6 ms·

Working from home has convinced me that a lot of western people don't really need more than one meal a day (or even one). Growing up sort of poor-ish, I have n

by mhh__ 5y ago

Working from home has convinced me that a lot of western people don't really need more than one meal a day (or even one). Growing up sort of poor-ish, I have noticed that a lot of my eating habits are basically not far off Dickensian "Eat now, you might not have anything at all tomorrow" patterns.

drieddust 5y ago
An old Indian saying goes like this. Healthy eating and regular fasting is a big part of ancient Indian system still followed. Wordly people eats twice a day, Ascetics eats once a day, Children and invalids eats throughout the day.
- sumanmd 5y ago
  Most of the ancient cultures, I do believe were fasting was a longer phenomenon, possibly days to weeks.
- javert 5y ago
  I'm a normal person, which I think is morally better than being an ascetic, but I only eat once a day.
  - drieddust 5y ago
    What makes you think you have to leave for jungle to be an ascetic? You are an ascetic by all means if you have control over your senses. At least Hinduism defines it that way.
sumanmd 5y ago
Yes we are in a culture of nonstop eating. Once we understand the basic phenomenon of fasting and or caloric restriction, its easier to restrain from eating excess.
Wohlf 5y ago
Unfortunately we have to overcome both instinct, motivation, and willpower.
- javert 5y ago
  Humans don't have instincts, except a little baby's instinct to suckle. An instinct is a pre-programmed behavior, not a desire. Only non-human animals have instincts. Motivation is never something to overcome. Motivation is power. You work with it. By "willpower" people usually mean ability to force yourself to do something you aren't motivated to do - you shouldn't try to do that, it's operator error of the human system.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - tsukurimashou 5y ago
    of course humans have instincts, we're an animal like any other, just because some try to do anything they can to suppress those instincts doesn't mean it's not there
    - javert 5y ago
      Obviously you can't give an example, since we don't have instincts.
      - SamPatt 5y ago
        Disgust may itself be an instinct. Fear of spiders and snakes were found in infants. Reflexes are instinctual. I think we have a few instincts.
        javert 5y ago
        Those are not complex behaviors. An instinct is a complex behavior, like migrating for the winter or building a nest. The problem with claiming that humans have instincts is that it gives cover for bad theories of mind. For instance, the Nazis believed Jewish people have Jewish minds and German people have German minds; many Marxists have held that bourgeoisie have bourgeois minds. In reality, the human mind is a blank slate, in terms of knowledge and beliefs.
3qz 5y ago
I think this is true. Whenever I’m sedentary for a while I can’t eat more than two meals a day without quickly putting on weight. I don’t understand how it’s possible for people to struggle with putting on weight unless they have a very active lifestyle
- pkhamre 5y ago
  It was harder to gain weight from my lowest point after doing intermittent fasting, than starting to loose from my highest point. At the lowest point I had lost a lot of interest in food and eating and did not have the same hunger. It is much worse problem since loosing weight is only about discipline, but gaining weight is about more than that.
NathanielK 5y ago
> Working from home has convinced me that a lot of western people don't really need more than one meal a day A different way to look at it would be that a lot of Western people are too sedentary for more than one meal a day. Not only are they getting fat, their muscles are atrophying from lack of activity.
globular-toast 5y ago
This is exactly why obesity is a thing. We are all wired to some extent to eat whenever food is available. It's a survival thing. But food is plentiful and easily available at all times. That would be bad enough. What's worse is much of it is specifically designed to be addictive. Sedentary people definitely don't need more than one meal a day to survive. It's trivially easy to satisfy daily calorific and nutritional requirements in a single sitting. There are still a lot of people who say breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It is if you are going out to do 4 hours of manual labour in the morning before lunch. Not so much if you only cycle a few miles to work then sit down (and that's already more exercise than most do). However, I do think there is a difference in how people react to fasting. In particular I think fasting is better for men than for women. I've been fasting regularly for more than 10 years at this point and it's great. But all women I've known to try it have had problems with it.
sph 5y ago
Animals, including us, are extraordinarily good at conserving energy and dealing with long periods of famine. One meal a day is a non event metabolically, and makes sense for most of us that lead a sedentary life. The idea that we need to eat 3 times a day is from a time most people were living an agricultural life, or doing heavy physical jobs. If you burn a lot of energy, you don't need to be told to eat more. The idea that we need to eat 5 small meals a day to stay healthy, and never skip a meal! is first world bullshit.
- WA 5y ago
  I'd rather eat 3 times a day than feeling stuffed from shoveling 2,000 kcal in my stomach once a day – and even if you sit around all day, you still burn up to 2,000 kcal.
  - Gareth321 5y ago
    See, I like feeling full when I eat, and three meals means I never feel full - if I want to keep my calories under a healthy amount. I've compromised on two meals in a four hour window. Still lots of health benefits but a bit more manageable than one huge meal (for me).
  - croon 5y ago
    As someone who has done one meal/window a day for a decade, I assure you it's a self-correcting problem. You wont ever starve if your meal is 700kcal one day. You will want to eat more the next day, your head will tell you. Or maybe you want some ice cream after in the same window? On the other point, very few people who sit around all day need 2000kcal, unless they're relatively huge in any dimension. Either way you will find out if you count for a couple of weeks and if your weight is constant your average intake is your TDEE. If you're sedentary my bet is it's less than 2k.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      I kept telling people this while powerlifting. I had several years worth of detailed records of what I ate, down to every sugar free chewing gum I chewed, and while going to the gym 5 times a week combined with a sedentary job, I burned at most around 2000kcal. My bulking diet was at 2400kcal. I was at near competitive level weights at that point. I feel so much obesity is down to people thinking 2k or even 2500kcal is right for them despite an activity level that means they might be closer to 1500kcal-1800kcal. Absolutely concur with your advice to count for a couple of weeks, and I'd back that bet...
lewisl9029 5y ago
I've been having 1 meal a day for several years now (since well before the pandemic), and my weight has stayed pretty much constant throughout. The tricky part for me wasn't getting enough calories, but ensuring I'm getting a good amount and a good variety of nutrients. I try to eat healthy meals most of the time, but even a handful of "cheat" meals per week to indulge my cravings for tasty, non-healthy food can seriously throw off my overall nutrition profile for the week, since I only get 7 of them. I've been trying to balance for that by drinking a bottle of Soylent after every unhealthy meal, basically as a nutritional supplement.
subpixel 5y ago
I work from home and from a solo office. When I’m in the office, I crave a sandwich from the pizza place across the street A) because it’s there and B) to kill the monotony of being in my office. At home I have a far easier time skipping lunch despite there being snacks everywhere.
javchz 5y ago
I'd try to do OMAD (One meal a day) a couple days per week, and at first it's hard not gonna lie, but for me the reward was worth it. The main difference its energy levels. Before it was like a roller coaster of 10/10 minutes after eating, then going low to 5 or 4 in a few hours. With fasting, it's more like a consistent 8/10 across the day. The main challenge with OMAD, it's probably the social aspect, eating it's rarely around calorie consumption. Bonus: Is practical only having to do clean kitchen utensils and dishes one time per day. Lot of time saved.

by mhh__ 5y ago

drieddust 5y ago

An old Indian saying goes like this. Healthy eating and regular fasting is a big part of ancient Indian system still followed. Wordly people eats twice a day, Ascetics eats once a day, Children and invalids eats throughout the day.

sumanmd 5y ago
Most of the ancient cultures, I do believe were fasting was a longer phenomenon, possibly days to weeks.
javert 5y ago
I'm a normal person, which I think is morally better than being an ascetic, but I only eat once a day.
- drieddust 5y ago
  What makes you think you have to leave for jungle to be an ascetic? You are an ascetic by all means if you have control over your senses. At least Hinduism defines it that way.

sumanmd 5y ago

Yes we are in a culture of nonstop eating. Once we understand the basic phenomenon of fasting and or caloric restriction, its easier to restrain from eating excess.

Wohlf 5y ago

Unfortunately we have to overcome both instinct, motivation, and willpower.

javert 5y ago
Humans don't have instincts, except a little baby's instinct to suckle. An instinct is a pre-programmed behavior, not a desire. Only non-human animals have instincts. Motivation is never something to overcome. Motivation is power. You work with it. By "willpower" people usually mean ability to force yourself to do something you aren't motivated to do - you shouldn't try to do that, it's operator error of the human system.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tsukurimashou 5y ago
  of course humans have instincts, we're an animal like any other, just because some try to do anything they can to suppress those instincts doesn't mean it's not there
  - javert 5y ago
    Obviously you can't give an example, since we don't have instincts.
    - SamPatt 5y ago
      Disgust may itself be an instinct. Fear of spiders and snakes were found in infants. Reflexes are instinctual. I think we have a few instincts.
      - javert 5y ago
        Those are not complex behaviors. An instinct is a complex behavior, like migrating for the winter or building a nest. The problem with claiming that humans have instincts is that it gives cover for bad theories of mind. For instance, the Nazis believed Jewish people have Jewish minds and German people have German minds; many Marxists have held that bourgeoisie have bourgeois minds. In reality, the human mind is a blank slate, in terms of knowledge and beliefs.

3qz 5y ago

I think this is true. Whenever I’m sedentary for a while I can’t eat more than two meals a day without quickly putting on weight. I don’t understand how it’s possible for people to struggle with putting on weight unless they have a very active lifestyle

pkhamre 5y ago
It was harder to gain weight from my lowest point after doing intermittent fasting, than starting to loose from my highest point. At the lowest point I had lost a lot of interest in food and eating and did not have the same hunger. It is much worse problem since loosing weight is only about discipline, but gaining weight is about more than that.

NathanielK 5y ago

> Working from home has convinced me that a lot of western people don't really need more than one meal a day A different way to look at it would be that a lot of Western people are too sedentary for more than one meal a day. Not only are they getting fat, their muscles are atrophying from lack of activity.

globular-toast 5y ago

This is exactly why obesity is a thing. We are all wired to some extent to eat whenever food is available. It's a survival thing. But food is plentiful and easily available at all times. That would be bad enough. What's worse is much of it is specifically designed to be addictive. Sedentary people definitely don't need more than one meal a day to survive. It's trivially easy to satisfy daily calorific and nutritional requirements in a single sitting. There are still a lot of people who say breakfast is the most important meal of the day. It is if you are going out to do 4 hours of manual labour in the morning before lunch. Not so much if you only cycle a few miles to work then sit down (and that's already more exercise than most do). However, I do think there is a difference in how people react to fasting. In particular I think fasting is better for men than for women. I've been fasting regularly for more than 10 years at this point and it's great. But all women I've known to try it have had problems with it.

sph 5y ago

Animals, including us, are extraordinarily good at conserving energy and dealing with long periods of famine. One meal a day is a non event metabolically, and makes sense for most of us that lead a sedentary life. The idea that we need to eat 3 times a day is from a time most people were living an agricultural life, or doing heavy physical jobs. If you burn a lot of energy, you don't need to be told to eat more. The idea that we need to eat 5 small meals a day to stay healthy, and never skip a meal! is first world bullshit.

WA 5y ago
I'd rather eat 3 times a day than feeling stuffed from shoveling 2,000 kcal in my stomach once a day – and even if you sit around all day, you still burn up to 2,000 kcal.
- Gareth321 5y ago
  See, I like feeling full when I eat, and three meals means I never feel full - if I want to keep my calories under a healthy amount. I've compromised on two meals in a four hour window. Still lots of health benefits but a bit more manageable than one huge meal (for me).
- croon 5y ago
  As someone who has done one meal/window a day for a decade, I assure you it's a self-correcting problem. You wont ever starve if your meal is 700kcal one day. You will want to eat more the next day, your head will tell you. Or maybe you want some ice cream after in the same window? On the other point, very few people who sit around all day need 2000kcal, unless they're relatively huge in any dimension. Either way you will find out if you count for a couple of weeks and if your weight is constant your average intake is your TDEE. If you're sedentary my bet is it's less than 2k.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    I kept telling people this while powerlifting. I had several years worth of detailed records of what I ate, down to every sugar free chewing gum I chewed, and while going to the gym 5 times a week combined with a sedentary job, I burned at most around 2000kcal. My bulking diet was at 2400kcal. I was at near competitive level weights at that point. I feel so much obesity is down to people thinking 2k or even 2500kcal is right for them despite an activity level that means they might be closer to 1500kcal-1800kcal. Absolutely concur with your advice to count for a couple of weeks, and I'd back that bet...

lewisl9029 5y ago

I've been having 1 meal a day for several years now (since well before the pandemic), and my weight has stayed pretty much constant throughout. The tricky part for me wasn't getting enough calories, but ensuring I'm getting a good amount and a good variety of nutrients. I try to eat healthy meals most of the time, but even a handful of "cheat" meals per week to indulge my cravings for tasty, non-healthy food can seriously throw off my overall nutrition profile for the week, since I only get 7 of them. I've been trying to balance for that by drinking a bottle of Soylent after every unhealthy meal, basically as a nutritional supplement.

subpixel 5y ago

I work from home and from a solo office. When I’m in the office, I crave a sandwich from the pizza place across the street A) because it’s there and B) to kill the monotony of being in my office. At home I have a far easier time skipping lunch despite there being snacks everywhere.

javchz 5y ago

I'd try to do OMAD (One meal a day) a couple days per week, and at first it's hard not gonna lie, but for me the reward was worth it. The main difference its energy levels. Before it was like a roller coaster of 10/10 minutes after eating, then going low to 5 or 4 in a few hours. With fasting, it's more like a consistent 8/10 across the day. The main challenge with OMAD, it's probably the social aspect, eating it's rarely around calorie consumption. Bonus: Is practical only having to do clean kitchen utensils and dishes one time per day. Lot of time saved.