Fasting (for health and weight loss)

[frogcurry]

I've not been able to get good data online about the health benefits and risks of occasional fasting, say once a month for a day. I've heard that it's associated with lower risk of heart disease, and the probable weight loss effects are obvious. However, its also something that will obviously result in all sorts of idioticity online from new age retards, which makes it hard to get a good idea of the wisdom of it.

So, obviously, I'm asking for other peoples opinions and experience. Note that I'm not thinking of stopping eating altogether for any length of time, just skipping eating on the occasional quiet weekend days when I don't actually do much and the need to eat for energy seems questionable. Like today.

[Havok]

I wouldn't exactly call one day a fast.

[General Zod]

Exercise more and just cut back on how much you eat instead. Fasting to lose weight is retarded.

[CaptainZoidberg]

According to Ray Kurzweil, fasting would have beneficiary effects with respect to heart disease, but of course there would be a negative impact on your standard of living.

Overall though, I'd recommend trying to just stick to a strict low fat diet. Keep yourself to 30-40 grams of fat per day, and if you go over the limit make a rule that you'll only eat plain bread/rice and drink water.

Coming from someone who has lost about 40 pounds of weight, my advice would be to simply stop eating/drinking anything with sugar, not keeping any candy or snack food on stock, finding healthy foods that you find tasty, exercising every single day, and weighing yourself every day.

[General Zod]

According to Ray Kurzweil, fasting would have beneficiary effects with respect to heart disease, but of course there would be a negative impact on your standard of living.

Get back to me when a legitimate medical society confirms this as opposed to someone who comes off as a new age nutter.

[CaptainZoidberg]

According to Ray Kurzweil, fasting would have beneficiary effects with respect to heart disease, but of course there would be a negative impact on your standard of living.

Get back to me when a legitimate medical society confirms this as opposed to someone who comes off as a new age nutter.

His book got a solid endorsement from a professor at Harvard medical school.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.ht ... tml?m%3D16

In said book, he writes:

An even more dramatic finding from World War II had to do with the survivors of the concentration camps. Those who had been in the camps for the full four years, many of whom had been diagnosed earlier with heart disease, were found to be completely free of this disease after their release from the camps. The dietary restrictions in these camps were more severe than the rationing found in many European countries, but the diet was nonetheless sufficient for these individuals to survive. Their atherosclerosis had stopped and, in fact, had reversed. Interestingly, they were also found to be free of hypertension and, in most cases, diabetes.

[General Zod]

His book got a solid endorsement from a professor at Harvard medical school.
>snip<

An individual is not a medical "society". What part of this did you not grasp? This means peer reviewed journals supporting the claims involving controlled double-blind tests.

[Havok]

frogcurry
If your goal is just losing some weight and being healthy, eat less and exercise more. It really is that simple.

Fasting isn't going to accomplish much of anything other than making you cranky. More than likely, any weight you lose from it, you will gain back when you go back to your normal eating habits.

[Enigma]

From what I understand, wouldn't fasting cause your body to hoard the fat and slow down your metabolism? In a sense the body adjusting to famine? Shutting or slowing down certain body processes?

[Alex Moon]

Fasting alone isn't a good way to lose weight. It's starvation and that never works.

That said, it can be very good in a weight loss program as an exercise in discipline. A weekly or monthly one day fast from sunup to sundown can give you insight into your own eating habits, and can be a way of encouraging a sense of accomplishment. It can also reinforce self control in other aspects of your life such as your exercise regimen.

[Junghalli]

I fasted a couple of years ago for a couple of days. I did lose some weight, so it does work.

I should warn you it's not very fun though. It left me feeling very weak and lethargic and rather hungry.

Also, it's very important you gradually wean yourself back onto food because your metabolism drops when you don't eat, so if you go right back to eating normally you risk gaining all the weight back and then some. I ate nothing but yogurt the first day afterward, some soup for dinner the second day etc.

Edit: also it's important to drink lots of water while you fast because you normally got a lot of the water you need from your food.

[General Zod]

I fasted a couple of years ago for a couple of days. I did lose some weight, so it does work.

Of course it works to lose weight, I don't think anyone's contesting that. But it's a stupid idea for losing weight since it's arguably more harmful than beneficial.

[Broomstick]

If, once a month, you skip eating on a day you're not otherwise active and drink plenty of fluids I'd say it would be pretty neutral in regards to health. Don't do it if you have a medical condition like diabetes, where it could pose a health risk (diabetic Muslims are given a pass for Ramadan fasting, according to the Muslims I've worked with) but if you're healthy it shouldn't be a problem. I'd say it's more useful as an exercise in self-discipline than as a weight loss aid. The human body is quite capable of skipping food for a day with out harm.

[frogcurry]

All

"eat less and exercise more".... Well my average calorie intake per day has been reduced by about 700 calories since 6 months ago and the main limit on my amount of daily exercise is other health concerns, so I'm close to the limit on how much I can push that forward at present. I'm looking for complementary alternatives to accelerate that very slow process, not a complete alternative.

Zoidberg is quoting something similar to what I've heard which was what sparked my original interest in this sort of dietary change I've read that religous communities that engage in regular fasting for short periods like this have much lower heart disease rates. I'm a high risk candidate for a heart attack and other diseases hence my interest in this. The weight loss is sort of a beneficial side effect that doubles the benefit.

My understanding is that fasting for a short period doesn't cause a shutdown of the body's normal mechanisms to the extent that you will automatically pile on pounds afterwards, but a longer period of fasting will definitely cause this, which is why I was thinking of just one day of abstinence.

I'm starting to think that maybe a good alternative would be on these days, just to eat very, very sparsely instead, maybe a few small portions throughout the day of bulky fibre full foods that make me feel full with no real gain in energy. This probably also has the advantage that it can be done more often than a total absence of eating could.

[General Zod]

All

"eat less and exercise more".... Well my average calorie intake per day has been reduced by about 700 calories since 6 months ago and the main limit on my amount of daily exercise is other health concerns, so I'm close to the limit on how much I can push that forward at present. I'm looking for complementary alternatives to accelerate that very slow process, not a complete alternative.

I'd suggest sticking to low impact exercises then. If you can do things like riding a bike or even a stationery bicycle, you'll be on the (relative) fast track to losing weight. (Bike-riding helped me lose a decent amount a few years ago, at any rate).

Zoidberg is quoting something similar to what I've heard which was what sparked my original interest in this sort of dietary change I've read that religous communities that engage in regular fasting for short periods like this have much lower heart disease rates. I'm a high risk candidate for a heart attack and other diseases hence my interest in this. The weight loss is sort of a beneficial side effect that doubles the benefit.

Don't base health decisions off bullshit you might find on the internet. Especially bullshit that has no peer reviewed studies, so you'll want to consult a real doctor before making any decisions and when in doubt always get a second or third opinion.

[Havok]

Eat small portions, every two or three hours. Keeps you from being or feeling hungry and it keeps your digestive system working which speeds up your metabolism over time.

Don't eat processed food, takes longer for your body to break them down. Eat low amounts of fat. Eat as little carbs as possible. 45 minutes of cardio at least four time a week. Also, the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn, so any weight lifting you do will only help.

[Phantasee]

Eat small portions, every two or three hours. Keeps you from being or feeling hungry and it keeps your digestive system working which speeds up your metabolism over time.

Don't eat processed food, takes longer for your body to break them down. Eat low amounts of fat. Eat as little carbs as possible. 45 minutes of cardio at least four time a week. Also, the more muscle you have, the more calories you burn, so any weight lifting you do will only help.

What exactly are processed foods? I know cheese slices aren't sliced cheese, but I don't know what's in them, and other processed foods.

Eating small portions more often vs three large meals is a very good method. I will second Zod's bike riding: I spent one summer riding my bike to work, half an hour each way, and I lost a considerable amount of weight (which I've partly regained, but damn, I looked good).

[Havok]

Basically anything that needs to go through a process to be eaten. Bread, pasta, milk, cheese, etc.. Anything not in its "base form", like meat, eggs, vegetables. Some people include canned foods as well, but I've never included them. Canned corn is just as good as corn off the stalk as far as I'm concerned.

[Broomstick]

What exactly are processed foods? I know cheese slices aren't sliced cheese

Actually, some of the ARE sliced cheese - you have to read the label. It has to say "cheese". If it says "pasteurized process cheese" or, Og help us, "cheese food" it's not "real cheese".

Basically anything that needs to go through a process to be eaten. Bread, pasta, milk, cheese, etc.. Anything not in its "base form", like meat, eggs, vegetables.

Bread, milk, and cheese are not generally considered "processed foods", although in reality bread or or may not be. The only "process" that liquid milk goes through is pasteurization which does not affect nutrition, just the odds of you getting ill from it. (You really do want pasteurized)

For bread and cheese you want the fewest number of ingredients on the label. (My own baked bread is just flour, yeast, and salt with just a very small amount of milk and sugar - and you want the sugar to provide food energy for the yeast so it will rise better)

As a general rule of thumb: fewer ingredients and less done to them. The example of a can of corn is a good one: just corn, water, and salt. Frozen corn, with just corn that's frozen, is even better. Creamed corn with various other food ingredients, emulsifiers, preservatives, and flavor enhancer would be processed food.

[Broomstick]

One more thing about sliced cheese: if the slices are next to each other, that is, touching with nothing between them it's much more likely to be cheese. Cheese slices that require something between them to keep from melting together - that's not real cheese.

[Havok]

Basically anything that needs to go through a process to be eaten. Bread, pasta, milk, cheese, etc.. Anything not in its "base form", like meat, eggs, vegetables.

Bread, milk, and cheese are not generally considered "processed foods", although in reality bread or or may not be. The only "process" that liquid milk goes through is pasteurization which does not affect nutrition, just the odds of you getting ill from it. (You really do want pasteurized)

For bread and cheese you want the fewest number of ingredients on the label. (My own baked bread is just flour, yeast, and salt with just a very small amount of milk and sugar - and you want the sugar to provide food energy for the yeast so it will rise better)

As a general rule of thumb: fewer ingredients and less done to them. The example of a can of corn is a good one: just corn, water, and salt. Frozen corn, with just corn that's frozen, is even better. Creamed corn with various other food ingredients, emulsifiers, preservatives, and flavor enhancer would be processed food.

Bread and cheese are certainly processed food, as they don't exist until you make them. Bread is made out of another processed ingredient, That doesn't mean they are bad for you in the slightest, but they do fall into that category,

Aside from that, the carbs in bread are worth avoiding if you are trying to lose weight and dairy makes quite a few people retain water which can give the illusion of holding onto weight.

Processed Foods
Not sure of About.com's reliability, but the article cites it's sources.

Edit: I'm certainly not arguing with any of your other points, especially about pasteurization and eating breads, cheese etc. with as few ingredients as possible.

[Broomstick]

Bread and cheese are certainly processed food, as they don't exist until you make them.

If you want to get picky steak is processed food - you have to go through the process of butchering, aging, and cooking to get it.

It's not so much avoiding processed food as eating food that is the least processed.

Aside from that, the carbs in bread are worth avoiding if you are trying to lose weight

What sort of bread are we talking about? The over-processed styrofoam using white flour and with sugars added far in excess of what is required? Or 100% whole grain with minimal ingredients? Also, there's that concept of moderation, again. A slice or two of whole-grain bread a day is far different than consuming a quarter or more of a loaf of white (think "healthy" commercial sub sandwhiches). You really DO need carbs in your diet, just not excessive amounts.

and dairy makes quite a few people retain water which can give the illusion of holding onto weight.

Quite a few people can't tolerate dairy at all - on the other hand, if the only way someone will eat broccoli is with cheese sauce the benefits might outweigh the liabilities as long as they practice moderate consumption. This is where eating gets complicated.

In general - eat foods with the least amount done to them, don't eat too much, and exercise even if only moderately.

[Winston Blake]

Eat small portions, every two or three hours. Keeps you from being or feeling hungry and it keeps your digestive system working which speeds up your metabolism over time.

Note: your results may vary. For me, trying this just left me constantly drowsy and muggy-headed, and I had trouble sleeping. The opposite, eating a light breakfast (muesli bar), no lunch and a big dinner has helped me. Big enough to cause a post-prandial dip. Knocks me out like a tranquiliser dart at night.

I don't do any exercise other than walking to and from uni, and I don't make an effort to 'eat healthy' yet I've recently been able to fit into old pants that used to be too tight. I feel much more clearheaded - but if I eat lunch with people out of social convention, I get hit with the dreaded '3:30-itis'.

It took about a week to get used to it. I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence, but it's liberating to simply work at full capacity, clearheaded, without worrying about when to have lunch. It was supposed to be a one week experiment, but now I can't go back to eating 'normally' - I would lose too much productivity and sleep.

[Zixinus]

From what I understand, wouldn't fasting cause your body to hoard the fat and slow down your metabolism? In a sense the body adjusting to famine? Shutting or slowing down certain body processes?

According to Ross Enamit, yes, fasting actually archives the OPPOSITE effect of losing weight. From what I gather, Enamit IS a specialist for athelets and he has a big no-bullshit policy. His book also covers how your body works when excercising extensively.

Ironically, if you want to lose weight, you need to eat more AND excercise regularly so that gained energy is put to use. Also, you need to plan your diet (not temporarly but for a long time). You have to make your body think there is plentiful energy to gain and use, so it won't conserve it.

[Sriad]

From what I understand, wouldn't fasting cause your body to hoard the fat and slow down your metabolism? In a sense the body adjusting to famine? Shutting or slowing down certain body processes?

According to Ross Enamit, yes, fasting actually archives the OPPOSITE effect of losing weight. From what I gather, Enamit IS a specialist for athelets and he has a big no-bullshit policy. His book also covers how your body works when excercising extensively.

Ironically, if you want to lose weight, you need to eat more AND excercise regularly so that gained energy is put to use. Also, you need to plan your diet (not temporarly but for a long time). You have to make your body think there is plentiful energy to gain and use, so it won't conserve it.

True to an extent. It takes your body several days to switch over from consuming the food you eat to the food that your body has packed up all over. During this time you'll feel extremely hungry and a bit lethargic. If you tough it out and force yourself to stick to your regular exercise routine by day 3 or 4 you'll be burning pure fat in everything you do.

That said, because you lose the fat very fast (~1lb a day) your body will still have all the fat-infrastructure in place, from extra baggy skin to the capillary support structure. This means it is very easy to gain the weight back when you start eating sold food again. Fasting for a day can be a useful exercise in self-control, but it's a poor choice for long-term weight loss.