Sunday Support Group: Diet Experiment Update (OT)

[Ed. Note: This week's "Print Crit" will appear tomorrow, and I'll be moving that feature to Mondays from now on. "Sunday Support Group" has been something of a hodgepodge, not very well planned or thought out, but I like it, and I'd like to continue writing it on Sundays.]

-

Some while back I promised an update on my experiment with "time-restricted eating." This is long, so I'll tuck it behind a page break so those who don't want to read it won't have to scroll past it. You're welcome!

The idea of time-restricted eating is that you eat all your food during a particular window of time every day and not eat at any other times.

Some version of this is of course traditional in many cultures, and it used to be traditional here, starting to change in about the 1960s: people ate at mealtimes. Until the mid-20th-century in the U.S. and much more recently in other places—France, for instance—the custom to eat at traditional times was pretty strong, and there was an equally strong imperative to not eat between those times. Most people my age and older grew up being admonished not to snack because "you'll ruin your dinner."

So this is nothing new. It's an old idea. It's just been dressed up in new clothes is all*.

I've been testing it since December 19th, 2019—164 days as of today. 

For many years I would get ravenous at night. Even if I'd eaten a big dinner, I'd still be "hungry," and I'd forage for snacks, treats, sweets and junk food during the hours up till bedtime. It didn't seem to matter if I felt "full," I'd still have the urge to do this. I figured it would be enormously difficult to cut this off entirely, but what the heck—in for a dime, in for a dollar, you know? If the experiment wasn't radical, how could I tell what difference it was making? So I resolved not to eat after 3:00 p.m. every day, until 9:00 the next morning. An 18-hour fast every day. Although I began by trying to squeeze three full meals into my six-hour window, I eventually settled on two, breakfast at 9 or 10 and dinner at 2, sometimes with a light snack in between. I quite naturally assumed that not eating in the evenings would be difficult and that the difficulty would be an ongoing struggle.

Here's what happened.

As I've mentioned before, I own a good scale. Since December 19th I've weighed myself twice a day, once in the evening and again every morning. I've missed only 11 weigh-ins in the 164 days and none in the past 60 days. I began at 250 lbs. and by February 2 of this year I was down to 230 lbs., meaning I lost 20 pounds in 45 days. Not bad! Nothing to this.

Not so fast
Sailing right along, right? Not so fast. Because, unfortunately, my weight loss then screeched to a complete halt. I last saw 230 on the scale on March 8th. So, between Feb. 2 and Mar. 8, I lost...nothing. This was frustrating. Exasperating, even.

It was actually something I had experienced before in my years of struggling with weight: my body just seems to resist dropping below the 230's. I had seen it again and again since I first started experimenting with various diets in 2013. I could go below 230, but I would always rebound back up into the 230s again. And now, after losing 20 lbs. in 46 days, it looked like my body was holding the line at the 230s yet again.

You might think that during this time I was relaxing my diet, but no, it was the opposite: I started out in January continuing to eat in restaurants three times a week, eating up to one candy bar a day, and continuing to eat Friday dinner with my fellowship group before our 8:00 p.m. meeting, which of course meant eating later than my self-imposed 9–3 window. During the 34 days I was stuck at 230 lbs., I cut out the candy bars, stopped eating any non-plant-based meals whatsoever, and stopped eating Friday dinners late. So my diet actually got more strict during that time, not more lenient.

Finally, the impasse broke. On March 9th I began to lose again, and between then and April 11th I lost another ten pounds.

I then stuck fast again—but not as bad this time. I first saw 220 on the scale on April 11th, and the last time I saw that number on the scale was not until April 29th. So the plateau lasted 18 days that time.

I'm used to this now. It seems plain that even eating the same diet, even sticking with my time-restricted eating window, I tend to lose weight over intervals of time and then "plateau" for a while.

(The other thing I've noticed is that you don't necessarily lose weight from the areas of your body you'd like to lose it. And it's not perfectly proportionate. I've been told that this evens out over time. We'll see.

Anyway, today I weighed in at 212, for a total weight loss of 38 pounds since Dec. 19th of last year. Not bad.

An epiphany on the staircase
But losing weight is not the whole story. There have been much better results.

Here's one thing I've learned: if you consistently don't eat at certain times, you stop being hungry at those times. The thing I was almost certain would be so difficult, wasn't. Not eating at night has not been hard at all, turns out.

Quite honestly, I knew within only two days that this method of eating was for me. I liked it immediately. Yes, I got hungry at night for the first five days or so, but within two weeks it was so easy that I was no longer even thinking about it. Now, it seems perfectly natural and completely comfortable. During my six-hour eating window I eat as much as I want (although I'm sticking to my preferred plant-based diet—and now that I'm not eating out at restaurants because of COVID-19, I'm sticking to it 100%). One thing I've noticed is that I was anxious about getting enough food at the start, so I tended to overeat. Now, I've relaxed about that, and I'm generally eating quite a bit less.

It's the other effects that I find most amazing. I feel so much better day-to-day that it's almost unbelievable. I have much more energy, and I'm notably more cheerful and more even-keeled emotionally, with fewer ups and downs of mood. At first I had a week or two of feeling uncomfortably "empty" with a grumbly stomach when I went to bed, but that went away soon enough. I used to sleep poorly; I suffered from EMA's (early-morning awakenings) for literally years. I still do, sometimes, but I used to be able to sleep through the night only two or three times a month. Now, all my initial nighttime discomfort is gone, and in March a wondrous thing happened: I started sleeping through the night. Hallelujah. I'm sleeping through the night maybe two out of every three nights now. It's great. The weird feelings in my heart that started when I had bouts of atrial fibrillation in early 2018 have vanished. I've stopped using my CPAP machine for sleep apnea. I've definitely noticed that my thinking is more clear.

Most remarkably, aside from some arthritis in one foot, all my joint pain is gone. For some while I had just assumed that the "aches and pains" I felt, that everyday stiffness that made me feel old, were the inevitable result of aging, not anything having to do with diet or weight. But one cold night this Winter I had a sudden realization.

Occasionally I have to come downstairs in the middle of the night, because I left the heat turned up or because I need a glass of water or something. Those occasions were usually when I was most aware of my creaky joints. Everything would be stiff and it seemed like my whole body would hurt. Tromping downstairs in the wee hours was when I felt most like an old man.

Then one night in February it happened that I needed to come downstairs in the middle of the night to turn the heat down, and that's when I suddenly realized—no aches and pains! I was amazed. I felt limber, almost, dare I say it, nimble. I stood there on the stairs moving me elbows and shoulders and knees. I went through probably the next four days being hyper aware that my joints suddenly felt like I was thirty again. Clear of pains, no stiffness.

Of course, it's impossible to untangle all this. What's responsible for what? Am I just getting good nutrition, finally, by getting a wide variety of plantatious goodies down my gullet, with all those good phytochemicals humans were designed to eat? Am I feeling better because I'm lighter? And which of these changes can be ascribed to the everyday fasting and the fact that I'm not eating late at night any more?

The new normal
I really don't know. But I'll tell you what—seven years go I started doing experiments on myself because I didn't want to go into old age being morbidly obese. At the time I weighed 273 and (like almost all overweight people) I was continuing to gain more weight all the time. I surveyed the diet-and-nutrition landscape at the time and saw only confusion and argument everywhere—and all sorts of ideologies, which I tend to mistrust—so I resolved just to try things on myself. Self-experiment. It seemed logical to me. I didn't have to save the world. I didn't have to figure out what was right for anybody else. All I had to do was find what worked for me and I was home free.

Well, I've found it. Sure took a while! But I'm home, home, home at last.

I expect I'll lose more weight—I still have a gut—but even if I never lose another pound I'm still going to keep this up. I really like eating this way.

I'd like to say it's the best thing I've ever done for my health. Feels like it. But I have to be rational about this, rather than hyperbolic. I quit smoking when I was 28 and quit drinking when I was 33, and those were probably better for my health.

Still, I'm happy. I don't have to experiment any more. Everybody's different, and everybody has to figure out what's right for them, but I've found what's right for me and this is it. After 164 days, this is just the new normal for me.

I'll report my progress on my first anniversary, next December, and possibly once in between now and then. If you'd like the links again to the two short videos that started me down this path, here they are: Time-Restricted Eating Put to the Test and The Benefits of Early Time Restricted Eating, both from NutritionFacts.org.

To your health!

Mike

*The idea behind time-restricted eating seems to make sense too. When you eat a meal, your body needs to process that food. It extracts the nutrients it needs and it has to separate out and get rid of the unneeded or harmful elements you ingested along with the good stuff. That's difficult. It can take hours. Indeed, a lot of you—your internal organs—can be thought of as an almost miraculously complex food-processing plant. A typical fast-food meal—oversized hamburger with filler, added fats like slices of cheese, some of the sugar sauce known as ketchup, and a bun that never goes stale; slivers of white potato with the water replaced with grease, heavily salted; milkshake not made of milk and ice cream—all of it adulterated and modified and preserved to make it easier and cheaper for the providers to produce, transport, store, and cook—takes your body five hours to recover from. If you're able to pay the least bit of attention to how your body feels, you will notice that you feel bad (bloated, sluggish, faintly nauseous, and over-full, yet still somehow unsatiated and vaguely craving for something more) for hours after ingesting such a meal.

But even if you eat good food, your body still needs to devote time and energy to processing it. The idea behind time-restricted eating is that your body also needs a break from doing this work. You need to let it do the other work it needs to do: things like clearing out plaque from your arteries, killing off the wayward cancer cells that pop up continuously, repairing DNA, fighting off viruses and diseases, healing wounds, eliminating free radicals in your bloodstream, et cetera. The concept makes intuitive sense: if you're bombarding your system with food, you're burdening it with the obligation of processing that constant influx—especially if the foodlike substances you're ingesting are lacking in the nutrients your body craves and are laced with sundry toxins and non-food chemicals. Bad food should be thought of as an assault on your system. The assault is that much worse if it's unrelenting. For many tens of thousands of years, our ancient forbears routinely fasted for days or weeks...when food was scarce. In the face of unrelenting gluttony for foodlike substances loaded with sodium, chemicals, fat, sugar, and oil, our bodies will weaken and start to break down. The body needs time regularly to recover from eating, and repair itself.

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

Please help support TOP through Patreon

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Ben: "Thanks for the report! Very glad to hear that it’s working for you! I’ve been doing time-restricted eating since 2016, and it’s been great for me. I’ve never been overweight but since I began, I sleep better and I feel better. Looking forward to future updates!"

PETER FOILES: "I have been using the intermittent fasting technique for close to two years now after it was recommended by my doctor. It was helpful at the end of a substantial weight loss program and has been very effective in maintaining the weight loss. Despite the conventional wisdom of always having a good breakfast I have always found that skipping breakfast was relatively easy. So in my case the window is noon to 8 p.m. I also weigh myself daily using your recommended scale and that is an important part of maintaining my weight."

adamct: "I haven't adopted time-restricted eating (my wife has), but I have adopted a largely whole-foods, plant-based diet. Especially since the COVID-19 crisis hit and I've been eating at home (not in the office), I have more control of my diet. I have dramatically reduced the amount I eat, and the most amazing thing to me is that THE LESS I EAT, THE LESS HUNGRY I AM!!! It blows me away. This has been followed by the second huge shock (for me), namely that I ONLY NEED VERY LITTLE FOOD TO MAINTAIN MY WEIGHT. (I apologize for all the caps, but you have to realize how utterly dumbfounded I am by these two realizations.)

"For years, I thought I needed to eat [x] amount of food each day. That amount was less than most Americans, and I thought it was pretty healthy food that I was eating, with a fair amount of vegetables mixed in with meat and various processed foods. Moreover, I thought I was being conscious of my eating because I wasn't eating as much as I wanted, and I was trying not to eat when I was hungry (which was most of the time).

"I now realize that I really only need to eat about 25–40% of [x]. On some level, that can't be possible, so maybe I'm getting the percentages wrong, but it sure feels that way.

"The biggest change for me was getting rid of simple carbs: no bread, no pasta, no potatoes, no rice. I don't mind eating beans, lentils, peas, or cooked whole grains—they have lots of fiber. But I avoid easy-to-digest carbs with little fiber. I'm convinced that eliminating those from my diet is what has caused me to lose my constant hunger.

"Anyway, your posts have been a true inspiration to me, and I can't thank you enough. I've gone from over 250 lbs. to 200.8 lbs. as of this morning. My goal is to reach 194 lbs., when my BMI will no longer classify me as overweight. It's a goal I never could have imagined reaching, yet I am confident that I will, and it doesn't even feel hard!"

Mike replies: It blew me away too so I know exactly what you mean. I used to get so much in the grip of "craving" in the evenings that I doubted it would be anything but torture to try to control it. (Craving is quite distinct from hunger. As Johan Grahn noted, very few of us actually feels real hunger these days...I once stuck my foot in my mouth big-time when I overheard a very obese woman, a stranger, exclaim "I'm starving!" and before I knew what I was doing I blurted out, "starving?! You could live for a month on nothing but water and body fat!" I'm not usually so rude. But in my opinion when overfed people use the word "starving" for "craving," it's an insult to people who actually do suffer starvation...imagine the incomprehensibility of her statement to a parent who had lost a child to starvation. But never mind my faux pas....) Anyway, I was wrong-O. I'm as amazed as you are, but I honestly don't think of food at all during my non-eating time. The cruise from 3 p.m. each day to my white tea the next morning is a total breeze. If anything, the anxiety is caused by knowing I have to eat something by the 3 p.m. deadline even if I'm not really hungry and don't really want anything.

Richard Skoonberg: "That is an amazing story! Thank you for sharing this part of your life—it might have an effect on many other people's lives. My wife and I are going to try it as well. I have a close friend who started this a couple of years back and had similar results. He was close to 300 lbs. but now he weighs 180 and he feels great and pain-free as well. He allows himself one restaurant meal a week."

McD: "Another data point...my body happiness has improved with gradual migration to fruit, nuts, beans and veggies...combined with activity, two hours daily, one strenuous...making life at 76 a joy."

Comments

[JimF]

Sounds like a good plan. Good job sticking with it. I need to stop eating at night.
What struck me most is that you need a new thermostat. They're programmable now you know ;-)

[Not for me they're not. Here's what I need on a thermostat: On/off. Heat/cool. Up/down. And--this part is important--nothing else. --Mike]

[Speed]

We're all different and you've found what works for you. This is terrific news.

Congratulations.

[Jim K]

Hey Mike, good deal! It's funny that you mention plateauing, because I've done the same, at 212! I haven't tried time restricted eating, but I'm doing my daily vin-and-tonic religiously. And like you, I just feel better.

I'm happy that you've been doing these OT posts for the last few years, because it inspired me to give it a try!

[HowardC]

[Not for me they're not. Here's what I need on a thermostat: On/off. Heat/cool. Up/down. And--this part is important--nothing else. --Mike]

I completely get that. However, that's exactly why I do not use a Japanese camera. They are the antithesis of what you want in a thermostat.

[John Camp]

Here's one bothersome thing about losing weight, at least for me. When I lose weight, I lose the weight around my navel last. When I'm quite a bit heavy (for me, over 205) I don't seem to have a protrudent gut, because I've got fat around to the sides and on my hips, and a fairly smooth cylindrical body shape. When I lose the first ten pounds, I lose it on the sides...and now my gut appears to protrude. I lose another ten...and it's worse. I look thin but with a belly, which is really kind of awful. I start on the third 10, and then, the gut starts to go away. I'm currently down at 178 on my way to 170, where I hope to establish a plateau, and stay that way.

[Tim F]

Hi Mike. I do a similar thing to you but for a different set of reasons, which I won't bore you with. I eat a 'bedtime' snack at 21.00 and then don't eat again until lunch at 13.00, then my main meal is at 17.00. It works well, and like you I won't go back. Tim F.

[Stephen J]

'Tis truly amazing what one can read on photography blogs!

But then I s'pose photography is like life looked at through a mirror...

...or leak, as Vonnegut would say.

[Richard Parkin]

Thermostats are also controllable remotely remotely nowadays. Alternatively they are portable like my wireless thermostat that I can, and sometimes do, carry into the bedroom at night.

Your plan to eat only at mealtimes seems good but why not 3 meals a day with your last in the early evening? Fits better with society so may be more sustainable. If it must be 2 meals a day lunch seems to be the one to skip, particularly because it would fit better with your argument about giving time for the body to digest your food — unless you are having a 2 hour siesta after lunch ;-( .

[beuler]

For years I forced myself to eat early in the morning because "breakfast is the most important meal of the day". About ten years ago I decided to give my body a break and gave up breakfast completely. Everybody and their mother kept telling me how bad it was to skip breakfast, but being a stubborn know it all I persevered.

Now my first meal of the day is at one in the afternoon consisting of a traditional lunch of meat or fish, salad or vegetables and a starch if I am not dieting. I will usually take a beer or glass of wine with my lunch. This effectively reduces my eating window to 16 hours per day, since I don't eat anything after 9pm. Unless I cheat with a late night snack (gotta stop doing that). Sometimes I will take an afternoon snack (gotta stop doing that), but I can say that I regularly eat just 2 meals a day: lunch and dinner.

These days "intermittent fasting" is all the rage and I no longer have to justify to people why I don't eat breakfast. I don't get the most important meal of the day sermon and instead get praise for my "sacrifice".

One of the downsides of intermittent fasting is the social aspect of eating. Since breakfast is usually a lonely affair, those with busy social schedules find it easier to skip a morning breakfast instead of an evening meal.

Many people will eat food in the morning so that they can have coffee, because coffee on an empty stomach "is bad for you". I drink one pint (half a litre) of water as soon as I get out of bed in the morning and immediately drink a strong, black espresso coffee every single morning. After years of this routine I have no adverse effects to report. No ulcers, no acid, no hole in my stomach. I make an effort to drink lots of water in the morning and no water in the evening. This has no effect on my appetite but it does eliminate night trips to the bathroom.

When I am trying to loose weight, I will go jogging every day first thing in the morning, right after having my black coffee. 20 years ago I would not dream of exercising on an empty stomach - I believed I would most likely pass out. I can report that exercise does not make me hungry and I don't feel weak. I have come to understand that the body does not take energy from the food that is sitting in your stomach. Energy comes from the fats and sugars stored in the body from several days of meals consumed. Modern "fitness" youtubers call this fasted cardio (exercising while fasting).

There is ONE thing that makes me hungry beyond reason. It makes me weak, hungry, nervous, angry and crave all at the same time. That one thing is sugar. A high dose of sugar will take my appetite for a wild roller coaster ride about 2 hours after consuming it. In my case sugar functions like an addictive drug. I quit smoking 11 years ago after after a hard 20 year addiction to cigarettes. I can find many similarities between a cigarette addiction and a sugar dependence.

[Kristine Hinrichs]

I have had success with a modified approach like this. People tend to forget that we often eat when we’re not hungry - we eat because we’re bored, it’s time to eat, everyone else s eating, habit, etc. This approach takes much of that off the table. I’m much better at eating nothing than “a lite bit”, that turns out to be a lo more.

[Terry G]

The number 1 fact is we are all different. One eating method (habit) will not work to the same degree with all people.

After years of trying and researching a range of new eating habits I have landed on the one which works best for me.

Must accept the New Habits. Changing from the old habits is not completed by stopping the habits, but rather by replacing them with a different habit or set of habits.

Step 1 Create a habit to get sufficient water intake. Without water your system will grind to a halt. With water it will work efficiently. Contrary to the 8 Glasses of Water a Day idea you need a half ounce of water for every pound of body weight. Simply put, dividing your weight by 2 will give the daily water intake in ounces. ie: 220 lbs requires 110 ounces , 110/8 = 14 glasses of water. Ignore all other sources of liquid. Liquor depletes you water stores. I use a set of 12oz size water bottles to aid water consumption during the day.

Step 2 Eat in the King, Prince, Pauper style. Your biggest (most calories) meal in the morning, a smaller meal at lunch and the smallest meal at dinner/supper. IE for 2000 calories per day 900 breakfast, 700 lunch, 400 dinner, approx. Why it works is the body uses the breakfast to power itself during the day, the lunch powers it during the evening, the dinner takes care of the night until the next breakfast.

Compared to the "Normal" method of eating, small or no breakfast, large lunch, larger dinner. The larger lunch and dinner will provide too much nutrient supply for the body during the evening and night. This means the overflow of nutrients is stored as fat reserve. The large dinner will not be available (processed) for use until after you binge in the evening. The binge is actually caused by a lack of sufficient nutrients from the missing or light breakfast meal, which will increase the storage factor.

I try to eat based on the Zone method of eating with a 40% carbs, 30% Protein, and 30% good healthy fat intake.

I have added a HIT (High Intensity) workout (10 minutes on a recumbent bike) consisting 1 Min Coasting, 1 Minute push, 1 Min Coasting, 1 Minute push, 1 Min Coasting, 1 Minute push, 4 Minute coast approach.

This works the Heart and Lungs giving you cardiovascular endurance. The heart and lungs are the two major impacts on life continuance.

Keep up the good work. I enjoy your site.

[Albert Smith]

I think the scale can be a stressor in your journey. It gives you a number that means little, while not giving you credit for body composition. A pound of muscle occupies less space than a pound of fat. You may be "stuck" at 230lbs, but you may still be losing fat.

It is too late now (given the time you have been doing this) but a tape measure is a better gauge of your progress. It would have been more productive to have a good starting waist measurement to see progress that actually means something about the health benefits from your effort. Belly fat, now understood to be a dangerous precursor of health issues, is the target. There is no such thing as spot reducing, but you want your belly to have a measurement less than 50 percent of your height. The tape measure is the tool of choice, not the scale.

I'm your age, workout daily and haven't been on a scale in a decade. I do have a log with waist measurements. When the tape hits 34 inches, I step up my exercise and cut back on the pizza.

Good luck with your effort.

[Peter Wright]

Keep up the good work! I am on a much less dramatic trajectory, but making progress. I was on blood pressure meds, but have been able to come off that and keep my BP going lower. I think I can come off the only other drug I am on – cholesterol reducer, but need to see my doc when things get less busy for some blood work. And like you I feel better.
Keep us posted!

[Jeff1000]

I think you're on the right path Mike, also routinely known as Intermittent Fasting. Congrats!

Don't have much time to be typing but just want to add that a couple techniques for breaking a plateau would be to increase exercise, longer walks etc., or by increasing your calories for a few days as in eating three meals for a few days and then returning to OMAD (one meal a day).

As you know, the benefits of IF far exceed weight loss: autophagy, boundless energy, etc. etc.

[ASW]

Hi Mike,
Thanks for the interesting post. I started my own experiment with time-restricted eating a few months ago.
I have always been a big eater (at meals) and snacker (between meals). Although I have never had an issue with my weight, probably due to a fast metabolism and regular, intense exercise (daily bodyweight exercises, up to 100 mile trail running races, biking for transportation and fun), I felt like I was becoming a slave to my hunger. I would wake up each day with an empty pit of despair for a stomach, worried that I might not have the strength to reach the kitchen for my 5 AM breakfast. I would continue eating all day, and would sometimes have a snack immediately before bed. It was a rare day when I had more than 3 hours between some sort of food intake.
Over a short period I was able to compress my weekday eating period down to 8-9 hours (approximately 11:30 AM - 7:30 PM) without too much difficulty. I have mild intermittent hunger pangs until my first meal, but it's not too bad and hopefully builds character. I still eat what would seem like a frightening amount of food to many of you, although the total may have decreased slightly. I will say that my desire for between-meal snacks has decreased significantly.
I have a vague sense that my morning brain is a bit sharper than it used to be, but to be honest my life has been so topsy-turvy with the pandemic I can't be sure. I definitely feel better with a few hours of digestion before bed. It doesn't seem like my often poor sleep has improved, but it hasn't gotten any worse so I can't complain.
On the weekend I start eating earlier in the morning, partially as a break/reward but more importantly because of greater calorie needs for my long training runs. While I will do fasted 60-90 minute runs before my first meal on weekdays, I don't think it would be a good idea (for me at least) to attempt a 3-6 hour run without eating beforehand.
Anyway, I just wanted to offer an additional anecdote about time-restricted eating from the perspective of a very active individual. I don't know if I will keep it up forever, but I haven't noticed any negative aspects so I also have no reason to stop.

[Clayton]

Just curious if anything is permitted outside the fasting hours, such as a smoothie. I eat twice a day but do have my own invention of an energy drink early in the morning.

[Johan Grahn]

Great to hear Mike! I have been pretty skinny all my life. But after having turned 50 a decade ago I started to gain weight. When I got up to 85 kg (about 170?) I felt a lot heavier. I took me a lot of time just to lose about 5 kg to get down to about 80 kg. I am 185 cm tall and it is probably a good weight to stick to.
Eating is not so important to me but I like good food. Like most people! And I enjoyed a bowl of youghurt and müsli at night. But that is not good. When I stopped that habbit I started losing weight.
You mentioned that feeling of being hungry. We are so well fed nowadays and we have no memory of what generations before us felt almost daily: Hunger.

[Robert]

I practiced intermittend eating; one day quite normal, one day nothing. Look for Walter Longo in Internet. I have had no headaches, although first two-three non-eating days were hard. Interestingly, hunger was not the biggest problem, psyche was: One misses the act of eating. At the beginning I lost weekly 1kg, later every two weeks. Nice side effect was new attitude to eating - one enjoys his meals more than before.
I am nearing 67 and do not need as much intake as I needed in my younger years. After I lost the "necessary" amount I took to eating daily, but only in a time window approx. from 12 to 17. I feel better now, healthier and I am more active than before. Do not have to fight fatigue and am able to walk 10km daily in the Alps with my photobackpack (15kg)and tripod. One gets farther with empty belly...
Complicated methods are dangerous, one thinks too often about it, in the end it is thinking about missing a meal. This is kind of negative thinking which likely leads to defeat.
Recommended!
Stay healthy, regards

[G Geradts]

Good for you, Mike!

I had trouble fasting my laces. This big lumb of fat between my chest and knees when bending down made me realize to do something about it.
I am now on day 39 of Fasting 16/8. I lost 4,7 kilograms. So far, so good.
My plan is not to weigh myself or at least only once a month or so and not to worry/think about my weight.

Youhave an inspiring blog. I learned here about the waterrower and bought one, same for a coffeegrinder and now I find inspiration in this restricted eating story by you.

[Steve Rosenblum]

Your experience of weight plateaus has a scientific basis. Our bodies have evolved to maximize survival in the short term. In the face of starvation they adapt and shift down to the mitochondrial level to maintain your weight--literally, your metabolism and metabolic "machinery" work against your dietary efforts, and you metabolic "set point" changes to maintain your weight if at all possible, and to try to get you to put the weight back on. There is all sorts of chemical signalling going on between your fat cells, your brain, your organs, and your endocrine system. I have sat through several scientific lectures on this subject over the past few years and it is fascinating. Many people who are obese for their whole lives are born genetically programmed so that their set points and how their bodies react to fasting are different than non-obese people. When I was still practicing medicine I had obese patients come in and complain that "I'm eating next to nothing, but I still can't lose any weight!" and I would doubt what they were telling me but it turns out that for some of them it is absolutely true. It is not just "calories in=calories out". We are just beginning to understand how all this stuff works. There was a great PBS Nova about this stuff a few weeks ago: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/the-truth-about-fat/

[Kenneth G Voigt]

I agree totally on the thermostat. My HVAC guy once tried to sell me a one thousand freakin dollar thermostat. I was speechless.