Fasting
Options
Replies
-
Look guys, this is not an argument, I don't hate you, I don't even know you, I've never seen you, don't ask me questions, instead prove me wrong, show me the right answer, I will change my mentality then, to me, low carb foods fill you much much faster and keeps you full for longer and it ends cravings, and I've seen studies that show low carb > low fat and I've posted the link, if you prove otherwise I would be glad to see you doing so, and maybe I will use for my own good, otherwise no need for hate, you're all mature, act so.2
-
There are always studies to disprove other studies. Every body is different so we need to do what works for us. 5:2 fasting works for me so I'm going to keep doing it irrespective of some new study that says it's wrong.1
-
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes and YES it helps reducing FAT, so if you're into losing fat instead of weight it is really good and it's also good for your hormones, you can find more about it on google, but every topic is always positive, it's only bad side is that it's quite hard to eat in a 8hours window and stop eating for 16hours
If you're talking about no food whole day and just water, then it also works, but twice a week or so, over doing it is harmful, you can search it on google as well.
The "proof" you are reading up on is anecdotal evidence........my blood tests before....my blood tests after, that sort of thing. What the evidence doesn't show are the MANY other factors that would also influence results. Did the test subjects start a Mediterranean diet, did the test subjects start an exercise program, heredity, medication, there are dozens of factors. IF didn't happen in a vacuum.
As far as you not losing weight when you were "500 calories" under maintenance......that's easily explained a) you were eating more than you thought and/or b) your maintenance was lower than you thought. Your maintenance is a guesstimate. A CALORIE IS A CALORIE.
If a calorie is a calorie can you explain to me this study? in 19 of 20 studies it was proven that low carb dieters lost more weight than low fat dieters? and low carb dieters had a CLEAR advantage in mid section (belly) size.
This study proves that in 19/20 of the studies, the low carbs groups lost more weight than the low fat groups even while being on the same caloric deficit. Even that both were on a deficit?
https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
And nope, I was counting my calories very properly. and still couldn't lose weight until I switched low carbs.
Stop with the all calorie is a calorie stuff. some people can't lose weight even on a deficit, there are plenty of researches that prove low carb > low fat and there are researches that prove that insulin can block fat burning also cortisol (stress hormone) when you are stress you can't lose weight as well.
There is an initial "whoosh" of water weight loss for low carbers. Your body is depleting glycogen stores. After the depletion, weight loss resumes at the normal pace. WATER weight is not fat reduction. Water weight returns if/when you start eating carbs again.
The whole belly fat thing is a myth. You cannot spot reduce thru diet or exercise. That's why people pay thousands of dollars for lyposuction.
Authority nutrition.....not a reputable source.7 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes and YES it helps reducing FAT, so if you're into losing fat instead of weight it is really good and it's also good for your hormones, you can find more about it on google, but every topic is always positive, it's only bad side is that it's quite hard to eat in a 8hours window and stop eating for 16hours
If you're talking about no food whole day and just water, then it also works, but twice a week or so, over doing it is harmful, you can search it on google as well.
The "proof" you are reading up on is anecdotal evidence........my blood tests before....my blood tests after, that sort of thing. What the evidence doesn't show are the MANY other factors that would also influence results. Did the test subjects start a Mediterranean diet, did the test subjects start an exercise program, heredity, medication, there are dozens of factors. IF didn't happen in a vacuum.
As far as you not losing weight when you were "500 calories" under maintenance......that's easily explained a) you were eating more than you thought and/or b) your maintenance was lower than you thought. Your maintenance is a guesstimate. A CALORIE IS A CALORIE.
If a calorie is a calorie can you explain to me this study? in 19 of 20 studies it was proven that low carb dieters lost more weight than low fat dieters? and low carb dieters had a CLEAR advantage in mid section (belly) size.
This study proves that in 19/20 of the studies, the low carbs groups lost more weight than the low fat groups even while being on the same caloric deficit. Even that both were on a deficit?
https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
And nope, I was counting my calories very properly. and still couldn't lose weight until I switched low carbs.
Stop with the all calorie is a calorie stuff. some people can't lose weight even on a deficit, there are plenty of researches that prove low carb > low fat and there are researches that prove that insulin can block fat burning also cortisol (stress hormone) when you are stress you can't lose weight as well.
There is an initial "whoosh" of water weight loss for low carbers. Your body is depleting glycogen stores. After the depletion, weight loss resumes at the normal pace. WATER weight is not fat reduction. Water weight returns if/when you start eating carbs again.
The whole belly fat thing is a myth. You cannot spot reduce thru diet or exercise. That's why people pay thousands of dollars for lyposuction.
Authority nutrition.....not a reputable source.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 5.8 kg (12.8 lbs) while the low-fat group lost only 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
4kg difference is water? what are we talking about? This weight advantage was for over 12months, by then, both dieters should have lost water weight not just the low carb dieters.
Authority nutrition also left link to the studies next to the titles.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
This is the second study ^
So the new England journal of medicine is not a reputable source and you sir... with a picture of a cat and a mouse are?0 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Look guys, this is not an argument, I don't hate you, I don't even know you, I've never seen you, don't ask me questions, instead prove me wrong, show me the right answer, I will change my mentality then, to me, low carb foods fill you much much faster and keeps you full for longer and it ends cravings, and I've seen studies that show low carb > low fat and I've posted the link, if you prove otherwise I would be glad to see you doing so, and maybe I will use for my own good, otherwise no need for hate, you're all mature, act so.
Nobody is hating, we are disagreeing with you. You are quoting blogs as sources - you can find a blog that will say anything. And when you start suggesting a diet can cure cancer, you are going to get some hate because almost everyone who has been on this earth for awhile has lost someone to cancer and it is grossly insulting to suggest that all they needed to do was eat differently and they would have been fine.
I tried low carb, it did not curb my hunger. I can easily overeat meat, cheese, nuts, etc. Adding a small serving of rice, potatoes, bread or some other carb to my meals helps me feel full. Satiety is different for everyone. Some people do better on low carb, others like me do better on a more balanced macro distribution. I agree low fat is not a great idea for most people, but there is a lot of middle ground between low carb and low fat.
And of course, none of this has anything to do with the OP, she was talking about a water fast. Which physically has no proven benefits but if she really wants to do it, it probably won't cause any harm, just make her hangry :drinker:4 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Look guys, this is not an argument, I don't hate you, I don't even know you, I've never seen you, don't ask me questions, instead prove me wrong, show me the right answer, I will change my mentality then, to me, low carb foods fill you much much faster and keeps you full for longer and it ends cravings, and I've seen studies that show low carb > low fat and I've posted the link, if you prove otherwise I would be glad to see you doing so, and maybe I will use for my own good, otherwise no need for hate, you're all mature, act so.
Disagreeing is not hate. You've seen "studies" that you believe are reputable.....yet none you've posted are. Low carb is great for some people - those with certain medical issues especially.
But low carb is not the answer for most people here, low carb is not a one-size-fits-all solution. But calories in vs. calories out is. I can't prove that your logging was incorrect for 4 months. I can't prove that your TDEE is lower than you thought, but calories in vs. calories out is universal. If you truely believe you are the exception....please see a doctor.
I've lost & regained doing low carb. I regained because low carb will not be a forever (lifestyle) change for me. I can log & measure "diet" foods....but someday I'm no longer dieting. Measuring & logging that puny serving of ice cream is eye-opening.
I stay full on a diet with carbs because I keep my fiber up. I stay full on a diet with carbs because I have protein with every meal. I stay full on a diet with carbs because I don't have a massive calorie deficit.8 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Look guys, this is not an argument, I don't hate you, I don't even know you, I've never seen you, don't ask me questions, instead prove me wrong, show me the right answer, I will change my mentality then, to me, low carb foods fill you much much faster and keeps you full for longer and it ends cravings, and I've seen studies that show low carb > low fat and I've posted the link, if you prove otherwise I would be glad to see you doing so, and maybe I will use for my own good, otherwise no need for hate, you're all mature, act so.
Disagreeing is not hate. You've seen "studies" that you believe are reputable.....yet none you've posted are. Low carb is great for some people - those with certain medical issues especially.
But low carb is not the answer for most people here, low carb is not a one-size-fits-all solution. But calories in vs. calories out is. I can't prove that your logging was incorrect for 4 months. I can't prove that your TDEE is lower than you thought, but calories in vs. calories out is universal. If you truely believe you are the exception....please see a doctor.
I've lost & regained doing low carb. I regained because low carb will not be a forever (lifestyle) change for me. I can log & measure "diet" foods....but someday I'm no longer dieting. Measuring & logging that puny serving of ice cream is eye-opening.
I stay full on a diet with carbs because I keep my fiber up. I stay full on a diet with carbs because I have protein with every meal. I stay full on a diet with carbs because I don't have a massive calorie deficit.
I agree with you, and I respect your opinion. Calories in vs calories out, I did it for the first 3 months and I've lost 16pounds gladly and it worked but then it stopped and I was stuck until I went low carb, it works yes, I'm not telling you to go low carbs, do whatever you want, especially what you can do for long term, I'm just saying there are tools for faster fat loss that if you combine with the MAJOR fat loss rule "calorie deficit" you can help your weight loss process, that's all.
And congratulations on getting closer to your goals, and if it works for you, by all means continue to do so!2 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes and YES it helps reducing FAT, so if you're into losing fat instead of weight it is really good and it's also good for your hormones, you can find more about it on google, but every topic is always positive, it's only bad side is that it's quite hard to eat in a 8hours window and stop eating for 16hours
If you're talking about no food whole day and just water, then it also works, but twice a week or so, over doing it is harmful, you can search it on google as well.
The "proof" you are reading up on is anecdotal evidence........my blood tests before....my blood tests after, that sort of thing. What the evidence doesn't show are the MANY other factors that would also influence results. Did the test subjects start a Mediterranean diet, did the test subjects start an exercise program, heredity, medication, there are dozens of factors. IF didn't happen in a vacuum.
As far as you not losing weight when you were "500 calories" under maintenance......that's easily explained a) you were eating more than you thought and/or b) your maintenance was lower than you thought. Your maintenance is a guesstimate. A CALORIE IS A CALORIE.
If a calorie is a calorie can you explain to me this study? in 19 of 20 studies it was proven that low carb dieters lost more weight than low fat dieters? and low carb dieters had a CLEAR advantage in mid section (belly) size.
This study proves that in 19/20 of the studies, the low carbs groups lost more weight than the low fat groups even while being on the same caloric deficit. Even that both were on a deficit?
https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
And nope, I was counting my calories very properly. and still couldn't lose weight until I switched low carbs.
Stop with the all calorie is a calorie stuff. some people can't lose weight even on a deficit, there are plenty of researches that prove low carb > low fat and there are researches that prove that insulin can block fat burning also cortisol (stress hormone) when you are stress you can't lose weight as well.
There is an initial "whoosh" of water weight loss for low carbers. Your body is depleting glycogen stores. After the depletion, weight loss resumes at the normal pace. WATER weight is not fat reduction. Water weight returns if/when you start eating carbs again.
The whole belly fat thing is a myth. You cannot spot reduce thru diet or exercise. That's why people pay thousands of dollars for lyposuction.
Authority nutrition.....not a reputable source.
Weight Loss: The low-carb group lost an average of 5.8 kg (12.8 lbs) while the low-fat group lost only 1.9 kg (4.2 lbs). The difference was statistically significant.
4kg difference is water? what are we talking about? This weight advantage was for over 12months, by then, both dieters should have lost water weight not just the low carb dieters.
Authority nutrition also left link to the studies next to the titles.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa022637
This is the second study ^
So the new England journal of medicine is not a reputable source and you sir... with a picture of a cat and a mouse are?
There are a ton of low fat vs. low carb studies, and they mostly have huge problems, mainly that the low carb group has increased protein vs. the low fat group (a major factor in satiety) and the low carb group changes their diet more (the low fat group usually has macros quite similar to the SAD, with the fat being reduced to like 30% from 35%, and not what anyone promoting it would call low carb.
What they generally show is that in the short term low carbers lose more (especially when they are given more protein, again), but that the effect declines and goes away after 6 months or a year.
What they also often show is that people with IR do better on low carb, and IS people do better on low fat.
The recent Hall studies further indicate that when diet is controlled, any supposed benefits from low carb go away.
The one you link is no different:
(1) It deals with severely obese subjects with T2D or metabolic syndrome (i.e., IR);
(2) The low carbers were supposed to be at 30 g or less of carbs (an EXTREME low carb diet that requires a huge change, presumably). The low fat people weren't really low fat but supposed to be eating basically the guidelines, and they were supposed to be at a 500 calorie deficit.
(3) Both groups lost, on average, quite poorly. Over 6 months, the low carbers lost a mean of less than 13 lbs, and the low fat dieters lost on average a bit more than 4. So what we know is that the low fat dieters weren't compliant or didn't understand well enough how to count calories over the course of the 6 months. But the low carbers lost only a bit more than 2 lb/month WITH the extra water loss and despite being 35+ BMI. Most of us successful on MFP, with whatever diets, probably did better than that, so it's not going to have us chuck our methods for the superior low carb diet.
Conclusion from the study: "Taken together, our findings demonstrate that severely obese subjects with a high prevalence of diabetes and the metabolic syndrome lost more weight during six months on a carbohydrate-restricted diet than on a calorie- and fat-restricted diet. The carbohydrate-restricted diet led to greater improvements in insulin sensitivity that were independent of weight loss and a greater reduction in triglyceride levels in subjects who lost more than 5 percent of their base-line weight. These findings must be interpreted with caution, however, since the magnitude of the overall weight loss relative to our subjects' severe obesity was small, and it is unclear whether these benefits of a carbohydrate-restricted diet extend beyond six months. Furthermore, the high dropout rate and the small overall weight loss demonstrate that dietary adherence was relatively low in both diet groups. "
My personal comments: I think this shows a couple of things. First, for people with IR and some others, low carbing can be helpful for appetite control, and helps with BG. Great -- if someone with IR is interested, I think trying low carb is a good idea, although I'm not sure I'd recommend keto levels. Second, without motivation and some practice with it, it is probably easier to reduce carbs than count calories (these seems obvious to me) and someone who does cut carbs, at least in the short term, is likely to also cut calories (I think this happens with any major dietary change and would happen with an EXTREME low fat diet too, or a plant based one, although you might have even more compliance problems).
I don't think it shows that people in general do better on low carb.4 -
nope-a-saurus right here.1
-
-
To the first poster: your body detoxes naturally. If you feel you want to take 24 hours off food (why anyone would do that outside of religious requirements, I don't know) just know that nothing gets detoxed.
I am a natural 16:8 fasting person. Because I eat my last meal four hours before bed, and then I don't eat again until fours hours after I get up. It just works for me. I can have two good sized meals five to eight hours apart and that's plenty of food unless I exercise a lot - then I have a snack in between or dessert.2 -
2
-
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes and YES it helps reducing FAT, so if you're into losing fat instead of weight it is really good and it's also good for your hormones, you can find more about it on google, but every topic is always positive, it's only bad side is that it's quite hard to eat in a 8hours window and stop eating for 16hours
If you're talking about no food whole day and just water, then it also works, but twice a week or so, over doing it is harmful, you can search it on google as well.
The "proof" you are reading up on is anecdotal evidence........my blood tests before....my blood tests after, that sort of thing. What the evidence doesn't show are the MANY other factors that would also influence results. Did the test subjects start a Mediterranean diet, did the test subjects start an exercise program, heredity, medication, there are dozens of factors. IF didn't happen in a vacuum.
As far as you not losing weight when you were "500 calories" under maintenance......that's easily explained a) you were eating more than you thought and/or b) your maintenance was lower than you thought. Your maintenance is a guesstimate. A CALORIE IS A CALORIE.
If a calorie is a calorie can you explain to me this study? in 19 of 20 studies it was proven that low carb dieters lost more weight than low fat dieters? and low carb dieters had a CLEAR advantage in mid section (belly) size.
This study proves that in 19/20 of the studies, the low carbs groups lost more weight than the low fat groups even while being on the same caloric deficit. Even that both were on a deficit?
https://authoritynutrition.com/23-studies-on-low-carb-and-low-fat-diets/
And nope, I was counting my calories very properly. and still couldn't lose weight until I switched low carbs.
Stop with the all calorie is a calorie stuff. some people can't lose weight even on a deficit, there are plenty of researches that prove low carb > low fat and there are researches that prove that insulin can block fat burning also cortisol (stress hormone) when you are stress you can't lose weight as well.
What that link, which is posted all the time, demonstrates is that protein is extremely beneficial. None of those studies control for protein and calories. When they occurs, there is no metabolic difference in weight loss, in either free living or controlled studies. In the below three studies, they control for both factors and the results are apparent... no difference.
http://itarget.com.br/newclients/sbgg.com.br/informativos/14-09-15/1.pdf
http://sci-hub.cc/10.3945/ajcn.116.133561
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046
You also might be hard pressed to find controlled studies regarding IF when controlling for protein and calories as well. It's a fairly new topic, in the grand scheme of things, and most of the research is still in its infancy. Personally, I didn't see any advantage to IF vs a conventional 3 to 6 meals per day when controlling protein and calories.
Additionally, one thing to understand is that the human metabolism and the impacts on energy balance is very complex. There are many factors that can influence TDEE and why individuals response differently with different diets. Throw in the fact, that even trained professionals under report calories by as much as 400 calories, it's hard to say what variable changed to allow you to see improved results. It's like how I have seen more weight loss from eating 2300-2500 calories than I did at 1800. There are just a lot of factors to consider and their interactions with our bodies. But none of this disproves CICO. It just means you CO is highly influenced.
ETA: One thing to note, IF has been shown to increase IGF-1, which ironically is correlated to cancer. But it should also be noted, there are hundreds of types of cancers and not all cancers are the same. Suggesting IF could improve or fight against all types of cancers would be highly short sighted.4 -
Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
As others have mentioned, there really is no benefit to water fasting outside of the fact that it will cause are restriction of calories. Potentially, doing this will cause you to binge or other issues but it's hard to say. Personally, I'd never do it because I enjoy food too much.0 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes.
This x100 ^
OP Fasting is perfectly fine and healthy. I often fast 18 hours a day and usually throw in a 24-36 fast once a month and give me digestive system a break.
3 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes.
This x100 ^
OP Fasting is perfectly fine and healthy. I often fast 18 hours a day and usually throw in a 24-36 fast once a month and give me digestive system a break.
The digestive system doesn't need a break. Its a basic autonomic function, like breathing or regulating blood pressure.9 -
mohamedahmed07 wrote: »Ayybee1114 wrote: »I need some opinions on water fasting.
Intermittent fasting is proved by science to lower insulin levels, increase insulin sensitivity, raise growth hormone which is a fat burning/muscle building hormone, and it helps curing many diseases, it is now being used to help people with cancer and diabetes.
This x100 ^
OP Fasting is perfectly fine and healthy. I often fast 18 hours a day and usually throw in a 24-36 fast once a month and give me digestive system a break.
So using the same rationale, do you also stop breathing for 24-36 hours once a month to give your respiratory system a break? I mean, the respiratory system works 24/7 without a break and we inhale a lot of environmental pollutants and allergens on a daily basis, so using the "fasting=cleansing" reasoning, it would only make sense that it would be perfectly fine and healthy to give it a rest once in a while, correct?8 -
So using the same rationale, do you also stop breathing for 24-36 hours once a month to give your respiratory system a break? I mean, the respiratory system works 24/7 without a break and we inhale a lot of environmental pollutants and allergens on a daily basis, so using the "fasting=cleansing" reasoning, it would only make sense that it would be perfectly fine and healthy to give it a rest once in a while, correct?
No where in my comment did I mentioned or remotely come close to suggesting that fasting=cleansing or that someone should fast to so called cleanse. Cleansing is nonsense as our bodies are built to cleanse themselves, however there has been studies showing that fasting is and has been proven to be good for gut health and fighting dieases.
1 -
At least in animal models, autophagy was observed after prolonged fasting (mice equivalent of 4 human days), which is the process your body "recycles" damaged and diseased cells.1
-
I am not opposed to a water fast for 24 hours if you want to do it. I can't because my blood sugar gets very low, so even on obligatory fast days, I will drink OJ or a protein shake.
Now, if I were to accidentally ingest gluten, then I would water fast because I could not keep anything else down and would be fighting off dehydration. The blood sugar still gets low, but it can't be helped. Celiac disease is a witch.
I don't think it actually does anything to detox the body except maybe to make you urinate more often. Kidneys and liver are the body's filters and quite good at it.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 989 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions