Fasting - does it work?

Yanicka1

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Huffdogg

Again, what benifit is there in a 12hr or so fast? Even the 16hr fast leangains recommends is a compromise. The true, scientifically proven benifits are just before, at, and just past the 24hr mark.

Source? Martin links studies that indicate that the hormonal responses occur around the 14-16 hour mark.

@Healthybodyhe: I'm guessing that you are responding from a position of ignorance here. I eat just as much now as I did before I started doing IF; I just do it more intelligently and within a specific window each day.

Huffdogg

i like the sound of this. is it really as simple as don't eat for 24hrs, just stick to water, then eat normally again? then repeat every few days?

There are two pretty well-known "fitness-oriented" Intermittent Fasting programs: Eat Stop Eat (a couple of weekly 24 hour fasts) and Leangains (fast 16 hours every day, feed 8).

I don't know a whole lot about whether there is anything more complicated to Eat Stop Eat, but one of the core components of LG is cycling calories and macronutrients depending on whether you are lifting or resting on a particular day. It's definitely not as simple as it may appear on the surface.

hcoburn37

bump

margie777mar

Lol....

margie777mar

OMG at first glance, I thought it said "Farting - does it work?" and I was all excited to answer YES!

Lol....:laugh:

imbanter

I've been reading all about this and went ahead and joined the IF group. The 16/8 is really what I wanted to know about. Thank you all for your thoughts. I'm definately going to try one of the programs because it fits perfectly with my heavy travel I do for my job.

Microfiber_wechange

First, you can do it any days you like. Eat Stop Eat recommends 1-2 days a week...but you can do 3 with that program as well pretty easily.

Sunday 8pm to Monday 8pm fits the criteria of 'any days you like'...so it looks like you're good to go!

Now...a word of caution. Fasting for 24hrs isn't a license to go hog wild when you do eat. You eat a sensible meal, then go to sleep and eat normally the next day.

Thank you

Practicality

I have personally fasted for longer periods. 5-7 days. A few times. Not great for losing weight but really effective for health. Got rid of reactive hypoglycemic tendencies this way. Better to do it with juice so you don't shock your body. But I was young and impatient so a water fast worked. Most of us larger Americans can go without food for at least a month with no negative effect. Of course that's LARGER people not people under 200 lbs who just feel fat.

Dave198lbs

I have personally fasted for longer periods. 5-7 days. A few times. Not great for losing weight but really effective for health. Got rid of reactive hypoglycemic tendencies this way. Better to do it with juice so you don't shock your body. But I was young and impatient so a water fast worked. Most of us larger Americans can go without food for at least a month with no negative effect. Of course that's LARGER people not people under 200 lbs who just feel fat.

dangerous nonsense!

imbanter

Fortunately I don't have that problem. I've had travel days where I'm making a day trip to somewhere 3.5 hours away and with a short window to get to my appointment and back to my return flight. The next thing I know I've been running for 16 hours with no meal. Never had a problem with it affecting me mentally or physically. Maybe I should confirm the mental claim with my colleagues.

imbanter

I'm interested in fasting where you consume your calories in a given period of the day but don't eat the other hours of the day. If you think about it this is in line with those.that say don't eat after a certain time of the evening. As far as 24 hour fasting I'll see hpw this 16 hour thing goes. I don't personally think 24 fasting its bad because it had been practiced for centuries in various religions.

Dave198lbs

. I don't personally think 24 fasting its bad because it had been practiced for centuries in various religions.

those religions used to stone a women to death if she walked in front of her husband. fasting or not fasting should not be guided by religion.

imbanter

Ummm... 5-7 days just isn't going to work. I'm talking about fasting 16 hours a day combined with heavy lifting 3 days a week. Extended fasting like that is.not good for building muscle. As far as fat Americans, we are not alone in the world with that problem.

imbanter

Dave Dave Dave.... Had nothing to do with religion but glad my post got you out of your chair. BTW monks are who I had in mind when I said that and I'm not aware of them stoning anyone.

Dave198lbs

Dave Dave Dave.... Had nothing to do with religion but glad my post got you out of your chair.

thank you.....lol

neanderthin

I've read in a few threads people mentioning intermittent fasting. I'm still not totally clear but it appears the basic concept is you don't eat 16 out of the 24 hours but you consume your calories in the other 8 hours. So does this work or not?

If meal frequency actually had some kind of advantage then IF might qualify, but alas, meal freqency has no such advantage. what it does do is help people control their eating, and many may find they lose weight by default, based on that, much like what a low carb diet does for some.

healthybodyhealthymind

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

neanderthin

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

The OP is talking about IF, not fasting in the sense nothing is eaten.

Huffdogg

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

If you're going to just pick and choose what you want to read of the posts here, then you might as well not attempt to participate in the discussion.

Huffdogg

If meal frequency actually had some kind of advantage then IF might qualify, but alas, meal freqency has no such advantage. what it does do is help people control their eating, and many may find they lose weight by default, based on that, much like what a low carb diet does for some.

This is not strictly true. Hormonal responses to fasting can begin to occur around the 14-16 hour mark, triggering some fat burning and muscle building benefits.

Sidesteal

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

You may want to read the entire thread before posting things like this. This discussion is about Intermittent Fasting, which is typically 16h fast or in some cases (ESE) 24 hours. Metabolically this is well within "safe" practice.

Sidesteal

If meal frequency actually had some kind of advantage then IF might qualify, but alas, meal freqency has no such advantage. what it does do is help people control their eating, and many may find they lose weight by default, based on that, much like what a low carb diet does for some.

This is not strictly true. Hormonal responses to fasting can begin to occur around the 14-16 hour mark, triggering some fat burning and muscle building benefits.

This is likely to become an Alan vs Martin type of debate, but for entertainment purposes, can you link the study (ies) that Martin references for the above?

Huffdogg

This is likely to become an Alan vs Martin type of debate, but for entertainment purposes, can you link the study (ies) that Martin references for the above?

lul Sidesteal I knew someone would go there. I have been stumbling around Martin's (horribly organized) blog looking for the links to the studies I read there some months back, but so far have only encountered this article, which contains a couple:

http://www.leangains.com/2010/06/intermittent-fasting-and-stubborn-body.html

Yanicka1

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

We do eat food and I am pretty sure we eat way more than you do. The difference is we eat it in a smaller window than you do. I eat 1600-2000 calories between 1pm and 8-9 pm. If in your book it look like anorexia, be my guest. We are not talking about eating 500 calories a day or juicing or any other gimmic.

Thank you for your concern but it is really not what you think it is.

neanderthin

This is likely to become an Alan vs Martin type of debate, but for entertainment purposes, can you link the study (ies) that Martin references for the above?

lul Sidesteal I knew someone would go there. I have been stumbling around Martin's (horribly organized) blog looking for the links to the studies I read there some months back, but so far have only encountered this article, which contains a couple:

http://www.leangains.com/2010/06/intermittent-fasting-and-stubborn-body.html

I've read that before and it certainly is interesting. You have to have your ducks in a row for sure. I understand that metabolism can increase during a fast, but then eating 3000 calories in 8 hours needs to be factored into results personally I mean. We have to look at the total picture and over a time line. I remember martin say that he's hopeful that IF has some advantage, but has never admitted to it. In the early days Alan discounted IF completely but I've also heart him say that IF could have some merit.....so based on that I feel that 24 hour nutrition and how that can be manipulated to be more reliable. I've heard support for IF with large weight losses over short periods of time......as we all know that is all about calories, and like I said if there is an advantage, it's very small on paper and real life would be a totally different thing. imo

crisanderson27

i love this thread, i try to stay under my calories most days but it says im going into starvation mode. thank you everyone.

Intermittend fasting isn't 'staying under your calories'. You eat your calories, you just eat them withing a certain time period each day...or, you eat your maintenance 4-5 days a week, and don't eat for 24hrs 2-3 days a week.

Again, what benifit is there in a 12hr or so fast? Even the 16hr fast leangains recommends is a compromise. The true, scientifically proven benifits are just before, at, and just past the 24hr mark.

Source? Martin links studies that indicate that the hormonal responses occur around the 14-16 hour mark.

@Healthybodyhe: I'm guessing that you are responding from a position of ignorance here. I eat just as much now as I did before I started doing IF; I just do it more intelligently and within a specific window each day.

You misunderstood me. 14-16hrs is where they begin, what's the benifit to 12hrs? THAT was my point. Also...if they begin at 14-16hrs, and level off at the 24hr mark as the studies show, you reap more of the benifits by fasting 24hrs. The reason Martin's (leangains) method is a compromise, is he's not doing it strictly to burn fat, you're also building muscle. Understand, by 'compromise' I don't mean anything negative. In Martin's method, the compromise is building muscle and burning fat, both excellent goals. In Brad's method, maintaining muscle and burning fat is the goal.

I hope that makes more sense now.

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

Umm...do I look anorexic? I eat 3000 calories on lift days, and around 2000 on off days. Try forcing an anorexic to do that. And for the record I've been IFing for close to a year now. Please, inform yourself before crusading your way into a topic in which you have no knowledge or experience. I understand you have great intentions. In this case however, you're simply wrong.

monty619

[/quote]
"Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time."
[/quote]
LOL... debatable.

crisanderson27

"Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time."
[/quote]
LOL... debatable.
[/quote]

Ahh, here comes the kid!

Hey Monty.

monty619

"Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time."

LOL... debatable.
[/quote]

Ahh, here comes the kid!

Hey Monty.
[/quote]

wuts up old timer.. still preaching IF??