Fitness Minutes: (12,713)
4,114 10/29/13 3:05 P
If it works for you, do it. The naysayers here sound terribly uninformed and are just speaking the hivemind jabber of starvation mode. Truth is, skipping a couple of meals here and there isn't bad for you (and there is some evidence to suggest it's good for you).
Bottom line, if it helps you stay within your calorie goals and weight range, go for it. If it makes you eat ravenously, don't do it. It's that simple. Who cares what anyone else "would do if it were them".
Fitness Minutes: (40)
10/27/13 6:11 P
Renataruns, actually I think you do understand it perfectly . You just described exactly how it works, as well as the appeal. (I'm being sincere)
How do you do it and still live your life?
Exactly how everyone who follows a daily calorie-restriction plan does. You makes choices and define priorities.
What happens when willpower/motivation gives out?
The same thing that happens to everyone who follows a daily calorie-restriction plan when willpower/motivation gives out. You say "screw it!," stop exercising, and eat whatever/whenever you want for a while.
Like you said, intermittent calorie restriction does not work for everyone... if you are "gritting your teeth and white-knuckling it through your fast days," it's probably not going to work for you. If you wake up ravenous on your non-fast days and eat everything in sight, it's probably not going to work for you.
If you spend the lower-calorie days thinking, "wow... I'm not really as hungry as I expected to be... I really mistake boredom for hunger a lot... those vegetables were amazingly filling and good," then it IS probably going to work well for you, and hopefully making better choices will become a way of life.
Same goal we all have. Both types of calorie-restriction can work for certain people.
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
10/27/13 12:59 P
I don't understand this either. I have no doubt that it does work for a lot of people, since many people who are overweight and overeating generally would still be hard-pressed to consistently consume the entirety of two missing days' worth of calories over the course of the other five -- combine that with a tendency to eat a tiny bit better/ a tiny bit less on the other days anyway just because you are "on a diet", and I think it's no shock that people can do this and lose weight. Take in 5/7 of maintenance needs on a consistent basis and of course you will! No magic to it.
I even sort of understand the appeal, I think. No calorie cutting required, right? No weighing and measuring, no worrying about macronutrients or needing to restrain yourself on your Friday night out with the girls, all that and so on. Just stick to this one superficially simple rule. Heck, maybe it's not even all that hard for everyone who attempts it -- as someone who's suffered from depression to the point of barely eating in the past, I can attest that appetite and hunger do not always go hand in hand with an absolute lack of food, though usually they do.
But how do you do this and still live your life? For the rest of your life? And if you don't, what happens when you meet goal, or even before then, when the original good intentions start to slip a little and your capacity to eat up to your actual level of hunger on the days after the fasts increases and overall intake starts to creep up again? What happens when willpower starts to give out and gritting your teeth and white-knuckling it through your fast days starts to get harder and harder? I had the most massive amount of early motivation and momentum that I could imagine anyone having and I could still feel it slipping after a couple of months, but by then my good habits were so engrained that it was almost easier to just keep going than to waste any mental energy doing things that would revert me to past form. You're never going to get that life-saving cushion of habit if you're limiting your willingness to change to just bareknuckled willpower on one day out of every 3-4.
And if the response to this, as it so often seems to be in discussions of "just do this one simple thing and ..." diets, is to say that of course you will be teaching yourself better ways of eating at the same time, then why not just do that? Trust me it's challenging enough at first without adding in going without eating for the whole day every few days. Nothing and I mean nothing in my experience eats at the resolve and undermines the good thoughts of someone who's trying to lose weight more than being hungry. And this method all but guarantees that on a regular basis, without any hope of it ever ending as long as you're doing it (unlike traditional calorie cutting, to which your body does tend to adjust pretty well after a while).
Forgive me please for being horrible, but I just don't get it.
Edited by: RENATARUNS at: 10/27/2013 (13:02)
Fitness Minutes: (0)
10/27/13 7:09 A
As a user I can say this definately works. Here is a user review I found. fitterpeople(dot)com/eat-stop-eat
5/27/13 9:17 P
i gave up grain and sugar products and lost 44 pounds. have not gained a pound back in over a year.
I'm sorry, something else about this is really bothering me - do you really want to show that adorable little girl in your avatar that the way to be skinny, to be "healthy", to be happy with oneself - is to not eat? That instead of exercising portion control and learning about healthy eating, that it's "easier" to starve yourself?
Kids pick up on this stuff. I remember my mom buying diet food, saying she couldn't have something because "it would make her fat", putting barely anything on her own plate while the rest of us got full servings. As a little kid I recognized that, and it affected my relationship with food as I got older. I had to relearn everything I knew when it came to food when I joined SparkPeople, because all I knew was "eat whatever you want, until you gain weight, then you have to eat salads with no dressing and fat-free flavor-free yogurt". I really wish I had learned the right way sooner.
So basically a fast 2 days a week. I always wonder how people think they can have the willpower to fast for 2 entire days a week, but can't just eat 5/7ths of the calories they normally do, every day. If you are eating 2100 calories a day, just drop to 1500, and have no 0 calorie days. Those mess up you blood sugars, as well as leave you without the vitamins/nutrients necessary to continue basic body functions.
If you don't have the willpower to drop 600 calories a day, how can you starve yourself for 24 hours? You either have the willpower to do both, or neither.
5/27/13 11:40 A
"You don't need that kind of diet to 'tune in to' what your body is telling you. You can do that all by yourself, IF you feel bothered, and IF you feel you are worth it!" --------------
Yep. I am living proof of that. No gimmicks, no shortcuts, no diets. I went from eating a terribly unhealthy fast-food/convenience-food diet of excess, to eating a healthy balanced diet of moderation, virtually overnight (because that is what I WANTED and was DETERMINED to do).
And the way I 'tuned in to' my body, was to ensure I fuelled it at regular intervals with proper nutrition. This helped turn off the "false hunger cues" that my body had become very adept at reporting. After a few months, eating normal-sized meals at regular meal times has become almost second-nature. I don't know how I could have achieved that kind of learning experience/habit adjustment if I'd tried a program like the one described in the OP.
Fitness Minutes: (79,041)
5/27/13 11:37 A
I once read somewhere that any diet will work well for someone. That is why they all have success stories. So, if this is the diet that allows you to reach your goals, then more power to you. I had not thought of the eat dinner at 6PM then do not eat again until the next 6PM. This means you eat every day. As long as you are already in good health, why not? You can check with your doctor for further information on its effects on you.
There's no way this would work for me. I've discovered that I get "hangry" - my blood sugar drops when I get too hungry and I become really snappy and not very pleasant to be around! Plus as others have said, I would "load up" before and after, so I would be putting myself through misery for no benefit.
Weight loss doesn't have to be this hard. Starving yourself isn't the way to go.
Edited by: MEGAPEEJ at: 5/27/2013 (11:21)
Fitness Minutes: (40,353)
25,642 5/27/13 5:53 A
There is NO WAY on this earth I would practice that kind of diet. I NEED to eat regularly otherwise I get very nauseous and light-headed, and as well as that, my sleep is almost non-existent because of severe hunger PAINS.
I get the impression that the reasons given for using this diet, is that 'can't be bothered' ... and 'too much effort' comes into the equation. Our health is ALWAYS worth the effort.
I was also interested to read "The author, Brad Pilon, has released an extended version for a few bucks but....."
Think that says it all - MONEY!
You don't need that kind of diet to 'tune in to' what your body is telling you. You can do that all by yourself, IF you feel bothered, and IF you feel you are worth it!
The OP states "I've done weight watchers and calorie counting and I sucked at it!" The thing is, SP is NOT a diet! If you start off with baby steps, and change things gradually, as your mind/body gets used to each new thing, then you won't have a problem. If you don't want to calorie count - fine! (altho' it really pays to for a while until you can see exactly what you are eating and make the adjustments necessary.) What I suggest in it's place is to downsize your dinner plate and put 1/4 lean protein; 1/4 carbs from things like brown rice, wholegrain pasta or potato; and the rest - a 1/2 plate - with a rainbow of colour in the veges. I also suggest going easy on dressings. For other meals, increasing fruit/veges, cutting processed sugars down/out can reduce heaps of nutritionally poor calories, and cutting back on unhealthy fats but increasing healthy ones.
I can certainly appreciate the skepticism presented on this post but what is interesting is that the Eat Stop Eat book addresses each of these concerns word for word, with hard- scientific- research-based facts. And the thing is that this book is available for free now. The author, Brad Pilon, has released an extended version for a few bucks but his research is pretty genuine. It is thoroughly referenced.
Unfortunately, industry sponsored research on benefits of consuming overpowers the independent research of benefits of not consuming. How would the industry make profit if it advises people to consume less and less? Fasting has its benefits, which unconventional research from various cultures around the world would attest to.
And one important point to note: the Eat Stop Eat way of life emphasizes a resistance training program to compliment the two days per week fasting regime. And portion control, of course. That's it. If you like chocolate, go ahead, just eat less of it. If you like fast food, you could be eating something better of course but if you must, then skip the fries and coke; order the burger only. If you already eat healthy, then the fasting is a safe and healthy compliment to your existing healthy habits. Just as long as you don't fail on the resistance training part.
What this way of eating teaches you to do is to tune into when your body tells you it is satisfied, and to stop eating. A very good way to do that is to train your body via fasting. This isn't really a gimmick where you eat more of something or less of another thing. Nor is it a highly disciplined, hard-to-follow plan.
Someone said "overcompensating" once you are "allowed" to eat. That may be true for the first few rounds, which is also true for other lifestyle "changes" that people adopt. There are countless stories of lifestyle changes that get undone. But for the committed ones, the "overcompensation" goes away and your body/mind demands less; with no detriment to your health.
I don't (like everyone else) like this plan. To eat healthy you don't need gimmicks or special anything. It doesn't even really cost more. You just have to eat. And you make wise decisions, lean meats, fruits, veggies, whole grains. This won't add any cost to your current grocery bill, as you would be buy less bad foods and more good.
Fitness Minutes: (0)
8 3/19/13 10:42 A
This sounds like another fad diet to me. Going off what everybody else said, it's just going to mess up your metabolism and possibly cause your blood glucose to bottom out over the weekends. Diets generally don't work long term. Lifestyle changes do.
" I'm not that " I'll eat half a cupcake and 1/4 tsp of frosting" type."
But that's the mind set you have to be in if you want to lose weight and keep it off. Ideally though, you should just skip the cupcake so you have those calories to put towards hearty, filling meals.
"I need easy..."
Getting healthy is almost never easy. That's the hard reality that most of us have had to face in order to make a change for the better. I hated the thought of not eating whatever or whenever I wanted. I hated the thought of eating one slice of pizza instead of three. But that's what I had to do and I've lost 10 pounds in 2 weeks because of it.
These kind of diets will only slow down your metabolism and lead to weight gain. You have to eat to lose. Aim to eat every 3-4 hours to keep the metabolism revved up. By starving yourself for 24 hours will only lead you to eat the first thing you can get your hands on, and you're going to be going for that pizza or burger instead of the grilled chicken and vegetables. I guarantee you this plan will fail. Only way to lsoe and keep it off is with healthy eating and being active.
That is a terrible idea. Body chemistry just does not work that way. You must consume a certain amount of calories per day to avoid going into "starvation mode" which means the calories you consume will convert to stored energy (fat), and your body won't burn as much energy either. It will slow your metabolism down dramatically.
For the love of God, do NOT try any starvation diets!
Here is a great sparkpeople article that I think will help you. It talks about NOT skipping meals and NOT starving yourself:
http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/fitn ess_articles.asp?id=676 and http://www.sparkpeople.com/resource/nutr ition_articles.asp?id=1605
Fitness Minutes: (44,155)
5,092 3/18/13 10:34 P
I agree with BunnyKicks.
3/18/13 3:36 P
I would not do an "eating schedule" like that on the assumption that it will lead to weight loss.
People tend to make up for the "missed calories" not eaten during "fasting" periods, once they are "allowed" to eat again. I don't think doing this would be very effective at reducing overall calorie intake over the long term - which of course, is what is required for weight loss!
3/18/13 3:32 P
I would never have success with this, I'm ravenous after 4 or 5 hours without eating. It sounds pretty unhealthy not to fuel your body for that amount of time.
Fitness Minutes: (105)
3/18/13 2:23 P
Good morning! I've been looking into some different types of diets and decided to try a fasting style diet called eat stop eat. The basic idea is you eat normal except 2 days a week you fast for 24 hrs. So I ate dinner and finished at 6pm last night so I will eat dinner at 6pm tonight. Not to bad. Feels like I'm just missing breakfast and lunch. I don't feel starved or weak or anything and I like the idea because its cut and dry. I'm not that " I'll eat half a cupcake and 1/4 tsp of frosting" type. I need easy, convenient and affordable. This basically makes it so there are no special food, no counting, nothing. Has anyone else had success with this type of diet? I've done weight watchers and calorie counting and I sucked at it!! I realize this isn't what spark is all about just interested. Thanks!
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this website can be used without the permission of SparkPeople or its authorized affiliates.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.