Fitness Minutes: (74,443)
3,293 10/8/13 12:35 A
I really don't think that is going to work well as a weight-loss strategy. If you do have a blood sugar issue, that approach is going to make things worse for you in terms of overall health.
I certainly don't think that everybody has to eat on exactly the same schedule or that everybody has to eat lots of tiny meals. I don't like the tiny meal approach at all--it's too much work and I know from tracking everything over time that it doesn't help me at all. For reasons of personality and perhaps culture, I tend to eat my biggest meal in the middle of the day and to have a smaller, lighter meal late at night. I almost always have dinner at 8 or 9, after I have exercised. I don't like breakfast either, but it makes a HUGE difference for me...if I don't eat a good breakfast, I will want to snack all night. There is lot of research about the benefits of breakfast...that's probably just a fact that you're going to have to accept.
If you aren't willing to change any of your habits (relating to friends primarily through food, eating junk food, eating fast food) then you aren't likely to see different results. Since you have been working on this for quite a while and you are still at your starting weight--well, I think you need to stop overthinking things and looking for shortcuts and think about how to eat less, eat food that has better nutrition and how to exercise more. Keep it simple.
Fitness Minutes: (46,939)
176 10/8/13 12:20 A
I don't know anything about this "trendy" plan, but I believe strongly that breakfast, small or large, kick starts the metabolism for the day. For me personally, I have to eat something with my morning coffee or I'll end up with a stomachache that really bothers me, so I eat the same low calorie but filling breakfast almost every day (a homemade sugar free, low fat apple raisin bran muffin). There are days I get to lunch before actually feeling hungry but other days that I need a small snack before then. I plan for a snack (I pack lunches for work) and if I don't eat it before lunch, it becomes an addition to my lunch.
I don't know...for me, I don't like jumping on any "new" plan that makes promises that don't make sense. I think it's about total calories in and out combined with the right choices (healthy, whole foods as much as possible) and plenty of exercise. It's worked for me so far!
Azul- I'm not going to give up eating out or all processed foods. It's just not realistic for me. I will eat out, and there are times where we will go to McDonalds. It's not every day- or even every month- but it happens.
Essentially, however, the answer is yes, though my eating period is 10 hours. I'm not eating for 10 hours straight. I had a snack today around 1, a meal around 2. Around 5-6pm I had some sorbet and a few bites of popcorn (the sorbet was because my throat has been bothering me; but I also needed something salty- hence the popcorn). It's now 8:30 and I'm finishing dinner (which included raspberries and apple slices with natural peanut butter). I'll probably have some dessert soon.
I'm not eating until I'm stuffed. I'm eating until I'm satisfied, and I'm eating what I want. It's very liberating. I do plan on going back to counting calories, but for now, I'm just going to focus on getting my body adjusted to eating on a schedule of sorts. Some days, I might just eat 2 meals and a snack. Other days, I might snack more.
Fitness Minutes: (74,443)
3,293 10/7/13 7:29 P
I'm not sure that I am understanding what you are talking about here. Is your idea to eat whatever you want (including restaurant meals), but only within an 8-hour period, then to fast for the rest of the day?
"The only thing I don't like about it is the "rule", the almost fetishization of the idea among some people currently, since it's so trendy. It's to the point where it's just one more "do this and you will lose weight; deviate an inch and you are DOOMED (and buy my book!)" cure-alls that annoy me so much."
This is partially why I am doing 14/10 fasting instead of 16/8. Now, ideally, most days WILL be 16/8, but I know that doing it every day isn't realistic for me, and if I set my goal to do 16/8, and don't make it, I'll beat myself up.
So, I set an easier goal for myself. Today, I didn't eat anything until closer to 1 (I had some chick pea snacks on my mile-walk home from the grocery store), and it was 2 before I had a real meal (bacon, egg, and cheese sandwiches on 100% whole wheat cinnamon raisin swirl bread). Tomorrow, I might end up eating at exactly 12pm. I know I will need to measure and track eventually, but I do want to give myself a chance to adjust to this new eating schedule before I worry about calories and all that stuff.
Fitness Minutes: (1,267)
48 10/7/13 11:53 A
I think this is one of those things that is "find what works for you".
If I don't eat within a couple hours of waking, i can't concentrate, think straight, or remember anything. Shortly after that, i will get the shakes and a massive headache.
If I eat an 800 calorie meal, I won't stop at 800- it will more likely be 1200-1400. I am logy and lethargic afterward, and more likely to continue eating large meals for the rest of the day.
Controlled-portion "grazing" of 3 preplanned meals and 2 snacks works great for me and keeps me feeling satisfied, energetic and on track.
Though I would just like to point out - the psychological urge to eat without restriction and chafing at the difficulty of setting limits on your own behavior, can be just part of the self-destructive mindset that creates and perpetuates weight problems.
"Naturally" thin people actually don't eat "whatever they want". They restrict their eating, adjust their meals according to intake and calorie density, and plan ahead to avoid overeating. They just do it automatically/subconsciously because their metabolic thermostat/hunger mechanism works properly.
Those of us whose subconscious calorie thermostat is broken, have to do it consciously, one way or the other. The clock is just a different way to accomplish the same goal, which is to eat as much as your body needs and then STOP. If clock watching works better for you than spaced-out portion controlled meals, then go for it.
The psychologist Judith Beck has done some really interesting work on the thinking patterns that cause weight problems, very helpful reading.
"Eating 800 calories at once can be really satisfying in a way that multiple tiny meals just can't."
I totally agree. Most of my meals are in the 800 calorie range with a generous amount of healthy fat as I define it, which is no inflammatory refined seed oils. It leaves me feeling satisfied for a long time, which I like because I don't enjoy eating small meals all day long.
Good luck to you Lisa. Just remember eating in a window by itself won't help you lose weight. You still have to make healthy choices when choosing what to eat. Try and eat your 10 servings of vegetables and fruit everyday and the rest should sort itself out.
"Eating 800 calories at once can be really satisfying in a way that multiple tiny meals just can't."
I'm often bothered by the whole concept about eating whatever you want while counting calories. If you follow the usual calorie counting guidelines, that's simply not true in some cases- unless you want to go insane.
I'm 22. When I go out with friends, we don't typically go to Panera or a salad bar. We go to diners or get burgers and fries. A few years ago, it was a tradition to go to Applebee's on most Friday nights for half-price appetizers. Yes, Applebee's has their under 550 calorie and Weight Watchers menus, but they are triple the cost of 1/2 price appetizers, and who wants to be ordering the "Weight Watchers chicken" while everyone else is ordering buffalo chicken wings?
So, having more calories for a meal would be beyond liberating. Just simple things: a real peanut butter and jelly (natural pb and all fruit spread on 100% whole wheat bread) with a cold glass of milk is not easy to fit into a "proper" calorie counting day. Eating out is nearly impossible, and I end up feeling deprived OR I'll just give up and go wayyyy over.
But truthfully, if I eat dinner somewhere between 7 and 9pm (eating out), I'll usually go to Starbucks later in the evening. If I'm hungry (which is rare for me if I have a good meal), I can have a snack. Typically though, I don't eat anything after- aside from maybe a cake pop on occasion. Then, I get home somewhere between 10:30 and 12:30 depending on the day (if it's a Friday night when my best friend doesn't work the next day, we'll stay at Starbucks until they close at midnight). Then, I climb into bed, watch Netflix or whatever and relax.
If it's a day where I need to be up and about early in the morning, I can be too busy or distracted to worry about grabbing breakfast. Often, I'm either prepping for job interviews OR I'm using my mom's car and taking my sister to school. It isn't too unusual for me to have breakfast at 10am at times (though it's also not unusual for me to eat potato chips at 3am). On church days, it means not worrying about eating while I'm getting ready, and around noon when service ends, I can break my fast with refreshments there. Sunday breakfasts are always the worst for me.
I'm actually pretty excited to try this. Right now, I'm not calorie counting at all. I'm just going to eat within my 8-10 hour window. I want my body to adjust to the new schedule before I worry about restricting calories- plus, I have a slight cold (post nasal drip and sore throat), so honestly, I may be eating sorbet for lunch tomorrow. Will that be frowned upon by most? Absolutely. But I'm not feeling too terrific right now, and sometimes, ice cream works better than Advil or Tylenol.
Fitness Minutes: (5,493)
467 10/6/13 11:32 A
I can't force myself to eat when I'm not hungry, if i wake up and feel hungry I eat something, if I don't I wait until later...my biggest issues is when I wait, if I get busy I just don't eat. I don't typically feel bad from not eating breakfast and I don't over eat when I do...I stop when I feel full or depending on what I fix I just stop when I'm done...like a sandwich I don't go make another one, I settle with just the one. I no longer finish my plate if I put more than I should....
I would just listen to your body and make adjustments as necessary, we are all different so do what works for you, as long as your getting the results you trying for then just be happy and enjoy your life.
Fitness Minutes: (2,155)
1,275 10/6/13 10:57 A
The only thing I don't like about it is the "rule", the almost fetishization of the idea among some people currently, since it's so trendy. It's to the point where it's just one more "do this and you will lose weight; deviate an inch and you are DOOMED (and buy my book!)" cure-alls that annoy me so much.
It wouldn't work for me. If I'm being active at all, then I'm one of those sorts of people who is hungry two hours after breakfast and three hours after lunch regardless if those meals consist of a sedate 400 calories or an indulgent 800. I hit that certain point and my stomach starts to growl. Obviously for me, I'm better off keeping the meals on the smaller side, since the snacks are going to happen anyway. (I also NEED breakfast. The tradeoff for me -- and part of the reason, for that matter -- is that I am almost never hungry at all at night. This suits me since I hate wanting to have something to eat at 10 pm.)
But everyone's different. If eating less often is better for your own lifestyle and sticking to your own goals, I see no earthly reason you shouldn't do it.
I discovered the same thing! I routinely eat 800 calories for lunch and never lower than 600. It works because I'm not eating tons of meals all day long. I have my big lunch, then I have a small snack and a light dinner and it's usually around 1300 or so for the day. When I ate 5-6 small meals, I never got to sit down to an 800 calorie meal -- it makes eating out harder too, as there's a lot less of a margin of error when your meals are only 250-300 calories each. Eating 800 calories at once can be really satisfying in a way that multiple tiny meals just can't.
Fitness Minutes: (17,672)
7,138 10/5/13 1:13 P
Skipping breakfast is hard for me because I have run out of energy until I actually "break the fast". I don't see it as a time on the clock but rather something I do to energize my body after getting up in the morning (or whenever).
Fitness Minutes: (75,653)
2,489 10/5/13 1:11 P
That's exactly what I discovered HoneyLissaBee.
I was never satisfied on those 3-4 hour spread out meals. I would finish eating and then find myself longing for my next meal that felt like forever away. Now I eat all my meals in the afternoon and evening and feel totally satisfied.
There was a game I used to play during field day where we had to try to work as a team to fill a bucket with holes drilled into it.
I can dump a little bit of water into the bucket, and it will empty out quickly. However, if I dump another full bucket into it, the bucket will have water in it longer.
I've had days where I eat 300 calorie meals of all the "right" foods and I'm still hungry, and I have had days where I eat all the wrong foods, and I'm satisfied for hours. I think limiting my eating to a specific window will allow me to eat enough without the pressure of "I need to get these 1,500 calories to last me for 12-16 hours."
Well, you did have that other post about how you're starving some days and not hungry other days. Have you looked to see whether the times you eat affects that?
I don't eat breakfast until I'm anticipating a lot of activity that day, but I routinely eat dinner at 9 or 10. It doesn't really matter what time of day you eat, as far as anyone can tell, so do what fits your schedule.
I do think "IF" is a silly term-- it makes people think they're "fasting" when really they're just eating at a different time.
I've been doing IF 8 hour (noon - 8pm) for over a year. There's nothing bad about it in my experience. I think it's great, it fits my schedule and lifestyle (I live in a country where lunch is the main meal, not dinner), so... nothing is bad :) If it fits you and your life, go for it.
I really don't see any difference at all. Many people on night or swing shifts eat like that. I used to think that if I ate after a certain time, I would gain weight. I am now on board with the fact that your body can't tell time.
Now, I'm specifically talking about, say 16/8 or 14/10 fasting (only eating within an 8-10 hour window).
Some people find they do best if they don't eat after a certain time, say 7pm. It's not because the body doesn't burn calories after 7pm, but if you have a long day (up before six and in bed after ten), stretching your calories through all that time can be a challenge.
So, what's the difference between not eating after 7 and not eating before 12? Isn't it just shifting things a bit from what's viewed as "normal?"
Rather than eating breakfast at 8am and finishing dinner by 6pm, I'll eat breakfast at noon and be done eating by 8-10pm. It fits better with my schedule and social life than the 8-6 or 7-5 eating schedule. In both cases, you are eating within a certain window of time- and I'm not going to beat myself up if I eat before noon or have a late dinner (eating dinner after 10-11 isn't completely foreign to me).
SparkPeople, SparkCoach, SparkPages, SparkPoints, SparkDiet, SparkAmerica, SparkRecipes, DailySpark, and other marks are trademarks of SparkPeople, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
SPARKPEOPLE is a registered trademark of SparkPeople, Inc. in the United States, European Union, Canada, and Australia. All rights reserved.