Here's my latest update: A Year of Intermittent Fasting.
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
3 votes
Intermittent Fasting Club
Started by
lucid
, Apr 12 2008 02:32 AM
137 replies to this topic
#93
-
- Guest
- 1,315 posts
- 290 ₮
Posted 31 August 2009 - 02:01 AM
Hi All,
I started IF about 3 months ago, so when I noticed this subforum, I figured that I should contribute my data to the community pile. Here goes:
When I first started, I was utterly bankrupt of energy, despite having been on caloric restriction and resveratrol beforehand, after the first day's fast. (I fast from 10pm on day 0 to 6 am on day 2, which is 32 hours -- or sometimes up to 40 -- repeating every 2 days.) I think the resveratrol helped to control the hunger pangs, although it hasn't really had much impact on my energy level one way or another. At least, it made IF easier, compared to my full calorie days as a less insulin sensitive individual.
At the same time, I switched from a "normal" diet featuring lots of fruits and bread, to a low-carb diet (essentially the Rosedale Diet). No doubt this contributed to my energy crash, as my body was optimized for burning sugar at the time.
But about 3 weeks into IF with Rosedale, my energy level started coming up to where I felt like a normal 35-year-old. Since then, it hasn't dropped.
I'm about 165 lbs., and 6'2", which is about 5 lbs. less than my lightest at age 20. This is essentially the same as my CR weight, which would suggest that I'm still CRed.
After about 2 months on this program, my fasting sugar dropped from about 91 (yes, very high for CR at age 35, no doubt due to my former fruit and bread addiction) to 66. And 66 was measured on the morning after my eating day, albeit when I quit eating at noon the previous day. I have never measured it at the end of my fast, because I think it would be artificially low. My HbA1c dropped from 5.5% to 4.9%, probably due more to Rosedale than IF.
I find IF much easier than CR, as a delicious binge is never more than 40 hours away. I just need to be careful to satisfy my nutritional needs first. And as a rule, I try to avoid "caloric precompensation" for the fast, i.e. I only eat in response to hunger during my eating day. I feel this is the behavior most compatible with the rodent studies, who presumably never figured out when they were about to fast.
I definitely find that, while carbs get me going faster, they also leave me bankrupt sooner. So I'm a heavy almond and avocado eater, as they tend to keep my energy level even. I do, however, eat a bowl of lentils in the morning on my eating day, or rarely, rice. I find that the hydration benefits outweigh the slight increase in my fasting sugar. (It's uncomfortable and frankly scary to be dehydrated on a low-carb diet, which would probably kill you from kidney failure before you could have died from diabetes.)
The biggest danger -- no doubt related to why IF is slightly worse than CR, given the same average calorie intake -- is that I consistently push the tolerable upper intakes of zinc, iron, and manganese, as I try to eat enough of these (and other, less dangerous nutrients) for 2 days. I try to break up my supplements and mix them into my veggie-intensive meals, for this reason.
Once a month, just to keep sane and have fun, I do my eating day entirely at a local hotel which serves a fantastic buffet. Needless to say, I get my money's worth! I typically overeat, although I do generally ensure complete nutrition. It's worth it.
I have a strict rule that when I'm when I'm eating something tasty, I only eat. I try not to watch TV, use the internet, or chat with friends. (I'm not a social eater, for this reason.) On the other hand, if I know that I need to eat a bowl of brussels sprouts (yuck!) because I want the iron, I'll deliberately do other activities at the same time in order to forget the taste and just claim the nutritional benefits. These practices serve me very well, in terms of both meal satisfaction and nutritional completeness.
Since I eat lots of veggies mixed with my lentils (and usually Indian spices including tumeric with some olive oil or even butter), I fill up quickly, to the point where I'm stuffed by the end of my big 6am meal. Typically, I have another, modest meal at noon. Then I shut down around 1pm, until 6am 2 days later. Sometimes, however, I eat up to 10pm on my eating day.
On my fasting day, I eat only fish oil (about 40 calories). If I feel dehydrated, I'll nibble little bits of vitamin pills, calcium, or magnesium. I also take alpha lipoic acid if I'm about to venture into a polluted part of town. Resveratrol is 500mg/day, every day. Based on my pre-resveratrol days, I don't think I could sustain IF without it; the hunger was simply too great, probably due to poor leptin sensitivity back then.
Now, I'm 100% off of fruit, bread, and dairy. Fruit and dairy give me bad breath, gingivitis, and acid reflux, resulting in poor sleep, dental problems, and probably increased inflammation. Bread might be OK in super rough form (like that hard German whole grain bread), but I'm fine without it and don't want to go back. Again, my carbs consist of lentils in the morning, which suits me fine. Rice, maybe twice a month, ideally brown. I do also get some carbs from my almond binges, but they're slow-release, as almonds have essentially zero glycemic index. I enjoy peanuts too, about once a month (gotta get that niacin and p-coumaric acid), but I try to go organic with minimal aflatoxin, which isn't cheaply available in most grocery stores here.
I sleep about 12 hours on the days I eat, and about 5 after my fast. In the latter case, I'm hungry, no doubt because I'm genetically programmed to forage for food, as someone else mentioned here. And in this 5-hour sleep, I'm noticeably warmer. I suspect that's because I'm starting to either burn fat, or muscle, as food. (My muscle tone is very minimal, which I could stand to improve, particularly since my appeal to women has declined with my weight!)
As to hunger, I'm usually mildly hungry after my eating day. After my fast day, I'm obsessing about food. I try, therefore, to keep busy on my fast day with "desk job" work. I don't exercise much at all. Basically, I just climb about 30 stories per day, with 10kg weights on my arms for about 10 of those. And I walk a lot in the process of daily errands, maybe 2km on a typical day. This is consistent with the CR studies which suggest that it's better to exercise minimally, and eat less.
I do notice that at the end of my fast day, I think more slowly and make more mistakes. I suspect that this is because my brain is switching to ketone power, to some extent, which is more thermodynamically efficient, but worse for maximum performance. I also move more slowly, no doubt hampered by low blood sugar.
From what I've heard from human trials, CR with lots of tiny meals all day long is better than IF with the same calorie count. But I think I'll live longer on IF. Why? Because IF is more behaviorally sustainable than CR. Eating the perfect diet, then giving up after a year, does not produce material life extension! Besides, my quality of life with IF is higher.
The one thing that really got my attention in this thread is the suggestion that research shows that keeping warm during sleep negates the benefits of CR. That's really hard for me to believe, i.e. that merely warming oneself up could somehow compensate for appetite stress, but I would like to see the research. Does anyone have citations? If in fact it's true, then perhaps we can mimic CR by merely cranking up the air conditioning. (That, I would think, is a more reasonable possibility, as the CR response is essentially a stress response, designed to protect an organism. Whether the stressor is low caloric intake, cold temperature, or perhaps even low levels of pollution might not matter. Indeed, Jean Calment lived to 122 and smoked until 119; perhaps her body overcompensated for the mild pollution level from her occasional cigarettes. And we do know that heat shock proteins (HSPs) are activated in response to heat, so why not a self-preserving cold stress response?) Does anyone have good data on this?
I started IF about 3 months ago, so when I noticed this subforum, I figured that I should contribute my data to the community pile. Here goes:
When I first started, I was utterly bankrupt of energy, despite having been on caloric restriction and resveratrol beforehand, after the first day's fast. (I fast from 10pm on day 0 to 6 am on day 2, which is 32 hours -- or sometimes up to 40 -- repeating every 2 days.) I think the resveratrol helped to control the hunger pangs, although it hasn't really had much impact on my energy level one way or another. At least, it made IF easier, compared to my full calorie days as a less insulin sensitive individual.
At the same time, I switched from a "normal" diet featuring lots of fruits and bread, to a low-carb diet (essentially the Rosedale Diet). No doubt this contributed to my energy crash, as my body was optimized for burning sugar at the time.
But about 3 weeks into IF with Rosedale, my energy level started coming up to where I felt like a normal 35-year-old. Since then, it hasn't dropped.
I'm about 165 lbs., and 6'2", which is about 5 lbs. less than my lightest at age 20. This is essentially the same as my CR weight, which would suggest that I'm still CRed.
After about 2 months on this program, my fasting sugar dropped from about 91 (yes, very high for CR at age 35, no doubt due to my former fruit and bread addiction) to 66. And 66 was measured on the morning after my eating day, albeit when I quit eating at noon the previous day. I have never measured it at the end of my fast, because I think it would be artificially low. My HbA1c dropped from 5.5% to 4.9%, probably due more to Rosedale than IF.
I find IF much easier than CR, as a delicious binge is never more than 40 hours away. I just need to be careful to satisfy my nutritional needs first. And as a rule, I try to avoid "caloric precompensation" for the fast, i.e. I only eat in response to hunger during my eating day. I feel this is the behavior most compatible with the rodent studies, who presumably never figured out when they were about to fast.
I definitely find that, while carbs get me going faster, they also leave me bankrupt sooner. So I'm a heavy almond and avocado eater, as they tend to keep my energy level even. I do, however, eat a bowl of lentils in the morning on my eating day, or rarely, rice. I find that the hydration benefits outweigh the slight increase in my fasting sugar. (It's uncomfortable and frankly scary to be dehydrated on a low-carb diet, which would probably kill you from kidney failure before you could have died from diabetes.)
The biggest danger -- no doubt related to why IF is slightly worse than CR, given the same average calorie intake -- is that I consistently push the tolerable upper intakes of zinc, iron, and manganese, as I try to eat enough of these (and other, less dangerous nutrients) for 2 days. I try to break up my supplements and mix them into my veggie-intensive meals, for this reason.
Once a month, just to keep sane and have fun, I do my eating day entirely at a local hotel which serves a fantastic buffet. Needless to say, I get my money's worth! I typically overeat, although I do generally ensure complete nutrition. It's worth it.
I have a strict rule that when I'm when I'm eating something tasty, I only eat. I try not to watch TV, use the internet, or chat with friends. (I'm not a social eater, for this reason.) On the other hand, if I know that I need to eat a bowl of brussels sprouts (yuck!) because I want the iron, I'll deliberately do other activities at the same time in order to forget the taste and just claim the nutritional benefits. These practices serve me very well, in terms of both meal satisfaction and nutritional completeness.
Since I eat lots of veggies mixed with my lentils (and usually Indian spices including tumeric with some olive oil or even butter), I fill up quickly, to the point where I'm stuffed by the end of my big 6am meal. Typically, I have another, modest meal at noon. Then I shut down around 1pm, until 6am 2 days later. Sometimes, however, I eat up to 10pm on my eating day.
On my fasting day, I eat only fish oil (about 40 calories). If I feel dehydrated, I'll nibble little bits of vitamin pills, calcium, or magnesium. I also take alpha lipoic acid if I'm about to venture into a polluted part of town. Resveratrol is 500mg/day, every day. Based on my pre-resveratrol days, I don't think I could sustain IF without it; the hunger was simply too great, probably due to poor leptin sensitivity back then.
Now, I'm 100% off of fruit, bread, and dairy. Fruit and dairy give me bad breath, gingivitis, and acid reflux, resulting in poor sleep, dental problems, and probably increased inflammation. Bread might be OK in super rough form (like that hard German whole grain bread), but I'm fine without it and don't want to go back. Again, my carbs consist of lentils in the morning, which suits me fine. Rice, maybe twice a month, ideally brown. I do also get some carbs from my almond binges, but they're slow-release, as almonds have essentially zero glycemic index. I enjoy peanuts too, about once a month (gotta get that niacin and p-coumaric acid), but I try to go organic with minimal aflatoxin, which isn't cheaply available in most grocery stores here.
I sleep about 12 hours on the days I eat, and about 5 after my fast. In the latter case, I'm hungry, no doubt because I'm genetically programmed to forage for food, as someone else mentioned here. And in this 5-hour sleep, I'm noticeably warmer. I suspect that's because I'm starting to either burn fat, or muscle, as food. (My muscle tone is very minimal, which I could stand to improve, particularly since my appeal to women has declined with my weight!)
As to hunger, I'm usually mildly hungry after my eating day. After my fast day, I'm obsessing about food. I try, therefore, to keep busy on my fast day with "desk job" work. I don't exercise much at all. Basically, I just climb about 30 stories per day, with 10kg weights on my arms for about 10 of those. And I walk a lot in the process of daily errands, maybe 2km on a typical day. This is consistent with the CR studies which suggest that it's better to exercise minimally, and eat less.
I do notice that at the end of my fast day, I think more slowly and make more mistakes. I suspect that this is because my brain is switching to ketone power, to some extent, which is more thermodynamically efficient, but worse for maximum performance. I also move more slowly, no doubt hampered by low blood sugar.
From what I've heard from human trials, CR with lots of tiny meals all day long is better than IF with the same calorie count. But I think I'll live longer on IF. Why? Because IF is more behaviorally sustainable than CR. Eating the perfect diet, then giving up after a year, does not produce material life extension! Besides, my quality of life with IF is higher.
The one thing that really got my attention in this thread is the suggestion that research shows that keeping warm during sleep negates the benefits of CR. That's really hard for me to believe, i.e. that merely warming oneself up could somehow compensate for appetite stress, but I would like to see the research. Does anyone have citations? If in fact it's true, then perhaps we can mimic CR by merely cranking up the air conditioning. (That, I would think, is a more reasonable possibility, as the CR response is essentially a stress response, designed to protect an organism. Whether the stressor is low caloric intake, cold temperature, or perhaps even low levels of pollution might not matter. Indeed, Jean Calment lived to 122 and smoked until 119; perhaps her body overcompensated for the mild pollution level from her occasional cigarettes. And we do know that heat shock proteins (HSPs) are activated in response to heat, so why not a self-preserving cold stress response?) Does anyone have good data on this?
#94
-
- Guest
- 2,192 posts
- 161 ₮
Posted 31 August 2009 - 10:37 AM
Your description sounds familiar. More mistakes and slower thinking happen to me too towards the end of the fast, but generally pass after two hours. But, I've noticed that if I purposely overeat right before the fast begins, this brain fog doesn't happen. It makes fasting much easier, but I'm thinking that it might mean the switch to ketones doesn't happen, which might further mean that autophagy is not optimal.
I know ketosis increases autophagy, as does protein restriction (which results from fasting), but maybe the combination of the two is even better?
I know ketosis increases autophagy, as does protein restriction (which results from fasting), but maybe the combination of the two is even better?
#95
-
- Guest
- 1,315 posts
- 290 ₮
Posted 31 August 2009 - 07:07 PM
Your description sounds familiar. More mistakes and slower thinking happen to me too towards the end of the fast, but generally pass after two hours. But, I've noticed that if I purposely overeat right before the fast begins, this brain fog doesn't happen. It makes fasting much easier, but I'm thinking that it might mean the switch to ketones doesn't happen, which might further mean that autophagy is not optimal.
I know ketosis increases autophagy, as does protein restriction (which results from fasting), but maybe the combination of the two is even better?
I hate to say this, but perhaps this is why CR or IF might not work so well in humans. Because we get increasingly stupid as our brain glucose drops, approaching the ketosis transition, we're more susceptible to catastrophic errors, or even financial errors which indirectly influence our physical health. Likewise, both diets cause a loss of protective padding that shields us from injury, and reduce thrombocyte formation, which prevents our blood from clotting in a bleeding emergency. (Trust me, I've had emergency surgery while on CR, and this is a _serious_ problem.)
I notice that the researchers in the recently discussed monkey study discounted the increased accidental death rate in CR monkeys. I think this is unreasonable, as the "CR daze" could directly contribute to an increased fatal injury hazard in the real world.
CR/IF seem to prevent a longterm decline in mental function; however, likely due to the ketosis transition, they appear to slow the rate of such function. In other words, CRers might avoid Alzheimers, but suffer from increased car accident injuries due to slowed motion processing.
Even now as I write this, I'm into about hour 14 of a 47-hour fast, and the thoughts are coming at great effort...
#96
-
- Guest
- 320 posts
- 214 ₮
Posted 02 December 2009 - 10:22 AM
edDe has both the evidence and the practical implications correct. See this post.I don't have the references handy, but I know that in CR body temperature decreases. But, in experiments on rodents, if the room temperature is increased to off-set the drop in body temperature, it cancels out any increased life span due to the CR. The warmed up CR rodents live about as long as the ad-lib controls.
I don't know if this is applicable to IF - but if your are doing CR, I don't think that it is a good idea to 'bundle up' or turn up the heating. You just have to get used to feeling a little chilly.
Oh, wait. I am a bit confused. I thought CRON is working by a bunch of metbolic changes, eg. lower background imflammation, better cell repair, lower insulin, better blood lipids, lower blood pressure etc. etc. And this makes perfectly sense to me. So DID those mice with a higher room and body temperature HAD indeed worse biomarkers than the mice living in a cold room? Or do we talk about a special metabolic effect basically occuring in small mammals, as they are far more easily affected by hot and cold temperature? I mean, it would make CRON more unattractive, if it is the case, that *despite* equal biomarkers a cold living habitat is preferable. And what about CRONies living in hot countries as in Africa or Latin America? Should they cool down their flats artificially - I mean otherwise they would only get small benefits out of CRON, hardly worth the drawbacks!
Any comment would be very much appreciated! So, is living in a cold flat required to get major benefits from CRON? So even with the excellent biomarkers of CRONies, when living in a hot country you'll get only a small part of the benefits of CRON? And what could be the mechanism behind that?
Edited by Michael, 04 December 2009 - 06:44 PM.
#97
-
- Guest
- 2,410 posts
- 94 ₮
- Location:California
Posted 03 December 2009 - 12:05 AM
edDe has both the evidence and the practical implications correct. See this post.Huh, I haven't heard anything like that. Interesting, though. References would be appreciated.I don't have the references handy, but I know that in CR body temperature decreases. But, in
experiments on rodents, if the room temperature is increased to off-set the drop in body temperature,
it cancels out any increased life span due to the CR. The warmed up CR rodents live about as long as the ad-lib
controls.
I don't know if this is applicable to IF - but if your are doing CR, I don't think that it is a good idea to 'bundle up' or
turn up the heating. You just have to get used to feeling a little chilly.
Oh, wait. I am a bit confused. I thought CRON is working by a bunch of metbolic changes, eg. lower background imflammation, better cell repair, lower insulin, better blood lipids, lower blood pressure etc. etc. And this makes perfectly sense to me. So DID those mice with a higher room and body temperature HAD indeed worse biomarkers than the mice living in a cold room? Or do we talk about a special metabolic effect basically occuring in small mammals, as they are far more easily affected by hot and cold temperature? I mean, it would make CRON more unattractive, if it is the case, that *despite* equal biomarkers a cold living habitat is preferable. And what about CRONies living in hot countries as in Africa or Latin America? Should they cool down their flats artificially - I mean otherwise they would only get small benefits out of CRON, hardly worth the drawbacks!
Wow, amazing. wow, wow, wow. Just crazy!
#98
-
- Guest
- 21 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:Spain, Tarragona
Posted 03 December 2009 - 07:40 AM
I would cautiously assume that benefits of IF may supplement CR...
Once you manage full food restriction then you get further control over the hunger...
Some people (including myself: I'm on IF 24-36hours per 6 days) notice that after IF you need less food probably because the metabolism becomes more efficient (or may be the stomach become less in size
), so after IF CR becomes not such a big problem during non fasting days...
Would it be also possible that CR preserves and prevents human's functions from the aging and IF/fasting restores some functions?
Once you manage full food restriction then you get further control over the hunger...
Some people (including myself: I'm on IF 24-36hours per 6 days) notice that after IF you need less food probably because the metabolism becomes more efficient (or may be the stomach become less in size
), so after IF CR becomes not such a big problem during non fasting days...Would it be also possible that CR preserves and prevents human's functions from the aging and IF/fasting restores some functions?
Edited by Highlander, 03 December 2009 - 08:05 AM.
#99
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 01 February 2010 - 06:08 AM
FWIW, What I do and why I do it:
I fast for 24 hours (water only) once every two weeks. At the end of said fast I do roughly an hour of cardio exercise. I do this for the primary purpose of stimulating mitochondrial autophagy. It is difficult to get good data on cellular autophagy, but I don't think that any fast less than 20 hours is of any value in enhancing autophagy at the mitocordrial level. I guestimate that greater than 80% of the mitocodrial autophagy ocurrs during the hour of cardio exercise at the end of my fast. I choose the two week interval for the following reasons, 1. It is suffiecently spread out that my body will not start to anticipate it, and adapt to it. 2. Generalized CR is so distasteful to me that even if I was sure that I could extend my life by 20 years, I would choose to not practice it. 3. I feel that in some ways anti-aging is analogous to immnosuppression, and that 2 weeks is the most common interval used for resupplementation of immunosupression drugs.
Some random thoughts:
1. If during the term of your fast you consume 50 or more calories, then you are not fasting, you are just practicing CR.
2. Restricting eating to only 2 or 4 hours a day every day is not a fast, it is a diet.
3. A body will adapt to a 24 hour fast every other day fairly quickly, and the benefit of the fast will soon be minimized. As an example, someone up thread stated that they found their every other day fast much esaier if they loaded up on calories right before the fast. Is the adaptation problem not obvious there?
4. I agree with Resveratrolguy when he speaks of the dangers of the mental fog that occurs during a fast. It is a significant hazard and needs to be factored into any live extension calculation.
5. If you don't experience some mental stress during a fast, I have to believe you are doing something wrong.
6. If you are overweight, then a fast may provide you with a dietary benefit but it is not going to have the same systemic effect on you that it would on someone that is not overweight.
I fast for 24 hours (water only) once every two weeks. At the end of said fast I do roughly an hour of cardio exercise. I do this for the primary purpose of stimulating mitochondrial autophagy. It is difficult to get good data on cellular autophagy, but I don't think that any fast less than 20 hours is of any value in enhancing autophagy at the mitocordrial level. I guestimate that greater than 80% of the mitocodrial autophagy ocurrs during the hour of cardio exercise at the end of my fast. I choose the two week interval for the following reasons, 1. It is suffiecently spread out that my body will not start to anticipate it, and adapt to it. 2. Generalized CR is so distasteful to me that even if I was sure that I could extend my life by 20 years, I would choose to not practice it. 3. I feel that in some ways anti-aging is analogous to immnosuppression, and that 2 weeks is the most common interval used for resupplementation of immunosupression drugs.
Some random thoughts:
1. If during the term of your fast you consume 50 or more calories, then you are not fasting, you are just practicing CR.
2. Restricting eating to only 2 or 4 hours a day every day is not a fast, it is a diet.
3. A body will adapt to a 24 hour fast every other day fairly quickly, and the benefit of the fast will soon be minimized. As an example, someone up thread stated that they found their every other day fast much esaier if they loaded up on calories right before the fast. Is the adaptation problem not obvious there?
4. I agree with Resveratrolguy when he speaks of the dangers of the mental fog that occurs during a fast. It is a significant hazard and needs to be factored into any live extension calculation.
5. If you don't experience some mental stress during a fast, I have to believe you are doing something wrong.
6. If you are overweight, then a fast may provide you with a dietary benefit but it is not going to have the same systemic effect on you that it would on someone that is not overweight.
#100
-
- Guest
- 110 posts
- 1 ₮
Posted 02 February 2010 - 01:28 PM
I have been doing IF almsot constantly for over one year now. I eat fruit, veggies and dairy every other day without exceeding 1000 cal. The remaining days I try to eat normally, always including fresh fruits and veggies. In the first 5 or 6 months I lost about 6 kg (I was some 76 kg x 1.82 cm when I started) then I retook some 3 kg.
#101
-
- Guest
- 2,008 posts
- 406 ₮
Posted 02 February 2010 - 04:54 PM
5. If you don't experience some mental stress during a fast, I have to believe you are doing something wrong.
This is pretty interesting. Care to elaborate? Not that I'm disagreeing. I fast twice a week and usually do experience some mental stress -- usually anxiety, rising and falling. I thought it (anxiety, "mental stress") was an effect of the caffeine from the green tea I drink, which, upon reflection, I should probably not drink on fast days...
#102
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 02 February 2010 - 09:26 PM
This is pretty interesting. Care to elaborate? Not that I'm disagreeing. I fast twice a week and usually do experience some mental stress -- usually anxiety, rising and falling. I thought it (anxiety, "mental stress") was an effect of the caffeine from the green tea I drink, which, upon reflection, I should probably not drink on fast days...
A fast is by definite deprivation, or else it is not a fast. Deprivation by definition stresses a system, or else it is not deprivation. Mental stress is an immediate proxy for physical stress. Given these three basic assumptions, if you are not experiencing mental stress it is because you are not experiencing physical stress, which is because you have not adequately deprived your bio-system, which is because the fast is inadequate.
My broader point being one of the following... 1. In general I don't believe people that say that a fast does not in any way impair their function. 2. If you really aren't functionally impaired during a fast then your body has in some way adapted to your fasting schedule, although that may sound desirable, IMO it defeats the benefit of the fast.
Edited by JohnD60, 02 February 2010 - 09:28 PM.
#103
-
- Guest
- 2,008 posts
- 406 ₮
Posted 02 February 2010 - 10:01 PM
1. In general I don't believe people that say that a fast does not in any way impair their function. 2. If you really aren't functionally impaired during a fast then your body has in some way adapted to your fasting schedule, although that may sound desirable, IMO it defeats the benefit of the fast.
I definitely feel the effects of fasting. On most fasting days, I try to lay around and rest as much as possible. Do nothing. Sleep, meditate, heal. If forced into strenuous activity, then you're right, I do feel impaired: light-headed, dreamy, but very alert and full of energy. I've found that walking is a very interesting activity while fasting. Some fasts I will walk and walk and walk -- almost mindlessly, and I really like it. Every fast is different, though, and some are easier than others.
#104
-
- Guest
- 184 posts
- 6 ₮
- Location:Minnesota
Posted 02 February 2010 - 10:04 PM
My broader point being one of the following... 1. In general I don't believe people that say that a fast does not in any way impair their function. 2. If you really aren't functionally impaired during a fast then your body has in some way adapted to your fasting schedule, although that may sound desirable, IMO it defeats the benefit of the fast.
I don't think it is written in stone anywhere that pain and suffering are required for something good to happen. In my mind the adaptation is the goal, not the pain. I'd be much more concerned if I found that my body couldn't adapt to IF after repeatedly doing it. I might conjecture that an increasing ease to 24 hour fasting is indicative of your body's growing ability to more quickly move to ketone utilization after hepatic glycogen stores are depleted (16-20 hours). The first time I went into ketosis it was murder on my system, but after many times of swinging my body in and out of it, I barely notice it anymore.
#105
-
- Guest
- 2,008 posts
- 406 ₮
Posted 02 February 2010 - 10:10 PM
I might conjecture that an increasing ease to 24 hour fasting is indicative of your body's growing ability to more quickly move to ketone utilization after hepatic glycogen stores are depleted (16-20 hours). The first time I went into ketosis it was murder on my system, but after many times of swinging my body in and out of it, I barely notice it anymore.
Yeah, I agree. And a lot of it for me is psychological. I mean, sometimes I get really hungry and weak and light-headed and anxious, but I tell myself it's okay, I've fasted before, I will eat again tomorrow, the universe spins on. Fasting has taught me a lot about so many things. It's a wonderful practice -- even if there are no discernable health benefits.
#106
-
- Guest
- 937 posts
- 280 ₮
- Location:spaceship earth
Posted 02 February 2010 - 10:56 PM
I don't agree with any of your basic assumptions.A fast is by definite deprivation, or else it is not a fast. Deprivation by definition stresses a system, or else it is not deprivation. Mental stress is an immediate proxy for physical stress. Given these three basic assumptions, if you are not experiencing mental stress it is because you are not experiencing physical stress, which is because you have not adequately deprived your bio-system, which is because the fast is inadequate.
Why does a fast have to be deprivation? Many animals in the wild regularly go days without eating as it is just part of their normal food acquisition pattern. I think it would be naive to suggest that every time they do this it is a huge stress on their system, much more likely is their metabolisms have adapted to thrive on gorging EOD than balanced out daily for example.
Since I moved to a more natural paleo style diet (I think the key here is low carb), fasting has become incredibly easy for me. I am sitting here at work, having not eating for the last 36 hours, and I am suffering no ill-effects whatsoever! On the contrary I feel great! None of my work colleagues would believe me if I told them the last time I ate was Monday night (its Wednesday morning). And this is only the 5th or 6th fast over 18 hours that I have ever done.
All I have been drinking is water. Am I not adequately depriving my bio-system? Why is this fast I am currently on not adequate?
#108
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 03 February 2010 - 05:52 AM
In my mind the adaptation is the goal, not the pain.
Thank you for articulating well a fundamental philosophical difference. But to be clear, to me the stress is the goal. I didn't use the word pain. Though pain is often a form of stress they are not necessarily synonymous.
Edited by JohnD60, 03 February 2010 - 06:05 AM.
#109
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 03 February 2010 - 06:03 AM
The body can adapt pretty quickly, if those 5 or 6 fasts have all been in the past 3 or 4 weeks I would say that you have just adapted to a new diet. Regardless, I am somewhat skeptical that a short term memory test or coordination test would confirm those assertions.... having not eating for the last 36 hours, and I am suffering no ill-effects whatsoever! On the contrary I feel great!
#110
-
- Guest
- 125 posts
- 15 ₮
Posted 08 April 2010 - 10:21 AM
For 3 weeks I have been fasting 16 hours then eating 2 or 3 meals in a 6-8 hour window. Meals have been very high in protein - tuna/fish/steak, moderate in fats (salad dressings etc) and very lowish in carbs aside from a daily 1/2 to a whole candy bar 
Still at a caloric deficit of about 1100-1500 calories depending on how I feel and if its a training day. I eat a handful of walnuts and mixed nuts every day also.
Strong as hell in the gym, no ill effects or cravings. Upper arms holding steady at 20.25" but waist has dropped a bit judging from the fit of my shorts, so not experiencing much muscle loss as far as I can tell. Arms are the first place I lose muscle when starving myself so I measure them along the way. Weight has gone from 297 to 284. Not too dehydrated from what I can tell due to normal sodium intake and 40ish grams of carbs a day. Obviously though some of the weight is water from the numbers on the scale. I was very waterlogged when I started this thing.
Anyway.. so far I'm loving this lifestyle. Wanted to cut fat and improve insulin sensitivity and IFing has been a breeze for me compared to controlled frequent meals/grazing. I find my hunger is sharply blunted to the point of having to force myself to eat my second and third meals. My stomach has really "shrunk" as it were. The more I read about fasting, the more I am impressed with it both as a longevity aid and as a way to control hunger when dieting. Pretty sure I could stay on this "diet" indefinitely if I needed to.
I take Life Extension mix tablets, extra vitamin D, fish oil, DHEA, aspirin, Pomegranite, Curcumin, Resveratrol, No Flush Niacin, and Juice Plus veggie/fruit powders.
I am a meso/endo so I never had to eat all the time anyway, but for 25 years I have followed the frequent-eating dogma as absolutely essential to gain mass. Sites like LeanGains.com gave the confidence to step away from that approach.
Will post results in 10 more weeks to see where I'm at. Would like to get to a lean 220 at about 10% eventually before clean bulking again - will still do the IFing , but increase calories to a surplus and up the carbs a tad.
After two several years of sitting on my butt eating way too many junky carbs foods ( as in entire boxes of candy bars every week) I got way too fat for my tastes. I look like a powerlifter/strongman, but would prefer a 6-pack and biceps vein. As I said, I'm a natural meso/endo so I never lost much muscle from not working out a lot, but I did get fatter
- The Toad
Still at a caloric deficit of about 1100-1500 calories depending on how I feel and if its a training day. I eat a handful of walnuts and mixed nuts every day also.Strong as hell in the gym, no ill effects or cravings. Upper arms holding steady at 20.25" but waist has dropped a bit judging from the fit of my shorts, so not experiencing much muscle loss as far as I can tell. Arms are the first place I lose muscle when starving myself so I measure them along the way. Weight has gone from 297 to 284. Not too dehydrated from what I can tell due to normal sodium intake and 40ish grams of carbs a day. Obviously though some of the weight is water from the numbers on the scale. I was very waterlogged when I started this thing.
Anyway.. so far I'm loving this lifestyle. Wanted to cut fat and improve insulin sensitivity and IFing has been a breeze for me compared to controlled frequent meals/grazing. I find my hunger is sharply blunted to the point of having to force myself to eat my second and third meals. My stomach has really "shrunk" as it were. The more I read about fasting, the more I am impressed with it both as a longevity aid and as a way to control hunger when dieting. Pretty sure I could stay on this "diet" indefinitely if I needed to.
I take Life Extension mix tablets, extra vitamin D, fish oil, DHEA, aspirin, Pomegranite, Curcumin, Resveratrol, No Flush Niacin, and Juice Plus veggie/fruit powders.
I am a meso/endo so I never had to eat all the time anyway, but for 25 years I have followed the frequent-eating dogma as absolutely essential to gain mass. Sites like LeanGains.com gave the confidence to step away from that approach.
Will post results in 10 more weeks to see where I'm at. Would like to get to a lean 220 at about 10% eventually before clean bulking again - will still do the IFing , but increase calories to a surplus and up the carbs a tad.
After two several years of sitting on my butt eating way too many junky carbs foods ( as in entire boxes of candy bars every week) I got way too fat for my tastes. I look like a powerlifter/strongman, but would prefer a 6-pack and biceps vein. As I said, I'm a natural meso/endo so I never lost much muscle from not working out a lot, but I did get fatter
- The Toad
Edited by hypnotoad, 08 April 2010 - 10:31 AM.
#111
-
- Guest
- 197 posts
- 3 ₮
Posted 20 April 2010 - 12:16 PM
I have been 'naturally' doing IF for some years. Basically I rarely eat between Friday and Sunday evenings. I've noticed that I seem to have a faster metabolism than most of my friends, and put on muscle mass quicker. I dont know whether this is due to IF or just cooincidence.
I -love- the spaced out feeling you get after 36hrs+ without food. Especially if drinking, or hungover, or on the comedown. Nothing nicer than wandering through a park in the sun, spaced.
I -love- the spaced out feeling you get after 36hrs+ without food. Especially if drinking, or hungover, or on the comedown. Nothing nicer than wandering through a park in the sun, spaced.
#112
-
- Guest
- 38 posts
- 12 ₮
- Location:Lima, Peru
Posted 15 May 2010 - 05:03 AM
I had two different experiences with IF.
First one was a true 100%ADF, with a little protein meal on the 24h mark. Then 24 hours of eating window. Ruled by the "ADF is magical, you can eat whatever you want and still lose weight" I ate ad libitum, high carb diet. I had the idea that it was impossible to make up for the calories not eaten the day before in one day. Boy I was wrong. I went up some pounds. So I went back to my normal eating schedule, low carb-high fat approach. I was a little dissapointed because ADF is like a passion for me and find the science behind it really interesting. So I started experimenting with mini-fasts, keeping my diet the same. Nothing special, but I found that actually I didnt have much hunger during the fasts. Based on my research and knowledge I created the ideal diet lifestyle for me, expecting an improvement in body composition and health. I keep that lifestyle until now. Its actually very similar to a paleo-IF diet, with some exceptions. First, I dont eat fruits. Second, I vary my calorie intake during the week, higher calories on training days and lower calories on non training days. Life isnt linear, neither your body. The key is ALTERNATING periods. Also, I dont buy into the "lypid hypothesis" so most of my fat intake is saturated. At first I thought IF wouldnt give any extra benefits to a VLCKD (which mimics starvation). But I discovered that it was the other way around, it added benefits. Im a strong believer in IF as a healthy approach for life, not only for longevity (which isnt proved to be true).
First one was a true 100%ADF, with a little protein meal on the 24h mark. Then 24 hours of eating window. Ruled by the "ADF is magical, you can eat whatever you want and still lose weight" I ate ad libitum, high carb diet. I had the idea that it was impossible to make up for the calories not eaten the day before in one day. Boy I was wrong. I went up some pounds. So I went back to my normal eating schedule, low carb-high fat approach. I was a little dissapointed because ADF is like a passion for me and find the science behind it really interesting. So I started experimenting with mini-fasts, keeping my diet the same. Nothing special, but I found that actually I didnt have much hunger during the fasts. Based on my research and knowledge I created the ideal diet lifestyle for me, expecting an improvement in body composition and health. I keep that lifestyle until now. Its actually very similar to a paleo-IF diet, with some exceptions. First, I dont eat fruits. Second, I vary my calorie intake during the week, higher calories on training days and lower calories on non training days. Life isnt linear, neither your body. The key is ALTERNATING periods. Also, I dont buy into the "lypid hypothesis" so most of my fat intake is saturated. At first I thought IF wouldnt give any extra benefits to a VLCKD (which mimics starvation). But I discovered that it was the other way around, it added benefits. Im a strong believer in IF as a healthy approach for life, not only for longevity (which isnt proved to be true).
#113
-
- Guest
- 176 posts
- 60 ₮
- Location:-
Posted 17 May 2010 - 07:12 PM
You do know that alcohol contains calories right?I have been 'naturally' doing IF for some years. Basically I rarely eat between Friday and Sunday evenings. I've noticed that I seem to have a faster metabolism than most of my friends, and put on muscle mass quicker. I dont know whether this is due to IF or just cooincidence.
I -love- the spaced out feeling you get after 36hrs+ without food. Especially if drinking, or hungover, or on the comedown. Nothing nicer than wandering through a park in the sun, spaced.
#114
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 15 November 2010 - 11:28 PM
LOL. Part of the problem with discussing fasting is that many have their own definition of what a fast is. Some people's definition of a fast is that they don't eat any solid food. Some Paleo diet enthusiasts somehow manage to fast two or three times a day!You do know that alcohol contains calories right?
#115
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 21 November 2010 - 05:35 AM
An update of my fasting schedule originally posted Jan 2010:
1. I am still fasting one day, water only, every two weeks, the last hour being strenuous cardio exercise.
2. I have decided to increase the fasting period from 24 hours to 26 hours.
Why add two hours?, Because I still fell that mitochondrial autophagy doesn't take place
significantly until after 18 hours of fasting. I think that the low hanging fruit
(misc. lysosomes and stray protein strings in the cytoplasm) are converted to energy first
and that it takes time for the cell to produce sufficient autophagosome capacity
to eat mitochondria. So it seemed silly to limit the fast to 24 hours when a two hour
increase would increase the effective period of the fast by 25%.
Why not 28 or 30 hours? Well, that is about all I can comfortably do.
If I stop eating sooner than say 6PM on the night I start the fast then I will have trouble
sleeping, I still finish my fast with an hour of cardio exercise, and I have to start that
by 6:30PM or else I will loose motivation.
3. I have decided to make an effort to not eat any carbohydrates within two hours before the start
of my fast. Insulin levels and all that, I have read that other people do that, seems logical,
doesn't seem like a big deal to implement.
4. I ordered some Trehalose (sp?), not sure what if anything I will do with it.
Random thoughts, some of which are based upon my recent literature review update:
1. I think there is a general consensus now that the primary benefit of caloric reduction diets
is autophagy.
2. I think part of what appeals to me about intermittent fasting is that it is kind of an adventure.
You make up your own rules, and suffer the consequences. My guess would be that 80% of CR and
intermittent fasting are Men, in large part because of this adventure component. The fact that women
currently out live men by years on average probably also contributes to the lack of interest by
women in the subject.
3. The large majority of research on life extension is financed by and done for large pharm companies,
who couldn't care less about the health benefits of fasting or CR. They only care about some pill
they can patent and make ten billion dollars from. not a criticism, just an observation. Until some
60 year old dude that looks like a healthy 32 year old is discovered by the popular media, CR and IF
will remain a fringe activity practiced by a few ten thousand people.
4. I think most studies on autophagy are flawed in that they don't differentiate between the different
types of autophagy.
5. Ketosis is the enemy of autophagy. Ketosis effectively down regulates autophagy. Sure if you are
a body builder and want to get ripped for a contest, great, but I don't see any health benefit to it.
6. Autophagy is dermabrasion for the body and mind.
1. I am still fasting one day, water only, every two weeks, the last hour being strenuous cardio exercise.
2. I have decided to increase the fasting period from 24 hours to 26 hours.
Why add two hours?, Because I still fell that mitochondrial autophagy doesn't take place
significantly until after 18 hours of fasting. I think that the low hanging fruit
(misc. lysosomes and stray protein strings in the cytoplasm) are converted to energy first
and that it takes time for the cell to produce sufficient autophagosome capacity
to eat mitochondria. So it seemed silly to limit the fast to 24 hours when a two hour
increase would increase the effective period of the fast by 25%.
Why not 28 or 30 hours? Well, that is about all I can comfortably do.
If I stop eating sooner than say 6PM on the night I start the fast then I will have trouble
sleeping, I still finish my fast with an hour of cardio exercise, and I have to start that
by 6:30PM or else I will loose motivation.
3. I have decided to make an effort to not eat any carbohydrates within two hours before the start
of my fast. Insulin levels and all that, I have read that other people do that, seems logical,
doesn't seem like a big deal to implement.
4. I ordered some Trehalose (sp?), not sure what if anything I will do with it.
Random thoughts, some of which are based upon my recent literature review update:
1. I think there is a general consensus now that the primary benefit of caloric reduction diets
is autophagy.
2. I think part of what appeals to me about intermittent fasting is that it is kind of an adventure.
You make up your own rules, and suffer the consequences. My guess would be that 80% of CR and
intermittent fasting are Men, in large part because of this adventure component. The fact that women
currently out live men by years on average probably also contributes to the lack of interest by
women in the subject.
3. The large majority of research on life extension is financed by and done for large pharm companies,
who couldn't care less about the health benefits of fasting or CR. They only care about some pill
they can patent and make ten billion dollars from. not a criticism, just an observation. Until some
60 year old dude that looks like a healthy 32 year old is discovered by the popular media, CR and IF
will remain a fringe activity practiced by a few ten thousand people.
4. I think most studies on autophagy are flawed in that they don't differentiate between the different
types of autophagy.
5. Ketosis is the enemy of autophagy. Ketosis effectively down regulates autophagy. Sure if you are
a body builder and want to get ripped for a contest, great, but I don't see any health benefit to it.
6. Autophagy is dermabrasion for the body and mind.
#118
-
- Guest
- 1,076 posts
- 280 ₮
- Location:Canada
- NO
Posted 29 November 2010 - 06:11 AM
Justify
I no longer remember where I read it but in rats it definitely seemed that ketones in the blood inhibited autophagy. When ketone production was shut-down autophagy was up-regulated. I'll look for the study, but i'm pretty sure I remember it right.
Edit (found the study):
Not exactly what I said but here's the study:
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2008 Feb 15;366(3):786-92. Epub 2007 Dec 17.
In vivo effect of an antilipolytic drug (3,5'-dimethylpyrazole) on autophagic proteolysis and autophagy-related gene expression in rat liver.
Donati A, Ventruti A, Cavallini G, Masini M, Vittorini S, Chantret I, Codogno P, Bergamini E.
Edited by Sillewater, 29 November 2010 - 06:13 AM.
#119
-
- Guest
- 1,594 posts
- 24 ₮
- Location:USA
- NO
Posted 29 November 2010 - 11:23 AM
5. Ketosis is the enemy of autophagy. Ketosis effectively down regulates autophagy.
Where did you get this idea? It is exactly the opposite. Autophagy is up-regulated by fasting, and the deeper into the fast you go, the stronger the effect, because your ketosis is deeper.
Ketone Bodies Stimulate Chaperone-mediated Autophagy
Sillewater, an antilipolytic drug should inhibit autophagy by inhibiting the production of ketones, which are in fact partially oxidized FAs. So, no lipolysis => no FAs => no ketones => no autophagy.
Hello?
Edited by xEva, 29 November 2010 - 11:23 AM.
#120
-
- Guest
- 540 posts
- 70 ₮
- Location:Colorado
Posted 29 November 2010 - 06:04 PM
Thanks for the link. But I believe you are conflating CMA (Chaperone mediated Autophagy) with Autophagy in general. CMA is just a very small subset of Autophagy. I think it probable that CMA is just increased concurrent with Ketosis while general autophagy drops significantly. Quoting from page 11 of the study report: "The effects of ketone bodies have been extensively studied on tissues that utilize them for energy, such as skeletal muscle and brain. The use of ketone bodies as an energy source prevents the catabolism of essential proteins and preserves amino acid pools within the cell during time of nutritional stress (4 citations are given including, http://diabetes.diab...pe2=tf_ipsecsha ).5. Ketosis is the enemy of autophagy. Ketosis effectively down regulates autophagy.
Where did you get this idea? It is exactly the opposite. Autophagy is up-regulated by fasting, and the deeper into the fast you go, the stronger the effect, because your ketosis is deeper.
Ketone Bodies Stimulate Chaperone-mediated Autophagy
Sillewater, an antilipolytic drug should inhibit autophagy by inhibiting the production of ketones, which are in fact partially oxidized FAs. So, no lipolysis => no FAs => no ketones => no autophagy.
Hello?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
