Mic, I can’t just dismiss what that study said, out of hand. What we need is a comparison study of people dry fasting and water fasting, and/or the same people, dry fasting for one period and then water fasting for the next, repeating the cycle a few times.
And heck - sometimes I end up going a whole day, without even trying. Black coffee in the morning, don’t work hard and the weather’s not hot, not much perspiration, don’t drink anything until the next morning. Poof a whole day of dry fasting in the bag…
the body retains water for a period of time in depleted fat cells… dry fasting may be driving the body to extract that water and break down the depleted fat cell structures? That’s a theory that’s plausible to me at least.
There’s some significant disagreement over whether that water-in-fat-cells thing really happens, Karim. (I really don’t know, either way.)
Fat cells live like 10 years, too, so I would doubt that getting somewhat depleted of fat means a death sentence. They can expand and contract a whole lot, and some relative few are dying every day, and they get replaced.
Yes I have tried dry fasting. I did 40 hours. I cant stand drinking water or black coffee so it was easy. I’ve also done 24 hours a few times not even purposely dry fasting…just didnt feel like drinking.
I’m not posting about dry fasting bc I think it’s a must for all things health. Just out of interest and info. Hoping someone may have more info. I can see 1 study but many more need to be done to really obtain some decent findings
If they (test subjects in the study below) were to have been drinking water when thirsty to satiety would the results be any different or more significant?
autophagy does break down lean mass during fasting. Empty fat cells are a reasonable target. It might be more effective after a water fast… deplete lipids first, then remove water and finally break down the cell with autophagy.
I have found that when I dry fast, I am less hungry. I also seem to enter ketosis much more quickly (after a cheat meal). I used to drink 64-128 oz. of water per day. I also had a problem with edema. Now that I only drink a small amount, when I’m actually thirsty, things are much better.
I an much less hungry too and seem to still pee a normal amount
gabe
(Gabe “No Dogma, Only Science Please!” )
#257
Dry fasting: what a great new trend.
New trends I can see on the horizon: amputating a limb = the fastest way to lose weight!!! Also, not being alive reduces living costs and is a great way to drop 180 pounds through decomposition!!!
I think that is indeed the question, Bunny. They say that “food and water deprivation seems to be the most effective dietary protocol, since the magnitude of weight reduction is 50-100% more than observed during juice or water fasting.”
They give references to other studies where presumably people fasted with water or juice (). If it’s as simple as them not accounting for water loss, that would explain it, but it would be pretty silly to make such a basic error. So I wonder…
Notice how the renal function is drastically improved, kind of strange, you would think it would be the opposite? On another thread on the forum their is a Dr. Bernstein (hope I spelled that right) video who improved his own diabetic kidney/renal (failing) function eating only protein, so if your body is catabolizing its own protein then maybe that explains the improved renal function in these study subjects because your own protein is going to be very nutrient dense and raw? Much like eating organ meats and glandulars (maybe better raw?) from animals or protomorphogens?
Maybe skin, skeletal muscle, ligaments, internal organs is all being slowly catabolized and drinking no water is accelerating it? A good percentage of that weight loss is actually not fat or water weight but catabolized birthday suit? (as measured in the physical dimensions of the test subjects?)
The other could be thermal conditions when not drinking water, they never elude to body temperature or external ambient temperature?
Exposure to heat (to kill cancer) or cold (UCP1-BAT fat burning; leptin reset button) shock (hormesis/stress) seem to do different things when fasting like activating different biological pathways etc.
Exactly - I’ve seen that a few times and always have that same thought.
I think that internal organs are safe until starvation is pretty far along.
Skin is a question - some people seem to get rid of loose skin in an almost ‘perfect’ manner while others lose comparatively little of it. I wonder how the body regulates the amount of skin, i.e. at some point it’s saying, “things are tight - I need to make more skin cells,” or “things are loose and we’re not eating any protein - so a lot of these skin cells need to go.”
Our skin is roughly 1/6 of our weight, and it rather goes to the back of the line when we get dehydrated. Heart and lung tissue - it makes sense that the body has its priorities. The brain, liver - hey, we’re gonna defend this stuff! Skin is mostly collagen, and this is a big store of water - collagen is ~60% water. Dehydration shows up clearly - collagen strands get “harder” or more brittle, begin adhering to each other and they don’t flex as well. So skin wrinkles, cracks, etc.
Just speculation on my part - did the operators of the study get a good reading by weighing the people during the third day of refeeding? I wonder if it takes longer than that to get all the way back to the same level of hydration as before such a fast.
Ligaments have the fibrocyte cells with collagen and water around them. Beyond the water, there, it’s 70% collagen (which is itself mostly water) so I’d think dehydration would really wreak havoc in the end.
Skeletal muscle - this seems to be a never-ending debate. The loss of muscle is feared to an irrational extent, in my opinion, for most fasting regimens. Some people seem to actually gain lean mass while fasting. I’d like to see a study clearly and simply aimed at muscle loss, if any, while fasting.
I do wonder if their is difference in the duration of a fast, for example the length of time to fast Dr. J. Fung recommends for his patience. Compared to a 5 day fast, shorter fasts might render a little less catabolism compared to longer fasting? E.g. …duration done in cycles of 24 hour fasting compared to tacking on additional days or hours and maybe it might depend on how many days its done at different times in ratio to protein intake etc… I still have not read his published research papers so I’m looking forward to that!
I think the difference between true muscle loss and protein catabolism, per se, comes to the fore here. From what I’ve seen, short fasts like 1 day or 36 hours present zero risk of muscle loss. From Dr. Fung’s blog:
Above - alternate day fasting - whether the people were eating a controlled diet or choosing their own food, over 70 days there was a tiny, inconsequential loss of fat-free mass, period. Whether muscle or not, nothing to worry about there.
Protein breakdown falls off really fast when beginning a fast. There is a small amount of circulating protein in the body, and I assume some early, relatively quick effects when autophagy gets increased - the body cleaning up the “easy-to-get-to” stuff.
The Cahill study - during long term fasting, 20 grams per day of amino acids from our guts, basically. That would be 23 days to get to a pound, or 50 days to a kilogram.
Same for 20 grams a day of muscle breakdown - if that was actually what happened.
I noticed a reference to “juice fast” upthread. I wouldn’t be surprised that a dry fast would produce more weight loss than a juice fast, since juice is practically 100% sugar plus other carbohydrates. In other words, highly insulinogenic—which might have a small, tiny wee bit of an effect on weight loss, just perhaps maybe possibly, do you think? (sarcasm mode: off)
). If it’s as simple as them not accounting for water loss, that would explain it, but it would be pretty silly to make such a basic error. So I wonder…
