I think it's a lot easier if you just flip that rule. Don't eat before 1pm or something like that. Basically, skip breakfast. Seems a lot easier, and the fasting interval should be about the same.

Perhaps I'm biased because this is what I naturally do.

I've been doing this for a couple years now (only coffee/water before 12pm and no food after 7-8pm). It's a very effective method of calorie restriction for me.

Only eating before 1pm would be absolute torture for me!

I just started doing this a few weeks ago, along with counting calories during my "feeding" window (which I actually try to restrict to six hours). So far so good.

I find I'm actually more successful at counting calories on this schedule. I think it's easier for me to completely abstain during the fasting period, and I'm less tempted to snack with lunch and dinner so close together. I've been planning and allocating my calories like I never have before, even though I've tried many carb- and calorie-counting schemes in the past.

I'm also toying around with taking a little MCT oil in the morning to help with cravings and mental focus and give me a little keto boost. It's unclear to me whether or not this defeats the purpose of the fast. Many people seem to think it's fine ("fat fasting") and maybe even a good idea, but I'm not yet convinced one way or the other.

I usually eat lunch somewhere between 12:00-14:00 and then something between 18:00-20:00 in the evening.

That's all, been doing it for about 17 years now and it works great. Although I drink coffee throughout the day.

The monks appear to use this eating pattern mostly to fit their meditation schedule and not annoy the people giving them food ( http://www.vipassanaforum.net/forum/index.php?topic=1993.0 ), but there seems to be some evidence that skipping dinner is more healthy than breakfast ( https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/skipping-breakfas... ). I don't know if it is enough to balance the social aspects.

There are a few reasons for eating only once a day as a monk. Making yourself easy to take care of is one of them, as you mentioned. But there is another interesting point that a senior monk taught me while I was ordained. He said that one of reasons food intake is restricted is to avoid building up a lot of energy reserves which often leads to getting your mind going on the wrong things, something that's particularly likely with young men who haven't reached an advanced level of practice. Among the many precepts for monks are restrictions on movement like running and climbing. So the monk's lifestyle doesn't lend itself to burning off extra energy.

Along the same lines, monks begin to gather energy through different methods. They aren't eating as much but can sustain themselves off the vitality of the sun and surrounding environment (if they are in a clean, restorative environment.. basically nature)

Monks are solar powered?

electric monks are ;)

...but have a tendency to believe that everything is pink.

If you make such claims, provide some evidence to back it up or else it sounds simply nuts.

It is all complete bunk. It became a fad in the Uk in the 90s and a couple of people died

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

Same here. It avoids the difficult part which is going to sleep hungry

Joe Rogan had Dr Rhonda Patrick on and they spoke about Time restricted eating and she referenced some studies that if you keep your eating within a 10 hour window without doing anything else, you will lose weight and gain lean muscle mass. You will also improve long term memory recall. Facinating stuff, it's toward the end of the interview around 2:27.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxM_CLsvieE

He also had Gary Taubes on and that was a treat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0ffswUVoxA

yes, it's all very fascinating.

there is starting to emerge a small, fringe group of people that believe calories-in-calories-out is a complete myth (or, more specifically, calories-out is a complete unknown given current understanding of metabolic science), which pretty much sends people into apoplectic fits of rage when they hear about it. even if it turns out to be a complete troll, it's great entertainment watching the science develop/debate.

Calories-in-calories-out isn't false or a myth. It's just not useful. It's like saying to get rich you just need to make lots of money.

Calories-in-calories-out is important if you want to lose weight.

Diet patterns and periodic fasting has other wealth effects.

Cal in = Cal out is always true. However, the Cal in side has a very important % energy extracted modifier. Simarly, the Cal out side is modified by metabolic rate and exertion modifiers.

Those individuals with high energy extraction and low metabolic rate will find it very difficult to eat as little as required to balance the energy equation without constant hunger and living with excessively small portions. While this is achievable, it is hard and failure is frequent...especially given all the other challenges in life. So naturally, asking whether and how these modifiers can be adjusted is pressing. There is a lot to learn, but thereare known factors that can influence these factors. For example, co tinued cold exposure leads to activation of brown fat that generates heat, which dramatically raises metabolic rate (e.g. Californian's feel cold in 12°C weather, but someone in New England would wear shorts in that weather). Interestingly, cold weather increases gut caloric absorbancy to compensate for these expenditures..(sorry Id provide references, but I dont have it bookmarked on my current device).

see what i'm saying?

What, confirmation bias?

Same on the [10 day Vipassana retreats](http://www.dhamma.org/en-US/locations/directory), for "old students" (basically if you return for the 2nd time or more).

So as an "old student" I learned that there was no meal at 5pm. Instead we had hot water with lemon, I think we were allowed to eat a fruit :)

You get used to it pretty quickly.

That said, they have an AMAZING breakfast that is very filling.

And.. you sit for long periods so you can't assume the results are practical for "lay man" day jobs and activities. Could be for programming jobs...

IDK, brain needs glucose to function properly. It might be just placebo effect, but when I feel mentally exhausted quick sugar usually helps me to regain attention. If I wasn't allow to eat during the day I wouldn't be able to write usable code in the evening...

If you're healthy, after your quick sugar intake, insulin would kick in and you would probably find yourself with lower sugar levels than 30 mins before.

You don't need to write code all day. I doubt you could even write 'good' code for 6 hours per day, let alone from the morning to the evening even if you were eating as you normally do.

Yeah, I get lightheaded and stupid (basically feel fairly drunk) around hours 14-16 without eating. I've been informed the solution to this is a keto diet. Ugh, not worth it.

There is research going back to the 60ies that shows that any form of reduced caloric intake is beneficial. It can take any form. The outcome is always the same, fasting improves most aspects of health.

Religious groups don't generally make good research subjects due to the fact that it's hard to set up control groups and their population varies too much from the regular joe.

I loosely followed Ori Hofmekler's Warrior Diet (20-hour fast with coffee/tea, lots of water and occasional fruits + 4-hour eating window in the afternoon) for about a year. I noticed a considerable boost on my ability to focus on mental tasks (it's like the mind becomes "cristal clear"). On the other hand, it proved to be daunting whenever I had to do serious physical labour.

I'm also a somewhat experienced Vipassana practicioner. An annoying thing I noticed with regard to meditation was that since Hofmekler's diet is essentially about "overeating" at night, both late night and early morning meditations became much harder for me.

Intuitively I still feel that Hofmekler has got many things right. It's actually surprisingly easy to follow after about 5-6 days of adjustments.

Here's an article on the method by Hofmekler: http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2012/09/14/...

My frugality hero Jacob Lund Fisker (author of "Early Retirement Extreme", a fascinating book about radical saving and beyond) also follows Hofmekler's diet: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-we-eat.html

16 hours of not eating is enough to put your body into ketosis. Perhaps it's related. I know there are health benefits to being in ketosis and eating a keto diet.

Do you have any citation about that?

For some reason, I suppose I read it somewhere, I though that for ketosis you need 36 hours.

I did a protein diet for a while and used Keto Strips to check for ketosis. I'd be in ketosis uaually 2-3 hours after noticing I was hungry, roughly 8-12 hours after the last meal.

Just buy strips and check yourself. You might need much less time

sorry, what are strips?

There are tester strips for detecting presence of ketones in urine, originally intended for type I diabetes I think.

You can buy ketone strips that will indicate whether you are experiencing ketosis. They react to your urine.

Holy shit, I had no idea this was a thing. This is awesome. I am totally buying this.

Where can I learn the science of ketosis. So I can be more data driven regarding my health.

Reddit has a good keto community, here are some links from the sidebar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/keto_in_a_nutshell https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq

also https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/

Thanks, I had no idea.

depends on your glycogen reserves and basal metabolic rate