Fasting, and my irrefultable results.

page: 15
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 27 2012 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
I think you are somewhat confused about the process. Or the context of the question has been confused. Your brain can absolutely use ketones and they will definitely be used during a fast.


Wow. That's pretty much what I said. There are times, however, when insulin levels are elevated, that lypolysis is inhibited and ketones aren't produced.


You've steered the argument away from what you were originally claiming to refute.

Fat, skinny, whatever. Eat less and you will lose weight.


My original point was to point out a very real paradox that exists, which you happened to not address.

I'm arguing that, in most cases, eating less than you burn will lead to weight loss. I'm not arguing thermodynamics. I'm arguing your understanding of thermodynamics. I'm arguing what obesity researchers have said all along..."Caloric restriction alone doesn't work in the long term for the treatment of obesity."




If you have a high BF%, obese, and eat below your BMR you will lose fat. The amount of muscle tissue you will lose in comparison to fat is negligible. The higher the BF the more negligible this is.


Well, no. That depends heavily on how hyperinsulinemic they are... and how insulin resistant they are. Once again, it's not just about calories.


If you want to cite something that refutes this go for it. Or don't. My point i guess is for people that might actually want a simple solution for losing weight and may have been confused by all the misinformation about WHAT to eat. When the REAL issue (first and foremost for Obese people) is HOW MUCH to eat.


While this seems obvious, it's just not the case. When obese people simply cut, say, 1000 calories a day without regard to caloric content, they lose weight initially (which can be attributed to water-loss mainly) but then their bodies make compensatory changes to achieve energy balance.

In a lean individual, these changes are easier to handle due to the readily available fat from the fat cells. So, to a lean individual, it would seem rather easy to just eat less to lose weight. It's not. And physiological compensations (hunger, etc.) will dominate anything that you want to call "will power."

And obesity researchers admit this. Should I say it again? They've been saying this and studies have demonstrated this time and time again.




posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by rwfresh
I think you are somewhat confused about the process. Or the context of the question has been confused. Your brain can absolutely use ketones and they will definitely be used during a fast.


Wow. That's pretty much what I said. There are times, however, when insulin levels are elevated, that lypolysis is inhibited and ketones aren't produced.


You've steered the argument away from what you were originally claiming to refute.

Fat, skinny, whatever. Eat less and you will lose weight.


My original point was to point out a very real paradox that exists, which you happened to not address.

I'm arguing that, in most cases, eating less than you burn will lead to weight loss. I'm not arguing thermodynamics. I'm arguing your understanding of thermodynamics. I'm arguing what obesity researchers have said all along..."Caloric restriction alone doesn't work in the long term for the treatment of obesity."




If you have a high BF%, obese, and eat below your BMR you will lose fat. The amount of muscle tissue you will lose in comparison to fat is negligible. The higher the BF the more negligible this is.


Well, no. That depends heavily on how hyperinsulinemic they are... and how insulin resistant they are. Once again, it's not just about calories.


If you want to cite something that refutes this go for it. Or don't. My point i guess is for people that might actually want a simple solution for losing weight and may have been confused by all the misinformation about WHAT to eat. When the REAL issue (first and foremost for Obese people) is HOW MUCH to eat.


While this seems obvious, it's just not the case. When obese people simply cut, say, 1000 calories a day without regard to caloric content, they lose weight initially (which can be attributed to water-loss mainly) but then their bodies make compensatory changes to achieve energy balance.

In a lean individual, these changes are easier to handle due to the readily available fat from the fat cells. So, to a lean individual, it would seem rather easy to just eat less to lose weight. It's not. And physiological compensations (hunger, etc.) will dominate anything that you want to call "will power."

And obesity researchers admit this. Should I say it again? They've been saying this and studies have demonstrated this time and time again.


Say what again? Type a full page of unrelated factoids? Dude. YOU are talking about will power. YOU are talking about insulin sensitivity. YOU are talking about ketones. Not me. ALL of this information does NOTHING to refute a very simple KNOWN and PROVABLE truth. There is NO argument to be had.

You think eating less calories is not a long term solution to Obesity? SAYS WHO?!! It is the only solution. You are utterly confused. NONE of the crap you are talking about makes a LICK of difference or sense to anyone with a body. If calories are restricted, whether fat, skinny, black, white, athletic, sloth.. makes NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. WEIGHT IS LOST. GUARANTEED. Lock yourself in a cage for a month without food and see what happens.

You show me ONE controlled study that shows calorie reduction below BMR does not result in weight-loss so long as the calories reduced and i will return that study back to you with a big F- . There is no discussion. People starve. Weight is lost. It is simple. Anorexia and starvation is real. And when you die from it you are not fat.

"(which can be attributed to water-loss mainly) but then their bodies make compensatory changes to achieve energy balance. "

Right. They lose water because they ate less. OK. What if they drink more. Over a month of drinking adequate water within a calorie deficit what do you think the result will be? How confused are you? This is not rocket science. How do you suppose the body achieves "energy balance"? By consuming calories from the atmosphere? The sun maybe? Come on dude. There is no argument here to be had. Eat less lose weight every time. Try it yourself. And if you don't have the will power that does not prove anything. And let me tell you. It's tough to maintain will power when you are constantly being convinced that eating less won't work. GET IT?? What's the use of changing one's diet, restricting calories if it doesn't work? That is why information like yours is so completely depowering and offensive.

How many times do we here: "I ate less and nothing happened". Then a bunch of witch doctors chime in with studies "backing up" the delusion. It's all BS. Eat less, lose weight. No doctor, no bs science, no dietician, no nutritionist, no magic pills, no secret exercise plan needed. EVER.



posted on Jun, 28 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


WARNING to overweight and obese people.

NEVER try and lower your body fat by restricting calories. This is unsafe and has been proven in approved scientific laboratories to be completely ineffective. The body is extremely complicated, mysterious, scientific and unpredictable except for those advanced in the field of dietry. Although you were able to simply and mindlessly get fat by eating more calories than you burn, losing fat does not work that way. As logical as it may seem. Eating more makes you fat, but eating less will not make you skinny. Consult a doctor who will give you the secret science information needed for you to lose weight. This is science. Do not play with it.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh

Say what again? Type a full page of unrelated factoids? Dude. YOU are talking about will power. YOU are talking about insulin sensitivity. YOU are talking about ketones. Not me. ALL of this information does NOTHING to refute a very simple KNOWN and PROVABLE truth. There is NO argument to be had.


You're right. I am talking about that stuff. Mainly, because that's the context in which my point was made. You're creating some ridiculous straw-man argument. Jesus Christ. Nobody in their right mind would argue that burning more energy than you take in won't lead to weight loss. It would be an ignorant argument to suggest that the human body doesn't abide by the laws of physics.

Let's not forget that it was you whom responded to my post to another member. You are the one who has taken this out of context and begun arguing fallacious points. Here...I'll go retrieve what I said: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The subject was about calorie restriction and longevity; it had nothing to do with caloric restriction as it relates to obesity. And nowhere in that post did I say eating less does not make you lose weight.


You think eating less calories is not a long term solution to Obesity? SAYS WHO?!!


Says the experts. Says the studies. Purposefully restricting calories with the intent to reverse obesity is not very effective... says science!


If calories are restricted, whether fat, skinny, black, white, athletic, sloth.. makes NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. WEIGHT IS LOST. GUARANTEED
.

Well, yes, if the there is a negative energy balance. Sure. And, yes, weight is lost, not necessarily fat. It's important to make that distinction because what is being burned will depend upon whether one is fat, skinny, athletic and also how for long the negative energy balance is sustained.


Lock yourself in a cage for a month without food and see what happens.


Stop with the irrelevant extreme hypotheticals. Restricting a couple hundred calories is night and day compared to starvation.

If you are weight stable, eating 100 calories less per day (the equivalent of a piece of toast) should net nearly 1lb of fat loss per month (10lbs in a year), according to "logic" and "common sense" as you say. Unfortunately, this is not observed. 1) The body wants to be weight stable. Homeostasis is thrived for. Therefore, the body makes compensatory changes. 2) If there is weight loss, with the vast majority of Americans, the weight lost will be lean body mass, not fat. And, remember, obesity is a disease of excess fat deposition, not lean mass.

Starvation... well, those are completely different metabolic effects.


You show me ONE controlled study that shows calorie reduction below BMR does not result in weight-loss so long as the calories reduced and i will return that study back to you with a big F- .


But that's not what I'm arguing. I will say, though, that BMR is not an independent variable, either. It's not a fixed rate. And it is indeed affected by what type of food consumed, how much and hormone levels.


That is why information like yours is so completely depowering and offensive.


It's only offensive if you choose to believe or have faith in a hypothesis rather than let the science dictate what works and what doesn't. There's a reason why people almost always fail to lose substantial weight in the long term by simply restricting calories. It's because it doesn't work.


How many times do we here: "I ate less and nothing happened".


That happens quite a bit. People lose a little muscle but they stay fat. Then they just hungrier and tend to jump ship and gain more weight than what they started with. There's a reason for that, too.


Eat less, lose weight. No doctor, no bs science, no dietician, no nutritionist, no magic pills, no secret exercise plan needed. EVER.


If it's that easy, why is obesity still researched to this day? Why scientists still debate on the subject? Are you, perhaps, smarter than they are?

I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time. I am not saying that a negative energy balance won't result in weight loss.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


WARNING to overweight and obese people.

NEVER try and lower your body fat by restricting calories. This is unsafe and has been proven in approved scientific laboratories to be completely ineffective. The body is extremely complicated, mysterious, scientific and unpredictable except for those advanced in the field of dietry. Although you were able to simply and mindlessly get fat by eating more calories than you burn, losing fat does not work that way. As logical as it may seem. Eating more makes you fat, but eating less will not make you skinny. Consult a doctor who will give you the secret science information needed for you to lose weight. This is science. Do not play with it.



Or, just use a low carb diet. I just weighed today at 270. That is 200lbs lost since 1-3-11. And it has been a long time since I saw this huge rock of muscle on my arm, or seen the ripple in my chest while putting a shirt on.

But, then again, I fancy myself as mad scientist.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Hells yeah! That's awesome. When I saw an earlier post of yours, I started wondering how that was coming along. Good for you, man!

If I may ask, though. How many times did you try losing weight by just eating less?



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


Never. I only did this because of my son needing to lose weight. I really didn't mind being fat.

Now that I am not fat, i sure DO mind being fat. The night time capabilities alone.....

I never could just "eat less" because food tastes so good. But now that I have broken the sugar addiction, and my liver is not full of sugars, my body doesn't crave sugar and I eat far, far less before being full. And i have no desire to snack in between meals, either.

"Eating less" is an impossibility for someone who's body is sensitive to sugar/starch. Not until they are completely clear of sugars/starches.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   
So, as a result of eliminating certain foods, you're naturally eating to fullness and losing weight? And you're really restricting calories?

When someone is as large as you were, by simply restricting carbohydrates and, subsequently, lowering insulin levels, you become less hungry. And, naturally, you eat less. Insulin is hyperphagic. By--sort of--locking fat in fat cells, instead of where they need to go, insulin increases hunger.

I know you know this, I'm just making a point for our friend here. Had you simply ate less... you would have perhaps lost a little bit of water weight. But you would have been ravenous for food and would have had no energy. Eventually, you would have given up and then put on more weight than you had previously (that is if your fat cells weren't already insulin resistant).

The point to this guy who can't seem to wrap his head around this idea is this: YES! You're right (sort of)! Eating less will lead to weight loss. However, consciously eating less to lose fat does not work. Eating less as a subsequent action of consuming foods that are satiating and allow fat liberation from the cells does work. And it's why time and time again low-carb diets slaughter all other diets in fat loss, and even all other health scores.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 


sure, you fancied up what i was saying.

But that is basically it. Sugar/starches tend to create a downward spiral of hunger in some people. These people are the majority of our over weight population (some are for other reasons like thyroid issues, etc).

This is not made any better by booze. Humans love of alcohol drives obesity to a large degree. Especially beer drinkers, and those fruity sweet drink drinkers.

To "just eat less" only works for people who want to lose 5-10 lbs. These are people who obviously do not have the sugar addiction issue, as they do not have severe weight issues. And to make matters worse, it seems that popular culture likes to misidentify this. The whole "metabolism" really refers to only one thing: your bodies ability to process carbohydrates. So, it would seem obvious that if you eliminate carbs it doesn't matter how you process them. They are not generally a necessary part of the diet.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I would also point out that, in reality, i may not be restricting calories very much. I eat a very, very fat rich diet. Fat is generally 9 calories per gram, whereas carbs are about 5 calories/gram. I use a lot of heavy cream in my house (about 2 gallons/week). We eat tons of pork. And butter....we are not afraid of butter.

I would think that I may eat about 1/2 the total quantity of food, but that quantity is about the same caloric value.

But that is just a guess. I could, actually, be restricting calories. Who knows. I DO know that when I pee on a keto strip, it is always at about "40", whatever that number means.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Just means you're in Ketosis.

It's possible that you're consuming the same amount or even more calories; however, your body can adjust by burning more. You're not in fat storage "mode" so fat is readily available to be used as energy. In such cases, metabolic rate increases.

Congrats again!



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Just an FYI, I'm planning on starting a fast within the next few weeks. I need to cleanse my system, and help promote healing in my knees again. I really have to stop running down hill. It nails me every time.
My diet hasn't exactly been the healthiest as of late, either. Time for a reboot
So this weekend I began the process by increasing my fruit and vegetable intake while eliminating most un natural sugars, meats and other excess carbs. I plan to slowly decrease my food intake, until it's pretty much 1 apple for breakfast, a nutty salad for lunch, and a banana / another salad for dinner. I will also be making a nice vegetable juice to help ease my body into liquids. The juice contains cucumber, carrot, spinach, celery, and few other veggies (maybe potato and a little cayenne pepper as well, as those can help ease the stomach as well as promote balanced blood pressure).



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

You're right. I am talking about that stuff. Mainly, because that's the context in which my point was made. You're creating some ridiculous straw-man argument. Jesus Christ.


Yeah and frankly i'm not interested in a bunch of broscience. Congrats to you for finding out how to increase weight loss 1% above what any normal person can achieve with simple calorie reduction.



Let's not forget that it was you whom responded to my post to another member. You are the one who has taken this out of context and begun arguing fallacious points. Here...I'll go retrieve what I said: www.abovetopsecret.com...

The subject was about calorie restriction and longevity; it had nothing to do with caloric restriction as it relates to obesity. And nowhere in that post did I say eating less does not make you lose weight.


Yeah and you responded to me with a bunch of bull turd. Obesity and longevity have a relationship. Right?



Says the experts. Says the studies. Purposefully restricting calories with the intent to reverse obesity is not very effective... says science!


COMPARED TO WHAT? Get your head out. Seriously.. Who are you trying to convince? Purposefully reducing HOW MUCH YOU EAT is the only proven, guaranteed method of reducing weight safely, effectively and for the long term. You are talking to someone who LOVES FOOD and is living proof, going on 40 years. So whatever bs you are ready.. hope it's working for you.



Well, yes, if the there is a negative energy balance. Sure. And, yes, weight is lost, not necessarily fat. It's important to make that distinction because what is being burned will depend upon whether one is fat, skinny, athletic and also how for long the negative energy balance is sustained.


Yes in the case of the obese or even the overweight, it is fat.



Stop with the irrelevant extreme hypotheticals. Restricting a couple hundred calories is night and day compared to starvation.


Me? hahaha i am talking about simple PROVEN and personally PROVABLE common sense weight loss. Eat less. What in God's name is your argument? What?



If you are weight stable, eating 100 calories less per day (the equivalent of a piece of toast) should net nearly 1lb of fat loss per month (10lbs in a year), according to "logic" and "common sense" as you say. Unfortunately, this is not observed. 1) The body wants to be weight stable. Homeostasis is thrived for. Therefore, the body makes compensatory changes. 2) If there is weight loss, with the vast majority of Americans, the weight lost will be lean body mass, not fat. And, remember, obesity is a disease of excess fat deposition, not lean mass.

Starvation... well, those are completely different metabolic effects.


WRONG again. Under completely controlled conditions YES you will lose the weight. Absolutely. Proven time and time again. What the hell is "weight" stable? Some more broscience.



But that's not what I'm arguing. I will say, though, that BMR is not an independent variable, either. It's not a fixed rate. And it is indeed affected by what type of food consumed, how much and hormone levels.


Who said it was? Type of food and hormone levels are inconsequential to 99% of the population. Again more misinfo you've bought into.



It's only offensive if you choose to believe or have faith in a hypothesis rather than let the science dictate what works and what doesn't. There's a reason why people almost always fail to lose substantial weight in the long term by simply restricting calories. It's because it doesn't work. .


Hypothesis? hahah. Really? I guess the millions+++ of people who are living proof are all anomalies. You are seriously confused. Let's be clear. Calorie Reduction is SCIENCE and works. FAILURE TO APPLY IT is what you are confused about. Not me.



If it's that easy, why is obesity still researched to this day? Why scientists still debate on the subject? Are you, perhaps, smarter than they are?

I'll reiterate for the umpteenth time. I am not saying that a negative energy balance won't result in weight loss.


What debate? There is no debate on calorie reduction. it's conclusive. BUT all the misinformation and related studies are done for the obvious. MONEY MONEY MONEY. Keep people confused with hormones and evil macros.. Sell them raspberry ketones and thermogenic fat burners instead of educating them on the way they got fat and how the proven method is not up for debate. TRY IT YOURSELF you liar.

You want a diet that allows for the absolute most variety of foods? Completely unrestricted variety? Fat, carbs, protein.. ice cream, pizza, steak, greens etc. etc. It's called quantity restriction. Get it? Simple.



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd



You think eating less calories is not a long term solution to Obesity? SAYS WHO?!!


Says the experts. Says the studies. Purposefully restricting calories with the intent to reverse obesity is not very effective... says science!
.

Then how does gastric bypass surgery work?



posted on Jul, 3 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Turq1
 


Ever know anyone who had gastric bypass? They eat pretty much only fats and proteins, along with lots of water (nothing carbonated) and vitamins. sugars (carbs) cause dumping syndrom in them.

They, in essence, are forced into a low carb diet. At that point, they could have just saved a lot of money and went low carb to begin with.

My best friend and his sister had it done when I started my weight loss.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Turq1
 


Ever know anyone who had gastric bypass? They eat pretty much only fats and proteins, along with lots of water (nothing carbonated) and vitamins. sugars (carbs) cause dumping syndrom in them.

They, in essence, are forced into a low carb diet. At that point, they could have just saved a lot of money and went low carb to begin with.

My best friend and his sister had it done when I started my weight loss.


Hey bigfatfurrytexan , congrats on your weight loss. I have followed high protein diet, atkins (high fat high protein) etc. many times in my life. Yes it works. But if you've never counted calories BEFORE and never during a specific diet phase you will never be able to confirm to yourself 100% what the primary driver is in the success of your diet.

You are pretty much guaranteed to be on a calorie deficit. It is very difficult for most people to maintain a calorie surplus long term on a high fat, high protein diet. Why? Because you know that you don't actually want more fat or protein so you stop eating so much.

It's easy to prove it to yourself. Grab a calorie tracker like tracker.dailyburn.com or any other one. there are lots. And track your macros/calories for a week. See exactly how many calories you are consuming. Calculate your BMR here:

www.muscleandstrength.com...

If you are at a calorie deficit, regardless of what macros you are primarily consuming, you will be losing weight.

See for yourself. Guessing is one thing.. Again, nothing particularly wrong with a high fat/protein diet. But understand, when you get bored of eating steak,eggs, chicken all day for months on end you can still continue to lose weight by simply eating what you want within a deficit.

edit on 5-7-2012 by rwfresh because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Im sorry i have skipped from page 5... but what about the consequences?

Since you are not eating, what about problem like slow metabolism during that 2 weeks of fasting?

What about muscle mass burning?

i remember on the 4th day of fasting(water only) i started getting dizzy.


I think we need about 500 calories which is 1/4th of the require amount to stay stable and keep the metabolism going, as well as have enough sugar level so you wont get dizzy, that would be a good "fasting" or rather dieting method. Of course the 500 calories should be from fruits and negative caloric veggies like Broccoli.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rwfresh
Yeah and frankly i'm not interested in a bunch of broscience. Congrats to you for finding out how to increase weight loss 1% above what any normal person can achieve with simple calorie reduction.


jama.jamanetwork.com...

It's the difference of over 200 calories a day being burned. Not 1%. I don't know if you just can't understand the science or you're choosing to be ignorant. Call it what you want. It does take a certain level of intelligence to interpret and dissect a nutrition science literature.


Yeah and you responded to me with a bunch of bull turd. Obesity and longevity have a relationship. Right?


Of course. But, once again, the context was of caloric restriction's effects on longevity... obesity wasn't being discussed.


COMPARED TO WHAT? Get your head out. Seriously.. Who are you trying to convince? Purposefully reducing HOW MUCH YOU EAT is the only proven, guaranteed method of reducing weight safely, effectively and for the long term.


Maintaining a negative energy balance is the only way to lose weight. If you have a positive energy balance, you'll gain weight. Nobody's arguing that. But I'd love for you to find a quality study demonstrating the efficacy of simply restricting calories on the treatment of obesity.


Yes in the case of the obese or even the overweight, it is fat [that is lost when restricting calories].


Not always. If you can't understand this then i'm wasting my time. Study after study shows the metabolic differences when consuming different foods isocalorically; differences that effect lypolysis, insulin and what fuel is being burned from what sources. It's fact. Different foods have different effects on your body. Also fact. If you take everything at the caloric value, then it would seem like common sense to assume that a gram of bio diesel is more fattening than a gram of casein protein. Ridiculous.


WRONG again. Under completely controlled conditions YES you will lose the weight. Absolutely. Proven time and time again. What the hell is "weight" stable? Some more broscience.


If it's been proven, I'd love to see the literature. I'm sorry but simply eating one less piece of toast a day will not yield a pound of fat loss in a month. Compensatory changes won't let it. And in what world do we live where everything is completely controlled?

Again, if you don't understand the terminology, perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree. Clearly, I can't have an intelligent debate with you because you don't seem to comprehend simple ideas about the subject at hand.


Who said it was? Type of food and hormone levels are inconsequential to 99% of the population. Again more misinfo you've bought into.


Do you have any idea of the effects of insulin on metabolic processes? Like...lypolysis, for instance?


Calorie Reduction is SCIENCE and works. FAILURE TO APPLY IT is what you are confused about. Not me.


Again, I've admitted time and time. Calorie reduction to maintain a negative energy balance works to reduce body weight. But... you're playing into my hand now. Do you have any idea why it's so hard to apply it long term? I mean, that's why it doesn't really work for the treatment of obesity... because it can't be maintained by most people if they consume the wrong foods. Now you're getting somewhere!



What debate? There is no debate on calorie reduction.


No. There certainly is, otherwise there wouldn't still be studies and discussions on the efficacy of caloric restriction on obesity. It would just work. But it doesn't.


TRY IT YOURSELF you liar.


My personal experiences have no weight in this discussion; nor do yours. And if you're seriously going to the level of calling me a liar, then I think it's time you turn back on WoW and shove hot pockets down your throat.

You can sit back and get pissy because I used big words and ideas that are incomprehensible to someone like you and reply to it with "that's just broscience". And you can rebut every comment I make with "caloric restriction works. Period. Get it? IT's proven...blah blah blah" but that's a rather juvenile way of handling things.

Until you take a second and think like a scientist by trying to prove your common-sensical idea wrong, you'll continue babbling nonsense. But... I'm not sure that you capability of understanding the science well enough to come to an educated opinion on the subject.



posted on Jul, 5 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Turq1
 


Did you know that gastric bypass surgery literally reverses diabetes overnight? This cannot be attributed to caloric restriction alone.

Yes, there is a caloric restriction (and yes less calories are absorbed due to the bypass)... but have you ever wondered why these people aren't hungry when they're only consuming a few hundred calories a day?

Hunger is the real answer.



posted on Jul, 6 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
moving back to the fasting topic, there are loads of examples of people being cured of many different diseases by fasting for extended periods of time. Most of these examples are from the early 20th century when there were clinics where you could go to fast and rid yourself of disease.

Of course, these days due to chemotherapy and very toxic medications given to 'kill the cancer', sometimes the body does not have enough energy left to handle a long fast. People are quite often 'too far gone' and their immune system shot to hell for their body to repair itself, but the old doctors running these fasting clinics were knowledgable and well respected in their time and had a great deal of success with their methods. Now they are just called 'quacks', prosecuted for fraud and their credibility damaged.

It is only since the drugs companies and BMA have realised that (as others have said) fasting does not pay them any money and does not increase their profits. The US seems to have a very strong anti-anything-not-orthodox-medical mindset, whereas the UK and Europe does not have quite such an issue.

Now, if I got cancer again (Hodgekins disease at 19), I hope I would try a fast rather than let the doctors fill me with toxic pills which destroy my immune system.

I cannot emphrasize enough, that anyone wanting to do a water fast should research it first, and drink lots of water. Of course you will get sick and have headaches if you do not drink enough to flush the toxins out. That is the whole point of the exercise. So, the first question I would ask these people who are having problems with fuzzy heads, vomiting, and giddyness, is - how much water are you drinking? Really, I reckon you should be pissing every 30-45 minutes for the first 2-3 days. Yes, that much water. It is inconvenient but unless you want the side effects, then I think it is necessary. It will also stop you feeling hungry too. After that time you may be able to reduce the amount of water, but your body will still be getting rid of all kinds of rubbish you have eaten and slapped on your skin etc, so perhaps you will need the water for a while longer.

But.. dont take what anyone says here as gospel, go research it for yourself. Read what the old experienced fasting clinic doctors had to say and read as much as you can. Basically it is about common sense, research, and listening to your body.





 
49
<< 12  13  14    16  17 >>

log in

join