Jump to content
BANGKOK 20 June 2019 16:03
WaveHunter

Water Only Fasting...Should you do it / How should you do it.

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

Anyone who conduct self-fasting for months is, in my opinion, an absolute fool! 

Yes, in your opinion. And you made pretty clear that you don't grasp the studies you link. If a person has 100kg overweight it can fast half a year, the only point to take care about are liquids, vitamins and trace elements ... I'm not so sure you know that ...

 

Half your posts make sense, some in fact are very correct, the other half is utter nonsense.

Edited by Enki
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, WaveHunter said:

a fast as short as 24 hours, or even simply abstaining from food for 18 hours (i.e.: 16:8 intermittent fast, or OMAD) has incredible and scientifically proven health benefits.

Sorry, perhaps you simply should use a different word?

"Fast" has a meaning. And that meaning is: you get your body into a different state. So: fasting less than 3 days, makes no sense at all.

Not eating for 18h, probably EVERY day, instead of just one or two days: is not "fasting". If you change your diet to have every day a 12h - 14h no eating period: that is not fasting. It is a diet choice. And actually a good one. On the other hand, I never got that american snack thing. It is well known since 40 years that it is a dumb idea, but I'm kept being told it is still the mantra in the US.

 

You seem to mix up "fasting" with "not eating" ... so, I'm fasting since ... uh ... now it is 10:30 ... since 20:00 last night ... which would be 14:30h ... no: that is not fasting. I simply had no breakfast, as I usually don't eat breakfast anymore since about 20 years, and it is not lunch time yet. According to your idea, I'm fasting every day 16h ... no, I'm not fasting. I'm just not eating when I sleep and I usually don't eat before 12:00 ... 

 

But no worries, when I'm on an martial arts seminar, I eat a small breakfast in the morning before the first class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

Unsure if your post is irony or what??

but for me feasting is the total opposite of fasting :ermm:

Feast: eat and drink sumptuously

7780797536_preparez-un-bouillon-pour-le-

 

 

What do you mean by "At least without calories intake" ?

This thread is about "water only fasting",

so nothing else than water during a few days... or weeks??:wacko:

I'm not a native english speaker, so you probably should have simply realized I typo-ed, aka mixed up the words. Obviously I meant fasting, but nice pictures 😄

However water only feasting sounds interesting, too ... I hope after dancing there will be lots of love making, regardless of the lack of food?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, robblok said:

Whatever definitions you give things does not make them right. Intermittent fasting has been around for quite some time. It is how it is named. I don't do it but you seem to have different definitions of others about fasting. 

No, it is not how it is named, unless stupid americans invented again a new misleading name. Abstaining from food for less than a week can hardly be called "fasting". It sounds like a new marketing term for a new diet.

Yes: not eating for about 12h a day is good, but no one calls it fasting, why would anyone who has not an agenda to sell call it like that?

But funnily the english wiki article got hijacked, too. Perhaps we need a new word for "fasting" so people who are interested in "fasting" can still talk about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Enki said:

No, it is not how it is named, unless stupid americans invented again a new misleading name. Abstaining from food for less than a week can hardly be called "fasting". It sounds like a new marketing term for a new diet.

Yes: not eating for about 12h a day is good, but no one calls it fasting, why would anyone who has not an agenda to sell call it like that?

But funnily the english wiki article got hijacked, too. Perhaps we need a new word for "fasting" so people who are interested in "fasting" can still talk about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

Majority rules mate, if everyone uses it language changes. The time that Britannia ruled the waves is gone so accept it. 

Edited by robblok
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, robblok said:

I only have one meal with carbs and then only on training days. I won't change that for now. But I was just thinking about it.

 

The question is actually does it take (for instance) two times as long for insulin to go back to normal and will the peek be higher if you eat 200 grams of carbs.. or eat two times 100 carbs.

 

What I am trying to figure out is how much difference is there in reality if the amount of food is the same over the whole day. There might still be an advantage for less meals, but I wonder how much that advantage is. 

 

But I KNOW that the insulin response to 200grams of carbs it totally different from the one of 100grams. If its is really a factor 2 is of course the question. Its just academical 

 

The reason I was thinking about it was IF where people want 16 hour without food. But if you still eat the same meals does the timing really matter that much.

 

Example:

 

eat at 8am insulin is done at 10am (just fictive numbers) you eat again at 12.. means between 10 and 12 two hours no insulin, now shift that meal to 9am and then insulin is done at 11 and eat at 12 gain. Means one hour of no insulin after the meal and of course the 1 hour you won by shifting. But its still the same two hours.

 

Point being by equal meals does spacing really matter that much how you spread your 3 meals.

 

There still might be an advantage for less meals not debating that as I am not sure. But the differences might be less then one thinks.

 

My reason is that there is good research for cassein at night for muscle recovery (ok not needed for those who are just on a diet).

 

My point is more that a diet should be adapted to the life you lead and if sports demand other things you might have to tweak things. With my peptide shot at night i wanted the cassein at night too. 

I see what you're getting at.  I think our discussion is more academic then real-world, and in reality it probably doesn't make a big difference either way...but still, it's really interesting to consider.

 

What I wonder about is which has more of an effect on insulin receptors' developing insensitivity ... the excessively high overall level of insulin that occurs in people who "graze" on food throughout the day, or the spikes that occur during unusually large meals.  It just seems logical to assume that spikes would put greater stress on receptors than a steady high delivery of insulin but grazing behavior floods the receptors with insulin at a steady rate.

 

So I wonder which has more of a negative effect, or if there is any difference.  Again, probably both are equally as bad, and this is more of an academic curiosity than anything; still though it's interesting to consider.

 

Most important, as you say, is that everyone is unique so what is optimal for one person may not be so for another, so it's best for everybody to consider science-based facts and then make up their own mind for what works best for them, not just blindly follow the path of others.

Edited by WaveHunter
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Sorry for my rambling reply above.  What I was driving at is which has a greater negative effect on metabolic health;  the shock-like stress of insulin spikes on receptors from unusually large meals , or the steady flooding of the insulin receptors from "grazing" behavior .

 

By "grazing", I meant when people eat a number of small meals and snacks throughout the day.  And, when I referred to "unusually large meals", I was referring to 16:8 intermittent fasting and one-meal-per-day (OMAD).

 

NOTE:  I wish ThaiVisa wouldn't lock up posts and make them un-editable so quickly LOL!

Edited by WaveHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 2:04 AM, Enki said:

Why do you ask? Rofl, you get more and more ridiculous ... why actually asking/starting a thread in a forum about Thailand?

 

Please, do everyone a favour and stop talking about fasting until you actually have fasted. And that simply means: no eating for 4 to 6 or even 8 weeks ... WEEKS not days.

Dear or dear. We fast every night when we go to bed. Breakfast? Means breaking your nocturnal fast.

Look it up in a dictionary or something. 

"abstain from food," Old English fæstan "to fast" (as a religious duty), also "to make firm; establish, confirm, pledge," from Proto-Germanic *fastanan "to hold, guard," extended to the religious act "observe abstinence" (source also of Old Frisian festia, Old High German fasten, German fasten, Old Norse fasta "abstain from food"), from the same root as fast (adj.)."

The original meaning in prehistoric Germanic was "hold firmly," and the sense evolved via "have firm control of oneself," to "hold oneself to observance" (compare Gothic fastan "to keep, observe," also "to fast"). Perhaps the Germanic sense shifted through use of the native words to translate Medieval Latin observare in its sense "to fast," or it might have been a loan-translation of a Greek expression brought to the Goths by Arian missionaries and spread from them to other Germanic peoples. The verb in the sense "to make fast" continued in Middle English, but was superseded by fasten. Related: Fasted; fasting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Enki said:

No, it is not how it is named, unless stupid americans invented again a new misleading name. Abstaining from food for less than a week can hardly be called "fasting". It sounds like a new marketing term for a new diet.

Yes: not eating for about 12h a day is good, but no one calls it fasting, why would anyone who has not an agenda to sell call it like that?

But funnily the english wiki article got hijacked, too. Perhaps we need a new word for "fasting" so people who are interested in "fasting" can still talk about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting

OMG, you still have not come to terms with this?  Fasting is simply defined as abstaining from eating food; not the length of time devoted to it.  Everybody fasts every single day of their lives when they sleep. Why do you think that the first meal of the day is called breakFAST? 

 

You are in a fasted state as soon as glycogen stores in the liver have been depleted.  That occurs in hours, not weeks or months.  It is as simple as that!

 

From your very own linked wiki: 

"...a person is assumed to be fasting once 8–12 hours have elapsed since the last meal. Metabolic changes of the fasting state begin after absorption of a meal (typically 3–5 hours after eating). ...

 

Fasts as short as 18 hours and up to 72 hours have tremendous positive health benefits associated with them that are defined and supported by science-based studies, and can be appreciated by anyone with the most basic understanding of high school biology. 

 

Fasts lasting longer than this only return marginal additional benefits for the average healthy person, but at significant health risks, especially when self-administered, and at even greater risk if the person is mis-informed or dealing with half-truths.  Only a very small subset of people should fast longer such as morbidly obese people with life-threatening complications from metabolic syndromes, and then only under the supervision of a metabolic-knowledgable and well-trained physician.

 

No offense intended, and I don't mean this in a mean-spirited way, but you are being very obtuse with all of this nonsense!

 

Edited by WaveHunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glycogen storage is usually 24 hours and is replenished with a small amount of carbohydrate. A one day strict fast should not exhaust stored glycogen. Likewise one meal a day wont deplete glycogen storage. That is unless the person has a glycogen storage deficiency.  Too much inaccuracies on this subject IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, FredGallaher said:

Glycogen storage is usually 24 hours and is replenished with a small amount of carbohydrate. A one day strict fast should not exhaust stored glycogen. Likewise one meal a day wont deplete glycogen storage. That is unless the person has a glycogen storage deficiency.  Too much inaccuracies on this subject IMO.

You are inaccurate if the glycogen last 24 hours (and it can) that is 2000 cals. You cant restore that with a small amount of carbohydrates. Unless you call 500 gram of carbs small. 

Edited by robblok

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glycogen storage is affected by activity. In marathon runners depletion happens much sooner, but in normal people with normal activity 24 hours is accurate. As you might know glycogen is responsible for maintaining an adequate fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels. We normally require an 8 hour fast before measuring FBS, because the level is stable at 8 hours and it is not unduly hard on patients. Fasting lipid levels require at least 12 hours fasting to stabilize. 

The level of glycogen is not necessarily 2000 calories. There are a number of variables. 

BTW when a person is in ketosis and takes in carbohydrates, there is a double effect. The ketones are converted to energy in the TCA cycle (normal glucose metabolism) plus the carbohydrates add calories on their own. That's why short term fasting doesn't work except the reduction of calories. 

I don't want to give a lecture on the biochemistry or human physiology, but I could. Generally this is either graduate school level and/or medical school. I can't do that here.

I am only speaking out because getting advise from forums is not wise. The subject is far more complex than can be explained here.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, FredGallaher said:

Glycogen storage is affected by activity. In marathon runners depletion happens much sooner, but in normal people with normal activity 24 hours is accurate. As you might know glycogen is responsible for maintaining an adequate fasting blood sugar (FBS) levels. We normally require an 8 hour fast before measuring FBS, because the level is stable at 8 hours and it is not unduly hard on patients. Fasting lipid levels require at least 12 hours fasting to stabilize. 

The level of glycogen is not necessarily 2000 calories. There are a number of variables. 

BTW when a person is in ketosis and takes in carbohydrates, there is a double effect. The ketones are converted to energy in the TCA cycle (normal glucose metabolism) plus the carbohydrates add calories on their own. That's why short term fasting doesn't work except the reduction of calories. 

I don't want to give a lecture on the biochemistry or human physiology, but I could. Generally this is either graduate school level and/or medical school. I can't do that here.

I am only speaking out because getting advise from forums is not wise. The subject is far more complex than can be explained here.

 

Why are you nit-picking?  The precise timing of glycogen depletion is irrelevant to what was being discussed.  If you are referring to what I said, my point was that the physiological mechanisms of ketosis (which is the goal of fasting)  begin to ramp up when glycogen stores are depleted, NOT that a 24 hour fast will necessarily achieve glycogen depletion. 

 

Furthermore, even if ketosis is not achieved, the process of fasting for only 24 hours, or or even 18 hours, or any amount of time that results in a drop of insulin for instance, is still beneficial.  The benefits of fasting go far beyond merely losing weight.  That doesn't take a "graduate school level and/or medical school" level of education to appreciate.  It just takes an open mind and the patience to use Google to research science-based sources of information.

 

What's more, to infer that nothing can be gained here in a layman forum such as this one by discussing these topics because it takes a "graduate school level and/or medical school" level of education to understand them is pure nonsense!  That's the excuse that lazy and/or ignorant people use to accept mis-information and half truths, instead of trying to be better informed about things that significantly affect our own health. 

 

Basic concepts of the metabolic sciences can be grasped with an understanding of high school biology, an open mind, and a determination to do some research via Google.  You don't necessarily need to be well versed in graduate school biochemistry or human physiology to do this, and if certain advanced topics require it, everyone has a brain and is capable of grasping more complex concepts if they are willing to take the time to do so.

 

"Getting advise from forumsas you put it is actually VERY wise if you use that information as a basis for researching the topic further on your own.  How else can an individual really learn the facts and the truths of controversial topics like the ones being discussed here? 

 

Are we supposed to just rely on what people with "graduate school level and/or medical school" level of education tell us?  Those credentialed people that told us that the food pyramid of the 1980's was correct and thus that carbohydrates should be the foundation of a healthy diet have now been proven to be DEAD-WRONG, and has resulted in an epidemic rise in obesity and Diabetes Type 2 today. 

 

Are we to believe accepted authorities like the American Diabetes Association when their own website advises that Diabetes Type 2 is an irreversible lifelong disease that will ultimately require insulin injections to control, when we now know this is not necessarily so, and that changes in nutrition can significantly alter and even reverse the condition if action is taken early enough?

 

In the final analysis, a person's health is their OWN responsibility, not the responsibility of their doctor or national health organizations like the American Diabetes Association or the American Heart Association, for instance.  Basically an individual has two choices;  You can either stick their head in the sand and accept what others' tell you, or you can make those decisions for yourself by researching science-based sources with an open-mind and willingness to think out-of-the-box.  Which option do you think is better?  I know which one I think is better.

 

Edited by WaveHunter
  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WaveHunter,

 

I started Intermittent Fasting (16:8) in December 2018, to lose weight, and within about 2 months I had lost about 5kg that I had been struggling to lose for a long time. I don't feel I need to lose more weight, but I wouldn't mind exchanging a couple of inches from around my waist for some muscle elsewhere. I'm 188cm tall and currently weigh 80kg.  

 

Like you, I am a competitive road cyclist but only an amateur one (unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to race for more than a year now!).  

 

I did think about adopting the ketogenic diet because a lot of people rave about it, and I do believe it is very effective in helping people lose weight. But after trying to find scientific information about any health risks, it seems that there are some possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched. I don't want to be a guinea pig. If you know of any research papers that show no ill effects of a long term keto diet, I will be interested to see them. 

 

BTW, I have observed that a lot of research is funded by organizations that have a vested interest in pitching a particular outcome. For example, I think the livestock/dairy industries are very much in favour of the keto diet. 

 

Instead of a keto diet, for about 2 months now, in addition to the 16:8 IF (which BTW I don't follow too strictly), I have been trying to follow a plant-based diet but currently finding it a challenge to get enough protein. I want to get hold of some vegan protein supplements, such as sacha inchi protein powder. I will do that in the near future. 

 

One thing that I have learned from reading about the topic of health and nutrition, is the importance of the microbiome in our guts. It seems that a healthy gut is important for a wide range of health issues and that a healthy gut depends on eating lots of fibre because that is the food of choice for the good microbes. I think the keto diet does not provide much fibre? Fibre comes from eating plants. 

 

Regards,

JB. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JungleBiker said:

Hi WaveHunter,

 

I started Intermittent Fasting (16:8) in December 2018, to lose weight, and within about 2 months I had lost about 5kg that I had been struggling to lose for a long time. I don't feel I need to lose more weight, but I wouldn't mind exchanging a couple of inches from around my waist for some muscle elsewhere. I'm 188cm tall and currently weigh 80kg.  

 

Like you, I am a competitive road cyclist but only an amateur one (unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to race for more than a year now!).  

 

I did think about adopting the ketogenic diet because a lot of people rave about it, and I do believe it is very effective in helping people lose weight. But after trying to find scientific information about any health risks, it seems that there are some possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched. I don't want to be a guinea pig. If you know of any research papers that show no ill effects of a long term keto diet, I will be interested to see them. 

 

BTW, I have observed that a lot of research is funded by organizations that have a vested interest in pitching a particular outcome. For example, I think the livestock/dairy industries are very much in favour of the keto diet. 

 

Instead of a keto diet, for about 2 months now, in addition to the 16:8 IF (which BTW I don't follow too strictly), I have been trying to follow a plant-based diet but currently finding it a challenge to get enough protein. I want to get hold of some vegan protein supplements, such as sacha inchi protein powder. I will do that in the near future. 

 

One thing that I have learned from reading about the topic of health and nutrition, is the importance of the microbiome in our guts. It seems that a healthy gut is important for a wide range of health issues and that a healthy gut depends on eating lots of fibre because that is the food of choice for the good microbes. I think the keto diet does not provide much fibre? Fibre comes from eating plants. 

 

Regards,

JB. 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

Low carb foods with a decent amount of fibre include pecans, almonds, avocado, cauliflower, some greens. I eat keto and my trips to the loo are "regular"! "Possible negative long term effects that have not yet been properly researched" doesn't sound like a risk. I don't think there is any harm, and maybe some good, in cycling out of keto from time to time anyway; just never go wild with shoveling down those carbs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...