Ask yourself how long human beings have had refrigeration and preserved foods. You'll likely reach the conclusion I did - for 99.99% of human evolution, we couldn't store food well and it would have been impossible to eat within a short time of waking up with any notable regularity. It would likely take hours on average to hunt and gather breakfast, so the traditional "breakfast" is probably a late lunch. If our metabolism slowed down with intermittent fasting, we would have died off as a species eons ago. If you want something that is unnatural for humans, look into "grazing" and what we currently consider "breakfast" - it's human nature to skip breakfast and eat a huge dinner with no snacking, but "doctors" and "nutritionists" recommend the exact opposite. Which seems correct to you?
It takes something like 72+ hours of fasting before the metabolic rate downregulates noticeably. From what I've read, ~16 hours seems to be a good fast for health. However, I'd recommend against CHRONIC FASTING. Forcing yourself to IF every single day isn't healthy unless you simply do not get hungry. Females seem to be more prone to the negative effects of chronic fasting than men. YMMV. I don't eat til ~12:30pm daily because I don't get hungry til ~11:00am, so I see no reason to eat if I'm not hungry. If you're starving by 8:00am and force yourself to adhere to some arbitrary 16 hour fasting window, I'd advise against that outside of irregular occasions. Every now and again I think it's healthy for all of us to go hungry for a long time (24+ hours), but that shouldn't be a routine IMO.
Last edited by ChocoTaco369; 08-22-2012 at 02:31 PM.
Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.