Extending fast day by skipping breakfast and lunch

This topic contains 17 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by HappyNow 9 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 18 posts - 1 through 18 (of 18 total)

robgunby

10:48 am
10 Feb 15
Permalink

About a month in to the regime I still find fast days quite hard, but the following day I often don’t feel that hungry, at least for the first few hours. Sometimes I will feel like eating, only to realise it is mostly because I feel I should be eating as it is a non fast day.

So, I wonder if there is any additional benefit to extending my fast on the day after fast day, and skipping breakfast and possibly lunch as well?

My rudimentary understanding suggests that it should work well as I am experiencing longer periods in the fasted state, but I would appreciate the experience and wisdom of others on the matter. For reference, I fast Mondays and Thursdays, skipping breakfast, a 150 cal soup for lunch around 1pm and a 450 cal low carb dinner around 7pm; my primary goal is weight loss.

TracyJ

1:13 pm
10 Feb 15
Permalink

You’re at the point I was at about 2 & half years ago. don’t know that there are any benefits to it (I never had any IGF-1 tests so I don’t know how the extra fasting periods contributed to the health benefits I’m afraid) however, I definitely found that extending fasting periods into non-fastdays (by skipping unnecessary meals like breakfast & usually lunch too) helped me to regulate my calorie intake on non-fastdays (it’s a bit harder to fit in millions of calories in a MUCH smaller ‘eating window’). It also helped me be much less hungry on fastdays too (because it shortcuts your body to viewing that one meal at the end of the day as being normal I guess).

That worked for me for a couple of years. I’m now switching up my eating habits again to something a bit different but like I say, that worked for a fair while and I lost about 3 stone during that period, so no reason it shouldn’t work for you. Try it.

robgunby

5:18 pm
10 Feb 15
Permalink

Thanks Tracy. I stuck to it and have had nothing but black coffee, water and zero calorie red bull so far today.

What’s interesting is that yesterday, a “fast” day where by this time I had at least had a hearty bowl of soup inside me, hunger was driving me mad.

Today I’ve had nothing, endured a fairly stressful day then been for an intense workout at the gym.

I’ve just got home, and yeah, I’m hungry, but only like I feel ready for my dinner after a long workout!

I will eat tonight as normal, and have my next fast day on Thursday. I may or may not extend until Friday lunchtime, but I will certainly be extending next Monday’s fast like I have today.

LittleWing

8:00 pm
10 Feb 15
Permalink

Rob, I often experience this too and believe it to be because so much of hunger and eating habits is psychological. With hunger – often it seems worse on a fast day because (for me anyway) I think about food quite a lot and I know I can’t have a couple of big slices of toast slathered with butter whereas on a non-fast day simply the knowledge I can have it if I want it is enough to stave off the hunger/craving.

Similarly I think it possible a lot of people eat breakfast or lunch (or any meal for that matter) out of habit ir duty, regardless of whether they actually need it or not!

I agree with what Tracy says re not eating 3 set meals on a fast day… much harder to eat 2000 calories in one meal (although clearly possible…!!!)

Best of luck 🙂

robgunby

8:43 pm
10 Feb 15
Permalink

Unfortunately I could eat 2000 calories for a snack….

But yes, absolutely right, hunger as we know it is mostly psychological. 99% of my battle with overeating is learned behaviour. In that sense I am finding IF similar to when I quit smoking – the desire is so strong despite the physical need being so little, but the desire can be removed from the equation with sufficient mindfulness. I am hoping to discover more ways of reprogramming my nutritional behaviour as I progress with IF,

LuvThis

7:06 pm
11 Feb 15
Permalink

This is something I have been doing as well – really not on purpose. I thought I would be famished the next day – not at all. Usually don’t eat until 1 p.m. after a fast day. My appetite has changed significantly over the past year.

Juliana.Rivers

12:29 am
13 Feb 15
Permalink

I do the same but it will depend on my weight measurement. If I am under my perceived desired goal after a fast day I will just have something small to eat, otherwise I will wait as long as I can.

I weigh myself 3 days a week, the day after my fast day (I use 4:3)

nzmegs

12:00 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

My routine has slipped into fast monday and wednesday and then on friday fast until dinner time (ish). I am also increasingly finding it easier to not eat until late morning or lunchtime even on non fast days. but once I start, I keep going….

Pushing that eating window back by a little more each week has to be beneficial as it will also help on the fast days.And help you stick to your calories for that day.

desperate but driven

1:30 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Does anyone believe or remember differnt nutritionists saying that if you don’t eat enough or skip meals your metabolism slows down and then you can gain weight? Or not be able to eat as much? Do we think that’s BS? A myth? I’ve heard gat often. Love to hear from someone experienced on this topic.

labellehelena

1:55 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Hi desperate but driven (like that name, by the way)

That is exactly what Slimming World tell you – they say to think of your body like a furness – you must put enough fuel in your body to keep your metabolism up.

I tried Slimming World several times and I’d lose about a stone max over a year – not very encouraging when you have 6 stone to lose. Too many carbs for me to lose weight.

Helen 🙂

HappyNow

2:14 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Well nutritionists are not regulated in the UK, are not clinicians, and should only be giving healthy eating advice. So I would take anything a ‘nutritionist’ says with a pinch of salt.

I am not an expert (but then neither are they 🙂 ), but in my experience (and observations of my fellow fasters here and in the real world), intermittent fasting/ meal skipping/ 5:2 does not slow your metabolism and lead to weight gain. Eating more than you need, and keeping your insulin levels high by constantly eating, leads to weight gain…

You ask if it’s BS. It’s certainly poppycock!

desperate but driven

3:48 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

I feel like this question is VERY important. I wish Dr. Mosley would comment! so many Dr’s in the US say that if you don’t eat enough, your metabolism slows down which makes it impossible to lose weight. I have pondered this for years! one obvious thing–if you look at starving people in places like Cambodia for example–notice that they look like they are starving to me! Their metabolism doesn’t seem to have slowed down! Please don’t hate me for saying this–I feel awaful for mentioning…

HappyNow

4:07 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Desperate,

You really don’t need Dr M to comment on this!

In general, the heavier you are, the higher your metabolism.

As you eat less and lose weight, your BMR (basal metabolic rate) reduces. The smaller you are, the lower your metabolism.

So as you lose weight you need to correspondingly reduce the amount you eat to keep losing. So it may get harder to keep losing weight as time goes on (although I have not found this to be true).

But as you say, people who don’t have enough to eat are skinny not fat!

desperate but driven

5:20 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Hi HappyNow,

I’m not sure you are actually correct. For example, I have a son who plays soccer and is VERY THIN and very little body fat. He has a super fast metabolism. I also have been told that people who are heavy have slower metabolisms…I’m sure we all have friends who are very skinny but eat a lot! I have a few. My question to Dr. Mosley is by eating very little do you actully slow your metabolism? I get that you need to eat less to maintain your body weight as your body weight goes down. Do you understand what I mean?

HappyNow

6:56 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

As you eat less and reduce your weight, your BMR will reduce. However, your TDEE will be influenced by your activity level.

I’m not entirely sure I’m following your logic here. But are you suggesting that people are in fact overweight because they aren’t actually eating enough?

desperate but driven

7:07 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

I do not believe that people are overweight because they aren’t eating enough! that would be kind of crazy:) however, I have heard many experts talk about people who have been on lots of diets–their bodies become used to not having enough calories–their bodies adjust by storing more fat and burning less calories…what do you think of that?

simcoeluv

7:18 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Hi desperate:

There is nothing easy in the world of weight loss.

Happy is correct – the heavier you are, the higher your ‘metabolism’. And as you lose weight, your ‘metabolism’ slows down. However, I’m not sure that means someone should keep eating at high levels so their ‘metabolism’ stays elevated! That would mean they could not lose weight! There is nothing magic about a person’s ‘metabolism level’ – it is what it is, and your really can’t manipulate it that much.

But, of course, it is not that simple.

Research has shown that some people’s ‘metabolisms’ are more efficient than others. And very few people conform to whatever the ‘numbers’ say should happen. They can put people on highly controlled, identical levels of calories and exercise and observe extremely large differences in weight loss or gain. What is more, research has done this with twins, and found similar differences – between pairs of twins! So one set of twins will lose a little, and another set of twins on the same levels of calories and exercise will lose a lot. In this study, weight loss variations between sets of twins ranged between 5.9 and 12.4 kg, everything else being equal. http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v25/n4/full/0801559a.html

So it appears that how much a person gains or loses given a certain level of caloric intake and exercise is at least partially genetic. If you watched Dr. M’s program on high intensity exercise, you saw something similar. Going from memory, some people gained much more benefit from the exercise than others, and they could figure out in what camp a person was quite quickly with a couple of fairly simple tests.

This ‘difference in genes’ tends to explain all sorts of things. Why some people can eat anything and not gain, while some can just look at food and gain weight. Why some people swear that exercise helps them lose weight, while some can work out constantly and see little improvement in weight loss. Why someone can work out their TDEE on a calculator, only to find it is way too high and they don’t lose weight if they do ‘everything right’ and why some do so much better. Why it is dangerous from a weight loss point of view to believe the ‘calories burned’ display on their fitbit or exercise calculator or exercise equipment – especially if they decide it is OK to ‘eat back’ their ‘calories burned’. They very well may not have burned that many!

The fact is, a person has to eat fewer calories than they are burning to lose weight. But everyone is different. You cannot go on something read in a magazine article or book, or ‘the numbers’ of how many calories are burned doing this or that exercise for whatever length of time, because the odds are very high that those numbers do not apply to you. You have to start somewhere and adjust. The people that simply say they are ‘doing everything right and not losing weight’ do not understand that if they were ‘doing everything right’ – for them, their bodies – they would be losing just fine. They just have to adjust their caloric intake (usually down) to get and keep their weight loss going.

Nothing is simple.

HappyNow

9:52 pm
13 Feb 15
Permalink

Hi desperate,

What Simco said? Ditto!