Fasting ??

toxikon

amusedmonkey wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

cerise_noir wrote: »

bloodsy wrote: »

If I was only trying to lose weight (not maintain muscle mass & strength) then I would totally water fast, nothing will melt fat faster than doing that.

Incredibly unnecessary, unsafe, unhealthy and miserable. Starvation is NOT a healthy way to lose weight.

Water fasts can be done healthily and have great benefits. Assuming you do not have a predisposition to anorexia or health/eating issues.

There are many studies highlighting the benefits of water fasts, mainly increased autophagy - basically your body becomes temporarily better at disposing of old cells.

I did a 3-day water fast just to experience it, and while it was challenging, it was also rewarding. They are safe assuming you are only doing them once and a while (like a 3-day fast every 2-3 months) and you are not underweight or suffering from health problems.

I fail to understand how a 3 day fast every 2-3 months (would result in an average daily deficit of 80 calories for me) is the best way to melt fat.

Where did I say it was the best way to melt fat? I was just disagreeing with the person saying it was "incredibly unnecessary, unsafe, unhealthy and miserable".

This:

bloodsy wrote: »

If I was only trying to lose weight (not maintain muscle mass & strength) then I would totally water fast, nothing will melt fat faster than doing that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't disagree with short water fasts being okay, it's just far from the fastest way of doing it if all you can achieve is an average of under 100 calories a day. I think he thought you meant complete abstinence from food for a prolonged period of time, because that would truly be the fastest way of doing it, and would also be incredibly unhealthy.

I fasted 2 days before easter and my weight loss average is about the same. If you really want to do it in maintenance, you can still do it without worrying about losing too much weight. It's just not enough time to do anything meaningful to your weight that you can't fix within a few days.

Oh yeah, I agree with you. Long-term fasting is not a sustainable or really effective weight loss method. You're not teaching yourself the habits for sustainable weight loss. CICO is king.

But from a health perspective, short-term fasting methods (whether 16:8, 5:2 or multi-day/week fasts) have some promising science emerging. So calling it "unsafe and unhealthy" triggered my response.

cerise_noir

lemurcat12 wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

amusedmonkey wrote: »

toxikon wrote: »

cerise_noir wrote: »

bloodsy wrote: »

If I was only trying to lose weight (not maintain muscle mass & strength) then I would totally water fast, nothing will melt fat faster than doing that.

Incredibly unnecessary, unsafe, unhealthy and miserable. Starvation is NOT a healthy way to lose weight.

Water fasts can be done healthily and have great benefits. Assuming you do not have a predisposition to anorexia or health/eating issues.

There are many studies highlighting the benefits of water fasts, mainly increased autophagy - basically your body becomes temporarily better at disposing of old cells.

I did a 3-day water fast just to experience it, and while it was challenging, it was also rewarding. They are safe assuming you are only doing them once and a while (like a 3-day fast every 2-3 months) and you are not underweight or suffering from health problems.

I fail to understand how a 3 day fast every 2-3 months (would result in an average daily deficit of 80 calories for me) is the best way to melt fat.

Where did I say it was the best way to melt fat? I was just disagreeing with the person saying it was "incredibly unnecessary, unsafe, unhealthy and miserable".

I'm assuming that was a response to the person saying it was the best way to melt fat. Based on that assertion, I read the statement to be promoting some kind of long-term fast, and the response to be related to that.

I think fasts (of limited duration) can be fine, although I've never done one longer than a day and a half or so (religious thing). I wouldn't promote them for weight loss, however, as the one poster was suggesting. Anything long enough to make a difference for weight loss would not be a healthful approach.

This is different from IF, of course, which I have no issues with.

Exactly. I quoted the post I was replying to. "Melting fat" via water fast is unnecessary and unhealthy. Short term fasts (obvioulsy not suitable for weight loss), I see no issue.