Batpapaw wrote: »

I'm looking for a little insight as I am doing this without my doctor's assistance. He told me to lose weight then put me on insulin. At the time I knew nothing about insulin, what it's function was or what I should do. I was diagnosed with T2D about 1.5 yrs ago and changed my eating habits drastically. Quit Mt Dew and cut way back on other sugars and carbs but not enough. I was doing the eat 5 times a day deal and was losing no weight. He changed 1 of my meds and I dropped 30lbs pretty quickly then plateaued. Because of a bad blood test he took me off that med and put me on insulin and the weight started coming back on. I heard that T2D could be reversed so I started searching the internet for information and in the process found a lot of good information on insulins effect on the human body and realized my insulin was too high making me insulin resistant and he was giving me more. Didn't make sense to me. After over 30 hours of looking at and listening to other Doctors research I took myself off the insulin, started eating more LCHF and doing Intermittent Fasting. I've been doing this for about 4 weeks and found what I think is my IR lessening. Today I threw caution to the wind when the family and I went to the State Fair and I ate all kinds of "bad" stuff. Lots of carbs. About 90minutes after eating a funnel cake I decided to check my blood glucose and found it to be 104. Now I'm no doctor but it appears to me that "my" insulin is doing its job and without any outside assistance from an injection of more. Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. Thanks.

cstehansen wrote: »

Autophagy is not just for those with disease. It is a necessary process for everyone. Art De Vany and others have done some pretty interesting analysis of existing data showing the benefits of fasting for everyone. For some IF is enough. For some, longer fasts are needed.

The 130g commonly sited is based on the brain needing about 500 calories a day, so if ALL of it comes from glucose, that is about 130g. However, only about 1/4 of that MUST be glucose. 3/4 of that energy need can be fueled by ketones. When you knock that number down to 30-35, the amount from glycerol that is in every triglyceride that breaks down will make up a larger percentage than when you try to come up with 130.

Also, given that amino acids (protein) are continuously being broken down and recycled, and some of them are damaged and unable to be recycled, you will be losing that protein anyway. Why not use it instead of getting it from diet? This is actually one of the reasons fasting is associated with healthier mitochondria, slower aging and improved health is it helps the body get rid of these damaged materials.

I will say, I work out much harder than most people a decade or two younger than me and I did not reduce intensity or duration of workouts during either of these fasts. I did not feel any negative effects. In fact, the first workout after the first fast, I noticed I had to increase the weights being used to generate the same level of effort.

Tearing down of muscle for energy, from the medical research I can find, is more associated with eating in a hypocaloric manner (under eating) than it is with true fasting. If you have research showing otherwise, please share. I am never afraid of being wrong. I want to have the correct information.

I had avoided fasting (outside of IF just because I wasn't hungry) because being at healthy weight, without fatty liver and a relatively low body fat %, I could find no studies showing BG benefit for someone like me. All the studies centered on those who were obese or had fatty liver. It was only through frustration that I could not get my BG lower was I willing to give it a shot. Turns out I was wrong and fasting does seem to be helping me with my BG control.

Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »

cstehansen wrote: »

Autophagy is not just for those with disease. It is a necessary process for everyone. Art De Vany and others have done some pretty interesting analysis of existing data showing the benefits of fasting for everyone. For some IF is enough. For some, longer fasts are needed.

The 130g commonly sited is based on the brain needing about 500 calories a day, so if ALL of it comes from glucose, that is about 130g. However, only about 1/4 of that MUST be glucose. 3/4 of that energy need can be fueled by ketones. When you knock that number down to 30-35, the amount from glycerol that is in every triglyceride that breaks down will make up a larger percentage than when you try to come up with 130.

Also, given that amino acids (protein) are continuously being broken down and recycled, and some of them are damaged and unable to be recycled, you will be losing that protein anyway. Why not use it instead of getting it from diet? This is actually one of the reasons fasting is associated with healthier mitochondria, slower aging and improved health is it helps the body get rid of these damaged materials.

I will say, I work out much harder than most people a decade or two younger than me and I did not reduce intensity or duration of workouts during either of these fasts. I did not feel any negative effects. In fact, the first workout after the first fast, I noticed I had to increase the weights being used to generate the same level of effort.

Tearing down of muscle for energy, from the medical research I can find, is more associated with eating in a hypocaloric manner (under eating) than it is with true fasting. If you have research showing otherwise, please share. I am never afraid of being wrong. I want to have the correct information.

I had avoided fasting (outside of IF just because I wasn't hungry) because being at healthy weight, without fatty liver and a relatively low body fat %, I could find no studies showing BG benefit for someone like me. All the studies centered on those who were obese or had fatty liver. It was only through frustration that I could not get my BG lower was I willing to give it a shot. Turns out I was wrong and fasting does seem to be helping me with my BG control.

I realize autophagy is for more than just disease treatment.
I just think it's misguided to suggest that muscle won't be sacrificed. In some cases it makes perfect sense to do it but in others, like for weight loss in relatively normal weight person, it's probably taking two steps back to take one step forward.
I say this based on a few people I'm aware of achieving a near underweight BMI but still having higher bodyfat. One woman kept fasting because she believed it would tighten up her abdominal skin through autophagy. Now she has very low muscle and is still overfat at 5'6" and 115 pounds.

cstehansen wrote: »

Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »

cstehansen wrote: »

Autophagy is not just for those with disease. It is a necessary process for everyone. Art De Vany and others have done some pretty interesting analysis of existing data showing the benefits of fasting for everyone. For some IF is enough. For some, longer fasts are needed.

The 130g commonly sited is based on the brain needing about 500 calories a day, so if ALL of it comes from glucose, that is about 130g. However, only about 1/4 of that MUST be glucose. 3/4 of that energy need can be fueled by ketones. When you knock that number down to 30-35, the amount from glycerol that is in every triglyceride that breaks down will make up a larger percentage than when you try to come up with 130.

Also, given that amino acids (protein) are continuously being broken down and recycled, and some of them are damaged and unable to be recycled, you will be losing that protein anyway. Why not use it instead of getting it from diet? This is actually one of the reasons fasting is associated with healthier mitochondria, slower aging and improved health is it helps the body get rid of these damaged materials.

I will say, I work out much harder than most people a decade or two younger than me and I did not reduce intensity or duration of workouts during either of these fasts. I did not feel any negative effects. In fact, the first workout after the first fast, I noticed I had to increase the weights being used to generate the same level of effort.

Tearing down of muscle for energy, from the medical research I can find, is more associated with eating in a hypocaloric manner (under eating) than it is with true fasting. If you have research showing otherwise, please share. I am never afraid of being wrong. I want to have the correct information.

I had avoided fasting (outside of IF just because I wasn't hungry) because being at healthy weight, without fatty liver and a relatively low body fat %, I could find no studies showing BG benefit for someone like me. All the studies centered on those who were obese or had fatty liver. It was only through frustration that I could not get my BG lower was I willing to give it a shot. Turns out I was wrong and fasting does seem to be helping me with my BG control.

I realize autophagy is for more than just disease treatment.
I just think it's misguided to suggest that muscle won't be sacrificed. In some cases it makes perfect sense to do it but in others, like for weight loss in relatively normal weight person, it's probably taking two steps back to take one step forward.
I say this based on a few people I'm aware of achieving a near underweight BMI but still having higher bodyfat. One woman kept fasting because she believed it would tighten up her abdominal skin through autophagy. Now she has very low muscle and is still overfat at 5'6" and 115 pounds.

There is no one size fits all. Based on what I am seeing in myself, I am convinced I hold too much glycogen and these 2 day fasts have helped reduce those reserves. Given most people have 500-600 g of glucose stored this way, gluconeogenesis would not be needed on intermediate length fasts of 1-3 days.

Given even at near zero carb intake I was unable to get BG below 100, but with a couple of 2 day fasts, I am getting readings 20-30 points lower, I have to think the needed glucose came from glycogen and not breakdown of muscle.

The improvement in the gym I have seen leads me to the same conclusion. Obviously this as n=1 and as I mentioned right at the beginning, there is no one size fits all. However, this may be something worth trying for others who have been unable to improve as much as they need to.

Batpapaw wrote: »

I've just started making bone broth and kale smoothies if anyone has any good recipes. I'm trying to get use to the flavor of drinking grass. Lol

cstehansen wrote: »

Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »

cstehansen wrote: »

Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »

cstehansen wrote: »

Autophagy is not just for those with disease. It is a necessary process for everyone. Art De Vany and others have done some pretty interesting analysis of existing data showing the benefits of fasting for everyone. For some IF is enough. For some, longer fasts are needed.

The 130g commonly sited is based on the brain needing about 500 calories a day, so if ALL of it comes from glucose, that is about 130g. However, only about 1/4 of that MUST be glucose. 3/4 of that energy need can be fueled by ketones. When you knock that number down to 30-35, the amount from glycerol that is in every triglyceride that breaks down will make up a larger percentage than when you try to come up with 130.

Also, given that amino acids (protein) are continuously being broken down and recycled, and some of them are damaged and unable to be recycled, you will be losing that protein anyway. Why not use it instead of getting it from diet? This is actually one of the reasons fasting is associated with healthier mitochondria, slower aging and improved health is it helps the body get rid of these damaged materials.

I will say, I work out much harder than most people a decade or two younger than me and I did not reduce intensity or duration of workouts during either of these fasts. I did not feel any negative effects. In fact, the first workout after the first fast, I noticed I had to increase the weights being used to generate the same level of effort.

Tearing down of muscle for energy, from the medical research I can find, is more associated with eating in a hypocaloric manner (under eating) than it is with true fasting. If you have research showing otherwise, please share. I am never afraid of being wrong. I want to have the correct information.

I had avoided fasting (outside of IF just because I wasn't hungry) because being at healthy weight, without fatty liver and a relatively low body fat %, I could find no studies showing BG benefit for someone like me. All the studies centered on those who were obese or had fatty liver. It was only through frustration that I could not get my BG lower was I willing to give it a shot. Turns out I was wrong and fasting does seem to be helping me with my BG control.

I realize autophagy is for more than just disease treatment.
I just think it's misguided to suggest that muscle won't be sacrificed. In some cases it makes perfect sense to do it but in others, like for weight loss in relatively normal weight person, it's probably taking two steps back to take one step forward.
I say this based on a few people I'm aware of achieving a near underweight BMI but still having higher bodyfat. One woman kept fasting because she believed it would tighten up her abdominal skin through autophagy. Now she has very low muscle and is still overfat at 5'6" and 115 pounds.

There is no one size fits all. Based on what I am seeing in myself, I am convinced I hold too much glycogen and these 2 day fasts have helped reduce those reserves. Given most people have 500-600 g of glucose stored this way, gluconeogenesis would not be needed on intermediate length fasts of 1-3 days.

Given even at near zero carb intake I was unable to get BG below 100, but with a couple of 2 day fasts, I am getting readings 20-30 points lower, I have to think the needed glucose came from glycogen and not breakdown of muscle.

The improvement in the gym I have seen leads me to the same conclusion. Obviously this as n=1 and as I mentioned right at the beginning, there is no one size fits all. However, this may be something worth trying for others who have been unable to improve as much as they need to.

You might use stored liver glycogen during fasting but do you think the stores stay at that now reduced level until you break the fast or do you think glycogen use and replenishment through GNG are in constant flux to maintain a minimum level? So you'll be refilling stores through GNG.
I'm not saying don't fast. But GNG is happening. It has to. Its not going to wait until the fast is over to refill glycogen. It's definitely going to come from junk proteins and such but how much? I know of enough examples of people becoming skinny fat through extended fasting to think muscle wasting is a real threat. Now, I can say that the people I've spoken to through different groups that have had that problem didn't do any resistance training at all. On one hand I feel like that could be helpful but on the other I'm thinking it could be worse. I can't speak to that at all. I don't know anyone that's done extended fasting with exercise.
I guess keep us posted.

Again, I will preface that I have yet to see any research on any topic showing 100% of subjects have identical responses.

That said, here is what I have been able to find. The rate of protein being used for energy is far lower than many predict. Fasting shows less loss of lean mass than does calorie restriction for instance. So someone fasting a couple days a week taking in the same number of calories for the week as someone who is just cutting calories every day, but both are taking in the same number of calories for the week will result in the person fasting losing more total weight and less lean mass. This variation tends to be more significant the more obese the person is.

It is important to understand lean mass does not equal muscle. Muscle is lean mass, but so are blood vessels, ligaments, tendons, skin, etc. This is important because if you notice someone who has fasted (or starved in the case of a P.O.W.), even if they were obese to start, they don't have the same issues with loose skin after large amounts of weight loss as those from severe calorie restriction (i.e. gastric bypass, the biggest loser, etc.). Therefore, it would seem the lean mass lost through fasting would be lean mass one would want to lose.

Additionally, there tends to be a spike in growth hormone both during the fast and after re-feeding which leads to muscle re-build. This is something Art De Vany for one points to as to why he finds this beneficial for maintaining peak fitness. Given he is pushing 80 and still in really good shape and lifts weights, I have to say it is at least working for him.

Unfortunately for me, I am not finding much in regard to BG control outside of those who are overweight/obese. For that reason, I will just have to continue my self experimentation. So far, results have been mostly favorable with some neutral.

The consistent positive is strength is clearly increased following fasting. This seems to be consistent with what Art De Vany says about fasting clearing out the damaged amino acids from the muscles that are broken down during exercise and the growth hormone stimulating a healthier rebuild.

As good as that is, my primary purpose is BG control. In that regard, I had a clear and unmistakable improvement after the first fast. After the second, it has been weird. I saw another stair step improvement initially, but then it has been more erratic than normal. Overall, it is lower than it was before the first fast, but it just seems to fluctuate more than normal and not in a way that makes sense. For instance, it is more likely for my post meal reading to be lower than my pre-meal right now.

Two fasts of two days two weeks apart is not enough for me to really draw conclusions. I am planning my third one next week. I will continue to measure BG and track how it is going at the gym and hopefully get a clearer picture of how this is working FOR ME.

Sunny_Bunny_ wrote: »

"The rate of protein being used for energy is far lower than many predict. Fasting shows less loss of lean mass than does calorie restriction for instance. So someone fasting a couple days a week taking in the same number of calories for the week as someone who is just cutting calories every day, but both are taking in the same number of calories for the week will result in the person fasting losing more total weight and less lean mass. This variation tends to be more significant the more obese the person is."

I would expect that to be true when going from a SAD, sugar burning diet to fasting, but is there evidence that it holds true for a fat adapted person?
I think the reason fasting shows reduced lean mass loss compared to calorie restriction is because the person becomes ketotic, and the need for glucose reduces as compared to the calorie restriction. I can't imagine what mechanism would occur that would make that scenario true for a fat adapted person.

radiii wrote: »

I know they're not perfect, but since I've started using a mix of Alternate Daily Fasting with some extended fasts mixed and intend to continue that for the duration of my weight loss, the chatter here has me curious. I'm going to see if I can get in for a DEXA scan in the next week or so and get a few of them over the next year.