FASTING, love it or hate it?
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.
pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.8 -
What is hunger? I'm not sure if I've answered this question yet. Sure it's a physical response of my body, but on a spiritual level it's deeper. It could be an opinion or a construct of my mind. Either way, I think it's an important journey for anyone to take.2
-
BuddhaBunnyFTW wrote: »What is hunger? I'm not sure if I've answered this question yet. Sure it's a physical response of my body, but on a spiritual level it's deeper. It could be an opinion or a construct of my mind. Either way, I think it's an important journey for anyone to take.
Do opinions and constructs of the mind have any measurable caloric values attached?5 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
13 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
5 -
ArtsieSarah wrote: »What is everyone's opinion on fasting? It's something I've never tried before, do y'all love it or hate it? Why or why not??
I do the 5:2 intermittent fasting. I find this works for me. I always been the kind of person who could go without eating until mid afternoon. The hardest part is limiting your calorie intake on the 2 fast days. Women are allowed around 500 calories. I usually end up eating 700. But, i've been losing 1-2 lbs each week. I also exercise 5-6 days/week.2 -
Not really though I've seen people with amazing results. I personally cannot do the whole grazing thing every few hours or a hardcore fast. I just have either 2 big meals or 3 medium meals in a day with a hot drink here and there. I die without breakfast 100%. But I often skip lunch or dinner if I feel pretty sated that day. I will say I cannot recommend proper hydration enough. I stand at the sink chugging water and it's a bloody chore but oh boy my appetite and weight went down RAPIDLY within the first week.1
-
I have done all day fasts for religious reasons. Not comfortable but the point is to stay uncomfortable and devote the time you would be eating to meditation or prayer.
Normally I eat 4-6 times a day. 5 is most common. Part of it is that I have always preferred frequent small meals and part of it is that I am a T2Dm and frequent meals keeps my blood sugar more level. I often divide up dinner into 2 meals. I eat the veggie portion of the meal as kind of an appetizer, then eat the main dish an hour later. I also can't sleep on an empty stomach so I almost always have a bedtime snack.
Keeping food in my stomach does more for me being able to control my calories than skipping meals. To each his/her own.5 -
Sitting in my work truck and people just looked because of the loud laugh I let out! Thanks @mmapagssnickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!! 8 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Those little calorie critters are out to get YOU with their little calorie tendrils.7 -
Sitting in my work truck and people just looked because of the loud laugh I let out! Thanks @mmapagssnickerscharlie wrote: »
Bingo.I dont know why it has to be called fasting... it's more like just starting to eat a bit later
I guess it was given a name so that people could more clearly identify it, and it was given a whole bunch of different time frames and a twack of unproven benefits, too. I've been doing IF for decades. I used to call it just skipping breakfast. <shrugs> But in order to get on a bandwagon, it needed a trendy handle, lots of arbitrary rules and levels of 'commitment' to distinguish the hardcore zealots from the merely mortal.pierinifitness wrote: »
It’s popularly called intermittent fasting to distinguish it from the other intermittent eating method many people practice called intermittent overeating or IO.
I practiced IO for a couple years and gained weight. Since mid-September 2018 I resumed IF and lost the gained weight plus more. I’ve never gained weight practicing IF but I’ve learned here at MFP that some have.There is such this as intermittent overeating?? Lol now my mind is blown. I totally agree with IF.. I've done it for 2 years. But I think giving it a name makes it seem complicated. All it means is that you dont eat in the morning (depending on what timing method you use). It's not some new genius weigt loss technique. It simply helps you save your calories and stay in a deficit
Bingo, again. And yes, the term IO is completely made up. That poster has a proclivity of insisting that people who gain weight using IF are card-carrying, strap-on-the-ol'-feedbag undisciplined gluttons.
Truth is, for anyone doing IF - especially with a longer non-fasting period of 8 hours - that is plenty of time to inadvertently consume a bit more than your maintenance calories for the day and, over time, gain weight. This is especially true for women who have a lot less calories to work with in a day to begin with. Combine this with not tracking caloric intake and it is actually pretty easy to slowly gain weight while technically following IF. No gorging involved.
The ability to gain weight while doing IF is also indicative that the many magical properties commonly associated with this way of eating are entirely bogus.
Bottom line?
Intermittent Fasting is a method that can be used to help some people limit the amount of time they consume food during the day and, as a result, lose weight. However, limiting that time period is not beneficial, in and of itself, unless that also puts the person in the required caloric deficit needed to actually lose weight. That - like with every other diet strategy on the planet - is strictly a function of CICO. Consume less calories in a day than your body burns and you will, over time, lose weight. And the best way to make sure that you're actually in a deficit is to use a food scale and log your entries here on MFP.
Regarding the bold - I posted a NYT link elsewhere that had a huge list of meals that looked fine by anyone's standards, but were actually close to 2k calories per meal. 8 hours > one 2k meal for lunch and one for dinner and, unless your caloric needs are higher than average, that 4k calories just wrecked hopes of weight loss.
And as mentioned elsewhere as well as here, the idea of conflating overeating with gluttony is just ridiculous. Maintain at 2500k and eat 2550K every single day = over eating which will result in weight gain. No gluttony required.
IF has a higher moral value if it requires special effort, gluttony, or an eating disorder to defeat it. It can't be a simple tool to be used to assist in calorie control. It has to be something glorious because now it has a name like IF instead of being the crude notion of skipping a meal.
This makes me nervous as it possibly follows that actually enjoying a meal (as opposed to simply fueling up) may actually increase my caloric intake?
I need to re-assess my entire WoE now.
Oh yeah. You need you some "feeding windows" (not just eating times or it doesn't count) and some "discipline" and some "dedication" or you calories will count 20% higher. Because calories know the darkest intentions of your heart and what a glutton you really are deep down inside and how much you love to "IO"!!
Glad I could provide a little levity to your day!3 -
If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.4 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.4 -
And now we seem to have a woo stalker. Lol. I guess for some this fasting stuff is serious bizness!4
-
RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity. 4 -
Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
Oddly enough, that's pretty much what I do now -- eat the three homemade meals I make at the times that are convenient to me.
Like my mom, those times relate to when I leave the house in the morning and when I get home and can start cooking. For me, that's not the kind of schedule that would normally be called IF (wasn't when I was a kid either), but it's fine.
If others prefer to skip breakfast or eat dinner way early (like when many are still at work) or skip dinner, that's cool too, but I don't think it is somehow a better way to live one's life. People get so invested in how their way of eating is better than other ways sometimes.3 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.10 -
This content has been removed.
-
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.2 -
I enjoy fasting because it provides me with mental clarity, discipline and patience. The only negative part about it are the hunger pangs and sometimes, if you fast for long periods of time you may start to feel dizzy.
Was this for religious purposes? Because, if not, how does almost passing out improve mental clarity?9 -
RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My Mom was a great cook, just very basic. She was raised on a farm so meals were a meat, a starch (usually potatoes), and a veggie. The good thing was that she was raised picking and eating veggies straight from the garden so raw veggies were very common at many meals. Dad liked to cook too and was good at it. He was the one with the more exotic taste so he would make the red sauce for spaghetti, chili, etc. (this was the 60's and 70's so yes, those were exotic).5 -
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Sounds like my Grandpa. He would never have a steak but we grilled steaks one time when he was over and he had a bite of a medium cooked one and loved it. He also never had a BLT until he was in his 80's. Mom got him to try one when he was visiting and he declared it the best sandwich ever invented.5 -
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.7 -
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Kibbe! Delicious!! I grew up with a family of Lebanese friends. I was always happy to be invited for dinner when it was kibbe, kousa and baba ganoush.5 -
RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Kibbe! Delicious!! I grew up with a family of Lebanese friends. I was always happy to be invited for dinner when it was kibbe, kousa and baba ganoush.RelCanonical wrote: »snickerscharlie wrote: »RelCanonical wrote: »Diatonic12 wrote: »If you're doing the same thing every single day it is not intermittent. It is simply time restricted eating with defined periods of fasting and non-fasting. It used to be called daylight and dark. Day and night. Three hots and a cot. Or not.
Then we had to start overthinking everything related to food. Remember when you ate your mother's homecooked meals without giving the timing a single thought. Those were the days of true simplicity.
I'm glad that's over. My poor mother couldn't cook, lol. At least I don't mind burnt stuff.
My mom was from the generation of europeans who thought meat wasn't cooked until it was shoe leather, and veggies were only done when they were rendered into mushy anonymity.
I never understood why anyone would like steak my whole childhood. Then I actually had a steak that wasn't burnt to a crisp, and finally understood.
Opposite here. I had a fairly steady diet of raw lamb and other meats growing up. I still prefer it red and dripping today.
I really don't care about the woo this got lol, but for informational purposes for anyone interested, quite a few very tasty Lebanese dishes use raw meat.
Kibbe! Delicious!! I grew up with a family of Lebanese friends. I was always happy to be invited for dinner when it was kibbe, kousa and baba ganoush.
Yes! Prepared properly they're all amazing. We still do several dishes throughout the year, but nothing as good as what my grandparents used to make. 3 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions