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?

Yeah, I mean my stomach sometimes objects to a small bowl of All Bran. I can't imagine the effect of 25-30g of fibre in a meal. Oof.

Though it's far more likely that the OP is not eating enough protein or fibre.

Yes, what are you eating in that one meal, OP? @streth

One typical meal might be a tomato, cucumber, avocado and mozzarella salad with olive oil and lemon dressing followed by salmon with roast vegetables. Handful of nuts, two pieces of fruit and a protein yoghurt.

It's only 'skipping meals' if you believe that 3 meals a day is or should be the default or standard - which many of us don't.

This will only save you money if previously you were eating more than you needed.

Someone eating two or three healthy, modestly sized meals a day isn't going to magically need less calories by only eating one meal. In fact they might simply lose weight or muscle mass.

Of course older adults or inactive people can often manage on less (thus why so many people are overweight) but for many people this won't save them money as they aren't currently eating more food than they need.

3 nutritious meals is also quite common and healthy. Snacking can also be healthy depending on the circumstances.

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

You are doing because you want to but suggesting people do it because they have no choice.

Imagine a policy maker saying fasting will help you all reduce food bills.

There is no protein in veg is there? 200g will provide a small amount of fibre. Likely some iron and vit C.

That's the equivalent of 2 meals for me, I just space them out in a way that better works for my needs.

Yabu. Starving to cut the food bill down is shocking and kids shouldnt be involved in it.

Ok, even adding generous portions of everything there, I put all that into Nutracheck, and about the only nutrtional measure it certainly hits is five a day for fruit and veg.

It's about 900-1000 calories, 10g fibre, 50g protein.

Realistically, you're going to need another meal in there for better nutrition, and it would be much easier to get more fibre and protein in particular over two meals. It may be ok for weight loss for a short time but I wouldn't recommend it long term as a way of eating. You will end up with bowel problems, a very slow metabolism, sarcopenia and osteoporosis. Most people need at least 1200 calories even to lose weight and 1500+ for maintenance.

I am not suggesting people should fast because they have no choice. I am saying that for some people who are looking for ways to manage rising costs without feeling like they are constantly going without, structured fasting can be one option if it suits them. I have never said it is the answer to poverty or that people should be forced to do it.

This is not about policy. I am not a policymaker and I am not proposing a national strategy. I am one person sharing what has worked for me and my family. The idea that talking about a personal choice equals pushing it on others is a huge stretch.

If someone said we should solve the cost of living crisis by telling people to fast, I would be just as outraged as you. But that is not what I said, and it is not what this is. There is a big difference between sharing something that has genuinely helped in hard times and telling people to go without food against their will. Let us not twist the message.

So can I ask you specifically how much calcium you have? As you keep saying you eat healthy but don't track calories- do you count macros?
There is research that shows insufficient calcium and vitamin d leads to risk of osteoporosis- worse in women than in men, and more likely post menopause
How do you ensure you are getting enough calcium within your diet? My plea- please ensure you don't overlook this for long term bone health....

Tbh I’d say that’s 3 meals. Breakfast of fruit and yogurt, lunch of salad and dinner of salmon and veg.
Just eating it all at once and not spreading the energy/ fuel you get from food throughout the day to fuel your daily activity.

Did you think of this response all by yourself?

My BMI was in the overweight category and now it is in the healthy range.

So you are losing weight? That means you are eating a calorie deficit. For people who are a healthy weight, eating to a calorie deficit is not a good idea. They may lose muscle mass or become underweight or feel very fatigued. This is working for you because you were overweight so had weight to lose.

Overweight people could spend less and food and shed a few pounds - no shit sherlock.

Rightio. It depends on your physical activity too though.

I appreciate you taking the time to check the numbers, but nutrition is not just about hitting a set calorie target or splitting things across two meals. It is about overall intake, food quality, and what works for your body.

First, I do not eat the exact same meal every day. The meal I gave was just one example. On other days, it might be higher in calories or include more dense foods . If I need more fibre or protein, I add it. I am not under-eating or aiming for extreme restriction. I eat until I am satisfied, and I feel well, energised, and stable in weight. My blood work is normal, my energy levels are good, and I am not showing any signs of malnutrition.

I had a DEXA scan a few months ago and my bone density is spot on. Another sign that what I am doing is working along with strength training 4 times a week.

Also, not everyone needs or benefits from 1500 plus calories a day, especially if they are not trying to gain weight and have a smaller frame or lower activity level. Maintenance is individual. Some people function very well with lower intake when meals are well balanced and nutrient dense.

I am not claiming this way of eating is for everyone, and I have never said it should replace sound nutritional guidance for those with different needs. But saying it is automatically unsustainable or unhealthy for the long term just because it does not match a standard template does not reflect how flexible human nutrition actually is. What matters is how the whole body responds, not just what an app calculates.

I prefer 2 meals a day but it doesn’t fit in with work
at the weekend I naturally tend to have lunch (usually something with eggs and cooking involved) and then evening meal

I appreciate the concern and you are absolutely right that calcium and vitamin D are important, especially for women and even more so post menopause.
I do not track exact macros or calories, and I do not know my precise daily calcium intake. However, I had a DEXA scan recently and my bone density is completely fine. That gave me reassurance that what I am doing is not having a negative impact on my bone health.

I am not dismissing the risks at all, and I fully agree it is something women need to stay aware of. I had my over 40s check at the doctor and all my blood work is fine.

I have nothing to retract because I stand by what I said

Personally I can't stand and backpedal at the same time, and neither can you.

So I'll take the standing over the backpedalling. You said something tone deaf and offensive (and also rather frigging obvious - "Save money on your food bill by eating less!") and you wish to stand by it. Well, you have a right to be tone deaf and offensive, but if you're smart, you won't be massively puzzled by the response to it. Perhaps you can alert the Trussell Trust with it, since it's so reasonable and you're so proud to stand by it.

I’ve always done this, been intermittent fasting for years. The only problem is ensuring you get enough calories in per day. However as you’re eating less food, your food bill obviously reduces.

No, I am not losing weight. I am maintaining. I was overweight before, yes, but I am now at a healthy weight and have been maintaining it steadily. I am not eating in a calorie deficit, I am eating what my body needs, just in fewer sittings and without snacking all day. There is a big difference between starving yourself and eating less often in a structured way.

I am not constantly tired, I am not underweight, and I have regular health checks. My energy levels, blood work, and bone density are all fine. If that changed, I would reassess.

It is not some shocking discovery that eating less can lead to weight loss. But the point I made was not just about that. It was about how changing when I eat, not just how much, has worked for me in terms of health, hunger, and food bills. That is not a smug or simple claim. It is just what has genuinely worked, and I have never said it would apply to everyone.

I am standing by what I actually said, not the exaggerated version some people have decided to read into it. I never claimed that eating less is a ground breaking idea or a solution to poverty. I shared that for me eating one meal a day has improved my health reduced food waste and lowered our food bills. That is it.

I also made it very clear repeatedly that this is not suitable for everyone especially those with medical conditions high physical demands or a history of disordered eating. I never said people should eat less because they are poor and I certainly did not suggest this as policy. Comparing my personal routine to something that would be sent to the Trussell Trust is frankly absurd.

People share far more privileged things on here every day. Expensive holidays designer shopping private schools. No one accuses them of being offensive to those struggling. But the moment someone shares a change that happens to save money and does not involve buying more suddenly it becomes a problem. That double standard says more about how uncomfortable people are with anything outside the norm than about the post itself.

Same here , I pretty much eat what you eat OP just over two meals. Yoghurt bowl in the morning , protein bowl with veg in the afternoon