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

[Enki]

22 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

7 weeks without food !?? 

A stupid but efficient way to destroy your body

Edit:

Is it even possible to do so ?

and did you stop only because they took you to an hospital ?

 

That is what feasting is about, so yes. Up to 7 or 8 weeks without food. At least without calories intake. There are plenty of variations of feasting, better read a book about it than following the advices in this threat. Not eating 3 or 4 days is not feasting ... it is stupid.

 

Typical feasting in the western world is minimum 10 days, and usually 3 to 4 weeks.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

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. 

 

With all due respect to Varady, I'll side with the research results of a Nobel Prize winner (Yoshinori Ohsumi...link already provided in previous post) and also Dr. George Cahill of Harvard University Medical School who conducted landmark studies into the physiology of the starvation response in humans during the early 1970's.

 

The thing to keep in mind is that protein catabolism only occurs during the initial stage of a fast (approximately 72 hours), and most of this is of intracellular damaged or dysfunctional proteins (autophagy ... see Ohsumi), not essential proteins like those in muscles and the heart. 

 

Once ketone bodies are produced by the body in response to depletion of glycogen stores, they provide fuel directly to the brain, and allow for stored body fat to be converted to fatty acid that can provide ample fuel to the body.  Therefore, the reliance on burning proteins is only temporary and pretty much limited to only to the initial phases of the fast.  This is an evolutionary survival mechanism.  If it didn't work like this, we would not be here today.

 

This physiology of fasting has been well studied and proven by Cahill and also by Ohsumi in regards to autophagy.

 

Here is a simple graph from Cahill's textbook  that indicates what happens to protein during a fast, and as you can see, as ketones start to ramp up, protein is only very briefly catabolized, and then pretty much spared thereafter, contrary to what many people are led to believe by those who think you burn lots of muscle on a fast.

 

 

 

Here is a more precise graph that shows the progressive physiological stages of a fast, according to Cahill's textbook, and as you can see, gluconeogenesis (the conversion of protein to glucose) marketedly drops off within 48-72 hours of starting a fast.  The longer you fast, the more the body tries to spare proteins so that by stage 5, it is actually producing growth hormone to preserve muscles and lean tissues.

 

 

This is a detailed description of those stages:

I  Feeding – During meals, insulin levels are raised. This allows uptake of glucose into tissues such as the muscle or brain to be used directly for energy. Excess glucose is stored as glycogen in the liver.

 

II  The post-absorptive phase – 6-24 hours after beginning fasting.   Insulin levels start to fall. Breakdown of glycogen releases glucose for energy. Glycogen stores last for roughly 24 hours.

 

III  Gluconeogenesis – 24 hours to 2 days – The liver manufactures new glucose from amino acids in a process called “gluconeogenesis”. Literally, this is translated as “making new glucose”. In non-diabetic persons, glucose levels fall but stay within the normal range.

 

IV  Ketosis – 2-3 days after beginning fasting – The low levels of insulin reached during fasting stimulate lipolysis, the breakdown of fat for energy. The storage form of fat, known as triglycerides, is broken into the glycerol backbone and three fatty acid chains. Glycerol is used for gluconeogenesis. Fatty acids may be used for directly for energy by many tissues in the body, but not the brain. Ketone bodies, capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier, are produced from fatty acids for use by the brain. After four days of fasting, approximately 75% of the energy used by the brain is provided by ketones. The two major types of ketones produced are beta hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate, which can increase over 70 fold during fasting.

 

V  Protein conservation phase – >5 days – High levels of growth hormone maintain muscle mass and lean tissues. The energy for maintenance of basal metabolism is almost entirely met by the use of free fatty acids and ketones. Increased norepinephrine (adrenalin) levels prevent the decrease in metabolic rate.

 

I am not making any of this up; it's based on the research results of a Nobel prize winning scientist in the case of autophagy mechanisms, and one of the most highly regarded authorities on the physiology of starvation response in humans. 

 

[Enki]

 

On 5/8/2019 at 8:56 AM, seancbk said:

Then I started intermittent fasting on the OMAD plan (OMAD - One Meal a Day).   I only eat one meal per 24 hours. 

 

That is not "fasting", but depending on what you eat it is considered an efficient "diet". I wish you success.

[CharlieH]

"There is no set time that water fasting should last for, but medical advice generally suggests anywhere from 24 hours to 3 days as the maximum time to go without food."

 

"If someone has health concerns, or is planning to fast for longer than 24 hours, they should seek the advice of a medical professional and consider undertaking a fast under supervision.

Water fasting will not be safe for everyone, and should not be undertaken by older adults, those under 18, or those who are underweight."

 

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/319835.php

 

 

 

[Enki]

19 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

In fact, many people have fasted for that long and even longer with absolutely no long-term ill-effects.  People do it all the time for religious reasons.

While you are right about fasting length, religious fasting usually is not fasting at all. E.g. muslims don't eat during day time during ramadan, christians are still allowed to drink alcohol (hence the creation of many "stark beers" in the middle ages).

[Enki]

19 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

How much protein do you feel the body can assimilate in one meal?

That is not really relevant. Protein taken in by meat e.g. takes half a day to be processed. So it does not really matter if he eats protein two times a day or one times. 

 

The amount the body can fix into muscles is simply by a rule of thumb: you weight X kg, you can transform X g of protein into muscles.

 

However, that requires muscle building sports/work. A normal human being (not doing sports with the focus to build up muscle mass) will simply shit out 90% of all proteins eaten ... oh, that is for a modern western diet. Cultures where diet is centered around meat/fish or other proteins burn a huge deal, but still shit out lots of it.

 

So, the parleo freaks simply don't get it, they mostly eat proteins, and because a body does not burn them easily they shit out most of it ???? hence they have a calorie reduced diet, but actually eat lots of calories, just don't burn them ... 

 

Meat btw, is mostly water. So if you are 70kg weight and want to metabolize 70g of proteins, you would need to eat about 700g meat per day. Hence we have many protein diet supplements on the market. Aka protein drinks etc.

[Enki]

17 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

The popular consensus that you can only assimilate 20-30 grams of protein at any given meal is incorrect and

That is not incorrect. Only the "measure per meal" is. You hardly can metabolize more than one per mille of your body weight in proteins per day. So if you weight 70kg that is 70g and it does not matter if those 70g are split up over one meal or three meals or two meals. Digesting meat, main protein source, takes 8 to 12 hours .... you only can metabolize big amounts of protein by getting it from simple protein sources, e.g. protein powder for drinks or add ons for meals. (Hence your 20 - 30g number is actually extremely accurate).

[WaveHunter]

30 minutes ago, Enki said:

 

 

That is not "fasting", but depending on what you eat it is considered an efficient "diet". I wish you success.

You seriously need to do some reading on what constitutes a nutritional fast!  seancbk is describing a legitimate form of fasting that has highly beneficial health effects. 

 

Anyone who conduct self-fasting for months is, in my opinion, an absolute fool!  It can incredibly dangerous for most people and completely uncalled for except in a small subset of people. 

 

There is only one type of person who should fast that long and it is a morbidly obese person with life threatening complications of advanced stage Diabetes Type 2 or some other serious metabolic disorder, and then ONLY under the supervision of a knowledgable and experienced doctor, where blood and hormonal values can be closely monitored.

 

I'm not saying this to pick a fight with you but simply to keep impressionable and less informed people from thinking that what you suggest is safe, or even beneficial.

 

For most people who are not morbidly obese but simply want to improve their metabolic health or lose some body fat, a fast as short as 24 hours, or even simply abstaining from food for 18 hours (i.e.: 16:8 intermittent fast, or OMAD) has incredible and scientifically proven health benefits.

 

You do nobody at all any favors by promoting such a silly notion as self-imposed, multi-month fasts, or downplaying the benefits short-term fasting.

 

Just my personal opinion, but I think most people will not disagree with me on this.  Hopefully you'll read up and change your mind.

[Enki]

10 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

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?

Because it is to short to have any effect related to "fasting".

[WaveHunter]

1 minute ago, Enki said:

Because it is to short to have any effect related to "fasting".

Wrong.  Do some legitimate reading of metabolic physiology

[Mavideol]

and the point is ??? stopped reading after the 1st paragraph

[Pattaya46]

46 minutes ago, Enki said:

That is what feasting is about, so yes. Up to 7 or 8 weeks without food. //

Typical feasting in the western world is minimum 10 days, and usually 3 to 4 weeks.

Unsure if your post is irony or what??

but for me feasting is the total opposite of fasting 

Feast: eat and drink sumptuously

 

 

47 minutes ago, Enki said:

// Up to 7 or 8 weeks without food. At least without calories intake. //

What do you mean by "At least without calories intake" ?

This thread is about "water only fasting",

so nothing else than water during a few days... or weeks??

[robblok]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

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.

I disagree, protein is far more satiating then fat. Plus it cost 30% extra to burn compared to fat. But if you compare carbs and fats maybe your right. I just wanted to mention protein.

[robblok]

53 minutes ago, Enki said:

 

 

That is not "fasting", but depending on what you eat it is considered an efficient "diet". I wish you success.

Whatever definitions you give things does not make them right. Intermittent fasting has been around for quite some time. It is how it is named. I don't do it but you seem to have different definitions of others about fasting. 

[WaveHunter]

33 minutes ago, Enki said:

That is not incorrect. Only the "measure per meal" is. You hardly can metabolize more than one per mille of your body weight in proteins per day. So if you weight 70kg that is 70g and it does not matter if those 70g are split up over one meal or three meals or two meals. Digesting meat, main protein source, takes 8 to 12 hours .... you only can metabolize big amounts of protein by getting it from simple protein sources, e.g. protein powder for drinks or add ons for meals. (Hence your 20 - 30g number is actually extremely accurate).

Wrong.  I already provided a scientific basis for this which is nothing more than an elementary description of protein metabolism; amino acids are able to self-regulate their time in the intestines, which means you can consume far more than 20-30 grams and still have it available for the body to use after it triggers protein synthesis initially.  Google the actions of the peptide hormone, CCK (choleccystokinin) if you don't believe what I am describing.

 

Not only that but 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, and I provided links to scientific studies that affirm this.

 

Not trying to be a smart-ass but I get annoyed when somebody makes unsubstantiated criticisms of what are actually uncontested science-based fact.  That's why I started this thread in the first place; to share science based fact, not mis-information and half truths.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Enki said:

That is what feasting is about, so yes. Up to 7 or 8 weeks without food. At least without calories intake. There are plenty of variations of feasting, better read a book about it than following the advices in this threat. Not eating 3 or 4 days is not feasting ... it is stupid.

 

Typical feasting in the western world is minimum 10 days, and usually 3 to 4 weeks.

You're actually a pretty funny guy.  ????  I think you meant to say "fasting", not "feasting", though the way you think, I guess you could mean anything.  You're free to believe what you wish but I doubt you are going to find many intelligent people who agree.

 

I won't be on your case anymore becuase it's obvious anything I say is just falling on deaf ears, but for your own sake, you might want to spend some time reading from science-based sources so you can see how wrong you really are.

 

Best wishes!

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Enki said:

While you are right about fasting length, religious fasting usually is not fasting at all. E.g. muslims don't eat during day time during ramadan, christians are still allowed to drink alcohol (hence the creation of many "stark beers" in the middle ages).

How about Ghandi?

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Enki said:

That is not really relevant. Protein taken in by meat e.g. takes half a day to be processed. So it does not really matter if he eats protein two times a day or one times. 

 

The amount the body can fix into muscles is simply by a rule of thumb: you weight X kg, you can transform X g of protein into muscles.

 

However, that requires muscle building sports/work. A normal human being (not doing sports with the focus to build up muscle mass) will simply shit out 90% of all proteins eaten ... oh, that is for a modern western diet. Cultures where diet is centered around meat/fish or other proteins burn a huge deal, but still shit out lots of it.

 

So, the parleo freaks simply don't get it, they mostly eat proteins, and because a body does not burn them easily they shit out most of it ???? hence they have a calorie reduced diet, but actually eat lots of calories, just don't burn them ... 

 

Meat btw, is mostly water. So if you are 70kg weight and want to metabolize 70g of proteins, you would need to eat about 700g meat per day. Hence we have many protein diet supplements on the market. Aka protein drinks etc.

You're actually a little bit off on what happens to dietary protein that is unused by the body.  It is not, as you put it, simply "shit out".  The body tends to use everything as efficiently as possible and so, rather than dispose of the excess protein, it is converted to glucose by a process called gluconeogenesis, and stored as fat in the liver and on the body for future energy needs.  That's why important to adjust protein intake to not be in excess of what the body really needs, and most people grossly overestimate what that amount is.

 

I agree with you that determining the proper amount is a hard thing to do since it is so variable from one person the next, but still having a convenient "yardstick" of x grams of protein per y kilograms of lean body mass is helpful.

[WaveHunter]

I don't think that denigrating any of the mainstream nutritional based diet strategies is really the wisest thing to do.  Almost all of them have some elements of truth to them that can be of benefit in deciding on your own nutritional strategy that works best for you.

 

For instance, I tried Paleo for a while.  I ended up not agreeing with it but the great take-away I got from it might sound inconsequential but for me it was important, and that was simply the observation that supermarkets are set up so that the food that are good for you are generally located around the periphery of the store, while the foods that are not so good for you (foods with lots of processed sugar) are generally located along the aisles, and at heights on the shelves so that children can see and grab them ????

 

I guess I'm just saying that there is no single nutritional strategy that is right for everyone, but all of them have something that can be beneficial in setting up your own personal strategy for healthy eating.

[Destiny1990]

4 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

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.

I just googled it and there are folks doing  a combination of 16:8 and 5:2 i think thats is a more effective choice.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

I just googled it and there are folks doing  a combination of 16:8 and 5:2 i think thats is a more effective choice.

Do you mean BOTH simultaneously, as in 5 days of 16:8 followed by 2 days of 5:2?  If so, I think that is smart.  It is certainly more aggressive and might be difficult at first but won't take long to adapt and prosper.  The body is far more resilient than people sometimes give it credit for being, and more importantly, it thrives on situations that put it under reasonable metabolic stress.  Doing what you describe should be well within the range of "reasonable" stress.

 

Just FYI, I do one-meal-a-day (OMAD), and once a month I do a 72 hour fast.  This is not a weight loss protocol for me since I am not trying to lose body fat.  I do it only for metabolic health (i.e.: controlling insulin). It takes time to adapt to OMAD but I think that one meal a day gives me all the energy I need and I am a pretty active person.   As for my reason for monthly fasting, my only reason for a monthly fast is to promote autophagy.

 

As for OMAD, I am re-considering that for myself, and am probably going to switch over to 2 meals per day, which is just another way of saying 16:8.  Mainly I am thinking of this because I'm a little concerned about protein assimilation.  OMAD kind of places me on the cusp of not getting enough assimilation.  Spreading it over two meals is probably smarter, the more I think about it.

 

Anyway, back to your strategy, I think it is good that you are exploring options that might work best for you.  Finding your own path is usually preferable to merely following the pack.

 

Good luck ????

 

[Destiny1990]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Do you mean BOTH simultaneously, as in 5 days of 16:8 followed by 2 days of 5:2?  If so, I think that is smart.  It is certainly more aggressive and might be difficult at first but won't take long to adapt and prosper.  The body is far more resilient than people sometimes give it credit for being, and more importantly, it thrives on situations that put it under reasonable metabolic stress.  Doing what you describe should be well within the range of "reasonable" stress.

 

Just FYI, I do one-meal-a-day (OMAD), and once a month I do a 72 hour fast.  This is not a weight loss protocol for me since I am not trying to lose body fat.  I do it only for metabolic health (i.e.: controlling insulin). It takes time to adapt to OMAD but I think that one meal a day gives me all the energy I need and I am a pretty active person.   As for my reason for monthly fasting, my only reason for a monthly fast is to promote autophagy.

 

As for OMAD, I am re-considering that for myself, and am probably going to switch over to 2 meals per day, which is just another way of saying 16:8.  Mainly I am thinking of this because I'm a little concerned about protein assimilation.  OMAD kind of places me on the cusp of not getting enough assimilation.  Spreading it over two meals is probably smarter, the more I think about it.

 

Anyway, back to your strategy, I think it is good that you are exploring options that might work best for you.  Finding your own path is usually preferable to merely following the pack.

 

Good luck ????

 

Yes like that with 16:8 i eat from 12:00 till 20:00 but its still 3 healthy meals but not much snacks. Key element is being fasted 16 hours.

i could add 5:2 on 2 days and still stay between the 12:00 20:00 eating window. But only consume 600 calories..

 

i like to loose some weight but also improving my hormones like testosterone at the same time.. so fasting diet with less sugar more fats and less carbs?

Or need i looking into Keto diet?

[WaveHunter]

40 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Yes like that with 16:8 i eat from 12:00 till 20:00 but its still 3 healthy meals but not much snacks. Key element is being fasted 16 hours.

i could add 5:2 on 2 days and still stay between the 12:00 20:00 eating window. But only consume 600 calories..

 

i like to loose some weight but also improving my hormones like testosterone at the same time.. so fasting diet with less sugar more fats and less carbs?

Or need i looking into Keto diet?

Best to keep things simple enough you won't get frustrated I think.  Don't get too hung up on sticking to eating schedules or counting calories.  Just use those things as guidelines.

 

Yes, the real key to losing excess body fat is really #1 and most important, just cutting processed sugar out of your diet as much as possible.  That all by itself will give you surprising success, but #2 is to cut all carbs as much as you can tolerate, and try to have a short enough eating window so that your insulin levels stay relatively low and stable.

 

Most people fail to realize that as long as insulin levels stay high, it is impossible for the body to efficiently use stored fat as fuel.  I am simplifying this but for lack of a better way to put it, insulin is like an off/on switch that tells the body whether to use stored fat for energy or convert excess dietary energy (carbs) into stored fat.  If insulin is high, that is a signal to store excess dietary energy (carbs) to fat; if it is low, that is a signal to access stored fat for energy.

 

If you are able to keep carbs below 50 grams or so (not so easy to do until you have adapted your body to using ketones efficiently), you are, in essence,  doing a keto diet.  That's all a keto diet really is; keeping carbs below 50 grams per day so that ketone bodies are activated.  Ketone bodies provide fuel for the brain so that your metabolic rate does not drop significantly, and it allows for stored fat to be converted to fatty acids that the body can use for fuel.

 

Personally I think keto is the best way to lose fat if that's your goal and you feel you have a lot of weight to lose, but it's not essential.  Again, just processed cutting sugar out of your diet can work wonders.  Processed sugar is like a carbohydrate bomb as far as insulin is concerned LOL!  Not only that but it really gunks up hormonal receptors in a really bad way over time (glycation).

 

Most people do not realize it, but carbohydrates are actually not an essential macronutrient; dietary protein and fats are essential but the body is actually perfectly capable of producing all the glucose the average person needs for a proper resting metabolic rate.  I'm not speaking of someone who engages in a lot of physical exertion; if you need high levels of explosive energy for work or athletics, then yeah, carbs are necessary, but my point is that they are not essential for a functional resting metabolic rate.  I know that might be hard to believe but it is a science based fact.

 

How much weight are you trying to loose, anyway?

[Destiny1990]

58 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Best to keep things simple enough you won't get frustrated I think.  Don't get too hung up on sticking to eating schedules or counting calories.  Just use those things as guidelines.

 

Yes, the real key to losing excess body fat is really #1 and most important, just cutting processed sugar out of your diet as much as possible.  That all by itself will give you surprising success, but #2 is to cut all carbs as much as you can tolerate, and try to have a short enough eating window so that your insulin levels stay relatively low and stable.

 

Most people fail to realize that as long as insulin levels stay high, it is impossible for the body to efficiently use stored fat as fuel.  I am simplifying this but for lack of a better way to put it, insulin is like an off/on switch that tells the body whether to use stored fat for energy or convert excess dietary energy (carbs) into stored fat.  If insulin is high, that is a signal to store excess dietary energy (carbs) to fat; if it is low, that is a signal to access stored fat for energy.

 

If you are able to keep carbs below 50 grams or so (not so easy to do until you have adapted your body to using ketones efficiently), you are, in essence,  doing a keto diet.  That's all a keto diet really is; keeping carbs below 50 grams per day so that ketone bodies are activated.  Ketone bodies provide fuel for the brain so that your metabolic rate does not drop significantly, and it allows for stored fat to be converted to fatty acids that the body can use for fuel.

 

Personally I think keto is the best way to lose fat if that's your goal and you feel you have a lot of weight to lose, but it's not essential.  Again, just processed cutting sugar out of your diet can work wonders.  Processed sugar is like a carbohydrate bomb as far as insulin is concerned LOL!  Not only that but it really gunks up hormonal receptors in a really bad way over time (glycation).

 

Most people do not realize it, but carbohydrates are actually not an essential macronutrient; dietary protein and fats are essential but the body is actually perfectly capable of producing all the glucose the average person needs for a proper resting metabolic rate.  I'm not speaking of someone who engages in a lot of physical exertion; if you need high levels of explosive energy for work or athletics, then yeah, carbs are necessary, but my point is that they are not essential for a functional resting metabolic rate.  I know that might be hard to believe but it is a science based fact.

 

How much weight are you trying to loose, anyway?

Interesting..

if i want to check insulin levels that needs be done by blood test? So Lowering carbs intake will balance my insulin levels and with ITF diet even more?

I am 187 cm and 99 kilos. Would like to loose 11-12 kilos.

so ur diet is it mostly fats, veggies and proteins?

[WaveHunter]

6 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Interesting..

if i want to check insulin levels that needs be done by blood test? So Lowering carbs intake will balance my insulin levels and with ITF diet even more?

I am 187 cm and 99 kilos. Would like to loose 11-12 kilos.

so ur diet is it mostly fats, veggies and proteins?

Yes, I find this all very interesting stuff; glad you seem to as well ????

 

it's a good idea to get blood tests just to see where you really are. HbA1C, Blood sugar (FBS) and, Insulin will give you a  good indication of your metabolic health.  Getting a lipid panel (Total Cholesterol, Triglyceride,  HDL-Cholesterol, and LDL-Cholesterol) is a good thing to check as well.  A liver Function Panel (LFT) is also pretty important.

 

The tests aren't really that expensive here in Thailand.  You can walk in and get them without a doctor's script.  All those tests might run you 1,000 baht, which is pretty cheap. 

 

Lowering carbs will definitely improve insulin levels if you find that your metabolic panels are out of range, and usually you will see changes very quickly (in a matter of weeks).

 

Yes, my diet is high in fat.  Contrary to what many still believe, saturated fats are your friend, not your enemy!  The notion saturated fats are bad for you is outdated old-school thought, though I know you might find that hard to believe. 

 

I sure was skeptical about this in the beginning!  I mean we've been conditioned to believe that eating things like eggs and bacon, steak, using lots of butter, etc, is a heart  attack in the making, but the thing people miss is the fact that eating fat doesn't actually make you fat, and eating foods high in cholesterol doesn't actually raise your body's level of cholesterol.  Even though it seems logical that it should work this way, things don't always work the way they seem they should.

 

Scientific research over the last decade has pretty much debunked the old notion that dietary fats should be avoided but some ideas die hard, especially when the giant processed food companies make billions of dollars a year by perpetuating the low fat myth.

 

Don't take my word for it though.  Do some research and convince yourself of the facts.  It is pretty shocking when you see the truth!

 

The classical keto diet usually has a macronutrient ratio that varies within the following ranges: 60-75% of calories from fat (or even more), 15-30% of calories from protein, and. 5-10% of calories from carbs.

 

I've tried all sorts of nutritional strategies, starting with the Standard American Diet (SAD) which resulted in my becoming pre-diabetic about 10 years ago.  Since then I have explored Paleo, Vegan, then I combined them to become "Pagan" (LOL!), but finally I found a ketogenic diet to be best.  Not only is there incredibly strong  underlying science to it (which IMO is lacking in most other nutritional strategies), but I just feel good when I eat that way, and you notice the changes almost immediately, and the changes are VERY noticeable as well!

 

And I just want to say that a keto diet is not only for loosing weight.  It is an excellent blueprint for a long term healthy nutritional strategy.  If you don't have a strategy for how you will eat after you complete a diet, most are doomed to regain all the weight they lost, and then some.  With Keto, you get a diet that will shed the pounds, and a long-term way of eating that will keep the pounds off and keep you healthy...two for the price of one!  What could be better than that ????

 

[robblok]

17 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Do you mean BOTH simultaneously, as in 5 days of 16:8 followed by 2 days of 5:2?  If so, I think that is smart.  It is certainly more aggressive and might be difficult at first but won't take long to adapt and prosper.  The body is far more resilient than people sometimes give it credit for being, and more importantly, it thrives on situations that put it under reasonable metabolic stress.  Doing what you describe should be well within the range of "reasonable" stress.

 

Just FYI, I do one-meal-a-day (OMAD), and once a month I do a 72 hour fast.  This is not a weight loss protocol for me since I am not trying to lose body fat.  I do it only for metabolic health (i.e.: controlling insulin). It takes time to adapt to OMAD but I think that one meal a day gives me all the energy I need and I am a pretty active person.   As for my reason for monthly fasting, my only reason for a monthly fast is to promote autophagy.

 

As for OMAD, I am re-considering that for myself, and am probably going to switch over to 2 meals per day, which is just another way of saying 16:8.  Mainly I am thinking of this because I'm a little concerned about protein assimilation.  OMAD kind of places me on the cusp of not getting enough assimilation.  Spreading it over two meals is probably smarter, the more I think about it.

 

Anyway, back to your strategy, I think it is good that you are exploring options that might work best for you.  Finding your own path is usually preferable to merely following the pack.

 

Good luck ????

 

Just a quick thought, thought about it last night.

 

I do 3 meals (and wont change that it suits me best). But I don't see the insulin advantage for 1 day being that much. It will be better but I wonder by how much.

 

Because think about it logically suppose you really eat the same amount then the insulin spike during that 1 meal is much higher and takes longer to go down then 3 meals with lower spikes. 

 

Not sure exactly but when I had my blood sugar measurment with strips, the amount of carbs made a huge difference. So less carbs is less insulin. So you take it in one meal.. huge spike.. you take it in 3 times (smaller spikes). Now we are or course assuming no snacks between those meals (i know i dont)

 

Last night for instance i skipped diner and and took at night a double casein protein shake with MCT oil just before bed. Now in my vision it does not matter how you spread your 3 meals out you will get the same insulin peaks so the hours of fasting dont matter as the hours are the same in between. 

 

What i mean is the 3 meals will have the same insulin peak no matter when you take them (some debate that at night insulin is higher) but there are advantages of having proteins at night too. 

 

People dont think for themselves anymore. They don't wonder how things work but accept the guru's on the internet.

[WaveHunter]

18 minutes ago, robblok said:

Just a quick thought, thought about it last night.

 

I do 3 meals (and wont change that it suits me best). But I don't see the insulin advantage for 1 day being that much. It will be better but I wonder by how much.

 

Because think about it logically suppose you really eat the same amount then the insulin spike during that 1 meal is much higher and takes longer to go down then 3 meals with lower spikes. 

 

Not sure exactly but when I had my blood sugar measurment with strips, the amount of carbs made a huge difference. So less carbs is less insulin. So you take it in one meal.. huge spike.. you take it in 3 times (smaller spikes). Now we are or course assuming no snacks between those meals (i know i dont)

 

Last night for instance i skipped diner and and took at night a double casein protein shake with MCT oil just before bed. Now in my vision it does not matter how you spread your 3 meals out you will get the same insulin peaks so the hours of fasting dont matter as the hours are the same in between. 

 

What i mean is the 3 meals will have the same insulin peak no matter when you take them (some debate that at night insulin is higher) but there are advantages of having proteins at night too. 

You’re making a good argument for 3 smaller meals compared to one big meal as far as insulin response goes.  I’ve actually searched for any studies that might compare total insulin release over a 24 hour period, comparing 1,2,3 meals per day but couldn’t find any.

 

i already decided to switch to 2 meals per day instead of one due to concerns about protein assimilation.  So, when I do my next blood tests, maybe I’ll see a difference??  

 

And BTW, our discussions and debating helped me decide to reconsider OMAD, so thanks.

 

1,2,3 meals a day...I’m guessing all are healthy if total carbs consumed is reasonable.  I mean, it’s not like insulin is an evil thing in itself, any more than cholesterol is.  They both serve an important role in good health.  In regards to  insulin, the key is just not to produce so much that the receptors get desensitized.

 

I guess it’s not really rocket science.  its like the old saying, “...all things in moderation, none to excess”.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, WaveHunter said:

You’re making a good argument for 3 smaller meals compared to one big meal as far as insulin response goes.  I’ve actually searched for any studies that might compare total insulin release over a 24 hour period, comparing 1,2,3 meals per day but couldn’t find any.

 

i already decided to switch to 2 meals per day instead of one due to concerns about protein assimilation.  So, when I do my next blood tests, maybe I’ll see a difference??  

 

1,2,3 meals a day...I’m guessing all are healthy if total carbs consumed is reasonable.  I mean, it’s not like insulin is an evil thing in itself, any more than cholesterol is.  They both serve an important role in good health.  In regards to  insulin, the key is just not to produce so much that the receptors get desensitized.

 

I guess it’s not really rocket science.  its like the old saying, “...all things in moderation, none to excess”.

I only have one meal with carbs and then only on training days. I won't change that for now. But I was just thinking about it.

 

The question is actually does it take (for instance) two times as long for insulin to go back to normal and will the peek be higher if you eat 200 grams of carbs.. or eat two times 100 carbs.

 

What I am trying to figure out is how much difference is there in reality if the amount of food is the same over the whole day. There might still be an advantage for less meals, but I wonder how much that advantage is. 

 

But I KNOW that the insulin response to 200grams of carbs it totally different from the one of 100grams. If its is really a factor 2 is of course the question. Its just academical 

 

The reason I was thinking about it was IF where people want 16 hour without food. But if you still eat the same meals does the timing really matter that much.

 

Example:

 

eat at 8am insulin is done at 10am (just fictive numbers) you eat again at 12.. means between 10 and 12 two hours no insulin, now shift that meal to 9am and then insulin is done at 11 and eat at 12 gain. Means one hour of no insulin after the meal and of course the 1 hour you won by shifting. But its still the same two hours.

 

Point being by equal meals does spacing really matter that much how you spread your 3 meals.

 

There still might be an advantage for less meals not debating that as I am not sure. But the differences might be less then one thinks.

 

My reason is that there is good research for cassein at night for muscle recovery (ok not needed for those who are just on a diet).

 

My point is more that a diet should be adapted to the life you lead and if sports demand other things you might have to tweak things. With my peptide shot at night i wanted the cassein at night too. 

[Enki]

22 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Anyone who conduct self-fasting for months is, in my opinion, an absolute fool! 

Yes, in your opinion. And you made pretty clear that you don't grasp the studies you link. If a person has 100kg overweight it can fast half a year, the only point to take care about are liquids, vitamins and trace elements ... I'm not so sure you know that ...

 

Half your posts make sense, some in fact are very correct, the other half is utter nonsense.

[Enki]

22 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

a fast as short as 24 hours, or even simply abstaining from food for 18 hours (i.e.: 16:8 intermittent fast, or OMAD) has incredible and scientifically proven health benefits.

Sorry, perhaps you simply should use a different word?

"Fast" has a meaning. And that meaning is: you get your body into a different state. So: fasting less than 3 days, makes no sense at all.

Not eating for 18h, probably EVERY day, instead of just one or two days: is not "fasting". If you change your diet to have every day a 12h - 14h no eating period: that is not fasting. It is a diet choice. And actually a good one. On the other hand, I never got that american snack thing. It is well known since 40 years that it is a dumb idea, but I'm kept being told it is still the mantra in the US.

 

You seem to mix up "fasting" with "not eating" ... so, I'm fasting since ... uh ... now it is 10:30 ... since 20:00 last night ... which would be 14:30h ... no: that is not fasting. I simply had no breakfast, as I usually don't eat breakfast anymore since about 20 years, and it is not lunch time yet. According to your idea, I'm fasting every day 16h ... no, I'm not fasting. I'm just not eating when I sleep and I usually don't eat before 12:00 ... 

 

But no worries, when I'm on an martial arts seminar, I eat a small breakfast in the morning before the first class.