WEIGHTLINE 049: 87Kg
On Friday, I didn't eat anything until a late dinner at 9:45pm. I had a few coffees and some water during the day, but nothing else. It wasn't deliberate, I was busy doing some overdue work & carpentry around the house, and it wasn't until I went off to play badminton at 7pm that I realized.
My wife was horrified & was convinced I'd return from my exercise a quivering wreck. But no, I didn't even experience moments of physical weakness that I have done in the past when feeling hungry, or more likely when in a downturn sugar cycle! I was absolutely fine & ate heartily. So why wasn't I hungry during the day? I naturally don't eat breakfast at breakfast time. I usually get up, have a cup of coffee & don't eat until around 1pm, or possibly slightly later, so I suppose I was busy enough to just keep going & not notice I'd forgotten to stop for food. So was this bad for me? Is my practice of not eating breakfast ("the most important meal of the day") bad for me?
An article on sharecare.com expresses opinions that are becoming quite prevalent - 'Intermittent fasting can add years to your life'. Essentially, I don't really subscribe to the 'three hearty meals a day' regime & never have. I tend to eat when I'm hungry, especially in the last 48 days. I'm rarely hungry when I wake up & so I start my food when my body asks for it. I've always found that if I start eating early, overall I always eat much more during the course of the day. The human body can survive , indeed thrive, on very little food & our bodies have evolved to cope with feast & famine. Only in the last few thousand years, if that, have we started to eat regularly.
Recently, 'scientists' have begun to notice that our bodies do extremely well when we starve them occasionally. I've begun to notice that without the massive sugar intake in my diet, I'm finding it easier to ignore those gentle food pangs & instead either abstain or drink some water. Now, that can't be bad for me, surely?