ESE - how important is it to consume absolutely no cals duri

If you are trying to achieve an honest fast, then you're not fasting if you consume anything with calories. If it has calories, you've broken your fast (where do you think the word "breakfast" came from? )

What is the "eat stop eat" program? Are you exercising too? I would think if you are not eating and exercising on those days you would feel hella weak! Also, (since I can assume you eat one day, dont the next, and then eat), what are you eating the night before? I would also think if you are not eating your body goes into starve mode and any calories you consume your body holds on too.

I've never heard of this program, but it doesn't sound healthy. I think your body knows the answers... don't make yourself feel weak in order to be healthy/fit/slim. I don't know what your goals are or how long this program goes on, but it doesn't seem like a lifestyle change, it seems like a fad diet that will only make you frustrated.

It's actually not bad. I've done a lot of study on Short Term Fasting. There's nothing medically wrong with 24 hour fasts, as long as you stay within the definition of "short term" I.E. start eating again before you run out of glycogen. That's when the bad stuff happens (insulin resistance, cortisol increase, testosterone and HGH decreases...etc.) It shouldn't be entered into lightly though, it's a difficult program, and there are a lot of pitfalls with it.

I've never heard of this program, but it doesn't sound healthy. I think your body knows the answers... don't make yourself feel weak in order to be healthy/fit/slim. I don't know what your goals are or how long this program goes on, but it doesn't seem like a lifestyle change, it seems like a fad diet that will only make you frustrated.

It's actually not bad. I've done a lot of study on Short Term Fasting. There's nothing medically wrong with 24 hour fasts, as long as you stay within the definition of "short term" I.E. start eating again before you run out of glycogen. That's when the bad stuff happens (insulin resistance, cortisol increase, testosterone and HGH decreases...etc.) It shouldn't be entered into lightly though, it's a difficult program, and there are a lot of pitfalls with it.

Yes I agree SHBoss; fasting can be good for you, just wondering if the type of food consumed the day before can affect sugar levels, especially the next day. I will read up on it. I would assume working out on "fast days" is a no-no?

I've never heard of this program, but it doesn't sound healthy. I think your body knows the answers... don't make yourself feel weak in order to be healthy/fit/slim. I don't know what your goals are or how long this program goes on, but it doesn't seem like a lifestyle change, it seems like a fad diet that will only make you frustrated.

It's actually not bad. I've done a lot of study on Short Term Fasting. There's nothing medically wrong with 24 hour fasts, as long as you stay within the definition of "short term" I.E. start eating again before you run out of glycogen. That's when the bad stuff happens (insulin resistance, cortisol increase, testosterone and HGH decreases...etc.) It shouldn't be entered into lightly though, it's a difficult program, and there are a lot of pitfalls with it.

Yes I agree SHBoss; fasting can be good for you, just wondering if the type of food consumed the day before can affect sugar levels, especially the next day. I will read up on it. I would assume working out on "fast days" is a no-no?

working out isn't necessarily bad for you, but you probably want to limit cardio to under 1 hour, preferably about 30 minutes. One of the reasons Short Term Fasts (STF) works is because the body can remain in homeostasis (calorie balance) by using stored fat AND glycogen to replace what would be fuel (food), but once that glycogen is gone (you can only get glycogen from carbs or sugar, the body can't make glucose out of fat or protein), especially if you don't have an overtly large amount of body fat to draw from, then it's very difficult for your body to make up the difference, which can cause lethargy, dehydration, and if left unchecked for longer periods, lots of really bad stuff. While weight training is probably better than cardio as weight training primarily uses anaerobic metabolic pathways, it's still something to be monitored closely.

As for insulin production, I just know it has something to do with weight loss and sending hunger signals to the brain. Something I remember from some book I read another lifetime ago. It said if you need to drink and eat simple carbs, it encouraged the consumation of the majority of the carbs (including alcohol and the bad white stuff) all within a 60 minute time frame because of insulin production. It said that most of people aren't going to give up those things for the rest of their lives (so true) and in order to minimize their effect, eat them all together within an hour and then eat properly the rest of the day.

I don't think that I've heard that since, but it seems really simple. Too simple in fact.

I'm by no means an ESE expert, but I try to consume the brunt of two days worth of my calories within the 48 hours (and just not eat for 24 of those). For me, it's not so much for the calorie deficit aspect and for weight loss, it's more to reset back to zero after an occassional rough weekend. I tried for three days of drinking an insane amount of water and lowering my sodium to lose the three inches of beer, bad carbs and just plain garbage that all collected right on my stomach from what I consumed over the holiday weekend and when that didn't help, one day of ESE did the trick. Had I felt the slightest bit dizzy I would have stopped though (over 18 hours still holds a lot of benefits, but 24 is apparently the golden hour). But I did very light cardio (20 minutes of Zumba and then I walked to and from work) whereas it appears the OP did a pretty intense cardio session and didn't eat as much as she should have beforehand (if she's talking about the last couple of days in her diary, where there appears to be a section that could have 24 hours without food).

Fasts are not unhealthy and are not "fads". Every major religion recognizes a fast.
...
But something that people have been doing for thousands of years is hardly a fad.

Thanks for clarifying-- I didn't mean to offend anyone. I understand that fasting is recognized and encouraged in religious practice-- I'm not knocking on that, and I'm not saying that fasting for religious purposes is a fad. It just seems like a strange thing to do for dieting. Having had no prior knowledge of this particular program, I got the impression that it's every other day? Or is it once every few? I also didn't know it was normal to cram a bunch of calories in the night/day before a fast.

I was mostly worried about the adverse effects of the program, such as those listed by SHBoss (weakness, lethargy, dehydration, etc).

Fasts are not unhealthy and are not "fads". Every major religion recognizes a fast.
...
But something that people have been doing for thousands of years is hardly a fad.

Thanks for clarifying-- I didn't mean to offend anyone. I understand that fasting is recognized and encouraged in religious practice-- I'm not knocking on that, and I'm not saying that fasting for religious purposes is a fad. It just seems like a strange thing to do for dieting. Having had no prior knowledge of this particular program, I got the impression that it's every other day? Or is it once every few? I also didn't know it was normal to cram a bunch of calories in the night/day before a fast.

I was mostly worried about the adverse effects of the program, such as those listed by SHBoss (weakness, lethargy, dehydration, etc).

this is all well and good, but the problem comes from exactly what you stated. You made a statement without knowing the facts. Please don't take this to mean nobody wants to hear it. But we see it on MFP quite a bit. People not knowing a program, hearing the very edge of the details and making snap judgement on it. It's a very bad trait, it's how rumors start. You'll notice that I'm also a proponent of short term fasting if it's done correctly. I've done the research, and I know when a diet can go badly, and so I feel I'm qualified to give an opinion.

None of this is meant as an insult to you, I like to think of it as a teaching moment. Nutrition is complicated, and there's lots of wild theory and speculation that's based on nothing more than a few anecdotal cases, what we need is more research based fact, because we're dealing in a very diverse community, saying something sounds unhealthy without stopping and reading up on the program is a path to the dark side of the nutrition industry, it eventually leads to things like detoxes and low carb (for weight loss) diets. Things that sound wonderful in theory, but have very little factual merit and are supported solely by conjecture and circumstantial evidence. A [prime example is starvation mode. A perfectly valid medical condition that has been so wildly distorted that we now have a large minority that "doesn't believe in it" like it's some sort of legend or something. It's tragic.

Fasts are not unhealthy and are not "fads". Every major religion recognizes a fast.
...
But something that people have been doing for thousands of years is hardly a fad.

Thanks for clarifying-- I didn't mean to offend anyone. I understand that fasting is recognized and encouraged in religious practice-- I'm not knocking on that, and I'm not saying that fasting for religious purposes is a fad. It just seems like a strange thing to do for dieting. Having had no prior knowledge of this particular program, I got the impression that it's every other day? Or is it once every few? I also didn't know it was normal to cram a bunch of calories in the night/day before a fast.

I was mostly worried about the adverse effects of the program, such as those listed by SHBoss (weakness, lethargy, dehydration, etc).

I fast regularly, my fasts vary in length from 20 hours (most days) to 4 days (once a year, roughly). During my daily fasting i'm not feeling weak, not lethargic, i'm not dehydrated because i drink sufficient water.

As a side note: if you're a buddhist monk, monastic rule (the vinaya) forbids you from eating after noon. In western times that would be "fasting", probably, but for a buddhist monk that's a prescribed meal pattern. I do more or less the same, only i shifted my time window for eating to the late afternoon, because that fits better with the life i'm leading at the moment.

It all sounds like a bunch of malarky to me. I don't doubt that a longer term fast may have helped a sick person, but an every other day fast? What does that even accomplish? Of course you're going to lose weight, you're not eating. And, you'd have to have a VERY clean diet on the days that you do eat, otherwise you still may lose weight but you'd have constant "problem areas".

And, please show me the doccumentation where it says that doing intense cardio and weight training on a fast day is reccomended.

Not to mention fasting is a religious experience because it:
A) Is used as a way to "prove" your devotion. It takes a lot of decipline to not eat. (ask yourself why that is)
When you fast for a certain amount of time you HALLUCINATE, which is said to give you a more religious experience (Again, ask yourself why).

Girl, eat something. Make healthy choices. Exercise. There's no secret to it.

I've never heard of this program, but it doesn't sound healthy. I think your body knows the answers... don't make yourself feel weak in order to be healthy/fit/slim. I don't know what your goals are or how long this program goes on, but it doesn't seem like a lifestyle change, it seems like a fad diet that will only make you frustrated.

It's actually not bad. I've done a lot of study on Short Term Fasting. There's nothing medically wrong with 24 hour fasts, as long as you stay within the definition of "short term" I.E. start eating again before you run out of glycogen. That's when the bad stuff happens (insulin resistance, cortisol increase, testosterone and HGH decreases...etc.) It shouldn't be entered into lightly though, it's a difficult program, and there are a lot of pitfalls with it.

can you cite any sources for these statements?

sure, what would you like, the technical books that state it?

1) Advanced nutrition and human metabolism 5th edition by: Sareen S. Gropper, Jack L. Smith
2) Clinical Nutrition (The Nutrition Society Textbook Series) by: Michael J. Gibney (Editor), Marinos Elia (Editor), Olle Ljunggvist (Editor), Julie Dowsett (Editor)

or Research (I'll list a few meaningful ones, there's lots out there, but I just grabbed a few that were relevant)


1) Feeding, fasting and starvation: factors affecting fuel utilization by: McDonald and Webber
2)Fuel selection at the level of mitochondria in mammalian tissues BY: RICHARD M. DENTON aND JAMES G. McCORMACK
3)Whole-body and adipose tissue glucose metabolism in response to short-term fasting in lean and obese women by: Jeffrey F Horowitz, Simon W Coppack and Samuel Klein
4)Intermittent fasting does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism by: Maarten R Soeters, Nicolette M Lammers, Peter F Dubbelhuis, Mariëtte Ackermans, Cora F Jonkers-Schuitema, Eric Fliers, Hans P Sauerwein, Johannes M Aerts, and Mireille J Serlie
5)Growth hormone or insulin-like growth factor I increases fat oxidation and decreases protein oxidation without altering energy expenditure in parenterally fed rats by: HC Lo, MD Hirvonen, KR Kritsch, RE Keesey, and DM Ney
6) Metabolic effects of a single administration of growth hormone on lipid and carbohydrate metabolism in normal-weight and obese subjects by: G Seng, C Galgoti, P Louisy, P Toussain, P Drouin, and G Debry
7) Steroid metabolism and excretion in severe anorexia nervosa: effects of refeeding Am J Clin Nutr May 2011
8) Hormonal changes in normal men under marginally negative energy balance by: Dominique R Garrel, MD, Karen S Todd,4 MS, MM Pugeal,5 MD, and DII Calloway,6 PhD
9) Blunted lipolytic response to fasting in abdominally obese women: evidence for involvement of hyposomatotropism
Am J Clin Nutr March 2003

now, not all of these are immediately relevant to the conversation, some only peripherally discuss topics we care about, but in general, they all contribute something, and in one or two of these studies there's opposing data, but there you have it.

but once that glycogen is gone (you can only get glycogen from carbs or sugar, the body can't make glucose out of fat or protein),

Quick point - Amino acids (except for leucine and lysine) from proteins can enter the gluconeogenic cycle to create glucose, but fats can't. So your body can break down muscle proteins into amino acids to create glucose to feed your body and brain.

It all sounds like a bunch of malarky to me. I don't doubt that a longer term fast may have helped a sick person, but an every other day fast? What does that even accomplish? Of course you're going to lose weight, you're not eating. And, you'd have to have a VERY clean diet on the days that you do eat, otherwise you still may lose weight but you'd have constant "problem areas".

And, please show me the doccumentation where it says that doing intense cardio and weight training on a fast day is reccomended.

Not to mention fasting is a religious experience because it:
A) Is used as a way to "prove" your devotion. It takes a lot of decipline to not eat. (ask yourself why that is)
When you fast for a certain amount of time you HALLUCINATE, which is said to give you a more religious experience (Again, ask yourself why).

Girl, eat something. Make healthy choices. Exercise. There's no secret to it.

The Eat Stop Eat (ESE) and Intermittent Fasting (IF) programs are not a bunch of malarchy. Having meals that are of good quality protein, sufficient fat intake and lots of green leafy vegetables will stabilize your blood sugar levels due to lower insulin production and release, therefore making the highs and lows and being hungry non-existant.

I have been doing IF off and on for almost a year now and my blood sugar is totally stabilized. I no longer have any highs and I test regularly.

Who said that you fast every other day? Perhaps learning how to read and comprehend BEFORE you start babbling as though you know what you are talking about would be beneficial. A poster earlier today explained that it doesn't help this site for people who have no understanding at all of something to start talking like they know a single thing about it. That's how false information is spread about something and it does a huge disservice to people on this site.

If your calorie intake over two days is 2400 total, you're STILL getting in close to those numbers, so explain to me how you're starving. You just have a 24 hour period within that 48 hour period that you just concentrate on yourself without having to be constantly preoccupied with food. You get to have an extra long shower or do something fancy with your hair instead of rushing around the kitchen making breakfast. You can go for a walk over your lunch hour and not have to try to cram something in between meetings. You can focus on ensuring your body gets ample water and to truly be able to determine HUNGER from "oh, it's noon. Time to eat."

I've done a fast one per week for the last two weeks (haven't done this week's yet -- I'm thinking tomorrow), and it makes me far more alert (I went to bed at 9:30pm last night because I was so tired and tossed and turned all night), but during fast days, I sleep much more soundly and wake up with so much energy. I'm mentally much more focused and get so much work done, it's insane. I drop extra water weight/sludge that bloats up my stomach and makes me feel lethargic and unhappy.

I questioned the methods also because I didn't understand it completely either, but the difference is that I RESEARCHED myself and didn't automatically start with "OMG! I don't know what I'm talking about, but I don't approve so therefore it's wrong".

The people that don't know and don't want to understand are the ones that are going to jump and say hey, stop giving misinformation.........

I had that happen last night when I had previously mentioned that there are vitamins and other nutrients that get stored in the fat cells so when you burn fat and it is released from the fat cells that the nutrients are also released.

Well said poster quoted me and said that there is a lot of misinformation being given because she had never heard such a thing as any nutrients being stored in fat cells.

So, an article that I had found that backed up my statement from a University study and she quoted me back with a wikipedia entry. Wow.............