Fri, Jul-10-20, 13:33
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 3,819
|
|
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 217/145/143
BF:
Progress: 97%
|
|
I found this transcript of Jason Fung talking about fasting, loss of muscle and other issues very interesting. It put my mind at rest regarding muscle loss and the other issues:
https://blog.daveasprey.com/why-you...nd-jimmy-moore/
Quote:
|
I’ll just touch on the two main concerns that people have, which is the starvation mode and muscle loss. The starvation mode is this idea that you’re body is going to slow down its metabolism when you don’t eat. If you normally burn 2,000 calories a day, the idea is that as you go into starvation mode, you’ll go down to 1500 calories a day because you’re burning less, it’s easier to plateau your weight loss and regain. What’s truly ironic about this whole myth about starvation mode is cutting a few calories a day guarantees that you will go into starvation mode. We have studies going back almost 100 years which tell us that if you simply reduce your calories, say, by a quarter, go down from 2,000 calories a day to 1500, your metabolism will slow to 1500. That’s because the body’s not stupid. If it’s taking in 2,000, burning 2,000, it’s great. If you drop down to 1500, you can’t keep burning 2,000 because then you’re going to die. The body’s just not that stupid. If really cuts down to 1500. That’s why caloric reduction diets are guaranteed to fail. Guaranteed, because you go into this starvation mode. What doesn’t put you into starvation mode is actual starvation, or at least the controlled version which is fasting. What you’re doing is that you’re not actually slowing down the metabolic rate. You’re forcing the body to switch fuel sources, so that you’re not burning food, you’re burning stored food, which his body fat. Then you’re body’s like, “Hey. Hey, look, there’s plenty of this stuff. Let’s just burn 2,000 calories because that’s really what I want to do.” If you look at studies of the metabolic rate, even over 70 days of alternate daily fasting, or four straight days, if you measure the metabolic rate after four straight days of fasting, a value 10% higher than when you started. The VO2, which is your exercise capacity, is 10% higher. That makes sense, because your body’s actually pumping you full of energy. This makes sense because if you are a caveman and it’s winter and there’s no food, you can’t shut down your metabolism because every day is going to get harder to go out and hunt that rabbit. Your body, again, is just not that stupid. What it does is it switches fuel sources and then pumps up your energy so you can out and hunt that woolly mammoth. That’s how we survive. There’s a huge number of benefits to the hormonal fasting. It’s the same thing with the muscle loss. If we all lost muscle when we fasted, again, those cavemen would have died out a long time ago. Think about this. All those aboriginal people, indigenous people who went through these feast and famine cycles. Every time you gain weight, you gain fat. Every time you lose weight, you lose muscle. It’s like, “Okay, so you’re telling me that nature designed us to store energy, food energy, as fat, and yet when we need energy we burn muscle?” It’s such a stupid … You think Mother Nature is so stupid? It’s like storing firewood for the winter, but as soon as you need it, “Oh, let’s chop up our sofa, throw it in the fire.” Nobody’s that dumb. This is the thing, neither is our body. All those indigenous people who had those feast and famine cycles, they should be 100% little balls of 100% fat. It’s funny how that didn’t happen. All those Native Americans, all those [Inuit 00:19:12], all those Bush people, they’re all lean and muscular with no fat. Why? Your body stores energy as fat, and when you need it, you burn energy as fat. All the metabolic studies show the same thing. People say, “Well, because of gluconeogensis, you’re going to burn protein.” If your question is, “Do you lose protein,” then measure the protein. Again, just recently there was a study comparing directly caloric reduction versus alternate daily fasting. At the end of it, if you look at lean mass percentage, it had gone up a little bit in both cases because they’re burning fat, but the percentage went up .5 in the caloric reduction and 2.2 in the intermittent fasting, which means that it’s four times better at preserving your lean mass than caloric reduction. It’s way better. Again, the same thing. If you look at metabolic rate, with the caloric reduction, it went down. With the fasting, it did not. If you are trying to keep your weight off, you must fast. You can’t just cut calories. You will fail. That’s why everybody fails, because they’ve given up this therapeutic modality, because the two things is the hunger and the metabolic rate. That’s what kills the weight loss in the long term. There’s a huge advantage for fasting from a metabolic rate standpoint.
|
Last edited by Kirsteen : Fri, Jul-10-20 at 23:49.
|
|
Linear Mode
