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

[observer90210]

I'm no scientist, I'm no member of any scientological network....but for sure, fasting in a tropical climate with the heat, no water - can lead to serious health issues. Sorry. I'd rather read something informative on how to d"**mm stop smoking !!!

[robblok]

On 7/3/2019 at 12:54 PM, BobBKK said:

It's really weird just finished another 3 day water fast (very strict water only) and not even lost one gram. I have been intermittent fasting for 30 years and only eat once a day but I swear it's genetic as my father was at least 70 kilo more than me. Frustrating it is.

I don't understand how you can be overweight your a vegetarian. Do you eat a lot of bad stuff ? drink a lot of sugary drinks ? What really helped me was combining exercise with a clean diet. Especially weight lifting is one of the better exercises for fat loss (long term). However as your body changes the weight might stay the same and a centimeter is then a better measuring tool then the scales. Right now I am getting visibly leaner while eating more and exercising more. 

 

I had restricted my calories for a while as I became fat (ok not really fat but not how I wanted to look). It was all gone after 5 months and now I am eating more and still getting leaner. But only eating unprocessed foods with added proteins. I am of course exercising hard.

 

For the first time since years I am breaking through levels of strength I have not seen before. I was always affraid to eat more (fat fobia) and now eating more and exercising more and going through weight plateau's with lifting that I thought impossible. I thought i could not progress anymore after 7 years of exercising hard and hitting limits.

 

I am on TRT that changes things a bit too.  

 

I am convinced that diet alone is NOT the way to go and resistance training helps a lot. 

[FracturedRabbit]

I'm no scientist, I'm no member of any scientological network....but for sure, fasting in a tropical climate with the heat, no water - can lead to serious health issues. Sorry. I'd rather read something informative on how to d"**mm stop smoking !!!

The clue is on the title “water only fasting”. You don’t eat, but drink as much water as you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[robblok]

42 minutes ago, FracturedRabbit said:

The clue is on the title “water only fasting”. You don’t eat, but drink as much water as you want.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I did not even respond, not sure why anyone would think your not allowed to drink during a fast (water that is). Humans tend to do real badly when they don't drink.

[Kohsamida]

4 hours ago, FredGallaher said:

FYI bacteria counts are not part of stool analysis. They are part of urine cultures. 

Nonsense!  Stool cultures are a common first-step diagnostic tool used to detect underlying cause for gastro-intestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, abdominal pain, and nausea or vomiting.  The test distinguishes between the types of bacteria that cause disease (pathogenic) and the types that are normally found in the digestive tract (normal flora).

 

If a gastro-intestinal bacterial infection is suspected, a stool culture will be indicated, not a urine culture.

 

Almost every expat living in Thailand knows this (or at least should) since one may easily become infected by disease-causing bacteria by eating or drinking anything that has been contaminated with the bacteria, even things as simple as tap water, ice cubes in a drink, a fresh salad, or food from a vendor's stall.

[Kohsamida]

9 hours ago, observer90210 said:

I'm no scientist, I'm no member of any scientological network....but for sure, fasting in a tropical climate with the heat, no water - can lead to serious health issues. Sorry. I'd rather read something informative on how to d"**mm stop smoking !!!

Wow!  Don't be so obtuse.  The definition of water fasting is abstinence from food for a period of time, not water! 

 

From the tone of your post, It's obvious that that you are trying to malign water-fasting, but maybe you should at least understand what it is that you're trying to be critical of, before making such a foolish remark.

 

Now, you want to read something informative on how to quit smoking?  JUST QUIT BUYING CIGARETTES!  Pretty simple, right? ????  If somebody really wants to change a bad habit, it's not that hard, providing they really want to do it.

[Kohsamida]

9 hours ago, Harveyg said:

Wondering how fermented foods may be related to the benefits of any sort of fasting. My issue is tiredness, although seems better lately. I received results about 3 weeks ago from a stool sample i had submitted for testing. One of the results was low number of microbes.

so everyday I’ve taken 1 or 2 spoonfuls of various kinds of kimchi, plain yogurt, or sauerkraut.  Also do occasional kefir and kombucha.  At this point I’m doing 16:8 and wondering about in the future, the 72hr minimum. Hoping I can get my energy back.  Any helpful insights are welcome. Thanks. 

Everyone goes through periods of unexplainable fatigue but if it is chronic, my advice would be to consult a good physician who will order up a comprehensive battery of lab tests.  Here in Thailand, that needn't be costly (if tests are not done at a large hospital).  All the tests you need will usually cost no more than 2500 baht.  If nothing serious is wrong, then you can focus on corrective actions with nutrition.

 

I can only speak for myself, and I'm not a doctor.  There's nothing wrong with fermented foods and most are healthy but I don't think they are a cure-all.  All that really is necessary for most people to feel better is simply to adopt sound nutritional guidelines.  Simple stuff like cutting down on excessive sugar, processed foods, etc..., will usually have an immediate and noticeable effect.  It's really not rocket science.

 

For me, and many others, proper water fasting can play an important role in "resetting" your metabolic health.  You need to do your own research to decide if it is right for you but for many, there are some real science-based advantages of short-term water fasting (i.e.: 24 hour, 48 hour, 72 hour fasts). 

 

Learn about fasting from reliable sources (not YouTube gurus), and then try it out for yourself if you think it might be beneficial.  If you are in reasonably good health, there is nothing dangerous about short-term water fasting.  And for most people, it's not as hard as you might think.

 

Just my 2 cents worth.  Take it for what it's worth.

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, FredGallaher said:

Correction: Stool cultures are for enteric pathogens. Normal flora is ignored. We use selective media so normal flora is suppressed and only enteric pathogens grow. We do not quantify the enteric pathogens.  Stools are full of normal flora (bacteria) that what keeps our gut working. There are some specialized tests such as C-difficile that are ordered specifically.  However if we suspect parasites other tests are done.

Urine should be relatively sterile so we do colony counts to evaluate the severity of the infection. This was only mentioned as a comparison.

Trying to discuss anything rational with you is an exercise in futility, so I won't even bother.

[observer90210]

6 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Wow!  Don't be so obtuse.  The definition of water fasting is abstinence from food for a period of time, not water! 

 

From the tone of your post, It's obvious that that you are trying to malign water-fasting, but maybe you should at least understand what it is that you're trying to be critical of, before making such a foolish remark.

 

Now, you want to read something informative on how to quit smoking?  JUST QUIT BUYING CIGARETTES!  Pretty simple, right? ????  If somebody really wants to change a bad habit, it's not that hard, providing they really want to do it.

The definition of the word "tact" does not seem to be your cup of tea. And there is no need to be rude behind a computer towards others. Have a nice evening.

[Kohsamida]

23 minutes ago, observer90210 said:

The definition of the word "tact" does not seem to be your cup of tea. Have a nice evening.

My lack of tact was intentional.  Sorry, but I find it offensive when someone maliciously trashes a topic he obviously hasn't even taken the time to understand.

 

If you're going to be critical of something you should at least have a rudimentary understanding of it.  There's no excuse for ignorance. Implying that water fasting means not drinking water is an example if incredible ignorance on the subject.

[Kohsamida]

35 minutes ago, FredGallaher said:

It appears that kohsami has a very thin skin and he can't admit he knows nothing about what he's writing about. He especially knows next to nothing about Clinical Microbiology. Your intestinal track needs healthy bacteria to properly function and is loaded with them. A normal stool is full of bacteria that in effect are beneficial. That's why some people take "probiotics" to re-balance their system. Enteric pathogens are another issue and cause disease. We use methods to select only the pathogens so as to not cause overgrowth from normal bacteria. We do not count the number of bacteria/volume. 

Ask any Clinical Microbiologist and the can confirm. They are in most hospitals and labs throughout Thailand and the world.

Google search is OK but not a substitute from professional medical knowledge. If in doubt ask a professional.

It truly amazes me how you continually make one outrageous and absurd comment after another in threads I follow. 

 

I realize that you get pleasure from sounding like an authority on subjects you obviously do not understand like biochemistry, metabolic science, and now, clinical microbiology.  The truth is, you come off sounding very foolish, and worse, you refuse to admit it even when your errors are clearly pointed out to you.

 

Yes, a stool will certainly contain "healthy" bacteria.  It can also contain pathogenic bacteria.  Any expat who has eaten at the "wrong" food stall, consequently begins suffering serious gastro-intestinal distress and visits the doctor know that a stool culture is a first diagnostic step, not a urine test! 

 

You don't need to be a microbiologist to understand this; you simply have to live in the "real world".  Why don't you try that sometime; you might actually like it!

[OneMoreFarang]

I am not going to read 14 pages but I can tell you my personal experience with this.

I fasted 2 or 3 times for two or three weeks. At that time I was between 25 and 30 years old, a long time ago.

In the 2 or 3 weeks I was only drinking water. Or maybe water with a little lemon. Nothing else. No food, no medication, no vitamins, nothing.

At that time I had a friend who was a medical doctor and I made it at the same time when he made it.

Here are some details:

I lost about 1kg per 3 days fasting. That is the real weight loss. In the first days people lose more weight because the stomach is empty but that weight is back at the end when people start eating again.

According to my doctor friend the most important part was the start of the fasting. First day little to eat, then one day lots of natural apple juice (not sweet) to get everything out of the stomach. And then only water.

After 2 or 3 days I was not hungry anymore. It was sometimes difficult when other people had something to eat and that smelled good. But nothing worse than that.

My experience at that time was positive but I was in the good situation to have an experienced doctor available anytime I needed him. And I did this in European spring climate - not in the Thailand heat.

I hope that information helps a little.

[Kohsamida]

6 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

I am not going to read 14 pages but I can tell you my personal experience with this.

I fasted 2 or 3 times for two or three weeks. At that time I was between 25 and 30 years old, a long time ago.

In the 2 or 3 weeks I was only drinking water. Or maybe water with a little lemon. Nothing else. No food, no medication, no vitamins, nothing.

At that time I had a friend who was a medical doctor and I made it at the same time when he made it.

Here are some details:

I lost about 1kg per 3 days fasting. That is the real weight loss. In the first days people lose more weight because the stomach is empty but that weight is back at the end when people start eating again.

According to my doctor friend the most important part was the start of the fasting. First day little to eat, then one day lots of natural apple juice (not sweet) to get everything out of the stomach. And then only water.

After 2 or 3 days I was not hungry anymore. It was sometimes difficult when other people had something to eat and that smelled good. But nothing worse than that.

My experience at that time was positive but I was in the good situation to have an experienced doctor available anytime I needed him. And I did this in European spring climate - not in the Thailand heat.

I hope that information helps a little.

Glad to hear that at least somebody has something positive to say about fasting ????  I fast on a regular basis (72 hours, once a month or every other month).  I do it, not for weight loss, but simply because I believe it has a positive effect on my metabolic health.  

 

I agree that a regimented way of fasting is a good idea if you are new to fasting, and doing it under a doctor's supervision is wise provided the doctor truly understands the underlying metabolic science (most do not). 

 

However, the body quickly begins to adapt to the fasted state if you do it on a regular basis.  It's referred to as "keto adaptation".  The body is actually far more resilient than we give it credit for.  I not only suffer no ill effects, hunger or cravings when i do my monthly fasts but oddly, I actually feel energized in a certain sort of way. 

 

BTW, I know it might seem counter-intuitive but fasting in the hot climate of Thailand has no negative effect on me.  In fact, recently I begin experimenting with exercising in the fasted state, and on my last fast that included resistance training in the gym, and daily 6km runs (even on sunny days).  None of it was a problem.  I'm not advocating that others do this unless they are in really good physical condition, and only point this out to illustrate that our bodies are far more resilient than we often believe, and sometimes, pushing yourself out of your comfort zone can be a good thing. 

 

My feeling (opinion) is that fasting has long-term metabolic and overall health benefits.  As a short term strategy for loosing weight, I have a negative view, except as a means to jump-start a longer term nutritional strategy.

 

Just my personal view; also just hope it helps others explore the idea of fasting for themselves.

[rvaviator]

You made an incomplete comment; I asked you to expand and explain yourself.  Is that so hard to do? 
 
You "question" was totally irrelevant and providing only those two pieces of data would be pointless, but I'll provide them if that seems important to you...but I will provide the context that will make them relevant which you should have asked for int he first place.
 
I am 165 cm tall, weigh 63kg.  My Body fat is 11%  I am a competitive road cyclist so having low body fat (and low riding weight) is important to me, but being able to generate high watts during a ride is also important, thus my interest in cutting edge nutrition, and keto adapted nutrition in particular since it better allows me to tap into stored fat as a fuel source instead of only being able to rely on a glucose-dominant metabolism.
 
My use of water fasting has NOTHING to do with weight management.  Being keto adapted and riding bicycles takes care of that for me.  My interest in fasting is that it promotes autophagy, and it also acts as a stressor to the body that helps to keep me keto-adapted.
 

Hi, Your cycling angle interest me. You say you are a competitive cyclist. May I ask if that is speed based or endurance based cycling ? How many calories do you burn per week cycling ?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[WaveHunter]

14 hours ago, rvaviator said:

Hi, Your cycling angle interest me. You say you are a competitive cyclist. May I ask if that is speed based or endurance based cycling ? How many calories do you burn per week cycling ?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

I’d say my riding is a combination of speed and endurance but I’d say more on the endurance side.  My preference is for hill climbing but I also like day long group rides (100 km +).  Whether hill climbing or long rides, I usually try to keep my cadence (pedal rpm) around 100. 

 

To be clear, I am not a professional cyclist nor do I compete in formal races.  I am primarily a Strava rider.  

 

Calories burned per week vary depending on type of rides for that week.  A 100 km ride involving serious climbing can easily burn 2000+ calories for the day.  Most of my daily rides are 2-3 hour climbs up Doi Suthep and average 500 to 700 calories, maybe 1000 if pushing hard I guess.  These numbers are based on using a heart rate monitor, power meter, and cycling computer so I’m pretty sure about these numbers.

 

I ride 5-6 days a week, typically 2 hours on weekdays, and a day long ride on Saturday or Sunday with other Strava riders when I can.

 

Please note I am certainly not in a fasted state when I ride.  My fasting is limited to one 72 hour fast once a month or every other month, and the fast is not intended for fat loss but rather for enhanced autophagy. 

 

Personally, I don't believe in water-fasting as a weight loss strategy for most people.  It might sound enticing if you listen to health gurus that tout it but IMO the only sound strategy to weight loss is adopting sound nutritional guidelines.  Without them, any short-term diet is only going to yield short-term results.

 

Hope that helps.

 

[Kohsamida]

39 minutes ago, WaveHunter said:

I’d say my riding is a combination of speed and endurance but I’d say more on the endurance side.  My preference is for hill climbing but I also like day long group rides (100 km +).  Whether hill climbing or long rides, I usually try to keep my cadence (pedal rpm) around 100. 

 

To be clear, I am not a professional cyclist nor do I compete in formal races.  I am primarily a Strava rider.  

 

Calories burned per week vary depending on type of rides for that week.  A 100 km ride involving serious climbing can easily burn 2000+ calories for the day.  Most of my daily rides are 2-3 hour climbs up Doi Suthep and average 500 to 700 calories, maybe 1000 if pushing hard I guess.  These numbers are based on using a heart rate monitor, power meter, and cycling computer so I’m pretty sure about these numbers.

 

I ride 5-6 days a week, typically 2 hours on weekdays, and a day long ride on Saturday or Sunday with other Strava riders when I can.

 

Please note I am certainly not in a fasted state when I ride.  My fasting is limited to one 72 hour fast once a month or every other month, and the fast is not intended for fat loss but rather for enhanced autophagy. 

 

Personally, I don't believe in water-fasting as a weight loss strategy for most people.  It might sound enticing if you listen to health gurus that tout it but IMO the only sound strategy to weight loss is adopting sound nutritional guidelines.  Without them, any short-term diet is only going to yield short-term results.

 

Hope that helps.

Agree that fasting is all about long-term metabolic health, and not about short-term weight loss.  Becoming keto adapted (which is what fasting is really all about) has some amazing health benefits which more and more people are starting to discover (and that includes some world-class endurance athletes BTW). 

 

It's not just the BS you hear from YouTube gurus; there is a lot of underlying science to it. 

 

It's perfectly safe for most healthy people if you get appropriate blood tests beforehand that are interpreted by a good MD, and fasting is not nearly as hard to do as most people think. 

 

The benefits are quickly noticeable and significant even on a 24 hour fast, but 72 hours is indeed the "sweet spot" when it comes to optimizing metabolic health IMO.  

 

There will always be naysayers who rely on outdated views about the dangers of fasting or pseudoscience mumbo jumbo to disprove its' efficacy but that's the case with anything that is relatively new and controversial. 

 

Smart people who really care about their long-term health will explore such topics from reliable sources with an open mind, and then decide for themselves.  These days, every person has to take responsibility for their own health, and not rely on others to make those decisions for them.

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Kohsamida said:

Agree that fasting is all about long-term metabolic health, and not about short-term weight loss.  Becoming keto adapted (which is what fasting is really all about) has some amazing health benefits which more and more people are starting to discover (and that includes some world-class endurance athletes BTW). 

 

It's not just the BS you hear from YouTube gurus; there is a lot of underlying science to it. 

 

It's perfectly safe for most healthy people if you get appropriate blood tests beforehand that are interpreted by a good MD, and fasting is not nearly as hard to do as most people think. 

 

The benefits are quickly noticeable and significant even on a 24 hour fast, but 72 hours is indeed the "sweet spot" when it comes to optimizing metabolic health IMO.  

 

There will always be naysayers who rely on outdated views about the dangers of fasting or pseudoscience mumbo jumbo to disprove its' efficacy but that's the case with anything that is relatively new and controversial. 

 

Smart people who really care about their long-term health will explore such topics from reliable sources with an open mind, and then decide for themselves.  These days, every person has to take responsibility for their own health, and not rely on others to make those decisions for them.

I have no real negative views on fasting, i do wonder why you guys seem to think the body can't burn fat without being keto adapted. If that was the case then caloric restrictions would never work on other diets. I think our body is a lot smarter then you give it credit. I will probably try a fast next month or so. I have done a 24 hour fast a few time and can't say i noticed much.

 

I agree that fasting is not about weight loss, no diet will work without lifestyle changes and permanent diet changes. If you fast and then go back to your old diet (the one that cause the weight gain) its normal you will gain the weight back as you havent corrected the underlying problem. 

 

What always ticks me off about guru's and youtube things is how they promise amazing results while in reality I never seen them. But that is probably because i already had a good diet of unprocessed foods so when I change to keto there is not much for me to win. If you had a crappy diet with loads of processed carbs and other bad things then of course you will see things change. But that change would also be visible if you just kick out the bad things in your diet. 

 

Anyway even in bodybuilder circles keto is used its a tool and it works better for some as for others. It all depends on the person and the diet he / she had before going keto. The worse it was the more the results will be visible. If your metabolically damaged then keto is the way to go to get your insulin back to function how it should function. I think Keto certainly is good for a large group of people. 

 

I can only applaud @WaveHunter his biking regime. I am now trying to add more cardio too as weight-lifting alone is just not as good as weight-lifting and cardio especially if your on TRT to make sure you never get heart problems. Its even more important if your really doing steroids as your heart needs it more then. (recently read a lot about that i like to keep updated)

 

 

 

 

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

I have no real negative views on fasting, i do wonder why you guys seem to think the body can't burn fat without being keto adapted. If that was the case then caloric restrictions would never work on other diets. I think our body is a lot smarter then you give it credit. I will probably try a fast next month or so. I have done a 24 hour fast a few time and can't say i noticed much.

 

I agree that fasting is not about weight loss, no diet will work without lifestyle changes and permanent diet changes. If you fast and then go back to your old diet (the one that cause the weight gain) its normal you will gain the weight back as you havent corrected the underlying problem. 

 

What always ticks me off about guru's and youtube things is how they promise amazing results while in reality I never seen them. But that is probably because i already had a good diet of unprocessed foods so when I change to keto there is not much for me to win. If you had a crappy diet with loads of processed carbs and other bad things then of course you will see things change. But that change would also be visible if you just kick out the bad things in your diet. 

 

Anyway even in bodybuilder circles keto is used its a tool and it works better for some as for others. It all depends on the person and the diet he / she had before going keto. The worse it was the more the results will be visible. If your metabolically damaged then keto is the way to go to get your insulin back to function how it should function. I think Keto certainly is good for a large group of people. 

 

I can only applaud @WaveHunter his biking regime. I am now trying to add more cardio too as weight-lifting alone is just not as good as weight-lifting and cardio especially if your on TRT to make sure you never get heart problems. Its even more important if your really doing steroids as your heart needs it more then. (recently read a lot about that i like to keep updated)

 

 

 

 

You are one of the few people I see on this forum who seems to consistently explore posted topics with an open mind and in a fairly unbiased way even when you disagree with a message.  That's refreshing, and more importantly, it's productive to have this kind of debate, so thanks for that!  I love discussing topics and debating with people who truly have inquiring minds.  It's fun and it often leads to an awareness that you'd least expect.  I wish more people approached forums in this manner.

 

To address your opening comment, I don't think that advocates of fasting and keto-adaptation believe that you can't loose body fat without being in ketosis.  It's just that being "keto-adapted" lets your body do it far more efficiently, and more importantly, it makes your body a more efficient metabolic machine.

 

The fact that people these days rarely experience true hunger by depleting their glycogen stores on a regular basis has diminished the metabolic pathways of fat metabolism, I think.

 

I'm glad you agree that the most important thing is having a sound underlying nutritional strategy.  Many otherwise intelligent people just don't get it, and fall for one ridiculous fad diet after another.

 

Maybe others will disagree, and i'm sure they will but I just don't believe in any sort of short-term dieting strategy for the purpose of losing body fat.  What I do believe in is metabolic efficiency.  If you make your body an efficient metabolic machine and just provide it with the right type of fuel (food), fat loss diets per se are just not necessary.  It's realyl very simple when you think about it.

 

To my way of thinking, becoming keto-adapted is the way to make your body an efficient metabolic machine!  Many people mistakenly believe that ketosis is a survival response to starvation, and this something to be avoided at all cost.  I disagree.  I think the ketogenic state is a perfectly natural state that defined our existence right up until just the last 100 years or so.

 

Up until then, there was no such thing as supermarkets and refrigerators, and people did not always eat 3 meals a day, and often were not even able to eat daily.  It was a perfectly natural state, and the ketogenic state is what made it possible for them to lead healthy and productive lives for generation after generation.  After all, that is what body fat is for!  Until very recently, it served as a "deep freezer" that we regularly put things in to stored them, and took them out when we needed them.  Today, however, that's no longer true.  Today we continually put things into storage but rarely take them out!   

 

Back then, the metabolic pathways for BOTH carbohydrate and fat metabolism were active and highly functional as a result.  That's not the case today.  Today people rarely go hungry; their glycogen stores rarely become depleted, and thus they rarely experience a ketogenic response.  Like anything that isn't regularly exercised in the body, the metabolic pathways for fat metabolism have been greatly diminished.  At the same time, the average energy output of people has also diminished due to the lower physical aspect of labor, and the greater mobility that cars and public transportation now afford.

 

Becoming keto adapted is simply a way to restore those pathways of fat metabolism to a more efficient state.  Sure you can lose body fat without being in ketosis but why do it the hard way?  If you are keto adapted, you probably will never even have to go on a formal weight loss diet to begin with.

 

Anyway, I've said enough.  Sorry, I'm not a very good self-editor and as anyone can probably appreciate, when you're really passionate about something, you tend to talk more than you should...so I'll shut up now, but hopefully people will understand where I'm coming form on this.

 

Bottom line though...Indeed, everybody is unique.  While some may thrive on being keto-adapted, others may not.  I heard this term the other day that's real appropriate. Fingerprint medicine; that's what many smart scientists call various aspects of the metabolic sciences.  There's so much genetic and environmental variability when it comes to things like how our bodies work so that what works right for one person, may not work for another.  So, I'm not advocating that what works for me is right for others, and by the same token, I don't fault others who's approach works for them even if feel it's not right for me.    

[robblok]

13 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

You are one of the few people I see on this forum who seems to consistently explore posted topics with an open mind and in a fairly unbiased way even when you disagree with a message.  That's refreshing, and more importantly, it's productive to have this kind of debate, so thanks for that!

 

To address your opening comment, I don't think that advocates of fasting and keto-adaptation believe that you can't loose body fat without being in ketosis.  It's just that being in a ketogenic state is a much more efficient way to do it.

 

I'm glad you agree that the most important thing is having a sound underlying nutritional strategy.  Many otherwise intelligent people just don't get it, and fall for one ridiculous fad diet after another.

 

Maybe others will disagree, and i'm sure they will but I just don't believe in any sort of short-term dieting strategy for the purpose of losing body fat.  What I do believe in is metabolic efficiency.  If you make your body an efficient metabolic machine and just provide it with the right type of fuel (food), fat loss diets per se are just not necessary.  It's realyl very simple when you think about it.

 

To my way of thinking, becoming keto-adapted is the way to make your body an efficient metabolic machine!  Many people mistakenly believe that ketosis is a survival response to starvation, and this something to be avoided at all cost.  I disagree.  I think the ketogenic state is a perfectly natural state that defined our existence right up until just the last 100 years or so.

  

Up until then, there was no such thing as supermarkets and refrigerators, and people did not always eat 3 meals a day, and often were not even able to eat daily.  It was a perfectly natural state, and the ketogenic state is what made it possible for them to lead healthy and productive lives for generation after generation.  After all, that is what body fat is for!  Until very recently, it served as a "deep freezer" that we regularly put things in to stored them, and took them out when we needed them.  Today, however, that's no longer true.  Today we continually put things into storage but rarely take them out!   

 

Back then, the metabolic pathways for BOTH carbohydrate and fat metabolism were active and highly functional as a result.  That's not the case today.  Today people rarely go hungry; their glycogen stores rarely become depleted, and thus they rarely experience a ketogenic response.  Like anything that isn't regularly exercised in the body, the metabolic pathways for fat metabolism have been greatly diminished.  At the same time, the average energy output of people has also diminished due to the lower physical aspect of labor, and the greater mobility that cars and public transportation now afford.

 

Becoming keto adapted is simply a way to restore those pathways of fat metabolism to a more efficient state.  Sure you can lose body fat without being in ketosis but why do it the hard way?  If you are keto adapted, you probably will never even have to go on a formal weight loss diet to begin with.

 

Anyway, I've said enough.  Sorry, I'm not a very good self-editor and as anyone can probably appreciate, when you're really passionate about something, you tend to talk more than you should...so I'll shut up now, but hopefully people will understand where I'm coming form on this.

 

Bottom line though...Indeed, everybody is unique.  While some may thrive on being keto-adapted, others may not.  I heard this term the other day that's real appropriate. Fingerprint medicine; that's what many smart scientists call various aspects of the metabolic sciences.  There's so much genetic and environmental variability when it comes to things like how our bodies work so that what works right for one person, may not work for another.  So, I'm not advocating that what works for me is right for others, and by the same token, I don't fault others who's approach works for them even if feel it's not right for me.    

I only believe in lifestyle changes, you can't just lose weight on a diet and go back to what you did before that diet. You will gain it all back because it was the way you ate before the diet that made you fat. So without a lifestyle (diet) change its all futile.

 

You got me with more efficient way to do it, sure in ketose you only burn fat so the percentage of fat will be higher but is that more efficient. Because i with my mixed imput will burn fat too and sometimes carbs. Sure I will burn a lower percentage of fat but I consume less fat too. So that point what often stated is still unclear to me.

 

As for it being natural for us to go without food.. sure but does natural equate optimal. I mean it was natural for us not to have access to antibiotics and hospitals. Do you get my point. Same like for instance paleo (has many good things) they base things on what was available (not only did that vary greatly by region it does not mean it was optimal. I don't think that natural and optimal are the same things. 

 

Not saying that consuming loads of processed carbs are healthy or eating a lot is healthy. Just saying that natural does not always mean optimal. 

 

I like keeping an open mind as i might learn new things to make it easier to be ripped and lean. I try a lot because i want to know.

[Kohsamida]

34 minutes ago, robblok said:

I only believe in lifestyle changes, you can't just lose weight on a diet and go back to what you did before that diet. You will gain it all back because it was the way you ate before the diet that made you fat. So without a lifestyle (diet) change its all futile.

 

You got me with more efficient way to do it, sure in ketose you only burn fat so the percentage of fat will be higher but is that more efficient. Because i with my mixed imput will burn fat too and sometimes carbs. Sure I will burn a lower percentage of fat but I consume less fat too. So that point what often stated is still unclear to me.

 

As for it being natural for us to go without food.. sure but does natural equate optimal. I mean it was natural for us not to have access to antibiotics and hospitals. Do you get my point. Same like for instance paleo (has many good things) they base things on what was available (not only did that vary greatly by region it does not mean it was optimal. I don't think that natural and optimal are the same things. 

 

Not saying that consuming loads of processed carbs are healthy or eating a lot is healthy. Just saying that natural does not always mean optimal. 

 

I like keeping an open mind as i might learn new things to make it easier to be ripped and lean. I try a lot because i want to know.

I agree with you that lifestyle change is the key and that's why I don't like the message of most weight loss diet advocates.  If someone is truly overweight (obese) then of course it makes sense to do whatever works for that person to lose the excess fat as quickly as possible.  If a "McDonalds diet" does it for them, all the power to them ????  BUT, if they just go back to their old ways again (which most will do) then what's the point? We agree on that, and most rational people don;t find that hards to understand.

 

My point about about going Keto and fasting isn't as much to do with weight loss as it is with restoring metabolic efficiency.  It's not a "diet" per se; it's a lifestyle change.  It's about training your body to be more receptive to using ketones more efficiently when in a glycogen-depleted state.

 

When in a glycogen-depleted state, everyone's body will produce ketones BUT the body doesn't necessarily know what to do with them if being in such a state is a rare occurrence.  Becoming "keto adapted" makes the body more efficient at using them.  That's my rationale for doing a 72 hour fast once every month or every other month.  That's all it really seems to take to stay keto-adapted in the long-term.  Not such a big price to pay IMHO ????

 

Why do I think this is important?  Because, I firmly believe it makes my body more able to use stored body fat as fuel.  Since I started doing this type of fasting, I've never felt the need to go on a fat-loss diet.  Before I embraced this, I battled being overweight and tried all sorts of diets to fight it. 

 

Also, I'm very much into endurance sports and I've found that being keto-adapted makes me far less prone to "bonking" (metabolic crash resulting from sudden depletion of glycogen stores).  It's an amazing feeling to not have to rely so much on sports gels and energy bars because keto-adaptation allows me to tap into my fat stores more readily than before.

 

Many world-class endurance athletes are embracing keto-adaptation for this reason.  Remember, you only have to fast periodically to maintain this adaptation, and the rest of the time carbs are by no means "taboo"  Most naysayers about being keto-adapted don't acknowledge this!

 

Now I just eat a reasonably healthy diet without getting all anal about counting calories or following the latest fad diet.  I embrace elements of Veganism into it but I'm a carnivore at heart so I regularly eat meat, fish and foul as well. 

 

Bottom line, I believe in "listening" to my body and eating what ever I have craving for (within reason of course).  I feel healthy, happy, energetic, and never feel deprived as far as food goes.  My blood tests are always positive ever since I adopted this strategy.   I'm not advocating it for everyone or saying it is the holy grail, but I'd encourage anyone to explore it and see if it has benefits for them, because it was life changing for me ????

 

 

[Tagged]

On 5/7/2019 at 1:44 PM, geoffbezoz said:

Homosapiens have been around max 200,000 years

Primates evolved a few million years prior to that

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

 

Perhaps that is why , as you say, a Monkey would not deprive themselves of water.  Homosapiens appear to have a lot of learning still to do.  However , as we know, there are those that are in denial regarding evolutionary instincts.

I believe in these days, you could eat less for two weeks, and then eat normal for a week, and repeat for a succesfull diet. This way you do not slow down your metabolism to much, and you will get resoults you want by time. Patient is what we talk about, and understand what your body needs, not starving it. 

 

Water diet for what? Loos muscles is what you do, if you are a normal built and healthy person. 

[robblok]

4 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

I agree with you that lifestyle change is the key and that's why I don't like the message of most weight loss diet advocates.  If someone is truly overweight (obese) then of course it makes sense to do whatever works for that person to lose the excess fat as quickly as possible.  If a "McDonalds diet" does it for them, all the power to them ????  BUT, if they just go back to their old ways again (which most will do) then what's the point? We agree on that, and most rational people don;t find that hards to understand.

 

My point about about going Keto and fasting isn't as much to do with weight loss as it is with restoring metabolic efficiency.  It's not a "diet" per se; it's a lifestyle change.  It's about training your body to be more receptive to using ketones more efficiently when in a glycogen-depleted state.

 

When in a glycogen-depleted state, everyone's body will produce ketones BUT the body doesn't necessarily know what to do with them if being in such a state is a rare occurrence.  Becoming "keto adapted" makes the body more efficient at using them.  That's my rationale for doing a 72 hour fast once every month or every other month.  That's all it really seems to take to become keto-adapted.

 

Why do I think this is important?  Because, I firmly believe it makes my body's ability to use stored fat as fuel more efficient.  Since I started doing this type of fasting, I've never felt the need to go on a fat-loss diet.  Before I embraced this, I battled being overweight and tried all sorts of diets to fight it. 

 

Now I just eat a reasonably healthy diet without getting all anal about counting calories or following the latest fad diet.  I embrace elements of Veganism into it but I'm a carnivore at heart so I regularly eat meat, fish and foul as well. 

 

Bottom line, I believe in "listening" to my body and eating what ever I have craving for (within reason of course).  I feel healthy, happy, energetic, and never feel deprived as far as food goes.  My blood tests are always positive ever since I adopted this strategy.   I'm not advocating it for everyone or saying it is the holy grail, but I'd encourage anyone to explore it and see if it has benefits for them, because it was life changing for me ????

 

 

As long as i stick to my diet (quite easy) i never need to lose extra fat (unless i want to be even leaner). However I fell of the wagon a few times because of disruptions in life. (sickness and other problems) I went then to bad foods and then yes I gain weight. But if i just eat the way I eat I never get fat. No need for keto for me for that. When I talk about losing weight its usually not much to lose or push myself to levels most people never try to go to.

 

I don't really count calories ( i did in the past) but have set meals and I know if i eat that i won't gain fat. I just know (if i prepare it myself) how much calories are in a meal (approximate) but I am also not hungry once I stop losing fat and eat my normal way. I stopped my caloric restriction as I am lean enough and no hunger and i stay on weight. Even going out now for some beef and veggies at one of those buffets in the mall. So I am not that strict actually and still stay on weight. My main thing is just not drinking any bad stuff. There are so many calories in drinks.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Tagged said:

I believe in these days, you could eat less for two weeks, and then eat normal for a week, and repeat for a succesfull diet. This way you do not slow down your metabolism to much, and you will get resoults you want by time. Patient is what we talk about, and understand what your body needs, not starving it. 

 

Water diet for what? Loos muscles is what you do, if you are a normal built and healthy person. 

Actually what your describing is the mattador diet highly effective. Goes around the slow down of metabolism.

 

I am not sure you lose muscle on a fast, the body burns muscles as a last resort because they are hard to build. 

 

https://bachperformance.com/the-matador-diet-study-how-to-lose-fat-dieting-two-weeks-at-time/

[Kohsamida]

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I believe in these days, you could eat less for two weeks, and then eat normal for a week, and repeat for a succesfull diet. This way you do not slow down your metabolism to much, and you will get resoults you want by time. Patient is what we talk about, and understand what your body needs, not starving it. 

 

Water diet for what? Loos muscles is what you do, if you are a normal built and healthy person. 

You should learn more about water fasting.  A true water fasting diet is actually protein sparing with regard to muscle; protein that is catabolized during the initial stages of a water fast are damaged or dysfunctional intra-cellular proteins.  Contrarily, on a severe calorie restricted diet you run the risk of significant muscle catabolism.  If you really want to learn about this you should google "Yoshinori Ohsumi", the scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 2016 for his discovery of the mechanism by which this occurs.

[Tagged]

2 minutes ago, robblok said:

Actually what your describing is the mattador diet highly effective. Goes around the slow down of metabolism.

 

I am not sure you lose muscle on a fast, the body burns muscles as a last resort because they are hard to build. 

 

https://bachperformance.com/the-matador-diet-study-how-to-lose-fat-dieting-two-weeks-at-time/

You need protein to maintain your muscles even on fasting you will loose muscles as fat. So many lean on intermittent fasting instead. There are a tons of articles refering to muscle loss during period fasting. 

[Tagged]

5 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

You should learn more about water fasting.  A true water fasting diet is actually protein sparing with regard to muscle; protein that is catabolized during the initial stages of a water fast are damaged or dysfunctional intra-cellular proteins.  Contrarily, on a severe calorie restricted diet you run the risk of significant muscle catabolism.  If you really want to learn about this you should google "Yoshinori Ohsumi", the scientist who won the Nobel Prize in 2016 for his discovery of the mechanism by which this occurs.

I try to keep things simple, and eat less in shorter periods, and a few days with "eating days" works fine for me without problems. I stay away sweets, so I do not feel hungry all the time, and therefor easy to eat half of what you really wanted. 

 

We are all different, and we all have different goals. I loose about 1 kg pr 10-12 days when do 5 days on half diet, and two days with full diet. 

[Kohsamida]

9 minutes ago, robblok said:

As long as i stick to my diet (quite easy) i never need to lose extra fat (unless i want to be even leaner). However I fell of the wagon a few times because of disruptions in life. (sickness and other problems) I went then to bad foods and then yes I gain weight. But if i just eat the way I eat I never get fat. No need for keto for me for that. When I talk about losing weight its usually not much to lose or push myself to levels most people never try to go to.

 

I don't really count calories ( i did in the past) but have set meals and I know if i eat that i won't gain fat. I just know (if i prepare it myself) how much calories are in a meal (approximate) but I am also not hungry once I stop losing fat and eat my normal way. I stopped my caloric restriction as I am lean enough and no hunger and i stay on weight. Even going out now for some beef and veggies at one of those buffets in the mall. So I am not that strict actually and still stay on weight. My main thing is just not drinking any bad stuff. There are so many calories in drinks.

LOL  We are a lot alike when it comes to what I like to refer to as "comfort food"  Everybody does that in the face of troubles I think.  As long as it doesn't go on too long, I guess it's a good thing if it makes you feel better ????

 

I guess for most people, common sense is the best dietary guideline there is.  I mean, everyone really knows if the food they are about to eat is good for them or not usually.  Of course, there are the foods that we're led to believe are good for us when in fact they are not...such as fruit juices for instance, which is what I think you were alluding to.

[expatfromwyoming]

And people do that by choice??? OK nuff said

[Kohsamida]

2 minutes ago, Tagged said:

I try to keep things simple, and eat less in shorter periods, and a few days with "eating days" works fine for me without problems. I stay away sweets, so I do not feel hungry all the time, and therefor easy to eat half of what you really wanted. 

 

We are all different, and we all have different goals. I loose about 1 kg pr 10-12 days when do 5 days on half diet, and two days with full diet. 

Well I agree with you that what ever works best for you is the best guideline there is if you're goal is to shed excess pounds. 

 

I just have a different viewpoint.  I think it's better to increase metabolic efficiency through periodic water fasting rather than repeatedly do short term diets.  I used to have serious weight problems and was always on one diet or another.  Since becoming keto-adapted through periodic water fasting, I no longer have weight issues and have no need for diets. 

 

For me it has many benefits which I outlined in my reply to Robblok, and I consider it a blessing to no longer deal with the drudgery of conventional diets.  

 

I'm not advocating you should do it; only that you explore it to see if it might not have something to offer you that you don't expect.

[soalbundy]

In very hot weather I fast naturally ie. I lose my appetite completely and will go without food for 3 days but I will drink half a liter of milk per day but thats all, after that my appetite comes back.