ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Not eating til evening... is that OK?(13 Posts)
I've been trying out 5:2, not so much for weight loss as for the health benefits. I don't have breakfast on a fast day, as ours isn't that healthy (cereal or toast) and I've not got time to cook before going to work. So I started out having a mid-afternoon 'lunch', then a light tea. However after my mid-afternoon lunch I'd get much hungrier, plus working out the tea when feeding family (which includes vegetarian and 2 meat eaters) was tricky. So I've tried out dropping all meals until the evening, and having a larger (still small) meal then, which means I feel less hungry. Is that OK, or is the idea to space meals out a bit more, in terms of time and quantity?
Eating like that is not actually good for you, it'll lower your metabolism for a start. It is actually better to have 5 small meals a day rather than skip meals, eating little and often is good or so I've read. You could try looking at slimming world that is really just healthier eating, yes you can lose weight but it helps to change your eating habits. Also hairy bikers diet book is brilliant for healthier meals, their shepherds pie is amazing I hope that is of some help.
Thanks for the reply, Nessie. Would not eating until evening on one or two days out of seven impact on my metabolism? I'm definitely hungrier if I eat smaller meals more regularly, it ends up turning into snacking. I think this is why on my fast days I put off eating, because otherwise I find it hard to resist the food around the office... I am trying to shift a bit of fat around the middle but other than that my real interest in 5:2 is in keeping alzheimers/brain decay away (which I need, desparately!).
Nessie, a) that's rubbish and b) it really doesn't apply in the 5:2 regime.
Numpty, you'll finds lots ( if not most) 5:2ers save most of their cals for an evening meal.
Thanks Melanie - I guess I was wondering if the largest meal being in the evening might be less beneficial? I'd prefer an evening meal, but just want to check. eg if I ate a meal at lunchtime, I'd have lots of active time afterwards (work, going home, cooking) to burn off the calories, whereas in the evening I'll be sitting down/going to bed. What do you think, is that OK?
(although having read the Fast Exercise book, I remember that even sitting around being alive uses up nearly as many calories as some other activities...)
Have you read the book or seen the documentary? Are you on the main thread- we are very friendly and gave lots of tips and support!
You can spread your 500 cals whatever way you like. Dr Moseley found a breakfast and a dinner was easiest to fit in with family meals, many seasoned fastens find that breakfast sets off the hunger monster, and it's more doable to delay eating where possible. The health benefits of this are only anecdotal rather than scientifically proven, I feel bound to point out.
My advice is to get started whatever way works for you. You can tweak it later.
Yes, I saw the documentary (found a sneaky copy online) and that's why the other health benefits appeal so much - I want to stay healthy and avoid the NHS as I grow older at all costs! I've not read the book though, and seeing many recipes online for smaller meals during the day (whether breakfast and evening or lunch and evening) I did wonder about the evening only approach. Thanks for the reassurance, I'll keep going this way for the time being and see how I get on .
Melanie's right on all counts!
I'm also fasting for the health benefits, just on one day a week. This evening I completed a 25-hour fast, ending with a 400cal (approx) smoky Thai curry and curried wedges - and I'm absolutely stuffed!
I ate my last mouthful at 6.08 yesterday evening, and began dinner tonight at about ten past seven. I had a mug of hot water around ten this morning, and I've been alternating coffee and water through the day.
Like you, NM, I don't eat breakfast, so all I've done, really, is miss out lunch!
I'm absolutely certain that our hunter-gatherer ancestors were well used to fasting for at least 24 hours.
I've been feeling on top of the world all day, and I'm very happy that I've given my body some time to repair itself.
Why not come over to the main thread - nr 44, soon to be nr 45 - and tell us all about yourself?
Scientific studies have completely debunked the old theory that several small meals are better for the metabolism.
You choose whatever you prefer. Many 5:2ers just eat once on FDs.
Why not pop over to MainThread44 for lots of friendly support.
Intermittent Fasting was originally investigated to improve health, not weight loss, so there have been a lot of scientific studies showing its benefits: Mattson , BlackSwan and Hormesis
Some leading anti-aging researchers like Mark Mattson fast and often eat only once per day, as a result of their studies.
Nessie22 is incorrect.
Lots of us save our calories for supper, and have been doing so for many, many months.
Come join the big thread.
Hello everyone - sorry, was away and internet-less at the weekend, just realised there had been other posts. Thanks all very much for your replies, I may pop in to join the support thread but may also lurk for a bit .
So, so wrong that eating lots of small meals is 'better' for your metabolism.
I do 16:8, every day. Since January, other than the odd special occasion (and 3 weeks after my wedding), I only have two fairly large meals a day. I don't snack.
I've lost 1st 8lbs so far in 6 months, without changing what I eat (ate fairly healthily anyway) or exercising (not advocating this, just being honest).
I got married at the end of May. Following that, I've had 3 weeks 'off' fasting and healthy living, the first time for months. I've eaten like a beast. Seriously, seriously pigged out.
I weighed myself last week for the first time since the wedding, completely sure I must have put half a stone on - and I'm one pound lighter now than before my 3 week gorge.
Had this been last year, eating the way I have for 3 weeks I would have piled weight on. Following 5 months of fasting, it's had no effect. I fully put this down to how fasting has changed my metabolism for the better.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.