Fasting, and my irrefultable results.

reply to post by rwfresh


But i don't eat steak, eggs, and chicken. Examples would be:

- with most meals we make a cheese sauce (using whichever cheese we want) using heavy cream and cheese. This allows me to make things like alfredo, or chipotle cheddar. Or use Monterrey Jack to make a really mild sauce that is like country gravy. We take in a TON of calories from this.

- I make pancakes using coconut flour, almond flour, heavy cream, and almond milk. We use syrup that is made from Erythritol and splenda (erythritol has some carb value, but very little.

- I make chocolate stuff (puddings, bars, truffles, syrup) using heavy cream, davinci syrup, ghirardelli 100% cacao chocolate, butter, erythritol, and splenda. By controlling the amount of cocoa powder i control the end thickness. Last night we had a parfait using a pudding textured chocolate, a cookie i made from peanut butter, coconut flour, almond flour, sweetener, and vanilla (crumbled up for the "bread" in the parfait), whipped cream, and breyers carb counters ice cream. This morning when I pee on my reagent strips, I still show a strong ketosis.

- I make killer brownies and banana nut breads using almond flour and flax.

- I make a key lime pie (using cream cheese and whipped cream, flavored with lime zest and a little juice) mde with a killer almond flour crust that is better than any graham cracker crust to ever exist. It is the single best key lime pie I have ever had, and it is under 4g of net carbs per serving.

We eat lots of sweets and bread type items. There are even low carb tortillas that aren't too bad (you just pack them full as you can to reduce the number you eat). We get lots of variety by using smart ingredients in an artful way.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

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.

You didn't read it did you? haha.

"Study Outcomes:
REE
Pre-Weight-Loss Baseline Low Fat Low Glycemic Index Very Low Carb
1781kcal/d 1576 1614 1643

Statistical accuracy of ~95%. So overweight people should be more concerned with this than calorie reduction?

Just give it up. For 99% of the population simple calorie reduction is the cornerstone to losing weight. All other proven information, though interesting and real, NEVER take precedence over calorie intake. Long or short term. Meaning, if you are fat focus on eating less. Not eating the same measured caloric amount with different macro nutrient ratios. That is delusional and stupid.

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.

Friend It's like citing a study that demonstrates that water is wet. You are not making ANY sense. Think of what you are saying.

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.

What in God's name are you talking about? I think most people can read a label and determine calories like that. And if someone is drinking bio diesel they have other issues on the table taking precedence over calorie content.

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.

You are attempting to argue something so completely understood by science and the average person that it's not really debatable. It's delusional. What you need to do is prove it to yourself. CONDUCT the experiment. If you are unwilling to do so you are going on blind belief. Forget toast. Forget macros. Calculate your BMR, track your calories for a couple of weeks, eat within a deficit. You will lose weight.

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

You mean lipolysis. Yes i do. When you eat in a deficit it happens for 99% of the population. It's not some bizarre function of the body that needs to be scientifically encouraged by esoteric practices. Lipolysis happens. Eat less. You will experience it.

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!

haha. It's hard because people like to overeat. DUH. It's called addiction. Not applying a proven method does not disprove the method. Psychological reasons for addiction exist. If you smoke, do whatever it takes to REDUCE cigarette intake. But smoking the same amount of cigarettes a day is not a solution. Smoking less is. No matter how you dress it up. Cut out the smoke and the proof is in the pudding.

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.

Wrong. People that properly apply it have results. Guaranteed.

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.

It is juvenile. But this entire discussion is juvenile.

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.

Why not be a scientist? Do the experiment. For most people that is REAL science. Extremely liberating.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
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.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Ever wonder why people who practice calorie reduction aren't hungry? Because when your goal is weight loss and you EXPERIENCE what you are doing is working it becomes easier.

When you go SO far as to choose to surgically limit calorie intake, and that is EXACTLY the purpose of gastric bypass surgery, you better believe that patients experience the reality of calorie reduction and ALL the benefits.
When you EXPERIENCE it, it is much more difficult to deny.

So although you like to preach that calorie reduction is too hard, those that do it and experience the benefits can NEVER deny the truth that eating less produces weight loss. Once you prove it to yourself your reasons for overeating become clear and undeniable. When you address the reasons with honesty hunger(any physical, emotional, psychological signal to eat) dissipates. Same is true with ANY drug or habit.

Overweight and obese people must admit that the primary driving PHYSICAL reason they are overweight is their over consumption of food. When that is admitted the solution becomes obvious.

Originally posted by rwfresh




Overweight and obese people must admit that the primary driving PHYSICAL reason they are overweight is their over consumption of food. When that is admitted the solution becomes obvious.

Absolutely no one can argue this using logic and reason. Putting on weight is a simple formula of in vs out.

Losing weight, however, is another topic entirely.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by rwfresh

 

But i don't eat steak, eggs, and chicken. Examples would be:

- with most meals we make a cheese sauce (using whichever cheese we want) using heavy cream and cheese. This allows me to make things like alfredo, or chipotle cheddar. Or use Monterrey Jack to make a really mild sauce that is like country gravy. We take in a TON of calories from this.

- I make pancakes using coconut flour, almond flour, heavy cream, and almond milk. We use syrup that is made from Erythritol and splenda (erythritol has some carb value, but very little.

- I make chocolate stuff (puddings, bars, truffles, syrup) using heavy cream, davinci syrup, ghirardelli 100% cacao chocolate, butter, erythritol, and splenda. By controlling the amount of cocoa powder i control the end thickness. Last night we had a parfait using a pudding textured chocolate, a cookie i made from peanut butter, coconut flour, almond flour, sweetener, and vanilla (crumbled up for the "bread" in the parfait), whipped cream, and breyers carb counters ice cream. This morning when I pee on my reagent strips, I still show a strong ketosis.

- I make killer brownies and banana nut breads using almond flour and flax.

- I make a key lime pie (using cream cheese and whipped cream, flavored with lime zest and a little juice) mde with a killer almond flour crust that is better than any graham cracker crust to ever exist. It is the single best key lime pie I have ever had, and it is under 4g of net carbs per serving.

We eat lots of sweets and bread type items. There are even low carb tortillas that aren't too bad (you just pack them full as you can to reduce the number you eat). We get lots of variety by using smart ingredients in an artful way.

based on the above info you are eating a high fat, lower calorie diet. You have removed protein and carbs from your diet. Do you seriously think it's easy to eat 2400+ cals of ONLY fat all day? That's ~24 ounces of cheddar cheese. Imagine a 24 ounce steak.. only it's cheese. You wouldn't sit down to a meal of 12 ounces of cheese very often would you? No. Not very appetizing. Meaning you are simply eating less calories and attributing your weight loss to the removal of carbs. You are in a caloric deficit. It's not some magic property of eliminating macros. In fact the benefits you are really looking for are not going to happen because you aren't eating enough protein. But whatever. You are eating less and losing weight. Good job.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by rwfresh




Overweight and obese people must admit that the primary driving PHYSICAL reason they are overweight is their over consumption of food. When that is admitted the solution becomes obvious.

Absolutely no one can argue this using logic and reason. Putting on weight is a simple formula of in vs out.

Losing weight, however, is another topic entirely.

The physical topic is the same. You can cycle your macros around all you want. If you don't eat less calories you are simply making it WAY more complicated, difficult and unsustainable than needed. Do whatever diet you want. But 1 week of diligently tracking your caloric intake can confirm the absolute reality of calories in, calories out. Any variation, for 99% of the overweight and obese population is going to be negligible.

reply to post by rwfresh


When i said i don't eat steak, chicken, etc, i meant that it isn't all I eat. I take in a large amount of food daily.

But, you could be right. I would have to do the math. I have cut out sugar calories, replacing it with zero calorie alternatives. But i have doubled/tripled my fat intake over previous. Then again...without breaded fried foods....you could be right.

One thing I am certain of: i take in a lot of protein. To a degree that my doctor had me increase water due to a UA a few months ago.

Originally posted by rwfresh

You didn't read it did you? haha.

Statistical accuracy of ~95%. So overweight people should be more concerned with this than calorie reduction?

Here. Let me help you:

The results of our study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d higher with the very low-carbohydrate diet compared with the low-fat diet. TEE differed by approximately 300 kcal/d between these 2 diets, an effect corresponding with the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.

Neither total physical activity nor time spent in moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity differed among the diets.

300 kcal difference in TEE. Total energy expended is the key here. You can't simply focus on REE. If you're going to use the energy balance equation, you have to consider all energy in - out.

Long or short term. Meaning, if you are fat focus on eating less. Not eating the same measured caloric amount with different macro nutrient ratios. That is delusional and stupid.

Except for the fact that, according to the results above (and numerous other studies), isocaloric feeding in a group with varying macronutrient ratios yielded very different results. So different, in fact, that if carried out to 6 months of caloric restriction, the observed difference in weight-loss would theoretically be 21lbs to 6lbs respectively. 1 year? 42lbs lost compared to 12lbs respectively.

We'll know more later... Lustig is currently working on designing a follow-up study that will measure the same effects long-term.

Friend It's like citing a study that demonstrates that water is wet. You are not making ANY sense. Think of what you are saying.

Just find some quality studies, is all. Is it so hard to ask? I'm making perfect sense. Negative energy balance equals weight loss and vice versa. But if you want to continue denying real facts... you're an idiot. The thermic effect of feeding is a great example of a calorie is not a calorie. Eating one gram of protein versus one gram of carbohydrate will net a different energy (ATP) cost/availability, because of the thermic effect that protein has.

The chart from which you so gladly quoted is a prime example of what I've been talking about. Decreasing energy in leads compensatory changes that decrease energy out:

Pre-Weight Loss Baseline (all groups): REE 1781 ; TEE 3234

All groups following the weight loss period showed a decrease in energy expenditure. This, on it's own, regardless of amount, is an indicator that simply reducing calories will influence how much energy one expends. This indicate, clearly, that the energy-in/energy-out equation is one that does not hold true to the concept as if it were including independent variables. Since energy-in and out are dependent variables, you can no longer assume that if you simply eat less calories... you will lose weight. Eating 50 calories less per day (energy in) will result in compensatory changes which will indeed affect energy expenditure (energy out).

Furthermore, different macronutrient compositions, as shown in the above link, yield varying degrees of compensatory changes, metabolic advantages as some have coined them.

Energy Metabolism

Low-Fat: REE 1576 ; TEE 2812
Low Glycemic: REE 1614 ; TEE 2937
Very Low Carb: REE 1643 ; TEE 3137

Consuming the same amount of calories, the Very Low-carb group expended 325 calories more the Low-fat group.

So, is it energy in - out? Sure. But it's not a simple... OH...ya gotta eat less to lose weight.

And I remember you saying caloric restriction is the safest way to lose weight. I mean, you're kidding right? Did you misread the chart? Macronutrient composition also manifested in different health measures:

Insulin sensitivity was increased greater in the Very low-carb group compared to the Low-fat group in both the peripheral (whole body) and hepatic (the liver) measurements. And, in case you didn't know, this alone could account for the difference in resting energy expenditure. HDL cholesterol measurements were best for the Very Low-carb group. Triglycerides were much lower in the Very Low-carb group.

To take from an analysis of this study: eatingacademy.com...

It never hurts to hammer those findings home again, but the really dramatic finding of the study was the impact of macronutrient balance on REE and TEE. To our (NuSI) counting, 81 studies over the past 80 years involving 4,094 subjects for more than 1.2 million subject-days have attempted to ask this question – many of them attempting to “prove” that all calories are created equally. While none (i.e., not one) have refuted the alternative hypothesis, most of t

reply to post by rwfresh


To take from an analysis of this study: eatingacademy.com...

It never hurts to hammer those findings home again, but the really dramatic finding of the study was the impact of macronutrient balance on REE and TEE. To our (NuSI) counting, 81 studies over the past 80 years involving 4,094 subjects for more than 1.2 million subject-days have attempted to ask this question – many of them attempting to “prove” that all calories are created equally. While none (i.e., not one) have refuted the alternative hypothesis, most of them had enough methodologic limitations that it was difficult to know for certain if the type of food – rather than the number of calories – was playing an important role.

This study, while still limited (e.g., short duration, small sample size), makes one of the more compelling cases that all calories are not created equally.

What in God's name are you talking about? I think most people can read a label and determine calories like that. And if someone is drinking bio diesel they have other issues on the table taking precedence over calorie content.

Is a gram of Bio diesel more fattening than olive oil? If you can't take a second to understand an analogy, then you're either 12, you're looking to dodge my points or you just are that dense.

You are attempting to argue something so completely understood by science and the average person that it's not really debatable. It's delusional. What you need to do is prove it to yourself. CONDUCT the experiment. If you are unwilling to do so you are going on blind belief. Forget toast. Forget macros. Calculate your BMR, track your calories for a couple of weeks, eat within a deficit. You will lose weight.

What I do or have done has nothing to do with it. I could sit here and tell you that when I eat healthily, I don't count calories and I eat til I'm full... but I lose weight. And I've eaten liquid diets that are extremely calorically restricted and lost significant weight. Of course, I could also tell you that I effectively lost fat and gained muscle with a caloric surplus... consuming 4000-5000 calories a day. But... my anecdotal experiences are irrelevant. As are yours. Yours are relevant for you and mine for me. If you want to talk science, leave your personal experimentation at home.

You mean lipolysis. Yes i do. When you eat in a deficit it happens for 99% of the population. It's not some bizarre function of the body that needs to be scientifically encouraged by esoteric practices. Lipolysis happens. Eat less. You will experience it.

...unless you have elevated insulin levels, which 99% of ALL fat people do. Insulin inhibits lipolysis.

It's hard because people like to overeat. DUH. It's called addiction. Not applying a proven method does not disprove the method. Psychological reasons for addiction exist.

Now we're getting somewhere. People like to overeat certain foods. People like to overeat because of physiological conditions that induce cravings. Addiction to foods are based on cravings. These are all physiologically controlled... and has been proven in the lab with animals and with humans (not "common sense" as you like to throw as proof). Physiological happenstances influence psychological expressions... also proven in the lab.

The reason caloric restriction doesn't work long-term is because it doesn't address the problem. The problem isn't over eating. The problem is a broken metabolism. Metabolic dysfunction. The above study demonstrates what works and why.

Low fat/low calorie diets end up causing slower metabolisms... and this leads to all kinds of bad news (psychologically). Depression, lethargy, no energy, extreme cravings, etc. Eventually, physiological influences are no longer able to be overcome. Then eating ensues... usually overeating and fat is put back on in more amounts than before. A perfect example of this is the Semi Starvation studies conducted by Dr. Ancel Keys:

en.wikipedia.org...

During the 6-month semi-starvation period, each subject’s dietary intake was cut to approximately 1,560 calories per day. Their meals were composed of foods that were expected to typify the diets of people in Europe during the latter stages of the war: potatoes, rutabagas, turnips, bread and macaroni.

reply to post by rwfresh


Continued from above.

Among the conclusions from the study was the confirmation that prolonged semi-starvation produces significant increases in depression, hysteria and hypochondriasis as measured using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Indeed, most of the subjects experienced periods of severe emotional distress and depression.[1]:161 There were extreme reactions to the psychological effects during the experiment including self-mutilation (one subject amputated three fingers of his hand with an axe, though the subject was unsure if he had done so intentionally or accidentally).[5] Participants exhibited a preoccupation with food, both during the starvation period and the rehabilitation phase. Sexual interest was drastically reduced, and the volunteers showed signs of social withdrawal and isolation.[1]:123-124 The participants reported a decline in concentration, comprehension and judgment capabilities, although the standardized tests administered showed no actual signs of diminished capacity. There were marked declines in physiological processes indicative of decreases in each subject’s basal metabolic rate (the energy required by the body in a state of rest), reflected in reduced body temperature, respiration and heart rate. Some of the subjects exhibited edema (swelling) in their extremities, presumably due to the massive quantities of water the participants consumed attempting to fill their stomachs during the starvation period.

Sound familiar? I'm sure you won't take the time to read half of this for the simple fact that you know you're right.

Approaching obesity as an overeating problem will lead to failure most of the time. Approaching it as a problem of excessive fat deposition and hyperphagia will indeed lead to success (with accompanied restriction of course). The best way to do the latter is to follow what worked the best in the study I've been citing.

Wrong. People that properly apply it have results. Guaranteed.

Sure. In metabolic wards... that's true. But trying to "properly apply" something while your body absolutely fights it... most people can't and don't get the results and go back to eating like hell.

I've done overfeeding experiments, underfeeding experiments, liquid diets, high-fat...high protein, etc. It doesn't matter. There's a reason why scientific experiments don't limit their cohorts or subjects to 1.

When you go SO far as to choose to surgically limit calorie intake, and that is EXACTLY the purpose of gastric bypass surgery

I love how you just assume so much with absolutely nothing to base it on other than... "well, calories in - out. DUH!" Gastric bypass is NOT a mechanical therapy of Calories in - calories out.

it is still widely perceived that gastric bypass works by mechanical means, i.e. food restriction and/or malabsorption. Recent clinical and animal studies, however, have indicated that these long-held inferences about the mechanisms of Roux en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) may not be correct. A growing body of evidence suggests that profound changes in body weight and metabolism resulting from RYGB cannot be explained by simple mechanical restriction or malabsorption. One study in rats found that RYGB induced a 19% increase in total and a 31% increase in resting energy expenditure, an effect not exhibited in vertical sleeve gastrectomy rats. In addition, pair-fed rats lost only 47% as much weight as their RYGB counterparts. Changes in food intake after RYGB only partially account for the RYGB-induced weight loss, and there is no evidence of clinically significant malabsorption of calories contributing to weight loss. Thus, it appears RYGB effects weight loss by altering the physiology of weight regulation and eating behavior rather than by simple mechanical restriction or malabsorption.[7]

I mean, type 2 diabetes is cure overnight... there's no possible way this is attributed to caloric restriction. That, my friend, would be impossible. There are other physiological pathways being affected.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Would you remind me.. what is your point?

1. Eating less does not cause weight loss?

2. Eating less is not an effective way to lose weight?

3. Eating less is not a healthy way to lose weight?

4. Eating less is a less effective method of losing weight than "other" methods?

Listen, you have no point. Do you want to know something? I mean.. really know? Let's have a weight loss contest ok? you lose weight without restricting calories and i will lose weight ONLY by restricting calories. OK?

The winner of the contest will be right. Sound good? hahahahahaha

You are not a doctor or a scientist. Those studies you are posting do not accurately count calories. The MOST important data. And because of that, we must admit the macro-nutrient intake data is completely unreliable as well. That doesn't mean it's wrong.. it just means it's nothing. It is insignificant. Something that requires more research.. but nothing to base you life on. Nothing to let STOP you from losing unhealthy weight. What is proven, hard science is calorie reduction. The data is not perfect, but there is SOOO much data that it becomes much less ambiguous.

Do whatever you like. Do what works for you. Enjoy. Eat fat. Eat carbs. Juice fast. Eat six meals a day. Eat only live raw food. Fast. Drink urine. Whatever. Do whatever you like. Count protein. Count calories. Sew up you gut. Take exlax. Whatever you like.

reply to post by rwfresh


Well, i just thought i had to prove you wrong today. Today I ate salmon. No steak. No chicken. No eggs.



Seriously, while i was buying the fillet, i thought about this thread. Then I quietly put the cheese back and decided to make a tarragon-lemon sauce instead.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Well, i just thought i had to prove you wrong today. Today I ate salmon. No steak. No chicken. No eggs.

Seriously, while i was buying the fillet, i thought about this thread. Then I quietly put the cheese back and decided to make a tarragon-lemon sauce instead.

Ha nice. Food is good. I ate 1/2 pound of ground beef and 8 ounce sirloin yesterday.. Couple sticks of celery and a bunch of cucumber. Had to have a protein/coconut milk shake to make up for calories. Tonight i had some beers, 3 gin and tonics and 4 canolis, rice crackers, sliced turkey and some chicken. Gonna eat the rest of the sirloin. Still losing weight.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
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.

I've seen a gastric bypass done live via CCTV, I can't say I recommend it...willpower or "whatever" over contorting your insides is a better idea for the lay person.

There was a documentary I saw awhile back where an alternative clinic took in 15 or so patients with diabetes, and after only eating organic (not the most important part), raw food for something like 1-2 months, pretty much all of them reduced or stopped taking insulin. There was even a guy with type 1 diabetes.

The amount the stomach gets reduced would probably be surprising to most people.

reply to post by imagineering


Hello good friend.

I am particularly interested in what exactly your regime was. Did you say, for example, eat a meal at 8am and then fasted until 8pm and eat another meal or what?

I'm very interested and look forward to your reply.

Yours,

Human Being

Originally posted by imagineering

Originally posted by Gridrebel
So what was your fasting regime? I fasted for a 17 day period when I was younger and lost two pounds. However, I did drop four sizes. Still haven't figured that one out.

I water fast for 2 weeks, then the other 2 weeks I eat clean, fresh fruits and vegitables, I insert a protien supplent drink, and lean cut steak. When I am fasting I still run and walk and during my time of food consumption I wieght lift and I make my training intense during this time. The only negative effects I have experienced is when I first started. Headaches, weakness and just feeling plain odd.

Wait, hold on. For an entire 2 weeks, all you consumped was water? No foods whatsoever? Or am I mistaken?

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


I doubt it's a mistake. I've done the same thing for the same amount of time, consuming/ingesting nothing but water. There is a science to it, many folks will confuse it with starvation or anorexia, but it's not the same thing. The fasting that many Muslims practice is not the same. That is not even technically fasting, it's abstaining for half a day and is actually much more unhealthy and closer to anorexia than fasting is because you bounce back and forth between the 2 extremes of not eating, and then eating a lot. With fasting, it's a not a substitute for a healthy diet. You ease into it and ease out of it. That is vital. It's a once in a while thing you can do to cleanse the body or speed up healing. It should absolutely not be used for weight loss purposes and you should always consult a doctor first because every person is different. While weight loss could be an added benefit, it won't stay off unless you change your lifestyle (ie healthy diet and exercise). It is not a substitution for a diet or some lose weight quick gimmick. If you treat it like that you can really devastate your body and throw off your metabolism. It should not be taken lightly and if somebody does decide to go down that route, do the research and do it right. It's not worth screwing up your body over. I hear countless stories of people attempting a fast and failing because they don't plan it out and act on impulse. It truly is a test of self control. The worst thing you can do is let your body go into survival mode and then decide you can't do it and gorge yourself on junk food because you have an emotional craving that tricks you into thinking you are really hungry, but when you break out of a fast, you should only eat one piece of fruit split up for the entire day.

reply to post by HomoSapiensSapiens


No you are not mistaken. Many avid fasters go much longer, so my being at this level should be of no surprise.

reply to post by Barcs


Very good input. Fasting is for those who SERIOUSLY want to change their whole life style.

Originally posted by imagineering
reply to post by Barcs

 

Very good input. Fasting is for those who SERIOUSLY want to change their whole life style.

In general, weight loss is for those who seriously want to change their whole life style.
Whether you want to get slimmer and be healthy, or bulk up and train weights, it all involves a dramatic life style change.
And it's a change which should usually last the whole of your life.

Sometimes a life style change is as small as buying a new pair of walking shoes and using them on a daily basis. Other times it involves objectively looking at what you're eating, and making food choices which will not only help you lose weight, but also make your body a well run machine; exercising regularly whether its just walking or taking aerobics classes or competitively lifting weights.

I've lost 10 inches from the waist since June, and 24lbs. I have PCOS so the weight loss isn't as fast as I would wish, but I've changed my life from entirely sedentary to moderately active, and go to the gym three times a week and take 4 aerobics classes.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I wish I could fast, and I'm thinking about it more and more seriously lately, but I really really love my aerobics classes and I know you're not supposed to exercise while fasting. Exercise is very important for stabilising my moods, so I don't know how well I could cope giving it up for any amount of time.