I'm trying fasting again

[EyeBRollin]

Not really, IF got me down 30lbs in 2 months, I ate plenty of protein and barely lost any muscles or strength.

Can lose the 30 lbs without fasting.

Uh...it's actually not. I do it regularly, twice a week around 36 hours at a time.

Been doing some form of fasting for 8-10 years.

Yes, that is anecdotal. What about fasting makes it better than following a healthy diet in deficit?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Can lose the 30 lbs without fasting.




Yes, that is anecdotal. What about fasting makes it better than following a healthy diet in deficit?

It's the only way to burn almost pure fat without losing muscle at the same time. Or at least scientifically the weight lost via fasting was 90% fat versus 50/50 for pretty much any other method.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Most of those studies are garbage and used very inaccurate measuring equipment.

If you are getting sufficient protein and are above 10%BF, you are not losing muscle. Not that you ever really lose muscle anyways - it can all be reclaimed.

IF is only a superior diet in the sense that it is easily sustainable as a lifestyle change. A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit.

Disagree based on lots of experience and trying it both ways.

And what cannot be disputed or downplayed easily is a sustained caloric deficit leading to a slower metabolism as the body tries to adjust downwards when doing long term caloric restrictions versus fasting for 2 non-consecutive days per week and then eating maintenance calories the other 5 days.

Metabolic rates after fasting even after 5 days straight have been found to be HIGHER than prior to fasting.

Couple that with the massive boost in growth hormone(up to 7x normal peaking at 24 hours and being released in pulses throughout the day) and that helps to explain why muscle loss is attenuated so well.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

It actually can be disputed, with some significant evidence tbh.

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most of the metabolic baseline expenditure changes occur because the body is going into a state of lower energy expenditure - usually though small dialy tasks. Finding closer parking spots so you walk less, you aren't tapping your foot anymore, you don't get up quite as often to go pee, etc.


This was debunked, FYI.

How does fasting for 1-5 days equate with fasting for 30 days?

Two different things evoking totally different responses by the body.

C'mon man...do better than that. That's not even worth me responding to.

Also I don't really care about your "theories" that sound good to you in your mind when I already know how they play out from actually doing them for many years and comparing them to other methods that I tried alongside them.

I will put far more stock in my actual experience than in your made up theories.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

because if Basal Metabolic Rate was not significantly changed after 30 days of literal starvation, why would it significantly change if not starving but in a caloric deficit..?

You continually talk about IF as if it were some magic cure and refuse to see anything but good things about it.

It's a solid diet plan; it works for many people and often lends itself to the best long term results for keeping weight off after losing it. Not because of some mystical benefit though, it's truly just an easy to adopt lifestyle change - whereas things like Keto or IIFYM are not easily sustainable after you've lost the weight.

Well if that's true then you just proved my point even more.

Because numerous studies show that calorie restricted diets cause metabolic slowdown(up to a 20-25% slowdown of metabolic rate), so if fasting for 30 days doesn't then there is a clear advantage to shorter fasts.

You inadvertently proved my point for me.

5 Ways Restricting Calories Can Be Harmful

A calorie deficit is needed for weight loss, but restricting calories too much is dangerous. Here are 5 potentially harmful effects of calorie restriction.

www.healthline.com

 

[BackInTheGame78]

dude, you gotta stop reading these things and taking them at face value.

The article summary:
Severely restricting your calories can decrease your metabolism and cause you to lose muscle mass. This makes it more difficult to maintain your weight loss in the long term.

No one was advocating for severely restricting calories, but even if they were - where do you think [not eating for 2 days straight] would land in the severity of caloric restriction?

The body does not treat that the same. That is what you don't seem to be understanding.

Eating lower calories for months at a time has a MUCH WORSE effect than not eating for 2 days.

Similar to a person who is working a job where they are in a negative balance at the end of the month every month versus a person who is off work for 2 days and doesn't get paid but is in a monthly surplus normally. Which is the bigger issue? The body views it the same way.

I've been doing this stuff since you were in diapers. Maybe you can go talk circles to people who have never done any of these experiments on themselves over 15-20 year time frames but you can't do that with me who has.

 

[Obee1]

Most of those studies are garbage and used very inaccurate measuring equipment.

If you are getting sufficient protein and are above 10%BF, you are not losing muscle. Not that you ever really lose muscle anyways - it can all be reclaimed.

IF is only a superior diet in the sense that it is easily sustainable as a lifestyle change. A caloric deficit is a caloric deficit.

Most of them are garbage? Which one's are garbage, do you have an example? Is it the studies that support fasting as an intervention or the studies that don't support fasting as an intervention that are garbage? Were they epidemiological studies or were they RCTs? If they were using "inaccurate measuring equipment" then it must be RCTs. What is the equipment they are using? If it is inaccurate why do the researchers keep using it? Is it inaccurate cause it supports the intervention? Can equipment proving fasting is bad be inaccurate? Why do the peers in the peer review not call this bogus research out? Is this "measuring equipment" more or less accurate than the FFQs that epidemiologist like to use to mold public opinion?

Seriously though, there are a lot of reasons other than weight loss to fast. When I think of the benefits of fasting, weight loss is far down on the list. Fasting may not be the most ideal way to lose fat but to many it's the simplest. Why? Because once they're told not to fast, just eat a calorie restricted healthy diet, then all the dogmatist begin evangelizing vegan this and carnivore that vs Mediterranean this and keto that. Fasting can be accepted, I said "can," by vegans and carnivores alike. Rare is it that pro fasting or anti fasters are willing to die on their "fasting hill." That goes for researchers also. There are no fasting lobby groups or special interests padding universities pockets.

With what we know today about fasting, which is a broad term, generally speaking the the positives of occasional fast far outweigh the negatives. The awesome thing about living here in the good ole U.S.of A is that we have a choice in the matter so do whatever you want. Me, I like the benefits and the occasional discomfort of fasting. I also enjoy listening to non fasters freakout if they're late or miss a meal as if the world is ending and they're near death.

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

It actually can be disputed, with some significant evidence tbh.

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most of the metabolic baseline expenditure changes occur because the body is going into a state of lower energy expenditure - usually though small dialy tasks. Finding closer parking spots so you walk less, you aren't tapping your foot anymore, you don't get up quite as often to go pee, etc.


This was debunked, FYI.

In this study they were fed low quality carb heavy diets like bread. High carb is antithetical to fasting, let alone eating at all.

 

[Obee1]

It actually can be disputed, with some significant evidence tbh.

Minnesota Starvation Experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Most of the metabolic baseline expenditure changes occur because the body is going into a state of lower energy expenditure - usually though small dialy tasks. Finding closer parking spots so you walk less, you aren't tapping your foot anymore, you don't get up quite as often to go pee, etc.


This was debunked, FYI.

Please provide the evidence debunking the fact that GH increases during a fast. Hopefully they didn't test with some of that inaccurate measuring equipment thingymajiggers you speak of.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Please provide the evidence debunking the fact that GH increases during a fast. Hopefully they didn't test with some of that inaccurate measuring equipment thingymajiggers you speak of.

I'd like to see this also since there have been many, many, many studies done on it and all show the exact same thing.

Apparently his one, yet unseen, study "debunks" 100 others that show the opposite?

 

[Giovanni SouthSide]

Not really, IF got me down 30lbs in 2 months, I ate plenty of protein and barely lost any muscles or strength.

What are your main sources of protein ?

 

[Obee1]

If either of you two want to actually get good information, you're much better off watching what Dr. Layne Norton for up to date information. He provides studies linked in his video description, since you're so interested in those.

I never said fasting does not increase GH, I said it doesnt increase it this much:



Ive said repeatedly that IF is superior to most other diet methods due to it's ease of adoption and continuation as a lifestyle change, whereas other diet methods are very hard to adopt as a lifestyle. I don't know why y'all are so invested in it.

But you both will continue to only read what you want to believe (which apparently is healthline and yahoo articles, in reference to our renowned moderator), because confirmation bias has you two by the nutsack.

I genuinely don't care if you agree or disagree with me - no one should be coming here, of all places, looking for tips and tricks to being in better shape. Furthermore, no one should be taking advice from those who will not post their own physique whilst claiming unreasonable successes. Do as you will, I don't care; just know that y'all are disseminating inaccurate information to suit your own personal agendas.

I have no issue posting my 55 year old physique. You make a lot of assumptions. Go back and read your "debunked" statement. Not sure how asking you to bring receipts that back up your statement qualifies as misinformation. I've been coaching athletes for 30 + years including 2 Collegiate national champions. I lived the training life since I was a boy. I've participated in several studies for the local university. I'm adept at reading and analyzing research. I know more than most and experienced more than most, but not all. I still try to keep the beginners mind. Layne's a smart guy. I see why you like him as he lacks humility also. More people would listen to him if he wasn't such a douche. We all get it wrong sometimes unless you're Layne. Even when 3 Ph.Ds. pointed out he was wrong about a statement he made about thermodynamics and calories. He finally took the video down and went about his business as if he never made the statement. Or when Lyle McDonald challenged him on a statement he made. Layne just made personal attacks but never produced the evidence to back up his claim. We're all brothers on this forum and we share many common goals. You may not think there is anything to learn from anyone here, but if anything we try to hold each other accountable. By challenging each other we all become better and more competent. I'm very careful about the words I post and am prepared to back my statements up. If someone proves me wrong, I'll admit it. On that note, you are claiming that I am giving disinformation and have confirmation bias. If you can give specifics that would be helpful.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

I'm not who you tagged, but you may find this interesting.
View attachment 11587

Also will add that when mixed together Brown Rice and Green Pea proteins also have a 1.00 score due to balancing out amino acids the other is missing or low in. Actually has a very similar profile to whey.

 

[Obee1]

You look great man, better than 99% of guys in their prime age. Are on TRT or PEDs?

Thanks! The short answer is yes. I started TRT when I was 48. I competed in drug free powerlifting and physique into my mid forties. My doctor whom I trained at the time put it to me like this. He said if your vision wasn't optimal, say 20/100, you would want to get that fixed. It's the same with your "T" levels. Why not operate at optimal. So TRT, DIM, and MK677 is my current regimen. It's certainly not the panacea to muscle and strength but it's helped slow and maybe sometimes stop the decline. Fewer injuries and better recovery too. I also have a younger Asian gf with a high libido so it's helped there also. lol

 

[FlexpertHamilton]

I have no issue posting my 55 year old physique. You make a lot of assumptions. Go back and read your "debunked" statement. Not sure how asking you to bring receipts that back up your statement qualifies as misinformation. I've been coaching athletes for 30 + years including 2 Collegiate national champions. I lived the training life since I was a boy. I've participated in several studies for the local university. I'm adept at reading and analyzing research. I know more than most and experienced more than most, but not all. I still try to keep the beginners mind. Layne's a smart guy. I see why you like him as he lacks humility also. More people would listen to him if he wasn't such a douche. We all get it wrong sometimes unless you're Layne. Even when 3 Ph.Ds. pointed out he was wrong about a statement he made about thermodynamics and calories. He finally took the video down and went about his business as if he never made the statement. Or when Lyle McDonald challenged him on a statement he made. Layne just made personal attacks but never produced the evidence to back up his claim. We're all brothers on this forum and we share many common goals. You may not think there is anything to learn from anyone here, but if anything we try to hold each other accountable. By challenging each other we all become better and more competent. I'm very careful about the words I post and am prepared to back my statements up. If someone proves me wrong, I'll admit it. On that note, you are claiming that I am giving disinformation and have confirmation bias. If you can give specifics that would be helpful.

Layne Norton was on JRE with a keto research PhD Dom D'Agostino, highly recommend it. None of this is settled yet.

 

[Obee1]

I was specifically disputing claims which @BackInTheGame78 made regarding massive GH spikes and muscle sparing effects of IF compared to sustained caloric deficits. Your comments appeared to be in support of his claims - so I was challenging both of you in that.


To clarify, do you or do you not support the claim that GH spikes up to 7x normal levels while fasting? That is the specific claim I was disputing.

Additional clarification:
Do you or do you not support the claim that IF preserves greater muscle mass than that of a sustained caloric restriction, with equated caloric deficits?

I was supporting the rise in GH specifically. I don't recall ever seeing a study where it was 7X. I've seen anything from double and maybe up to 5x. That said, It's been a minute since I've read up on it. I guess to me it's the difference between $10M and $15M. They're both a lot of money. I think the last time I read up on it was before I decided to use MK677 and not for fasting. Of course more GH isn't always a good thing.

IF CAN preserve greater muscle mass than sustained caloric restriction. It's a very broad statement though, because there are many variables to control for. I'll try to keep it short by picking some variables. I've got some studies to back my assertions if you want, just let me know. I'm going to skip the calculations for brevity but will provide them if needed.

One form of IF is alternate day fasting. There is a limit to the energy transfer rate a person can get from their fat stores per day. Converted to calories the average is about 30 calories per pound of fat. Now take a 268 lb male with 32% bf. His fat stores can provide 3600 calories per day. His maintenance calorie requirement is 2560 calories a day. He can alternate day fast without losing muscle mass. Next a 150 lb woman with 30% bf. Her bf can provide roughly 1350 calories a day. Her maintenance requirement is 1678 calories a day. So she still needs 328 calories a day or she risks losing muscle mass on alternate day fasting. Her activity level could be the deciding factor. And third, we have a 200 lb male with 12% bf. His bf will provide 720 calories for energy. His maintenance requirement is 2513 calories. That is 1793 calories short. Alternate day fasting will eat his lean muscle up. For the last two people, they would probably do better with the time restricted form of fasting with like a 16 hour fast and an 8 hour eating window to get their maintenance calories in to preserve muscle mass.

Lastly, lean mass and muscle mass aren't the same thing. Both the above groups will lose some lean mass if you were to do a dexa scan. Even if they are doing the right protocol for them, and they didn't lose lean muscle, the scan will show they all lost some lean mass. This is because even fat tissue has around 13% or so of proteins and other components that aren't fat.

We also know that a person stops growing lean muscle mass with prolonged calorie restriction. I know this doesn't necessarily mean their losing it but I would go out on a limb and say it's more likely than not that they are. With all the variables potentially in play though, a researcher could tilt the argument in their favor regardless of which side they take.

I do appreciate your perspective Money & Muscle, and thanks for letting me clarify my points.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

I was supporting the rise in GH specifically. I don't recall ever seeing a study where it was 7X. I've seen anything from double and maybe up to 5x. That said, It's been a minute since I've read up on it. I guess to me it's the difference between $10M and $15M. They're both a lot of money. I think the last time I read up on it was before I decided to use MK677 and not for fasting. Of course more GH isn't always a good thing.

IF CAN preserve greater muscle mass than sustained caloric restriction. It's a very broad statement though, because there are many variables to control for. I'll try to keep it short by picking some variables. I've got some studies to back my assertions if you want, just let me know. I'm going to skip the calculations for brevity but will provide them if needed.

One form of IF is alternate day fasting. There is a limit to the energy transfer rate a person can get from their fat stores per day. Converted to calories the average is about 30 calories per pound of fat. Now take a 268 lb male with 32% bf. His fat stores can provide 3600 calories per day. His maintenance calorie requirement is 2560 calories a day. He can alternate day fast without losing muscle mass. Next a 150 lb woman with 30% bf. Her bf can provide roughly 1350 calories a day. Her maintenance requirement is 1678 calories a day. So she still needs 328 calories a day or she risks losing muscle mass on alternate day fasting. Her activity level could be the deciding factor. And third, we have a 200 lb male with 12% bf. His bf will provide 720 calories for energy. His maintenance requirement is 2513 calories. That is 1793 calories short. Alternate day fasting will eat his lean muscle up. For the last two people, they would probably do better with the time restricted form of fasting with like a 16 hour fast and an 8 hour eating window to get their maintenance calories in to preserve muscle mass.

Lastly, lean mass and muscle mass aren't the same thing. Both the above groups will lose some lean mass if you were to do a dexa scan. Even if they are doing the right protocol for them, and they didn't lose lean muscle, the scan will show they all lost some lean mass. This is because even fat tissue has around 13% or so of proteins and other components that aren't fat.

We also know that a person stops growing lean muscle mass with prolonged calorie restriction. I know this doesn't necessarily mean their losing it but I would go out on a limb and say it's more likely than not that they are. With all the variables potentially in play though, a researcher could tilt the argument in their favor regardless of which side they take.

I do appreciate your perspective Money & Muscle, and thanks for letting me clarify my points.

Here is a breakdown of a peer reviewed study that showed 20x boost for men in GH and 13x boost for women.

Study finds routine periodic fasting is good for your health, and your heart

New evidence from cardiac researchers at the Intermountain Medical Center Heart Institute in Utah demonstrates that routine periodic fasting is also good for your health, and your heart. The study found that fasting not only lowers one's risk of coronary artery disease and diabetes, but also...

www.eurekalert.org

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Not even a DOI number?

Dude...

Sorry no time to try and track that one down right now in the actual study...it was peer reviewed and presented at a cardiologist conference so it's not nothing.

Here is one that talks about GH inhibiting muscle protein breakdown while fasting

The protein-retaining effects of growth hormone during fasting involve inhibition of muscle-protein breakdown - PubMed

The metabolic response to fasting involves a series of hormonal and metabolic adaptations leading to protein conservation. An increase in the serum level of growth hormone (GH) during fasting has been well substantiated. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that GH may be a...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Right, I don't dispute that GH can conserve muscle mass when in a caloric deficit.

I'm waiting for you to show me a study that shows 7x, or 1300%, or 2000% increase in GH. Even the headline you posted that referenced other studies - those studies did not show the numbers you have claimed.

Here's one of them.
doi.org/10.2217/fca.11.50

I am pretty sure I posted a link to one of the studies showing a 700% increase in one of the other times this topic has come up...I will try and find it in a bit.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Right, I don't dispute that GH can conserve muscle mass when in a caloric deficit.

I'm waiting for you to show me a study that shows 7x, or 1300%, or 2000% increase in GH. Even the headline you posted that referenced other studies - those studies did not show the numbers you have claimed.

Here's one of them.
doi.org/10.2217/fca.11.50

Also, here is a link to something that can help quite a bit in terms of finding studies and research using AI...you basically type in what you want and it finds studies and then consolidates them and gives you the findings along with links to the various studies.

Perplexity.ai