Paleo Diet and Paleolithic Diet Questions & Answers

Question

0

Hey all,

At work I like to maintain my thought clarity and I find the best way to avoid the 'sleepies' is to not eat a big lunch. My preference usually would be to not eat anything but socially it's not acceptable to go outside for a lunch break and sit there not eating any food. Hence I often take an orange as a convenient food.

I like to think there is benefit to fasting.. going from 6am to 7pm without a meal helps me develop real hunger. I also like the idea of giving my digestive system a break. I don't know much about the fasting thing as I don't have any weight issues.

To those who do some 12 hr fasts / compressed eating windows, do you think of a small piece of fruit as negating the benefits of a fast (because technically it is no longer a fast.. but what makes a fast so good anyway?)?

Cheers

flag	asked May 11 2012 at 10:54 PaleoMouth 814●4●10

If you must sit in on a lunch have a salad with spinach only and CO as a dressing. According to the Jaminet's it is just consuming zero-cal leafy greens and the CO has good fats to keep up the fast. It won't negate it since the fast has to do with carbs and protein. Eating an orange will. Is that an okay alternative for you? You can always eat your orange later once the fast is broken. – YoungPaleoLover Jun 30 at 10:58

wildwabbit · Answer 1 · 2012-05-11 11:23:14Z UTC

2

If you question "what makes a fast so good anyway", in other words, the whole premise of a fast, you have bigger questions needing to be answered than whether eating an orange "technically" breaks a fast.

answered May 11 2012 at 11:23

wildwabbit
2,530●3●13

Can you elaborate further? – Sara S. May 11 2012 at 14:59

1

Well, its really a form of logic. The question centered around whether an orange breaks a fast - then the question about the value of the fast in general came up. The latter question needs to be resolved first in one's mind before one worries about whether a orange is detrimental. If one doesn't perceive the value of a fast, the orange question is meaningless, there is no point in asking, one better focus first on asking and learning about fasts... – wildwabbit May 12 2012 at 0:43

tdgor · Answer 2 · 2012-05-11 13:35:03Z UTC

2

"My preference usually would be to not eat anything but socially it's not acceptable to go outside for a lunch break and sit there not eating any food."

Go for a walk.

answered May 11 2012 at 13:35

tdgor
2,183●3●11

Who cares if it's socially acceptable? I'm over this. It's not acceptable to me to bend my will for others when the food I eat and how I eat it enriches my entire life. It's not that i'm being purposely rude by declining a meal, it's that my quality of life depends on it. – Zach May 11 2012 at 17:35

mmddyyyy · Answer 3 · 2012-05-11 12:35:38Z UTC

There are many possible benefits to IF'ing. Are you fasting as a method to benefit from autophagy, mental clarity, or any other reasons? Or, are you only looking for convenience and the "hunger factor"? What are you eating for breakfast prior to the start of the 12 hour fast? I find that if I eat a breakfast full of healthy fat and a reasonable dose of protein, I can easily go 12 hours without feeling true hunger. Eating an orange or other fruit during that time, for me, would spike hunger within a couple hours and I'd choose instead to snack on some veg. Mark's Daily Apple might be one good place to start further research on the benefits of IF. He recently wrote a series:

Why Fast

Aleen · Answer 4 · 2012-05-11 16:38:56Z UTC

1

I'm a bit confused by the societal pressure thing. Why isn't acceptable to go sit outside and sit during your lunch break instead of eating? Maybe it's just me, but I don't really care what my coworkers do on their lunch breaks.

answered May 11 2012 at 16:38

Aleen
582●2●6

PrimalDanny · Answer 5 · 2012-05-11 12:20:07Z UTC

0

The only real benefit from a 12 hour fast is that you're not eating constantly. It will probably naturally encourage good food choices because real food lasts longer and doesn't cause cravings. There's not really anything to break though. The benefits of fasting generally need at least 16 hours + an intense workout, or 24+ hours.

answered May 11 2012 at 12:20

PrimalDanny
5,047●3●14

	I have heard from Robb Wolf's podcasts that 16 hours is optimal (intense workout unnecessary), not a minimum, depending on your goals. Twenty-fours hours is unnecessary for many of the benefits, like autophagy, and I remember some reasons for that length being contraindicated. I haven't looked into it on my own, though. Why do you recommend 16 hours plus an intense workout at the end as a minimum? – Sara S. May 11 2012 at 15:03
	It depends massively on context, but 12 hours is just normal eating. People with all kinds of eating and health issues go 12 hours every night without eating. If you can find anything on IF that only uses a 12 hour window please share it. 16 hours is a 'convenience' optimum. It takes weeks of fasting for your body to really adjust. I don't think it's extreme to suggest 16 hours is on the low end of the spectrum. – PrimalDanny May 11 2012 at 19:30

Wayne daniels · Answer 6 · 2012-05-11 18:19:06Z UTC

-1

Not sure if serious.Eating anything will break the fast.

answered May 11 2012 at 18:19

Wayne daniels

community wiki

By definition.. hence the question delving into more about the benefits rather than the rule. – PaleoMouth May 12 2012 at 3:02

Does eating a orange in the middle of a 12 hr fast negate the benefits?

6 Answers