Intermittent fasting: dropping from 115 to 112 kg by skipping dinner

Intermittent fasting: losing 3 kg in a week without dinner

Three kilos. That was the net gain after lockdown before the experiment began. The scale hit 115 kg, prompting an unusual response: cutting out dinner entirely. A week later, it read 112 kg; the trinc week, the projection was 109 kg. The person sharing this story carries 20 kg of fat—as they describe it—and has lifted weights since age 15, with diet always being a weak point. Intermittent fasting enters here as an emergency solution, not a trend.

The obstacle isn't willpower. It's the kitchen. At home, the menu is decided by a 70-year-old woman who doesn't understand meal planning, grilled dishes, or low-salt stews, and who refuses to serve her husband "boiled things." Everything cooked is, in the protagonist's words, maternal territory, and discussions have turned into battles no one wants to fight. This scene—traditional stews, deboned but calorie-dense chicken—explains why many people can't simply cook their own meals.

16-8 intermittent fasting, OMAD, and 48-hour fasts

The range of options presented is broad. The initial case limits itself to 16 hours of fasting: breakfast and lunch, no dinner. Others apply the 16-8 window with the last meal at noon, or go straight to one meal a day (OMAD). Some add a weekly 24-hour fast and a long 48-to-56-hour fast every two or three months. The recurring logic: the more hours without blood insulin, the less hunger and the easier it is to burn fat. As an international reference, Novak Djokovic is cited, having stated he goes about 16 hours without eating on many days.

One thing distinguishes those who succeed, according to accounts: what they drink. Black coffee, herbal teas, and water. One participant describes that their problem isn't the stomach, but boredom: opening the fridge unconsciously after finishing a task. And a repeated warning: between meals, no carbohydrates. Olives, almonds, or ham instead of a cookie.

The underlying battle: insulin, leptin, and basal metabolism

The real battlefield isn't the scale, but the hormone. Defenders of fasting argue that the body, without carbs, turns to ketones from fat and produces glucose via gluconeogenesis; that glucose stays above 70 mg/dL autonomously; and that 70% of energy consumption is controlled by the endocrine system. Fat, they add, doesn't need insulin to be stored. They also remind us that fasting isn't exclusive to any diet: Ramadan is, de facto, a month of intermittent fasting.

The counterargument comes from the basal metabolism side. If you eat less, it drops; if you exercise more, it also adjusts. The body seeks equilibrium and compensates inputs with outputs, which would explain why most hypocaloric diets fail in the medium term. A circulating calculation summarizes it in a figure: those who handle it well should save 9,000 kcal per week and add exercise four days a week. The rest, they argue, is bodily adaptation, not willpower.

Success stories and the warning nobody wants to hear

Among positive results, one stands out: a 40-year-old man, 180 cm tall, weighing 71 kg, compared to the 80 kg he weighed a year prior. He runs twice a week, cycles everywhere, and has gained muscle tone. Before, he says, he would fall asleep after a beer and see blurred vision after dessert. He attributes the change to diet and cutting out snacking between meals. His blood work, according to his account, came back perfect, with total cholesterol at 290 mg/dL.

Against this, the warning: hunger doesn't distinguish by schedule, and snacking is the true enemy, not fasting. Some point out that high triglycerides are corrected more by reducing sugar than by eating less.

Is skipping dinner dangerous? What long-term practitioners say

Long-term accounts are, initially, not dramatic. Those who have practiced intermittent fasting for nearly six years claim they haven't yet found negative effects: better skin, less sweating, improved sleep, and greater concentration. Others warn the opposite: that sustained deficit forces the body to lower expenditure, and that the body, programmed to accumulate when food is available and spend when scarce, defends itself. There is no consensus here, and it is worth remembering we are discussing health, not miracle diets.

Can intermittent fasting be maintained for life?

The majority answer is yes, but with nuances. Some view it as a permanent tool, with regular medical check-ups and measurements involved; the experience of a dietitian who insists on not turning it into dogma appears in the narrative. Others are stricter: what is achieved with external help isn't maintained, and only those who learn to read their own metabolism stop needing crutches. Neither stance is fully closed off.

The detail that is disorienting is that the best-case scenario maintains a total cholesterol of 290 mg/dL and describes it as perfect blood work. Throughout the conversation, no one has explained this discrepancy.