Cool, my own anecdata matches yours. I also tend to have a daily fast until well into sundown, consuming only fresh ginger tea with lemon during the sunlit hours. Albeit sometimes if I'm truly famished I will eat something light (banana, baby carrots, etc) but it doesn't happen often. Been basically doing this pattern for 2+ years, and I definitely notice my mind staying clearer during the fast, and I am in the best physical condition of my life, running faster times and lifting heavier weights than ever. Those interested should check out "the warrior diet", which seems to suggest following a similar feeding routine.
I find it interesting that this is the traditional Buddhist monk meal plan, eat once a day, although it's lunch rather than dinner. There are several reasons for it that are all aimed at keeping monks' minds focused on their job which is practicing the Dhamma. One of those reasons is to limit energy intake so that monks don't have a lot of physical energy to get them into trouble thinking about things monks shouldn't be thinking about. So it's curious how you can maintain high energy levels and keep yourself ripped eating that way.
There are some cultural adaptations of the monk meal plan. Monks in some countries even eat three full meals per day due to the diet they follow. I'm referring to the traditional meal plan of one meal per day at lunch.
I really don't understand the mentality that eating and/or cooking is a "waste of time". Not picking on you specifically it is a common idea and part of the idea behind products like Soylent. I prefer to enjoy the moments of preparing my food and eating it.
Same here. During the week at work, I drink water and/or tea or coffee with the occasional blob of coconut oil during the day (not technically fasting). I work out in the mornings and have a plentiful meal around 18:00 in the evening.
On weekends I tend to eat a big breakfast and small dinner instead.
I prefer to eat at home in a relaxing environment, where I can enjoy the food. Eating at work just isn't something I can enjoy.
This has been working for me for well over a year. YMMV, of course.
I agree that with one meal a day you likely don't need to count calories. Then again, I can easily consume 5000 calories of more if left unchecked. So I built my own IF-specific tracker (shameless plug).
What does a general meal look like for you? I want to get into this kind of eating schedule--it really fits my lifestyle and routine--but I'm concerned about being able to get the calories and nutrients I need from just a single meal. Any other tips?
For anyone having issues seeing the content on mobile, the abstract is this:
"Although major research efforts have focused on how specific components of foodstuffs affect health, relatively little is known about a more fundamental aspect of diet, the frequency and circadian timing of meals, and potential benefits of intermittent periods with no or very low energy intakes. The most common eating pattern in modern societies, three meals plus snacks every day, is abnormal from an evolutionary perspective. Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage. As data on the optimal frequency and timing of meals crystalizes, it will be critical to develop strategies to incorporate those eating patterns into health care policy and practice, and the lifestyles of the population."
Abstract of the abstract:
Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes.
That includes sleep? If you sleep 8 hours, awaken at 6 AM, then eat at 2 PM, it's a 16-hour restriction period?
I naturally go longer than that without eating each day. If you skip breakfast and lunch times, and include the hours you're asleep, it's easy to "fast" for closer to 20 hours or more every day.
I wouldn't force that though, I think everyone is different, living different lifestyles, and their optimal eating cycles will reflect that. When I'm working primarily sedentarily on the computer, then I'd rather work all day and eat quickly in one sitting at the end of the day. But if I'm spending all day doing manual labor outside in the sun, I'll naturally want to eat and drink more in between.
There's an on-going timing-of-eating study going on at UPenn [1] that is looking for volunteers. They provide you with 4 months of food (you get a say in what you get) and they tell you when to eat it (though not how much or exactly what). As well as compensation. If you're in the Philladelphia area, it might be interesting to participate or to save money doing this for a good cause. This is the kind of study we need more of and it's hard to get volunteers to give that big a commitment. I don't believe that they're testing fasting, though.
Thank you for the heads up! I just reached out to volunteer.
On a related note, it would be fantastic to have a resource to discover research volunteer opportunities like this. It's almost impossible to find these types of research projects without having someone tip you off!
I've switched to two meals a day with approximately 11hrs in between for about 1 year now. I also noticed a much higher sensitivity to insulin: If I eat sugary snacks now I experience a much bigger drop in blood sugar levels. I get really tired about 1.5 hrs after eating three cookies. Interestingly it only lasts only for about 30 minutes and I'm back to normal. I can only imagine what would have happened to people from 200 years ago if they were exposed to our sugar levels...
The difficulty with adapting these studies is that culture can have a great influence in meal frequency and timing.
In America, the typical schedule is to have a large breakfast, get in your car to work, have a light/medium lunch, then drive back home for a large dinner with the family.
When I lived with my family in Italy, where cities are denser and families are closer, things were completely different: breakfast was espresso, and eating anything more than a croissant was rare. Around 1 the country shuts down with an audible clank as everyone goes home for a huge lunch with the family. After work is dinner, but it tends to be much smaller than lunch.
It can also vary depending on the part of Italy. Dinners were much larger in inland Rome than coastal Gaeta, although Romans tend to stay out much later, so it makes sense to have the extra calories.
Ultimately, it's an optimization problem that will never be solved. Even if there is an optimal meal method, most people will reject it because their personality/culture values pleasure above efficiency. What's the point of being healthy if you're not happy?
Another related article about reduced energy intake that adds some social commentary:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518570/
"Energy Intake and Exercise as Determinants of Brain Health and Vulnerability to Injury and Disease"
i'm too lazy to read all the papers on this subject, so indulge me: Do any measure brain "output"?
i bet earlier humans would eat a lot, then walk for miles until finding another spot, or stuff them on seals and then sleep on some warm cave and do nothing until the hunger was bad enough to justify another hunt on the cold outside, etc. I doubt you can live that way with a 9-5 job.
I did a 15 days total fast (ie no food, only water) last year. As far as I can tell my brain output remained the same, I could function plainly as a dev.
I was not 100% physically (say 80%), but nothing major (I'm not practicing any sport though).
[+] [-] jsonmez|10 years ago|reply
I have been able to maintain a large degree of muscle and I am pretty ripped.
Easy to adopt your lifestyle to and then you don't really have to count calories anymore.
Plus, I never have to waste time eating or cooking breakfast or lunch.
[+] [-] brahmwg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geomark|10 years ago|reply
There are some cultural adaptations of the monk meal plan. Monks in some countries even eat three full meals per day due to the diet they follow. I'm referring to the traditional meal plan of one meal per day at lunch.
[+] [-] volker48|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] galaktor|10 years ago|reply
On weekends I tend to eat a big breakfast and small dinner instead.
I prefer to eat at home in a relaxing environment, where I can enjoy the food. Eating at work just isn't something I can enjoy.
This has been working for me for well over a year. YMMV, of course.
[+] [-] silviogutierrez|10 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10540352
It even supports leangains style dieting.
[+] [-] clumsysmurf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xs1t0ry|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heed|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mrfusion|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richmarr|10 years ago|reply
"Although major research efforts have focused on how specific components of foodstuffs affect health, relatively little is known about a more fundamental aspect of diet, the frequency and circadian timing of meals, and potential benefits of intermittent periods with no or very low energy intakes. The most common eating pattern in modern societies, three meals plus snacks every day, is abnormal from an evolutionary perspective. Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage. As data on the optimal frequency and timing of meals crystalizes, it will be critical to develop strategies to incorporate those eating patterns into health care policy and practice, and the lifestyles of the population."
[+] [-] tomaskazemekas|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rekshaw|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mei0Iesh|10 years ago|reply
I naturally go longer than that without eating each day. If you skip breakfast and lunch times, and include the hours you're asleep, it's easy to "fast" for closer to 20 hours or more every day.
I wouldn't force that though, I think everyone is different, living different lifestyles, and their optimal eating cycles will reflect that. When I'm working primarily sedentarily on the computer, then I'd rather work all day and eat quickly in one sitting at the end of the day. But if I'm spending all day doing manual labor outside in the sun, I'll naturally want to eat and drink more in between.
[+] [-] tdkl|10 years ago|reply
[1] http://antranik.org/intermittent-fasting/
[+] [-] tgb|10 years ago|reply
[1] http://www.med.upenn.edu/weight/research.shtml
(I'm unrelated to this, just know someone participating.)
[+] [-] fjk|10 years ago|reply
On a related note, it would be fantastic to have a resource to discover research volunteer opportunities like this. It's almost impossible to find these types of research projects without having someone tip you off!
[+] [-] austinjp|10 years ago|reply
http://m.pnas.org/content/111/47/16647.short
[+] [-] gcb0|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uxhacker|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acchow|10 years ago|reply
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413114...
Interestingly, "Time-restricted feeding is effective against high-fat, high-fructose, and high-sucrose diets"
[+] [-] Goodbro|10 years ago|reply
I find that eating a low-carb diet keeps me satiated throughout the day during fasting.
What do you think about calorie restriction diet?
[+] [-] jcfrei|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] craftkiller|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|10 years ago|reply
In America, the typical schedule is to have a large breakfast, get in your car to work, have a light/medium lunch, then drive back home for a large dinner with the family.
When I lived with my family in Italy, where cities are denser and families are closer, things were completely different: breakfast was espresso, and eating anything more than a croissant was rare. Around 1 the country shuts down with an audible clank as everyone goes home for a huge lunch with the family. After work is dinner, but it tends to be much smaller than lunch.
It can also vary depending on the part of Italy. Dinners were much larger in inland Rome than coastal Gaeta, although Romans tend to stay out much later, so it makes sense to have the extra calories.
Ultimately, it's an optimization problem that will never be solved. Even if there is an optimal meal method, most people will reject it because their personality/culture values pleasure above efficiency. What's the point of being healthy if you're not happy?
[+] [-] yayalice|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GimbalLock|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MitjaBezensek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] profeta|10 years ago|reply
i bet earlier humans would eat a lot, then walk for miles until finding another spot, or stuff them on seals and then sleep on some warm cave and do nothing until the hunger was bad enough to justify another hunt on the cold outside, etc. I doubt you can live that way with a 9-5 job.
[+] [-] jmnicolas|10 years ago|reply
I was not 100% physically (say 80%), but nothing major (I'm not practicing any sport though).
[+] [-] gtpasqual|10 years ago|reply
Many wouldn't distinguish the line between fasting, malnutrition or even anorexia.
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jsprogrammer|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] BenderV|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] uxwtf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plusquamperfekt|10 years ago|reply