A very interesting TV show in the long running BBC Horizon series, introduced by Michael Mosley. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01lxyzc/buzz http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2012/aug/06/eat-fast-and-live-longer http://weeatthings.com/2012/08/08/the-52-diet-recipe-ideas/ The idea, essentially, is that you can eat pretty much what you like as long as every few days you reduce your calorie intake drastically. We're talking about 5-600 calories a day which is about this much... But that's all you're allowed ALL DAY!!! Mosley suggests a pattern of 5 days 'normal' eating followed by two fasting days. The current thinking, according to the program, is that reducing your calorie intake in this way drastically reduce the chances of diabetes and heart disease. In fact one guy said that most people in their 50's and 60's could come off their meds for those COMPLETELY within a year. Also, because of the reduction in the IGF-1, (insulin-like growth factor IIRC), during fasting the body switched from 'growth mode' to 'repair mode' which they seem to think reduced the chance of getting cancer. At least I think that's what they said If others can watch it, (let me know if it disappears from youtube), and let me know their thoughts that would be interesting... especially any of our resident medical fellas, I'd be interested in those particularly. I've been trying it for a few days now and the days of 5-600 calories are easy enough, tbh. I'm trying a day of just drinking water, (today, actually), and that's quite a bit harder. Anyway, I'll be reporting back here how I'm getting on from time to time unless I crash and burn, in which case I won't be mentioning it again
I fasted for the whole day on Thursday and on Friday I intended to eat normally. As the advice has it I could eat 'whatever I liked' on that day. However, what I found was that, after having fasted the day before, (so not having eaten anything for about 36 hours), I simply couldn't eat as much even if I wanted to and, truth be told, I didn't want to. In fact the little woman offered me a bacon sandwich for tea, 4 slices of bread with bacon and tomato sauce, (only the finest haute cuisine for yours truly you understand), followed by a yoghurt which I ate and wished I hadn't afterwards... I felt absolutely stuffed and distinctly uncomfortable. In fact I didn't really 'recover', (in terms of being comfortable), till the following morning. That was very different from my experience before where, on the day after I'd had a 'restricted calorie day', (about 5-600 calories), I could eat 'normally' with no ill effects or discomfort. So I'm going to mix it up this week with a day eating normally followed by a day of restricted consumption and throw in one day a week of fasting, (as opposed to a low calorie day), to see how I go.
The one time I managed to go about 40 hours (from 6:00 pm on a sunday to 10 a.m. or so on tuesday, I was surprised by how much energy I had on Tuesday morning. I went for a typical walk around 6:30, planning to be home for breakfast an hour later. I wound up hitting a trail near my town and going for an about 12 miles at a fairly good pace. A banana and some yogurt got to me to supper pretty easily. I'm planning on giving this a try starting this week. Since you posted, I've been trying to track down an article I remembered reading in The Atlantic on fasting. Couldn't find it, mainly because it was published in Harpers. Not sure how accessible it is, but it's worth reading. The most memorable part was about an Obese Brit who went without eating for about a year to get his weight down from 600 pounds to something a tad healthier. http://harpers.org/archive/2012/03/0083829 I think you have to be a subscriber. Or track it down in a library.
Something else I found which was mentioned in the Harper's article. It's important to keep taking fluids. I didn't the first day and started to get a headache. However, it went within about half an hour of drinking a glass of water.
Finally got to watch the documentary. The "alternate day fasting" researcher, Krista Verady, works at my old university. And the elevated train station used to be the one nearest one of my apartments. Didn't expect that on a BBC doc. Interesting. Like I said, I'll give it a try.
Fasted yesterday, (as in no food, just water), and took a walk on my normal route of about 3 miles which took about 56- 57 mins, roughly about the same as normal. The quickest I've done it is just over 51 mins. Eat normally today but, again, tbh, I felt like I could have carried on with the fast today. The full fasting day is quite hard so think I'll be trying the reduced calorie option every other day for a while, starting tomorrow but I might also try a two-day complete fast at some point.
Horizon has long been associated with an American production company, WGBH in Boston. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_Horizon 1960s-1980s The first ever Horizon was The World of Buckminster Fuller, produced and directed by Ramsay Short, 5 February 1964. It set the style; running time 50 minutes, no in-vision presenter, interviewees speaking off camera (in practice, almost always to the producer/director whose questions were usually edited out.) Until the 1980s Horizon, in common with all BBC documentaries, was shot on 16mm film.[1] Only rare programmes had a specialist writer – in most cases the producer/director was also the writer. The first Horizon in colour was Koestler on Creativity, produced by Robert Vas, 5 December 1967. The Public Broadcasting Service's (PBS) Nova series was created in 1974, after Michael Ambrosino, who had served a year-long fellowship with the BBC, was inspired to create an American program based on the same model.[3][4]
Good stuff, thanks for posting. I'm fairly new to this board so forgive me if I am rehashing old material, but I have been enamored with the thinking of Art Devany for some time. He advocates ïntermittent fasting", somewhat on the basis of the theory that humans evolved that way over millenia. One thing is for sure - the conventional wisdom (in this case the notion that you should eat up to eight small meals per day) is usually wrong. Also, what works for some - eg that marathon runner you work with - does not always apply to everyone.
Been fasting every Monday and Tuesday pretty much since I started and it's been OK. It's been easier for me to do it that way than the reduced calorie option because, once I start eating I start to think, another sandwich won't hurt. Hit the buffers last week when I got a case of norovirus a couple of days after the fast but I think that was pure coincidence. It left me when I fasted another day and a half and then started with easy to digest foods like bananas and nectarines but it also means I haven't really eaten for a longer period than I intended and with a day or so eating in between. Not ideal! I shall continue on Monday and Tuesday next week as usual. I've kept the walk up every other day of about 3 miles and I've found that actually STOPS any hunger although, again, it's important to replace lost fluids.
So Naughtius, what effect, if any, has this had on your weight? Also, on the days that you aren't fasting, how much are you letting loose and eating whatever you want? I can imagine that the intermittent fasting would confuse your digestive system as well.
On the first 'normal' day I have to watch not to eat too much but, in truth, I don't generally want to. I read something once about your stomach 'shrinking' if you fast but I'm not sure if that's just an urban myth of something real. In terms of weight loss, as I say, I've been walking about 3 miles every other day now for a year or so so I was reducing before this latest period but, roughly, I'd say I've gone down from about eighteen and a half stone to about seventeen and half by walking for a year and, with fasting a couple of days a week for the past couple of months, I weighed in at just over sixteen and a half this morning. Of course, that was at the end of 2 days fasting so by next Sunday night I'll probably be back at around 17st, hopefully a pound or so under if the last few weeks are anything to go by. On that basis I'll have lost 9-10lb over about 2 months. The thing to bear in mind is that this is a long term 'change of lifestyle, not a fad diet. As the research also indicates, it should also reduce my chance of other long term illness such as heart disease and cancer.
I'm doing fasting before once a week but not because of health reason although it did help to cleanse my body from all the toxin.
Naughtius, thanks for sharing your experiences and the article. I've been interested in the health effects of calorie restriction for awhile, and have experimented myself with various strategies. The next one for me to try is intermittent fasting. Why did you decide on two days back to back, instead of say, Monday/Thursday, or something? I'm guessing that it's easier just to keep it going once you've started, and the brain still has some glycogen left to burn on the second day, so no trouble on that front. Is that close? Another possibility I might try is sort of a "Jewish fast" 2-3 times a week, that is, from sundown to sundown, or I would just say 6:00 pm to 6:00 pm. This would allow a meal just before and just after, meaning that 24 hours would pass for the health benefit, but you could still eat that day -- you just have to hold out until evening.
OK! Been continuing with the plan, apart from last week when I didn't fast Monday and Tuesday but tried having small meals every other day throughout the week. That's actually quite hard to do... for me, anyway. So this week went back to fasting Monday and Tuesday which seems easier because you KNOW you aren't going to eat for those two days. I think the change to eating one day on, one day reduced, slowed my weight loss so I'm only a few pounds below the sixteen and half stone I was 3 weeks ago. IOW I didn't lose hardly anything last week. This week I hope to be 4-5lb lighter but we'll see I guess. Still, it's going in the right direction I guess, even with my little 'experiment'. Is anyone else trying this?
I found that doing it over two days is psychologically easier, for me at any rate. When I've tried a day of calorie restriction you have something to eat but you're still hungry and because you already HAVE eaten it becomes easy to say 'Oh well, just a little bit more won't make much difference'. Which is kinda true but, obviously, it makes a LOT of difference because you can say that more than once. Also you think, well, I'll have even LESS tomorrow so it doesn't matter if I have this little extra meal now. The strange thing is that, for me, it's actually easier the 2nd day than the 1st. Not sure why that should be but I'm guessing it's because you're already used to the idea of being hungry so it just seems normal and, because of that, you're NOT hungry. So my guess is that, if you try it twice a week with a separation, (Monday and Thursday as you suggest), you'll have to go through the difficult day TWICE. Not much fun IMO. Of course, maybe you'll be completely different and that's best for you.
That makes sense; thanks for the input. When I start, I'll probably begin with the 6 to 6 fast M-W-F, and other days as normal and see how that goes, then maybe switch it up to your way just to compare the results. Right now, I still have this month to finish out. I've been doing 500 cal/day this month, with very little hunger, and had good success -- 20 lbs so far (started on the 5th). It's been great, but it's not a lifestyle change, it's a 4-6 week thing. I wouldn't want to do it for longer, and you aren't really supposed to.
... and there was me thinking you were a teacher of some sort. Your students would be ashamed, mate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eats,_Shoots_&_Leaves
They have no reason for shame- I'm history/US Government, not English. I was thinking of that book when I posted.