Gaaaaaah so hungry!

[Fedorgasm]

I'd done intermittent fasting with an 8 hour eating window and wasn't seeing results, so I recently cut it down to 6 hours and man those 2 hours make a huge difference in terms of difficulty.

I have an hour to go before I can eat and I'm so fucking hungry!

 

[William Huggins]

I'd done intermittent fasting with an 8 hour eating window and wasn't seeing results, so I recently cut it down to 6 hours and man those 2 hours make a huge difference in terms of difficulty.

I have an hour to go before I can eat and I'm so fucking hungry!

Just eat......

 

[Volador]

What kinda results are you looking for?

 

[Fedorgasm]

What kinda results are you looking for?

Fat loss. I have a spare tire, about 35 to 40 lbs away from ideal weight

 

[Robocok]

Bone broth, lemon water, and Redmond's salt all help you get through a fast.

 

[Volador]

Fat loss. I have a spare tire, about 35 to 40 lbs away from ideal weight

If you're just looking to lose some weight, I'd say suffering through 18hs without food every day is pretty pointless. If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose fat, no matter how the deficit is achieved. Of course that is one way, but not sure it's the most sustainable. Conversely, if you fast more hours but don't reduce your calories, it won't achieve anything.

Personally, I'd recommend building good dietary habits that you feel like you can sustain in the long term. Maybe focus on how your weight will be trending from here to 1 or 2 years in the future, more than the next few weeks. You could lose weight by just eating 10-15% less than you were eating before, and adding some lifting/cardio sessions a week, without any fasting. This can be done by reducing portion sizes a bit and replacing some high calorie foods by other options. Foods high in protein, low in fat and high in fiber will be filling and not very calorie dense. I don't think you need to suffer like that, or that it will achieve much, unless someone is paying you for it.

 

[NoSmilez]

Do you count your calories when you don't fast? Calculate your TDEE and be honest with logging in your food. Personally I tend to overshoot everything I log in if I can't get an exact number for it. After a while then you ditch your spreadsheet or app. You will also start to make better food choices when you start realizing how much calories you are consuming.

 

[Fedorgasm]

Bone broth, lemon water, and Redmond's salt all help you get through a fast.

Doesn't bone broth have calories? I thought anything with calories breaks your fast.

 

[Robocok]

Doesn't bone broth have calories? I thought anything with calories breaks your fast.

40 calories per cup with zero carbs. If it's under 50 calories, no carbs that is not going to release insulin. So the difference, as I understand it, is that supplementing bone broth will disrupt the autophagy process but you can still reap the benefits of gut healing on it.

But you know, there's all kinds of misinformation floating around. I know based on how I feel and my miraculous recovery from my autoimmune disorder that it works for me. We'll see if I can actually get to respectable lifting #s. Right now I'm weak but I'm a long way from where I used to be when I couldn't walk

If you're just looking to lose some weight, I'd say suffering through 18hs without food every day is pretty pointless. If you are in a caloric deficit, you will lose fat, no matter how the deficit is achieved. Of course that is one way, but not sure it's the most sustainable. Conversely, if you fast more hours but don't reduce your calories, it won't achieve anything.

Personally, I'd recommend building good dietary habits that you feel like you can sustain in the long term. Maybe focus on how your weight will be trending from here to 1 or 2 years in the future, more than the next few weeks. You could lose weight by just eating 10-15% less than you were eating before, and adding some lifting/cardio sessions a week, without any fasting. This can be done by reducing portion sizes a bit and replacing some high calorie foods by other options. Foods high in protein, low in fat and high in fiber will be filling and not very calorie dense. I don't think you need to suffer like that, or that it will achieve much, unless someone is paying you for it.

1. Fasting without bone broth provides the benefit of autophagy which supposedly helps to cannibalize weaker cells in the body, including cancer cells which we always have present even when you don't have full blown cancer. It's supposed to be like cleaning house in your body.

It's also claimed to help to heal and cleanse your kidney and liver.

2. Fasting with bone broth makes it easier to function and allows your gut to heal. Leaky gut is common nowadays. When and how often you eat is just as important as what you eat. You can lose weight on the twinkie diet if you eat less calories than you burn but is 10 twinkies at 150 calorie each consumed every hour for 10 hours a day going to be desirable for body composition and your general health? No

Fasting along with drinking enough water not only makes it easier to stay in your target calorie range without suffering hunger pangs, it helps the body to heal, cleanse itself, and put your hormones in an ideal range due to lack of insulin spiking.

 

[Volador]

1. Fasting without bone broth provides the benefit of autophagy which supposedly helps to cannibalize weaker cells in the body, including cancer cells which we always have present even when you don't have full blown cancer. It's supposed to be like cleaning house in your body.

It's also claimed to help to heal and cleanse your kidney and liver.

2. Fasting with bone broth makes it easier to function and allows your gut to heal. Leaky gut is common nowadays. When and how often you eat is just as important as what you eat. You can lose weight on the twinkie diet if you eat less calories than you burn but is 10 twinkies at 150 calorie each consumed every hour for 10 hours a day going to be desirable for body composition and your general health? No

Fasting along with drinking enough water not only makes it easier to stay in your target calorie range without suffering hunger pangs, it helps the body to heal, cleanse itself, and put your hormones in an ideal range due to lack of insulin spiking.

Stop speaking in absolutes like "X is easier". What is easier to adhere to will vary for each individual. Those kinds of statements make no sense and are not true. And please stop using YouTube as your only source of information and making baseless claims.

If your goal is to lose weight, and keep it off, it doesn't matter. Whichever pattern is more sustainable will elicit the better long term outcome. You're cherry-picking the stuff you're interested in, and so are those videos. If you type "calorie restriction vs IF study", some studies fall one way, some fall the other, and most of them show very similar outcomes for both protocols. In other words, there's no strong evidence for any of the stuff you're talking about. If he fasts, but eats more than normal during his meals, it won't work. He would lose weight anyway if he restricted his calories, and this can be done in other ways; this is a simple fact, and is all I was saying.

Just to give you an example, these are just some of the top results from googling, all from peer reviewed medical journals. As a note, CR = Caloric restriction, IF = Intermittent Fasting, ADF = Alternate day fasting:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304782/

Results
Eleven trials were included (duration range 8–24 weeks). (...)

The intermittent approach determined a comparable weight-loss or percent weight loss when compared to the continuous approach. A slight reduction in fasting insulin concentrations was evident with IER regimens (WMD = − 0.89 µU/mL; − 1.56 to − 0.22; p = 0.009), but the clinical relevance of this result is uncertain. No between-arms differences in the other variables were found.

Conclusions
Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction achieved a comparable effect in promoting weight-loss and metabolic improvements. Long-term trials are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Another:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24993615/

Accordingly, the goal of this review was to compare the effects of IF with daily CR on body weight, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese adults. Results reveal superior decreases in body weight by CR vs IF/ADF regimens, yet comparable reductions in visceral fat mass, fasting insulin, and insulin resistance. None of the interventions produced clinically meaningful reductions in glucose concentrations (...) more research is required before solid conclusions can be reached.

Last one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8749464/

"CR has been shown to reduce inflammatory processes in rodents, primates, and humans (Flanagan et al, 2020). IF shows similar outcomes in humans (Patterson & Sears, 2017), although the effects have not been systemically studied."

"CR delays and diminishes the occurrence of induced and spontaneous cancer throughout aging in mice (Weindruch, 1992; Brandhorst & Longo, 2016) and rhesus monkeys (Colman et al, 2009; Mattison et al, 2017). Similar observations have been made for IF in rodents.

(...)

Collectively, CR and IF seem to bear anti‐neoplastic potential, but decisive clinical trials are rare and urgently needed."

Last one for real:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/

"Results from these intervention trials suggest that these eating patterns result in weight loss, with modest and mixed effects on glucoregulatory markers, lipids and inflammatory markers. However, there is little evidence to suggest that modified alternate day fasting produces superior weight loss or metabolic changes in comparison to standard energy restriction regimens."

"Although limited, these data suggest that alternate day fasting regimens can result in modest weight loss. These data also show some positive impacts on metabolic parameters, even though these studies enrolled normal-weight adults who were unlikely to show substantial improvements in metabolic risk factors. However, Heilbronn et al6 noted that self-reported hunger on fasting days was considerable and did not decrease over time, suggesting that alternate day fasting may not be a feasible public health intervention."


Etcetera, etcetera.

Taking the findings as a whole, none of what you say has been shown to be be uniquely correlated to IF. And a lot of the benefits are from fat loss itself, which can be achieved with or without fasting. Even if some small benefit could be speculated on, it has to be put in context of real life application. If someone wants to lose weight, they're free to choose either approach, but it makes sense to prioritize whatever can be sustained over time, not some speculative stuff. If they want to experiment with IF, that's fine, might do that myself some day. However, the only way it will work for weight loss is if it somehow results in less calories. The other alleged benefits are outside the scope of what I was telling the TS, and the evidence is inconclusive for them anyway.

 

[Robocok]

Stop speaking in absolutes like "X is easier". What is easier to adhere to will vary for each individual. Those kinds of statements make no sense and are not true. And please stop using YouTube as your only source of information and making baseless claims.

If your goal is to lose weight, and keep it off, it doesn't matter. Whichever pattern is more sustainable will elicit the better long term outcome. You're cherry-picking the stuff you're interested in, and so are those videos. If you type "calorie restriction vs IF study", some studies fall one way, some fall the other, and most of them show very similar outcomes for both protocols. In other words, there's no strong evidence for any of the stuff you're talking about. If he fasts, but eats more than normal during his meals, it won't work. He would lose weight anyway if he restricted his calories, and this can be done in other ways; this is a simple fact, and is all I was saying.

Just to give you an example, these are just some of the top results from googling, all from peer reviewed medical journals. As a note, CR = Caloric restriction, IF = Intermittent Fasting, ADF = Alternate day fasting:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6304782/

Results
Eleven trials were included (duration range 8–24 weeks). (...)

The intermittent approach determined a comparable weight-loss or percent weight loss when compared to the continuous approach. A slight reduction in fasting insulin concentrations was evident with IER regimens (WMD = − 0.89 µU/mL; − 1.56 to − 0.22; p = 0.009), but the clinical relevance of this result is uncertain. No between-arms differences in the other variables were found.

Conclusions
Both intermittent and continuous energy restriction achieved a comparable effect in promoting weight-loss and metabolic improvements. Long-term trials are needed to draw definitive conclusions.

Another:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24993615/

Accordingly, the goal of this review was to compare the effects of IF with daily CR on body weight, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, and insulin sensitivity in overweight and obese adults. Results reveal superior decreases in body weight by CR vs IF/ADF regimens, yet comparable reductions in visceral fat mass, fasting insulin, and insulin resistance. None of the interventions produced clinically meaningful reductions in glucose concentrations (...) more research is required before solid conclusions can be reached.

Last one:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8749464/

"CR has been shown to reduce inflammatory processes in rodents, primates, and humans (Flanagan et al, 2020). IF shows similar outcomes in humans (Patterson & Sears, 2017), although the effects have not been systemically studied."

"CR delays and diminishes the occurrence of induced and spontaneous cancer throughout aging in mice (Weindruch, 1992; Brandhorst & Longo, 2016) and rhesus monkeys (Colman et al, 2009; Mattison et al, 2017). Similar observations have been made for IF in rodents.

(...)

Collectively, CR and IF seem to bear anti‐neoplastic potential, but decisive clinical trials are rare and urgently needed."

Last one for real:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/

"Results from these intervention trials suggest that these eating patterns result in weight loss, with modest and mixed effects on glucoregulatory markers, lipids and inflammatory markers. However, there is little evidence to suggest that modified alternate day fasting produces superior weight loss or metabolic changes in comparison to standard energy restriction regimens."

"Although limited, these data suggest that alternate day fasting regimens can result in modest weight loss. These data also show some positive impacts on metabolic parameters, even though these studies enrolled normal-weight adults who were unlikely to show substantial improvements in metabolic risk factors. However, Heilbronn et al6 noted that self-reported hunger on fasting days was considerable and did not decrease over time, suggesting that alternate day fasting may not be a feasible public health intervention."


Etcetera, etcetera.

Taking the findings as a whole, none of what you say has been shown to be be uniquely correlated to IF. And a lot of the benefits are from fat loss itself, which can be achieved with or without fasting. Even if some small benefit could be speculated on, it has to be put in context of real life application. If someone wants to lose weight, they're free to choose either approach, but it makes sense to prioritize whatever can be sustained over time, not some speculative stuff. If they want to experiment with IF, that's fine, might do that myself some day. However, the only way it will work for weight loss is if it somehow results in less calories. The other alleged benefits are outside the scope of what I was telling the TS, and the evidence is inconclusive for them anyway.

I understand the disdain that you have for YouTube videos as a source of information



I have the same feeling for the peer reviewed research that you share as the vast majority is funded by pharma. Take this into account and also why they are even performing certain studies in the first place. All parameters of the studies and those involved are hand picked to give a desired result. I contend that you're underestimating the influence that pharma has had on modern medicine as a whole. This is why I see so many overweight dieticians, nutritionists, and doctors.

Would you take nutritional advice from this character?



And yet, this individual is the health minister of a first world country.



I personally know an individual who was diagnosed with liver cancer and given 6 weeks to live. He immediately engaged in a water fast for 3 weeks. 23 years later, he is thriving. These kinds of stories are routinely dismissed as anecdotal evidence, including my own miraculous recovery from debilitating psoriatic arthritis.

6 different doctors all prescribed me immunosuppressive medication. It was expensive and came with terrible side effects. I discovered aip diet and intermittent fasting in the comments section of a YouTube video and it saved my life. I went from not being able to walk to being able to train in a gym again in only 3 weeks thanks to my diet. When I told my doctor about the diet after he commented on how much better I looked, he shrugged his shoulders and muttered that he'd heard of it before.

The reason that fasting, which has been recommended for thousands of years for it's healing power, will never ever be backed by peer reviewed research. The world runs on money, not good will, and it's not in the financial interest of pharmaceutical companies to have people healing themselves for free and getting off medication.

We take more pharmaceutical drugs and spend more money on health care in the US than any other country in the world and rank only 46th for average lifespan so something is clearly not working.

 

[Robocok]

Another problem with those studies is that the participants are cheating. Most people lack the willpower to honestly adhere to a strict fast or diet, but don't want to admit to this.

Friend just texted this to me yesterday out of the blue.

 

[Fedorgasm]

I've tried counting calories and found that I wasn't very good at it.

I used MyFitnessPal, and it was really easy to log packaged food because you could just scan the bar code. But then when I felt like cooking something with a lot of ingredients, I'd have to log each ingredient and it became a real pain.

So you could just enter the generic version, like homemade jambalaya, but depending on how you make it, jambalaya can have a very wide range of calories.

Anyway, my point is that I found calorie-counting very hard. But skipping breakfast is very easy for me so that's what attracted me to IF. And as long as I had an 8 hour eating window then it wasn't that hard. Cutting it to 6 makes it much harder for me, but I am losing weight now.

I don't know if it's because of fasting benefits or if it's simply because fasting is a way to limit my calories, but either way, it's working for me right now, even though it's hard.

 

[Volador]

I have the same feeling for the peer reviewed research that you share

That's an irrational and, frankly, stupid feeling. I get the sense that you have never met a researcher or read a book in your entire life.

as the vast majority is funded by pharma.

No, it's not. Feel free to demonstrate this. Otherwise, stop making shit up. Most of them come from universities in different countries, most of them publicly funded for the sake of research by different health deparments. You are deluded on this point.

Take this into account and also why they are even performing certain studies in the first place.

The reason is because science is about learning the mechanisms behind stuff in order to see what works and what doesn't. You can't do that without studying them. Without studies and research you wouldn't have any of the comforts or medicine you have today. In fact, most of the studies show that IF does "work". It just doesn't necessarily work much better than other approaches or provide all the benefits the fanatics say it provides. But of course you didn't bother reading any of it, and if you did, you did not understand it, which really isn't surprising.

I personally know an individual who was diagnosed with liver cancer and given 6 weeks to live. He immediately engaged in a water fast for 3 weeks. 23 years later, he is thriving.

No one cares.

We take more pharmaceutical drugs and spend more money on health care in the US than any other country in the world and rank only 46th for average lifespan so something is clearly not working.

None of that has anything to do with calorie restriction vs IF, since neither of them require taking any drugs. And if you bothered reading, you would see that most of them are pretty open and favorable towards IF, it's just that it's not proven to provide additional benefits vs more traditional calorie restriction. That is all. They don't say that IF is unhealthy in general, and neither do I, but of course you did not read anything. None of the studies is advocating for drugs either or saying IF is not a viable path for some people. That's not even the point of the post. You truly are deeply ignorant and uneducated man.

Another problem with those studies is that the participants are cheating. Most people lack the willpower to honestly adhere to a strict fast or diet, but don't want to admit to this.

Friend just texted this to me yesterday out of the blue.

View attachment 931802

The studies don't say that people don't lose weight during a fast, they say the opposite. So, those results are not surprising, rather, they are expected. But of course you didn't read. And your friend lost weight after eating next to nothing for a month: Mind blowing stuff.

I've tried counting calories and found that I wasn't very good at it.

I used MyFitnessPal, and it was really easy to log packaged food because you could just scan the bar code. But then when I felt like cooking something with a lot of ingredients, I'd have to log each ingredient and it became a real pain.

So you could just enter the generic version, like homemade jambalaya, but depending on how you make it, jambalaya can have a very wide range of calories.

Anyway, my point is that I found calorie-counting very hard. But skipping breakfast is very easy for me so that's what attracted me to IF. And as long as I had an 8 hour eating window then it wasn't that hard. Cutting it to 6 makes it much harder for me, but I am losing weight now.

I don't know if it's because of fasting benefits or if it's simply because fasting is a way to limit my calories, but either way, it's working for me right now, even though it's hard.

Hey, if it works better for you, then it works. Anything that allows you to reduce calories will work. I was just giving an alternative in case it was too hard to stick to. For me it's easier to reduce portion size when needed because my meals are pretty similar every day, so simply making a bit less of the same dish means I don't need to count everything, and I don't mind eating the same thing every day. But hopefully you keep losing weight and it goes well. Can't give much advice for dealing with hunger during those feeding windows because I haven't tried it.

 

[Robocok]

That's an irrational and, frankly, stupid feeling. I get the sense that you have never met a researcher or read a book in your entire life.



No, it's not. Feel free to demonstrate this. Otherwise, stop making shit up. You have zero idea of what you're talking about. Most of them come from universities in different countries, most of them publicly funded for the sake of research by different health deparments. You are deluded.



The reason is because science is about learning the mechanisms behind stuff in order to see what works and what doesn't. You can't do that without studying them. Without studies and research you wouldn't have any of the comforts or medicine you have today. In fact, most of the studies show that IF does "work". It just doesn't necessarily work much better than other approaches or provide all the benefits the fanatics say it provides. You really can't be this profoundly stupid, I refuse to believe it.



No one cares.



None of that has anything to do with calorie restriction vs IF, since neither of them require taking any drugs. And if you bothered reading, you would see that most of them are pretty open towards IF, it's just that it's not proven to provide additional benefits vs more traditional calorie restriction. That is all. They don't say that IF is unhealthy in general, and neither do I, but of course you did not read anything. None of the studies is advocating for drugs either or saying IF is not a viable path for some people. That's not even the point of the post. You truly are deeply, deeply dumb and extremely uneducated man. Not just that, but you are also unquestioning of your own ignorance and don't bother even trying to understand what people are saying, which is just sad.



Hey now worries, if it works better for you, then it works. Anything that allows you to reduce calories will work. I was just giving an alternative in case it was too hard to stick to. For me it's easy to reduce portion size when needed because my meals are pretty similar every day and I don't mind eating the same stuff, so simply making a bit less of the same dish means I don't need to count everything. But hopefully you keep losing weight and it goes well. Can't give much advice for dealing with hunger during those feeding windows because I haven't tried them.

I'm an avid reader. I think you are just frustrated so you're resorting to insults.

My girlfriend's daughter in California is in medical school and has suffered from depression due to her irrational fear of covid and self imposed lockdowns. I know she was involved in research in San Francisco regarding gut microbiome and how it relates to intelligence in rats. My old dentist was double masked during all of our appointments and is one of the unhealthiest people I've ever seen. I see a doctor in my town during work who is overweight and recently spoke with an obese dietitian. I politely implored her about why she is overweight. She rage quit. 20 years ago I was an athlete in a study on lactic acid build up during cycling at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs.

None of this makes anyone more or less qualified than anyone else. You're resorting to arguments from authority at this point in addition to insults. Advice is either right, wrong, or a combination of the two regardless of credentials and testing parameters and research on which it's based.

You should care about the fact that people have successfully self cured cancer through fasting. My uncle died from upper gi cancer a few years ago. He declined fast and I was baffled to see him binging on pepperoni pizza on the advice of his doctor with the idea that he should keep his weight up.

I pointed out that cured meats are actually known to be a contributing factor of gi cancer and he chose to stick with his doctor's advice. Less than 3 months later he was gone.

When I got sick and couldn't walk for 2 weeks, I listened to all 6 of my doctors and followed their advice to a t. Not one of them ever mentioned a word about diet.

You're a big oaf who thinks you have the answers because you have better lifts than I do. I have always struggled to gain weight and muscle due to having an extremely high metabolism. I also trained as a cyclist and didn't start lifting until I was almost 30 so I got a late start. That said, I will be breaking 400lbs for deadlift before the end of this year.

On top of that, I could beat you in any kind of cycling or running event. You're a dumb ox and if I listened to 'experts and researchers' like you when I suffered from psoriatic arthritis which has been completely gone ever since I changed to intermittent fasting and aip diet 7 years ago, I'd be dead. Your advice sucks and anyone with the willpower to follow strict aip and intermittent fasting is going to have better results than any of your studies funded by pharma who donated $60 million to the universities that you hold in such high regard before the start of the covid plannedemic.

 

[Robocok]

For ts, a longer fast is also going to be easier because after day 2 or 3, you're not going to feel as hungry anymore. At least that's what I've read from people who've tried it and have nothing to gain from sharing said advice unlike 'researchers' at universities that receive enormous grants from the giant festering sore that is pharma

 

[NoSmilez]

I've tried counting calories and found that I wasn't very good at it.

I used MyFitnessPal, and it was really easy to log packaged food because you could just scan the bar code. But then when I felt like cooking something with a lot of ingredients, I'd have to log each ingredient and it became a real pain.

So you could just enter the generic version, like homemade jambalaya, but depending on how you make it, jambalaya can have a very wide range of calories.

Anyway, my point is that I found calorie-counting very hard. But skipping breakfast is very easy for me so that's what attracted me to IF. And as long as I had an 8 hour eating window then it wasn't that hard. Cutting it to 6 makes it much harder for me, but I am losing weight now.

I don't know if it's because of fasting benefits or if it's simply because fasting is a way to limit my calories, but either way, it's working for me right now, even though it's hard.

The trick is so really sit down and prepack the meat and vegetables in small packets in one shot. It was a pain to log in everytime you cooked but it became easier when I started to make my own packaged portions. I stored them in a one big freezer bag and used when I needed it. After a month or so then you start to figure out what a serving looks like and know calories off the top of your head.

 

[DEVILsSON]

I do IF most days of 16-18 off 6-8 on. It's not overly challenging once you get used to it. Make sure your calories are nutritionally dense. You should also try not to drink any calories outside of maybe low calorie (low sugar) protein/collagen shakes.

I have done multiple 36-48 hour fasts (both with and without water). My last 48 hour dry fast was actually quite easy because I stayed home and took it easy. I did feel lethargic but didn't have any major hunger pangs. I still haven't made it to 3 days yet. I have been told hunger goes away around day 3 or 4.

I have read people suggest taking metamucil or another fiber supplement to reduce or eliminate the feeling of hunger during water fasts.

You can also try drinking water with a table spoon or two of apple cider vinegar to see if helps with hunger/cravings. It honestly takes like kombucha to me. I was really bracing for the taste but it wasn't bad at all, in fact I went to sipping it.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/does-apple-cider-vinegar-break-a-fast

 

[Contempt]

I'd done intermittent fasting with an 8 hour eating window and wasn't seeing results, so I recently cut it down to 6 hours and man those 2 hours make a huge difference in terms of difficulty.

I have an hour to go before I can eat and I'm so fucking hungry!

Just order a pizza, you'll be fine.

 

[deadshot138]

Just order a pizza, you'll be fine.

Oi ya cunt mate