minimalist goes IF

This topic contains 24 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by dykask 7 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 26 posts - 1 through 26 (of 26 total)

mrs minimalist

2:02 pm
13 Sep 17
Permalink

Hi
I am new here; started to play with fasting since July. Basically, I skip lunch every work day (5), eat a small breakfast (>200 kcal), and normal+ dinner. A kind of mild 2:5 ?? What do you think about this formula?

It is easy to incorporate in my life: “normal” meals with family, and no more corporate lunches – saves money, time, produce, waste and calories. Suits my minimalist ambitions! I loose about a 0.5 kg a week, which is satisfactory enough.

I am however not sure how it fits in IF.

What about the other health advantages of fasting – does that also work with a 12 hour fast? Or does these only kick in after a more elevated x-hour without sustenance?

Also, I eat slightly more at dinner, but stay on a calorie-deficiency for 5 days. I choose my food for dinner and breakfast carefully, try to avoid empty calories (not always as successful), but I am still a bit worried about mineral and vitamin deficiency – especially if this is going to be a long-term thing. Should I? (I rather not take supplements, apart from D, because I live at the north pole).

fasting_me

8:30 pm
13 Sep 17
Permalink

Hi, Mrs M.
Any idea how many calories in that dinner? For the 5:2 diet, you want no more than 600 calories on a Fast Day. That’s called ‘calorie restriction.’
You are asking about ‘intermittent Fasting’ [IF]. One of the keys to IF is that you either go long stretches without food [say 24-48 hours] or you eat during an 8 hour window and refrain from eating for 16 hours in a day/night cycle.

If you are happy with your weight loss of 0.5 kg/week, then keep doing what you are doing, which sounds like simply finding a way to eat less. Eventually you will stop losing weight that way and need to reduce calories further to continue losing.

If you want the other benefits of Fasting besides weight loss [new brain cells, lowered risk of diabetes, lower cholesterol], then you need to do a full-on 5:2 of consuming 500-600 cal/Fast Day 2 days/week. It is the dramatic calorie reduction that does the trick.

Ask again if you have further questions. Good luck.

mrs minimalist

10:40 am
14 Sep 17
Permalink

Hi fasting_you

Thanks for your reply, much appreciated. I am still a bit confused (new brain cells, yes please). Because in my world a day is 24h, but in 5:2 it seems to be 36h. Now, if I understand well, in 5:2 the idea is that you eat max 500kc during 36h, and in 16:8 you eat nothing during 16h.

My scheme is 200kc during 23h, then eat a meal (definitely more than 500 kc). It feels like a dramatic reduction :/
But if I understand you rightly, it is not enough for regeneration benefits?

What is the science behind the time lapse? Has it to do with ketosis? If I lower my intake of 200 kc, would that keep me in fasting?

The weightloss is motivating, but I am truly excited about (good/better) functioning with less food.

Love to hear your thoughts.

bigbooty

12:28 pm
14 Sep 17
Permalink

The 36 hours comes from the following: For example you have your last meal Sunday night at 6pm. You go all day Monday having 500/600 or even zero if you want to (I do zero). The on Tuesday morning at 6am you break your fast with breakfast and eat normally. Hence 36 hours.

If you are overweight and have never fasted before it will be HIGHLY unlikely that you will be in ketosis in 24 hours. Most likely it would take 48 or even 60 hours to reach ketosis. Reason being that you will have lots of stored glycogen (stored form of glucose) and your liver will be very inefficient at converting stored fats into ketones.

If you truly fast (zero cal) then it is possible to get into ketosis within 24 hours (I now get into ketosis after 24 hours, initially it was taking 48 hours). It took about six months of fasting for 60 straight hours per week to get there.

There are many benefits to fasting. You may undergo some enhanced autophagy, this happens all the time, fasting just accelerates it. You give your endocrine system a well earned break. You ramp up liver function. Liver cleanse. You breath and mouth may taste bad for a while, this is all the toxins leaching out.

Reducing to 200cal keep you in fast mode? If you include any form or carbs Id say absolutely not. If you eat a keto diet then probably yes. Lots of fats + protein and virtually no carbs. Personally I don’t like eating a keto diet. Id rather just fast and then eat a balanced diet.

Hope that helps.

fasting_me

1:59 am
17 Sep 17
Permalink

MrsM, bigbooty has given you some good advice. I notice that her advice is always good.
Don’t get hung up on ketosis or the details of things you can’t see[like what’s happening inside your cells] — just plan some good menus for Monday and start in. What you WILL see is good quality food on your plate and lower numbers on the bathroom scale.

500 or 600 calories for Monday, from the time you get up until you go to bed. Just do it.

Good luck.

mrs minimalist

1:51 pm
18 Sep 17
Permalink

Hi BigBooty

Thanks for your reply, this is helpful indeed! I also some of your other posts and I’ve learned some stuff, so thanks for writing. @fasting_me thanks for your follow-up, you’re right. I see that 5:2 is not about ketosis, because it is not a long enough fast (for the most of us), but about weight-loss, and autophagy at most.
I am now very curious in doing longer fasts, but I am not ready to discuss this with my family. I note that I am not overweight, but normal with a bmi 22.5. I am just very attracted to the idea of consuming less; even more when it improves health and energy levels.

Remains my concerns about mineral-vitamin deficiencies when cutting 5 real meals a week, long term. Can you eat all the vit-min you need in 9 meals a week, when eating high quality vegetarian food of say about max 1000 kc a meal? I.e. until what point is eating less, promoting health? I guess, people under 5:2 have the same issue, but I do not seem to be able to find relevant information. Any thoughts?

bigbooty

2:33 pm
18 Sep 17
Permalink

Ok if your BMI is 22.5 then youre really not wanting to fast for weight loss. My BMI is 22.1 and I do not fast for weight loss. You have two simple options. I suggest you look up Valter Longo on youtube. You can fast one day per week and slightly over eat for the other six. I do this. Or you can fast for 4 days once per month. After several months you will be able to get into ketosis after one day. I prefer one day per week as you will not deplete your body of micro nutrients, salts etc. after just one day. You have to be less careful by just fasting for one day per week. Fasting for 4 days once per month I think you would have to be careful to ensure you didn’t deplete your micronutrients, salts etc. Possible but more difficult.

Given the option of eating the correct amount each day or eating slightly more for 6 days and complete fasting for one day, Id pick the latter. If you are neither losing nor gaining weight then you have it right. I can appreciate that the family would hold concerns. My wife now accepts my eating regimen. Ive now been doing it for 2 years. Everyone at work also knows I don’t eat on Mondays. They are very accommodating and never bring in birthday cakes on a Monday as they know I wont share in the celebrations, so any day other than a Monday is fine by them.

fasting_me

3:58 pm
18 Sep 17
Permalink

Mind your electrolytes on Fasting Days, MrsM. Even with the Valter Longo 4-day-fast referenced by bigbooty, there is a supplement to take daily in the form of a soup/tea.

What is attractive about consuming less food? Does asceticism appeal to you? Is this a religious principle? After 4 years of Fasting I am actually underweight [BMI 17] but with a very small frame more weight looks chubby on me. My doctor thinks I am in excellent health.

Be very careful what your end-goal is, MrsM. When does dieting become an eating disorder? Extreme Fasting does not grow more brain cells than normal Fasting.

bigbooty

4:28 am
19 Sep 17
Permalink

Good questions fasting_me. Consume less food compared to what? I consume the appropriate amount of food over the course of a week so that I neither lose nor gain weight over the week. You can achieve that in two ways. Eat the correct amount every day or eat slightly more each day and incorporate one fast (zero calories)day to compensate. I typically gain 100g per day which is reset by my fast day. I do this for a variety of reasons. No religious reasons though. It gives your endocrine system a rest, especially your pancreas. It promotes autophagy, especially the programmed death of poorly function white cells. White cell count decreases during fasting but increases dramatically post fasting. Trains your liver to store AND access fats effectively. This change has been dramatic in me. It preferentially kills off cells that can only survive in a high glucose environment for those that can process both glucose and ketones. The list of benefits goes on.

Does asceticism appeal to me? No not really. Its not asceticism if you don’t really want it in the first place. Youre not denying yourself anything if you don’t actually want it. Processed grain based products no longer appeal to me. Sweets like chocolate, biscuits, cakes etc. I may have every blue moon but they don’t appeal to me anymore. Now if I was to deny myself cheese then it would be hard core asceticism at play. But cheese holds no dietary fear for me so I have it on a regular basis.

A BMI of 17 appears to me to be a little low but then I don’t know your circumstances. Most athletic performance tends to drop off below a BMI of 19-20. But most people aren’t top athletes. If your aim was to get to 17 and you are comfortable staying there and you are neither losing nor gaining weight and you have a balanced diet with both macro and micro nutrient balance then no problems.

People with eating disorders (at both extremes) come and go from this site. They are pretty easy to spot. I wish I could help but that isn’t possible as the eating disorder is just a manifestation of other underlying problems. Ask me what I think a healthy diet is, that’s easy, but it wont help someone with an eating disorder.

fasting_me

3:49 pm
19 Sep 17
Permalink

You always give sensible and thorough and enlightening answers, bigbooty. My aim was not to get to a 17 BMI, it just happened. Since I’m there and I’m healthy, I’ll stay there. My body fat [as calculated by the Weight Watcher’s scale] was 15.2% I don’t obsess about that either. I know where my body stores its fat reserves, since I can see it, but I won’t be dumb and diet until I lose that.

MrsM: Your turn to respond to my questions.

mrs minimalist

7:29 pm
20 Sep 17
Permalink

Thank you for your interesting comments; it had me thinking about some stuff. I might not always react immediately, but know that I enjoy this discussion and try to react as fast as I can.
I had crossed my mind that fasting might develop eating disorders, but I guess that is true for any diet. I do not have one, and do not want one, and hope I will not develop one. I went from foodie, to quality food, to healthy food, to organic food, to local food, to sustainable food. It is not so much about asceticism – not a religious one in any case – I hope to be able to enjoy food as well as many other earthly pleasures for the rest of my life. It is more about a need to decrease in the light of our daily over-consumption of food (and many other things). Consuming less food, is purchasing less food, is wasting less resources. Ecology meets fasting. Instead of searching how much I can eat without getting sick, I am interested to experience how little I can consume while keeping (or even improving) my physical and mental health, by choosing the right foods and timing. The break-point seems to be much lower than the recommended optimal bmi values, and surely variable from person to person. Fasting_me seems like a good example with a bmi of 17. My break-point is probably higher. In any case, a low bmi is not the goal in itself. Nor is asceticism in its absolute form.

fasting_me

9:25 pm
24 Sep 17
Permalink

Mrs M, perhaps you want to eat lower on the trophic scale, since your inclination is toward ecology and sustainability. Have you considered being vegetarian?
We are foodies in our household, but also Fasters. Your goals sound very Asian. Just an observation. Yes. Most people do consume too much, food included. I despise wretched excess, trying to have as little food as possible on hand so it won’t spoil and have to be thrown out. Horrible.
As for sustainability, we forage for fruit and mushrooms, as well as raising our own chickens [humanely] for meat and eggs. All summer and into the fall I can food that is local. This is a lifestyle that I embrace.

dykask

11:45 pm
24 Sep 17
Permalink

Depending where you live in the world being a vegetarian may not mean sustainability. Where our family farm/ranch is, most of the plants that can be grown sustainably are not editable by humans. Cows thrive though. We did do a limited amount of farming too where there is enough water, but what most people don’t realize is how hard that is on wildlife.

Once has to understand the ecology of where they live to understand what the impacts of the food choices are. Many people don’t seem to realize there are a lot of tradeoffs.

I think it is wonderful though that humans can do well on a wide range of diets. If we all tried to eat exactly the same diet, mass starvation would be the likely result. I don’t think anyone would advocate that. That being said I think the major problem with modern diets is all the processed food. Pretty much any diet that gets people away from eating process foods probably works.

When I was a child, I remember my grandmother still selling eggs and using that money to buy some food we couldn’t grow. Sometimes we would also go and trade with a Hutterite colony too. However all of that takes a lot of effort, so there are more tradeoffs there too.

Now I’m living in Japan. Many grocery stores in Japan are small. Typically processed foods are limited to less than 1/2 the store. Even then a lot of the shelf space is for backing and cooking goods. When I’m in the USA it seems like less than 1/5 of many grocery stores are devoted to non-processed goods. Besides be a bit of a culture shock it makes shopping a real pain. However the variety and affordability of fruit in the USA is amazing. Vegetable selections are okay but not as impressive.

mrs minimalist

12:41 pm
26 Sep 17
Permalink

Indeed, we have become vegetarian since a couple of years now. It makes totally sense. I do not wish to make it a religion though, and I might nibble some high quality sustainable meat/fish if these rare occasions occur. We are inclined towards veganism – because to continue consuming eggs and diary still supports the industry. That is the case at least in our situation (in an apartment, in a capital) in which we depend on animal industry. I envy your possibility to raise chickens, @fasting_me. Even if it is more sustainable to eat at a primary level, it would sooth my conscious enough to appreciate a grilled chicken once in a while (mmm, makes me drawl already..).
Your remark about me sounding Asian, made me grin : why is that ?? I am, regretfully ignorant of Asian culture.

At some places of the world, it is more difficult to feed oneself (locally)– I agree @dykask. Effort seems to be a keyword indeed – you can go a long way with much effort, but it is definitely more comfortable not to care — a trade-off decision according to many social, financial, physical, cultural and geographical factors. The trade-off calculations are very complex, and I would not want to argue on the basis of limited details. However, you are surely aware that cows need a lot of water too: about daily 1 gallon per 100 pounds of body weight during cool weather; 2 gallons if warm weather, twice as much if lactating. (thumb rule only.) You can grow a lot of vegetables for that amount. But it is not only water plants need…

Nice to have a comparison with Japan. We have moved from the middle of Europe to living in Scandinavia. Makes you reconsider some aspects. Growing season is short, local food limited, variety minimal. Nowadays, much food is imported from the south of the continent, where vegetables and fruit are produced much cheaper. Produce is possible here, but I think they just gave up on a larger scale for economical reasons. Cows do not thrive here, because they lives inside for 9 months of the year. Reindeer might thrive, but one can only live on reindeer if the population density is extremely low (which is the case above the arctic circle). I produce some vegetables and berries on a small plot (water is not a problem here; light and temperature are the critical factors), and I am experimenting with getting the most out of it, but it is nothing substantial. Bottom-line, I do not quite know what to eat anymore. It helps fasting though, lol. Maybe that is my trade-off.

fasting_me

1:34 pm
26 Sep 17
Permalink

Such an interesting conversation.

dykask, you are absolutely correct that not everyone can be a vegetarian due to the locale. In our New Hampshire, the land is not suited to farming, nor is the climate. Grazing is the better use for the land. Our son the biologist has studied ethical nutrition and maintains that eating on lower trophic levels is better for the environment. That doesn’t stop him or us from being omnivores. People need to eat locally, based on what their area can sustain.

MrsM, your philosophy of leaving a small footprint and eating less/being a minimalist sounds like Buddhist ideas to me. I’m not a student of Asian philosophy, but the concept of helping others by consuming less yourself has resonance there.

I think that the concept of being a locavore is what it boils down to. If we all eat locally, we reduce transport costs, know where the food came from, refrain from damaging other ecosystems, and utilize the nutrients found in the area. All of those are good for us, for our neighbors, for the world. And then we Fast to maintain our own health.

dykask

3:05 pm
29 Sep 17
Permalink

@mrs minimalist, you are correct that cows need water. Still the amount a cows drinks is tiny compared to what plants use. Where the family farm is it takes more than an acre to raise one cow. Take 20 galleons and spread it over an acre and you see it is a tiny amount. We actually had enough water for thousands of cows, but not enough to just grow all of our own fruits and vegetables. We could grow winter wheat but that isn’t quite the same.

However worldwide I think vegetarianism is much more sustainable than say following the Aktin’s diet. My point was just some places are much more suitable for raising life stock.

@fasting_me I’m not apposed to eating locally as much as one reasonably can. However the modern transpiration of food is really awesome. I’m thankful that I have a lot of food choices. I do have days were I don’t eat any meat, but that is just how it works out sometimes. Anyway transportation costs will only come down, not just in money but impact. The world is also becoming more eco-minded. When I was in China early this month, the government announced than only electric vehicles would be allowed for sale in China in a couple of years. Image that, a whole country banning fossil fuel cars and trucks! Things will change, even in back-water places like the USA where I’m from.

Consider this, I now live in Tokyo. The Tokyo area has more than 35 million people, but it only produces about 1/3 the landfill trash that New York City does. It might seem shocking when you consider all the wrapping, chop sticks and packaging used in Japan. However live here a while and you know why. People in Tokyo have to sort their waste and dispose of it correctly or recycle it correctly. When you mess up they put your trash out for everyone to see with a sign politely asking you not to do that anymore. Kind of like the dunce cap.

mrs minimalist

3:24 pm
5 Oct 17
Permalink

Sorry for interrupting this interesting line of eco-discussion, but I would like to go back to the technicalities of fasting for a moment. Because I still do not understand calorie-restriction vs. fasting, metabolic rate etc.
I have been watching some Fung-videos, and reading some blogs. I am afraid I do it all wrong: mess around my metabolic rate, not having any of the health benefits. So what I write below is not skepticism, but incomprehension.
During weekdays I have a tiny breakfast at 8h, and a dinner at 7h30; in the weekend I have 3-4 meals over the day. Sometimes I fast for 23 h or 36h, but it is rare.
So, what I am doing is basically calorie-restriction (considering that I can not make up for my entire TEE)? And that is bad because metabolic rate dropping? But if I do 18:6, or 6:1, 5:2, it is fasting, and that is good. Because: under fasting, insuline level is low, which gets body to access fat (as much as it needs). But in calorie-restriction, insuline level is not low enough, therefor body cannot access more than circa 32 calories per pound of fat per day (Fung-blog), and as a consequence it will decrease TEE?
On the basis of what is the line between calorie-restriction and fasting settled? Insuline? Is that 200 cal breakfast really ruining it for the entire day? – I would think it does not give me that much fuel.
Concrete: I have about 40 pound of fat, my body has for 1280 cal access to my fat in non-fasting state, and in order to keep my TEE of 1900, I should eat at least 620 cal. a day. That seems totally feasible to me – one good dinner and it is done, right? Where is the problem?
If I were fasting, I could drop weight quicker without lowering TEE, but I do not mind getting their slow, because I am not overweight.
Also, why is it bad to have a low TEE? High TEE is great if you have to shrink a lot, I see that, but otherwise, would it not be convenient to function properly with less food? Other drawbacks I oversee?

bigbooty

9:42 pm
5 Oct 17
Permalink

@mrs minimalist. Wow I think your over complicating everything. Calorie restriction is where you restrict what you eat every day. 5:2 is a form of intermittent fasting where you restrict what you eat a few times per week. Example: Your TDEE is 1900/day. If you wanted to do calorie restriction you could eat say 1360/day each day. Or doing IF you could eat 1900 for five days and fast zero cal for two days. At the end of the week you would have consumed 9500 cal regardless of which method you used. Of the two methods personally I think IF (5:2 in this case) is the better way to go. Now you don’t have to do zero calories on your fast days but I hope you can see the difference between the two methods.

Im not sure what youre quoting with regards to 32 cal per pound of fat? Don’t get too worried with the maths. Basically you are consuming a combination of glucose, glycogen and fat ALL the time. The proportion of each however changes depending on the activity you are doing and the food you have eaten.

You say you are not overweight? So why do you want to lose weight?

I think youre confused about TDEE? A low TDEE is neither good or bad. Your TDEE is a function of what you weigh and the activity you do each day. If you eat up to your TDEE then given your situation you will maintain the same weight. Eat less, you lose weight, eat more you gain weight. Please use TDEE calculators as a guide rather than a “perfect” number.

CalifDreamer

10:16 pm
5 Oct 17
Permalink

Bigbooty, in reading some further info on autophagy, I wonder if that could contribute to hair loss?

bigbooty

12:08 am
6 Oct 17
Permalink

@cd. Im a 56yo male so that problem no longer concerns me. More seriously in what context are you talking about hair loss? As with all things the answer is “maybe”. I think there are too many factors at play, some of which may be active for a particular person/situation and some which may not play a role. The act of fasting places the body under “stress”. During this time the body will do an “audit” of what is performing well and what is not doing so well (or functions that it considers to be peripheral or not so important). It will systematically kill off cells that are performing poorly or cells that are performing less than useful functions. So the answer is a definite maybe with regards to hair loss.

CalifDreamer

5:46 am
6 Oct 17
Permalink

Bigbooty, your comment about autophagy back in a September post got me thinking. This article discusses that further in relation to hair loss: https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/role-of-non-androgenic-factors-in-hair-loss-and-hair-regrowth-2471-9323-1000118.php?aid=87481 About 7 paragraphs down he discusses the role of mineral deficiencies related to hair loss which makes me wonder if added supplements or greater attention to some of these nutrients might be a good idea for long term IF’ers since our overall food intake can be greatly reduced following 5:2. (Sorry for hijacking this thread. Your comments took me off in another direction.)

fasting_me

2:02 pm
7 Oct 17
Permalink

The vast majority of hair loss is genetic. For males and females. Anything else is due to disease or stress or lack of nutrients. I don’t see Fasting as having any effect [pos or neg] unless one is depriving oneself of nutrition for long periods of time.

Mrs M: Yes, you are doing this ‘wrong’ if you are over-analyzing everything. Just eat less. What do you mean by saying you have ’40 pounds of fat’ but you are ‘not overweight’? Do you mean your fat:lean ratio? Ignore that. At this point it does not matter.
Eat your 500-600 high-quality calories 2 days/week. Eat 1500 calories the other days and you should lose weight and have the lower impact on the planet which you desire.

mrs minimalist

8:50 pm
17 Oct 17
Permalink

Thanks everyone, I appreciate it. I am an analytic person; I really like to understand the science behind this, to appreciate the logic of what I am doing. It makes me more autonomous in adapting and analyzing the system to my situation without messing things up. I do not want to risk a messed up metabolism when trying to get healthier. I do not think that it is over-analyzing – wrong analyzing, that maybe yes. And also I am new to fasting, so I have still a lot to learn, and it is rather fascinating.
@fasting_me. Yes, I meant fat:lean ratio. I do not yet know what this number can explain. It is also not an up to date number, but a guess on the basis of an old analysis. It does not really matter – it was to illustrate my calculation.

fasting_me

12:01 am
18 Oct 17
Permalink

Mrs M, I do understand your wish to understand how the body will react to Fasting. It satisfies a curiosity about how the natural world works. But so many people get wa-a-a-y too crazy about details: autophagy; starvation mode; ketosis; and on and on. Here’s what it boils down to: just follow the Fast Diet as outlined by Dr Mosley. You read the book, right? That answered all my questions.

Just do it and then keep us apprised of your progress.

mrs minimalist

8:50 am
23 Oct 17
Permalink

Thanks fasting-me, for all your remarks and support.

dykask

2:03 am
24 Oct 17
Permalink

I was sick and out of the discussion ….

https://idmprogram.com/difference-calorie-restriction-fasting-fasting-27/

That is a good write up. Basically it boils down to the fact hormone levels are radically different in the fasted state vs the fed state. For older adults (later 50’s) like myself, the fasted state pushes hormones towards the levels that teenagers enjoy. My two teens are both in the 9% to 14% body fat range but they eat way more than I do and also too much junk. They get away with it because of their youthful hormone levels. For example very high amounts of HGH.

For adults fasting puts a lot of pressure on the insulin levels and helps keep it low, it also boost HGH production as well as other beneficial hormones. Continuously eating keeps insulin high and makes it harder to user your stored fat.