Fasting

I usually only abstain from food and take sips of water during religious practices, so I can at least sustain myself for the day, especially if its hot. If anything, if youre trying to "detox" I'd think water would be needed for that, at the very least.

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.

Fasting and drinking only water for short periods, say 24 hours, for religious reasons - fair enough

Having a diet strategy whereby you eat food at certain times and only drink water at other times, between x and y o' clock - fair enough if that works for you.

But as a detoxing plan?? - completely pointless and silly.

cross2bear 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.

This is bunk. EVERYONE fasts at one point or another (while we sleep), and it does nothing for cancer or any other disease. Intermittent Fasting is simply a way of eating, and it is easy to eat within an 8 hour window and not eat for 16 hours - again, the sleeping thing. Honestly, people spend way too much time on google and being bamboozled.

I agree, all of these protocols have the same thing in common, they are tool to put you in a calorie deficit, that is it. Whether it be IF, Keto, or any "new diet" if you are taking in too many calories you WILL gain wait regardless if you are fasting, eating no carbs, ect, regardless of the protocol. The key here is if you can sustain IF, operate within a deficit and it fits into your lifestyle, then do it, but its not "better" than doing a standard diet.

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.

TeaBea wrote: »

mohamedahmed07 wrote: »

TeaBea 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?

mohamedahmed07 wrote: »

TeaBea wrote: »

mohamedahmed07 wrote: »

TeaBea 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.

MichSmish wrote: »

nope-a-saurus right here.

If you are gong to disagree with a post...it helps to quote them so your "nope a saurus" makes some sense...with whom are you disagreeing?