Why are longer fasts more efficacious than daily IF?
OldDoug
(Doug)
#62
I hope so, Allzed. 
Seems to me there is an amount of “inertia” to our metabolisms - that in the short-term it’s hard to change things much, for better or worse. And if there have been long-term changes for the worse, it’s probably going to take a good bit of time, work, better practices, etc., to move things back the other way. Insulin resistance is a good example here - it sometimes taking years to get enough improvement.
If there is “magic” at work, that seems to defy caloric calculations, I think the relationship with hormones is the best explanation. For 30 years I only gained about 5 pounds per year. I definitely liked it cool - my thermostat was apparently turned up some, but we’re pretty efficient at making heat. Good at making motion, too, without using up much energy. Want to burn off that hamburger you just ate? Go run 5 miles.
I don’t feel that a slightly elevated body termperature is all the explanation, however - far from it. There were a lot of weeks that I should have gained 5 lbs… Throw in a few 8000 calorie days and one would think the fat gain will be real, substantial and immediate. I wonder what else goes on…
4dml
#63
Dr Fung mentions he started fasting patients out of frustration. He had low patient compliance with LC diets. Many of his patients found it easier to control WHEN they eat rather than WHAT they eat.
I feel one of the nicest benefits of fasting is that it can be effective no matter what I eat. Sure it’s beneficial to combine it with a LC diet, but it’s not necessary. But don’t tell your wife, we wouldn’t want her to leave you 
collaroygal
(KCKO, KCFO)
#64
The Q&A by Megan Ramos on April 11’s Obesity Code podcast addresses a lot of this stuff.
What really caught my attention is their client data shows that 3 fasting days a week yields the best results. Clients can get off or lower significantly their meds and they lose weight within 6 weeks. Does not matter if it is was a MWF or consecutive days like MTW protocol.
Capnbob
(Rob)
#68
Indeed but if I remember some study I heard correctly, obese people typically eat less and exercise more than the general population. With a crappy diet, of course, it does little good but while not as extreme as the BL folks, it would tend to point them in the same direction?
Justin_Jordan
(Justin Jordan)
#69
Like I said, I feel like people worry too much about it. That’s not the same thing as saying there’s nothing there.
But you could go through this forum right now and find a number of posts in the last few days where people are worried they’re not eating enough. They feel good, they’re not hungry, they just don’t want to eat.
I think that’s because people think the metabolism is a lot more fragile than it (usually) is. You can look at the Biggest Loser stuff but you need to keep in mind that’s a circumstance very few people are likely to replicate.
I don’t know about obese people eating less and exercising more - to the best of my knowledge, that’s based on surveys asking people, and no metabolic ward study (which are not perfect either) has ever replicated it.
There’s a pretty substantial shame element involved with being overweight in our society, so it’s at least possible that people are, at least sometimes, subconsciously fudging the numbers.
If your goal is to lose weight, and you’re losing weight, not hungry and feel good, then I think there’s no good reason to worry about metabolic slowdown. But people do.
Dan_Dan
(Dan Dan)
#70
And there is the problem in a nutshell and its called ‘Denial’ and if the Biggest Loser who used every tool in the Calories In Calories Out Play Book and ended in utter failure won’t convince you nothing will 
Justin_Jordan
(Justin Jordan)
#71
I’m not sure what point you think you’re arguing, but have fun with that,