Jump to content

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


WaveHunter

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

So, are you saying it takes a PhD to read and use your brain?  C'mon, be real buddy! 

 

I suppose you are also saying that if one has a PhD in nutrition, that makes them an acknowledged authority? 

 

Most of the PhD's and MD's I know of have very little contemporary knowledge of the current state of ongoing research into the link between nutrition and disease states that are now being recognized to have a metabolic basis. 

 

Many are still mired in the dogma of the 1980's citing the virtues of carbohydrates as a foundation for good nutrition based on the now totally debunked "food pyramid"!

 

There are plenty of world-renowned scientists pursuing this line of study that advocates that many diseases such as obesity, Diabetes type-2, many types of cancers, neuro degenerative diseases sucvh as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and ALS seem to have a metabolic basis that was never suspected before.  Some have even received Nobel prizes for their research in this field.

 

So, this is no fad, no Facebook Group BS, no guru-speak, except for those who try to monetize on this legitimate research.  This is the real deal!

 

And FYI, Autophagy is VERY MUCH related to nutrition!  How do you think Yoshinori Ohsumi induced the autophagic response in all of his landmark studies, for which he was awarded the Nobel Price in 2016?  He did it by limiting nutrients, so that selective (damaged) proteins would be catabolized and recycled! 

 

Guess what?  That's the exact same thing that happens when you enter into ketosis during a fast!  Restoring the balance between fat metabolism and carbohydrate metabolism is what keto-adaptation is all about, and it is brought about by fasting, and YES, autophagy plays a very big role!

 

How many PhD nutritionist or medical doctors are even aware of Ohsumi's work or any of the other cutting edge research that's occurring today in this field?  Not many.  You obviously do not either if you can make such a silly comment about autophagy not being related to nutrition! 

 

Basic understanding of the metabolic sciences as well as the current state of research and how they apply to healthy (or unhealthy) states is not rocket science, nor does it take a PhD to appreciate.

 

Maybe you should stop being so damn lazy, using the excuse that only a PhD can understand these things, and become better informed before making such silly and CLEARLY inflammatory comments.

 

So, are you saying it takes a PhD to read and use your brain?  C'mon, be real buddy! 

Basically you are saying you have no education in nutritional science and probably also no work experience?

And still you think you are capable to go through tons of research material and judge what is right and wrong about it?

Thats why I mentioned i smelled the Dunning-Kruger effect so strongly. 

 

I suppose you are also saying that if one has a PhD in nutrition, that makes them an acknowledged authority? 

Having a PhD in a certain field doesn't make someone an acknowledged authority, but if you have your leg broken you still go to a hospital and not to the local fruit seller for help. Why is that? Probably because the educational background of the medical staff in the hospital guarantees they have some basic knowledge about the subject. That doesn't mean they are always right, but you get a better bet there than with the fruit seller. So i rather belief people with a PhD in nutritional science than a random person on Thaivisa with no educational background in that field who claims to know how things work. 

 

How many PhD nutritionist or medical doctors are even aware of Ohsumi's work or any of the other cutting edge research that's occurring today in this field?  Not many.

Actually quite a few of the ones i follow, mostly because his work is being hyped by BS-artists selling miracle diets (which is probably why you looked into autophagy in the first place), and the people who actually work in the nutritional science fields like to call that out on social media and start discussions with the followers of the BS-artists. Not that those discussions last long as one has a PhD in that specific field of research and the other is just blindly following what others say or what they "researched" themselves.

 

You obviously do not either if you can make such a silly comment about autophagy not being related to nutrition! 

In that case, can you explain a bit of how Ohsumi did his research?

How many people was this tested on, how were the health results measured, how much weight did they lose?

Oh wait, his research is not done on humans but on cells. 

And sure humans are made out of cells, but you can't look at what a cell does in a laboratory and assume that will work exactly the same on a human as a whole. And that is exactly what you are doing. 

 

Basic understanding of the metabolic sciences as well as the current state of research and how they apply to healthy (or unhealthy) states is not rocket science, nor does it take a PhD to appreciate.

Indeed, agree there. The basic understanding tells us that calories in vs calories out will determine most of your results.

Its that simple... If you gain weight you need to eat less, if you lose too much weight you need to eat more.

It aint rocket science and it has been common knowledge for ages now.

That is until people started selling autophagy, butter in your coffee, and whatever diet is popular now.

 

Maybe you should stop being so damn lazy, using the excuse that only a PhD can understand these things, and become better informed before making such silly and CLEARLY inflammatory comments.

Have a bit of respect for people who actually do research and know what they are talking about (not me, but the people doing years of study to get their PhD and a spot in a university to teach and do research). Just because you got google and can find research papers doesn't mean in any way that your knowledge and understanding is even close to theirs. They are dedicating their lives to furthering humankind and you are just selectively picking up research papers that confirm your existing bias and think you are helping others with that. If you are really that up-to-date and knowledgable, apply for a job at a university or research center and get your own papers published so there is solid evidence for what you state instead of just cutting and pasting other people's work and ending up with a incoherent rant on a Thailand based forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 279
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

back up what you say with science based information, not simply your unsupported personal opinion!

I don't need to google it to know that our body need "energy" and that if you don't get any "energy" you will not last very long. (about 2-3 months?)

Medias often showed people doing hunger-strike and needing medical assistance after just 1 or 2 months.

 

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

People do it all the time for religious reasons.

I you are talking about Ramadan, it's completely different as it's a succession of day fasts, but they eat every evening

 

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Then there is the case of Angus Barbieri, who fasted for 382 days for medical reasons back in the mid-60's

It's also very different as he was in hospital and received the "energy" required by his body as pills and injections. A bit like someone in a long coma.

 

Here we were talking about water fasting, and I am curious to see what someone would look like after nothing else than water during 7 weeks... 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Oh yeah, as to your second question.  I eat once a day; I am a firm believer in this (for me, not necessarily for anyone else, though I believe many people might benefit from it).  If I am unusually active during the day, I will supplement with fruit if I feel I need it, but basically one-meal-a-day is all I need to feel energetic and healthy, even when trying to ride competitively.

 

If I were to make a point about all of this it would be that I think it's important to "think outside of the box" and not just accept old dogma as the unwavering truth, especially when it comes to a subject that is so much in a state of flux as nutrition is. 

 

The "food pyramid" of the early 1980's is a perfect example of such dogma that ultimately become completely debunked, but is still mostly responsible for the epidemic levels of obesity we see today, and also in the epidemic rise in Diabetes Type 2 ... in children!!! That is something that was unheard of before the 1980's!

Yes u sound kinda agitated or patronizing  Hopefully that is not a side effect of u food plan?  If doing one meal a day non stop then that’s more then enough of fasting. Seems Ur regime is a good example how not too fast for us..

How are ur hormone levels cooping this food regime? U measure them?

How does a one meal a day looks like for u?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

Wave Hunter, you obviously do not have an understanding of human physiology and biochemistry. I could have an honest conversation about ketones and glucose metabolism if some were to ask. It appears you are getting false information.

I have nothing against fasting as long as the person stays hydrated. It eliminates some calories, but isn't a cure all.

Why don't you back up your claim that I don't know what I'm talking about instead of making an empty accusation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, robblok said:

I am not sure but I am pretty sure its less then what I need for one day. For you it might be easier as you don't need as much. (less body-weight)

 

I am just saying that eating one time is not optimal for muscle building and repair. If you got other goals then its great.

 

Below a link but even there they don't want to pin them on a number. But there is some good information there.

 

https://www.muscleforlife.com/the-truth-about-protein-absorption-how-often-you-should-eat-protein-to-build-muscle/

This has actually been on my mind as well and I am thinking of switching to two meals per day, specifically to address protein partitioning BUT I think many people misunderstand how protein metabolism really works and think that the body must immediately put it to use, and that it is only capable of assimilating very small amounts per meal.

 

The popular consensus that you can only assimilate 20-30 grams of protein at any given meal is incorrect and therefore the notion that dietary protein intake must be spread out over many meals is also exaggerated.

 

These incorrect assumptions are based on the fact that there are a limited number of transporter cells and receptor in the small intestine which therefore restricts how many amino acids can be moved into the blood, which in itself is indeed correct.

 

However there are some flaws to the assumption that the body can not assimilate more than 30 grams per meal.

 

Amino acids and some peptides are able to self-regulate their time in the intestines.  For example, the digestive hormone CCK (choleccystokinin) will slow down the contraction of intestines in response to protein intake. 

 

CCK gets released when you eat dietary protein and slows down digestion of protein, otherwise you would absorb all of you dietary protein too quickly and your liver wouldn't be able maintain a steady stream of amino acids into the blood over the 24 hour period and would simply end up getting burned for energy.  CCK prevents that from happening.

 

So, let's say you eat a meal consisting of a steak containing 100 gram of protein.  Due to the actions of CCK, the amino acids are going to be assimilated over a period of many hours without wasting them away. 

 

It basically means that if you consume more protein than is needed to trigger protein synthesis right now, it is gong to slow down the digestion of the extra protein, and then it is going to gradually release the amino acids into the blood stream as your protein synthesis gets lower over time.

 

Furthermore, some amino acids can actually be temporarily stored inside the muscle cell for future use, whether it be for maintaining amino acid homeostasis or for energy production.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0954422499000025

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23660725_Urea_nitrogen_salvage_mechanisms_and_their_relevance_to_ruminants_non-ruminants_and_man

 

Triggering muscle synthesis is regulated mostly by leucine.  It requires about 2 grams of leucine to activate muscle protein synthesis.  You can get that from 20-30 grams of complete protein sources. Protein synthesis spikes rely

 

To be sure there is a lot of scientific debate about how much protein is optimal under various circumstances (i.e.: sedentary vs strength training) but a lot of research is showing that the timing of meals is not really that important beyond a certain point.  What is clear is that 30 grams is not a valid ceiling per meal at all, and there are research studies of intermittant fasters that show levels of over 60 grams, even as high as 79 grams in one study which resulted in no negative effects to muscle growth or homeostasis over a 24 hour period.

 

(see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19776143)

 

Again, this is all highly individual-dependent.  What works best for one person may not be best for another.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes u sound kinda agitated or patronizing  Hopefully that is not a side effect of u food plan?  If doing one meal a day non stop then that’s more then enough of fasting. Seems Ur regime is a good example how not too fast for us..

How are ur hormone levels cooping this food regime? U measure them?

How does a one meal a day looks like for u?

OK, Listen.  It's kind of obvious you are participating here just to be inflammatory and attempting to stir things up in a negative way, while not contributing anything useful to this thread or any serious people participating in it.  I think we're done here.

 

Not only that but your lazy grammar and spelling make it hard to even understand your thoughts, if you even have any.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

This has actually been on my mind as well and I am thinking of switching to two meals per day, specifically to address protein partitioning BUT I think many people misunderstand how protein metabolism really works and think that the body must immediately put it to use, and that it is only capable of assimilating very small amounts per meal.

 

The popular consensus that you can only assimilate 20-30 grams of protein at any given meal is incorrect and therefore the notion that dietary protein intake must be spread out over many meals is also exaggerated.

 

These incorrect assumptions are based on the fact that there are a limited number of transporter cells and receptor in the small intestine which therefore restricts how many amino acids can be moved into the blood, which in itself is indeed correct.

 

However there are some flaws to the assumption that the body can not assimilate more than 30 grams per meal.

 

Amino acids and some peptides are able to self-regulate their time in the intestines.  For example, the digestive hormone CCK (choleccystokinin) will slow down the contraction of intestines in response to protein intake. 

 

CCK gets released when you eat dietary protein and slows down digestion of protein, otherwise you would absorb all of you dietary protein too quickly and your liver wouldn't be able maintain a steady stream of amino acids into the blood over the 24 hour period and would simply end up getting burned for energy.  CCK prevents that from happening.

 

So, let's say you eat a meal consisting of a steak containing 100 gram of protein.  Due to the actions of CCK, the amino acids are going to be assimilated over a period of many hours without wasting them away. 

 

It basically means that if you consume more protein than is needed to trigger protein synthesis right now, it is gong to slow down the digestion of the extra protein, and then it is going to gradually release the amino acids into the blood stream as your protein synthesis gets lower over time.

 

Furthermore, some amino acids can actually be temporarily stored inside the muscle cell for future use, whether it be for maintaining amino acid homeostasis or for energy production.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0954422499000025

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/23660725_Urea_nitrogen_salvage_mechanisms_and_their_relevance_to_ruminants_non-ruminants_and_man

 

Triggering muscle synthesis is regulated mostly by leucine.  It requires about 2 grams of leucine to activate muscle protein synthesis.  You can get that from 20-30 grams of complete protein sources. Protein synthesis spikes rely

 

To be sure there is a lot of scientific debate about how much protein is optimal under various circumstances (i.e.: sedentary vs strength training) but a lot of research is showing that the timing of meals is not really that important beyond a certain point.  What is clear is that 30 grams is not a valid ceiling per meal at all, and there are research studies of intermittant fasters that show levels of over 60 grams, even as high as 79 grams in one study which resulted in no negative effects to muscle growth or homeostasis over a 24 hour period.

 

(see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19776143)

 

Again, this is all highly individual-dependent.  What works best for one person may not be best for another.

 

Yes but 1 !!!! meal is something totally different. But i posted you the article they said no muscle loss for people who just had 1 meal. But I was talking about gaining muscle. It just does not look optimal at all. Again personal choice and depends on goals and all. 

 

If you read what i posted they exposed the 30 gram its more then that. But how much more is not known and we can't store protein so i prefer to eat protein multiple times a day.  Again I am not your average person with average needs. For my situation 1 time eating is not optimal at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

OK, Listen.  It's kind of obvious you are participating here just to be inflammatory and attempting to stir things up in a negative way, while not contributing anything useful to this thread or any serious people participating in it.  I think we're done here.

 

Not only that but your lazy grammar and spelling makes it hard to even understand your thoughts, whatever they might be.

What are you eating and drinking exactly  in a one meal a day program? 

How is your testosterone level while fasting so intense?

Does your fasting lowers or improves your libido?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I'm not going to get into a silly debate with you.  This thread is for people who are interested in discussing the SCIENCE underlying fasting and keto-adaptation, not simply dieting to loose a few pounds.

 

If that's not you, and you have nothing positive or constructive to contribute to the thread...that's fine. 

 

I'm sure that ignorance can be bliss for some people.  That's not meant to be mean-spirited; there's nothing wrong with just following someone else's prescribed diet to loose a few pounds if that's all you are interested in.  However, this thread is NOT about dieting; it is about health issue that go far beyond loosing a few pounds, and some people want to explore this subject on a deeper, more scientific basis.  This thread is for those kind of people.

 

Rubbish. This thread is not yours only, it's an open forum, and other posters can voice their opinion as they see fit. Some of which make sense. So get off your high horse and contribute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, robblok said:

Yes but 1 !!!! meal is something totally different. But i posted you the article they said no muscle loss for people who just had 1 meal. But I was talking about gaining muscle. It just does not look optimal at all. Again personal choice and depends on goals and all. 

 

If you read what i posted they exposed the 30 gram its more then that. But how much more is not known and we can't store protein so i prefer to eat protein multiple times a day.  Again I am not your average person with average needs. For my situation 1 time eating is not optimal at all.

Yes but like I said, it seems that up to at least 79 grams can be assimilated form a single meal, based on that study of intermittent fasters.  I have nothing scientific to support the following comment but it seems to me that if that were so, than two meals per day would allow for all the daily protein needs to be met, even if your needs approached  150 grams (2 x 79 grams).

 

Maybe I'm incorrect but I don't think anybody other than a competitive body builder needs more than 150 grams per day.  What do you think? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

What are you eating and drinking exactly  in a one meal a day program? 

How is your testosterone level while fasting so intense?

Does your fasting lowers or improves your libido?

All tested regularly; all are OPTIMAL!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Rubbish. This thread is not yours only, it's an open forum, and other posters can voice their opinion as they see fit. Some of which make sense. So get off your high horse and contribute.

I agree that this is an open forum but I started this thread and it was intended to explore the scientific basis of fasting by intelligent people who are seeking to share and debate pertinent information, NOT be a forum for troll-like posts that only seek to incite unproductive arguments and be personal attacks on others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Yes but like I said, it seems that up to at least 79 grams can be assimilated form a single meal, based on that study of intermittent fasters.  I have nothing scientific to support the following comment but it seems to me that if that were so, than two meals per day would allow for all the daily protein needs to be met, even if your needs approached  150 grams (2 x 79 grams).

 

Maybe I'm incorrect but I don't think anybody other than a competitive body builder needs more than 150 grams per day.  What do you think? 

The study was talking about NO muscle loss, not what was optimal for growing muscle. Given that we can't store protein its best to get it during the day from different sources that digest at different speeds. That is of course for people wanting to get extra muscle or have the best possible repair of their muscles. 

 

I am in general not going over 150 grams per but I am no competitive bodybuilder. I would say they use far more. If you ever seen what people like Stan Efferding and others ate. They ate up to 5000 calories a day and a big part of that was protein. So they certainly eat more then 150 grams. The only reason I am not higher in protein (besides I am not sure it will help nor do I think I can build a lot of muscle anymore) is that i keep my total calories low thus protein too. 

 

I hope to retrain my slow metabolism after my fat loss phase but I plan to take over a year for it. This year will be my year, no sickness, and a year where I want to be lean and then slowly eat more to try and keep at the same weight (have been studies showing its possible if done slowly). But who knows what happens. Just want to make sure I don't have to get back to losing fat again. So no more problems this year (i hope). 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

What do you eat and drink in a week time?

Surely you have a food schedule?

Contribute something productive and useful to this thread. You sure are not doing it with your bait-like comments.  I mean you seem to have absolutely no interest in, or knowledge of this topic.  Why are you even here?  Seriously?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Contribute something positive to this thread. You sure are not doing it with your bait-like comments.

Well i am considering to shift towards the 5:2  meal plan. Since a week i am doing the 16:8 meal plan.

For loosing weight the 5:2 seems more effective then the 16:8.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I agree that this is an open forum but I started this thread and it was intended to explore the scientific basis of fasting by intelligent people who are seeking to share and debate pertinent information, NOT be a forum for troll-like posts that only seek to incite unproductive arguments and be personal attacks on others.

I am merely asking you to contribute, not to slander every poster who doesn't agree with your view or needs greater clarification. As it happens the EOD diet programme is scientifically based, so as an intelligant person you might consider contributing in contra beliefs to the long term benefits of water fasting.

 

And BTW, your high handed attitude towards others is not welcome. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to everyone if I sound like I am on a bully pulpit.  That was not my intention.  I started this thread to explore, share and discuss this topic form a science-based perspective.  The topic is actually "keto-adaptation" not simply "fasting" (for weight loss).  I apologize if I'm coming off sounding like a know-it-all, but I have spent over 20 years with a serious interest in this topic and am getting frustrated with the overwhelming negative (yet unfounded) views about fasting. 

 

I have absolutely no issue with people debating me or having differing opinions from mine as long as they back up what they say with science.  One of the main reasons I started this thread was to explore all the "gray" areas of this topic so, of course, I welcome varying opinions from my own so these unknown can be debated vigorously, but that is not what seems to be occurring.  Instead, many are simply mocking the whole idea of keto-adaptation and fasting without presenting any scientific basis for their view.  I don't see how that is productive. 

 

If you don't believe in fasting, and more importantly keto-adaptation, I have no problem with that at all.  Each to their own.  All I am asking is make a contribution to this thread and explain, in a science-based way, WHY you feel that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2019 at 2:24 PM, WaveHunter said:

I regularly fast (72 hour fast monthly, and 5 day fast once or twice a year)

That is not fasting ... with that statement you completely disqualified yourself as a "self proclaimed" expert on fasting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

Wave Watcher,

Are the authorities you refer to medical doctors (MDs) or biochemists. Chiropractors (DC) are good at adjusting spinal conditions, but are not qualified to diagnose or treat other conditions. It sounds like you are not getting sound advice.

BTY the cells in you body are continuously replacing themselves. For instance cells in your intestine lumen generally are replaced ever 7 days and you red blood cells every 120 days. Other cells last much longer but would not be affected by starvation fasting. 

Quote some  real authorities with scientific data , that's published in recognized journals and I'll believe you. Otherwise your blowing smoke.

Look, with all due respect, I am not trying to convert anyone to my way of thinking, nor am I trying to promote keto-adaptation or fasting to anyone.  This thread was directed to people who already are familiar with concepts, and want to engage in intelligent discussion and debate over the topic.  That includes people who have negative views on the topic.

 

The "authorities" I base my own views on are well-recognized medical and scientific researchers throughout the world; some are even Nobel Prize winners for their research related to this topic, not simply chiropractors with a YouTube channel (not that there is anything necessarily bad with that).  When it's appropriate I always cite specific studies that back up my claims; not third party interpretations from a YouTube guru channel or a website trying to sell a diet plan since those sources almost always use half-truths and outright mis-information that is cherry-picked to support an agenda.

 

All I am really asking is that if somebody has a view that is counter to mine they back up what they say in a science-based way.

 

I really don't want to feel like I should be put in a position of defending the voracity of this topic.  If you don't think it is a legitimate field to discuss and I'm just "blowing smoke", that's your opinion and you are entitled to that.  This thread however is really for those who do want to explore and debate the topic in a serious, science-based way, not simply get into a pissing match with mean-spirited, pithy remarks and personal attacks (not that that is what you are doing, but many other are).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Enki said:

That is not fasting ... with that statement you completely disqualified yourself as a "self proclaimed" expert on fasting.

Why do you say that a 72 hour fast or 5 day fast is not a fast?  That makes no sense.  Care to expand on that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

Why do you say that?

Why do you ask? Rofl, you get more and more ridiculous ... why actually asking/starting a thread in a forum about Thailand?

 

Please, do everyone a favour and stop talking about fasting until you actually have fasted. And that simply means: no eating for 4 to 6 or even 8 weeks ... WEEKS not days.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

Wave Watcher,

Are the authorities you refer to medical doctors (MDs) or biochemists. Chiropractors (DC) are good at adjusting spinal conditions, but are not qualified to diagnose or treat other conditions. It sounds like you are not getting sound advice.

BTY the cells in you body are continuously replacing themselves. For instance cells in your intestine lumen generally are replaced ever 7 days and you red blood cells every 120 days. Other cells last much longer but would not be affected by starvation fasting. 

Quote some  real authorities with scientific data , that's published in recognized journals and I'll believe you. Otherwise your blowing smoke.

FYI, yes I agree that cells within the body are continually replaced as a normal process; when it comes to intracellular materials, it's referred to as "autophagy", and it goes on 24/7 within our bodies.

 

However, when you fast the process of intracellular recycling is ramped up markedly.  This happens because there is an interim period of time before ketone bodies are sufficiently produced to fuel the brain directly, and to fuel the body through liberated fatty acids that the body is forced to burn proteins.  

 

Many people cite this fact as a main reason NOT to fast; because you will "burn muscle.  This however is incorrect.  The reason is because the body doesn't just randomly burn proteins, but rather, it targets damaged and dysfunctional intracellular proteins, breaking them down for energy and then creating fresh fully functional new proteins in their place, while leaving more essential proteins such as those associated with the muscle and heart intact/

 

These damaged proteins are what many scientists are coming to believe may be the root cause of diseases such many forms of cancer as well as neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimers and Parkinsons.  

 

Fasting causes this ramped-up state of autophagy to occur, and was always the triggering mechanism in all research over the past decade into autophagic processes. 

 

You want real authorities with real research that back up what I am saying here?  Google the Japanese cell biologist, Yoshinori Ohsumi, who was awarded the 2016 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his groundbreaking discoveries and documentation of this very process.

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5240711/

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Enki said:

Why do you ask? Rofl, you get more and more ridiculous ... why actually asking/starting a thread in a forum about Thailand?

 

Please, do everyone a favour and stop talking about fasting until you actually have fasted. And that simply means: no eating for 4 to 6 or even 8 weeks ... WEEKS not days.

4 to 6 weeks, or even 8 weeks, huh?  OK, You're entitled to have an opinion I suppose, but that is about the most uninformed remark I've seen posted on this thread!  I guess you've been watching too many YouTube videos.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Well i am considering to shift towards the 5:2  meal plan. Since a week i am doing the 16:8 meal plan.

For loosing weight the 5:2 seems more effective then the 16:8.

 

I really don't prescribe to any weight loss diets myself but any form of intermittent fasting is a good thing since it controls insulin release and minimizes receptor insensitivity.  I guess it's a personal choice, but of the two choices, I'd opt for 16:8 since that is very easy to do once you get acclimated to it, because it just becomes a daily habit after a while that you don't even think about, and you don't have to be measuring calories or get in the mood for your two days of fasting.  Not only that but I think it keeps your insulin levels more stable overall while minimizing spikes, and that is really the name of the game for mobilizing stored fat.  Just my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

I really don't prescribe to any weight loss diets myself but any form of intermittent fasting is a good thing since it controls insulin release and minimizes receptor insensitivity.  I guess it's a personal choice, but of the two choices, I'd opt for 16:8 since that is very easy to do once you get acclimated to it, because it just becomes a daily habit after a while that you don't even think about, and you don't have to be measuring calories or get in the mood for your two days of fasting.  Not only that but I think it keeps your insulin levels more stable overall while minimizing spikes, and that is really the name of the game for mobilizing stored fat.  Just my opinion.

Yes but i think 5:2 more popular for loosing weight.. maybe because results will be faster with 5:2 because of actual less intake of food/calories for at least 2 days a week.

16:8 yes it’s probably easier to follow especially if not drinking alcohol to follow that program. Also within the 16:8 you can consume the same calories amount as without any fast program so not sure how effective weight-loss that will be by only narrowing the eating  timeframe.

I could consider continue doing 16:8 but with smaller amounts of carbohydrates and more veggies in those 8 hours?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes but i think 5:2 more popular for loosing weight.. maybe because results will be faster with 5:2 because of actual less intake of food/calories for at least 2 days a week.

16:8 yes it’s probably easier to follow especially if not drinking alcohol to follow that program. Also within the 16:8 you can consume the same calories amount as without any fast program so not sure how effective weight-loss that will be by only narrowing the eating  timeframe.

I could consider continue doing 16:8 but with smaller amounts of carbohydrates and more veggies in those 8 hours?

Really what ever works best for you; everybody is different.  No matter how you do it, I think the real key is cutting carbohydrates, particularly high glycemic ones (i.e.: processed foods containing high fructose corm syrup).  If all you did was to banish those kind of foods, you'd shed excess body fat, no matter what diet you ascribe to.  More natural fats and less carbs in your diet is more satiating so you will naturally consume less calories, and activate less insulin release.  It's a more comfortable and more sustainable was to shed excess body fat.  To me, that's the "perfect storm" for fat loss if that is your goal.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

However, when you fast the process of intracellular recycling is ramped up markedly.  This happens because there is an interim period of time before ketone bodies are sufficiently produced to fuel the brain directly, and to fuel the body through liberated fatty acids that the body is forced to burn proteins.  

 

Many people cite this fact as a main reason NOT to fast; because you will "burn muscle.  This however is incorrect.  The reason is because the body doesn't just randomly burn proteins, but rather, it targets damaged and dysfunctional intracellular proteins, breaking them down for energy and then creating fresh fully functional new proteins in their place, while leaving more essential proteins such as those associated with the muscle and heart intact/

This is interesting, and needs scientific proof because I would refer you to the Every Other Day Diet where it has been scientifically proven by Krista Varady from tests on mice  initially - followed by humans - that the animals would suffer a loss of muscle mass if they were given no food on fast day. I accept mice are not human and I would appreciate your scientific link to your assertion in bold above. 

 

As an aside she recommends 'intermittent fasting' not total fasting on fasting day. While I prefer the keto approach as to what foods to consume - high fat, low carbs - I am reluctant now to continue with any water fasting over 18 hours per day. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes but i think 5:2 more popular for loosing weight.. maybe because results will be faster with 5:2 because of actual less intake of food/calories for at least 2 days a week.

16:8 yes it’s probably easier to follow especially if not drinking alcohol to follow that program. Also within the 16:8 you can consume the same calories amount as without any fast program so not sure how effective weight-loss that will be by only narrowing the eating  timeframe.

I could consider continue doing 16:8 but with smaller amounts of carbohydrates and more veggies in those 8 hours?

Also, I should add that, while fats are more satiating, high glycemic carbs that contain high fructose corn syrup actually fool the brain's receptors for satiety through insufficient release of leptin and suppression of ghrelin.  The result is that you tend to binge on carbs far more than you would on fats.

 

https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/88/6/1738S/4617109

 

This is just my opinion but I think it's far more likely you will fall victim to eating too many carbs if you are only focusing on your diet for two days a week than if you are focusing on it every day which, as I said, just becomes an easy to adhere to habit since you are doing it 7 days a week and it is not really that restrictive by comparison.

 

Just the way I see it; opinions can vary of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

However, when you fast the process of intracellular recycling is ramped up markedly.  This happens because there is an interim period of time before ketone bodies are sufficiently produced to fuel the brain directly, and to fuel the body through liberated fatty acids that the body is forced to burn proteins.

That is nonsense. Protein burning, especially the own protein from muscle mass, is the last and final resort of the body. It does not burn proteins, aka reduces muscle mass, before all sugar and fat reserves are burned.

 

However it is an often repeated american internet myth ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...