Fasting question

osoniye · Post by **osoniye** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 9:28 am

Hi Everybody-
Just wondering what others have found when they combine NoS with fasting. I tried this for 1-2 days, for a few weeks at different times over the past year, fasting 23 hours from lunch time to lunch time. Are others of you finding it a good tool for weight loss? My problem is that I get so hungry that I could eat the paint off the walls after I break the fast. Usually the first meal after the fast is OK, but the following one, I may stick to the one plate, but it's usually a too rich meal, and I seem to have both a physical craving for more caloric dense food, +/- a psychological one. On the weeks I've done it for 2 days, I usually gain a pound or 2, rather than lose, as I often do if I eat 3 light meals. Any experiences you might share would be helpful! Thanks!
-Sonya

Blithe Morning · Post by **Blithe Morning** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:04 am

I've fasted but not for weight loss or health reasons. Fasting is a great spiritual discipline but I admit I'm skeptical about all the reputed health claims. When I do fast, I essentially skip breakfast and lunch and break it at dinner.

milliem · Post by **milliem** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:07 am

I've got to be honest, I don't get fasting

I'm not sure I buy into the apparent benefits, and I don't really understand the reasoning. For me, NoS is all about moderation and sensible eating habits and fasting doesn't seem to fit with that. That being said I know there are people who DO combine the two and I'm sure with some success!

Who Me? · Post by **Who Me?** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:45 pm

I agree with Millie. Fasting, in a dieting context seems too extreme. Phrases like "starving yourself" and "crash diet" come to mind, and that's antithetical to the philosophy of the No S system.

Fasting for religious reasons fall outside of the realm of my experience.

veggirl1964 · Post by **veggirl1964** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 1:52 pm

I have fasted for both spiritual and medical reasons in the past, but never for weight loss. It's been my experience that any weight lost during a fast finds its way back after eating is resumed.

oolala53 · Post by **oolala53** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 3:17 pm

The physical results in blood chemistry is in the research. Brad Pilon of Eat Stop Eat fame recommends it partly for that reason but also as a lifelong way to restrict calories, since research has also shown a benefit for that, without having to monitor every dang meal. He just thinks that trying to stick to restrictive diets is crazy-making. And it is! He claims that some bingers say it helps them get reacquainted with their hunger. I'll say! I really doubt that many people with true compulsive eating habits are helped.

I think in the long run, No S does just about the same thing, but it seems if you want to get to the low end of your BMI, many meals are going to have to be quite light. No S cannot bend the rules of physics and chemistry. You have to have a calorie deficit. No S is just about having a way to get yourself to eat less consistently. IMHO, Reinhard's breakfasts and lunches sound very light, and so do the meals of most people who have gotten quite slim. I'm sure they don't think so, though. They just eat!

Reinhard: "I often have a slice of toasted mestemacher black bread with cheese and a piece of fresh fruit for breakfast. Then for lunch a bowl of oatmeal, nuts, seeds, and dried fruit. About 2 days a week (sometimes more) I eat at restaurants with friends or coworkers."

I know we're not supposed to count calories, but please. Can that breakfast be much more than 300-350 calories? Lunch even 500? Even with nuts and dried fruit, which I know can add up. So that leaves dinner but even if he eats 1,000 calories at dinner-and that's a pretty generous allotment-, 1,850 calories on most days I'm pretty sure is rather low for men. I think it's smart, but not typical. It leaves things open for the weekend, but even then, it doesn't sound like he goes crazy, or even deviates that much.

I recommend, if you can, trying not to think about it at all for a couple of weeks. Then just experiment with a bit less at one meal a day. (I discovered by accident that I often don't need a piece of fruit at lunch. Or sometimes, I'll skip the starch and eat the fruit. But I'm also not sure for my purposes that shaving it that close is worth it to me.) When that feels normal, try it at another one.

Or give up and go the calorie-counting route! A couple of people here have gone to it, but they seem to think that the structure of No S and the idea of not thinking of the changes as so hard and burdensome helps.

Marianna · Post by **Marianna** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:44 pm

For quite awhile now, I have done intermittent fasting--16-17 hours a day which means I do not eat after dinner and I eat "breakfast" at 11am, "lunch" at 3pm and dinner at 6-7. I feel MUCH better doing this--after a few days, there was no morning hunger at all, and I get the benefit of prolonged fasting and still get my 3 meals a day. We all do what works for us. For me, the earlier I started eating, the more out of control my hunger was all day long. Now, I look forward to eating at 11, and have no difficulty at all eating 3 meals with nothing in between

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 6:09 pm

I've read that part of the reason people from Greece tend to be healthy is that there is so much fasting in the Greek Orthodox religion. I want to say they fast nearly half of the days of the year. I don't think it's ever a complete fast, but abstinence from specific foods, including olive oil and wine. The most restrictive fast is during Lent.

kccc · Post by **kccc** » Sat Jun 11, 2011 7:47 pm

There was a thread about Brad Pilon and Eat-Stop-Eat on here a while ago.

I followed it with interest, before deciding that fasting was NOT for me. It just sounds like a binge-cycle to me. What I'm doing is working well, so no need to try out something that sounds as if it would hurt me more than it would help.

For an additional $.02..... I know some people have done it successfully, but most of what I see here, among people with histories of complicated relationships with food, doesn't seem so.... from what I'm reading, results seem to range from "unproductive" to "outright dangerous." (That is, of course, my highly subjective personal opinion, and others will probably say that it is misguided. We can agree to disagree.)

If you are still interested, and think it would work for you, do look up the original thread. It had a lot of information on it.

(I will say that there was one benefit of the discussion to me... when a meal is delayed more than I like and my inner child starts to whine, I can say firmly "You can go an hour or so without eating. Some people fast for 24 hours on purpose, and they don't keel over and die!"

)

Kathleen · Post by **Kathleen** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:33 am

osoniye,
When I started No S, I literally gripped the edge of my chair to fast from breakfast to lunch. I have been trying fasting and think that combining it with No S could be a good approach, although -- as I recall -- Reinhard in his book said skipping meals is a bad idea. I stuck with No S for a year (although I only followed the no snacks and no sweets rules) and got to a low of 196.6. Since then, I've been lurching from one idea to another and hope I am now settled on a hybrid approach of fasting 18 hours once or twice per week with no snacks and no sweets except on Sundays and Exception Days. It is amazing how little hunger I feel, to the extent that I am wondering if consistency in eating is what causes hunger: in other words, the body gets hungry when a meal is anticipated. What a gift! It is so nice not to be bothered with hunger. Today I weighed 203.4, so I have some time to go before I figure out if this is a way to lose weight, but fasting does seem to be a way to lose hunger!
Kathleen

sheepish · Post by **sheepish** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 12:03 pm

I don't know about the science of it but fasting is fairly normal in my culture (Hindu) and I think it can be a helpful tool for weight maintenance. There will always be occasions on which you eat more than you need (social occasions, special occasions, etc) and the occasional fast balances that out. (This is the general principle behind No S, in fact, just slightly more extreme.)

That said, from observation and anecdote, I don't think it works for everyone. I started doing it for religious reasons as a teenager and have never found that it made me hungrier the day after. My experience of fasting for a day (so, I guess, a 36 hour fast in total) is that I get hungry around the times that I normally eat and then the hunger goes away. I don't eat breakfast usually and the morning after I've fasted, I'm still not hungry for breakfast as per usual.

But some people - like osoniye - find that they are so hungry the day afterwards that they eat more that day to compensate for the fast. I suspect that, for people like this, fasting is simply not a helpful tool. I've talked to lots of people about fasting - as I said, lots of people in my culture do it regularly - and I've never run across someone who found it difficult and was hungrier the day after who ever really got used to it.

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 1:12 pm

sheepish wrote:I don't know about the science of it but fasting is fairly normal in my culture (Hindu) and I think it can be a helpful tool for weight maintenance.

I agree with sheepish. I'm not sure that fasting is a helpful tool for weight loss, but I think it might be helpful for some for weight maintenance.

BrightAngel · Post by **BrightAngel** » Sun Jun 12, 2011 3:50 pm

sheepish wrote: I don't think fasting works for everyone. ..
some people find that they are so hungry the day afterwards
that they eat more that day to compensate for the fast.
I suspect that, for people like this, fasting is simply not a helpful tool.

I've talked to lots of people about fasting
and I've never run across someone who found it difficult
and was hungrier the day after who ever really got used to it.

Based on my own intermittent fasting experience..which is extensive...
and my observations of others,
I tend to agree.

Although intermittent fasting has sometimes been useful to me as a maintenance tool,
my body has never become accustomed to it,

I have to be EVEN MORE CAREFUL to consciously moniter my food intake while doing this,
because I am always more hungry during for a day or two following a fast,
no matter whether the fast is 19 hrs, 24 hrs, or 36 hrs,
and if I left it up to the desires of my body, I would always overeat after a fast.

Of course, if I overeat the day BEFORE a fast,
I'm not as hungry as usual at the very beginning of a fast,
because my body is still digesting the food from the day before.
However, this does NOT mean that fasting is beginning to reduce my desire for food.
and I am always more hungry during the following day or two.

It isn't how hungry I am at the beginning of a fast that is predictive of overall success.
It is how hungry I am during the day or two AFTER a fast, when I return to eating.

Anyone with a tendency to have binges..
...by which I mean short unrestricted, uncontrolled high calorie eating episodes...
must watch and moniter their subsequent food carefully,
or intermittent fasting will simply become a "binge-fast" cycle...

In time, when it becomes extremely difficult (almost impossible) to fast,
this pattern can easily transform itself into a cycle of "normal eating & bingeing".
This "normal eating-binge" pattern is also a major difficulty
many very obese people have when following a "vanilla" No S Plan
and...in my own experience, and my observation of others...
this is NOT ALWAYS self-correcting...even after a lengthy trial period.

Graham · Post by **Graham** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 10:17 am

My current thinking on fasting, after a year of experimentation, is that you can't have a view on dieting or fasting without considering other aspects of your life. Fasting, done in a positive spirit, with a sense of the good it is doing you, may be well tolerated and productive. Without that frame of mind, it may be difficult and unhelpful.

The challenge of any diet is to oppose one's spontaneous tendency to weight gain (why else are we on this forum?). Our less portly ancestors didn't consciously choose to be slimmer than us, but they had different food and activity levels. The challenge for us now is to consciously construct and choose the kind of life our ancestors had no choice about at all. They wanted it easier than they had it - we've got it easier but look at us!

Thinking specifically about wanting to eat a lot after fasting - it's not surprising, and it may be more likely if your post fast meals aren't satisfying - protein and fat along with the carbs seem to help there. The fast has caused you to dip into your reserves, some of us are really reluctant to let any of that reserve go. Figuring out a way round your own sleeping dragon is the challenge.

ericb · Post by **ericb** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 6:54 pm

osoniye,

I have fasted for religious, cleansing and dietary reasons. They're really different animals so I'll try to comment on your dietary one since I do fast along with NoS. (Disclaimer - I came into NoS having quite a bit of fasting experience)

My wife does something similar to Marianna - she just compressed her day and extends the amount of time she doesn't eat. It really works well for her because she's noticed the same thing; eating early causes her more trouble later on. It's actually improved her adherence to a regular eating lifestyle.

As for me, I can relate w/ the higher food intake. I do not fast for whole days unless I feel the need (which took a while to figure out). I usually condense my plates to a single 3-4 hour span, so if I fast breakfast and lunch, I'll move my plates onto dinner and "stretch" dinner out a bit, like an even more compressed version of the 11am, 3pm, 6pm schedule. I still make them map out into normal plates so I don't do something like eat a whole chicken (done that after a fast) or something. If I don't do this, I end up overdoing it at a later time. Also, I have found that higher veggies when I do this really helps me out. Often I'll have a full plate salad with some extra stuff on top for plate 1 (part of dinner if it works, like cut up chicken) and the second plate will be 1/2 cooked veggies. Since they are close together I find I have to watch my hunger and not eat if I am still full, but I still seem to be able to eat well and not affect the next day.

Hope this helps!!

wosnes · Post by **wosnes** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:12 pm

ericb wrote:osoniye,
My wife does something similar to Marianna - she just compressed her day and extends the amount of time she doesn't eat. It really works well for her because she's noticed the same thing; eating early causes her more trouble later on. It's actually improved her adherence to a regular eating lifestyle.

Geeze, I do that nearly every day but have never thought of it as fasting. I just think of it as not eating breakfast. I rarely have 3 meals after that. Just two. My first meal is around noon and the second is usually around six, but may be as late as eight.

ericb · Post by **ericb** » Mon Jun 13, 2011 8:25 pm

She doesn't call it fasting, either.

Marianna · Post by **Marianna** » Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:04 pm

for me, not eating til 11 am has SO regulated my eating. I no longer binge, I have 3 moderate meals, I no longer graze or snack between meals (thanks NoS)

and I stop eating after dinner. Before intermittent fasting and NOS, I grazed all day long and if I tried to stop eating for awhile I would respond with a binge.

I think we all need to pay attention to our own bodies--I love feeling like a normal person. I am a pretty paleo girl, so I feel that the food I eat enhances my well being as well--but more than anything, working with timing and tolerating a bit of hunger now and then has been so regulatory--and I say that as a former restrict/binger. I am a person who NEEDS to eat at 3pm, even if dinner is at 5:30--I am also a person who does NOT need to eat at 7am--if I do, it just sets me off for the rest of the day. I think in the past, humans really paid attention to their own personal rhythms more than we do now. Interesting discussion.

Grammy G · Post by **Grammy G** » Thu Jun 16, 2011 2:22 pm

Eating and hunger are such a head-game for me! If I tell myself I am going on a 24 hour fast.. I also begin telling myself how hungry I am by hour 10! If, on the other hand, I must fast for a medical reason..I have no problem sticking to water..hot, medium and cold (for variety!

)and end the fast with an ordinary meal and that's it. No big deal. For me, the NoS plan of 3 meals of one plate each is just what I needed. . a little structure (with my input on what goes on those plates and what size plates I am using).

osoniye · Post by **osoniye** » Wed Jun 22, 2011 5:49 pm

Wow. Thanks everybody, for your thoughtful responses.
I think, for now, I'll conclude fasting is not for me, for weight loss, and revisit it if I want to for maintainence or for religious reasons in the future. It's interesting how different fasting has been for different people. We are not all the same!!