Yeah it's a little bit extreme but some people actually do that. Eat today. Fast tomorrow. They alternately do that the whole year. I think that once the body gets to learn your eating habits, it will force you to eat more when you eat to compensate for the day you went without food. So while you could be punishing yourself, you wouldn't be saving much money. The more logical thing to do would be to skip a meal and save a little cash every day, if you have to. If I was in a tight spot, I definitely would consider it.
If I was in a tight spot and thought I did not have enough food to make it I would not fast but I would reduce the amount of food I did eat to make it go farther. I don't know if going without a meal one day would make you eat more the next day it just maybe in the mind.
It doesn't sound too healthy. Eating daily but less food is the better option. Or if money is that tight, buy huge amounts of the cheapest rice available and eat that. There are plenty of monks that eat just rice, but they do eat daily in order to stay healthy. Leading such a life sounds to me harder than the one homeless people have - with a little action they can eat daily in most cases.
I probably would. I don't really eat much a day so it wouldn't really bother me. I usually eat lunch and dinner. I never have time for breakfast and I'm not a big snacker. I'll snack once and a while but I don't do it often. It would probably save money for people that eat three meals a day. I read something a few months ago about intermittent fasting. Its where you can eat one day, nothing the next, then eat again to lose and/or maintain weight. Or you can eat and fast for a certain amount of hours (sometimes 12+) and that is the routine.
I have unwittingly made myself thin-looking (in the face) when I wasn't able to eat during the evenings for several days because I slept early, so I guess I would just skip eating at night before going to sleep so that I can lose weight and save money at the same time.
Absolutely not! There are plenty of things in life you can live without and compromise on not having at that second before you get to stop buying food to save money. Living that way is really unhealthy and as you said, you probably wouldn't be saving all that much money anyway. If someone was in this situation, I would recommend they find a way to tighten their budget and get down to the bare necessities of what you actually need.
To save money, I have switched from buying brand names to store name after I compare the ingredients. I also don't allow myself buying anything if it is not on sales! If I can find coupons for the things that I buy for my family I would do that too. But I can't skip eating. Without food, I feel very shaky!
Fasting will only take a toll on your health when you're not actually used to it. So my personal preference would be to just go cheap. I buy food that's a fraction of the cost of the food rich people usually eat. It's more efficient compared to fasting or complete avoidance of food.
I skip meals completely at random so I don't think I would have problems with a short planned fast. I think more importantly than completely fasting is a) get your food budget under control and b) STOP snacking. I think cutting out a few snacks could save a lot of money and not leave you too far behind on actual nutrition since most snacks are crap. You could also swap in vegetarian meal options instead of meat or breakfast instead of dinner since breakfast foods tend to be cheaper.
I think that I would fast for a little bit but probably not for a very long time. I remember fasting years ago for a charity and I did it with a church group. Nothing bad ever happened to me when I fasted. Some people also fast to lose weight and I know that can be a bit drastic but the person still gets nutrients from liquid. There is a problem with fasting if the person does it way too much like someone with an eating disorder. I enjoy food though so it would be hard for me to just consume liquids a lot.
I would do it but only in an extreme case. At worst I think I'd at least buy myself some crackers or some light snacks or something. I think fasting that extremely may work in the short term but I imagine it might damage your internal organs in the long run. I'm no expert though so maybe that is just a common misconception but I think if you don't eat for long periods of time your stomach turns acidic and you end up giving yourself ulcers which from what I heard is very uncomfortable.
I've done it many times, voluntarily and involuntarily. There have been times when I was short of cash, and I needed to buy something essential to my home or work that couldn't wait, so I had to occasionally "fast" for a day or two, until I got paid. Also, there have been other times when I consciously bought something that cut into my budget in an unfavorable way, usually something that I had wanted for a long time and felt that it was time for a little reward. When I do or did that, I also made a choice at the same time to eat very simple food for a week or so, in order to compensate for the heavy outgoings.
If it's warranted I would probably skip a meal to save some money. The meal that I would skip would probably be lunch so I would have some sort of balance between the remaining two meals. I would probably have to get a cup of tea or soup in between to try to minimise the effects of staying hungry for long periods would have on my stomach. However, this is not something that I could do continuously for a prolonged period because it would pose a danger to my well-being.
Generally speaking, I would never choose to fast to save money but circumstances might force me to. Bad money management would normally be the circumstances. However, with other people, unexpected things like traffic tickets, accidents etc. could also be circumstances. Anyhow, I doubt if a lot of people need to fast but rather they need to cut down on fancy food. In other words, they should only buy the essentials.
I don't think I would make it if a fast but I would just eat less in the day. I even feel too weak when I skip a meal when I am busy. If it means I have to fast so my baby won't suffer hunger then I totally will. It all depends in the situation but if it was only to save money no I wouldn't that would probably make me sick eventually anyway.
My family do observe fasting every first Sunday of the month. We don't eat our supper and breakfast. We stop fasting at noon time of the following day. This means that we skip eating for two meals and the money supposedly spent for that meals are donated by us to the Church to help the poor and the needy. In so doing, our spirituality is increased and our faith is strengthened for we have helped the people and have cleansed our body for that matter. That is our practice and belief.
No, I wouldn't fast to save money that is a very dangerous approach to saving money. What if you develop stomach ulcer or other healthy problems due to malnutrition. If I don't have enough money yet I wouldn't be in a hurry or compelled to save money to the probable detriment of my health. I honestly think skipping food to save money is the worst experience any human being can have.
