I've been doing intermittent fasting (16:8) since 2016 (9 years).
I have a belly and am what you would call "a little chubby". I don't exercise that much (once a week). I drink one black coffee in the morning.
After all these years of IF, net-net I haven't lost any weight, but I find if I stop IF (i.e. I start eating 3 meals a day), I feel sluggish. So in the absence of doing anything else, at least IF keeps my mind sharp.
p.s. the only times I've lost weight is when I've fasted once a week, cut out 50% of all carbs from diet, and starting lifting weights. I lost water weight at first, then plateaued because I gained muscle, then after that muscles did the work of burning excess calories.
I was that way for at least 3 years. Then I decided I loved food too much and added certain carbs back into my diet. These days I just do IF and nothing else, and my weight is stable.
The results are a bit different on my side. I've been doing intermittent fasting (23:1) since 2019 (~6 years). During this period, I did IF (46:2) for a year (one meal every two days).
I have never been overweight in my life but I lost ~10 kg in the first year and my weight has remained stable since then. I haven't measured it, but my body fat percentage is probably around 15%.
By the way I do moderate exercise every days. Walking at very slow speed for 3-4 hours or swimming for an hour. My muscle mass is always increasing, albeit slowly.
You can try long-distance running. 100km a week allows you to indulge extra 5000-8000k calories.
I also enjoy food and always ate a lot (like 2 meals at lunch), and I was thin all the way up to 30 thanks to fast metabolism I guess. If I didn't start running 5 years ago my choice would be between severe cuts to my diet or obesity.
I fundamentally think pushing people who want to lose weight into cardio is a mistake. It’s definitely good for you but unless you know how to eat you are going to find yourself over eating very quickly
Getting into cycling actually has me about to stop intermittent fasting. I go out and can burn 1200 calories in a few hours and that's hard to make up with an 8-hour eating window unless I want to start eating a bunch of junk food. Not trying to lose any more weight
In my experience IF is better thought of as a way to break bad eating habits, not as a direct way to lose weight. Merely eating the same amount of food but in a certain time frame (which is what a lot of people end up doing) doesn’t accomplish much in terms of weight loss.
But I have found to successful in breaking habits that if maintained properly, do help you lose weight.
For example, I had a bad habit of eating a large breakfast 1-2 hours within waking up. I was never really that hungry, but it was just something I did out of habit. Doing an IF routine made me realize that I’m not actually that hungry in the morning and can get by until 10-11am on just a coffee with milk.
I diet, on and off. Keeping fat free weight as the highest priority (I don’t want to loose hard earned muscle)!
I’ve tried all types of diets. For me, the most important for me is to save the biggest meal for late in the day. I can easily go hungry a couple of hours during the day if I know there is a filling meal coming.
In our medical practice, we would use intermittent fasting as part of a comprehensive medical plan to increase longevity. There are studies which demonstrate this is beneficial, at least in Macaque monkeys. Weight loss was just a nice side effect.
I did intermittent fasting. I think this conditioned me to being in the hunger state and to ignore hunger. Along with exercise and portion control, I did lose 20 pounds. I could have gone further but I became lacking in certain nutrients and a doctor told me to stop.
What all these diets are desperately trying to do is psychologically manipulate you into eating less by playing with your sense of fullness. For weight loss, thermodynamics cannot be beaten: eating at different times and in a different order does not matter.
Imagine a system with a background/quiescent energy consumption of 1000kCal/day.
Imagine that same system can buffer up to 500kCal for up to 24 hours store excess energy in circulation.
Imagine it converts excess energy to stored energy at an efficiency of 50%.
Assume activity correlates with marginal energy consumption but also increases in the presence of excess energy.
A system such as the one described would have very different behaviors during alternate day fasting (0kCal for 24hrs, 5000kCal for 24hrs) than consuming 2500kCal daily.
The human body is more complex than the system I just described, but it is a useful model to consider for this context.
Real world efficiency factors are in the 90s and basal rates aren't constant. The model you're proposing is too artificial to draw conclusions about fasting over a short timeframe.
Unfortunately calories out is a function of calories in.
You eat less calories, your body might start consuming less calories.
Also, there are two different pathways for using glucose in the body: aerobic and anaerobic. The aerobic one produces 15x more ATP (cellular level energy) than the anaerobic one. The anaerobic one wastes more as heat. So if for some reason you're in the second one, even though you ingest the same amount of calories, the amount of energy you have usable is much less.
So yeah, calories in calories out is true, but it's not really helpful.
> So if for some reason you're in the second one, even though you ingest the same amount of calories, the amount of energy you have usable is much less.
This is technically true but not particularly relevant.
It's quite difficult to be in only anaerobic effort, though (and I'd say pretty ill advised since that basically means stuff like all out sprinting without warmup or cooldown).
Higher intensity effort burns more calories than lower intensity (eg [1]). It's just harder to sustain.
Calories in / Calories out might be broadly accurate, but reality is a lot more complicated than that. People are really bad at tracking how many calories they take in. Its impossible to measure how many calories you're actually exerting with exercise. Its even more impossible to measure how many calories you pee, poop, perspire, breathe, and radiate out. Microvariations across your current body state, body temperature, and even the time of day can influence how efficient your gut is at absorbing incoming energy.
Some people operate with a goal of a caloric deficit of even something as small as e.g. 200kcal. But because all these things are impossible to measure accurately, a difference of just 10% beyond a daily BMR of 2000kcal isn't just a possibility; its the norm. You run for an hour; what if that burns an extra 50kcal that your Apple Watch did not account for? You eat a slice of bread which advertises it contains 80kcal; but it actually contains 100kcal [1]? You sleep poorly, which causes some mild systemic inflammation the next day, which raises your body temperature?
It's not. Human body can't create energy out of nothing, but it can vary the consumption of energy in a wide range which is very similar in terms of externally observable effects.
It's a common story when people start to eat 20% less, continue the same lifestyle and lose exactly zero weight as the result. Their body didn't create 20% of energy out of nothing but it just started to waste less energy as body heat.
How are you measuring energy out, such that it can directly influence decisions on how much energy you should be deciding to take in? I promise you: Your methodology is inaccurate.
Very bad take. What if our bodies adjusts the burn rate based on when we eat when we exercise? if that is true you can potentially eat more and lose more weight.
I’m curious whether taking the oral form of Ozempic at a lower dose could have effects similar to intermittent fasting, given that it may lead to skipping a meal as well.
I'm not sure that a reduction in body weight tells us all the relevant information. One of the possible downsides of fasting is loss of lean body mass, generally meaning muscle. This is a problem for older people in particular because it's harder to keep muscle as you age and because muscle protects from falls, frailty, etc.
Weight loss is linked with some loss of lean body mass, regardless of the method used. Intermittent fasting has been shown to match any other calorie deficit in terms of lean body mass loss, rather than more as you're implying.
Regardless of how you lose weight the advice is and remains:
> Eat a minimum of 0.36 grams of protein per day, per pound of LEAN* body weight. Increasing to 0.5-0.7 grams of protein per day, per pound of LEAN* body weight for older adults or when undergoing weight loss.
*LEAN is a vital detail for overweight people, they commonly miscalculate protein requirements due to this. The easiest way for overweight people to determine their requirement, is just find an "ideal body weight calculator" online, enter height and gender, and then multiply THAT figure by 0.5-0.7.
For example a man who is 6' tall and 400 lbs should eat 62 grams of protein per day MINIMUM, but during weight loss 86-120 grams of protein per day. It is common, unfortunately, to read online people in this situation miscalculate this to 280(!) grams of protein per day which is incorrect and harms their weight-loss goals.
Do you have source for this? Because as you write I've always read to derive protein intake from the overall weight. That would indeed be a very important distance.
I read that as needing funding. Somebody has to pay for the research. In order to get it funded, you have to show your research has a basis. My interpretation anyway.
I have read that before the Industrial Revolution, most people faced famine for about 10% of their lives. And while, historically, that would have probably been concentrated into a few bad years during their lifetime (months of starvation, during a few bad years), if we were to generalize that and make it a rule, it would work out to 3 days a month.
There is some evidence that there are health benefits that are specific to the fasting mode. This has mostly been studied in the context of chemotherapy, where fasting can protect against some of the side-effects of chemotherapy:
Most of this has only been studied in animals, not humans, but in animals the results were clear:
"Fasting before chemotherapy (CT) was shown to protect healthy cells from treatment toxicity by reducing the expression of some oncogenes, such as RAS and the AKT signaling pathway [2]. This reduction is mediated by the decrease of circulating insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and glucose. In addition, starvation and calorie restriction activate other oncogenes in cancer cells, induce autophagy, and decrease cellular growth rates while increasing sensitivity to antimitotic drugs [2]."
If we assume that we have been shaped by millions of years of frequent famine, then our evolution has been shaped by famine. It is possible that our immune system simply makes the assumption that we will soon face famine, and therefore some important tasks, such as extreme autophagy, are normally postponed till the famine arrives. However, in the modern era the famine never arrives, and so we may have to induce it by artificial means.
I have experimented with very long fasts. My longest fast ever was in September of 2015 when I managed to go 12 straight days on nothing but water.
Obviously, any health benefits from that incident might have been psychosomatic, since I was expecting health benefits. But all the same, I did find some of the health benefits to be shocking and completely unexpected. Since at least 1995, and possibly 1990, I had a mole on my skin on my left arm. I wasn't worried about it, so I simply ignored it. I had it on my arm at least 20 years, maybe 25 years. I recall one morning in November of 2015 when I was in my kitchen, making breakfast, and I reached over to pour myself some coffee, and of course my arm was in my field of vision, and after a moment of thinking something was different, it occurred to me that the mole was gone. It had been there at least 20 years, and then it disappeared, at some point during the weeks after I had done the 12 day fast. I don't know when it disappeared, it just slowly faded away at some point between September and November. There was no remaining sign of it on my arm.
Again, that might have been purely psychosomatic, but it was interesting.
Alternate day fasting normally means you eat up to 500 calories on your fasting day, but then eat more than usual on normal days. So on average if you eat 500 one day and 2500 another, that is no different than eating a restricted diet of 1500 every day. The finding here is that the former results in slightly more weight loss than the latter. That restrictions in calorie intake will result in weight loss is a given.
My understanding is that, yes, the weight loss results end up being similar — but that the story is not so simple (or linear) because "true" fasting activates certain metabolic pathways (e.g., mTOR) that mere calorie reduction does not, and that those pathways have different effects, such as autophagy and others that increase lifespan in different ways.
I have a belly and am what you would call "a little chubby". I don't exercise that much (once a week). I drink one black coffee in the morning.
After all these years of IF, net-net I haven't lost any weight, but I find if I stop IF (i.e. I start eating 3 meals a day), I feel sluggish. So in the absence of doing anything else, at least IF keeps my mind sharp.
p.s. the only times I've lost weight is when I've fasted once a week, cut out 50% of all carbs from diet, and starting lifting weights. I lost water weight at first, then plateaued because I gained muscle, then after that muscles did the work of burning excess calories.
I was that way for at least 3 years. Then I decided I loved food too much and added certain carbs back into my diet. These days I just do IF and nothing else, and my weight is stable.
I have never been overweight in my life but I lost ~10 kg in the first year and my weight has remained stable since then. I haven't measured it, but my body fat percentage is probably around 15%.
By the way I do moderate exercise every days. Walking at very slow speed for 3-4 hours or swimming for an hour. My muscle mass is always increasing, albeit slowly.
I also enjoy food and always ate a lot (like 2 meals at lunch), and I was thin all the way up to 30 thanks to fast metabolism I guess. If I didn't start running 5 years ago my choice would be between severe cuts to my diet or obesity.
But I have found to successful in breaking habits that if maintained properly, do help you lose weight.
For example, I had a bad habit of eating a large breakfast 1-2 hours within waking up. I was never really that hungry, but it was just something I did out of habit. Doing an IF routine made me realize that I’m not actually that hungry in the morning and can get by until 10-11am on just a coffee with milk.
I’ve tried all types of diets. For me, the most important for me is to save the biggest meal for late in the day. I can easily go hungry a couple of hours during the day if I know there is a filling meal coming.
I suspect IF works in a similar way.
Whether it's IF, deficit cycles, periodic deep fast -- they all seem to have the same effect, which is just to give the body a break for a bit.
Imagine a system with a background/quiescent energy consumption of 1000kCal/day.
Imagine that same system can buffer up to 500kCal for up to 24 hours store excess energy in circulation.
Imagine it converts excess energy to stored energy at an efficiency of 50%.
Assume activity correlates with marginal energy consumption but also increases in the presence of excess energy.
A system such as the one described would have very different behaviors during alternate day fasting (0kCal for 24hrs, 5000kCal for 24hrs) than consuming 2500kCal daily.
The human body is more complex than the system I just described, but it is a useful model to consider for this context.
You eat less calories, your body might start consuming less calories.
Also, there are two different pathways for using glucose in the body: aerobic and anaerobic. The aerobic one produces 15x more ATP (cellular level energy) than the anaerobic one. The anaerobic one wastes more as heat. So if for some reason you're in the second one, even though you ingest the same amount of calories, the amount of energy you have usable is much less.
So yeah, calories in calories out is true, but it's not really helpful.
This is technically true but not particularly relevant.
It's quite difficult to be in only anaerobic effort, though (and I'd say pretty ill advised since that basically means stuff like all out sprinting without warmup or cooldown).
Higher intensity effort burns more calories than lower intensity (eg [1]). It's just harder to sustain.
1- https://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/what-to-know-heart-ra... )
Food — not lack of exercise — fuels obesity, study finds
https://www.npr.org/2025/07/24/nx-s1-5477662/diet-exercise-o...
Some people operate with a goal of a caloric deficit of even something as small as e.g. 200kcal. But because all these things are impossible to measure accurately, a difference of just 10% beyond a daily BMR of 2000kcal isn't just a possibility; its the norm. You run for an hour; what if that burns an extra 50kcal that your Apple Watch did not account for? You eat a slice of bread which advertises it contains 80kcal; but it actually contains 100kcal [1]? You sleep poorly, which causes some mild systemic inflammation the next day, which raises your body temperature?
[1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-calorie-counts-accura...
It's a common story when people start to eat 20% less, continue the same lifestyle and lose exactly zero weight as the result. Their body didn't create 20% of energy out of nothing but it just started to waste less energy as body heat.
Anything that can influence "energy out" is by your own definition "relevant".
When caloric intake is reduced, the body can decrease this type of expenditure without the person even realizing it.
Losing a bit of lean muscle mass along the way is not important compared to the huge health gains of losing the weight.
You need to be getting enough protein + strength training to maintain muscle in a caloric deficit
Regardless of how you lose weight the advice is and remains:
> Eat a minimum of 0.36 grams of protein per day, per pound of LEAN* body weight. Increasing to 0.5-0.7 grams of protein per day, per pound of LEAN* body weight for older adults or when undergoing weight loss.
*LEAN is a vital detail for overweight people, they commonly miscalculate protein requirements due to this. The easiest way for overweight people to determine their requirement, is just find an "ideal body weight calculator" online, enter height and gender, and then multiply THAT figure by 0.5-0.7.
For example a man who is 6' tall and 400 lbs should eat 62 grams of protein per day MINIMUM, but during weight loss 86-120 grams of protein per day. It is common, unfortunately, to read online people in this situation miscalculate this to 280(!) grams of protein per day which is incorrect and harms their weight-loss goals.
Longer duration trials are needed to further substantiate these findings.
There is some evidence that there are health benefits that are specific to the fasting mode. This has mostly been studied in the context of chemotherapy, where fasting can protect against some of the side-effects of chemotherapy:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5870384/
Most of this has only been studied in animals, not humans, but in animals the results were clear:
"Fasting before chemotherapy (CT) was shown to protect healthy cells from treatment toxicity by reducing the expression of some oncogenes, such as RAS and the AKT signaling pathway [2]. This reduction is mediated by the decrease of circulating insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) and glucose. In addition, starvation and calorie restriction activate other oncogenes in cancer cells, induce autophagy, and decrease cellular growth rates while increasing sensitivity to antimitotic drugs [2]."
If we assume that we have been shaped by millions of years of frequent famine, then our evolution has been shaped by famine. It is possible that our immune system simply makes the assumption that we will soon face famine, and therefore some important tasks, such as extreme autophagy, are normally postponed till the famine arrives. However, in the modern era the famine never arrives, and so we may have to induce it by artificial means.
I have experimented with very long fasts. My longest fast ever was in September of 2015 when I managed to go 12 straight days on nothing but water.
Obviously, any health benefits from that incident might have been psychosomatic, since I was expecting health benefits. But all the same, I did find some of the health benefits to be shocking and completely unexpected. Since at least 1995, and possibly 1990, I had a mole on my skin on my left arm. I wasn't worried about it, so I simply ignored it. I had it on my arm at least 20 years, maybe 25 years. I recall one morning in November of 2015 when I was in my kitchen, making breakfast, and I reached over to pour myself some coffee, and of course my arm was in my field of vision, and after a moment of thinking something was different, it occurred to me that the mole was gone. It had been there at least 20 years, and then it disappeared, at some point during the weeks after I had done the 12 day fast. I don't know when it disappeared, it just slowly faded away at some point between September and November. There was no remaining sign of it on my arm.
Again, that might have been purely psychosomatic, but it was interesting.
I can’t believe that losing 3.5 days of caloric intake would result in weight loss. In other news, water is wet.
Keeping this up is hard, many fail. Alternating normal eating with IF days is easier to do.