the myth, starvation mode, and dont eat before bed.

crisanderson27

Let's face it. Noone is ever going to be able to 'prove' or have sufficient evidence for this. Everyones body works differently and everyone has a different way of loosing weight that works for them. Leave them to it I say!

Wrong.

Everyone's body doesn't work differently. Within the three main body types...they ALL work precisely...the same, within a very small margin. This whole 'everyone's body works differently' thing is kind of an excuse for covering ones ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!!'. It's also just as effective. The truth is everyone is inputting things into their body differently, using their energy differently, and the result is...their bodies are reacting differently. What may seem similar on the top, may be TOTALLY different underneath. A young lady the other day said 'I am over and under my calorie goal all the time, so I'm zig zagging calories right?'. Umm...no, you're just under and over your calorie goal...zig zagging is something else entirely...with a very specific purpose and very specific triggers that you're trying to meet. Randomly eating too much or too little is often what got us here in the first place. The point is, she thought she was doing something specific (she wasn't!), and since it didn't work for her...many people's responses were 'All of our bodies are different!'.

Get my point??

One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?

So lets see...go to a website where people are literally DYING to lose weight...where (particularly in women) chronic undereating is rampant...and tell them (with no proof to back it up) that all the SAFE, PROVEN information they've received that's in direct opposition to how they're eating now, is bunk.

Great.

I don't care how many times you've said 'I don't recommend you try this!' all those people are going to hear is 'I'm doing it right, some dumb *kitten* (not being specific here) on the internet said so!'. Yoru information is very potentially unsafe. Go get a damn grant, do some REAL, SCIENTIFIC studies (maybe you should contact the woman I quote below...she clearly has a handle on what that entails), THEN get back to us. Until then you're simply endangering people who don't have the emotional ability to differentiate between good information and bad...due to and incredible desire to improve themselves regardless of the cost.

I'm not going to continue arguing because I believe it is pointless and I have better things to do. This will be my last point. If you think that science is useless/bad because it disproves theories... I don't know where to start explaining what science is. Science *IS* disproving theories. There is NOTHING else to it.

If the null hypothesis is so terrible, please prove to me that there isn't a giant teapot in the sky about to pour scalding tea upon us all. If you say "well, that is preposterous", then you're obviously assuming the null hypothesis to be true, and don't mind it after all.

I have also learned through years of internet arguments that neither of us are going to change our mind and we're going to be doing the typing equivalent of wasting a lot of breath. I probably won't check this thread again.

I agree completely hun...but I'm probably going to check back...I can't seem to not watch a train wreck =/.

Cris

registers

Cris here is your "Scientific evidence" of low caloric diets being beneficial to weight loss, at 1000 calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571

Here are the "other scientific studies" that talk about intermittent fasting. Eating low calories for one day, and higher calories the next. Which i have been doing, but in the same day. The results are surprisingly amazing.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046

I talked to some people on my wall i guess. Some of my friends who have followed the subject. I do understand this information can be interpreted incorrectly. I know there are some people who don't listen and will probably try it anyways. This subject I am talking about is a very advanced body building method. As someone told me "these people aren't body builders" they're right. It was also mentioned, "if you're working hard, and applying a certain method, and someone comes along and tells you it's wrong, you'd be pretty upset" Yes i would. I never said that the standard rule of thumb doesn't work. It does work for weight loss. It's simple, just eat right and exercise, not hard. What i am talking about is about manipulating your biochemicals for specific result. Which is an advanced subject in biochemistry.

In closing, it boils down to respect. If someone said "sorry i disagree with what you're saying." That's fine no problem there, but when someone starts to bash you, that would offend most people. If I offended anyone that wasn't my intention. It was to shed a new perspective on things. That are perfectly logical that do go against the grain, challenging and questioning what you have been taught to grow as a better person. Sitting here and bickering isn't helping anyone. If you see things from a limited perspective you will have a limited life. Like the oak and the willow. On the windy day, the oak will break, as the willow will remain intact due to it's flexibility. This is an analogy for thinking more flexibly. From my NLP background (Neuro Linguistics Programming). A common phrase heard throughout is "the system that is most flexible will dominate the situation." If you think "this is the only way" or "that is the only way" you're the oak, not willing to see things from a different perspective. Not once have i said other methods don't work. Low carb, high carb, high fats, low fats... They all work, you just have to do it.

ladyhawk00

Let's face it. Noone is ever going to be able to 'prove' or have sufficient evidence for this. Everyones body works differently and everyone has a different way of loosing weight that works for them. Leave them to it I say!

Wrong.

Everyone's body doesn't work differently. Within the three main body types...they ALL work precisely...the same, within a very small margin. This whole 'everyone's body works differently' thing is kind of an excuse for covering ones ears and shouting 'I can't hear you!!'. It's also just as effective. The truth is everyone is inputting things into their body differently, using their energy differently, and the result is...their bodies are reacting differently. What may seem similar on the top, may be TOTALLY different underneath. A young lady the other day said 'I am over and under my calorie goal all the time, so I'm zig zagging calories right?'. Umm...no, you're just under and over your calorie goal...zig zagging is something else entirely...with a very specific purpose and very specific triggers that you're trying to meet. Randomly eating too much or too little is often what got us here in the first place. The point is, she thought she was doing something specific (she wasn't!), and since it didn't work for her...many people's responses were 'All of our bodies are different!'.

Get my point??

One question, to people who are in opposition, have you even tried what I said? I know you haven't cause i just posted it. I don't even advise to do it, with out proper education on the subject so you don't hurt yourself. If you know about how diet affects the biochemicals, and how to trigger GH with diet, and increase insulin at the proper times to prevent muscle mass loss. Then check it out. If you don't... then how can your even comment on a subject you know nothing about?

So lets see...go to a website where people are literally DYING to lose weight...where (particularly in women) chronic undereating is rampant...and tell them (with no proof to back it up) that all the SAFE, PROVEN information they've received that's in direct opposition to how they're eating now, is bunk.

Great.

I don't care how many times you've said 'I don't recommend you try this!' all those people are going to hear is 'I'm doing it right, some dumb *kitten* (not being specific here) on the internet said so!'. Yoru information is very potentially unsafe. Go get a damn grant, do some REAL, SCIENTIFIC studies (maybe you should contact the woman I quote below...she clearly has a handle on what that entails), THEN get back to us. Until then you're simply endangering people who don't have the emotional ability to differentiate between good information and bad...due to and incredible desire to improve themselves regardless of the cost.

I'm not going to continue arguing because I believe it is pointless and I have better things to do. This will be my last point. If you think that science is useless/bad because it disproves theories... I don't know where to start explaining what science is. Science *IS* disproving theories. There is NOTHING else to it.

If the null hypothesis is so terrible, please prove to me that there isn't a giant teapot in the sky about to pour scalding tea upon us all. If you say "well, that is preposterous", then you're obviously assuming the null hypothesis to be true, and don't mind it after all.

I have also learned through years of internet arguments that neither of us are going to change our mind and we're going to be doing the typing equivalent of wasting a lot of breath. I probably won't check this thread again.

I agree completely hun...but I'm probably going to check back...I can't seem to not watch a train wreck =/.

Cris

Amen.

ladyhawk00

Cris here is your "Scientific evidence" of low caloric diets being beneficial to weight loss, at 1000 calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571

Sorry, but a horribly designed study (with almost no information regarding what the diet consisted of), and notably has not been cited by any other researchers.

VLCDs (Very Low Calorie Diets - typically between 500-1000 cals) are proven to have many health risks. In some people who are obese or morbidly obese, who have immediate risks from obesity-related conditions, a VLCD may be necessary to reduce weight quickly. That does not mean the risks are not there, just that in some individuals in very specific situations, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Also, a person placed on a VLCD by their physician is provided a VERY specific meal plan that ensures that their nutritional needs are met. The overwhelming majority of people not in that situation (ie here on MFP) do not have that advantage and are VERY unlikely to be able to create a VLCD meal plan that has the necessary quality to prevent malnutrition.

There is a reason experts recommend that people (especially if not under the care of a doctor/dietitian) should not lose more than 2-3 lbs per week. Even if you have a lot to lose, lose quickly and aren't risking starvation mode - you're risking a LOT of other things.

Rapid weight loss carries many risks, including but not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney issues, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death. People who lose the weight slowly and learn healthy eating habits (which includes eating enough) are MUCH more likely to keep the weight off and will be much healthier overall.

Here are just some of the scientific studies that discuss the wide variety of health risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese individuals, the risks for people nearer a healthy BMI are much higher.) These are PROVEN risks. Not everyone will experience these health issues, but it is NOT a subject to randomly suggest is "ok to try" for the average individual.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/

registers

Cris here is your "Scientific evidence" of low caloric diets being beneficial to weight loss, at 1000 calories.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654571

Sorry, but a horribly designed study (with almost no information regarding what the diet consisted of), and notably has not been cited by any other researchers.

VLCDs (Very Low Calorie Diets - typically between 500-1000 cals) are proven to have many health risks. In some people who are obese or morbidly obese, who have immediate risks from obesity-related conditions, a VLCD may be necessary to reduce weight quickly. That does not mean the risks are not there, just that in some individuals in very specific situations, the benefits may outweigh the risks. Also, a person placed on a VLCD by their physician is provided a VERY specific meal plan that ensures that their nutritional needs are met. The overwhelming majority of people not in that situation (ie here on MFP) do not have that advantage and are VERY unlikely to be able to create a VLCD meal plan that has the necessary quality to prevent malnutrition.

There is a reason experts recommend that people (especially if not under the care of a doctor/dietitian) should not lose more than 2-3 lbs per week. Even if you have a lot to lose, lose quickly and aren't risking starvation mode - you're risking a LOT of other things.

Rapid weight loss carries many risks, including but not limited to: gallstones, arrhythmias, diabetes, hair/skin issues, menstruation issues, excess loose skin, liver/kidney issues, fatigue and depression, weight regain and death. People who lose the weight slowly and learn healthy eating habits (which includes eating enough) are MUCH more likely to keep the weight off and will be much healthier overall.

Here are just some of the scientific studies that discuss the wide variety of health risks of VLCDs (mainly in obese individuals, the risks for people nearer a healthy BMI are much higher.) These are PROVEN risks. Not everyone will experience these health issues, but it is NOT a subject to randomly suggest is "ok to try" for the average individual.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8777329&dopt=AbstractPlus
http://journals.lww.com/amjmedsci/pages/articleviewer.aspx?year=2001&issue=04000&article=00007&type=abstract
http://www.annals.org/content/130/6/471.full
http://www.annals.org/content/119/10/1029.full
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=2051001&dopt=Citation
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n3_v41/ai_17516395/
http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/93.full.pdf+html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/45/2/391.full.pdf+html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0887/is_n7-8_v15/ai_18602507/

Many health risks? Some Drs recommend fasting to get rid of certain cancers....

registers

Lets just do this, you do what you're going to do, i'll do what I am going to do. I am going to get the results I am going to get, you get the results you're going to get. lets just leave it at that...

registers

Before anyone says "where are the studies" here they are.... calorie restriction (CR) is an effective and reproducible intervention for increasing life span, reducing oxidative damage, enhancing stress resistance and delaying/preventing aging and age-associated diseases such as cancer in various species, including mammals (mice, rats, and non- human primates)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

registers

Like someone said in a email to me, "a lot of the people on here are looking for a way out instead of a way in." I am finding my way in to outof here.. haha take care people.

crisanderson27

I talked to some people on my wall i guess. Some of my friends who have followed the subject. I do understand this information can be interpreted incorrectly. I know there are some people who don't listen and will probably try it anyways. This subject I am talking about is a very advanced body building method. As someone told me "these people aren't body builders" they're right. It was also mentioned, "if you're working hard, and applying a certain method, and someone comes along and tells you it's wrong, you'd be pretty upset" Yes i would. I never said that the standard rule of thumb doesn't work. It does work for weight loss. It's simple, just eat right and exercise, not hard. What i am talking about is about manipulating your biochemicals for specific result. Which is an advanced subject in biochemistry.

This is THE most reasonable statement you've made yet. Too bad it wasn't your entire first post...because all those people who have been overweight their entire lives, and are starving themselves to death trying to cure it...aren't reasonable. From an emotional standpoint, they're not even CAPABLE of reason!!

I have a VERY beautiful young lady friend I met on the internet awhile back. She feels she's overweight (I don't know if this is the case...I've never seen anything but her face and she won't disclose anything else). She eats like a bird (800 calories a day tops from my understanding), then slips and binges...then goes into depression...then binges some more...then begins eating like a bird again. She fully admits she's not rational when it comes to her weight loss. She doesn't care HOW she loses the weight, as long as every time she steps on the scale it's lower than the last time. A couple weeks ago, I got her semi on board with eating MORE food (usually the food she eats is semi healthy btw). She gained 3lbs that week (as her body tried to adjust to the new intake), flipped out, and now is binging again.

Do you have any idea how frustrating it is to see a wonderful, incredible, otherwise completely intelligent and stable person go through this? Do you have ANY idea what kind of impact your INCREDIBLY irresponsible first post has on their mental state? How far it sets them back from ANY sort of a healthy lifestyle, much less diet plan?

Honestly...if it were up to me, this whole thread would be deleted...not because of the information it gives, but because of how it is given, and the lack of disregard for others, and for science and nutrition in general with which the original poster gave it.

Cris

crisanderson27

Like someone said in a email to me, "a lot of the people on here are looking for a way out instead of a way in." I am finding my way in to outof here.. haha take care people.

Yep, plant the bomb and run.

Nice.

Additionally, I see all these posts grabbing at straws with anecdotal evidence. Fasting helps with cancer for example. LIMITED fasting, with sketchy...possibly completely unprovable results.

Wtfe man...irresponsible doesn't even cover it.

registers

In one meal today i ate about 3000 calories.

What did you eat in one sitting that comprised 3000 calories and didn't distend your stomach? Six sticks of butter?

I call it my main meal, it's within 2hrs...
muscle milk protien shake 2 scoops 280 calories
tortilla 120 calories
Hot dog 180 calories
A small bag of peanuts 290
Burrito 975
chips ahoy 6 cookies 320
Peanut butter cup 300
A smoothie(pineapple, mixed fruit apple juice) 160
1lbs of cod 368

SHBoss1673

Before anyone says "where are the studies" here they are.... calorie restriction (CR) is an effective and reproducible intervention for increasing life span, reducing oxidative damage, enhancing stress resistance and delaying/preventing aging and age-associated diseases such as cancer in various species, including mammals (mice, rats, and non- human primates)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

um, did I miss something in this study? I read the whole thing. How does an observational study of 10 cancer patients doing short term fasting relate to what you've stated above? This study was on how fasting can effect the quality of life during the days when a person is receiving chemotherapy, not on the long term effects of an otherwise healthy person who fasts.

crisanderson27

Before anyone says "where are the studies" here they are.... calorie restriction (CR) is an effective and reproducible intervention for increasing life span, reducing oxidative damage, enhancing stress resistance and delaying/preventing aging and age-associated diseases such as cancer in various species, including mammals (mice, rats, and non- human primates)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

um, did I miss something in this study? I read the whole thing. How does an observational study of 10 cancer patients doing short term fasting relate to what you've stated above? This study was on how fasting can effect the quality of life during the days when a person is receiving chemotherapy, not on the long term effects of an otherwise healthy person who fasts.

Exactly.

Oddly enough, I have a friend going through chemotherapy as we speak. He's exercising, eating a very healthy diet of solid, whole foods...taking supplements of chagga tea and ground canadian apricot pits...and he's in excellent shape...all the while putting on lean weight.

He's still sicker than hell during and right after...but he's not letting it affect his quality of life, and because of that, its effects are very limited.

registers

Like someone said in a email to me, "a lot of the people on here are looking for a way out instead of a way in." I am finding my way in to outof here.. haha take care people.

Yep, plant the bomb and run.

Nice.

Additionally, I see all these posts grabbing at straws with anecdotal evidence. Fasting helps with cancer for example. LIMITED fasting, with sketchy...possibly completely unprovable results.

Wtfe man...irresponsible doesn't even cover it.

okay okay I tried to delete this post and i came across your comment and i read that post that ladyhawk posted. The link,
Yes that was wrong of me, to say something like that and bounce. It just got so ridiculous The original topic was the myth of starvation mode, and eating before bed.

Ladyhawk made a good point with her post. SO here is my final summary on this web page.

Cris I am sorry about your friend, I hope the best for them. I do understand where you're coming from. I can see that young girl who thinks she's fat trying anything to lose weight who will eventually end up hurting herself.

Ladyhawk made a good point, she posted studies that say reduced caloric diets can be dangerous. I posted one that said they're beneficial (this is under medical supervision). So what can we learn from this? There is contradiction everywhere in health and fitness. Anyone can be misinformed, including myself, people who post, even people with PhD's... The bottom line is use common judgment. The techniques I have mentioned can be dangerous, if you don't know how to apply them. Playing with your insulin levels can lead to diabetic shock which can lead to death. Starvation can also cause death, obesity can also cause death. I do agree before trying anything, talk to certified personal, while also thinking for yourself. A lot of people said to me "post the scientific evidence" which i did. People posted opposing scientific evidence. So where does this leave us? Who's right who's wrong? No one is. They are all just different perspectives on the same subject. Which if you examine will create a larger general picture putting the puzzle pieces together. If you don't see the big picture, it's be careful with what you do to your body, it can cause side effects you don't want to occur.

I did say "starvation mode is a myth" I still believe it to be so. I never said, be on an extremely low caloric diet. That can be dangerous. I also said "it's okay to eat before bed" I remember this opera singer who died by supposedly eating too much before bed. There is a limit to what I say and hat other people are saying. There are many Doctors out there who have done more harm then good, but there is also many Doctors who have done great good.

This is something I call the zero theory. Meaning anything can be changed by looking at it from a different angel, nothing is right or wrong, it depends on your perspective of it. Using extreme perspectives isn't a wise choice because you're diluting yourself from all the perspectives. With a bigger picture you can make better judgment of whats best for you. If someone said ot me "what is the best way to lose weight?" I'd say "use common sense." You are the ultimate judge on what to do for you. No one can tell you other wise. As I said before, the things I mentioned can be extremely dangerous if not done with proper education and knowledge on the subject. I never advised anyone to try it or do it.

registers

Before anyone says "where are the studies" here they are.... calorie restriction (CR) is an effective and reproducible intervention for increasing life span, reducing oxidative damage, enhancing stress resistance and delaying/preventing aging and age-associated diseases such as cancer in various species, including mammals (mice, rats, and non- human primates)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

um, did I miss something in this study? I read the whole thing. How does an observational study of 10 cancer patients doing short term fasting relate to what you've stated above? This study was on how fasting can effect the quality of life during the days when a person is receiving chemotherapy, not on the long term effects of an otherwise healthy person who fasts.

Exactly.

Oddly enough, I have a friend going through chemotherapy as we speak. He's exercising, eating a very healthy diet of solid, whole foods...taking supplements of chagga tea and ground canadian apricot pits...and he's in excellent shape...all the while putting on lean weight.

He's still sicker than hell during and right after...but he's not letting it affect his quality of life, and because of that, its effects are very limited.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046

marchegt

This debate is so silly. To each his own. Personally, I have tried the not eating before bed, and it worked wonders for me. Lost weight really quickly in the first 2 weeks of doing that. I was also stuck at not losing anything while eating 1200 calories, and when I increased it to 1350 I started to lose again. I know you say you took the NASM, have been "into" bodybuilding, and have been reading health and fitness magazines for however long... but that doesn't make you an expert (no offence intended). Reading something and taking a course on personal training cannot provide you with enough information to determine healthy ways of losing weight, keeping weight off, etc etc for every body type. This is where I would turn to a dietician, nutritionist, etc. Somebody certified who went to University specifically for this cause. I don't think anyone on this site should be looking to others on the site who are not qualified for accurate advice on weight loss, food intake, or exercise. I realize we are all here to help one another and support, but I don't think anyone should take anything to heart and live by it unless the person who told it to them was qualified to provide that kind of information.

As an aside, since you use your body building, personal training course, and fitness magazine reading as an argument for being correct, I can say that my father graduated with a University degree in Human Kinetics, owned a gym, was a professional body builder for many years (was actually Mr. Ontario at one point) and now, at 55, still works out every day in our home gym and he has told me time again the opposite of what you are promoting.

I definitely don't say any of this to be rude or offensive. I am just saying that we all have our own opinions and views and have received advice from different kinds of people. We should all just do what we feel is right for our bodies, and if you are looking for advice you should seek it from a trained professional.

laurelderry

your post is very opinionated and unfortunately this time your opinion is wrong. people would be wise to do the exact opposite of what youre recommending

Why is it wrong. IF you have strong beliefs of opposition. My experience, is I taken the NASM certification course (national academy of sports medicine) plus I have over 14yrs of experience in the health and fitness community. But thanks for your input.

You started your endeavors in the health and fitness community when you were 15? I don't think it's appropriate to gauge "experience" if it isn't related to actual work in the field. Are you a MD? Do you have a PhD or equivalent in nutrition? You know what may work for you physically... but have you had youre blood drawn? There could be many things going on inside of your body from your style of weightloss than you can't see that could only be determined by a liver function test or the like. Additionally, when you're trying to convince someone of your opinion, being humble is important. No one is going to want to take your opinions into consideration if you're being pushy and inconsiderate in some of your responses. Just food (no pun intended) for thought.

TXHunny84

I also think its important to understand how your own body works and also the differences between men and women.

I agree I don't think any of us are starving!

I know that if I eat a big breakfast in the morning I am starving for the rest of the day. If I eat a big meal at night - I don't feel hungry in the morning!!

Part of this journey is understanding our own bodies and what works for one doesn't necessarily work for someone else!

VLCD are now being encouraged by some GP's in the UK to reduce weight - as they are seen as less life threatening than being morbidly obese (these diets are closely monitored.) I know two people that have had to go on one of these diets and both have lost significant weight and then put on muscle mass (after they lost the weight they slowly increased both calorie intake and exercise! Yet in theory they have been in starvation mode. The issue I think there is with this approach is actually it doesn't teach you how to eat healthily and thats why we put the weight back on.

I do think there is this condition but I think it takes a while before it kicks in.

Interesting debate as ever!

BUMP!!

My body is the exact same way!! Heaven help me if I eat a big breakfast!!

SHBoss1673

Before anyone says "where are the studies" here they are.... calorie restriction (CR) is an effective and reproducible intervention for increasing life span, reducing oxidative damage, enhancing stress resistance and delaying/preventing aging and age-associated diseases such as cancer in various species, including mammals (mice, rats, and non- human primates)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/

um, did I miss something in this study? I read the whole thing. How does an observational study of 10 cancer patients doing short term fasting relate to what you've stated above? This study was on how fasting can effect the quality of life during the days when a person is receiving chemotherapy, not on the long term effects of an otherwise healthy person who fasts.

Exactly.

Oddly enough, I have a friend going through chemotherapy as we speak. He's exercising, eating a very healthy diet of solid, whole foods...taking supplements of chagga tea and ground canadian apricot pits...and he's in excellent shape...all the while putting on lean weight.

He's still sicker than hell during and right after...but he's not letting it affect his quality of life, and because of that, its effects are very limited.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046

The problem with this link is that IF is short term where as starvation mode is just another term for LTF, or more specifically Long Term Underfeeding. Two different things, Studies prove that LTF and LTU suppress both IGF1 (technically it's the GH that is suppressed) and Testoterone production while increasing cortisol production and lipogenesis. Most informed nutrition professionals have no problem with short term fasting (aka IF) I.E. < 72 hours. But when the glycogen levels plus incoming macronutrients plus energy derived from lipolysis can no longer meet TDEE requirements, then the body needs to either reduce the amount of energy it's using, or draw that energy from something else. That something else is amino acids derived from proteins. considering that most of us have between 40 and 72 hours total worth of Glycogen that we can store, this happens usually within about 3 to 5 days, at which point the above hormonal changes begin.

registers

your post is very opinionated and unfortunately this time your opinion is wrong. people would be wise to do the exact opposite of what youre recommending

Why is it wrong. IF you have strong beliefs of opposition. My experience, is I taken the NASM certification course (national academy of sports medicine) plus I have over 14yrs of experience in the health and fitness community. But thanks for your input.

You started your endeavors in the health and fitness community when you were 15? I don't think it's appropriate to gauge "experience" if it isn't related to actual work in the field. Are you a MD? Do you have a PhD or equivalent in nutrition? You know what may work for you physically... but have you had youre blood drawn? There could be many things going on inside of your body from your style of weightloss than you can't see that could only be determined by a liver function test or the like. Additionally, when you're trying to convince someone of your opinion, being humble is important. No one is going to want to take your opinions into consideration if you're being pushy and inconsiderate in some of your responses. Just food (no pun intended) for thought.

Ask a doctor then ask him if fasting can improve health. See what he says.