fat burning.

http://www.fast-5.com/Fast-5-ebook100.pdf

I'm sorry, I just disagree. Most of the fasters on LCF are not people who have eating disorders or crazy health problems. They found a WOL that works for them and their lifestlye, and I believe that intermittent fasting is extremely healthy.

[walkingwoman]

If you are interested in fasting information check out the Make it Fast challenge on the challenges board. Great group and great information all in one place

[AllieCat0817]

Fasting can be a part of the binge-reward / fast-punishment cycle that SO MANY people do. Not saying you are doing this, but it is a trend we see all the time here. Hope you are feeling better soon!!

[weasel!]

AllieCat, have there been threads where people have argued pro and con the safety and efficacy of fasting and IF? Anything you could point me to?

I just don't understand why there isn't the same kind of uproar around fasting as there is with a certain WOE That Must Not Be Named -- even though, calorie-wise, it amounts to the same thing, or worse.

I don't like the idea of fasting for weight loss, as I suppose I've already made clear -- I've been there and done that, got myself up to around 200 pounds with it. And I don't give a flip whether there's a spiritual purpose behind it or not. That is, a person can fast (or wear a hair shirt, for all I mind) for spiritual reasons, but that doesn't magically change something physically detrimental into something physically beneficial.

My real-life example of the person who fasted regularly until he died at an untimely age -- carefully and spiritually, I might add -- seems to have made zero to no impact, I notice. Hmm.

(Yes, I've read Fast-5 -- was not convinced that it was a good idea for anyone besides a very few people for whom it happens to be naturally suited. And if you've ever been on a fast-triggered binge, (or perhaps any binge) you're not one of them.)

However, I'm reluctant to start barging into the IF and fasting challenge threads and start ranting. (Even though part of me would like to.)

Do you, or anyone, know of any threads where this topic is being or has been seriously critiqued?

[Mandy]

If you'd like to read the scientific research about IF Michael Eades who wrote "Protein Power" put it in his blog. I do IF 22/26 style and I love it (since last september). I feel like a million bucks during a fast. IF has kept me in my ideal weight range. Sometimes I binge coming off a fast and sometimes I don't. I just love not having to worry about it if I do.

Fast way to better health » Michael R. Eades, M.D.

[Mandy]

By the Way this topic has been seriously critiqued on this site by people who it didn't work for. As with any woe it doesn't suit everyone.

[AllieCat0817]

I think IF can and does work for some people, the right kind of person. I tried it for a few days, and it is not for me at all. Feeling dizzy, cranky, frantic almost, and about to pass out and unable to really function like I need to (working mom) just ruled it out. I am sure there are some 'debates' about it somewhere although the debates may not be for IF, but multiple day fasting instead. Not sure.

[Samantha42]

Originally Posted by weasel!

AllieCat, have there been threads where people have argued pro and con the safety and efficacy of fasting and IF? Anything you could point me to?

I just don't understand why there isn't the same kind of uproar around fasting as there is with a certain WOE That Must Not Be Named -- even though, calorie-wise, it amounts to the same thing, or worse.

I don't like the idea of fasting for weight loss, as I suppose I've already made clear -- I've been there and done that, got myself up to around 200 pounds with it. And I don't give a flip whether there's a spiritual purpose behind it or not. That is, a person can fast (or wear a hair shirt, for all I mind) for spiritual reasons, but that doesn't magically change something physically detrimental into something physically beneficial.

My real-life example of the person who fasted regularly until he died at an untimely age -- carefully and spiritually, I might add -- seems to have made zero to no impact, I notice. Hmm.

(Yes, I've read Fast-5 -- was not convinced that it was a good idea for anyone besides a very few people for whom it happens to be naturally suited. And if you've ever been on a fast-triggered binge, (or perhaps any binge) you're not one of them.)

However, I'm reluctant to start barging into the IF and fasting challenge threads and start ranting. (Even though part of me would like to.)

Do you, or anyone, know of any threads where this topic is being or has been seriously critiqued?

You're right-- I didn't mention your friend who died of starvation. Why? Because he was starving. He was anorexic. Most fasters EAT when they are hungry. He ignored these signals by a mental disease. There are very few (if any) underweight posters in the fasting threads.

For people who binge after a fast (which, hello, also happens when you go off lowcarb)-- this is because they do not know how to properly break a fast. If you break a fast with fruit, carbs, sugar... yea, just like on LC, your body gets Limbic signals that tell you to store up. I have never broken a fast with meat, eggs or a protein shake and binged.

This WOL is always critiqued. Fasting is a main reason that *that* thread you keep referring to (about KIMKINS) exists. People think a diet-soda fast is unhealthy. And I agree! There are healthy ways and there are unhealthy ways to fast.

Why do you care so much if this topic is being properly attacked? LC in general is attacked!

And why isn't fasting attacked more than Kimkins? Well, fasters don't average 300 calories a day. In fact, most people who do intermittent fasting have a normal to slightly lowered caloric intake. We don't fast all the time and then have a 300 low-fat turkey burger. We also eat! So to say that periodic fasting (a natural, evolutionary purposed state) is as dangerous as a lowfat, lowcarb, lowcalorie long-term diet plan is just ridiculous.

If you want to come to a fasting thread and attack, go ahead. But to me, it's just like hearing a lowfat advocate attack lowcarb for being too much bacon and cheese. There are proper ways of fasting-- just as there are better and healthier ways to lowcarb. I encourage people who are going to fast to learn about it ahead of time.

[LowCarbRachel]

I wasn't going to post here, but I do want to refute the point that IF'ers only eat 300 calories a day or less. That's not true at all for the people posting in the IF threads, but specifically, it's not true for me. My daily calories range from 1200-1800 a day, depending on what food choices I want to make for the day.

IF is about SO MUCH MORE than "how few calories can I eat?" If I wanted to eat just a few calories, I'd go back to a restrictive diet of lean meat and lettuce. Fast-5 allows me to eat anything I want within my five hour time period, using my appetite for a guide. I feel great on this WOE. My energy levels are good (because I'm obviously eating plenty of calories and choosing the foods/nutrients that my body needs) AND I'm sleeping really well at night. I'm a single working mom and have been able to adjust this WOE to my life with no problem.

No diet plan is right for everyone, and everyone should do their own research to find out what is right for them. If someone is reading this who is interested in knowing more about how IF really works, please come and subscribe to our thread. Don't just dismiss us as a group of people who are trying to eat as few calories as humanly possible. That's just not true.

Rachel

[Just4Me]

I posted this on our IF thread, in response to a post quoting from this thread, I believe.

Originally Posted by Just4Me

Samantha, I haven't read that thread yet, will head over in a sec. But there are a couple things that strike me:

1. If one uses fasting irresponsibly to lose weight (fasting for more than 24 hours, imo, and I get that number from our circadian clocks as well as the studies that have been/are being done on animals and IF) it is not healthy.
2. Just as with any other plan on this board, if one makes it a DIET instead of a WOL, there will be rebound weight gain.
3. Based on what stuyding I've done about the effects of constant eating on our hormones (insulin, cortisol just to mention 2 that are fat storing), as well as my reading of the causes of heart disease and other chronic ailments (anyone interested, take a look at The Great Cholesterol Con and other books), constant and over-feeding are just not healthy in general.

For once with IF I am completely certain that it's right for me. I don't have an ED, I'm very conscious of getting in my nutrients and calories. Just as when low carb hit mainstream, I think it's now a little ignorant ("don't confuse me with the facts!") for people to decry IF without more information. That said, from just that post you quoted (haven't read the thread), it looks like that person was talking about fasting, not IF, which depending on how you define them, can be extremely different.

ETA: I take back this statement. Looks like there's a little ignorance going on, but that's easily remediable with some open-minded research and reading.

ETA2: This statement bothers me.

There are several implications here, that I read, don't know whether they were/are intended:

1. Other than an Intermittent Fasting thread, there's no other place on LCF that discusses these problems (but perhaps the author is unaware of the many threads discussing EDs in the Health Support Groups; the extensive discussion in the monster Kimmer thread; the fact that as this is a diet/weight-loss/health board, it stands to reason that the entire board itself would concentrate people with these problems);
2. Intermittent Fasting is to blame for bringing out these problems (I beg to differ---any WOE, conscientiously followed, should alert the eater to food intolerances as well as trigger foods and food-control issues, if that person is not already so aware; the Main Lobby is rife with threads about food intolerances, people falling off the wagon, etc.; and as to elimination problems, I'm not sure where the IF threads indicate the group concentrates that problem---any LC WOE, if there's insufficient fiber (or food intolerances) is going to have similar problems, and IF is not even a LC WOE )

I find it odd that the author phrases her observations in this manner---subtly alarmist. Again, this indicates to me that s/he is not aware of the literature and studies surrounding IF.

For anyone interested in learning more, read Fast-5 (free e-book, click on the picture); read Mike Eades's blog posts (here and here) as well as the comments; go to the site for the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and search "intermittent fasting" or "alternate day eating" or "alternate day fasting" and read the articles/abstracts for yourself; use google to search those same strings and read abstracts; read the first few pages of the old IF thread, that has so many other references to it.

IF, just like any other WOE, can be abused as practiced or can be healthy as practiced. That's up to the individual person and how they practice it. But please, just as with any other WOE, get educated before you form an opinion about it; and even more so, before you pass on your opinion to others, especially if you might be seen as an "authority".

[emijan]

IF'ing is the way i used to eat when I was younger and due to the glutton that I am have started eating more than my body needed...currently IF is working for me....


That set aside....I want to reply to the lady that said that through eating high fat Atkinsy kinda food she is in ketosis within 12 hours....(.now I am not saying anything against Atkins diet...i think it is wonderful for those who can benefit from it.....for me it 'allowed' me to think i could eat lc even when I wasn't hungry which wasn't a solution to my over eating).
Physically after eating carbs 'falling off the wagon' our bodies have enough 'glucose' in the liver to last 48-72 hours....that is EVERYONE!
If after 12 hours of eating high fat you 'spill' ketones in our urine (ie it turns purple) it is because ketones are by product (waste if you would) of the body breaking down fat to use for fuel, that is fat from the thighs and fat from the ribeye......so you arn't in a true 'your own fat burning' mode until at least 3 days after (unless you fell off for one meal).

that said i do believe most of us do not give the true Atkins a try....readinthe book, following it...we like twiking it and trying to lose the weight faster like the kimkins idea of low fat and no dairy.....the more difficult we make it the shorter time we can stick to it....I have seen it time and time again and I have fallen in this trap before.

I hope I didn't upset too many people and didn't gain any enemies.

[weasel!]

Originally Posted by Samantha42

Why do you care so much if this topic is being properly attacked? LC in general is attacked!

Critique is not attack. I was asking if anyone knew of some threads with critiques -- back-and-forth, in-depth, pro-and-con discussions. I didn't want to barge into a thread where the consensus was pro-, and, in that context, seem to be launching an attack. Didn't feel that would be polite.

Sarah -- my WAPF buddy! -- I guess I was being alarmist. Sorry. I tend to get excited about things. Sometimes hyperbolic. I also was sort of conflating IF and fasting. That's a big mistake. From the Eades site, it seems IF can be as innocuous as skipping meals here and there. Which I do anyway.

Breaking a fast (not an < 24-hr IF, but a one-day or longer fast) properly: in my experience, no matter how much prior thought and planning I've giving to proper fast breaking, I've found it impossible. It's completely matter over mind. Even if the initial fast breaking seems to go smoothly, I've always eaten more, and more poorly, soon after fasting. (My WLF (link in my sig) tells the story of my disastrous 21-day fast.) Maybe that's just me, and maybe it's why anything with "fasting" in the name gives me the creeps now.

[dae_tona]

You can call me a former faster. (I only do it for spiritual reasons now and for no other)

The thing that gets my attention on these fasting threads by a lot of people is this statement: fasting is helping me to maintain my current weight

A healthy eating program combined with some type of exercise (even if it's just walking for 30 minutes a day) will also help someone maintain
their current weight.

Don't get me wrong. I did enjoy fasting. I liked how it made me feel. But I didn't like how much fatter I looked after doing it for about two weeks (I was doing IF at that time) The spiritual fasting is usually only for a day or two and it's not every single week nor every single month.

Plus fasting was a vicious cycle with me. I became afraid of food & afraid to eat for fear I would put back on whatever I lost. Thankfully, I have wonderful family & friends who showed me what I was doing to myself because they were so concerned & I have been able to change all that & now have a healthy relationship with food.

And I don't recommend fasting to anyone who is prone to a binge afterwards or has a history of binging.

Following Induction will get you cleaned out as fast as fasting will. (remember, Dr. Atkins compared Induction to fasting in one of his books - the only difference? On induction, you get to eat)

Dyan

[Mandy]

Maybe that's just me, and maybe it's why anything with "fasting" in the name gives me the creeps now.

Yes exactly. That's YOU! Fasting does not work for YOU! Many people have had the same bad experience as YOU! BUT, just because YOU didn't like it doesn't make it an "unhealthy" woe. The science speaks for itself. Also, not everyone (myself included) has the same bad experience with fasting as YOU!

The thing that gets my attention on these fasting threads by a lot of people is this statement: fasting is helping me to maintain my current weight

Uh so? Is there something wrong with that? People CAN fast and still have a healthy relationship with food just like people can eat Atkins style and have a healthy relationship with food.

[emijan]

I just want to add and say that i do not see any difference between fasting (you know, not completely not eating ever, as some people think.....but IF'ing) and continueing to lc under 20 cabs (which so many here do) to maintain a loss.....

I think that the 'as long as you are getting all your nutrients' line is silly as I hardly ever eat veggies and you should see my blood work.....it is envied by most people I know....how can you tell a person maintaining a huge weight loss while being active (sign of health) that what they are doing is wrong?

[Dharma]

I am one of those for whom intermittent fasting (I follow a 19/5 schedule, like Fast-5) has been amazing.

It really has been the OPPOSITE of ED behavior for me. (I've never had an ED, just read about them). I don't obsess over food, I eat to hunger during my five hour window, and I eat 1500 to 1800 calories during my eating window. I also eat more carbs and yes am still able to maintain my weight.

I like the freedom of not having to plan meals, more time in the morning before work, and not thinking about food during the day (which I always did before). I'm sure this doesn't happen for everybody who tries IF, but it definitely had this effect on me.

I happen to believe that going 15 to 24 hours between meals, intermittently, does have some amazing health benefits. For one thing, the less times our bodies release insulin, the better, period. Eating small amounts all day, unless you're eating all fat, WILL cause insulin to be released. And intermittent fasting does cause ketosis without lowering carbs to almost none, which I really love.

Also, I vary my fasting period depending on social events. I'm not strict with times, I just go with the flow of my life. It really works well for me.

We are all so different....I just believe one WOE is definitely not right for EVERYONE (except I do know that low-fat is just plain dangerous no matter what).

Oh yea, just wanted to add that my digestion and elimination functions have improved dramatically on IF (don't want to go into any unnecessary details, but things are optimal )

[weasel!]

Originally Posted by Mandy

Yes exactly. That's YOU! Fasting does not work for YOU! Many people have had the same bad experience as YOU! ...

Mandy, why all the shouting? I said, "maybe it's just me." I said, "In my experience," and other things along those lines. I'm sharing some painful memories, in what's hopefully a safe space. Also, why be cranky to dyan, for sharing some observations and insights? I'm asking for people's thoughts and knowledge and experience -- politely, I hope. Just discussion.

[Mandy]

Originally Posted by weasel!

Mandy, why all the shouting? I said, "maybe it's just me." I said, "In my experience," and other things along those lines. I'm asking for people's thoughts and knowledge and experience -- politely, I hope. Just discussion.

I'm agreeing with your previous post by emphasizing that your experience with fasting does not = what everyone else's experience is going to be. Many critics seem to think fasting is bad in general and bad for everyone. By now you've read the other threads and have seen that for yourself. Your comments in this thread...

I just don't understand why there isn't the same kind of uproar around fasting as there is with a certain WOE That Must Not Be Named -- even though, calorie-wise, it amounts to the same thing, or worse.

It seems there's a lot of talk of fasting here these days. It worries me. Personally, I don't see how it's any better than another crash diet that's been drawing a lot of fire lately, except that at least some fasters eat some fat. Other than that...

However, I'm reluctant to start barging into the IF and fasting challenge threads and start ranting. (Even though part of me would like to.)

(Yes, I've read Fast-5 -- was not convinced that it was a good idea for anyone besides a very few people for whom it happens to be naturally suited. And if you've ever been on a fast-triggered binge, (or perhaps any binge) you're not one of them.)

For weight loss, I think fasting is a bad, bad, bad idea. It makes your body into a fat magnet. It feels like it's terrific for appetite management, but only in the microscopically short term. The rebound is brutal. Just like any other extreme crash diet.

Never on these boards have I seen such a concentration of people struggling with binging, digestive troubles, elimination problems and newly developed food intolerances.

If normalizing and naturalizing your relationship with food is a goal for you, you can't do much worse than fasting. If you wish to restore healthy connections between your hunger, appetite, and physiologic needs, to regain the ability to enjoy food for both nurturing and for celebration, stay away from fasting.

[weasel!]

I apologize for my insensitivity and overgeneralization.

[Just4Me]

Originally Posted by weasel!

...

Sarah -- my WAPF buddy! -- I guess I was being alarmist. Sorry. I tend to get excited about things. Sometimes hyperbolic. I also was sort of conflating IF and fasting. That's a big mistake. From the Eades site, it seems IF can be as innocuous as skipping meals here and there. Which I do anyway.

Breaking a fast (not an < 24-hr IF, but a one-day or longer fast) properly: in my experience, no matter how much prior thought and planning I've giving to proper fast breaking, I've found it impossible. It's completely matter over mind. Even if the initial fast breaking seems to go smoothly, I've always eaten more, and more poorly, soon after fasting. (My WLF (link in my sig) tells the story of my disastrous 21-day fast.) Maybe that's just me, and maybe it's why anything with "fasting" in the name gives me the creeps now.

Vesna, was that post yours? lol I missed that little detail!

Okay, your post that I responded to makes much more sense in light of the fasting/IF conflation, and your bad experience (sorry to hear about that).

I have no experience with a fast deliberately longer than 24 hours. (I've fasted 48-72 hours before, but was sick as a dog and lived alone and didin't have energy to cook----actually, when I could get up, I felt awesome and HUNGRY.)

Dyan--I have no experience with EDs. The closest I've come is overeating for a good part of my life, and the (previously! ) regular carb binges. And I've not read anything about IF and EDs in people who have had them or are likely to be susceptible. I can offer some anecdotal information, based on my own experience, and repeated by others in either the Fast5 yahoo board or the IF yahoo board (can't remember which one, sorry).

When I first started IF, I allowed myself to eat anything, including my fav old carby foods. Carbs, especially with wheat, are a binge food for me. I had one rule only: Eat during my window and no other hours. And I sure did! The first 2 weeks, I ate whatever I wanted, which was a LOT of anything with wheat in it. But after those first couple weeks, I noticed that I was making healthier choices. I was still eating those wheat products (pasta, pizza, cake, fill-in-the-blank with carby badness), but I was also making myself a nice plate of eggs or a steak and some salad, and eating the wheat either as a "treat" afterward, or for dessert.

Now, since I've never had an ED and have read nothing about ED and IF (as I said), I cannot extrapolate from this anecdotal info anything about a person with/predisposed to ED doing IF. But no one has said that IF is perfect for everyone.

In Fast-5, either the book or on his yahoo board, the author discusses the frequent reaction to starting an IF regimen: when that eating window opens, it's not unlikely that you'll overeat (binge). He also says that within usually about 4 weeks, your body acclimates to the IF schedule, and you start eating more reasonably for your size.

For me, when I overate carbs only in my window, I maintained weight. At first I thought "Perfect! With IF, when I'm in maintenance, I can have me cake and eat it too! " But the problem with a trigger food is then I want it outside my window. Even one slice of sourdough heavily covered in cream cheese and butter, eaten during the morning, caused me to gain weight. I'm sure it's just that extra bit of insulin/cortisol activity.

For me, I do consider IF to be a wonderful tool to help me lose weight (along with low carb, and learning to up my fats) and keep it off. I also drink a lot of water to satisfaction, and as soon as I get my apartment cleaned up, will start exercising again. Just as with any other WOE/WOL, IF **can** be a useful tool for weightloss/maintenance and general health. (Interstingly, some studies on IF in animals indicate that it may have the same health benefits as following a LC WOE, in spite of NOT eating LC during the IF.)