There's a book about it (but read the review below before buying):
The FastDiet - Revised & Updated: Lose Weight, Stay Healthy, and Live Longer with the Simple Secret of Intermittent Fasting
by Michael Mosley
Before buying the book, read this review, which gives tips and suggests that the book is unnecessary:
Perhaps there's lots of research telling you otherwise, but in my case, if I switch my body and mindset into 'fast' mode, I do it fully. The reason I prefer fasting vs any other calories reducing diets is that it's /binary/ and I don't have to count silly calories.
I think a good 'short' fast is 3 days, and up to 5 in my case, simply because I can fit it into a working week and have a fantastic meal on the friday evening.
The other thing to note is that the 3 and 4th days (might just be me!) I get a 'mental high' that is quite interesting. Everything seems sharper for a while.
Of course this is just my opinion, trust the doctors, they've been telling us lies for 40 years about diet and nutrition -- I'm sure /this/ time around they know what they are doing ;-) [sorry for the sarcasm guys]
I'm not sure about the science behind this but my best guess is that it's like the opposite of the drowsy feeling you get after a big meal:
You aren't spending energy on digestion, and the whole body and brain "wake up" and become alert, because, well, you need to be alert so you can survive and get more food! haha
• you've probably entirely emptied out everything in your intestines+colon by then;
• you've possibly starved your intestinal microbiome enough that it's stopped excreting any metabolic byproducts;
• you've probably starved any bacteria hanging out in your mouth/sinuses/tonsils/adenoids, and so breathing + drinking water + saliva has finally had a chance to actually get rid of those;
• any of the inflammatory compounds that get into your bloodstream from your food, have been removed, so your total tissue inflammation is lower than it ever is otherwise (like being on corticosteroids, sort of);
• since your liver/kidneys aren't dealing with a constant stream of input, they can 1. clean themselves for a change, and 2. clean "lower-priority" stuff out of your blood;
• and once they've done that, now they can just shut down and stop spending energy or consuming metabolites.
Presuming you're also drinking a normal amount of water,
• your blood pH and O2 sat. are likely maintained much more closely than they are when you eat food, which allows your organs and your immune system to function slightly more optimally.
Massive headaches, mucus membranes dry up, hallucinations, and at 4 days there is some risk of death depending on conditions though this is generally minimal unless you involve sweat lodge conditions or where somewhat dehydrated to start with.
I was wondering about possibility for kidney damage?
I've heard that when you get to the "other side" of a fast, that is, you actually begin starving, that hunger returns with an intensity that is incredibly hard to ignore.
The other thing I realised by fasting is how incredibly social the act of eating is.
So I stopped doing that.
I didn't notice any decline until I tried to solve a programming problem, and the part of my brain that normally jumps in and figures the hard stuff out just wasn't there.
It's an odd feeling.
That being said, I've successfully gone 18-24 hours without eating multiple times without any real noticeable detrimental effects on my ability to concentrate on programming or get work done, especially if I time it so I stop eating at 6pm one day and start eating again after 12pm the next day.
That's very commonly reported, actually. And I would say it lasts longer than that. I'm pretty sure this is a major reason why fasting is a common practice associated with meditation techniques, traditionally.
The trick is to try to 'plan' ahead. Don't stock up on nice food, only do that on the friday!
I'm french, I cook, I eat, and drink in pretty reasonable amount, and I'm a muscular 90Kg - with a flat belly, thanks to the fasting.
Last saturday I ate a 32 ounces steak in one sitting... Now that's some sort of Anorexia I had never heard of before! I do feel very bad for people who actually have anorexia, but please, don't insult them throwing these claims around.
The parent comment sounds as though he his happy with his lifestyle and weight. What really defines it being a disorder is that the person is never happy and always feels they need to lose more regardless of what anyone around them says.
I agree with your sentiment that people should enter such fasting regimes with immense caution (it could be a slippery slope for some), but I also agree with the parent that he is probably not suffering such a disorder.
As I mentioned before, I actually eat quite a bit less /in general/ than I used to a few years back.
So nope, you haven't convinced me, far from it. My family is happy, my doctor is happy, and more importantly, I'm happy.
You can safely go back to inventing disorders, I personally hope that the stories on this particular topic will convince a few more people to stop trusting the likes of you.
Socially, how does that work for you? I get a lot of enjoyment cooking and eating with my family every night.
Do you do any strenuous exercise during the week?
With the years, I actually don't need it that much/that hard because it seems to have helped quite a bit with the amount of food I eat /anyway/ but I can still eat my way into a 32 ounce steak and not feel bad about it :-)
As far as family goes, when I fast, I go to my mancave during meals and do some tinkering so 1) they don't feel bad and 2) I don't smell anything!
Seriously, with just a little bit of preparation, it's surprisingly easy...
Exercise... workouts... you haven't mentioned these at all, other than sport shooting which certainly requires some exertion but is not a workout workout. No workouts during fasts? No regular workouts at all?
Also, fruit juice is not exactly zero calories. You should figure out how many calories you're consuming. There's a big difference between "I'm not eating solid food but I drink juice and coffee to keep myself functional" and "I drink water for 5 days."
So, I'd say I'd do one every two months. I don't /workout/ these days, not as a workout might be seen anyway, I do some weights and so on, but more for tone than 'work'. And I don't do heavy cardio or anything like that. I do a lot of walking, and yeah -- shooting is surprisingly exerting: Lifting/shifting a ~4Kg gun around about 200 times with enough speed and precision is a bit of a workout! On a 'training day' I'll do that more like ~450 times. Thats a few repetitions :-)
I /used/ to workout a lot, and for a little while I did fast AND workout, but ultimately the workout seemed a little bit pointless, especially if you work out for controlling weight. It's a LOT harder to burn energy than to take it in, so my conclusion was to fast, instead.
The workout regime over the years has lead to quite a few injuries as well, and as I get older, I'm now paying for that. I'm built more like a rugbyman than a ballet dancer, so all the years of squash, running, weighted abs and so on leads to weak kneejoints, hips starting to play up a bit etc.
My pet theory is that we evolved it, as hunter gatherers we probably had to develop a way to sharpen the senses in case the family/group was running out of food. Ie the Next Hunt can't fail. I think it's a cute idea. Very likely completely baseless :-)
Still, even once a year, I think there are great health benefits to long fasts. If you can go 10 or more days without food, surely that gives the body the chance to break down and absorb a lot of damaged cells that otherwise might be kept around?
The first three days are difficult. After that, something changes (no idea what) and the sense of hunger disappears. This is reported by almost everyone who attempts it.
I did it for seven days, and after the initial 3 day speed bump it's very easy. I would say you actually experience a strange kind of well-being - you feel more relaxed, more calm, more able to focus.
A few things to keep in mind:
Don't forget to drink water. Caloric restriction is easily tolerated, but water restriction is not.
Restart eating very slowly. If you go on a binge on day #1 after fasting, there might be trouble. Eat a very light meal for breakfast, such as rice with a bit of butter in it, and make it a small portion. Follow up with simple meals for lunch and dinner, mostly soft, well cooked meals. DO NOT BINGE, not even on days 2 or 3.
The longer you fast, the more difficult is the "restart", and the trickier the whole process. Most people should probably not go on for more than 7 days, and even then make sure you're in relatively good condition.
I still do 1-day fasts (only water is allowed) once in a rare while. The biggest immediate benefit I see is it reduces food cravings. It's like the sense of hunger is reset to a more realistic level. YMMV, maybe that's just my experience.
I did a 3 day total fast a few months ago and it was a bit uncomfortable, but it was more psychological than physical. I'd never gone for more than a few hours without eating before, and that was very unsettling.
After a day and a half I sort of "settled into it".
Your body burns alcohol first, then carbs and finally fat. When you fast, you only have the last one - but you likely have enough of it for a few days (likely close to a month) before your body needs to break down muscle and convert it to carbs for fuel (gluconeogensis).
It may not feel very good in the first few days, you will need a lot more electrolytes, and it will take a few days before your body is doing it perfectly; fasting puts you into ketosis, with all that entails.
When I fast, I make sure to exercise more than usual, and especially cover all muscle groups (which I don't religiously do when exercising for fun). It is my experience that my body will keep muscles i use, but not keep those I don't. YMMV.
Also, listen to your body but do not extrapolate; the first two days of full fast may seem impossible, and if you extrapolate them to a full week may seem like certain death or madness; but after 48 hours or so, there's a phase change. I stop when I start feeling hungry - usually after a week or so, but once or twice after a month.
That's not actually true, from my understanding. The body burns more fat than muscle, but muscle will still be burned if you are at a caloric deficit. I'd need to do some research to provide you with a good citation but this is something I've read about on multiple occasions while researching the keto diet (which I'm on currently).
No, I did not do any write-up. /r/fasting and /r/keto will probably satisfy your curiosity, but I will mention the following which are not entirely common (or not commonly described):
. my B12 normalized from "very low, needs supplements monthly" which it had been in for 6-7 years at that point, to "slightly above normal without any supplement", and is still there some 20 years later.
. libido went away for the fast, but came back later
. felt perfect, exercised, etc, but friend observed that I was moving much more economically - e.g. that I was lifting my feet only about 2mm above ground while walking. I didn't notice that until he did.
So first 5 days of your fast you don't feel hungry at all?
What was the reason you started to fast? I just wonder if there is any benefit of it for someone who eats healthy food, has no extra weight and good energy levels? It seems like most of these researchers are focused on already sick people and don't provide any data on healthy individuals, unless I am missing something, I don't see a reason to "reset" my immune system since it seems to be working fine.
Why should you fast if you eat healthy and have no extra weight? Two reasons:
1) What most people think is healthy is killing them. Even if someone eats paleo or keto, which are much closer to our ideal diet than anything else, they will still do things like eat a corn-fed steak. Corn-fed meat and fish is low in omega-3 and high in omega-6 and both of these things are very bad for you (omega-3 deficiency is the root dietary cause of depression as just one example). Yet, people think "I'm eating healthy".
2) Metabolically challenged cells are a definition of cancer cells. When doctors think your cancer may be metastatic they give you a PET scan. A PET scan measures the emission of positrons out of some radioactive glucose you're given. The glucose is disproportionately taken up by cancer cells for a couple of reasons, one is that they can't process ketones. Then they show you cool pictures of where the positron-emitting glucose is in your body, which is where the tumors are. If you fast, your glucose is low and those cells don't survive since there is no glucose. See 'Cancer as a Metabolic Disease' by Seyfried.
[warning: The above is not medical orthodoxy, but then medical orthodoxy hasn't made any progress on cancer in ~60 years]
Are you crazy or am I reading you wrong? You are saying you are as likely to survive cancer in 2017 as you were in the fifties? (from a medical perspective)
Of course you are more likely to survive cancer now than in the 50's. There is not a credible person that would claim otherwise... "credible" being the proper claim. Look at any cancer survival rate and you'll see improvement. That whole statement makes me question every word he/she wrote because it is just so false. At this point his/her words need serious references for proof.
[Edited for spelling mistakes]
For more, as I suggested, see Prof. Seyfried's book and Travis Christoffersen's book, Tripping Over the Truth.
And one more piece of reading about Dr. Seyfried...
* In 1975, the incidence rate for all cancers combined in the United States was 400 new cases for every 100,000 people in the population; the mortality rate was 199 deaths for every 100,000 persons.
* In 2007, the latest year for which we have updated statistics, the U.S. incidence rate for all cancers combined was 461 new cases diagnosed for every 100,000 people in the population; the mortality rate was 178 deaths for every 100,000 persons.
The improvements in survival seen since the mid-1970s reflect progress in diagnosing certain cancers, such as prostate cancer, at earlier stages and improvements in treatment.
They're saying almost exactly what I was: Incidence hasn't changed much, and the survival rate improvement is just from early detection. Actual ability survive, treat or cure cancer _itself_ hasn't changed.
In the United States, the overall cancer death rate has declined since the early 1990s. The most recent Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, published in March 2016, shows that from 2003 to 2012, cancer death rates decreased by:
1.8 percent per year among men
1.4 percent per year among women
2.0 percent per year among children ages 0-19
A sustained 1.5 percent decrease per-year is not something that can be wholly attributed to early detection or reclassification. It is huge; a 1.5 percent yearly decrease means halving mortality in ~50 years. If this metric is true (and there's no reason to discredit it), then:
- Some other mortality cause is increasing and dwarfing cancer; or
- Cancer survivability metrics are being negatively affected by early detection.
In any case, it's quite difficult to make a strong case that medical knowledge regarding cancer has not progressed in 60 years and that outcomes are stable. Such a large decrease in cancer death rates must be fueled by some major structural force.
† The HPV vaccine has somewhat "cured" cervical cancer, but that was effectively an accident!
(You can find these graphs with some simple google images searches)
Notice that most cancers, the longevity doesn't change much at all in that ~40 year period. Personally I was expecting some dramatic improvements like the one you allude to (going from 3 to 30 years). It doesn't happen.
I think generally we somehow assume that because there's lots of money being spent on cancer and fancy machines and so on that everything must be better, when in the graphs we only see these various marginal improvements in some specific cancers. I think probably the number one reason for this mismatch is nobody likes to talk about cancer.
This is from a UK charity operating in England. England has poor cancer outcomes. The report was written before the "be clear on cancer" stuff currently happening.
It's worth reading in the context of this discussion you're both having because it gives a pretty balanced account.
> when in the graphs we only see these various marginal improvements in some specific cancers.
We see very good improvements in breast cancer, and this is partly because of the vigorous campaigning and fund raising. We've also seen big improvements in colon cancer, non-Hodgkins Lymphoma and Rectal cancer.
My understanding is that most cancer research has focused on how to take advantage of earlier diagnosis by putting early-stage cancers into remission, or slowing their progression.
The "thing about cancer" is that it's somewhat exponential in growth: if you have cancer in one place, it's easy to treat; if you have cancer in four places, it might be in 16 places by the time you're treated those four.
It's like a manhunt for a criminal group that knows they've been made: they started out meeting in one building, but they're on the run, parting from one-another's company and spreading out across the world. If you catch the group when it's still in one building, you can just raid that building; but it's very hard to do raid a thousand individuals once they're living scattered across the whole world.
So early-stage cancer is "easy", and late-stage cancer is "hard"; and, insofar as we haven't come up with a brilliant way to solve the hard problem (a whole-body chemotherapy that doesn't hurt non-cancer cells) we've set ourselves to the task of combining screening with early-stage therapies to try to eliminate cancers before they can become late-stage.
I know you are smarter than this... Why are you ignoring the fact that all cancer rates of survival are skyrocketing by those measurements while the hardest cancers still remain hard.
I'm not ignoring it, it's there, it shows the median life expectancy going from roughly 1 up to 6 years. Great.
The problem I have is two things: First that most of that gain is from prevention and detection, not treatment. I really want the treatment to get vastly better like it has in the entire rest of medicine (give or take). Believe it or not, a 6-fold increase in 40 years isn't really that great of an outcome.
Second is the interpretation of the split. Your interpretation is that there are "easy" and "hard" cancers to fight. I think it's actually that some are easy to detect or prevent. At base, they're all as horrible as each other left unchecked. But, we can see a melanoma much more easily than a blastoma. Therefore the graph will fool us in to thinking there is progress at attacking cancer.
To tie it back to the books I mentioned earlier, to me, they have a much better theory for why all this is happening than the prevailing theory of "cancer is broken DNA" and "cancer is really complicated". The idea that a) it's mitochondria and b) it's actually quite simple, to me, seems to fit the evidence much better.
If you look around your an find lots of graphs like this:
which show that rates haven't really changed since 1930, give or take.
The variance you see in the graph is things like lots more people smoking then not smoking any more, the prevention methodology of either finding cancer early or preventing high-risk people (e.g. mastectomies). But the actual chance of death hasn't really changed.
Compare and contrast to things like surviving anything else (heart attack, stroke and so on) and it's night-and-day.
Um.. immune therapies, targeted genetic therapies, TIL therapies... all kind of a big deal.
Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about.
And rates say nothing about efficacy / quality of treatment. (And even when new treatments are not more effective, often the side effects are much milder (to non-existent): getting an extra three years sick and in pain, vs getting them as your normal self is a huge difference)
Edit: what I mean by that is that rates of incidence say nothing about how effective the treatments are. It can both be true that rates are going up (say, due to air pollution) and that treatments are more effective.
Reply to comment below: again, you are wrong. Jesus, stop. One example: Ipilimumab and PD-1 inhibitors have a ~20% effectiveness rate against melanoma, a cancer that was considered a sure death sentence just 15 years ago. Some patients have not had any recurrence in a decade, they seem cured, which was unheard of before.
And targeted drugs like dabrafenib buy most patients an extra 6-18 months, almost side effect free. With more of these coming out, it seems like soon it'll be possible to cycle patients even longer (some combos already are known to extend their effect).
This doesn't qualify as "major"? The ability to reprogram our immune system to kill cancer cells, or to reprogram pathways in faulty cells?
All the things you mention are innovations, they just haven't really changed average mortality numbers, which is what I care about.
Edit: the parent post changed their argument to being about 'efficacy' or quality of care. Personally, I prefer a cure to a high-quality and effective 3 months in hospital then death. Thus I focus on the mortality statistics.
Edit again: quote:
> This doesn't qualify as "major"? The ability to reprogram our immune system to kill cancer cells, or to reprogram pathways in faulty cells?
I'd define major as some large change to average mortality from cancer. The same way heart attacks are now vastly more survivable, or we don't get them in the first place. For example, in another comment, someone linked to the NIH's numbers
They show from 1975 to 2007 incidence of cancer going from 400 per 100k to 461 (e.g. up). I'd define a major improvement as that going to 200 or 100 per 100k people (e.g. down). The 5-year survivability has gone up for the same reason incidence went up, early detection.
Yes, there are specific therapies that improve things 20% here or there for certain very targeted groups. I hope I am in one of those groups if I ever get cancer, but again the averages haven't changed much at all, especially when compared to other chronic disease.
Am I confused?
The central point I'm trying to make, which was a surprise to me as much as others, is that there hasn't been some dramatic decline in cancer like I expected. If you look at graphs for other things we see amazing gains in prevention and treatment that don't particularly occur in cancer. To pick one at random, the pancreatic cancer line on the graph above is basically flat.
And so, if it isn't changing a whole lot, why is that? The standard theory is that cancer is really complicated and it's DNA. The alternative theory is that it's the mitochondria(l DNA).
I'm not in some crusade against medicine, it just seems to make more sense to me and explains the lack of progress.
As Feynman said, the easiest person to fool is yourself, so who knows, maybe I'm wrong. But then I also worry about the story of the doctor who invented washing hands between procedures, and the story of the doctor who discovered the cause of stomach ulcers.
Pancreatic cancer mortality is heavily correlated with age. What happened is that people now live longer, and when older people get pancreatic cancer, they have a lot more probability to die.
It's like having a bucket of water, when you eat it gets filled , then your body uses some of the water for energy. If you don't overeat the level of water in the bucket is always at the same, when you consistently overeat it overflows. When you fast - you can use the excess water you stored while overeating, it might be ok first couple years, but as since you are now eating less and your body uses water from a bucket more then you add to it - could it be that you will end up with an empty bucket at one point?
The calories-in-calories-out (CICO) model is true in a thermodynamics sense but it's like saying that Bill Gates got rich because he followed the money-in-money-out system. It doesn't really help us explain anything about Bill Gates. Or another, more damning, problem is this: We say a child gets taller because of hormones but they get fat because of calories. If you think about it for a while you'll figure out something is deeply wrong with the model.
This is a deep subject with a lot to say but I'd start with 'Why We Get Fat' by Gary Taubes. Then read his other books, then read Dr Fung.
But to answer you first point directly: What I'm saying is that people thinking they are eating healthy and actually eating healthy are two different things. Usually they think they are but aren't in reality, and fasting can help in a long list of ways detailed in Dr. Fungs book on fasting (and many other places too, his is just a good book). You can also find people on /r/fasting on reddit with a lot more detail.
For books, I'd actually start with The Obesity Code by Dr. Fung. It's not a keto book but it's very close, and you'll figure out that keto is metabolically very similar to fasting.
The reason I fasted the first time, was that I was a little sick, and lost my appetite; this is common. What is uncommon with me, however, is that when I have no appetite, I don't eat. And despite feeling excellent starting with day 3 or so, appetite only came back after more than three weeks.
Other times, I started on purpose; on those times, the first two days are sometimes a little hard (but not really).
Whether it is good or bad for you - I suggest you try. It is unlikely to be harmful, and it might teach you something you don't know. Or, it might be a waste of time.
I wasn't generally sick or anything, but I did have low B12 before my first fast; And I have perfect B12 since. At the time it was a complete mystery to myself and any doctor I've asked, but since it was discovered that the appendix is a vault of good bacteria, and it is likely that fasting caused to body to release some B12-converting bacteria. YMMV, especially if you have no appendix.
How do you get those electrolytes if you are fasting?
Some people will use zero calorie sports nutrition drinks or some kind of magnesium and/or sodium pill (since it's not just NaCl you're losing when fasting).
my fasts are total water-only fasts: zero calorie.
I continue my normal workout habits (lifting weights, obviously, and the usual run/swim/dance/other-sort-of-cardio) but tone it done a bit, depending on the length of the fast. If I am doing a 3 day fast things barely change.
If I am fasting for 5+ days my workouts that week proceed but I take a "deload" week. I take the next week following the fast a bit easier, and by the 2nd week I am lifting the same weights as pre-fast.
I don't know a lot about human metabolism or biology, but in my experience my muscles don't suddenly disappear after missing a meal. To repeat - I can fast for up to 3 days without messing up my training.
I thought fasting was like, not eating?
I think this thing that we do (we have to eat every four hours or we will die) has nothing to do with the normal state of affairs for most of human history;
And I'm not talking only about the palaeolithic here, but my grandparents time also.
So fast while you sleep and skip breakfast. Eat lunch at noon and nothing after 8pm.
It's pretty easy and sustainable after a few days. Your body adapts and you don't hunger for breakfast.
Fasting while working out is actually a common practice and has been used for a while. I myself tried it 3 months during the end of last year with outstanding results (dropped fat faster than ever).
My eating window was from 3pm to 9pm. Training from 6:00pm to 8:00pm. Only Tea and Coffee while fasting. I plan to get back to a fasting routine (6 months) starting in March.
Must read: The leangain's guide to Intermittent Fasting: http://www.leangains.com/2010/04/leangains-guide.html
...and you should also check Kinobody's channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7GnzSCDFdE
I fast twice weekly while maintaining a schedule of high intensity weightlifting (power movements, etc.) and BJJ twice weekly along with two unrelated cardio workouts each week.
On Mondays I skip breakfast. On Fridays I skip breakfast and lunch.
So these are not very long or extreme fasts by any measure, but they are easy to work into a routine and I definitely feel pronounced health benefits. Inflammatory symptoms drop noticeably after the 24 hour fast and I feel very, very fast and light on my feet for running and martial arts.
The 24 hour fast (on fridays) happens on my rest day, which presumably you have. I also make it easy by sleeping in that day. The shorter fast (Mondays) is a day that I only do a cardio workout.
I agree with you that multi day fasts would be incompatible with a high level of high intensity exercise. I think my single 24 hour fast each week is about the limit of what I could do and still maintain high intensity outputs like powerlifting and martial arts.
I strongly encourage you to try it. It's free. It gives you an extra hour or three each week to do things other than eating (and you avoid the context switch of activity-lunch-activity) and it's possible that, like me, you'll feel great.
But either way, unless you're 70 and immobile, you're not going to fast yourself to death. Eat well and stop putting it off.
I've said this before, but I've found to have more energy when I eat less food. Or rather, less carbs in particular.
You don't eat and drink anything (not even water) from dawn (not sunrise) until sunset. After sunset you can eat and drink as usual.
I would say it's best to avoid being totally sedentary while fasting. But I'd also advise against doing strenuous exercise. One would think this is just common sense.
My experience is that a 1-day fast (only water allowed) has very little, if any, impact on the muscular mass. Anything longer than that does have some impact, but it's pretty slow to manifest. Again, common sense?
I'm 6'0", 250lb., with certainly too much fat, if that context helps in any way.
You are going to lose some muscle, its ok, you will still look better and feel better and perform better.
Malnutrition can in turn harm the immune system. Where's the sweet spot? Who knows, and the fear of malpractice suits slows down progress.
The body works in one of two mode. 1: use current energy, as long as you provide energy (eating) it'll use it and make you hungry if you're not giving it enough. 2: use stored energy. If you stop eating for long enough (some say 12 hours, other say 24 hours, I suspect it depends on what you have make your body used to, eg some long distance runners fast to make their body switch to fat burning mode earlier). The body has zero energy available in stomach/muscles, it'll then start burning stored fat ; unless you're very skinny, you can go on stored fat for a long time.
If you eat normal meals (no calorie restriction, you shouldn't be hungry at the end of the meal) between fasts, it shouldn't lead to health problems.
Recent studies show that the refeeding at the end of a 5+ day fast is benefic for your health, the closest thing to stem cells. Google "Valter Longo" for more information about it.
For general information about fasting, check Jason Fung material (blogs, youtube). He's a medical doctor who runs a clinic to cure patients of diabetes type 2 through fasting, and has put out a lot of material out there with lots of explanations.
As someone that USE TO (Why is it you have more self-discipline in your 20s then your older years???) Fast about once a week for 24 hours (supper to supper). There are many positive benefits as a person when you go past 3 days also. There are plenty of studies out there about fasting and its benefits and risk. People who have never done more then 3 days nor have read scientific research seem to see this as a negative. The human body can go for more then 40 days without food so a few days actually has very little negative "malnutrition" issues.
The stomach takes about 3 days to shrink after that has finished you actually don't really feel hungry and surprisingly you would be shocked at the spike in energy and focus you get for the days 4-10. Longest I have ever done was 10 days but man food explodes with flavor. One of my favorite things is after coming back to food everything taste better and is more enjoyable.
After growing up with massive sugar intake, and then ending up in my early 20s in a state where i would get bloodsugar shakes if i didn't eat balanced meals, i now live in a low-carb environment (just shy of keto) and am super super happy with it. High fats keep me so stable, i never have bloodsugar issues anymore.
I can easily skip a meal because i'm not dropping off a bloodsugar cliff where all i had to run off of were breads and sweets for breakfast, etc.
With that said, i'm still afraid of pushing my bloodsugar too far. If you have bloodsugar issues, are you just doomed from fasting?
Note that my issues were minor (imo), but again, undiagnosed. Things are better these days too, fwiw.
About a year ago there was a similar article on here as this one. So I really wanted to fast, but had similar concerns as you have now. So I went out and got a cheap blood glucose measuring device as diabetics use. I measured my blood glucose over the course of a day and then tried intermittent fasting the following days. Everything was great. I felt weak and generally shitty in the late morning on the first day I did this, but that went away on its own by noon even before I ate at 1pm. Meanwhile my blood glucose was fine.
Maybe it will be different in your case, but why not find out? If you measure your blood glucose frequently and have good at hand in case it does get too low, what could go wrong.
Of course I'm not a doctor and you better talk to one than just trusting don't random guy on the internet.
I rarely get hungry now, and whilst I have in the past experienced the "food explodes with flavor" sensation you mention, I don't any more. If anything, the re-feeding is something of an anti-climax.
And I agree with the other poster about the 'tastebud high' -- I'd hate to lose that, as it's perhaps half the kick of fasting!
Are you sure you haven't developed some sort of 'habit'? With all due respect of course, just curious...
And your concern is noted graciously, but no, I'm pretty sure it's not a habit. It may of course be a waste of time. Time will tell.
I stopped drinking soda many years ago (apart from the odd coke at a party or something). Realised it was addictive. It just feels normal to always be drinking water now. I don't miss it.
Coffee, I turn my machine on in the morning and it's 50/50 if I remember to drink one during the day. I drink a fair amount of tea (PG Tips with milk, I'm English) though.
If you are a big coffee drinker then start during a weekend where you can get through coming off coffee. Headaches and a mind like molassis are a hard way to go through th work day.
Otherwise it's coffee in the morning, I'm a developer after all, code isn't going to magic itself out of thin air, it needs coffee! :-)
No you wouldn't collapse, the body stores fat exactly for this reason. When you fast, eventually your body switches to fat burning mode.
One question: does that mean you take the supper before fasting, or the one after fasting, or none, or both?
you bet they want to make gosh darn sure that if something is going to help cancer they want to be able to charge thousands of dollars/dose for it
My argument is simply this: doctors need more leverage to use cutting edge research in their practice. I am not in the medical field, and I don't know exactly how to accomplish this, but must surely lose a lot of organic ground-level experimentation at individual doctor-patient mutual consent, which would generate a wealth of epidemiological data with which to move medicine forward. It deprives patients of certain medical alternatives, and doctors of part of their scientific capacity as experimentalists.
The entire field of vaccinations began from an observation of smallpox immunity in the Turkish country side where folk wisdom was to rub scabs into superficial wounds of healthy children. When western doctors observed a stark decrease in the infection rate, this began experimentation that became the foundation of the modern practice. I don't think that this could be done today.
The extreme counterexample is the Tuskegee experiment, but the key element missing there was patient awareness of their own participation as an experimental control.
The first two results are NIH papers on the topic.
Also, when you say iodine and apoptosis my first thought is cancer treatment— is that what you're implying?
Iodine has also been suggested as a cancer cure for many different types - some strains of breast cancer in particular. This is because there are a couple pathways leading to apoptosis that require iodine to function - turns out your mitochondria need iodine too.
The funniest thing I ran across in all this was an article about the link between kelp and reduced breast cancer risk. At the end they said this should be investigated further because the author knew kelp had high iodine content and thought that would be bad for people. In other words, we need to isolate the anti-cancer agent and commercialize it so you don't kill yourself with too much iodine. Funny because the iodine is likely the anti-cancer agent, and is not bad for you in the slightest.
Special $500 fasting pills which contain only water.
If patients consent to trials and enough evidence accumulates it will become the standard of care. Of course it's going to be tough to patent not eating so don't hold your breath.
Will calorie restriction work in humans? http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100581
Diet that mimics fasting appears to slow aging http://news.usc.edu/82959/diet-that-mimics-fasting-appears-t...
Fasting mimicking diet reduces risk factors for aging and multiple age-related disease https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-02/cci-fm020717...
Diet that mimics fasting may also reduce multiple sclerosis symptoms http://news.usc.edu/101187/diet-that-mimics-fasting-may-also...
Fasting Therapy for Treating and Preventing Disease - Current State of Evidence http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000357765
And so forth. There's a lot of information out there.
The point of Prolon is that it is a way to obtain money from the regulatory/Big Pharma system in order to do more research into quantifying the benefits fasting and calorie restriction. Not that it is anything special in and of itself. It is just food, less of it.
"Multiple cycles of fasting abated the immunosuppression and mortality caused by chemotherapy and reversed age-dependent myeloid-bias in mice, in agreement with preliminary data on the protection of lymphocytes from chemotoxicity in fasting patients."
My theory would be that when in a fasting state the body is less likely to utilise the chemotherapeutic compounds in fasting tissues while the cancer instead steadily grows and consumes these drugs? I'm entirely guessing of course; maybe this could be triggered without fasting somehow.
I'm asking all the above to figure out whether my profile (33yrs old, running every second day with ~30km weekly + basic work out of pushups, pullups, situps, etc, BMI 24) is anything like the profiles of "fasters". A year ago I've noticed I started putting up on weight and decided to switch to a low-carb diet, cut down on beer/wine and exercise regularly. I lost about 6kg of excess fat within 2 months (down to 12% overall fat). Now I have largely reverted back to my standard diet though I avoid sweets/candy, white bread/pasta/rice/potatoes in larger quantities and "processed" food in general. I seem be able to maintain my fat and muscle levels and sustain high energy levels through out the day.
I feel really good with that weight and also I love to eat and cook, so in the weekends I cook a lot and eat a lot of whatever I want, then during the week I level everything up with the fasting. I try to avoid junk food but that's just because I love to cook my own meals.
I weight myself naked after my morning bath every weekday, I've noticed that with just 1 day of fasting my weight goes down at least 4.5 pound. I love having total control of my weight and being able to loose weight really fast.
I tell this to everyone who asks about my fasting: TRY IT, it really makes you feel very good and energetic. Most people say "I couldn't do that" but they don't even try... I think that anyone can be 24hs without eating food.
Whatever info you need just send me an email to my username at gmail.
1. I drink only water during the fast. Don't even use toothpaste for brushing teeth (use baking soda).
2. I usually go about 10 to 12 days. The longest I have fasted is 27 days. It really is not that diffucult physically, once you have the mental aspect sorted out.
3. I'm almost 28 now, started fasting when I was 23, I think.
4. I do a little light exercise to loosen my joints and some Yoga. During a long fast, I find I have enough energy to run 10 miles on some days, but on most days, although I feel alert, can't do intense exercise. Anyways, it is better during this time to let the body use its resources for detox.
5. My BMI fluctuates between 24 and 26, so I could be borderline overweight, but only for a few months at a time, usually during the holidays.
6. When I fasted the first time, I wanted a quick way to lose weight. But really, there's other ways to lose weight than water fasting. I find that I easily lost 1.5lbs per week with calorie restriction and upping proportion of protein in my diet. ( I usually keep it between 1500 to 1700 cals, I'm 5'5").
I tend to feel very good after a fast. The real challenge is you are doing if for weight loss is developing discipline after the water fast. If you really are going to fast, I would advise you to avoid the exercises you mentioned. You will lose strength, but will be able to quickly get back to your previous body weight and strength within a few weeks after the fast.
Hope that helped.
1. Coffee or half a bouillon cube in hot water.
2. The longest I've gone is probably 48+ hours with no calories. It gets easier the farther into the fast I am.
4. On my fasting day I use an elliptical for 30 min, upper-middle(?) intensity. Like 140-150 BPM?
5. 5'11" 192 pounds.
6. To lose weight. Inadvertently, I learned that eating is not required for my body to function, pyschologically. Like, I thought "How can I work out or hike if I haven't eaten?!". I know food is required over time, but my pyschological need for food has lessened.
My big, stupid cheat is that I use nicotine (Juul), which makes fasting practically easy for me. I would drink more coffee but more than 1 or 2 cups a day makes me feel unwell. My plan is to stop using nicotine when I'm done fasting... we'll see how that works out. I did stop smoking cigarettes cold turkey.
I honestly look forward to my fast every week, so good luck!
> Prolonged fasting (PF) lasting 48–120 hours (Introduction)
That is between 2 - 5 days which is a wide span.
I could probably sustain it for 2 days (a weekend, don't have to be "all there" for work etc) but 5 would be a miracle so I wish they were clearer on which one it needs to be.
My longest fast was 9.5 days and I felt great the whole time and lost a ton of weight amongst various other benefits.
Remember, humans used to fast all the time and it was just normal because either food was unavailable (there didn't used to be unlimited pop tarts for everyone) or for spiritual reasons. Both what we eat and when we eat were all invented in the last few hundred years for the most part (chicken was about 100 years ago, breakfast was 2-300 years ago depending when you count it). Most of these inventions have been a bad idea.
Come join us on /r/fasting and /r/keto on reddit, or read Dr. Fung's books on obesity and on fasting, or Gary Taubes various books, or Dr. Wahls books, or Prof. Seyfried's textbook.
I haven't tried longer than this, as it suits me. As I mentioned in another post, I get a nice mental high on the 3 and 4th day, but the 5th I'm actually quite happy to hit the food again. Oh and crack a beer :-)
I'm fairly sure I could continue, but I feel that my physical performance would decrease, while the typical 5 day one I don't have any sign of fatigue -- I do tend to sleep a bit more tho.
I do quite a bit of clay pigeon shooting -- that's a sport that requires good speed/strength and mental acuity-- and during a fast I feel quicker and will likely do a better score than on a normal weekday.
What works for me is to only eat between 3pm-8pm.... and here is the big one I only get to eat if I have worked out that day!!!! (usually right before. obviously the workout has to be before you eat or else you might not follow through). Incidentally but not intentionally this sort of mimics what happens in the wild for animals (not really humans because homo sapiens have been able to store foods since the beginning of the species).
I lost 30 pounds doing this. I decided to stop because I had a son recently so it was difficult to workout. So now I just do the 12pm-8pm lean gains method.
Interestingly, I stored my bone marrow stem cells during this stretch of good health, which includes the long-term hematopoietic stem cells mentioned. I plan to transplant them to my older self later in life. I hope the benefits transfer as well. :)
In MI, NC, and CA atm. Full disclosure, I co-founded the company: https://www.foreverlabs.co/.
>Is it the same process as donating marrow?
Like an aspiration, but less. 60cc are taken from your pelvis on your lower back under local anesthetic. It takes a few minutes.
>How much does it cost?
$3500 + $250/yr
>Is there science on this technique?
Yes. There has been an explosion in clinical trials using the MSCs (and HSCs to a lesser extent) for treatments of ailments ranging from osteoarthritis to heart disease. Personally, I've been developing therapies bone mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) for stroke, brain injury, and other neuropathologies for 15 years. You cells diminish in number and quality with age, so it makes sense to store young ones for treatment later.
But, beyond that, there is evidence that young-to-old transplantation increase lifespan: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23967009
We are currently doing our own young-to-old preclinical work in mice, with the aim to do the first autologous young-to-old human trials.
However, even while describing the spiritual benefits of fasting, this LDS leader also points out what science has said about the benefits of fasting:
"Fasting is also beneficial to us physically. Some time ago I read an article in Science News written by Charles L. Goodrich, which stated that the advantages of modern eating habits extend far beyond the cosmetic. Numerous animal studies have demonstrated that caloric restriction early in life leads to an increased life span and reduces the risk of certain diseases.
"There is also evidence of health-promoting effects of periodic fasting. Some experiments have shown that periodic fasting not only promotes a longer life, but encourages a more vigorous activity later in life."
Personally, I stop being hungry after about 18 hours and it only returns after about 36, which is as far as I've ever gone.
I do this every week: last meal on sunday night, next meal on tuesday night, next meal on thursday night, next meal on friday night and on saturdays and sundays I eat all I want whenever I want. During fasting I only drink water or tea.
I've been doing this for a year, I feel great :)
I can forget coffee when I am alone but I'm almost never alone.
Starting by skipping the local evening meal made it easy to skip breakfast and once I had skipped those the rest was easy.
I'd cheat a bit by drinking a glass of juice at breakfast and/or lunch but thinking back it might have been easier without.
But I'm convinced it's only ghrelin. I've numerous times changed my eating schedule, and my hunger adapts after at most two weeks, usually much faster.
I drink water (a lot of it) and a couple of black espressos. 0 and ~2 calories each respectively.
For obvious ethical reasons, though, I think they can only do this with patients with a terminal prognosis. Nevertheless, in my experience, you'd get a lot of volunteers from anybody undergoing chemo.
The acid reflux can sometimes get so bad that my ears start to get clogged I get other ENT symptoms.
I don't see how people can do it. I can't.
Specifically I am familiar with Eastern Orthodox https://orthodoxwiki.org/Fasting some of it is just dietary restrictions no meats, sometimes not animal products, etc. And strangely it often includes vegetable oils and wine as well. Monastic communities would practice a total fast sometimes from what I remember.
Wonder if somehow health benefits observed over the centuries ended up codified as religious practice somehow to benefit the followers.
So much in society revolves around delicious food and relaxing beverages.
How would a business make money from someone fasting?
By 'prolonged' the authors mean lasting 48–120 hours.
Although intermittent calorie restriction (CR) has been shown to lower IGF-1, this article shows that prolonged CR does not affect IGF-1 levels. However prolonged protein restriction, especially animal protein, _is_ shown to reduce IGF-1 levels.
They discuss underlying mechanics and various clinical trials and much more...
Do people who fast resort to cheating the hunger urge (prescription pills, foods with no nutritional content, etc)? I know there is a well known and highly-available recreational drug that works extremely well for suppressing the urge to eat.
How do successful fasting practitioners manage the impact on their mood and restraint?
This is interesting to me, but I have not tried any of this.
Maybe anyone with more Ketogenic diet experience/knowledge willing to share his/her experience?
Because, as you know, food never tastes as good as after a fast, the effect on the gustatory papillae is nothing short of amazing, it's like being high.
Seriously, HALF of the kick I get out of fasting is /that/ high I get when I stop :-)
Perhaps try to get into a 'Buddhist monk' personae if you feel any stress, and relax! I often tell (jokingly) people who wonder at me fasting that it's to improve my kung-fu! :-)
Caffeine also helps boost mood and energy levels while suppressing hunger