Don’t get sucked in by ridiculously extreme examples. It’s going to chase that figure as best it can, with unpleasant results.
Count calories?
Mo1
(Muhammad Nasim)
#162
I don’t think so. At 400 cals you aren’t that far off fasting and we know that doesn’t damage metabolism apparently. The body can’t chase indefinitely- none of the studies presented show that range of metabolic adaptation.
I do agree that with you that on 1000 or 1200 calories per day the body will do horrible things to you unless it’s 1200 keto calories.
juice
(Running from stupidity)
#163
It depends, though, on whether a constant 400 is the same as fasting. I suspect it isn’t.
Mo1
(Muhammad Nasim)
#164
Dunno - I bet 100 cals per day constantly is near enough the same as fasting constantly. Maybe 400 is for some and not for others?
juice
(Running from stupidity)
#165
Yep, I’m positive we could dig up some examples of that, for sure.
OldDoug
(Doug)
#166
The big difference is in the hormonal response. Yes, zero calories is not far from 100 or 400, looking at it on a purely mathematical basis, not when most of us eat far more on average. But no insulin stimulus versus even that of the reduced calorie amounts can be a substantial and important difference. I’m generally a fan of total fasting.
That said, eating protein and fat to a total of 400 or 600 calories a day seems to work well for me. I’ve never done it for more than 2 days at a time, but after fasting for a day or more, some cheese and sardines, for example, makes me feel energetic, hot (sweaty pillow at night), and generally good. I was really amazed the first couple times I did it.
Mo1
(Muhammad Nasim)
#168
Yeah i’ve been doing from 300 -500 cals mostly fat and protein for the last 70 days now and can’t believe how satiated and energetic I feel so definitely some benefits at this level.
mememe
#169
Glad you’re finding something that helps. You’ve made some interesting observations over the last couple of days.
