Question about Fasting/IF'ing page 3

[Drumroll]

What you call "hacks" has been used for therapeutic reasons in hospitals around the world for years, it's an alternative to ordinary fasting backed by science and that works...

What works for one can't be said to work for everyone. Besides, sometimes there is such a thing as doing TOO much, which I think is where you're headed here. She's not a bodybuilder and I don't really see any of the concerns you brought up here being listed as a part of her goals or concerns with IFing.

Simplicity makes fasting easiest, not adding confounding variables and adding elements of fear.

[Gorbag]

What works for one can't be said to work for everyone. Besides, sometimes there is such a thing as doing TOO much, which I think is where you're headed here. She's not a bodybuilder and I don't really see any of the concerns you brought up here being listed as a part of her goals or concerns with IFing.

Simplicity makes fasting easiest, not adding confounding variables and adding elements of fear.

Very well then, everybody are free to chose for himself and make the correct decision, and who talks about being a bodybuilder here? Proteinsparing modified fast(PSMF) are designed to be a healthy way to lose weight and get rid of bodyfat, and has been scientifically used for many years against obesity and overweight! Just to give you a clue;

"Anthropometric and calorimetric evidence for the protein sparing effects of a new protein supplemented low calorie preparation.

• L F Van Gaal,
• D Snyders,
• I H De Leeuw, and
• J L Bekaert

Abstract

A commercial protein sparing modified fast (PSMF) preparation has been evaluated for the protein sparing effects in 15 morbidly obese patients. During a 500 kcal preparation, given during a 6-week period, mean body weight and BMI decreased significantly. Total body fat decreased from 55.8 to 41.4 kg and lean body mass and arm muscle circumference (AMC) remained unchanged. Using indirect calorimetry and under the same degree of energy expenditure, carbohydrate metabolic consumption was significantly diminished (166 to 61 g/24 hr; p less than 0.001) but fat consumption was increased (116 to 155 g/24 hr; p less than 0.05) while the metabolic turn-over of protein was unchanged. This new presented PSMF preparation seems to present the typical properties of a protein sparing modified fast."

[Drumroll]

I'm not denying the viability of it as a method for fat loss. I'm saying that you lose out on some of the OTHER benefits of fasting through this method (which are many), and besides, she's going to get plenty of wonderful benefits simply from basic fasting.

I doubt she'd see enough of an improvement from utlizing anything other than basic fasting that it would be worth the extra effort. When one makes their first foray into the wonderful world of fasting, I typically recommend keeping it as simple and worry-free as possible so that the experience is a possitive one and limits extra steps. Keep it simple stupid.

When someone gets a bit more experienced, wants to try long-term fasts, ect., THEN you can think about adding in some new tricks and techniques to optimize results depending on your specific needs and/or desires.

[Shelly6]

I'm not denying the viability of it as a method for fat loss. I'm saying that you lose out on some of the OTHER benefits of fasting through this method (which are many), and besides, she's going to get plenty of wonderful benefits simply from basic fasting.

I doubt she'd see enough of an improvement from utlizing anything other than basic fasting that it would be worth the extra effort. When one makes their first foray into the wonderful world of fasting, I typically recommend keeping it as simple and worry-free as possible so that the experience is a possitive one and limits extra steps. Keep it simple stupid.

When someone gets a bit more experienced, wants to try long-term fasts, ect., THEN you can think about adding in some new tricks and techniques to optimize results depending on your specific needs and/or desires.

I'm not sure where to go from here.
Normally, I eat dinner around 6:00PM, and fast til 10:30 or 11:00AM the next day with little or no issues. If I go much past noon, I start feeling jittery. What bothers me the most is this doesn't seem to be what a person who is no longer running on sugar should be doing, and it bugs me thinking that maybe some way, some how, I've screwed the whole thing up...

If I were to do a juice fast I would be pretty annoyed, because I don't really care for juice...fresh or store bought, organic or full of sugar be damned. It's just not my favorite thing. Eating fruit however is a different story.

I would love to be able to eat a large lunch (late) around 1:30 or 2:00 when my work day is over, and then have a light dinner. But if I go to long, I tend to over-eat. So I'm wondering if I tried eating a small "breakfast" at 11:00 or whenever I start getting hungry, eating a larger lunch when I can, and eating a lighter dinner wouldn't help speed up the fat loss. It's vanity weight, I'll admit. But I figure if it's possible without causing a lot of discomfort or ridiculous sacrifice that I cannot give without feeling like death, why not?

And no, I'm not a body builder. My exercise pretty much includes lots of walking, and I stand a lot (not consciously, I just do it without realizing it...I stand a lot at work, too). About once a week I have short bursts of running (not quite sprinting), and other than that I'm pretty, well...lazy :P

[Gorbag]

I'm not denying the viability of it as a method for fat loss. I'm saying that you lose out on some of the OTHER benefits of fasting through this method (which are many), and besides, she's going to get plenty of wonderful benefits simply from basic fasting.

I doubt she'd see enough of an improvement from utlizing anything other than basic fasting that it would be worth the extra effort. When one makes their first foray into the wonderful world of fasting, I typically recommend keeping it as simple and worry-free as possible so that the experience is a possitive one and limits extra steps. Keep it simple stupid.

When someone gets a bit more experienced, wants to try long-term fasts, ect., THEN you can think about adding in some new tricks and techniques to optimize results depending on your specific needs and/or desires.

Drumroll; Just to put this into context of the OP

My question is, should I stick with my 15-16 hours and go with it and see if I can gradually lengthen the time, even by 15-20 minutes per day? Or should I just suck it up and do a 24 hour fast, energy level be darned? I would like to see some weight loss happen. I'm not overweight, but I'm not as slim as I would like to be/could be/have been in the past. I'm thinking 5-8 pounds of loss would be great, and I think I'd feel better.

And this is what I recommended OP to do:

!5 - 16 hours is just fine and if extending this I recommend you to combine IF with the proteinfast instead(PSMF) where you eat 1 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight and keep fat and carbs very low (below 20 gram each). When doing ordinary IF you can simply do PSMF on one or two days per week to get more effect of your IF protocol. Very effective for fatloss...

So, what I recommend is to stick to intermittent fasting 15 - 16 hours per day and possible combine this with PSMF for one or two days per week only, to create a bigger energy deficit. Thats a more modest approach than doing a full fast, because she said in the OP that it could be somehow problematic...

A little more on PSMF:

A Protein-sparing Diet | LIVESTRONG.COM

[zoebird]

I'm not sure where to go from here.
Normally, I eat dinner around 6:00PM, and fast til 10:30 or 11:00AM the next day with little or no issues.

This is effectively a 16.5/17 hr fasting window, which is a common IF protocol. It sounds fine just as it is.

When I started IF, I wasn't used to the larger meals so I started with a small meal up front around 11 (2 hard boiled eggs and tea), and then would have an actual meal around 2, and then another finishing around 7/7:30. It worked just fine for me (for fat loss and everything else.

My window also shifts a fair bit, depending upon my schedule day-to-day.

I don't do much more than walking about 30 minutes a day, very light swimming (playing with DS in the pool, nothing rigorous), and 30 minutes of yoga per day.

It's simple enough. Just keep doing what you are doing.

[Shelly6]

This is effectively a 16.5/17 hr fasting window, which is a common IF protocol. It sounds fine just as it is.

When I started IF, I wasn't used to the larger meals so I started with a small meal up front around 11 (2 hard boiled eggs and tea), and then would have an actual meal around 2, and then another finishing around 7/7:30. It worked just fine for me (for fat loss and everything else.

My window also shifts a fair bit, depending upon my schedule day-to-day.

I don't do much more than walking about 30 minutes a day, very light swimming (playing with DS in the pool, nothing rigorous), and 30 minutes of yoga per day.

It's simple enough. Just keep doing what you are doing.

Thanks

[Thanks, Lew.]

I've been incorporating more fasting into my routine. It seems sort of natural with weather setting in, and in the wild food would become more sporadic. Anywho, I pulled 41 hours last week, and am aiming for 48-72 hours this week.

Early on, fasting was difficult, but it gets easier. 41 was surprisingly simple last week so I don't anticipate any problems with going as many as 72. Just for curiosity's sake I started poking around the internet to see what I could find (in case anyone wanted to freak out on me about it.) One site was particularly interesting. Thought you might think so too. Especially the "true hunger" page that it links to.

Effects of Fasting Ketosis | AllAboutFasting

Just curious: what is the benefit of going 41-72 hours without food?

[Drumroll]

Just curious: what is the benefit of going 41-72 hours without food?

If ketosis is a goal for you, fasting for about 2.5 to 3 days usually results in you reaching that state. Then, if you start eating a ketogenic diet, you will typically stay there. Decreases the transition period for ketosis.

Another benefit is the autophagy. When cells are provided with nutrients, they multiply and divide and proliferate. This includes viruses and bad bacteria and even cancer cells. When they are deprived of nutrients, cells die off. Yes, some healthy cells will go the way of the wind, but normally, when deprived of nutrients, the body will work to preserve healthy cells and prefer to kill off weak or damaged cells. This can have an amazing impact on detoxifying the body, helping to rid the body of disease, and lowering inflammation. Longer-term fasts are typically required for much autophagy to occur though.

And of course, fat loss doesn't just STOP after a certain amount of hours.

[Paleobird]

If ketosis is a goal for you, fasting for about 2.5 to 3 days usually results in you reaching that state. Then, if you start eating a ketogenic diet, you will typically stay there. Decreases the transition period for ketosis.

Another benefit is the autophagy. When cells are provided with nutrients, they multiply and divide and proliferate. This includes viruses and bad bacteria and even cancer cells. When they are deprived of nutrients, cells die off. Yes, some healthy cells will go the way of the wind, but normally, when deprived of nutrients, the body will work to preserve healthy cells and prefer to kill off weak or damaged cells. This can have an amazing impact on detoxifying the body, helping to rid the body of disease, and lowering inflammation. Longer-term fasts are typically required for much autophagy to occur though.

And of course, fat loss doesn't just STOP after a certain amount of hours.

Recently I had the experience of my first fast where I started out in a state of deep nutritional ketosis. It made the fasting incredibly easy. I didn't have to go through that "getting into keto" phase. I was already there and so I could get straight down to the autophagy.