Fasting without calories vs fasting as calories restriction

Welcome to The Fast Diet › The official Fast forums › Body › Science of intermittent fasting ›
Fasting without calories vs fasting as calories restriction

Start a new topic in Science of intermittent fasting • Reply

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Neilithicman 3 weeks, 6 days ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

  • alexm_

    7:07 pm

    6 Sep 21

    Permalink

    I’m getting frustrated. As far as I know fasting is depriving body of food completely (at least food with calories, I personally prefer style with water only, mineral water ok), calories restriction is restricting amount of calories in food consumed.

    This cite’ forum is only one I was able to find as of now dedicated to intermittent fasting and many participants as far as I can tell discuss “real” fasting. However this site’s original idea 5:2 is said to have 500 calories on fasting days (https://thefastdiet.co.uk/how-many-calories-on-a-non-fast-day/). Why do we call it fasting? Why not call it “variable calories restriction diet” something? Such usage of word “fasting” makes it confusing to people and easier for mass media to manipulate scientific data, e.g. here in JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association, respectable journal we have

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2623528
    “Effect of Alternate-Day Fasting on Weight Loss, Weight Maintenance, and Cardioprotection Among Metabolically Healthy Obese Adults. A Randomized Clinical Trial” found “Weight loss after 1 year in the alternate-day fasting group (6.0%) was not significantly different from that of the daily calorie restriction group (5.3%),” however in description I’ve found “alternate-day fasting (25% of energy needs on fast days; 125% of energy needs on alternating “feast days”),” – so IMHO it was not fasting and “IF” people were forced to eat a lot (125%) during “not-fast” days, but media can cite the study against IF easily now.

    Do you know studies with results of “real” Alternate-Day Fasting?

    What do you think: should “fasting” refer only to zero calories or calories restriction too?

    alexm_

    3:51 am

    7 Sep 21

    Permalink

    Added: looks like users here are not able to delete posts (even with no replies), so I write an addendum:

    I was too harsh based on my experience. Now I’ve read Wikipedia, etc. and slept on it. There are terms “complete”/”total” and “partial” IF, “fasting” word historically was not always used to refer to complete refrainment from eating food. Now I know I better search for “complete/total intermittent fasting” to find about what I practice.

    Aliraza41306

    6:46 am

    15 Jan 25

    Permalink

    Promotional products can be a great conversation starter, just like fasting strategies! Fasting without calories involves abstaining from food entirely, while calorie restriction allows limited calorie intake. https://www.gopromotional.co.uk

    Neilithicman

    9:52 pm

    15 Jan 25

    Permalink

    How long is a fast before you’ll call it a fast? Why does it have to be a whole day without food? We fast every day when we’re asleep, which is why the first meal of the day is breakfast (break the fast).

    The original idea of the fast diet was to combine calorie restriction to 500 calories (Dr Mosley lifted it to 800 when the evidence showed this got better results because it was easier to stick to), eating a Mediterranean diet, and time restricted eating, (eating all your calories in a specific window). When I started, I was doing 800 calories a day in a 16:8 window (fasting 16 hours, eating my 800 calories in an 8-hour window). I would consider that fasting. It certainly worked, I was on the fast 800 for 12 weeks and dropped 24 kilograms.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply.