I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[milwaukeeboy]

People overeat for many reasons. It can be out of habit, boredom, social eating, depression, or just because food is yummy.

For sure, the older, I get, the harder it is to take off the weight and keep it off, probably due to a slower metabolism.

The best way to fast is alone.

When I get back from a month in the USA weighing in at 72Kg on my 179cm frame from too much pizza and too many Angus burgers, I take only water for 7 days and get myself back to 66Kg, which makes me feel and look better in every way.

[dontoearth]

6 hours ago, simon43 said:

 

For me, it seems to be due to a combination of losing the fat layer and also increasing the abs muscle size.  I don't have much visceral stomach fat anyway, and my abs work-out programme is giving a clearer definition between the muscles.

 

My 48 hour fast dropped my weight by about 1.5 Kg, which of course is dropping fat from many areas of my body, not just the abs region.

 

     You might notice the fat is coming from the largest area of deposits, first just your body efficiently burning fuel.  Unless you have measured your visceral fat with some kind of electronic imaging scale you can not be certain whether you have a large visceral fat deposit.  I got a measurement on a Tanita professional electronic scale at my health club and was surprised even after my intermittent fasting and weight training and cardio for months (I lost 41 us lbs or 18.5 K)  I still had a very high visceral fat rating.  The fat evidently is able to pull back into the body and surround the organs so its a tough fat to work off.  Thin people with high visceral fat deep in their bodies are called TOFI (thin on the outside and fat on the inside).  Some researchers think this explains why 30% of the fatal heart attacks are in men that appear to have normal weight according to the BMI.   This has always been a problem to explain until recent data in autopsy showed so many of those unfortunate souls were TOFI.  This seems to be a mainly a male problem.  The health problems deep visceral fat can cause are well documented and it is worthwhile finding a strategy to burn it off your body. 

       I am thinking longer fast periods for me as I have had an long long plateau in which weight will not budge.  Thanks for the inspiration! 

[dickjones2018]

I see some knowledgeable people here talking about fasting, tried it myself also, skipping breakfast for months now... and then there are people that want to comment about something they know nothing about and too stupid or lazy , lets mix in, too fat also that like to discredit the work of PHD's (Longo/Fung) about fasting and don't even want to read or watch the science but ask dump questions like WHY, while it was already explained... to those... eat on... if cancer ring the door one day, you will just go for CHEMO because that is what the man in the white coat says is best for you, even he is just like an car saleman, just selling to you what he knows and never look further than his nose

[Skeptic7]

My brother is all about fasting. He's been a vegan for nearly 30 years and recently did a 6-day fast, only consuming water. He's always researching and studying natural health and remedies. Said there are abundant health and body benefits from fasting. He was highly impressed with the weight loss results, as he'd put on an unwanted gut the past few years. Still wanting to lose more weight, he just did a 19 day fast, drinking only a home concocted mineral water dubbed "snake juice". I talked to him all through the fast and he was fine. Said light-headedness if arising too quickly was the only thing he had to be careful about. He continued his long dog walks daily...when it wasn't raining.

 

Talked to him the morning he was to break the fast and asked him if he was hungry. His reply was a simple, "No...could easily go longer". But he was coming to BKK from his home in Isaan for a visit and wanted to get back on a normal diet style before arriving. He informed that after an extended fast, one has to ease back into eating SLOWLY and carefully. Guess there are some possible bad reactions if one's intake of food is too abundant and too quick. 

 

All that said, I'm still in the "considering it" stage. I've also been a vegan for nearly 30 years and not overweight, but still may give it a go in the future.

 

Happy Fasting!

[simon43]

Another weekend and another 48 hour fast.  I can honestly say that I feel great (again!).

 

As with last weekend, I'm not doing any strenuous weight training during my fast.  But I continue my fast and slow cycle rides each day (40 Km total), as well as a 5 Km jog.  No ill-effects whatsoever, no physical weakness or dizzyness.

 

I mentioned the reason for doing this fast was to a) see how it affected me mentally and physically [no negative effects so far] and b) to try to reduce a small % of body fat such that my visible abs become more defined.

 

Amazingly (for me), I can see the layer of thin fat that covers my lower abs is literally dropping away over the past couple of days, starting from above my groin and moving upwards towards my navel....

 

By the way, if you are my age (hitting 60), and you have (as I had) a beer and pizza pot belly, AND (as I was) you do minimal exercise AND you want six pack abs, my serious advice to you is that unless you have a huge level of will power and are prepared to put everything into gaining these abs........ my advice to you is to FORGET IT!! ?  Sticking needles into myself would be more fun LoL.

 

Finally, in deference to Tropo's previous comments, I'm aware that I need to ensure that I don't lose muscle in my fitness routine.  After I break my fast, I will substantially increase my daily protein intake (lean chicken).

[WaveHunter]

Not to burst anyone's bubble but a 48 hour water fast really doesn't accomplish much in terms of any health benefits.  What's more, doing it on a regular intermittent basis actually does more harm than good (see below). 

 

When you begin to fast, glycogen stores last for at least 24 hours, and then the liver is capable of producing new glucose for another 24-48  hours (gluconeogenesis), so ketosis doesn't really even kick in for at least 2-3 days from when you start a fast.  During this period, you are simply "paying your dues" until good things starts to happen around day 3-4 (when ketosis begins to kick in).  

 

You MUST be in ketosis for there to be any benefits to a fast.  All the mumbo-jumbo that health gurus tout about fasting as a means to detox the body of environmental toxins is just pure nonsense!  The only proven benefit of fasting has to do with metabolic changes that occur once you are in ketosis (i.e.: positive changes in insulin sensitivity, lipolysis, autophagy, etc).

 

Anyone who views fasting as a weight-loss strategy should think again.  Being overweight is a lifestyle issue, not merely a nutritional issue.  Short-term diets do NOT work.  Fasting is definitely NOT good for weight loss.  That's all I'll say about that.

 

The real benefits  of a water fast don't occur until the third day of a water fast for most people.  If it is a partial fast (up to 50 grams of daily carbs), it can take over a week for changes to occur.  As ketosis starts to occur, it's only then that your body is able to utilize fat stores for fuel.  The health significance of this is not about "visable" weight loss but rather it is about reducing fat in and around your liver and pancreas.

 

This is also about the time that autophagy begins to occur, and this is the main benefit of fasting, at least to my way of thinking.

 

In regard to why Intermittent fasting is not healthy to do on a regular basis; the reason is that during the gluconeogenesis stage, your body is forced to use proteins for fuel.  While the body is selective and tries to spare essential proteins such as striated muscle, wasting does occur until ketosis kicks in sufficiently (after day 3)...so, repeated IF will cause accumulated muscle wasting (not a huge amount maybe, but it's certainly not beneficial).  After Day 3-4, ketones start to take over so less and less protein must be sacrificed.

 

So, a 48 hours fast is really only good for one thing and that is that it acts as a good trail run for a longer fast.  It trains your body to enter into ketosis more easily (less discomfort), but for a water fast to do you any good from a health perspective, it really needs to be longer than 48 hours.  Otherwise, you're just putting yourself through the hell of the first 3 days of a fast, and then quitting just when the benefits are about to pay off (autophagy kicks in, lipolysis goes into high gear) AND everything starts to get a hell of a lot easier (disappearance of hunger, higher energy levels, better sleep, etc.).  I mean, it's crazy to go through those first few days of a fast and then quit just when it's starting to pay off!

 

When I do a 7 day fast, I get through the first few days in a pretty sedentary state.  Even though extended fasts get easier "with practice", those first few days are always rough.  But the remarkable thing is that once the body acclimates be the fasted state, something amazing happens...on the 4th or 5th day you start feeling very energetic!  

 

By the 4th-5th day, your body is in a "protein conservation" state.  75% of the energy used by the brain is provided by ketones. The two major types of ketones produced are beta hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate, which can increase over 70 fold by this stage of a fast.  High levels of growth hormone can now maintain muscle mass and lean tissues. The energy for maintenance of basal metabolism is almost entirely met by the use of free fatty acids and ketones, and increased norepinephrine (adrenalin) levels prevent the decrease in metabolic rate.

 

So, I can and do actually work out in the gym (cardio & resistance) on alternate days with no problem.

 

None of this means a thing though if you end a fast improperly and just go back to an unhealthy lifestyle of poor nutrition.  You must break a fast properly and re-feed your body properly, and then eat healthy. 

 

Everything I am saying is soundly backed up by science, and I've been doing 7 day water fasts (once or twice a year) for about 5 years now.   I also do 72 hour fasts (specifically for autophagy) every other month or so.  FYI, I always have blood panels before and after 7-day fasts and have never had any issues arise from extended fasting.  I also have a good MD who has always provided sound guidance, and I recommend anyone contemplating an extended fast to do the same.

 

Not trying to be a smart *ss or anything like that; just trying to share what took me a long time to learn.

[simon43]

@Wavehunter, just to comment that in my case I am not overweight. (I had a beer belly 20 months ago, but have followed a rigourous diet and fitness routine since then, and have lost 14 Kg in fat (and maybe a little muscle if I'm not careful).  Now down to about 60 Kg (Note that I have a very 'compact' body type, similar to the average Thai male, so 60 Kg is at the lower range of my BMI).

 

I feel fine on the first day of my fast and more energetic on the second day. I can see very visible results of fat loss on my lower abs (my middle and upper abs are very visible anyway - there being little fat in that region).

 

But I agree that for the average, overweight person, going straight into a 48 hour fast is probably not going to be beneficial or 'fun'.

[WaveHunter]

8 hours ago, simon43 said:

@Wavehunter, just to comment that in my case I am not overweight. (I had a beer belly 20 months ago, but have followed a rigourous diet and fitness routine since then, and have lost 14 Kg in fat (and maybe a little muscle if I'm not careful).  Now down to about 60 Kg (Note that I have a very 'compact' body type, similar to the average Thai male, so 60 Kg is at the lower range of my BMI).

 

I feel fine on the first day of my fast and more energetic on the second day. I can see very visible results of fat loss on my lower abs (my middle and upper abs are very visible anyway - there being little fat in that region).

 

But I agree that for the average, overweight person, going straight into a 48 hour fast is probably not going to be beneficial or 'fun'.

Congrats on your accomplishments.  I mean that sincerely.  My post wasn’t directed at you specifically.  I think your results have more to do with your long-term commitment to trying to be healthier though than to 48 hours of fasting.

 

As I described, during the first 48 hours of a fast, no positive metabolic changes have occurred that are attributable to the fast because your body is still basically running on glucose.  Your body must start releases ketone bodies for metabolic changes to occur.

 

That’s not to say you might feel better (more healthy) as you described. If your diet had been particularly poor before, the absence of food (notably, excessive carbs) will be a positive thing (no insulin & blood sugar spikes).

 

You mentioned that you were not obese but had a “beer belly” at one time.  Many people are like that.  Fat that accumulates mostly around the abdomen is the result of a “fatty liver” and is usually the result of excessive carbs in the diet and a sedentary state.

 

Broadly speaking this state is increasingly described as “metabolic syndrome”, and this is exactly what a extended fast can addresss.  

 

Putting it simply, a extended fast can rid the body of this fat that accumulates in and around the liver and pancreas much more effectively than a restricted calorie diet.  The reason this is so is because the problem is not excessive calories, it’s excessive carbs.

 

Probably the single most beneficial reason for extended fasting though is autophagy.  

 

Most people assume that the single reason NOT to fast is that it wastes muscles.  That’s actually NOT true.  

 

It is true that during a 3-5 day window during a fast, in the absence of glucose, the body will turn to proteins as a source of fuel BUT that doesn’t mean muscle will be wasted.  The body is highly selective about which type of proteins are sacrificed, and this is where “autophagy” comes in.

 

A Japanese cell biologist, Yoshinori Ohsumi, was awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize for his discovery that supports the notion that when the body is in a fasted state, it is the damaged or malfunctioning intracellular RNA proteins that are consumed as fuel, not the more essential proteins associated with striated muscle, and that these “bad” proteins can then actually be consumed by the body. (He won the Prize by documenting the mechanisms by which this happens).  Incredibly fascinating stuff with ground-breaking implications, which is why he was awarded the Prize!

 

This is HUGE because much of the current research into cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and a host of other deseaeses are thought to be related to metabolic dysfunction, and more importantly to damaged, mutated or otherwise malfunctioning RNA proteins, so fasting may actually be a way to rid the body of these proteins, and that means that the sacrificing of protein on an extended fast can be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

 

Again, not trying to come off as a pissy know-it-all or anything like that. I’m just a big proponent of fasting and I’ve always made it a point to seek “scientific” knowledge on the subject, not guru-speak from people who’s real motive is to twist the scientific facts and make a buck on their book, website, supplement, or whatever they’re trying to sell.

 

So,  I’m just trying to share what I’ve learned because the internet is just saturated with all sorts of rubish and just plain nonsense on this subject.

 

For anyone reading this, don’t blindly believe what I’m saying.  Instead, start googling some of the keywords and ideas I’ve described, be objective in weeding out the guru-speak from the results, and make your own conclusions.  I think many will be shocked when they begin to see the truth ?

 

 

 

[Kadilo]

6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Congrats on your accomplishments.  I mean that sincerely.  My post wasn’t directed at you specifically.  I think your results have more to do with your long-term commitment to trying to be healthier though than to 48 hours of fasting.

 

As I described, during the first 48 hours of a fast, no positive metabolic changes have occurred that are attributable to the fast because your body is still basically running on glucose.  Your body must start releases ketone bodies for metabolic changes to occur.

 

That’s not to say you might feel better (more healthy) as you described. If your diet had been particularly poor before, the absence of food (notably, excessive carbs) will be a positive thing (no insulin & blood sugar spikes).

 

You mentioned that you were not obese but had a “beer belly” at one time.  Many people are like that.  Fat that accumulates mostly around the abdomen is the result of a “fatty liver” and is usually the result of excessive carbs in the diet and a sedentary state.

 

Broadly speaking this state is increasingly described as “metabolic syndrome”, and this is exactly what a extended fast can addresss.  Putting it simply, a extended fast can rid the body of this fat that accumulates in and around the liver and pancreas much more effectively than a restricted calorie diet.  The reason this is so is because the problem is not excessive calories, it’s excessive carbs.

 

Probably the single most beneficial reason for extended fasting though is autophagy.  Most people assume that the single reason NOT to fast is that it wastes muscles.  That’s actually NOT true.  It is true that in the absence of glucose, the body will turn to proteins as a source of fuel BUT that doesn’t mean muscle will be wasted.  The body is highly selective about which type of proteins are sacrificed, and this is where “autophagy” comes in.

 

A Japanese cell biologist, Yoshinori Ohsumi, was awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize for his discovery that supports the notion that when the body is in a fasted state, it is the damaged or malfunctioning intracellular RNA proteins that are consumed as fuel, not the more essential proteins associated with striated muscle.

 

This is HUGE because much of the current research into cancer, Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, and a host of other deseaeses is thought to be related to damaged or mutated or otherwise malfunctioning RNA proteins, so fasting may actually be a way to rid the body of these proteins, and that means that the sacrificing of protein on an extended fast can be a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

 

Again, not trying to come off as a pissy know-it-all or anything like that. I’m just a big proponent of fasting and I’ve always made it a point to seek “scientific” knowledge on the subject, not guru-speak from people who’s real motive is to twist the scientific facts and make a buck on their book, website, supplement, or whatever they’re trying to sell...so I’m just trying to share what I’ve learned because the internet is just saturated with all sorts of rubish and just plain nonsense on this subject.

 

For anyone reading this, don’t blindly believe what I’m saying.  Instead, start googling some of the keywords and ideas I’ve made, be objective in weeding out the guru-speak from the results, and make your own conclusions.  I think many will be shocked when they begin to see the truth ?

 

 

 

Lots of good stuff there. I have just completed a 17 day water fast (yesterday), which is my first water only fast having completed two previously at a retreat in Samui. 

As you say, there are some great reads on the net as to the benefits. 

My intention is now to continue on intermittent fasts

[WaveHunter]

29 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

Lots of good stuff there. I have just completed a 17 day water fast (yesterday), which is my first water only fast having completed two previously at a retreat in Samui. 

As you say, there are some great reads on the net as to the benefits. 

My intention is now to continue on intermittent fasts

Wow, that is one long fast!  I assume you must have been obese at the start! Yes?  I don’t mean that as a slur; I just mean you must have had a lot of fat stores to support such a long fast.

 

Did you experience an “energized” state by the 4th-5th day?  When I do a 7 day fast I find that to be the most remarkable aspect of extended fasting.  I mean, I couldn’t believe I was actually able to go into the gym and lift weights and do cardio after 5 days of not eating but that was the case!

 

Most people don’t realize that this happens but it does!  

 

Once the body is in the “protein conservation” stage of a fast, the body is being adequately fueled by ketone bodies and freed fatty acids.  

 

What’s more, massive amounts of growth hormones are being released to maintain muscle, and norepinephrine release is keeping the metabolism from slowing.

 

None of that happens in the initial stages of an extended fast.  It takes several days to reach this stage.  So, most of the people who have a negative opinion of extended fasting are basing this on short-term fasts (under 72 hours).  It’s a whole different ballgame after 72 hours!

 

I love the science behind all of this as much as the health benefits!

[LivinLOS]

On 8/5/2018 at 3:25 PM, tropo said:

I've never fasted as I don't believe there is any need to, but you ask yourself "why not?". Surely a better question is why. What did you gain?

Current belief is that periods of fasting wake up cell regeneration and immune health.

 

For me I found it made me more mentally alert, and I enjoy the exercise in control, knowing I can master my body's signals and inputs and that actually what we usually consider hungry is just the stage of emptying out.. Once 

I did a while of 2 days a week (bedtime, full day, next night, break fast at 'breakfast') every week, lost 12 - 15 kg without changing what I eat when I wasnt fasting. I also did a couple of 3 days to test myself and one 5 day. The 5 day wasnt significantly harder than the 3 days, and it comes in waves rather than getting worse and worse. If I wasnt working I would like to try a 10 or 30 day juice fast. Working and other people / socialising always turned out to be the hardest part of the issue. 

[WaveHunter]

42 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

... The 5 day wasnt significantly harder than the 3 days, and it comes in waves rather than getting worse and worse. If I wasnt working I would like to try a 10 or 30 day juice fast. Working and other people / socialising always turned out to be the hardest part of the issue. 

 

42 minutes ago, LivinLOS said:

 

Yeah, the social aspects of an extended fast are tough.  No way around that one.  Most people think you're crazy, and at the very least, it's just plain awkward interacting with others where eating/drinking are involved.

 

As for extending beyond 5 days, assuming you have the fat stores to support it, it actually should be easier than the first 5 days.  The only thing is that how you handle re-feeding becomes much more critical.  You can really get into trouble if you don't handle that correctly, whereas on a 5 day fast there's a lot more latitude.

 

I do one or two 7 day fast a year, going on 5 years now, and with every one, the first few days are rough (only mentally now) but after that, I do fine.  I have to admit though, I love watching the Food Channel while fasting.  I’m not sure if that’s a masochistic thing or what LOL ?

 

One thing you should be aware of though; "juice fasting" will not promote autophagy if the juices contain appreciable amounts of carbs (i.e.: fruit juice) since this will prevent ketosis from occurring and that is a necessity in order for accelerated autophagy to occur.

 

Seriously speaking, I don't see any real benefit to fasting for a healthy person except as it addresses metabolic syndrome, and specifically as a means to initiate autophagy, so if a fast does not induce ketosis, it's really not of much benefit.

[Kadilo]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Wow, that is one long fast!  I assume you must have been obese at the start! Yes?  I don’t mean that as a slur; I just mean you must have had a lot of fat stores to support such a long fast.

 

Did you experience an “energized” state by the 4th-5th day?  When I do a 7 day fast I find that to be the most remarkable aspect of extended fasting.  I mean, I couldn’t believe I was actually able to go into the gym and lift weights and do cardio after 5 days of not eating but that was the case!

 

Most people don’t realize that this happens but it does!  

 

Once the body is in the “protein conservation” stage of a fast, the body is being adequately fueled by ketone bodies and freed fatty acids.  

 

What’s more, massive amounts of growth hormones are being released to maintain muscle, and norepinephrine release is keeping the metabolism from slowing.

 

None of that happens in the initial stages of an extended fast.  It takes several days to reach this stage.  So, most of the people who have a negative opinion of extended fasting are basing this on short-term fasts (under 72 hours).  It’s a whole different ballgame after 72 hours!

 

I love the science behind all of this as much as the health benefits!

No problem. I weighed in at 102 kg at the start so I guess clinically obese. I’m 5ft 9”. I carried a lot of body fat around my middle. I dropped 11kg during the fast and feel much better for it. 

 

Yes, as you say after the first couple of days where the hunger part wears of you go through different stages and feel more energized. Most days I walked between   6-10 miles and drank minimum 3 liters water/day. I also did a couple of salt cleanses during the fast. 

 

Other benefits it’s for me were I carried a lot of inflammation in leg (previous problem) which has now reduced significantly. 

 

My main purpose is the spiritual benefits, which are personal and something one can only experience on extended fasts. As you say the science is fascinating. I did a lot of you tubing and reading before I started but having fasted twice before on water and juice I already kind of knew what to expect. I love the challenge. To be honest only practical reasons stopped me going further. I’ve read up on people doing 30 days and more and that takes you even deeper.  

[Kadilo]

1 hour ago, LivinLOS said:

Current belief is that periods of fasting wake up cell regeneration and immune health.

 

For me I found it made me more mentally alert, and I enjoy the exercise in control, knowing I can master my body's signals and inputs and that actually what we usually consider hungry is just the stage of emptying out.. Once 

I did a while of 2 days a week (bedtime, full day, next night, break fast at 'breakfast') every week, lost 12 - 15 kg without changing what I eat when I wasnt fasting. I also did a couple of 3 days to test myself and one 5 day. The 5 day wasnt significantly harder than the 3 days, and it comes in waves rather than getting worse and worse. If I wasnt working I would like to try a 10 or 30 day juice fast. Working and other people / socialising always turned out to be the hardest part of the issue. 

Your 2 days a week is something I’ve read up on and the way forward for me. 

 

I can can relate to your last point too. I planned my 17 day water fast around being in the UK visiting my family for 3 weeks so apart from them I had no other commitments/distractions. Being hot when i arrived helped as it made it easy to get used to consuming  large volumes of water. It’s important to have a window where you can just concentrate on what you are doing. 

[WaveHunter]

22 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

No problem. I weighed in at 102 kg at the start so I guess clinically obese. I’m 5ft 9”. I carried a lot of body fat around my middle. I dropped 11kg during the fast and feel much better for it. 

 

Yes, as you say after the first couple of days where the hunger part wears of you go through different stages and feel more energized. Most days I walked between   6-10 miles and drank minimum 3 liters water/day. I also did a couple of salt cleanses during the fast. 

 

Other benefits it’s for me were I carried a lot of inflammation in leg (previous problem) which has now reduced significantly. 

 

My main purpose is the spiritual benefits, which are personal and something one can only experience on extended fasts. As you say the science is fascinating. I did a lot of you tubing and reading before I started but having fasted twice before on water and juice I already kind of knew what to expect. I love the challenge. To be honest only practical reasons stopped me going further. I’ve read up on people doing 30 days and more and that takes you even deeper.  

I agree that fasting is sort of a spiritual thing.  I didn't anticipate that when I first fasted but it does seem to be a part of the experience.  And, there is no denying that you experience increased clarity of thought while in the fasted state.  I actually have no problem working at my job while fasting after the first few days.

 

A big proponent of water-only fasting is Dr. Jason Fong; he's a nephrologist from Canada who's specialty is in dealing with people with type-2 diabetes.  People who have any doubts about the causes of metabolic disorders such as this or the efficacy of water fasting as a healthy thing should check him out.  He does a lot of YouTube videos which are incredibly informative and he supports everything he has to say with science, not mumbo jumbo.  What's more, he has a gift for explaining really complex science in a way that's easy to understand, and he's got a great sense of humor too.

 

I think the world record for a fast belongs to a morbidly obese man from Scotland who literally water fasted for 382 days!  Hard to believe but true, and he came out of it in healthy condition.  382 days!  Can you imagine? ?

[tropo]

6 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I agree that fasting is sort of a spiritual thing.  I didn't anticipate that when I first fasted but it does seem to be a part of the experience.  And, there is no denying that you experience increased clarity of thought while in the fasted state.  I actually have no problem working at my job while fasting after the first few days.

 

A big proponent of water-only fasting is Dr. Jason Fong; he's a nephrologist from Canada who's specialty is in dealing with people with type-2 diabetes.  People who have any doubts about the causes of metabolic disorders such as this or the efficacy of water fasting as a healthy thing should check him out.  He does a lot of YouTube videos which are incredibly informative and he supports everything he has to say with science, not mumbo jumbo.  What's more, he has a gift for explaining really complex science in a way that's easy to understand, and he's got a great sense of humor too.

 

I think the world record for a fast belongs to a morbidly obese man from Scotland who literally water fasted for 382 days!  Hard to believe but true, and he came out of it in healthy condition.  382 days!  Can you imagine? ?

At your recommendation, I watched a video by Dr. Jason Fong: "how to reverse diabetes Type 2". He falls into the same trap that many fall into. He considers people who manage to get their blood sugar levels into the normal range "are cured" and that the disease has been "reversed".

 

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Normal people can handle a high carb load and still have normal blood sugar levels. Diabetics (Type 2), even "cured ones" or "reversed ones" cannot handle high carb loads in their diet and when or if they go back to a high carb diet (or even moderate carbs if they were severely diabetic) they will once again become diabetic within the parameters of a positive diagnosis.

 

What he should be calling it is "controlling diabetes Type 2", not curing it. If they were cured they could go back to a normal diet. I know what I'm talking about as I'm one of them. I have been controlling it for 14 years. It's no problem for me to show perfectly normal blood sugar test results, but I won't fool myself into thinking I'm cured, because I am not. My blood sugar metabolism is still impaired. Then there's another problem - even people displaying decently normal HbA1c results can have large spikes and high FBS's that are undetected by HbA1c tests as they only provide an average result over a time... which can be further skewed depending on the lifespan of one's red blood cells, which can vary from the assumed 90-120 day average for HbA1c tests.

 

When someone suggests they can "cure" type 2 diabetes, I expect that the cured person will forever display normal blood sugar metabolism, after they have been cured. I'm still waiting to see that. Strict dietary recommendations are not a cure. Extreme fasting will work for a time, but only as long as the person continues the fasting with strict dietary control.

[WaveHunter]

7 minutes ago, tropo said:

At your recommendation, I watched a video by Dr. Jason Fong: "how to reverse diabetes Type 2". He falls into the same trap that many fall into. He considers people who manage to get their blood sugar levels into the normal range "are cured" and that the disease has been "reversed".

 

I'm sorry, but this is incorrect. Normal people can handle a high carb load and still have normal blood sugar levels. Diabetics (Type 2), even "cured ones" or "reversed ones" cannot handle high carb loads in their diet and when or if they go back to a high carb diet (or even moderate carbs if they were severely diabetic) they will once again become diabetic within the parameters of a positive diagnosis.

 

What he should be calling it is "controlling diabetes Type 2", not curing it. If they were cured they could go back to a normal diet. I know what I'm talking about as I'm one of them. I have been controlling it for 14 years. It's no problem for me to show perfectly normal blood sugar test results, but I won't fool myself into thinking I'm cured, because I am not. My blood sugar metabolism is still impaired. Then there's another problem - even people displaying decently normal HbA1c results can have large spikes and high FBS's that are undetected by HbA1c tests as they only provide an average result over a time... which can be further skewed depending on the lifespan of one's red blood cells, which varies.

 

When someone suggests they can "cure" type 2 diabetes, I expect that the cured person will forever display normal blood sugar metabolism, after they have been cured. I'm still waiting to see that. Strict dietary recommendations are not a cure. Extreme fasting will work for a time, but only as long as the person continues the fasting with strict dietary control.

I don't know if Fung actually uses the word "cure".  Reversal is more appropriate and that's how I take it.  For people with type-2, re-introduction of excessive carbs into the diet will most likely do as you say.  The thing is, carbs are not really necessary for a healthy diet.  The human body requires proteins and fat, but not carbs.  Personally I would not like to live without carbs but if it came down to having to take insulin shots in ever-increasing amounts or controlling carb intake, I'd choose the latter.

[tropo]

58 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I don't know if Fung actually uses the word "cure".  Reversal is more appropriate and that's how I take it.  For people with type-2, re-introduction of excessive carbs into the diet will most likely do as you say.  The thing is, carbs are not really necessary for a healthy diet.  The human body requires proteins and fat, but not carbs.  Personally I would not like to live without carbs but if it came down to having to take insulin shots in ever-increasing amounts or controlling carb intake, I'd choose the latter.

Yes, he may not have used "cure", but it is most certainly implied. He could lose his license to practice if he uses "cure". Doctors have strict guidelines.

 

You say "carbs are not really necessary for a healthy diet", yet for most of the world's population carbs are the only thing keeping them alive. Take complex carbs away (corn, wheat, rye, oats, rice etc) and you'll lose billions from the world's population. A normal diet does consist of quite a high percentage of carbs and that's never going to change. Only the more wealthy populations can afford low carb diets.

 

You may find this interesting - some may be shocked. I took my blood glucose monitor on a visit to the Philippines and tested out all my wife's family's FBS levels as well as some postprandial readings. These people all eat enormous quantities of white rice. For example, her brother's family (2 small children) eat 50kg of rice every month. They can push it to 5 weeks, but they get hungry. They all had perfect (sub 100mg/dL) FBS levels. Most were under 90mg/dL. They also have very low PP readings. Here I am, a person who has never been overweight (10 - 15% fat), always eaten healthy and exercised my entire life with higher readings.

 

People are getting the wrong impression that only fat people are diabetic. The impaired sugar metabolism may be a reason for many people becoming overweight, especially with distended abdomens from visceral fat accumulation, but most were probably quite normal before they started to display symptoms of diabetes. Getting fat is a symptom, not the cause.

[WaveHunter]

12 hours ago, tropo said:

Yes, he may not have used "cure", but it is most certainly implied. He could lose his license to practice if he uses "cure". Doctors have strict guidelines.

 

You say "carbs are not really necessary for a healthy diet", yet for most of the world's population carbs are the only thing keeping them alive. Take complex carbs away (corn, wheat, rye, oats, rice etc) and you'll lose billions from the world's population. A normal diet does consist of quite a high percentage of carbs and that's never going to change. Only the more wealthy populations can afford low carb diets.

 

You may find this interesting - some may be shocked. I took my blood glucose monitor on a visit to the Philippines and tested out all my wife's family's FBS levels as well as some postprandial readings. These people all eat enormous quantities of white rice. For example, her brother's family (2 small children) eat 50kg of rice every month. They can push it to 5 weeks, but they get hungry. They all had perfect (sub 100mg/dL) FBS levels. Most were under 90mg/dL. They also have very low PP readings. Here I am, a person who has never been overweight (10 - 15% fat), always eaten healthy and exercised my entire life with higher readings.

 

People are getting the wrong impression that only fat people are diabetic. The impaired sugar metabolism may be a reason for many people becoming overweight, especially with distended abdomens from visceral fat accumulation, but most were probably quite normal before they started to display symptoms of diabetes. Getting fat is a symptom, not the cause.

I think there is definitely a link between excessive carb intake and diabetes in many (not all) people.  I agree with you that many people are unaffected by excessive carbs in the diet.  I know a lot of athletes who's diets are carb-rich, and they practice “carb loading” before and during competition.  Because of their high level of physical activity they burn off all those carbs as energy and store practically none of it as fat, and suffer no metabolic issues.

 

However, as they age and their energy output lessens, and yet they still maintain high carb diets, many go on to develop D type 2 later in life.  

 

There is an undeniable link between the accumulation of stored fat, principally in the liver and pancreas, and the advent of D type-2, as well as many other metabolic dysfunctions in many (not all) people.  

 

There is a sound scientific explanation for the mechanism by which this occurs, but even if there was not, there is the undeniable fact that we currently have an epidemic of young kids with D type-2 today, where D type-2 in kids was practically unheard of 50 years ago!

 

Considering that the carb-rich fast-food and junk food industry with processed foods, high in high fructose corn syrup exploded about the same time makes one suspect a there might just be a link between the two things.

 

I’m sure that some people are simply predisposed to develop  D type-2 due to genetics whether or not they are obese, but in many cases, excessive carbs will precipitate it.

 

The issue I have with the conventional wisdom of medical treatment is that the aim is to treat the symptom, not the cause.  

 

Keeping blood sugar in check with exogenous insulin only treats the symptom.  It may work in the short-term, but over time higher and higher doses will be required as the body habituated to it, just like what happens with drug addicts or alcoholics.

 

As this occurs, the higher levels of insulin just exacerbate the problem with greater and greater insulin insensitivity and thus greater accumulations of stored liver and pancreas fat with greater impairment being the result.  It turns into a vicious cycle.

 

While there is currently no cure for D type-2, insulin injections only treat the symptom, not the cause.  It’s like putting a band-aid on an infected wound and expecting a positive outcome!

 

Carb restriction, however, treats the cause of the symptoms for many (not all) people.  It might not be a cure for the disease, but for all intents and purposes, it allows the patient to lead a significantly  healthier life than if they were on insulin treatment, and for many, a very energetic, productive, and symptom-free life.  Again, you don’t need carbs in the diet, not even for an energetic lifestyle.  Many low-carb athletes can attest to that.

 

I’m simply saying that, given the choice of shooting insulin or restricting carbs, the latter would seem to me to be preferable.  

 

Bottom line, it works for me.  I was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic about five years ago, put on meds (metformin) by my doctor, and told that most likely I’d require insulin in the not-too-distant future.

 

i wasn’t willing to accept this after I started researching the subject, and decided to embrace the concept of carb restriction through periodic fasting and being highly selective about the type of carbs in my diet (keeping fruit but completely eliminated “processsed” carbs (I.e.: foods made with high fructose corn syrup).  Luckily for me, that’s all it took for me to reverse the symptoms; or to put it another way, for my doctor to agree I no longer needed meds.

 

Maybe my situation will change for the worse in the future, maybe not.  All I know is I’m happy I made the choice to treat what I think is the cause, and not merely put a band-aid on it.

[simon43]

Just to comment that my 2nd weekend fast went fine - absolutely no hunger pangs, plenty of energy to cycle 4 x 20 Km over the weekend, plus treadmill jogging, (but no strenuous weight-training).

 

I can see no downside to these weekend fasts.  I have increased my protein intake to minimise any muscle loss (not that there is much to lose....).

 

[tropo]

On 8/13/2018 at 9:29 AM, WaveHunter said:

I think there is definitely a link between excessive carb intake and diabetes in many (not all) people.  I agree with you that many people are unaffected by excessive carbs in the diet.  I know a lot of athletes who's diets are carb-rich, and they practice “carb loading” before and during competition.  Because of their high level of physical activity they burn off all those carbs as energy and store practically none of it as fat, and suffer no metabolic issues.

 

However, as they age and their energy output lessens, and yet they still maintain high carb diets, many go on to develop D type 2 later in life.  

 

There is an undeniable link between the accumulation of stored fat, principally in the liver and pancreas, and the advent of D type-2, as well as many other metabolic dysfunctions in many (not all) people.  

 

There is a sound scientific explanation for the mechanism by which this occurs, but even if there was not, there is the undeniable fact that we currently have an epidemic of young kids with D type-2 today, where D type-2 in kids was practically unheard of 50 years ago!

 

Considering that the carb-rich fast-food and junk food industry with processed foods, high in high fructose corn syrup exploded about the same time makes one suspect a there might just be a link between the two things.

 

I’m sure that some people are simply predisposed to develop  D type-2 due to genetics whether or not they are obese, but in many cases, excessive carbs will precipitate it.

 

The issue I have with the conventional wisdom of medical treatment is that the aim is to treat the symptom, not the cause.  

 

Keeping blood sugar in check with exogenous insulin only treats the symptom.  It may work in the short-term, but over time higher and higher doses will be required as the body habituated to it, just like what happens with drug addicts or alcoholics.

 

As this occurs, the higher levels of insulin just exacerbate the problem with greater and greater insulin insensitivity and thus greater accumulations of stored liver and pancreas fat with greater impairment being the result.  It turns into a vicious cycle.

 

While there is currently no cure for D type-2, insulin injections only treat the symptom, not the cause.  It’s like putting a band-aid on an infected wound and expecting a positive outcome!

 

Carb restriction, however, treats the cause of the symptoms for many (not all) people.  It might not be a cure for the disease, but for all intents and purposes, it allows the patient to lead a significantly  healthier life than if they were on insulin treatment, and for many, a very energetic, productive, and symptom-free life.  Again, you don’t need carbs in the diet, not even for an energetic lifestyle.  Many low-carb athletes can attest to that.

 

I’m simply saying that, given the choice of shooting insulin or restricting carbs, the latter would seem to me to be preferable.  

 

Bottom line, it works for me.  I was diagnosed as being pre-diabetic about five years ago, put on meds (metformin) by my doctor, and told that most likely I’d require insulin in the not-too-distant future.

 

i wasn’t willing to accept this after I started researching the subject, and decided to embrace the concept of carb restriction through periodic fasting and being highly selective about the type of carbs in my diet (keeping fruit but completely eliminated “processsed” carbs (I.e.: foods made with high fructose corn syrup).  Luckily for me, that’s all it took for me to reverse the symptoms; or to put it another way, for my doctor to agree I no longer needed meds.

 

Maybe my situation will change for the worse in the future, maybe not.  All I know is I’m happy I made the choice to treat what I think is the cause, and not merely put a band-aid on it.

I'm totally on board with everything you said here except one little detail. Why did the doctor say "most likely I'd require insulin in the not-too-distant future"? This doesn't make sense unless your insulin levels were low. Did you get a C-Peptide test to check that? Pre-diabetes is a very minor impairment compared to full-blown Type 2 diabetes. There's another impairment many are calling Type 1.5. That's Type 2 with the additional problem of low insulin secretion. Normal Type 2 is just insulin resistance and most can cope with just medication for the rest of their lives. My mother has been Type 2 for many decades and at 88 she still copes with medication alone.

 

Using myself as an example, in 14 years since "diagnosis" (whatever that's supposed to mean), I've been hovering at around the same PP, FBS, and HbA1c readings. There has been no progression. I'm often slack in my dietary choices, but I don't usually skip on exercise.

 

The  BG blood tests alone don't tell the full story. For example, usually I can display normal PP results, but FBS is usually elevated. I call that impaired fasting blood sugar. It is a "thing". It's a lot harder to lower that than PP response. For example, I could wake up with, for example, 115 mg/dL and after my first meal it's below 100 mg/dL.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

17 hours ago, tropo said:

...I'm totally on board with everything you said here except one little detail. Why did the doctor say "most likely I'd require insulin in the not-too-distant future"? ...

 

Well, let me preface my answer by saying that was said by me ex-doctor.  IMO, he was like many md’s today; more adept at treating symptoms than causes, and using his prescription pad to do it.  He didn’t even ask me about my diet or counsel me on nutrional aspects of my condition.

 

He simply claimed that, based on my blood panels, my blood glucose levels were dangerously high.  Also he noted my blood pressure readings were also so high that he was considering checking me into hospital but thought immediate treatment with medications was still an option.  

 

In retrospect I think he over-reacted, but at the same time I guess that was a good thing because until then, I had no idea there was anything wrong with me so it lit a fire under me to find out if there was an alternative solution to my delimma.

 

NOTE:  When I embraced the notion that nutrition was the real cause of my problem, both the high blood sugar and high blood pressure were brought under control, literally in a matter of weeks...by dietary changes, not by meds.  Now, I’m not saying this would be true for everybody, but it sure was for me, and I think the same would  apply for many!

 

I’m not sure why you feel that insulin injection is not the accepted protocol treatment for D type-2.  It is the standard treatment protocol when meds are no longer effective since insulin insensitivity can be overcome (albeit, temporarily) by increasing the level of insulin.  Once beta cell dysfunction is advanced, I believe it’s the only effective treatment.

 

Although this is the standard protocol (first meds, and then when they are no longer effective, use of exogenous insulin), I think this is the WRONG approach for many people.  It’s like treating an alcoholic by giving him more alcohol.  Sure, it might temporarily alleviate the symptoms (DT’s in the alcoholic, or high blood sugar in the diabetic), but in the long run it only accerbates the situation since ever-increasing dosages will be required as the body habituates (to the increased alcohol in the alcoholic, or the increased insulin in the diabetic).

 

When you go beyond the symptoms of diabetes (high blood glucose) and look instead for the cause of the symptom, for many people it is simply excessive carbohydrates.  If you take a nutritional approach to dealing with the problem before beta cell dysfunction becomes too severe, many people (not all) can solve the problem without meds at all.

 

I just don’t understand how the average physician these days can be so mis-informed (downright ignorant) about the nutritional basis of metabolic diseases.

 

Im not a conspiracist by nature but you have to wonder why so many physicians rely almost wholly on writing prescription to fix symptoms of disease instead of treating the root causes.  

 

The Standard American Diet (SAD...what an appropriate acronym!) is atrocious!  It wasn’t always like that.  Much of the poor nutriotional practices have only happened in the last 50 years.  High fructose corn syrup is in almost every single processed food today.  That alone probably accounts for much of the D type 2 diagnosed in children today.    

 

When you look at how the body reacts to HFCS, it might as well be classified as a “poison”.  Yet the processed food industry uses marketing to make those products seem wholesome and healthy, and those marketing efforts are specifically aimed at children!

 

The practices of the giant pharmaceutical companies and the processed food industry ought to be illegal but they are powerful enough to avoid oversight, and unfortunately, many doctors simply don’t care or are too ignorant of the facts to really help their patients.  It’s therefore up to the individual to help themselves. 

 

Of course there are physicians who “see the light”.  Luckily I was able to find one and she’s been a real “guiding light”!

[kevvy]

If you can find this book it is great reading

[JaiLai]

People overeat for many reasons. It can be out of habit, boredom, social eating, depression, or just because food is yummy.
For sure, the older, I get, the harder it is to take off the weight and keep it off, probably due to a slower metabolism.
The best way to fast is alone.
When I get back from a month in the USA weighing in at 72Kg on my 179cm frame from too much pizza and too many Angus burgers, I take only water for 7 days and get myself back to 66Kg, which makes me feel and look better in every way.

66kg @ 1.79m...... wow!

I’m the same height and 84kg, not fat.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Psimbo]

Spookily I'm on a fast day today. Now in the past I understood that to mean not eat anything. This turned out not to be true from what I read- its about cutting down to 500 calories a day for two days a week with the plan I'm following ( in my case Mon and Thu). A small spinach and mushroom omelette for  breakfast and some fish with spinach tonite will be it. Obviously copious amounts of variations on water through the day. As I exercise six days a week I need some fuel and that will be enough, even then I will feel a bit lethargic and slower when out.

 

Unlike some I'm only trying to drop a bit of weight. I was just under 80kg at the start of Jan and I'm just under 77 now- an acceptable time to drop some weigh without piling it back on I would like to balance out again at 75kg- which is where I was at 15 years ago on getting here. I know I'm not fat but like most men in their mid fifities it would be nice to burn off some of the belly fat- a difficult proposition. Situps are great for the muscles underneath but do nothing for the tyre. I will NOT give up beer, which is a major culprit but I have cut back drastically. Since 1 jan I have only consumed alcohol in one 72 hr period and will remain off it until the end of March. 

[WaveHunter]

On 8/5/2018 at 9:25 PM, tropo said:

I've never fasted as I don't believe there is any need to, but you ask yourself "why not?". Surely a better question is why. What did you gain? You can lose fat while still eating and train harder too... I can come up with a lot of reasons "why not". We need to know why you would consider this a weekend hobby.

 

Doing all that exercise during your fast seems wrong. Sure, fast if you feel there's a reason to, but why all the exercise while you're food deprived. You'll lose muscle doing that.

Why fast, you ask?  Well, there are actually some proven positive aspects of total fasting (no food, only water).  I make a point of fasting for 72 hours once a month.  Why?  It promotes autophagy in a VERY powerful way (biological process by which cells recycle and renew their content). 

 

I won't go into the explanation except to say this is not guru-speak stuff.  It's based on 2016 Nobel prize winning research of Yoshinori Ohsumi.  His findings are truly game changing in understanding how our bodies work from a  metabolic standpoint, and how it relates to disease states such as cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a host of other maladies. Google it.  Honestly, It is really fascinating!

 

FYI, it takes at least 72 hours for fasting to have its' peak effect on autophagy, so 48 hours of fasting is just not long enough because the body must be in a ketogenic state for autophagy to really kick in.  72 hours is the "sweet spot".

 

 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Why fast, you ask?  Well, there are actually some proven positive aspects of total fasting (no food, only water).  I make a point of fasting for 72 hours once a month.  Why?  It promotes autophagy in a VERY powerful way (biological process by which cells recycle and renew their content). 

 

I won't go into the explanation except to say this is not guru-speak stuff.  It's based on 2016 Nobel prize winning research of Yoshinori Ohsumi.  His findings are truly game changing in understanding how our bodies work from a  metabolic standpoint, and how it relates to disease states such as cancer, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and a host of other maladies. Google it.  Honestly, It is really fascinating!

 

FYI, it takes at least 72 hours for fasting to have its' peak effect on autophagy, so 48 hours of fasting is just not long enough because the body must be in a ketogenic state for autophagy to really kick in.  72 hours is the "sweet spot".

I wanted to add one other comment about fasting since many people cite muscle loss as the main reason NOT to fast.  While it is true that you will loose some muscle during a fast, it is FAR less than many people believe, and in reality, it is a negligible amount.  What's more, this occurs primarily during the first 72 hours of initiating a total fast, and then tapers off sharply as ketosis kicks resulting in the body going into a protein sparing state. 

 

Take a look at the attached graph from Dr. Kevin Hall of the National Institute of Health, in his book “Comparative Physiology of Fasting, Starvation, and Food Limitation”, which shows the comparative oxidative rate of protein, carbs, and fat/ketones during a fast. (and keep in mind this is for a TOTAL fast; mere calorie reduction WILL cause significant loss of protein!).

 

As you can see in the graph, as glycogen stores (carbs) become depleted within the first 72 hours of a fast, and ketones begin to be produced from stored body fat, protein oxidation tapers off markedly:

Again, I'm not going to go into the specifics; you can google for that.  The point is, the amount of protein that is sacrificed during a total fast is negligible, and it really only occurs during the first few days of a fast.  What ever muscle is sacrificed can easily be replaced in the gym in very short order.

 

For a really lucid and transparent discussion of this I refer you to the writings of Dr. Jason Fung or if you're really ambitious, read Dr. Hall's book  https://idmprogram.com/fasting-and-muscle-mass-fasting-part-14/ 

 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

...(and keep in mind this is for a TOTAL fast; mere calorie reduction WILL cause significant loss of protein!)....

 

I just wanted to clarify this comment I made since it might be misleading on its' own.  If you are not truly fasting but are taking in some dietary carbs (above 50 grams on the average) as in a juice fast for instance, you will not be able to induce ketosis to the extent that is necessary for it to be protein sparing.

 

In the absence of sufficient ketone bodies, body-fat stores can not provide the necessary level of metabolic fuel so proteins will just continue to be catabolized throughout the period of caloric restriction.

[cooked]

I can't resist going off topic here.

After a year of taking blood pressure meds ("You must take these for the rest of your life") and proudly presenting my results to my MD, he then prescribed statins for me("You must take these for the rest of your life"), which I already knew were one of the biggest scams of the century (and bloody expensive). Back home I started reading. And I stopped (didn't start) my meds.

After 18 months of low carb diet (Keto): blood pressure still under 120. Glucose 'normal'. BMI 'normal'. waist /height ratio under 52%, 'normal' ... haven't had a blood test recently so I can't boast about those levels, the ratios HDL/Triglyc etc were OK last time I checked and there is no indication that high cholesterol levels lead to increased heart risk (75% of Americans having a first cardio-vascukar event have 'normal' cholestero; levels, or below). 

I'm 71 and running 15 Km a week.

In my opinion a fast is much easier if you are in ketosis, or have the feeling that those excessive carbs you ate at 7/11 yesterday might be pushing you out of ketosis. I used to think that it was a choice of low carb diet, OR intermittent fasting, now I reckon they belong together.

 

[BritManToo]

TL;DR