sorry, imho, your OP wasn’t about interesting or intelligent conversation. It was baiting for an argument.
and I’m almost disappointed in adding to this thread except for supporting those people who have tried to take it in an actual discussion oriented direction
The article you linked does not counter any of my claims.Its caloric restriction vs intermitent fasting,not 2 month fast.
It shows intermitent fasting or even alternate fasting is superior.It also shows metabolism speeds up to 4 days.Everything I already know and agree.Both the study and authors N=1 shows fasting 2 days a week or every other day does not cause muscle loss,I never disagreed with this.
2 month of no food,thats whole different thing.Your metabolism boost wont last 60 days,nor will your muscle.Autophagy is a powerfull,but it wont fully replace 3 - 5 kg of protein needed to avoid muscle & skin loss.
As a person still over 400 (but getting much closer to being under), AMEN. I’m okay losing a little muscle mass. I haven’t done a Dexa scan, but I have a muscle mass that has carried a nearly 500 lb frame for over a decade, and as s carpenter, so relatively physical work.
I declined Chemotherapy as I was reluctantly willing to accept that 2017 might well have been the last year of my life. A younger woman may well have made a different decision.
If you read the post about the Breakfast of Champions there is a “cancer” tag. One update has more information about what I did. These include fasting, herbs, Bob Beck machine, supplements and getting my bowels moving. I went to a Naturopath in Queensland and she was terrific.
You could use the bat-phone to ask @carl … if you liked it so much, he might publish it. That’s what he does! There I did it for you.
Cheers
Alec
Only anecdote but @Jerrettscott just did 63 days and documented it a bit (though not to N=1 experiment levels).
Obviously this was from a very high baseline weight but that isn’t really the debate here (more on protein). As you’ve pointed out this title and most of the thread is basically a troll and it’s responses and is largely a fun waste of everyone’s time.
The primary definition of Godwin’s (not Goodwin’s) Law is merely the mentioning of “old eponymous 'stache face” so you made the cut. 
This is important. It is a key mechanism that renders practically moot the spurious position of the OP. The real issue ISN’T “IF you lose muscle mass” with a long fast but is the muscle mass you lose meaningful/important to your health/capabilities. Since only really obese people are likely to fast 2 months (or mostly over 1 week) the significant weight loss mitigates the need for the original muscle mass (which was developed to carry the larger load).
I doubt that was the intention and this (NO MM loss) is a strawman argument since the real question is “is the muscle mass loss meaningful”… in the case of the obese person, probably not (and there is no anecdotal evidence from those who have done >1month fasts that it is). Obviously outliers of lean people doing long EFs may be an issue but they are either a bit nuts, explicitly trading muscle for extreme autophagy (they are probably fat fasting), or treating cancer where they are minimizing protein, etc.
And the basic rule of Godwin’s Law is that once one has to resort to bringing Hitler into a debate, said person had just lost said debate.
Yes, this was the later (somewhat) logical extension… originally, it was a statistical observation that the longer an internet conversation went on, the more certain it became that “ole bowl cut” would come up/be invoked. Later the implication of actually doing so was added by others, IIRC.
That is different from official definition from Wikipedia
“Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies)[1][2] is an Internet adage that asserts that “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Hitler approaches 1”;[2][3] that is, if an online discussion (regardless of topic or scope) goes on long enough, sooner or later someone will compare someone or something to Adolf Hitler or his deeds. Promulgated by the American attorney and author Mike Godwin in 1990”
Comparison and compare,nothing about just mentioning.Either way,I did nothing wrong by using his name,the user I was responding to made such ridiculous statement,bringing up the H,the most hated bad guy ever,was ideal way to mock its irrationality.
That’s exactly what EVERYONE who wishes to avoid the GL label says… good luck with your semantic olympics
Ok 
I accept my fate as “that guy”,a internet forum Hitler summoner,let this be my lession 
As I understand it, if you keep giving the body protein, which it will convert into primarily glucose/glutamine/glutamate/glycogen, you may not go into ketosis or fat adaptation. This means that instead of burning mostly fat/ketones and settling into a routine of using up the body’s stored fuel (fat) before using up muscle, your body is begging for more sugar the whole time, when it gets only a little bit (in the form of your 300 calories of protein), it eventually goes into a metabolic slowdown instead of looking towards its own fat for fuel.
I have nothing to add re Godwin’s Law or cat poop, except that we have no dogs and my cat is pooping anywhere but in his litter box, I think he may be Hitler in disguise.
If that was true fat adaptation would be impossible without fasting.The first thing any keto keto website or forum tells its newcomers is that they will over the span of few weeks get fat adapted.The liver have limited capacity for gluconeogenesis,even if going at maximum,it cant make enough to prevent fat adaptation.
Also,I highly doubt significant quantity of 50 - 60g of protein will be converted to glucose.That conversion happens when the body have so much protein it cant use it all for tissue repair & growth so some gets converted to glycogen as energy store.
The metabolic slowdown and keto adaptation are two independent things.If someone doing high carb diet stops eating,his metabolism will increase in next 2 days but fat adaptation will not occur yet.When someone is doing extreme long fast,metabolism will slow down despite fat adtation.
“I doubt that was the intention and this (NO MM loss) is a strawman argument since the real question is “is the muscle mass loss meaningful”
From wiki “A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent’s argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent.”
Quotes from RobC ( the person I was supposed to strawman)
1.“Eating no calories over the same long period of time would provoke the body’s survival mechanisms - muscle preservation…”
2.“you would have more muscle (and less body fat) at the end of a pure water fast than a restricted calorie diet.”
3.“The body does not add muscle (or try to keep muscle) because of what you eat.”
You are accusing me of strawman fallacy while doing no true scotsman fallacy yourself.
2 wrongs don’t make a right
I can see where you could definitely see RobC’s statements as overly optimistic on protein sparing. I read them differently - muscle preservation as I understand it is a thing but it is a relative sparing, not absolute. Thus you lose some but far less MM as a % of total bodyweight loss. Thus, the second point should be more properly stated that at the end of a water fast, you would have a higher MM % and lower body fat % (effective body recomposition).
None of this, (either way) helps out any of your statements and you sir, are NO SCOTSMAN of any kind. 
