Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

The Latest Trend is Fasting: What say you?

124678

Replies

  • nsk1951
    nsk1951 Posts: 899 Member
    I don't believe that fasting is the latest trend. It's been around for as long as people have ... because when you don't eat, you are technically fasting. We do it every night when we sleep. Those of us who are getting ready for certain lab or medical routines need to 'fast' for a period of time before hand. What is a trend though, is the mistaken belief some people have that they can play around with eating time schedules to allow feasting periods without gaining weight from those feasts ... and that really does not work well. Those feasts often wreak havoc on your hormones and make refraining from eating for periods of time harder to accomplish ...
  • Xellercin
    Xellercin Posts: 925 Member
    nsk1951 wrote: »
    I don't believe that fasting is the latest trend. It's been around for as long as people have ... because when you don't eat, you are technically fasting. We do it every night when we sleep. Those of us who are getting ready for certain lab or medical routines need to 'fast' for a period of time before hand. What is a trend though, is the mistaken belief some people have that they can play around with eating time schedules to allow feasting periods without gaining weight from those feasts ... and that really does not work well. Those feasts often wreak havoc on your hormones and make refraining from eating for periods of time harder to accomplish ...

    That hasn't been my experience.

    I've been doing IF for nearly a year as prescribed by a top neurologist.

    I generally eat one huge meal each day with no "havoc." Not eating the rest of the time is easy and very comfortable. I anticipate happily living this way for the rest of my life because my body is actually less reactive now that I eat less frequently.

    Different bodies react differently to different lifestyles, but my experience and the experience of all of my IF friends is that our bodies respond very well to it.

    IF is increasingly being prescribed to people with autoimmune and chronic pain conditions specifically for its potential capacity to lower inflammation and reactivity in the body.

    The research on it is very limited, so most of this is coming from empirical treatment, which is the basis for many medical treatments. Non-drug treatments rarely have extensive scientific literature backing them up, just clinical experience.

    Time will tell if that compendium of clinical experience bears out or not, but the fact that many highly reputable specialists are prescribing it suggests that they're seeing a certain degree of outcome success and not seeing harmful effects.

    Again, time will tell on a populational level, but I can certainly say from my n=1 experience that despite having no weight to lose, I plan to stick with IF indefinitely because it feels good.
  • BuellerFerrisBueller
    BuellerFerrisBueller Posts: 35 Member
    I practice intermittent fasting. I don't eat during the hours that I sleep. :)
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 9,402 Member
    Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.

    Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.

    When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.

    In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.

    Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.

    Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.

    Fasting means different things to different people.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.

    Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.

    When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.

    In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.

    Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.

    Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.

    Fasting means different things to different people.

    Context is important. I fasted this afternoon because I missed lunch and dinner will be around 9.00 and I feel swell.
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 9,402 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.

    Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.

    When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.

    In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.

    Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.

    Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.

    Fasting means different things to different people.

    Context is important. I fasted this afternoon because I missed lunch and dinner will be around 9.00 and I feel swell.

    Context may be important, but you can't have it both ways.

    If you "fasted this afternoon" because you went a few extra hours without eating, but it's "not fasting" if you plan to only eat in a smaller time window, then you are contradicting yourself.

    For context, I don't consider that I do intermittent fasting even though I almost never eat breakfast. Back in the '70s I used to do multi-day fasts since I had some idea that there was a benefit to it. Sometimes a water fast, sometimes a juice fast. Doing a fast without water is risky in my opinion.

    So, since you consider yourself fasting because you skipped lunch but don't consider "planned eating" as fasting, how do YOU define fasting?

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    edited August 2022
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.

    Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.

    When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.

    In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.

    Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.

    Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.

    Fasting means different things to different people.

    Context is important. I fasted this afternoon because I missed lunch and dinner will be around 9.00 and I feel swell.

    Context may be important, but you can't have it both ways.

    If you "fasted this afternoon" because you went a few extra hours without eating, but it's "not fasting" if you plan to only eat in a smaller time window, then you are contradicting yourself.

    For context, I don't consider that I do intermittent fasting even though I almost never eat breakfast. Back in the '70s I used to do multi-day fasts since I had some idea that there was a benefit to it. Sometimes a water fast, sometimes a juice fast. Doing a fast without water is risky in my opinion.

    So, since you consider yourself fasting because you skipped lunch but don't consider "planned eating" as fasting, how do YOU define fasting?

    Basically I said skipping a meal wasn't really fasting and you went on to explain in a history lesson that it was and my response was in jest but obviously that didn't come across well lol.
  • LemonMarmalade
    LemonMarmalade Posts: 227 Member
    I really enjoy fasting. I’ve been doing it for over 2 weeks. Flirted with the idea for around 2 years when I read about “Eat Like A Bear”. I thought I would hate it in the beginning. But I LOVE it. From someone who thought about food all day to someone who doesn’t think about food at all. Pretty amazing stuff to me.

    I don’t “starve” all day long. Quite the opposite. I am comfortable with coffee, water and unsweetened tea. I don’t even think about eating, even when cooking breakfast and lunch for my family. I start feeling a little hungry about 5 pm when I sit down to eat with my family.
    I eat my meal over an hour and that’s that. I’m very comfortable with it. I eat 1200 to 1400 calories each day. Lots of salad and proteins.

    When I get there- My maintenance plan will be to widen the fast window to about 6 hours and split my maintenance calories between 2 meals. I have never been a big morning eater so that plan will work great for me.

    I read Dr. Fungs book “The Obesity Code” this past weekend and I learned a lot! I am on the right track for me. To each his/her own!
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    Just a note to people that want to understand autophagy more in-depth if your so inclined. I suggest researching the terms: macroautophagy, microautophagy, chaperone-mediated autophagy and xenophagy. Here's a few examples.

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135626/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32907930/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28026986/

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658709/

  • pollohermano12
    pollohermano12 Posts: 5 Member
    Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
    OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 8,005 Member
    Not eating for 72 hours doesnt sound a very good plan.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
    OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm

    If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.

    Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.

    Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.

    3 or 4 times a month.
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 9,402 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
    OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm

    If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.

    Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.

    Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.

    3 or 4 times a month.

    Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.

    Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.

  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
    OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm

    If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.

    Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.

    Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.

    3 or 4 times a month.

    Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.

    Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.

    No problem, just though I'd mention it.

    If a person had no body fat then I'd agree it's not enough but it someone has 30 lbs of extra adipose tissue that's about 120,000 calories of stored energy, which I think the body can afford to cash in.
  • mtaratoot
    mtaratoot Posts: 9,402 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
    OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm

    If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.

    Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.

    Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.

    3 or 4 times a month.

    Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.

    Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.

    No problem, just though I'd mention it.

    If a person had no body fat then I'd agree it's not enough but it someone has 30 lbs of extra adipose tissue that's about 120,000 calories of stored energy, which I think the body can afford to cash in.

    Maybe not.

    A 45-year-old male at 5' 8" who weighs 200 pounds could easily stand to lose 30 pounds. Probably more. That's a BMI of 30.4. If that person is sedentary and wants to lose one pound per week, their calorie target is 1600 per day. If they are slightly active, then it's 1900. For grins, let's just call it 1800.

    In a 30-day month, 1800 calories per day is 54,000 per month. In order to get 54,000 in 18 days, a person would need to eat 3000 calories on the days that person eats. If that person restricts their eating to a four-hour window on those 18 days, that's 3000 calories in four hours. It's possibly attainable, but perhaps unrealistic for most humans. Go to your favorite search engine and ask it "What does 3000 calories look like." Then decide if you can eat that much food in four hours on the 60% of the days in a given month that you eat. It's about four Big Mac sandwiches plus two large orders of fries.

    Fasting can be a useful tool for weight management, and it may have other benefits. Doing it safely is important. There are many heath issues associated with very low calorie diets (VCLDs).



  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    mtaratoot wrote: »
    Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
    OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm

    If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.

    Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.

    Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.

    3 or 4 times a month.

    Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.

    Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.

    No problem, just though I'd mention it.

    If a person had no body fat then I'd agree it's not enough but it someone has 30 lbs of extra adipose tissue that's about 120,000 calories of stored energy, which I think the body can afford to cash in.

    Maybe not.

    A 45-year-old male at 5' 8" who weighs 200 pounds could easily stand to lose 30 pounds. Probably more. That's a BMI of 30.4. If that person is sedentary and wants to lose one pound per week, their calorie target is 1600 per day. If they are slightly active, then it's 1900. For grins, let's just call it 1800.

    In a 30-day month, 1800 calories per day is 54,000 per month. In order to get 54,000 in 18 days, a person would need to eat 3000 calories on the days that person eats. If that person restricts their eating to a four-hour window on those 18 days, that's 3000 calories in four hours. It's possibly attainable, but perhaps unrealistic for most humans. Go to your favorite search engine and ask it "What does 3000 calories look like." Then decide if you can eat that much food in four hours on the 60% of the days in a given month that you eat. It's about four Big Mac sandwiches plus two large orders of fries.

    Fasting can be a useful tool for weight management, and it may have other benefits. Doing it safely is important. There are many heath issues associated with very low calorie diets (VCLDs).
    Personally it's not something I could do and I'm 6'1" and 182 this morning. We don't know any details and are making assumptions which is fine but there's so many scenarios that make up this space that anything is possible. Maybe they mostly do 48 hr fasts with a 72 thrown in to impress, and eat like it's their last meal, who knows.

    Longer fasts are generally but not always from people that have more understanding than the average person that wants to lose weight, but again with the popularity with band wagon fanatics, who knows.

    I do agree that VLCD's are rife with complications and nutrient deficiencies and of course being in a constant state of deprivation is no way to have a healthy brain/gut connection and is doomed to fail and I see it constantly, hell just take a look of the general population for proof. Cheers
  • dvmmcw8273
    dvmmcw8273 Posts: 42 Member
    It triggers bingeing for me.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 8,503 Member
    For the IF demographic, pretty interesting.

    Circadian physiology of metabolism

    https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7261592/

    Circadian expression of secreted molecules and signaling components transmits timing information between cells and tissues. Such intra- and intercellular daily rhythms optimize physiology both by managing energy use and by temporally segregating incompatible processes. Experimental animal models and epidemiological data indicate that chronic circadian rhythm disruption increases the risk of metabolic diseases. Conversely, time-restricted feeding, which imposes daily cycles of feeding and fasting without caloric reduction, sustains robust diurnal rhythms and can alleviate metabolic diseases. These findings highlight an integrative role of circadian rhythms in physiology and offer a new perspective for treating chronic diseases in which metabolic disruptionis a hallmark.