I just finished a 48 hour intermittent fast (IF)

[WaveHunter]

29 minutes ago, robblok said:

I will see when and if, it must be when I have no work to do and no gym training otherwise id kill myself (figuratively). I have serious problems working when I am hungry I am then constantly thinking of food. How i eat now makes sure I am not hungry and can work and lose weight when I want.

 

For me 1 or 2 more months and then Ill go eat more again (maintenance) and just keep at it it not piling on fat anymore. Already not fat anymore, but the lean stage is just hard to accomplish. (think 10% bodyfat)

Actually one of the benefits I find in doing a short fast is that it sort of resets my appetite.  Maybe it's just me but after 72 hours of not eating, I may have cravings but I'm not really hungry, and curiously, my cravings are NOT for "bad" foods as you might expect.  In fact, after a fast, the idea of consuming something with a lot of sugar in it makes me a little nauseous! And when I do start to eat, I'm content with smaller portions.

 

The other curious benefit (again, might just be me) is that I sleep like a baby and wake up feeling incredibly refreshed.  It happens every time I fast!

[dontoearth]

13 hours ago, robblok said:

Shows, i am talking about were good and not on youtube. They were not aimed at weight loss or fasting. It was just something that happened and it clearly shows that fasting for a long period (more then 72 hours) combined with exercise (in their case work) leads to huge emotional swings and total weakness. Instead of dismissing it you should look at it and see what I mean. 

 

It has of course no impact on people who do a 72 hour fast or people who fast longer but do nothing. 

 

Your right about research it can be used in so many bad ways and can be used to sell supplements and stuff. You do have to look who funded it and why. I like https://examine.com/   for information. 

 

    There are many hospital observational studies maybe 100 done by Jason Fung in a hospital setting with measurements by hospital workers.  The results are in his books and some articles and youtube studies.  He just does not report weakness and emotional swings.  In fact the patient that fast the longest around 300 days actually became so bored he joined all the hospital clubs and won an award for his excellent personality.  Many people didn't know he was a patient.  Since no one is going to be building shelter or running around naked in downtown Toronoto I don't think he ever did a study with those variables.  

     I read examine every once in a awhile 2.  I like the division of the studies from lab, to animal to human.  Sort of sick all sorts of miracles drugs and medical procedures reported that don't ever work outside of a test tube.  

[robblok]

9 hours ago, dontoearth said:

    There are many hospital observational studies maybe 100 done by Jason Fung in a hospital setting with measurements by hospital workers.  The results are in his books and some articles and youtube studies.  He just does not report weakness and emotional swings.  In fact the patient that fast the longest around 300 days actually became so bored he joined all the hospital clubs and won an award for his excellent personality.  Many people didn't know he was a patient.  Since no one is going to be building shelter or running around naked in downtown Toronoto I don't think he ever did a study with those variables.  

     I read examine every once in a awhile 2.  I like the division of the studies from lab, to animal to human.  Sort of sick all sorts of miracles drugs and medical procedures reported that don't ever work outside of a test tube.  

Again I am not equating a fast for a few days with what I am talking about, it has been clearly demonstrated that lack of food. Below from the Minnesota experiment. Shows exactly what I have been describing. 

 

https://cfe.keltyeatingdisorders.ca/news/effects-starvation-behavior-implications-dieting-and-eating-disorders

 

The experimental procedures involved selecting volunteers who were the most physically and psychologically robust. “The psychobiologic ‘stamina’ of the subjects was unquestionably superior to that likely to be found in any random or more generally representative sample of the population” (pp. 915-916).

Although the subjects were psychologically healthy prior to the experiment, most experienced significant emotional deterioration as a result of semistarvation. Most subjects experienced periods during which their emotional distress was quite severe; almost 20 percent had extreme emotional deterioration that markedly interfered with their functioning. Depression became more severe during the course of the experiment

[Chou Anou]

On 8/6/2018 at 8:27 PM, meechai said:

I once went 16 days

Not a total fast as I had the lemon water with cayenne & a teaspoon of maple syrup

 

Back then it was called the Master Cleanse By Stanley Burroughs

 

It was not a big deal as with any fast the truth is after day one you are not hungry at all

Yes you miss taste for sure but not hungry

 

I had also fasted 6 days a few times before with just water.

 

As for muscle loss I noticed none & on day 9 or 10? of the 16 day run I did also shovel 14 tons of 3/4" gravel at my home so it was not like I was

weak at all.

 

I don't know now in hindsight what all was gained except great mental clarity & the knowledge that we have more than we need to survive many days without eating.

 

I will say this & not to be too explicit that you do have a bowel movement every day so that makes you wonder how full of it we are

without even refilling.

 

 

You lost me at "cleanse." The human body is a self-cleansing machine. Don't believe all the bull<deleted> that idiots who selectively don't believe in science propagate.

[robblok]

9 hours ago, dontoearth said:

 

     I read examine every once in a awhile 2.  I like the division of the studies from lab, to animal to human.  Sort of sick all sorts of miracles drugs and medical procedures reported that don't ever work outside of a test tube.  

I read it when i consider taking supplements, I use a few that help ME quite good they might not work for an other but in my particular situation they seem to work as I have not yet experienced fat loss as easy as this time. 

 

There are also supplements that I have bought and will never ever buy again. (CLA and BCCA).

 

But I think i will forever be using cummerin, berberine (i really think this helps for insulin sensitivity all studies say it does), and ashwagandha (against stress and cortisol) after taking it i havent bitten my nails anymore, not real proof or anything but still.

 

Of course i also take the normal stuff like fish oil, and calcium / magnesium / sodium / potassium to replace all i lose with sweat during a training. So far no cramping up so it works. 

 

I have become really sceptical about supplements and in general don't expect too much of it. Unless websites like examine.com give it good remarks. 

 

At the moment I am in the last stage of fat loss, belly has gone, now to go real low in body-fat. This is always the hardest part normally I am stalled in this phase but now it looks like it keeps on going. Previously one of my biggest problems was that i had problems sleeping (also bad for weight loss) and now I don't. 

 

Below some nice explanation of insulin resistance and what (according to them and other research) berberine can do. 

 

https://www.foundationalmedicinereview.com/blog/research-supports-using-berberine-to-treat-insulin-resistance/ 

[thedemon]

3 hours ago, robblok said:

Previously one of my biggest problems was that i had problems sleeping (also bad for weight loss) and now I don't. 

 

 

How did you solve the sleeping problems? Do you think they were related to cortisol?

[WaveHunter]

6 hours ago, robblok said:

...Below some nice explanation of insulin resistance and what (according to them and other research) berberine can do. ...

You might want to consider metformin as an alternative to berberine.

 

Berberine has been used as a folk remedy in China going back to around 3000 BC, and is popularly prescribed by physicians in China for patients with early stage type-2 diabetes (pre-diabetes). 

 

However, most of the scientific studies of Berberine have only been conducted in China and were not very well-controlled nor were the experiments very well-designed, and most of the studies were not on humans.

 

Metformin is the more accepted drug of choice in Western countries because it has been extensively studied using proper scientific methods. 

 

Nonetheless, over the last decade there have been more properly designed studies that seem to indicate the efficacy of Berberine might possibly be greater than metformin in certain regards. 

 

Bottom line though is that more research is needed, and metformin might be a better choice for now.

 

BTW, I use metformin (for the same reason you use berberine) and here in Thailand you can get it at any pharmacy without a Rx.  Just something to consider ????

 

See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2410097/

[WaveHunter]

7 hours ago, robblok said:

...Below some nice explanation of insulin resistance and what (according to them and other research) berberine can do. ...

Even though I just posted a somewhat negative reply concerning berberine, I'm curious where you buy your berberine, and if you researched different brands?  I'm actually curious to swap it for metformin for a few months to see the differences for myself.

 

One thing about Metformin I'm not too happy about is that it's believed that over the long term it may negatively effect mitochondrial function (I.e.: your energy level).  Many say (anecdotally) that they feel less energetic from its' use.  That's a concern to me.

 

One thing I find attractive about Berberine is that, while it has pretty much the same effect as metformin on insulin sensitivity, it also has a modestly positive effect on lipids (which Metformin does not).

 

So, I'm thinking of playing the role of guinea pig to see if I notice any difference.

[jayboy]

The great war correspondent and speaker of truth to power, Michael Yon, has just completed a 19 day fast and is about to begin another. He was already a handsome devil - so watch out girls.

 

[brokenbone]

9 hours ago, robblok said:

I read it when i consider taking supplements, I use a few that help ME quite good they might not work for an other but in my particular situation they seem to work as I have not yet experienced fat loss as easy as this time. 

 

There are also supplements that I have bought and will never ever buy again. (CLA and BCCA).

 

But I think i will forever be using cummerin, berberine (i really think this helps for insulin sensitivity all studies say it does), and ashwagandha (against stress and cortisol) after taking it i havent bitten my nails anymore, not real proof or anything but still.

 

Of course i also take the normal stuff like fish oil, and calcium / magnesium / sodium / potassium to replace all i lose with sweat during a training. So far no cramping up so it works. 

 

I have become really sceptical about supplements and in general don't expect too much of it. Unless websites like examine.com give it good remarks. 

 

At the moment I am in the last stage of fat loss, belly has gone, now to go real low in body-fat. This is always the hardest part normally I am stalled in this phase but now it looks like it keeps on going. Previously one of my biggest problems was that i had problems sleeping (also bad for weight loss) and now I don't. 

 

Below some nice explanation of insulin resistance and what (according to them and other research) berberine can do. 

 

https://www.foundationalmedicinereview.com/blog/research-supports-using-berberine-to-treat-insulin-resistance/ 

i was reading about various diseases and came to conclusion calcium is not a good thing. magnesium otoh is critical vs leg cramps lest you have massage frequently

[robblok]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Even though I just posted a somewhat negative reply concerning berberine, I'm curious where you buy your berberine, and if you researched different brands?  I'm actually curious to swap it for metformin for a few months to see the differences for myself.

 

One thing about Metformin I'm not too happy about is that it's believed that over the long term it may negatively effect mitochondrial function (I.e.: your energy level).  Many say (anecdotally) that they feel less energetic from its' use.  That's a concern to me.

 

One thing I find attractive about Berberine is that, while it has pretty much the same effect as metformin on insulin sensitivity, it also has a modestly positive effect on lipids (which Metformin does not).

 

So, I'm thinking of playing the role of guinea pig to see if I notice any difference.

I take berberine because it has less side effects then metformin. I am eating already healthy and not to high carb so its not needed that much. I bought it on ebay from an indian seller. The problem with supplements is that you can never says what works. I do feel weight loss is going much better now but I don't know what is causing it.

[robblok]

7 hours ago, thedemon said:

 

How did you solve the sleeping problems? Do you think they were related to cortisol?

It might be but mainly to peeing, and that was caused by cafeine. I got all of a sudden a lot less tolerant of it. Now i take less and I can sleep. I do think that other things have helped too. The Ashwandgha might have helped.. or it could have been just the cafeine. But it took me more then a year to find out what it was.

[robblok]

3 hours ago, jayboy said:

The great war correspondent and speaker of truth to power, Michael Yon, has just completed a 19 day fast and is about to begin another. He was already a handsome devil - so watch out girls.

 

Nah weight loss for the girls.. it never works if you do it for someone else. 19 days fast.. really totally without any food.. that is massive. 

[dontoearth]

13 hours ago, robblok said:

Again I am not equating a fast for a few days with what I am talking about, it has been clearly demonstrated that lack of food. Below from the Minnesota experiment. Shows exactly what I have been describing. 

 

https://cfe.keltyeatingdisorders.ca/news/effects-starvation-behavior-implications-dieting-and-eating-disorders

 

The experimental procedures involved selecting volunteers who were the most physically and psychologically robust. “The psychobiologic ‘stamina’ of the subjects was unquestionably superior to that likely to be found in any random or more generally representative sample of the population” (pp. 915-916).

Although the subjects were psychologically healthy prior to the experiment, most experienced significant emotional deterioration as a result of semistarvation. Most subjects experienced periods during which their emotional distress was quite severe; almost 20 percent had extreme emotional deterioration that markedly interfered with their functioning. Depression became more severe during the course of the experiment

     The minnesota experiment is forced starvation.  It is not fasting.  Long discredited work by a long discredit research on the military payrolls and later the beef and sugar payrolls.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, dontoearth said:

     The minnesota experiment is forced starvation.  It is not fasting.  Long discredited work by a long discredit research on the military payrolls and later the beef and sugar payrolls.

What is the difference between starvation and fasting.. starvation would mean more to eat ? This is not discredited and yes it was on the military its payroll was done with people who did not want to go to war (if i remember)

[robblok]

10 hours ago, dontoearth said:

     The minnesota experiment is forced starvation.  It is not fasting.  Long discredited work by a long discredit research on the military payrolls and later the beef and sugar payrolls.

I have been doing some more research in google and look for information on how it was discredited but can't find a thing. This research had nothing to do with the beef and sugar payrolls. It was about starvation and the research was needed at the end of WW2 when much of Europe was starving. So non thing sinister about the research. Maybe some guru discredits it because it conflicts with his views but the mainstream research has nothing bad to say about this experiment. 

 

Anyway this proves to me that extreme caloric restrictions combined with loads of exercise leads certainly to bad things mentally. I won't make the full comparison with fasting as this was far more extreme. Most people on fasts don't do it that long or workout that long.

 

I just mentioned this research as it exactly proves what i have seen in the reality shows. So what I have seen is confirmed by scientific experiments. 

 

Again, I am not saying that this is the same as a 3 day fast or even a weeks fast. Fasting can be done but not too long or in combination with heavy exercise.

 

Nothing against fasting I might try it again just don't like it when my brain does not work well. Its bad for work.

[WaveHunter]

On 3/2/2019 at 11:48 PM, robblok said:

What is the difference between starvation and fasting...

The big misconception about fasting and starvation is that they’re the same thing.  They are not.  They are distinctly different metabolic states.  Fasting is the complete abstention from food in any shape or form.  Starvation, on the other hand, is described as the absence of essential nutrients that are necessary to support the life of an organism. 

 

So, even though you may be fasting, as long as the body has sufficient stored macro-nutrients that it can draw on, it is not starving. 

 

What exactly are those macro-nutrients?  Well, obviously, stored fat will be the primary fuel during a fast.  Surprising to most people is the fact that carbohydrates are not necessary at all (at least for the duration of a nutritional fast).  The body's energy needs can be met entirely by drawing on stored fats (through ketosis).  Furthermore, the body's protein can largely be conserved during that period of time.  So, as long as the body has a sufficient amount of stored fat to use, you are not starving.

 

So then, the key to a successful nutritional fast is simply to assure you don't cross that line.  That means, doing due diligence before attempting to fast; don't just watch some dopey YouTube video like "How I lost 20 pounds in 5 days" and jump into a fast.  Instead, really do some reading on the subject from reliable and trustworthy sources, or find a well qualified person to act as a mentor or guide.

[FracturedRabbit]

Agree, and would go further and say carbohydrates are not necessary at all (whether fasting or not). All essential nutrients (those which we have to consume because the body does not make them) are provided by either protein or fat. You could live without carbs and some people do.

The word “fasting” seems to get people upset, I prefer “time restricted eating”! I restrict my eating to a 6 hour window each day.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Agree, and would go further and say carbohydrates are not necessary at all (whether fasting or not). All essential nutrients (those which we have to consume because the body does not make them) are provided by either protein or fat. You could live without carbs and some people do.

The word “fasting” seems to get people upset, I prefer “time restricted eating”! I restrict my eating to a 6 hour window each day.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I would agree that theoretically carbs are not necessary for survival but for peak performance I think they are.  Of course it's debatable since there are some athletes like ultra marathoner Tim Olsen who are incredibly adapted to utilizing stored fat as a primary fuel but I believe even he uses carbs as part of his training diet. 

 

All I can say personally is that I find it real difficult to do strenuous athletic activities without some carbs. 

 

I don't really see a need for zero carbs, speaking personally.  But I do try and be careful about the type of carbs in my diet (i.e.: glycemic index), and I try to stay away from processed foods, especially as far as those that contain high fructose corn syrup, and I try to time their consumption just prior to and during strenuous athletic activities.  If you do that correctly, you have all the fuel you need and it all gets burned before it has a chance to be stored as fat

 

Each to his own though.  I mean, you have to enjoy life or what's the point of living longer thru good nutrition.  I don't fault people for eating foods they enjoy, including myself.  I mean, every once in a while I enjoy a trip underneath the Golden Arches ????

 

[robblok]

21 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

The big misconception about fasting and starvation is that they’re the same thing.  They are not.  They are distinctly different metabolic states.  Fasting is the complete abstention from food in any shape or form.  Starvation, on the other hand, is described as the absence of essential nutrients that are necessary to support the life of an organism. 

 

So, even though you may be fasting, as long as the body has sufficient stored macro-nutrients that it can draw on, it is not starving. 

 

What exactly are those macro-nutrients?  Well, obviously, stored fat will be the primary fuel during a fast.  Surprising to most people is the fact that carbohydrates are not necessary at all (at least for the duration of a nutritional fast).  The body's energy needs can be met entirely by drawing on stored fats (through ketosis).  Furthermore, the body's protein can largely be conserved during that period of time.  So, as long as the body has a sufficient amount of stored fat to use, you are not starving.

 

So then, the key to a successful nutritional fast is simply to assure you don't cross that line.  That means, doing due diligence before attempting to fast; don't just watch some dopey YouTube video like "How I lost 20 pounds in 5 days" and jump into a fast.  Instead, really do some reading on the subject from reliable and trustworthy sources, or find a well qualified person to act as a mentor or guide.

I know carbs are needed, they are not essential to survive. I would say starving happens after fasting too long. When that is depends on how much energy is stored and how much energy is burned. That being said, the experiment i quoted showed the degredation in mental skills that I saw in the show. 

 

So the people were fasting first (not eating) and then starving. I can't exactly recall how long it too for people to spiral, but it got progressively worse. Mind you even finding water was hard for these people and they had sleep deprevation too. So you can't compare it with a short fast, but if you fast too long you will get in the same situation. How long too long is, I would say that varies per individual. 

[robblok]

19 hours ago, FracturedRabbit said:

Agree, and would go further and say carbohydrates are not necessary at all (whether fasting or not). All essential nutrients (those which we have to consume because the body does not make them) are provided by either protein or fat. You could live without carbs and some people do.

The word “fasting” seems to get people upset, I prefer “time restricted eating”! I restrict my eating to a 6 hour window each day.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

With fasting I always think of total food deprivation for multiple days. What your describing is intermittent fasting. Something that can be useful for insulin peaks.

What i don't get in your case (your body your idea's) is why if you are going zero to low carb would you also do intermittent fasting as your already curbing the insulin respons by removing carbs. How much more is that smaller window of eating going to help you ?

 

You are right that carbs are not needed, but carbs are also the most efficient fuel. Its like comparing gasahol (fat) with a high octane fuel (carbs) for performance cars. You don't need the carbs but for certain kinds of training they are highly beneficial.  

 

Its almost impossible to BUILD muscle without carbs. (proteins are important but insulin is too and insulin comes mostly from carbs)

[FracturedRabbit]

With fasting I always think of total food deprivation for multiple days. What your describing is intermittent fasting. Something that can be useful for insulin peaks.

What i don't get in your case (your body your idea's) is why if you are going zero to low carb would you also do intermittent fasting as your already curbing the insulin respons by removing carbs. How much more is that smaller window of eating going to help you ?
 
You are right that carbs are not needed, but carbs are also the most efficient fuel. Its like comparing gasahol (fat) with a high octane fuel (carbs) for performance cars. You don't need the carbs but for certain kinds of training they are highly beneficial.  
 
Its almost impossible to BUILD muscle without carbs. (proteins are important but insulin is too and insulin comes mostly from carbs)

I am healing myself from atherosclerosis using a low carb diet plus intermittent fasting. I don’t eat for eighteen hours because I don’t feel the need to and it feels good and I believe it helps.

There is a body of opinion that fat is a more efficient fuel, especially for the brain, but little point debating it. We all choose the lifestyle that works for us. I know I feel better running on fat and can windsurf for longer without being exhausted than I could 2 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[robblok]

1 minute ago, FracturedRabbit said:

 

I am healing myself from atherosclerosis using a low carb diet plus intermittent fasting. I don’t eat for eighteen hours because I don’t feel the need to and it feels good and I believe it helps.

There is a body of opinion that fat is a more efficient fuel, especially for the brain, but little point debating it. We all choose the lifestyle that works for us. I know I feel better running on fat and can windsurf for longer without being exhausted than I could 2 years ago.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

As i said it depends on the type of exercise, nothing beats carbs as the best fuel for explosive strength. No need to try to deny it as there is no evidence supporting your claim for explosive strength.

 

There is also plenty of evidence that you can't build much muscle or far less if you don't eat carbs. There is a reason why pro bodybuilders use insulin injections (not something I would do). Point being for muscles and explosive strength carbs rule. 

 

For cardio strength as you are talking about that is where the opinions and research are divided. Some can work far better on fat and some need carbs. This is the point where there is a debate, not for explosive strength. (simple biology actually just look how the different power systems are driven)

 

You might feel good but you do get my point hopefully that the idea behind intermitterend fasting was to control insulin. But you are already controlling it with low carb. So that advantage is gone as you already got it covered. The shorter feeding hour could help you to consume less calories and help that way. But from an insulin point of view there is only need for one of the two.

 

In the end you need to find something that works for you and what you do works for you, in your situation.

[FracturedRabbit]

I have made no claim regarding explosive strength. I don't even know, or care, what it is.

 

My insulin is (now) not an issue. Given I am already in ketosis, an 18 hour fast should be sufficient to boost autophagy and other healing mechanisms. If it doesn't, fine; as I say I like not eating for an extended period and am sure it must be better for me than shoveling food down my throat throughout the day. 

[WaveHunter]

4 hours ago, robblok said:

As i said it depends on the type of exercise, nothing beats carbs as the best fuel for explosive strength. No need to try to deny it as there is no evidence supporting your claim for explosive strength.

 

There is also plenty of evidence that you can't build much muscle or far less if you don't eat carbs. There is a reason why pro bodybuilders use insulin injections (not something I would do). Point being for muscles and explosive strength carbs rule. 

 

For cardio strength as you are talking about that is where the opinions and research are divided. Some can work far better on fat and some need carbs. This is the point where there is a debate, not for explosive strength. (simple biology actually just look how the different power systems are driven)

 

You might feel good but you do get my point hopefully that the idea behind intermitterend fasting was to control insulin. But you are already controlling it with low carb. So that advantage is gone as you already got it covered. The shorter feeding hour could help you to consume less calories and help that way. But from an insulin point of view there is only need for one of the two.

 

In the end you need to find something that works for you and what you do works for you, in your situation.

I don't think the issue has so much to do with controlling insulin as it does with controlling (preventing) insulin insensitivity.  Both intermittent fasting (i.e.:  one-meal-a-day) AND complete fasting can work hand-in-hand for people who are dealing with such metabolic issues or are at risk for them (which is really everyone, eventually).

 

Multi-day fasting IMHO) is more about quickly correcting abnormal metabolic states, whereas IF is more about maintanance and prevention when it comes to insulin insensitivity.

 

Some argue that one of the causes of the epidemic rise on Type-2 Diabetes over the past couple of decades not only has to do with the rise in sugar-based processed foods, but also with the rise in"snacking" behavior. 

 

What I mean is that the Standard American Diet (SAD) not only includes the traditional 3 meals per day, but also includes numerous snacking periods. More advertising is aimed at promoting snacking than regular meal foods in our fast-paced lives. 

 

Think of all those famous advertising slogans we're bombarded with by companies like Coca Cola ("The pause that refreshes"), all the candy bar companies ("A Mars a day helps you work, rest and play.)

 

In essence, the typical SAD person is eating from the moment they wake to the moment they go to sleep, and most of those in-between snacks are not only primarily carb-based, but the worst kind of carbs (processed sugar).  Thus, massive and excessive amount of insulin are being released continually 24/7.  it's therefore only a matter of time before insulin insensitivity will occur.  

 

There is no nutritional law that says you need three or more meals per day; it's more of a social thing. From the standpoint of insulin insensitivity, it makes a lot of sense to limit large insulin release to one time of day instead of multiple times, especially for people at risk for metabolic issues.  Of course it's a personal issue.  No answer is right for everyone.

[robblok]

34 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

I have made no claim regarding explosive strength. I don't even know, or care, what it is.

 

My insulin is (now) not an issue. Given I am already in ketosis, an 18 hour fast should be sufficient to boost autophagy and other healing mechanisms. If it doesn't, fine; as I say I like not eating for an extended period and am sure it must be better for me than shoveling food down my throat throughout the day. 

 

Its just the difference between aerobic and anaerobic exercise. For aerobic exercise fats and carbs can be used for fuel, anaerobic (weight lifting / sprinting / whatever requires a short burst of power) requires carbs they are the best fuel . 

 

Anaerobic metabolism can only use glucose and glycogen, while aerobic metabolism can also break down fats and protein.

 

You said that fat is the better fuel, it is not for explosive strength. You made a broad statement that was false. What fuel is better is dependent on what you do. That is one of the reasons why i advocate for carbs because I need explosive strength because i lift weights.

 

I just corrected you because what you say is what a lot of low carb people blindly think that fat is the best fuel while that is incorrect unless you say its the best fuel for aerobic exercise (and that is still debatable but proof for both sides). For strength there is no debate carbs are needed for optimal performance. I did not post this to attack you just to clear a common misunderstanding up that is widely spread by advocates of low carb. 

 

I think you should really study a bit more about why people say shoveling food all day down the throat is bad. Its bad because of insulin levels staying high. But that only happens when you eat carbs with your meals. So eating all day long low carb does not have that problem. 

 

That was what I was trying to tell you IF is a way to control insulin (and eat less because there is less time to eat). But you have already gotten your insulin under control so IF does not add much besides maybe caloric restriction.

I don't say you should not do what your doing, you like it and it works for you, I am just saying it does not matter if your in keto already.

 

I am doing a kind of IF (actually never really ate in evenings) I eat between 9:00 and 17:00 and take some berberine to keep my body insulin sensitive. 

 

I have seen some remarkable progress in fat loss, its gone faster then ever and without stalling. I am still not exactly sure why it goes so much better then last time. I am now back to being slim, and will go on for a month maybe 2 more to go from slim to lean. (the hardest part). 

 

Just so you know I am posting here a lot not to attack people but because I like topics about weight loss and exercise more then the other topics. 

 

 

[robblok]

37 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I don't think the issue has so much to do with controlling insulin as it does with controlling (preventing) insulin insensitivity.  Both intermittent fasting (i.e.:  one-meal-a-day) AND complete fasting can work hand-in-hand for people who are dealing with such metabolic issues or are at risk for them (which is really everyone, eventually).

  

Is controlling insulin and preventing insulin insensitivity the same. In your own words what is the difference ?

 

What i understood was that by limiting the window for eating food you make sure that insulin is not elevated all the time but a shorter time thus preventing insulin insensitivity. 

[WaveHunter]

40 minutes ago, robblok said:

Is controlling insulin and preventing insulin insensitivity the same. In your own words what is the difference ?

 

What i understood was that by limiting the window for eating food you make sure that insulin is not elevated all the time but a shorter time thus preventing insulin insensitivity. 

I probably should have composed my thoughts better than I did.  I guess what I meant was that insulin in itself is not the problem but insulin insensitivity is.  Insulin release is of course a vital part of a healthy functioning body.  Excessive amounts of insulin are not. 

 

Cutting down the number of times you eat per day gives the metabolic process a rest for lack of a better way to put it, and I think that's just as important as what typed of carbs you eat since many people are really eating non-stop throughout the day. 

 

For the typical SAD person, maybe it's just a  little snack here and there but the typical snack (i.e.: a can of coke or a candy bar results in massive insulin release. All those little snacks throughout the day coupled with 3 formal meals is a recipe for metabolic disaster IMHO.

 

There's no nutritional advantage to eating multiple times per day, contrary to what the food company might say.  The same is true for the performance supplement industry who promote the idea of protein shakes and the like.  All of these things are unnecessary.  Most people do NOT need supplemental protein no matter how hard they exercise beyond what they get form a properly balanced diet, and excessive protein is simply converted to glucose anyway which only results in more insulin release and conversion to stored fat.

 

How many times you eat per day is a personal thing.  For me, I eat twice a day; a modest breakfast that's primarily carb-based (fruit), and then my main meal for the day around 6pm that's well balanced but low in carbs.  If I'm doing some sort of strenuous exercise (long bike ride) I'll supplement with carbs. 

 

I think it's the healthiest way to eat FOR ME, and I feel good eating that way.  Each to their own of course.  I just think people need to THINK about nutrition and consciously decide what they are putting in their bodies, and how much.  Most don't, and I don't think kids are taught anything that's really science-based about nutrition in school.  Maybe they should ????

 

[brokenbone]

i drop 0.5 kg/day on 1 meal per day,

but annoyingly when i take 2 dishes a day nothing happen.

tomorrow i will have lost 20kg

[robblok]

17 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i drop 0.5 kg/day on 1 meal per day,

but annoyingly when i take 2 dishes a day nothing happen.

tomorrow i will have lost 20kg

I am thinking you are losing a lot of muscle and water. I just can't believe you lose half a kg of fat per day. That is 4000+ calories deficit. Plus your one meal lets put it at 500 cals. For it to be only fat that means you burn 4.500 calories on a day while on a diet.

 

I would say that is impossible (i can imagine that DNP could give a higher burn but that high not sure) but without anything it sounds a bit crazy to me.