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?

Presumably you'll be saving money on toilet paper as well.

But you don’t know what your body needs you can’t see inside/ constantly measure, can you?

We can survive reasonably well on 1/3 of RDA of fibre- until you find out you have bowel cancer or polyps. Same as the poster urging you to make sure you hit calcium targets- that won’t impact until you slip in the bathroom and your spine breaks.

You also can’t really “make up” for these deficits. You eat 10g fibre one day you’re not reasonably going to eat 45g the next day to “make up” for it.

the reality is you’re not hitting your RDAs which is a measure of nutrition and health, both of which you’ve claimed this way of way of eating is good for.

i think it’s a really dangerous way of eating and often disordered eating disguised as health which is why I am trying to demonstrate that.

that said, I do want to echo the poster who said that OP has posted calmly and reasonably. I have enjoyed your responses and you have made this an interesting and (relatively!) respectful thread

My DH is on ozempic and yes I have noticed we are spending way less on food shop...

It was about how changing when I eat, not just how much

For your food bill to have dropped you must be eating less. Or have changed what you eat for cheaper food types (again not rocket science - its a regular budgeting tip on here to swap meat for lentils etc)

If you were actually eating just as much, of the same food, but at one meal instead of two, you would not save money.

You may be maintaining now despite the drop in calories, because you have lost muscle and have reduced your metabolism, plus you are fueling a smaller body than when you were overweight.

Someone who starts off at bmi 20, not overeating, can't do this to save money. They will simply lose weight and become underweight.

A central premise of this is that you started off overweight and eating more than you need, so could reduce your food intake without negative impacts.

You are right that we cannot see inside our bodies or track every nutrient perfectly. But that is true for the vast majority of people, whether they eat one meal a day or five. Most people are not tracking every gram of fibre or calcium, and many eat plenty without coming close to RDAs either. I think it is important to remember that RDAs are guidelines, not exact prescriptions for each individual. They are helpful benchmarks but not the only measure of health.

I agree that long term deficits in things like calcium and fibre should not be ignored. That is why I pay attention to the quality of what I eat. I do not just have one small meal and call it done. I eat balanced food, including fibre rich vegetables, healthy fats, protein, dairy, and fruit. I do not claim to hit every number perfectly every day, but I am not approaching this casually or recklessly.
I have had full bloodwork done recently, and everything is completely normal. I also had a DEXA scan that showed my bone density is healthy. If anything in my results suggested a problem, I would adjust what I am doing.

I understand that some people misuse fasting to hide disordered eating. That is a real concern. But I think it is also important not to label every person who eats differently as engaging in something dangerous. For me this is about simplicity, routine, and avoiding constant snacking and food waste. It is not about control or restriction.

I really do appreciate that you raised your points respectfully. It is a complex topic and I know it can raise strong feelings.

Who is pretending? In the past couple of years, i’ve fasted anywhere from 16 hours to five days and have never felt better, mentally, physically and emotionally.

Uneducated religious zealots like Jesus? Got it.

Yes, of course my food bill has dropped because I am eating less often. I have never claimed otherwise. But I have also said repeatedly that I am eating full, balanced meals with enough calories and nutrients to maintain my current weight and energy levels. I am not living on scraps or cutting corners to the point of undernourishment.

It is not just about eating "less" or cheaper foods. It is also about cutting out constant grazing, snacks, unnecessary extras, and food waste. When you stop eating by routine or boredom and just eat when your body genuinely needs fuel, you often need less than you think and the quality of what you eat can actually improve.

I am not losing weight anymore. My bloodwork is healthy. My bone density is good. I have not lost strength or energy. If I had, I would re-evaluate. It is simply not true that eating less frequently automatically destroys your metabolism or leads to malnourishment, especially when done properly.

No, this approach is not something I would suggest for someone already underweight or struggling to meet their nutritional needs. I have never claimed this is a one-size-fits-all solution. What I have said is that it works for some people, including me. That is a valid experience, and it is not helpful to try and dismiss it on the grounds that it would not work for absolutely everyone. Most things in life do not.

But I suppose my point is your sample day wasn’t nutritionally balanced or nutrient dense and didn’t come close to a lot of those RDAs, as pointed out by the poster who checked it. It may be that you haven’t really realised this and it’s time for a rethink. Maybe this isn’t the long term eating plan you should be on?

These days, when I think of Mumsnet, my go to word is batshit.

Think how much money you could save if you starve yourself!

Added extra, you look thin!

What could possibly go wrong?!

Hey poor people, all you need to do is fit in to your tiny niche, literally!

I hear you, but I think it is a bit of a leap to judge my entire way of eating based on one example meal I gave in response to a quick question. I do not eat the exact same thing every day, and that one day is not meant to represent the full picture of my diet.

I make a point of including a variety of foods throughout the week: protein, fibre, healthy fats, dairy, whole grains, fruit, and vegetables. I do not track every gram, but I pay attention to what I eat, how I feel, and what my health checks show. My bloodwork is normal, my bone density is fine, I have good energy levels, and I am maintaining a healthy weight. If I ever felt unwell or something came back off in my results, I would adjust straight away.

This way of eating works for me right now. That does not mean I think it should be a long term plan for everyone. It is simply what fits my routine, body, and lifestyle at the moment. I am not rigid about it, and I am always open to reviewing it if needed. But I do not see a reason to rethink something that is currently working just because it does not fit a textbook meal plan

That is a completely ridiculous and bad take. No one said starve yourself or suggested that poor people just need to stop eating. I have made it clear over and over again that I eat full meals, that I am healthy, and that this way of eating works for me by choice. I have also said repeatedly that it is not for everyone, not suitable for children, people with eating disorders, or those with higher energy needs.

Reducing a thoughtful and respectful thread to some sarcastic parody about starving and thinness just derails any serious conversation people might be trying to have. If all you got from this is poor people should stop eating, then you were never engaging with what I actually said in the first place.

If you think Mumsnet is batshit, fine. But maybe stop contributing to that image by deliberately twisting someone’s words just for a reaction.

Interestingly, I’ve only ever been asked these kind of questions when I fast or back when I ate a vegan diet. When I lived on junk food, nobody ever asked me where I was getting my calcium from, my B12 from or if I wasn’t concerned about being malnourished.

🤣🤣 first post nails it

Yep!

I’m on Mounjaro and meals go much further with me eating less.

Did anyone know though? IME people don’t go around boosting about their special eating regime to friends family and strangers when that eating regime is Frosties and pickled onion monster munch. How would that conversation even come up?

Couldn’t agree more.

How do you know Jesus fasted? We know very little about him. Not that a man fasting 2000 years ago is a particularly good example to us all, but still.

It’s in the bible… y’know … that book espoused by …erm… Christians.

You realise the bible isn’t a historical document? It’s not factually accurate 😭😭

So, Christians are not to believe what’s written in the bible, then?

It’s not a historical document, no. Believe whatever you like as religious and spiritual guidance but it is (I thought) well known that we know little about the man Jesus.

My neighbours daughter started fasting for Ramadan at 15 years old so was eating twice a day.

I have a friend who is a Mormon who fasts once a month for 24 hours. She also started as a teen.

Jews also fast for 24 hours.

It is very common amongst people of faith and there is data to support it is good for health.

I'm s big fan of intermittent fasting OP and I recognise what you're saying about not feeling hungry or needing to snack.
I still eat twice a day most of the time and don’t fast in the week before my period (although 'not fasting' still usually means 12 hours overnight, because I just don't feel that hungry.)

i haven’t noticed much reduction in food bill. Partly because I buy the best I can afford so budget goes on quality over quantity now. But what I do notice is the huge amount of time and energy saved on cooking, cleaning up, planning meals, and eating them 3x a day... and snacks... now I wonder how I ever got anything done before!

Yes this was my point. They have spiritual outcomes for followers and it’s not related to health, in fact it’s related to deprivation and sacrifice for the religion. It’s not done for health reasons, and wasn’t designed for health reasons. It really has nothing in common with IF.

Religious fasts are rooted in spiritual practice, sacrifice and reflection but they still involve changes to eating patterns that have physical effects. Whether health was the original goal or not, there is growing research showing that these traditional fasts can have positive impacts on metabolism, inflammation and other markers of health.

In practice, many people who fast for religious reasons also report feeling better physically. That does not mean they are doing it purely for health, but it shows that the body can tolerate and even benefit from periods of fasting when done safely. So to say it has “nothing” in common with intermittent fasting is simply not accurate.

Intermittent fasting may not have the spiritual element, but the pattern of eating less frequently or within a restricted window is shared and so are many of the effects. Intention may differ, but the process is very similar.