Dr. Fung asks, "What's the surest way to lose weight?" Taking a cue from his 8-year-old kid, he answers: "Don't eat." If you follow Dr. Fung's videos on DietDoctor, you'll get the whole story, and it's an important strategy to think about if you're doing low-carb, or any other dietary path.

Not eating for various periods of time, as outlined in various strategies, produces quick weight loss results for many. But as a long-term commitment? I don't think so.

Eating, for human beings, is so much more than nutrition. Eating is personal pleasure, social interaction, ceremonial, celebratory....everyday life. It's hard enough working around low-carb requirements in social, work environment, and family settings. I suspect that intermittent fasting (IF) can become a hack: an extreme way of making up for the difficulties of sustaining a lifestyle that is already out of the mainstream.

All diets "work." I'm now over 70. I've done them all. Plain ol' Atkins turns out to be the most sustainable for me, even with its long-term challenges from the Weight Creep. The bottom line may be: Whatever you eat, eat less. Maybe WAY less. At my age, cutting down on fat, as well as carbs, may be a requirement I'm reluctant to embrace. But Not Eating? Not for long.

Clearly, I'm speaking with exaggeration. I trust, for now, that my current return to a ketogenic level of carb restriction will be helpful. I trust that my current experiment with IF will be interesting, if not dramatic. I trust that I know my own body, my own life, my own capabilities to sustain (or not) good dietary choices.

But let's not make too big a fuss about Intermittent Fasting.

Each to their own type of restriction. I am into year six of 19/5 and have no plans to stop. I love food too, and one of the reasons to do this is that I can really enjoy myself when I do eat without having to stint myself on quantities. Stop when full, not stuffed.

I think it depends on what we mean here. Not snacking, just eating a couple of meals a day works better for me. For me it's just one more thing to try, and see how it works for you. Fung wouldn't be behind it if it wasn't having good effect for some people.

For me the most effective thing has been a high fat ratio, moderate protein ketogenic diet that more and more people lately are assuring me will result in muscle loss. It isn't, but I don't claim it won't for anybody. I think an important message is to remember to give up, when appropriate. It's not a failure, sometimes something just isn't working for you.

I think some of this is likely related to personal fat threshold. When I'm heavier, fasting is easier, and less likely to just result in binge-type behaviour on refeeding. The leaner I am, the more I need to just keep everything tight. If you find fasting makes things easier, fast. If it makes things harder, then admit it and move on.

As teaser said, it depends on what you mean by IF. A 19/5 or OMAD, is merely "Time Restricted Eating" something most on low carb can do if they wish, and it is very flexible.** I might plan to only eat dinner, but then get invited to lunch, so I switch it up as fits my routine. Not eating a whole day, therefore doing a 36-42 or 48 hour fast is good for weight loss, but again is very flexible. I may plan to do that M-W-F but social life often intervenes, so consider those changes part of "keeping my body guessing" Longer than that gets into therapeutic uses, not the focus of this forum.
My view is that IF + LCHF makes the social and lifestyle aspects much easier. You become more aware of the When to Eat part of weight loss, avoiding the snacking and grazing that is part of life and even some weight loss programs (looking at you, WW and Slimfast )

**You mentioned going back to the Westman diet in WWGF. I still remember how surprised I was at the first support group attended that the women at my table had coffee for breakfast, a light snack early afternoon, and then a nice LC dinner. You could call that The Warrior Fasting diet, but really it is just TRE, what Dr Westman called it. I had been plodding along with three squares plus a snack, and finally what he said to me in the clinic...Eat when Hungry...worked.

Like Teaser and Jey did, I want to start with "It depends on what you mean by..." with a side of "It depends on what your goals are..."

"Quick weight loss" always seems to be an easy bogeyman to drag out of the the closet. As if quick isn't real, is somehow unhealthy, doesn't really count, or the only legit way to lose weight is via a long, slow slog. The phrase always sets me on edge a bit. And it's rarely defined.

Going with the popular wisdom that 1–2 lbs. per week is a healthy pace (I have no science at hand to identify a different rate), then I think the majority of Dr. Fung's patients fall into this category or somewhat close, at least from what I've seen or read on his website, other forums and the IDM Facebook page. Personally, I think that without fasting, I might be losing about 1 lb. per week and with fasting maybe 2 lbs. (Early days on my N=1).

One of the most important things about weight loss is actually losing weight. Yes, learning new ways of eating is also important. But for most people, it's important to see significant results in order to have the motivation to keep going. So a faster rate of weight loss will help a lot of people.

Time-restricted eating (TRE) seems to be a really natural way for a lot of people to eat, so I don't think there's any concern with a making that a longer term commitment. And once people reach their goals, no one is suggesting that they continue to (truly) fast regularly. Some suggestions are doing it maybe 3–4 times a year as a maintenance strategy, to drop a couple of pounds gained on vacation or over a holiday, etc. The middle ground, then, is whether someone can commit to fasting on a regular basis for, say, a year until they reach their weight loss goal. This is not an easy commitment (and Dr. Fung likes to point out that fasting is hard--it's not complicated, but it is hard), but possible.

The other issue is that people fast for lots of different reasons: Some for weight loss, some for autophagy, to fight cancer, to cure metabolic illness and insulin resistance, etc. Some people are very ill and fasting provides a rapid improvement to their health. I think people who are in a life or death situation have way more ability to make a "longer commitment" to fasting than the average person. There also appear to be a number of diseases that can be turned around or prevented via the autophagy benefits from fasting, that you just can't get by doing anything else.

There's a lot more detail in Dr. Fung's videos on his YouTube site:
Dr. Fung's videos on YouTube

That's why I'm doing it: I had an autoimmune flare that was excruciating.

I kicked things off with a 3 day fast that was surprisingly easy, which gave me some relief from my symptoms so quickly it surprised me. I followed up with a Very Low Carb (I average 10 carbs a day) diet with an eye to making it very restricted and seeing if I react to anything. So far, that's seed oils and raw broccoli.

I eat two meals a day, usually skipping dinner. This is all about healing the mitochondria, at this point. And I like it!

Wow. Diet Doctor comes through again. I just caught an interview with an insulin researcher named Bikman. The title of the interview is "Is fear of protein the new fear of fat?" The LAST question has to do with IF. I like the distinction he makes between IF and "time restricted eating."

Clearly there are many ways to do IF. Bikman acknowledges the potential for IF to be misunderstood, and possibly abused, with seriously bad health consequences. You'll find the interview Here. It might be behind the Member wall. But that's okay--just join up! It's worth it.

Thanks for all feedback above. I'm always gratified by the intelligence and experience members of this forum have to offer. Not really a War Zone at all on this topic.

My plan today was to do a 24 hour fast, eating breakfast and then not eating again until breakfast tomorrow. But noontime came around and I was hungry so I ate. I am thinking I do best with this time restricted eating, either 8/16 or 6/18. So I have decided to just tighten up on my carbs and portion control. If it works it's good. If it doesn't work then why bother? I joined the the Jason Fung Facebook group and soon realized that most of the people who post there are seriously overweight and/or seriously sick. I used to be that way but I am not any more. I just want to lose the few pounds I put on before I have to buy new pants. I don't want to become a zealot for a cause.

Pretty much my feeling about it, though my view is strongly influenced by my past history with food.

Hunger was always the issue behind why previous traditional diet attempts never worked out for me. In fact, when I started LCing for the first time, I promised myself that I would never go hungry. So I actively avoided any idea of fasting as it just sounded too much like the "eat less" advice of old. Not understanding that what Fung etc really meant is "eat less often", but I hadn't figured that out at the time.

To this day I've just let my hunger guide me. And it took over 2 years of non-fasting LC before I finally managed to make a habit out of skipping breakfast without getting hungry. And really, I think that's probably about as long as I can sustain going forward. But given what I've achieved without any fasting longer than 24h anyway (aside from a 36h one-off while I had surgery), that's absolutely fine by me.

I think at the end of the day, this is just another one of those examples where everybody is different. No war to see here, imo.

Barb,
There are many Ben Bikemen fans here. The issue of protein is often debated on the secret fasting thread where we post the latest from Bikman, Fung, Naiman and Phinney. https://forum.lowcarber.org/showthr...77&page=1&pp=15
I fall on the "old ladies" need more protein, not less, side. Though I just received Dr Fung's new book on Longevity that has a protein chapter...so stay tuned.

The IDM team lately has been using the TRE term too, but then easily fall back to the word fasting even for the shortest periods of delayed eating because that is what is all over the media. Easy start tips on this post: https://idmprogram.com/fasting-basi...tarted-fasting/

Doesn't low carb put a body into a natural TRE plan? Or does that just happen to those of us with a little extra weight to lose? I very naturally fall into a 17/7 or 18/6. I've pushed it a few times to 20/4, but that's about it.

I'm currently 38 hours into my first real fast. Yesterday, I fasted for Ash Wednesday and I plan on fasting for all the Fridays of Lent. Beyond Lent, I'm mulling over the idea of doing a fast every first Friday of the month. We'll see. So far I like it.

I think Grav nails it that fasting is one of those things where everybody is different.

In the dark ages of Fung, before the first book when everything was live for the taking, IF wasn't yet a fad. I got the impression that Dr. Fung put his patients on extremely long fasts to save their lives. Their bodies were broken, and long fasts allowed their bodies to remember how to heal themselves.

There's just too much emerging truth that being in ketosis is healing. For some people that healing is an emergency. For others (part of a group of which I consider myself one) it's like quality-of-life insurance. Fasting is just another way of being in ketosis. (I realize that's a simplification.)

My first stab at fasting in 2015 resulted in my breaking a 6-year weight loss plateau while eating LCHF. Since then, I've not spent any length of time doing real fasting, just TRE. I may get up the nerve to try again. I may not. I don't enjoy "not eating or drinking." Mostly, I'd really miss my coffee. At my age each day is a jewel of enjoyment with self-imposed restrictions because my ongoing goal is my health and vitality.

Thanks, everybody. Great information, as always.

Personally, I think my main obstacle to fasting is social: DH and I like to eat together. Both retired. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner are meals with conversation. We like it.

He is not, and never has been, fat. I have always been some degree of fat. Jack Sprat and spouse in reverse! Anyway, figuring out how to have enjoyable meals is just part of the fun, right?

Since he's noticed a little bulge over the belt, he's trying Keto with me, including a 12-14 hour overnight non-eating period once a week. We still have conversation, just not over dinner.

All home-based, church-based, and friendship-based social events involve carbohydrates. Few can deny the conviviality of a glass of wine. Life is a good thing, and I'll make the choices that work for me under all circumstances. Thanks for your help.

Two approaches I use are the following:
Time Restricted Eating: to achieve and maintain fat burning (ketosis) on a regular basis, this is coupled with very low carb to burn "clean" by using fat for fuel. This "clean" burning label for fat burners is supported by recent research. I do this every day with an eating window of approximately 5 hours and zero eating for 19 hours.

Intermittent Fasting: to achieve periodic autophagy for metabolic cleansing during the absence of protein and other food. From what I can find, autophagy is most productive with a duration of a 3-day, water only IF. If someone has specific research supporting the optimum IF duration to achieve effective autophagy, please provide a link, but this is what I've gleaned to date.

I do IF occasionally; yet, regularly maintaining a fat burning state is most beneficial for me. And yes, life is a good thing and it should be enjoyed with friends, family, and wine.

Life can also be enjoyed alone neither ingesting or imbibing