Weight Loss using Fasting

[LMT]

You'd need to define 'mild', how many cups of coffee per day?

For me it's probably 50mg of caffeine per day (usually 5 cups of decaf). Various google searches suggest up to 400mg of caffeine per day is 'safe' and not considered excessive.

What's your definition of 'too much'?

And this goes the crux of issue, you need calories to sustain yourself as well as all the necessary vitamins and minerals. If Lee has no objections then he should post what he eats in a week and I'll put this into Cronometer. LCHF diets (however marketed) have been shown over time to be non sustainable and detrimental to your health. But then again people love hearing that their bad habits if done a certain way are okay to do.

I'm not sure what part your arguing about as you've touched on about 5 different issues in those few sentences.

Calories are required to sustain yourself, so if you want to lose weight then you need to restrict calorific intake, expend more (do more exercise) or otherwise change calorific intake so that it is in deficit based on BMR and exercise.

LCHF is a form of calorie restriction but isn't combined with fasting. The specific 'thing' about fasting (compared to just changing what you eat) is how it avoids the insulin spikes that hinder fat metabolism.

The majority of people moving off a LCHF regimen after losing weight will tend to slowly put it back on over time as they return to their previous calorific intake (but due to their weight loss their BMR is now lower than before, so eating what they used to eat slowly returns them to that original weight).

Those who've fasted regularly find it much easier to (subconsciously) reset their calorific intake based on their new BMR, so they are more likely to keep the weight off.

Appropriately chosen foods, even if eaten as part of a restricted calorie regimen, will still provide the necessary vitamins and minerals. I don't think of calorie deficits at the daily level any more, it's more of a weekly balance check, since fasting days have 0-350kcal intake and the day when the fast ends I may eat more than a 'normal' day. The point is that over time I'm running a accumulating deficit.

I agree that perpetual calorific deficit is not sustainable, but that's not what happens. When I'm lighter I tend to do a lot more exercise (increased marathon training, more cycling, etc) and more intensive. My calorific intake may increase but this in response to the increase demands from exercise. I can still fast regularly and not run a deficit. The body does not fall apart if it receives it's 7 days worth of calories in 5 days with 2 days fasting along the way, the concept of having to eat a certain amount per solar day is an entirely artificial construction.

I don't believe you need to reduce your calorie intake to lose weight - you need to look at what calories you are taking on. A banana will give me on average around 150 calories, I could also get 150 calories from around 17 grams of butter. What would you have out of the two and why?

You need a better understanding of insulin and what it does to the body, losing weight (and the onset of type II diabetes) is not about insulin spikes - it's about insulin sensitivity. Mashed potato on it's own, or mashed potato with a tuna steak, which do you think will lead to a higher level of insulin in the blood?

And if you eat the appropriate foods (plant based) you won't need to calorie restrict to lose weight, you certainly won't need to starve yourself but not eating for x amount of days.

[hellymedic]

150 Calories is a VERY big banana!
NSFW is elsewhere on yacf...

[LMT]

My diet is very boring.
Generally no breakfast, possibly a hard boiled egg

I have home made soup or home made sauerkraut for lunch usually with a helping of fresh blueberries or raspberries. In the winter I tend to make a jelly with sugar free raspberry jelly whipped with frozen home  grown raspberries and some cream

Dinner is either a small helping of prawns dry fried, a chicken breast or once a week we have a small steak. This is accompanied by either steamed cauliflower mash, courgettini or once a week celeriac chips or distillery. The chips are done with coconut oil.

My snacks tend to be slices of home dried fruit such as tangerines or cooking apples.

Is this healthy enough?

In short no, you meet your protein needs, vit c, iron and sodium but not much else. Although the above is rich in trans fats, cholesterol, and saturated fat but hey you are losing weight so what's not to like!  

[LMT]

150 Calories is a VERY big banana!
NSFW is elsewhere on yacf...

There's bananas and there are M&S bananas....2 of these bad boys and a handful of almonds and walnuts for breakfast sets me up for the day.

[chrisbainbridge]

LMT, what am I not eating?  I have pretty much all my vitamins covered, trace elements, fat, protein.  Fair amount of fibre

[Greenbank]

I don't believe you need to reduce your calorie intake to lose weight

Nor do I. What've I said pretty consistently is that you need to modify your calorific intake to ensure you are running a deficit (once you take into account intake and expenditure [from both exercise and BMR]) in order to lose weight. There are many possibilities to this on a sliding scale:-
a) Do the same exercise and eat less than you were eating before
b) Eat the same as before but do more exercise
c) Eat more than before but do even more exercise
etc.

- you need to look at what calories you are taking on. A banana will give me on average around 150 calories, I could also get 150 calories from around 17 grams of butter. What would you have out of the two and why?

Choosing between a banana and butter for 150kcal is an entirely false dichotomy, whatever your calorific intake it should be a balance of fats, protein, carbs, etc all of the various different types in appropriate proportions.

You need a better understanding of insulin and what it does to the body, losing weight (and the onset of type II diabetes) is not about insulin spikes - it's about insulin sensitivity. Mashed potato on it's own, or mashed potato with a tuna steak, which do you think will lead to a higher level of insulin in the blood?

I'm sure we all need a better understanding, but following the videos of certain doctors have been useful. I'm not sure of the point of your specific question. Fasting is concerned with the longer term insulin response, not the specific response to individual meals.

And if you eat the appropriate foods (plant based) you won't need to calorie restrict to lose weight, you certainly won't need to starve yourself but not eating for x amount of days.

Again you misrepresent how most people approach fasting.

The concept of having to eat x calories per 24 hours is an entirely artificial construct. The human body does not fall apart if you don't eat for 24 hours or if you shift some of those calories around to previous/later days.

Instead, consider ensuring you eat 7x calories over 168 hours (7 days).

Lets assume someone is eating 2500kcal per day and maintaining their weight (so this is balanced with the exercise they do) and wants to lose 1lb a week. 1lb of fat is roughly 3500 kcal so that's the target deficit per week.

Current: 2500 * 7 = 17500 kcal/week

New Target: 17500 - 3500 = 14000 kcal/week

They can either target 14000/7 = 2000 kcal/day or opt for a 5:2 fasting model such as:-

(14000-1000)/5 = 2600 kcal/day for 5 days, plus two days at 500 kcal. (Which is a typical 5:2 style.) That still adds up to 14000kcal per week, so sustain this and if the average expenditure really is 2500kcal per day then it will lead to weight loss (if they keep up the exercise they were doing before, etc).

None of this emotive 'starving yourself' stuff, just two days of really cutting back that, as you'll find here, the people who do this have no problem with.

[LMT]

I don't believe you need to reduce your calorie intake to lose weight

Nor do I. What've I said pretty consistently is that you need to modify your calorific intake to ensure you are running a deficit (once you take into account intake and expenditure [from both exercise and BMR]) in order to lose weight. There are many possibilities to this on a sliding scale:-
a) Do the same exercise and eat less than you were eating before
b) Eat the same as before but do more exercise
c) Eat more than before but do even more exercise
etc.

- you need to look at what calories you are taking on. A banana will give me on average around 150 calories, I could also get 150 calories from around 17 grams of butter. What would you have out of the two and why?

Choosing between a banana and butter for 150kcal is an entirely false dichotomy, whatever your calorific intake it should be a balance of fats, protein, carbs, etc all of the various different types in appropriate proportions.

You need a better understanding of insulin and what it does to the body, losing weight (and the onset of type II diabetes) is not about insulin spikes - it's about insulin sensitivity. Mashed potato on it's own, or mashed potato with a tuna steak, which do you think will lead to a higher level of insulin in the blood?

I'm sure we all need a better understanding, but following the videos of certain doctors have been useful. I'm not sure of the point of your specific question. Fasting is concerned with the longer term insulin response, not the specific response to individual meals.

And if you eat the appropriate foods (plant based) you won't need to calorie restrict to lose weight, you certainly won't need to starve yourself but not eating for x amount of days.

Again you misrepresent how most people approach fasting.

The concept of having to eat x calories per 24 hours is an entirely artificial construct. The human body does not fall apart if you don't eat for 24 hours or if you shift some of those calories around to previous/later days.

Instead, consider ensuring you eat 7x calories over 168 hours (7 days).

Lets assume someone is eating 2500kcal per day and maintaining their weight (so this is balanced with the exercise they do) and wants to lose 1lb a week. 1lb of fat is roughly 3500 kcal so that's the target deficit per week.

Current: 2500 * 7 = 17500 kcal/week

New Target: 17500 - 3500 = 14000 kcal/week

They can either target 14000/7 = 2000 kcal/day or opt for a 5:2 fasting model such as:-

(14000-1000)/5 = 2600 kcal/day for 5 days, plus two days at 500 kcal. (Which is a typical 5:2 style.) That still adds up to 14000kcal per week, so sustain this and if the average expenditure really is 2500kcal per day then it will lead to weight loss (if they keep up the exercise they were doing before, etc).

None of this emotive 'starving yourself' stuff, just two days of really cutting back that, as you'll find here, the people who do this have no problem with.

''...so if you want to lose weight then you need to restrict calorific intake..''

Just quoting what you said GB, don't be moving the goalposts.

Choosing between a banana and some butter is not a false dichotomy, it highlights that if you opt for a diet that is largely based around fat - in particular animal fat then this is calorie dense and in some cases 'empty' calories where as a plant based diet is rich in dietary fibre which keeps you fuller for longer, this applying to both carbs and plant based fat such as nuts, seeds and fruits i.e. Avacado's

And again with the insulin response, it's about insulin sensitivity. 

And you can call it what you want but any sort of calorie restrictive diet is only allows about 350-500 calories even for two days is starving yourself.

Carry on with a fad diet, eating animal protein that lowers your insulin sensitivity thus driving up insulin levels which forces you to starve yourself for two days of the week in order to lose weight - sounds like fun.

Me on the other hand, I'll stick to a plant based diet rich in vits, minerals and fibre, plant based fats which keep me fuller for longer and as these are largely unsaturated so any fat not absorbed passes through the body. Average calorie intake is around 2800 per day and I still lose weight. Go figure, after all, more calories out over more calories in means you lose weight? 

[hellymedic]

Me on the other hand, I'll stick to a plant based diet rich in vits, minerals and fibre, plant based fats which keep me fuller for longer and as these are largely unsaturated so any fat not absorbed passes through the body. Average calorie intake is around 2800 per day and I still lose weight. Go figure, after all, more calories out over more calories in means you lose weight? 

I really don't think this occurs if you have a normal digestive system!

[Greenbank]

''...so if you want to lose weight then you need to restrict calorific intake..''

Just quoting what you said GB, don't be moving the goalposts.

I think it's quite clear what I mean, restrict in the context of intake and expenditure. I've said it several times that this could mean INCREASING INTAKE as long as exercise is increased accordingly.

If you want to play games with how you interpret my words feel free but I'm not playing that game.

Choosing between a banana and some butter is not a false dichotomy, it highlights that if you opt for a diet that is largely based around fat - in particular animal fat then this is calorie dense and in some cases 'empty' calories where as a plant based diet is rich in dietary fibre which keeps you fuller for longer, this applying to both carbs and plant based fat such as nuts, seeds and fruits i.e. Avacado's

Your choice was in the context of 150kcal. Again, you could eat 150kcal of most normal foods as long as the rest of the calories made up for a balanced input.

And again with the insulin response, it's about insulin sensitivity. 

Again, picking up on a single word that could mean the same thing. Not playing.

And you can call it what you want but any sort of calorie restrictive diet is only allows about 350-500 calories even for two days is starving yourself.

Not playing the 'emotive language' game either. Have you ever tried fasting for a day? It's not really 'starving yourself'.

And, again, what you do on a single specific day needs to be taken in context of what you do over a longer period. It's like judging my diet based on what I eat for lunch alone and, if I miss out lunch because I'm busy, that I'm effectively 'starving myself'. No, I mostly make up for it over a longer period (a day in this case, a week in general terms) but run a slight deficit to help with weight loss.

Carry on with a fad diet, eating animal protein that lowers your insulin sensitivity thus driving up insulin levels which forces you to starve yourself for two days of the week in order to lose weight - sounds like fun.

'fad diet'. More name calling.

Me on the other hand, I'll stick to a plant based diet rich in vits, minerals and fibre, plant based fats which keep me fuller for longer and as these are largely unsaturated so any fat not absorbed passes through the body.

Sounds great for you. You're free to do what you want, why don't you start your own thread about it and let people comment on it there.

Average calorie intake is around 2800 per day and I still lose weight. Go figure, after all, more calories out over more calories in means you lose weight? 

Fuck me, that's exactly what I've been saying all along! But the point is you don't have to calculate the deficit in strict 24 hour periods.

[sojournermike]

Me on the other hand, I'll stick to a plant based diet rich in vits, minerals and fibre, plant based fats which keep me fuller for longer and as these are largely unsaturated so any fat not absorbed passes through the body. Average calorie intake is around 2800 per day and I still lose weight. Go figure, after all, more calories out over more calories in means you lose weight? 

I really don't think this occurs if you have a normal digestive system!

No, there's really good research on calorie in/out and weight gain/loss. There may be some circumstances that mean that we don't properly absorb all our food offers (they aren't usually very pleasant or easy to spell!), but by and large we are disturbingly efficient energy extractors.

I had a play with low carb and there was no question that I lost weight, but I didn;t actually eat that much. The challenge with bread is that it's easy to eat a lot of it and then go back for one more piece. Obviously ignores all the stuff about carbs driving insulin resistance, which I am not commenting on here.

[hellymedic]

Orlistat was known as 'oilyshat'...

If you want to discard fat you eat, you need to have pharmaceutical or surgical help, or some kind of disease.

[hellymedic]

I still think starchy carbs are maligned somewhat. I don't deny their potential for an insulin response but believe they act as a 'carrier' or blotting paper for other energy-dense foods.
Plain potatoes are nowhere near as calorific as chips and ketchup, which will increase your portion size.

For myself, I would eat one slice of dry toast but two slices of buttered toast with jam.

Strikes me as unfair to blame the bread for the butter and jam...

[TheRedEyeJedi]

I'm not arguing with LMT - most of his post is correct.

However - there is a reason that reasonably intelligent, highly active people like myself ended up 7 stone over weight and why I was unable to successfully lose that weight following "normal" western dietary advice of calories out v calories in.  I was always told "little and often", "don't skip breakfast", "if you skip a meal your metabolism will stop", "fill up on pasta and fruit" ect ec.   The more I exercised the hungrier and bigger I got.  I could lose a few stone then it would all go back on plus a bit more.

I have very different emotional responses to some calories compared to others.   If I eat a banana I then want more sweet stuff to the point of distraction.   If I instead eat some cheese or an egg then I don't want sweet stuff.   I am also not capable of eating little and often.   You can tell me it is better to do that until you are blue in the face but I just cant do it.   What I can do is skip breakfast and lunch, do fasted cardio and then eat a lovely big dinner full of goodness.   I can do that a few times a week.   I lose serious weight doing this and I can maintain by upping my calories- without going off the rails. 

Not all calories are the same and that information is missing from traditional western dietary advice.  That for me is the reason behind many peoples obesity.

Intermittent fasting and HFLC isn't for everyone - but it is life changing for some and it certainly isn't a fad, or unhealthy or unsustainable.   It should certainly be a realistic option for people like me and needs proper research carried out without prejudice or scare mongering.    Far from being a fad, or a marketing tool its actually much harder to market and sell people fasting or hflc than traditional "diets" as its largely free of charge and doesn't require a book or support group!

[velosam]

I am not sure I lose much either, but my fasting regime is really only the 16:8, although its sometimes a bit longer.  I think I am basically eating more in less time!

[hellymedic]

I don't fast.
I do skip meals or have long gaps between feeds.
My meals are seldom HUGE but I enjoy a big meal socially, which is only fairly infrequent.
I am no longer overweight, though have been, mildly. (Over 12 stone at some points).
I don't exercise. (I can't.)
I'd like to be a little lighter but can't tell if my weight is falling.

[simonp]

I don't fast.

I sometimes forget to eat, and often forgo breakfast.

[Kev Sp8]

I don't fast.

I sometimes forget to eat, and often forgo breakfast.

Damn, I wish I could forget to eat sometimes.

I'm generally either eating, or thinking about eating! I've been locked in a perpetual struggle with the scales since my teens. In recent years, I've gained some level of control, largely through increased exercise, though I've also developed greater reserves of self discipline regarding food.

For the record, I'm currently 15st on the nose. I got down as low as 14st 6lbs last summer and am aiming to get back there and hopefully beyond. I've given the 5:2 fasting model a bash a few times, but find that the hunger pangs are so potent, particularly at the start of day 2 of the fast, that I end up over eating whenever I try it.

The weight loss/control method that seems to work best for me is counting calories. I'm finding that erring on the side of a more plant based diet keeps the wolf from the door for longer and I find the habit forming nature of counting everything I eat keeps me mindful of my intake.

[crowriver]

I've given the 5:2 fasting model a bash a few times, but find that the hunger pangs are so potent, particularly at the start of day 2 of the fast, that I end up over eating whenever I try it.

You could try spacing the fasting days out over the week instead of bunching them together? Worked for me for years. Though I'm now doing the fasting back to back, it works with my current schedule.

[py]

I'd a look at the 5:2 fasting method several years ago when a colleague informed me of it but I couldn't handle it at the time. Stumbled upon the 16:8 method in the past few months and committed to it in the past 3 weeks and have dropped 6Kg in that period, plenty of excess Kgs to move so perhaps it's moving quicker right now and will slow down later. Mon-Fri in work typically works out as follows:

10am - porridge made with water and several pieces of fruit (banana, raspberries, blackberries) run through it for some sweetness
12pm - protein bar with cup of tea
2pm - Dinner
4pm - Fruit/seeds/nuts or a Nakd bar with cup of tea
5:30-6pm - scrambled eggs or salmon/cod fillet or peanut butter on ryvita/toast

I tend to be satiated after the feed at around 6pm and will feel fine till breakfast in the morning. Weekends tend to be a bit different but I try to keep the above schedule but with 2 young kids it can be difficult to keep to the exact times. I do plan ahead if we're heading out though and will bring fruit and/or protein bars with me.

Due to the young family, cycling has been restricted to commutes and I'll also get out for a walk at lunch time during the week. When I do get back in to longer distances I'll be curious to see how the body holds up eating this way.

[chrisbainbridge]

I have essentially moved to a 16:8 but perhaps bit more 20:4.  I essentially try to eat one meal a day although if I have done a long ride i will treat myself to some bacon.  i allow myself two large skinny cappuccinos per day and low sugar diluting juice ad libitum.

I am aware that i eat when tired mentally or depressed. So this week which was planned for months as a productive video week has turned into a nightmare week and has a real possibility of eating too much so i am being very careful and self reassuring.

[sojournermike]

I have a fairly strong feeling, I.e. I’ve not researched literature on it, that a properly functioning human shouldn’t need to eat little and often, but should be capable of eating pretty flexibly. In a nod to the LCHF camp, I suspect that when people struggle to maintain mental or (normal) physical function without eating every couple of hour or more frequently, there is probably some disfunction in their ability to metabolize fat stores to meet base metabolic requirements. Possibly this is most common if encouraged by regular sugary snacks.

I suspect that fasting or regularly having a longer break from eating than is considered normal in our society may well help to reset/avoid this, although it quite possible that it wouldn’t arise in any case with a moderate diet being followed.

I was quite amused to see a public health message recently suggesting that we should eat 400 calories at breakfast and 600 at lunch and dinner. Presumably, this allows a couple of sugary snacks during the day, or just over half a cake in Barsucks, provided you drink your coffee black! There is a policy aim to reduce food (calorie) intake in the UK by 20% by 2024, in order to help address the obesity epidemic. Hopefully unsurprisingly, an Oxford study in 2015 reported reduced portion size was associated with lower weight!

There is also regular commentary to the effect that ‘the public’ are deceived into eating unhealthily. I struggle a bit with this, as it suggests that people don’t know. We have to take some responsibility, and it would be far fairer on all to reflect on the complex relationship of eating with wealth, stress, tiredness and the limbic system driving short term desire for highly calorific snacks that you would choose not to eat if given a half hour notice and didn’t have it stuck in front of you at every commercial opportunity.

Mike

[hellymedic]

The unhealthy choices I make during my online grocery shopping are HUGELY influenced by Special Offers for non-perishables.

I tend to let my/David's favourite CAKES and biscuits pass by until they are 'only a pound'...

(There again, the 70p kilogram bag of granulated sugar has been open a good six months and is still more than half-full...)

[sojournermike]

The unhealthy choices I make during my online grocery shopping are HUGELY influenced by Special Offers for non-perishables.

I tend to let my/David's favourite CAKES and biscuits pass by until they are 'only a pound'...

(There again, the 70p kilogram bag of granulated sugar has been open a good six months and is still more than half-full...)

Possibly an advantage of online shopping - no immediate gratification

[hellymedic]

but I'm still buying - and eating - the naughties, albeit slowly.

[crowriver]

It's only relatively recently that the majority of people in these islands had enough to eat. The last 60 years or so. For much of our history scarcity of food and widespread malnutrition were the norm.

The obesity epidemic is such a recent phenomenon that it is unsurprising we're struggling to cope with it. There is now an abundance of cheap but not very nutritious food, but I'm not convinced this is the root of the problem. I suspect decreased activity levels across the population due to changing patterns of employment is one big factor. Most people are no longer engaged in physically demanding occupations, but eat as though they were. Many people drive absolutely everywhere too, hardly walking let alone cycling. Also the rise of convenience food, eating on the go, and so on rather than cooking from scratch has to be a factor.