# Is extended fasting dangerous if you have plenty of body fat?



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?

I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat. 

I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

Define dangerous.

The main issue is that resultant drop in metabolism will result in a rapid rebound in weight when you start eating again, a lot of time that rebound results in a weight gain that was greater than the initial weight loss. And that drop in metabolism may also be long term.


----------



## cmonkEP (Nov 12, 2006)

Don’t know if you’re trolling, but there’s another name for what you just described: anorexia

The “No vitamins” part and nothing but water part are dangerous. There are certain things a body (specifically the cells in your body” need to function. It’s why you crave salt after a ride.
Doesn’t matter how fat you are, don’t get enough vitamin C in your diet? You will get scurvy. 
Not enough B vitamins? Neurological symptoms including tingling in your extremities and irregular heartbeats. 
No salt? Hyponutremia

Bottom line is that “extended fasting” Is just starvation. It’s bad for you and very dangerous.


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

I know that's the conventional wisdom. But that happens with regular dieting too. The only way to lose fat is to go into calories deficit, and people ALWAYS say that "slows your metabolism". Fine, but would fasting actually be worse than dieting?

What would be worse, fasting for 2 months, or eating a 20% calorie deficit for 2 years? What about the benefits of not being obese for almost two years extra?


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

cmonkEP said:


> Don’t know if you’re trolling, but there’s another name for what you just described: anorexia


I'm talking about fat people losing weight. That's not anorexia or they wouldn't be fat. Of course if you stop eating to the point of starvation, then it's not healthy. But as long as you are still fat, I'm trying to figure out why/how fasting is worse than dieting. And what percentage of calorie defecit is bad.

Imagine these scenarios. I don't know how these numbers work out for a given individual. Remember, you start out obese and as soon as you start dropping weight your numbers improve, blood pressure drops, etc.

0% calorie defecit: bad because you are obese. Nobody would recommend this as healthiest.

20% calorie defecit: takes a year+ to lose weight. Have to be hungry for a year. Lots of time for metabolism to slow etc. Plus you are fat for longer.

70% calorie defecit: takes 3 months. Wouldn't this be better? Unless there is actual harm from calorie defecit, wouldn't losing weight faster be healthier than losing it slower?

Total fast: healthy weight in one month. If losing faster is better, wouldn't this be best? Again, barring actual risks from not eating (while still being fat)? What are they?


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Do a 48 hour fast every other weekend or so. Survive on black coffee and sugar free electrolyte mixes. You can do weight lifting while not eating but no endurance exercise such as bike riding.

When you come off don't consume any carbs for your first meal.

This will maximize your improvements and sanity.

This guy has tons of great info on fasting and why 48 hours is the ideal length.


----------



## schnee (Oct 15, 2005)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery.


The key part to that is under *constant* doctor supervision.
They get constantly tested, and if/when their vitals change for the worst, it stops. And I would bet it's generally reserved for 'oh god they're about to die' levels of obesity-driven medical conditions, where spending the time it takes to get to a healthy weight gradually is riskier than pushing it.

Trying to do that on your own and you risk permanently damaging yourself (if not outright dying).
I saw a YT video about a guy who did this - just stopped eating - and it shocked his body so much he now has diabetes.
And the ones that died aren't around to make videos to document their regrets.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

I do a 24 hour fast once a week, and a 5 day fast on water once or twice a year. Fasting for a week is safe, but if you go for weeks, they recommend you get doctor supervision. I think the record is a guy who went for over a year without food, but he had doctors giving him vitamin and mineral supplements. 

Water fasts can be tough, it is just a mind game, but great for health. I have no knowledge as to whether it is the best long term method to lose weight, although that happens.


----------



## cmonkEP (Nov 12, 2006)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I'm talking about fat people losing weight. That's not anorexia or they wouldn't be fat. Of course if you stop eating to the point of starvation, then it's not healthy. But as long as you are still fat, I'm trying to figure out why/how fasting is worse than dieting. And what percentage of calorie defecit is bad.
> 
> Imagine these scenarios. I don't know how these numbers work out for a given individual. Remember, you start out obese and as soon as you start dropping weight your numbers improve, blood pressure drops, etc.
> 
> ...


So I hear you, but the result is the same. Running a calorie deficit is indeed how you lose weight. The amount of deficit is what determines the switch from normal metabolism to fasting metabolism. Not being a doctor but someone who has watched close family members struggle with their weight for years, I can tell you that consistency is the key. Not eating for an extended period of time doesn't teach you to portion control and maintain healthy levels of intake, nor does it allow your body to find a healthy equilibrium.

Like any other "get rich/lose weight/do-something quick" scheme the end result is rarely, if ever, the promised outcome. Losing weight is hard and simply not eating *does* cause serious problems. Intake is not strictly calories, it's nutrients, protein, minerals, (some) sugars, and fiber. 

So let me flip that on it's head. What's better: 

Run a 20% calorie deficit and be occasionally hungry for 12 months. At this point you've lost weight, your body isn't craving the same level of intake it was before, and you are healthy. You aren't hungry because you've taught your mind/body a new normal.
Run 80% calorie deficit for 3 months, be unable to exercise, be HUNGRY all the time and go into renal failure... 
You want quick results and that simply isn't possible. It took years to get to your current level of obesity (whatever that is) and it takes time to reverse that. Nobody likes to hear it, but every friend and family member that's lost weight and kept it off (my father was pushing 400 lbs at one point) has changed diet to run a deficit and taught themselves new eating habits. Those that "dieted" never kept weight off and those that severely calorie restricted never ended up anywhere but worse off than when they started. 

I wish you the best of luck in any weight loss endeavor you undertake and I sincerely hope you have supportive friends, family and healthcare partners to help you make and achieve your goals. Please do it in a healthy, medically/scientifically sound way.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

cmonkEP said:


> So I hear you, but the result is the same. Running a calorie deficit is indeed how you lose weight. The amount of deficit is what determines the switch from normal metabolism to fasting metabolism. Not being a doctor but someone who has watched close family members struggle with their weight for years, I can tell you that consistency is the key. Not eating for an extended period of time doesn't teach you to portion control and maintain healthy levels of intake, nor does it allow your body to find a healthy equilibrium.
> 
> Like any other "get rich/lose weight/do-something quick" scheme the end result is rarely, if ever, the promised outcome. Losing weight is hard and simply not eating *does* cause serious problems. Intake is not strictly calories, it's nutrients, protein, minerals, (some) sugars, and fiber.
> 
> ...


This is hyperbolic and inaccurate.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

If you're interested in learning more you should read some Dr. Jason Fung or google the dozens of podcasts he's been on as a guest. There is likely no one more knowledgeable about fasting.

If you like YouTube instead, Thomas DeLauer, who someone posted above should have a lot of videos that answer these questions.

Most fasting communities have the opinion that extended fasting is safe for the majority of obese people, but if you are going to do a long fast it's best to have a doctor monitor you for deficiencies. People like DeLauer are fine with longer fasts, but have the opinion that once you get over 7 days (it might even be just a few days, i forget) the benefits of fasting no longer outweigh the risk. It would be better to just keep doing 7 day fasts, refeed for 1-3 days, 7 day fast, refeed....


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

cmonkEP said:


> Running a calorie deficit is indeed how you lose weight.


Cool, we are in agreement. To be clear, we are talking about obese people, and lose weight=lose fat. I mean you will still lose weight if you are not obese, and eventually starve but that's not what we are talking about, presumably we stop the dieting once we are at a healthy weight. Have to mention this to ward off the "omg anorexia" commenters.



> The amount of deficit is what determines the switch from normal metabolism to fasting metabolism.


Ok, tell me more. I believe your body is in a fasting metabolism 10-12 hours after you stop eating. That's why they have you fast 12 hours before blood work. Are you talking about a different fasting metabolism than this?



> Not eating for an extended period of time doesn't teach you to portion control and maintain healthy levels of intake,


Fair enough, but this is behavioral. Behavior is totally important, but not really the question at hand. Also, debatable. I find it much easier to control caloric intake by eating less often than eating small portions frequently. So, even the behavior argument is debatable IMO.



> nor does it allow your body to find a healthy equilibrium.


1. Losing is different from maintaining. We aren't talking about maintaining. We are comparing methods of weight-loss, not comparing weight-loss with weight-maintaining.

2. Isn't going from obese to non-obese "finding a more healthy equillibrium"? A state of obesity can be an equillibrium...just not a healthy one. To lose weight, you have to go OUT of equillibrium, into a calorie deficit state...substantially, for a long time. Once you lose the weight, then yes you have to find an equillibrium, but you have to do that no matter what diet you use. Your theory seems to be that it's easier to go back to maintaining after 1 year of starving than after 1 month of starving. I wonder about that. Also behavioral...



> simply not eating *does* cause serious problem


I am waiting to learn what the serious problems are. Can you be specific? I'm trying to learn what biologically happens. As far as I know, once you hit a fasting state, your blood sugar is sustained by either glycogen in your muscles/liver (in the short term), and in the long term, by glycogenesis in your liver. But actually you hit this metabolic phase normally any time you go more than 12 hours without eating. The question is if staying in that state for an extended time is bad for you, or if it's worth staying obese (which is bad, even for your liver) in order to avoid it.


----------



## BikGer2 (May 25, 2021)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat.
> 
> I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


Are you sure you are on the right forum?


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

BikGer2 said:


> Are you sure you are on the right forum?


No, this is the best place to get healthcare advice, at least in US.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I am waiting to learn what the serious problems are. Can you be specific? I'm trying to learn what biologically happens. As far as I know, once you hit a fasting state, your blood sugar is sustained by either glycogen in your muscles/liver (in the short term), and in the long term, by glycogenesis in your liver. But actually you hit this metabolic phase normally any time you go more than 12 hours without eating. The question is if staying in that state for an extended time is bad for you, or if it's worth staying obese (which is bad, even for your liver) in order to avoid it.


jesus christ how dense are you? the reasons have been specified in this thread already. calories are not the only things you need. there's a host of vitamins and minerals and other nutrients that you need for your body to function. JUST to function. not even _optimal_ function. and a lot of them cause serious long-term health problems if you don't get the correct amounts or ratios of them. there's much evidence to suggest that our bodies handle short periods of feast/famine just fine. but extended starvation kills people for several reasons. 

there is a very good reason that MALnourishment is such a broad term.


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

AEyogi said:


> This is hyperbolic and inaccurate.


Can you elaborate?


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat.
> 
> I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


No even at low body fat is ok


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

OP I don't know the answer to your specific question. It seems radical and dangerous to me but I haven't done any research into it, so I can't say for certain. I do recall seeing a study where there were two groups: Those that maintained constant calories, and those those that started out at the same level of calories as the constant calorie group, and then substantially cut calories for a period of time (think of it as a substantial diet), and then returned to baseline after the diet. At the end of the study, the diet group actually gained more weight. The reason is because metabolism dipped hard during the diet and didn't fully recover. So despite eating fewer long term calories, the diet group ended up gaining more weight. That's what our bodies do when we think famine is coming.

The best advice I've heard about long term weight loss success is to choose the weight you want to be and then adopt the lifestyle that will result in that. So for example, if someone 5'9 250lb wants to be 160lb, then figure out the calories needed for a 5'9'' 160lber and just do that. Better yet, combine a physical activity that you enjoy so that you are more motivated to maintain it. Choosing a lifestyle typically results in long term weight lost. Temporary diets and fasts rarely succeed over the long term.


----------



## jonshonda (Apr 21, 2011)

For someone that has always been heavy even though I am very active, I really feel like I need to reset my body in a safe and long term manner. 

I simply eat and drink too much, and it's my body telling me to do so...or so I think I guess? Turning those signal off will take some work on my end obv, and intermittent fasting sounds like a sustainable method.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

Don't tell our ancestors they are doomed if they fast, we'll never be born!

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Stewiewin (Dec 17, 2020)

Cycling industry is against fasting cus they cant sell all the gels and bars etc. 😆


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

Suns_PSD said:


> Don't tell our ancestors they are doomed if they fast, we'll never be born!


I am pretty sure if you told them you had food but chose not to eat it as part of your lifestyle they would think you were crazy as well.

Jokes aside, intermittent fasting does seem to be a very valid mechanism for weight loss and general health. I don't think that is the debate here. OP wants to literally not eat for a month, or at least is asking if that is viable. That is not fasting, it is starvation. Don't lose that nuance as the conversation progresses.


----------



## WillDB (Jul 15, 2020)

jonshonda said:


> For someone that has always been heavy even though I am very active, I really feel like I need to reset my body in a safe and long term manner.
> 
> I simply eat and drink too much, and it's my body telling me to do so...or so I think I guess? Turning those signal off will take some work on my end obv, and intermittent fasting sounds like a sustainable method.


Part of this is self-control. Stop drinking alcohol and cut your portion sizes. This is all psychological. Be OK with being a bit hungry.

Most people eat WAY too much for their occupation, which is mostly sedentary.


----------



## Neuner (Feb 14, 2005)

Simple answer is it's extremely harmful according to my wife. She's been a Registered Dietitian for over 20 years.

Ever watch the show Alone? We watch it together and so many get pulled out of the competition because of serious medical issues stemming from a long "fast". Stomach, intestinal, cardiovascular, joints, psychological, etc.

She promotes a balanced diet in moderation of natural, non-processed foods. Red meat, white meat, fish, breads, fruits, nuts, + veggies. Yes, beer has nutrients and falls under the bread category. Wine falls under fruits. No sugary energy drinks, protein shakes, etc as if you eat correctly, you'll get everything you need from natural foods and your body will "settle" into it's natural healthy weight.

I tried the Keto-fad. I didn't lose as much, I felt gross and my energy levels were the same.

I followed her recommended diet, calorie intake / portion size for me and I went from 178 to 163 without trying and I now just hover around that 163 mark. Didn't go hungry or fast. Felt full most of the time and still have bounds of energy without caffeine. Sleep better, and mtb'ing improved greatly.


----------



## GKelley (Sep 4, 2018)

An extreme plan like this will only result in failure. Start with something simple like 16 hour fasts on a daily basis. Have two meals a day, and don't eat anything in between. This will improve your relationship with food and make you realize that it's okay to be a little hungry. You will learn to separate emotional eating from necessary eating. 

Next step is actually improving the food you eat, and (if possible) adding in some physical activity. If you can manage to construct your plates with just a vegetable and a protein, avoid ultra-processed foods (bread, pasta, rice, sugar, and anything in a box,), and get on an exercise plan 2-3 days per week, you'll get astounding results! 

Also, whether diabetic or not, purchase a glucose monitor. Test your blood one hour after meals. If your blood sugar stays 140 or below, it's a healthy enough meal. If your blood sugar spikes over 140, it's an indication that your meal consisted of an unhealthy amount of sugar or carbs.

All these things should be new _habits_ that you adapt to enhance your lifestyle. NOT temporary fixes to lose some weight.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Neuner said:


> She promotes a balanced diet in moderation of natural, non-processed foods.
> 
> I followed her recommended diet, calorie intake / portion size for me and I went from 178 to 163 without trying and I now just hover around that 163 mark. Didn't go hungry or fast. Felt full most of the time and still have bounds of energy without caffeine. Sleep better, and mtb'ing improved greatly.


Yep. Permanent weight loss is almost impossible on processed foods because they tend to be low on fiber and water content, and have been optimized to increase food reward. Eating foods with lots of fiber, natural water content and protein increases the full feeling for longer.


----------



## Hexsense (Aug 10, 2021)

Can we define "plenty" amount of fat?
I read that you want to fast until you hit a target.
But I wonder where is the line between plenty, and should stop.

I want to be under 11% fat. But, IMO, I better not fasting when I'm 15% and below.


----------



## suburbanassault (4 mo ago)

I've always been under the impression that while maybe not "dangerous", doing so would result in losing more muscle than fat, making it a bad idea. Not sure if actually true.


----------



## d365 (Jun 13, 2006)

Sounds pretty awful.

On the other hand, I've been doing the 18/6 IF (some days 16/8) for a bit over a year. Pretty painless, and sustainable for me. 35 lbs lighter, and still going.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

The effects of starvation on human beings is pretty widely documented. Other than that, seriously if you're considering this you need to see a doctor.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

dysfunction said:


> The effects of starvation on human beings is pretty widely documented. Other than that, seriously if you're considering this you need to see a doctor.


This is all hyperbolic and those other debate-related words. What we all need to do to lose weight is stop eating. Permanently. I've lost so much weig


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

dysfunction said:


> The effects of starvation on human beings is pretty widely documented. Other than that, seriously if you're considering this you need to see a doctor.


1. We aren't talking about starving people. We are talking about fat people fasting. Fat people aren't starving, basically by definition. Gosh this point seems really hard to explain online, but these are two very different things.

2. Among overweight people who are fasting (but NOT starving, see above), most studies I have found find minimal or zero negative effects for total fasts up to 30 days. In fact, I can't find anything to the contrary. As long as you have sufficient body fat, it seems to be only 100% healthier. But I'm still looking.


----------



## dysfunction (Aug 15, 2009)

You're effectively talking about adopting an eating disorder. You need help.


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

suburbanassault said:


> I've always been under the impression that while maybe not "dangerous", doing so would result in losing more muscle than fat, making it a bad idea. Not sure if actually true.


That seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I don't find any actual supporting evidence that fasting either causes major muscle mass loss, or that if it does the muscle loss is any worse than other diet methods.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> That seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I don't find any actual supporting evidence that fasting either causes major muscle mass loss, or that if it does the muscle loss is any worse than other diet methods.


Fasting enhances growth hormone secretion and amplifies the complex rhythms of growth hormone secretion in man - PubMed

A few things happen during fasting that preserve muscle mass. One thing that I've linked the study for above is growth hormone levels actually increase.

I took it from this longer article without more sources from Dr. Fung. Does Fasting Burn Muscle? [The FULL Story, Backed by Science]

Edit: without > with


----------



## louiesquared (6 mo ago)

I have been intermittent fasting for about 8 months and have dropped from 240 lbs to 180 lbs. My health has improved greatly. I have had the support of my Dr. throughout the entire time and hav had multiple lab tests to monitor my progress. 

I have never attempted an extended fast but I did research it a while ago. There is a fine line and you need to know where that line is between fasting and starvation. If you follow the guidance of reputable health experts that are trained in this are it can be very safe. If not, it can be extremely dangerous. I was not willing to take the risk myself but you may feel different. Here is a link that I found back then that has a lot of information.

Extended healing fasts (14-40 days) - Waterfasting.org: Articles and Coaching for water fasts


----------



## jeff92123 (Jul 13, 2012)

What's dangerous is that you are so wrapped up in yourself that you even give a **** about fasting. Mountain biking is about having fun. Not about egos. You're in the wrong business.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

The only way to lose weight safe, healthy and keep it off is calorie count, eat clean and exercise. And yes, restricting calories means you will be hungry.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> That seems to be the conventional wisdom, but I don't find any actual supporting evidence that fasting either causes major muscle mass loss, or that if it does the muscle loss is any worse than other diet methods.


You look like you’re only finding evidence for what you want, which is to starve yourself for 30 days.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> 1. We aren't talking about starving people. We are talking about fat people fasting. Fat people aren't starving, basically by definition. Gosh this point seems really hard to explain online, but these are two very different things.
> 
> 2. Among overweight people who are fasting (but NOT starving, see above), most studies I have found find minimal or zero negative effects for total fasts up to 30 days. In fact, I can't find anything to the contrary. As long as you have sufficient body fat, it seems to be only 100% healthier. But I'm still looking.


Where are all the vitamins and minerals, macronutrients, micronutrients, antioxidants, and other healthful chemicals found in food coming from when you're consuming nothing but water?


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

The more I think about this topic the more interested I am in clinical outcomes. It is true that stored fat is an energy source. If supplemented with necessary vitamins and minerals I wonder what would happen to organs and muscle mass. That said, I can't imagine any way to remotely enjoy life after a few weeks and riding would be out of the question. It is not a path I would ever take but the fake scientist in me surely would not mind some reading material.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Suns_PSD said:


> Do a 48 hour fast every other weekend or so. Survive on black coffee and sugar free electrolyte mixes. You can do weight lifting while not eating but no endurance exercise such as bike riding.
> 
> When you come off don't consume any carbs for your first meal.
> 
> ...


Yeah I was going to say 48hr with minerals has many benefits. 72hrs you go catabolic and the body breaks down muscle tissue for fuel.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

I Doubt anyone lived over a year on water only I don't care how fat they were.


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

Harold said:


> Where are all the vitamins and minerals, macronutrients, micronutrients, antioxidants, and other healthful chemicals found in food coming from when you're consuming nothing but water?


I'm not really an expert, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. Instead everyone is asking me questions. But from what I understand, about the vitamins, vitamin deficiencies normally take weeks or months to happen even if the vitamin is completely removed from the diet. Even if you completely stop eating vitamin C, you can still go like 3 months before you start showing signs of scurvy, and vitamin C is one of the fastest things to get deficient from. You don't just instantly go deficient the day after you stop eating vitamins. Second, some vitamins are fat soluble and so assuming you weren't deficient when you became fat, you will actually get them when you metabolize your fat stores. I think this is especially true of vitamin D. 

I don't really know about the "healthful chemicals" you are talking about. I think by healthful chemicals, you mean "food", and sort of the point is that you stop eating food in order to metabolize your fat stores instead. Fat is reasonably nutritious, apparently. I think eskimos eat like 99% fat or something. They don't even get scurvy.


----------



## GKelley (Sep 4, 2018)

ballisticexchris said:


> The only way to lose weight safe, healthy and keep it off is calorie count, eat clean and exercise. And yes, restricting calories means you will be hungry.


To be fair, I've lost 35lbs this year without counting one calorie. I make my plates as big as I want to. I can honestly say that I eat the same volume of food as I did before I started my weight loss journey. The difference is in the quality of foods that I eat. I'm never feeling like I'm hungry or starving myself.

CICO does have some impact on weight management, but it's not the only mechanism involved. The breakthough for me, was learning how hormone management affects weight loss/gain. And how different foods impact insulin spikes that triggers fat storage. If I never changed my diet, I would've had to starve myself to lose weight. This new knowledge allows me to be a master of my weight without starving myself or obsessing over calories.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I'm not really an expert, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. Instead everyone is asking me questions. But from what I understand, vitamin deficiencies normally take weeks or months to happen even if the vitamin is completely removed from the diet. You don't just instantly go deficient the day after you stop eating vitamins. Second, some vitamins are fat soluble and so assuming you weren't deficient when you became fat, you will actually get them when you metabolize your fat stores.
> 
> I don't really know about "healthful chemicals" you are talking about. I think by healthful chemicals, you mean "food", and sort of the point is that you stop eating food in order to metabolize your fat stores instead. Fat is reasonably nutritious, apparently. I think eskimos eat like 99% fat or something. They don't even get scurvy.


Your research is making you look stupider. You might want to brush up on this claimed "eskimo diet" of 99% fat, which is complete bullshit, and learn exactly where vitamin C comes from (the vitamin that prevents scurvy) and how it's metabolized.

Vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin, and so if you're not consuming it from some source (humans cannot synthesize it), you can become deficient. you can become deficient in other water-soluble vitamins pretty quickly, also.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I'm not really an expert, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. Instead everyone is asking me questions. But from what I understand, about the vitamins, vitamin deficiencies normally take weeks or months to happen even if the vitamin is completely removed from the diet. Even if you completely stop eating vitamin C, you can still go like 3 months before you start showing signs of scurvy, and vitamin C is one of the fastest things to get deficient from. You don't just instantly go deficient the day after you stop eating vitamins. Second, some vitamins are fat soluble and so assuming you weren't deficient when you became fat, you will actually get them when you metabolize your fat stores. I think this is especially true of vitamin D.
> 
> I don't really know about the "healthful chemicals" you are talking about. I think by healthful chemicals, you mean "food", and sort of the point is that you stop eating food in order to metabolize your fat stores instead. Fat is reasonably nutritious, apparently. I think eskimos eat like 99% fat or something. They don't even get scurvy.


Just no. This is some of the dumbest pseudoscience babble I've heard in a long time.

A day or a few, ok. Your body doesn't magically store nutrients for long term usage. Stop making stuff up just to sound smart or support your lame ass idea.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

Harold said:


> Your research is making you look stupider. You might want to brush up on this claimed "eskimo diet" of 99% fat, which is complete bullshit, and learn exactly where vitamin C comes from (the vitamin that prevents scurvy) and how it's metabolized.
> 
> Vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin, and so if you're not consuming it from some source (humans cannot synthesize it), you can become deficient. you can become deficient in other water-soluble vitamins pretty quickly, also.


Stop convoluting this thread and showing your lack of knowledge about nutrition. OP was asking for more info. You do not have it. Quit attacking him and trying to make him seem stupid. He has good questions.

Inuits would have tons of access to vitamin C through their typical foods. Whale skin, seal brains, and muktuk. Narwhal skin has the same or more Vitamin C than an orange.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

noapathy said:


> Just no. This is some of the dumbest pseudoscience babble I've heard in a long time.
> 
> A day or a few, ok. Your body doesn't magically store nutrients for long term usage. Stop making stuff up just to sound smart or support your lame ass idea.


The liver can store enough Vitamin A and B12 for 4 years and enough Vitamin D for 4 months.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

AMac4108 said:


> Stop convoluting this thread and showing your lack of knowledge about nutrition. OP was asking for more info. You do not have it. Quit attacking him and trying to make him seem stupid. He has good questions.
> 
> Inuits would have tons of access to vitamin C through their typical foods. Whale skin, seal brains, and muktuk. Narwhal skin has the same or more Vitamin C than an orange.


So if they don't eat them, how to obtain said vitamins?


AMac4108 said:


> The liver can store enough Vitamin A and B12 for 4 years and enough Vitamin D for 4 months.


Source? (side note, even IF true, that's not what OP said...he said they're stored in fat, which is hilarious)


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

In answer to the OP's question: Yes.


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

OP. You have never stated what your current weight is and what your weight goal is let alone whether or not you exercise. Speaking of exercise, this seems to be a great one in world of trolling.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I can't imagine there'd be much research on this because it's hard for me to imagine that this would clear IRB ethics boards given the risky nature of this endeavor. 

I won't say it can't be healthy for some people but the risks seem really high. I guess I'd ask a couple of questions:
1. Will this really work long term? Sure people can lose weight doing this but what happened to people who lost all this weight five years later? Did they gain it all back? Do the makers of the video track their progress beyond the weight loss phase?

2. Taking a step back, it seems like a general principle across the board, whether it's social sciences, medicine, economics, etc etc, is that gradual changes tend to be less chaotic, easier to integrate, and do less damage than sudden disruptions. That's why we like soft landings rather than hard landings, that's why training for a marathon means gradual build up of mileage to prevent injury, etc. So in the absence of clear evidence, I try to rely on general principles like these.

I dunno OP. I don't like the risk vs reward tradeoff of this approach.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

noapathy said:


> So if they don't eat them, how to obtain said vitamins?


What do you mean by "if they don't eat them"? Why aren't they eating them?



noapathy said:


> Source? (side note, even IF true, that's not what OP said...he said they're stored in fat, which is hilarious)


Pharmacokinetics of vitamin D toxicity - PubMed Here's for Vitamin D which shows the half-life is 2 months.

And for your side note, please explain the hilarious part.

"Fats help the body stockpile certain nutrients as well. The so-called "fat-soluble" vitamins—A, D, E and K—are stored in the liver and in fatty tissues." - National Institute of General Medical Sciences


----------



## Alboogie (Jun 25, 2020)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat.
> 
> I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


I can tell from the replies you def came to the right place for diet/nutrition advice /sarcasm


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

GKelley said:


> To be fair, I've lost 35lbs this year without counting one calorie. I make my plates as big as I want to. I can honestly say that I eat the same volume of food as I did before I started my weight loss journey. The difference is in the quality of foods that I eat. I'm never feeling like I'm hungry or starving myself.


That worked for me as well when I was younger. These days, at 61years old, It's not only the quality but quantity as well. And yes it means going a bit hungry at times. When I reach my goal weight I add and subtract the calorie count as needed to maintain my weight.


----------



## WR304 (Jul 9, 2004)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat.
> 
> I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


I had to go and look it up. I’m guessing that you’re talking specifically about the TrueNorth Health Center, California? That’s what comes up top in Google searches and there are several linked youtube videos about it too.

This GQ article from 2013 about a stay there and a 6 day water fast is worth a quick read:

_“Check with me after the extreme reverse fast I face now that I'm home: the summer-barbecue months. And that's the problem. If there's a downside, it's not with the fasting itself. It's that the diet required to sustain the tremendous effects of a fast is rigorously difficult and, for many, probably unrealistic.”_ *GQ*









The Benefits of a 6-Day Water Fast


You can lose weight and reset your body by following a simple diet of water and oxygen




www.gq.com





The issue with losing a lot of weight fast, whether it’s through a water fast like this or crash dieting is that it’s often not sustainable in the longer term. At some point you have to come off the diet and start eating, which is where problems occur as the temptation to return to over eating, or even eating more than before, can see any weight lost piled straight back on again rapidly! It’s frequently a short term fix only.

The benefit of losing weight more gradually over a longer period of time, preferably through a combination of both exercise and diet is that there’s a greater likelihood of keeping that weight off long term, through maintaining the routine and lifestyle changes.

This long term maintenance of any weight loss is what you’re really interested in, and where sticking with a sport such as mountain biking can help a lot by providing a focus, that just happens to provide health benefits at the same time.

——————————————

*Weight loss diets success rates*

_“Unfortunately, weight loss diets have a disappointing track record.

In one study, 3 years after participants concluded a weight loss program, only 12% had kept off at least 75% of the weight they’d lost, while 40% had gained back more weight than they had originally lost.

Another study found that 5 years after a group of women lost weight during a 6-month weight loss program, they weighed 7.9 pounds (3.6 kg) more than their starting weight on average.

Yet, another study found that only 19% of people were able to maintain a 10% weight loss for 5 years.

It also appears that weight regain occurs regardless of the type of diet used for weight loss, although some diets are linked to less regain than others.

For instance, in a study comparing three diets, people who followed a diet high in monounsaturated fat regained less weight than those who followed a low fat or control diet.

A group of researchers who reviewed 14 weight loss studies pointed out that in many cases, regain may be higher than reported because follow-up rates are very low and weights are often self-reported by phone or mail.

Research shows that the majority of people will gain back most of the weight they lose while dieting and will even end up weighing more than before.” *Healthline 









Do Diets Really Just Make You Fatter?


Long-term success rates for weight loss diets are very poor. Many studies suggest that dieting actually makes you gain more weight over time




www.healthline.com




*_


----------



## jeff92123 (Jul 13, 2012)

Yeah. You're fine. Go for it.


----------



## jeff92123 (Jul 13, 2012)

Seriously, man. Mountain biking isn't for people like you. You should be into road biking, or pilates or something.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

WillDB said:


> Part of this is self-control. Stop drinking alcohol and cut your portion sizes. This is all psychological. Be OK with being a bit hungry.
> 
> Most people eat WAY too much for their occupation, which is mostly sedentary.


_Hara hachi bu is a Japanese term meaning “Eat until you’re 80% full.” It originated in the city of Okinawa, where people use this advice as a way to control their eating habits. Interestingly, they have one of the lowest rates of illness from heart disease, cancer and stroke, and a fairly long life expectancy.

Psychologist Susan Albers, PsyD, says this approach is helpful because it instructs you to stop eating when you feel only slightly full.

“This is good advice for overeaters who are learning how to fill their stomachs only just enough,” Dr. Albers says. “Aiming for 80% full will likely help you get a good gauge on this.”









What is Your Hara Hachi Bu Point?


Try this method to tame overeating




health.clevelandclinic.org




_
When I lived in Japan, I didn't see may fat people.


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

jeff92123 said:


> Seriously, man. Mountain biking isn't for people like you. You should be into road biking, or pilates or something.


Where did he say he even rode a bike?


----------



## Le Duke (Mar 23, 2009)

AMac4108 said:


> What do you mean by "if they don't eat them"? Why aren't they eating them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Let’s review. 

Harold said no one eats a 99% fat diet, among other things. 

You quote him.

NoApathy quotes you. 

You then quote him; your response is above. 

Now, the crux: If someone is getting 99% if their caloric intake from fat, where are they getting their essential vitamins and minerals? That remaining 1% better be the most otherworldly vitamin and nutrient dense material ever discovered, or the human who gets 99% of their calories from fat will die pretty quickly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

AMac4108 said:


> What do you mean by "if they don't eat them"? Why aren't they eating them?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cute. A link to a study where they're researching the half life of D in the body, but why? Toxicity due to too much...as in more than the body can use. Not necessarily relevant when the body is at a normal or deficient level and using said nutrients. This is the typical type of misapplication of science that gets us to the wrong conclusions.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Le Duke said:


> Let’s review.
> 
> Harold said no one eats a 99% fat diet, among other things.
> 
> ...


And considering what a grossly obese person ate to get in that condition, they sure do not have a storehouse of vitamins and minerals stored up. Where would it have come from ?

I have to wonder too, what happens if you don't take a dump for a year? Use it or lose it?


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

chazpat said:


> I have to wonder too, what happens if you don't take a dump for a year? Use it or lose it?


Ooh, I forgot about colonics. Now there's a weight loss program I can get "behind". 🤪

(For the oblivious hanging around, yes, this is a joke. No, I will not explain it. Go ask your mother.)


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

Le Duke said:


> Now, the crux: If someone is getting 99% if their caloric intake from fat, where are they getting their essential vitamins and minerals? That remaining 1% better be the most otherworldly vitamin and nutrient dense material ever discovered, or the human who gets 99% of their calories from fat will die pretty quickly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


He said "I THINK Eskimos get 99% of their intake from fat." I took that as hyperbole just trying to say its a very high fat diet. 80-90% fat diets are very doable and probably get a little higher than that for Eskimos especially in the winter months. Muktuk for example is 90% fat. They have other similar foods too. There's a whole bunch of vitamins and minerals in these foods. I'm just trying to say it's not some ridiculous BS that these people have super high fat diets and thrive because they are getting everything they need.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

So my wife is seeing this morbidly obese middle age man, she reviews his labs with him:

A1C increasing
Total Cholesterol increasing
Low testosterone
Elevated liver enzymes

She asked him what he eats: “meat”
She asked him what else he eats: “mostly meat”
She asked him what specifically do you eat: “eggs for breakfast, beef stew for lunch and meat for dinner”

He was doing the Keto-Neanderthal-Eskimo hybrid diet … and he didn’t even know it 😆

What do you eat?


----------



## joe2022 (8 mo ago)

AMac4108 said:


> He said "I THINK Eskimos get 99% of their intake from fat." I took that as hyperbole just trying to say its a very high fat diet. 80-90% fat diets are very doable and probably get a little higher than that for Eskimos especially in the winter months. Muktuk for example is 90% fat. They have other similar foods too. There's a whole bunch of vitamins and minerals in these foods. I'm just trying to say it's not some ridiculous BS that these people have super high fat diets and thrive because they are getting everything they need.


Fat and organ meat. Lots of nutrition in organs.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## joe2022 (8 mo ago)

Going thru op's posts, you want to fast for 2 months? Yes, you'll need a game plan for that. Salt and minerals; some vitamins should be added.

Tom's video above goes for 2 days, Dr Berg is also a good source. 

Our bodies uses 2 sources for energy and can make its own if not there. Let's keep it simple terms, sugar and fat. 

If you want to start a fast without feeling like crap, you want to practice with a few days and go off. But before you start, eat very healthy before. Have a few days eating keto to get into ketosis. Your body needs to relearn how to just process just fat without the sugar.

It's easier to answer questions for me, what are you trying to do?

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk


----------



## DGUSMC (Jan 29, 2021)

Sanchofula said:


> So my wife is seeing this morbidly obese middle age man, she reviews his labs with him:
> 
> A1C increasing
> Total Cholesterol increasing
> ...


These threads are awesome. If we study how the brain makes and accesses memory, or more honestly - reading about those who do, it’s reasonable to conclude that the vast majority of us are going to be very bad amateur statisticians…and physicians! 

Objectivity is very elusive prey and we are not nearly as rational as we want to believe we are.


----------



## RLTW (5 mo ago)

I recently began an all-beef diet. I read some odd stuff about this diet, and decided to try it for myself. I like beef, so it’s probably easier for me than some others.

The rule is to eat beef and beef only, seasoned how you like, and drink only water. 

I’ve lost 7 pounds in a week without making myself feel hungry. On the other hand, I do miss beer.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I'm not sure which is more entertaining, this thread or the Riding Partner thread. 
Buncha millennials around here!


----------



## Canssago (9 mo ago)

Here it goes, I have extensive research done on this for other reasons. 40 days is the max you can go on fasting but still need to consume water and then you die. Heart with go as it will get its electro signals screwed up. You cannot or will not be able to do a 30-40 day fast without practice. It takes a few years of slowly increasing your fast to accomplish one of these long fasts. You will not be healthy, muscle loss starts at the 72hr mark and then continues. You will feel and be sick from 48-72 hours and then your body will stop hurting as much and settle in. You need to practice fasting to teach the body to get through this time to have a long fast. 7 day fast is probably the best result as far as extreme weight loss and not damaging organs and muscle to the extent it cannot recover. Do not work out or go to work after a 72 hrs fasting. Your mental function and physical function will be decreased, do not drive a vehicle. You will and can die from exertion after this timeframe, no biking, walking or any other physical workouts. Hope this helps and good luck.


----------



## Gym123 (Dec 4, 2021)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat.
> 
> I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


How many deficiencies do you want? Sure, castaways lose a lot of weight when they're stranded somewhere, but do you really think they fit the definition of 'healthy'? Sure, fat soluble vitamins exist, but I would bet the amount if very high and certainly not high enough to last for a whole year. 

You want to base this experiment on one guy and a "fasting center" in California? I wouldn't- it depends on the person, not anecdotes. 

And these people paid this place, to be food-deprived. 

Only in America.


----------



## Gym123 (Dec 4, 2021)

jonshonda said:


> For someone that has always been heavy even though I am very active, I really feel like I need to reset my body in a safe and long term manner.
> 
> I simply eat and drink too much, and it's my body telling me to do so...or so I think I guess? Turning those signal off will take some work on my end obv, and intermittent fasting sounds like a sustainable method.


Just find a dietitian with a good reputation.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I really don't know if extended fasting is dangerous for a significantly overweight person, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't come without any bad side effects at all and a lot of misery as well.

Furthermore there are certainly smarter ways to effectively lose large amounts of weight, and this is coming from someone that does believe in fasting for health and weight control.

Just fast for 48 hours every other weekend and eat healthy the rest of the time and I'm quite certain you will have loses of at least 10#s per month which is plenty.

GL.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

An extended fast will have an obese person loose muscle tissue after 3-4 days which is one of the ways the metabolism slows down. Eat Stop Eat works for seditary people.


----------



## stripes (Sep 6, 2016)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I'm not really an expert, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. Instead everyone is asking me questions.


Only makes sense, since you're the OP and this sounds like you need some medical help.

Intermittent fasting makes sense. This doesn't. Please go see a doctor, not a quack, and figure out the best path for healthy weight loss.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Cerberus75 said:


> I Doubt anyone lived over a year on water only I don't care how fat they were.


It's been done, or close to it anyway. Supplemented with vitamins and such.


----------



## laserjockrock (Jun 22, 2015)

Fasting - as an intentional practice - has many centuries of history, and a staple for most 'wisdom traditions'. Modern medical centers such as 'True North' (Clinic & Services | TrueNorth Health Center) have been guiding people for months-long water fasts for decades. It's usually not as dangerous as our western minds are led to believe, especially if medically supervised. 

For survival, the body starts to shift over Ketosis, whereby it can replace use of glucose (sugar) with ketones for energy production. Not comfortable, but ancient circuitry to survive just these conditions. Of course there are tradeoffs...

As far as "benefits" - that's a different debate (and eternal fodder for the interwebs). So many variables to consider. 

True 'fasts' (not intermittent fasting, or more accurately called 'time-restricted feeding') are generally considered to _start_ at 2~3days in, and trigger a natural mechanism of "autophagy" (auto='self', phagy='eating') whereby the body starts cleaning house. This notably includes recycling of old proteins (and clearing out foreign proteins such as viruses, etc), and clearing cellular interstitial junk. There is some speculation that also as fat is depleted that the body focusses more resources on detoxifying (removing) other toxins stored in the fat (eg metals, etc). Other deep epigenetic 'survival' mechanisms have been found to flip, such as mTOR, which promotes repair on a cellular and genetic level, too.

In the 'Longevity & Life Extension' communities, research has found that both fasting and calorie restriction can increase total lifespan (10%~20%)... even if it is a longer, more miserable existence! (LOTS of debate about that online!  It's often speculated that the body has evolutionarily developed these mechanisms to naturally perform the house-cleaning tasks during the _natural_ cycles of food availability and not. Since the agricultural revolution 10,000yrs ago, we've had less of this, and forgotten. There's other examples of hormesis (adversity-response) mechanisms like this, such as 'cold therapy' etc...

Since this is on a bike forum, I'll propose a different perspective: Muscle maintenance.

Yes, you'll likely loose fat from fasting practices - tho comments about 'bouncing back' in thread above are real (hormone system is _complicated_!!) Ditto can loose weight w/ Intermittent Fasting (aka T-R Feeding)... tho recent findings (last few years) seem to show more powerful trigger is how IF helps reduce snacking and total calories, vs metabolism changes.

However, for SURE, these practices def have impacts on muscle preservation! Muscle tissue is 'metabolically expensive' and one of the first to go when calories (and protein, esp BCAAs) are not present for extended periods of time. Extended fasting further induces an energy drop, challenging consistent exercise, thus exasterbating this effect. More muscle mass will burn more calories when resting, too.

Unless you're clearly going for fasting-specific benefits (eg autophagy, detox, etc), I'm in the camp of many above... that a _consistent_ practice of continual exercise + slight calorie deficit + enough protein is prob a more wholistic, sustainable, and effective long-term strategy. Then add fasting sporadically for any additional housecleaning as desired.

My two cents!


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I'm not really an expert, I'm trying to learn more about this myself. Instead everyone is asking me questions. But from what I understand, about the vitamins, vitamin deficiencies normally take weeks or months to happen even if the vitamin is completely removed from the diet. Even if you completely stop eating vitamin C, you can still go like 3 months before you start showing signs of scurvy, and vitamin C is one of the fastest things to get deficient from. You don't just instantly go deficient the day after you stop eating vitamins. Second, some vitamins are fat soluble and so assuming you weren't deficient when you became fat, you will actually get them when you metabolize your fat stores. I think this is especially true of vitamin D.
> 
> I don't really know about the "healthful chemicals" you are talking about. I think by healthful chemicals, you mean "food", and sort of the point is that you stop eating food in order to metabolize your fat stores instead. Fat is reasonably nutritious, apparently. I think eskimos eat like 99% fat or something. They don't even get scurvy.


There is no minimum amount of vitamin C required for a healthy life. The scurvy thing is something of a myth, as you only need vitamin C when you consume certain foods. The old story of the sailors developing scurvy was a result of them eating nothing but bread for a long period after they ran out of meat. Many people live healthy vibrant lives eating nothing but meat. They take no supplements, and don't develop diseases related to vitamin deficiencies.


.


----------



## TiJoe (7 mo ago)

Just become a Russian prisoner. Fasting/starvation is great. Ask this soldier.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

TiJoe said:


> Just become a Russian prisoner. Fasting/starvation is great. Ask this soldier.
> 
> View attachment 2002110


Picture of health right there.


----------



## JackOfDiamonds (Apr 17, 2020)

Do people not read the last 2/3 of thread titles or something?


----------



## TiJoe (7 mo ago)

Sorry. It must be due to the fasting I have been doing, such that my reading comprehension skills have become limited. I must be Hangry, and have low blood sugar. Trying to make my higher brain functions work is difficult. Not sure where my body fat was when I started fasting, but I feel like I am burning off more muscle than fat. I think I will lay back down now, or drink another shot of Vodka. Vodka doesn't count as part of fasting does it?


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

_CJ said:


> It's been done, or close to it anyway. Supplemented with vitamins and such.


Vitamins and minerals I can believe. Just water no.


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

After a morning meal consisting of a waffle, eggs and bacon and plenty of coffee, I have fasted for 90 minutes and am now going to go FAST, real FAST, on my bike for a few hours.


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> Do people not read the last 2/3 of thread titles or something?


Do people really come to an MTB forum for medical advice?


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

uintah said:


> Do people really come to an MTB forum for medical advice?


Being a doctor isn't all that hard. Got the kit on amazn.


----------



## TiJoe (7 mo ago)

Wait! I just had an epiphany. (I just ate a Snickers bar) Fasting isn't starvation! 

Fasting = The act of abstaining from food; the act of observing a fast. 

It appears that "fasting" is one of those words that has many interpretations. I guess I need a better understanding of what fasting really is. It is kind of like the "elections was stolen" or abstaining from sex. People believe what they want to believe the definition is, and there is often no "limits" and "bounds" defined or explained before the opinions become expressed.


----------



## Smartattack (8 mo ago)

There is a distinct shortage of 🙄 emojis in this thread. They should have started at post #2


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

RLTW said:


> I recently began an all-beef diet. I read some odd stuff about this diet, and decided to try it for myself. I like beef, so it’s probably easier for me than some others.
> 
> The rule is to eat beef and beef only, seasoned how you like, and drink only water.
> 
> I’ve lost 7 pounds in a week without making myself feel hungry. On the other hand, I do miss beer.


How can you tell if some didn't get the memo


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

I cannot believe all these goofy and dangerous diets that you mtbr members are suggesting. This kind of nonsense has been going on since the beginning of time. 

The only way to lose weight, keep it off and stay fit *safely* is to reduce calorie intake, eat sensibly and exercise regularly. 

All this other crap never ever will work long term. Keto, Fasting, South Beach, Atkins, Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Phen Phen, Neutrisystem, etc, etc. These are all temporary and dangerous diets. And some of these other ones suggested here are nothing short of a death wish. 

Last company I worked for the dummkopf safety manager was so weak minded he got his stomach stapled to lose weight. What a joke. Within a year he was eating pork rinds and hígados de pollo fritos and gaining the weight back.

What ever happened to eating healthy?


----------



## Smartattack (8 mo ago)

There is no easy and consequence free ride on the topic. If you must be on something called a "diet" then the Mediterranean one is probably the only one that sounds appealing to me as it's just normal healthy eating. Most of these other bullshit scam diets are pushed by people who want to sell you the supplements they say you need since you aren't getting them from food.


----------



## mechfishy (Nov 22, 2010)

JackOfDiamonds said:


> I don't mean intermittent fasting, I mean like, what if you just stop eating until your body fat % is what you want? Is there anything dangerous or worse about doing that vs. consistently undereating for a longer time?
> 
> I watched a video about a "fasting center" in California where people drink nothing but filtered water for up to months at a time to lose weight and supposedly help reset their eating habits, sort of like rehab. Sounds extreme, but for people who really struggle, I guess it's not more extreme than getting stomach surgery. I guess they actually started out putting people there to lose weight before certain operations that they can't do on fat people. But I was surprised because usually we assume you die after a couple weeks without food, but not fat people. I guess one guy went over a year on water alone and lost hundreds of pounds. They fed them nothing. No protein, not even any vitamins. As long as they had fat to spare, I guess they consider that's ok. Apparently there are vitamins in your fat.
> 
> I know that movie stars sometimes lose insane amounts of weight fast, and I assume it's by extreme undereating or straight fasting. Is it bad to do that? I mean, if you are overweight, you're getting healthier the whole time right? What are the benefits of just straight fasting vs. undereating for long periods?


Beware of toxins that have accumulated in your body fat. Tha's where many types of toxins accumulate and as you lose body fat they are released and metabolized/catabolized.


----------



## LMN (Sep 8, 2007)

RLTW said:


> I recently began an all-beef diet. I read some odd stuff about this diet, and decided to try it for myself. I like beef, so it’s probably easier for me than some others.
> 
> The rule is to eat beef and beef only, seasoned how you like, and drink only water.
> 
> I’ve lost 7 pounds in a week without making myself feel hungry. On the other hand, I do miss beer.


I have a killer diet it is called the chocolate cake diet. 

Two really simple rules
1. Chocolate cake only
2. you must eat until you feel ill and then push a bit longer.

The theory is that ill feeling will last long enough that you will be in net-calorie deficite. There is a bit of weight gain at first but I am highly confident that in the long term weight will lost.

Cheese cake would also work as an excellent substitute.


----------



## mechfishy (Nov 22, 2010)

Smartattack said:


> There is no easy and consequence free ride on the topic. If you must be on something called a "diet" then the Mediterranean one is probably the only one that sounds appealing to me as it's just normal healthy eating. Most of these other bullshit scam diets are pushed by people who want to sell you the supplements they say you need since you aren't getting them from food.


Agreed. The best diet you can have is a balanced healthy diet. Which consists of a wide variety of natural foods. The wider the variety the better, with a few exceptions. Too much green lettuce isn't very nutritious and white rice is all starch. Organic would be the best, but is more expensive than commercial foods. Commercial foods are grown on mega-farms which use pesticides, hormones and antibiotics to a high degree of excess. And If you eat a lot of beef they are mostly fed GMO corn husks, which have little to no nutritional value. So these cows and other types of cattle are unhealthy, sick and scared all the time. Which causes their bodies to release hormones that are unhealthy for us. It's especially stressful for them when they are slaughtered and they have even higher concentrations of these bad hormones. Sea food is the best type of meat you can get. But you have to be careful of building up too much mercury, which only accumulates and never goes away. The best meat products are grown free range for obvious reasons.


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

mechfishy said:


> Beware of toxins that have accumulated in your body fat. Tha's where many types of toxins accumulate and as you lose body fat they are released and metabolized/catabolized.


Sooo, if you’re theory is correct (it’s not, but I’ll humor you), then what we should be advocating is to keep the fat on.

More wisdom from the masses, love it, just keep it coming, it gives me something to joke about with my wife 🤣


----------



## Sanchofula (Dec 30, 2007)

LMN said:


> I have a killer diet it is called the chocolate cake diet.
> 
> Two really simple rules
> 1. Chocolate cake only
> ...


and you’ll avoid releasing those deadly toxins 👍


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

OP's childhood? Maybe he has more experience with this than we think.


----------



## mechfishy (Nov 22, 2010)

Sanchofula said:


> Sooo, if you’re theory is correct (it’s not, but I’ll humor you), then what we should be advocating is to keep the fat on.
> 
> More wisdom from the masses, love it, just keep it coming, it gives me something to joke about with my wife 🤣


You misunderstood what I meant. I probably should have said to be careful while losing fat, since it will release built up toxins into your system that will probably make you feel crappy while it's happening.


----------



## mechfishy (Nov 22, 2010)

Sanchofula said:


> Sooo, if you’re theory is correct (it’s not, but I’ll humor you), then what we should be advocating is to keep the fat on.
> 
> More wisdom from the masses, love it, just keep it coming, it gives me something to joke about with my wife 🤣


I'm cynical too. But I don't take a useful comment and intentionally try to reduce it to garbage like you did. The whole purpose behind these forums is to try to provide useful information. If you don't like something, then it would be more beneficial to make it better instead of trying to make it look bad. Nobody who has good intentions deserves that type of treatment.


----------



## RLTW (5 mo ago)

LMN said:


> I have a killer diet it is called the chocolate cake diet.
> 
> Two really simple rules
> 1. Chocolate cake only
> ...


When I was a more-or-less unsupervised kid, my diet consisted entirely of chocolate, cola, and deviled ham sandwiches. But I never gained weight or suffered any ill effects, probably because I never stood still. 

All my life I maintained a lean body, low heart rate, and normal blood pressure. But in my 40’s the weight started to accumulate. Since I work at home, and work has been stupidly busy over the past 2 years, I haven’t gotten as much exercise as usual.

But now I am losing weight, sleeping better, and don’t have to get up in the night to use the toilet. Already there is a noticeable difference in the mirror. 

But no negative effects yet. I’m not yet bored with eating beef, luckily there is a variety of ways to prepare it.


----------



## Gym123 (Dec 4, 2021)

Suns_PSD said:


> I really don't know if extended fasting is dangerous for a significantly overweight person, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't come without any bad side effects at all and a lot of misery as well.
> 
> Furthermore there are certainly smarter ways to effectively lose large amounts of weight, and this is coming from someone that does believe in fasting for health and weight control.
> 
> ...


You're thinking only of the flesh, but the bones can be seriously deteriorated without calcium and if you don't add Vitamin D, any calcium taken in can't be absorbed efficiently.


----------



## Gym123 (Dec 4, 2021)

_CJ said:


> It's been done, or close to it anyway. Supplemented with vitamins and such.


I watched part of an interview with Dr Berg's son and he has little good to say about his dad and his motivation which seemed to be purely money.


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

mechfishy said:


> The whole purpose behind these forums is to try to provide useful information.


I must have missed those posts in this thread.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

RLTW said:


> When I was a more-or-less unsupervised kid, my diet consisted entirely of chocolate, cola, and deviled ham sandwiches. But I never gained weight or suffered any ill effects, probably because I never stood still.


LOL!! We can all get away with that when we are younger.



uintah said:


> I must have missed those posts in this thread.


A few of us are actually trying to be helpful. Some mtbr members are obviously using some dark humor. Then there are the ones who have no clue what a proper diet is and giving dangerous advice.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

I still want to know how overweight OP is. 

OP, please answer this simple question: do you primarily ride, 1) a unicycle, 2) a single speed, 3) a hard tail, 4) a 100-120mm travel bike, 5) a 130-150 travel bike, 6) a fat bike, 7) a recumbent, 8) or an e- bike?

From this simple scale I can quickly determine exactly how fat you are. 

Thanks. 

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## Tinstigator (Jun 28, 2016)

Bat fastard has bookmarked topic.


----------



## _CJ (May 1, 2014)

Suns_PSD said:


> I still want to know how overweight OP is.
> 
> OP, please answer this simple question: do you primarily ride, 1) a unicycle, 2) a single speed, 3) a hard tail, 4) a 100-120mm travel bike, 5) a 130-150 travel bike, 6) a fat bike, 7) a recumbent, 8) or an e- bike?
> 
> ...


Aren't you the guy who's shopping for an ebike?


.


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

_CJ said:


> Aren't you the guy who's shopping for an ebike?
> 
> 
> .


Yes I am and will have one in the Spring.

It's a joke CJ.

Sent from my SM-G715A using Tapatalk


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Wow this thread is still going strong and some people are bringing the heat. There's nothing like politics, religion, diets, and dropper posts to get people wound up.


----------



## Smartattack (8 mo ago)

Trump lost, eat healthy and use a dropper. / Thread.


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Gym123 said:


> You're thinking only of the flesh, but the bones can be seriously deteriorated without calcium and if you don't add Vitamin D, any calcium taken in can't be absorbed efficiently.


This isn't a concern for a 48hr fast.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

ballisticexchris said:


> The only way to lose weight, keep it off and stay fit *safely* is to reduce calorie intake, eat sensibly and exercise regularly.


If it were that simple we wouldn't have such an obesity epidemic. Eat less, exercise more has been the mantra for how many decades and yet obesity just keeps increasing.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

AMac4108 said:


> If it were that simple we wouldn't have such an obesity epidemic. Eat less, exercise more has been the mantra for how many decades and yet obesity just keeps increasing.


Sadly this is all too true. OTOH it is that simple. It's a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately a lot of humans are of weak mind and little determination for anything that requires effort. Want proof? Just drive past a Starbucks or McDonalds. The drive throughs are packed with lazy fat slobs who can't even get out of their car and walk to a counter.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

ballisticexchris said:


> Sadly this is all too true. OTOH it is that simple. It's a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately a lot of humans are of weak mind and little determination for anything that requires effort. Want proof? Just drive past a Starbucks or McDonalds. The drive throughs are packed with lazy fat slobs who can't even get out of their car and walk to a counter.


This. Where's the "Buy with one click" option to be healthy? Oh, right. That's why so many plastic surgeons exist.


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

ballisticexchris said:


> Unfortunately a lot of humans are of weak mind and little determination for anything that requires effort. Want proof?


E Bikes 😉


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

ballisticexchris said:


> Sadly this is all too true. OTOH it is that simple. It's a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately a lot of humans are of weak mind and little determination for anything that requires effort. Want proof? Just drive past a Starbucks or McDonalds. The drive throughs are packed with lazy fat slobs who can't even get out of their car and walk to a counter.


Sure we all exercise free will, but keep in mind that as a species natural selection has chosen a strong desire for sweets, fats & excess consumption simply by virtue of those members of our species that had these traits were more likely to survive and procreate during times of low food supply.

The self control required to not over eat, and eat less calorie dense foods, goes against our very genetics/ survival instict and in fact this is true of all animals. Any dog, fish, goat etc will literally eat until it's so fat it dies just because this same trait when in nature prolongs life & therefore procreation.

It seems to me, with this understanding, we need to do more than just say 'have stronger will' because clearly this is more than most can manage.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

ballisticexchris said:


> Sadly this is all too true. OTOH it is that simple. It's a lifestyle choice. Unfortunately a lot of humans are of weak mind and little determination for anything that requires effort. Want proof? Just drive past a Starbucks or McDonalds. The drive throughs are packed with lazy fat slobs who can't even get out of their car and walk to a counter.


It really isn't that simple. I've run a marathon, multiple half marathons, raced 100k+ mtb races, but constantly struggle with weight. I'm talking losing 60lbs, gain 40, lose 60 lbs, gain 80. How is it I can train and do well in all those events that require massive amounts of will power but I can't do something as simple as count calories? I clearly have willpower and plenty of others who struggle with their weight also do. I'm just saying it is more complicated than so many want to make it out to be.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Suns_PSD said:


> It seems to me, with this understanding, we need to do more than just say 'have stronger will' because clearly this is more than most can manage.


Yeah, I love it when people propose this as the solution. I think we've already tried "just say no" once before and that went great!


----------



## Suns_PSD (Dec 13, 2013)

AMac4108 said:


> It really isn't that simple. I've run a marathon, multiple half marathons, raced 100k+ mtb races, but constantly struggle with weight. I'm talking losing 60lbs, gain 40, lose 60 lbs, gain 80. How is it I can train and do well in all those events that require massive amounts of will power but I can't do something as simple as count calories? I clearly have willpower and plenty of others who struggle with their weight also do. I'm just saying it is more complicated than so many want to make it out to be.


In your case the statement that you can not exercise away a bad diet, is especially true. It takes somewhere around 2600 excess calories to gain 1#. so to gain 80#s you had to consume about 208,000 calories over that period of time in excess of your daily needs.

I've seen this with my own father, a man with extreme will who runs marathons, builds companies, and is amazing overall. What gets him (he yo-yos and is usually a solid 100#s overweight) is quantity as well as calorie density in his food

My quick advice is learn to supplement high calorie foods with low calorie ones. No beverage you ever consume should have calories, that's the easiest one right there and for many people. Fake sugar in your otherwise black coffee. Skip breakfast and use caffeine instead, tons of veggies, mushrooms, fish, etc...

GL


----------



## uintah (Apr 21, 2020)

Suns_PSD said:


> No beverage you ever consume should have calories, that's the easiest one right there and for many people.


It is crazy how much soda some people consume. 
I'm pretty lean but constantly 10 lbs over my former racing weight simply because I hang out with friends and have a few beers 3 days a week. Doesn't matter how many hours I ride or how good my diet is. Liquid calories are terrible for you.


----------



## TiJoe (7 mo ago)

Until my 50s my diet was the "See Food" diet. If I see it, I eat it. 😹

These days, that diet no longer works. Now my diet is; If I look at it, I gain weight


----------



## slohr (May 22, 2008)

You have to do the work to get over insulin resistance. It's ugly and takes a long time, like a year. Review your training for fat burning optimization. Check out Phil Maffetone for more information on this. He has great information for long-time and continually-improving fitness.


----------



## Peachypupp (6 mo ago)

I think it all depends on what you’re trying to get to and what makes you feel good. I did triathlons for 8 years in my 40’s. Adjusted my diet and got my race weight down to 168lbs. Really made daily meals challenging. Long term, unless you’re super strict it’s tough to maintain especially if you want to enjoy life a little. Now I’m consistently around 185 and feel fine. Could I lose a few, sure, but in my 50s it’s not like I’m trying to impress anyone in my Speedo.


----------



## Gym123 (Dec 4, 2021)

Cerberus75 said:


> This isn't a concern for a 48hr fast.


The post I replied to was about 'extended fasting'- I was thinking about REAL extended fasting, not two days.


----------



## noapathy (Jun 24, 2008)

uintah said:


> It is crazy how much soda some people consume.
> I'm pretty lean but constantly 10 lbs over my former racing weight simply because I hang out with friends and have a few beers 3 days a week. Doesn't matter how many hours I ride or how good my diet is. Liquid calories are terrible for you.


I can't understand why I don't lose weight. I really want to.


----------



## shakazulu12 (Jul 14, 2015)

Charles Barkley has already come up with a fullproof way to lose weight.


----------



## AEyogi (Nov 19, 2021)

Cerberus75 said:


> I Doubt anyone lived over a year on water only I don't care how fat they were.


Record is 382 days:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast#:~:text=Angus%20Barbieri%20(1939%20%E2%80%93%207%20September,Maryfield%20Hospital%20for%20medical%20evaluation


.


----------



## William P (Jan 25, 2004)

Fat stores toxins. So sudden fasting can release too much of them into the blood stream. This can vary depending on what drugs or chemicals one was exposed to.
Headaches would be one sign of this, rashes would be another ( the skin is a 3rd kidney).
You can ease into fasting with a restricted eating program where food is consumed only in a 6-8 hour window daily. By restricting the time spent digesting, the body has more time for cleansing.
If the first meal is only fruit the cleansing will continue, if the 2nd meal is roughage it can help remove the extra waste. The 3rd meal can start normal but be restricted over time.
Another option is the Ketogenic diet. This involves eliminating sugars and starches from the diet. Bacon Eggs, and avocadoes for breakfast, or fried chicken breaded with crushed pork rinds would still be on the menu. The body can switch to Plan B which uses fat for fuel instead of sugar/carbs. So instead of storing fat it's burned for energy.
Avoid corn fed beef. Cattle would not eat corn naturally. It's used to fatten them up for slaughter. It has the same effect on us when we eat the beef. Argentines, and Australians eat more beef than Americans with no health consequences because it's all grass fed.


----------



## masterp2 (Mar 4, 2007)

Long time in, long time out. There are no healthy shortcuts. NONE. Fast weight loss is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS temporary, because it is not coming from a sustainable lifestyle discipline. Without the long term discipline of a healthy lifestyle (which becomes your new normal), you will return to old habits having not learned what being healthy involves. You can interpret this is as bad news if you want, but the sooner you accept it, the sooner the insanity will end.

Secondly, and maybe even more important, obesity does not happen in a vacuum. It is closely associated with unpacked baggage, like most any addiction. If you don't deal with that baggage, and keep your secrets in your closet, nothing will work. Ask me how I know.


----------



## Keiz (Aug 5, 2019)

My wife has always eaten healthier than me, but because of my bad habits, we both became slightly obese. I was 6’/225, she was shorter but heavier. She tried all kinds of diets over the years, but nothing stuck. She finally had a gastric sleeve surgery, against my advice, and has thrived. It is primarily about portion control, but with her healthier food choices, she has stayed at 150-160 pounds for almost 3 years. She also swims slowly for 40 minutes most days, and walks 40 minutes most days.
I decided to try portion control without the surgery, along with 40-60 minutes runs, and /or three hour bike rides most days. Instead of two sandwiches, I have one. Instead of two burgers, or three hot dogs, I have one. Cut down my soda intake from three per day to one every other day (the hardest part). Instead of 3 beers 3 times per week, I have one or two twice per week. Instead of half a sleeve of chocolate chip cookies, I have two or three( cookies not sleeves). I’ve lost 25 pounds over one year while also gorging on a full steak with three beers plus bread, once every few weeks.
So, just from our experiences, the surgery is probably far better than the self-control method. Rather than the drastic, long term fast, I would recommend to the OP the gastric sleeve surgery. I would not recommend the bypass surgery, as it is far less successful at long term weight loss maintenance than the sleeve. Some people on my wife’s group, gained their weight back and wound up having the sleeve and are also doing great.
I am very proud of my wife for doing the research, going forward on spite of my misgivings (can’t you just eat less. lol) and sticking with a healthier lifestyle. She does sometimes wish she could eat a second portion of delicious food, but that is to be expected and she and I are both so much happier.
To the OP, don’t do it. There a few people on here who have found very small samples of those who did it, and survived, but just the fact that they call it survival, rather the thriving should be all you need to convince yourself to avoid what you are considering.


----------



## masterp2 (Mar 4, 2007)

Please don't advocate bariatric procedures on this forum. This can easily be the most deadly advice you can give someone with weight issues. My girlfriend would do ANYTHING if she could go back in time and undo that choice. This has killed a lot of people, it very often takes years to die. The reasons are extremely complex, but mental health demise is a big side effect. Nobody talks about it either, especially the surgeon.


----------



## Keiz (Aug 5, 2019)

masterp2 said:


> Please don't advocate bariatric procedures on this forum. This can easily be the most deadly advice you can give someone with weight issues. My girlfriend would do ANYTHING if she could go back in time and undo that choice. This has killed a lot of people, it very often takes years to die. The reasons are extremely complex, but mental health demise is a big side effect. Nobody talks about it either, especially the surgeon.


Sorry to hear that, but I am only relating our experience, as are you. OP should do own research, but I would say that compared to what the OP is considering, a gastric sleeve is a better choice. I would never recommend a bypass, as I have not heard any positive experiences about that. Conversely, I have only heard positive results from those who have had the sleeve.


----------



## masterp2 (Mar 4, 2007)

And at the end of the day, surgery is merely forcing (by way of pavlovian consequences) a person to do what they could otherwise do without it. It is literally that simple, and that stupid. I would probably suggest surgery also if the person has a learning disability.


----------



## Keiz (Aug 5, 2019)

masterp2 said:


> And at the end of the day, surgery is merely forcing (by way of pavlovian consequences) a person to do what they could otherwise do without it. It is literally that simple, and that stupid. I would probably suggest surgery also if the person has a learning disability.


Well aren’t you a peach. If only it was that simple. It is a mechanism for forcing people to restrict their input, but when you are obese, asking someone to spend five miserable years trying to do what can be accomplished in months might not be a better answer. Yes, they could do it, but after 20 years of trying, maybe a different solution is called for. As has been proven by many studies, fasting has a poor success rate.
I’m not going to argue with you any further. The people I know who have had the sleeve have become healthier and happier, and especially for my wife, it has been a game changer. That has been our experience, yours has been different, I get that, but no need to call people stupid for doing it. Really uncalled for.


----------



## mechfishy (Nov 22, 2010)

William P said:


> Fat stores toxins. So sudden fasting can release too much of them into the blood stream. This can vary depending on what drugs or chemicals one was exposed to.
> Headaches would be one sign of this, rashes would be another ( the skin is a 3rd kidney).
> You can ease into fasting with a restricted eating program where food is consumed only in a 6-8 hour window daily. By restricting the time spent digesting, the body has more time for cleansing.
> If the first meal is only fruit the cleansing will continue, if the 2nd meal is roughage it can help remove the extra waste. The 3rd meal can start normal but be restricted over time.
> ...


I tried this and somebody didn't like it. There reply was really negative and critical. You are making a better example though. So maybe some of the doubters will understand better what I was trying to tell them and was trying to be helpful instead of being critical.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Getting back to the original question, is extended fasting dangerous? Possibly, in several ways. A better question might be is it effective in delivering sustainable weight loss? This seems very doubtful, as there is no new lifestyle being developed.


----------



## ronhextall (Sep 13, 2015)

Calories in vs calories burned. whatever works for you.

Yes, it is that simple.

I am 6'3 and weigh about 170, the skinnier I get the better I feel. IMO low body weight is the fountain of youth. I am 54 and feel great. I have weight as much as 220 which isn't obese but looking back I didn't feel as good as I do at 170.

Seems to me if you are the type were the body has a hard time burning calories, even with lots of exercise, you should be a stud triathlete and not a big blob on the couch.


----------



## William P (Jan 25, 2004)

masterp2 said:


> And at the end of the day, surgery is merely forcing (by way of pavlovian consequences) a person to do what they could otherwise do without it. It is literally that simple, and that stupid. I would probably suggest surgery also if the person has a learning disability.


Not everyone is the same. Heredity, glandular variance and even disorders can create different situations for different people. Some areas and cultures may have diets that promote obesity. One thing that is seldom mentioned is that all life at some level is produced from a compatible code, or language. It would be best to only eat things that were produced by this code. That means stick to eating foods that were actually living. Basically this means Organic. All of the chemicals, and GMO stuff is not likely to do anything useful for you.
BTW fat is not the enemy in all cases. Woman body builders who go below a certain percent of body fat to get "ripped" become infertile, and people who swim in water that lowers their body temperature develop "brown fat" which is actually very healthy. Swimming is good for you. Just being in the water burns calories.
Two things that were historically rare in nature, and we were programmed to seek them out are salt, and sugar. Now they're manufactured by the ton and shoved into everything we eat.
One approach Naturopaths use is to try and maintain the weight you had when you were 21 years old. A reasonable goal is always a good idea.
Another trick is to eat slowly. It takes 20 minutes to start to feel full. This was particulary hard for me because all my jobs had 1/2 hour lunches. So cramming down a big burger and sack of fries was all I had time for.
One extreme solution will probably cause more problems than it solves. and won't be sustainable. Look at all the options and find what works for you.
I might add that if diabetes is a consideration (and it usually is) the ketogenic diet makes it almost impossible to become a type 2 diabetic. Of course see a doctor of some kind. Which I emphatically am not. If there is no systemic illness i would suggest the guidance of a Naturopath. I prefer Accupuncture to drugs also. Not sure if it has much for weight loss specifically. But may detect some underlying cause.
FWIW I have weighed in my adult life from 145# (extreme cleansing due to poisoning) to 260# (Retired truck mechanic with bad eating habits).
I'm now at my 200-205# 21 year old target weight. By the book I should weigh 185#=195# but that last 10-20# is hard to get to, and harder to keep off.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Part of the problem is that we make eating healthy so complicated. Really it's not. Start by cutting out soda and liquid calories. Drink water. Next, incorporate a couple servings of fruit per day. And a couple salads. Eat the salads before your meals. Start there. The extra fiber itself will make you feel full which means you will spontaneously eat less. Just do this simple intervention for 3-6 months. See where you are at.

If you are still struggling, then cut out processed junk foods that are calorie dense and don't make you feel full (fast digesting carbs, low fiber stuff). Eat more protein (but not crap like fried chicken) which will make you feel more full. See what happens in another 3-6 months.

You do not have to worry about GMOs, organic, and use other dietary gymnastics. It's better to eat your fruits and veggies rather than avoid them because they aren't organic. Organic also costs 30-100% more and many folks can't afford that. Yes, GmO and organic can probably have a marginal impact after you've checked the boxes on everything else, but start with the low hanging fruit first so that you don't overwhelm yourself and throw in the towel after two weeks. One step at a time and keep it simple, and for god's sake, don't listen to online dietary gurus who are selling "special" supplements because "our conventional food system, coffee, etc is poisoning you to death, and doctors don't want you to know this......" 

Also all diets "work" by getting you to eat fewer calories. Keto does this by scaring you about carbs so you spontaneously reduce calories by wiping out 3/4 of the foods humans eat. Vegan does this by scaring and guilting you away from animal products so you avoid 3/4 of the foods humans eat. There is no special hormonal advantage and the carb-insulin hypothesis has been shown to be bullsh#t in every study that has matched calories of keto to the control group.


----------



## ronhextall (Sep 13, 2015)

tick_magnet said:


> Part of the problem is that we make eating healthy so complicated. Really it's not. Start by cutting out soda and liquid calories. Drink water. Next, incorporate a couple servings of fruit per day. And a couple salads. Eat the salads before your meals. Start there. The extra fiber itself will make you feel full which means you will spontaneously eat less. Just do this simple intervention for 3-6 months. See where you are at.
> 
> If you are still struggling, then cut out processed junk foods that are calorie dense and don't make you feel full (fast digesting carbs, low fiber stuff). Eat more protein (but not crap like fried chicken) which will make you feel more full. See what happens in another 3-6 months.
> 
> You do not have to worry about GMOs, organic, and use other dietary gymnastics. It's better to eat your fruits and veggies rather than avoid them because they aren't organic. Organic also costs 30-100% more and many folks can't afford that. Yes, GmO and organic can probably have a marginal impact after you've checked the boxes on everything else, but start with the low hanging fruit first so that you don't overwhelm yourself and throw in the towel after two weeks. One step at a time and keep it simple, and for god's sake, don't listen to online dietary gurus who are selling "special" supplements because "our conventional food system, coffee, etc is poisoning you to death, and doctors don't want you to know this......" Also all diets "work" by getting you to eat fewer calories. Keto does this by scaring you about carbs so you spontaneously reduce calories by wiping out 3/4 of the foods humans eat. Vegan does this by scaring and guilting you away from animal products so you avoid 3/4 of the foods humans eat. There is no special hormonal advantage and the carb-insulin hypothesis has been shown to be bullsh#t in every study that has matched calories of keto to the control group.


good stuff. 

I think if people counted calories they would realize how many calories are in bread. I have a big salad everyday for lunch, what could go between slices of bread can easily go into a salad and you save a lot of calories with zero effort. A big salad is really just portion of protein with a bunch of vegetables. I use a low calorie dressing and some raisins/dried cranberries to sweeten it up a little. You can make a monster salad using canned tuna (in water) and a light dressing and probably keep it under 500 calories easy. If you ride bike 20-40 miles a day you have a huge calorie deficit starting right there.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

ronhextall said:


> good stuff.
> 
> I think if people counted calories they would realize how many calories are in bread. I have a big salad everyday for lunch, what could go between slices of bread can easily go into a salad and you save a lot of calories with zero effort. A big salad is really just portion of protein with a bunch of vegetables. I use a low calorie dressing and some raisins/dried cranberries to sweeten it up a little. You can make a monster salad using canned tuna (in water) and a light dressing and probably keep it under 500 calories easy. If you ride bike 20-40 miles a day you have a huge calorie deficit starting right there.


Exactly. In fact, eating lots of fiber and salads has such a calorie reducing effect on me, that during the heaviest part of my riding season, I actually have to bring back more calorie dense foods and liquid calories just to get enough calories for recovery and not to lose lean mass.


----------



## William P (Jan 25, 2004)

tick_magnet said:


> Part of the problem is that we make eating healthy so complicated. Really it's not. Start by cutting out soda and liquid calories. Drink water. Next, incorporate a couple servings of fruit per day. And a couple salads. Eat the salads before your meals. Start there. The extra fiber itself will make you feel full which means you will spontaneously eat less. Just do this simple intervention for 3-6 months. See where you are at.
> 
> If you are still struggling, then cut out processed junk foods that are calorie dense and don't make you feel full (fast digesting carbs, low fiber stuff). Eat more protein (but not crap like fried chicken) which will make you feel more full. See what happens in another 3-6 months.
> 
> ...


Keto doesn't scare you into anything. It replaces carbs with fats that humans would ordinarily consume (not seed oils) Olive oil, Coconut oil, animal fats. if your body senses a diet rich in fats it won't need to store them. The Vegan diet is often associated with eastern spiritual beliefs. Exercise will burn ketones as fuel instead of sugars. The reason for supervision is to see if your blood sugar is where it needs to be for you no matter what you're doing. Anyone can yell bullshit about anything. BTW people who drink coffee live longer. There s a lot more than caffeine in there.
The cheapest thing you can eats is a bunch of starches. The most expensive thing you can eat is a bunch of prescription medications. I personally avoid both of them. Options and complications are not the same thing. You could lose the weight with Keto, or a vegetable based cleansing diet, then switch to something else like Mediterranean for the long term. I've used both to lose weight successfully. But to keep it off something obviously needs to change. I actually eat whatever I want. What I want is to be healthy.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

I'm not yelling b.s. for the sake of yelling. 


https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2686143


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

Most hunger is driven by drops in blood sugar. Keto allows you to be less hungry and less miserable when in a calorie deficit. Once fat adapted you can incorporate carbs pre ride/workout and go back to burning fat when glucose is exhausted with out bonking out.


----------



## William P (Jan 25, 2004)

OIG audit reveals majority of NIH-funded trials FAILED to meet federal requirements


Even before the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, American citizens were advised by health officials, Big Pharma and mainstream media to "trust science." But an audit of trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) revealed that majority of them were not able to meet feder




www.naturalnews.com





Calorie counting is quantitative, not qualitative. You could just change your dosage of McDonalds sweet tea and it should work. I'm pretty sure there's more to it than that.
Fasting is obviously not sustainable. It must be followed by something else. 


Cerberus75 said:


> Most hunger is driven by drops in blood sugar. Keto allows you to be less hungry and less miserable when in a calorie deficit. Once fat adapted you can incorporate carbs pre ride/workout and go back to burning fat when glucose is exhausted with out bonking out.


 I agree. I have bonked after doing weights and riding while on keto. I also may also have a treat in the middle of a ride if my weight goals have been met. Then burn the carbs on the way home. The Vegan cleansing served it's purpose at the time but weight loss was not the primary goal then. Keto is more tolerable over time, and easier to go in and out of if you like. I usually drop it somewhat over the holidays, and resume in the spring.
A lot of people think keto is about consuming huge steak dinners. Your body can only process a certain amount of protein at once. Buy that big grass fed steak, and cut it into 1/4 pound servings. The money you save on medicines like Insulin, or Lipitor may make it affordable.

Cholesterol is not a disease. (Who is scaring people now?)





French Quarter







www.fqrv.com







I have a known tendency to not bother posting things that everyone else already thinks. I let everyone else do that. I post things that are different than what's common knowledge. There is always some one willing to "correct" me back to the normal POV. I also post based on my own experience trying these things. I've shared my experience about this and won't post in this thread any more..


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

This is so typical of natural path and "alternative diet" communities. Claim conspiracy or substandard practices in mainstream science, by finding specific examples of bad practices and then claim that the entire operation cannot be trusted. Meanwhile, they hold no standards for their own communities which is largely unregulated and operates like the wild wild west where the guy with the best marketing plan or the most extreme plans (we are so different that's why you need us) wins. The "science" is anecdotal examples and cherry picking of specific studies that support their views. 

BTW, just fyi, Kevin Hall has run studies supported by Gary Taubes' NUSI non-profit. He found no difference in weight loss between keto and non-keto. This is not an NIH funded study. This is was funded by a keto promoting organization.





Nutrition Science Initiative (NuSI) in retrospect







www.stephanguyenet.com


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

I found Keto to be very effective for weight loss but I suspect it was due to it being very difficult to take in excess calories given the restrictions on macronutrients. I have also never "bonked' (not real bonk just a dramatic energy loss) faster or felt worse post-ride than while on a Keto diet. I gave it a few months and never really adjusted. I suppose pre-ride carbs would have been a good idea.


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

tick_magnet said:


> This is so typical of natural path and "alternative diet" communities. Claim conspiracy or substandard practices in mainstream science, by finding specific examples of bad practices and then claim that the entire operation cannot be trusted. Meanwhile, they hold no standards for their own communities which is largely unregulated and operates like the wild wild west where the guy with the best marketing plan or the most extreme plans (we are so different that's why you need us) wins. The "science" is anecdotal examples and cherry picking of specific studies that support their views.
> 
> BTW, just fyi, Kevin Hall has run studies supported by Gary Taubes' NUSI non-profit. He found no difference in weight loss between keto and non-keto. This is not an NIH funded study. This is was funded by a keto promoting organization.
> 
> ...


Kevin Hall is known to spin conclusions to fit his narrative. He often times comes off as one of those scientists who comes up with the conclusion first and does what he can to make the data fit it.

Here's a good article to read about his research into CM vs CIM.
How Kevin Hall tried to kill the insulin hypothesis – Diet Doctor


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

tick_magnet said:


> This is so typical of natural path and "alternative diet" communities. Claim conspiracy or substandard practices in mainstream science, by finding specific examples of bad practices and then claim that the entire operation cannot be trusted. Meanwhile, they hold no standards for their own communities which is largely unregulated and operates like the wild wild west where the guy with the best marketing plan or the most extreme plans (we are so different that's why you need us) wins. The "science" is anecdotal examples and cherry picking of specific studies that support their views.
> 
> BTW, just fyi, Kevin Hall has run studies supported by Gary Taubes' NUSI non-profit. He found no difference in weight loss between keto and non-keto. This is not an NIH funded study. This is was funded by a keto promoting organization.
> 
> ...


Weight loss is CICO there's more to a diet than weight loss. Keto is a tool for a lot more if used properly. Especially athletic keto,


----------



## Cerberus75 (Oct 20, 2015)

fly4130 said:


> I found Keto to be very effective for weight loss but I suspect it was due to it being very difficult to take in excess calories given the restrictions on macronutrients. I have also never "bonked' (not real bonk just a dramatic energy loss) faster or felt worse post-ride than while on a Keto diet. I gave it a few months and never really adjusted. I suppose pre-ride carbs would have been a good idea.


Though it out on keto for four months
Then you add pre/intra ride carbs everything is seamless. Moderate intensity rides can be done fasted this improves mitochondrial efficiency.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

AMac4108 said:


> Kevin Hall is known to spin conclusions to fit his narrative. He often times comes off as one of those scientists who comes up with the conclusion first and does what he can to make the data fit it.
> 
> Here's a good article to read about his research into CM vs CIM.
> How Kevin Hall tried to kill the insulin hypothesis – Diet Doctor


Yeah according to keto people like the Diet Doctor. 

I linked a meta-analysis showing the carb-insulin hypothesis doesn't fit the evidence. I get back a link (not by you, the other guy) about how NIH funded studies don't comply with many standards without any specific content about what the actual study I link says. It's sort of like saying you shouldn't fly in airplanes because some motor vehicles don't comply with safety standards. This is how I have found the keto community to operate. Doesn't matter to me. I don't make money off keto or non-keto. I do race mountain bikes though so if anything, I hope more of my competition adopts keto


----------



## AMac4108 (Oct 8, 2008)

tick_magnet said:


> Yeah according to keto people like the Diet Doctor.
> 
> I linked a meta-analysis showing the carb-insulin hypothesis doesn't fit the evidence. I get back a link (not by you, the other guy) about how NIH funded studies don't comply with many standards without any specific content about what the actual study I link says. It's sort of like saying you shouldn't fly in airplanes because some motor vehicles don't comply with safety standards. This is how I have found the keto community to operate. Doesn't matter to me. I don't make money off keto or non-keto. I do race mountain bikes though so if anything, I hope more of my competition adopts keto


Lol yeah I hate the snark in that article I linked you to as well. Ignoring that, I thought it did do a good job of pointing out flaws with some of Kevin Hall's studies and addressed how he is funded by NuSi but is definitely not a fan of Taubes. The article is on Diet Doctor but it is by Dr. Jason Fung and while he is a very cocky confident person in his viewpoint, he is a doctor that doesn't treat keto as the only way. He is a big time advocate for low-carb, but not just keto.

And I don't think most of these doctors would tell someone wanting to race bikes that keto is best for that. Not having that top end for XC racing would be awful.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

masterp2 said:


> Long time in, long time out. There are no healthy shortcuts. NONE. Fast weight loss is ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS temporary, because it is not coming from a sustainable lifestyle discipline.


Absolutely true! Overeating disorders are nothing more than an addiction. It's so unfortunate that many do not have the mindset it takes to control calorie count. These shortcuts like stomach operations are ridiculous. How about people treat it as the addiction it is. Admit they have a problem and cut the dang calorie count. 

So you go a little hungry. Big deal. The only reason someone goes to these extreme designer fad diets and stomach operations is because they are weak minded. Nothing much different than a alcoholic/drug addict that cannot handle life without polluting their mind. Only difference is they are using food instead. 

Heck I've gained weight myself. When I was forced into retirement I gained darn near 15 lbs over a 2.5 year period. It's only 1/2 pound a month but it added up over time. Thankfully I dug deep and went to counting calories and more exercise. I'm permanently disabled yet I still find a way. Believe me if I can do it anyone on earth with half a brain cell can do the same. 



masterp2 said:


> And at the end of the day, surgery is merely forcing (by way of pavlovian consequences) a person to do what they could otherwise do without it. It is literally that simple, and that stupid. I would probably suggest surgery also if the person has a learning disability.


It blows my mind how anyone can consider surgery to lose weight. The ONLY reason would be if it's some health issue not caused by overeating. Most of the time it's only because they decided to stuff themselves and exceed the calories that they burn. As I stated in an earlier post, just ask my former employers safety director who had surgery and is now gaining it back by stuffing himself with churros, pork rinds and higados de pollo.


----------



## fly4130 (Apr 3, 2009)

Pork rinds are a very Keto-friendly snack! And bacon. mmmm bacon... This thread motivated me to look at the Beers Earned application I added to the Bike activity on my Garmin and be sure to keep the count UNDER what I earned on the group ride last night.


----------

