Karim's Extended Fast Tracker - come along for the ride

(Windmill Tilter) #201

Well, if 5 counts, the chart above is from a guy who’s been doing a 5 day fast once a week every week since September or so! (Well, he did take a 10 day vacation in Feb, that’s the blank spot in the chart above).

Here is a good journal article of with an 18 day fast where RMR was tested every day. Their RMR dropped 8% on average during that time span, but not permanently. There is a little pdf icon below the abstract if you want to read the study (no paywall). The RMR’s in the chart are expressed in J/min, but converted to kcal/day they started out with an average RMR of 2002 kcal/day, and ended at 1,868 kcal/day.

li4V9EF.png920×533 83.1 KB

(Windmill Tilter) #202

The fasting itself will not lower metabolism if you don’t do them very often. In the first 4-5 days, the metabolism remains basically level. The one genuine risk is if you do cycles of feasting and fasting on a continuous basis, but you calorie restrict rather than feasting in between them. That would be very bad.

The reason for this is that cycling feasting and fasting works a bit like a ratchet. If you’re feasting between fasts it will raise your metabolism over time. Conversely, if you calorie restrict in between them, it will lower your metabolism over time.

Here is how it appears to work. There have been a fair number of studies that show that when you eat excess calories, you raise your metabolism slightly. So, for example, before the feast your RMR was 2000 kcal/day, but after the feast your metabolism is 2050 kcal/day. The fast maintains your 2050 kcal/day metabolism, and the next feast kicks it up 2100 kcal/day (in reality the rise is probably only 1% to 2% per cycle). And so on. This hastily thrown together graphic below is obviously a vast oversimplification of this, but this is how I think it works.

hi94LuJ.png719×456 7.82 KB

The problem is that if you do calorie restriction between fasts on a continuous basis, you do the exact opposite, and can drive your metabolism down in the same way. If you’re not cycling the famine/fasts on a continuous basis, it wouldn’t pose a problem however. Calorie restriction done on a continuous basis is never a good idea.

#203

Thank you so much for all of the information! I was pretty regularly fasting (all sorts from IF to EF to keep my body on its toes), but made a point to feast in between based on Dr. Fung’s info. It makes sense that not getting enough fuel between regular fasts could tip your body into that dreaded “starvation mode” that people talk about and make your body try to conserve energy. I will need to revisit that Phinney video to see if there is a way to find out more details about the study he was referring to as far as what people ate after fasting.

(Karim Wassef) #204

fasting times are a function of many variables. I’m discovering my limit and I’m on day 16… with a goal of 40 days :smiley:

(Windmill Tilter) #205

If you find that link to the Phinney vid I’d be curious to check it out. He’s been in the LCHF game for a long time, and has done some really interesting research so I shouldn’t dismiss his claim out of hand.

I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, and there isn’t really much info on repeated fasting because there really haven’t been any studies. I just piece together what info I can find, and from chatting with folks who have a lot of fasting and have before/after RMR tests done. To that end, I bought myself an indirect calorimeter for my birthday, so I’ll be tracking my own RMR daily as soon as it’s calibrated and shipped from the factory. :slight_smile:

(Karim Wassef) #206

Day 17… that’s more than 1.5x my previous longest fast. No hunger this morning so back to my usual satiated state. No muscle soreness from my lifting yesterday either which is a little disconcerting. No soreness = no hypertrophy in my book.

I can’t deny that I worked out well and it felt great and even that I pushed my weights and reps. Great pump too… but no soreness.

Weight went down as expected but not in a way I like… 169.6 lbs total and 135.7lbs lean. So lost 2lbs since yesterday with 1.1lbs fat and 0.9lbs lean so back to 20% bf. Compared to 4 days ago (Saturday), prior to the Leucine, at 170lbs totals and 136lbs lean, I’m back where I started total but lost 0.3lbs lean and 0.1lbs fat (net since Saturday).

Not sure what to make of it yet… work stress did reach a peak yesterday but can’t quantify the physiological effect. My fasted calmness is high but I have to contend with more travel in my future. Thankfully, fasting can only help with that :slight_smile:

So approaching this analytically… 4 days fasting requires 4 x 2700cal ~ 10,800cal. The possible extremes here are all protein or all fat.

All fat ~ 1200g ~ 2.6lbs fat
All protein ~ 2700g ~ 6lbs protein

That’s not assuming the extra exertion from weightlifting.

Assuming I use day 2 of the fast to compensate for the potential rehydration effects of the Leucine ~ +2.1lbs of fat and +1.3lbs of lean in water.

So, the starting hydrated position was 173.4 = 137.3 lean + 36.1 fat. The end position was 169.6 = 135.7 lean + 33.9 fat. So the total loss over the four days (assuming same hydration) is -1.6 lean and -2.2 fat. That’s 3.8lbs.

Given that all lean loss would have been 6lbs and all fat loss would have been 2.6lbs, the ratio of lean to fat over that period is ~35% lean to 65% fat. That’s -3.8lbs. The ratios are flipped but I’m assuming that total hydration is the same, not that the hydration of lean and fat stay the same.

So what does that mean? My interpretation is that I’m still losing lean and fat at the same rate as I was, maybe a bit less lean but I need more data to validate. I also believe that the curves will continue to decline again with slightly adjusted slopes. So why does it look like I lost more lean vs. fat over these 4 days? I think it’s that the rehydration of muscle and fat is different with Leucine than the original state when fed. So it’s still water redistribution I’m experiencing more water retention in fat (making it look like I’m losing more lean).

I still believe that my fat cells are holding on to water in expectation that fat is inbound and it will need those cells for storage again. I just need to be patient and let it cross over to the next threshold. I do expect a flush to correct this … eventually :smiley:

After all the analytics… it’s still about being patient and letting the body do it’s thing.

Day 17… woohoo!

(Karim Wassef) #207

Oh… glucose and ketones still on track 59G, 6.9K, 0.48GKI

(Windmill Tilter) #208

Speakman et. al. wrote a fascinating paper testing the thrifty gene hypothesis by building a mathematical model of fatal human starvation. It’s a fascinating paper. One of the problems that they dealt with was how to partition fat loss vs lean mass loss progressively throughout the fast as a function of adiposity. Here is the very simple yet elegant formula he used:

R fat = 0.489 + 0.547 × ( P fat)

In your case, the ratio of fat burnt relative to lean mass would be: .489 + .547 * 20% bodyfat
= 60% fat and 40% lean mass.

That seems like a bit of an aggressive estimate of lean mass burning, but it’s not far off from your estimate of 35%.

To explore the relationship between the proportion of the body that comprises fat ( P FAT), and the utilisation of fat during weight loss ( R fat) we calculated the fat ( FW1 ) and lean ( LW1 ) contents of the body corresponding to a given body weight ( BW1 ) using the data for the same cohort of 592 individuals (Speakman and Westerterp, 2010). We then calculated the same values ( FW2 and LW2 ) for an individual that was 1 kg lighter ( BW2 = BW1 –1). If an individual was to change body weight from BW1 to BW2 then it would utilise FW1 – FW2 fat tissue and LW1 – LW2 lean tissue. The R fat ratio for this weight change could therefore be calculated knowing the energy densities of these tissues (above) and related to the proportion of fat in the body at the mid-point between BW1 and BW2 . This procedure was iterated across the scale from high to low body mass in both males and females. The relationship between the R fat and P fat was described by the least squared regression:

R fat = 0.489 + 0.547 × ( P fat),

(27)

which explained 98% of the variance in the fat utilisation ratio ( R fat). We therefore defined Γ and Λ from Eqn 22 as 0.489 and 0.547, respectively. This curve shows that when individuals are obese they preferentially burn fat but at lower body weights, as fat levels get very low, they increasingly burn protein (see also Forbes, 1987; Prentice et al., 1991; Dulloo and Jacquet, 1999; Alpert, 2007).

(Karim Wassef) #209

Yes. Very applicable. I’ll dig in.

Another interesting question is the definition of “lean mass”. For example - bone is lean, tendon is lean, even the membrane holding the lipids into adiposite cells is protein… so as fat mass is lost, and the need to support that mass, circulate oxygenate, feed, etc… diminishes… just got much of lean mass is really reduced muscle vs non-muscle lean mass?

The only reason to jettison lean mass is to reduce the energy expenditure that’s withdrawing on the fat reserves… but not at the expense of endangering the survive-ability of the organism.

Here are the results so far:

0
0.PNG1523×705 92.6 KB

I added a new total at the top that shows how much mass is lost in fat vs. lean ignoring day 1 (that I think is just water). It does show that 10lbs is fat and 6.6lbs is lean. That seems harsh. It represents a 23% reduction in fat mass and 5% reduction in lean mass (the %s to the left of the totals).

1
1.PNG1541×808 98.3 KB

And we are definitely not on the original projection… But we’re headed down again, so that’s good… sort of. It is making me think of a Nitrogen fast - basically, consuming more amino acids to create a nitrogen excess for anabolism & muscle gain while fasting to remain autophagic… I don’t think I’m ready for that in this cycle, but food for thought.

2
2.PNG1030×710 179 KB

Still in low glucose, high ketone territory… the fasting chills are back but I’m pushing through.

Lots of water loss today - BM, water flush… not sure where it’ll end up, but every new day is another opportunity to learn and grow… um, shrink… um… both in the right ratios… :smiley:

At least my calmness and sense of humor are intact…

#210

I’m giving the link to the whole thread, because there are a lot of good videos, but its location is about 20/60 on the slider on the right of the forum page. Low Carb Breckenridge 2018 videos

Official studies are great, but I believe empirical evidence can be very valuable too when carefully weighed. And agreed that there is probably not much data out there on repeated/regular fasting…yet.

That gadget sounds really neat. Where did you get it? I had no idea they had personal devices that you could measure your RMR with. :smiley:

#211

What day are you currently on in your fast?

(Karim Wassef) #212

Day 17. The last day I ate was Sunday March 3rd:

(Karim Wassef) #213

here’s another n=1

#214

Congratulations, I’m impressed! What has been the hardest thing so far?

(Windmill Tilter) #215

Interesting video. Dr. Phinney never disappoints. I can’t say that I see much there that I disagree with, except that he did cherry pick his data a bit. His lecture is entitled “The Metabolic Effects of Fasting”, but for his criticism of greater than 48hr fasting and it’s effect on RMR he jumps straight to 28 days! Seems odd no? He left out just a couple of studies by doing that. :slightly_smiling_face: Zauner studied fasts of 4 days and found that the RMR increased. So have others. In general, though I do think that shorter is better, so I agree with Phinney on that.

His argument that obesity is not protective against lean mass loss flat out contradicts every bit of research ever published on that subject. He meant to say that obesity is not completely protective of lean mass, and that lean mass loss decreases with an individuals bodyfat percentage as approximated by the equation:

R fat = 0.489 + 0.547 × ( P fat)

Personally, I do 3 Feast: 3 Fast. I also lift weights 1 day per week at the end of my fast. Then I eat 3000kcal - 6000kcal per day for 3 days. My progress chart is below with my calories per feasting day and my weight loss . My lean body mass has dropped 2lbs in 2 months, so his assertion that we lose .75lb/day in the first week seems a bit silly to me. If one day a week of lifting weights almost completely mitigates the lean mass loss, it’s really not terribly concerning to me. Then again, I don’t fast longer than 3-5 days.

sW7PFdQ.png928×960 145 KB

When he brought in the Biggest Loser study I was a bit puzzled. Comparing individuals who lost 150lbs over the course of 6 months of continuous semi-starvation while being driven to exercise for hours a day, to people who fasted for 28 days makes no sense. What he means to say is that he has no evidence that a permanent metabolic adaptation takes place, but anything is possible. That’s not a very compelling argument!

(Karim Wassef) #216

can you add your measure metabolic rate to that chart?

(Karim Wassef) #217

Consistently, my only real complain is the fasting chills.

Hunger goes away. Weakness goes away… everything stabilizes, mood, energy…

but the cold is hard to cope with. Taking Leucine helped for a couple of days as it seems to have increased water retention and increased blood volume… but now that I’m back on the losing weight slope, it’s come back.

This is compounded by the fact that I use cold packs, ice baths and cold showers… so it is becoming a greater challenge for me.

Other than that - it’s not even hard. I used to complain that my weightlifting intensity was lower but the Leucine supplementation has improved that substantially. One side effect is that I like it too much… It’s a natural amino acid so I don’t think it’s bad to want it, but still… I don’t like wanting or needing anything other than water and salt during a fast.

the cold… I even have a thread about it and I’m doing all those things but still… the fasting chills are harsh.

If I was like most normal people, I’d just bundle up and drink hot tea - but I’m just not into self comfort.

(Windmill Tilter) #218

They are pretty neat! They’re a bit pricey, so you don’t see them very often outside of doctors offices or metabolic testing facilities unfortunately. From my perspective though, the most important number when it comes to sustainable weight loss is resting metabolic rate. If my RMR is going strong, the weight loss takes care of itself, especially if it’s running 30% above average. On the other hand, if RMR is declining but not recovering during a refeed, that’s indicative of a metabolic stress that means I need to take a break. That’s how I look at it at least, but I’m a bit weird.

I got this one. It’s probably overkill for my needs, but I would have spent a lot more on typeII diabetes! Korr makes an FDA certified medical version without VO2 Max and respiratory quotient for about $5k.

https://korr.com/product/cardiocoachco2-quickstart-kit-international/

#219

I wonder why he stated that the metabolic decrease was permanent. I agree that the Biggest Loser study doesn’t apply to fasting (vs. caloric restriction). I probably will feel most comfortable with limiting my fasts to up to 5 days at this point, until the jury arrives on longer term fasting and affect on metabolism.

(Windmill Tilter) #220

Will do. I just talked with my Korr rep and my unit is getting it’s certification on the bench tomorrow or Friday. Then it’ll be 4-5 days in a little brown truck from Utah to my house. :smiley: