all posts post new thread

Nutrition 'Intermittent Fasting' by skipping Lunch?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

BennyWalks

Level 3 Valued Member
A fair amount of searching of this forum and the internet showed little discussion about this- usually it's either skip breakfast or skip dinner.

The figure of 12 hours was floated here - Minimum time for IF benefits

Skipping lunch has pragmatic benefits for many people- clearer schedule throughout working day, less worrying about carrying / buying food, less needing to defecate when out and about, etc

The idea would be to note when you've finished breakfast, and not eat again til at least 12 hours later - ideally, dinner as late as possible before bed.

Also drinking shedloads of water throughout the day.

Training could be done as soon after breakfast as possible without puking, or immediately before dinner - depending on what's practical. The former may not be ideal but perhaps a worthwhile compromise where one could benefit from this eating schedule overall.

Couple questions spring to mind: could one perform a day's worth of physical activity during the 12+ hours- lighter activity like hiking? Heavier activity like manual labour?

If it doesn't count as IF, what about general advantages and drawbacks?
 
Addendum: if 8/16 has slightly more health benefits, you could of course use that 2+ days a week whenever practicality is less of a concern.
 
The human doesn't need to eat three times, twice or even once daily. Provided overall nutritional needs are met the human doesn't need to eat to any schedule at all. People moving from one eating pattern to another may experience some discomfort but that invariably settles down once the new eating pattern becomes familiar. Leaving aside the eating window (if that is a goal in itself) there is no problem with skipping lunch - many people do so for all kinds of reasons including culture, work requirement and practicality. Years ago, as an almost penniless student, I went long periods of time without eating lunch because I couldn't be bothered to pack a meal and didn't want to spend the money to purchase. I kept to every other part of my routine including study, work, gym etc. Apart from the odd hunger pang - usually mid afternoon - I didn't notice any difference at all
 
LukeV said:
The human doesn't need to eat three times, twice or even once daily. Provided overall nutritional needs are met the human doesn't need to eat to any schedule at all. People moving from one eating pattern to another may experience some discomfort but that invariably settles down once the new eating pattern becomes familiar. Leaving aside the eating window (if that is a goal in itself) there is no problem with skipping lunch - many people do so for all kinds of reasons including culture, work requirement and practicality. Years ago, as an almost penniless student, I went long periods of time without eating lunch because I couldn't be bothered to pack a meal and didn't want to spend the money to purchase. I kept to every other part of my routine including study, work, gym etc. Apart from the odd hunger pang - usually mid afternoon - I didn't notice any difference at all
Click to expand...

It's quite something to think about the level of unnecessary stress the old "eat every three hours" 'advice' from fitness magazines has caused so many people.
 
I would guess you'd get less of the benefits of IF from doing 2 periods of less than 12 hours for each since eating does take time, which would leave maybe two 11hr periods of fasting a day, than if you do 18+ hours of fasting since some benefits seem to come after 12hours.

That being said, I've worked the last 3-4 seasons of gardening/landscaping fasted most of the time. I'd usually eat my first meal after work and another 3-4 hours later. So I would guess anyone, with a bit of getting used to, can train, work and do manual labor with little to no discomfort. I've gone as far as doing a few 60+ hours of fasting while I worked. I have to say the last day of a 3 day fast was hard when working a manual labor job.

I'd also not try to eat too close to bedtime since that can sometimes disrupt sleep.

But my general conclusion to this is: there's no better way than to try it out and see.
 
Adam R Mundorf said:
It perplexes me how people have time to prep so much food and weigh it all out.
Click to expand...
I think they are usually the obsessed type: bodybuilders or those who want to be bodybuilders have that tendency to be over-obsessive about their gainz....

Or else they are "obsessed" in the sense that they are actual professional athletes...so it would be their job to make sure they get a ton of fuel throughout the day.

BennyWalks said:
A fair amount of searching of this forum and the internet showed little discussion about this- usually it's either skip breakfast or skip dinner.
Click to expand...
Yes, because it's easier to hit the 12-16 hour period by incorporating your sleep time into it. But you probably have already read that. Most sources will tell you that for the actual biological mechanisms asscociated with fasting to do their work, you need to be fasting for at least 12 hours. That, I believe, is the reason for the 8/16 schedule. Because you hit 12 hours, and then you have time for the autophagy and etc to do some of its work. I would have to spend a chunk of time (that I don't really have...) to research it myself, but I would guess based on what I have been exposed to that only getting that 12 hour chunk in the middle of the day would not give you the same benefits of a true 8/16-ish schedule. I would bet that you would get some benefits, however, as you stated:
BennyWalks said:
Training could be done as soon after breakfast as possible without puking, or immediately before dinner - depending on what's practical
Click to expand...
I think getting the best quality training would be difficult. Either training on a full stomach, or training fasted after 12 hours of activity.... the former would be really uncomfortable at best, and the latter might leave you on the verge of passing out, depending on your physical exertion throughout the day. Not to mention that activity+training requires fuel, and getting enough fuel at the very start and very end of the day might be rough in itself. The last factor to take into account would be what kind of training+activity you are doing. What's the volume/intensity/frequency? All that will dictate a lot of how well you can do any schedule of IF.

However, as @Benjamin Renaud said, the only way to really know is to try things out for yourself.
 
Benjamin Renaud said:
I would guess you'd get less of the benefits of IF from doing 2 periods of less than 12 hours for each since eating does take time, which would leave maybe two 11hr periods of fasting a day, than if you do 18+ hours of fasting since some benefits seem to come after 12hours.
Click to expand...

My original idea would involve just one daily fast of longer than 12 hours, in the day time not the night time.

Example:

Sleep 0000-0800
breakfast ends by 0900
eat again at 2230

giving a fast of 13.5 hours

bluejeff said:
Yes, because it's easier to hit the 12-16 hour period by incorporating your sleep time into it. But you probably have already read that. Most sources will tell you that for the actual biological mechanisms asscociated with fasting to do their work, you need to be fasting for at least 12 hours. That, I believe, is the reason for the 8/16 schedule. Because you hit 12 hours, and then you have time for the autophagy and etc to do some of its work. I would have to spend a chunk of time (that I don't really have...) to research it myself, but I would guess based on what I have been exposed to that only getting that 12 hour chunk in the middle of the day would not give you the same benefits of a true 8/16-ish schedule. I would bet that you would get some benefits, however, as you stated:
Click to expand...


So a 16 hour fast is much more beneficial where possible, and if doing 'Benny's Lunch Skipping' we should aim for as far over 12 hours as possible without impacting on sleep.
 
Just my personal experience: it's much easier to not start eating than start then stop. Somehow once my digestion knows that food is an option I'm hungry all day. If I don't start eating I can go indefinitely, train, do a full day's work, whatever.

But give it a go, your experience may be entirely different!
 
SamB said:
Just my personal experience: it's much easier to not start eating than start then stop. Somehow once my digestion knows that food is an option I'm hungry all day. If I don't start eating I can go indefinitely, train, do a full day's work, whatever.

But give it a go, your experience may be entirely different!
Click to expand...
My experience exactly. I couldn’t imagine trying to do IF and not incorporating your sleep period into it. Skipping breakfast is infinitely easier than eating at 9am and the waiting to eat again until midnight.
 
Hello,

In an old podcast (R. Patrick or T. Ferriss) it was told that a 12/12 frame can be interesting to get some of the fast benefits, while allowing muscle building.

Obviously, if one is not interested in the latter, then 16/8, 20/4 or so are "better".

As to the questions of the OP, I guess it depends on a few things:
- what is a "Heavier activity like manual labour?" for you ?
- Are you already used to perform an activity on a fasted state ?
- "12+ hours- lighter activity like hiking?": This was what Roman soldiers used to do but… at what cost (durability, etc...)

From a more general standpoint, I guess that if one is used to fasting, and performing while fasted (so one is able to properly set the intensity of the activity until the next meal), it may be possible, at least to a certain extent.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
BennyWalks said:
My original idea would involve just one daily fast of longer than 12 hours, in the day time not the night time.

Example:

Sleep 0000-0800
breakfast ends by 0900
eat again at 2230

giving a fast of 13.5 hours




So a 16 hour fast is much more beneficial where possible, and if doing 'Benny's Lunch Skipping' we should aim for as far over 12 hours as possible without impacting on sleep.
Click to expand...
That is my understanding, at least without doing a chunk of research on it. The only way to know is try it for at least 4-6 weeks and see how you do. I don't know what your weight goals are (lose fat/maintain/gain muscle) but if you are trying to gain any muscle it may be tough to get the needed calories just at the beginning and end of the day.

On that note: I tried IF+gaining muscle at one point, and while it was nice to have the "extra time" outside the eating window, I felt like all I was doing during that 8 hour window was eating (for reference I was eating around 3000+calories). I would not call it an enjoyable experience.

So once again, I would take into account the types of questions @pet' asked. What are your goals/reasons for doing IF?
 
Yes.

Most people go crazy with IF . There is a lot of bro science but very little evidence on all those 8/16, 4/20, etc.

I have been following for years the breakfast-dinner protocole. I do not have breakfast every day, but I like my eggs in the morning. :) I usually do not eat immediately after waking up, anyway.
Then, I almost never had lunch. But I don't get crazy if I have one.

My main meal is still dinner. It is also very convenient, because this is usually when I have more time to enjoy the food (this part is essential, I am French, I respect food as much as I respect iron).
 
I think the plan may well work.

Personally, I have found IF work with both early eating and late eating. I haven't tried a break in the middle of the day but it should work.

If I went IF again I would eat early.
 
From what I've seen there's the 16/8 group who seem to have more muscle (Hugh Jackman, rich froning, martin berkhan, Terry Cruz, etc) and the 20/4 or OMAD who are leaner (Pavel, GSP, Ori, Nun amen ra, hershel Walker). I'm liking the body comp effects of 16/8, but packing food or shakes is starting to get annoying again.
 
Depending on what you are looking for. There doesn’t seem to be any benefit for fasting when it comes to easily measurable health indicators (mainly weight and body composition).

so I don’t see why it would hurt. Eat when convenient.
 
For the past year and a half; on all work days I've been eating protein rich breakfasts at 530AM like 4 egg and cheese omelletes, or leftover dinner like 2 chicken legs; skipping lunch, then eating large dinners at around 430PM. I walk in at 730am & walk out of work 330pm. Then around 4 chobanis or layogurts 630-8pm chillout time. I didn't think of it as I.F. I just realized lunch sucks, and meat or 4 eggs keeps the hunger pangs away for 8-10 hours, sometimes longer. Id eat lunch because it was my lunch break, not because stomach growling.
Ive been lifting for 15 years steady, and on and off for 5 years before that. Gaining fat has always been an issue, was a fat kid till losing 65 lbs 18. This balance last year and a half, has been awesome. Because some of these dinners are crazy; 3 slices of pizza I put 1000 calories of extra cheese and sausage on. When I have that many calories I don't snack at 7-9pm. I would NEVER eat carbs for dinner the old days.
The big breakthru for me, was only eating when my stomach growls, but really enjoying a high calorie feast.

So now Im seeing Ive kinda been doing a kind of Intermittent Fasting. I got friends into it, but I don't get the no breakfast thing; everyone just suffers hunger pangs until lunch break? I should add, I take 16000 steps a day avg at my job. Sometimes 19-20,000.
Fasting and Feasting, I don't feel deprived, no hunger pangs, no fatigue, and then after my feast Im done moving. I get the endorphin high by the final hours of work, and then a food buzz at dinner time. Or I get a stronger endorphin rush with my intense cardio that goes for 65-70 minutes on days off
 
LukeV said:
The human doesn't need to eat three times, twice or even once daily. Provided overall nutritional needs are met the human doesn't need to eat to any schedule at all. People moving from one eating pattern to another may experience some discomfort but that invariably settles down once the new eating pattern becomes familiar. Leaving aside the eating window (if that is a goal in itself) there is no problem with skipping lunch - many people do so for all kinds of reasons including culture, work requirement and practicality. Years ago, as an almost penniless student, I went long periods of time without eating lunch because I couldn't be bothered to pack a meal and didn't want to spend the money to purchase. I kept to every other part of my routine including study, work, gym etc. Apart from the odd hunger pang - usually mid afternoon - I didn't notice any difference at all
Click to expand...
For me, Dried fruit like figs and prunes is really good for the odd hunger pang. 2 Figs and 2 almonds eaten together tastes great and gives you another 2-3 hours without pain. Fat from almond, sugar from the fig, great combo. Honey, dates, or just sugar combined with ground nuts rich in fat is the basis for lots of Mediterranean dessert foods. Amazing combo.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom