Why am I faster on fast days?
Comments
-
"If you fast, the system 'shuts down' and will quickly look to store whatever you consume as fat reserves whatever food you put in"
Fasting simply slows the 'throughput' down. If it works for you...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
"There's a book somewhere that links diet with blood group"
I'm calling bu11shit on that one too! How can that possibly work??0 -
keef66 wrote:"There's a book somewhere that links diet with blood group"
I'm calling bu11shit on that one too! How can that possibly work??
How can that work? I do not know is the straight answer. It worked for my friend. It could have been placebo. I didn't read it and therefore my evidence is totally anecdotal. Call it what you like. I have never considered it or have ever contemplated trying it. It was something I threw in the pot.
However, Google "diet and blood group type", tons of results.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/we ... -vein.htmlseanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Slowbike wrote:IMHO, whilst getting overweight is a matter of calories in more than calories out - going back the other way isn't just a case of calories in less than calories out - as Pino says above
- Suggesting that you can eat too little for weight loss to occur.If you fast, the system 'shuts down' and will quickly look to store whatever you consume as fat reserves whatever food you put in
So increasing the metabolic rate should be a priority over counting the calories of an otherwise healthy diet.
Sorry but that is myth.. There was a study of sedentary obese people which showed a slow down in metabolic rate as a result of fasting and its incorrectly quoted. its friggin obvious when you look at it.
- sedentary people don't have raised metabolic rate due to exercise
- eating food raises the metabolism due to the effort required to digest and thermogenesis
It only equates to about 5-10% of your BMR so <200kcal for most people
If you are active you will not get a reduction in your metabolic rate due to fasting.
It really is - calories in vs Calories out - the exception is high protein diets, fat and carb blockers and so called fat burners.
- protein requires more energy to digest - though you can damage your liver doing this - e.g. Atkins
- Fat blockers - basically make you sh1t out up to 25% consumed fat (in some cases uncontrollably)
- Fat burners - contain anything from pesticide, fertiliser or amphetamine like substances and cause your body to run hot.
If you struggle with calorie reduction due to feeling hungry - then try to choose Low GI foods as these avoid the sugar/insulin spikes that you get from eating. Also drink lots of liquids0 -
ok - so my last sentence still stands then ...diy wrote:Slowbike wrote:IMHO, whilst getting overweight is a matter of calories in more than calories out - going back the other way isn't just a case of calories in less than calories out - as Pino says above
- Suggesting that you can eat too little for weight loss to occur.If you fast, the system 'shuts down' and will quickly look to store whatever you consume as fat reserves whatever food you put in
So increasing the metabolic rate should be a priority over counting the calories of an otherwise healthy diet.
Sorry but that is myth.. There was a study of sedentary obese people which showed a slow down in metabolic rate as a result of fasting and its incorrectly quoted. its friggin obvious when you look at it.
- sedentary people don't have raised metabolic rate due to exercise
- eating food raises the metabolism due to the effort required to digest and thermogenesis
0 -
"Suggesting that you can eat too little for weight loss to occur."
I didn't say that.
"So increasing the metabolic rate should be a priority over counting the calories of an otherwise healthy diet."
Yes, that's my school of thought. However, I do concur with diy's post.
I was thinking about the 'What works for me might not work for you" adage and the blood group diet - which I did a bit of digging around.
The Blood group diet has been debunked but only on the theories basis of the presumption that certain blood groups are evolutionary older than other blood groups. So it might have some merit and it might not. The BMA doesn't give it any credence.
Going back to my friend and my brother who don't eat dairy produce, perhaps that is down to simply a Lactose intolerance.
My sister (bless her, she needs to shed some pounds) is the same blood group as me. However, she can eat citrus fruit like it's going out of style. I cannot. I am acid intolerant. I cannot drink a cup of truck stop tea or I would be bent double in pain.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
you did ... but no matterPinno wrote:"Suggesting that you can eat too little for weight loss to occur."
I didn't say that.
Whenever weight loss is spoken about it's all about "eat less eat less eat less" ... which is fine for those who eat loads (or loads of the wrong things) but not really for those who don't eat much anyway - the couple I have in mind eat marginally more than my 13month old son ... but they're not really active either - they're not couch potatoes, but there's no real raising of the heart rate for any length of time involved in their activity so that's not going to help metabolic rate ...Pinno wrote:"So increasing the metabolic rate should be a priority over counting the calories of an otherwise healthy diet."
Yes, that's my school of thought. However, I do concur with diy's post.0 -
Raising the heart rate through exercise reduces cholesterol. So your non-exercising non-couch potato friends may have high Cholesterol.
My brother used to play squash against a super skinny, super quick Cantonese guy. Well, I say 'play' - thrashed would be a better description. He loved milk. Used to drink it by the gallon. He went back to Hong Kong and died aged 33 after a massive coronary whilst playing squash. His arteries were totally clogged.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Slowbike wrote:
Well - one of them doesn't - according to blood tests anyway ... dunno about the otherPinno wrote:Raising the heart rate through exercise reduces cholesterol. So your non-exercising non-couch potato friends may have high Cholesterol.
Lucky I guess. God knows what my cholesterol levels would be if I didn't exercise.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I honestly think your increased hunger is purely a mental thing, I too struggle when I know I have strict targets to maintain. As simple as it may sound I try my hardest to keep myself preoccupied on days where I am controlling my calorie in take. I make sure this time is filled to avoid snacking... and the rest.0
-
Ed_P wrote:I honestly think your increased hunger is purely a mental thing, I too struggle when I know I have strict targets to maintain. As simple as it may sound I try my hardest to keep myself preoccupied on days where I am controlling my calorie in take. I make sure this time is filled to avoid snacking... and the rest.
This is the inherent problem with fasting. If you took the opposite eating little and often approach, you graze all day but on the right foodstuffs.
Tri-athletes eat constantly.
No one on this thread has said that fasting has a direct performance benefit, this is the inherent flaw that I see in it. It's seemingly just a weight loss regime and a difficult one to maintain at that. I have no idea how long, regardless of will power a person can maintain it without slipping up.
To perform you need fuel and the right sort of fuel.
Between the two threads, The Xxl Trophy and this one, the common denominator is more calories in than calories out.
Cure that by a change in diet and an increase in mileage is the simple answer.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I have tried the 5:2 and I could not manage it. If it is purely weight loss that people are going for I get it, but surely you're better off trying to eat a more balanced diet 7 days a week. Some people say the best thing about it is you can eat what you like (within reason) on a non-fast day, and I know that is part of the appeal, but I can't see how this is a good thing from an overall health point of view. Or rather, as beneficial for general health as eating balanced 7 days a week.0
-
Craigus89 wrote:I have tried the 5:2 and I could not manage it. If it is purely weight loss that people are going for I get it, but surely you're better off trying to eat a more balanced diet 7 days a week. Some people say the best thing about it is you can eat what you like (within reason) on a non-fast day, and I know that is part of the appeal, but I can't see how this is a good thing from an overall health point of view. Or rather, as beneficial for general health as eating balanced 7 days a week.
I do it partly for weight control and partly for improved blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and possibly other hormonal benefits. Try as I might, I cannot eat sensibly and count calories 24-7. This way I just need a bit of willpower for 2 days a week, which I can manage.
If you think about it, we didn't evolve eating 3 meals a day with optional snacks in between. Our bodies appear to have adapted to cope with feast and famine type eating; that's why we're so good at laying down fat in times of plenty. Trouble is that some people overdo the feasting and never experience famine. Constantly grazing can mean drip-feeding your body with carbohydrate so the insulin / glucagon system isn't actually activated very much. 5:2 just gives your body's systems a good work-out and makes them function like they should.0 -
keef66 wrote:Craigus89 wrote:I hav...week.
I do it partly for weight control and partly for improved blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and possibly other hormonal benefits. Try as I might, I cannot eat sensibly and count calories 24-7. This way I just need a bit of willpower for 2 days a week, which I can manage.
Constantly grazing can mean drip-feeding your body with carbohydrate so the insulin / glucagon system isn't actually activated very much
Are you insulin dependent?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Pinno wrote:keef66 wrote:Craigus89 wrote:I hav...week.
I do it partly for weight control and partly for improved blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and possibly other hormonal benefits. Try as I might, I cannot eat sensibly and count calories 24-7. This way I just need a bit of willpower for 2 days a week, which I can manage.
Constantly grazing can mean drip-feeding your body with carbohydrate so the insulin / glucagon system isn't actually activated very much
Are you insulin dependent?
We all are. I'm lucky in that my pancreas produces enough though. And I'd like it to stay that way.0 -
keef66 wrote:Craigus89 wrote:I have tried the 5:2 and I could not manage it. If it is purely weight loss that people are going for I get it, but surely you're better off trying to eat a more balanced diet 7 days a week. Some people say the best thing about it is you can eat what you like (within reason) on a non-fast day, and I know that is part of the appeal, but I can't see how this is a good thing from an overall health point of view. Or rather, as beneficial for general health as eating balanced 7 days a week.
I do it partly for weight control and partly for improved blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and possibly other hormonal benefits. Try as I might, I cannot eat sensibly and count calories 24-7. This way I just need a bit of willpower for 2 days a week, which I can manage.
If you think about it, we didn't evolve eating 3 meals a day with optional snacks in between. Our bodies appear to have adapted to cope with feast and famine type eating; that's why we're so good at laying down fat in times of plenjy. Trouble is that some people overdo the feasting and never experience famine. Constantly grazing can mean drip-feeding your body with carbohydrate so the insulin / glucagon system isn't actually activated very much. 5:2 just gives your body's systems a good work-out and makes them function like they should.
If you measure insulin secretions via c-peptide convolution you can see that two 'normal' meals a day consisting of the same level of carbs eaten whilst grazing produces exactly the same amount of insulin produced for both approaches.
i spend a lot of time testing insulin response my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
I'm sure you do. Glad I don't have to.
So what is it about over-eating / obesity that induces type II diabetes / lower insulin sensitivity?0 -
keef66 wrote:Craigus89 wrote:I...week.
I do it partly for weight control and partly for improved blood lipids, insulin sensitivity, and possibly other hormonal benefits. Try as I might, I cannot eat sensibly and count calories 24-7. This way I just need a bit of willpower for 2 days a week, which I can manage.
Constantly grazing can mean drip-feeding your body with carbohydrate so the insulin / glucagon system isn't actually activated very much. 5:2 just gives your body's systems a good work-out and makes them function like they should.
So now explain your presumptions:
Improved blood lipids - A balanced diet coupled with exercise wouldn't do most of that anyway? Do you get regular lipid tests to confirm that?
Insulin sensitivity - We know that's a myth.
...other hormonal benefits. Do you understand the complex relationship between foodstuffs, exercise and hormonal production? If you do, do you know if there is a correlation between adrenalin, serotonin, testosterone and what you consume and when and how often? Is there a correlation between the production of said hormones and glycogen levels?
I understand only the relationship between Under active thyroid and intake.
"Insulin/Glycogen system isn't activated very much" ? What do you mean by 'activated'. Your Pancreas produces insulin according to demand.
"5:2 just gives your body's systems a good work-out and makes them function like they should." ? Regular exercise helps your body function better. Prove that during fasting days, your body is getting the nutrition it needs. I emphasise 'nutrition' - i'm not talking about calorie intake.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Blood lipids tested fairly frequently; GP worried about high triglycerides. Upping the exercise didn't seem to work and I was being offered fibrates. I tried 5:2 dieting and triglyceride levels are a lot lower, as is my weight, and I'm not being threatened with pills. Not for that anyway...
I saw Michael Mosely's Eat Fast Live Longer documentary, and most of my beliefs about what it does stem from the often anecdotal and sometimes speculative stuff presented in it. I did find it persuasive though.
IIRC he said his blood lipids, IGF and insulin response improved. Apart from blood lipids which I've had tested I'm only guessing about the other stuff.
Think I confused grazing with constant overeating.
Interesting to see you mention serotonin; as a recurrent depressive I've read an awful lot about that...0 -
keef66 wrote:Blood lipids tested fairly frequently; GP worried about high triglycerides. Upping the exercise didn't seem to work and I was being offered fibrates. I tried 5:2 dieting and triglyceride levels are a lot lower, as is my weight, and I'm not being threatened with pills. Not for that anyway...
I saw Michael Mosely's Eat Fast Live Longer documentary, and most of my beliefs about what it does stem from the often anecdotal and sometimes speculative stuff presented in it. I did find it persuasive though.
IIRC he said his blood lipids, IGF and insulin response improved. Apart from blood lipids which I've had tested I'm only guessing about the other stuff.
Think I confused grazing with constant overeating.
Interesting to see you mention serotonin; as a recurrent depressive I've read an awful lot about that...
Just out of curiosity, have you been tested for an under active thyroid?
I suffered a weight and lipid problem as well as depression and then I was finally diagnosed with an under active thyroid.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
keef66 wrote:I'm sure you do. Glad I don't have to.
So what is it about over-eating / obesity that induces type II diabetes / lower insulin sensitivity?
Not sure, I'm 55kgs
As I understand it overeating stresses the membranous network inside of cells called endoplasmic reticulum, when they have more nutrients to process than they can handle, they send out an alarm signal telling the cell to dampen down the insulin receptors on the cell surface. This translates to insulin resistance.my isetta is a 300cc bike0 -
Forgot to answer the original question...fat has 9 calories per gram and carbs have 4 calories per gram so fat produces more energy (calorific). Fat can only be burnt as fuel if there is no insulin present so fasting avoids carbs and the subsequent insulin response and assuming you're eating medium chain triglyceride fat these can be converted to energy faster than carbs so fasting can be a better way of fueling (this assumes you are not a diabetic) no carbs in your system will also prevent you using protein as fuel so this can get on with its job of tissue repair.my isetta is a 300cc bike0
-
I think I may just have been tested for thyroid function; the doc ordered 2 blood tests in rapid succession a couple of weeks ago, but I didn't think to look at what he'd requested on the form. Was having protracted bouts of palpitations (still am) and thyroid is one possible cause.
When I rang for the results I was only told to make a routine appt. to discuss them, so I doubt they've found anything serious. Probably gone anaemic again... Find out next Friday!
I just read that article about cells / endoplasmic reticulum etc. Sounds plausible0 -
When the 5:2 came out there was a belief that fasting was better than other methods at reducing Growth factor, but there have since been studies that say its broadly the same as a grazing diet. It seems the result has more to do with being a healthy body weight and less about the fast.
You do have to be cautious about the idea of raising your metabolism, unless you plan to raise your BMR through increasing lean muscle mass. To do it through diet at any level that would make a real difference to weight loss, you'd probably end up with Ketosis and possible side effects that come with that.
The problem I have with a lot of the research that you can read, is its largely done on fatties, and as we know they aren't usually the healthiest people to start with. A lot of the benefits occur as a result of them shifting the lard.0 -
diy wrote:The problem I have with a lot of the research that you can read, is its largely done on fatties, and as we know they aren't usually the healthiest people to start with. A lot of the benefits occur as a result of them shifting the lard.
Exactly this.
EDIT: removed pointless rambling about dieting...0
