Intermittent fasting.

I tried to combine IF with Keto for a time and I was completely miserable. But it works for some people. As long as you still have a calorie deficit, timing of meals is irrelevant.

It works really well for me. I used to NEED breakfast, but after a few months of skipping it, I feel fine without it. I don't start getting hungry till around 11am.

A usual day for me:

- Wake up 7:30am, drink some water
- Get to work at 8:30am, drink some tea
- Eat a small lunch around 1:00pm (400 cals)
- Eat a small afternooon snack around 3:00pm (200 cals)
- Eat a large dinner around 6:00pm (600 cals)
- Sometimes eat a little evening snack around 8:00pm (100 cals)
- Go to bed at 11:00pm

What kind of results are you looking for? I mean, IF is just a meal schedule. It helps some people to place time boundaries around food. It isn't a weight-loss hack, really. You still need to eat fewer calories than you use in order to lose weight.

I have been doing IF for most of my life, it's how I naturally eat. I still log my food and stay within my calories.

I do 18 - 20 hours between dinner and my first snack of the day. I eat a snack mid afternoon and then dinner and sometimes dessert.

I eat when I'm naturally hungry some days that's 4 pm and some days its 12pm but rarely am I hungry before noon so it works for me and helps me control calories by not eating breakfast when I'm not hungry

jjpptt2 wrote: »

LadyBingley wrote: »

I tried to combine IF with Keto for a time and I was completely miserable. But it works for some people. As long as you still have a calorie deficit, timing of meals is irrelevant.

*pet peeve*

To say that meal timing is irrelevant is incorrect, or at the very least, misleading.

Meal timing is irrelevant regarding your body's ability to lose weight/fat. Meal timing is very relevant to individual success, as it can help or hurt one's ability to stay on track and manage their intake. If something like skipping breakfast (or a post-workout shake, or any of a number of things) helps you stay on track, then meal timing is very relevant.

What I said was: *AS LONG AS YOU ARE IN A CALORIE DEFICIT, timing of meals is irrelevant.* There is nothing incorrect or misleading about that statement. How you (general) choose to meet that calorie deficit (e.g. IF) is on you.

I have been doing IF since 8/2ish. I stick to an 18:6 schedule (ETA 18 hours fasting from about 9 p.m. until 3 p.m.) about 6 days a week. I break my fast at 3:00 p.m. everyday with about 200-400 calories. I don't find that I am any hungrier in the morning or early afternoon than I was when I was eating breakfast. IF helps me stick to my relatively low calorie goal while allowing me to eat a snack or two and then what I consider to be a large meal for dinner. Before IF I found that 75% of my calories were used up during the day with breakfast, lunch, and a snack at work and when I got home and actually was able to share a meal with someone there wasn't much left calorie-wise! I found eating all of my meals away from home depressing. I also get home late (5:30 one night a week is my early night... the rest of the week is after 8)... so shifting the hours that I eat during allows me to not feel guilty eating dinner between 8 and 10:00 p.m.!

http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/group/49-intermittent-fasting
^ Join a group of us here!

driefishin wrote: »

Not looking for a hack, and i've been keeping my calories in line. I do find myself hungry at night when at home and so much snack stuff around for the kids that I can eat. So i feel if take the calories from the morning and put those into a bigger meal in the evening, then I will be less hungry at night and less of struggle to not grab the snack food around the house. Plus I work first shift, so easier for me to work and not worry about eating throughout the morning.

If that's your goal, it should work fine.