16:8

memsley89

This years fad seemed to be the 5:2 diet... which I could never manage (I like food, and exercise most days)

Anyone tried the 16:8?
I've been on it for a little while, and it isn't too bad.
It's had no negative effects on my training, L2 pre-food ride in the morning (commute) and evening Gym.
Plus, Plus, I've lost body fat but am maintaining weight!

I think I've seen positives as I'm a terror for snacking...
I have a jar on homemade peanut butter cookies in my bag, which before 16:8ing I would have scoffed by now!

veronese68

I thought you'd bought a cheap widescreen telly.

Gussio

My thought was spinney gearing.

ugo.santalucia

I thought you had a rear wheel with 24 spokes and a 2:1 lacing pattern... :shock:

Ride hard

I thought you were going to share a verse you had come across in the bible that imparts its wisdom and a blessing of immortality to us cyclists.

Anyway, back on subject. I’m pretty trim(ish), but snacking is - and has always been - my downfall. It’s interesting to hear you say how this new fangled 16:8 jobbie has curbed your cravings.

craker

The Good Book wrote:

John 16:8

And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:

That aside, tell me about 16:8?

Agent57

It's just a method for intermittent fasting in which you fast for 16 hours, and have an 8 hour "feeding window". So you might only eat between midday and 8pm, say.

That's pretty much all it is.

stephenlinden

I thought you were going to say you can each anything as long as it's not between 16:00 and 08:00 (4pm and 8am).

Can't do any of these diets because I don't need to and I like to snack. It's also better to snack than eat big meals.

daviesee

I much prefer the 8:16 plan so no eating between 23:00 and 07:00.

Seroiusly, a balanced diet and exercise is all the rules that you need.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Agent57 wrote:

It's just a method for intermittent fasting in which you fast for 16 hours, and have an 8 hour "feeding window". So you might only eat between midday and 8pm, say.

That's pretty much all it is.

The point about the 5:2 diet was that it promoted some beneficial hormone (the name of which now escapes me) which was supposed to suppress your vulnerability to various nasty diseases and also make you live longer. The by product of a weekly 4000 calorie deficit was weight loss. It was a "diet" only in the sense that it proscribed what you ate; weight loss wasn't the primary objective.

I'm not sure how a 16:8 diet has either of these two benefits. Is a 16h fast long enough to promote the mystery hormone? And presumably you can still pack three full meals into your 8 hours if you wish to; so the calorific deficit only comes if you choose to skip one (which anyone can do anyway).

What's the deal?

prawny

Ahh, this is pretty much leangains but without the weightlifting, got it.

It's good, it works, I lost a couple of stone and looked half decent without a top on doing it last year. Don't know if the science behind it works or not, but by not eating from 8 at night til the following lunch time you've got less time to stuff your face with cakes. I love cakes.

I feel a lot better not eating first thing in the morning too, if I have anything for breakfast at all I'm starving by about 9:30, if I fast, I'm fine until about 11:30.

I'm fine out on the bike too up until about 30 miles, after that I start to feel a bit, empty.

EKE_38BPM

The EKE diet:
Eat when you're hungry. Don't eat crap.
Stop eating before you're stuffed. I've never felt compelled to eat everything on my plate.
Break sweat for half an hour at least five days a week. 2.5 hours a week isn't that much of an inconvenience, is it?

veronese68

Personally I've always been a fan of the seefood diet. I'm probably a bit fatter than EKE though.

EKE_38BPM

Veronese68 wrote:

Personally I've always been a fan of the seefood diet. I'm probably a bit fatter than EKE though.

I too am an advocate of the seefood diet. I just don't eat until I can't move (very often).
Regarding our respective levels of lardiness, I'd say we're about the same. Fat enough that people don't hold us down to shove sandwiches down our mouths, slim enough to make loads of blokes jealous and have women constantly throwing themselves at us.

t4tomo

So 16:8 is a naff way of saying skip breakfast, which is a crap way to lose weight.

Small healthy breakfast gets your metabolism woken up for the day.

prawny

t4tomo wrote:

So 16:8 is a naff way of saying skip breakfast, which is a crap way to lose weight.

Small healthy breakfast gets your metabolism woken up for the day.

1st line = true

2nd line = false

tilt

t4tomo wrote:

So 16:8 is a naff way of saying skip breakfast, which is a crap way to lose weight.

Small healthy breakfast gets your metabolism woken up for the day.

what does 'waking up your metabolism' even mean?

t4tomo

tilt wrote:

t4tomo wrote:

So 16:8 is a naff way of saying skip breakfast, which is a crap way to lose weight.

Small healthy breakfast gets your metabolism woken up for the day.

what does 'waking up your metabolism' even mean?

No idea - I must have been reading the wife's magazines. I do belieeve the theory is that your body starts to process the food you've eaten and burning fat, but if you don't eat breakfast it somehow conserves energy. It could be a load of crap. that said I neevr skip breakfats and I havethe body of an Adonis so there must be some truth in it.

I do recall being told that breakfast is the most important meal of the day and I stand by that, we are designed to eat little and often.

tilt

Hmmm, not so sure on your last statement. I would have though that we are designed to eat when food is available then go through periods of fasting. Snacks weren't quite so readily availble when we were living in caves

Each to their own though, I only eat breakfast if I've done a reasonable bit of exercise beforehand (e.g. ride to work) otherwise I'll happily hold off until lunch.

EKE_38BPM

Unless I'm a replicant and don't know, I evolved. You may be some sort of cyborg though, in which case you were designed.

If you want to lose weight, eat less and move more. Cutting down from 5 diet cokes a day to 3 would be a start.

tilt

Think you may be underestimating how long evolution takes tbh.

EKE_38BPM

tilt wrote:

Think you may be underestimating how long evolution takes tbh.

Well, it can't be longer than six thousand years or so.

memsley89

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The EKE diet:
Break sweat for half an hour at least five days a week. 2.5 hours a week isn't that much of an inconvenience, is it?

I commute 25miles a day and spend 2hours in the gym 5 times a week.
So no, 2.5 hours a week wouldn't be an inconvenience. If anything, it would be a blessing.

I've maintained a BMI of ~22 for years, I'm only trying 16:8 to shift body fat...
current 14%, my aim is the magic 10%.

daviesee

memsley89 wrote:

I've maintained a BMI of ~22 for years, I'm only trying 16:8 to shift body fat...
current 14%, my aim is the magic 10%.

Showoff.

tilt

memsley89 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The EKE diet:
Break sweat for half an hour at least five days a week. 2.5 hours a week isn't that much of an inconvenience, is it?

I commute 25miles a day and spend 2hours in the gym 5 times a week.
So no, 2.5 hours a week wouldn't be an inconvenience. If anything, it would be a blessing.

I've maintained a BMI of ~22 for years, I'm only trying 16:8 to shift body fat...
current 14%, my aim is the magic 10%.

10 hours in the gym a week on top of that cycling? What on earth are you doing?!

EKE_38BPM

memsley89 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The EKE diet:
Break sweat for half an hour at least five days a week. 2.5 hours a week isn't that much of an inconvenience, is it?

I commute 25miles a day and spend 2hours in the gym 5 times a week.
So no, 2.5 hours a week wouldn't be an inconvenience. If anything, it would be a blessing.

I've maintained a BMI of ~22 for years, I'm only trying 16:8 to shift body fat...
current 14%, my aim is the magic 10%.

Less lard in your diet and more time exercising in the fat burning zone?

memsley89

tilt wrote:

memsley89 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

The EKE diet:
Break sweat for half an hour at least five days a week. 2.5 hours a week isn't that much of an inconvenience, is it?

I commute 25miles a day and spend 2hours in the gym 5 times a week.
So no, 2.5 hours a week wouldn't be an inconvenience. If anything, it would be a blessing.

I've maintained a BMI of ~22 for years, I'm only trying 16:8 to shift body fat...
current 14%, my aim is the magic 10%.

10 hours in the gym a week on top of that cycling? What on earth are you doing?!

I'm using Matt Botrill's Top 5 Training Sessions specifically the 'Sweetspot training' on a gym bike (which has suprisingly accurate wattage readings) Mixing that up with Spin classes, Body Pump, plenty of squats and time on the leg press. And some Yoga the day before a rest day.

I'm going for my 1st Cat licence next year, so starting the suffering early!