Plant Based Nutrition and Fasting

[TravelerEastWest]

1 hour ago, Kohsamida said:

Fact is, on a personal basis I, like you, lean towards a plant-based diet with minimal animal fat.  

 

However, the scientific understanding of how the body works and what effect nutrition has on it has barely scratched the surface and much is simply unknown.  Furthermore, how our bodies work and how nutrition effects them is highly variable based upon the individual.  What works for one person may not work for another for a variety of reasons.

 

Much of the current scientific research into how diet effect health falls into two camps; one advocating a low fat diet, and the other advocating a low-carb diet.There are compelling, science-based arguments for BOTH schools of thought.

 

As I pointed out, there are many people who have benefited (in the long term) by adopting a low carb diet, and their success is supported by sound scientific understanding (known and emerging) of how the body works, so it should hardly be discounted, any more than examples that support a low-fat diet.

 

I simply think it's a mistake to make sweeping conclusions about whether a low-fat diet or a low-carb diet is healthier.  Subjects like this rarely have a simple "black & white" answer.  In the final analysis it will probably be elements of BOTH viewpoints that prove correct.

 

I'm just saying that I think the smarter choice for now is to objectively explore all valid schools of thought, and then make a personal decision what's best for you, not for everyone, just for you.

 

I just think it's a big mistake to accept one viewpoint as gospel truth over another until much more is really known.

Much is unknown is perhaps always going to be true.

 

I don't lean towards a pkant based diet; it is the only one that I would consider for health and moral reasons.

 

There is some variation for individuals but not that much - to make a simple example if we don't get Vitamin C probably everyone will get scurvy. Some people can eat hot chilis and others can't but in general on the big issues we are all very similar.

 

I have not seen any compelling research for the long term benefits for a LCHF non plant based diet. Short term yer - long term no.

 

I don't accept the Dr that you mentioned as showing Keto/LCHF as being good - poor studies - which his company funded so plenty of bias built in.

 

Do you know of any long term studies without bias that support a LCHF meat based diet? You mention "many people" who are those people? How many?

 

"I'm just saying that I think the smarter choice for now is to objectively explore all valid schools of thought, and then make a personal decision what's best for you, not for everyone, just for you."

 

Always smart to explore valid schools of thought and make a personal decision - but I don't beleve that longterm LCHF meat based is best for anyone - if you have proof supporting this please cite it. Although there may be a very people who need that type of diet - I doubt it - but maybe...

 

 

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Wise words. The only universally accepted truths seem to be that processed foods and excessive sugar are bad, and you can't go wrong with a leafy veggie!  Fasting seems to be generally hailed as a good thing too.

I agree 100% with the notion that that most processed foods and refined sugars are just plain bad for your health.  It's not just that they give rise to metabolic dysfunction, but they screw up your own body's ability to know what's good and bad for it.  

 

I believe that the body has an innate ability to know what it needs nutritionally, and it can let you know that in the form of "cravings".  I really believe this BUT it doesn't work if you're eating processed foods and refined sugar because the additives like high fructose corn syrup fool the brain and deactivate satiety receptors for example. 

 

Instead of feeling satiated after eating them, you actually crave them even more.  I can't help but feel that this is a conscious design on the part of the processed food industry in order to get you to buy more of their products.  Call me a "conspiracy theorist" if you like, but that's what I think LOL!

 

I can only speak from personal experience, but I had some serious health issues (dangerously high blood pressure and pre-diabetic diagnosis).  Prescribed medications did nothing at all to correct the problem.  What's more, my MD didn't even advise or council me on addressing the problem with nutrition. It was only when I took charge and made my own decision to eliminate sugar and salt did things improve, and they improved rapidly.  I no longer use any prescribed meds.

 

Now here's the curious thing.  I did this with a ketogenic diet!  That is to say, I ate a diet rich in fat and low in carbs.  To be more precise, it was very high in animal fats.  I did this for 3 months and had blood panels run monthly.  In only a matter of weeks my blood pressure stabilized into the normal range, and markers for diabetes disappeared.  I also went from 25% body fat to 14% during those 3 months, and did not restrict my calories at all.  I was eating foods like steak, bacon, eggs, lots of butter, and even supplementing fat intake with MCT oil, while limiting carbs to no more than about 40 grams per day, all in an effort to force my body to adapt to a fat-burning metabolism, instead of a carb burning one.

 

It worked for me, and my regular blood checks saw no adverse changes in spite of this fat-rich diet!  Now I'm definitely not saying this is for everyone, but for me it worked well.

 

So, as a short term solution it worked well for me.  During this time though I did a lot of reading on nutrition and came to the belief that this was probably not a wise long-term solution, especially with regard to animal-based protein and the unusually high amount of fat in general so I embraced a lot of Vegan principals though I still eat animal protein on occasion.  I kind of like ideas behind both Vegan and Paleo principals so now I think of myself as a "Pagan" ?

 

Without babbling on any longer, I think you can see what my point is...Nothing about nutrition is "etched in stone" IMHO.  You have to objectively explore all viewpoints and decide for yourself what's best for you.  You have to take that responsibility because most MD's today are not properly educated in nutrition and would rather address symptoms rather than causes, using their prescription pads.

 

Just my 2 cents worth ?

 

[mommysboy]

There are some very wise postings.  Generally, I believe that dogmatism/fundamentalism should not be brought to the dining table. A great deal is unknown as one poster has already pointed out.  However, yes I agree there are certain universal truths, which might merely be stated as a good balanced diet, which inherently means more fruit and veg, and less meat.

 

Measured fasting undoubtedly works imo, but so does light exercise; I know which I prefer.  I do wonder whether part of the benefit of fasting is that it gives our digestive system a good rest, and a chance to cleanse naturally- as opposed to ridiculous detox regimes.

 

I feel that supplements only work if one is truly deficient and even then some can not possibly work at all, since the body is only able to process small amounts at a time, or delicate organisms can not survive the journey through the stomach.

 

Not much is known about the human biome.  Yet it seems a healthy biome is likely dependent also on a good diet- so we're back to general wisdom again, and stock up the fridge with greens and bio-yoghurt.

 

Finally, my diet is generally also full of crap.  I can't justify this, except to say that we are human, and here to enjoy ourselves.

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, TravelerEastWest said:

Much is unknown is perhaps always going to be true.

 

I don't lean towards a pkant based diet; it is the only one that I would consider for health and moral reasons.

 

There is some variation for individuals but not that much - to make a simple example if we don't get Vitamin C probably everyone will get scurvy. Some people can eat hot chilis and others can't but in general on the big issues we are all very similar.

 

I have not seen any compelling research for the long term benefits for a LCHF non plant based diet. Short term yer - long term no.

 

I don't accept the Dr that you mentioned as showing Keto/LCHF as being good - poor studies - which his company funded so plenty of bias built in.

 

Do you know of any long term studies without bias that support a LCHF meat based diet? You mention "many people" who are those people? How many?

 

"I'm just saying that I think the smarter choice for now is to objectively explore all valid schools of thought, and then make a personal decision what's best for you, not for everyone, just for you."

 

Always smart to explore valid schools of thought and make a personal decision - but I don't beleve that longterm LCHF meat based is best for anyone - if you have proof supporting this please cite it. Although there may be a very people who need that type of diet - I doubt it - but maybe...

 

 

As I said, I agree with you that long term LCHF is probably not wise, but Phinney and Volker are not really promoting "high fat"  They are promoting "low carbs"  

 

As a short term way to address morbid obesity and metabolic syndromes it works well because limiting carbohydrates forces the body to adapt to using stored fats as fuel.  The body isn't inclined to do this as long as carbs are providing the bulk of fuel.  Dietary carbohydrates have a direct and massive effect on insulin response.  Dietary fats do not.  That's a proven fact which can easily be verified by a google search.  

 

Creating a ketogenic state is not so much about taking in dietary fats as it is in burning the fats already stored in the body.  Dietary fat and stored fat in the body are distinctly different. 

 

Phinney and Volker are not necessarily promoting high fat diets; they are advocating low carbohydrate diets as a means to force the body to become more fat-adapted; that is, to increase the likelihood of using stored fat as fuel, rather than relying on dietary carbs solely to do this.  There is a LOT of merit to this concept if you think about it.

 

I agree that the source of their funding is not a good optic but that doesn't mean their work is without merit.

[Kohsamida]

46 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

There are some very wise postings.  Generally, I believe that dogmatism/fundamentalism should not be brought to the dining table. A great deal is unknown as one poster has already pointed out.  However, yes I agree there are certain universal truths, which might merely be stated as a good balanced diet, which inherently means more fruit and veg, and less meat.

 

Measured fasting undoubtedly works imo, but so does light exercise; I know which I prefer.  I do wonder whether part of the benefit of fasting is that it gives our digestive system a good rest, and a chance to cleanse naturally- as opposed to ridiculous detox regimes.

 

I feel that supplements only work if one is truly deficient and even then some can not possibly work at all, since the body is only able to process small amounts at a time, or delicate organisms can not survive the journey through the stomach.

 

Not much is known about the human biome.  Yet it seems a healthy biome is likely dependent also on a good diet- so we're back to general wisdom again, and stock up the fridge with greens and bio-yoghurt.

 

Finally, my diet is generally also full of crap.  I can't justify this, except to say that we are human, and here to enjoy ourselves.

You make some really great points!  And I like your transparency about your own diet.  We are all "only human"  Who's to say it's such a bad thing to occasionally indulge in "sinful delights"?  I mean, you only live once.  Good nutrition isn't just about living to a ripe old age,   it's really about being able to enjoy the years you have.

 

I strongly believe that your own body knows far more about what's good or bad for you than any scientific researcher can tell you.  The trick is being able to "listen" to it.  You can't do that if your body is packed up with processed foods and highly refined sugars that mask the messages it's trying to send you. 

 

So, I think for the majority of people, it isn't a question of whether this theory or that theory is the right one when it comes to nutrition.  The biggest factors are an open mind, trying to be well informed, simple common sense and, above all, being attuned to your own body.  It will talk to you if you allow yourself to hear it. ?

 

 

 

 

[TravelerEastWest]

32 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

As I said, I agree with you that long term LCHF is probably not wise, but Phinney and Volker are not really promoting "high fat"  They are promoting "low carbs"  

 

As a short term way to address morbid obesity and metabolic syndromes it works well because limiting carbohydrates forces the body to adapt to using stored fats as fuel.  The body isn't inclined to do this as long as carbs are providing the bulk of fuel.  Dietary carbohydrates have a direct and massive effect on insulin response.  Dietary fats do not.  That's a proven fact which can easily be verified by a google search.  

 

Creating a ketogenic state is not so much about taking in dietary fats as it is in burning the fats already stored in the body.  Dietary fat and stored fat in the body are distinctly different. 

 

Phinney and Volker are not necessarily promoting high fat diets; they are advocating low carbohydrate diets as a means to force the body to become more fat-adapted; that is, to increase the likelihood of using stored fat as fuel, rather than relying on dietary carbs solely to do this.  There is a LOT of merit to this concept if you think about it.

 

I agree that the source of their funding is not a good optic but that doesn't mean their work is without merit.

If I said LCHF is probably not wise - my apologies - I am certain based on the research I have read that LCHF is very bad long term for probably everyone - short term it could be a tool just like fasting. But not an ideal tool.

 

Eating carbs certainly raises glucose levels short term but a high carb plant based diet seems to long term help with insulin resistance.

 

Burning fat with a ketogenic diet may very well work and be a short term tool/solution but I am interested in long term quality of life not taking shortcuts - but I understand that I may have a minority view... So for me short term solutions that long term increase our chances of dying is not an idea that has merit.

 

"I agree that the source of their funding is not a good optic but that doesn't mean their work is without merit"

 

It also does not mean that their work has merit and normally the built in bias is a very bad thing so more likely than not their research should not be counted on.

[TravelerEastWest]

New thought:

 

What about Ginger and tumeric and related herbs and spices?

 

The idea being that they are good for inflamation.

 

I drink hot tea from a mix of ginger, tumeric and cinnamon which I like.

 

I have no idea if it actually works...

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, TravelerEastWest said:

If I said LCHF is probably not wise - my apologies - I am certain based on the research I have read that LCHF is very bad long term for probably everyone - short term it could be a tool just like fasting. But not an ideal tool.

 

Eating carbs certainly raises glucose levels short term but a high carb plant based diet seems to long term help with insulin resistance.

 

Burning fat with a ketogenic diet may very well work and be a short term tool/solution but I am interested in long term quality of life not taking shortcuts - but I understand that I may have a minority view... So for me short term solutions that long term increase our chances of dying is not an idea that has merit.

 

"I agree that the source of their funding is not a good optic but that doesn't mean their work is without merit"

 

It also does not mean that their work has merit and normally the built in bias is a very bad thing so more likely than not their research should not be counted on.

I think you're missing my point perhaps.  Maybe I'm not explaining my point clearly.  I don't see the merits of a ketogenic diet as a short-cut to a healthy diet but rather as a first phase to one.  Comparing a low carb diet (Volker, Phinney) with a low fat diet is really like comparing apples to oranges.  They serve different purposes entirely.

 

Ketogenic diets or even better, total fasting are powerful tools for one specific thing and that is to address the metabolic effects of excessive dietary carbohydrates.

 

For people who have over-indulged in typical SAD (standard American Diet) diets, they are eating massive amounts of carbohydrates (and animal fats too of course).  Carbohydrates, not fats however, have a massive effect on insulin response.  As a result of a carb rich diet, especially one where food is being ingested without pause throughout the day, insulin is constantly being released. 

 

In the presence of insulin, stored fat in the body can not be mobilized, so it accumulates as visceral fat but far more importantly, it accumulates in the liver and in the pancreas.  It is this fat (in the pancreas and liver) that gives rise to insulin insensitivity, and once that occurs, a feedback loop starts to take place...the more insensitivity, the more fat accumulation, and the more fat accumulation, the greater the insensitivity becomes.

 

Carbohydrates cause this to happen, not dietary fat.

 

The whole idea behind ketogenic (low carb) diets is to address this problem.  By limiting carbs low enough to induce a ketogenic response, the body is able to begin using stored fat as a fuel.  It can't do this in the presence of insulin.  Only then can the fat in the liver and pancreas be freed.  

 

Once the body becomes more fat-adapted (able to burn stored fast for fuel needs) and insulin sensitivity has been restored, the low carb diet has served its' purpose.  At that point, it's time to move on to a long-term health maintenance diet such as a plant-based one, where indeed, limiting animal fats makes a lot of sense.

 

So, to compare a low carb diet with a low fat diet is really like comparing apples to oranges.  They serve two entirely different goals.

 

[ChiangMai101]

What a coincidence that I should find this thread today. I would like to share my experience.

 

I just returned from the haematologist and she told me to eat at least 3 eggs plus read meat and/or liver every day. For a long time I never really felt the need to eat much red meat and only had it occasionally. Consequently my iron storage is very depleted and has been for a few years.  I was aware of this and I tried various forms of iron supplements but I don’t tolerate them well. The situation I am in now calls for change.

 

I believe there should be a balance in what we eat.  This is especially important for women and children as the long-term health effects can be serious.  Long-term chronic anemia can cause cardiac enlargement which can lead to heart failure.  My iron storage is less than half (36%) of the lowest end of the reference range for a healthy person.  The best natural source of iron (also easiest for the body to absorb) is from red meat.  I am interested to find out how people on exclusive plant-based diets overcome this problem.

 

As for fasting, last week I completed my first dry fast. I aimed for 60 hours but as a newbie to this I only managed 36 hours.  I did notice much less inflammation in my knee (from a past injury) after the fast.

[VincentRJ]

On 7/17/2018 at 12:05 AM, Bonobojt said:

new vegan film is out now, if you want to support the creator's you can rent or buy the film here  http://dominionmovement.com

 

here's the trailer 

 

The emphasis appears to be on the inhumane treatment and incarceration of animals for food. Such treatment cannot be justified, but I think it is a separate issue from the health benefits of veganism.

 

Meat-eating is a significant part of human evolution. We are by nature, omnivores.
The fundamental problem is the modern agricultural processes of producing the maximum quantity of product at the minimum cost, per area of land.

 

These processes result in a reduction of the carbon content of the soil, from continual tilling, and a reduction of the microbial health of the soil, which includes worms, insects, and various microbes which are necessary for good root growth of plants and the uptake of nutrients.

 

There are many scientific reports which suggest that our current fruit and vegetable food products do not contain as much nutrients and vitamins as the food grown in more natural soils many years ago, during the times of our great grandfathers.
Eating meat, in moderation, has benefits. However, there appears to be a significant difference between unnaturally grain-fed beef and naturally grass-fed beef.

 

Grass-fed beef is more expensive, just as organically grown vegetables are more expensive.
Grass-fed cows tend to live in a natural but protected environment. They can laze in the shade under trees, wander around in search of the tastiest grass, communicate with friendly birds who pick the lice or annoying insects from the cows' skin, and be free of any truly horrifying attacks from leapards and lions.

 

Attached are 3 shots of such grass-fed cows, taken in the city of Brisbane, Australia. What a wonderful life! ?

[Bill Miller]

A great thread. Thanks for initiating it.
Lots of good information, IMO. For my two cents worth a "plant based" diet is probably ideal, and the thing for which we are mostly evolved. What I mean is that "plant based" does not mean vegan, necessarily. Humans became  omnivores as opportunistic, part time carnivores. Our remote ancestors ate meat when and as they could obtain it. Day to day diet probably did not include much.
An exception would be our arctic cousins who evolved to tolerance of a meat and fat rich diet in the absence of much plant food.
Look at our Thai brothers and sisters who genetically tend to lactose intolerance as adults, but many populations have dairy products as a normal and important part of their diets. The consumption of lactobacillus containing yogurt and kefir have been suggested as a factor contributing to the greatest population of centenarians in the world in the Rhodope Mountains in southern Bulgaria. The good health of  aged Uighur populations in China may also be due to probiotics in kumiss. a sort of drinking yogurt made from mare's milk, though in a thread about efforts to increase Thai per capita consumption of milk some went off on how awful milk is and "no adult should ever...", etc.
No "one size fits all" for sure. One doctor has suggested intermittent fasting for me, and I am ready to go there.

 

[balo]

2 hours ago, ChiangMai101 said:

The best natural source of iron (also easiest for the body to absorb) is from red meat.  I am interested to find out how people on exclusive plant-based diets overcome this problem.

Beans and lentils . They are full of proteins and rich in iron , I need my lentil soup at least 3 times weekly . 

I studied the mediterranean diet , which goes back to biblical times.  Lentils are used in a lot of dishes and been used for thousands of years.

 

They are cheap to buy so instead of red meat I choose lentils to get enough proteins and other vitamins. 

And another thing , lentils are very low in calories , one big bowl of soup is only 300 calories.

 

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, ChiangMai101 said:

What a coincidence that I should find this thread today. I would like to share my experience.

 

I just returned from the haematologist and she told me to eat at least 3 eggs plus read meat and/or liver every day. For a long time I never really felt the need to eat much red meat and only had it occasionally. Consequently my iron storage is very depleted and has been for a few years.  I was aware of this and I tried various forms of iron supplements but I don’t tolerate them well. The situation I am in now calls for change.

 

I believe there should be a balance in what we eat.  This is especially important for women and children as the long-term health effects can be serious.  Long-term chronic anemia can cause cardiac enlargement which can lead to heart failure.  My iron storage is less than half (36%) of the lowest end of the reference range for a healthy person.  The best natural source of iron (also easiest for the body to absorb) is from red meat.  I am interested to find out how people on exclusive plant-based diets overcome this problem.

 

As for fasting, last week I completed my first dry fast. I aimed for 60 hours but as a newbie to this I only managed 36 hours.  I did notice much less inflammation in my knee (from a past injury) after the fast.

With kindest regards, I think it's great you're taking an interest in your health and willing to think "outside of the box" about it, but I think you should be real careful about "dry" fasting. 

 

I have fasted many times over the years and am pretty well read on the subject in physiological terms.  I never heard of dry fasting until a couple of years ago and what I did hear was mostly pseudo-science coming from pretty dubious sources, I'm sorry to say.

 

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or come off sounding like a know-it-all but water fasting for more than a few days is not something to take lightly.   Doing it without any water is really stressing your body in physiological terms that could be dangerous, seriously dangerous, from everything I've learned about how the body works in a fasted state.

 

Perhaps you have facts to support the safe practice of dry fasting?.  Please share them if you do.  I'm genuinely curious to know because I'm always interested in learning something new, as long as science supports the view.

[dontoearth]

2 hours ago, ChiangMai101 said:

What a coincidence that I should find this thread today. I would like to share my experience.

 

I just returned from the haematologist and she told me to eat at least 3 eggs plus read meat and/or liver every day. For a long time I never really felt the need to eat much red meat and only had it occasionally. Consequently my iron storage is very depleted and has been for a few years.  I was aware of this and I tried various forms of iron supplements but I don’t tolerate them well. The situation I am in now calls for change.

 

I believe there should be a balance in what we eat.  This is especially important for women and children as the long-term health effects can be serious.  Long-term chronic anemia can cause cardiac enlargement which can lead to heart failure.  My iron storage is less than half (36%) of the lowest end of the reference range for a healthy person.  The best natural source of iron (also easiest for the body to absorb) is from red meat.  I am interested to find out how people on exclusive plant-based diets overcome this problem.

 

As for fasting, last week I completed my first dry fast. I aimed for 60 hours but as a newbie to this I only managed 36 hours.  I did notice much less inflammation in my knee (from a past injury) after the fast.

    Spinach says Popeye the Sailor Man.

[Kohsamida]

2 hours ago, ChiangMai101 said:

...I am interested to find out how people on exclusive plant-based diets overcome this problem....

Plant-based diets can provide all the iron you need really.  There are a lot of plant-based foods rich in iron such as sweet potatoes, peas, raisins, dates, figs, prunes, molasses, and artichokes to name a few. 

 

Foods that are rich in Vitamin C also enhance iron absorption, and so both type of foods should be combined in meals when possible if anemia is a concern.  Some studies have shown that combining C-rich foods with iron rich foods increases iron absorption by as much as 4 times.

 

People eating a strictly plant-based diet generally have no micro-nutrient deficiencies to worry about except for Vitamin B-12 which is easily dealt with by supplementation.

[ChiangMai101]

28 minutes ago, balo said:

Beans and lentils . They are full of proteins and rich in iron , I need my lentil soup at least 3 times weekly . 

I studied the mediterranean diet , which goes back to biblical times.  Lentils are used in a lot of dishes and been used for thousands of years.

 

They are cheap to buy so instead of red meat I choose lentils to get enough proteins and other vitamins. 

And another thing , lentils are very low in calories , one big bowl of soup is only 300 calories.

 

Of course, lentils are a tasty and nutritious food source. 200g of chicken liver will give me 22mg of iron (minimum what I should be having daily). I will have to eat about 8 cups of lentils to get the same.

[ChiangMai101]

22 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

With kindest regards, I think it's great you're taking an interest in your health and willing to think "outside of the box" about it, but I think you should be real careful about "dry" fasting. 

 

I have fasted many times over the years and am pretty well read on the subject in physiological terms.  I never heard of dry fasting until a couple of years ago and what I did hear was mostly pseudo-science coming from pretty dubious sources, I'm sorry to say.

 

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate or come off sounding like a know-it-all but water fasting for more than a few days is not something to take lightly.   Doing it without any water is really stressing your body in physiological terms that could be dangerous, seriously dangerous, from everything I've learned about how the body works in a fasted state.

 

Perhaps you have facts to support the safe practice of dry fasting?.  Please share them if you do.  I'm genuinely curious to know because I'm always interested in learning something new, as long as science supports the view.

Yeah I thought it was a bit 'faddish' and nutty when I first heard of it.  A family member has done quite a few.   My main aim was to experiment with it in order to see if it reduces inflammation in the body as proponents claim.  So basically without getting too scientific about it when you deprive yourself of fluids it forces your body to utilise the water it retains.  It basically works the same as a normal water fast but quicker. The main thing is not to do anything too strenuous or taxing and you can quit anytime you feel you have to.  Not once did I feel I was stressing my body - I did not even get a massive headache as I suspected I would.

  

I will never be zealot for any of this but I keep an open mind.  I prefer water fasting though.  I actually like drinking the stuff ? 

[Kohsamida]

45 minutes ago, ChiangMai101 said:

Yeah I thought it was a bit 'faddish' and nutty when I first heard of it.  A family member has done quite a few.   My main aim was to experiment with it in order to see if it reduces inflammation in the body as proponents claim.  So basically without getting too scientific about it when you deprive yourself of fluids it forces your body to utilise the water it retains.  It basically works the same as a normal water fast but quicker. The main thing is not to do anything too strenuous or taxing and you can quit anytime you feel you have to.  Not once did I feel I was stressing my body - I did not even get a massive headache as I suspected I would.

  

I will never be zealot for any of this but I keep an open mind.  I prefer water fasting though.  I actually like drinking the stuff ? 

I have a lot of positive things to say for responsible water fasting but everything I can remember reading about dry fasting was just a rehash of the virtues of water fasting, but dressed up with convincing sounding claims, here and there, that depleted water inside the body enhances the effects...but with no actual science to back the claims up.  

 

You have to keep in mind that body hydration is pretty critical during a fast.  Fasting puts the body under tremendous stress, which is actually a good thing, but it also means there's a lot less physiological tolerance for deficits in hydration, and the repercussions of that can be serious and occur with little warning. 

 

I hate to be judgmental but my take is that these claims are they are simply a way for the promoters to make a buck from selling a book or getting followers for a blog.  You see plenty of that kind of stuff on YouTube, and frankly, most of the people making the videos don't exactly look to be models of healthy living (just my opinion). 

 

Personally I'd stick with water fasting.  Just my opinion, mind you. ?

[Taggart]

10 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

New thought:

 

What about Ginger and tumeric and related herbs and spices?

 

The idea being that they are good for inflamation.

 

I drink hot tea from a mix of ginger, tumeric and cinnamon which I like.

 

I have no idea if it actually works...

I don't eat South Asian style bean biryani often enough so in order to get my allotted daily turmeric I add it along with ground black pepper and other ingredients to the blender every morning for my liquid banana.  I use this mixture to cook my steel cut oats in.  I've been doing this for the last few years and it's delicious. 

[TravelerEastWest]

13 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

...

In the presence of insulin, stored fat in the body can not be mobilized, so it accumulates as visceral fat but far more importantly, it accumulates in the liver and in the pancreas.  It is this fat (in the pancreas and liver) that gives rise to insulin insensitivity, and once that occurs, a feedback loop starts to take place...the more insensitivity, the more fat accumulation, and the more fat accumulation, the greater the insensitivity becomes.

 

Carbohydrates cause this to happen, not dietary fat.

 

 

 

13 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

 

From what I read insulin insensitivity is mainly from fat clogging up receptors and the muscles are a big area of concern - I could be misunderstanding something - quite possible. Too much Fat in the liver and pancreas is of course also a problem. I am not sure but a very small amount of fat in the liver and pancreas may be OK

 

The key is a low fat diet the results are very fast. Eating whole food based carbs are normally good for you - it is a myth that you can't eat fruit etc.

 

Fat in our diet and our body are the problem - the answer is low fat plant based diet.

 

A low carb or keto diet can be a short term tool - agreed - but only a short term one.

[mommysboy]

To my mind, anything that veers markedly away from the traditional balanced diet runs the risk of being extreme- possibly worse than a junk food diet.  There nearly always seems to be the same basic error: that because a little appears to do good then a whole lot more will do even more. The root cause of most digestive problems is excessive intake, and that applies equally to both 'good' and 'bad' things.  Even assuming we can make such neat value judgements, food intake is definitely one area where one can have too much of a good thing.  When basic enjoyment of food is neglected it seems to be replaced with a fetishistic approach to eating. 

 

 

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

 

From what I read insulin insensitivity is mainly from fat clogging up receptors and the muscles are a big area of concern - I could be misunderstanding something - quite possible. Too much Fat in the liver and pancreas is of course also a problem. I am not sure but a very small amount of fat in the liver and pancreas may be OK

 

The key is a low fat diet the results are very fast. Eating whole food based carbs are normally good for you - it is a myth that you can't eat fruit etc.

 

Fat in our diet and our body are the problem - the answer is low fat plant based diet.

 

A low carb or keto diet can be a short term tool - agreed - but only a short term one.

Dietary fat and fat stored inside the body are two completely different things as far as metabolic dysfunction is concerned.  And, of the fat that's stored in the body, visceral fat is the symptom, not the cause.  It is the excessive fat that's stored in and around the abdominal organs, specifically the liver ands pancreas that give rise to metabolic dysfunctions such as Diabetes type-2.

 

Again, it's important to distinguish this stored organ fat and dietary fat as being two completely different things from a metabolic standpoint.

 

Diets rich in easily metabolized carbohydrates play the central role in excessive organ fat because the simple sugars in some carbohydrates drive a spike in insulin production. Dietary fat, on the other hand, has a comparatively lower effect on insulin production, so as to not be a factor in insulin spikes (this is a science-based fact). 

 

When the pancreas releases this insulin directly to the liver, this response initiates the chemical processes required to store the extra energy as fat (de novo lipogenesis), and the liver is most susceptible to the fat buildup because of the high concentrations of insulin it receives from the pancreas.

 

Diabetes type-2 is conceptually easy to understand.  It involves two problems, namely insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction.  Insulin resistance is simply an overflow phenomena where excessive amounts of fat (not dietary fat, mind you) infiltrate the liver and muscles as a result of insulin response caused by the excessive amounts of carbohydrates.  Over time, Beta cell dysfunction in the pancreas is the result because of eventual spill over of fat that starts to clog the beta cells.  Beta cell dysfunction will not happen without insulin resistance.  Both are problems related to fat deposits within organs, as a result of hyperinsulinemia, not dietary fat.

 

Basically, the way this works is easy to understand.  Too much dietary carbohydrate stimulates de novo lipogenesis which transforms excessive carbohydrates into fat.  This is the fat that causes the problems, not dietary fat.  The liver packages and exports this new fat as VLDL cholesterol making it widely available for other organs. New fat deposits in the skeletal muscles take up much of this fat, as do the fat cells in and around the abdominal organs.  This stored fat is distinct from visceral fat, and it is this organ fat that is central to metabolic syndrome.

 

As fat begins to deposit within and around the organs, specifically the liver and muscles, insulin resistance develops, gradually leading to rising blood glucose. In response, the body secretes even more insulin to bring the blood glucose back down. The extra insulin ‘overcomes’ the rising insulin resistance, but sets up a vicious looping cycle, requiring ever increasing amounts of insulin to be released over time.  This is "insulin insensitivity".

 

To relieve fatty congestion in the liver, it is exported out. Some ends up in the muscle and some around the organs to create abdominal obesity. Eventually the pancreas also  becomes heavily infiltrated with fat as well.  The insulin secreting beta cells of the pancreas then become "clogged" with fat, and beta cell dysfunction is the result.

 

The popular notion, until very recently was that the beta cells become "burned out" as a result of this "clogging", but much recent research seems to indicate this is not the case, at least in the early stages of Diabetes-2.  The beta cell seem only to be clogged but not actually burned out.  So, by radically reducing carbohydrates in the diet, the fat deposits in the liver and pancreas caused by de novo lipogenesis can be reduced to the point where the beta cells can begin to function properly again.

 

 

[mommysboy]

14 hours ago, ChiangMai101 said:

Yeah I thought it was a bit 'faddish' and nutty when I first heard of it.  A family member has done quite a few.   My main aim was to experiment with it in order to see if it reduces inflammation in the body as proponents claim.  So basically without getting too scientific about it when you deprive yourself of fluids it forces your body to utilise the water it retains.  It basically works the same as a normal water fast but quicker. The main thing is not to do anything too strenuous or taxing and you can quit anytime you feel you have to.  Not once did I feel I was stressing my body - I did not even get a massive headache as I suspected I would.

  

I will never be zealot for any of this but I keep an open mind.  I prefer water fasting though.  I actually like drinking the stuff ? 

I spoke to a few Muslims during their annual fasting this year.  Most seem to cope quite well.  However, one did mention that actually a big problem is binge eating during the eating phase, which actually leads to weight gain.

 

I've no doubt fasting is beneficial if done sensibly.  I'm not sure it fits in with an energetic lifestyle though.

[Kohsamida]

34 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I spoke to a few Muslims during their annual fasting this year.  Most seem to cope quite well.  However, one did mention that actually a big problem is binge eating during the eating phase, which actually leads to weight gain.

 

I've no doubt fasting is beneficial if done sensibly.  I'm not sure it fits in with an energetic lifestyle though.

Yes, I ran across that fact about dry fasting for Ramadan too.  Though it is only anecdotal, it's positive and believable information.  Even so, I don't see any therapeutic advantage to dry fasting over water fasting, and I just think water fasting is a whole lot safer and gives the same therapeutic results.

 

Regarding weight gain, yeah it's pretty much to be expected after a fast.  First of all, a lot of the weight loss experienced in water fasting is actually water loss, so people who claim to have lost incredible amounts of weight from fasting probably are not accounting for much of it simply being water, not necessarily fat.

 

And the other thing is that the body does not like loosing huge amounts of weight in a short period of time and it will do everything possible to restore the weight once you begin to eat again (i.e.: cravings), and in your compromised metabolic state right after a fast, the weight is just going to pile back on.  Not only that but a lot of people eventually end up weighing more after a fast than before!  Yikes! ?

 

Personally, I don't think fasting should be done if the only goal is to loose weight unless you're morbidly obese and there's a need to reduce weight quickly due to life threatening situations (i.e.: advanced stages of Metabolic Syndrome). 

 

Successful weight loss for most people is really a matter of modifying their lifestyle in a long term way like cutting out processed foods foods and in-between meal snacks, and adopting more of a plant-based type of diet, and of course getting regular exercise.

[TravelerEastWest]

7 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Dietary fat and fat stored inside the body are two completely different things as far as metabolic dysfunction is concerned.  And, of the fat that's stored in the body, visceral fat is the symptom, not the cause.  It is the excessive fat that's stored in and around the abdominal organs, specifically the liver ands pancreas that give rise to metabolic dysfunctions such as Diabetes type-2.

 

Again, it's important to distinguish this stored organ fat and dietary fat as being two completely different things from a metabolic standpoint.

 

Diets rich in easily metabolized carbohydrates play the central role in excessive organ fat because the simple sugars in some carbohydrates drive a spike in insulin production. Dietary fat, on the other hand, has a comparatively lower effect on insulin production, so as to not be a factor in insulin spikes (this is a science-based fact). 

 

When the pancreas releases this insulin directly to the liver, this response initiates the chemical processes required to store the extra energy as fat (de novo lipogenesis), and the liver is most susceptible to the fat buildup because of the high concentrations of insulin it receives from the pancreas.

 

Diabetes type-2 is conceptually easy to understand.  It involves two problems, namely insulin resistance and beta cell dysfunction.  Insulin resistance is simply an overflow phenomena where excessive amounts of fat (not dietary fat, mind you) infiltrate the liver and muscles as a result of insulin response caused by the excessive amounts of carbohydrates.  Over time, Beta cell dysfunction in the pancreas is the result because of eventual spill over of fat that starts to clog the beta cells.  Beta cell dysfunction will not happen without insulin resistance.  Both are problems related to fat deposits within organs, as a result of hyperinsulinemia, not dietary fat.

 

Basically, the way this works is easy to understand.  Too much dietary carbohydrate stimulates de novo lipogenesis which transforms excessive carbohydrates into fat.  This is the fat that causes the problems, not dietary fat.  The liver packages and exports this new fat as VLDL cholesterol making it widely available for other organs. New fat deposits in the skeletal muscles take up much of this fat, as do the fat cells in and around the abdominal organs.  This stored fat is distinct from visceral fat, and it is this organ fat that is central to metabolic syndrome.

 

As fat begins to deposit within and around the organs, specifically the liver and muscles, insulin resistance develops, gradually leading to rising blood glucose. In response, the body secretes even more insulin to bring the blood glucose back down. The extra insulin ‘overcomes’ the rising insulin resistance, but sets up a vicious looping cycle, requiring ever increasing amounts of insulin to be released over time.  This is "insulin insensitivity".

 

To relieve fatty congestion in the liver, it is exported out. Some ends up in the muscle and some around the organs to create abdominal obesity. Eventually the pancreas also  becomes heavily infiltrated with fat as well.  The insulin secreting beta cells of the pancreas then become "clogged" with fat, and beta cell dysfunction is the result.

 

The popular notion, until very recently was that the beta cells become "burned out" as a result of this "clogging", but much recent research seems to indicate this is not the case, at least in the early stages of Diabetes-2.  The beta cell seem only to be clogged but not actually burned out.  So, by radically reducing carbohydrates in the diet, the fat deposits in the liver and pancreas caused by de novo lipogenesis can be reduced to the point where the beta cells can begin to function properly again.

 

 

I enjoy your posts.

 

I am curious do you agree with Dr Khambatta's point of view? which is basically what Bernard and Ornish's research supports.

 

https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/how-fat-kills-beta-cells/

I ask as we may agree or maybe not as from what I read the key point is to reduce dietary fat and reduce the body'd fat - not sure which is more important as both are bad.

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, TravelerEastWest said:

I enjoy your posts.

 

I am curious do you agree with Dr Khambatta's point of view? which is basically what Bernard and Ornish's research supports.

 

https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/how-fat-kills-beta-cells/

I ask as we may agree or maybe not as from what I read the key point is to reduce dietary fat and reduce the body'd fat - not sure which is more important as both are bad.

Even though I agree that the title "how fat kills beta cells" is appropriate, my contention is that it is not dietary fat that causes this to happen.  Rather, it is the fat created through de novo lipogenesis that causes beta cell dysfunction, and de novo lipogenesis is only stimulated by excessive carbohydrates, as I described in detail in my last post. 

 

Dietary fat plays no role whatsoever in this.  It's not even open to debate because it challenges basic principles that you'll find in any biochemistry textbook, and which I tried to summarize in my previous post.

 

Things like insulin resistance, beta cell dysfunction, de novo lipogenesis, VLDL cholesterol, and all the terms I used in the previous post are just straight out of textbooks.  Very little of it is scientifically contested.

 

I have a lot of respect for people like Barnard and much of what he says I take to heart, but I have to say I have a hard time when statements like this are made, but without a detailed textbook explanation of the processes involved. I don't care how many studies they cite to support their view.  If they can not provide a detailed explanation that correlates with what you'd read in a textbook, there's a problem.

 

With kindest regards, you should re-read my post and google the terms I have typed in bold for more information and a clearer understanding of the processes involved. 

 

I think you'll start to see it makes a lot of sense, and you'll also come to appreciate the same frustration and confusion I have when I read information from those who claim dietary fat causes Metabolic Syndrome....because "It just ain't so!" ?

 

 

 

[Kohsamida]

4 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

I enjoy your posts.

 

I am curious do you agree with Dr Khambatta's point of view? which is basically what Bernard and Ornish's research supports.

 

https://www.masteringdiabetes.org/how-fat-kills-beta-cells/

I ask as we may agree or maybe not as from what I read the key point is to reduce dietary fat and reduce the body'd fat - not sure which is more important as both are bad.

I should add one thing to my last post. Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree with you that excess fat in the diet, particularly animal fat is a genuine health issue.  So, I admire and respect people like Barnard and Ornish, and agree that, in terms of a long-term healthy lifestyle, minimizing animal fat and adopting a plant-based diet are the way to go.

 

My last few posts are only about Metabolic syndrome, specifically Diabetes type 2, and whether dietary fat or carbohydrates precipitate insulin insensitivity and beta cell dysfunction.

 

So, while I agree that fat is indeed what causes insulin insensitivity and beta cell dysfunction, it's not dietary fat that's the culprit.  Rather, it is fat created inside the body by de novo lipogenesis, and since DNL can only be stimulated by excess carbs, it is actually the carbs that are the real culprit.

Oh, and I should also add...I like your posts too.  And I like how everyone participating in this thread is doing it with respect for one another instead of the usual troll-like nonsense you see in many other threads on TVF.  Hoping it stays that way ?

 

[TravelerEastWest]

8 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

I should add one thing to my last post. Don't get me wrong, I entirely agree with you that excess fat in the diet, particularly animal fat is a genuine health issue.  So, I admire and respect people like Barnard and Ornish, and agree that, in terms of a long-term healthy lifestyle, minimizing animal fat and adopting a plant-based diet are the way to go.

 

My last few posts are only about Metabolic syndrome, specifically Diabetes type 2, and whether dietary fat or carbohydrates precipitate insulin insensitivity and beta cell dysfunction.

 

So, while I agree that fat is indeed what causes insulin insensitivity and beta cell dysfunction, it's not dietary fat that's the culprit.  Rather, it is fat created inside the body by de novo lipogenesis, and since DNL can only be stimulated by excess carbs, it is actually the carbs that are the real culprit.

Oh, and I should also add...I like your posts too.  And I like how everyone participating in this thread is doing it with respect for one another instead of the usual troll-like nonsense you see in many other threads on TVF.  Hoping it stays that way ?

 

Kohsamida,

 

So are you saying that you only partially agree with the link? For example are you saying that dietary fat is not a problem for insulin insensitivity?

 

I am not qualified to look at actual research except for general points like what are they looking at and who funds them and summary conclusions. In grad school I took statistics but did not do that well and I find that to really understand research you need a very firm understanding of statistics. So what I do is find doctors and researchers who seem to have a good understanding of science and who have good communication skills Ornish, Bernard and so on...

 

I want to thank you again for your posts as this thread comes at a good time for me as I am refining my diet and lifestyle.

 

 

[Kohsamida]

4 hours ago, TravelerEastWest said:

Kohsamida,

 

So are you saying that you only partially agree with the link? For example are you saying that dietary fat is not a problem for insulin insensitivity?

 

I am not qualified to look at actual research except for general points like what are they looking at and who funds them and summary conclusions. In grad school I took statistics but did not do that well and I find that to really understand research you need a very firm understanding of statistics. So what I do is find doctors and researchers who seem to have a good understanding of science and who have good communication skills Ornish, Bernard and so on...

 

I want to thank you again for your posts as this thread comes at a good time for me as I am refining my diet and lifestyle.

 

 

Well, what I'm saying is that the article seems to describe the mechanisms that lead to beta cell dysfunction correctly in certain regards BUT I think it incorrectly assumes that dietary fat is the triggering factor.   According to uncontested textbook knowledge on how metabolic pathways work, it seems to be excessive carbohydrates that make this happen.

 

Personally, I don't put a lot of emphasis on trying to interpret scientific studies that are referenced in works by the "experts like Barnard or Volek.  As a lay person, it's often difficult if not impossible to interpret the methodology and results.  Not only is the subject matter difficult to understand, but as I'm sure you would know, statistical manipulations can easily slant conclusions, whether intentional or not.

 

What's even more of an issue is when these studies, however valid they may be, are then interpreted by third-parties with an agenda to promote (i.e.: magazine & book authors, blog writers & YouTube creators).  Their interpretations are often re-packaged as "facts" that are biased to the author's point of view.

 

Instead, I prefer to try and understand the most basic factual knowledge about cell metabolism and how the major metabolic pathways work; unbiased factual knowledge that can be gleaned through academic textbooks, not biased interpretations of the facts. 

 

Of course, current textbooks can not answer questions like "what causes Diabetes type 2", but it provides an uncontested foundation to then try and judge what people like Barnard, Ornish, Phinney, and Volek have to say.

 

Understanding things like glycolysis, citric acid cycle (Krebs' cycle),  fatty acid β-oxidation, gluconeogenesis, and de novo lipogenesis for instance provide an uncontested foundation for understanding how protein, carbohydrates, and fats are used by the body, and how the body reacts to them.

 

With this knowledge in hand,  if a hypothesis or conjecture from a researcher or author seems to be in contradiction with these basic processes, then I have a problem believing their claims.

 

Of course, I don't claim to thoroughly understand these processes.  They are incredibly complex and without a formal medical education it's difficult if not impossible to know whether I am interpreting these "foundation" facts correctly, so that in itself becomes a problem for sure.

 

So, I'm definitely not claiming my point of view about Diabetes type 2 is 100% correct.  For all I know, dietary fat could very well prove to be the root cause of D type 2, BUT based on what I've gleaned from textbooks about the basic cell metabolism, I lean towards carbohydrates.

 

Finally, I just want to add that like you, I am also trying to refine my lifestyle to be as healthy as it can be.  It's no easy task with so many "gray areas" in our understanding of nutrition.  That's what this thread is all about...exploring viewpoints. 

 

I'm just glad that everybody participating has strong points of view and is willing to explore competing viewpoints in a positive and vigorish way.  It's a win-win for everyone that we can do this without it turning into troll-like pissing matches as happens in many threads on TVF! ?

 

[The manic]

Marmite is an excellent, vegetarian sourcce of Vitamin B. I make tea with it as i dont eat bread. I take a common, local, but expensive ginseng supplement which is packed with other butruents including  the vitamin B range.