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

[Kohsamida]

36 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The issue I have with (legalised) vaping - whilst the weaning off process works for some - is that it doesn't enforce the actuality that longevity will be shortened.

 

Once longevity  - or the shortness of it - is accepted as being the key to a healthier and longer life, a positive mindset is put in place to quit smoking. 

 

As a comparison, it's like trying to sell life assurance when there's no end product to show.  How I would achieve a 'sale' is to inform smokers that harm to the body can be (mainly) reversed - lungs would clear, and clogged arteries would open up again if a healthy nutritious lifestyle is pursued.

 

As an aside, there are practitioners and case studies which indicate - for those suffering heart disease - a nutrition change by converting to a plant-eating regime by eliminating all dairy products from a diet, would be successful. This includes forgoing meat, fish, milk, yogurts, eggs and cheese. Vegan type nutrition could effectively resolve heart disease.   Read - How Not To Die - by Michael Greger MD, whose grandmother's case study, set him on a doctor's path to longevity.

   

Sorry, I don't follow your line of reasoning at all.  It seems to go without saying that anyone who decides they want to quit smoking has already decided they want to improve their quality of life.  They already have the positive mindset but are incapable of overcoming what is actually a very powerful addiction for many people (some say more addictive than heroin).  Vaping seems to have helped more people break their addiction to cigarettes than any other strategy to date.

 

Addressing you aside about Gregor and Veganism, I'm very familiar with Gregor and with Vegan lifestyle.  I've been a practicing Vegan in the past, and while I agree with much of what Gregor says, and some aspects of the Vegan lifestyle, I no longer see either Gregor's recommendations or the Vegan lifestyle as a panacea for everyone, and while I think highly of Gregor and many Vegans that I know,  there's also much I disagree with coming from both sources.

 

Everyone is different and no two person's genetics or nutritional needs are identical.  I don't think a person should just blindly accept any sort of set dogma from a single source. One size does not fit all when it comes to nutrition and metabolic health IMHO.

 

I believe in what some people call "fingerprint medicine".  I think it's an individual's personal responsibility to get to know their own body and then adopt a nutritional lifestyle that specifically addresses its' own very unique and special needs.

 

To be sure it takes a lot of commitment and experimentation to do this but in my experience (and I have tried plenty of nutritional plans and been on plenty of diets), my ultimate success only came from this approach. 

 

I invented nothing new; my personal nutritional guidelines incorporate elements of what Gregor says, Vegan principles, Paleo principles, ketogenic principles, you name it.  The point is, it works for me. 

 

Everybody should find what works for them.  The goal shouldn't be to live as long as possible; it should be to have the highest possible quality as life for as long as you can.

[stephenterry]

The reasoning is in the 'enforcement' of 'wanting to quit smoking' in terms of what would be the end result - either increasing or decreasing longevity - as being more than experimenting with ways of how to do this.

 

It's pretty clear, IMO. For example if I said you were going to die tomorrow if you don't quit smoking today, it certainly focus your mind on the end result, and the last thing you'd be doing is waving around a vaping pipe.

 

BTW, it's Greger not Gregor - and it's not a regime I would follow because while it could work, I'm not convinced a plant-based regime is the be all and end all of nutrition guidance. I added the paragraph to indicate that for those suffering from heart disease could find it useful to read Greger's real life story, rather than just experiments on rats!

 

As you said, each person is different and needs to find his/her nutrition path.  

[Kohsamida]

19 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

The reasoning is in the 'enforcement' of 'wanting to quit smoking' in terms of what would be the end result - either increasing or decreasing longevity - as being more than experimenting with ways of how to do this.

 

It's pretty clear, IMO. For example if I said you were going to die tomorrow if you don't quit smoking today, it certainly focus your mind on the end result, and the last thing you'd be doing is waving around a vaping pipe.

 

BTW, it's Greger not Gregor - and it's not a regime I would follow because while it could work, I'm not convinced a plant-based regime is the be all and end all of nutrition guidance. I added the paragraph to indicate that for those suffering from heart disease could find it useful to read Greger's real life story, rather than just experiments on rats!

 

As you said, each person is different and needs to find his/her nutrition path.  

OK I see your point but someone's desire to quit smoking has to come from within.  I'm talking about people who already have the genuine and sincere desire to quit smoking but can not overcome the addiction.  With addictions like this, it's not simply a matter of will power.  As I said, smoking is considered by many authorities to be as addictive as heroin.  Anything that can help a person to break such a destructive habit is a good thing in my book.

 

And though this is quite off-topic to say, I think the Thai authorities who instituted this ban are not acting in the best health interests of the public by doing this.  It's more than obvious to me that the real reason is to protect tax revenue generated from the sale of tobacco, and I personally think that is despicable! 

 

From a health standpoint, if anything should be banned it should be tobacco products,  but when it comes to the huge profits involved, you sure know that's not going to happen.

[stephenterry]

33 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

OK I see your point but someone's desire to quit smoking has to come from within.  I'm talking about people who already have the genuine and sincere desire to quit smoking but can not overcome the addiction.  With addictions like this, it's not simply a matter of will power.  As I said, smoking is considered by many authorities to be as addictive as heroin.  Anything that can help a person to break such a destructive habit is a good thing in my book.

 

And though this is quite off-topic to say, I think the Thai authorities who instituted this ban are not acting in the best health interests of the public by doing this.  It's more than obvious to me that the real reason is to protect tax revenue generated from the sale of tobacco, and I personally think that is despicable! 

 

From a health standpoint, if anything should be banned it should be tobacco products,  but when it comes to the huge profits involved, you sure know that's not going to happen.

I agree with the Thai government's need to protect tax revenue from tobacco sales. Yes, it is despicable.

 

i guess we could bat around the smoking issue for days, and I fully understand where you're coming from. I accept that the highly addictive nature of nicotine cannot be readily overcome in today's society, if at all. Even death pictures on cigarette packets don't deter smokers, and if vapor pipes work it's a big step forward.

  

My suggestion will, in all likelihood, not be workable, but it's worth a try on an individual basis. Counselling, if you like to call it.

 

Cheers for now, I'm off to rest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

Great post and I agree with what you say.

 

I have successfully lost weight and got to my target weight now and it took me less than a year and very little effort, and never feeling hungry or forcing myself to go without food.  Did not do any fasting, juicing, gym workouts, keto, atkins, paleo, gluten free, carbohydrate elimination, or eat 'superfoods'.  Still drank moderate amount of alcohol, still ate late at night before bed, still ate rice, bread and potatoes etc.  

 

All I did was realise that a lot of the food I was eating was not healthy, and also loaded with calories mostly from sugar because I was eating a lot of processed foods, and got into a bad habit of eating junk food snacks like bars of chocolate, sweets, cakes, and pastries every day (although never in massive quantities).  I had also become more sedentary.  

 

So I decided to stop eating the junk stuff and replaced them with healthier options.  I also cut down my portion sizes at meal times, and increased my activity.  Just did more relaxing cycling rides and walked more... no gym or running machines.

 

It was hard to resist the temptation of the junk food for a few weeks simply out of my old habits.  However, after I got into the habit of eating normal food the cravings stopped.  It's about changing habits I think is key.  I used to eat even if I was not hungry and then feel too full and bloated. 

 

Now I only eat if I am hungry.  Usually 2 meals a day.  If I want to have a TV night and munch on comfort food I go for fruit (I am crazy for jackfruit) and nuts, or a home made sandwich.  

 

Occasionally I will decide to have a cake, ice cream or chocolate bar if I am in the mood.  But this is not more than once a week. I found I no longer go crazy for them, no longer get cravings to go eat them, and I don't get the same 'buzz' when I am eating them.. they don't taste anything special anymore.  I find my jackfruit, som tam or jungle curry much more delicious!!

That was a terrific post, and BTW, congratulations! Most people who have spent time struggling to lose excess body fat and eventually succeed seem to be people who become frustrated with the dogma associated with caloric reduction diets, and start thinking "out of the box" for themselves. 

 

It shouldn't come as a surprise that most people can resolve their weight issues simply by refraining from processed foods high in carbs (sugar), excessive snacking throughout the day (food grazing), and most importantly, just being attuned to your body since it really tells you everything you need to know if you pay attention to how it reacts to various types of foods. 

 

Calorie counting needn't be (and should not be) a part of that equation IMO.  Your body is very good at letting you know when you've eaten enough if hormonal satiety response is not being blunted by excessive junk-food style carbohydrates.

 

Unfortunately many people can't or won't take responsibility for their own metabolic health.  Instead they are attracted to shortcut types of fad diets promising to melt away the pounds without any effort or sacrifice, or fundamental changes in nutritional lifestyle.

 

Effort and some sacrifice are necessary for any worthwhile health changes but the good part, as you said, is that things get much easier as you progress, and it doesn't really take that long before you no longer miss the foods that got you into trouble in the first place.

 

It's really a wonderful feeling you get from eating healthy and most people who discover this through lifestyle change rarely return to their old unhealthy ways, and most of them could kick themselves in the *ss for waiting as long as they did to finally figure this out.  It's not rocket science; it's just plain common sense.

 

[Tim K]

A lot of sensible advice here, if only the people who need it would read it.

 

I stopped eating sugar after the obligatory military medical checkup, for all males of age 18.

The doctor in charge didn't believe that my weight is 72kg, he looked at me and said : "this must be an error, your weight is 62. you don't have a lot of muscle like other guys, you look thin".

Back home my scales showed 72, I started looking for healthy diets on internet and found out that sugar gives you weight, AND destroys teeth, by taking minerals out of them for digesting sugar.

All my life I had problems with teeth, and right there I finally found why! Why nobody have told me before?

Years later I watched BBC documentary from NHS dentists all saying the same. Like babies have tooth decay from left overnight straws in mouth, with surrogate-milk that contains sugar.

 

I replaced the daily habit of drinking tea with sweets, with just eating 1-2 apples.

I lost 10kg in 1 month. Never had tooth decay again. So ***** simple!

 

I find Thailand climate awesome, when the body has almost no fat your optimal outside temperature goes up, for me personally 27C is cold. +28-31 OK. Can not stand aircon.

I don't sweat and don't drink all day. Went up to tiger temple in Krabi without water. I get it later while drinking coconuts in the evening, can do from 5 to 10, with a 1.5h break.

 

About dry fasting, I just felt what my body told me.

One day I got home late, so I missed my only meal. And it felt so good inside, nice and cold, no pain, like a winter morning with clear skies and snow glittering in sunlight.

I didn't want to disturb it so I've skipped drinking the juice, and unknowingly got into dry fast. I woke up 5am with burning pain in stomach, like small demons having a mini hell-party. Tried to drink orange juice, but 30min later it came back from mouth, and with pitch-black blobs of something nasty. 8 days of water fasting just don't have same effect.

 

Later when I read about it I understood that it is more effective, somewhere 3 times more powerful than water-fasting.

I just like it because the digestive tract can shut off completely for internal cleaning. Water still keeps it online/awake, interfering with the process, putting it on hold.

 

My goal, however crazy it is, is to be free from the need to eat physical food. As I kid I asked my mom about a pill that will keep me full for a whole day so I can just play and never go to toilet. Always was picky about food, always thin.

I still want this, to be able to travel with no need for home, fruit stalls, dishes trinkets, toilets. Life would be so awesome.

Just spend all day doing what you really want, freedom.

 

Juicing oranges by hand is not expensive, I bought small plastic juicer for like 20thb, 60b for a measuring 1L decanter, 15b plastic mesh filter.

 

I try to trust my body above reading science articles, however I do have a ph.d in radiobiology and enjoy understanding of how things work.

[Kohsamida]

“Let food be thy medicine, and let medicine be thy food.”  This famous quote is often attributed to Hippocrates.  Its in question if he actually said this back in 400 B.C., but it’s a great quote nonetheless.  

 

Nutrition, both good and bad has a profound effect on health.  Unfortunately, today we live in a world of highly processed food containing things like high fructose corn syrup, and foods stripped of natural (and healthy) essential fats.  We’ve been led to believe that fats are bad and carbs should be the foundation of a healthy diet.

 

It’s no wonder there’s an epidemic of obesity today.  The body is normally a highly tuned metabolic machine but highly processed foods screw it up.  

 

They wreak havoc with precise hormonal balances and blunt satiety mechanisms so we consume far more “bad” foods than we should, and our body's ability to derive energy from food is greatly compromised.  Instead of powering the body efficiently, it gets stored as body fat.  And worse, these type of foods, if consumed regularly, greatly diminish our ability to access stored fat.  As a result, body fat just accumulates.

 

I’m saying this simply because the topic of this thread is about water fasting, and the value of water fasting is in dealing with this dilemma.

 

Water fasting should not be thought of as a weight loss diet.  Rather, it’s a way to reset metabolic mechanisms that have gotten screwed up as a result of eating foods that are not good for us.

 

Obviously, the best nutritional strategy is to avoid bad foods in the first place but if that’s not the case, simply adopting better nutritional practices may not work for many people because bad eating habits become highly addictive, not only psychologically  but physiologically as well.

 

In simple terms, water fasting is like a reset button.  It’s a way to quickly restore metabolic hormonal balance and restore the body’s ability to properly metabolize stored body fat.

 

Water fasting is most effective at doing this in a short time frame.  72 hours is all the time it takes for most people.  Going beyond that is not necessary or beneficial.

 

The other principal benefit of such short term fasting is that it enhances the natural process of autophagy, a metabolic mechanism that purges dysfunctional and damaged intracellular materials and serves as a dynamic recycling system that produces new building blocks and energy for cellular renovation and homeostasis.

 

Im writing this simply to dissuade people from thinking of water fasting as a fad style diet, and try to encourage people to explore science-based information about the true benefits of water fasting to see if it might be right for them...because that is really what this thread was supposed to be all about.

 

Science strongly supports this notion of water fasting, and I can say from 1st hand experience that it works amazingly well for me.

 

[Artisi]

On 5/7/2019 at 6:51 PM, FracturedRabbit said:

The clue is in the title "water fasting".  The only think you ingest is water, as much as you like. Black coffee is OK too!

if you are undertaking a fast for betterment of your health, not some airy fairy nonsense - why would you put coffee into your system, as coffee - a stimulant  is the most abused drug in the world.

  

[Kohsamida]

10 minutes ago, Artisi said:

if you are undertaking a fast for betterment of your health, not some airy fairy nonsense - why would you put coffee into your system, as coffee - a stimulant  is the most abused drug in the world.

  

All things in moderation.

 

Coffee has been around for a long time and blamed for many ills — from stunting your growth to causing heart disease — but newer research shows that it may actually have health benefits.

 

Recent studies have generally found no connection between coffee and an increased risk of heart disease or cancer.

 

In fact, some studies have found an association between coffee consumption and decreased overall mortality and possibly cardiovascular mortality.

 

Studies have shown that coffee may have health benefits, including protecting against Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes and liver disease, including liver cancer. Coffee also appears to improve cognitive function and decrease the risk of depression.

 

There’s really no reason to believe that a cup of coffee in the morning is going to compromise your health.  Of course, excessive consumption is another matter. 

[Artisi]

There is some reasonable information in here but more of crap than good data. Going without food for 1 -2 - 3 day is  ok if it makes YOU feel 'better' but completely useless in terms of fasting, the body doesn't even realise it is in a fasting situation for probably 5 or 6 days, after which time the bodies stored energy is then made available for survival and a true fasting situation commences. 

Fasting for return of good health is nothing new and has always been practiced, it is well documented, understood and used for combating chronic disease.

If interested do some research on Herbert Shelton USA, Keki Sidhwa UK,  Alec Burton Aust. these are some of the top people in the world who have dedicated their lives to rejuvenating people back to good health, in many cases after conventional medicine have given up on the patient.

 

 

  

 

[Artisi]

28 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

All things in moderation.

 

Coffee has been around for a long time and blamed for many ills — from stunting your growth to causing heart disease — but newer research shows that it may actually have health benefits.

 

Recent studies have generally found no connection between coffee and an increased risk of heart disease or cancer.

 

In fact, some studies have found an association between coffee consumption and decreased overall mortality and possibly cardiovascular mortality.

 

Studies have shown that coffee may have health benefits, including protecting against Parkinson's disease, type 2 diabetes and liver disease, including liver cancer. Coffee also appears to improve cognitive function and decrease the risk of depression.

 

There’s really no reason to believe that a cup of coffee in the morning is going to compromise your health.  Of course, excessive consumption is another matter. 

not arguing that here maybe some health benefits in coffee, I partake a little myself  -- but during a fast, not that 1-2-3 days is a fast anyway - why use it, just remove all stimulants , or should we promote a bottle of beer or a few shots on whiskey as they have a few benefits for some people ????      

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

not arguing that here maybe some health benefits in coffee, I partake a little myself  -- but during a fast, not that 1-2-3 days is a fast anyway - why use it, just remove all stimulants , or should we promote a bottle of beer or a few shots on whiskey as they have a few benefits for some people ????      

With all due respect you don't seem to understand the underlying metabolic science of the fasted state.  A 3 day fast is actually optimal for metabolic health.  Anything longer than 72 hours is overkill unless the purpose is for rapid weight loss and that should only be undertaken in cases of morbid obesity, where there are life-threatening complications resulting from being obese (i.e.: advanced stage diabetes), and only under the supervision of a physician well versed in long-term fasting protocols and overseeing nutritional lifestyle changes that MUST follow the fast.

 

Fasting is nothing more than a fad diet if the sole intention is to loose weight for vanity reasons.  It will fail like any other weight-loss diet unless nutritional lifestyle changes are made.  For otherwise healthy individuals, short-term periodic water fasting is only an adjunct to nutritional lifestyle changes so that weight loss dieting becomes unnecessary in the long-term.  It's a way to basically reset metabolic hormonal balance and restore the body's ability to efficiently metabolize stored body fat that have been compromised by poor nutritional habits.

 

Coffee intake on a short term fast does not effect the efficacy or safety of the fast, and helps a lot of people deal with psychological and physiological transitory symptoms of entering into the fasted state (i.e.: "keto flue").

 

[beau thai]

Some posters on here have clearly done lots of research before arriving at conclusions that work for them so i thought I would seek advice. Literally daily, I read diet stuff-some from journalists with a page to fill, some from scientists and so called scientists, with often contradictory advice.

I can happily buy into more fruit/fibre and less processed/red meat, sugar. makes sense.

I am a senior (sounds better than old man!) recovering from a bout of illness resulting in 9 months inactivity, messed up immune system and microbiome. 178cm, my weight went up to 83.4, and my blood sugar and ldl were too high.

For 2-3 months I have been following 16:8 which worked well for friends. Last meal about 8pm, first next day about 2pm, and gym before that on most days. The principle is that after 12 hours, the body starts using up fat if denied new calorific input. And importantly to me I find 16:8 easy to sustain, and probably have 1 less meal a day. 

But my weight is stuck stubbornly just above 80kg so BMI still not below 25. I will find out the impact on ldl/blood sugar shortly but I feel stronger and fitter and mentally more alert.

After reading that caffeine/coffee 'heats up' brown fat which is a 'good thing'(!), I now have coffee around 9am instead of later, before my first meal.

Now some people and scientists insist that breakfast is a vital meal to kickstart the metabolism, which is clearly at odds with 16:8 advocated by others.

So, I am not looking for fads that, for me, would make life not worth living, but for input on the above and other steps I should consider to achieve lower bmi. Actually not even sure these are sensible questions but we shall see!

[Artisi]

52 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

With all due respect you don't seem to understand the underlying metabolic science of the fasted state.  A 3 day fast is actually optimal for metabolic health.  Anything longer than 72 hours is overkill unless the purpose is for rapid weight loss and that should only be undertaken in cases of morbid obesity, where there are life-threatening complications resulting from being obese (i.e.: advanced stage diabetes), and only under the supervision of a physician well versed in long-term fasting protocols and overseeing nutritional lifestyle changes that MUST follow the fast.

 

Fasting is nothing more than a fad diet if the sole intention is to loose weight for vanity reasons.  It will fail like any other weight-loss diet unless nutritional lifestyle changes are made.  For otherwise healthy individuals, short-term periodic water fasting is only an adjunct to nutritional lifestyle changes so that weight loss dieting becomes unnecessary in the long-term.  It's a way to basically reset metabolic hormonal balance and restore the body's ability to efficiently metabolize stored body fat that have been compromised by poor nutritional habits.

 

Coffee intake on a short term fast does not effect the efficacy or safety of the fast, and helps a lot of people deal with psychological and physiological transitory symptoms of entering into the fasted state (i.e.: "keto flue").

 

Let me clarify, my  understanding of fasting is a state of no food for a period of time ranging 5,10,15,20 days or more for rehabilitation of poor health / illness, anything else is a diet fad with little real benefit in the longer term. 

What you and many others are talking about is not eating for 2 - 3 days, it has its benefits for some people but has absolutely nothing to do with fasting for return of good health. If I sense a cold or similar coming on, I will not eat for 2/3 to allow the body to concentrate on the bug and not having to concentrate on digesting food, the bodies first priority. 

 

Fasting is only for loosing weight for vanity is pure nonsense.

 

I would suggest a little research on long term fasting in the case of illness and its benefits. 

As for saying I don't seem to understand the metabolic science of the fasted state, is incorrect. 

 

Not trying to start an argument here about fasting and health, I learnt more than 30 years to say what I have to say - if people want to listen that's good - if not, I'll just keep it to myself and look after my own well being. 

[Kohsamida]

2 minutes ago, beau thai said:

Some posters on here have clearly done lots of research before arriving at conclusions that work for them so i thought I would seek advice. Literally daily, I read diet stuff-some from journalists with a page to fill, some from scientists and so called scientists, with often contradictory advice.

I can happily buy into more fruit/fibre and less processed/red meat, sugar. makes sense.

I am a senior (sounds better than old man!) recovering from a bout of illness resulting in 9 months inactivity, messed up immune system and microbiome. 178cm, my weight went up to 83.4, and my blood sugar and ldl were too high.

For 2-3 months I have been following 16:8 which worked well for friends. Last meal about 8pm, first next day about 2pm, and gym before that on most days. The principle is that after 12 hours, the body starts using up fat if denied new calorific input. And importantly to me I find 16:8 easy to sustain, and probably have 1 less meal a day. 

But my weight is stuck stubbornly just above 80kg so BMI still not below 25. I will find out the impact on ldl/blood sugar shortly but I feel stronger and fitter and mentally more alert.

After reading that caffeine/coffee 'heats up' brown fat which is a 'good thing'(!), I now have coffee around 9am instead of later, before my first meal.

Now some people and scientists insist that breakfast is a vital meal to kickstart the metabolism, which is clearly at odds with 16:8 advocated by others.

So, I am not looking for fads that, for me, would make life not worth living, but for input on the above and other steps I should consider to achieve lower bmi. Actually not even sure these are sensible questions but we shall see!

Totally get where you're coming from!  There's so much BS out there about nutrition, and most of it is just plain nonsense posted by people with hidden, self-serving agendas (usually financially based).  When it comes to metabolic health, I am a firm believer is what's termed "fingerprint medicine".  No two people have the same precise nutritional needs.  Everyone's body reacts differently to various foods.  It makes no sense to me for a person to adopt a particular nutritional dogma advocated by this health guru or that guru.  I think it's the responsibility of every individual to do two things; 1) becoming knowledgable about very basic metabolic science from reliable science-based sources (not YouTube health Gurus), and then learn to listen to your own body to discover how it reacts to various foods.  It will tell you everything you need to know if you truly attuned to it. 

 

The body will tell you in no uncertain terms if it reacts well or not to a particular food if you are attuned to what it's trying to tell you.  It takes time and commitment to master this, as opposed to blindly following someone else's weight loss dieting protocol.  Your goal should not merely be to lose weight but to establish a nutritional strategy that is correct specifically for you within the context of universally accepted sound nutritional principles.  Those two things go hand-in-hand.  For example,  I think it's a sound nutritional guideline to avoid heavily processed foods in which essential (healthy) fats have been stripped and replaced with refined sugar based carbohydrates.  But, when it comes to whether or not you should eat red meats, I think the jury is out on that one.  For some it might cause issues, for others...not so much.

 

Personally, I went through a period of time dealing with near-obesity and like most I was attracted to all sorts of weight-loss diets.  None of them worked in the long-term.  The reason is that weight-loss diets are NOT the key to shedding excess body fat.  Changing your nutritional lifestyle is the key!  You can't just adopt someone else's strategy; you have to find one that is right specifically for you.  It takes some time and involves some trial and error, and most importantly it takes learning to be attuned to what your body is telling you but if you stick it out, it seems to work well.  At least it did for me.  I was in a real mess art one point in my life.  My doctor informed me I was pre-diabetic and hypertensive (BP was 180/120).  He put me on statins and drugs to control blood sugar none of which helped.  It was only when I decided to take responsibility for my own health that I discovered that changing my nutrition lifestyle was the real key, and it not only worked but worked very quickly.

 

I think the thing to appreciate is that the body is actually a finely tuned and self-correcting metabolic machine when it is properly nourished.  The problem is that in our modern-day world much of what is consumed is processed foods that have been stripped of natural (and essential fats) and replaced with things like high fructose corn syrup.  HFCS is in everything these days!  It wreaks havoc on metabolic hormonal balance and our bodies ability to efficiently metabolize stored body fat.  As a result, many people just accumulate more and more body fat.  Insulin insensitivity becomes an issue, and livers become engorged in fat.  That's when things start going really bad.  The insidious thing is that most people have no real symptoms all of this is happening.  Most will attribute increased weight with simply getting older.  Symptoms of "fatty liver" usually won't present themselves until your doctor gives you the unwelcome news that you are pre-diabetic.

 

Today, I don't ascribe to any nutritional dogma at all.  My nutritional strategy is made up of elements from Vegan and Paleo that seem to work well for me  but the over-riding factor is simply "listening" to my body; how it reacts to various foods.  Personally I find that two meals a day is optimal for me.  I don't limit any food groups at all, and I don't count calories.  I DO manage my macronutrient ratio carefully.  I keep carbs relatively low and try to think of them only as fuel for the body, not tempting foods that I might end up mindlessly grazing on while watching TV.

 

Bottom line, Gain a true understanding of the basic principles of metabolic science, and then through trial & error find those foods that your body works best with, add a dose of plain old common sense, and I think it would be hard for anyone not to vastly improve their metabolic health in very short period of time...like weeks, not months or years!  I found this to be true for myself, and don;t see any reason why it can't be true for everyone else

 

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, Artisi said:

Let me clarify, my  understanding of fasting is a state of no food for a period of time ranging 5,10,15,20 days or more for rehabilitation of poor health / illness, anything else is a diet fad with little real benefit in the longer term. 

What you and many others are talking about is not eating for 2 - 3 days, it has its benefits for some people but has absolutely nothing to do with fasting for return of good health. If I sense a cold or similar coming on, I will not eat for 2/3 to allow the body to concentrate on the bug and not having to concentrate on digesting food, the bodies first priority. 

 

Fasting is only for loosing weight for vanity is pure nonsense.

 

I would suggest a little research on long term fasting in the case of illness and its benefits. 

As for saying I don't seem to understand the metabolic science of the fasted state, is incorrect. 

 

Not trying to start an argument here about fasting and health, I learnt more than 30 years to say what I have to say - if people want to listen that's good - if not, I'll just keep it to myself and look after my own well being. 

Your definition of "fasting" as you stated above is grossly incorrect.  Technically, the term "fasting" implies no time constraint whatsoever.  Fasting is simply the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both.  Nutritional fasting has efficacy when done for as little as 18 hours (i.e. intermittent fasting).  In the case of a full water fast, most adaptive biochemical and physiological changes that will enhance metabolic health occur during the first 72 hours.  72 hours is the "sweet spot" for self-induced fasting because you derive most of the metabolic benefits with the least health risks that a longer fast would present.  The idea that a fast must be "5,10,15,20 days or more" to be of benefit to metabolic health is pure nonsense.

 

You are obviously not as well read on this topic as you believe.  You should become familiar with the landmark studies by "Dr. Kevin Hill" into animal starvation response to learn what you apparently do not know about the various stages of physiological change that occur as one enters the fasted state.

 

Perhaps you should also become familiar with the work of Dr. Yoshinori Ohsumi, who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2016 for his groundbreaking research into fasting based autophagic mechanisms.

 

BTW, I clearly acknowledged the legitimacy of longer-term fasting for medical reasons, so maybe you should read things a little more carefully before making critical remarks and telling me to do more research.

 

Also, please don't incorrectly paraphrase my words!  That's either ignorant, or else incredibly rude and insulting!  I did NOT say "...Fasting is only for loosing weight for vanity".   My actual remark was "...Fasting is nothing more than a fad diet if the sole intention is to loose weight for vanity reasons". 

 

If your misrepresentation of what I said is any indication of your analytical skills, it's no wonder you have such a skewed understand this topic.

 

I am very well read on this subject.  Not trying to be a smart-ass but you might truly be impressed with the REAL underlying science..if you have an inquisitive nature and an open-mind.  If not, that's OK too.  Everybody's entitled to their opinion even if it flies in the face of scientific fact.

[beau thai]

2 hours ago, Kohsamida said:

Totally get where you're coming from!  There's so much BS out there about nutrition, and most of it is just plain nonsense posted by people with hidden, self-serving agendas (usually financially based).  When it comes to metabolic health, I am a firm believer is what's termed "fingerprint medicine".  No two people have the same precise nutritional needs.  Everyone's body reacts differently to various foods.  It makes no sense to me for a person to adopt a particular nutritional dogma advocated by this health guru or that guru.  I think it's the responsibility of every individual to do two things; 1) becoming knowledgable about very basic metabolic science from reliable science-based sources (not YouTube health Gurus), and then learn to listen to your own body to discover how it reacts to various foods.  It will tell you everything you need to know if you truly attuned to it. 

 

The body will tell you in no uncertain terms if it reacts well or not to a particular food if you are attuned to what it's trying to tell you.  It takes time and commitment to master this, as opposed to blindly following someone else's weight loss dieting protocol.  Your goal should not merely be to lose weight but to establish a nutritional strategy that is correct specifically for you within the context of universally accepted sound nutritional principles.  Those two things go hand-in-hand.  For example,  I think it's a sound nutritional guideline to avoid heavily processed foods in which essential (healthy) fats have been stripped and replaced with refined sugar based carbohydrates.  But, when it comes to whether or not you should eat red meats, I think the jury is out on that one.  For some it might cause issues, for others...not so much.

 

Personally, I went through a period of time dealing with near-obesity and like most I was attracted to all sorts of weight-loss diets.  None of them worked in the long-term.  The reason is that weight-loss diets are NOT the key to shedding excess body fat.  Changing your nutritional lifestyle is the key!  You can't just adopt someone else's strategy; you have to find one that is right specifically for you.  It takes some time and involves some trial and error, and most importantly it takes learning to be attuned to what your body is telling you but if you stick it out, it seems to work well.  At least it did for me.  I was in a real mess art one point in my life.  My doctor informed me I was pre-diabetic and hypertensive (BP was 180/120).  He put me on statins and drugs to control blood sugar none of which helped.  It was only when I decided to take responsibility for my own health that I discovered that changing my nutrition lifestyle was the real key, and it not only worked but worked very quickly.

 

I think the thing to appreciate is that the body is actually a finely tuned and self-correcting metabolic machine when it is properly nourished.  The problem is that in our modern-day world much of what is consumed is processed foods that have been stripped of natural (and essential fats) and replaced with things like high fructose corn syrup.  HFCS is in everything these days!  It wreaks havoc on metabolic hormonal balance and our bodies ability to efficiently metabolize stored body fat.  As a result, many people just accumulate more and more body fat.  Insulin insensitivity becomes an issue, and livers become engorged in fat.  That's when things start going really bad.  The insidious thing is that most people have no real symptoms all of this is happening.  Most will attribute increased weight with simply getting older.  Symptoms of "fatty liver" usually won't present themselves until your doctor gives you the unwelcome news that you are pre-diabetic.

 

Today, I don't ascribe to any nutritional dogma at all.  My nutritional strategy is made up of elements from Vegan and Paleo that seem to work well for me  but the over-riding factor is simply "listening" to my body; how it reacts to various foods.  Personally I find that two meals a day is optimal for me.  I don't limit any food groups at all, and I don't count calories.  I DO manage my macronutrient ratio carefully.  I keep carbs relatively low and try to think of them only as fuel for the body, not tempting foods that I might end up mindlessly grazing on while watching TV.

 

Bottom line, Gain a true understanding of the basic principles of metabolic science, and then through trial & error find those foods that your body works best with, add a dose of plain old common sense, and I think it would be hard for anyone not to vastly improve their metabolic health in very short period of time...like weeks, not months or years!  I found this to be true for myself, and don;t see any reason why it can't be true for everyone else

 

Thank you for your full reply.

I get what you are saying about listening to your body etc, but it is extremely difficult to isolate the good from the bad.

 

For example, when my digestive system was a mess earlier this year, I started on daily kefir which seemed to be beneficial. It took me about 3 months to work out that as a result of very strong medication last year, I am now lactose intolerant. Having tried non lactose kefirs which dont work well, I have given up kefir and I am far better. But is it that or something else? 

 

I have always enjoyed cooked onions without problems but od'd on them earlier in a spanish omelette at a restaurant. Really messed me up, and even a little cooked onion now is problematic. 

Basically as we have multiple foodstuff each day, trial and error to isolate the good from the bad is a lengthy process - unless you have found shortcuts somehow?

 

Thank you again for your time

[flyingtlger]

I do a beer fast every night....

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, beau thai said:

Thank you for your full reply.

I get what you are saying about listening to your body etc, but it is extremely difficult to isolate the good from the bad.

 

For example, when my digestive system was a mess earlier this year, I started on daily kefir which seemed to be beneficial. It took me about 3 months to work out that as a result of very strong medication last year, I am now lactose intolerant. Having tried non lactose kefirs which dont work well, I have given up kefir and I am far better. But is it that or something else? 

 

I have always enjoyed cooked onions without problems but od'd on them earlier in a spanish omelette at a restaurant. Really messed me up, and even a little cooked onion now is problematic. 

Basically as we have multiple foodstuff each day, trial and error to isolate the good from the bad is a lengthy process - unless you have found shortcuts somehow?

 

Thank you again for your time

Unfortunately I know of no shortcuts to eliminating problem type foods.  You just have to eliminate one at a time and see howe you feel.  It is painstaking but when you isolate a suspect food, it's well worth the effort.

 

Have your clinical issues resolved fully?  I mean, have you recently had a metabolic panel, etc done?  What does your doctor have to say?  If I were in your position I'd start with diagnostics through your doctor (metabolic panel, etc) to see what's going on presently and then go from there. Basically you'd want to rule out any clinical conditions that might show up in diagnostic testing first before doing anything else.

 

Have your doctor go over the result with you, one by one, and request a copy of the test results so you can further explore them on your own.  Many doctors are excellent diagnosticians but some are not.  You need to have confidence that your doctor is, but if in doubt, or he/she is unwilling to sit down with you or give you a copy of the results, find another doctor.

 

If you have a clean bill of health from your doctor, I'd consider a short water fast to reset your metabolic hormonal balance.  If you are already doing 16:8 eating schedule, your body is already acclimated to lowered insulin levels so going for a full 24 hour fast isn't going to be too hard.  Follow it with a 48 hour fast a few weeks later, and then finally a 72 hour fast when you feel up to that.

 

Unless you have a specific medical condition where fasting is directly contraindicated,  fasting up to 72 hours is entirely safe IMO, and it is a very potent way to quickly restore metabolic hormonal imbalances that could be the underlying cause of digestive issues or the inability to effectively lose fat under caloric deficits.  Science supports this notion, and my own personal experience at fasting confirms it.

 

I can only say that short-term fasting has worked quite well for me.  Typically I fast for 72 hours once a month or once every other month simply because I believe it keeps my metabolic health optimized.  After you acclimate to this kind of fasting, it's a walk in the park; no serious hunger or cravings, no ill effects at all, no loss of energy at all, and the difference in how you feel at the conclusion is immediate and quite profound.

 

I know it sounds simplistic but I really think of these kinds of fasts as a sort of "spring cleaning" that gets your metabolic health optimized.  What amazes me always is how quickly the benefits of fasting are felt.

 

As for inability to lose weight, I'm a firm believer that metabolic imbalances play a huge role!  If, for instance, your insulin / leptin balance is not optimal, you will have issues accessing stored body fat.  Short term water fasting restores such imbalances quickly and effectively in many cases.

 

Again, just want to emphasize that the starting point is a visit to your doctor for diagnostic tests. so you know where you are at presently.  

[beau thai]

All helpful advice. Much appreciated

[stephenterry]

22 hours ago, Artisi said:

if you are undertaking a fast for betterment of your health, not some airy fairy nonsense - why would you put coffee into your system, as coffee - a stimulant  is the most abused drug in the world.

  

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kohsamida]

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Sounds good to me.  I'm not quite as regimented as you (though nothing wrong with doing it your way).  I sort of disagree about Himalayan salt being that important.  Just my personal view but I think salt is simply NaCl, and all the hype about Himalayan salt being special seems mostly to be marketing hype...but I may be wrong.

 

I use pre-packaged sports electrolyte mix (not necessarily for fasting but every day since I'm in this harsh Thai climate and am into outdoor endurance sports.  It's fairly cheap, tastes good, and won't kick you out of ketosis.  I just mix a packet into my water bottle and I'm good to go. 

 

Just want to point out that for short term water fasting (72 hours and under) electrolyte supplementation is really not essential IMO.  Excessive electrolyte excretion due to effects of ketosis only occurs once glycogen stores are depleted and insulin levels drop so really that does not occur until a short term fast is about to end. 

 

Further, most people who are fasting are fairly sedentary during the fast and avoid being outdoors under harsh conditions so excessive electrolytes loss from these sources is also not a factor in short-term fasting.  Doesn't hurt to use them during a fast, just not essential.  Beyond a 72 hour fast it is advisable to supplement just to avoid "keto flue" but even then a good multi-vitamin with minerals will protect you just fine.

 

I provide for salt needs just from regular use of table salt on foods.  Some of my outdoor mid-day workouts get pretty intense under a hot sun but I've never felt a need for salt supplementation, and excessive salt can have a seriously negative effect on blood pressure (at least for me).

 

For anyone interested, for a while I had extremely high blood pressure (180/120).  Cutting salt from my diet ( I was a huge fan of salt on everything, and in excessive amounts) brought my BP into the normal range in only a matter of days!  My doctor didn't provide that advice; instead he put me on Statins!  I had to figure this out for myself.  So...the moral is "take responsibility for your own health" and don't rely on others to do that for you...especially prescription-happy doctors!

 

[ Just my personal take on all of this; everyone should decide for themselves when it comes to their personal health and well being ].

 

 

[stephenterry]

https://draxe.com/pink-himalayan-salt/

 

Well worth a read. Salt is salt but some are more healthier than others. Certainly high percentages of sodium can increase blood pressure, and in my case I only take less than a teaspoon of the potassium rich sources like Himalayan salt once a day.

 

As for the electrolyte mix, it's a US Drug company processed package full of chemicals and ambiguous contents statements, albeit professed to contain high levels of potassium and magnesium, and zero sodium. Nevertheless, I shall continue to mix my own from natural ingredients, for the simple rationale that my mix is (as far as it can be ascertained) natural. 

 

Rule of thumb. Never trust drug companies to divulge any health risk aspect because it's a multi-trillion industry supported by the medical practitioners who earn a superlative income by prescribing the drug companies' products to the uninformed masses.

 

 

[Kohsamida]

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

https://draxe.com/pink-himalayan-salt/

 

Well worth a read. Salt is salt but some are more healthier than others. Certainly high percentages of sodium can increase blood pressure, and in my case I only take less than a teaspoon of the potassium rich sources like Himalayan salt once a day.

 

As for the electrolyte mix, it's a US Drug company processed package full of chemicals and ambiguous contents statements, albeit professed to contain high levels of potassium and magnesium, and zero sodium. Nevertheless, I shall continue to mix my own from natural ingredients, for the simple rationale that my mix is (as far as it can be ascertained) natural. 

 

Rule of thumb. Never trust drug companies to divulge any health risk aspect because it's a multi-trillion industry supported by the medical practitioners who earn a superlative income by prescribing the drug companies' products to the uninformed masses.

You make a good point about drug companies being selective about what they divulge.  However, I've been using this product for a long time and it was recommended by a lot of other athletes I know so I'm comfortable with it.  Of course, making your own from scratch is preferable but I'm too lazy for that LOL!

 

I should point out something I didn't mention re salt needs in previous post because I don;t want to lead people astray.  I do in fact supplement with salt after a particularly brutal workout or competitive event when I know in no uncertain terms I've lost significant NaCl but it's rare I get in that state.  For a normal workout, I don't bother.  Just didn't want people to think NaCl supplementation is unnecessary under extreme conditions, but the conditions most weekend athletes experience are not really that extreme IMO. 

[Kohsamida]

3 hours ago, stephenterry said:

... https://draxe.com/pink-himalayan-salt/   Well worth a read. ...

My problem with these alternatives to regular table salt is that there is really no scientific evidence that they are any better than regular (inexpensive) table salt.  If there were definitive and reputable studies, I'm sure promotors would make that clear, but they don't.  Instead they just use a lot of superlatives and imply unsubstantiated health benefits as your article pointed out like these:

That just seems plain silly to me that Himalayan salt is going to boost libido LOL!  And these other claims of their superiority seem pretty far fetched and quite unprovable.

 

Perhaps they contain more minerals than regular table salt but I can get those same minerals far cheaper from a multi-vitamin supplement that contains minerals. 

 

The only health reason to use salt is for the sodium and for the taste IMO, and also for the trace amount of iodine (which is actually quite important, and which is not even contained in most alternative salts like Himalayan or Celtic types).

 

The real bottom line is cost.  There's no reason that these alternative salts should be priced so exorbitantly high except for the fact that the marketing hype makes them seem far more desirable than they really are.

 

Just my opinion.  I'm no expert on salt but I get very suspicious of things like this.

[stephenterry]

55 minutes ago, Kohsamida said:

My problem with these alternatives to regular table salt is that there is really no scientific evidence that they are any better than regular (inexpensive) table salt.  If there were definitive and reputable studies, I'm sure promotors would make that clear, but they don't.  Instead they just use a lot of superlatives and imply unsubstantiated health benefits as your article pointed out like these:

That just seems plain silly to me that Himalayan salt is going to boost libido LOL!  And these other claims of their superiority seem pretty far fetched and quite unprovable.

 

Perhaps they contain more minerals than regular table salt but I can get those same minerals far cheaper from a multi-vitamin supplement that contains minerals. 

 

The only health reason to use salt is for the sodium and for the taste IMO, and also for the trace amount of iodine (which is actually quite important, and which is not even contained in most alternative salts like Himalayan or Celtic types).

 

The real bottom line is cost.  There's no reason that these alternative salts should be priced so exorbitantly high except for the fact that the marketing hype makes them seem far more desirable than they really are.

 

Just my opinion.  I'm no expert on salt but I get very suspicious of things like this.

Look at it this way. Clearly, table salt is high sodium, a processed item, and raises blood pressure. That, in itself, is damaging enough to avoid table salt - whatever the relative costs.  This is another example of marketing processed, versus natural. I suggest readers get into the mind set that 'processed anything' only supports the food and meds industry, not the consumer. It's a scandal as great as the tobacco industry, IMO. 

 

As a rule of thumb I try and avoid anything with a contents label stuck on it - if there is a natural alternative. 

 

Any other salt that contains less sodium and some potassium, and a smidgeon of other minerals must be a better health bet in the long-term - or even have short-term benefits that sodium salt doesn't. As with most consumption, moderation is key.

 

BTW Foods rich in iodine include seaweed -ugh, unprocessed dairy, tuna, shrimp and eggs. All 'natural'. 

 

If I was to clean my colon and relieve/re-adjust a constipated body, I'd use a 'healthy salt' flush, comprising of two teaspoons of potassium rich salt mixed thoroughly to dissolve in a one liter glass of room-temperature warm water with added lemon juice first thing after waking, and consuming in a five minute window.

 

I wouldn't stray far from the toilet in the next two hours whilst the flush worked its way through the body and flushed out bodily waste. As a one-off cleanser, it's natural, efficient, healthy and safe.    

 

 

[Kohsamida]

5 hours ago, stephenterry said:

Look at it this way. Clearly, table salt is high sodium, a processed item, and raises blood pressure. That, in itself, is damaging enough to avoid table salt - whatever the relative costs.  This is another example of marketing processed, versus natural. I suggest readers get into the mind set that 'processed anything' only supports the food and meds industry, not the consumer. It's a scandal as great as the tobacco industry, IMO. 

 

As a rule of thumb I try and avoid anything with a contents label stuck on it - if there is a natural alternative. 

 

Any other salt that contains less sodium and some potassium, and a smidgeon of other minerals must be a better health bet in the long-term - or even have short-term benefits that sodium salt doesn't. As with most consumption, moderation is key.

 

BTW Foods rich in iodine include seaweed -ugh, unprocessed dairy, tuna, shrimp and eggs. All 'natural'. 

 

If I was to clean my colon and relieve/re-adjust a constipated body, I'd use a 'healthy salt' flush, comprising of two teaspoons of potassium rich salt mixed thoroughly to dissolve in a one liter glass of room-temperature warm water with added lemon juice first thing after waking, and consuming in a five minute window.

 

I wouldn't stray far from the toilet in the next two hours whilst the flush worked its way through the body and flushed out bodily waste. As a one-off cleanser, it's natural, efficient, healthy and safe.    

 

 

To be honest, I never gave it much thought before but considering the fact that table salt is actually stripped of potassium and unprocessed salts such as Himalayan or Celtic are not, I guess it does in fact make sense to use an unprocessed salt, just to assure potassium / sodium balance is maintained in the body...Learn something new every day????.  Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[WaveHunter]

Haven't been around in a while.  Glad to see this thread is alive and well, but it would be nice if posts were more related to do water-fasting.  Still though, no worries.  All is good ????.

 

Personally, what I'm really interested in (and why I started this thread) is to hear from people who fast not merely as a way to lose weight, but for optimizing their health and well-being.  There's so much underlying science to this and so few people who actually acknowledge that.

 

[stephenterry]

1 hour ago, WaveHunter said:

Haven't been around in a while.  Glad to see this thread is alive and well, but it would be nice if posts were more related to do water-fasting.  Still though, no worries.  All is good ????.

 

Personally, what I'm really interested in (and why I started this thread) is to hear from people who fast not merely as a way to lose weight, but for optimizing their health and well-being.  There's so much underlying science to this and so few people who actually acknowledge that.

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

[WaveHunter]

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Cool.  Sounds like you have a pretty good idea of what fasting can really do for one's long-term health.  I also embrace the idea of 'eating windows"  I originally was pretty happy with One_meal-A-Day but lately I've opened it up more like 16 hours of fasting with a 8 hour eating window.  My body react better to 2 meals a day.  I think it's a subjective thing that every person needs to experiment with to find what's best for them.

 

I think it's safe to say that everyone can benefit by reducing meal frequency and snacking so that the insulin levels do not remain continually elevated which is what happens when people "graze" on food from the moment they awake to the moment they go to bed.  Our bodies are not built to deal with that.  Obesity is the result, and most people then turn to caloric restriction diets to deal with that, and obviously most of those kinds of diets simply do not work because they are just a temporary fix.

 

Caloric restriction is not the answer.  Nutritional lifestyle changes such as reducing junky carbohydrates found in processed foods, avoiding food-grazing (intermittent fasting) and optimizing the way our bodies metabolize food (which is what fasting trains the body to do) are the real keys IMHO.

 

Anyway, that's the strategy that works for me, and for many others who embrace some form of intermittent or periodic fasting.  There's nothing magical or convoluted about it.  It's all firmly based in science.  It may not be right for everyone but following the status-quo of most caloric-restriction diets certainly does not work so I think everyone who has trouble loosing weight or suffers from other metabolic syndromes should consider this with an open mind.

 

I hope you (and everyone else) will post their thoughts on anything that they feel might be is important to metabolic health.  Nutrition (based on real science) is such an important topic but there's so much misinformation out there. 

 

It's true that nothing is etched in stone when it comes to nutrition, but discussing and debating is a great way to get closer to the truth for us all.  In the end, it's really each person's responsibility to decide for themselves what's best for them, rather than blindly follow the advice of others (and that can even includes your own doctor since many have very poor education when it comes to nutrition) .  Hopefully this thread can help facilitate that.