Intermittent Fasting for Serious Weight Loss!!! Has anyone tried it?

kommodevaran

MegaMooseEsq wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

MegaMooseEsq wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

Maxematics wrote: »

natasor1 wrote: »

I eat only 2 times a day and have snack of cut veggies between those meals. I can not imaging to prepare and eat 4,5 or 6 times a day. How much time people have? But with 2 meals a day I have time for work, play, visiting places, talk to freinds, do exercise. How in a world u can exercise after meal?
My work out can happen only on empty or almost empty stomach.

You can state your eating frequency preferences without having to subtly put down those who eat more frequently. For the record, I only eat two to three times per day for the most part but those who choose to eat more frequently probably aren't preparing elaborate meals 4-6 times per day.

For them, their first meal may be coffee and oatmeal, second baby carrots with hummus, third greek yogurt with fruit, fourth a protein bar, fifth a formal dinner like chicken breast, broccoli, and potatoes, then the sixth is two cookies and some tea. Smaller meals more frequently. It doesn't work for everyone but some people prefer to eat this way or need to for blood sugar management.

None of that is really time consuming. I'd imagine for people working desk jobs it's easy to eat while working. I often have to multitask when eating which is why it can take me an hour to even finish a meal sometimes. Every person is different.

I have eaten up to 7 times per day, now 3, and for me, the difference in number of meals made some really subtle but also quite significant changes: I had to give up some daily variety, but that forces me to plan for more variety from day to day. My appetite awakens when I eat, but I can wait before I eat, so eating fewer but somewhat larger meals is better for me. I don't spend less time preparing or eating food, and I don't spend less time thinking about food, but I spend less time obsessing over food. I used to think exactly like derick337 - I should eat frequently to boost metabolism, and I was afraid that eating too infrequently would make me irritable and weak and cause overeating later. Getting that out of the way was so liberating! I know that I have to eat, and I love to eat, but I don't have to eat all the time - I'm flexible. Having meals just means that there is some structure to my day, and that regular meals are a natural part of that structure. It's a tidy and grownup way to eat. Some might call it discipline. I just call it a good life.

I had goldfish crackers in my lunch (early afternoon snack?) yesterday. Today I have cocktail weenies.

For reals though, no need to get grumpy about the frequent meal thing just because it didn't work for you. I don't believe any woo about metabolism and I don't spend my time obsessing about food. This just works for me.

The what now? Frequent meals worked wonderfully for me, I lost fifty pounds eating that way, and I'm not grumpy. I haven't said that you ever got sucked into the metabolism myth, I referred to the OP, and I talked about my own obsession, not yours.

Well, you did say that eating three meals a day was "tidy and grownup" and that some called it "discipline." I believe the opposite of those words are "messy" "childish" and "undisciplined," which are not exactly big positives. I know you didn't say anything to me in specific - your comment just came across a bit judgmental. My apologies if I misread your tone!

I am still a messy eater, and I love "child friendly" food But I also like a meal pattern. I used to have no meal pattern, for years, while gaining weight; it was chaotic, I believed I liked the "freedom", but in reality I felt miserable. Any meal pattern would have been a great improvement. Just eating food was a great improvement. Now I'm trying even more things, and 3-meals-a-day is what I prefer now. It feels tidy for me. It makes me feel grownup. (And yes, some people think this is difficult and takes discipline. I think it's easy.) I don't mean this is something anybody "should".
It's very hard to convey tone in text. But it's also very hard to not "hear" tone in text

MegaMooseEsq

kommodevaran wrote: »

It's very hard to convey tone in text. But it's also very hard to not "hear" tone in text

Hear hear! It is much too easy to assume an attitude online - a good reminder to always try and give the benefit of the doubt.