Most of those non-force-fed were displaying symptoms of dehydration and electrolyte imbalance, that don't occur with water , vitamins and salted bone broth. Yes, it would be dangerous to go on a hunger strike if you were skinny to begin with.

Nancy, I think were getting closer to something. I think there's a difference between starvation and fasting, but they can certainly link. If one fasts long enough they will starve and die. One that is starving has no reason to be fasting and should eat something soon if they are able. One that is fasting to the point of starvation should probably reconsider the reason they are fasting unless that reason is to damage themselves via starvation.

So we get to an interesting question; When does fasting become classified as starvation? I don't know the answer to that.

Fung defines fasting as not eating, something you choose to do and can break at any time, whereas starvation is imposed on you and you never know where your next meal is coming from. For that reason starvation also imposes stress, cortisol increase etc. that are bad for health.

But one thing I've found in researching scientific articles on "fasting" and "starvation" is that everyone defines them differently (or more commonly not at all, you have to infer their definition). Several "fasting" and "starvation" articles shocked me when half way through the paper they start taking about what their subjects were eating even though the abstract never mentioned food or drinks; I had assumed water only, but then had to start back on page one re-reading with the new-found definition in mind. In Keys' "starvation" studies, subjects were eating 1500 cals/day (really calorie restriction studies since they were underfed by 500-1000 calories/day). Chief Theresa Spence was on a "hunger strike" that involved drinking fatty soup all day, probably more calories than she normally consumed.

When I added the occasional IF (18 to 24 hour fasts 3 or 4 times a month) I also worked to try to eliminate snacking between meals. This essentially made the 12 hour fast a regular daily thing for me. It didn't happen everyday - but it did happen more often than not. I saw clear and immediate results with my BG. My baseline BG dropped by about 20 points and since then my post prandial BG readings have been stellar. I rarely get a reading above 120 at the peak postmeal. Most readings are below 100. 9 months into this WOE (before adding IFs) I was still getting FBG and pre-dinner BG readings in the 100 to 110 range. So I'm thinking that IF did wonders for my insulin resistance.

I've only done one longer fast (6 days) and I have an interesting observations about it. I had started lifting weights for strength and I decided to continue during the fast. At the time I was doing 2 days of lifting (different muscle groups) and then I took a recovery day.

When I started the fast my recovery day was day 1. I did my normal lifting routine on the next two days. Strength was fine both days. I completed my sets - just barely getting them in before failure. I was lifting at my max capabilities for 3 sets of 6 to 8 reps for each lift.

I took my off day on day 4 of the fast. To that point the fast was going fine. No issues at all. I actually find fasting easer to do than to under eat on a given day.

Day 5 and day 6 of the fast were lifting days, if you want to call it that. I felt fine, but I could not come anywhere close to getting all of my reps in on my lifts. On the first sets I was getting 6 to 8 reps for each lift, but it felt like the last set. By the 3rd sets I couldn't get but 1 or 2 reps in. It was clear to me that very little recovery had occurred since my last session. I was much weaker than I otherwise would have been given my past performance with this routine.

I ended the fast at day 6. It was supposed to be a 7 day fast, but I just wasn't feeling it. I can't say that I enjoy fasting. I don't. I'd rather eat. But it wasn't too hard, either. I was tired of doing it and ended it a day early. I ate plenty of protein.

What I find most interesting about this experiment is what happened next. First of all, I did tend to make-up eat. I was hungry and I ate. I was surprised to find that when I resumed my weight lifting routine after my off day I had regained all of my strength and then some. Getting all 3 sets of each lift in pretty easy. The bounce back was amazingly fast. I expected it to take longer. After another day off I did 2 more days of my weight routine. It was easier still. I upped the weights across the board for the next round a few days later. I don't know how long the boost of HGH floats around in your body, but it seemed to be above normal in that week following the fast.

A week or two after the fast I was lifting more weight and seeing the results in the mirror. That last part is subjective. But lifting a higher amount of weight across the board is not. I was stronger in a short window of time. Was it the fast? Was it the compensation eating that I was doing for the week after the fast? I can't say for sure. What ever the case, I appeared to bulk up much faster as a result of the fast compared to what had been happening prior to the fast.

I did this over the summer. I haven't done a fast longer than 2 or 3 days since then. I just don't enjoy fasting any longer than that. I haven't learned to properly end a fast yet - so there is no point to it as far as weight loss goes. I just compensate eat for the next day or two. But I don't think losing lean muscle was a problem. If anything I ended up gaining some as a result of the longer fast.

My experiences of longer fasts have all been positive, except for the first one--I was very hungry the whole time then, but I started fairly lean.

I think Nancy's right that Dr. Fung plays loose with the science here. The equivalence of fasting to bariatric surgery is uncertain when it comes to metabolic rate. I'm not even certain that the maintenance of a higher metabolism is that much of a plus--what do you want, more muscle, or a faster metabolic rate?

Fung also oversimplifies with lean mass loss, significant amounts are lost. Not necessarily a big deal, as long as you don't push things too far and you have appropriate medical support for longer fasts. What ever you lose, you'll have to gain back.

Getting in electrolytes is important. Vitamins make sense as well. The thiamin thing--a person can feel just fine while fasting, and then get in trouble when they refeed, especially carbohydrate because the requirement for thiamin and some other nutrients is higher in the fed than in the fasted state.

I don't really worry about a metabolic slowdown that's particular to fasting, but not necessarily for the same reasons that Dr. Fung gives. Other than David Ludwig's study where he dieted people down on a standard low calorie diet and then put them on a low fat, mediterranean, or a low carb diet, where the low carb diet resulted in less of a decrease in metabolism than the other two diets, I haven't really seen anything to convince me that how people lose weight has that much of a difference to metabolic rate.

Dr Fung;



Yes--but over four days of fasting, you don't lose that much weight. The fair test is having one group lose fifty pounds with a standard diet, and another through some sort of fasting/refeeding program. There's a lot of apples and oranges comparisons going on.

I do think Dr. Fung has some hypotheses worth testing. And I think there's enough good data about fasting to make it useful. Oversimplification probably makes it easier to coach people along while they're fasting, but it's going to turn some people off, which is unfortunate, because I do think there's enough data to suggest that it deserves a place in the toolbox.

And working out--I've increased some lifts right through a prolonged fast. But only on set on any lift on a particular day, it's no time to really challenge your glycogen stores with much volume.

Ahh, yes, and that's a good point. Perhaps, however, this is why people get hung up on fasting. It's true that fasting is used by many to lose weight. Fasting is also used by many to normalize BG levels, reduce insulin resistance, eliminate damaged cells and amino acids through autophagy, to reset the body at a cellular and metabolic level making the body more sensitive to its chemical and nutritional environment, to get better and more balanced energy levels and mental clarity, and perhaps to enhance life span. Many start experimenting with fasting for weight loss purposes and find the other benefits valuable enough to continue IF on a regular basis. Possibly similar to why some decide to continue LCHF, as the beneficial dynamics of improved health exceed simple weight loss. There are several reasons to continue these practices beyond the point where one no longer needs to lose weight.

The serious side of IF, however, is that certain health conditions require some to work closely with a physician experienced with fasting to start a safe fasting protocol. Not to be taken lightly as another DIY project in those circumstances!

Thud, just letting you and all of the posters in this thread - and on the forum - who may not have previously been aware, know that this forum does not support fasting other than intermittent fasting.

Doreen laid it all out clearly in this post:


So please, no more discussion of fasting! (I love that little smiley. )


http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...3&postcount=241

oh good, the thread wasn't wiped out. I saw that my posts seemed to disappear when I looked in "show my recent posts" so I figured the thread was gone. There's some interesting information here

Sorry about the fasting talk, I can refrain

Part of the reason I brought this up was the Atlantic story and the other part is a vegan/McDougall-fan friend who is doing a long water fast and she's utterly miserable.

https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_..._the_moral_mind

When I was very sick with my mystery illness, I couldn't do IF or maintain an "eating window."

Now with me getting better, it is effortless; I skip breakfast, have a late lunch, and an early dinner. It works well.

So my point is that "good" fasting should also be effortless. Don't push it.

FWIW, I had an eating disorder for many years; a rather rare variation known as the binge/fast. While it's still a bad thing; it turns out to be much better for me than the binge/purge and binge/vomit choices.

I came out strongly against someone who showed up on the board bragging about a "dry fast" which means no food and no water; this is a very bad idea indeed.

This is why I continue IF - no snacking & not eating between 3 pm & 7 or 8 am. It's the only way I have fbg below 100 & after-meal bg that are normal instead of elevated. The difficulty for me is not being hungry - I'm not - but simply wanting to eat. If I eat in the evening once it's not too bad, but if I eat in the evening every day - no matter how low carb - my bg starts going up again.

I have suffered from the same type of eating disorder and found that doing anything more than my natural rhythm of 16:8 or 18:6 IF seems to trigger that eating disorder (which I thought was completely inactive at this point). 😞 So I stopped trying to do more than what seemed so natural to me. I eat dinner and don't eat breakfast because I've never enjoyed eating in the morning. I eat a sometimes late lunch, avoid snacking, and eat dinner with my family. Seems to work for me. I adore Dr. Fung, but I would caution anyone with an eating disorder (active or in inactive type).

As some of you will have noticed, several posts have been removed from this thread.

So let me just remind you all once again: this forum does not support fasting other than intermittent fasting.

In my own case, it seems my pancreas has two modes: off or Tanker Car of Insulin. I am much better off with big meals and a lot of distance than the six meals a day thing which drove me to distraction with cravings and hunger pangs.

But I am coming from a position where I handled both the physical and the emotional roots of my eating disorder, and what I am doing now is actually healthy. You make a great point!