Fasting - does it work?

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

i like the sound of this. is it really as simple as don't eat for 24hrs, just stick to water, then eat normally again? then repeat every few days?

There are two pretty well-known "fitness-oriented" Intermittent Fasting programs: Eat Stop Eat (a couple of weekly 24 hour fasts) and Leangains (fast 16 hours every day, feed 8).

I don't know a whole lot about whether there is anything more complicated to Eat Stop Eat, but one of the core components of LG is cycling calories and macronutrients depending on whether you are lifting or resting on a particular day. It's definitely not as simple as it may appear on the surface.

Lol....

I have personally fasted for longer periods. 5-7 days. A few times. Not great for losing weight but really effective for health. Got rid of reactive hypoglycemic tendencies this way. Better to do it with juice so you don't shock your body. But I was young and impatient so a water fast worked. Most of us larger Americans can go without food for at least a month with no negative effect. Of course that's LARGER people not people under 200 lbs who just feel fat.

. I don't personally think 24 fasting its bad because it had been practiced for centuries in various religions.

those religions used to stone a women to death if she walked in front of her husband. fasting or not fasting should not be guided by religion.

I've read in a few threads people mentioning intermittent fasting. I'm still not totally clear but it appears the basic concept is you don't eat 16 out of the 24 hours but you consume your calories in the other 8 hours. So does this work or not?

If meal frequency actually had some kind of advantage then IF might qualify, but alas, meal freqency has no such advantage. what it does do is help people control their eating, and many may find they lose weight by default, based on that, much like what a low carb diet does for some.

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

The OP is talking about IF, not fasting in the sense nothing is eaten.

If meal frequency actually had some kind of advantage then IF might qualify, but alas, meal freqency has no such advantage. what it does do is help people control their eating, and many may find they lose weight by default, based on that, much like what a low carb diet does for some.

This is not strictly true. Hormonal responses to fasting can begin to occur around the 14-16 hour mark, triggering some fat burning and muscle building benefits.

If meal frequency actually had some kind of advantage then IF might qualify, but alas, meal freqency has no such advantage. what it does do is help people control their eating, and many may find they lose weight by default, based on that, much like what a low carb diet does for some.

This is not strictly true. Hormonal responses to fasting can begin to occur around the 14-16 hour mark, triggering some fat burning and muscle building benefits.

This is likely to become an Alan vs Martin type of debate, but for entertainment purposes, can you link the study (ies) that Martin references for the above?

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

We do eat food and I am pretty sure we eat way more than you do. The difference is we eat it in a smaller window than you do. I eat 1600-2000 calories between 1pm and 8-9 pm. If in your book it look like anorexia, be my guest. We are not talking about eating 500 calories a day or juicing or any other gimmic.

Thank you for your concern but it is really not what you think it is.

i love this thread, i try to stay under my calories most days but it says im going into starvation mode. thank you everyone.

Intermittend fasting isn't 'staying under your calories'. You eat your calories, you just eat them withing a certain time period each day...or, you eat your maintenance 4-5 days a week, and don't eat for 24hrs 2-3 days a week.

Again, what benifit is there in a 12hr or so fast? Even the 16hr fast leangains recommends is a compromise. The true, scientifically proven benifits are just before, at, and just past the 24hr mark.

Source? Martin links studies that indicate that the hormonal responses occur around the 14-16 hour mark.

@Healthybodyhe: I'm guessing that you are responding from a position of ignorance here. I eat just as much now as I did before I started doing IF; I just do it more intelligently and within a specific window each day.

You misunderstood me. 14-16hrs is where they begin, what's the benifit to 12hrs? THAT was my point. Also...if they begin at 14-16hrs, and level off at the 24hr mark as the studies show, you reap more of the benifits by fasting 24hrs. The reason Martin's (leangains) method is a compromise, is he's not doing it strictly to burn fat, you're also building muscle. Understand, by 'compromise' I don't mean anything negative. In Martin's method, the compromise is building muscle and burning fat, both excellent goals. In Brad's method, maintaining muscle and burning fat is the goal.

I hope that makes more sense now.

What in the world? Fasting is NOT healthy for you! Common sense here.

Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time.

Because by not eating you are harming your body. Just because somebody has done it and has been here for a long time doesn't mean a thing. It's called anorexia. Your body NEEDS food. By not eating you're actually causing your metabolism to slow down when most people (correct me if I am wrong) want it to speed up. EAT. Your body needs it. You're not cleaning out your system by not eating, you're causing your organs to stop doing it's job. Who wants that? Like I said. Common sense.

Umm...do I look anorexic? I eat 3000 calories on lift days, and around 2000 on off days. Try forcing an anorexic to do that. And for the record I've been IFing for close to a year now. Please, inform yourself before crusading your way into a topic in which you have no knowledge or experience. I understand you have great intentions. In this case however, you're simply wrong.

"Look at those who are doing it. You will notice that very often they have the greatest results and have been here for a long time."
[/quote]
LOL... debatable.
[/quote]

Ahh, here comes the kid!

Hey Monty.