What did you learn today?

[OldDoug]

But my main takeaways were:

* they recommend people fast 24-36 hours, irregularly to not get into a pattern.
* 36 hours is better than 24, and not much benefit is seen after 36 hours.
* Treat it as therapy, be that serious about it.

It does make a huge difference for many people, often doing the fasts 3 times a week. Heck, missing one meal can help a person.

But we really believe that to beat insulin resistance, 24 to 36 hours of fasting is very effective, doing that intermittently. That’s all you really need and it creates a nice balance.

They definitely are focused on shorter fasts. Dr. Fung’s Facebook group about fasting does not even permit talking about fasts longer than 7 days. I realize that Megan Ramos was “speaking to the masses,” and has to be somewhat general, but I would disagree with the blanket statement that fasting 24 to 36 hours is “all you really need” - this is far from true for many people.

Not at all saying the above approach is ‘wrong.’ If there is a spectrum of benefit, then going from the “Standard American Diet” (for example) to doing 3 fasts per week of 24+ hours is taking a huge bite. My gut feeling is that it takes one - one who needs longer fasts - about 75% of the way. I think that almost all of us would not have developed the metabolic problems we have if we had followed the practice for most of our lives. I wonder - would just one fast per week of 36 hours do it?

during the 24 to 36 hour fasts, when we do see a lot of gluconeogenesis and we do see protein breaking down. But after that 36 hours it really starts to drop, and then it stabilizes and plateaus at a really low level.

B: And so initially after the first couple days of a fast, the resting metabolic rate goes up. And then after that it seems to maybe stabilize and then come down at some point. And the question is where is that irreversible?

M: We don’t recommend these longer fasts because there’s so much unknown about that.

(Talking about fasting-mimicking diets)

Often 24 hours doesn’t quite cut it. That extra 12 hours getting to 36 hours seems to make a real difference, a huge impact on patient outcomes.

There is a mix of things here. “Fast-mimicking diets” have too much protein and carbohydrates for autophagy - and I think this is what Megan was talking about, as far as “protein breaking down.” Autophagy is a separate thing from insulin resistance and metabolic problems as a whole. I do disagree with notions that it really starts to drop after 36 hours, or that gluconeogenesis does.

That 12 more hours after 24 hours of fasting " seems to make a real difference, a huge impact on patient outcomes," should be no surprise. So much of the first 24 hours is consumed by food going through the stomach, and the small intestine, by the post-absorptive phase (as Dr. Fung himself calls it), and by glycogen depletion.

If insulin resistance is a problem, then let us consider that insulin levels drop through at least 4 or 5 days of fasting. At 24 hours of fasting the body is just getting into ‘fasting’ mode. At 36 hours it’s certainly farther along, but to dismiss what comes after is really missing the point, for many people.

There indeed is a lot that’s unknown about the effects of long fasts. However, the improvement in insulin and blood sugar levels, for most people, is a fact. Dr. Fung reports that after 4 days of fasting, the average metabolic increase is 13%. Metabolic slowdown is a concern, and I agree that studies on long term fasting are needed. From everything I’ve heard, read and experienced, I don’t think the metabolism slows down during the first couple weeks.

[Tripper_mra]

I had to renew my Coaching insurance today and I learned that it was $25 cheaper this year!!!

[Rclause]

I had to renew my Coaching insurance today and I learned that it was $25 cheaper this year!!!

They found out you were eating keto and gave you the discount!

[Farback]

I have a steel stent in one carotid atery. I consider myself bionic as well. It doesn’t set off the scanner at the airport to my surprise. I did get the full body scan one time, and to my complete belief, my scan is up on the ‘big anaconda’ wall of fame.

[OldDoug]

Today, I learned that I am human… and that’s perfectly Ok.

And a really, really nice human, too.

[Ilana_Rose]

and now I’m looking at the (very obviously not-proof-read transcript[1]) and picking out some points

Thanks for your effort here it really made me want to listen to this podcast.

You know you can take free in MIT courses online.

I’m going to check this out!

Georgian dances . . . what can I say?

LOL… I really liked it!

Hey I’m a 65yo. Naps are always good.

I’ve been with my husband since he was 21 and he’s ALWAYS held this emphatically.

Now to what I’ve learned. I’ve learned what the expression “touching the third rail” means. I have to wonder how many times I’ve heard it over my 52 years and it’s gone right over my head.

[Ilana_Rose]

I’ve also just learned to muti-quote!

[Regina]

Bad head gasket? This happened to me…

That happened to me when I was showing a house!!!

[juice]

It does make a huge difference for many people, often doing the fasts 3 times a week. Heck, missing one meal can help a person.

So true.

Dr. Fung’s Facebook group about fasting does not even permit talking about fasts longer than 7 days.

Well. File that under “things l learned today,” then[1]

I realize that Megan Ramos was “speaking to the masses,” and has to be somewhat general, but I would disagree with the blanket statement that fasting 24 to 36 hours is “all you really need” - this is far from true for many people.

Fully agree with that, and that’s an important caveat, and especially so around here[2].

I wonder - would just one fast per week of 36 hours do it?

As you say, n=1.

Autophagy is a separate thing from insulin resistance and metabolic problems as a whole.

Yeah, totally

Dr. Fung reports that after 4 days of fasting, the average metabolic increase is 13%. Metabolic slowdown is a concern, and I agree that studies on long term fasting are needed. From everything I’ve heard, read and experienced, I don’t think the metabolism slows down during the first couple weeks.

The whole “slowing metabolism” thing is fascinating, and there is just so very little information out there on it (in terms of how quickly it starts to slow, and so on).

Great post, Doug. Thanks for that.

[1] Not been on FB for well over a year

[2] And I thought that at the time, but was trying to keep my comments as minimal as possible, or I’d have made it a confusing mess. I probably should have just used footnotes

[anon54735292]

Prolonged heatwave + lady hormones do diabolical things to my ankles

[juice]

Thanks for your effort here it really made me want to listen to this podcast.

It’s really worthwhile. And as I said, my important points are sure to not be everyone’s (see Doug’s terrific post above), so listening is a good idea.

I’ve also just learned to muti-quote!

[OldDoug]

And I thought that at the time, but was trying to keep my comments as minimal as possible, or I’d have made it a confusing mess. I probably should have just used footnotes

Understood, Juice. I’m conscious of making long posts, often - there are some negatives with that. There’s a balance to be struck between being complete and comprehensive, and brief and more readable.

Megan does have a point with “as human beings we have this drive to be excessive. This is something about fasting that’s driving me little a bit nuts when I do go on social media. If one day of fasting is good for me, then 100 days a fasting is good for me.”

So true, and our desire for fast results feeds into it. Megan et al. focus on things that are practical and workable for most people, and that’s an overwhelmingly large portion of the battle.

I’m struck by the relativity of things. It doesn’t take much, often, as far as true lifestyle changes, to really make a difference. With fasting, some people get great results with intermittent intervals. Many others love the 24-36 hour fasts. I think my sweet spot is 3 to 10 days; still working on this.

Then there are people like this dude, pretty lean to begin with, fasts for 30 or 40 days, on just water. Does not even use any salt.

http://www.scottragsdale.com/2018/02/21/40-days-40-nights-water-fast-challenge-achieved-completed/

[JohnH]

I think that almost all of us would not have developed the metabolic problems we have if we had followed the practice for most of our lives. I wonder - would just one fast per week of 36 hours do it?

When I was a teenager, so 45+ years ago, I knew a rather overweight man who had been losing a lot of weight. His approach - eating normally every other day, and only drinking water/coffee on the other days. Or what we would call today Alternate Day Fasting.

I am guessing he came up with it on his own. Too bad he didn’t have an MD degree and a penchant for writing books, or we’d all be 30-years further along with this.

Regarding a 36-hour fast - I did my first one ever on the Friday before Christmas Eve. I am about 4 months into keto and pretty well fat adapted, but I had been in a slowdown/near stall for about 3 weeks, even though I was eating and exercising on-plan the whole time. That one fast must have triggered the pending “whoosh” because I lost 7 pounds from that Monday weigh-in, to the morning after the fast (following Saturday). I did gain 3 back after normally eating the next couple of days but the stall is broken and I am down 8 pounds total from the stall point. I haven’t seen weight loss that fast since the first few weeks.

It also tended to reset my hunger-satiety point lower than it already had been. I found myself (and still do, 2 weeks later) tending to have to consciously decide it is time to eat.

Since it seems to be a very powerful tool, I am going to keep it in reserve for special situations or future stalls. I have done occasional 24-hour fasts before more out of convenience, but the 36-hour was definitely different in potency and continued effects.

[juice]

I’m struck by the relativity of things. It doesn’t take much, often, as far as true lifestyle changes, to really make a difference.

Then there are people like this dude, pretty lean to begin with, fasts for 30 or 40 days, on just water. Does not even use any salt.

Very interesting, that.

When I was a teenager, so 45+ years ago, I knew a rather overweight man who had been losing a lot of weight. His approach - eating normally every other day, and only drinking water/coffee on the other days. Or what we would call today Alternate Day Fasting.

There’s a guy who works around at the local supermarket who has lost probably 40kg in the last 12-18 months. I asked him about it a few months ago (partly because I was interested, and partly because he looked as if he needed someone to tell him what an awesome job he’d done) and yeah, IF but just on his usual diet, no keto, etc…

So yeah, it’s a huge tool. (Kinda like me, apparenlly

I did gain 3 back after normally eating the next couple of days

Aye, that’ll happen. Great work.

[OldDoug]

Regarding a 36-hour fast - I did my first one ever on the Friday before Christmas Eve. I am about 4 months into keto and pretty well fat adapted, but I had been in a slowdown/near stall for about 3 weeks, even though I was eating and exercising on-plan the whole time. That one fast must have triggered the pending “whoosh” because I lost 7 pounds from that Monday weigh-in, to the morning after the fast (following Saturday). I did gain 3 back after normally eating the next couple of days but the stall is broken and I am down 8 pounds total from the stall point. I haven’t seen weight loss that fast since the first few weeks.

It also tended to reset my hunger-satiety point lower than it already had been. I found myself (and still do, 2 weeks later) tending to have to consciously decide it is time to eat.

Right on, John. For so many of us, I have to think that giving our bodies time to ‘relax’ without stimulating insulin secretion is a very good thing.

On the ‘Whoosh’ - I don’t know what to think. Fat cells partially emptying out, refilling with water, then later releasing the water. I’ve read several things saying that really does not happen, either…

[juice]

Ah man, I was so taken by the first quote in my above response I forgot to reply to the stuff above it Apologies.

Understood, Juice. I’m conscious of making long posts, often - there are some negatives with that. There’s a balance to be struck between being complete and comprehensive, and brief and more readable.

So true. And as a journalist for years, I’m CRAZY aware of that point. I’m super-critical of my stuff, and I’m very much more inclined to keep things short and to the point rather than do the long explanation thing, but sometimes it needs that. Then I edit myself to death

Having said that, my ADHD brain will often look at a badly-formatted wall of text, and just skip it. I know it’s a bad thing, but if it’s not broken up into paragraphs (denoting at least minimal organisaition) then the #ADHDbrain just doesn’t bother even trying to read it.

Megan does have a point with “as human beings we have this drive to be excessive. This is something about fasting that’s driving me little a bit nuts when I do go on social media. If one day of fasting is good for me, then 100 days a fasting is good for me.”

Yeah, I worry about this with myself - I’m addictive as a rule (which is why I have never drunk alcohol, or smoked, or done other drugs) so I’m hyper-aware of what I’m doing. (The depression and anxiety also feed into that, funnily enough

So true, and our desire for fast results feeds into it. Megan et al. focus on things that are practical and workable for most people, and that’s an overwhelmingly large portion of the battle.

+1

I’ve read several things saying that really does not happen, either…

Welcome to every topic in the history of ever

[OldDoug]

Having said that, my ADHD brain will often look at a badly-formatted wall of text, and just skip it. I know it’s a bad thing, but if it’s not broken up into paragraphs (denoting at least minimal organisaition) then the #ADHDbrain just doesn’t bother even trying to read it.

Large paragraphs sometimes have their place, but 4 lines is where I often draw the line, just for ‘eye-relief.’

I shudder at some of the rambling, incoherent masses of text that sometimes appear in our modern age.

[ctviggen]

You know, I’ve done many different fasting regimens, 4.5-5.5 days, 3-3.5 days, 36 hours, OMAD, etc. For me, all of them are good, but the worst experience I had was doing two 36 hour and one 22 hour fast per week. After a few weeks of that, I could not fast any longer, as I was getting too cold. That may just be coincidence (I started getting cold while fasting before then), but it reached a crescendo with that schedule. I had to quit fasting. Ate a ton, started taking iodine, was able to fast 4.5 days. Still having some issues on shorter fasts, but going to try another 4.5 days next week.

Was my problem iodine or slowing metabolism or both? It’s unclear to me.

[PaulL]

The whole “slowing metabolism” thing is fascinating, and there is just so very little information out there on it (in terms of how quickly it starts to slow, and so on).

Check out George Cahill’s seminal study, “Starvation in Man,” from the 1960’s, I believe.

In other words, just about the time you were born, young feller!

[JustPeachy]

I kinda knew this but today reinforced it…never start a new, ambitious project on a new, unused piece of equipment! D’oh!