Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Purposeful Lack of Nutrition? IF opinions

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Purposeful Lack of Nutrition? IF opinions

    Hey all,

    After dinner last night I started my first 24 hour Intermittent Fast just to see how I felt during and afterwards. Been paleoish for almost 2 months and feel great, but still get that "carb hangover" after a weekend of cheating (which are becoming less frequent.) Figured I'd give my digestive system the day off to rest and recover and wanted to see what people around these parts think about IF. Tried it, love it, hate it? Let me know what you think.
    My Paleo Project:

    www.nutritionator.com

  • #2
    i'm a huge fan of IF. i used to do the 24-36 hour kind once a week, but now i go with more of a leangains approach. my fasts are daily, and usually about 18 hours long, depending on the day. i love that i hardly ever get hungry, i always have tons of energy, and i think i appreciate food more than i did before i tried fasting.
    http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread60178.html

    Comment


    • #3
      IF really works for me.

      I was doing 16 hour daily fasts, moved to 20 hour fasts and now am pretty flexible, depending on my day's activities.

      I seldom eat breakfast, but will sometime eat lunch & no dinner. Most days, no breakfast or lunch & then a 3pm snack & dinner between 5 & 8pm.
      Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
      Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
      Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

      Comment


      • #4
        What’s the Deal with Intermittent Fasting (IF) vs Calorie Restriction?

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm a big fan of IF. I use the daily 16 to 18 hour leangains style fasting with longer ones tossed in once in a while.
          http://www.facebook.com/daemonized

          Comment


          • #6
            I'm planning on a 24 hour fast from lunch today to lunch tomorrow. Just for kicks, really

            What would a 36-48 hour fast do metabolically? or a 72 hour fast? I know I've seen some links talking about that lately, but I can't seem to find them.
            Type 1 Diabetic. Controlling blood sugar through primal life.

            2012 Goals:
            Maintain A1c of 6.0 or lower
            More dietary fat, less carbs, moderate protein
            LHT and sprint as per PB fitness
            Play more!

            Comment


            • #7
              IF requires discipline for most folks (at least at first). IF works (funny how life is like that, discipline equals effective). DFH likes to believe everyone has thyroid issues and that people should, for whatever reason, be afraid of not constantly eating. Here’s my suggestion, find people (Johnny over at Lean Saloon is one) who have been doing IF for awhile. See how many of them say their metabolism is broken and that they regret doing IF. I have yet to meet or correspond with anyone (myself included) who did not benefit from proper IF. Obviously people with outlying medical and/or psychological issues should use caution (but that applies to any changes such person would make in diet and/or lifestyle).

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by apple View Post
                I'm planning on a 24 hour fast from lunch today to lunch tomorrow. Just for kicks, really

                What would a 36-48 hour fast do metabolically? or a 72 hour fast? I know I've seen some links talking about that lately, but I can't seem to find them.
                If you go past 24 hrs regularly, you are stepping into the realm that there is almost no reliable information except passionate claims that it does not matter and anecdotes. IF'rs were caught off guard with the hormone/rT3 questions. See the link I posted above.

                If the benefits of IF work at < 24 hrs, what would be the point of doing 72 hrs? Is there an assumption that benefits add cumulatively? At some interval and frequency there is a point where you start damaging metabolism. Don't let anyone convince you it can't be-they don't know. The only way to really know is do it so much that you damage your metabolism and write that down!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would also say that IF is not meant to be a "Lack of Nutrition" either. You still need your proper nutrition and IF alters the time in which you get nutrients that you need.
                  http://www.facebook.com/daemonized

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Love the replies so far, definitely seems to be a lot of those in support of IF. I've pulled up a bunch of papers and I'm plowing through them as I type this. I don't want to take away from MDA at all but I'll be putting up a blog post about my personal experience with my fast today and what I could find on the web at some point tonight. I'll definitely give an abbreviated recap here too because I still get bothered when people shamelessly plug their blogs on forums, but it leads to visitors
                    My Paleo Project:

                    www.nutritionator.com

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I IF just about every day. I follow the 16/8 breakdown even on weight days, when I workout at 6am. I then do not eat until noon. There are some days that I am hungry as hell in the morning, so I eat then. As most people around here preach....listen to your body. I will say that I feel better and have plenty of energy. I was always a disbeliever of this style, and thought it was insane that people lifted in a fasted state. Finally, I figured I would at least try it to see how it worked for me, even though it went everything I had believed for so long. I have had faster gains on my lifts since changing over. Plus, I no longer get the upset stomach feeling from lifting heavy while there is still something digesting in my stomach.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        IF works. 16/8 works best for me because I can still get all my daily macros. If you prefer 24 hour fasts, they shouldn't be done more than once or twice per week.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I tried a weekly 24-36 hour fast for two months. Although I didn't feel terrible fasting I found that I couldn't sleep. I am sure the reason IF never did much for me was due to the stress caused from lack of sleep. I will not fast now as it puts unnecessary strain on my body. I need to sleep! I am too busy with children to do daily fasts and also worried that it may disrupt my sleep. I have never heard of anyone else having a sleep issue while fasting so I am not sure how common it is.
                          http://paleochickcooks@blogspot.com/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I do smaller, frequent meals (mini-meals, really) and keep total calories to a minimum over time because I don't eat that much. I claim the same benefits as IF, which are roughly the same as what people were claiming before IF became the fashion of the day.

                            At the end of the day, people should just do what they like best and not go crazy with it. It's not a contest or a willpower challenge.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by DFH View Post
                              If you go past 24 hrs regularly, you are stepping into the realm that there is almost no reliable information except passionate claims that it does not matter and anecdotes. IF'rs were caught off guard with the hormone/rT3 questions. See the link I posted above.

                              If the benefits of IF work at < 24 hrs, what would be the point of doing 72 hrs? Is there an assumption that benefits add cumulatively? At some interval and frequency there is a point where you start damaging metabolism. Don't let anyone convince you it can't be-they don't know. The only way to really know is do it so much that you damage your metabolism and write that down!
                              I guess that answers my question. I don't know if it's the quacks spreading this info, because there is definitely no science backing up these claims, but apparently water-fasting for 3 days is "cleansing" (a rather subjective term that doesn't mean much to me, I need some objectivity) and the next 7 days, should you fast on water only for 10 days, is "healing" (same issue with this term). They do explain the "healing" term a little more, but again, I see no science to back it up. Claims are that autolysis cleans out degraded or dying tissues, scar tissues, visceral fat deposits, benign and malignant tumor cells; "the body knows what tissue is essential, and that what tissue is nonessential can be used to sustain the body's protein requirements" (I'm paraphrasing that).

                              But if what you say is true and there is no real science to back up those claims, I probably will never bother doing more than 24-36 hours. It seems the "3 day" thing is a standard number for the long-term fasters because it takes about that long for the body to flip into ketosis, and for most of your water weight to go, and that's the "benefit" people feel. And then obviously if one went another 7 days, they would continue to lose body fat and probably muscle mass, and thus could try to conclude that "unnecessary tissue" was autolyzed. And thus they are healed.

                              BUT, is there actually merit in this? Do we see more benefit in intermittent fasting than we would otherwise because so many of us are in a ketotic state due to our lower carb diet?

                              (And as a disclaimer, I would never fast for 10 days more than like 1x a year. I think it would use up a lot of the body's nutrient stores and thus could result in that lack of nutrition if done more frequently. Plus, holy boring 10 days, batman.)

                              my resource: The Health Benefits of Water Fasting by Stephen Harrod Buhner
                              Again, no studies are cited in this, so I'm pretty skeptical. Although if it were all true, it would be a nice Baby-Jesus-Miracle-Worker all by itself.
                              Type 1 Diabetic. Controlling blood sugar through primal life.

                              2012 Goals:
                              Maintain A1c of 6.0 or lower
                              More dietary fat, less carbs, moderate protein
                              LHT and sprint as per PB fitness
                              Play more!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X