Calorie restrict or Intermittent fast? (vegetables, supplement, health issues, weight loss)

[movintime]

I'm lost here. I thought IF was better due to a lower blood glucose/insulin level, & heart healthy & good for longevity. I know see it may be bad for heart as it, "messes up the heart", according to something I saw online.

I'm not sure if fasting at all, like 18-24 hrs 1x/month at least, is even good let alone healthy now? The website shows & cites rat studies, & claims they affect negatively heart function, etc.

Im so unclear here after I just did an 18 hr water-only fast today, & then ate normally tonite, then came across this & wonder if I'm doing harm than good? Hmm, ok can anyone clarify which (& why) is better?

The calorie restriction diets are also pro & con, & this really makes it confusing to know how & what to do, to be as healthy as one can be.

[Padgett2]

Fasting is not a good habit.

You need to learn to eat correctly for the rest of your life or you will just put the weight back on at some point.

You stated that you "ate normally" after your fast. There's a very good chance that your "normal" diet offset whatever weight loss you had from the fasting.

[springfieldva]

I've met people who fast for religious purposes. But I think that there are far better forms of weight control than fasting. Especially if you're fasting to "undo" a large pan pizza and liter of soda that you splurged on the day before..

[tribecavsbrowns]

Fasting is advanced-level stuff, if you're actually fat, stay away from it. Even after you've lost the weight, fasting doesn't work for everyone. I'm quite lean, but fasting destroys my circadian rhythms, so I still eat three meals a day.

[Sciameriken]

Could you give me the link to that study on CR and detriment to the heart? My understanding is that fasting and caloric restriction are one in the same. Caloric restriction appears to boost mitochondrial efficiency which in turn gives a little more energy as well as reduce oxidative stress giving the aforementioned life extending benefits. I also read a paper that linked increased signaling protein, SIRT1, with heart problems when that protein was overactive in that tissue. Assuming those results are correct it may also explain why caloric restriction can cause heart problems as CR also causes increased SIRT1 activity in various tissues. Still if the heart problems were serious then we wouldn't be seeing the life extending benefits of CR in the various animal studies right?

[Padgett2]

maybe there are two different kinds of fasting. Most of us consider fasting as doing without food. Not just restricting calories.

To diet by reducing intake from too many calories (such as 3000-4000) down to a reasonable 1600-2000, is not fasting in the usual sense.

[Heartsong]

I'm glad I saw this thread because I have considered intermittent fasting maybe one day a week to supplement my weight loss plan, but I can see how it might actually harm the body by throwing the blood sugar level out of whack which could stress the heart. At my age and weight, that is the last thing I need to do. I am having success reducing by eating only healthy foods in small amounts whenever I'm actually hungry. I've cut out almost all sugar, pasta, bread, corn chips, crackers, and all those high carb foods. I eat fresh fruit and vegetables, cheese, small amounts of nuts, yogurt, an occasional egg or serving of chicken and that is the best diet I've found for reducing. I do not completely refrain from carbs, but only allow myself very small amounts - you know like one serving a day at the most of bread/pasta/rice/cornchips. Some days I eat none. But if I start feeling like I'm low on energy I will allow myself that one serving. Refined sugar is just off limits - period.

Getting back to the original topic. If you have any health issues or are trying to lose a significant amount of weight, I would not recommend fasting because it may defeat you by making you feel tired or weak and could also damage your health.

[AnonChick]

Fasting a few times yearly is not harmful at all, and can be good for you, physically and spiritually, as long as you're relatively healthy before you go on the fast.

Fasting regularly for the purpose of losing weight is stupid.

[movintime]

Oops, I need clarify. I'm 5/8" & 162 lbs in good shape, exercise daily, eat very well. But I restrict (actually not eating at all for up to 12-18 hrs as many times per wk as can). So basically, I awake & go as long as I can before eating let's say, greek yogurt w/ fruit or bean sprouts w/ nuts like walnuts/almonds etc.

I try to do this as it reduces eating window time daily, & thus slows my overall cal intake daily. I worry when doing this tho, that the heart gets this yo-yo effect of no food, then 6-12 hrs of eating on & off, & this will cause bld sugar fluctuations, etc.

The diff. between cal restricting & fasting is: fasting is NO food for period of so many hrs, whereas cal restrict. limits (but allows some food, albeit very small amounts daily, &... is basically just a "reduced cal eating plan for life" or daily -- as long as one can keep up this pace of eating lightly & working out as much as you can -- as this less energy allows us to burn more than we take in.

It is kind of "ancestral dieting/eating" when food was avail only when we caught or hunted it, & none was avail if famine or winter was occuring.

Is this a reasonable assess of this dieting?

[jerseygal4u]

I tried IF and lost 50 pounds,but had a 6 hr window frame of eating,and then nothing for the next 18 hours.
I liked it better than eating 6 small meals a day. It helped me stay full eating 1600 calories over the 6 hours and then nothing else. Plus,I wasn't tempted into looking at food all the time. If I went into the fridge to get a sandwich,I was also tempted to taste the chocolate cake. Just by going into the fridge once a day,that temptation wasn't there.
I didn't have time to eat 6 small meals a day,as I was working 16 hr shifts.

From what I read it stimulates HgH.