exactly this, eating little a day when you do eat is what fks up your BMR in the long term. eating nothing for a few days ramps up your natural GH production and keeps the BMR healthy.

when you are not fasting you are meant to be feasting. eating what you want till you are feeling happy and stuffed. hey who knows you might even gain fat. but that is how the body works. after a feast you fast to let the body recover by having a break from food.

you know.. back in the day you were told to eat 3 times a day, this originated from 3 square meals a day. you were also told not to snack as it would ruin your appetite for dinner etc. fastforward some years later and someone thought of a great way to make extra money for the big corporations - they thought of snacks. healthy snacks are being pumped now like no tomorrow. it is not surprising to hear some people eat up to 10 times a day when including a snack here and there. when does the body have time to rest and recover?

it is no wonder the whole world is becoming full of fat fks as no one really has a clue of the calories they are consuming. as well as problems like cancer are on the rise.

but yeah keep eating what you want, whenever you want and don't worry

This is retarded

Sounds more like retarded psychology to justify eating disorders

So... What happens when you do break the fast?

Youre just supposed to feast? But thats breaking the fast

Also gonna have to see evidence where the body "targets muscles on little food"

Sorry.. Ive done plenty of eating and "dieting" in my life and have had a pretty top notch body naturally.

Eating in a caloric deficit seems to make sense and at least without a) the retarded worry that youll die b) you wont go through the struggle of not eating..

NOT TO MENTION.. What is the fuking payoff? Some arbitrary stupid azz reason for not eating food?

I can tell you ive been in shape. There are perks, but nothing worth that torture.

Best shape of my life was definitely eating 6 small meals a day, whole grains, no fried foods, no sodas, etc.

I can tell you i get stressed on 2 days of no eating as well. No fuking way ill starve myself longer than that. Only way i see it justified is if youre a competitor trying to make weight and get paid for it.

Would bet my sweet azz those who do end up with an eating disorder too

You have to ease into it boyo, you're bombarding yourself with tons of chit all at once after not eating for many hours. I'll link you some other **** on how to break a fast, here

http://siimland.com/how-to-break-a-fast-safely/

Read up, but none of that lemon water **** is required.

Faster excess fat loss. This is for grossly overweight and the obese.That's because you didn't fast long enough. You will relax typically after 3 days. And no, you are not starving. That would take weeks.But that's the point.

The human body was never designed to eat constantly. By doing so, your got never has the opportunity to shut down completely for repair and the removal for the removal of toxins that build up over time.

Just think about it, your gut is always online. Fasting -- in addition to other benefits -- gives it a break.

Dunno but it happens to a lot of people. I did some smaller fasts in december, 2-4 days and now im trying a 10 day fast.
I do:
Green tea in the morning
Black Coffee for lunch.
Sip on water and my potassium water mix throughout the day.
One thing to note is some people have trouble sleeping because of all the adrenaline. If I dont lift at all I can't sleep at night.

Idk man.. Theres almost too much for me to address..

Im not gonna deny there are supposed benefits, though. I just dont see them being worth it. Im guessing the 3 day mark is when the body is supposed to start eating itself?

I know theres a mind/ gut connection. I feel it, i start getting weak and stressed. Chills, weakness, etc. And i know im hungry. I get food and it goes away. Energy comes back

Why arent african tribes with little food thriving then? I just dont believe this is super beneficial. Because first of all, it seems way too easy to just say "dont eat"

What about anorexics and their inability to function? Are you supposing they eat too little and dont "fast" enough?

Are you only supposed to go on one cycle and thats it?

I was also overweight at one time. Granted, i wasnt obese, but i did lose a lot of weight as a sophomore in high school. I was an athlete but i think its why i delved so seriously into fitness

Its preferable to think of it as using all that stored excess fat for fuel.You're not starving. Your body's used to being fed and those pang are just the reminder. If you don't feed it, it switches to Plan B. You just have to get over those psychological limitations.Have you ever seen a 400 pound African?Question! Questions! Questions! They are all relevant questions and something anyone considering this diet will have to think about."There's more than one way to skin a cat." Some people chose a more healthy route, while others go to extremes.

Argue all you want, don't care, it's all good -- worst case, I'm wrong and learn something. As long as someone isn't a ****tard who spouts their opinion with no research or even empirical experience, it's all good.

With the Minnesota Experiment, it's not a straw man but clearly it is an extreme example. And, for the record I don't and haven't recommended the OP water fast for 30-days, either (my recommendation was a 2-day fast to test the waters and over months work up to around a 10-day at most and that if he is ONLY looking to drop weight and retain lean mass that a PSMF is likely the superior route).

Back to the ME, I brought it up because it was the absolutely awful idea of "eating very little" to lose weight -- as that moron suggested. When compared to a strict water fast, a highly calorically restricted diet is just all kinds of the Wrong Idea. It's a recipe to actually hurt yourself, do damage, lose massive lean weight and just all around Bad - whether you follow that kind of bad diet for 10 days, 30 days or 8 months.

Since you seem smart enough, it's because breaking the fast daily with a small amount of calories (whether they're quality or rubbish), it breaks the fast and stops not just the benefits of auto****y but you also lose out on the muscle-sparring hormonal spikes you get while strictly water fasting and, if you eat as they did in the ME, you will be knocked out of ketosis.

So, don't assume I was pushing the OP to do a 30-day water fast. In other posts, I urged him not to do that. I was just arguing against the "just eat a little" idea, which I interpreted as 1,000-1,300 calories a day, which is on face value not a good idea.Eating very little, as you advised, is moronic. That's all I was saying. Almost as retarded as taking cutting advice from a no-avi ******* with ****-for-brains, such as yourself.

Unless you want to refine your idiot post with "eat a tiny amountand only protein" and promote a PSMF, then F-off my silly little no-avi friend.

What kinds of fasts are you doing? IF or longer ones?

I'll cover a couple bases here:

Any fast, even a 16-hour one, your digestive system shuts down while there isn't any food being introduced. This is why people who fast for longer periods, like 3+ days, they might end up having a bowel movement on day 3 or 4, despite not having eating anything in days. Their system shut down, or slowed down greatly, and it took a lot longer than usual for their last meal to make it's way through them.

When I IF during the week, my impulse is to eat a ****ing lot of food. My system goes from barely being on to being overwhelmed -- that can cause some digestive issues if you're not careful. If you're having problems, open that feeding window and dip your toes into your first meal a little. I'm usually ravenous and throw down several plates and if you're like that -- make a conscience effort to slow the **** down, which I should do anyway (and you too if you're like me).

Otherwise, with longer fasts, I'm a big proponent of eating a lot of probiotic foods, in general, but with specific emphasis when I'm back to eating after a longer fast. Your intestines are full of beneficial bacteria. They feed on what you eat. If you're not eating, that can't be good for their population either. Particularly carbohydrates require a lot of good bacteria to even digest properly. If you go awhile, lose a lot of good bacteria, eat a lot of stuff at once, that's going to wreck your guts.

Although, in your case my guess here is you slowing down and eating over a longer period will address your gut issues. I always take a large dump right after ending a 2-5 day fast. Always. Going from zero to back-in-business seems to rev up your digestive system. Longer fasts need you to be very careful about how you break them (another reason to NOT jump into a 30-day water fast, OP)

It's called auto****y, in most cases it's a good thing and it happens to limited degree within hours of not eating. The human body is either in Fasting or Feeding mode, believe it or not. Both are important but the standard Western diet, the abundance of food, the prevalence of multiple meals and constant snacking, drinking calorie-rich sodas, etc... it means almost everyone is in feeding/growth mode for a lot more than we probably should be.

Meanwhile, there are negative effects on things like insulin resistance, with the constant eating and eating of high-carb meals, and who'd have guessed it - tons more type 2 diabetes. Going without eating for periods of time, whether it's simply skipping breakfast, will help there too.This is because you are running on glucose and, by the sounds of it, have low willpower. You eat your carbs and they're broken down into glucose and used for energy. As your (and is you, because this doesn't apply to everyone) body is running out of it's fuel, other hormones like ghrelin are sent to make you get hungry so that you'll eat again, you probably crave carb-heavy foods is my guess here.

Elsewhere you mentioned the "I used to be in shape" thing and made no mention of your current physique. My guess -- doughy and soft. Not trying to **** on you, but just reading between the lines, you sound like someone with messed up hormones, with too many carbs, eating like most American/Westerners too damn often and such. This idea that you start to fall apart after not eating for awhile -- that is a clear indication that you're heading in the wrong direction and you of all people would benefit greatly from introducing a little fasting-time into your routine.Because they don't have access to enough food when they do eat. That won't be a problem for any of us. Nobody is suggesting not eating. I eat the **** out of food when I do eat, I can assure you.Anorexia is a mental disorder, body dismorphia. They view themselves differently than they really are, seeing themselves as overweight regardless of how they are, and that drives their non-eating, throwing up or other unhealthy things they do.

Interestingly enough - they are more apt to follow YOUR earlier awful advice of "just eating a little" rather than outright fasting. They eat, they just don't eat much. Just like you recommended.No, but there are both fasting AND feeding cycles.

Any evidence for this? In animal studies there's a clear demonstration of life extension on calorie restricted diets that avoid malnutrition and my understanding is changes in auto****y are understood to be partly responsible. Haven't done much research though so if you have quality studies to link I'll read them.Yes, but it's not like you put food in your mouth and the hormones just vanish. In an LCD with 55% of calories from carbs (absurd based on what we know about protein, but more realistic than the "wartime starvation" diet of the ME) this boost of HGH and IGF1 still occurred, albeit at a lower level than water fasting.As someone who has been on 1200 calories a day for over a month I think it's a great idea if it's done right. No loss in lean muscle, still able to lift 5x week, over 25 lbs down in that time. I have no problem with a 3 day water fast, but it doesn't replace what the author of this thread is asking for in terms of overall weight loss, so it's not really that relevant.

NEET? Aware me brah.

Yes and no, although you're mostly on the money. Eating will stop the auto****y in the moment, but yes, fasting (or long water fasts) aren't necessary for auto****y, you do it everyday assuming you sleep the whole night and aren't waking up at 1am and 4am to eat.

I've seen the same rat studies as you have, I think, and some familiarity with the people who calorie restrict every day, but mostly my information is coming from some source that has interpreted studies, I personally find them fairly dry to go over. Just an fyi for you or anyone else, although I have done a lot of personal experimentation with this admittedly second-hand knowledge, and seen my bloodwork results and direct results from it. If it matters, that book by Dr. Jason Fung (Obesity Code) is a source for a decent chunk of what I say. If you or someone has read that and think it's BS, then a lot of what I'm saying is going to be of that vein.That is very interesting - likely why those rats lived an extra year or however long it was.

Me, I do not fast for fat loss, although I suspect a 1-2 day fast 1/week does help with staying lean and *could* promote some lean gains with a spike in HGH, I'd watched a documentary (Eat, Fast, Live Longer) that was popularized in these forums a few years back. It covered the LCD and it's pretty astounding benefits - but for real, there is no way I can perpetually undereat every day. Realistically, I lack the willpower required but I also like to hover around 190lbs at 5'11, I couldn't stand being 140-150lbs... which is why fasting appealed so much to me. The benefits of a LCD and being able to eat otherwise seemed like a win-win.I'm curious what the long term weight loss/gain will be with your diet, although if you're running something similar to a PSMF, as I've said a few times already, I've heard a lot of positive things about that - I even think for someone purely wanting to lose weight, PSMFing is the clear way to go about it.

I absolutely DO NOT advocate fasting for fat loss, to the OP, to you, to anyone. While it is a side-effect of fasting, if that's your goal - don't. If anything, I see elsewhere (reddit fasting sub) people who want to eat like pigs, **** themselves up and then think they can fast for 30-days and undo all the years of bull****. No, ****ing, no. Anyone who does that will just end up back where they started, probably worse in the long run.

Long term weight loss is about consistency and good habits. Fasting is wonderful and it might even help you reset some bad habits, but without a foundation of a good diet and good habits, then whatever gains (or losses in this case) will evaporate in the long term.

This one is getting pretty well researched. "Sustainability", at least of the diet phase is largely a myth, and how you lose the weight really doesn't matter much. You lose more on a diet the lower the calories are, but you regain weight about the same no matter how you lost it. If anything, the less sustainable the diet was the better. Check these two meta analyses:

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._of_US_Studies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16988070

There's some reason (not much research though) to think that keeping muscle will help at least a bit in maintenance, which is some advantage for the PSMF. I want the muscle more for looks and strength than weight loss though, whether it's losing or maintaining, that fight is really in the kitchen not the gym.

Facing the Fat on amazon prime is a 55 day fast documentary.

Funnily enough. I actually fast quite a bit. I generally never eat breakfast. But apparently i dont pass whatever barrier this "auto****y" is. I always feel worse during it. Im not gonna go beyond that because my intention is not to fast, its usually because im so busy i dont give a chit about food. My diet is not good as of right now, but not too worried as i know how to get back.

So, this is a perpetual fast and feast?

You fast for x days.. And then feast how many days? This cycle goes on forever?

Are you proposing eating at a caloric deficit is bad? Why the fuk did i lose weight without the torture of not eating or potentially starving myself. Just as a previous poster suggested. Eating enough not to lose muscle mass while eating under caloric maintenance. Again, what is with the bad connotation regarding this?

It seems to me that any drop of food "breaks the fast" so any piece of food has a bad connotation to it.. where is this line drawn where "little food" becomes "bad" for the body? Are we advocating binging and starving cycles or what?

Brb forever starving.
Brb forever eating

Good luck with this "diet" though..would bet my left nut indoctrinators are more unhappy, less satisfied, and prone to relapses (former chitty habits)

I rather be fat and happy than to literally starve myself for 30 days by choice. (Super Ded fkn Srs)

Go be homeless until you reach your weight goal. No food just buy bottled water with the money you get from panhandling.