Kohsamida

“Show me the money!”  That’s what it’s all about regarding vaping in Thailand.  The ban has nothing to do with health concerns.  Its’ intention is simply to protect tax revenue from the sale of tobacco, and to protect revenue to powerful and influential tobacco product producers and distributors.

It’s all such nonsense!  If the concerns were about health, it would be tobacco that was banned, not vaping.  

It seems to be a weekly enforced law though.  I vape (often in public) and have never had legal issues.  I try to be discrete but I know on more than one occasion I’ve been observed vaping by a police officer and nothing happened.  I’m guessing they didn’t need pocket money that day.  

On one occasion, upon check in at the airport for an outbound domestic flight, security detected a vaping device in my check-in luggage.  All they did was instruct me to remove the batteries and put them in my carry-on bag.

Things are about to change though (for the better).  Due to pressure from influential sources, the ban may very well be lifted within the next twelve months, as soon as the government comes up with a plan to tax them....It’s ALL about the money!

5 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Look at it this way. Clearly, table salt is high sodium, a processed item, and raises blood pressure. That, in itself, is damaging enough to avoid table salt - whatever the relative costs.  This is another example of marketing processed, versus natural. I suggest readers get into the mind set that 'processed anything' only supports the food and meds industry, not the consumer. It's a scandal as great as the tobacco industry, IMO. 

 

As a rule of thumb I try and avoid anything with a contents label stuck on it - if there is a natural alternative. 

 

Any other salt that contains less sodium and some potassium, and a smidgeon of other minerals must be a better health bet in the long-term - or even have short-term benefits that sodium salt doesn't. As with most consumption, moderation is key.

 

BTW Foods rich in iodine include seaweed -ugh, unprocessed dairy, tuna, shrimp and eggs. All 'natural'. 

 

If I was to clean my colon and relieve/re-adjust a constipated body, I'd use a 'healthy salt' flush, comprising of two teaspoons of potassium rich salt mixed thoroughly to dissolve in a one liter glass of room-temperature warm water with added lemon juice first thing after waking, and consuming in a five minute window.

 

I wouldn't stray far from the toilet in the next two hours whilst the flush worked its way through the body and flushed out bodily waste. As a one-off cleanser, it's natural, efficient, healthy and safe.    

 

 

To be honest, I never gave it much thought before but considering the fact that table salt is actually stripped of potassium and unprocessed salts such as Himalayan or Celtic are not, I guess it does in fact make sense to use an unprocessed salt, just to assure potassium / sodium balance is maintained in the body...Learn something new every day????.  Thanks for pointing that out.

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

... https://draxe.com/pink-himalayan-salt/   Well worth a read. ...

My problem with these alternatives to regular table salt is that there is really no scientific evidence that they are any better than regular (inexpensive) table salt.  If there were definitive and reputable studies, I'm sure promotors would make that clear, but they don't.  Instead they just use a lot of superlatives and imply unsubstantiated health benefits as your article pointed out like these:

That just seems plain silly to me that Himalayan salt is going to boost libido LOL!  And these other claims of their superiority seem pretty far fetched and quite unprovable.

Perhaps they contain more minerals than regular table salt but I can get those same minerals far cheaper from a multi-vitamin supplement that contains minerals. 

The only health reason to use salt is for the sodium and for the taste IMO, and also for the trace amount of iodine (which is actually quite important, and which is not even contained in most alternative salts like Himalayan or Celtic types).

The real bottom line is cost.  There's no reason that these alternative salts should be priced so exorbitantly high except for the fact that the marketing hype makes them seem far more desirable than they really are.

Just my opinion.  I'm no expert on salt but I get very suspicious of things like this.

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

https://draxe.com/pink-himalayan-salt/

 

Well worth a read. Salt is salt but some are more healthier than others. Certainly high percentages of sodium can increase blood pressure, and in my case I only take less than a teaspoon of the potassium rich sources like Himalayan salt once a day.

 

As for the electrolyte mix, it's a US Drug company processed package full of chemicals and ambiguous contents statements, albeit professed to contain high levels of potassium and magnesium, and zero sodium. Nevertheless, I shall continue to mix my own from natural ingredients, for the simple rationale that my mix is (as far as it can be ascertained) natural. 

 

Rule of thumb. Never trust drug companies to divulge any health risk aspect because it's a multi-trillion industry supported by the medical practitioners who earn a superlative income by prescribing the drug companies' products to the uninformed masses.

You make a good point about drug companies being selective about what they divulge.  However, I've been using this product for a long time and it was recommended by a lot of other athletes I know so I'm comfortable with it.  Of course, making your own from scratch is preferable but I'm too lazy for that LOL!

I should point out something I didn't mention re salt needs in previous post because I don;t want to lead people astray.  I do in fact supplement with salt after a particularly brutal workout or competitive event when I know in no uncertain terms I've lost significant NaCl but it's rare I get in that state.  For a normal workout, I don't bother.  Just didn't want people to think NaCl supplementation is unnecessary under extreme conditions, but the conditions most weekend athletes experience are not really that extreme IMO. 

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

Disclaimer: this is not medical advice, just my understanding and what works for me.

 

Coffee is scientifically recognised as now being a health benefit  - (recent studies have generally found no connection between moderate consumption of coffee and an increased risk of heart disease or cancer) - when consumed as follows:

 

if water fasting, wait for the body to 'wake-up' in the morning before drinking coffee. In other words, don't drink coffee to wake up your body. That's best practice in any situation.

 

Instead, drink a glass of sugar-free electrolytes, first thing. A combination of a spoonful of cider vinegar, and a sprinkle of ginger, potassium salt, e.g. himalayan (the key ingredient), and freshly squeezed half a lemon or lime, and perhaps cayenne/chilli/turmeric sprinkling should not take you out of Ketosis, and/or Autophagy. 

 

The above works for me because my body has adapted to Ketosis, but bear in mind each person's reaction is different, and if any doubt, just add potassium salt to warm water with a teaspoon squeeze of lemon for flavour.

 

A couple of cups of caffeine coffee, drunk black, is best consumed around midday to early afternoon, but not later, or before bed, because it would most likely keep you awake. I don't drink Decaf, albeit it could benefit others who have an adverse reaction to caffeine. For example, I doubt 5-10 cups of coffee or more per day would be beneficial in the long-term.

 

As with most nutritious consumptions, moderation, e.g. alcohol and (diet) variation are key elements to longevity. I mention variation, because the human gut is overflowing with both good and bad bacteria, and - IMO - different foods keep the different types of 'good' working effectively in negating the 'bad'.

 

Sounds good to me.  I'm not quite as regimented as you (though nothing wrong with doing it your way).  I sort of disagree about Himalayan salt being that important.  Just my personal view but I think salt is simply NaCl, and all the hype about Himalayan salt being special seems mostly to be marketing hype...but I may be wrong.

I use pre-packaged sports electrolyte mix (not necessarily for fasting but every day since I'm in this harsh Thai climate and am into outdoor endurance sports.  It's fairly cheap, tastes good, and won't kick you out of ketosis.  I just mix a packet into my water bottle and I'm good to go. 

Just want to point out that for short term water fasting (72 hours and under) electrolyte supplementation is really not essential IMO.  Excessive electrolyte excretion due to effects of ketosis only occurs once glycogen stores are depleted and insulin levels drop so really that does not occur until a short term fast is about to end. 

Further, most people who are fasting are fairly sedentary during the fast and avoid being outdoors under harsh conditions so excessive electrolytes loss from these sources is also not a factor in short-term fasting.  Doesn't hurt to use them during a fast, just not essential.  Beyond a 72 hour fast it is advisable to supplement just to avoid "keto flue" but even then a good multi-vitamin with minerals will protect you just fine.

I provide for salt needs just from regular use of table salt on foods.  Some of my outdoor mid-day workouts get pretty intense under a hot sun but I've never felt a need for salt supplementation, and excessive salt can have a seriously negative effect on blood pressure (at least for me).

For anyone interested, for a while I had extremely high blood pressure (180/120).  Cutting salt from my diet ( I was a huge fan of salt on everything, and in excessive amounts) brought my BP into the normal range in only a matter of days!  My doctor didn't provide that advice; instead he put me on Statins!  I had to figure this out for myself.  So...the moral is "take responsibility for your own health" and don't rely on others to do that for you...especially prescription-happy doctors!

[ Just my personal take on all of this; everyone should decide for themselves when it comes to their personal health and well being ].

1 hour ago, beau thai said:

Thank you for your full reply.

I get what you are saying about listening to your body etc, but it is extremely difficult to isolate the good from the bad.

 

For example, when my digestive system was a mess earlier this year, I started on daily kefir which seemed to be beneficial. It took me about 3 months to work out that as a result of very strong medication last year, I am now lactose intolerant. Having tried non lactose kefirs which dont work well, I have given up kefir and I am far better. But is it that or something else? 

 

I have always enjoyed cooked onions without problems but od'd on them earlier in a spanish omelette at a restaurant. Really messed me up, and even a little cooked onion now is problematic. 

Basically as we have multiple foodstuff each day, trial and error to isolate the good from the bad is a lengthy process - unless you have found shortcuts somehow?

 

Thank you again for your time

Unfortunately I know of no shortcuts to eliminating problem type foods.  You just have to eliminate one at a time and see howe you feel.  It is painstaking but when you isolate a suspect food, it's well worth the effort.

Have your clinical issues resolved fully?  I mean, have you recently had a metabolic panel, etc done?  What does your doctor have to say?  If I were in your position I'd start with diagnostics through your doctor (metabolic panel, etc) to see what's going on presently and then go from there. Basically you'd want to rule out any clinical conditions that might show up in diagnostic testing first before doing anything else.

Have your doctor go over the result with you, one by one, and request a copy of the test results so you can further explore them on your own.  Many doctors are excellent diagnosticians but some are not.  You need to have confidence that your doctor is, but if in doubt, or he/she is unwilling to sit down with you or give you a copy of the results, find another doctor.

If you have a clean bill of health from your doctor, I'd consider a short water fast to reset your metabolic hormonal balance.  If you are already doing 16:8 eating schedule, your body is already acclimated to lowered insulin levels so going for a full 24 hour fast isn't going to be too hard.  Follow it with a 48 hour fast a few weeks later, and then finally a 72 hour fast when you feel up to that.

Unless you have a specific medical condition where fasting is directly contraindicated,  fasting up to 72 hours is entirely safe IMO, and it is a very potent way to quickly restore metabolic hormonal imbalances that could be the underlying cause of digestive issues or the inability to effectively lose fat under caloric deficits.  Science supports this notion, and my own personal experience at fasting confirms it.

I can only say that short-term fasting has worked quite well for me.  Typically I fast for 72 hours once a month or once every other month simply because I believe it keeps my metabolic health optimized.  After you acclimate to this kind of fasting, it's a walk in the park; no serious hunger or cravings, no ill effects at all, no loss of energy at all, and the difference in how you feel at the conclusion is immediate and quite profound.

I know it sounds simplistic but I really think of these kinds of fasts as a sort of "spring cleaning" that gets your metabolic health optimized.  What amazes me always is how quickly the benefits of fasting are felt.

As for inability to lose weight, I'm a firm believer that metabolic imbalances play a huge role!  If, for instance, your insulin / leptin balance is not optimal, you will have issues accessing stored body fat.  Short term water fasting restores such imbalances quickly and effectively in many cases.

Again, just want to emphasize that the starting point is a visit to your doctor for diagnostic tests. so you know where you are at presently.  

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

Let me clarify, my  understanding of fasting is a state of no food for a period of time ranging 5,10,15,20 days or more for rehabilitation of poor health / illness, anything else is a diet fad with little real benefit in the longer term. 

What you and many others are talking about is not eating for 2 - 3 days, it has its benefits for some people but has absolutely nothing to do with fasting for return of good health. If I sense a cold or similar coming on, I will not eat for 2/3 to allow the body to concentrate on the bug and not having to concentrate on digesting food, the bodies first priority. 

 

Fasting is only for loosing weight for vanity is pure nonsense.

 

I would suggest a little research on long term fasting in the case of illness and its benefits. 

As for saying I don't seem to understand the metabolic science of the fasted state, is incorrect. 

 

Not trying to start an argument here about fasting and health, I learnt more than 30 years to say what I have to say - if people want to listen that's good - if not, I'll just keep it to myself and look after my own well being. 

Your definition of "fasting" as you stated above is grossly incorrect.  Technically, the term "fasting" implies no time constraint whatsoever.  Fasting is simply the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both.  Nutritional fasting has efficacy when done for as little as 18 hours (i.e. intermittent fasting).  In the case of a full water fast, most adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that will enhance metabolic health occur during the first 72 hours.  72 hours is the "sweet spot" for self-induced fasting because you derive most of the metabolic benefits with the least health risks that a longer fast would present.  The idea that a fast must be "5,10,15,20 days or more" to be of benefit to metabolic health is pure nonsense.

You are obviously not as well read on this topic as you believe.  You should become familiar with the landmark studies by "Dr. Kevin Hill" into animal starvation response to learn what you apparently do not know about the various stages of physiological change that occur as one enters the fasted state.

Perhaps you should also become familiar with the work of Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2016 for his groundbreaking research into fasting based autophagic mechanisms.

BTW, I clearly acknowledged the legitimacy of longer-term fasting for medical reasons, so maybe you should read things a little more carefully before making critical remarks and telling me to do more research.

Also, please don't incorrectly paraphrase my words!  That's either ignorant, or else incredibly rude and insulting!  I did NOT say "...Fasting is only for loosing weight for vanity".   My actual remark was "...Fasting is nothing more than a fad diet if the sole intention is to loose weight for vanity reasons". 

If your misrepresentation of what I said is any indication of your analytical skills, it's no wonder you have such a skewed understand this topic.

I am very well read on this subject.  Not trying to be a smart-ass but you might truly be impressed with the REAL underlying science..if you have an inquisitive nature and an open-mind.  If not, that's OK too.  Everybody's entitled to their opinion even if it flies in the face of scientific fact.

2 minutes ago, beau thai said:

Some posters on here have clearly done lots of research before arriving at conclusions that work for them so i thought I would seek advice. Literally daily, I read diet stuff-some from journalists with a page to fill, some from scientists and so called scientists, with often contradictory advice.

I can happily buy into more fruit/fibre and less processed/red meat, sugar. makes sense.

I am a senior (sounds better than old man!) recovering from a bout of illness resulting in 9 months inactivity, messed up immune system and microbiome. 178cm, my weight went up to 83.4, and my blood sugar and ldl were too high.

For 2-3 months I have been following 16:8 which worked well for friends. Last meal about 8pm, first next day about 2pm, and gym before that on most days. The principle is that after 12 hours, the body starts using up fat if denied new calorific input. And importantly to me I find 16:8 easy to sustain, and probably have 1 less meal a day. 

But my weight is stuck stubbornly just above 80kg so BMI still not below 25. I will find out the impact on ldl/blood sugar shortly but I feel stronger and fitter and mentally more alert.

After reading that caffeine/coffee 'heats up' brown fat which is a 'good thing'(!), I now have coffee around 9am instead of later, before my first meal.

Now some people and scientists insist that breakfast is a vital meal to kickstart the metabolism, which is clearly at odds with 16:8 advocated by others.

So, I am not looking for fads that, for me, would make life not worth living, but for input on the above and other steps I should consider to achieve lower bmi. Actually not even sure these are sensible questions but we shall see!

Totally get where you're coming from!  There's so much BS out there about nutrition, and most of it is just plain nonsense posted by people with hidden, self-serving agendas (usually financially based).  When it comes to metabolic health, I am a firm believer is what's termed "fingerprint medicine".  No two people have the same precise nutritional needs.  Everyone's body reacts differently to various foods.  It makes no sense to me for a person to adopt a particular nutritional dogma advocated by this health guru or that guru.  I think it's the responsibility of every individual to do two things; 1) becoming knowledgable about very basic metabolic science from reliable science-based sources (not YouTube health Gurus), and then learn to listen to your own body to discover how it reacts to various foods.  It will tell you everything you need to know if you truly attuned to it. 

The body will tell you in no uncertain terms if it reacts well or not to a particular food if you are attuned to what it's trying to tell you.  It takes time and commitment to master this, as opposed to blindly following someone else's weight loss dieting protocol.  Your goal should not merely be to lose weight but to establish a nutritional strategy that is correct specifically for you within the context of universally accepted sound nutritional principles.  Those two things go hand-in-hand.  For example,  I think it's a sound nutritional guideline to avoid heavily processed foods in which essential (healthy) fats have been stripped and replaced with refined sugar based carbohydrates.  But, when it comes to whether or not you should eat red meats, I think the jury is out on that one.  For some it might cause issues, for others...not so much.

Personally, I went through a period of time dealing with near-obesity and like most I was attracted to all sorts of weight-loss diets.  None of them worked in the long-term.  The reason is that weight-loss diets are NOT the key to shedding excess body fat.  Changing your nutritional lifestyle is the key!  You can't just adopt someone else's strategy; you have to find one that is right specifically for you.  It takes some time and involves some trial and error, and most importantly it takes learning to be attuned to what your body is telling you but if you stick it out, it seems to work well.  At least it did for me.  I was in a real mess art one point in my life.  My doctor informed me I was pre-diabetic and hypertensive (BP was 180/120).  He put me on statins and drugs to control blood sugar none of which helped.  It was only when I decided to take responsibility for my own health that I discovered that changing my nutrition lifestyle was the real key, and it not only worked but worked very quickly.

I think the thing to appreciate is that the body is actually a finely tuned and self-correcting metabolic machine when it is properly nourished.  The problem is that in our modern-day world much of what is consumed is processed foods that have been stripped of natural (and essential fats) and replaced with things like high fructose corn syrup.  HFCS is in everything these days!  It wreaks havoc on metabolic hormonal balance and our bodies ability to efficiently metabolize stored body fat.  As a result, many people just accumulate more and more body fat.  Insulin insensitivity becomes an issue, and livers become engorged in fat.  That's when things start going really bad.  The insidious thing is that most people have no real symptoms all of this is happening.  Most will attribute increased weight with simply getting older.  Symptoms of "fatty liver" usually won't present themselves until your doctor gives you the unwelcome news that you are pre-diabetic.

Today, I don't ascribe to any nutritional dogma at all.  My nutritional strategy is made up of elements from Vegan and Paleo that seem to work well for me  but the over-riding factor is simply "listening" to my body; how it reacts to various foods.  Personally I find that two meals a day is optimal for me.  I don't limit any food groups at all, and I don't count calories.  I DO manage my macronutrient ratio carefully.  I keep carbs relatively low and try to think of them only as fuel for the body, not tempting foods that I might end up mindlessly grazing on while watching TV.

Bottom line, Gain a true understanding of the basic principles of metabolic science, and then through trial & error find those foods that your body works best with, add a dose of plain old common sense, and I think it would be hard for anyone not to vastly improve their metabolic health in very short period of time...like weeks, not months or years!  I found this to be true for myself, and don;t see any reason why it can't be true for everyone else

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

not arguing that here maybe some health benefits in coffee, I partake a little myself  -- but during a fast, not that 1-2-3 days is a fast anyway - why use it, just remove all stimulants , or should we promote a bottle of beer or a few shots on whiskey as they have a few benefits for some people ????      

With all due respect you don't seem to understand the underlying metabolic science of the fasted state.  A 3 day fast is actually optimal for metabolic health.  Anything longer than 72 hours is overkill unless the purpose is for rapid weight loss and that should only be undertaken in cases of morbid obesity, where there are life-threatening complications resulting from being obese (i.e.: advanced stage diabetes), and only under the supervision of a physician well versed in long-term fasting protocols and overseeing nutritional lifestyle changes that MUST follow the fast.

Fasting is nothing more than a fad diet if the sole intention is to loose weight for vanity reasons.  It will fail like any other weight-loss diet unless nutritional lifestyle changes are made.  For otherwise healthy individuals, short-term periodic water fasting is only an adjunct to nutritional lifestyle changes so that weight loss dieting becomes unnecessary in the long-term.  It's a way to basically reset metabolic hormonal balance and restore the body's ability to efficiently metabolize stored body fat that have been compromised by poor nutritional habits.

Coffee intake on a short term fast does not effect the efficacy or safety of the fast, and helps a lot of people deal with psychological and physiological transitory symptoms of entering into the fasted state (i.e.: "keto flue").

10 minutes ago, Artisi said:

if you are undertaking a fast for betterment of your health, not some airy fairy nonsense - why would you put coffee into your system, as coffee - a stimulant  is the most abused drug in the world.

  

All things in moderation.

Coffee has been around for a long time and blamed for many ills — from stunting your growth to causing heart disease — but newer research shows that it may actually have health benefits.

Recent studies have generally found no connection between coffee and an increased risk of heart disease or cancer.

In fact, some studies have found an association between coffee consumption and decreased overall mortality and possibly cardiovascular mortality.

Studies have shown that coffee may have health benefits, including protecting against Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes and liver disease, including liver cancer. Coffee also appears to improve cognitive function and decrease the risk of depression.

There’s really no reason to believe that a cup of coffee in the morning is going to compromise your health.  Of course, excessive consumption is another matter. 

“Let food be thy medicine, and let medicine be thy food.”  This famous quote is often attributed to Hippocrates.  Its in question if he actually said this back in 400 B.C., but it’s a great quote nonetheless.  

Nutrition, both good and bad has a profound effect on health.  Unfortunately, today we live in a world of highly processed food containing things like high fructose corn syrup, and foods stripped of natural (and healthy) essential fats.  We’ve been led to believe that fats are bad and carbs should be the foundation of a healthy diet.

It’s no wonder there’s an epidemic of obesity today.  The body is normally a highly tuned metabolic machine but highly processed foods screw it up.  

They wreak havoc with precise hormonal balances and blunt satiety mechanisms so we consume far more “bad” foods than we should, and our body's ability to derive energy from food is greatly compromised.  Instead of powering the body efficiently, it gets stored as body fat.  And worse, these type of foods, if consumed regularly, greatly diminish our ability to access stored fat.  As a result, body fat just accumulates.

I’m saying this simply because the topic of this thread is about water fasting, and the value of water fasting is in dealing with this dilemma.

Water fasting should not be thought of as a weight loss diet.  Rather, it’s a way to reset metabolic mechanisms that have gotten screwed up as a result of eating foods that are not good for us.

Obviously, the best nutritional strategy is to avoid bad foods in the first place but if that’s not the case, simply adopting better nutritional practices may not work for many people because bad eating habits become highly addictive, not only psychologically  but physiologically as well.

In simple terms, water fasting is like a reset button.  It’s a way to quickly restore metabolic hormonal balance and restore the body’s ability to properly metabolize stored body fat.

Water fasting is most effective at doing this in a short time frame.  72 hours is all the time it takes for most people.  Going beyond that is not necessary or beneficial.

The other principal benefit of such short term fasting is that it enhances the natural process of autophagy, a metabolic mechanism that purges dysfunctional and damaged intracellular materials and serves as a dynamic recycling system that produces new building blocks and energy for cellular renovation and homeostasis.

Im writing this simply to dissuade people from thinking of water fasting as a fad style diet, and try to encourage people to explore science-based information about the true benefits of water fasting to see if it might be right for them...because that is really what this thread was supposed to be all about.

Science strongly supports this notion of water fasting, and I can say from 1st hand experience that it works amazingly well for me.

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Great post and I agree with what you say.

 

I have successfully lost weight and got to my target weight now and it took me less than a year and very little effort, and never feeling hungry or forcing myself to go without food.  Did not do any fasting, juicing, gym workouts, keto, atkins, paleo, gluten free, carbohydrate elimination, or eat 'superfoods'.  Still drank moderate amount of alcohol, still ate late at night before bed, still ate rice, bread and potatoes etc.  

 

All I did was realise that a lot of the food I was eating was not healthy, and also loaded with calories mostly from sugar because I was eating a lot of processed foods, and got into a bad habit of eating junk food snacks like bars of chocolate, sweets, cakes, and pastries every day (although never in massive quantities).  I had also become more sedentary.  

 

So I decided to stop eating the junk stuff and replaced them with healthier options.  I also cut down my portion sizes at meal times, and increased my activity.  Just did more relaxing cycling rides and walked more... no gym or running machines.

 

It was hard to resist the temptation of the junk food for a few weeks simply out of my old habits.  However, after I got into the habit of eating normal food the cravings stopped.  It's about changing habits I think is key.  I used to eat even if I was not hungry and then feel too full and bloated. 

 

Now I only eat if I am hungry.  Usually 2 meals a day.  If I want to have a TV night and munch on comfort food I go for fruit (I am crazy for jackfruit) and nuts, or a home made sandwich.  

 

Occasionally I will decide to have a cake, ice cream or chocolate bar if I am in the mood.  But this is not more than once a week. I found I no longer go crazy for them, no longer get cravings to go eat them, and I don't get the same 'buzz' when I am eating them.. they don't taste anything special anymore.  I find my jackfruit, som tam or jungle curry much more delicious!!

That was a terrific post, and BTW, congratulations! Most people who have spent time struggling to lose excess body fat and eventually succeed seem to be people who become frustrated with the dogma associated with caloric reduction diets, and start thinking "out of the box" for themselves. 

It shouldn't come as a surprise that most people can resolve their weight issues simply by refraining from processed foods high in carbs (sugar), excessive snacking throughout the day (food grazing), and most importantly, just being attuned to your body since it really tells you everything you need to know if you pay attention to how it reacts to various types of foods. 

Calorie counting needn't be (and should not be) a part of that equation IMO.  Your body is very good at letting you know when you've eaten enough if hormonal satiety response is not being blunted by excessive junk-food style carbohydrates.

Unfortunately many people can't or won't take responsibility for their own metabolic health.  Instead they are attracted to shortcut types of fad diets promising to melt away the pounds without any effort or sacrifice, or fundamental changes in nutritional lifestyle.

Effort and some sacrifice are necessary for any worthwhile health changes but the good part, as you said, is that things get much easier as you progress, and it doesn't really take that long before you no longer miss the foods that got you into trouble in the first place.

It's really a wonderful feeling you get from eating healthy and most people who discover this through lifestyle change rarely return to their old unhealthy ways, and most of them could kick themselves in the *ss for waiting as long as they did to finally figure this out.  It's not rocket science; it's just plain common sense.

19 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The reasoning is in the 'enforcement' of 'wanting to quit smoking' in terms of what would be the end result - either increasing or decreasing longevity - as being more than experimenting with ways of how to do this.

 

It's pretty clear, IMO. For example if I said you were going to die tomorrow if you don't quit smoking today, it certainly focus your mind on the end result, and the last thing you'd be doing is waving around a vaping pipe.

 

BTW, it's Greger not Gregor - and it's not a regime I would follow because while it could work, I'm not convinced a plant-based regime is the be all and end all of nutrition guidance. I added the paragraph to indicate that for those suffering from heart disease could find it useful to read Greger's real life story, rather than just experiments on rats!

 

As you said, each person is different and needs to find his/her nutrition path.  

OK I see your point but someone's desire to quit smoking has to come from within.  I'm talking about people who already have the genuine and sincere desire to quit smoking but can not overcome the addiction.  With addictions like this, it's not simply a matter of will power.  As I said, smoking is considered by many authorities to be as addictive as heroin.  Anything that can help a person to break such a destructive habit is a good thing in my book.

And though this is quite off-topic to say, I think the Thai authorities who instituted this ban are not acting in the best health interests of the public by doing this.  It's more than obvious to me that the real reason is to protect tax revenue generated from the sale of tobacco, and I personally think that is despicable! 

From a health standpoint, if anything should be banned it should be tobacco products,  but when it comes to the huge profits involved, you sure know that's not going to happen.

36 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The issue I have with (legalised) vaping - whilst the weaning off process works for some - is that it doesn't enforce the actuality that longevity will be shortened.

 

Once longevity  - or the shortness of it - is accepted as being the key to a healthier and longer life, a positive mindset is put in place to quit smoking. 

 

As a comparison, it's like trying to sell life assurance when there's no end product to show.  How I would achieve a 'sale' is to inform smokers that harm to the body can be (mainly) reversed - lungs would clear, and clogged arteries would open up again if a healthy nutritious lifestyle is pursued.

 

As an aside, there are practitioners and case studies which indicate - for those suffering heart disease - a nutrition change by converting to a plant-eating regime by eliminating all dairy products from a diet, would be successful. This includes forgoing meat, fish, milk, yogurts, eggs and cheese. Vegan type nutrition could effectively resolve heart disease.   Read - How Not To Die - by Michael Greger MD, whose grandmother's case study, set him on a doctor's path to longevity.

   

Sorry, I don't follow your line of reasoning at all.  It seems to go without saying that anyone who decides they want to quit smoking has already decided they want to improve their quality of life.  They already have the positive mindset but are incapable of overcoming what is actually a very powerful addiction for many people (some say more addictive than heroin).  Vaping seems to have helped more people break their addiction to cigarettes than any other strategy to date.

Addressing you aside about Gregor and Veganism, I'm very familiar with Gregor and with Vegan lifestyle.  I've been a practicing Vegan in the past, and while I agree with much of what Gregor says, and some aspects of the Vegan lifestyle, I no longer see either Gregor's recommendations or the Vegan lifestyle as a panacea for everyone, and while I think highly of Gregor and many Vegans that I know,  there's also much I disagree with coming from both sources.

Everyone is different and no two person's genetics or nutritional needs are identical.  I don't think a person should just blindly accept any sort of set dogma from a single source. One size does not fit all when it comes to nutrition and metabolic health IMHO.

I believe in what some people call "fingerprint medicine".  I think it's an individual's personal responsibility to get to know their own body and then adopt a nutritional lifestyle that specifically addresses its' own very unique and special needs.

To be sure it takes a lot of commitment and experimentation to do this but in my experience (and I have tried plenty of nutritional plans and been on plenty of diets), my ultimate success only came from this approach. 

I invented nothing new; my personal nutritional guidelines incorporate elements of what Gregor says, Vegan principles, Paleo principles, ketogenic principles, you name it.  The point is, it works for me. 

Everybody should find what works for them.  The goal shouldn't be to live as long as possible; it should be to have the highest possible quality as life for as long as you can.

16 minutes ago, FredGallaher said:

What is this? What use is it? There is no value in identifying fecal flora and its constantly changing. 

I think he posted that for the same reason that I disagreed with your remark in which you said "...FYI bacteria counts are not part of stool analysis. They are part of urine cultures. ..." 

In his snapshot, these do indeed appear to all be types that are considered normal flora.  How can you say such a stool sample has no diagnostic value?  It indicates the absence of pathogenic bacteria; is that not of diagnostic value?

Pathogenic bacteria can enter and infect the digestive tract when someone eats food or drinks water that is contaminated.   In Thailand it's very easy to become infected by eating or drinking anything that has been contaminated with the bacteria, even things as simple as tap water, ice cubes in a drink, a fresh salad, or food from a vendor's stall. 

If symptoms are severe, if there is bloody diarrhea or mucus present in the stool, or if it is continuing unabated, then a stool culture will usually be ordered by the doctor as a first diagnostic step.  It may be complimented with other tests like a GI Pathogen Panel (also from a stool sample) but a culture from the stool sample is the diagnostic starting point.

Any one who's lived here in Thailand long enough knows this only too well.  Why on earth would you continue to argue this?

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

Until you accept that your longevity will be reduced by smoking, and that is important to you, nothing I could say or do could help.

 

However, if you have an open mind, it has been scientifically proven that the largest medical killer in the USA - heart attack  - is linked to smoking. There has been many studies to demonstrate and prove this is more than correlation but causation. And then there are other unpleasant ways to reduce longevity - lung cancer is probably the least pleasant to endure. 

 

I suggest you google 'smoking and health' on the Amazon book page and you could choose several scientifically proven studies, some very readable, clearly demonstrating the adverse effects of smoking on one's longevity.  Plus determining just how many days, weeks and months shorter life you can expect.

 

Once you're in a mindset that realises however you otherwise change your lifestyle by healthy eating and moderate exercise, your life is going to be shortened if you continue to smoke. It's worse than alcohol  - red wine in moderation is good for you - because with smoking there are NO long-term health benefits. None.   

If a person is addicted to smoking cigarettes and seriously want to break the habit, a very good option is to switch to vaping.  I appreciate the fact that smoking is highly addictive.  Some say that it is even considered to be potentially as addictive as heroin!  Vaping has proven to be a successful strategy for people who have tried ands failed with other strategies.

I know, I know...vaping is most likely not healthy either but it satisfies the urge for nicotine (which is the addictive agent in cigarettes) but does it without the serious health risks associated with the tar of cigarettes (which is the main carcinogenic agent in cigarettes), and offers a path to breaking the nicotine habit entirely that's worked for many people.

Of course, it's likely there are other possibly carcinogenic agents associated with vaping, and vaping probably causes similar damage to arteries that leads to heart disease as cigarette smoking (but on a lower level)...but it offers a path to breaking the habit that has proven far more successful than any other "quit smoking "strategy to date.   

So, the two most important health factors of vaping over cigarettes is 1) you eliminate tars which are the main cancer causing agent of cigarettes, and 2) vaping allows you to slowly and precisely progress to vaping liquids with lower and lower nicotine content, milligram by milligram, and eventually weaning yourself off of nicotine entirely.  Once you are able to reach zero milligrams of nicotine, breaking the habit entirely is a piece of cake.

I realize that vaping is illegal in Thailand right now but many people find easy ways to get around this weakly enforced law, and it also appears the legality issue is about to change in favor of eliminating the ban.

30 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

dry - fasting.  

 

Wow, just when I thought I had read about all the stupid diet fads over the years this one is the winner.

 

Will the next one be oxygen / air fasting...… ?!!

 

Common sense...   simply eat healthy food in smaller amounts and take moderate exercise. 

 

Cut out highly processed foods and replace with real food.   Not hard, but not fashionable or indorsed by some celebrity... and also can not make some healthy wellness living guru a load of money from selling books and special products.  

 

Sorry, but there is no quick secret miracle way to get fit / loose weight... no super belly fat burning mountain pixy berries or the like, no matter how nice a story it sounds or how trendy you might want to look. 

 

And spending a fortune on juicer machines, contraptions to make special soups or buying overprices dried up fungus, nut and spices mixtures or forcing yourself to drink what tastes like stinking pond water and duck crap is going to make you get healthy in the long term.  

I agree that today far too many people look for shortcuts to health, and are encouraged to do so by so-called health gurus who are motivated only by self-serving interests of financial gain. 

I used to have a weight issue and know first-hand how seductive many of the fad diets can be, but when you really explore them, they are not based in real science.  Rather, very clever authors of these diets cherry pick scientific facts to fit a narrative that sounds very convincing.  It's a shame, but apparently it's quite an effective strategy that makes many of these gurus a lot of money.

Most obese people who finally resolve their weight issue do it with self-education from reliable science-based sources, and then make lifestyle changes that don't even focus on caloric reduction!

I've spent over 20 years being fascinated by, and becoming very well read about metabolic science.   I resolved my own weight issues by simply forgetting about caloric reduction diets, and focusing instead on lifestyle changes that optimized my metabolic health. 

In retrospect, it was hard in the beginning to change bad nutritional habits (very hard in fact), but like anything, it gets easier with time.

I saw noticeable changes in my health in a fairly short amount of time, and the best part of it is that once you adapt to your new lifestyle, it's very easy to maintain it without fear of going back to your old, unhealthy ways.  By contrast, that's not the case with caloric reduction diets, which have a horrible track record for long-term success.

IMHO, ALL caloric reduction diets are simply a waste of time in the long run for most people.  Embracing a healthy common-sense nutritional lifestyle that's firmly supported by science, not pseudo science is the key.  Not having to count calories or step on a bathroom scale is a wonderful way to live ????

On 7/7/2019 at 9:00 PM, Tim K said:

Switched to eating raw fruits in 1 day, 20 May 2011. (26y old)

Did 3 day water fast 1-3 June while still working as courier, making deliveries on car. Felt ok, my feet felt so light, I wanted to just run all day long.

Nose completely cleared up.

 

Did 8 day water fast 1-8July. This time not so good, felt like throwing up, and cannot stand up quickly (black screen in the eyes), just do slowly about 3seconds.

Kept on to raw fruits.

Jan 2014 Switched to apple/orange juice, freshly squeezed by myself.

After that my body went into 1 meal a day mode. about 8-9Pm. 2-3 cups of 700ml juice.

Felt empty stomach by the time I went to sleep, later realized I'm not hungry, just empty stomach.

During day not feel stomach at all, like it doesn't exist.

Closer to 7-9PM you start feel it.

 

In Moscow where fruits are not very good I did start to lose weight, from 62 to 36kg. Height 178cm.

This diet brought me to Thailand 28 aug 2017, where I gained weight on coconuts and durians. For real, I started to gain weight on fruits.

Even got a belly.

 

After drinking only coconut water for 3-4 days it's very easy to go into dry-fasting.

This is what I'm practicing, especially in dry season, lying on a beach.

1 day is easy because I basically do 20 hour fast every day already, 2 is harder.

But one time I got something from mosquitoes and I didn't want to eat for 4 days. I thought I've finally switched to prana-nourishment. that is my goal and dream.

On 4th day I tried to drink coconut and 1h later it came out from my mouth.

On 6th day I felt hungry, and started drinking coconuts.

 

I agree with WaveHunter that doing things in steps is better, you can feel when you are ready for the 'difficulty upgrade'.

I will keep practicing 1/2/3/4/5/6 ... until 40 days dry fast like Jesus and Mohammed.

I'd be real careful with the notion of dry-fasting.  The body is quite resilient when it comes to doing without food for even long periods of time, but lack of adequate hydration is quite another matter.

I've spent over 20 years being fascinated with health aspects of nutritional fasting and there is quite a bit of scientific evidence as to its' efficacy and safety, however I find very little science that supports the efficacy and safety of "dry" fasting.

From a science-based standpoint, I really don't see any benefit to it at all (and I've done quite a bit of reading on this topic).  This is just my informed opinion, and if you can educate us with science-based information I may be missing, please do so.  Otherwise, be very careful, especially here in the harsh climate of Thailand. 

Clinical dehydration can be very dangerous, and its effects irreversible.  In other words, you can die from it before symptoms make it apparent you've gone too far.  I've actually seen someone die from unintentional dehydration and it wasn't a pretty sight to see it happen with EMT's and even doctors unable to do anything to help the person.

1 hour ago, FredGallaher said:

My comments are not for the angry advocates of water fasting. It has some benefits but also risks. I post this for others so as to not risk your health. These risks are increased in hot weather or when doing strenuous exercise.  If you've ever got sweat in your eyes when exercising you'll know that it stings. That's mostly salt leaving your body. When I was playing collegiate sports they regularly passed out salt tablets along with water and or sport drinks to make up for these losses. 

I really don't want users here to be mislead into believing minerals don't need to be replaced. If one lived in a cold climate without strenuous exercise, maybe not a big issue. 

Look, I got a little angry when I saw your post so maybe I overreacted.  I apologize for my tone.

I don't deny the importance of electrolytes or vitamins.  As you say, in hot weather such as we have  here in Thailand, electrolyte balance is particularly important if you are an active person outdoors. 

As a matter of fact, I regularly use sports electrolyte drinks and vitamins every day for this reason because I'm an outdoor endurance athlete.  I also use them during a fast for the same reason. 

Yes, it's advisable to supplement electrolytes the same way it's advisable to to take a multi-vitamin every day whether or not you are fasting, but not taking them during a fast will not be dangerous or life threatening because the body's natural starvation response mechanisms kick in to safeguard us in situations where there is a lack of food.

You really need a better understanding of these starvation response mechanisms so that you don't propagate unfounded myths in regard to sound nutritional fasting practices. 

You need to understand that there is a set of adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that take place in response to a lack of food.  There were landmark studies conducted into this in the late 1940's in response to the famine conditions that were occurring in Europe at the end of World War II where these mechanisms were brought to light.  It is this real science that provides a foundation for the efficacy and safety of nutritional fasting. 

My point in the previous post was simply that you do not seem to understand the resilient way that the human body reacts to lack of food. 

As the graph that was cited in my previous post clearly shows, yes, there is a temporary spike in potassium and sodium excretion (as you claim) in the initial stage of a water fast; that is the "keto flue" symptoms.  It is a temporary response brought on by the kidneys when insulin levels drop. 

It is not dangerous or life threatening in a short term fast (3 days) because it does not occur until glycogen stores are depleted, so really the fast is over before electrolyte loss even becomes significant.  On a longer fast, electrolyte loss will only result in discomfort (keto flue), not life threatening conditions, and only last for a couple of days until the body's reacts to re-establish a homeostatic state.

If you look at these graphs you can clearly see that by day 5 of being in a fasted state, potassium and sodium excretion not only return to the pre-fast baseline, but actually fall below it.  That is the body's response to conserve electrolytes.

Bottom line, our bodies are resilient when faced with lack of food.  This is the foundation of science-based nutritional fasting as a safe and effective metabolic health tool.  To deny this is foolish and only propagates unfounded negative myths regarding nutritional fasting.

6 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

Absolutely. You need a balanced electrolyte intake.This is especially true with potassium (K) and magnesium. Low levels can result in muscle cramps and heart arrhythmia. Potassium is not reabsorbed by your kidneys as is sodium (Na). Other minerals are equally import. That's why people on diuretics need to monitor potassium. We had a critical level set at >2.7 meq/dl (lower level). That's why your provider orders either a basic electrolyte panel or a basic metabolic panel.

Sports drinks are a good but they may contain sugars. Another alternative is Ringer's solution that contains the basic minerals the body needs.I believe Atkins recommends vitamins with minerals. 

I don't expect the basic preachers of water fasting to agree, but you can google the effects of low potassium and see for yourself. 

Spoken like somebody who knows nothing about the underlying science of nutritional fasting, has absolutely no knowledge of physiological "starvation" responses experienced in the fasted state, and has no desire to become informed.

First of all, Doctor Fred, we're talking about a 72 hour nutritional fast, not advanced stage clinical starvation, so seriously, give me a break with your doomsday scenario!  I'm sure everybody is impressed with your scientific discourse on electrolytes but don't you think it's a bit of overkill when discussing a 3-day fast?

The fact is, on a 72 hour nutritional fast, electrolytes will not even be effected until glycogen stores  are depleted, and insulin levels have dropped.  So, electrolyte loss does not even begin to occur until a 72 hour fast is about to end.  On longer fasts where electrolytes are in fact excreted,  that loss only happens for a couple of days, and all that's going to happen is you'll be very uncomfortable as a result; it is not life threatening! 

This is referred to as "keto flue" by those who do ketogenic diets and those who fast.  On a 72 hour fast you won't even experience it to a significant degree.  On a longer fast, it will last for a couple of days (i.e.: Day 3 and 4), but a "fix" is very simple.  You use a sports electrolyte powder mixed in a glass of water containing Na, K, Mg and Cl to get you through the couple of days of discomfort. 

Electrolyte loss during water fasting only occurs for a couple of days.  The reason why this electrolyte loss is not dangerous in a longer term fast is that by day 5 of a fast, the physiological starvation response mechanisms kick in causing electrolytes to be preserved allowing the body to return to a homeostatic state.  The only time water fasting becomes dangerous is when nutritional fasting turns into clinical starvation.  (see attached research study on electrolyte loss / preservation during prolonged fasting and associated graphs).

As has been said before, the body is far more resilient than naysayers such as yourself seem willing to accept.  Perhaps you should learn more about metabolic science and science-based physiological starvation response in nutritional fasting before you make unfounded remarks.

The reason I react the way I do to your posts is that this thread was intended for people who have a genuine and sincere interest in nutritional fasting.  It was not intended to be a platform for you to impress everyone with your attempts to sound like an medical doctor well versed in metabolic science.  Clearly you are not.

Seriously, it's not my intention to be mean or confrontational but you arrogantly pontificate on topics you obviously have very little actual knowledge of.  Your misinformation, comments not germane to the discussed topic, and your continual nitpicking over terminology is incredibly distracting and does not advance this thread in a helpful or meaningful way for anyone but yourself. 

It would be a nice thing if you'd be a little more considerate and show some respect for the thread.

See this research study:  Urinary Sodium and Potassium Excretion in Fasting Obese Subjects

Excretion and preservation of electrolytes in prolonged fasting (from above study):

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Just regular old drinking water is all the body needs IMO.????

 

Again, just to be clear, I only fast for 72 hours once a month or every other month.  There’s absolutely no concern about depleting essential minerals or vitamins on such a short fast.  

 

If fasting for longer periods, a simple multivitamin with minerals is all you’d need.

 

People should really appreciate that the body is quite resilient and is designed to do just fine in the fasted state for long periods of time.    

 

If you doubt that, look at the case of Angus Barbieri who water-fasted for 382 days (under medical supervision).  A single multivitamin/mineral supplement was all he required, and he did just fine.  

 

I’m certainly not advocating such a long term fast unless there is a medical reason for it.  I mention him only because his case was meticulously documented by the doctors who oversaw his fast.  

 

Anyone who has any doubts about the safety of water fasting should read about his fast to appreciate how resilient our bodies really are.

I guess I should add a couple of things to my previous response.  Firstly, because I'm sure that the naysayers will find fault with my remark "...the body is quite resilient and is designed to do just fine in the fasted state for long periods of time...", that is predicated on the body having sufficient stores of body fat during the entire length of the fast (i.e.: say, above 10-15%).  Even though many people (i.e.: high level athletes) are fine with lower body fat percentages, if you are in a fasted state, your body can actually transition into starvation mode during a prolonged fast once your body fat percentages fall much below 10-15%.

Secondly, while any potable water is fine for a water fast, I personally use bottled spring water from a reliable source if possible, simply because I prefer the taste.  Since that is the only thing you are consuming, "taste" is actually an important consideration.  Also, I'd want the assurance that the water is pure and not contaminated with heavy metals or bacteria.

Also, if in Thailand, obviously you would not use tap water.  I would also steer clear of reverse-osmosis machine water.  While there is nothing wrong with reverse-osmosis itself, I question how those machines are maintained here in Thailand, and thus would be concerned about possible bacterial contamination, algae, etc..., and besides, I think the water from those machines tastes gross in general.

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

It is a religion because you need to believe, and then be true to it. And as you say, you need to understand, and it takes alot of effort the get to that point. Most people do not even manage their own daily basis diet, and neither want to, even they talk alot about it, and think about it all the time what they need to do, and still even with the knife to the troath, when they get sick, they can not get started. 

 

Three things easy to do, eat less, less sweets, be more active, simple? And by be more active, you do not need to start to run a marathon to get resoults. Just gett your blood flowing a bit faster. 

Yeah, really good health is a simple thing to master.  Common sense and simplicity is the best guideline.  Being able to truly listen to your body tells you everything you really need to know.  Keeping it simple is best.  For me, it's far easier to do a 72 hour fast once a month and as a result to never have to be concerned with crazy diets and calorie counting.  All can say is that it works for me and it took me a long time to realize this.  So all I'm saying is that other people should consider looking at good health from another perspective aside from weigh loss dieting.

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

And your energy level? 

 

For me is more about still doing daily things without loosing consentration or energy. In the long end, any diet or fasting will kick back not matter how you feel in the moment if you do to long. 

 

I know the sensation you feel when you believe a concept working for you, it is just to know when to stop. 

 

Fasting will mess up your mineral and vitamin level, hormons, feelings, so it needs a total understanding and control to do so. We can make it complicated or we can make it simple. Eat what you need, and no more for shorter terms, hungry or not, even a banana and a fresh coconut in the morning before it gets to hot, will help you feel better, and you loose no time as 3 days to feel better. 

 

Alchohol I try to stay away from as much I can, especially when it is hot. 

Actually, your energy levels rebound after you enter into ketosis.  You are mistaken about mineral, vitamin and (negative) hormone levels.  Metabolic hormone balance actually improves for many as a result of fasting.  Vitamin and mineral levels are unaffected on a short-term fast, and on a longer term fast, a vitamin supplement will keep things in check.

I normally do a 72 hour fast once a month or every other month.  I am keto-adapted from doing this and I experience no metabolic slowdown and no negative mood swings during my fasts.  In fact, I feel more energized as I enter into day 3 each and every time.  I work out in the gym and run during all of my fasts...and I'm talking about doing it here in the hot climate of Thailand.

There's just too many unfounded negative myths about fasting that are quickly dispelled once you experience it for yourself.

9 minutes ago, Mansell said:

I was somewhat amused at the statements about getting info on fasting from YouTube and the Internet etc. I was fasting in the late sixties when I was in my twenties and none of that info was available. I would fast for 36 hours each week with only water with a lemon squeezed into it. I would break the fast with a salad. Every few months I would do a week fast in the same way.

i remember reading about some people trapped on an island with no food after a volcano erupted. When the rescue ships arrived the people hadn't eaten for three days and were starving.....I was in the middle of a week fast at the time and was perfectly fine....all depends on your perspective. A friend on Phuket in his late sixties fasts each week now.....for me I just eat very carefully and healthy and I am 75. 

If you want to lose weight I would suggest following the GERD diet. I did it for six months thinking I had that issue and went from 168lbs and am now 145lbs with no gut and feel great.

Nice post.  Too many people think going without food for a day is tantamount to starvation.  That's really nonsense.  The human body is far more resilient than people realize, and it was designed to go without food for much longer periods of time with no ill effects.

Quite to the contrary, there are a lot of positive metabolic changes that happen during a fast, and some of them have positive long-term effects beyond the period of the fast.  Too many people are swayed by the dopey YouTube diet gurus who advocate fasting for weight loss instead of exploring the more science-based aspects of nutritional fasting.

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I try to keep things simple, and eat less in shorter periods, and a few days with "eating days" works fine for me without problems. I stay away sweets, so I do not feel hungry all the time, and therefor easy to eat half of what you really wanted. 

 

We are all different, and we all have different goals. I loose about 1 kg pr 10-12 days when do 5 days on half diet, and two days with full diet. 

Well I agree with you that what ever works best for you is the best guideline there is if you're goal is to shed excess pounds. 

I just have a different viewpoint.  I think it's better to increase metabolic efficiency through periodic water fasting rather than repeatedly do short term diets.  I used to have serious weight problems and was always on one diet or another.  Since becoming keto-adapted through periodic water fasting, I no longer have weight issues and have no need for diets. 

For me it has many benefits which I outlined in my reply to Robblok, and I consider it a blessing to no longer deal with the drudgery of conventional diets.  

I'm not advocating you should do it; only that you explore it to see if it might not have something to offer you that you don't expect.