What is /fit/'s stance on fasting? Is it an effective means

>>42480974
Depends on how much of a fatass you actually are, <250lbs shouldn't fast.

>>42481008
I'm around 250 and i've been eating several hundred under my TDEE for about a week, is the "starvation mode" thing just a meme?

>>42481008
The problem is I'm not a fatass in the traditional sense. I'm ~150, but I feel like most of that is fat as there's no real observable muscle anywhere. On top of that, my diet sort of sucks, mainly because I don't see myself as a fatass (having at one point been a fatass), so I feel guilty when I eat/drink shit I know is bad. I'm somewhat active, but apparently not enough to make a noticeable difference, which is really why I pose the question in the first place.

Fasting has a lot of health benefits beyond weight loss, and the body is very efficient at regulating blood sugar for low activity on a fast (aka walking/reading and lazing around)
IF is good if you want to stop snacking all day, but is still dependent on how much you eat.

You can fast for a normal working day easily if you have the habit

The good thing about fasting is that around 3 days in you won't feel hunger as long as your body has reserves.

The bad thing is your body will start to reduce muscle mass first, unless you exercise along with fasting.

>>42481055
It's literally a myth created as an attempt to stop anorexia.

>>42481055
Down to around 15% or so the body has no problems using up fat preferentially for fuel reserves. Below that you start to begin to see metabolic impacts of long term fasting including decreased energy and increase protein oxidation.

These impacts are quite minimal and probably insignificant in the long term. Negative health effects really begin to take hold below 10% where energy conservation really starts to kick in. at around 5% significant muscle wasting will begin to occur and health impacts are not inconsequential.

If you're over 15% body fat you can fast for an extended duration without significant concern. I don't suggest extended duration fasting until you're at 30% body fat. Below which you should only be doing IF, or skipping a day or two during the week. But never more than one day in a row at most. Below 30% body fat you should be eating plenty of calories and lifting as hard as you can. the fat will come off in plenty of time with good diet.

Fat fucks over 30% should definitely consider extended fasting periods because of the ease at which it allows fat loss. It should also be considered for those with metabolic syndrome regardless of body composition.

Fat fucks can endure much longer fasts as long as they supplement with multi-vitamins and get plenty of water.

Once the body fat is below 30%, or the symptoms of metabolic syndrome have been dealt with, conversion to an IF 16:8 feeding window or similar program should be undertaken.

>>42481278
t. Scientist

>>42481319
He's just making up random percentages. If you want to lose weight, fast. That's it.

>>42481529
You're right. My numbers only come from 10 years of experience helping fat fucks lose over a combined 5,000lbs. I just pulled them out of thin air.

>>42481278
solid write-up. Thanks for that. If a fat fuck had nutritionally valuable food, like maybe just an egg and some chicken, but only had a little bit so the calories were very below the TDEE, is this a viable option for decent fat loss in place of a hard fast?

>>42481619
The problem with severely restricted calorie diets is that they have a larger impact on basal metabolic rate than simply forgoing any food at all.

A study comparing the effects of both fasting and calorie restriction on REE showed that fasting during a two week period showed an actual increase in the resting energy expenditure of ~250 calories per day over the observed baseline by day 5 of the fast. Severe calorie restriction (-1,000cal) led to an overall decline of the REE over the same period.

Another study showed that this reduction in REE was also shown to appear in moderately restrictive diets of only -500.

These reductions of REE did not amount to the net calorie restriction in either case, and the studies did not touch on whether the reduction in REE could be offset with exercise and increased activity. The larger of the restricted diets did comment that the individuals participating felt more tired and sluggish than their fasting counterparts.

In the people I work with I really prefer having them get close to their TDEE in a 16:8 IF schedule. I like to have them eat to satiety or their TDEE, whichever comes first. With proper food guidance they almost always hit satiety before their TDEE resulting in a net calorie deficit. If they have problems achieving satiety before their TDEE I integrate fasting days into their week to help improve insulin sensitivity, and get their weekly calories in check.

>>42481684
Wow, neat. What is your job title?

And could you explain what a 16:8 IF is? Interval fasting?

>>42481722
>job title
I don't have a job title. I own a bunch of houses I rent out for my primary income.

16:8 IF is intermittent fasting. 16 hours of fasting, and you have an 8 hour window during the day to feed.

Some people like the leangains method.

My only rule is that you eat from the periphery of the store.

The only exceptions are:
>frozen fresh vegetables which are perfectly fine
>processed lunch meats which are not allowed

I strongly suggest those experiencing symptoms of metabolic syndrome stay away from the bakery department until symptoms are eliminated.

>>42480974
I eat every other day and fast between those days. Fat is just falling off. Oh and like zero sugar or carbs when I eat.

>>42480974
48 hours no food. So far so good. I've been on a 1000cal defecit since first of July.

Was down 6 pounds.

Now I'm down 8. Feeling pretty good, a bit faint, but the results are great.

About to hit sub 170lbs since middle school.

>>42481206
>your body will start to reduce muscle mass first

When will this meme end?

>>42481558
How much did they gain back later? All of it?

>>42483177
Only one person I've helped lose weight has regained a significant portion of it. He was 430lbs, dropped to 180 over the course of 2 years using 2-3 week fasting periods with 1 week re-feed windows in-between. He maintained that weight for about a year before starting to gain back 30lbs over the course of 7years up until now.

He went back to eating whole large pizzas from pizza hut three times a week with a 2-liter of pepsi. Despite gaining some weight back he's still not a type 2 diabetic, which he was using 100 units of insulin a day to control his blood sugar along with 2 grams of metformin and a sulfonyluria.

He's the worst case so far of regaining weight. Most of them come down to a weight they like and maintain it with the inclusion of fasting days or maintaining an IF eating schedule.

The women tend to be the ones who just want to lose fat and when they get to a shape they like that's it, they do what they can to stay there and have the most average lasting results. The worst weight-loss case from a woman was a gal who was 300lbs, she dropped to around 200 with extended fasting periods and decided that was good enough. She's been there for four years. She's also no longer diabetic and was taken off her blood pressure and cholesterol meds

The guys either tend to lose the weight, and then bounce back up a little bit (~10lbs) and maintain that, or they lose the weight and start going full guns blazing at the gym.

>>42481206

even if you keep taking protein?

>>42484424
There's no evidence of lean mass loss from short term, or even moderate duration fasting. The only instances in which lean mass is lost is when fat reserves start plummeting into the single digits.

>b-b-b-but what about the studies that show protein oxidation
autophagy, it's kind of a big deal.