I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[robblok]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

No, you are interpreting it incorrectly.  The person is in a homeostatic state.  The graph is not depicting a overall deficit but rather a re-distribution of where the energy is coming from.  

 

Can’t you see that?  As glycogen is depleted and carb oxidation obviously must fall, oxidation of ketones and stored body fat make up for it, and as a result, protein oxidation only spikes at the start (around 75 grams per day) but then stabilizes to around 10-20 grams per day afterwards. 

 

Theres no cherry-picking going on here.  You are misinterpreting what the graph is telling you.

No you are interpreting it incorrect. The guy starts off with a total burn of 2500 cals. (surely you can see that). Then he starts fasting and his total burn from all sources drops (fat burn goes up) but total burn drops.

 

The graph shows clearly shows this, that you want to make it out to be something else just not make it right. Again lets agree to disagree because I know you will never ever admit to anything bad about fasting.

 

I am not talking about deficits or not. Its not a redistribution alone its also a lowering of total cals burn. Just do your own math. 

[WaveHunter]

16 minutes ago, robblok said:

I disagree you see the oxidation rate go down thus less calories being burned. Just read it how I read it and how it should be read.

 

The take away is a that it switches to fat but drops enormously. So you do your own cherry picking believing other studies but not this one that clearly show a drop but you do use this study to back up other claims. Sorry that just does not fly by me.

 

Oxidation rate is metabolic rate. You are guilty of cherry picking too mate. 

 

The take away your metabolic rate goes down during the fast. it shows it clearly in the graph from the respected study.  

 

lets agree to disagree here.

Just so you understand, this study by Hall has been peer-reviewed and is considered by most scientists as the landmark study in physiological basis of human starvation response.  It is not my conclusion that resting metabolic rate is maintained; it is his.

[robblok]

16 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Just so you understand, this study by Hall has been peer-reviewed and is considered by most scientists as the landmark study in physiological basis of human starvation response.  It is not my conclusion that resting metabolic rate is maintained; it is his.

Then either the graph is wrong or something else because it shows what it shows. Same like you think there is no muscle loss on a fast. This guy lost 10 kg of muscle during his fast. It just shows that long fasts are not good for you. I make no judgements on short fast like what your talking about but longer for sure metabolic rate goes down and you can lose muscle. 

 

https://cristivlad.com/data-from-david-blaines-44-day-fast-metabolic-and-physiologic/

 

 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

This graph, if you look at what the subject was eating and burning at the start and then later there is a considerable drop in metabolic rate. 

 

Begin 1250 cals from cab (red line), 750 from fats (green) and 500 from protein (blue) 2500

 

Day 5 you see 1150 (and it goes even lower later on) from protein you then go to 250 and carbs is below that even. Say 1500 cals on day five compared to 2500 cals day one.

 

This from your own research a much respected source as you yourself says. 

OK..now I see what's got you in a tizzy ????, and you are making a fair and valid point.  Let me find his book and get the research details. 

 

I agree with you that if you look at the graph and add up kcals from each macro, it infers a net decline, but that is not necessarily a decline in metabolic rate, only a decline in oxidation rate, and there is a difference between the two.

 

I don't think it's valid to equate these oxidation rates with resting metabolic rates.  There is a big difference between the two, and a lot of it has to do with hormonal changes that occur in the fasted state such as a couple important ones that I will point up, as examples, below. 

 

Also be aware that this graph was meant to support the notion of protein sparing during a fast, not effects on metabolic rates (though Hall still observed that metabolic rates are unaffected.). Nonetheless, I'll find the details from this particular study and provide them to you.

 

You should consider that Hall's work is not the only scientific basis for me believing the resting metabolic rate is not significantly effected by fasting.  There are many other credible sources that support this.

 

For instance, there was a study published in the American Society of Clinical Nutrition that showed resting energy expenditure actually increases during initial fasting as a result of norepinephrine release (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292).

 

Also, it's been shown that Growth Hormone increases by 2-3 times during the first 24 hours of fasting, and then continues even up to fives days into a fast which will absolutely effect resting metabolic rate, as described in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3127426).

 

If you think about it logically and with an open mind, the notion that resting metabolic rate would not be significantly effected in a negative way by nutritional fasting (or starvation, which has been studied in depth, and in the initial stages is the same as nutritional fasting) makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

 

Imagine we are cave men and women. It’s winter and food is scarce. We haven’t eaten for 4 days. If our body begins to shut down, then it will be even harder to find and hunt for food. We would fall into a vicious cycle. Every day we don’t eat means that it is that much harder to get the energy to hunt or gather. As each day passes, our chance of survival progressively worsens.

 

The human species would not have survived, and we would not be here to debate this topic today if fasting or starvation resulted in a significant and debilitating metabolic slow down! 

 

Our bodies are simply not that stupid. Instead, our body switches fuel sources and then pumps us full of energy, so that we have enough energy to go and find food. Basal metabolism increases, we increase sympathetic tone, and increase noradrenalin so that we can hunt. The VO2, a measure of the metabolic rate at rest, increases in conjunction.

 

If you view this all from an evolutionary perspective instead of as some fad diet idea, it actually makes a lot of sense, and science firmly supports the notion, as I try to point out in all the links I provide.  None if this is simply "my" opinion.

 

[robblok]

21 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

OK..now I see what's got you in a tizzy ????, and you are making a fair and valid point.  Let me find his book and get the research details. 

 

I agree with you that if you look at the graph and add up kcals from each macro, it shows a net decline but the initial rates shown include pre-fast days if you look at the horizontal scale, and I forget how they are defined.  The "-5" day is important but I forget its' significance.

 

However, I don't think it's valid to equate these oxidation rates with resting metabolic rates.  There is a big difference between the two, and a lot of it has to do with hormonal changes that occur in the fasted state such as a couple important ones that I will point up, as examples, below. 

 

Also be aware that this graph was meant to support the notion of protein sparing during a fast, not effects on metabolic rates (though Hall still observed that metabolic rates are unaffected.). Nonetheless, I'll find the details from this particular study and provide them to you.

 

You should consider that Hall's work is not the only scientific basis for me believing the resting metabolic rate is not significantly effected by fasting.  There are many other credible sources that support this.

 

For instance, there was a study published in the American Society of Clinical Nutrition that showed resting energy expenditure actually increases during initial fasting as a result of norepinephrine release (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10837292).

 

Also, it's been shown that Growth Hormone increases by 2-3 times during the first 24 hours of fasting, and then continues even up to fives days into a fast which will absolutely effect resting metabolic rate, as described in a study published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3127426).

 

If you think about it logically and with an open mind, the notion that resting metabolic rate would not be significantly effected in a negative way by nutritional fasting (or starvation, which has been studied in depth, and in the initial stages is the same as nutritional fasting) makes sense from an evolutionary perspective.

 

Imagine we are cave men and women. It’s winter and food is scarce. We haven’t eaten for 4 days. If our body begins to shut down, then it will be even harder to find and hunt for food. We would fall into a vicious cycle. Every day we don’t eat means that it is that much harder to get the energy to hunt or gather. As each day passes, our chance of survival progressively worsens.

 

The human species would not have survived, and we would not be here to debate this topic today if fasting or starvation resulted in a metabolic slow down! 

 

Our bodies are simply not that stupid. Instead, our body switches fuel sources and then pumps us full of energy, so that we have enough energy to go and find food. Basal metabolism increases, we increase sympathetic tone, and increase noradrenalin so that we can hunt. The VO2, a measure of the metabolic rate at rest, increases in conjunction.

 

If you view this all from an evolutionary perspective instead of as some fad diet idea, it actually makes a lot of sense, and science firmly supports the notion, as I try to point out in all the links I provide.  None if this is simply "my" opinion.

 

It does not really matter what it was made for it shows what it shows. You see a metabolic rate go from 2500 to around 1500. That is a big drop. Either they made a mistake or something else but the graph shows a big drop. You cant just use one graph to show its protein sparing and it shows a drop in metabolic rate and then not explain this. (i mean the study guy not you)

 

Yes its logical for the body to function, but its also logical on longer fasts that the body would slow down. (but not in 3-4 days that makes no sense) but it also makes no sense that the body would not slow down later on. Its crazy to think the body would not adapt if the fast is too long. 

 

Again I am talking about longer fasts not what your talking about up to 5 days. Biologically it makes no sense that the slowdown is so fast.  I have no real idea when it will change but change it will it makes no sense to not slow down.

 

We would not have survived if the body does not slow down at some point. I think your way off thinking that it will not slow down. This is the normal human response to a caloric deficit that is not short term.

[WaveHunter]

5 minutes ago, robblok said:

It does not really matter what it was made for it shows what it shows. You see a metabolic rate go from 2500 to around 1500. That is a big drop. Either they made a mistake or something else but the graph shows a big drop. You cant just use one graph to show its protein sparing and it shows a drop in metabolic rate and then not explain this. (i mean the study guy not you)

 

Yes its logical for the body to function, but its also logical on longer fasts that the body would slow down. (but not in 3-4 days that makes no sense) but it also makes no sense that the body would not slow down later on. Its crazy to think the body would not adapt if the fast is too long. 

 

Again I am talking about longer fasts not what your talking about up to 5 days. Biologically it makes no sense that the slowdown is so fast.  I have no real idea when it will change but change it will it makes no sense to not slow down.

 

We would not have survived if the body does not slow down at some point. I think your way off thinking that it will not slow down. This is the normal human response to a caloric deficit that is not short term.

You are mis-interpreting this graph by assuming that the sum oxidative rates of individual macros equates to the body's overall metabolic rate.  This is NOT true, especially in the fasted state.  "Oxidative rate" and "Metabolic rate" are two completely different things; it's like comparing apples and oranges.

 

Basal metabolic rate involves more than the sum of the oxidative rates of carbs, fat, and protein.  In a fasted state this is especially true because hormonal changes caused by the fast significantly effect BMR, as I pointed out before (Norepinephrine and Growth Hormone).  These hormonal factors have been well studied as to their efficacy in countering a slowdown in metabolic rate.

 

What's more, there is a significant difference between the effects on BMR of a predominantly carb-based metabolism vs a fat-based metabolism which exists during ketosis.

 

Yes, of course the body will eventually slow down in a fasted state, but that will not happen until fat stores have come close to complete depletion.  Science strongly supports this not only in physiological and biochemical studies, but in observational studies as well.  Otherwise, how do you account for people who have successfully fasted for weeks, months, or even over one year with no debilitating effects?

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri's_fast
• https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

[WaveHunter]

@robblok

Let me make one point very clear about this graph.  Hall only intended to show the re-distribution of macros that occur during the starvation response, and the resultant protein sparing effect that this re-distribution causes with this particular graph.  That was its' only purpose.

 

If he had intended to show changes in metabolic rate (which is different than oxidative rates of macros), his vertical axis would have been "basal metabolic rate" or "resting metabolic rate". 

 

You are reading something into this graph that does not exists by assuming that oxidative rate and metabolic rate are the same thing, which they are not.

 

I am not being critical of you or being mean-spirited.  Fact is, it was a pretty astute thing to note the combined kcals.  I had never even added them up like you did.  Nonetheless, you can't add them up and assume that equals BMR for the reasons I mentioned.

 

 

As regards long term effects on BMR from fasting, if you look at the effects of gluconeogenesis  that occur as fasting progresses (which I hadn't even mentioned before), I think my point is even clearer as regards the ability of the body to maintain metabolic homeostasis during longer term fasting since there is ample fuel not only from ketones but in the form of glucose whenever the body needs it, and for a very long time in the fasted state.

[robblok]

@wavehunter

 

I am an accountant why do you think I add numbers up and notice such things. I am gifted with numbers. 

 

I still don't get the difference between oxidation rate (witch means turning fats carbs and proteins into energy ) and metabolic rate.

 

You might want them to be different but its strange that its first 2500 and then a lot lower. So to claim it has no relation metabolic rate and oxidation rate is crazy. If this was not about how many calories a day would be burned he would hot have put it kcal/d on the vertical scale.

 

You can say all you want and say its not the same but you have not given me a good explanation.  The total combined oxidation rate dropped (no denying that). So tell me if not fat carbs or protein where else does the body get its fuel from. These are the three sources there are no other sources and it shows a drop in the total oxidation rate. 

 

Below someone explains what oxidation rate is and its a pretty good description of BMR (turning fats carbs and proteins into energy)

 

http://www.drkaslow.com/html/oxidation_rates.html

 

Long term of fasting and I mean DURING the fast is lower BMR. Later it will get back IMHO but during a longer fast your BMR will lower (as with ANY caloric restriction). You never showed me anything to make me see that different. Again i think the discussion here will be at what point will the BMR slow down. (how many days into a fast)

 

Evolutionary its illogical for it to happen too fast but also illogical for it not to happen. 

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

@wavehunter

 

I am an accountant why do you think I add numbers up and notice such things. I am gifted with numbers. 

 

I still don't get the difference between oxidation rate (witch means turning fats carbs and proteins into energy ) and metabolic rate.

 

You might want them to be different but its strange that its first 2500 and then a lot lower. So to claim it has no relation metabolic rate and oxidation rate is crazy. If this was not about how many calories a day would be burned he would hot have put it kcal/d on the vertical scale.

 

You can say all you want and say its not the same but you have not given me a good explanation.  The total combined oxidation rate dropped (no denying that). So tell me if not fat carbs or protein where else does the body get its fuel from. These are the three sources there are no other sources and it shows a drop in the total oxidation rate. 

 

Below someone explains what oxidation rate is and its a pretty good description of BMR (turning fats carbs and proteins into energy)

 

http://www.drkaslow.com/html/oxidation_rates.html

 

Long term of fasting and I mean DURING the fast is lower BMR. Later it will get back IMHO but during a longer fast your BMR will lower (as with ANY caloric restriction). You never showed me anything to make me see that different. Again i think the discussion here will be at what point will the BMR slow down. (how many days into a fast)

 

Evolutionary its illogical for it to happen too fast but also illogical for it not to happen. 

With all due respect, BMR is NOT simply the sum total of fat, carb, and protein oxidation.  Hormonal state plays a huge role.  Consider, for example, the effects of Cytomel on BMR.  

 

Many factors besides the sum total of of macro-nutrient oxidation will effect BMR.

 

You keep ignoring the role of hormonal shifts that are associated with fasting.  I made a point of this in my last post.  In a fasted state, increased norepinephrine and growth hormone counter the metabolic slow down that is normally associated with caloric restriction.

 

I provided sound scientific proof of this from several verifiable sources.  I also provided an in-depth case history of a man who was studied day to day while fasting for 382 days!  If your view were true, he would have died before the end of his fast.  That didn’t happen!

 

Look, I believe in the underlying science of fasting.  More importantly, I believe in protecting my health.  If I had any concerns about muscle loss, lowered BMR, or any serious detriments to health, I would not do it!  I’m not a stupid person.

 

It’s your right to believe whatever you wish, but ignoring the potential health benefits of fasting and the strong underlying science that supports it is simply denying yourself of a valuable tool that is far more than just some silly fad diet.

 

The real benefits of “smart” fasting have to do with optimizing your metabolic health and avoiding diseases associated with metabolic dysfunction, such as obesity, Diabetes 2, many forms of cancer, and even neuro-related diseases like Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s (which current research is now showing a strong link to excessive insulin and glycation caused by excessive dietary sugar and proteins, and is even starting to be referred to as Diabetes Type 3 by some researchers).  

 

Research is starting to show that smart fasting may prevent such diseases, and even reverse them if receptor damage has not yet occurred.

 

These are my reasons for fasting, not merely as a fad diet to shed a few pounds, which I never have to do BTW.  If your metabolic health is good, you should never have a need to go on diets or count calories.  If you take care of your metabolic health, your body is smart enough to keep you from over-eating and developing metabolic syndromes!

 

I have no desire to jeopardize my health by doing stupid things like following fad diets or basing my health on the advice of “health gurus”.  

 

I have studied the physiology and biochemistry of fasting in-depth, and only from 1st hand, verifiable science-based sources (mainly peer-reviewed science journals), not YouTube or blogs that are often only cherry-picked, misleading interpretations of the facts.

 

What’s more I have put it to the test on my own body, and in my last fast, which was 5 days long, I found out that they key to avoiding slowed metabolism was to stay physically active during the fast.  

 

I think it must amplify the hormonal shifts perhaps.  Whatever it  is, I experienced NO noticeable metabolic slowdown after the 2nd day, which is exactly as predicted from the science-based studies.

 

No offense intended, but it sound to me like you’ve already made up your mind and have no desire to explore new territory because you are ignoring very strong science that supports what I’m saying.

 

Thats OK though.  “Each to their own”. I’m not trying to change your mind.  I’m simply providing my opinion...and scientific facts that support it.

[KC 71]

Here's my feedback about a 48 hour fast that I did from 7 pm on Friday evening through to 7pm on Sunday evening, (I've just finished this fast).
 
Firstly, why?
 
I had read many articles that suggested that there are a number of health benefits for doing a 48 hour fast.  I wanted to see how my body would feel during and after this fast.
 
If there is one specific reason for me in doing this fast, it was to try to shift a little residual fat from my abs.  After following a healthy diet and regular fat-burning and cardio exercises for the past 18 months, my abs are clearly visible, (not bad at 59 years old).  I knew that a 48 fast would reduce my fat levels as my body 'ate itself', and I was interested to see if that would result in any visible reduction of my abs fat (yes I know that one can't spot-reduce fat, so this was just an interesting exercise for me).
 
On Friday evening I ate my usual evening meal of fish, nuts and ginger tea. normally, my next meal would be a breakfast of muesli, yogurt, fresh fruit and white coffee (no sugar) for Saturday breakfast.
 
This time, I settled for black coffee and cucumber water...
 
Oh - prior to breakfast, at 6 am I did a fast 20 Km cycle ride around the nearby lakes in Naypyitaw. I felt good.
 
On Saturday afternoon, I did another (slower) 20 Km cycle ride.  Saturday is my rest day from gym weight-training, so no visit to the gym.
 
Throughout this fast, I drank plenty of water, drank black lemon tea and ginger tea, (so there may be the odd calorie in these flavoured teas).
 
On Saturday evening I felt hungry and almost broke my fast!  But I persevered and the hunger pangs went away.  I checked my BP and heart rate before going to bed, 120/70 and 39 bpm.I went to bed and slept my usual sleep cycle.
 
Sunday morning and another fast 20 Km bike ride before 'breakfast'.  I felt very focused and with energy during this ride which includes some long steep hills.  No weakness or dizziness.
 
After a breakfast of black coffee and water, I did some homework marking and relaxed, drinking the occasional water or black tea.  Around 2pm I did a slow 20 Km bike ride, stopping off at the shops to buy in supplies for my Sunday evening meal.  I usually weight-train on Sundays, but I decided to give this a miss, since it was my first ever lengthy fast, and weight-training can be pretty intensive.
 
At 7 pm on Sunday evening, I broke my fast with a salad that I had prepared ==> beans, red peppers, walnuts, pecan nuts, cherry tomatoes, chopped cucumber, quiora, flax and pumpkin seeds, with a homemade keffir milk poured on the top.  I felt fine!
 
Would I do a 48 hour fast again?  Why not?  It certainly didn't give me any physical or mental downsides.  I can see 48 hours fasts being a regular weekend activity.
 
What about my weight loss?  My weight varies throughout the day by about 2 Kg, as I drink, eat, go to the loo etc.  My weight certainly dropped during this fast, probably overall by at least 1 - 1.5 Kg.
 
Oh, what about those abs!  My mind and eyes tell me that my abs are slightly more defined - for my age - after this fast.  But maybe I'm kidding myself ?

Every time i feel ill i do it
And also when it gets too hot !


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[WaveHunter]

@robblok

 

BTW, if you want a really good primer on the basic biochemistry of metabolism in the fasted state you should read the book, Biochemistry 5th edition by Berg JM et al.  

 

Here is the section related to the fasted state in particular:  

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22414/

 

I promise you’ll learn some interesting facts you probably are not aware of.  At the very least, it’s a fascinating read...even though it’s a textbook ????

 

NOTE:  Thus book was published in 2002, so the discussion on leptin is outdated since it relies on rodent studies, and at that time it was believed that human metabolism reacted the same way, which is now no longer accepted.

 

Otherwise, this is a definitive source on the basic metabolic biochemistry of the fasted state.

[robblok]

47 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

With all due respect, BMR is NOT simply the sum total of fat, carb, and protein oxidation.  Hormonal state plays a huge role.  Consider, for example, the effects of Cytomel on BMR.  

 

Many factors besides the sum total of of macro-nutrient oxidation will effect BMR.

 

You keep ignoring the role of hormonal shifts that are associated with fasting.  I made a point of this in my last post.  In a fasted state, increased norepinephrine and growth hormone counter the metabolic slow down that is normally associated with caloric restriction.

 

I provided sound scientific proof of this from several verifiable sources.  I also provided an in-depth case history of a man who was studied day to day while fasting for 382 days!  If your view were true, he would have died before the end of his fast.  That didn’t happen!

 

Look, I believe in the underlying science of fasting.  More importantly, I believe in protecting my health.  If I had any concerns about muscle loss, lowered BMR, or any serious detriments to health, I would not do it!  I’m not a stupid person.

 

It’s your right to believe whatever you wish, but ignoring the potential health benefits of fasting and the strong underlying science that supports it is simply denying yourself of a valuable tool that is far more than just some silly fad diet.

 

The real benefits of “smart” fasting have to do with optimizing your metabolic health and avoiding diseases associated with metabolic dysfunction, such as obesity, Diabetes 2, many forms of cancer, and even neuro-related diseases like Parkinson’s, and Alzheimer’s (which current research is now showing a strong link to excessive insulin and glycation caused by excessive dietary sugar and proteins, and is even starting to be referred to as Diabetes Type 3 by some researchers).  

 

Research is starting to show that smart fasting may prevent such diseases, and even reverse them if receptor damage has not yet occurred.

 

These are my reasons for fasting, not merely as a fad diet to shed a few pounds, which I never have to do BTW.  If your metabolic health is good, you should never have a need to go on diets or count calories.  If you take care of your metabolic health, your body is smart enough to keep you from over-eating and developing metabolic syndromes!

 

I have no desire to jeopardize my health by doing stupid things like following fad diets or basing my health on the advice of “health gurus”.  

 

I have studied the physiology and biochemistry of fasting in-depth, and only from 1st hand, verifiable science-based sources (mainly peer-reviewed science journals), not YouTube or blogs that are often only cherry-picked, misleading interpretations of the facts.

 

What’s more I have put it to the test on my own body, and in my last fast, which was 5 days long, I found out that they key to avoiding slowed metabolism was to stay physically active during the fast.  

 

I think it must amplify the hormonal shifts perhaps.  Whatever it  is, I experienced NO noticeable metabolic slowdown after the 2nd day, which is exactly as predicted from the science-based studies.

 

No offense intended, but it sound to me like you’ve already made up your mind and have no desire to explore new territory because you are ignoring very strong science that supports what I’m saying.

 

Thats OK though.  “Each to their own”. I’m not trying to change your mind.  I’m simply providing my opinion...and scientific facts that support it.

Sorry i think we either have a communication problem or you have no clue about how the body works.

 

BMR = total calories burned in a day 

 

Those calories come from proteins / fat / carbs. 

 

So higher BMR means higher oxidation rate of the macro nutrients in a day.

 

Hormones influence BMR as do things like cytomel. If someone had used cytomel for instance one would expect in that graph a say 5% increase in oxidation rate. 

 

That graph just showed how many calories were burned on a day and what source they came from. Total calories burned is the BMR. So lower total calories burned is lower BMR. That is the only relation i made nothing more. (did not say why it was lower but it was lower on the fast then on the non fast)

 

The only thing i said about the graph was look the total burned calories on a day goes down once the person start fasting (that is what that graph showed besides how it spared proteins and how the source of calories changed). You can't just use a graph for one thing and ignore the other things it shows. That is just impossible things should fit all around (as an accountant and numbers man I know what I am talking about)

 

I have not made my mind up about anything i just show you the gaping hole in your argument made by your own (or the studies own) graph.  The guy either explains why its not the same or accepts that total calories burned on a day is lower on a fast then on a non fasting day. Because that is what he is showing.

 

Maybe the guy was real active before and burned 2500 a day then on the fast did not do a thing and burned half of that. Could be then its not the fast (though related to the fast). Point being there is a huge difference and it merits an explanation. Lower activity might be one (but i find it a bit too big to be the only explanation)

 

 

[WaveHunter]

25 minutes ago, KC 71 said:

Every time i feel ill i do it
And also when it gets too hot !


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Nice ???? One thing to consider if you fast again is that fasting becomes remarkably easier and more beneficial if you extend beyond 48 hours.  The worst part of a fast for most people is day 2 because ketosis has not yet fully ramped up so you’re burning protein as a fuel source and your body is fighting you to eat.

 

Generally by day 3, ketone bodies are producing most of the fuel the brain needs directly (they can pass through the blood brain barrier), and the ketones are also fully mobilizing stored body fat and converting them to fatty acids that the body can use for fuel.

 

im just speaking from personal opinion, but I think day 3 is the “sweet spot” for a therapeutic fast.  By getting yourself into full ketosis, you have essentially trained your body to use ketones effectively.  It’s referred to as becoming “keto adapted”.

 

The significance is that this redefines the pathways of fat & carbohydrates metabolism so that when you return to normal eating, the way your body uses fats and carbs as fuel is more efficient.  It doesn’t happen from one fast, but if you do, say, a 72 fast monthly or every other month, you will gradually become keto-adapted.

 

not saying 48 hour fasts are of no benefit because even a 18 fast has a lot of health benefits, just saying 72 hours is a sweet spot (not just for me, but science supports this.)

 

Nonetheless, Congrats!  Very few people have the will power to do what you did!

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Sorry i think we either have a communication problem or you have no clue about how the body works.

 

BMR = total calories burned in a day 

 

Those calories come from proteins / fat / carbs. 

 

So higher BMR means higher oxidation rate of the macro nutrients in a day.

 

Hormones influence BMR as do things like cytomel. If someone had used cytomel for instance one would expect in that graph a say 5% increase in oxidation rate. 

 

That graph just showed how many calories were burned on a day and what source they came from. Total calories burned is the BMR. So lower total calories burned is lower BMR. That is the only relation i made nothing more. (did not say why it was lower but it was lower on the fast then on the non fast)

 

The only thing i said about the graph was look the total burned calories on a day goes down once the person start fasting (that is what that graph showed besides how it spared proteins and how the source of calories changed). You can't just use a graph for one thing and ignore the other things it shows. That is just impossible things should fit all around (as an accountant and numbers man I know what I am talking about)

 

I have not made my mind up about anything i just show you the gaping hole in your argument made by your own (or the studies own) graph.  The guy either explains why its not the same or accepts that total calories burned on a day is lower on a fast then on a non fasting day. Because that is what he is showing.

 

Maybe the guy was real active before and burned 2500 a day then on the fast did not do a thing and burned half of that. Could be then its not the fast (though related to the fast). Point being there is a huge difference and it merits an explanation. Lower activity might be one (but i find it a bit too big to be the only explanation)

 

 

LOL...we are driving each other crazy with this damn graph!  First of all, the 2500 calories you are referring to is 5 days BEFORE the fast is started (-5 on the X scale), so you are making a wrong assumption there.  Secondly, we are nit-picking about numbers not real-world effects of fasting on functional ability ("hunter/gatherer capabilities").

 

I agree that I have overstated my position.  I should not say that metabolism does not go down during a fast.  Of course it does eventually, but my point is that it does not go down to the point where it effects "hunter/gatherer" functionality until fat reserves have almost become depleted.  And, it certainly does not go down to any significant degree in the timeframe of most short term therapeutic fasts (i.e.: up to 72 hours).  IN FACT...it actually goes UP during the first 48 hours of a fast (see below).

 

Here is a graph that actually DOES show changes in metabolic rate during fasting.  It is a combined chart from a number of different studies by various researchers:

 

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E11.HTM

 

Here is the same combined study extending to 42 days:

 

Notice what happens during the first 48 hours of a fast; there is actually a small absolute increase in BMR relative to values obtained after an overnight fast from ALL of these various different studies.  More importantly, notice that in most studies BMR does not go below the 100% baseline until at least 72 hours into the fast, and in some of the studies, it does not go below 100% baseline even after 96 hours!

 

There has to be a reason that cavemen & women were able to go without eating for days on end and still have the energy to hunt and gather.  There has to be a reason that Beriberi was able to fast for 382 days with no ill effects or significant loss of muscle.  If metabolic rate diminished significantly, they would all be dead! 

 

For me (based on scientific facts), my fasting sweet spot is 72 hours.  According to this combined graph of many different studies, MY BMR never goes below the baseline during the entire length of my fast, but actually ramps up during the first 48 hours in ALL studies.  What's more, in my own self-experiment of fasting for 5 days, I suffered no lack of energy except a little on day 2; otherwise I was able to do day-to-day activities normally and rode 6km daily at 200 watts (which is a very brisk rate, like what a person would do in a spin class for example).

 

So, here's my amended position.  YES, BMR will eventually slow down during an extended fast, but not during the window of time that most people will do a fast for therapeutic reasons.  When a slowdown occurs, it will not be to a degree that will affect the "hunter/gatherer" functionality of the individual to any significant degree UNTIL body fat reserves have nearly been depleted.

 

The reason for this is that ketones, being able to pass through the blood brain barrier, will provide fuel directly to the brain, and they will also mobilize stored body fat, converting it to fatty acids to fuel the body.  In addition, norepinephrine and growth hormone will not only counter the effects of slowed metabolism in later stages of a fast, but will also promote faster recovery of any essential proteins lost during the fast, once feeding is resumed, and higher level of circulating growth hormones will also allow for extra-fast replacement of lost striated muscle through visits to the gym to encourage protein synthesis.

 

That's my view in a nutshell.  Can we can agree on any of this ??

 

[robblok]

11 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

LOL...we are driving each other crazy with this damn graph!  First of all, the 2500 calories you are referring to is 5 days BEFORE the fast is started (-5 on the X scale), so you are making a wrong assumption there.  Secondly, we are nit-picking about numbers not real-world effects of fasting on functional ability ("hunter/gatherer capabilities").

 

I agree that I have overstated my position.  I should not say that metabolism does not go down during a fast.  Of course it does eventually, but my point is that it does not go down to the point where it effects "hunter/gatherer" functionality until fat reserves have almost become depleted.  And. it certainly does not go down to any significant degree in the timeframe of most short term therapeutic fasts (i.e.: up to 72 hours).  IN FACT...it actually goes UP during the first 48 hours of a fast (see below).

 

Here is a graph that actually DOES show changes in metabolic rate during fasting.  It is a combined chart from a number of different studies by various researchers:

 

http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/UID07E11.HTM

 

Notice what happens during the first 48 hours of a fast; there is actually a small absolute increase in BMR relative to values obtained after an overnight fast from ALL of these various different studies.  More importantly, notice that in most studies BMR does not go below the 100% baseline until at least 72 hours into the fast, and in some of the studies, it does not go below 100% baseline even after 96 hours!

 

There has to be a reason that cavemen & women were able to go without eating for days on end and still have the energy to hunt and gather.  There has to be a reason that Beriberi was able to fast for 382 days with no ill effects or significant loss of muscle.  If metabolic rate diminished significantly, they would all be dead! 

 

For me (based on scientific facts), my fasting sweet spot is 72 hours.  According to this combined graph of many different studies, MY BMR never goes below the baseline during the entire length of my fast, but actually ramps up during the first 48 hours in ALL studies.  What's more, in my own self-experiment of fasting for 5 days, I suffered no lack of energy except a little on day 2; otherwise I was able to do day-to-day activities normally and rode 6km daily at 200 watts (which is a very brisk rate, like what a person would do in a spin class for example).

 

So, here's my amended position.  YES, BMR will eventually slow down during an extended fast, but not during the window of time that most people will do a fast for therapeutic reasons.  When a slowdown occurs, it will not be to a degree that will affect the "hunter/gatherer" functionality of the individual to any significant degree UNTIL body fat reserves have nearly been depleted.

 

The reason for this is that ketones, being able to pass through the blood brain barrier, will provide fuel directly to the brain, and they will also mobilize stored body fat, converting it to fatty acids to fuel the body.  In addition, norepinephrine and growth hormone will not only counter the effects of slowed metabolism in later stages of a fast, but will also promote faster recovery of any essential proteins lost during the fast, once feeding is resumed, and higher level of circulating growth hormones will also allow for extra-fast replacement of lost striated muscle through visits to the gym to encourage protein synthesis.

 

That's my view in a nutshell.  Can we can agree on any of this ??

 

100% agree on that, because as i stated before I have no problems with short fasts. I was talking long fasts 5+ days or wherever you draw the line. (though for me personally 72 hours is quite long).

 

Yes again on the hunter gatherers 72 hours is not long at all but 10+ days certainly would have things slowing down (maybe more then 10 days but there will be a point where that happens but certainly not at 72 hours).

 

As for muscle loss on long fasts for sure it happens especially if one is not active (meaning does not use the muscles). I believe that someone with much muscle will lose it easier during a fast as someone with less muscle. Muscle above a certain limit will only be maintained if it is used (gym ect). During a fast its not used. Especially hard gainers will have this problem.

 

A friend of mine who trained a lot had like me 4 months of non training just like me but unlike me his body weight did not go up. But his muscles went down and fat went up. With me my fat went up my muscles not so much. Difference between the two of us is body type. He is more a lean guy who has more problems gaining muscle less problems losing fat while I have less problems gaining muscles but more losing fat. I think body type also has to do with how your body responds to a fast or training or anything. 

 

I have nothing against fasting, just don't think its something that i could do easily. 

 

 

[WaveHunter]

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

100% agree on that, because as i stated before I have no problems with short fasts. I was talking long fasts 5+ days or wherever you draw the line. (though for me personally 72 hours is quite long).

 

Yes again on the hunter gatherers 72 hours is not long at all but 10+ days certainly would have things slowing down (maybe more then 10 days but there will be a point where that happens but certainly not at 72 hours).

 

As for muscle loss on long fasts for sure it happens especially if one is not active (meaning does not use the muscles). I believe that someone with much muscle will lose it easier during a fast as someone with less muscle. Muscle above a certain limit will only be maintained if it is used (gym ect). During a fast its not used. Especially hard gainers will have this problem.

 

A friend of mine who trained a lot had like me 4 months of non training just like me but unlike me his body weight did not go up. But his muscles went down and fat went up. With me my fat went up my muscles not so much. Difference between the two of us is body type. He is more a lean guy who has more problems gaining muscle less problems losing fat while I have less problems gaining muscles but more losing fat. I think body type also has to do with how your body responds to a fast or training or anything. 

 

I have nothing against fasting, just don't think its something that i could do easily. 

 

 

Outstanding..we actually agree! ???? 

 

I admit, I made some stupid assumptions at what you were asserting.  I totally agree that fasting beyond 72 hours is only beneficial for morbidly obese people who's risks associated with their obesity outweigh the negative aspects of longer fasts.  Anybody who fasts beyond 72 hours merely to loose body fat purely for the sake of vanity is just being foolish and is very ill-informed about fasting IMHO.

 

Again, I just want to say I do not look at fasting as a way to lose body fat.  People that look at it that way are missing the point IMO. 

 

Rather, I see it as a way to encourage overall metabolic health.  By periodically fasting, I am really training my body to more efficiently use stored body fat as fuel even when I am not fasting.  It's akin to the analogy I keep mentioning about the advantages of hybrid gas/electric engines.  This is, in essence, what it means to be "keto-adapted", and "smart" periodic fasting is how you make this happen.

 

So, if your metabolic health is optimal (through keto adaptation), you should never really have a need to go on any sort of weight-loss diets at all!  Your body will take care of all that automatically for you! 

 

[VincentRJ]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I totally agree that fasting beyond 72 hours is only beneficial for morbidly obese people who's risks associated with their obesity outweigh the negative aspects of longer fasts. 

As I understand, from the research papers I've read, it takes about 5 days of fasting before a normal body (not obese) begins consuming defunct white blood cells for food. When one begins eating again, those consumed white blood cells are replaced with new, fully functioning cells, and one's immune system is enhanced as a result.

 

If true, that's an impressive benefit of fasting beyond 72 hours.

[Destiny1990]

Will fasting each day 16:8 have positive effects for people their immune system? And or other benefits?

[VincentRJ]

10 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Will fasting each day 16:8 have positive effects for people their immune system? And or other benefits?

It's very difficult to be precise about the benefits that result from specific periods of fasting because of the great variability of the biology of individuals and their lifestyles, which is why I don't see much point in calorie counting, and so on.

 

I've read that fasting for 4 to 5 days will be more beneficial for the immune system than shorter periods of fasting, but exactly how much more beneficial is difficult to say.

 

Valter Longo is one research scientist who has investigated this issue. I'll see if I can find some relevant results.

[VincentRJ]

I see that Valter Longo is now marketing his own diet which is claimed to 'mimick' the effects of fasting. I can't find any reference to the 4 or 5 day period required for a good rejuvenation of one's immune system. I suspect that fasting for longer than 3 days (72 hours) is considered to be risky for some people, especially those who already have medical problems.

 

However, I did come across the following research paper which discusses some of the benefits of prolonged fasting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/
Here are some quotes.

 

"In both mice and humans, fasting for 2 or 5 days, respectively causes an over 60% decrease in IGF-I, a 30% or more decrease in glucose and a 5–10 fold increase in the IGF-1binding protein and inhibitor IGFBP1.

These periodically extreme conditions can promote changes, which are long-lasting and delay aging and disease independently of calorie restriction, although the cellular mechanisms responsible for these effects remain poorly understood."

 

"Water only and other forms of long-term fasting have also been documented to have potent effects on hypertension. An average of 13 days of water only fasting resulted in the achievement of a systolic blood pressure (BP) below 120 in 82% of subjects with borderline hypertension with a mean 20 mm Hg reduction in BP (Goldhamer et al., 2002). BP remained significantly lower compared to baseline even after subjects resumed the normal diet for an average of 6 days".

[WaveHunter]

18 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

As I understand, from the research papers I've read, it takes about 5 days of fasting before a normal body (not obese) begins consuming defunct white blood cells for food. When one begins eating again, those consumed white blood cells are replaced with new, fully functioning cells, and one's immune system is enhanced as a result.

 

If true, that's an impressive benefit of fasting beyond 72 hours.

I agree; it is quite impressive!  The process by which this occurs is called autophagy, and though this term has become associated with a lot of ridiculous health claims by "health gurus" on YouTube and mainstream health blogs, and also downplayed by ignorant naysayers, the underlying science is compelling.  For those who doubt this, the scientist who discovered and documented the underlying mechanisms of autophagy, Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2016 for his groundbreaking work!

 

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2016/press-release/

 

Autophagy is a natural process that occurs 24/7 but ramps up considerably during the initial 72 hours of getting into a fasted state.  In simple terms, it occurs during autophagic flux, when glycogen stores have become depleted and ketone bodies are not yet being produced in sufficient amounts to provide alternative fuel to the brain and to effectively convert stored body fat to fatty acids to fuel the body. 

 

During this timeframe, the body must therefore seek out other sources for fuel such as dysfunctional intracellular materials, and white blood cells are among the materials that get broken down for energy, and then recycled with fresh ones. 

 

One important aspect of autophagy is that it shows that the body is smart because in its' search for alternative fuel, it spares essential materials like proteins that make up the heart and and skeletal muscle for instance, and instead targets less important, dysfunctional or damaged intracellular materials.  This includes damaged or dysfunctional proteins, mitochondria, white blood cells, and many other materials.  The body breaks these "junky" materials down to use for energy and then creates news, fresh and fully functioning ones in their place!  Pretty amazing IMO!!

 

The implications are pretty astounding when you think about it!  Many scientists believe that the root cause of diseases such as many forms of cancers, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's to name just a few are due to these dysfunctional intracellular materials not getting properly recycled out of the cell!

 

So, this is just an example of why people who think the only value of fasting is to "shed a few pounds" are completely missing the true benefits of periodic fasting.  72 hour fasts are the "sweet spot" IMHO if your goal is to enhance metabolic health.  The resulting enhanced levels of autophagy that occurs during those 72 hours will provide the most benefits, and fasting any longer will only provide diminishing returns for most otherwise healthy people.

 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

I see that Valter Longo is now marketing his own diet which is claimed to 'mimick' the effects of fasting. I can't find any reference to the 4 or 5 day period required for a good rejuvenation of one's immune system. I suspect that fasting for longer than 3 days (72 hours) is considered to be risky for some people, especially those who already have medical problems.

 

However, I did come across the following research paper which discusses some of the benefits of prolonged fasting.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/
Here are some quotes.

 

"In both mice and humans, fasting for 2 or 5 days, respectively causes an over 60% decrease in IGF-I, a 30% or more decrease in glucose and a 5–10 fold increase in the IGF-1binding protein and inhibitor IGFBP1.

These periodically extreme conditions can promote changes, which are long-lasting and delay aging and disease independently of calorie restriction, although the cellular mechanisms responsible for these effects remain poorly understood."

 

"Water only and other forms of long-term fasting have also been documented to have potent effects on hypertension. An average of 13 days of water only fasting resulted in the achievement of a systolic blood pressure (BP) below 120 in 82% of subjects with borderline hypertension with a mean 20 mm Hg reduction in BP (Goldhamer et al., 2002). BP remained significantly lower compared to baseline even after subjects resumed the normal diet for an average of 6 days".

Longo's diet is safe for longer periods because it is not a true (total abstinence from food) fast.  Essentially it fools the body into having a starvation response by using a diet with a macro ratio of  80 percent fat, 10 percent protein, and 10 percent carbohydrate.   it's therefore much more sustainable for people that could not otherwise endure a full-fasted state, yet they receive most of the benefits of a total fast.

[WaveHunter]

Just to add to this; a macro ratio of  80 percent fat, 10 percent protein, and 10 percent carbohydrate induces ketosis in much the same way that a complete (no food) fast does, thus the body is essentially "fooled" into believing you are doing a complete (no food) fast, from a metabolic standpoint even though you are deriving calories from it. 

 

So, basically you get the benefits of a full fast (rapid fat loss with minimal metabolic slowdown) that you would not get from a "calorie-restricted only" diet, and because you are literally not starving yourself, it's a lot easier for most people to stick with.

 

Finally, Just as a curious fact...there is one particular food that has this precise 80/10/10 macro ratio and that is avocados ????

 

[Destiny1990]

7 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I agree; it is quite impressive!  The process by which this occurs is called autophagy, and though this term has become associated with a lot of ridiculous health claims by "health gurus" on YouTube and mainstream health blogs, and also downplayed by ignorant naysayers, the underlying science is compelling.  For those who doubt this, the scientist who discovered and documented the underlying mechanisms of autophagy, Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2016 for his groundbreaking work!

 

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2016/press-release/

 

Autophagy is a natural process that occurs 24/7 but ramps up considerably during the initial 72 hours of getting into a fasted state.  In simple terms, it occurs during autophagic flux, when glycogen stores have become depleted and ketone bodies are not yet being produced in sufficient amounts to provide alternative fuel to the brain and to effectively convert stored body fat to fatty acids to fuel the body. 

 

During this timeframe, the body must therefore seek out other sources for fuel such as dysfunctional intracellular materials, and white blood cells are among the materials that get broken down for energy, and then recycled with fresh ones. 

 

One important aspect of autophagy is that it shows that the body is smart because in its' search for alternative fuel, it spares essential materials like proteins that make up the heart and and skeletal muscle for instance, and instead targets less important, dysfunctional or damaged intracellular materials.  This includes damaged or dysfunctional proteins, mitochondria, white blood cells, and many other materials.  The body breaks these "junky" materials down to use for energy and then creates news, fresh and fully functioning ones in their place!  Pretty amazing IMO!!

 

The implications are pretty astounding when you think about it!  Many scientists believe that the root cause of diseases such as many forms of cancers, Parkinson's, and Alzheimer's to name just a few are due to these dysfunctional intracellular materials not getting properly recycled out of the cell!

 

So, this is just an example of why people who think the only value of fasting is to "shed a few pounds" are completely missing the true benefits of periodic fasting.  72 hour fasts are the "sweet spot" IMHO if your goal is to enhance metabolic health.  The resulting enhanced levels of autophagy that occurs during those 72 hours will provide the most benefits, and fasting any longer will only provide diminishing returns for most otherwise healthy people.

 

While doing the Keto diet how to avoid constipation?

I read its one of the side effects.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

15 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

While doing the Keto diet how to avoid constipation?

I read its one of the side effects.

I never noticed an issue directly attributable to Keto but unprocessed psyllium husks (not powder) work great for me whenever I get constipated.

 

The best brand IMHO:  Yerba Prima Psyllium Whole Husks.   NOW FoodsNOW Whole Psyllium Husks is also pretty good.

[FracturedRabbit]

16 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

While doing the Keto diet how to avoid constipation?

I read its one of the side effects.

 

 

I have been keto for nearly two years, no problems.

[robblok]

20 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

I have been keto for nearly two years, no problems.

Depends a bit what you eat but cant imagine it being a problem if you eat a lot of vegetables. There should be fiber in those. Failing that Psyllim husk.

[WaveHunter]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Depends a bit what you eat but cant imagine it being a problem if you eat a lot of vegetables. There should be fiber in those. Failing that Psyllim husk.

Keto is quite flexible, offering more food choices than most people realize, and not only that but an occasional dose of psyllium ain't that bad if you have a good brand ????

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Keto is quite flexible, offering more food choices than most people realize, and not only that but an occasional dose of psyllium ain't that bad if you have a good brand ????

I got psyllium husk too but i use it not so much for constipation as i never have a problem but more for it filling me up killing appetite. Goes in a protein shake together with innulin. Plus both fibers feed the healthy bacteria in the gut.  

[WaveHunter]

Just now, robblok said:

I got psyllium husk too but i use it not so much for constipation as i never have a problem but more for it filling me up killing appetite. Goes in a protein shake together with innulin. Plus both fibers feed the healthy bacteria in the gut.  

Really?   Interesting about the healthy bacteria. I didn't know that.  I use probiotics for that but always wonder if they are doing anything beneficial or if I'm just being scammed because they are SO expensive, and when they talk about BILLIONS of colony building unts, it just sounds a little too much like marketing mumbo jumbo...but I guess I'm just too lazy to know for sure so I just use them like multi-vitamins (which is another thing I always wonder about in terms of whether they make a difference or not.)