to say that fasting has massively cut down our food bills?

[streth]

I know it's not for everyone but I’ve been doing intermittent fasting one meal a day for a while now and I’ve noticed a huge difference in our food shopping bills. I just eat once a day usually a good sized balanced meal in the evening and I’m genuinely less hungry the rest of the time. I don’t snack anymore and I’m not constantly thinking about food which has been surprisingly freeing.

My teens off their own backs have started eating just twice a day they say they feel fine and they're old enough to make those choices themselves. We still eat nutritious food but we’re just eating less often and wasting far less.

Food bills have gone down significantly and with prices being what they are right now it’s honestly been a relief I know this wouldn’t work for everyone and I’m definitely not saying it’s suitable for people with eating disorders or anyone with specific health needs. But for us it’s made a real difference both financially and in how we think about food.

AIBU to think this kind of fasting can be a practical option for some people in tough times?

I'm not labelling it anything. I do a bit of fasting myself, in a sensible way.

Imagine if the government told the general population to fast, in response to rising food prices. There would be ructions. That's part of the point I was making.

Yeah this! ^ 😂

Let’s be clear: I’m not saying that skipping meals is a moral fix for poverty. What I’m describing is a conscious decision I’ve made that fits my situation, body, and routine not something forced or desperate.

That said, research indicates that intermittent fasting, even among individuals at a normal weight, is not inherently dangerous if approached thoughtfully. For example, a review found that in healthy, normal weight, overweight, or obese adults, there is little evidence that intermittent fasting regimens are physically or mentally harmful

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4516560

More broadly, intermittent fasting has shown benefits similar to continuous calorie restriction in terms of improving markers like glucose control, lipid profiles, and inflammation

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4516560/

Time‑restricted eating trials have also demonstrated reductions in blood pressure, improvements in body composition, and lower cardiovascular risk factors

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9946909

I only eat lunch and dinner normally simply because I'm not hungry in the morning. I forbid my teens from doing the same because they are growing and need calories in the morning before school. During the summer holidays I don't force them to eat breakfast but they have early lunch, a snack and dinner.

I think the OP is irresponsible in encouraging her teens to eat once a day. What she does to herself is one thing but letting her children do the same would be a safeguarding issue for me. And I say that as a former social worker.

There is no evidence as far as I know to prove that eating three meals a day is required for optimal health or better in any way to eating twice a day. In fact three meals a day ( breakfast lunch dinner) is a fairly modern concept , I remember reading that it had much to do with the food industry influencing and driving food sales, which has obviously worked as most people now think that skipping one of the three meals is unhealthy.
We are conditioned to perform the daily ritual of eating when we wake up and finishing with dinner late in the day, in reality human bodies have evolved to go without food for longer periods than just overnight. Research has shown that it’s beneficial.
OP is being challenged but I think it’s fair to challenge posters who say skipping a meal is not healthy.

I agree. If the government told people to fast as an official response to rising food prices, there absolutely would and should be uproar. That would be insulting and completely out of touch with the reality of food insecurity.

But that is not what I am suggesting. I am not calling for policy. I am not saying people should fast because food is expensive. I have just shared what I have been doing, which happens to be fasting, and noted that it has helped me spend less and waste less. That is a personal choice, not a prescription for the population.

It is good that you fast in a way that works for you. That is all I am doing too. The difference is I mentioned the financial side because right now it is a relevant part of many people’s lives. Talking about how individuals are adapting is not the same as suggesting it should be imposed or applied to everyone.

1997??

What a greedy guts

I think you are completely overstepping by calling this a safeguarding issue and suggesting I am being irresponsible without knowing the full picture.

My teens decided for themselves to eat twice a day/ They are not eating once a day like I am, and I have never encouraged or forced them to do that. They are well fed, healthy, and fully capable of saying when they are hungry. They are not little children and they are not being controlled around food.

It is not neglectful or dangerous to allow older teens to follow their own appetite patterns, especially when they are still eating proper meals and snacks if they want them. You are free to make different choices in your own home, but accusing someone of putting their children at risk just because their routine is not the same as yours is ridiculous.

I can’t see how you’d get enough protein, carbs, fats etc to support bodily processes.

It will definitely reduce your food bill but it put you at risk of malnutrition.

Coming from someone who is on Mounjaro at the moment, not even I could stick to just eating one meal a day in the evening. I prioritise breakfast as I need to take most of my medication then, so I need something in my stomach for that. Then sometimes lunch will be a late one or early dinner, I merge them in, so its at least two meals a day.

That might be true if someone is not eating enough overall or not getting the right nutrients. But eating once or twice a day does not automatically mean malnutrition. It depends on what and how much you eat during those meals. If the food is balanced and varied, with enough protein, healthy fats, carbs, vitamins and minerals, then you can absolutely meet your nutritional needs without eating three times a day.

There are plenty of people who eat less frequently and are perfectly healthy. Many cultures and religious traditions have long practised forms of fasting without it leading to malnutrition. I am not saying this works for everyone, but for some people it is entirely sustainable when done properly.

Skipping meals is not the same as skipping nutrition.

That really depends on the size and content of the meals, not just the number of times someone eats. You don’t need to eat three or more times a day to get enough protein, carbs, fats, vitamins, and minerals. You just need to make sure the meals you do eat are balanced and nutrient dense.

For example, someone can easily get enough protein from a meal that includes meat, fish, eggs, dairy, legumes, nuts, or tofu. Add in complex carbs like rice, potatoes, or whole grains, healthy fats like olive oil or avocado, and a good mix of vegetables, and that one or two meals a day can more than cover your daily needs.

There’s no rule that says your body can only absorb nutrients if you spread them out over three meals. Plenty of people eat once or twice a day and have excellent blood work and energy levels. It’s about overall intake and quality, not the clock

Have you looked into whether it's safe / advised for teenagers? I am aware that there is a fair bit of research to support the benefits of IF in adults (especially if overweight) but I would have thought that a teen going 16 hours without food, for example, might not be considered particularly positive (but I haven't ever looked it up). I take your point that they are older and can make their own decisions but I would try and support them to make informed decisions with help to understand the health effects, if I were you.

You must have some idea of your calorie intake to be able to accurately determine if your meal is actually healthy though?

I'm sure I read something about the working class traditionally only eating two meals a day. If I remember right it wasn't determined by poverty etc, more by the way the working day was set up.

I’m with you OP. What I unexpectedly discovered is that, for me anyway, fasting is mood-boosting.

People are so rude on here. It's so unnecessary.

It doesn't take that many brain cells to figure this out OP, but lots of people aren't overly keen to submit themselves to the latest fads (that's essentially what fasting is unless it's for actual medical reasons).

I don’t get this. How are you not hungry? There is no magic formula to this apart from depriving yourself of regular meals. You don’t suddenly get less hungry because you’re “fasting”. It’s not even a thing, it’s just skipping meals.

id be really worried about the whole family doing it, its close to role modelling an eating disorder.

The 'three meals a day' norm is entirely a cultural construct. It has no biological basis.

It works well for modern life though.

NO WAY!!

I would never have guessed you could cut your food bill by eating less food.

Sorry. It’s a slow work day.

You can’t have proper nutrition on one meal a day.

nutrition is a function of type of food (nutrient dense) and quantity of food, ie weight, volume.

if you have some single meals that provide 30g fibre, 100g protein, 14g iron etc I’d love to hear them.

I’m so sorry that you have been through such a tough time. I’m devastated for people recovering from ED that the current culture seems to be all about eating as little as possible. Be that weight loss injections, fasting, OMAD etc etc Please know that this is all disordered eating and if you can avoid all this talk of skipping meals etc Sending lots of love and strength to you