Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 101 to 110 of 110

Thread: Intermittent Fasting for Fast Weight Loss, Better Health & Supreme Fitness page 11

  1. #101
    gopintos's Avatar
    gopintos is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    1,787
    Last week I made it to 36. I did some 24's also. The trouble I have, is fixing meals for everybody else. The kids eat/snack what seems like all day long. And then preparing dinner for DH. I think when I broke my 36 it was after I fixed the kids some lunch, but I can't really remember.

    I did a 24 yesterday, and I wasnt really all that hungry until I ate a little bit of sauerkraut, then I got sort of hungry.

    My am wondering the affect of eating low calorie when breaking these fasts. What I mean is, I ate after a 24 hour fast, but only had 657 calories. I may not make it to 24 today, maybe 19 - at 12 now and I am sure I will eat more than that today so that will probably average it out, but what if it is still on the low side, like 1200 or less?

    I am pleased with my results. Last week, I wanted to get off 4lbs that I had gained from the weekend. I know not fat but still I wanted it gone. It took all week, well 5 days to lose it, plus 2lb more. Yesterday, coming off the weekend, I was 1.5 heavy and I know it wasnt fat but I did a 24 and now this morning I am down 2.9lb.

    So after the ups and downs, I am closing in on 54lbs gone!
    65lbs gone and counting!!

    Fat 2 Fit - One Woman's Journey

  2. #102
    JoanieL's Avatar
    JoanieL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    It's not the heat, it's the stupidity.
    Posts
    8,168
    This is interesting stuff. Back in my 20s, I used to eat one meal a day. I usually had two lattes throughout the day (which meant I was getting a fair amount of whole milk), and then eat whatever I wanted for my evening meal. I didn't do it for health - it was mostly because my schedule was hectic (school, work, partying), food on campus was disgusting, and it was easy.

    My then SO (who was about twice my size) would look at me as we'd equally split an extra large pizza with everything and wonder where the hell I put it.

    I notice that as I continue to listen to my body, my first meal gets later in the day, but I'm not necessarily eating my last food later at night.

    Shutting out the noise of CW is a very good thing.

  3. #103
    lotus's Avatar
    lotus is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    IN
    Posts
    3
    Just a quick question on IF:

    I'm a new father ( 7 weeks old ) and my wife and I have gone primal for about 4 weeks now, we both love it.

    But I get up every morning with the baby around 5-6am, having last eaten around 6-7pm the night before, and I don't eat until my wife wakes up around noon.

    Basically, every day I'm fasting for about 14-18 hours. Is this too much? Is this going to inhibit my body from burning fat because it's seen more as a "Starvation" and my body wants to hold onto fat?

    I'm really never starving, but I'm worried it's messing up my metabolism by going so long without eating on a daily basis.

    Thanks, folks!

  4. #104
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by lotus View Post
    Basically, every day I'm fasting for about 14-18 hours. Is this too much? Is this going to inhibit my body from burning fat because it's seen more as a "Starvation" and my body wants to hold onto fat?
    I don't think so. That's basically the Leangains recommendation (general recommendation is 16 hours fast, 8 hour eating window for men). And it works for many people, myself included. I've been doing a 16+ hour fast daily for about two years now. I didn't have any weight to lose when I started, but I'm even leaner now than I was if anything.

    Just don't force it too much. If you start feeling off or anxious and stuff, it might be a sign that you need to eat more or more frequently.

  5. #105
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by Omni View Post
    Another diabetes risk factor that has shown a sex-specific effect is glucose tolerance. After 3 wk of ADF, women but not men had an increase in the area under the glucose curve (36). This unfavorable effect on glucose tolerance in women, accompanied by an apparent lack of an effect on insulin sensitivity, suggests that short-term ADF may be more beneficial in men than in women in reducing type 2 diabetes risk. However, because minimal data and no longer-term studies are available to support this important hypothesis

    Alternate-day fasting and chronic disease prevention: a review of human and animal trials
    Researchers have a very interesting way of speaking that requires deciphering for most of us. But we can pierce the academic veil if we're patient.

    So, a glucose tolerance test consists of administering a bolus of glucose to a subject and then monitoring them to see how quickly it clears the blood stream. You sample the blood glucose periodically, and then you generate a curve from that. Since curves are difficult to compare directly, researchers sum up the total value of their observations to compute "the area under the curve", a number that makes things a bit more comparable.

    Time
    Bob glucose (mg/dL)
    Judy glucose (mg/dL)
    0
    3
    3
    1
    2
    3
    2
    2
    1
    Area Under Curve
    7
    7

    In the above hypothetical example, note that both Bob and Judy have the same area under the curve, although their overall response is different in that for Judy, it takes a while for the glucose to clear her system, but then it does so more quickly towards the end than it does for Bob. The key takeaway here is that this area under the curve notion is a summary statistic which is doesn't necessarily convey a whole lot of information. The devil is in the interpretation details.

    If we intend to make decisions based upon study results, we also need to make sure that the study participants are fairly representative of the general population. For instance, we wouldn't necessarily want to radically change our lifestyles based on studies where herbivorous animals were fed a carnivorous diet with resulting adverse effects.

    With that in mind, let's take a look at some of the characteristics of the subjects under study in reference [36] from above.


    A couple of things immediately strike me about this, and I've highlighted them above. First notice that the males in this study are pretty fat relative to the females, given that they have roughly the same body fat percentage, which is very unusual for the general population, as women tend to carry more body fat in interesting places ( for the most part )

    The second thing that jumps out is that the males have double the fasting insulin levels of the females, and yet, they have about the same blood glucose levels. In other words, relative to the women in this study, the men are significantly hyperinsulinemic. Given that this is the case, would we not expect a different response among the men and women to an ADF intervention? Would the results have been the same if the researchers had studied hyperinsulinemic men compared to hyperinsulinemic women? How about hyperinsulinemic men vs. normoinsulinemic men? If we want those questions answered, we'll need to do the studies ourselves, unfortunately.

    But setting all this aside, the research seems to suggest that the women cleared glucose less rapidly after the ADF regime. Why would this be the case? Well, one simple answer would be that they are adapted to oxidizing fat ( ketone adapted ) and are reserving glucose for tissues the depend on it for their survival. If this were the case, ketone oxidizing tissues would become physiologically insulin resistant, giving us the observed glucose tolerance results. This would have been a very simple thing to rule out by merely testing the subjects for ketones in the blood, but unfortunately these researchers did not do so.

    Animal studies, on the other hand, found that ADF, as expected, caused a doubling of ketone bodies ( aceto-acetate and beta-hydroxy butyrate ) due to increased fatty acid oxidation:

    Also noted by Anson et al was a doubling of the plasma concentrations of beta-hydroxybutyrate in the ADF group but no change in the control group.
    Lastly, this study did not control for several confounding factors, including the subject levels of physical activity, nor their diets:

    Subjects had different levels of physical activity, with seven being sedentary, three being moderately active (exercise one to two times per week), and six being quite active (exercise three or more times per week).
    It is well known that moderate activity is glycolytic in nature, which means that those subjects that were "quite active" would be glucose sponges. Since we are not told by the researchers who the "quite active" subjects were, if we were to assume that they were all male, that in and of itself would be enough to skew the glucose tolerance test.

    On each feasting day, subjects were informed that they could eat whatever they wished.
    So we don't know what the subjects ate when they weren't fasting. We don't know the caloric intake, the macronutrient breakdown, nor the meal timing ... all of which potentially play a role in glucose clearance rates. Note, for example that a carbohydrate heavy diet predisposes one to rapid glucose clearance whereas a fat heavy diet does the opposite.

    While I'm not a big fan of ADF, if I were a female practitioner for whom this approach worked, I would certainly not change my ADF regimen on the basis of this study.

    -PK
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

    Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

  6. #106
    pklopp's Avatar
    pklopp is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    London
    Posts
    531
    Quote Originally Posted by lotus View Post
    Basically, every day I'm fasting for about 14-18 hours. Is this too much? Is this going to inhibit my body from burning fat because it's seen more as a "Starvation" and my body wants to hold onto fat?
    In the steady state, your body is basically a lipolytic machine, unless insulin levels increase, at which point, lipolysis decreases in direct proportion to the increase in insulin.

    Insulin levels only increase in response to a meal, and after about a three hour period of elevated insulin, you revert to baseline levels. If you eat at this point, you're treating yourself to another ride on the insulin roller coaster. If you do not, insulin levels drop, and as they do, lipolysis commensurately increases and your body increasingly relies on fat as an energy substrate. This is the so called "starvation response." which would more aptly be named the "acute caloric restriction response" where acute means short term.

    The chronic starvation response, where chronic means long term ( over several days and into weeks ), also entails a slowing down of the metabolism which is where the notion of "the body holding on to fat" comes from. Which is absolutely an absurd notion ... the body stores fat as an energy reserve, yet in periods where that reserve is being called upon ... it refuses to use it! That is an evolutionary dead end strategy.

    An 18 hour fast in no way constitues chronic starvation. Keep doing what you're doing.

    -PK
    Last edited by pklopp; 07-18-2012 at 05:32 AM.
    My blog : cogitoergoedo.com

    Interested in Intermittent Fasting? This might help: part 1, part 2, part 3.

  7. #107
    Balmain's Avatar
    Balmain is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    England
    Posts
    7
    Does anyone know if ingesting liquid clay would effect a fast?

  8. #108
    Elliot's Avatar
    Elliot is online now Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,333
    Sorry if this has been posted already, but I didn't want to read through all 11 pages to check:
    The role of breakfast in the treatment of obe... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

    This study seems to suggest that intermittent fasting is not as meaningful as simply changing one's habits. I don't know if that's true; just food for thought.

  9. #109
    yodiewan's Avatar
    yodiewan is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    3,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Balmain View Post
    Does anyone know if ingesting liquid clay would effect a fast?
    I doubt it. I'm pretty sure clay doesn't have anything in it that your body can digest.

  10. #110
    LauraSB's Avatar
    LauraSB is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Delaware Valley
    Posts
    717
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    Quote Originally Posted by Elliot View Post
    Sorry if this has been posted already, but I didn't want to read through all 11 pages to check:
    The role of breakfast in the treatment of obe... [Am J Clin Nutr. 1992] - PubMed - NCBI

    This study seems to suggest that intermittent fasting is not as meaningful as simply changing one's habits. I don't know if that's true; just food for thought.
    From the abstract -
    Fifty-two moderately obese adult women were stratified according to their baseline breakfast-eating habits and randomly assigned a weight-loss program. The no-breakfast group ate two meals per day and the breakfast group ate three meals per day. The energy content of the two weight-loss programs was identical. After the 12-wk treatment, baseline breakfast eaters lost 8.9 kg in the no-breakfast treatment and 6.2 kg in the breakfast treatment. Baseline breakfast skippers lost 7.7 kg in the breakfast treatment and 6.0 kg in the no-breakfast treatment. This treatment-by-strata-by-time interaction effect (P less than 0.06) suggests that those who had to make the most substantial changes in eating habits to comply with the program achieved better results. Analyses of behavioral data suggested that eating breakfast helped reduce dietary fat and minimize impulsive snacking and therefore may be an important part of a weight-reduction program.
    IMO, every piece of information is interesting, and the fact that skipping breakfast had an effect in some people is interesting as well. But the take-home is that no prescription is right for everybody.

    My personal experience as an ex-obese, middle-aged woman is that IF has a psychological component that *completely* dwarfs the physical component. I was at a normal weight and at non-restricted calories before I had comfortable success skipping breakfast. However, looking back, I can see that my feelings of *hunger* were no different than they are now, I just was more afraid of them. Somebody else may have a different experience and if they look to research or the experience of others, they may miss out on what their body has to say to them.
    50yo, 5'3"
    SW-195
    CW-125, part calorie counting, part transition to primal
    GW- Goals are no longer weight-related

Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •