Thread

Checks out, I can confirm this from my own experience.

Catholic piety stacks another W

Refraining from eating a lot at once but more often with less intake is also good, barring if you don't eat after 20:00 until 11:00.

I can't confirm that. Plenty of sources will attest to that though. For me, I can't get it to work because I can't stay on a "eating often but eating less" diet as eating enrages my hunger and I eventually overeat just like holding my breath, I eventually breathe. But with skipping breakfast and lunch, I don't get hungry because I never wake up my appetite so I can succeed in eating less. And perhaps it is the eating less that counts. But again I cannot confirm that myself and I have a suspicion that long duration with no digestion going on might be key to lowering BP as much as I have (>30 points systolic almost immediately). A 20:00-11:00 fast didn't seem to be enough to make much difference for me, but maybe because I couldn't succeed in getting the intake down with such a large feeding window.

wouldn't it also be logical that when eating less the quality of the food you do eat matters more in order to get the nutrients required.

Absolutely

Yeah, fasting has had more impact than any other dieting tip in my efforts to lose weight. However, when I used a bicycle for transportation, that had absolutely more impact than any dieting alone. I recently bought an ebike hoping I can really lose weight and end up not needing the motor for hills anymore.

I will say the one common denominator i have noticed amongst many healthy males is the ability and tendency to go long periods of time without eating. Normally because they are goal oriented and the mission takes priority.

Yes. Your terms are acceptible.

In more concrete terms, what do you mean by eating less often and fasting?

What could be have more effect: - restraining food intake to same ~8 hrs window every day - weekly one full day of fasting (day with night before and night after) Both can be accommodated into one's life relatively easily, from my experience.

My bet is on A.

I lean for B. But full day fast 7 times per week is the most effective 😂

Skipping breakfast and lunch, and just eating dinner. One meal a day. One meal can be enough food to get your nutrient needs (protein, minerals, non fat-soluble vitamins, fibre to keep things moving) if you eat nutrient-dense foods like liver, vegetables, etc. And for me at least, it is far easier to do this than any other diet plan. I don't "wake up" my appetite until dinner, and while it sleeps it doesn't nag me to eat... whereas if I just eat small meals, I'm constantly being nagged to eat more with hunger feelings. Especially after you get used to this pattern, your body doesn't expect to eat until dinner... and you don't tend to get hungry unless you are coming up on a normal mealtime.

I think with my one-meal plan I'm probably only getting about 50% of my normal intake. That might be too extreme in the long run, but for now while I'm still heavy it should be fine. Restraining intake to 8 hours gives you -- ???% of normal intake... I dunno, I think I could easily stay at 100% with that plan so it's not good enough for me. Skipping a day probably puts you at about 85% of normal intake. So very good, and healthy, and gives you the various fasting benefits, but not as rapid of weight loss as one-meal-a-day.