Anonymous wrote:Seven pounds in a month is not much of a loss. Unless you were quite thin to begin with.

What planet do you live on?

Anonymous wrote:Seven pounds in a month is not much of a loss. Unless you were quite thin to begin with.

Sounds like a pretty good weight loss for one month to me. I'm really intrigued by this and want to try it. I'll be stalking this thread.

Anonymous wrote:Seven pounds in a month is not much of a loss. Unless you were quite thin to begin with.

Slow weight loss is part of what makes it healthy.

Seven pounds in a month is not much of a loss. Unless you were quite thin to begin with.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like an excellent way to rid your body of muscle (which it will consumer first since it's metabolically "expensive" to maintain) while at the same time lowering your metabolism to near starvation levels. That ensures you'll either have to do this forever or you'll yo-yo up even higher when you stop. Not a bright idea.

Okay, sounds like another person who's helpfully making sweeping judgments without bothering to actually review the literature. Sigh.

I agree, but as I have mentioned in other threads, this person should not be too overly criticized as the popular press has supplied this misinformation unendingly for decades ... Not exactly fair to blame people for holding this belief.

http://www.lowcarbfriends.com/bbs/juddd/780230-benefits-alternate-day-fasting-cron.html

Contains a lot of research study citations. Krista Varady's book summarizes her own extensive research on the approach as a weight loss method but I prefer the research that focuses more on the broader health impacts. Google work done by mark mattson in particular ... He is the chief neuro researcher at NIH and is probably the most published, cited, and respected guy out there. Valter Longo and Luigi Fontana are also extremely good and reputable.

Most people don't have time or reason to do this amount of research. I only list these people and links to provide some assurance that there really is good science behind IF ... It is not just one more flakey fad.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like an excellent way to rid your body of muscle (which it will consumer first since it's metabolically "expensive" to maintain) while at the same time lowering your metabolism to near starvation levels. That ensures you'll either have to do this forever or you'll yo-yo up even higher when you stop. Not a bright idea.

Okay, sounds like another person who's helpfully making sweeping judgments without bothering to actually review the literature. Sigh.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like an excellent way to rid your body of muscle (which it will consumer first since it's metabolically "expensive" to maintain) while at the same time lowering your metabolism to near starvation levels. That ensures you'll either have to do this forever or you'll yo-yo up even higher when you stop. Not a bright idea.

Respectfully, you are mistaken. IF is actually extremely protective of muscle mass even compared to such lauded diets as WW. It is also a rather slow way to lose weight ... Usually about 1 pound a week on average ... Which is a positive feature as it allows your body to gradually adjust and protect lean body mass.

This sounds like an excellent way to rid your body of muscle (which it will consumer first since it's metabolically "expensive" to maintain) while at the same time lowering your metabolism to near starvation levels. That ensures you'll either have to do this forever or you'll yo-yo up even higher when you stop. Not a bright idea.

It is often used as a weight loss program, but intermittent fasting is actually a means of improving your health by increasing your body's expression of the SIRT1 gene which in turn increases autophagy (cellular repair), lowers IGF1 (linked to cancer), increases insulin sensitivity (which fights most of the metabolic syndrome disorders, including diabetes and high triglycerides.)

IF can also be used for weight loss as it is a relatively painless weigh to restrict calories while protecting your lean muscle mass. 500 calories one day and 1500 calories the next obviously average to 1000 a day but having higher calories every other day prevents your metabolism from shutting down on you.

The key to whether IF or any other diet is healthy depends on what you actually eat. Lean protein, green leafy veggies, low sugar fruit, and so forth makes for a very healthy diet. 500 calories consisting of 1 and a half snickers bars would be atrocious, but would not be the fault of the IF methodology.

Is this a weight loss program?
It doesn't sound safe.

Wow ... Thanks for the update! You are doing fabulous and your fast days sound nice and healthy. Your experience mirrors my own almost exactly. Those shakes are nasty ... I switched to real food promptly.

Late afternoon hunger or dizziness (which is very rare after the first week) can be addressed by a warm cup of chicken broth or miso broth ... The warm liquid is soothing and filling and the salt wards off dizziness and headache.

I have eaten this way for about three months now and am ready for maintenance, which is a bit tricky because I love how I feel eating this way but want to do it without losing any more weight. I don't like the idea of upping fast day calories as I think the health benefits go away if there isn't a big difference between the fast and feed cycles. So I am upping the feed day calories but doing so by increasing only healthy food ... Not just adding back junk. An online nutrition program like www.cronometer.com is really helpful although also sort of addictive to a data wonk like me.

Wishing you continued success and great health!

Thanks so much! This sounds like something I could actually follow. I'm going to bookmark this post for future reference. Please feel free to add on any other thoughts or tips you have as they occur to you.

Yes, strictly for now. According to the plan I am following (Dr Varady's Every Other Day Diet), you do it this way until maintenance, when you up your caloric intake to 1000Cal on diet days, M/W/F.

I do sometimes feel a little faint, but not usually. For me, it seems to be related to hormones and my time of the month (I am a woman, obviously). But I felt that way before this - it's just a little exaggerated now.

Fast days: I try not to eat anything too late on my feast day. On my fast day, I drink coffee as usual (I always drink it black). Staying busy helps, although I just started grad school again and I am a full-time student - surprisingly, it's not too hard even when I am at home studying all day (I actually feel like my mental clarity is sharper on fast days).

I drink a lot of water, sometimes with lemon. If I get bored with it, I add a couple drops of stevia. I drink tea, all types. Chew sugarless gum. From about noon on, I feel hungry sometimes, but it is not constant, and I am fine with it - I just tell myself I will eat in a few hours, drink some more water, and do something else.

If I am going to work out, I do it in the afternoon so it will be just before I eat.

My fast day meals - a couple slices of thin, sprouted bread with over medium eggs with a bunch of arugula. My favorite berry dessert described above. That's it, spaced out by a few hours in the afternoon/evening. Or a small portion of brown rice, some lentil dal, steamed kale, and again the berries. I try to get some protein in because it is filling, and also some greens. Sometimes I will cook a frozen meal (Weight Watchers, Trader Joe's) with some veggies on the side, but not usually. That's it!

Thanks for reporting back! I'm glad it's working out for you. So you're strictly alternating days? Do you feel faint on fast days? Can you describe your 500 calorie days a little more?

I posted here about a month ago that I was going to start this, and someone asked me to report back. So, someone, here's your report!

**If you have no idea what I am talking about with alternate day fasting, basically, every other day I limit my caloric intake to 500 Calories. "Fast" day followed by "feast" day (no calorie restriction).**

It hasn't been quite yet 4 weeks. The first couple of fast days were hard. I had a headache all the time despite drinking water and taking it pretty easy. But after the first week or so, it got easier. I have no problem now not eating from about 6 or 7 p.m. one day until 4 p.m. the next day. I prefer to wait until nearly dinner time to about 350 of my calories, then I eat a fruit dessert (usually just 1.5 cups of fresh fruit, a little bit of whipped cream, a few chocolate chips) around 7 or 8 p.m.

Other challenges: getting a bit, er, backed up. For nearly two weeks, I was afraid I would exceed 500 Cal/day, so I stuck with protein drinks on my fast days. That did not do well with my digestive system. So I started making sure, when I began making my own small meals for fast days, that I got plenty of greens and some fruit. That helps, also with feeling full.

I ate too much on some of my feast days at first, but the desire to overeat wears off. I actually threw up one day (gross, I know) because I ate more than my stomach could handle at once. But it was a good lesson (and it was another bowl of fruit for dessert that came back up, in case you're wondering if I gorged on chocolate cake or something).

I am actually enjoying it despite this list of challenges! I feel good on fasting days. I don't get as tired and need a nap in the afternoon. My energy level is the same if not better. I have worked out, although not as hard or as much as on feast days, and always before I eat my meal for the day. I have been getting more done because until you cut food out, you don't realize how much time you spend thinking about what you will cook, going to the store, cooking, cleaning up.

I am down from 155 to 148, and since I enjoy this way of eating, I am going to continue. I did want to give it a full month to decide, but I know already I will continue because it's so much easier than I expected, I feel good, and I like the results.