Intermittent Fasting - A Primer ( Part 3 ) page 12

[Ransom]

Finishing up my first 40 hour fast in about two hours. I have to agree that it really wasn't all that hard. I never had energy issues and there were only a few hours out the whole experience that I "struggled" with feeling hungry. I think they key was to stay busy and to really try and not focus on food (or lack thereof). Do I want to do this every week - no, probably not. Every other week - maybe, if I'm feeling it. Once a month - much more likely. I'm thinking once a month 40 hr fast and then the other three weeks do my one to two 24 hours fasts with do 16 to 18 hour fasts the rest of the week. We'll see how that goes.

[pklopp]

pklopp~
I ended up fasting for 22 hours today, no problem and I am aiming to eat one large meal--I appreciate your clarification!

Today I ate to satiety (steak & seaweed salad, plus some chocolate!) and out of curiosity, added up my calories with FitDay. It puts me at 900.

I could stop eating, but I am concerned about having too big of a calorie deficit. When I was calorie counting, I aimed for 1500/day & lost about .75 pound a week.

Your thoughts?

You should definitely eat to satiety. If you wind up under eating, you will get hungry, and the next time you eat, trust me, your appetite will have improved to allow you to eat more. It does take some time for your body to get used to the new feeding interval.

-PK

[lil_earthmomma]

You should definitely eat to satiety. If you wind up under eating, you will get hungry, and the next time you eat, trust me, your appetite will have improved to allow you to eat more. It does take some time for your body to get used to the new feeding interval.

-PK

That's what I was trying to say earlier. Some days my meal only adds up to about 700 cals, the next day I'm famished and eat 1500! lol I'm pretty sure as long as I listen to my body I'll be ok, even if some days my calories are on the low side.

[Dragonfly]

You should definitely eat to satiety. If you wind up under eating, you will get hungry, and the next time you eat, trust me, your appetite will have improved to allow you to eat more. It does take some time for your body to get used to the new feeding interval.

-PK

Thank you! Makes sense.

In the meantime, 2 meals in a short (4 hour) eating window is working well for me. I eat the first meal to satiety and a bit more (also to satiety) if I feel like it, within the window. I will slowly decrease the eating window until I am eating one meal.

I am finding that eating earlier in the day (noon) suits me better than later some days, so I am letting my body dictate how long the fast is (anywhere from 16 to 24 hours.) I like being more random, at the moment, since my husband is away and I set my own schedule.

[Dragonfly]

That's what I was trying to say earlier. Some days my meal only adds up to about 700 cals, the next day I'm famished and eat 1500! lol I'm pretty sure as long as I listen to my body I'll be ok, even if some days my calories are on the low side.

I must have missed that this was directed at me, lil_earthmomma!

[lil_earthmomma]

I must have missed that this was directed at me, lil_earthmomma!

No no, I just saw a comment a couple pgs back about how I'm not eating enough calories.

[Mainer]

Just finished reading this thread, great info, thanks for the hard work sharing with the forum.

[JPA]

No no, I just saw a comment a couple pgs back about how I'm not eating enough calories.

Hey, it was me that "accused" you =)

I think that in terms of adaptation it would make sense caveman/woman would eat as much as possible if he or she went 2 days without eating any food. The body would desperately need it as it would not know if it would again be without any hunt/food for a while. 700 calories is when I eat my Lindt 85% bar (100 grams).

I know I'm a man and I may have different caloric requirements, still, I find some of the numbers here too low. And I'm not heavy or anything, I'm 71kgs (158 pounds) and my lunch is usually always +1200 calories (and I'm not fasting +30 hours or anything).

[lil_earthmomma]

Hey, it was me that "accused" you =)

I think that in terms of adaptation it would make sense caveman/woman would eat as much as possible if he or she went 2 days without eating any food. The body would desperately need it as it would not know if it would again be without any hunt/food for a while. 700 calories is when I eat my Lindt 85% bar (100 grams).

I know I'm a man and I may have different caloric requirements, still, I find some of the numbers here too low. And I'm not heavy or anything, I'm 71kgs (158 pounds) and my lunch is usually always +1200 calories (and I'm not fasting +30 hours or anything).

I saw it as concern, not an accusation, no worries.

I do think on days I'm prepping for a 40 hour fast I need to load up on fat and protein. As for regular 20 hour days, sometimes it's 700 cals, sometimes 1200 cals, sometimes 1800 cals.

[moo]

While I've IF'd with an eating window of roughly 1pm to 7pm for months I decided to give this a try.

Today is day 5 and I have to say I LOVE it. No more 4 pm crashes is probably the most noticeable thing for me. Ok, around noon-2pm I get hungry enough that I could eat one of my shoes (perhaps both) but a glass of water makes a huge difference.

I choose to eat at 7pm because I am pretty adamant about eating dinner with my kids. Morning or lunch just wouldn't work.

The first few nights were tough because I was really full on very little but then starving a few hours later. The past 2 days I planned my meal carefully and took 1-2 tbs of coconut oil and wahlah, no more starving a few hours later.

One thing that has not happened is improved sleep. In bed at 9:30 with hopes of sleeping by 10 pm and end up rolling around until 1am. Up at 6am. Maybe not IF, maybe just life in general is causing this. Mg has not helped.