Water Only Fasting...Should you do it / How should you do it.

[WaveHunter]

7 hours ago, stephenterry said:

 

I'm a water faster who has lost weight - from 85 kilos down to 72 over an 18 month period - and now maintain a healthy nutrition regime using OMAD, and a 20-4 window. I find a 20 hour fasting period keeps me in Ketosis, and allows me to build muscle using HIIT while burning fat. Or, so I believe!

 

It's also useful to explore ways and means for optimizing health and well-being as you point out, so my post deviance on this topic, e.g. the smoking and salt discussion has been addressing a couple of these aspects, which I hope would be useful to new water-fasting readers. 

 

If it's okay, I would be willing to post on the health benefits of alcohol, especially red wine, which is a taboo subject for health authorities, but should be taken on board by readers on this topic if longevity is an objective... 

 

Sorry if I didn't make it clear but I'd welcome your thoughts on benefits of alcohol.  It's definitely a metabolic topic.  I'm not into alcohol myself except for an occasional beer but many others probably are and I know it's a controversial topic so I bet it could get a good debate going.   So please, go for it! ????

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

17 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Sorry if I didn't make it clear but I'd welcome your thoughts on benefits of alcohol.  It's definitely a metabolic topic.  I'm not into alcohol myself except for an occasional beer but many others probably are and I know it's a controversial topic so I bet it could get a good debate going.   So please, go for it! ????

 

 

 

First, a disclaimer. I'm no medical expert, only an observer of what works for me. Mostly on a hit and miss basis. And I enjoy my booze. 

 

Most posters on here are aware that a health-conscious lifestyle, including intermittent fasting, 'natural-food' nutrition, and moderate exercise are the core basics for quality longevity - barring accidents and disease.   

 

There's still a hell of a lot that we have to avoid, including:

-heart disease

-liver cancer

-bowel cancer

-prostate cancer 

-and for women, breast cancer.

 

All of which are blamed on alcohol consumption. Even 'moderate' intake. The rationale  - even though thousands of alcohol studies worldwide have been carried out - has been to suppress the 'we don't really know if alcohol is clearly the 'cause' or is just a 'correlation'.

 

BECAUSE the Western medical authorities are scared stupid that to recommend anything less than total alcohol abstention - or at best 1-2 glasses on social occasions - would open up the 'floodgates' to global inebriation and collapse of the health systems.

 

That's a not impossible risk, which I can understand the merits, but it's been scientifically asserted as not the reality, which is discussed and discarded at some length by Tony Edwards in his book,

'The Good News About Booze'.  

 

I will share a few 'spoilers', to which I'm indebted to by not paraphrasing, but offering the essence - so don't read on if you prefer to read his book first. 

 

Cons:

1. Alcohol is toxic. One that could be utilised to benefit health.

2. Every person's genetic makeup (DNA) (and living style) is different, some would be adversely affected by even small doses of alcohol, while others would be immune - however much they consume!   

3. Alcohol damage is a known health risk, e.g. Alcohol Liver Disease (ALD) but again, people are not falling off the cliff-edge like lemmings, and on undertaken studies over long periods the vast majority of drinkers (low 90%'s) had no sign of ALD however much they drank. 

4. Women are more adversely affected than men by similar levels of alcohol consumption. No news there!

5. Women do have a <8% risk of developing breast cancer - see 2 above. 

 

Pros:

Scientifically proven  - taken into account similar race, gender, age, and lifestyle as to eliminate skewing of results AFAP - that people (male and female) who drink alcohol live longer than those who abstain. 

Caucasians are the least likely to be adversely affected by alcohol consumption - in that they can tolerate it more - in total contrast to Asians - who can't. 

Spirits are alcohol watered down.

Over consumption of un-nutritious food shouldn't be consumed with beer to avoid a beer belly physique. In other words lay off the Big Mac while downing pint after pint. Otherwise moderately beneficial to health.

Red Wine is the most beneficial - a big fat recommendation to follow - and the healthiest is Pinot Noir.  Wine, despite the calorie content, is known to aid weight loss. 

 

And BTW - don't challenge me - all the above themes, plus plenty more, are covered in Tony's book.

stephen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

First, a disclaimer. I'm no medical expert, only an observer of what works for me. Mostly on a hit and miss basis. And I enjoy my booze. 

 

Most posters on here are aware that a health-conscious lifestyle, including intermittent fasting, 'natural-food' nutrition, and moderate exercise are the core basics for quality longevity - barring accidents and disease.   

 

There's still a hell of a lot that we have to avoid, including:

-heart disease

-liver cancer

-bowel cancer

-prostate cancer 

-and for women, breast cancer.

 

All of which are blamed on alcohol consumption. Even 'moderate' intake. The rationale  - even though thousands of alcohol studies worldwide have been carried out - has been to suppress the 'we don't really know if alcohol is clearly the 'cause' or is just a 'correlation'.

 

BECAUSE the Western medical authorities are scared stupid that to recommend anything less than total alcohol abstention - or at best 1-2 glasses on social occasions - would open up the 'floodgates' to global inebriation and collapse of the health systems.

 

That's a not impossible risk, which I can understand the merits, but it's been scientifically asserted as not the reality, which is discussed and discarded at some length by Tony Edwards in his book,

'The Good News About Booze'.  

 

I will share a few 'spoilers', to which I'm indebted to by not paraphrasing, but offering the essence - so don't read on if you prefer to read his book first. 

 

Cons:

1. Alcohol is toxic. One that could be utilised to benefit health.

2. Every person's genetic makeup (DNA) (and living style) is different, some would be adversely affected by even small doses of alcohol, while others would be immune - however much they consume!   

3. Alcohol damage is a known health risk, e.g. Alcohol Liver Disease (ALD) but again, people are not falling off the cliff-edge like lemmings, and on undertaken studies over long periods the vast majority of drinkers (low 90%'s) had no sign of ALD however much they drank. 

4. Women are more adversely affected than men by similar levels of alcohol consumption. No news there!

5. Women do have a <8% risk of developing breast cancer - see 2 above. 

 

Pros:

Scientifically proven  - taken into account similar race, gender, age, and lifestyle as to eliminate skewing of results AFAP - that people (male and female) who drink alcohol live longer than those who abstain. 

Caucasians are the least likely to be adversely affected by alcohol consumption - in that they can tolerate it more - in total contrast to Asians - who can't. 

Spirits are alcohol watered down.

Over consumption of un-nutritious food shouldn't be consumed with beer to avoid a beer belly physique. In other words lay off the Big Mac while downing pint after pint. Otherwise moderately beneficial to health.

Red Wine is the most beneficial - a big fat recommendation to follow - and the healthiest is Pinot Noir.  Wine, despite the calorie content, is known to aid weight loss. 

 

And BTW - don't challenge me - all the above themes, plus plenty more, are covered in Tony's book.

stephen.

First of all, I'm not really into alcohol, except for an occasional beer or wine with a nice meal.  It's not because I think it is necessarily bad for me.  It's simply a personal preference based on how it makes me feel to be inebriated.

 

My big take-away about alcohol is the same as it is about nutrition.  It all really depends on the individual.  I know there's a huge debate on the pros/cons of alcohol and I think there's truth on both sides of that coin.  But again, I think it's a mistake to believe the same pros or cons apply to every person, and there's a huge difference with regard to frequency / quantity of alcohol consumed.

 

There are certain universal facts about excessive alcoholic consumption with respect to metabolic health.  About 90-98 per cent of alcohol that you drink is broken down in your liver.  The real problem with alcohol is that it can induce far more severe Fatty Liver Disease (FLD) than nonalcoholic causes of fatty liver disease (i.e.: excessive carbohydrates).

 

Fatty liver disease can result from excessive alcohol consumption (alcoholic fatty liver disease (AFLD) or from diet (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NFALD).  It's a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.

 

Furthermore, there is a synergistic effect as you alluded to.  Even moderate use of alcohol can worsen the effects of NFALD, so someone who consumes alcohol and already has a fatty liver from excessive carbohydrate consumption is at far higher risk of developing serious fatty liver disease, and even more serious complications such as cirrhosis of the liver, and Diabetes.

 

The problem is, most disease states of the liver have very few noticeable symptoms until it is too late do do anything to reverse disease.

 

So, there really is no universal way to say that alcohol consumption is necessarily good or bad for everyone.  It all depends on genetics, metabolic health due to diet, and frequency / quantity of alcohol consumed.  In other words, it's an individual's responsible to know their body and how it reacts to what's put inside of it.

 

[jak2002003]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 9:52 AM, stephenterry said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hmm... scientists are now saying coffee gives you cancer... unless you know it meets the following criteria.

 

1.  must be shade grown (can't be bothered to find out why)

2.  must be certified organic coffee (otherwise its the chemicals used give you cancer)

3.  its not hot when you drink it. (you get throat cancer if hot)

4.  you don't roast it... lol... (because roasting it released cancer causing chemicals).

 

Also some rubbish about drinking coffee lowers your bodies pH and cancer and other diseases thrive in an acidic environment. 

 

If you are a women coffee is linked to breast cancer (women who stopped drinking coffee the cancer lumps regressed).  

 

Some scientists claims cancer is the cause for 50 percent of pancreatic cancers.

 

I could go on and on.

 

This is just the sort of thing I mean when I say that these days you can't trust anything anyone is telling you about diets, foods and cancer.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

There are certain universal facts about excessive alcoholic consumption with respect to metabolic health.  About 90-98 per cent of alcohol that you drink is broken down in your liver. 

 

Fatty liver disease can result from excessive alcohol consumption (alcoholic fatty liver disease (AFLD) or from diet (nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NFALD).  It's a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide.

 

Furthermore, there is a synergistic effect as you alluded to.  Even moderate use of alcohol can worsen the effects of NFALD, so someone who consumes alcohol and already has aThe real problem with alcohol is that it can induce far more severe Fatty Liver Disease (FLD) than nonalcoholic causes of fatty liver disease (i.e.: excessive carbohydrates). fatty liver from excessive carbohydrate consumption is at far higher risk of developing serious fatty liver disease, and even more serious complications such as cirrhosis of the liver, and Diabetes.

 

 

What doctors don't tell you is that some kinds of liver disease might actually be prevented by alcohol, such as AFLD  (steatohepatatis).

 

A huge USA wide survey in 2012 found that alcohol is of real benefit to this fairly common liver problem. Modest alcohol (up to 36 grams daily) intake had half the risk of developing AFLD than people who drank no alcohol - which is an astonishing finding, because AFLD is a forerunner of both cirrhosis and liver cancer.  

 

However, one group of drinkers have a huge risk of ALD: people already suffering from liver disease, in particular Hepatitis C, intravenous drug users and people with HIV.

 

 

 

 

[stephenterry]

16 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

hmm... scientists are now saying coffee gives you cancer... unless you know it meets the following criteria.

 

1.  must be shade grown (can't be bothered to find out why)

2.  must be certified organic coffee (otherwise its the chemicals used give you cancer)

3.  its not hot when you drink it. (you get throat cancer if hot)

4.  you don't roast it... lol... (because roasting it released cancer causing chemicals).

 

Also some rubbish about drinking coffee lowers your bodies pH and cancer and other diseases thrive in an acidic environment. 

 

If you are a women coffee is linked to breast cancer (women who stopped drinking coffee the cancer lumps regressed).  

 

Some scientists claims cancer is the cause for 50 percent of pancreatic cancers.

 

I could go on and on.

 

This is just the sort of thing I mean when I say that these days you can't trust anything anyone is telling you about diets, foods and cancer.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you'll find that the general scientific consensus is that coffee consumption in moderation (1-2 cups per day) is beneficial to health. Unfortunately, like most health research, there just isn't absolute truth, and probably why there are so many different approaches towards health.

 

What I find, is that unless a health issue affects you personally, you'll be more likely to accept the medical statements and advice bandied about by the authorities - and not research it. But just trot out and copy the same statements and advice as if they are the holy grail. Like liver disease, for example.

 

This would be the case with alcohol consumption - you don't drink so you'll accept that all cancers are caused by alcohol, or that you won't accept that kidney disease, for example, can be prevented/resolved by alcohol consumption, as scientific evidence has proven.

 

 

 

 

[jak2002003]

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

I think you'll find that the general scientific consensus is that coffee consumption in moderation (1-2 cups per day) is beneficial to health. Unfortunately, like most health research, there just isn't absolute truth, and probably why there are so many different approaches towards health.

 

What I find, is that unless a health issue affects you personally, you'll be more likely to accept the medical statements and advice bandied about by the authorities - and not research it. But just trot out and copy the same statements and advice as if they are the holy grail. Like liver disease, for example.

 

This would be the case with alcohol consumption - you don't drink so you'll accept that all cancers are caused by alcohol, or that you won't accept that kidney disease, for example, can be prevented/resolved by alcohol consumption, as scientific evidence has proven.

 

 

 

 

We were always told a glass of red wine a day helps prevent heart disease.  Now, at least in the UK, the doctors are blaming alcohol for basically every disease, and even say the smallest amount of alcohol is very harmful to health.. even the good old red wine.

 

I am sick of them changing their minds back and forth from one thing to another.  That's why I don't follow any of their advise now.

 

We are all being lied to about our diets and food... to fit the needs of the food producers and governments various agendas.  

 

The biggest lie was the food triangle we all learnt had to learn at school  Told up to eat mostly carbohydrates and the meat.. and fish, was at the bottom.. to eat in small amounts.  Still today we are pushed into eating dairy products and drinking milk... even though in truth we don't need them at all.. and they don't help our health, in fact they can harm it in todays lifestyles.  

 

 

[WaveHunter]

12 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

We were always told a glass of red wine a day helps prevent heart disease.  Now, at least in the UK, the doctors are blaming alcohol for basically every disease, and even say the smallest amount of alcohol is very harmful to health.. even the good old red wine.

 

I am sick of them changing their minds back and forth from one thing to another.  That's why I don't follow any of their advise now.

 

We are all being lied to about our diets and food... to fit the needs of the food producers and governments various agendas.  

 

The biggest lie was the food triangle we all learnt had to learn at school  Told up to eat mostly carbohydrates and the meat.. and fish, was at the bottom.. to eat in small amounts.  Still today we are pushed into eating dairy products and drinking milk... even though in truth we don't need them at all.. and they don't help our health, in fact they can harm it in todays lifestyles.  

 

 

I’m paraphrasing but the statement “let food be your medicine and medicine be your food” is still one of the greatest medical prescriptions ever offered to human populations. It was supposedly said by Hippocrates, almost 2500 years ago!

 

Yet doctors today only know how to write prescriptions and treat symptoms instead of the true underlying causes of disease.  

 

Very rarely do the they take a pro-active stance on preventing disease by advocating a science-based nutritional lifestyle, and instead just regurgitate outdated and unfounded dogma.

 

More and more science is proving that poor nutrition IS indeed the underlying cause of many diseases today. In many cases, metabolic-based diseases  such as obesity and diabetes are preventable and even reversible if science-based nutritional guidelines are employed.

 

Unfortunately, most doctors have little if any education in nutrition.  Do you realize that there is not a single medical school in the United States (and probably the world) that even requires a single course in nutrition?  That’s just crazy IMO!

 

Even more crazy is the fact that most national nutritional guidelines are strongly influenced by the processed-food and pharmaceutical industry for self-serving purposes.  The bogus “food pyramid” that you mentioned is a perfect example of this.  The gross over-prescribing of Statin drugs is another.

 

Sadly, today you just can’t rely on doctors or overseeing bodies like the Heart Association for sound nutritional advice.  It is the individual’s responsibility to be self-informed, and make their own nutritional guidelines based on science-based knowledge, not the advice of others.

 

At least, that my view, and ever since I embraced it I’ve been a much healthier person!

 

[WaveHunter]

On 5/8/2019 at 12:57 PM, lagavulin1 said:

Ketogenisis is well described and understood in the literature. I don't argue with your article. 

I am puzzled though why you have failed to mention the ketogenic Diets which seems to me a much more interesting way of living (apart from having to stop beer). Do you perceive any additional benefits from fasting? 

I have no issue with most elements of ketogenic diets per se, but my real goal now is not to be on any sort of "canned" diet at all.  The reason I'm a big fan of fasting is simply that it optimizes metabolic pathways that control how the body uses stored body fat and glycogen, and how it processes dietary fats and carbohydrates. And for me, eliminates the need to be on any sort of weight-loss diets at all.

 

People's body's used to do this very effectively before the advent of processed foods, more sedentary lifestyles,  and modern dietary practices like "food grazing" where many are eating food from the moment they awake to the moment they go to bed.

 

Nutritional lifestyle changes are necessary to change this but periodic water fasting can play a vital role as well.

 

What's unique about periodic water fasting over keto diets is that fasting is a powerful and quick way to reset these metabolic processes that have become dysfunctional due to our modern lifestyle.  It also does the same thing with greatly enhancing natural autophagic response (recycling damaged, dysfunctional intracelluar proteins) in a way that regular ketogenic diets can not do nearly as effectively. 

 

I only feel the need to fast for a few days once a month or every other month to achieve all of this.  The effects last long after the fast ends.  

 

How do I know it is effective?  I used to have weight issues and was constantly on one diet or another with limited success.  Every since I embraced this form of water fasting combined with a more science-based nutritional lifestyle, I've never felt the need to be on any sort of weight loss diet again. 

 

No feelings of deprivation, no need to be counting calories, no more wacky fad diets that don't work in the long run.  Just a healthy and safe periodic metabolic reset and "spring cleaning" of your body.  Nothing magical, convoluted, or pseudo scientific about it at all! 

 

I'm not saying this is a good strategy for everyone but most weight loss diets (even keto-based ones) are not effective in the long run for many.  I'm only saying the strategy of combining periodic, short-term water fasting with basic principles of science-based nutrition works for me.  Others might want to explore this strategy to see if it works for them because adhering to prescribed diets is usually no fun at all and has a very poor track record of long term efficacy for most people.

[WaveHunter]

There are so many unfounded myths about what really happens when your body is in the fasted state, and probably the single biggest myth concerns muscle loss.

 

Truth is, there has been a lot of scientific study of physiological changes that occur during starvation.  The same physiological changes that occur in starvation also occur in nutritional fasting with one major difference.  In nutritional fasting,  vital proteins such as muscle and the heart are spared as long as there is ample amounts of stored body fat that can be used as an alternative fuel.  Starvation occurs when those fat stores have been depleted.  Until that happens, no "significant" muscle loss occurs.

 

Now don't rush to judgement and tell me this is not so until you understand the actual physiological mechanisms at play that prevent this from happening.

 

Here is a graph by Dr. Kevin Hall from the NIH in the book “Comparative Physiology of Fasting, Starvation, and Food Limitation”. This is a graph of where the energy to power our bodies comes from, from the start of fasting. At time zero, you can see that there is a mix of energy coming from carbs, fat and protein. Within the first day or so of fasting, you can see that the body initially starts by burning carbs (sugar) for energy. However, the body has limited ability to store sugar. So, after the first day, fat burning starts.

 

 

What happens to protein? Well, the amount of protein consumed goes down. There is certainly a baseline low level of protein turnover, but the point is that protein consumption does not start ramping up as would be the case if significant muscle loss were occurring. Muscle tissue is not burned, it is conserved, because protein turnover is reduced.

 

This occurs because abstinence from food causes a major shift from glucose to stored-fat metabolism via hormonal changes that occur.  The classic studies that made this clear were done by George Cahill. In a 1983 article on “Starvation” he notes that glucose requirements fall drastically during fasting as the body feeds on fatty acids and the brain feeds on ketone bodies significantly reducing the need for gluconeogenesis. Normal protein breakdown is on the order of 75 grams/day which falls to about 15 – 20 grams/day during starvation. So, for example, a fast for 7 days might result in a total loss of a few hundred grams of protein. That loss could be made up with ease once feeding resumed.

 

From Cahill’s study, you can see that the urea nitrogen excretion, which corresponds to protein breakdown, goes way, way down during fasting / starvation. This makes sense, since protein is functional tissue and there is no point to burning useful tissue while fasting when there is plenty of fat around.

 

Stored body fat can actually provide all the glucose that the body needs!  Fat is stored as triglycerides (TG). This consists of 3 fatty acid chains attached to 1 glycerol molecule. The fatty acids are released from the TG and most of the body can use these fatty acids directly for energy.

 

The glycerol goes to the liver where it undergoes the process of gluconeogenesis and is turned into sugar. So, the parts of the body that can only use sugar have it. This is how the body is able to keep a normal blood sugar even though you are not eating sugar. It has the ability to produce it from stored fat.

 

Caloric restriction diets actually can cause significant muscle loss compared to fasting. In one study that compared lean tissue loss in fasting vs caloric restriction diets, fasting was observed to be more than 4 times better at preventing lean tissue loss. 

 

Also, Caloric restriction diets cause a major slowdown in resting metabolic rate whereas fasting actually increases it (due to increased levels of epinephrine). 

 

The significance is that cutting calories only results in reducing energy demand, not actual use of stored body fat.  From the same study referenced above, during caloric restriction, the number of calories burned by the body at rest goes down by 76 calories per day. During fasting, it only goes down 29 calories per day (statistically insignificant).  In other words, fasting does not slow your metabolism.

 

So, the question now becomes, what physiological mechanisms are at play that allow lean body mass to be preserved while in a fasted state?  There is a lot of conjecture on this but it seems likely that growth hormone plays a significant role.  See this study: The protein-retaining effects of growth hormone during fasting involve inhibition of muscle-protein breakdown.  The study showed that by suppressing GH during fasting, there was a 50% increase in muscle breakdown!  GH plays a role in preserving lean body mass during a fast but the increased level of GH that occurs during fasting also greatly enhances the body's ability to restore lost lean mass more quickly once a fast is completed and feeding resumes.

 

In short, water fasting is not starvation until fat stores have nearly been depleted.  The average non-obese person carries fat stores that easily would allow 30+ days of complete abstinence from food without danger of starvation (or significant loss of lean body mass).

 

During fasting, hormonal changes kick in to give us more energy (increased adrenalin), keep glucose and energy stores high (burning fatty acids and ketone bodies), and protect lean muscles from being catabolized to any significant degree, whereas extreme calorie restriction (that does not encourage a ketogenic response) will encourage muscle wasting.