Can I just throw a big dose of caution here? This is a review study, looking at the available literature of this technique on cancer. They found a total of FIVE studies with 88 total human participants across all 5 studies. We, the medical community, still has no idea whether this is effective or not. The only thing we can say is that initial trials don't show it to be particularly harmful. That could change with more data.
They review a lot of mice studies and theory, which is great.
But all this adds together to indicate that we should study this more before drawing any conclusions. With limited funding for cancer research, its not even clear to me from this what priority it should take
I really don't get the excessive warnings of caution for fasting. It's not hard to try. It's not very dangerous (unless doing prolonged fasts). In the case of prolonged fasts, if the patient is monitored by qualified people then there is little risk as well.
I'm battling a crippling illness. Fortunately I've found the cure and the recovery is nothing short of miraculous. But it's a huge HUGE uphill battle because the medical community works incredibly hard to throw road blocks in my way.
Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk? Why do you insist on being the only group of people who can say what is and isn't tried? Why do doctors and public health officials ignore the work of biochemists? Why do you ignore millions of people battling crippling illness that say your treatments are ineffective, and that other approaches are more effective?
Seriously. I don't get it. I don't believe you're a bad person, but the only explanations I can come up with are arrogance, ego, cowardice, or greed.
Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument.
Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems moderately effective.
What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it?
Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually increases the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker study was only a statistical fluke.
So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo. This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do the due diligence.
Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can help.
This reminds of the abandoned practice of women being prescribed Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) for menopause. Essentially the reasoning was "why not, it seems to improve patient health and we don't see any ill effects". It was such common sense at the time that it took over 30 years before a clinical trial was performed. That trial demonstrated a much higher rate of breast cancer and heart disease in HRT patients.
I don't see how your response relates to the GP's comment, and your comment ends with a personal attack.
Also, you may have found a solution to your problem, but you are implying to me that you believe it is the one-true solution (rather than doing a scientific trial of solutions upon yourself, and saying "this works for me" and is worth trying).
My experience with the medical community is exactly the same, it's frustrating. If it's difficult to diagnose and doesn't have clear visible symptoms, almost all doctors immediately say it's a psychological issue. If you show them any research and ideas what could be done they immediately dismiss it, because you are not a medical professional.
Everyone that never had an issue like that has a really high image of the medical profession, so when you tell them about your problems they just think you're crazy and you should listen to the medical professionals.
Would you mind telling me how you solved your issue? I found some things to make my issues a lot better, but it's not completely fixed, yet, so I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' experiences. My email is in my profile, if you don't want to discuss it here.
> "Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk?"
Well, at least in the fasting, it's a complete break with tradition. No scripts. No Big Pharma outfit marketing it. Etc.
My feelimg is, many doctors are wired to want to take action. The idea of something as simple as "I want you to fast every other" is completely foreign to them.
For treatments that involve some action on the medical community's part, I can see how they could put up roadblocks. But how can they put up roadblocks to fasting?
What do you mean limited funding? Seems like there's a TON of funding for cancer research right now, given the moonshot campaign (extra $1.8B over 7 years).
It's hard to study something like this, because you have to find a large enough population for the statistics to work out, but also keep the study going long enough without massive attrition (would have to do intent-to-treat) to have results worth publishing.
There is probably limited funding for this because even if it is true, it will not result in a large stream of revenue for anyone. In fact, if it works it might reduce some health industry organizations' revenues.
Fasting was extensively researched in Soviet Russia as a potential cure for many ailments, from auto-immune diseases to mental illness. Tens of thousands of people were treated with 14-40 day water fasts (under constant supervision and testing), roughly 2/3rds reported various levels of success. I don't think much of the studies have ever been translated into English.
I'd like to share my findings from a sample size of one...
I've been fasting for about 2 years now. I've done a couple of 5-days water fasts, and a few 7-days water fasts. The past 250 days I've been consistently following 16:8 and adding in a few 23:1's in there for good measure. I was healthy before I started, but have since then felt even better. My stomach feels calm, I sleep better, I feel stronger (even though I exercise less) and my overall focus has improved. This results in a better mental state, somehow calming my mind. I've been a practitioner of meditation before, but have not felt the need for it the past year. My body is calm and well-rested => my mind is mindful.
But the number 1 benefit of fasting (and all other non-conventional habits, such as cold showers in the morning), is mental resilience. Every time you realize that you perform well, if not even better, without food, you get a confidence boost. This effect compounds with time. I've found out that this in turn makes it easier to take on other habits as well, because your habit muscles are stronger now than before. Eating 5 meals a day is easy... eating 1 is hard => you grow a little if you manage to do it.
No offense but self-reported results aren't scientifically worth much. There are too many crackpots in health. Now, if you had some sort of external objective measure, like "I was able to stop taking X maintenance medicine after starting my fasting routine" that would be much more compelling.
Yeah, I'm aware :) I think people that are healthy can try it for themselves in small steps (with supervision of a doctor, if possible), and see how it makes them feel. I have been objectively tracking my mood (Remente), sleep (Ouraring), strength (only body weight exercise, tracking reps, cadence and more). Overall it's been improving in all categories, from very good to even better. If it's a result of the fasting or something else I've changed is hard to tell, but I'm pretty sure fasting is not making it worse for me at least.
Cool! I did a 5-day fast recently and it was surprisingly easy. Didn't do any supplementation, although I already was used to intermittent fasting. The main benefits were mental and not physical. I can definitely see why virtually every religion encourages fasting - and I've noticed that generally, what is spiritually healthy winds up being physically healthy as well.
The article explains that fasting is often prohibited by malnutrition and low body weight. Obviously fasting cannot be undertaken long-term, as it results in starvation. I wonder whether there is any benefit to caloric restriction / fasting, versus maintenance calorie intake with a ketogenic diet. The crucial thing seems to be the elimination of insulin promoting carbohydrate, and depletion of glycogen which forces metabolism into ketogenesis, reduces growth factors, and promotes catabolism and autophagy.
Personal note: when a family member was recently diagnosed with cancer, the ketogenic diet was the one promising idea I found to supplement her standard treatment. It's... depressing... how my suggestion just to talk to her doctor about it probably wasn't followed even that far. Can anyone suggest a source to point to for non-nerds, such as a talk by a prestigious doctor? Considering the fate of my suggestion above, a paper or a book are not going to fly.
Could you elaborate? Without delving too deeply, that article seems to suggest the opposite:
> The KD can more effectively reduce glucose and elevate blood ketone bodies than can CR alone making the KD potentially more therapeutic against tumors than CR
If the goal is maximum speed weight loss, like say preparing for a competition, lower calorie easily wins. It has to be done carefully to not get dehydrated or remove micronutrients. And it's hard to get started for most as hunger is strong early on if you don't put additional protein in.
Keto on the other hand is easier to get in with but relatively hard to maintain due to social factors. The diet is extremely different from any typical one in any country. On the other hand if you just have to limit calorie intake, things get easier to mix and match. But this one is sort of automatically playing on satiety which helps.
Health results are somewhat of a tossup.
Source: done the Kwaśniewski version of keto, and ad-lib vegan too (ineffective). Currently low calorie controlled, data driven, successfully so far at 0,75 kg/wk.
I had a wake-up call when my Doctor said my Body Mass Index (BMI) was 29.7 (obese is 30). So I made a total lifestyle change to a 16/8 intermittent fast (16 hours water only, 8-hour feeding window), and a plant-based diet (basically vegan plus a fish once a week for Omegas).
It was life-changing. I lost 22kg in two months, with no exercise. I am now back to a healthy BMI, but I no longer use BMI as a measure, I use the Relative Fat Mass Index (RFM) because my research indicates that this is a more accurate measure for tall people (I'm 6'3").
Besides looking great after shedding all that weight, I never expected the mental benefits to be so pronounced. Indeed it is fair to say it has had a nootropic effect. I no longer 'need' coffee, and the persistent brain fog has lifted and my default state is calm mental clarity.
Of course, I can only speak from my own personal experience here... I haven't done extensive blood tests pre and post this lifestyle change, but the change has been so shocking that friends and family cannot believe it.
You might think going 16 hours with no food is going to be hard but if you get the timings right, it's easy (and you get used to it). I start my fast at 8 pm, and I break the fast at noon. This way I can have business lunches and early-ish business dinners (as long as I finish eating by 8 pm). Most restaurants cater for vegans or at least have a vegetarian option. If not, I go for a fish option.
When I break the fast I do it with an avocado/cucumber/kale/spinach smoothie which blasts my body with super nutrients. I avoid all processed carbs (no bread or pasta), I avoid all processed sugar (no cola or any refined sugar products), I avoid all dairy, and of course, avoid meat. Also, there is no calorie reduction... I eat as much as I like in my 8-hour feeding window (which controls Ghrelin and therefore doesn't mess up my metabolism).
Always consult a medical professional before you do any drastic changes like what I've done, and do your own research on this stuff so you have the confidence that it's the right choice for you, and that you'll stick with it.
Glad you lost weight but kale smoothies and fasting are not magic--it's just reduced caloric intake conferring most of the benefits you're seeing.
The biggest problem people have is overeating, bottom line. I honestly have several strict vegan friends who are obese -- at the end of the day a calorie is a calorie.
My only issue when people recount stories like yours, as inspiring as they are, is they associate non-scientifically-provable properties to their eating. As if fasting or kale give you more energy (they don't). Or carbs are automatically evil by themselves and cause weight gain (also wrong). There is no such thing as "super nutrients" -- there are only nutrients. It's like when people talk about going on a "cleanse" from "toxins" in their body, it's just nonsense.
I wish high schools would teach everyone how to track their calories, it's a super useful skill that would help many in understanding how much a penalty there is in eating those Five Guys fries. But "I lost weight from [insert special diet here] wow now I have [amazing qualities]" just exaggerates the basic underlying process of reducing caloric intake.
And for the record I'm 6'2" & 168 lbs / 76 kg with 5% body fat (measured via calipers), training for multiple athletic events, so I'm not saying this as someone who struggles with following strict diets.
No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.
> The biggest problem people have is overeating, bottom line
Sorry to say that I disagree with this too. The body does a great job of negating over-eating provided the food eaten is of the right types, it is just pushed back out as waste.
Going back to the vegetable example, you could eat several kg of green vegetables every day and continue to lose weight.
Right, but the point is it is easier to stick to this kind of regime than counting every calorie. And if you stick to the regime it also keeps you focused and conscious about not eating too many colories in general, you don't "forget" that you are trying to lose weight.
Further I've read that fasting kicks your body into a state where it starts to burn the extra reserve fat you have, which should make you feel less hungry after the start of the fast. SO rather than taking calories in, you are using what you already have. I don't know if 16 hours is long enough to get this fat-burning process started but perhaps.
I almost follow this same regime but I often slip and eat all night after the fast :-) But the account above gives me more inspiration to try a lit bit harder. Don't eat after 8pm. Skip the breakfast. How easy is that
There are diets that make much easier to reduce calories intake. Low-carb high-fat is one that do that for me. Intermittent fasting too. It is counter productive for me to dismiss all of these as just ways to disguise calories intake reduction.
But not only that, I don't think it is as simples as "a calorie is a calorie". Different food are digested differently and trigger different responses for the body. To use an ad absurdum example, if I drink gasoline I don't get fat.
Sure, but honestly from where I'm sitting, it feels like magic. I'm sure the result can be completely explained with science but I'm not going to sit down and work it all out. I just care that I'm a healthy weight again and that I found a method of healthy living that I can stick to.
This is misinformation. Just as one small example, fat keeps you satisfied far longer than protein or carbs. All calories are not equal. Yes it eventually comes down to calories consumed vs. calories expended. But what those calories are made up of have a profound effect on when you eat next and your energy levels. And we haven't even gotten into psychology and effort. Counting calories is a lot of work and annoying for some people. Stopping eating at 8pm and not eating until lunch soon just becomes a very easy to maintain habit that requires no effort and barely any willpower.
People like you never realize the value in the fact that not everyone has the same physiology as you. Some people do well with keto, some do well with IF, some do well with vegan. It's not all about caloric restriction, that is a facet, not the key goal. The goal is to find a meal plan you can deal with that doesn't lead to you feeling deprived and starving at the end of the day. That is doomed to fail. I agree that cleanses are bullshit as are most nutritional supplements. There are nutrients though. Getting carbs from whole wheat bread is a lot better than getting it from white "enriched" bread.
>Glad you lost weight but kale smoothies and fasting are not magic--it's just reduced caloric intake conferring most of the benefits you're seeing.
>As if fasting or kale give you more energy (they don't).
Your comment implies that all food is more or less equal, which doesn't seem to be the case. Couldn't the OP's change in "energy" reflect the reduced intake of hormones and other unhealthy additives that are present in the supply chain for most meats and other processed foods?
> I avoid all processed sugar (no cola or any refined sugar products), I avoid all dairy, and of course, avoid meat.
Sounds like it has a lot more to do with your results than
> So I made a total lifestyle change to a 16/8 intermittent fast (16 hours water only, 8-hour feeding window)
Also, if you were counting your calories before and after this transition, you likely missed or underestimated the calories before. I do the same 16/8 window (never been a breakfast person anyways) and have no problem maintaining my weight at about 2.5k calories a day
I'm in the same boat. I don't stick to it extremely strictly, and the window moves around a bit but generally I follow 16/8 too and haven't noticed much of change in body fat (but I don't carry much anyway).
The reason I stuck with it was that, as someone who wasn't ever a breakfast person either, I don't have the stomach discomfort / bloating anymore which a carb-heavy breakfast would give me.
For me the nicest part about IF becoming trendy is that I don't feel that slight pang of guilt anymore which I used to feel when skipping breakfast.
Everyone is different but I was formerly obese and doing a 7 hour fasting window in the morning (7am-2pm) I dropped into a healthy BMI shockingly fast.
I ate meat, processed sugar, and dairy throughout. In the past I tried cutting those things out (except meat) and I struggled with weight loss.
The one other factor that probably played a role is that I cut out restaurants.
I'm not a professional, and I didn't track anything except my body measurements and weight during this process so I don't know exactly where all the results came from. I wasn't chugging bottles of Coca-Cola, but I was having processed sugar in my multiple cups of coffee every day.
As for calorie counting, my research indicated that calorie counting is a myth (see The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung). Certainly, I always struggled with a calorie-restricted diet, so I knew that if I always felt hungry, anything I did wouldn't work. I know it sounds odd but during the 16 hours I am fasting, I just don't feel that hungry. If I feel a little hungry I just drink some water and I feel fine.
I think the key was satisfying the ghrelin by eating as much as I liked during my 8-hour feeding window. I know it sounds crazy that you can eat as much as you like and still loose weight but it happened.
it's probably slightly coupled though, avoiding cravings put your mind into a different consumption mode. When you didn't eat for that long, you won't go for a chocolate bar, you'll aim at actual proteins.
> I never expected the mental benefits to be so pronounced. Indeed it is fair to say it has had a nootropic effect.
People can define normal how they want, but if you were eating lots of refined products, I suggest considering the way you are now as normal and that those products were making you sick.
I had to look up nootropic. To say fruits and vegetables act like "drugs, supplements, and other substances that may improve cognitive function, particularly executive functions, memory, creativity, or motivation, in healthy individuals" (quoting Wikipedia) suggests how much those products hurt you.
Maybe I'm a minority, but I don't consider fruits and vegetables drugs or supplements. I don't consider my memory and cognitive skills when I eat them enhanced. That's regular life. It sounds like life before was suffering and I don't know how else to say the opposite of "improved cognition function" other than dumber.
Glad to see you post-change. Were the refined products worth it?
You make a good point about "considering the way you are now as normal and that those products were making you sick." That is exactly how I think now, but if you grow up where it is the norm to eat a high-sugar, processed food, meat-based diet, you think this is the norm.
As for your question about refined products worth it... no, I don't think they are. I only go off script for say a birthday party or a social situation where it is impossible to stay within my self imposed dietary constraints.
Not that I know much about fasting, but by fasting you mean you skip breakfast, eat healthy and that's it? That sounds like a lot lower hanging fruit than I thought it'd be, thanks!
Yeah, lol... you aren't wrong. There is a little more to that though. My research into this indicated that the benefits of autophagy start at the 16-hour mark, so you really need to make sure your fast is at least 16-hours long.
Also 'eating healthy' can mean a lot of different things to different people. My research indicated that a plant-based diet was the way to go. In a way, it is more about the elimination of things (alcohol, meat, dairy, processed carbs, processed sugar).
The first week was hard, but then after that, it got easy. Also the first week I lost 2kg so I knew I was on to something.
16/8 IF basically means 'skip breakfast, no nighttime snacking' in practice for most folks. For many people, nighttime snacking is a big chunk of their intake.
Sure there is, that's why you lost so much weight. You just did it indirectly through this lifestyle change.
> Most restaurants cater for vegans or at least have a vegetarian option...I avoid all processed carbs (no bread or pasta), I avoid all processed sugar.
This can be a hard combo. Often the lone veg option is a sandwich (often breaded) or pasta in my experience. Obviously you can prioritize your needs and glad you do, just expressing how annoying the heavily constrained problem can be (I used to eat vegetarian).
> Sure there is, that's why you lost so much weight.
It's important to appreciate there's more nuance than simply calories eaten vs. calories expended.
Some calories are more bioavailable than others. The OP described eliminating refined carbs and sugars, and adding substantial sources of dietary fiber. The effect of this is switching from quickly absorbed (and likely stored) calories to slower to digest, less available sources.
It's entirely possible for sugars locked up in a web of dietary fiber (i.e. fruit) to pass through the small colon and be consumed by bacteria in the large colon producing flatulence, or pass through entirely. If that same sugar was consumed in more accessible form, as with a cup of coffee, it would entirely be available to the person at a fast rate, accompanied by an insulin response making the energy likely to be stored as fat.
Understanding this is key to appreciating how one could even increase their oral caloric consumption and still be losing weight, all else the same. Just because it goes down the hatch doesn't mean 100% of those calories reach the bloodstream. What you eat matters a great deal, both in terms of availability and hormonal response.
In any thread on these topics I feel that there will be a number of people reporting their relatively recent smashing success with some method. I’ve had multiple smashing successes myself, lasting over a year, but have always eventually slid back — and then never replicated the success despite lots of effort using the same method. It hasn’t been until I switched to something different that I’ve found success again.
It’s like the body eventually learns both physical and psychological tricks to accumulate energy under any regime.
To stick, it does need to be a lifestyle change. If our diet and exercise (etc.) cause our health to degrade over the long term, then we probably need to change our habits in a way that avoids that.
That is, normal for us should be what provides continued health, rather than something we have to “fix” now and again with special diets.
Also, I’m not the person you asked, but to answer your specific question, I changed my lifestyle about five years ago, and — although I needed to make adjustments based on whether I was looking to lose weight or gain muscle or whatever — the overall idea going in was that this would be permanent. And that’s worked for me.
>I am now back to a healthy BMI, but I no longer use BMI as a measure, I use the Relative Fat Mass Index (RFM) because my research indicates that this is a more accurate measure for tall people (I'm 6'3").
This uses waist circumference, which is an excellent measure. I wish it were emphasized more: it's easy to do, and is a great complement to weight. Abdominal size is a great indicator of fat + correlated to many health problems.
One question: what scale does RFM use? I found the formula, and got a number, but I don't know what it means. Is it body fat percent?
----------
I've been tracking waist and weight circumference each morning. I wrote a Shortcut that uses those measures to calculate body fat percentage and lean mass using the US navy formula, and log everything to apple health.
It's really sped up my fitness improvement, as I'm focussing on keeping lean mass UP, and waist circumferencn DOWN.
IF is great, and it's something that doesn't take that long to get used to (I'm rarely hungry). I follow a similar fasting time period 12-8 or 9 depending on my schedule that day. I workout everyday when I wake up (and sometimes again at night) and always have plenty of energy. I'm also not very strict on my diet other than mostly avoiding sugar. I lean towards meat and veggies with every meal, but am not militant about passing up a good tasting carb.
I ended up losing ~15 pounds over 9 months w/o weight loss even being the goal.
Peter Attia has discussed fasting for cancer patients (and pre-surgery) on his podcast multiple times. He posited that it could have positive effects on patients, but understands how long it takes existing dogma to shift. It's great news this study was done and will hopefully lead to more research.
I read that you shouldn't put too much strain/weight on joints within an hour of getting up in the morning, because there is more liquid in the joints.
I didn't do any research on it because I don't work out in the morning anyway, so this may well be complete bullshit. Just mentioning it in case you want to get to the bottom of it.
I have found that getting rid of the sugar and refined carbs from my diet is an effective way to lose weight and keep that weight off (for over a decade now).
I've made no effort to exercise more, control portions or avoid fat and dairy.
I did switch over to cooking all my meals from scratch.
I wouldn't say there's benefit to _avoiding_ meat, but if you're going to restrict your diet in some way, trading meat calories for veggie calories is a good move. The typical US diet is missing a LOT of fiber, not to mention the nutrients that are in plants that you won't get from meat. Meat is so dense, calorie-wise, that you can help yourself out a lot by trading meat for veggies on a selective basis. This is without having any intentions of becoming vegetarian.
Yes, this, I do 16/8 5-6 days every week and I have been able to keep my weight under control for 2 years now, even when I'm eating carbs. I also keep sugar and simple carbs to a minimum, but I always did that. It's a glorious method.
This sounds interesting! Would you mind posting the specifics of how you make this? what else goes in it? Protein powder? Ice cubes? etc? I have been enjoying smoothies but noticed I was inadvertently making them calorie-bombs by adding a lot of random stuff (chia, flax, avocados, honey) without thinking and wasn't losing any weight. So now I am a lot more conscientious about what I dump in there and portion everything out. Yours sounds interesting!
* Half a cucumber (skin on) freshly juiced
* A chunk of skinned ginger freshly juiced (about 4cm^3)
* One tablespoon of chia seeds (freshly milled if possible)
* One tablespoon of apple cider vinegar
* One juiced lime
* One avocado (skinned and pitted)
* A large handful of rinsed kale
* A large handful of rinsed spinach
* Approximately 150ml of coconut water
Blend this up and consume.
Initially, I also juiced an apple for sweetness but now I don't need it anymore.
I've had a similar experience but with low carb. I eat two meals, one extremely low carb, and one "normal" meal for lunch and dinner and do the 16/8 plan. Have dropped 42lbs in 4 months. I have much better mental clarity and more energy, and cut way back on caffeine as a result. I could never do a vegan diet because it goes against my personal research as to what humans should be eating, but I think that IF can be used for any reasonable diet (caloric restriction) plan.
How much of this do you attribute to fasting vs diet change. I’ve done 16:8 fasting with no diet change and didn’t experience this kind of dramatic result.
I don't know; I did forget to add that I cut out all alcohol as well. Maybe doing both 16/8 fasting and eating super clean, super healthy, was synergistic?
There’s nothing wrong with eating chicken and other lean meats on a daily basis, and based on the summary of your daily eating, you could probably benefit from the complete amino acids the meat gives you.
Sure, do whatever is right for you. My research into the meat industry indicated that I was actually consuming a lot of stuff along with the meat that just isn't good for you. Sure you can go fully organic, free-range etc, but the meat we eat today is nothing like when we were hunter-gatherers. In those times we ate wild animals that lived free and healthy. As far as I can tell, it is impossible to get that level quality of meat at your local supermarket.
I wish I had the mental strength to forego one of the few pleasures of life without looking back.
It's amazing to me how someone can (almost) exclusively eat vegetables and enjoy it.
Is it all about habits? Genes?
Everyone says that taste is unique for each individual. For me, no amount of good seasoning on a vegetable will ever beat the taste of a steak. I cannot even fathom doing that FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. I guess if I had no option other than dying, that would change my priorities. But aside from that, it feels like you're trading so much to look a little bit better (I know everyone says it's always about health, but let's face it, that's not true a lot of times).
> It's amazing to me how someone can (almost) exclusively eat vegetables and enjoy it.
I think this is a common misconception. Vegans don't eat only vegetables, they eat every type of food, except animal products. It's very likely that most of the dishes you enjoy have a vegan version that tastes great. If you live near a big city, try out some of the vegan restaurants to see what chefs are able to do nowadays.
Also, tastebuds change and you'll eventually get the same steak dopamine hit by eating something else. I, for instance, used to hate Indian food, and now Chana Masala is one of my favourite dishes.
> I cannot even fathom doing that FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
That's not a logical way to think about things. When I go out for a run, I don't think "I have to run every day for the rest of my life otherwise it's worth going". I don't think anyone would ever exercise if they followed that logic.
Speaking personally, it's very easy to me to be able to completely separate the thought of food from having to be enjoyable. I don't drink water because it tastes good, I drink water because I know I need to drink water. I don't eat a plain sandwich at lunch because it tastes good, I eat that sandwich at lunch because I am hungry and know I need to eat. I don't need my food to taste good for me to eat it. If that has to do with habits or genes, I have no idea.
And that doesn't mean I don't get enjoyment from eating. I certainly enjoy an occasional nice steak or a few slices of cake every now and then, but I don't eat meat every meal despite it tasting enjoyable, just like I imagine you don't eat cake every meal despite it tasting wonderful,
An important factor often overlooked is taste preferences. I have many friends who are lifelong vegans, and tried vegan myself for a while before deciding I couldn't do it, and in my experience healthy vegan food (i.e. not French fries) is overwhelmingly on the sweet or sour side to my taste. I actively dislike both sweet and sour flavors, you'll never see me eating desserts or fruits, which greatly reduces the spectrum of palatable vegan cuisine. I imagine anyone with similar taste preferences as myself would have similar issues with a vegan diet. Vegetarian cuisine, by contrast, has a more balanced spectrum of flavor profiles in my opinion.
I experimented with many diets to find my own optimal tradeoff between great tasting food and healthy diet. I landed at low-carb diet where I am de facto vegetarian multiple days per week, but still eat a modest amount of meat and I don't feel like I am sacrificing anything because I built up a large repertoire of vegetarian (and even vegan) dishes that I happen to love that are also low carb. I think it could be properly characterized as a vegetable-heavy ketogenic diet, but I am not that formal about it -- these are guidelines for good living, not rules. Both Indian and Mexican cuisines are good starting points for low-carb vegetarian fare that is rich and satisfying.
You can adopt a vegetable-heavy diet that is tasty and satisfying even to an unrepentant carnivore, but it requires doing a lot of work, exploration, and experimentation to find vegetable-centric dishes that you actually love and find delicious. I think the big gap for many people is that low-carb, salt-forward flavors, a common preference for meat eaters, is poorly represented in popular vegetarian cuisine. Even though I eat vegetarian much of the time and live in a vegetarian friendly town, I won't eat most vegetarian restaurant food.
From my perspective it's about balance. I was completely vegan for about 2 years, and now I'd call myself a mostly-vegetarian. I'm not dogmatic about it, I just think that if we eat less meat it's probably better -- for us, for the environment, and for the horrible treatment of most factory-farmed animals.
Back to what I was saying about balance -- you're right: steak is fairly tasty, but so are lots of other things that I probably don't need to eat all that often. If I ate exclusively things that are as tasty as possible I'd enjoy them less. So now if I'm in a special situation I'll maybe order something with some meat -- but it's the exception rather than the rule.
I found that my body started to crave vegetables. It is really weird because I used to get sugar cravings, and now my body has completely flipped to vegetable cravings! My experience is that I felt more in tune with my body, and I could 'hear' what it wants, or doesn't like.
Another thing I didn't put into the original post is that I struggled with a blocked/stuffy nose since I was a little kid. Two weeks into my diet change, the life-long symptoms were gone (and continue to be gone). "I can now breathe through my nose" might not seem very miraculous to most people, but it is to me.
Having had a life-long diet of meat and processed food, I don't really miss it so much as I now actually love healthy food and I can 'smell the roses'.
Suggesting people are vegan just to look better is very unfair.
If they're vegan for ethical reasons, it's like suggesting that people choose not to rape, despite how good pussy feels, just to look better. Because you couldn't event fathom going without raping for the rest of your life, so those people must need extra benefits like vanity.
> Always consult a medical professional before you do any drastic changes like what I've done, and do your own research on this stuff so you have the confidence that it's the right choice for you, and that you'll stick with it.
Intermittent fasting is not drastic.
Of course don't do it if you're too skinny, drink water, avoid physical activity when you're fasting... The best is to ask a doctor, but intermittent fasting is easy, not really risky and will yield good results.
Going from a normal eating schedule to not eating anything 16 hours a day can have a drastic (yes, drastic) affect on your blood sugar, hormone levels, blood pressure, and more. It is absolutely a drastic change.
It will most likely be fine for most people, but could be very dangerous (ie death) for someone that is, for example, diabetic or is taking medicines for mental stability.
Exactly, that is why I limit the fish to only once per week. As for Omega replacement, chia seeds are high in Omega-3 fatty acids (as well as other good stuff), but I haven't looked at algae supplements. It really is an area I need to do more research on.
Having lost a similar amount of weight in 3 months by switching to keto (pretty much the opposite diet from OP, but similar IF schedule) I'm not surprised.
If I'm being totally honest I attribute most of the gains in weight and mental clarity to reduced drinking, particularly before bed. Also apparently the occasional basket of french fries / onion rings was really adding up.
In my case I dropped from 102 kg -> 79kg. I'm tall and naturally very slender, but I'd gained a lot of weight while working at Amazon.
I also attribute the change to quitting a high-stress job, thereby removing a lot of "stress eating / drinking" in addition to using a rigid rule (NO CARBS) to avoid most of the fried garbage I'd binge on.
I'm not that surprised - I was eating and drinking like it was my job to gain weight and keep it on, then I stopped.
I had a very similar experience doing this too. Lost about 21kg in 2-3 months and went from 98kg to 77 kg in 3 months which is a lot for a guy who is 5'7. 16/8 IF(Intermittent fasting) , mostly plant based and one day was a cheat day.Didn't exersise at all for the majority of that period and even when I did the intensity wasn't high enough to put a dent in caloric deficit coming for eating less.
I did this 5 years ago and am still doing it and haven't gained my weight back. But I'll say that retaining my weight is harder now.I was 22 when I did that and stabilized at 71/72 kg for couple of years but now at 27 I am stable at 76/77 kg.Although exercising more and maybe having gained some muscle mass might account for that extra weight.My body fat percentage (assessing only visually) seems lowest than it has ever been.
Yeah, that's about 2.5 kg (5.5 lbs) per week. Might be possible/healthy if you're starting at 500 lbs, but based on the stats we know that's not the case.
>Who know, maybe we’ll start flash mobs to dance for rain in 10 years.
I don't know the feasibility of it, but if we could predict with enough accuracy some local weather patterns, it would be a total awesome app. Get a notification to gather round to summon a tornado. Or chanting together for an unusual fall of evening tropical rain.
This blog post describes some incredibly complex old cultural practices, including making corn and manioc edible/non-poisonous ("nixtamalization" is the name of the corn-specific process), and describes the hypothesis that divination might have been used as a random number generator in order to avoid human biases.
I didn’t see it mentioned in the study but it’s interesting that from what I know, the current clinical approach is the exact opposite - many patients on chemo are given appetite-inducing drugs and Ensure shakes as the oncologists are very concerned that the patient not lose any weight
I just finished chemo eight months ago. I lost 35 pounds. I'm 6' and went from 140 pounds to 105. So yeah, my nutritionist gave me shit for putting water in my feeding tube because it doesn't have any calories. Ensure, juice, gatorade, anything was better than water. I had neck/mouth cancer and for about month I wasn't able to swallow anything (including water).
I was doing about 3K calories of formula a day and still dropping weight. Everything hurt. My joints were a wreck and getting out of bed was a chore. I started doing 8oz of formula (TwoCal HN) and mixing that with 8oz of vitamin D milk. In a few days my joint pain went away.
But yes, infusion rooms have little cafeterias and are stocked with soda, ice cream, juice, candy, and so on. Anything to get calories in people.
Thanks for sharing your personal experience and best of luck with your continued recovery. Hopefully I didn't come across as being critical of the doctors in my comment - clearly there are reasons to cram calories as your personal experience attests - I just find it an interesting juxtaposition.
> However, patients with severe weight loss, sarcopenia, cachexia or malnutrition are probably not good candidates for a STF intervention [27, 28]. Recent guidelines recommend to increase protein and fat consumption in patients with cachexia [29, 30]. Thus, STF may be particularly useful for relatively fit patients treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy.
I'm not sure abput appetite-inducing drugs, but depending on the type of chemo you're on you may get high doses of anti-nausea meds. I did. I still didn't want to eat, but I wasn't vomiting all the time.
I did 4 rounds of chemo, one round is a week (5 days) on, 2 weeks off. During the third round the nausea was so bad that I ate a piece of toast and drank some water. That week.
They try to get you to eat anything and everything so you have some strength. It's also a factor to flush the chemo drugs out of your body. Food and fluids help that too.
Thanks for sharing your experience. That sounds brutal and I hope you're on the mend now!
I had heard on a podcast[1] about the Ensure thing quite awhile back, and I asked an MD acquaintance about it before I posted to make sure I wasn't about to post "fake news." The acquaintance is the one that then mentioned the appetite-inducing drugs. They're not an oncologist though so it's possible they're not up-to-speed on current practices, or more likely I misremembered their exact wording and they may have been referring to anti-nausea meds in the first place.
[1]: I think it was the Peter Attia Drive podcast with guest Dr. Rhonda Patrick
Reading through these comments is scary. And I'm lucky. I've never put on weight in my life but always been active. 50 now and still snowboard, scuba dive and martial arts three times a week. Only ever ate two meals a day (lunch and dinner) and have never paid attention to sugar. Drink fewer sodas than I used to but still average about one a day. I eat a lot of meat but also a lot of vegetables and bananas. Maybe 50/50 meat/veg. Guessing metabolism has a lot to do with it. Nobody in my family ever got obese either.
The upshot is that what works for Peter may not work for Paul. And somehow I fell into a healthy lifestyle...
Most people don't realize just how small a lifestyle change it takes to affect weight into middle age. When habits are amplified by the fulcrum of consistency over decades it makes a huge difference.
Just consider that all it takes to become 100 lbs overweight by age 50 is an extra 38 calories a day starting at age 25. The difference between morbid obesity and healthy weight can literally come down to one donut a week or walking an extra quarter mile a day.
It's way more complicated that that. The body is not a stupid mechanical device where you make a change in one place and then the rest of the system reacts in a straightforward and predictable way. There is a brain in the middle of everything. And that brain affects motivation. Good luck doing something when you're not feeling motivated.
> Just consider that all it takes to become 100 lbs overweight by age 50 is an extra 38 calories a day starting at age 25.
Source? Sounds very hard to believe, when you starting getting weight from that 38 calories you also start to require more energy to do the same thing, just because you weight more. And there are a ton more factors to add, the human body is not as simple as that.
I don't think that's right. As you gained weight, your basal metabolic rate would also go up until you reached some equilibrium.
If a pound of body fat consumes about 2-4 calories per day, then your extra 38 calories is only enough to maintain an extra 10-20 pounds of weight, not 100 pounds.
You also need to subtracting the extra calories you burn carrying the extra weight around.
Readit News
They review a lot of mice studies and theory, which is great.
But all this adds together to indicate that we should study this more before drawing any conclusions. With limited funding for cancer research, its not even clear to me from this what priority it should take
I'm battling a crippling illness. Fortunately I've found the cure and the recovery is nothing short of miraculous. But it's a huge HUGE uphill battle because the medical community works incredibly hard to throw road blocks in my way.
Why does the medical community work so hard to throw up as many road blocks as possible to experimental treatments that are low risk? Why do you insist on being the only group of people who can say what is and isn't tried? Why do doctors and public health officials ignore the work of biochemists? Why do you ignore millions of people battling crippling illness that say your treatments are ineffective, and that other approaches are more effective?
Seriously. I don't get it. I don't believe you're a bad person, but the only explanations I can come up with are arrogance, ego, cowardice, or greed.
Let's assume you're talking about fasting as a treatment for cancer patients for the sake of argument.
Let's say that studies have examined the effect in 100 patients and it seems moderately effective.
What's the problem? Why shouldn't everyone do it?
Well the very real concern is that when they do a more rigorous study with a much greater number of patients, maybe they find that fasting actually increases the negative outcomes. The result that was found in the weaker study was only a statistical fluke.
So the thing they're trying to avoid is doing more harm than the status quo. This is a very real danger and it would be irresponsible for them to not do the due diligence.
Of course, that's not to say that there aren't valid criticisms of how medical treatments get validated and how quickly they can get to patients they can help.
The NY Times has a good write-up on it and more generally the challenges with epidemiology and causal analysis in medicine. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t...
Also, you may have found a solution to your problem, but you are implying to me that you believe it is the one-true solution (rather than doing a scientific trial of solutions upon yourself, and saying "this works for me" and is worth trying).
Everyone that never had an issue like that has a really high image of the medical profession, so when you tell them about your problems they just think you're crazy and you should listen to the medical professionals.
Would you mind telling me how you solved your issue? I found some things to make my issues a lot better, but it's not completely fixed, yet, so I'm very interested in hearing other peoples' experiences. My email is in my profile, if you don't want to discuss it here.
Well, at least in the fasting, it's a complete break with tradition. No scripts. No Big Pharma outfit marketing it. Etc.
My feelimg is, many doctors are wired to want to take action. The idea of something as simple as "I want you to fast every other" is completely foreign to them.
Deleted Comment
It's hard to study something like this, because you have to find a large enough population for the statistics to work out, but also keep the study going long enough without massive attrition (would have to do intent-to-treat) to have results worth publishing.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I've been fasting for about 2 years now. I've done a couple of 5-days water fasts, and a few 7-days water fasts. The past 250 days I've been consistently following 16:8 and adding in a few 23:1's in there for good measure. I was healthy before I started, but have since then felt even better. My stomach feels calm, I sleep better, I feel stronger (even though I exercise less) and my overall focus has improved. This results in a better mental state, somehow calming my mind. I've been a practitioner of meditation before, but have not felt the need for it the past year. My body is calm and well-rested => my mind is mindful.
But the number 1 benefit of fasting (and all other non-conventional habits, such as cold showers in the morning), is mental resilience. Every time you realize that you perform well, if not even better, without food, you get a confidence boost. This effect compounds with time. I've found out that this in turn makes it easier to take on other habits as well, because your habit muscles are stronger now than before. Eating 5 meals a day is easy... eating 1 is hard => you grow a little if you manage to do it.
IIRC some studies I’ve read say that IF increases cortisol levels which would explain the anxiety and which I believe is bad for muscle-building.
23 hour fast, 1 hour “eating” window per day.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28250801
> The KD can more effectively reduce glucose and elevate blood ketone bodies than can CR alone making the KD potentially more therapeutic against tumors than CR
If the goal is maximum speed weight loss, like say preparing for a competition, lower calorie easily wins. It has to be done carefully to not get dehydrated or remove micronutrients. And it's hard to get started for most as hunger is strong early on if you don't put additional protein in.
Keto on the other hand is easier to get in with but relatively hard to maintain due to social factors. The diet is extremely different from any typical one in any country. On the other hand if you just have to limit calorie intake, things get easier to mix and match. But this one is sort of automatically playing on satiety which helps.
Health results are somewhat of a tossup.
Source: done the Kwaśniewski version of keto, and ad-lib vegan too (ineffective). Currently low calorie controlled, data driven, successfully so far at 0,75 kg/wk.
It was life-changing. I lost 22kg in two months, with no exercise. I am now back to a healthy BMI, but I no longer use BMI as a measure, I use the Relative Fat Mass Index (RFM) because my research indicates that this is a more accurate measure for tall people (I'm 6'3").
Besides looking great after shedding all that weight, I never expected the mental benefits to be so pronounced. Indeed it is fair to say it has had a nootropic effect. I no longer 'need' coffee, and the persistent brain fog has lifted and my default state is calm mental clarity.
Of course, I can only speak from my own personal experience here... I haven't done extensive blood tests pre and post this lifestyle change, but the change has been so shocking that friends and family cannot believe it.
You might think going 16 hours with no food is going to be hard but if you get the timings right, it's easy (and you get used to it). I start my fast at 8 pm, and I break the fast at noon. This way I can have business lunches and early-ish business dinners (as long as I finish eating by 8 pm). Most restaurants cater for vegans or at least have a vegetarian option. If not, I go for a fish option.
When I break the fast I do it with an avocado/cucumber/kale/spinach smoothie which blasts my body with super nutrients. I avoid all processed carbs (no bread or pasta), I avoid all processed sugar (no cola or any refined sugar products), I avoid all dairy, and of course, avoid meat. Also, there is no calorie reduction... I eat as much as I like in my 8-hour feeding window (which controls Ghrelin and therefore doesn't mess up my metabolism).
Always consult a medical professional before you do any drastic changes like what I've done, and do your own research on this stuff so you have the confidence that it's the right choice for you, and that you'll stick with it.
The biggest problem people have is overeating, bottom line. I honestly have several strict vegan friends who are obese -- at the end of the day a calorie is a calorie.
My only issue when people recount stories like yours, as inspiring as they are, is they associate non-scientifically-provable properties to their eating. As if fasting or kale give you more energy (they don't). Or carbs are automatically evil by themselves and cause weight gain (also wrong). There is no such thing as "super nutrients" -- there are only nutrients. It's like when people talk about going on a "cleanse" from "toxins" in their body, it's just nonsense.
I wish high schools would teach everyone how to track their calories, it's a super useful skill that would help many in understanding how much a penalty there is in eating those Five Guys fries. But "I lost weight from [insert special diet here] wow now I have [amazing qualities]" just exaggerates the basic underlying process of reducing caloric intake.
And for the record I'm 6'2" & 168 lbs / 76 kg with 5% body fat (measured via calipers), training for multiple athletic events, so I'm not saying this as someone who struggles with following strict diets.
No, calories vary massively. If someone ate 2000 calories of vegetables each day and someone else ate 2000 calories of sugar there would be a huge amount of difference between their nutrition.
> The biggest problem people have is overeating, bottom line
Sorry to say that I disagree with this too. The body does a great job of negating over-eating provided the food eaten is of the right types, it is just pushed back out as waste.
Going back to the vegetable example, you could eat several kg of green vegetables every day and continue to lose weight.
Right, but the point is it is easier to stick to this kind of regime than counting every calorie. And if you stick to the regime it also keeps you focused and conscious about not eating too many colories in general, you don't "forget" that you are trying to lose weight.
Further I've read that fasting kicks your body into a state where it starts to burn the extra reserve fat you have, which should make you feel less hungry after the start of the fast. SO rather than taking calories in, you are using what you already have. I don't know if 16 hours is long enough to get this fat-burning process started but perhaps.
I almost follow this same regime but I often slip and eat all night after the fast :-) But the account above gives me more inspiration to try a lit bit harder. Don't eat after 8pm. Skip the breakfast. How easy is that
But not only that, I don't think it is as simples as "a calorie is a calorie". Different food are digested differently and trigger different responses for the body. To use an ad absurdum example, if I drink gasoline I don't get fat.
>As if fasting or kale give you more energy (they don't).
Your comment implies that all food is more or less equal, which doesn't seem to be the case. Couldn't the OP's change in "energy" reflect the reduced intake of hormones and other unhealthy additives that are present in the supply chain for most meats and other processed foods?
> I avoid all processed sugar (no cola or any refined sugar products), I avoid all dairy, and of course, avoid meat.
Sounds like it has a lot more to do with your results than
> So I made a total lifestyle change to a 16/8 intermittent fast (16 hours water only, 8-hour feeding window)
Also, if you were counting your calories before and after this transition, you likely missed or underestimated the calories before. I do the same 16/8 window (never been a breakfast person anyways) and have no problem maintaining my weight at about 2.5k calories a day
The reason I stuck with it was that, as someone who wasn't ever a breakfast person either, I don't have the stomach discomfort / bloating anymore which a carb-heavy breakfast would give me.
For me the nicest part about IF becoming trendy is that I don't feel that slight pang of guilt anymore which I used to feel when skipping breakfast.
I ate meat, processed sugar, and dairy throughout. In the past I tried cutting those things out (except meat) and I struggled with weight loss.
The one other factor that probably played a role is that I cut out restaurants.
I'm not a professional, and I didn't track anything except my body measurements and weight during this process so I don't know exactly where all the results came from. I wasn't chugging bottles of Coca-Cola, but I was having processed sugar in my multiple cups of coffee every day.
As for calorie counting, my research indicated that calorie counting is a myth (see The Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung). Certainly, I always struggled with a calorie-restricted diet, so I knew that if I always felt hungry, anything I did wouldn't work. I know it sounds odd but during the 16 hours I am fasting, I just don't feel that hungry. If I feel a little hungry I just drink some water and I feel fine.
I think the key was satisfying the ghrelin by eating as much as I liked during my 8-hour feeding window. I know it sounds crazy that you can eat as much as you like and still loose weight but it happened.
People can define normal how they want, but if you were eating lots of refined products, I suggest considering the way you are now as normal and that those products were making you sick.
I had to look up nootropic. To say fruits and vegetables act like "drugs, supplements, and other substances that may improve cognitive function, particularly executive functions, memory, creativity, or motivation, in healthy individuals" (quoting Wikipedia) suggests how much those products hurt you.
Maybe I'm a minority, but I don't consider fruits and vegetables drugs or supplements. I don't consider my memory and cognitive skills when I eat them enhanced. That's regular life. It sounds like life before was suffering and I don't know how else to say the opposite of "improved cognition function" other than dumber.
Glad to see you post-change. Were the refined products worth it?
As for your question about refined products worth it... no, I don't think they are. I only go off script for say a birthday party or a social situation where it is impossible to stay within my self imposed dietary constraints.
Also 'eating healthy' can mean a lot of different things to different people. My research indicated that a plant-based diet was the way to go. In a way, it is more about the elimination of things (alcohol, meat, dairy, processed carbs, processed sugar).
The first week was hard, but then after that, it got easy. Also the first week I lost 2kg so I knew I was on to something.
> Also, there is no calorie reduction
Sure there is, that's why you lost so much weight. You just did it indirectly through this lifestyle change.
> Most restaurants cater for vegans or at least have a vegetarian option...I avoid all processed carbs (no bread or pasta), I avoid all processed sugar.
This can be a hard combo. Often the lone veg option is a sandwich (often breaded) or pasta in my experience. Obviously you can prioritize your needs and glad you do, just expressing how annoying the heavily constrained problem can be (I used to eat vegetarian).
> Sure there is, that's why you lost so much weight.
It's important to appreciate there's more nuance than simply calories eaten vs. calories expended.
Some calories are more bioavailable than others. The OP described eliminating refined carbs and sugars, and adding substantial sources of dietary fiber. The effect of this is switching from quickly absorbed (and likely stored) calories to slower to digest, less available sources.
It's entirely possible for sugars locked up in a web of dietary fiber (i.e. fruit) to pass through the small colon and be consumed by bacteria in the large colon producing flatulence, or pass through entirely. If that same sugar was consumed in more accessible form, as with a cup of coffee, it would entirely be available to the person at a fast rate, accompanied by an insulin response making the energy likely to be stored as fat.
Understanding this is key to appreciating how one could even increase their oral caloric consumption and still be losing weight, all else the same. Just because it goes down the hatch doesn't mean 100% of those calories reach the bloodstream. What you eat matters a great deal, both in terms of availability and hormonal response.
In any thread on these topics I feel that there will be a number of people reporting their relatively recent smashing success with some method. I’ve had multiple smashing successes myself, lasting over a year, but have always eventually slid back — and then never replicated the success despite lots of effort using the same method. It hasn’t been until I switched to something different that I’ve found success again.
It’s like the body eventually learns both physical and psychological tricks to accumulate energy under any regime.
That is, normal for us should be what provides continued health, rather than something we have to “fix” now and again with special diets.
Also, I’m not the person you asked, but to answer your specific question, I changed my lifestyle about five years ago, and — although I needed to make adjustments based on whether I was looking to lose weight or gain muscle or whatever — the overall idea going in was that this would be permanent. And that’s worked for me.
https://youtu.be/7nJgHBbEgsE
This uses waist circumference, which is an excellent measure. I wish it were emphasized more: it's easy to do, and is a great complement to weight. Abdominal size is a great indicator of fat + correlated to many health problems.
One question: what scale does RFM use? I found the formula, and got a number, but I don't know what it means. Is it body fat percent?
----------
I've been tracking waist and weight circumference each morning. I wrote a Shortcut that uses those measures to calculate body fat percentage and lean mass using the US navy formula, and log everything to apple health.
It's really sped up my fitness improvement, as I'm focussing on keeping lean mass UP, and waist circumferencn DOWN.
I ended up losing ~15 pounds over 9 months w/o weight loss even being the goal.
Peter Attia has discussed fasting for cancer patients (and pre-surgery) on his podcast multiple times. He posited that it could have positive effects on patients, but understands how long it takes existing dogma to shift. It's great news this study was done and will hopefully lead to more research.
I read that you shouldn't put too much strain/weight on joints within an hour of getting up in the morning, because there is more liquid in the joints.
I didn't do any research on it because I don't work out in the morning anyway, so this may well be complete bullshit. Just mentioning it in case you want to get to the bottom of it.
I've made no effort to exercise more, control portions or avoid fat and dairy.
I did switch over to cooking all my meals from scratch.
This sounds interesting! Would you mind posting the specifics of how you make this? what else goes in it? Protein powder? Ice cubes? etc? I have been enjoying smoothies but noticed I was inadvertently making them calorie-bombs by adding a lot of random stuff (chia, flax, avocados, honey) without thinking and wasn't losing any weight. So now I am a lot more conscientious about what I dump in there and portion everything out. Yours sounds interesting!
* Half a cucumber (skin on) freshly juiced * A chunk of skinned ginger freshly juiced (about 4cm^3) * One tablespoon of chia seeds (freshly milled if possible) * One tablespoon of apple cider vinegar * One juiced lime * One avocado (skinned and pitted) * A large handful of rinsed kale * A large handful of rinsed spinach * Approximately 150ml of coconut water
Blend this up and consume.
Initially, I also juiced an apple for sweetness but now I don't need it anymore.
Maybe no deliberate calorie reduction, but I'd bet you you're consuming less calories.
https://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/0101/p43.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145965
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_protein
Now, to be fair, soy _does_ have a low level of tryptophan. Leafy greens are the best way to boost that, if that's your concern.
It's amazing to me how someone can (almost) exclusively eat vegetables and enjoy it.
Is it all about habits? Genes?
Everyone says that taste is unique for each individual. For me, no amount of good seasoning on a vegetable will ever beat the taste of a steak. I cannot even fathom doing that FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE. I guess if I had no option other than dying, that would change my priorities. But aside from that, it feels like you're trading so much to look a little bit better (I know everyone says it's always about health, but let's face it, that's not true a lot of times).
I think this is a common misconception. Vegans don't eat only vegetables, they eat every type of food, except animal products. It's very likely that most of the dishes you enjoy have a vegan version that tastes great. If you live near a big city, try out some of the vegan restaurants to see what chefs are able to do nowadays.
Also, tastebuds change and you'll eventually get the same steak dopamine hit by eating something else. I, for instance, used to hate Indian food, and now Chana Masala is one of my favourite dishes.
> I cannot even fathom doing that FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
That's not a logical way to think about things. When I go out for a run, I don't think "I have to run every day for the rest of my life otherwise it's worth going". I don't think anyone would ever exercise if they followed that logic.
And that doesn't mean I don't get enjoyment from eating. I certainly enjoy an occasional nice steak or a few slices of cake every now and then, but I don't eat meat every meal despite it tasting enjoyable, just like I imagine you don't eat cake every meal despite it tasting wonderful,
I experimented with many diets to find my own optimal tradeoff between great tasting food and healthy diet. I landed at low-carb diet where I am de facto vegetarian multiple days per week, but still eat a modest amount of meat and I don't feel like I am sacrificing anything because I built up a large repertoire of vegetarian (and even vegan) dishes that I happen to love that are also low carb. I think it could be properly characterized as a vegetable-heavy ketogenic diet, but I am not that formal about it -- these are guidelines for good living, not rules. Both Indian and Mexican cuisines are good starting points for low-carb vegetarian fare that is rich and satisfying.
You can adopt a vegetable-heavy diet that is tasty and satisfying even to an unrepentant carnivore, but it requires doing a lot of work, exploration, and experimentation to find vegetable-centric dishes that you actually love and find delicious. I think the big gap for many people is that low-carb, salt-forward flavors, a common preference for meat eaters, is poorly represented in popular vegetarian cuisine. Even though I eat vegetarian much of the time and live in a vegetarian friendly town, I won't eat most vegetarian restaurant food.
Back to what I was saying about balance -- you're right: steak is fairly tasty, but so are lots of other things that I probably don't need to eat all that often. If I ate exclusively things that are as tasty as possible I'd enjoy them less. So now if I'm in a special situation I'll maybe order something with some meat -- but it's the exception rather than the rule.
Another thing I didn't put into the original post is that I struggled with a blocked/stuffy nose since I was a little kid. Two weeks into my diet change, the life-long symptoms were gone (and continue to be gone). "I can now breathe through my nose" might not seem very miraculous to most people, but it is to me.
Having had a life-long diet of meat and processed food, I don't really miss it so much as I now actually love healthy food and I can 'smell the roses'.
It all comes down to seasoning and knowing how to cook, but all the mind blowing flavours still exist and can be invoked at every meal.
If they're vegan for ethical reasons, it's like suggesting that people choose not to rape, despite how good pussy feels, just to look better. Because you couldn't event fathom going without raping for the rest of your life, so those people must need extra benefits like vanity.
Intermittent fasting is not drastic.
Of course don't do it if you're too skinny, drink water, avoid physical activity when you're fasting... The best is to ask a doctor, but intermittent fasting is easy, not really risky and will yield good results.
It will most likely be fine for most people, but could be very dangerous (ie death) for someone that is, for example, diabetic or is taking medicines for mental stability.
If I'm being totally honest I attribute most of the gains in weight and mental clarity to reduced drinking, particularly before bed. Also apparently the occasional basket of french fries / onion rings was really adding up.
In my case I dropped from 102 kg -> 79kg. I'm tall and naturally very slender, but I'd gained a lot of weight while working at Amazon.
I also attribute the change to quitting a high-stress job, thereby removing a lot of "stress eating / drinking" in addition to using a rigid rule (NO CARBS) to avoid most of the fried garbage I'd binge on.
I'm not that surprised - I was eating and drinking like it was my job to gain weight and keep it on, then I stopped.
I did this 5 years ago and am still doing it and haven't gained my weight back. But I'll say that retaining my weight is harder now.I was 22 when I did that and stabilized at 71/72 kg for couple of years but now at 27 I am stable at 76/77 kg.Although exercising more and maybe having gained some muscle mass might account for that extra weight.My body fat percentage (assessing only visually) seems lowest than it has ever been.
Dead Comment
Older generations/civilizations have practiced fasting for general health.
Based on modern advances in science, I would love to see more research done on the applications efficacy of old cultural practices to modern problems.
Who know, maybe we’ll start flash mobs to dance for rain in 10 years.
I don't know the feasibility of it, but if we could predict with enough accuracy some local weather patterns, it would be a total awesome app. Get a notification to gather round to summon a tornado. Or chanting together for an unusual fall of evening tropical rain.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/06/04/book-review-the-secret...
Dead Comment
I was doing about 3K calories of formula a day and still dropping weight. Everything hurt. My joints were a wreck and getting out of bed was a chore. I started doing 8oz of formula (TwoCal HN) and mixing that with 8oz of vitamin D milk. In a few days my joint pain went away.
But yes, infusion rooms have little cafeterias and are stocked with soda, ice cream, juice, candy, and so on. Anything to get calories in people.
> However, patients with severe weight loss, sarcopenia, cachexia or malnutrition are probably not good candidates for a STF intervention [27, 28]. Recent guidelines recommend to increase protein and fat consumption in patients with cachexia [29, 30]. Thus, STF may be particularly useful for relatively fit patients treated with (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy.
I did 4 rounds of chemo, one round is a week (5 days) on, 2 weeks off. During the third round the nausea was so bad that I ate a piece of toast and drank some water. That week.
They try to get you to eat anything and everything so you have some strength. It's also a factor to flush the chemo drugs out of your body. Food and fluids help that too.
I had heard on a podcast[1] about the Ensure thing quite awhile back, and I asked an MD acquaintance about it before I posted to make sure I wasn't about to post "fake news." The acquaintance is the one that then mentioned the appetite-inducing drugs. They're not an oncologist though so it's possible they're not up-to-speed on current practices, or more likely I misremembered their exact wording and they may have been referring to anti-nausea meds in the first place.
[1]: I think it was the Peter Attia Drive podcast with guest Dr. Rhonda Patrick
The upshot is that what works for Peter may not work for Paul. And somehow I fell into a healthy lifestyle...
Just consider that all it takes to become 100 lbs overweight by age 50 is an extra 38 calories a day starting at age 25. The difference between morbid obesity and healthy weight can literally come down to one donut a week or walking an extra quarter mile a day.
If a pound of body fat consumes about 2-4 calories per day, then your extra 38 calories is only enough to maintain an extra 10-20 pounds of weight, not 100 pounds.
You also need to subtracting the extra calories you burn carrying the extra weight around.