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?
Replies
-
Bart you are continuing to mansplain.
nobody needs to study placebo or nocebo or any other effects or be an expert on anything, to see that the scale is, over time, doing what they expect and to decide their way of eating suits them therefore no need to change it.
Water weight, margin of error of scales, etc etc in your post makes no difference to my simple statement above.4 -
I don't think you get it. I have no argument with what you are saying. I am simply pointing out that many people, especially beginners, think something else or are being told something else and are thoroughly disappointed when they see their weight going up instead of down, not realising it takes time.paperpudding wrote: »Bart you are continuing to mansplain.
nobody needs to study placebo or nocebo or any other effects or be an expert on anything, to see that the scale is, over time, doing what they expect and to decide their way of eating suits them therefore no need to change it.
Water weight, margin of error of scales, etc etc in your post makes no difference to my simple statement above.
This is not mansplaining, it is a screen shot:
You know this is bonkers, I know it is bonkers, some people (more than you seem to think there are) don't and are convinced it is true and are taken in. In order to lose this amount of weight, you need to burn 4983 Kcal a day. To compare, the world's most successful dieter, Angus Barbieri, lost 327 g per day, and he did that by fasting, i.e. not eating, under medical supervision, a very dangerous and ill-advised procedure that is known to kill people.
And just in case you think this is an exceptional claim, it is not. In fact, it is common:
Again, it is bonkers, it is nuts, it is crazy, it is ridiculous... but it is a common claim.
But is it really so ridiculous in a world that accepts claims about talking snakes, people curing blindness by rubbing spit in their eyes, people living on air alone (breatharians)?
Have you forgotten about Dr. Oz?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgApDJwc4Ow
There are millions of people out there who fall into traps like these. It made people like Dr. Oz rich.
Don't you think that people who believe this type of nonsense are ready to be discouraged when they see the scale go up instead of down?
You clearly got me fired up, but this is going to be my last post for now. I do have to work every now and then ^_^
If what preceded is not convincing enough, look at this (screenshot from Youtube):
It is easy to sit in a smug privileged position and look down on the people who believe this type of stuff, but lack of education is real, it causes problems and it can cost lives. Ignorance is everywhere and the traditional method of merely ignoring the nonsense has not worked. Just look at what has happened and is happening with respect to COVID-19. Over 1 million Americans are dead. Several hundred thousand would not be if they had been better educated. Their problems are over, but their families' problems are most probably worse, not less.2 -
Another post from you that goes into screeds of irelevant detail not about the topic of the thread mansplaining to me because ' I don't get it'
Stop hijacking threads!!
7 -
I think fasting is an amazing tool for sustainable long term fat loss. It is the hammer in the toolbox of weightloss tools. It produces weight loss through "easy CICO".
As a former research scientist, I've read quite a bit of the literature on various forms of fasting. There's a systematic problem with them. The "magic" of fasting in my experience (and the reflected anecdotal experience of 300k+ people posting on internet fasting forums) is that moderate fasting makes it easier to sustainably consume less calories. Are there metabolic advantages to fasting? No way to know because forcing two groups (fasters and not) to consume isocaloric amounts of food negates the mechanism that produces weight loss. When allowed to eat ad libitum, fasters do consume less than control groups. (Krista Varady lab has several studies showing this).
I can tell you my personal story. I've struggled with obesity for 15 years, having lost/regained 50+ lbs multiple times. What "worked" in the short term was Jenny Craig, CICO/macro counting, Nerdfitness nutrition/strength training coaching, Whole30, low-carb, but none of these strategies were sustainable long term.
In 2020, I started intermittent fasting. It is a tool that does produce moderate weight loss on its own (through no counting CICO) but more broadly, it provides a "sticking power" for other strategies. Too much fasting (I've done months of consecutive 36 hr fasts, and 3-5 day fasting before) can produce binge, elevate cortisol and erode lean mass. Too little fasting will not produce weight loss. You can't outfast a diet high in processed foods/alcohol/sugar.
But moderate fasting is an amazing tool. It just reduces the feeling of "being on a diet" and allows me to be fully satisfied with reasonable, sustainable healthy food. My fasting insulin levels have decreased from 20 uI/U to 4uI/U, reversing "pre-diabetes"
I've lost 60lbs over the last two years and have top 3% lean mass and bone density for my demographic (measured by Dexa). My husband (also a serial dieter and now faster) has lost 85lbs in the same time and is at his high school weight at age 54. His only strategy is fasting--he still eats processed food (although much much less volume) and rarely exercises (he has lost lean mass along with fat).
For me, fasting is a tool in the toolbox, but it's not the only tool. It's the "get started" and "stick with it" tool.
I think it's a mistake to hold up fasting as a singular dietary hero. However, intermittent fasting is the glue that has helped me collect and maintain other healthy habits along the way for years now, rather than weeks.
Strength training, running, triathlon, mostly avoiding added sugar, mostly avoiding fake sweeteners, better sleep, less alcohol, prioritizing protein and veggies, less processed food, glucose monitoring.
Fasting is something that you can adapt to and it's relatively easy--IF you consume nothing but water/black coffee while fasting.
I attribute my ability to stick to any weight loss strategy for more than 12 weeks a pop to intermittent fasting.
6 -
I smoke too much weed to fast haha. The fridge and I would be having it out every night5
-
If I to skip a meal it would be dinner. I don't do anything productive after 7pm.0
-
That is indeed all it is. CICO is what it is all about. Fasting is just one method among many to achieve that. There is nothing miraculous or unique about it, in that respect. I am not a faster, and after losing over 60 kg, I think I can say with a straight face that what I am doing works, but that does not mean in any possible way that my way is the best or the only way. The best way is the way that works for the person who needs to lose weight. All the rest are sideshows that may or may not have some minor influence here or there, but do not disprove or change CICO.I think fasting is an amazing tool for sustainable long term fat loss. It is the hammer in the toolbox of weightloss tools. It produces weight loss through "easy CICO".
I like your reference to Krista Varady, by the way. She is often ignored, possibly because she does not tell people what they want to hear, and because she has lost a bit of her initial enthusiasm about (intermittent) fasting, but she remains a pioneer in the field of intermittent fasting research and deserves more attention than she is getting.0 -
I did 16:8 fasting for years. I now have gallstones. I don't know if it was the weight loss that caused it or the fasting but I have read some papers that suggest there is a correlation between fasting and gallstones. I don't fast anymore and I don't get gallbladder pain anymore either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405175/pdf/amjph00207-0058.pdf1 -
Who is to say? We know indeed that there is a correlation between fast weight loss and gallstones even if the mechanism is, to the best of my knowledge, not fully understood. From there, it seems logical to assume that fasting will cause gallstones, since it is hard to lose weight faster than through not ingesting any energy at all.refactored wrote: »I did 16:8 fasting for years. I now have gallstones. I don't know if it was the weight loss that caused it or the fasting but I have read some papers that suggest there is a correlation between fasting and gallstones. I don't fast anymore and I don't get gallbladder pain anymore either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405175/pdf/amjph00207-0058.pdf
0 -
I'm happy to say that it's been a year and I kept the 10 pounds out of the 14 I lost, off!
So here I am again going to give it another try and getting back to working out because I've been sick for a couple of weeks.
I do eat more fiber which eases food cravings and hunger.
0 -
One very important lesson I learned from my brief experience fasting (I frequently cannot for health reasons at present) was what it felt like to actually be hungry, and that I could wait a little to eat and not immediately die.
Maybe this is an overreach but I think learning to sit and be OK with a little discomfort (not a lot, not dangerously, but just, not constant immediate satisfaction) could do a lot psychologically re: weight loss all on its own. It certainly had a profound effect on me.10 -
Congratulations.I'm happy to say that it's been a year and I kept the 10 pounds out of the 14 I lost, off!
So here I am again going to give it another try and getting back to working out because I've been sick for a couple of weeks.
Lucky you. Keep up the good work.I do eat more fiber which eases food cravings and hunger.
In my case, fibre has zero impact on hunger and my average consumption is more than double the minimum recommended. I wish it were different.1 -
We IF daily…we are on a 16:8 schedule most days but sometimes a 20:4. It fits our lifestyle. We have been pursuing IF for health reasons outside of weight loss. Our research led us to do our first water fast. We concluded at 49 hours because salmon sounded really good. We felt amazing and are excited to do a 24 hour fast probably weekly. We are in a period of time where food is available ALL the time. No wonder America is so dog gone FAT! I promise you won’t die if you fail to eat something every 2 hours. Do your research…dive deep because the health reason to fast outweigh the ones not to fast.1
-
Was anyone suggesting you would die if you didn't eat every 2 hours???
4 -
paperpudding wrote: »Was anyone suggesting you would die if you didn't eat every 2 hours???
I took that to mean, try fasting, your not going to starve yourself to death. Your right though, nobody says people will die if a person doesn't eat every 2 hours, or at least I haven't heard anyone say that. Cheers1 -
refactored wrote: »I did 16:8 fasting for years. I now have gallstones. I don't know if it was the weight loss that caused it or the fasting but I have read some papers that suggest there is a correlation between fasting and gallstones. I don't fast anymore and I don't get gallbladder pain anymore either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405175/pdf/amjph00207-0058.pdfrefactored wrote: »I did 16:8 fasting for years. I now have gallstones. I don't know if it was the weight loss that caused it or the fasting but I have read some papers that suggest there is a correlation between fasting and gallstones. I don't fast anymore and I don't get gallbladder pain anymore either.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1405175/pdf/amjph00207-0058.pdf
Actually this study only followed women because apparently men rarely get gallstones, why, don't know. They also believed that gallstones were affected mostly through dietary patterns of plant vegetable oils and fat and from weight loss dieting and "prolonged" fasts.
This was also an epidemiological study where information was gathered through FFQ's (food frequency questionnaires) which are notoriously wrong, then followed these women for a decade or so then after adjusting for confounders, which is an impossibility, but it the context of an observation anyway, what else can be done, but take a stab at it. I wouldn't be taking these conclusions to the bank. Further studies are needed always follow any epidemiology studies, without exception and for good reason, you simply can't draw any conclusions whatsoever.
I love correlations. One of the better ones was, at the beach ice cream sales directly correlated to shark attacks, therefore, increased ice cream sales caused an increase in shark attacks. Conclusion sharks like to eat people full of ice cream. Cheers.2 -
In this video Dr Valter Longo (well known for his longevity research) says fasting for longer than 12 hours per day for more than a few months can lead to the formation of gallstones. He says it at around 7 minutes into the video. I assume he can synthesize the weight of research on the subject better than most @neanderthin.
https://youtu.be/bl380FLpBnM 2 -
Valter Longo is certainly one of the more credible people out there. He's at least a genuine scientist who knows what he is talking about and he has a lot of great advice and opinions. I'd take him any day above some random popular Internet or television quack. That said, caution is still advisable. He is a man with a company and products to sell. That does not make him a money grabbing charlatan, but it is also not unreasonable to double check what he says against other, perhaps less potentially biased sources of information. Nevertheless, whatever he says on the subject is more than worth listening to.refactored wrote: »In this video Dr Valter Longo (well known for his longevity research) says fasting for longer than 12 hours per day for more than a few months can lead to the formation of gallstones. He says it at around 7 minutes into the video. I assume he can synthesize the weight of research on the subject better than most @neanderthin.https://youtu.be/bl380FLpBnM
Some people may also recognise him from Michael Mosley's documentary on intermittent fasting that also featured Krista Varady, another pioneer in intermittent fasting research. She was initially over-the-top enthusiastic on the subject, and published a popular book on it, but has since cooled down quite a bit, realising there is very little to no credible evidence for the claimed superiority of intermittent fasting., but it still remains one of many options to reduce energy intake for weight loss and weight maintenance. She is now researching more on "time-restricted eating".
1 -
Great point.I find particularly odd the argument that natural selection designed us to go for long periods without eating, so that implies that we best thrive if we go for long periods without eating. Why would that be true? Natural selection designed us so that our broken bones can heal, too, but no one suggests healthy people should routinely break bones in order to make them stronger.
We could add to this that natural selection also evolved us to be able to regrow parts of our liver. That does not mean that it would be a particularly brilliant idea to cut everyone open every now and then to harvest half of their liver or so. What is also funny is that people are claiming that stress is bad for you. Yet, natural evolution has given us the tools we need to deal with stress. When following the same logic, we should be very happy about stress, because it improves our health.
There are numerous other examples, but it is clear that the natural selection argument is a very poor argument indeed.1 -
refactored wrote: »In this video Dr Valter Longo (well known for his longevity research) says fasting for longer than 12 hours per day for more than a few months can lead to the formation of gallstones. He says it at around 7 minutes into the video. I assume he can synthesize the weight of research on the subject better than most @neanderthin.https://youtu.be/bl380FLpBnM
Yeah, interesting video and watched it through. He's developing what he refers to as a fasting mimicking diet (FMD) for the study in longevity in animals, mostly mice and humans. Basically it's a diet where you eat food while fasting, which would really not be fasting in the true sense of the word but it's a fascinating hypothesis to say the least and I will be looking into it more.
To address your question, yeah he only refers to gallstones as a possible problem in longer fasts based on the mechanisms that effect gallstones, to which there are many and mostly from diabetes and obesity and one includes from again observational data that extended fasts could also be factored in. That's the best science appears to have at the moment simply because no RCT (random control trials) have been done, and never will, it's just to difficult to control and expensive to determine actual risk, so it comes down to association and in the video he assigns "risk" to be double, so an extended fast could double a person risk for gallstones.
When you research gallstones and see who are at risk it mainly falls to females apparently and certain ethnic groups more so, so there is that, plus, in reference to risk, they're talking about RR relative risk and not AR absolute risk. Relative risk as it pertains to an individual comes down to what is the likelihood a person would be inflicted with gallstones to begin with. In the USA it appears to be 1-3%. For example if a person had a 1% chance of gallstones and if extended fasts double a persons risk of getting gallstones in their lifetime, then the risk would now be 2%. Cheers.
To Add: A good example of relative risk is with pharmaceutical companies that promote statins. A few years ago they showed a 33% RR reduction is heart related events but when you extrapolate that out to absolute risk it worked out to 1 in 10,000. Basically 10,000 people prescribed statins and only 1 person saw a benefit. Statins are also the most prescribed drug in the world.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
Great point.I find particularly odd the argument that natural selection designed us to go for long periods without eating, so that implies that we best thrive if we go for long periods without eating. Why would that be true? Natural selection designed us so that our broken bones can heal, too, but no one suggests healthy people should routinely break bones in order to make them stronger.
We could add to this that natural selection also evolved us to be able to regrow parts of our liver. That does not mean that it would be a particularly brilliant idea to cut everyone open every now and then to harvest half of their liver or so. What is also funny is that people are claiming that stress is bad for you. Yet, natural evolution has given us the tools we need to deal with stress. When following the same logic, we should be very happy about stress, because it improves our health.
There are numerous other examples, but it is clear that the natural selection argument is a very poor argument indeed.
Ann if your inclined to do some research on this topic I found this publication pretty informative.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajpa.24247
Cheers.0 -
Any kind of restrictive diet like that is a big squick for me. No shame to those it works for, but it teeters a bit too close to dangerous habits for me personally.0
-
To me, food is kind of addictive. Once I take a bite, it takes a lot of effort not to over eat. For me, it is easier to follow a modified version alternate day fasting were I don't eat at all Mon, Wed and Friday. The other days I avoid overeating by counting calories although I allocate a comfortable amount (2300 to 2500). This routine allowed me to lose so far 30 lbs and most importantly, heal my fatty liver. I workout on the eating days and rest on the fasting days.
I found almost no references to alternate day fasting in this thread. I found that calorie counting fed my neurosis and was making me crazy AF. I eventually 'fell off the wagon,' and went back to my old ways. Recently at a routine physical making another complaint to my Dr, that 'I couldn't lose weight...' he offered me Ozempic. I was shocked. I still wonder and plan to ask him if he was just trying to shock me into 'doing something.' Or, if he really thought that was a good idea. Anyhow, I did need to do something. A friend suggested IF, and I replied that I could still overeat in a smaller window. She said, 'what about 5:2?. I did 5 minutes research on it, and decided I could modify it to suit my 4 on 4 of schedule. 6:2 or 5:3... whatever. Now, the internet indicates that the 'fasting days' are no cal or low cal. My friend said 600 calories was good for 'fast' days. I fully realize that 600 calories is NOT fasting. I call them low cal days. One thing that MFP has taught me is CICO. So clearly, overeating to the right extent on 'regular eating' days, will cancel out low cal days. That said, I amped up to basically 1:1 pretty quickly, alternating low cal days with regular eating days. I stick to around 600-800 calories on LC days, and eat more or less normally on RE days. My urge to binge seems to be reduced, and I am on track to be down 20 lbs over 4 months.
I understand that this is not for just about anyone here. But, it's working for me. When I hit the 20 lb mark, I plan to go to 5:3 from my current 4:4. Another 10 lbs lost, I expect to go to 6:2. I feel like once I am at my 'goal weight, I can maintain by doing 7:1 until I retire, then, 6:1 when weeks become 7 days for me.
It's certainly not magic by any means... it is just my way of reducing calorie intake, and it's currently working. I am also extremely flexible with it. I call it 'Arbitrary Fasting,' because I call audibles all the time, and if I'm at someone's house for dinner on what should be a LC day, well... I eat. If I am a bit hungry on a LC day, I don't starve myself, I eat a little snack.
But for some reason, I am so far, losing pretty consistently, and I can do the 'one day at a time' LC thing without feeling seriously deprived.
I realize this makes little sense to anyone who is comfortable simply reducing their calorie intake daily to create a deficit. But, I'm not counting much at all.
There is no magic. But this is the closest it's gotten to magic for me.
3 -
Hi All. I am in year 3 of my fitness journey and I have lost over 80 kg, and most people would call me fit now (though my own neurosis will not allow me to think the same haha).
I have done IF in the past, like one day a week, or a 4-7 day fast.
I have now been doing Alternate Day Fasting for about 2 weeks now.
My question/issue is for anyone who is doing or has done ADF. I don’t really have any problems on my fasting days. I mean I get hungry, but I have not had any trouble not eating for those (usually) 30+ hours. My issue is on my eating days I feel like I am eating too much. I am probably eating 3,000-3,500 calories on those days. And I find myself eating even if I am not hungry. So it seems like a mental thing where I feel like on my eating days I have to consume as much food as possible.
Has anyone else experienced this? If so, do you have any advice?
Thanks.0 -
Have you figured out your TDEE? Do you have a set calorie goal? I know some people have said they like to shoot for a weekly goal instead of daily, especially when they’re doing different forms of fasting. Is it possible maybe you’re not consistently eating as high as you think on your eat days? Are you working out really hard? Is it possible that you need to go back to more of an IF to sustain you every day instead of skipping?xanderkross9545 wrote: »Hi All. I am in year 3 of my fitness journey and I have lost over 80 kg, and most people would call me fit now (though my own neurosis will not allow me to think the same haha).
I have done IF in the past, like one day a week, or a 4-7 day fast.
I have now been doing Alternate Day Fasting for about 2 weeks now.
My question/issue is for anyone who is doing or has done ADF. I don’t really have any problems on my fasting days. I mean I get hungry, but I have not had any trouble not eating for those (usually) 30+ hours. My issue is on my eating days I feel like I am eating too much. I am probably eating 3,000-3,500 calories on those days. And I find myself eating even if I am not hungry. So it seems like a mental thing where I feel like on my eating days I have to consume as much food as possible.
Has anyone else experienced this? If so, do you have any advice?
Thanks.
I’m not extremely versed in it. Just some things I’ve heard of read. I used to do ADA a few years ago. I felt great until I started working out harder. It didn’t feel good anymore so I stopped and went back to IF. I would do a longer fast once every week or two back then. I haven’t done those in a long time either now. Good luck!
1 -
xanderkross9545 wrote: »Hi All. I am in year 3 of my fitness journey and I have lost over 80 kg, and most people would call me fit now (though my own neurosis will not allow me to think the same haha).
I have done IF in the past, like one day a week, or a 4-7 day fast.
I have now been doing Alternate Day Fasting for about 2 weeks now.
My question/issue is for anyone who is doing or has done ADF. I don’t really have any problems on my fasting days. I mean I get hungry, but I have not had any trouble not eating for those (usually) 30+ hours. My issue is on my eating days I feel like I am eating too much. I am probably eating 3,000-3,500 calories on those days. And I find myself eating even if I am not hungry. So it seems like a mental thing where I feel like on my eating days I have to consume as much food as possible.
Has anyone else experienced this? If so, do you have any advice?
Thanks.
I wish people would call me fit.
If you saw my post a couple above yours, https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/comment/47402436/#Comment_47402436 you'll see my story. I have been doing, basically ADF (low calories on fast days, not no calories) for several months. I am a pretty neurotic eater and tend to binge, especially on 'trigger' foods. And there are a lot of them for me. Most foods, in fact.
I have found that IF has reduced my cravings quite a bit, and I think more about what, and how much I am eating on 'regular eating' (RE) days. That said, I am quite aware that there could be a tendency to overeat on RE days. So, I am mindful of that. I am also mindful to eat enough on RE days, and not scrimp, because they are not meant to be diet days. But, I don't count calories, and I must be eating less calories in vs calories out over time, because I am losing weight.
If you are looking to lose weight, or maintain, are you doing that?
I don't know what your numbers are, or if you keep accurate track of them. But, for reference, I 'figure...' and that's all it is, some numbers I damn near pulled out of my butt... I might eat 600-800 calories on LC days, and something between say, 2000 and 2500 on RE days. So, if I eat, 800 half the time, and 2500 half the time.. in 8 days, I eat 13,200 in a week. That averages to 1650 a day. If I need 2,000 to sustain my current weight, I'm in the red 2800 every 8 days. Now, since I have no evidence of any of this being accurate, I just go by the scale. I'm down around 20 lbs in about 16 weeks, so my numbers are probably all pretty inaccurate, in my favor.
My question to you would be... if you're eating every second day, and consuming 3500 calories every 2 days, is this a deficit? I don't have any decent advice for curbing your eating on RE days... except to keep an eye on intake those days, and simply be mindful.
As @MelG7777 says, you might consider going back to a more conventional IF, if it works for you.
3 -
Re: fasting. I wouldn’t deem it a “trend” - It’s been around for centuries used during religious rights. I.e Ramadan and Buddhism and used for decades in endocrinology for supplemental treatment of chronic diseases.
When used for therapeutic purposes, it’s been shown to improve insulin sensitivity. For those of us who have been flagged for insulin resistance .. it’s something to explore.
An NIH meta analysis: lhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8970877/2 -
I hate eating early in the day, often don't eat late, so normal eating for me is sometimes 20:4. I lose weight easier if I eat some protein for breakfast and later at night, so more like 12:12.0
-
MFP's take from a Registered Dietitian. They have some great videos.
https://youtu.be/TBr0gEhVoiU?t=6
1 -
Hiawassee88 wrote: »MFP's take from a Registered Dietitian. They have some great videos.https://youtu.be/TBr0gEhVoiU?t=6
Wasn't expecting that. She didn't miss a beat, good job MFP. Cheers1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions