# The 16 hour fast



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

I've run across *This idea* a couple times recently... of a long "fast" between the dinner meal and breakfast. I have been avoiding night-time snacking with some really good results (not that my anecdotal experience means much). I lost 80 pounds this past cycling season counting calories... and cycling lots. Now at my ideal weight I am in the process of relearning how to eat properly.

*The published diet information* seems solid on the idea of 16 hours between dinner and breakfast. However I go with whatever works out best for me and my schedule. Sometimes I only go 12 hours between the two meals... but generally I fast for 14 hours or more.

I am older and can remember when weight wasn't a problem in America. Although diets have changed a bit... the biggest change in diet IMHO is snacking. From time to time Mom would pop some popcorn and we would have Koolaid with it. It was a rare treat/snack. Even more rare was a bowl of ice cream... which did happen... but not often.


----------



## NWS Alpine (Mar 16, 2012)

If you search for intermediate fasting there is a lot of good feedback on it. Very stable blood sugar and energy levels. One of the main benefits from people who were eating 5-6 evenly spaced meals is that they feel like they are no longer trapped in an endless eating cycle. Constantly having to eat every 3 hours or so gets tough with your schedule.

At the end of the day all that maters is calories in vs calories out. Get nutrient dense foods and hit your balanced macros. Avoid foods that cause you issues ie dairy for lactose etc.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

*Causation*



Dave Cutter said:


> I am older and can remember when weight wasn't a problem in America. Although diets have changed a bit... the biggest change in diet IMHO is snacking. From time to time Mom would pop some popcorn and we would have Koolaid with it. It was a rare treat/snack. Even more rare was a bowl of ice cream... which did happen... but not often.


While America's weight gain is obviously due to a very clear combination of eating more while being less physically acitve, one huge part of that equation is sugary drinks. I believe the number is 100 calories per person per day increase since the 1970s. That translates to a weight gain of 10 lbs. per year just from drinking pop and "energy drinks."


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Kerry Irons said:


> While America's weight gain is obviously due to a very clear combination of eating more while being less physically acitve, one huge part of that equation is sugary drinks. I believe the number is 100 calories per person per day increase since the 1970s. That translates to a weight gain of 10 lbs. per year just from drinking pop and "energy drinks."


Yes... I remember when Coca Cola [Coke] was in the little heavy glass bottles... and Pepsi crowded onto the market with a bigger bottle for less money. It was said people would drink Pepsi themselves... but buy coke to offer to company. We didn't keep pop of any flavor at our house... till the late seventy's or early eighty's. 

The soda pop of the fifty's and sixty's was made with Cane sugar. Which was/is much pricer than the beet sugar that took its place. Now factory created food products generally contain corn sweeteners (AKA high fructose corn syrup). It isn't any wonder that corn sweeteners have such a bad name. 

I've never been a soda drinker to speak of myself.... although I do now drink “diet” colas. I understand NYC believes large volumes of the high calorie sweet drinks are (like cigarettes) a public health issue.


----------



## looigi (Nov 24, 2010)

Dave Cutter said:


> .. It isn't any wonder that corn sweeteners have such a bad name....


It is to me. There's no rational reason for it whatsoever. It's all glucose and fructose, just in slightly varying proportions. Many fruits have much higher fractions of fructose than HFCS. In fact the colloquial name for fructose used to be "fruit sugar". Fructose tastes sweeter so you can use less of it (fewer calories) to get the same sweetness, which is why HFCS is used.


----------



## JohnStonebarger (Jan 22, 2004)

looigi said:


> ...Fructose tastes sweeter so you can use less of it (fewer calories) to get the same sweetness, which is why HFCS is used.


Or maybe because HFCS is heavily subsidized, hence ridiculously cheap? 

By the way, there are some very good arguments against HFCS vs other sweeteners, but a larger issue still is overuse of sweeteners of any kind.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

looigi said:


> It is to me. There's no rational reason for it whatsoever.





JohnStonebarger said:


> ...By the way, there are some very good arguments against HFCS vs other sweeteners, but a larger issue still is overuse of sweeteners of any kind.


I didn't mean that cane sugar, beet sugar, or the most recent corn sweetener as being ether better or worst. Cane sugar certainly received awful reviews for decades. If it wasn't for beet sugar people would still speak poorly of the tasty golden grains of cane sugars sweetness. *I LIKED cane sugar!*

I grew up with cane sugar and it was delicious even just by the spoonful (_OK I was a child_). The public reaction to beet sugar wasn't much different than the reaction is now to corn sweeteners. But let us not forget even honey isn't natural to the America's or Europe. 

I am not a doctor, chemist, biologist, or nutritionist (or much of anything). But my best guess would be the biggest evil with the newer sweeteners are there ability to blend well with recipes. The older original sweeteners like cane sugar actually had FLAVORS. Just like you can taste maple syrup, or sorghum, or honey. Cane sugar if used in large amounts doesn't just make a recipe sweeter... it makes the dish taste like sugar (cane sugar). 

The introduction of beet [AKA highly refined white] sugar allowed for sweeter tasting foods/drinks. Corn syrup has build on that change. *Kerry Irons* is correct. It was in the sixty's that truly sweet drinks (and foods) became part of the American (now world) diet. Even though soda pop and sweets predated those new sweeteners. 

But even back in the cane sugar days..... children that ate large amounts of sweets would “bounce off the walls” with a sugar buzz. That also happened with beet sugar.... and still happens even today. Why is it with adults we are storing sugars as fat (or burning sugar as energy and storing fat energy?). 

After losing weight through old fashion calorie restriction/reduction I found that it really didn't matter as far as weight control what I ate. However health concerns did guide me to balanced low calorie foods. The few times I did consume sweets... I did feel the sugar buzz.

But I found then (after losing the weight) that eating the recommended daily calorie diet (and NOT even discounting for exercise) would cause a regain of weight. But by increasing my fasting time... meaning merely the hours between dinner and [the] break-fast [meal]... I've found that calories have become a secondary importance. 

I am not saying that in the eight hour window of eating the 16 hour fast allows that I could eat/drink any and everything. But I think I might have to actually make a more or less self-destructive effort to gain weight during in the eight hour eating period. I am now eating the full recommended 2400 calories the charts say I should be able to eat.... without any weight gain. That said... I rarely exceed more than a 14 hour fast as well. 

I really think the lack of a proper sleep/rest/non-eating time may also be a key component to weight control. *Just a thought*.


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

It might work, and it _might_ work for some reason other than just making it easier to restrict caloric intake, though I suspect that's the main mechanism.

But not eating anything after 4:00 pm isn't practical (at least for me), and worse, it'd be no damn fun. It would eliminate one of the most pleasureable parts of every day. Coming home from work, sipping a cocktail, having dinner an hour or so later, that's a significant and important ritual. And that means the last eating is more like 8:00. And if I'm going to eat any breakfast, it's going to be earlier than 8:00 am. So the maximum fast period is more like 11 hours.

Does the research suggest that the benefits can be gained regardless of when the time periods are set? I.e., can you skip breakfast and make the fast go 8:00 pm to noon and still get the metabolic effect. But there still has to be coffee in the morning ;-)


----------



## NWS Alpine (Mar 16, 2012)

The whole point is to have that 8 hour feeding window as they call it. Many people skip what traditionally is called breakfast. First meal around noon and that works better for most who work normal hours. Coffee is fine in the morning as long as it's not some Starbucks $400 calorie pumpkin spice latte crap. People don't like the idea of skipping breakfast because we have been brainwashed that it's the most important meal of the day. When in fact it doesn't matter. It actually makes you hungrier for lunch and you can over eat. 

Leangains is your best source for intermediate fasting Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Dave Cutter said:


> I've run across *This idea* a couple times recently... of a long "fast" between the dinner meal and breakfast. I have been avoiding night-time snacking with some really good results (not that my anecdotal experience means much). I lost 80 pounds this past cycling season counting calories... and cycling lots. Now at my ideal weight I am in the process of relearning how to eat properly.
> 
> *The published diet information* seems solid on the idea of 16 hours between dinner and breakfast. However I go with whatever works out best for me and my schedule. Sometimes I only go 12 hours between the two meals... but generally I fast for 14 hours or more.
> 
> I am older and can remember when weight wasn't a problem in America. Although diets have changed a bit... the biggest change in diet IMHO is snacking. From time to time Mom would pop some popcorn and we would have Koolaid with it. It was a rare treat/snack. Even more rare was a bowl of ice cream... which did happen... but not often.


The hardest part for me is not snacking after dinner. I usually eat dinner at 6:00pm and then breakfast at 9:00am. That's 15 hours in between. So, no snacking between dinner and bedtime. You're saying that this period of fasting works for weight loss?


----------



## Undecided (Apr 2, 2007)

Dave Cutter said:


> But let us not forget even honey isn't natural to the America's or Europe.


The type, or mix, of bees in both places has changed, but I think there's fossil evidence of honey-producing bees in Europe more than 25 million years ago. I'm sure there's a forum where this is as central as this board's discussions of how to lose weight.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

jlandry said:


> The hardest part for me is not snacking after dinner. I usually eat dinner at 6:00pm and then breakfast at 9:00am. That's 15 hours in between. So, no snacking between dinner and bedtime. You're saying that this period of fasting works for weight loss?


I am not so sure about weight loss as much as weight management. Calorie reduction is the only method I've ever used for weight loss. Of course as part of a balanced diet, plenty of activity, and nearly eight hours of sleep. But snacks can be a high-calorie diet killer.

I actually found the weight loss pretty easy. I used an app like countless others that would run on a phone or tablet that counts and tracks calories and exercise. 

I am now in the process of learning how to eat. I've found the recommended calories seem to be too high to maintain my weight as I tend to regain. If I have to just eat less than the charts say... so be it. But I am trying to find a suitable eating plan. I don't want to enter every bite I eat into an app for the rest of my life. Being winter here in the mid-west means activity is limited so this is a good time to experiment. 

It could be as simple as proper diet-hygiene. Three healthy squares, plenty of water, and eight hours of sleep. Humanity might have populated the planet with such simple and boring routines. It could be the 16 hour fast by it's construct just eliminates or severely restricts “fun” foods and drinks. Certainly regular drinkers could find the fast too restrictive. 

The fasting does seem to “feel” correct. I know that isn't scientific. But allowing my system to have that digestive rest period does eliminate any feeling of bloat and really lets my mid-section tighten up. It feels good! And I seem to be able to eat more normally during the daytime eating hours. 

I am eating a normal breakfast (cereal, fruit, and a bagel), a filling lunch (Sandwich and a salad, maybe more fruit), A full dinner (generally with four ounces for meat, vegetables, bread, pasta, or rice and often with a sweet desert or fruit).


----------



## Bizman (Apr 27, 2011)

I do not eat breakfast. For many years I have been eating one good meal a day at about 5pm which I call supper. This meal is usualy a meat (chicken, pork, beef, fish) potatoes, pasta, or rice, a vegtable, and desert if I have it on hand (pie being my favorite). 

I will eat as much as I can intil I am full (my wife is usualy up doing dishes and I am still eating LOL). I go to work at 9 pm and get home at 3 am, that's when I eat the so called "junk food", nachos, chips, pretzels, bologna, nuts, peanuts, candy, ice cream, etc. After getting up in the morning about 10 am I will ride my bike somwhere between 11 am & 2 pm depending on my schedule. 

So, I guess I fast about 14 hours a day. At 53 years old, 5'6", the most I have ever weighed is 150 lbs. I now maintain a weight of about 130 lbs eating like I do and riding the road bike 80 minutes a day (22 miles), 7 days a week (bad weather I ride the mountain bike). I am just ready to crack 5000 road miles for the year!

This may not be the right way (or wrong way) to do things but it has worked for me and I feel good!


----------



## JCavilia (Sep 12, 2005)

NWS Alpine said:


> Coffee is fine in the morning as long as it's not some Starbucks 400 calorie pumpkin spice latte crap.


Thanks. Pretty sure my couple of double shots with a quarter-teaspoon of sugar is a bit under that calorie figure.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

Its all about calorie control. As you pay attention to more and more studies, you notice how none agree? Some say skipping breakfast is terrible, others say it can help. Some studies say eat numerous small meals. Other say one big one a day with a snack here or there. What it really comes down to is what can you manage. I have found I work best with a small breakfast of yogurt, a moderate lunch, sometimes an afternoon snack if I am hungry, a reasonable dinner, and a small snack before bed. The snack before bed is important as I get up very early for my workouts and typically do not eat before. I would get too hungry during my workout if I didn't eat before bed.

As long as you are maintaining a stead number of calories and to calories out, you will maintain weight. Your body is very good at adapting, so however you find is best to do that for yourself your body will get used to. From my experience, the adage of not eating before bed had less to do with the impact of the body, and more to do with your not needing to eat. People frequently snack when tired, so before bed make sense. People are also about to have their bodies shut down for the night, and you really don't need additional calories then. So not eating right before bed is more about cutting out unnecessary calories. But if it works, do it. Whatever your method, the best thing is to be sure whatever you are putting in your body is for a reason. A speaker at a company event recently said, whenever you eat or drink you should ask yourself if it is going to make you better or worse. There is really no in between. When you eat/drink, it is either helping, or else it is hurting. How much one way or the other is a matter of degrees.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

gte105u said:


> Its all about calorie control. As you pay attention to more and more studies, you notice how none agree? Some say skipping breakfast is terrible, others say it can help. Some studies say eat numerous small meals. Other say one big one a day with a snack here or there.


You have my vote on that! I recently lost a bunch of weight... with nothing more than a little exercise (mostly cycling) and counting calories using my "Lose It!" app for Android. I think any so called plan is a help if it draws attention to how much food a person is eating. But for the most part its calorie consumption... period. Unfortunately we know far more about how to feed farm-yard animals... than we do humans. 



gte105u said:


> As long as you are maintaining a stead number of calories and to calories out, you will maintain weight. Your body is very good at adapting, so however you find is best to do that for yourself your body will get used to.


Our bodies do adapt.... thats for sure. About 60 pounds into my weight lost I ran into a wall or plateau. Where my body seemed to put a halt to the weight loss. Bodies can seem to have a mind of their own at times. I lowered my calorie consumption and started a 3K walk-run before breakfast. The weight loss continued. 

I noticed that after getting to my ideal weight my body seems to want to gain the weight back. The charts all say I should be able to at least eat 2400 calories (at my size) and remain my current weight. I was a little surprised when that didn't seem to be the case. I understand [now] that this isn't uncommon with all forms of dieting. 

It is almost like my body has adapted to what it has interpreted as lean times... and it is trying to preserve my former fatter size.

My understanding is (and I could be wrong): The 16 hour fast helps the body to adapt to a normal healthy dietary schedule. And causes the body to accept and burn whatever calories it's feed (within reason, of course) and not try to store reserves of food/fat. 

After months of dieting I no longer worry about becoming too hungry (I am not sure what that would even mean). I find the last meal... till the first meal fasting to be very natural. I kind of like it! And with only eating three meals (with maybe a mid-day snack of an orange/banana/V8 juice/or pudding cup and a cookie).... I feel as though I can eat as much as I want. Although I have tracked my calories.... and I seem to now be staying at or slightly below my recommenced 2400 calories.


----------



## gte105u (Aug 12, 2012)

I have been maintaining weight for 4 months. Hovering around 177 after losting 115 lbs. It is hard to figure it all out but I am getting it. I read or saw on TV or something that a person who becomes ovese then loses weight will never be able to eat as much and maintain weight as someone who never got fat. I don't know if the fat is the cause of the lost metabolism or the low metabolism a cause in getting fat but it is not surprising. That is the problem with the charts and such, they are generic and we are all unique.

If you so inclined doing a metabolic profile may be a good idea. Many universities have a lab that does them as well as some higher end gyms. I did a New Leaf profile recently. They put a mask and heart rate monitor on me first thing in the morning before I ate or drank anything. I sat in a chair with no stimulation for 15 minutes and it measured my resting metabolism. Got a very accurate idea of my daily calorie burn. They also did it with me on the treadmill for my heart rate zones, lactate threshold, max heart rate, and calories burned while working out. All this is very nice to know. But really I have found that listening to my body and stopping eating when full and trying to cut empty calories has worked pretty well. I weigh myself daily so if I start to creep I crack down a few days and get it back in line.


----------



## Kerry Irons (Feb 25, 2002)

gte105u said:


> I read or saw on TV or something that a person who becomes ovese then loses weight will never be able to eat as much and maintain weight as someone who never got fat. I don't know if the fat is the cause of the lost metabolism or the low metabolism a cause in getting fat but it is not surprising. That is the problem with the charts and such, they are generic and we are all unique.


It is true that weight loss does tend to depress your metabolism because your body is in some degree of starvation mode throughout the weight loss period and so seeks to conserve fat. I have not seen research on how long that depressed metabolism continues after your weight stabilizes. It may well remain depressed for quite some time but it is highly unlikely that it would stay depressed for "years." And lets not confuse the issue by failing to recognize that a 180 lb. person needs significantly fewer calories per day than the 295 lb person you used to be. The new lighter you would need roughly 40% fewer calories just because you are 40% lighter.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

gte105u said:


> I have been maintaining weight for 4 months. Hovering around 177 after losting 115 lbs.


We're about at the same place... I went from 257 to 177 and been maintaining since Sept 15th. 



gte105u said:


> It is hard to figure it all out but I am getting it. I read or saw on TV or something that a person who becomes obese then loses weight will never be able to eat as much and maintain weight as someone who never got fat. ..................
> ........... I weigh myself daily so if I start to creep I crack down a few days and get it back in line.


I've continued to use the same app to monitor my weight (that I used when losing). And... I am forming new habits. I plan to stick with the 16 hour fast for a while. Although I started the 16 hour fast as an intellectual experiment I am sticking with the decision simply because it feels right.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

I've been trying the 16h fast all week. That means no eating after 6:00pm for me... very difficult.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

jlandry said:


> I've been trying the 16h fast all week. That means no eating after 6:00pm for me... very difficult.


No.... it isn't easy I often can only get 14 hours between dinner and the break-fast meal. But I have found it still allows me to eat a full (recommended) 2400 calories. That's a lot of eating! 

Hope things work out with the full time Santa job.


----------



## Bevo (Dec 26, 2012)

I have done the 16 hour fast and even while doing a ton of running I was ok with it. I didnt have much weight to lose but wanted to lean out a bit which I did.

Fitting the eating, running, gym, meetings and commuting in was very easy as long as my day was planned in advance. I planned dinner by my workout, if my run was done at 8 then 7 hours before I ate.

I stopped because I kept bonking on long runs, I just was not good and getting all my calories in.

It does work for some and is worth a try for sure!


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Bevo said:


> ... I stopped because I kept bonking on long runs, I just was not good and getting all my calories in.


Serious endurance athletes could have problems with bonking would be my _guess_. Metabolizing enough blood sugars and body fats for energy while working out... is limiting. And..._ I think_... that would limit most people to a two hour window of extreme output.

But the six percent body fat, extreme athletes, are few and far between. 

For most of us.... or _maybe I should say_: At least *in my case* it isn't the bonk that stops me... it is the eating to prevent the bonk that kept me fat. There are plenty of people [athlete and otherwise] that need to watch their blood sugar levels and such. But in my case.... discarding the concern of getting, or becoming hungry, or being harmed by hunger, was the first step in regaining some dietary control.

All the 16 hour fast involves is not eating after dinner, then getting a decent nights/period of sleep. Then Break the fast, with break-fast (the meaning of the word). But it isn't for everyone.


----------



## Bevo (Dec 26, 2012)

Right now I do a modified 16 hour fast and cheat the day before my long runs and soon to be rides. I eat all day and right up to bed time with food 3 hours before my run and food during my run of slightly higher calories.

So far so good with no bonks, the cheating helps and its not like junk food or huge amounts just good healthy food to stock pile my systems...

Right now I am on it 4 days a week and it still works great....just remember to take lots of water to your quiet meetings LOL!!!


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Bevo said:


> ...... I eat all day and right up to bed time with food 3 hours before my run and food during my run of slightly higher calories.


Years ago we used to call that carbo-loading. The original tests used rock candy (sugar) as a source of carbohydrate. But over the years it morphed into pasta dinners.


----------



## TimV (Mar 20, 2007)

After doing a bit of research on the topic, I started doing a daily 16 hour fast. The following links are some of the ones I read to learn more:

Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health

All About Intermittent Fasting | FREE Book From Dr. John Berardi

My first day was last Sunday, March 24. After six days, I feel pretty good. My goal is to find a sustainable nutrition pattern that's easy to maintain and will keep me around 6 percent body fat. My last snack of the evening is at 10pm. I don't eat again until 2pm the next day. So far it seems to be working. I 'feel' like I'm getting leaner, at least. I'll be keeping track of my weight and body composition weekly.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

TimV said:


> After doing a bit of research on the topic, I started doing a daily 16 hour fast. .........
> ..... I'll be keeping track of my weight and body composition weekly.


I will be looking for your postings. 

What I've found... _in just my own personal experience_ is that the fasting keeps the appetite in check. Maybe it is only that.... allowing or accepting the hunger puts it in its place. It is after all... just a little tummy growl. No pain or inconvenience. 

I learned that I could go to bed at a predetermined "bed time" and fall asleep rather quickly... _even if I was hungry_. Once I learned that... I knew that weight problems were in the past.


----------



## SRV (Dec 26, 2006)

Dave Cutter said:


> I will be looking for your postings.
> 
> What I've found... _in just my own personal experience_ is that the fasting keeps the appetite in check. Maybe it is only that.... allowing or accepting the hunger puts it in its place. It is after all... just a little tummy growl. No pain or inconvenience.
> 
> I learned that I could go to bed at a predetermined "bed time" and fall asleep rather quickly... _even if I was hungry_. Once I learned that... I knew that weight problems were in the past.


The benefits of an intermittent fast go beyond weight control. Check this study regarding fasting and autophagy

I've found that the easiest method to accomplish the fast is to skip breakfast. I'll have a cup of coffee and that's it.

I'd bet you'd have better success keeping off weight if you altered the typical day's diet that you posted earlier. You're very carb heavy. Few on these boards seem to want to hear it, but reducing your carbs and adding in some healthy fats will drop the weight effortlessly. I've been on a high fat/low carb diet for 15 months and am ripped for the first time in my life at 46. And I've yet to count a calorie. You'll also find that once you step off the carb induced blood sugar roller coaster the fast becomes easier because stable blood sugar keeps the hunger pangs away.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

SRV said:


> The benefits of an intermittent fast go beyond weight control. Check this study regarding fasting and autophagy
> 
> ... Few on these boards seem to want to hear it, but reducing your carbs and adding in some healthy fats will drop the weight effortlessly. I've been on a high fat/low carb diet for 15 months and am ripped for the first time in my life at 46.


Interesting. I've heard/read a lot about high protein diets.... but the idea of "high fat" is new to me. 

I am not committed to high-carbs.... I am more low-calorie directed. The app I've used for a long time now [Lose it!] doesn't really care where the calories come from. Calories are calories.... _at least with the diet I've followed_.

But I do admit I eat more fruit now-a-days than ever before in my life. I include at least one full sized piece of fruit (banana, orange, apple, cup of grapes, 6oz orange juice) in my diet everyday... and usually two (even three). 

Also.... I have really gotten attached to my almost daily lunch salad. The salads are mostly micro-nutrients and fiber and pretty low calorie. And mostly slow carbs.

So I guess I have left my last meal of the day for the bulk of proteins and most of my fat intake as well. My wife is big on low-fat eating.... so I guess I do eat pretty low-fat. 

So what sort of foods are you eating to support the high fat... yet remain low calorie?


----------



## SRV (Dec 26, 2006)

Dave Cutter said:


> So what sort of foods are you eating to support the high fat... yet remain low calorie?


I don't count calories at all, but only concern myself with nutrient ratios. To contrast my average daily intake vs yours: Breakfast - cup of coffee. Lunch - Two fried eggs and bacon. Dinner - Meat (chicken, fish, beef, pork, whatever suits my fancy at the time) and cooked vegetables. Evening snack - berries or home made chocolate milk (full fat raw milk). I'll occasionally have a snack in the afternoon of nuts, cheese, or jerky. If I'm hungry I eat, but I usually don't get hungry between meals. No eating after 8:00 gives me the 16 hour intermittent fast. I prefer to do my daily workout at the tail end of my fast and will save any major carb intake for immediately after the workout - usually potatoes or white rice in addition to my regular lunch.

I am a former taker of statins for cholesterol, but took myself off of them at the beginning of my diet change so I could gauge the effect on my lipid panel. My last annual physical showed lipid numbers that were fantastic.

My recommendation to people who ask me is to go 30 days without eating ANY grains or sugar and replace that intake with saturated fats and protein. Forget the LoseIT! app for the month and just enjoy quality food and the lack of hunger. Then based upon how you feel after those 30 days, choose to continue or go back to your old ways. What's 30 days?


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

SRV said:


> ... To contrast my average daily intake vs yours: Breakfast - cup of coffee. Lunch - Two fried eggs and bacon. Dinner - Meat (chicken, fish, beef, pork, whatever suits my fancy at the time) and cooked vegetables. Evening snack - berries or home made chocolate milk (full fat raw milk). I'll occasionally have a snack in the afternoon of nuts, cheese, or jerky.
> 
> I am a former taker of statins for cholesterol
> 
> My recommendation to people who ask me is to go 30 days without eating ANY grains or sugar and replace that intake with saturated fats and protein. Forget the LoseIT! app for the month and just enjoy quality food and the lack of hunger.


Wow. I am almost speechless (typed wordless?). I have read that people can't process that much meat. At one point a Doctor friend of mine had recommended the South Beach or Atkins diet for weight loss... he had used both... with some success. 

I am a sexagenarian myself... and have never had high cholesterol. At my age now... I hadn't given possible cholesterol problems any thought.

I have always preferred grains and vegetables for the bulk of my diet. I have only recently learned to really appreciate raw vegetables, before I ate most veggies cooked. I have also practiced "meatless days" (usually one or two days a week) most of my adult life as well. Although I do enjoy meat products!

It would appear that our diet preferences.... are completely opposite. 

It is true I sometimes can feel a ting of hunger before or at bedtime. However not enough hunger to have prevented sleep. I can't recall ever being awaken by hunger.... or waking up really starved ether. I think I can live with the normal hungry feeling. 

But we do seem to agree at least about having a period of fast... a number of hours between the last meal of the day... and the first meal of the next day.


----------



## SRV (Dec 26, 2006)

Dave Cutter said:


> Wow. I am almost speechless (typed wordless?). I have read that people can't process that much meat. At one point a Doctor friend of mine had recommended the South Beach or Atkins diet for weight loss... he had used both... with some success.
> 
> But we do seem to agree at least about having a period of fast... a number of hours between the last meal of the day... and the first meal of the next day.


Whatever works for 'ya Dave. Everybody is different.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

SRV said:


> Whatever works for 'ya Dave. Everybody is different.


Yep. Different.... yet we both are getting some benefits with a fasting period.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Dave Cutter said:


> Wow. I am almost speechless (typed wordless?). I have read that people can't process that much meat. At one point a Doctor friend of mine had recommended the South Beach or Atkins diet for weight loss... he had used both... with some success.
> 
> I am a sexagenarian myself... and have never had high cholesterol. At my age now... I hadn't given possible cholesterol problems any thought.
> 
> ...


I had to look up sexagenarian... it's not what I thought it meant. ; )


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

jlandry said:


> I had to look up sexagenarian... it's not what I thought it meant. ; )


LOL Yeah there is an old joke about that term: A politician accused his opposition of being a known sexagenarian. _What voter would stand for that_. 

sexagenarian - Dictionary definition and pronunciation - Yahoo! Education

Please note: SRV has in his/her avatar description the word "Quadrogenarian". [_a person who is 40 or more and less than 50 years old._]


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

I am (125 lbs) 57kg at 1.74m. The only rules I follow in my diet are:

- no lunch and dinner once per week
- no sweet drink on weekdays except coffee
- every snack I take is subjected to the condition that I don't go way over 58kg or else I have to exercise to bring it back (so I don't like to snack cos it's troublesome)

Other than that I feast like a beast. I love delicious foods: curry meat with lots of chilli and gravy, I love my coffee and nice bakery. I prefer to just use the fasting day to reset everything once per week than to suffer everyday. The reward for weekend morning cycling is the sweet drink that I am finally entitled to!

The catch is, I exercise a lot. In fact I want to eat more carbohydrates and proteins to give energy and build muscles, as too low BMI is becoming a concern.


----------



## SauronHimself (Nov 21, 2012)

If I had to do this fast, it wouldn't work for me. Working a compressed shift the latter half of each week, I usually get home at 7PM and eat dinner by 730, and then I'm awake at 5AM only to pound down two yogurts at 545 right before my work day begins. I have gone a few days where I didn't have breakfast, but by lunch time I was very irritable.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

SauronHimself said:


> .... I usually get home at 7PM and eat dinner by 730, and then I'm awake at 5AM only to pound down two yogurts at 545 right before my work day begins.


You're right... it isn't easy. Even not working a 16 hour break from food is hard to do. So I often accept a 12 hour break.. for me... as plenty. Your very close to that even with your work schedule. 

Dinner (or my last meal before I sleep) is my heavy meal. I know others make other meals the heavier meal. I keep my breakfast very light... a light measured cereal, skim milk, and a piece of fruit... about 250 calories. 

When trying to lose weight... I'd often do a 3K walk/run before breakfast (or showered). That [I think] would burn up available blood sugars.... that breakfast would then replace. That "felt" like it was a productive way to drop weight. And I was still eating so I wasn't hungry.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

nolight said:


> The only rules I follow in my diet are:
> - no lunch and dinner once per week
> ..........


Decades ago I worked with a man who would fast for religious reasons. But he also swore by the healthful benefits he got from the fasting. It was from him I got the idea for regular meatless days. 

I think the benefit "of going hungry" is two-fold (or maybe even three-fold). Good for body, spirit, and mind. It is good to remind myself that I won't "break" or become ill... just because I missed a meal. 

In todays world where people don't travel places even in a car without a big gulp or bottle of water.... it's nice to know I can travel light. Even without a snack or drink it's nice to know I am fine for a decent period of time.


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

Dave Cutter said:


> Decades ago I worked with a man who would fast for religious reasons. But he also swore by the healthful benefits he got from the fasting. It was from him I got the idea for regular meatless days.
> 
> I think the benefit "of going hungry" is two-fold (or maybe even three-fold). Good for body, spirit, and mind. It is good to remind myself that I won't "break" or become ill... just because I missed a meal.
> 
> In todays world where people don't travel places even in a car without a big gulp or bottle of water.... it's nice to know I can travel light. Even without a snack or drink it's nice to know I am fine for a decent period of time.


Part of my inspiration to fast comes from watching 127 hours. 
127 Hours (2010) - IMDb

I figured if Aron Ralston can survive:
- not eating/drinking for 5 days+
- be in pain while bleeding for 5 days+
- be in cold weather for 5 nights
- be alone in a cave for 5 days+
- not able to move for 5 days+
- can hardly sleep for 5 days+
- go through the mental torture of having to cut off his own arm

Then what is:
- not eating for 1 day? Total piece of cake!


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

nolight said:


> Part of my inspiration to fast comes from watching 127 hours. I figured if Aron Ralston can survive:
> 
> - be in pain while* bleeding for 5 days*+


I was thinking... I've known several people that went through that regularly. They survived fine.... *but they sure got irritable!* _Maybe it wasn't the same thing._


----------



## dnorland (Apr 2, 2013)

I've heard a lot of talk lately about how fasting once a week or so can do amazing things for you. It is an extremely fast way to lose weight, build muscle, and cleanse your body. A lot of people overlook this rather obvious method to lose weight because it sounds difficult. From what I've heard from people who have done it though, it ISN'T!! 
There are a lot of other advantages as well. Some people say that it slows aging, prevents cancer, lessens the effects of diabetes, and more. I've devoted an entire website to this at 
Benefits of Fasting


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

For me, eating 7 days a week is too much in a affluent society with too much good food. Eating 6 days a week is just nice, hence it sounds like fasting once per week but in fact I look at it as spreading 6 days of overeating over 7 days.

For example if your weight is creeping up 500g every week if you eat 7 days a week, then one day of not eating will compensate for that 500g gain, reset it back to norm if you are healthy, or reduce it if you are overweight.

My target threshold weight level is 58kg. If I see the scale show >58 kg, I either have a 10km run or I know that the 1 day fast will surely bring it back down! 

However I still insist exercise is more useful than dieting. Diet gives weight loss. Exercise gives weight loss and fitness.


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

dnorland said:


> There are a lot of other advantages as well. Some people say that it slows aging, prevents cancer, lessens the effects of diabetes, and more. I've devoted an entire website to this at
> Benefits of Fasting


Stay In control - Yes to me it is useless if you cannot maintain it long term. You need to train to the point where it becomes a lifestyle and not torture.

Stay hydrated - I allow myself to drink during the fast. Water is never bad.

Refrain from vigorous exercise - I am at a point where I can exercise rigorously (aerobic/endurance type, not strength type) even during the fast. In fact, exercise helps me to get over the fast more easily since I feel more thirsty than hungry.

Avoid operating heavy machinery - Agree since there is less energy for power output during the fast.

Eat high nutrition meals on non-fasting days - Agree since I exercise a lot I crave protein and carbohydrate when I am eating.

Know when to stop - as long as I stay above 56 kg should be fine.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

nolight said:


> Part of my inspiration to fast comes from watching 127 hours.
> 127 Hours (2010) - IMDb
> 
> I figured if Aron Ralston can survive:
> ...


You forgot - Not wanking for 5 days. 

(For those who have seen the film.)


----------



## JasperL (Aug 21, 2011)

I've also had good success with Lose-it. I started using it while taking an exercise class and it was part of the deal - an instructor wanted to see what you ate each day and she'd get an email each morning with the previous day's entries. And with that an more exercise lost about 30 pounds over 6 or 8 months to my target weight. After doing it for a couple years and maintaining my weight without any real effort, I decided I knew how to eat and quit tracking. Long story short, in about six months I'd gained 10 of them back. 

As best I can figure, since what I eat really hasn't changed much, Lose-it makes me think about what I'm eating for _just long enough_ to not turn a snack with two small slices of cheese and two crackers into 4 or 5 slices of cheese and sitting at the computer with the box by my right hand. It's really hard to record a SNACK with 500 or 600 calories, but awfully easy to eat that many at a sitting. 

When I'm trying to lose weight, I also fast from an early dinner to a sometimes late breakfast (except coffee). It works for me, but I suspect it's because my big weakness is snacking for no good reason after dinner, and any fast lasting as long as 1 minute after bedtime will be long enough to cut that out.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

JasperL said:


> I've also had good success with Lose-it.
> 
> As best I can figure...... It's really hard to record a SNACK with 500 or 600 calories, but awfully easy to eat that many at a sitting.
> 
> When I'm trying to lose weight, I also fast from an early dinner to a sometimes late breakfast (except coffee). It works for me, but I suspect it's because my big weakness is snacking for no good reason after dinner, and any fast lasting as long as 1 minute after bedtime will be long enough to cut that out.


That describes me as well! My weakness is snacking.... or "entertainment eating". Eating for fun and pleasure... not for nourishment or out of hunger. Fasting seems to be the "cure". Which I guess would make the treatment.... snacks of oranges, apples, grapes, celery, bananas and such. 

And winter makes everything harder... when there is less evening light and colder weather. It's harder to exercise and this last month it seems I've been sick with one illness or another. I need a good winter sport! 

But it's spring now! And I made it through winter without gaining a "spare tire". Hopefully next winter I will have figured out an activity that keeps me more active and fit. Meanwhile it's back to my bicycle. Which I have already mounted new tires, and wrapped with new handlebar tape. 

I know a long fast on a cold winters night.... isn't the most fun. But it works for me and has been pretty much pain free. We all gained, lost, and/or maintain our weight one meal, one bite, one calorie at a time.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

I've been doing the 16 hour fast for 1 month now and I'm consistently losing 2 to 2.5 lbs/week. Wooohooo!


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

jlandry said:


> I've been doing the 16 hour fast for 1 month now and I'm consistently losing 2 to 2.5 lbs/week. Wooohooo!


How much of the loss is fat and how much muscle? In other words is the scale your only measuring guide?

I've dropped my bedtime snack since January, and I've therefor had a longer fast between dinner and bfast. But, my overall calories for the day actually went up slightly during this change. The quality of the calories changed and I introduced ALOT more and better fats. My weight and fat % has dropped, along with lean muscle mass.

I applaud your results, but try to use a caliper for fat % along with the scale to gauge your progress. I hope you are not cannibalizing only your muscle mass just to see a more friendly number on the scale.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Solopc said:


> .... I hope you are not cannibalizing only your muscle mass just to see a more friendly number on the scale.


I can't speak for other peoples bodies... but I am pretty sure mine was actually designed to store fat for later use. 

Of course... I always liked to think that all my fat was just in the spare tire around my middle. But [_at least on my body_] fat was stored all over my body... even in and around major muscles. In my case a few extra pounds even makes me look stronger. 

If I was to stop working-out... I'd lose muscle... because I wouldn't need it. I think the CDC recommends 90 minutes of weight training per week to maintain muscle.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

jlandry said:


> i've been doing the 16 hour fast for 1 month now and i'm consistently losing 2 to 2.5 lbs/week. Wooohooo!


yea!!!!


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

Solopc said:


> II hope you are not cannibalizing only your muscle mass just to see a more friendly number on the scale.


I guess you could be talking to anyone on this thread. I'm not going so far as to use calipers, but I still ride strong and getting lighter on the bike, which is the goal.


----------



## Solopc (Sep 9, 2008)

Yep, not a personal attack at all, jlandry.

I guess what I'm saying is from everything I've read, been told by coaches, nutritionists, etc, fat is more essential to survival than muscle. Ie, go into starvation mode and your body's instinct is to hold onto the fat and start using muscle to fuel you. Add to that, the scale gives only 1 piece of data. In your case, your riding stronger, getting lighter, etc, so great stuff! You've got your multiple pieces of data telling you you're doing something good for yourself.

As for Dave's point about holding onto fat, exactly. Your body will do that, and the reaction is exaggerated in a bad situation, eg when you're not fueling yourself enough. And it'll move on to using muscle to fuel you.

Anyway, I applaud all of you who try and aim for improvement. I'm in the same boat myself. As a former fat guy, I'm always looking to learn something. Dropping the last snack and having a longer fast is something that's helped me lose weight too. But, I did actually add calories and fats vs my old meal plans when I did include that snack.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

Solopc said:


> .... As for Dave's point about holding onto fat, exactly. Your body will do that, and the reaction is exaggerated in a bad situation, eg when you're not fueling yourself enough. And it'll move on to using muscle to fuel you.


The point I tried to make was "my body" uses a fat storage "system". It stores fat when I eat in excess.... then later when I don't eat enough to meet the bodies needs... it burns the fat it stored for that purpose. 

*If my body has a mechanism to internally digest muscle (or other organs) "my body" doesn't seem to be aware of it.* 

Admittedly since much of my fat is stored in the muscle area... it could "appear" that a body could digest muscle. But actually I think that would just be the body getting lean. The only time I've ever loss muscle is when I stopped using them. 

Stop doing push-ups..... and the muscles used for doing push-ups will lose strength. But losing weight shouldn't alter a persons ability to maintain there daily regiment. If you're doing 40 push-ups before breakfast.... don't expect that to change because you lost some fat.

But getting lean will mean more than just losing the spare tire. Fat is stored all around the body. So even if you don't lose muscle... the fat loss may appear as though that happened... as arms and legs may also get smaller [LEANER].

I don't want to come off as an expert on weight loss... I am NOT. I am also not a trainer or coach ether. I have no medical training... none. 

I lost over 70 pounds using a diet app. Merely a calorie counter. If you want to weight 180 pounds... eat 2400 calories a day... period. The calories could be whale blubber, fresh raw veggies, or candy... it makes no difference. In time you will weigh more or less 180 if you eat the calories required for that weight. I used the app called lose it! But I hear My Fitness Pal (and others) are just as good or even slicker.

Losing the weight wasn't hard... it was almost easy. However... finding a desirable, and healthy way of eating and living a healthy lifestyle is a different story.

I like and eat a good solid old school balanced diet. Vegetables, fruits, grains, dairy, and meats... pretty much in that order.

I try to work out every day. My winter work out schedule needs improvement. I found that fasting (not night snacking) in winter months was helpful for me in maintaining my desired weight. And... I really think that fasting promotes good health... or healthy habits. 

I certainly DON'T think that fasting will allow a person to eat more calories. 

I think a person can somewhat increase their calorie intake a small amount through hours and hours of rigorous work outs. But I doubt that would be a healthy lifestyle in the long run. 

Sorry I got so wordy.


----------



## JulieD (Oct 15, 2009)

Dave Cutter said:


> Interesting. I've heard/read a lot about high protein diets.... but the idea of "high fat" is new to me.
> 
> I am not committed to high-carbs.... I am more low-calorie directed. The app I've used for a long time now [Lose it!] doesn't really care where the calories come from. Calories are calories.... _at least with the diet I've followed_.
> 
> ...


I have had success with what I would call the "Eat only the carbs necessary for my activity level that day" diet. I have always been well within my normal weight range. I am 5'8" and hit my max at 139. I decided to change my diet because I knew I could be much leaner, look better, and most importantly ski and ride faster at a lesser weight. Yes, I have given up most (but I do cheat occasionally) of the sweets, bread, wheat pasta and chips that I loved to eat. I think that calories in/calories out is a basic way to look at the weight issue. For most Americans, that is the biggest issue. However, if you are not fighting obesity but trying to get leaner, I think there's more to it. 

I was a competitive rower in college 20+ years ago. I also did my share of cycling and some racing. In the late 80s and early 90s it was all about eating lots of carbs for fuel - excessive carbs in fact. I was a lightweight rower (there are hvywts and ltwts). I had to be at 130 in the spring to make weight and I always struggled. I was the chick in 3 layers of sweats and a trash bag running in circles before I got on the scale to weigh in. At age 44 I now weigh 126, am winning xc ski races and riding as well as ever. I'm a middle aged woman that can crank out pull ups. I dont have a problem maintaining that weight by skipping the bagels, pasta and all the other carbs that are empty of nutrition. When I need carbs for big training days I tend to use brown rice or oatmeal in the morning. I stay away from "fake" fats but eat plenty of the good ones. I have found that fat is satisfying. By going nearly cold turkey with the carbs initially and then gradually adding them back in as needed, I don't crave them anymore. If I eat some fat in the morning with whole fat dairy, avocado or -gasp- bacon, I don't crave a huge lunch. And, I don't feel like I need to consume carbs via goo, blocks, etc until I'm a couple of hours into riding. Whew...that's a portion of my explanation. I eat lots of veggies and fruit too (cheese and fruit is my fav snack). I guess it's my own personal amalgam of paleo, atkins, Alan Lim and the fact that dairy doesn't bother me. Google cycling and Ketosis and you will find a very interesting study....


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

JulieD said:


> ..... I think that calories in/calories out is a basic way to look at the weight issue. For most Americans, that is the biggest issue. However, if you are not fighting obesity but trying to get leaner, I think there's more to it. ...


You're way ahead of me. 

I've spent most of my life within my ideal weight. But as I aged I put on a few pounds.. then quit cigarettes and got fat. I didn't like the way I felt being fat... it was disabling.

I am retired... but now after dropping the weight am as mobile and active as healthy men half my age. Heck... I didn't feel this good when I was half the age I am today! I have a lot to be thankful for but if there is one thing I got right... it was/is bicycling. I hope to someday find that combination diet of what I enjoy eating and what makes me feel good too.... like you have.

I don't know nearly enough about nutrition. For dietary advice I rely on the CDC.


----------



## nolight (Oct 12, 2012)

I agree that we need to care about where the weight loss is coming from. In general,

weight loss from:
fat - good unless fat % drops too low as to affect normal body functions, which is not a problem for most people especially Americans (no offence).
muscles - no good
bone - obviously no good!
water - mostly temporary and in long term may be bad due to water retention

Weight Loss Myths - Military Fitness - Military.com


Healthy weight loss should be accompanied by exercise because:

Formula #1: Calories OUT > Calories IN = Weight Loss
Formula #2: Water + Oxygen = Fat burning

Want to Lose Weight? - Military Fitness - Military.com

And fat burning is good weight loss. Weight loss by diet alone without exercise is probably good for overweight people but may run into malnutrition for people like me who are near underweight. 

I exercise a lot and need tons of nutrition to sustain the energy loss (carbo) and muscle repair (protein) that I incur through running (a bit of cycling/swimming) and basic Navy seal style PTs (eg 100 pullups, 200 sit-ups, 300 pushups, 80 squats, lunges, heel raises, 60 frog hops, jump overs). 

I still skip lunch/dinner once per week as a habit to moderate my weight and allow me to indulge in sinful good food at other times with less guilt.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

nolight said:


> I agree that we need to care about where the weight loss is coming from. In general,
> 
> weight loss from:
> fat - good unless fat % drops too low as to affect normal body functions, which is not a problem for most people especially Americans (no offence).
> ...


You are correct... and seeing that this thread could be read anywhere anyone has a Internet connection proper dietary nutrition is important. Whereas meat and dairy products are cheap and readily available in America... that isn't a global situation. 

However at least for people living in America... finding the ingredients for proper nutrition is a no brainer. Although the old food pyramid is now a plate chart... little else has changed much. Although I watch what I eat... I also take a vitamin and mineral supplement... just to stay on the safe side


*No human should ever try to starve themselves thin.* Not eating will cause you harm. However cutting down to 1200 calories a day should still allow most people to select healthy filling foods and avoid any starvation related health risks. Eating less than 1200 calories a day... requires a real dietary effort. And not something that should be attempted unless supervised my a medical professional. 

Whether over-eating or dieting it takes about 3500 calories to equal one pound of fat.

If you gain 4 pounds in the period of a month.... you've eaten about 500 extra calories a day. A coffee shop trip everyday to a get a Frappuccino could do that. Cut a thousand calories out of your normal daily diet and you should drop about two pounds every week. 

Of course if you don't exercise (dieting or not) you'll feel like crap. 

I think fear is the biggest diet killer. Men want to lose their belly... but want to keep the fat in their arms that they think looks like muscle. Or women want to lose their butts.... but like the fat stored in their breasts [and want to keep that]. I know one woman who stopped a very successful diet because she thought the extra skin in her neck made her look too old.

A little hunger is NOT uncomfortable.... and a normally proportioned body will always be the most attractive look. There is nothing to fear.

I just wanted to bicycle better. I had got too fat for my bicycle... and I couldn't allow that. Now I stand up and climb hills like I had never imagined I'd be able to. Do I have other health benefits? Yeah.... I am sure I do. And I probability look better too.


----------



## Dasim223 (Apr 15, 2013)

One of the main advantages from people who were consuming 5-6 equally spread foods is that they feel like they aren't stuck in an limitless consuming pattern.


----------



## TimV (Mar 20, 2007)

TimV said:


> After doing a bit of research on the topic, I started doing a daily 16 hour fast. The following links are some of the ones I read to learn more:
> 
> Intermittent fasting diet for fat loss, muscle gain and health
> 
> ...


So I've been doing this fairly consistently for almost seven weeks now. The only days I have eaten outside of my 'window' are the days when I either have a race or go on a ride longer than two or three hours. This averages about one day per week. Otherwise, I stay pretty much on schedule. 

I have made some adjustments along the way. Now I stop eating in the evenings at around 8pm and my first meal on the next day is at around noon. This timing works pretty well for me. 

So far I have lost about twelve pounds. That's around two pounds per week. I'm only about six pounds away from where I was last year at my leanest. Another three or four weeks and I should be there. 

What I have found is that this is very sustainable for me. I don't feel like I am depriving myself of anything and, at this point, it is pretty much becoming a habit. I can see myself doing this indefinitely.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

TimV said:


> .... What I have found is that this is very sustainable for me. I don't feel like I am depriving myself of anything and, at this point, it is pretty much becoming a habit. I can see myself doing this indefinitely.


A sustainable diet that can become a habit and doesn't leave you feeling deprived. That sounds perfect. 

I find myself falling back on using my "lose it! app". Which was/is great for losing weight. But I don't envy the idea of counting every calorie I eat for the rest of my life. Or restrict the variety of my diet by repeatedly eating known low calorie preplanned meals (i.e. same daily breakfast, and salad for lunch).

Interestingly..... my very aged mother has recently had to alter her healthy diet habits that she has lived by for decades. Apparently our nutritional needs may change from time to time. I know through the indigestion years (between age 40-50) I had to modify my eating habits greatly. 

Staying trim and fit during cycling season when 2-3 hour rides can easily be wedged into the long summer days isn't so difficult. Or isn't difficult when compared to winter months with too little activity and too many celebratory meals. I also know from experience that a period of recovery time after being injured can be aggravated with undesired weight gain.

I don't think any diet tool is the end-all fix-all for everyone of all lifestyles and of every age. I think we may have to regularly try to find nutritionally sound methods that fit our age and lifestyles. Or at least alter our normal diets.

But I know.... that after-dinner night-time entertainment snacking is a popular weight-gaining diet buster. The night-time “fast” or period of time without eating has been popular long enough that even the morning meal is called breakfast. Night fasting would seem to have pasted the time test.


----------



## m2ber04 (Aug 13, 2012)

So if i do my club ride until 8pm and get home at 830pm and eat around 9pm (normal routine). I cant eat again until 1pm? I coudnt do that. I usually eat a nice size breakfast in the morning. Gone from 194 to 158 lbs at 5'11" in about a year or so on my normal routine.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

m2ber04 said:


> ... I cant eat again until 1pm? I coudnt do that. I usually eat a nice size breakfast in the morning.


Yeah 16 hours is long time... and certainly doesn't work out for everyone... or for all times. In my younger years... I rarely ate a breakfast and grabbed dinner between day and evening jobs. So a 16 hour fast was pretty much my normal preferred routine.

Now-a-days... I like a light breakfast and I still eat dinner early. So all I've really done is cut out night snacking. That makes my "16 hour" fast 14 or 15 hours long [most days]. I've found that forces me to turn in to bed before I get too hungry so I am sleeping better too. 

I don't think of the 16 hour fast as a solution. I think of it as a dietary tool that for many people might be convenient, natural, and easy.


----------



## jlandry (Jan 12, 2007)

I just read Hugh Jackman raving about this diet. He did it for the latest Wolverine film.
If it's good enough for Wolverine...


----------



## TimV (Mar 20, 2007)

TimV said:


> So I've been doing this fairly consistently for almost seven weeks now. The only days I have eaten outside of my 'window' are the days when I either have a race or go on a ride longer than two or three hours. This averages about one day per week. Otherwise, I stay pretty much on schedule.
> 
> I have made some adjustments along the way. Now I stop eating in the evenings at around 8pm and my first meal on the next day is at around noon. This timing works pretty well for me.
> 
> ...


It's been over ten weeks for me now and I've lost about 15 pounds. The weight loss has slowed but I am now pretty close to my goal weight (~3 more pounds). I should be down to 160 soon. I like that I am not counting calories and I still don't feel like I am depriving myself of anything. It seems to be working.


----------



## Dave Cutter (Sep 26, 2012)

jlandry said:


> I just read Hugh Jackman raving about this diet. He did it for the latest Wolverine film.
> If it's good enough for Wolverine...


It's interesting he thinks that: *"70% of the way you look is your diet"*... with 30% being training. Because he also spends 3 hours a day in the gym.

I have recently been looking closer to what percentage of my diet is protein, fat, and carbohydrate. Every farmer I ever knew... could tell you what percentage their pig, chicken, or milk-cows diet was protein. Yet.... I don't know hardly a human that could tell me what percentage of yesterdays calories was protein, fat, OR carbs.

I am still a big believer that cutting out snacks and accepting a period of fast in my daily lifestyle is a huge aid in my weight control. 

But I have to admit that as far as knowing what to eat... and in what amounts (other than calories).... I feel kind of ignorant. But... I am working on it!



TimV said:


> ....I am now pretty close to my goal weight (~3 more pounds). I should be down to 160 soon. I like that I am not counting calories and I still don't feel like I am depriving myself of anything. It seems to be working.


That is so awesome! 

It is so easy to fall into the TRAP of snacking and watching TV at night. It is no wonder obesity is such a problem. Yet... the snacking habit is so easy to break... and such a benefit. Congratulation's on your success.


----------

