[onda]

Ramadan

Maybe Allah knew the benefits of fasting?

[silent ninja]

(Original post by onda)
Ramadan

Maybe Allah knew the benefits of fasting?

Ramadan is harder because half the eating window is during the night, most of which is spent sleeping-- so you feel it more in the day. No water during the fast! Also lack of sleep is the killer. It's 4am and I got work in a few hours! Not eating is the easy part.

[HFerguson]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Well I don't have any ****ing fat.

So unless my bones are going to diminish, my muscle is the only thing my body can consume in it's place.


edit: what on earth is broscience.. - I assume it's a generic disparaging phrase you throw at anybody you feel inferior towards, but you never know

you dont have zero % bodyfat because that's physiologically possible, so there is always something for your body to consume.

And broscience is not a term I use lightly - broscience refers to pseudoscience spouted by people trying to come across as credible by using vaguely scientific terms and concepts incorrectly, but have no actual scientific backing behind their arguments. Like "oh you shouldn't go below parallel on a back squat or you'll blow up your knees" - broscience.

The fact that people think fasting for even a short period of time means you'll instantly atrophy all your muscle is broscience, because there's little evidence to suggest this. Yes, you'll get muscle atrophy if you fast for longer than a certain period of time, but probably not if your fast isn't longer than 24 hours.

[HFerguson]

(Original post by Rinsed)
OK, so in the Leangains method, the one I have experience with and the one which seems to be most prevalent in the fitness arena, we're talking about going 16 hours without food. Your body simply does not go into emergency, life-saving, energy-preserving measures after that short a time, especially as your last meal won't have finished being digested (i.e. nutrients entering the bloodstream) until 5-6 hours afterwards. This is exactly what your fat reserves are for. When you sleep (i.e. fast for 8-10 hours) your body switches to burning fat for fuel, and upon waking this doesn't necessarily stop until you introduce more food to your system.
It's not unfair to be slightly suspicious of evolutionary arguments, but why would our bodies function in such a way that proto-man eats a good meal in the evening, goes to sleep, gets up in the morning to search for food, but by noon the very muscle and strength he needs to catch that next meal is being sapped?
In reality it takes several days without food before your metabolic rate actually begins to slow. On the other hand, many people are conditioned to eating meals at a certain time, and feel may feel hungry and weak if they get nothing at that time, but when try intermittent fasting for a week or so that effect disappears quickly as your body adapts to stops expecting food at that point.
I mean, its not saying eating 7 meals a day is bad, per se, just that it isn't necessary in terms of mass preservation.

will rep you when I can, nail on head

[Derrick1509]

I read on Bodybuilding.com that upon waking up one is in a cataboic state and immediately needs to have some kinda protein and also eat every 3 hours. Can anyone tell me if that's true or just bull****? There seem to be various different opinions on that

Never mind, my question has pretty much been answered above

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by HFerguson)
you dont have zero % bodyfat because that's physiologically possible, so there is always something for your body to consume.

And broscience is not a term I use lightly - broscience refers to pseudoscience spouted by people trying to come across as credible by using vaguely scientific terms and concepts incorrectly, but have no actual scientific backing behind their arguments. Like "oh you shouldn't go below parallel on a back squat or you'll blow up your knees" - broscience.

The fact that people think fasting for even a short period of time means you'll instantly atrophy all your muscle is broscience, because there's little evidence to suggest this. Yes, you'll get muscle atrophy if you fast for longer than a certain period of time, but probably not if your fast isn't longer than 24 hours.

Well you don't need zero percent bodyfat before your body ceases to consume fat, else you would be able to reach that impossible 0% bodyfat, logically.

I assumed you would be fasting for longer than 24 hours, or at least for intermittent 24 hours over a longer duration. I just can't see how stopping your body from receiving energy can help it maintain a healthy physique, unless you're actually unhealthy and it's a sort of dieting strategy. But people seem to have been indicating that this fasting can contribute to increased levels of healthiness for anybody..

[Revd. Mike]

Intermittent fasting is certainly interesting. One of the research groups in my department is working on it at the moment. IF has been shown to significantly increase lifespan in mice, as well as increasing adult hippocampal neurogenesis, important for mental health and memory. Molecular studies have also provided a mechanism, it seems to upregulate the Klotho gene which is implicated in lifespan.

[Llamageddon]

(Original post by Sambo2)
how do we know that IGF-1 levels stay low when you start eating again..!?! certainly blood glucose wont! I think this was pretty simplistic stuff..

I was thinking this, but then I also came to the conclusion that maybe it doesn't have to in the same way I rest two days a week to avoid injury in running.

I guess this is just something we'll have to look up ourselves. I found the programme interesting but there wasn't enough evidence shown in it to really differentiate the programme from the slurry of bs that surrounds nutrition. Were it not for the respect I have for the presenter I probably would've just ignored it.

[cowsforsale]

What actually increases lifespan though? Is it the process of going through feeding/starving phases or is the process of calorie restriction? If it's the latter, I can't imagine life would be very fun just to eek out a few years (with dubious research to back it up).

Also, I didn't like the fact that they didn't emphasise food quality (a la lean meats, good fats and boatloads of vegetables). One of the bits that annoyed me especially was when the woman who was the expert on ADF mentioned you can eat whatever you like on your day of feeding (cue situations of people stuffing their faces with cakes and biscuits)..Another thing, he wasn't really fasting either when he was taking his 500 calories shakes was he?

Also, at the end when Mosely was talking about his results, he mentioned nothing about how much he was consuming on a daily basis. So people who are trying to fast but still eat junk and overall excess of calories will be in for a suprise.

That guy at 134lb looked malnourished.

[Indo-Chinese Food]

(Original post by onda)
Ramadan

Maybe Allah knew the benefits of fasting?

Ramadan is not fasting - it tells muslims not to eat during the day, but instead after daylight hours. So all muslims end up doing is reverse their eating cycle ie: fast in day and then pig out on as much they can eat before sleep.
and no water is allowed, which is brainless for any eating restriction.

[WelshBluebird]

For the 4 days fasting bit, I hope everyone took note of the fact that close supervision is recommended and this isn't something you should just try on a whim without any real thought. And personally, I'd rather enjoy my life and live till I'm say 70 or 80 than enjoy it less but live to 100+. And for me, eating is something I enjoy (I'm not talking about binging or anything, but simple things like eating in a restaurant etc etc).

The alternate day fasting sounds a lot better though, and the 5-2 thing sounds interesting if it actually works. Although I have my doubts about if something as far removed from 4 day fasting can have the same effects.

[HFerguson]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
Well you don't need zero percent bodyfat before your body ceases to consume fat, else you would be able to reach that impossible 0% bodyfat, logically.

I assumed you would be fasting for longer than 24 hours, or at least for intermittent 24 hours over a longer duration. I just can't see how stopping your body from receiving energy can help it maintain a healthy physique, unless you're actually unhealthy and it's a sort of dieting strategy. But people seem to have been indicating that this fasting can contribute to increased levels of healthiness for anybody..

Fasting for longer than 24 hours is not "intermittent fasting". Intermittent fasting means fasting intermittently, not longer fasts.

Stopping your body from receiving energy forces your body to become more efficient at using what energy it currently has, and also forces it to be more efficient with certain hormones involved in energy utilisation (insulin sensitivity, for example, and growth hormone, IGF-1 etc). Lower levels of IGF-1 are thought to decrease risks of diabetes and cancer, if you'd even watched the program...

[WillowLeaves]

I haven't watched it but I read the article and the guy next to me at work has been talking about little else for days. I'm actually considering giving it a try, but I'm not sure if I have enough will-power to do it in the long term (I tried the low carb diet but gave up pretty swiftly because I hated having such limited options). I'm not sure about the science behind it, but anecdotally a lot of people who fast regularly for religious reasons live longer and are healthier, so there probably is something to it.


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

[cowsforsale]

Religious people may live longer but is that from fasting? They tend to be a lot more mindful/less stressed out from practicing meditation/praying. Also, I may be generalising here but don't religious family sit down together and eat wholesome home-prepared food too?

Just because religious people fast does not mean the fasting in itself is causing them to be healthier and/or live longer.

[Architecture-er]

(Original post by HFerguson)
Fasting for longer than 24 hours is not "intermittent fasting". Intermittent fasting means fasting intermittently, not longer fasts.

Stopping your body from receiving energy forces your body to become more efficient at using what energy it currently has, and also forces it to be more efficient with certain hormones involved in energy utilisation (insulin sensitivity, for example, and growth hormone, IGF-1 etc). Lower levels of IGF-1 are thought to decrease risks of diabetes and cancer, if you'd even watched the program...

Of course I hadn't, I said so at the start. But thank you for finally providing some information

[NB_ide]

(Original post by chickenonsteroids)
I've heard a fair bit about it. But I can't remember what was on the BBC article.

You can read more on lean gains if you want. I prefer to keep weightloss simpler than that. Especially when I go back to school it'll be more difficult to do. I wouldn't get caught up in the hype that it's really amazing. You can still lose weight doing normal dieting.

Surely it would be the easiest and simplest way of all, especially at school. How would it be harder or more complicated than whatever other way of eating you're thinking of?

(Original post by silent ninja)
Absolutely. Been fasting 17+ hour days for 18 consecutive and feel pretty okay overall, even go gym every weekday on empty stomach for 30-45 minutes (not recommended if you can avoid it).

I recommend it. Training on an empty stomach is fine, it's not as if your body actually uses any of the food in your digestive system for energy during exercise. It can only use what's already in your cells, innit.
My "strength" is unchanged or improved if I lift fasted (typically 19-20hrs with no food). My "endurance" is down slightly, I find that a typical moderately fast bike ride will see me reach a very particular and familiar sort of fatigue (nothing too bad, but it's a benchmark for me) after about 20-25 miles rather than 30-35. However, I typically fast harder/longer when trying to lose weight and eating fewer cals and carbs overall, so that alone could account for the reduced endurance.


imo most people won't have any trouble training in the afternoon/evening without having eaten anything since the previous night. Everything they ate then is still in their body and with our sedentary lifestyles they've not depleted their energy in just a single day.

[Sambo2]

(Original post by NWA)
That's the point in intermitted fasting. Ie one day fasting, one day feed. Or 5:2 ratio. Ie those days fasting reduced blood glucose levels and IGF-1 levels back down to normal levels

hmm.. I'd like to see when they measured blood glucose, that's pretty critical. Is this effect carried on ie. if you stop doing this diet does the IGF-1 etc go straight back up - if so, is doing this diet for life really sustainable. Also worth noting that blood glucose (which was so unspecific, was it fasting/after a meal etc) is a fairly rubbish measure of glucose homeostasis - I'd need to see data on insulin tolerance and/or beta cell function to be more convinced about effects on diabetes risk.

[TooEasy123]

(Original post by NB_ide)
My "strength" is unchanged or improved if I lift fasted (typically 19-20hrs with no food).

Pretty much the same experience with me. I actually feel sharper and more alert, not sluggish

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by Architecture-er)
I can't imagine any reasons being good for me.. My body fat percentage is under what is 'normal' and I'm semi-muscular.. any fasting from me would simply cause muscle atrophy and other negative side-effects including headaches and lethargy?

Or are there some 'new age' arguments for fasting? I haven't had time to watch the documentary unfortunately..

Watching it from a perspective of having recently studied metabolism and nutrition, it makes some scientific sense. At least, it's an area of proper, non-fad-diet, scientific study.

[Hypocrism]

(Original post by cowsforsale)
What actually increases lifespan though? Is it the process of going through feeding/starving phases or is the process of calorie restriction? If it's the latter, I can't imagine life would be very fun just to eek out a few years (with dubious research to back it up).

Also, I didn't like the fact that they didn't emphasise food quality (a la lean meats, good fats and boatloads of vegetables). One of the bits that annoyed me especially was when the woman who was the expert on ADF mentioned you can eat whatever you like on your day of feeding (cue situations of people stuffing their faces with cakes and biscuits)..Another thing, he wasn't really fasting either when he was taking his 500 calories shakes was he?

Also, at the end when Mosely was talking about his results, he mentioned nothing about how much he was consuming on a daily basis. So people who are trying to fast but still eat junk and overall excess of calories will be in for a suprise.

That guy at 134lb looked malnourished.

The 500 calorie shakes are either taken on the fast day, which is when you eat 25% of a normal day, or under CRON, where you restrict calories but retain the same nutrition in other areas. Neither are true fasting, but also don't claim to be.