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

[Enki]

22 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Unsure if your post is irony or what??

but for me feasting is the total opposite of fasting 

Feast: eat and drink sumptuously

 

 

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??

I'm not a native english speaker, so you probably should have simply realized I typo-ed, aka mixed up the words. Obviously I meant fasting, but nice pictures ????

However water only feasting sounds interesting, too ... I hope after dancing there will be lots of love making, regardless of the lack of food?

[Enki]

22 hours ago, robblok said:

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. 

No, it is not how it is named, unless stupid americans invented again a new misleading name. Abstaining from food for less than a week can hardly be called "fasting". It sounds like a new marketing term for a new diet.

Yes: not eating for about 12h a day is good, but no one calls it fasting, why would anyone who has not an agenda to sell call it like that?

But funnily the english wiki article got hijacked, too. Perhaps we need a new word for "fasting" so people who are interested in "fasting" can still talk about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

[robblok]

3 minutes ago, Enki said:

No, it is not how it is named, unless stupid americans invented again a new misleading name. Abstaining from food for less than a week can hardly be called "fasting". It sounds like a new marketing term for a new diet.

Yes: not eating for about 12h a day is good, but no one calls it fasting, why would anyone who has not an agenda to sell call it like that?

But funnily the english wiki article got hijacked, too. Perhaps we need a new word for "fasting" so people who are interested in "fasting" can still talk about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

Majority rules mate, if everyone uses it language changes. The time that Britannia ruled the waves is gone so accept it. 

Edited May 10, 2019 by robblok

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, robblok said:

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. 

I see what you're getting at.  I think our discussion is more academic then real-world, and in reality it probably doesn't make a big difference either way...but still, it's really interesting to consider.

 

What I wonder about is which has more of an effect on insulin receptors' developing insensitivity ... the excessively high overall level of insulin that occurs in people who "graze" on food throughout the day, or the spikes that occur during unusually large meals.  It just seems logical to assume that spikes would put greater stress on receptors than a steady high delivery of insulin but grazing behavior floods the receptors with insulin at a steady rate.

 

So I wonder which has more of a negative effect, or if there is any difference.  Again, probably both are equally as bad, and this is more of an academic curiosity than anything; still though it's interesting to consider.

 

Most important, as you say, is that everyone is unique so what is optimal for one person may not be so for another, so it's best for everybody to consider science-based facts and then make up their own mind for what works best for them, not just blindly follow the path of others.

Edited May 10, 2019 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

Sorry for my rambling reply above.  What I was driving at is which has a greater negative effect on metabolic health;  the shock-like stress of insulin spikes on receptors from unusually large meals , or the steady flooding of the insulin receptors from "grazing" behavior .

 

By "grazing", I meant when people eat a number of small meals and snacks throughout the day.  And, when I referred to "unusually large meals", I was referring to 16:8 intermittent fasting and one-meal-per-day (OMAD).

 

NOTE:  I wish ThaiVisa wouldn't lock up posts and make them un-editable so quickly LOL!

Edited May 10, 2019 by WaveHunter

[cooked]

On 5/9/2019 at 2:04 AM, 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.

Dear or dear. We fast every night when we go to bed. Breakfast? Means breaking your nocturnal fast.

Look it up in a dictionary or something. 

"abstain from food," Old English fæstan "to fast" (as a religious duty), also "to make firm; establish, confirm, pledge," from Proto-Germanic *fastanan "to hold, guard," extended to the religious act "observe abstinence" (source also of Old Frisian festia, Old High German fasten, German fasten, Old Norse fasta "abstain from food"), from the same root as fast (adj.)."

The original meaning in prehistoric Germanic was "hold firmly," and the sense evolved via "have firm control of oneself," to "hold oneself to observance" (compare Gothic fastan "to keep, observe," also "to fast"). Perhaps the Germanic sense shifted through use of the native words to translate Medieval Latin observare in its sense "to fast," or it might have been a loan-translation of a Greek expression brought to the Goths by Arian missionaries and spread from them to other Germanic peoples. The verb in the sense "to make fast" continued in Middle English, but was superseded by fasten. Related: Fasted; fasting.

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, Enki said:

No, it is not how it is named, unless stupid americans invented again a new misleading name. Abstaining from food for less than a week can hardly be called "fasting". It sounds like a new marketing term for a new diet.

Yes: not eating for about 12h a day is good, but no one calls it fasting, why would anyone who has not an agenda to sell call it like that?

But funnily the english wiki article got hijacked, too. Perhaps we need a new word for "fasting" so people who are interested in "fasting" can still talk about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

OMG, you still have not come to terms with this?  Fasting is simply defined as abstaining from eating food; not the length of time devoted to it.  Everybody fasts every single day of their lives when they sleep. Why do you think that the first meal of the day is called breakFAST? 

 

You are in a fasted state as soon as glycogen stores in the liver have been depleted.  That occurs in hours, not weeks or months.  It is as simple as that!

 

From your very own linked wiki: 

"...a person is assumed to be fasting once 8–12 hours have elapsed since the last meal. Metabolic changes of the fasting state begin after absorption of a meal (typically 3–5 hours after eating). ...

 

Fasts as short as 18 hours and up to 72 hours have tremendous positive health benefits associated with them that are defined and supported by science-based studies, and can be appreciated by anyone with the most basic understanding of high school biology. 

 

Fasts lasting longer than this only return marginal additional benefits for the average healthy person, but at significant health risks, especially when self-administered, and at even greater risk if the person is mis-informed or dealing with half-truths.  Only a very small subset of people should fast longer such as morbidly obese people with life-threatening complications from metabolic syndromes, and then only under the supervision of a metabolic-knowledgable and well-trained physician.

 

No offense intended, and I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but you are being very obtuse with all of this nonsense!

 

Edited May 10, 2019 by WaveHunter

[robblok]

22 minutes ago, FredGallaher said:

Glycogen storage is usually 24 hours and is replenished with a small amount of carbohydrate. A one day strict fast should not exhaust stored glycogen. Likewise one meal a day wont deplete glycogen storage. That is unless the person has a glycogen storage deficiency.  Too much inaccuracies on this subject IMO.

You are inaccurate if the glycogen last 24 hours (and it can) that is 2000 cals. You cant restore that with a small amount of carbohydrates. Unless you call 500 gram of carbs small. 

Edited May 11, 2019 by robblok

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, FredGallaher said:

Glycogen storage is affected by activity. In marathon runners depletion happens much sooner, but in normal people with normal activity 24 hours is accurate. As you might know glycogen is responsible for maintaining an adequate fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels. We normally require an 8 hour fast before measuring FBS, because the level is stable at 8 hours and it is not unduly hard on patients. Fasting lipid levels require at least 12 hours fasting to stabilize. 

The level of glycogen is not necessarily 2000 calories. There are a number of variables. 

BTW when a person is in ketosis and takes in carbohydrates, there is a double effect. The ketones are converted to energy in the TCA cycle (normal glucose metabolism) plus the carbohydrates add calories on their own. That's why short term fasting doesn't work except the reduction of calories. 

I don't want to give a lecture on the biochemistry or human physiology, but I could. Generally this is either graduate school level and/or medical school. I can't do that here.

I am only speaking out because getting advise from forums is not wise. The subject is far more complex than can be explained here.

 

Why are you nit-picking?  The precise timing of glycogen depletion is irrelevant to what was being discussed.  If you are referring to what I said, my point was that the physiological mechanisms of ketosis (which is the goal of fasting)  begin to ramp up when glycogen stores are depleted, NOT that a 24 hour fast will necessarily achieve glycogen depletion. 

 

Furthermore, even if ketosis is not achieved, the process of fasting for only 24 hours, or or even 18 hours, or any amount of time that results in a drop of insulin for instance, is still beneficial.  The benefits of fasting go far beyond merely losing weight.  That doesn't take a "graduate school level and/or medical school" level of education to appreciate.  It just takes an open mind and the patience to use Google to research science-based sources of information.

 

What's more, to infer that nothing can be gained here in a layman forum such as this one by discussing these topics because it takes a "graduate school level and/or medical school" level of education to understand them is pure nonsense!  That's the excuse that lazy and/or ignorant people use to accept mis-information and half truths, instead of trying to be better informed about things that significantly affect our own health. 

 

Basic concepts of the metabolic sciences can be grasped with an understanding of high school biology, an open mind, and a determination to do some research via Google.  You don't necessarily need to be well versed in graduate school biochemistry or human physiology to do this, and if certain advanced topics require it, everyone has a brain and is capable of grasping more complex concepts if they are willing to take the time to do so.

 

"Getting advise from forums" as you put it is actually VERY wise if you use that information as a basis for researching the topic further on your own.  How else can an individual really learn the facts and the truths of controversial topics like the ones being discussed here? 

 

Are we supposed to just rely on what people with "graduate school level and/or medical school" level of education tell us?  Those credentialed people that told us that the food pyramid of the 1980's was correct and thus that carbohydrates should be the foundation of a healthy diet have now been proven to be DEAD-WRONG, and has resulted in an epidemic rise in obesity and Diabetes Type 2 today. 

 

Are we to believe accepted authorities like the American Diabetes Association when their own website advises that Diabetes Type 2 is an irreversible lifelong disease that will ultimately require insulin injections to control, when we now know this is not necessarily so, and that changes in nutrition can significantly alter and even reverse the condition if action is taken early enough?

 

In the final analysis, a person's health is their OWN responsibility, not the responsibility of their doctor or national health organizations like the American Diabetes Association or the American Heart Association, for instance.  Basically an individual has two choices;  You can either stick their head in the sand and accept what others' tell you, or you can make those decisions for yourself by researching science-based sources with an open-mind and willingness to think out-of-the-box.  Which option do you think is better?  I know which one I think is better.

 

Edited May 11, 2019 by WaveHunter

[JungleBiker]

Hi WaveHunter,

 

I started Intermittent Fasting (16:8) in December 2018, to lose weight, and within about 2 months I had lost about 5kg that I had been struggling to lose for a long time. I don't feel I need to lose more weight, but I wouldn't mind exchanging a couple of inches from around my waist for some muscle elsewhere. I'm 188cm tall and currently weigh 80kg.  

 

Like you, I am a competitive road cyclist but only an amateur one (unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to race for more than a year now!).  

 

I did think about adopting the ketogenic diet because a lot of people rave about it, and I do believe it is very effective in helping people lose weight. But after trying to find scientific information about any health risks, it seems that there are some possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched. I don't want to be a guinea pig. If you know of any research papers that show no ill effects of a long term keto diet, I will be interested to see them. 

 

BTW, I have observed that a lot of research is funded by organizations that have a vested interest in pitching a particular outcome. For example, I think the livestock/dairy industries are very much in favour of the keto diet. 

 

Instead of a keto diet, for about 2 months now, in addition to the 16:8 IF (which BTW I don't follow too strictly), I have been trying to follow a plant-based diet but currently finding it a challenge to get enough protein. I want to get hold of some vegan protein supplements, such as sacha inchi protein powder. I will do that in the near future. 

 

One thing that I have learned from reading about the topic of health and nutrition, is the importance of the microbiome in our guts. It seems that a healthy gut is important for a wide range of health issues and that a healthy gut depends on eating lots of fibre because that is the food of choice for the good microbes. I think the keto diet does not provide much fibre? Fibre comes from eating plants. 

 

Regards,

JB. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

[FracturedRabbit]

4 hours ago, JungleBiker said:

Hi WaveHunter,

 

I started Intermittent Fasting (16:8) in December 2018, to lose weight, and within about 2 months I had lost about 5kg that I had been struggling to lose for a long time. I don't feel I need to lose more weight, but I wouldn't mind exchanging a couple of inches from around my waist for some muscle elsewhere. I'm 188cm tall and currently weigh 80kg.  

 

Like you, I am a competitive road cyclist but only an amateur one (unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to race for more than a year now!).  

 

I did think about adopting the ketogenic diet because a lot of people rave about it, and I do believe it is very effective in helping people lose weight. But after trying to find scientific information about any health risks, it seems that there are some possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched. I don't want to be a guinea pig. If you know of any research papers that show no ill effects of a long term keto diet, I will be interested to see them. 

 

BTW, I have observed that a lot of research is funded by organizations that have a vested interest in pitching a particular outcome. For example, I think the livestock/dairy industries are very much in favour of the keto diet. 

 

Instead of a keto diet, for about 2 months now, in addition to the 16:8 IF (which BTW I don't follow too strictly), I have been trying to follow a plant-based diet but currently finding it a challenge to get enough protein. I want to get hold of some vegan protein supplements, such as sacha inchi protein powder. I will do that in the near future. 

 

One thing that I have learned from reading about the topic of health and nutrition, is the importance of the microbiome in our guts. It seems that a healthy gut is important for a wide range of health issues and that a healthy gut depends on eating lots of fibre because that is the food of choice for the good microbes. I think the keto diet does not provide much fibre? Fibre comes from eating plants. 

 

Regards,

JB. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Low carb foods with a decent amount of fibre include pecans, almonds, avocado, cauliflower, some greens. I eat keto and my trips to the loo are "regular"! "Possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched" doesn't sound like a risk. I don't think there is any harm, and maybe some good, in cycling out of keto from time to time anyway; just never go wild with shoveling down those carbs.

[villagefarang]

12 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

You can either stick their head in the sand and accept what others' tell you, or you can make those decisions for yourself

Okay, I choose not to stick my head in the sand and accept what you tell me and will make decisions for myself.  Thank you for giving me permission.????????

[WaveHunter]

5 hours ago, JungleBiker said:

Hi WaveHunter,

 

I started Intermittent Fasting (16:8) in December 2018, to lose weight, and within about 2 months I had lost about 5kg that I had been struggling to lose for a long time. I don't feel I need to lose more weight, but I wouldn't mind exchanging a couple of inches from around my waist for some muscle elsewhere. I'm 188cm tall and currently weigh 80kg.  

 

Like you, I am a competitive road cyclist but only an amateur one (unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to race for more than a year now!).  

 

I did think about adopting the ketogenic diet because a lot of people rave about it, and I do believe it is very effective in helping people lose weight. But after trying to find scientific information about any health risks, it seems that there are some possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched. I don't want to be a guinea pig. If you know of any research papers that show no ill effects of a long term keto diet, I will be interested to see them. 

 

BTW, I have observed that a lot of research is funded by organizations that have a vested interest in pitching a particular outcome. For example, I think the livestock/dairy industries are very much in favour of the keto diet. 

 

Instead of a keto diet, for about 2 months now, in addition to the 16:8 IF (which BTW I don't follow too strictly), I have been trying to follow a plant-based diet but currently finding it a challenge to get enough protein. I want to get hold of some vegan protein supplements, such as sacha inchi protein powder. I will do that in the near future. 

 

One thing that I have learned from reading about the topic of health and nutrition, is the importance of the microbiome in our guts. It seems that a healthy gut is important for a wide range of health issues and that a healthy gut depends on eating lots of fibre because that is the food of choice for the good microbes. I think the keto diet does not provide much fibre? Fibre comes from eating plants. 

 

Regards,

JB. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Hi JB,

I think the real key to a strong nutritional strategy is NOT to follow any prescribed mainstream diet to the letter, and instead customize a diet that is right specifically for you.  Everybody is unique and "one size does not fit all". 

 

Above all, no one should do weight loss diets.  If a person feels the need to "diet to lose weight", there is a bigger underlying problem that needs to be addressed and that is poor metabolic health.  A short term weight loss diet is like putting a band-aid on an infected would!  If you have a healthy long-term nutritional strategy, there should never be a need to "go on a weight-loss diet"    

 

Your concerns about lack of protein on a plant-based diet are unfounded; you need to do more research.  Getting enough protein as a Vegan is actually quite easy and there is no need for supplementation at all.  Of all the nutritional strategies I've tried, plant-based seemed the most complete.  The only thing that's lacking in a Vegan diet is really just Vitamin B-12.  Most serious Vegans I know (and I know a lot of them from living in Chinag Mai for a year LOL) simply get B-12 by self-injection.  It's cheap and not as scary as it sounds. 

 

Eating a plant-based diet is IMO an excellent way to eat.  My only issue with Vegan was it just felt too restrictive to me, and I felt I was missing something by not having animal product in my diet (plus, I LOVE steak LOL).  So, I incorporated some Paleo.  Now I think of myself as "Pagan".

 

Even though I think of myself as a Pagan, I now also embrace the concept of being keto-adapted (yes, Paleo, Vegan and Keto can work together).  I think it is important (for me), not only for health reasons, but for cycling performance reasons as well. 

 

FYI, I am a VERY cautious person by nature.  If there was any reason that I felt keto was dangerous, I wouldn't be doing it.  I feel confident of that it is safe because I paid my dues and researched the subject well. 

 

You need to do the same thing because everybody is unique; what works for me, may not work for you.  What is right for me, may be wrong for you.  One size does not fit all, but I can say confidently that if you are in reasonably good health, a ketogenic diet is not unsafe.  My best advice is to find a doctor who is truly knowledgable about nutrition (which is no easy task these days), and seek his/her advice after having some blood tests done.   ????

 

I am not going to try and convince you that keto is a good thing, nor should you let others on this forum attempt to convince you that it is bad.  That's a choice you should make for yourself and it should be based on information you get from genuine science based sources like PubMed and scientific journals, not YouTube and health blogs that merely rehash third-party interpretations of original research, and more often than not result in mis-information and half-truths. 

 

Don't be afraid of reading scientific research reports or journals.  There's a lot that may go over your head, but if you use your brain, and have the patience to google for things you don't understand, sources like those can give you everything you need to make a well-educated decision, ands feel confident you have made the right choice.

[WaveHunter]

On 5/10/2019 at 10:34 AM, Enki said:

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.

With all due respect I am using the term "fasting" correctly.  As I pointed out to you before, Wikipedia defines fasting as follows: "...Fasting is the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time. ..."  No mention is made as to the duration of time.

 

So, when you sleep, you are indeed fasting.  Why do you think the first meal in the morning is called breakFAST? 

 

Why do you think the medical test to determine how much glucose is in your blood requires that you not consume food for 12 hours prior to the test and the test is referred to as fasting blood glucose? 

 

"Fasting" is always practiced prior to surgery or other procedures that require general anesthesia.  Doctors will advise you to "fast" before surgery, not "go on a diet" before surgery.  

 

More importantly, with regard to legitimacy of short term fasts (18-72 hours) vs fasts that last weeks or months, most medical professionals and nutritional scientists often do studies of short duration "fasts" lasting from 18 hours to 72 hours, and refer to these as "fasting" studies.  I don't think I have ever seen a clinical study of fasts lasting for weeks or months with the exception of Cahill's studies, and those were Starvation Response studies, not nutrtional fasting studies.  Perhaps you care to point me to some clinical nutritional fasting studies that lasted weeks or months? 

 

You are in the martial arts?  Me too ????  I am Okinawan Shorin Ryu.  What are you?

Edited May 11, 2019 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

On 5/10/2019 at 10:25 AM, Enki said:

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

I am all for intelligently debating with you, but that's kind of hard to do if you only make generalized criticisms.  If you feel my posts are "utter nonsense", be specific.  Exactly what is it that I have said that you believe to be utter nonsense?

[WaveHunter]

For those who think short-duration fasts (72 hours or less) are meaningless, you should consider that it is scientifically documented that many positive things happen to your metabolism during this timeframe.  Of course, you will burn stored body fat (around one-half pound per day) but that is not the most important thing that happens.

 

One of the main benefits is that a lot of intra-cellular materials get broken down for energy as stored glycogen starts to get depleted.  The body does not just randomly start burning essential proteins (muscle) as many believe, but rather it seeks out damaged proteins, and also dysfunctional mitochondria to break down and use for energy until sufficient ketone bodies are produced that can serve that purpose.

 

It not only uses these damaged or dysfunctional materials for fuel, but as ketones start to provide sufficient fuel (or you resume eating again), those sacrificed materials are replaced with fresh, fully functioning new ones!  So, in essence, you are rebuilding your metabolic machinery!

 

The body does this naturally on its' own without fasting, but fasting ramps the process up markedly.

 

THAT is one of the main reasons many knowledgeable people engage in periodic short-term fasts.  The goal is not to lose fat, but more importantly, to renew the metabolic machinery that has become damaged or dysfunctional. 

 

The end result is that you wind up with a more efficient metabolic engine that is capable of a higher resting metabolic rate than before, which in turns allows you to shed body fat more effectively if that is your goal.

 

Don't believe me; google it and find out for yourself from legitimate science-based sources.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Destiny1990]

Some advice.

My testosterone levels are on the low side.

in last years i gained few extra kilos belly fat. I suspect i gained them because of my low testosterone levels in the first place.

I don’t drink and no smoking eat kinda healthy maybe too much.

Now i read that to boost testosterone levels naturally i need to eat healthy fats and and also that i need to loose the extra weight??

i also read and i believe this being true that most diets will actually bring down our testosterone levels.

Its kind of confusing.

what i doing now is eating only 8 hours a day. Less carbs intake, some healthy fats olive oil ect, veggies any recommendations how to loose weight and boost testosterone by diet?

i have back problem so i cant do weights anymore. I do walks daily an hour..

 

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Some advice.

My testosterone levels are on the low side.

in last years i gained few extra kilos belly fat. I suspect i gained them because of my low testosterone levels in the first place.

I don’t drink and no smoking eat kinda healthy maybe too much.

Now i read that to boost testosterone levels naturally i need to eat healthy fats and and also that i need to loose the extra weight??

i also read and i believe this being true that most diets will actually bring down our testosterone levels.

Its kind of confusing.

what i doing now is eating only 8 hours a day. Less carbs intake, some healthy fats olive oil ect, veggies any recommendations how to loose weight and boost testosterone by diet?

i have back problem so i cant do weights anymore. I do walks daily an hour..

 

Depending on how low your testosterone is, you might want to talk to a doctor about raising it with injectable testosterone.  A few years back I found out mine was very low (like around 200ng/dL) and so I now self-inject a small amount on a regular basis (under MD supervision). 

 

It's not as big a deal as it might seem; just a couple of subcutaneous injections with a tiny needle weekly; not painful or difficult to do, and here in Thailand, it is very cheap. It takes me perhaps 5 minutes to do; I do it during TV commercials in the evening...that's how simple it is ????

 

Have you actually had a blood test to indicate what your level is?

 

It's true you can raise T somewhat by nutrition but not really that much; only injections are going to work if it is really low.  Most other drugs or supplements that claim to raise it are pretty much all scams except trans-dermal patches or creams but they are not nearly as effective as injections.

 

As for low levels of T making it harder to lose stored body fat I guess that is true to an extent but the real culprit is insulin being so high from a carb-rich diet that it starts to effect receptor sensitivity.

 

IMO, the best strategy is what you are already doing; limiting carbs and keeping your daily eating window as short as possible. 

 

Do you have an idea of how many grams of carbs you are eating daily?  If you want to take advantage of ketosis for fat loss (which is a big advantage IMO), you really need to limit them to around 50 grams per day. 

 

I know that sounds severe but it's not.  You will acclimate to it pretty quickly (in a week or so) and you will then not miss those carbs at all!  And...your overall nutrition will not suffer in the least (assuming you are in otherwise reasonably good health). 

 

In fact, it's probably the best thing you can do for overall health unless you are a super-active athlete or work heavy construction ????    Same is true with shortening your eating window.

 

If you are really serious about improving your health via nutrition, it's a smart idea to have blood tests done to check your lipids and metabolic markers.  Very cheap to do here in Thailand.  If anything is really out of whack, consult a physician; otherwise, the tests give you a baseline to start out with so you can track your progress.

 

Exercising is obviously an important element.  I also have a back problem BTW.  I have 3 herniated discs from martial arts injuries.  I was in such bad condition that I was referred to a specialist (neurosurgeon), who, after reviewing my MRI, told me I was not a candidate for surgery (thank God!), and instead advised me to rehab with kettlebells!

 

I know that sounds bizarre and I was pretty suspicious, but I did what he said...and it worked! I'm not going to go into the science-based details of why it works but there is a scientific basis for it, and you can read a little about it in the link I will post at the end of this.

 

Don't just accept that you can't exercise because of a back problem. I still have herniated discs and they give me some pain every once is a while, but in spite of that I have no problems running, cycling, and working out in the gym, and it's because of the rehab I got using kettlebells.

 

My doctor (the neurosurgeon) is actually an authority on kettlebells and has written several books on the therapeutic use of them for back issues.  You can read an article about him and a little about the science behind how kettlebells can address back issues here:

  

https://www.dragondoor.com/an_interview_with_dr_patrick_roth_md_author_of_the_end_of_back_pain/

 

And if your back is really something you can not rehab, I can't think of any better exercise that is "back-friendly" or more therapeutic than swimming (and of course walking too, but especially swimming!).

 

Hope what I've said is helpful.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Destiny1990]

44 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Depending on how low your testosterone is, you might want to talk to a doctor about raising it with injectable testosterone.  A few years back I found out mine was very low (like around 200ng/dL) and so I now self-inject a small amount on a regular basis (under MD supervision). 

 

It's not as big a deal as it might seem; just a couple of subcutaneous injections with a tiny needle weekly; not painful or difficult to do, and here in Thailand, it is very cheap. It takes me perhaps 5 minutes to do; I do it during TV commercials in the evening...that's how simple it is ????

 

Have you actually had a blood test to indicate what your level is?

 

It's true you can raise T somewhat by nutrition but not really that much; only injections are going to work if it is really low.  Most other drugs or supplements that claim to raise it are pretty much all scams except trans-dermal patches or creams but they are not nearly as effective as injections.

 

As for low levels of T making it harder to lose stored body fat I guess that is true to an extent but the real culprit is insulin being so high from a carb-rich diet that it starts to effect receptor sensitivity.

 

IMO, the best strategy is what you are already doing; limiting carbs and keeping your daily eating window as short as possible. 

 

Do you have an idea of how many grams of carbs you are eating daily?  If you want to take advantage of ketosis for fat loss (which is a big advantage IMO), you really need to limit them to around 50 grams per day. 

 

I know that sounds severe but it's not.  You will acclimate to it pretty quickly (in a week or so) and you will then not miss those carbs at all!  And...your overall nutrition will not suffer in the least (assuming you are in otherwise reasonably good health). 

 

In fact, it's probably the best thing you can do for overall health unless you are a super-active athlete or work heavy construction ????    Same is true with shortening your eating window.

 

If you are really serious about improving your health via nutrition, it's a smart idea to have blood tests done to check your lipids and metabolic markers.  Very cheap to do here in Thailand.  If anything is really out of whack, consult a physician; otherwise, the tests give you a baseline to start out with so you can track your progress.

 

Exercising is obviously an important element.  I also have a back problem BTW.  I have 3 herniated discs from martial arts injuries.  I was in such bad condition that I was referred to a specialist (neurosurgeon), who, after reviewing my MRI, told me I was not a candidate for surgery (thank God!), and instead advised me to rehab with kettlebells!

 

I know that sounds bizarre and I was pretty suspicious, but I did what he said...and it worked! I'm not going to go into the science-based details of why it works but there is a scientific basis for it, and you can read a little about it in the link I will post at the end of this.

 

Don't just accept that you can't exercise because of a back problem. I still have herniated discs and they give me some pain every once is a while, but in spite of that I have no problems running, cycling, and working out in the gym, and it's because of the rehab I got using kettlebells.

 

My doctor (the neurosurgeon) is actually an authority on kettlebells and has written several books on the therapeutic use of them for back issues.  You can read an article about him and a little about the science behind how kettlebells can address back issues here:

  

https://www.dragondoor.com/an_interview_with_dr_patrick_roth_md_author_of_the_end_of_back_pain/

 

And if your back is really something you can not rehab, I can't think of any better exercise that is "back-friendly" or more therapeutic than swimming (and of course walking too, but especially swimming!).

 

Hope what I've said is helpful.

 

Definitely good information.

 

My T level is around 300ng/dl am nearly 50 years. At some point i will do the injections.

You know what i think if i was doing your one meal a day food plan than my T level would even be lower as its today. You can stick comfortably with ur food plan because u are doing T-shots therefore keeping u in balance. Would u agree?

 

Well i understand just from a diet T level will not go up much in fact it much more likely it will go down from most diets that are successfully causing a weight lost. Exactly That is what i would like to prevent so loosing 10 kg without going down in T..

 

what i am doing since one week is:

12:00 big hand full of oats, raisins, berries mango etc mixed with milk.

15:00 2 brown bread with real butter and cheese or egg and one banana or an apple.

19:00 dinner little rice with lot of veggies in olive oil with chicken or fish.

After that one small piece of dark chocolate and 4 walnuts. At 20:00 no-more eating till 12:00 next morning.

swimming yes i could do more its truly good for back problem i also have one herniated disc.

 

 

[WaveHunter]

3 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Definitely good information.

 

My T level is around 300ng/dl am nearly 50 years. At some point i will do the injections.

You know what i think if i was doing your one meal a day food plan than my T level would even be lower as its today. You can stick comfortably with ur food plan because u are doing T-shots therefore keeping u in balance. Would u agree?

 

Well i understand just from a diet T level will not go up much in fact it much more likely it will go down from most diets that are successfully causing a weight lost. Exactly That is what i would like to prevent so loosing 10 kg without going down in T..

 

what i am doing since one week is:

12:00 big hand full of oats, raisins, berries mango etc mixed with milk.

15:00 2 brown bread with real butter and cheese or egg and one banana or an apple.

19:00 dinner little rice with lot of veggies in olive oil with chicken or fish.

After that one small piece of dark chocolate and 4 walnuts. At 20:00 no-more eating till 12:00 next morning.

swimming yes i could do more its truly good for back problem i also have one herniated disc.

 

 

To be honest, I'm not really too sure about the relationship between Testosterone levels and body fat.  A lot of people have opinions on it but I've never really looked at legitimate science-based studies so I can't really say.  However I do know that I did not have any issues with excess body fat when my levels were lower than yours.  Furthermore, It wasn't until a year or so after I improved my diet that I found out I had low T, so it would seem in my case that improved diet had no effect on T.

 

So...if you ask my "gut' feeling on it, I'd say I don't think low T will, in itself cause excess body fat, and I don't think any sort of dietary change will result in increased T levels.  Just my personal opinion.

 

Don't take this the wrong way but the menu you described sound VERY high in carbs.  If you cut them down, I think you will see the fat come off your body. 

 

You should add up your total carbs for the day, based on your serving sizes and see what your total carbs for the day are presently.  It's very easy to do.  You can look up macronutrients for any food on a site called calorieking.com, and it's just simple arithmetic to figure out your total cabs based on your personal serving sizes.  Be honest with your self and weigh your servings; most people grossly underestimate how much they really eat.

 

Now, if you are going to really try keto, you need to have a macro ratio that is in 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. 

 

This ratio is pretty important but luckily there is an easy to use macro calculator that makes figuring this all out, based on you personal needs and goals, very easy.  It's very well designed and super easy to use.  Here is the link:

 

https://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/

 

You need to keep carbs below 50 grams if you are going to get optimal ketogenic effect.  One slice of bread and a banana will push you over the limit, I'm sorry to say ???? 

 

However, even you just can't go that low, you will still get significant health benefits and fat loss; the fat loss will just take longer.  The calculator will help you figure out the ideal amount of carbs that are right for YOU.

 

And, just as important, It's not to say you can't eat very well and feel satiated on a keto diet.  There are plenty of keto menus you can look at on the net to get ideas.  It's not rocket science, but you may be shocked at how much fat you will be consuming.

 

There is a handy tool you can use to custom tailor your macros to your personal goals (i.e.: how much fat you want to lose per week, how low you want to go with carbs, etc).  It is an excellent calculator!

 

https://keto-calculator.ankerl.com/

 

It seems illogical that a typical keto breakfast has eggs and bacon or sausage and will result in weight loss but it works. 

 

It may seem like eating things like eggs, bacon, steak, fatty fish like salmon would be unhealthy and a heart attack in the making, but that is a fallacy, and if you do some science-based research on the net, you will find this to be true. 

 

There will be naysayers who vehemently disagree but there is no denying the fact that the "low fat healthy diet" that's been advocated for the last 30 years is clearly not working, otherwise we wouldn't be in the midst of an obesity epidemic today. 

 

I know I'm throwing a lot of info at you, but take your time and carefully think it all over.  I think the outcome can be well worth the effort. ????

 

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Destiny1990]

8 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

To be honest, I'm not really too sure about the relationship between Testosterone levels and body fat.  A lot of people have opinions on it but I've never really looked at legitimate science-based studies so I can't really say.  However I do know that I did not have any issues with excess body fat when my levels were lower than yours.  Furthermore, It wasn't until a year or so after I improved my diet that I found out I had low T, so it would seem in my case that improved diet had no effect on T.

 

So...if you ask my "gut' feeling on it, I'd say I don't think low T will, in itself cause excess body fat, and I don't think any sort of dietary change will result in increased T levels.  Just my personal opinion.

 

Don't take this the wrong way but the menu you described sound VERY high in carbs.  You should add up based on your serving sizes and see what your total carbs for the day are.  It's very easy to do.  You can look up everything on a site called calorieking.com.

 

The classic "keto" macro ratio you want to shoot for 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.  If you are really go for a keto diet, you need to keep carbs below 50 grams.  One slice of bread and a banana will push you over the limit, I'm sorry to say ????

 

That's not to say you can't eat very well and feel satiated on a keto diet.  There are plenty of keto menus you can look at on the net to get ideas.  It's not rocket science, but you may be shocked at how much fat you will be consuming.

 

It seems illogical that a typical keto breakfast has eggs and bacon or sausage and will result in weight loss but it works. 

 

It may seem like eating things like eggs, bacon, steak, fatty fish like salmon would be unhealthy and a heart attack in the making, but that is a fallacy, and if you do some science-based research on the net, you will find this to be true. 

 

There will be naysayers who vehemently disagree but there is no denying the fact that the "low fat healthy diet" that's been advocated for the last 30 years is clearly not working, otherwise we wouldn't be in the midst of an obesity epidemic today. 

 

 

I am not looking for a weight loss diet program to boost T levels but i am saying most diets will generate as an side effect lower T levels. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

 

otherwise name me a one diet plan that will make me loose weight and will increase or maintain my T level?

 

I also think that going Keto will lower T levels but you and another guy in this thread are injecting T therefore that is not really an issue for u guys.

 

You probably right that i am overdoing the carbs especially before i started with 16:8.

Maybe it was the carbs making me fat anyway I slowly will try less carbs more fats and see how it works out.

[robblok]

@wavehunter

 

Your a bit off base here about low T and body-fat. (especially around the belly) There is research about it. Look at the link i give and see that behind the statements there are links to studies

 

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/testosterone-and-fat-loss

 

There is some evidence that replacement therapy can lead to weight loss in obese patients with testosterone deficiency (20 Trusted Source, 21 Trusted Source, 22 Trusted Source, 23 Trusted Source).

One 56-week study in 100 obese men on a reduced-calorie diet found that injections improved weight loss by 6.4 pounds (2.9 kg) compared to those who didn’t receive any treatment.

Edited May 14, 2019 by robblok

[robblok]

15 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

I am not looking for a weight loss diet program to boost T levels but i am saying most diets will generate as an side effect lower T levels. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

 

otherwise name me a one diet plan that will make me loose weight and will increase or maintain my T level?

 

I also think that going Keto will lower T levels but you and another guy in this thread are injecting T therefore that is not really an issue for u guys.

 

You probably right that i am overdoing the carbs especially before i started with 16:8.

Maybe it was the carbs making me fat anyway I slowly will try less carbs more fats and see how it works out.

T levels, some say you can raise them by doing weight lifting 

 

https://www.webmd.com/men/features/exercise-and-testosterone#1

[Destiny1990]

52 minutes ago, robblok said:

T levels, some say you can raise them by doing weight lifting 

 

https://www.webmd.com/men/features/exercise-and-testosterone#1

Thanks but Kinda was asking for a food diet weight loss program that doesn’t lower T levels.

[WaveHunter]

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

I am not looking for a weight loss diet program to boost T levels but i am saying most diets will generate as an side effect lower T levels. Correct me if you think I am wrong.

 

otherwise name me a one diet plan that will make me loose weight and will increase or maintain my T level?

 

I also think that going Keto will lower T levels but you and another guy in this thread are injecting T therefore that is not really an issue for u guys.

 

You probably right that i am overdoing the carbs especially before i started with 16:8.

Maybe it was the carbs making me fat anyway I slowly will try less carbs more fats and see how it works out.

Again, I don't have any science based information on whether there is a relationship between nutrition (diets) and T levels, or more specifically whether improved T level will help loose fat, or whether a better diet will raise T level. 

 

My personal opinion is there is no relationship either way, because as I said, my nutrition was very poor but I made some radical changes to make it very good (Vegan and Paleo) and about a year went by before I found out I had low T.  If a superior diet had a positive effect  on T levels, I do not think I would have had such a low level when tested a year after adopting healthy eating habits.  

 

Easy enough to find out though if you want to know for sure; do some google searches for "legitimate" scientific research into a possible relationship (not YouTube or health blogs interpretations; go to science-based sources like PubMed or scientific journals.)

 

As regards carbs, I have no doubt that lowering your carbs will allow you to lose fat, irregardless of what you T level is.  There is no question in my mind at all. 

 

People tend to put too much emphasis on T levels and the potential benefits of increasing them, and a lot of that emphasis is scientifically unfounded, and more about hype by the pharmaceutical companies and TRT clinics.  It makes some difference in the quality of life for some guys, but not as much as many people assume.  If you're having trouble losing weight, cutting carbs is a much better strategy, and much, much more likely to succeed.

 

It's really very simple to do that; cut out all processed sugar and any processed food products containing them.  You don't need processed sugar at all and you won't miss it.  Cut the rest of your carbs as much as you think you can...and then cut them some more as time goes by.  It's like anything, you'll miss them at first but will quickly get used to it, and when you do get used to it, cut them some more.  Low carb or keto menus can be very satisfying so you won't be depriving yourself at all.

 

Just remember, of the three macronutrients (carbs, fats, and protein), the only essential ones (that the body can not produce on its' own are protein and essential fats.  Carbs are not essential.  The body is actually perfectly capable of producing any glucose it needs on its' own.  As hard as that may be to believe, it is a scientific fact.  I'm not saying you should do without carbs totally and forever, but you shouldn't be scared to cut down on them significantly for fear you will be malnourished because that just ain't gonna happen ????

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Destiny1990]

19 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

Again, I don't have any science based information on whether there is a relationship between nutrition (diets) and T levels.  My personal opinion is there is none, because as I said, my nutrition was very poor but I made some radical changes to make it very good (Vegan and Paleo) and about a year went by before I found out I had low T.  If a superior diet had a positive effect  on T levels, I do not think I would have had such a low  level when tested a year after adopting healthy eating habits.

 

Easy enough to find out though; do some google searches for "legitimate" scientific research into a possible relationship (not YouTube or health blogs interpretations; go to science-based sources like PubMed or scientific journals.)

 

As regards carbs, I have no doubt that lowering your carbs will allow you to lose fat, irregardless of what you T level is.  There is no question in my mind at all. 

 

It's really very simple; cut out all processed sugar and any processed food products containing them.  You don't need processed sugar at all and you won't miss it.  Cut the rest of your carbs as much as you think you can...and then cut them some more as time goes by.  It's like anything, you'll miss them at first but will quickly get used to it, and when you do get used to it, cut them some more.  Low carb or keto menus can be very satisfying so you won't be depriving yourself at all.

 

Just remember, of the three macronutrients (carbs, fats, and protein), the only essential ones (that the body can not produce on its' own are protein and essential fats.  Carbs are not essential.  The body is actually perfectly capable of producing any glucose it needs on its' own.  As hard as that may be to believe, it is a scientific fact.  I'm not saying you should do without carbs totally and forever, but you shouldn't be scared to cut down on them significantly for fear you will be malnourished because that just ain't gonna happen ????

 

 

I read your post and right away i think your T level was higher when you was heavier and eating more unhealthy.

Then u did vegan and probably lost some weight then after 1 year you measured ur T level and it was really low.

Its the vegan superior diet that is surely partially responsible for ur lower T.

Anyway if i want to lower my weight by a diet program only then this will lower my T level also that’s the only way imho also otherwise my question would been answered already ????.

Edited May 14, 2019 by Destiny1990

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

 

I read your post and right away i think your T level was higher when you was heavier and eating more unhealthy.

Then u did vegan and probably lost some weight then after 1 year you measured ur T level and it was really low.

Its the vegan superior diet that is surely partially responsible for ur lower T.

Anyway if i want to lower my weight by a diet program only then this will lower my T level also that’s the only way imho also otherwise my question would been answered already ????.

I wouldn't focus on T having an effect on body fat or visa versa.  I am aware of no scientific basis to assume any sort of relationship between T levels and diet. 

 

Unless you can find a scientific basis to support that notion, put it out of your mind.  Even if you do find something to support that idea, it's going to be of minor importance otherwise everybody would be well aware of it.

 

Focus instead on what there is a lot of scientific basis for believing, and what is a proven solution.  Cut excess carbs.  That's my opinion.

 

Edited May 14, 2019 by WaveHunter

[Destiny1990]

3 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

I wouldn't focus on T having an effect on body fat or visa versa.  I am aware of no scientific basis to assume any sort of relationship between T levels and diet. 

 

Unless you can find a scientific basis to support that notion, put it out of your mind.  Even if you do find something to support that idea, it's going to be of minor importance otherwise everybody would be well aware of it.

 

Focus instead on what there is a lot of scientific basis for believing, and what is a proven solution.  Cut excess carbs.  That's my opinion.

 

Google either low carb diet or high fat diet whatever diet they all come with lowering T levels side effects . ( its all over google)

No problem if you got natural high T levels or are doing injections T but in my situation I quickly might notice a Additional T decrease besides weight loss.

Anyway so I definitely won’t  go keto before starting with TRT.

The food plan i am doing now might just work.

moderated carbs, good fats, veggies , no booze, smaller daily food amounts, 16:8, chicken fish but still even if it  will loose weight then still it will lowering my  T as well.

 

otherwise show me a food diet plan that doesn’t affect in a  negative way a man his T levels. ????

[WaveHunter]

7 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

Google either low carb diet or high fat diet whatever diet they all come with lowering T levels side effects . ( its all over google)

No problem if you got natural high T levels or are doing injections T but in my situation I quickly might notice a Additional T decrease besides weight loss.

Anyway so I definitely won’t  go keto before starting with TRT.

The food plan i am doing now might just work.

moderated carbs, good fats, veggies , no booze, smaller daily food amounts, 16:8, chicken fish but still even if it  will loose weight then still it will lowering my  T as well.

 

otherwise show me a food diet plan that doesn’t affect in a  negative way a man his T levels. ????

With all due respect, I really think you're attributing way too much importance on a diet's possible effect on T.  As I suggested before, you should search genuine science-based research (not simply conduct a general google search) for an answer to the relationship between nutrition and T.

 

Just to settle your mind on this, I took a few minutes this morning and did that for you.  What I found is, yes there appears to be a possible relationship, but an indirect and unclear one.

 

And what I found was basically what I've already suggested, and that is that carbs indirectly have a negative effect on T (according to the study I will link).  The study explores very complex metabolic relationships and has many significant limitations but my take-away from it is that a diet's effect on T is indirect, not direct in the following way.  Excessive carbs lead to increased insulin levels which in turn leads to obesity.  It is the OBESITY that can possibly result in lowered T, not the diet itself.

 

So to put it even more simply,  ANY diet that results in obesity may indirectly also lead to to lowered T, and any diet that reduces obesity may be able to indirectly raise T.  IMO, carb-restricted (keto) diets are the best way to deal with obesity, so such a diet is the most effective way to protect T.

 

If you are concerned about low T, see a doctor about doing TRT.  That's the simplest and most direct solution to protecting or optimizes T levels, but IMO, the last thing you would want to do is avoid keto in the meantime in light of carbs indirect effect on T.

 

I mean, controlling T and controlling obesity should be two different clearly defined goals; don't look for a single solution that will apply to both since neither will be optimal if you do.

  

Here's the link to the study, Testosterone-Associated Dietary Pattern Predicts Low Testosterone Levels and Hypogonadism

 

Warning:  You really need to read this report carefully and not just glance over it and jump to unfounded conclusions.

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by WaveHunter

[WaveHunter]

.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2019 by WaveHunter