# 7-day Water Fast Log - Challenge (hellish, hence why it's a challenge)



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

I've decided to do a 7 day water fast. After trying a 3-day one, and succeeding, I decided to try the full thing.

After having done my research, I decided to trust theories which state how complete fasting does not dramatically slow down metabolism, while significant calorie deficit does. Purpose of the water fast is also to trigger ketosis ASAP, which I will monitor via Ketostix - taking into account they can only help so far.

Energy levels will likely be low. However, I'll still aim to train just as hard.

Biggest issue apart from hunger? Focus.

Starting Stats:
Height: 183cms
Weight: 93kg
BF%: 24
Maintenance TDEE calculated with Katch-McArdle formula: 2774 kcal/day

Supplementation: Full ammino-acid spectrum (not just BCAA), in order to minimise muscle loss even at the 'possible' expense of autophagy

C-Vitamin: 1000mg day slow release

Multivitamin: 1 per day

T3: {50mcg per day, thanks to @I'mNotAPervert! and his suggestions, in order to boost metabolism. I recommend reading his FAQ} *no T3. Apparently I had understood the exact opposite of what he meant*. Of course, any possible results will be slowed down. But damage will be mitigated.

Ultraburn: if necessary, to curb hunger and possibly help with focus.

What should be expected from this?

- dramatic initial weight loss, which is actually water weight

- some lean mass loss, alas, inevitable. However, fasting and ketosis should help in protecting it

- greater fat loss than lean mass loss, thanks to benefits of fasting and the fact that my fat% is not as low as the average here

Before-after Pictures: will be available via PM.

*Day 1: *
Weight: 93kg
Ketostix: N/A
Training intensity: same as non-fast day


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

The fat should be flying off you with a regular diet and no drugs at 24%, this seems really unnecessary to me. 75mcg in itself is enough to make most people feel like crap, never mind not eating anything for a week.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> The fat should be flying off you with a regular diet and no drugs at 24%, this seems really unnecessary to me. 75mcg in itself is enough to make most people feel like crap, never mind not eating anything for a week.


 TBH the 24% is likely slightly overestimated as it's a caliper reading and, ever since last year's surgery, it has been somewhat off.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> TBH the 24% is likely slightly overestimated as it's a caliper reading and, ever since last year's surgery, it has been somewhat off.


 I mean even if it's 5% out that would still put you at 19% which is still high and shouldn't require any extreme measures to make very quick progress. I just don't see how anybody who has any regard for their body/performance can think it's a good idea to go a whole week without any fuel/nutrients on a high dose of T3, call me old fashioned.


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

I am in to follow this, but I have to agree with @DLTBB having been up to 25 stone and 35% bodyfat following my injury a couple of years back, getting it off can be frustrating but stick to the basics and this sort of drastic approach isnt necessary and potentially would have an adverse on your bodies insulin response as well as other hormonal issues regardless of metabolism.

Can I ask the OP what is the goal from this? what did the 3 days fast achieve ?


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Woahhh, hold up... So we discussed T3 usage and I made it clear that with adequate AAS usage, you'd be fine, but I wouldn't be running it at all without AAS (this is even with a normal diet, too) , and my FAQ emphasises this heavily... so you're practically thanking me for my advice all the while going against it? Come on, dude...

Just to clarify for anyone reading, I don't condone this silliness. I'm interested in this thread and the results, don't get me wrong, but just to be clear, it was not my idea for OP to be running this dose of T3 with no AAS whatsoever, especially not on such an extreme diet.

I'd also completely advise against any intense training or cardio.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Errrrrr. Why you are doing it?.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

why do people always need to reinvent the wheel? You would swear no-one lost weight before last Tuesday

I am doing a cut at the moment, don't count calories nor macros, just eat less and move more. Losing 1.5 - 2lbs a week consistently for 5 weeks now. Will be done soon


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

I'mNotAPervert! said:


> Woahhh, hold up... So we discussed T3 usage and I made it clear that with adequate AAS usage, you'd be fine, but I wouldn't be running it at all without AAS (this is even with a normal diet, too) , and my FAQ emphasises this heavily... so you're practically thanking me for my advice all the while going against it? Come on, dude...
> 
> Just to clarify for anyone reading, I don't condone this silliness. I'm interested in this thread and the results, don't get me wrong, but just to be clear, it was not my idea for OP to be running this dose of T3 with no AAS whatsoever, especially not on such an extreme diet.
> 
> I'd also completely advise against any intense training or cardio.


 Not what I understood from the conversation. It was quite clear I wasn't planning on any AAS.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

I would guess this is not sustainable and any weight loss will soon go back on once normal eating is resumed.

Would def drop the T3 to 50mg


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> I would guess this is not sustainable and any weight loss will soon go back on once normal eating is regained.
> 
> Would def drop the T3 to 50mg.
> 
> You may not loose much water weight with it being the only thing your ingesting.


 First and last point partly correct: fat lost does stay off, but water weight rebounds, and it is quite a lot. So weight does creep back up, but not as much as before - and, of course, clothes (trousers) do show the difference - specifically, my trousers have been a bit more comfortable after the water fast.

Dropped T3 to 50, it sounds sensible.

EDIT: to those who wonder why I'd do something so drastic, my answer is that it's a challenge. Sometimes you need to jumpstart your body to get a reaction, as my weight (after having gained a lot of muscle) has been stagnant for too long and refused to drop - except when on Keto.


----------



## Tricky (Jan 21, 2017)

Have you any current pictures? Is there a reason your not just following a kcal deficit and cardio? How much are you hoping to lose?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Tricky said:


> Have you any current pictures? Is there a reason your not just following a kcal deficit and cardio? How much are you hoping to lose?


 Pictures available via PM, if you want them pvt me.

The reason is that kcal deficit hampers metabolism way too much if compared to complete fasting - there is a significant amount of research about the differences between fasting and "dieting". As of now, standard dieting hasn't really worked a lot for me. Keto diet did, but by the time I'll get into proper keto I'll have to break the fast.

Hoping to lose? As in weight or BF%?


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Pictures available via PM, if you want them pvt me.
> 
> The reason is that kcal deficit hampers metabolism way too much if compared to complete fasting - there is a significant amount of research about the differences between fasting and "dieting". As of now, standard dieting hasn't really worked a lot for me. Keto diet did, but by the time I'll get into proper keto I'll have to break the fast.
> 
> Hoping to lose? As in weight or BF%?


 definitely interested in this, as from my head it sounds complete madness although I have read up on fasting but decided it was just doesnt fit in with the lifting life style.

I am interested in the results however mate.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Well, I did lift during the 3-day fast with no strength loss (trained friday and saturday).

I'm also working and studying from home, so that definitely helps.

I am aware that some lean mass will be lost, but I am taking precautions - ketosis, specifically, and the understanding that T3 (specifically, Liothyronine sodium) will help burning through the glucose.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not what I understood from the conversation. It was quite clear I wasn't planning on any AAS.


 In the PMs, there is absolutely no mention of you being against using AAS. If you can show me where, I will publicly apologise for the misunderstanding, but I'm pretty much certain you didn't say such a thing or I obviously would have totally advised against using T3 at all. I thought it should have been obvious by my initial response, and my FAQ, and I believe in one of your other threads too, that unless you mind losing quite a bit of muscle, I absolutely advise against using T3 without AAS.

Again, my first post here wasn't out of malice, I just don't like to be made out to look like I'm giving very bad advice when I haven't.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

I'mNotAPervert! said:


> In the PMs, there is absolutely no mention of you being against using AAS. If you can show me where, I will publicly apologise for the misunderstanding, but I'm pretty much certain you didn't say such a thing or I obviously would have totally advised against using T3 at all. I thought it should have been obvious by my initial response, and my FAQ, and I believe in one of your other threads too, that unless you mind losing quite a bit of muscle, I absolutely advise against using T3 without AAS.
> 
> Again, my first post here wasn't out of malice, I just don't like to be made out to look like I'm giving very bad advice when I haven't.


 Not against AAS. Just not enough time to properly plan a cycle at this time so didn't even consider them otherwise I would have specified it - even then, the strongest thing I've ever used is Anavar.

No harm done, anyway. I doubt one day at 50mcg will be enough to shutdown my thyroid. There's plenty of time to stop it if you feel so strongly against it.


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not against AAS. Just not enough time to properly plan a cycle at this time so didn't even consider them otherwise I would have specified it - even then, the strongest thing I've ever used is Anavar.
> 
> No harm done, anyway. I doubt one day at 50mcg will be enough to shutdown my thyroid. There's plenty of time to stop it if you feel so strongly against it.


 Okay. Just for future reference then which I've always stressed and I'm sure is clear by now - no AAS = no T3  and nah, you're not gonna shut down your thyroid in one day, pack the T3 away for another time and let us know how you do. Looking forward to the results


----------



## Tricky (Jan 21, 2017)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Pictures available via PM, if you want them pvt me.
> 
> The reason is that kcal deficit hampers metabolism way too much if compared to complete fasting - there is a significant amount of research about the differences between fasting and "dieting". As of now, standard dieting hasn't really worked a lot for me. Keto diet did, but by the time I'll get into proper keto I'll have to break the fast.
> 
> Hoping to lose? As in weight or BF%?


 Interested in this as I'm thinking of IF diet say 500kcal meal 1 and meal 2&3 900kcals so total of 2300 in an 8 hour window remaining 16 hours fasted. Would this 2300 IF diet yield better results than 2000kcal diet over 5 meals?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

I'mNotAPervert! said:


> Okay. Just for future reference then which I've always stressed and I'm sure is clear by now - no AAS = no T3  and nah, you're not gonna shut down your thyroid in one day, pack the T3 away for another time and let us know how you do. Looking forward to the results


 Thanks. Will do that, pity I have loads of it ha.

It is almost a pity, for once I had something proper. Just 50 mcg and I already felt all weird in the area of Adam's apple.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Tricky said:


> Interested in this as I'm thinking of IF diet say 500kcal meal 1 and meal 2&3 900kcals so total of 2300 in an 8 hour window remaining 16 hours fasted. Would this 2300 IF diet yield better results than 2000kcal diet over 5 meals?


 That entirely depends on what are you aiming for. Recomp or fat loss?


----------



## Tricky (Jan 21, 2017)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That entirely depends on what are you aiming for. Recomp or fat loss?


 Recomping would be great adding some muscle whilst burning fat. Have a look in my journal you'll see I haven't much muscle but lots of mid section fat


----------



## nWo (Mar 25, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Thanks. Will do that, pity I have loads of it ha.
> 
> It is almost a pity, for once I had something proper. Just 50 mcg and I already felt all weird in the area of Adam's apple.


 Well, save it for a rainy day 

This is why I don't f**ks with underground lab T3 anymore, most of the time it's either under or overdosed because dosing in mcg requires very stringent procedures, which UGLs obviously don't have in place (then people wonder why they feel terrible when it's overdosed!). Stick to pharma is always my advice. I feel fu**ing fantastic on 150mcg of pharma, if it wasn't for the fact that it gave me high blood pressure and other side effects as the cycle goes on I'd fu**ing stay on it tbh :lol:


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

I'mNotAPervert! said:


> Well, save it for a rainy day
> 
> This is why I don't f**ks with underground lab T3 anymore, most of the time it's either under or overdosed because dosing in mcg requires very stringent procedures, which UGLs obviously don't have in place (then people wonder why they feel terrible when it's overdosed!). Stick to pharma is always my advice. I feel fu**ing fantastic on 150mcg of pharma, if it wasn't for the fact that it gave me high blood pressure and other side effects as the cycle goes on I'd fu**ing stay on it tbh :lol:


 At least I can't complain about that this time. I can definitely say this is legit. And, you know, official Tiromel. Then again, I won't use it right now, will I?

I am wondering, however, if you have any suggestion on when ingesting the Ultraburn. I'm aiming for early afternoon, let's see if it will keep me awake tonight.


----------



## Jordan08 (Feb 17, 2014)

Tricky said:


> Interested in this as I'm thinking of IF diet say 500kcal meal 1 and meal 2&3 900kcals so total of 2300 in an 8 hour window remaining 16 hours fasted. Would this 2300 IF diet yield better results than 2000kcal diet over 5 meals?


 No.


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Tricky said:


> Interested in this as I'm thinking of IF diet say 500kcal meal 1 and meal 2&3 900kcals so total of 2300 in an 8 hour window remaining 16 hours fasted. Would this 2300 IF diet yield better results than 2000kcal diet over 5 meals?


 See my post in your journal.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

*Day 2*: 
Weight: 90.7kg 
Ketostix: 'traces' (first during the morning) 
Training (chest): Overall, strength is still there even if I ended up reducing weights between 5% and 10% of normal intensity, and even then not always. I do end up more breathless after training session, however. I suppose that's normal?

Ah, the magic of water weight loss. I wish I'd say I lost 2 kgs of body fat, but I won't deliberately trick myself.

Hunger cravings were really bad yesterday, I think they actually prevented me from falling asleep when I wanted to. I hope today it gets better. I'm also kind of disappointed with the Ketostix, for all the good it's worth.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> *Day 2*:
> Weight: 90.7kg
> Ketostix: 'traces' (first during the morning)
> Training (chest): [will complete later]
> ...


 Sibutramine is a great appetite suppressant but seen as your trying to do this unassisted maybe get some otc fat burners (Thermobol or 200mg caffeine tabs).

I found that the amount of water drunk through the day affects the ketostix , is you are well hydrated they usually just show nothing.

Also no point going balls out on your training as you're not building muscle in a deficit.

Get some diet coke for on an evening, zero calories and it will curb the cravings/hunger.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> Sibutramine is a great appetite suppressant but seen as your trying to do this unassisted maybe get some otc fat burners (Thermobol or 200mg caffeine tabs).
> 
> I found that the amount of water drunk through the day affects the ketostix , is you are well hydrated they usually just show nothing.
> 
> ...


 I'm on ultraburn, which has sibutramine in it. But rather than at the beginning of the day, I'm aiming to take it mid-day.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm on ultraburn, which has sibutramine in it. But rather than at the beginning of the day, I'm aiming to take it mid-day.


 Sibutramine should be taken upon waking on an empty stomach, then nothing for 30 mins, this allows it to start working.

Like I said diet coke throughout the day will help greatly with the hunger, being sweet it takes the edge off but also being zero calories its like water anyway.

I was doing 2L a night on my last cut, if not I would have eaten everything in the house.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> Sibutramine should be taken upon waking on an empty stomach, then nothing for 30 mins, this allows it to start working.
> 
> Like I said diet coke throughout the day will help greatly with the hunger, being sweet it takes the edge off but also being zero calories its like water anyway.
> 
> I was doing 2L a night on my last cut, if not I would have eaten everything in the house.


 I'm concerned the diet coke could kick me out of ketosis. Any opinion on that?


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm concerned the diet coke could kick me out of ketosis. Any opinion on that?


 Yes, it's bullshit 

...use carbonated water if you're that concerned.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

............another water fast dude

Excellent......


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> Yes, it's bullshit
> 
> ...use carbonated water if you're that concerned.


 Great. I really like Diet/Zero coke.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> ............another water fast dude
> 
> Excellent......


 Excuse me?


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm concerned the diet coke could kick me out of ketosis. Any opinion on that?


 No it won't.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> No it won't.


 Yay. I was very depressed at the idea of no soft drink.


----------



## Dieseldave (Jul 8, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> EDIT: to those who wonder why I'd do something so drastic, my answer is that it's a challenge. Sometimes you need to jumpstart your body to get a reaction, as my weight (after having gained a lot of muscle) has been stagnant for too long and refused to drop - except when on Keto.


 If you can't lose fat (esp to drop any from 24%) then your metabolism is already wrecked and you shouldn't be messing with thyroid meds.

Any 'jumpstart' will eventually provoke an equal and opposite reaction and progress will stall and you'll inevitably rebound. The body is smarter than you and will find homeostasis one way or another.

This approach seems to me to be unhealthy, lazy and ultimately, no better than any one of these other stupid herbalife or Cambridge diets. Actually they may even be better which is saying something!

Reading this back it looks harsh but I can't believe no-one has pointed this stuff out yet. Patience and consistency are key in any physique related goals but they're not a quick, sexy answer so no-one wants to hear it.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Dieseldave said:


> Reading this back it looks harsh but I can't believe no-one has pointed this stuff out yet. Patience and consistency are key in any physique related goals but they're not a quick, sexy answer so no-one wants to hear it.


 Oh its been said before...... just some idiots truly insist on using only water to subsist for 7 days.....its how Arnie got shredded, diet coke and water for 4 years.......


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> Oh its been said before...... just some idiots truly insist on using only water to subsist for 7 days.....its how Arnie got shredded, diet coke and water for 4 years.......


 I've been patient long enough. If you come here just to insult and show "holier than thou" attitudes, piss off to other threads.

Also, you assume that after this 7 day fast I'll just go back eating normally.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Dieseldave said:


> If you can't lose fat (esp to drop any from 24%) then your metabolism is already wrecked and you shouldn't be messing with thyroid meds.
> 
> Any 'jumpstart' will eventually provoke an equal and opposite reaction and progress will stall and you'll inevitably rebound. The body is smarter than you and will find homeostasis one way or another.
> 
> ...


 Well, what it "seems to you" does not equate real life. It is definitely not lazy, not unhealthy and it predates any idiotic herbalife or cambridge diet. I don't know how you can think fake beverages and whatnot better than this.

Also, thyroid meds - ditched. I assume you didn't read properly?

EDIT: how on earth can you believe this to be a lazy approach? It's taking literally all the willpower and energy I can muster.

If it's such a lazy, easy approach, do it yourself.


----------



## Dieseldave (Jul 8, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well, what it seems to you does not equate real life.
> 
> Also, thyroid meds - ditched. I assume you didn't read properly?


 Like I said, apologies if I offended. That's not my intention.

Nope, didn't see that bit, glad to hear it.

What it seems to me is there are other, safer ways to skin the cat here. And these other methods are 100% more sustainable in the long term.

When was the previous, 3 day fast?

I do understand the benefits of occasional fasting.

I'll be following along though and interested to see how you get on. Certainly wouldn't advise this to anyone though, clients or otherwise.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Dieseldave said:


> Like I said, apologies if I offended. That's not my intention.
> 
> Nope, didn't see that bit, glad to hear it.
> 
> ...


 It was the week before Easter - Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Half Monday.

And no, I didn't do it for the purpose of having an Easter binge.


----------



## Dieseldave (Jul 8, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It was the week before Easter - Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Half Monday.
> 
> And no, I didn't do it for the purpose of having an Easter binge.


 And how successful was it?

EDIT - these are genuine questions, not trying to catch you out


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Thoughts @naturalguy ?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Dieseldave said:


> And how successful was it?
> 
> EDIT - these are genuine questions, not trying to catch you out


 As I said before, the fat lost - not much, being the fast so short, but still - stayed there. I did return to the original weight like, 2 days after eating, but the clothes didn't feel quite the same - slightly better.

More importantly, it was an enlightening experience about how much food is actually needed for real and how much is just imagined.

Also, and I'd consider this quite important, the excess of Easter have actually had very little effect on me in terms of weight. And believe me, I wasn't terribly concerned neither on Easter Sunday nor on Holy Monday.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I've been patient long enough. If you come here just to insult and show "holier than thou" attitudes, piss off to other threads.
> 
> Also, you assume that after this 7 day fast I'll just go back eating normally.


 Youve been patient long enough? At 24% BF, obviously not.

And im not giving it the holier than thou attitude, im on a weight loss trip myself, but thinking youre going to have great results by starving your body for 7 days is just beyond stupidity. Good luck Water boy.....


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> Youve been patient long enough? At 24% BF, obviously not.
> 
> And im not giving it the holier than thou attitude, im on a weight loss trip myself, but thinking youre going to have great results by starving your body for 7 days is just beyond stupidity. Good luck Water boy.....


 This is only because, boy, you assume I started recently. I don't need your luck. And we'll see about stupidity on who has the last laugh.


----------



## 66983 (May 30, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As I said before, the fat lost - not much, being the fast so short, but still - stayed there. I did return to the original weight like, 2 days after eating, but the clothes didn't feel quite the same - slightly better.
> 
> More importantly, it was an enlightening experience about how much food is actually needed for real and how much is just imagined.
> 
> Also, and I'd consider this quite important, the excess of Easter have actually had very little effect on me in terms of weight. And believe me, I wasn't terribly concerned neither on Easter Sunday nor on Holy Monday.


 Your body is very clever and as soon as it see's a huge calorie reduction it thinks....ah I'm being starved, it's at this point the body will do everything to hold onto as much fat as possible even burning muscle first.

I wish you all the best and some things you have to try for yourself to see what works for you, God knows I must have tried every sort of fat loss over the years.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Sparkey said:


> Your body is very clever and as soon as it see's a huge calorie reduction it thinks....ah I'm being starved, it's at this point the body will do everything to hold onto as much fat as possible even burning muscle first.
> 
> I wish you all the best and some things you have to try for yourself to see what works for you, God knows I must have tried every sort of fat loss over the years.


 I did think about that happening. However, all the research I've read actually points against that: starvation mode, like in the famous US experiment, actually happens when the calorie deficit is significant.

Fasting is not about calorie reduction. It's about ending calories, full stop.

Turning off any intake whatsoever does not lead to that - and fasting, by burning through the glycogen first, while it does chip some lean mass, makes the body become fat-consuming rather than protein-consuming. Why? Because of triggered ketosis.

The science behind that related to prehistoric times. What you mention DOES happen with fasting, but a BF% way lower than mine.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Good luck with this, keen to see how it turns out. You need to post before/after pics though, otherwise any progress you claim to make from it will be called BS

*When you're done experimenting, eat at a kcal defecit of 500cal per day, 0.8g-1g Protein/lb, 0.33-0.45g Fat/lb, rest carbs. It really is simple*


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> Good luck with this, keen to see how it turns out. You need to post before/after pics though, otherwise any progress you claim to make from it will be called BS
> 
> *When you're done experimenting, eat at a kcal defecit of 500cal per day, 0.8g-1g Protein/lb, 0.33-0.45g Fat/lb, rest carbs. It really is simple*


 I'm sorry, did you just suggest eating 500 kcal per day?

Pics, as I said, are available via PM. I suck at photography and I don't need more publicity.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm sorry, did you just suggest eating 500 kcal per day?
> 
> Pics, as I said, are available via PM. I suck at photography and I don't need more publicity.


 Lol.

A 500cal defecit per day

So if you maintain at 2500, eat 2000

I'm not arsed about the pics TBH, just you seem to wanna prove the doubters wrong here, pics is the only way


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> Lol.
> 
> A 500cal defecit per day
> 
> ...


 I have them, I just don't feel comfortable enough to share since they're kind of bad quality - I don't have a full mirror home. Nevertheless, they show enough. So if I post them publicly, it's going to be at the end of the cycle.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Update: training.

Overall, strength is still there even if I ended up reducing weights between 5% and 10% of normal intensity, and even then not always.

I do end up more breathless after training session, however. I suppose that's normal?

Someone suggested taking OCT fat burning supplement (caffeine). I did not think about that, so I was wondering if there is one recommended?


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I have them, I just don't feel comfortable enough to share since they're kind of bad quality - I don't have a full mirror home. Nevertheless, they show enough. So if I post them publicly, it's going to be at the end of the cycle.


 as far as I am concerned you have no one has anything to prove to anyone but yourself. we can all think your nuts for doing it, but if you have decided to experiment with it go with it. When I came back form injury I went back to AAS being over 25% body fat, no if I posted that just as many people would be saying I shouldn't do it or I would die blah blah.

as far as I am concerned just keep the log up so we can see how this goes.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Mayzini said:


> as far as I am concerned you have no one has anything to prove to anyone but yourself. we can all think your nuts for doing it, but if you have decided to experiment with it go with it. When I came back form injury I went back to AAS being over 25% body fat, no if I posted that just as many people would be saying I shouldn't do it or I would die blah blah.
> 
> as far as I am concerned just keep the log up so we can see how this goes.


 Think youre missing the point......

Its not that I think hes got anything to prove, its just that its a ridiculously stupid idea.

You come on forums like this to get advice from knowledgable people and use that to improve your lifts/aesthetics etc. To disregard that advice and do it anyway 'cuz reasons', while it doesnt really matter to me what happens to them, its just being a moron.

And to say if hes decided to experiment, so just go for it, is just irresponsible advice.

If he said he thought he could lose 10lbs by jumping off a building, not that id care, but id probably still tell him it was a daft idea.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> Think youre missing the point......
> 
> Its not that I think hes got anything to prove, its just that its a ridiculously stupid idea.
> 
> ...


 I didn't ask for advice on fasting and/if do the fast. I did my research and decided to act accordingly.

I DID ask on how to maximise the effect and keeping safe. Even had a significant misunderstanding about that, which was promptly fixed. Ultimately, decided to be safe rather than trying to maximise results at all costs.

Plus, you calling people "idiot, moron, stupid, daft" is a really piss-poor way to make your point.


----------



## Mayzini (May 18, 2016)

TinTin10 said:


> Think youre missing the point......
> 
> Its not that I think hes got anything to prove, its just that its a ridiculously stupid idea.
> 
> ...


 I dont disagree with you, I also think he is nuts and have said so, but he clearly is going for it regardless and has done his own research, I simply meant he doesnt owe any of us anything, advice or not, I do think that logging it and then continuing to log the results so that we can see actually the real life results and if its all bullshit which I imagine it will be, and then he is honest enough to post that up. I am also open to be proven wrong, and if it works then great, I cant see me ever doing it. I just dont think we need to abuse the guy just because we think he is doing something stupid.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't ask for advice on fasting and/if do the fast. I did my research and decided to act accordingly.
> 
> I DID ask on how to maximise the effect and keeping safe. Ultimately, decided to be safe rather than trying to maximise results.
> 
> Plus, you calling people "idiot, moron, stupid, daft" is a really piss-poor way to make your point.


 Didnt actually call you a moron/idiot/stupid/daft, I said IF a person was to go through with the idea to do that, the idea would be such.......

Ok.....heres how to keep a 7 day water fast effective and safe........ dont do it.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Mayzini said:


> I just dont think we need to abuse the guy just because we think he is doing something stupid.


 Im not abusing the guy, im ridiculing the idea.....because its pretty dangerous and if a newbie clicks on and sees this thread with everyone saying ' Go for it' .....they might try a 14 day water fast etc.... (you can see how this would get out of hand the more serious the subject matter becomes i.e 500mg Test >1.5g of test etc etc)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> Didnt actually call you a moron/idiot/stupid/daft, I said IF a person was to go through with the idea to do that, the idea would be such.......
> 
> Ok.....heres how to keep a 7 day water fast effective and safe........ dont do it.


 You did when you compared me to someone (Arnie?) I don't even know.
We shall see about that, won't we?



Mayzini said:


> I dont disagree with you, I also think he is nuts and have said so, but he clearly is going for it regardless and has done his own research, I simply meant he doesnt owe any of us anything, advice or not, I do think that logging it and then continuing to log the results so that we can see actually the real life results and if its all bullshit which I imagine it will be, and then he is honest enough to post that up. I am also open to be proven wrong, and if it works then great, I cant see me ever doing it. I just dont think we need to abuse the guy just because we think he is doing something stupid.


 I certainly did my research.

Besides, I don't think I've ever seen a log such as this over here, so someone had to do something new.

It's just a 7-day fast. Brief enough to do provide some empirical results while, at the same time, easy to reverse.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You did when you compared me to someone (Arnie?) I don't even know.
> We shall see about that, won't we?


 I doubt youll ever get better results than Arnie........


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> I doubt youll ever get better results than Arnie........


 I don't even know who he is and, frankly, I can't be bothered.

I've been responsible on much more dangerous paths (DNP). And, should things turn south, I can always break the fast. But I don't think it will come to that.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't even know who he is and, frankly, I can't be bothered.
> 
> I've been responsible on much more dangerous paths (DNP). And, should things turn south, I can always break the fast. But I don't think it will come to that.


 "Arnie"


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> "Arnie"


 Ah, I was right to believe it was something stupid.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As I said before, the fat lost - not much, being the fast so short, but still - stayed there. I did return to the original weight like, 2 days after eating, but the clothes didn't feel quite the same - slightly better.
> 
> More importantly, it was an enlightening experience about how much food is actually needed for real and how much is just imagined.
> 
> Also, and I'd consider this quite important, the excess of Easter have actually had very little effect on me in terms of weight. And believe me, I wasn't terribly concerned neither on Easter Sunday nor on Holy Monday.


 well any calorie deficit will create a fat/weight loss but if you eat no food then you do not activate MPS and without that you can say good bye to muscle, going totally without food for days is stupid



Dark_Ansem said:


> I did think about that happening. However, all the research I've read actually points against that: starvation mode, like in the famous US experiment, actually happens when the calorie deficit is significant.
> 
> Fasting is not about calorie reduction. It's about ending calories, full stop.
> 
> ...


 please link to this research the one you mention from US experiment was also slated as although the end result was a lowered BF the health issues caused by it meant it would never be carried out again.

just because you do not eat does not mean your body burns sub Q fat for energy, starvation mode is where the body holds on to fat deposits to stay alive so in this time of fasting for days all you will accomplish is the burning of Amino Acids (muscle tissue) and Glycogen and maybe some IMTG fats....yes you will weigh less and on a DEXA scan your BF would be lower but that would be down to the lack of glycogen in the muscle.

if your goal is to lose weight then yes this will do it but if the goal is to lose fat then i believe given the available science and the way the body adapts in extremes you will be disappointed...but hey do what you want just don't try to say it is at all an effective or healthy way to lose fat as it is not

but saying ll of that i would be very interested in reading the research you have mentioned concerning this to be an effective way to lose weight.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> well any calorie deficit will create a fat/weight loss but if you eat no food then you do not activate MPS and without that you can say good bye to muscle, going totally without food for days is stupid
> 
> please link to this research the one you mention from US experiment was also slated as although the end result was a lowered BF the health issues caused by it meant it would never be carried out again.
> 
> ...


 Check one of my posts above. In the answer to another user I link the studies.

Also, yes, I did take into account glycogen losses into account for the weight loss. It's going to be the bulk of it, alas, together with water weight.

I don't expect to make gains on it. I'm taking pains to ensure I minimise lean mass losses.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Check one of my posts above. In the answer to another user I link the studies.
> 
> Also, yes, I did take into account glycogen losses into account for the weight loss. It's going to be the bulk of it, alas, together with water weight.
> 
> I don't expect to make gains on it. I'm taking pains to ensure I minimise lean mass losses.


 The study you linked to shows that subjects fasting for 40 hours were in a negative nitrogen balance. In no way does it support the idea that what you're currently doing will be magically muscle sparing.

I don't want to be rude but going by this and your keto thread I really think you're doing yourself more harm than good by looking at study data which, with respect, you really don't seem to understand.

Fat loss isn't complicated. Stop trying to make it so.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> The study you linked to shows that subjects fasting for 40 hours were in a negative nitrogen balance. In no way does it support the idea that what you're currently doing will be magically muscle sparing.
> 
> I don't want to be rude but going by this and your keto thread I really think you're doing yourself more harm than good by looking at study data which, with respect, you really don't seem to understand.
> 
> Fat loss isn't complicated. Stop trying to make it so.


 Study? I linked more than 4.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Study? I linked more than 4.


 All I can see is your 'I certainly did my research' link, which goes to the abstract I commented on. This alone is enough to prove the obvious - what you're doing is a bad idea if you care about preserving muscle.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> All I can see is your 'I certainly did my research' link, which goes to the abstract I commented on. This alone is enough to prove the obvious - what you're doing is a bad idea if you care about preserving muscle.


 Each word links to a different study.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Each word links to a different study.


 Obviously...

I'll have a quick look after I've had my dinner.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Obviously...
> 
> I'll have a quick look after I've had my dinner.


 BTW, that study you mention about nitrogen...

"We conclude: 1) *decreased whole body protein breakdown contributes significantly to the decreased nitrogen excretion observed with fasting in obese subjects*; and 2) a *decrease in circulating levels of free T**3** may lead to this adaptive decrease in protein breakdown in fasted obese subjects, since the other hormones measured either did not change or changed in a catabolic direction*."

So, fasting obese people retained their lean mass and shed their fat over a 7-day fast, as per the abstract.

While I'm not obese, unlike most of you my BF% is higher than average.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

just so i am clear on this as i came to the party a little late are you doing a food fast or a water fast? because you mention a water fast in your initial post but all these studies and your comments talk about a fast from eating am i missing something?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> just so i am clear on this as i came to the party a little late are you doing a food fast or a water fast? because you mention a water fast in your initial post but all these studies and your comments talk about a fast from eating am i missing something?


 Water fast = I eat no food and feed myself only water (and the supplements).


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> At least I can't complain about that this time. I can definitely say this is legit. And, you know, official Tiromel. Then again, I won't use it right now, will I?
> 
> I am wondering, however, if you have any suggestion on when ingesting the Ultraburn. I'm aiming for early afternoon, let's see if it will keep me awake tonight.


 So you were or are planning on running t3 alongside ultraburn? You do realise ultraburn contains t3?


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Water fast = I eat no food and feed myself only water (and the supplements).


 That's not a water fast lol. That is a food fast.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Is there anything that puts you off the idea of following a regular diet with a deficit of ~1,000 calories and daily cardio and lifting? That way you'd still be making fairly quick progress with 2-3lbs of fat loss per week, you'd be maintaining the muscle mass you have, you'd still be able to train to a decent intensity and the quality of your day to day life wouldn't suffer.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Dark sim said:


> So you were or are planning on running t3 alongside ultraburn? You do realise ultraburn contains t3?


 Not according to what I have: 10mg yohimbine hcl, 30mg dmaa, 10mg Synephrine hc, 200mg caff, 15mg sibutramine


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Dark sim said:


> That's not a water fast lol. That is a food fast.


 Water fast is the only name I've heard and, TBH, it's the only thing that makes sense - why would anyone fast water?



DLTBB said:


> Is there anything that puts you off the idea of following a regular diet with a deficit of ~1,000 calories and daily cardio and lifting? That way you'd still be making fairly quick progress with 2-3lbs of fat loss per week, you'd be maintaining the muscle mass you have, you'd still be able to train to a decent intensity and the quality of your day to day life wouldn't suffer.


 It may not look like it, but I've been doing this for a long time. Longer than I would like to admit, in fact. I tried all sorts of diet and trainers and failed miserably.

Until last year (February-July), when I met someone enlightened who actually put me on a bulk for the first time in my life. With a little bit of help from Anavar, I put on muscle mass properly for the first time in my life. Alas, also fat - which hasn't dropped despite one year of trying immediately after the end of my bulk. Fasting is literally the only thing I haven't tried.

More importantly, significant calorie deficits would lower metabolism in a worse way than total fasting. Absurdly enough, I find it mentally easier to fast rather than limiting myself drastically.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Water fast is the only name I've heard and, TBH, it's the only thing that makes sense - why would anyone fast water?
> 
> It may not look like it, but I've been doing this for a long time. Longer than I would like to admit, in fact. I tried all sorts of diet and trainers and failed miserably.
> 
> Until last year (February-July), when I met someone enlightened who actually put me on a bulk for the first time in my life. With a little bit of help from Anavar, I put on muscle mass properly for the first time in my life. Alas, also fat - which hasn't dropped despite one year of trying immediately after the end of my bulk. Fasting is literally the only thing I haven't tried.


 Have you had blood tests with your GP? Sounds odd you having so much trouble dropping fat when dieting and gaining it so easily when you're in a surplus.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> Have you had blood tests with your GP? Sounds odd you having so much trouble dropping fat when dieting and gaining it so easily when you're in a surplus.


 I did. My GP is also a family member, we're waiting to do the thyroid profile.
I had a complete hormonal profile done last september. It wasn't exactly nice, highlighting a ridiculous excess of oestrogen pretty much voiding whatever I do.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did. My GP is also a family member, we're waiting to do the thyroid profile.
> I had a complete hormonal profile done last september. It wasn't exactly nice, highlighting a ridiculous excess of oestrogen pretty much voiding whatever I do.


 Did you use any drugs since then to bring it down? A guy I know from another forum had the same issue and said he felt miles better after a run with Letro. If you've got a terrible hormone profile you're pretty much pissing in the wind trying to get in good shape without addressing it first from what I've seen.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> Did you use any drugs since then to bring it down? A guy I know from another forum had the same issue and said he felt miles better after a run with Letro. If you've got a terrible hormone profile you're pretty much pissing in the wind trying to get in good shape without addressing it first from what I've seen.


 I am. The endocrinologist put me on a "light" therapy involving also metformin - and she is happy with the progress I did until now, especially considering that my metabolic / visceral fat measurement has gone down considerably since the start of the cycle. She is not ruling out a more aggressive approach later on.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

OK, I've had a quick look at your other links and I stand by absolutely everything I said above.



Dark_Ansem said:


> No, fasting obese people retained their lean mass and shed their fat over a 7-day fast, as per the abstract.


 No. Protein breakdown rates after 7 days were 1.54 g/kg per day. This is about 25% lower than the 1.96 g/kg per day after 12 hours, but still a hell of a lot higher than you would want (i.e. zero).


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> OK, I've had a quick look at your other links and I stand by absolutely everything I said above.
> 
> No. Protein breakdown rates after 7 days were 1.54 g/kg per day. This is about 25% lower than the 1.96 g/kg per day after 12 hours, but still a hell of a lot higher than you would want (i.e. zero).


 I appreciate your point, but I disagree. The research I pointed out has convinced me to give fasting a go because, while ideally there would be no muscle loss, I'm concerned also about other factors - BMR, fat loss, more efficient way to use fat, that is, ketosis - in comparison to other diets. There's also the speed factor and the necessity to keep metabolism at an acceptable level (any deficit diet causes it to drop, and I'd like to avoid that).

Ultimately, no diet is 100% lean mass friendly (unless AAS are involved). I've tried lots, let's see how this one goes.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I appreciate your point, but I disagree. The research I pointed out has convinced me to give fasting a go because, while ideally there would be no muscle loss, I'm concerned also about other factors - BMR, fat loss, more efficient way to use fat, that is, ketosis.
> 
> Ultimately, no diet is 100% lean mass friendly (unless AAS are involved). I've tried lots, let's see how this one goes.


 My point is there is zero evidence of it offering you any advantage whatsoever, only evidence of it being a bad idea. You're obviously free to do whatever you fancy but I stand by the fact you are only doing yourself a disservice by looking at study data as you are. I'm saying this to try to help you.

Good luck with whatever you choose to do.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> My point is there is zero evidence of it offering you any advantage whatsoever, only evidence of it being a bad idea. You're obviously free to do whatever you fancy but I stand by the fact you are only doing yourself a disservice by looking at study data as you are. I'm saying this to try to help you.
> 
> Good luck with whatever you choose to do.


 I appreciate your concern.
It's interesting, we see the same study data with complete different viewpoints.

Look, I'm posting here the results. I'm not hiding. And to be fair, fasting isn't terribly pleasant so even being proved wrong would lead to more pleasurable consequences (that is, no more fasting).


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's interesting, we see the same study data with complete different results.


 There's no other way to say this: that's because you don't understand what you're reading.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> There's no other way to say this: that's because you don't understand what you're reading.


 Forgive me for saying this, but "there's no other way": perhaps you aren't understanding what you are reading.


----------



## Dark sim (May 18, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not according to what I have: 10mg yohimbine hcl, 30mg dmaa, 10mg Synephrine hc, 200mg caff, 15mg sibutramine


 What ultraburn do you have, maybe I'm thinking of another one (elixir ultraburn). Is this dimensions?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Dark sim said:


> What ultraburn do you have, maybe I'm thinking of another one (elixir ultraburn). Is this dimensions?


 Correct. Dimension Labs.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Water fast is the only name I've heard and, TBH, it's the only thing that makes sense - why would anyone fast water?


 Why would anyone not eat food for a week? lol

Not being funny, but youve got some seriously clued up bods in here (not talking about me before I get gangbanged) telling you that this is a silly idea.

Take their advices.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> Why would anyone not eat food for a week? lol
> 
> Not being funny, but youve got some seriously clued up bods in here (not talking about me before I get gangbanged) telling you that this is a silly idea.
> 
> Take their advices.


 Sometimes you don't have a choice about eating or not.

Thing is, not eating food will not kill you, if done responsibly. Not drinking water, on the other hand, will kill you in a very short time.


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Sometimes you don't have a choice about eating or not.
> 
> Thing is, not eating food will not kill you, if done responsibly. Not drinking water, on the other hand, will kill you in a very short time.


 This isnt a race to kill yourself or die trying though??lol

Anyway, bc this is becoming repetitive, either take their advice or dont.....good luck if you dont, bc youll need it!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

TinTin10 said:


> This isnt a race to kill yourself or die trying though??lol
> 
> Anyway, bc this is becoming repetitive, either take their advice or dont.....good luck if you dont, bc youll need it!


 Pfff. Stop being so negative. Our ancestors went for weeks without food, I think I'll be just fine for a couple days.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Interesting thread d.a, as an officionado of fasting* iwish you success with it.

Don't worry about safety, you could continue it a further 375days without fear of death it seems

https://www.scoopwhoop.com/story-of-man-who-went-without-food-for-382-days/

Aside if fat loss goals you'll get some health benefit alkedgedly ( cell autophagy, recycling old or incorrerectly replicated body cells . sounds like a good way to avoid cancer?) in his case his body recognised he wouldnt need all the excess skin if he's 274 lighter so this was gradually recycled as he lost weight thus at the end he didnt look like a sharpei. Bonus huh ?

* i do 16/8 all the while, 5:2 or e.o.d to lose fat <- have you considered e.o.d btw ? You could achieve an effective deficit , train on fed days and not crash your metabolism as you're not fasted long enough for it to slow down ( again allegedly) as you're fed again e.o.d


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Interesting thread d.a, as an officionado of fasting* iwish you success with it.
> 
> Don't worry about safety, you could continue it a further 375days without fear of death it seems
> 
> ...


 I did IF in the past, 5:2 is doable but somehow I end up overeating on non-fast days.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

gazzamongo said:


> Interesting thread d.a, as an officionado of fasting* iwish you success with it.
> 
> Don't worry about safety, you could continue it a further 375days without fear of death it seems
> 
> ...


 In case you haven't looked at them, you might be interested that a couple of the links the OP posted relay to e.o.d. fasting.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Check one of my posts above. In the answer to another user I link the studies.
> 
> Also, yes, I did take into account glycogen losses into account for the weight loss. It's going to be the bulk of it, alas, together with water weight.
> 
> I don't expect to make gains on it. I'm taking pains to ensure I minimise lean mass losses.


 that is a good study and relevant to the typical fast period but you are not doing a typical fasting period you are doing 7 days not 40hrs you cannot extrapolate that the same outcome of this study would apply to a longer period of fasting, if you know about studies then you must be aware that changing any criteria in any given study will and does change the outcome i would say that this same study done over 7 days would give a different conclusion.

when you read the full text of the study it is clear that using iot to prove your experiment is not as clear as you would like to make it

"whole-body protein breakdown has been reported to increase after 3 days of fasting (4,7). In addition, forearm net protein breakdown has been shown to increase after 30 and 60 h of fasting (8,9). Human and animal studies have yielded conflicting results regarding the effect of short-term fasting on leucine oxidation"

so whole body protein breakdown after 3 days (half the time you are wanting to do it for) increases, so it tips the balance from MPS to MPB not a good thing

plus unless i have got this incorrecnt you are not using synthetic GH so the study you linked to regarding the 40hr fast it irrelevant


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> In case you haven't looked at them, you might be interested that a couple of the links the OP posted relay to e.o.d. fasting.


 Will do , i was at work at time of my earlier post


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did IF in the past, 5:2 is doable but somehow I end up overeating on non-fast days.


 Curious that. I just end up eating my usual amount and feel really overfull if i try and eat more. Just thought eod would be a touch less brutal and thus sustainable for a longer period than your proposed one week fast thus equaling greater fat loss in the long run. All the best whatever you choose to do though.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark sim said:


> That's not a water fast lol. That is a food fast.


 yea this is what i meant

but the studies he is posting have no relevance to him so not sure why he is trying to justify his theory is backed by science because it is not


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ultrasonic said:


> My point is there is zero evidence of it offering you any advantage whatsoever, only evidence of it being a bad idea. You're obviously free to do whatever you fancy but I stand by the fact you are only doing yourself a disservice by looking at study data as you are. I'm saying this to try to help you.
> 
> Good luck with whatever you choose to do.


 got to agree with this but the OP seems to want to cherry pick and then apply it to himself, the study he quoted about the 40hr fast is only relevant to a degree if he is using GH from what i can tell he is not if this is true then circulating IGF-1 levels decrease by up to 70% on those fasting for 40hrs with no synthetic GH

plus when you read the full text it clearly says it is bad for MPB when extended to 3 days or more so not a good idea to do a 7 day fast


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Came to see someone try and not drink water for a week. Leaving disappointed.

Either way good luck with the fast OP, you obviously seem committed. I'd stress it's a bad idea but you've heard that enough it would seem. If you start to get severe hunger pains I would advise you to eat at least something though, even if it's just something small. All the best.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Pscarb said:


> got to agree with this but the OP seems to want to cherry pick and then apply it to himself,


 There was another thread yesterday about the effect of keto diets on testosterone that went along similar lines. I hate being so negative about looking at scientific studies but as you've pointed out it is vital to understand their context and details, and not to blindly extrapolate to different situations.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Ultrasonic said:


> There was another thread yesterday about the effect of keto diets on testosterone that went along similar lines. I hate being so negative about looking at scientific studies but as you've pointed out it is vital to understand their context and details, and not to blindly extrapolate to different situations.


 exactly mate, as you know you can cherry pick most studies to suit a goal but the devil is in the detail, one this i have learnt over the last few years is CONTEXT is key with any study without that practical application is impossible


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> exactly mate, as you know you can cherry pick most studies to suit a goal but the devil is in the detail, one this i have learnt over the last few years is CONTEXT is key with any study without that practical application is impossible


 Which is also applicable to standard diets. There is consensus that no diet is muscle sparing. It's not "cherry-picking", is taking a load of evidence and understanding the general principles that can be extrapolated from it. The studies show that fasting is nowhere as muscle-consuming as believed, and the benefits of fasting are there in comparison with a severe calorie deficit.

At any rate, the update for today.

*Day 3*: 
Weight: 89.9kg 
Ketostix: 'traces' (first during the morning, yesterday afternoon it was very dark) 
Training (arms): nowhere as bad as yesterday. Didn't feel breathless or as tired during it. I did lower some interim loads, but also tried a couple new exercises with surprisingly high ones and actually increased maximum load for one of my exercises. So, not too bad I assume.

Weight loss has slowed down, but that is to be expected - it happened also last time, and will continue to do so as the fast goes on. Water weight is being flushed out while, at the same time, remaining glycogen should be depleted in full today, finally moving to fuller fat-eating properties - could this be why the ketostix is lighter today?.

Which probably explains why I slept better last night and today I don't feel hunger so badly. I look forward to see how I sleep today.

EDIT: the results will come in next week. Starting tomorrow, days are supposed to be most important for fat loss purposes.

As I said, I'll post 'em. I have nothing to hide.

If they are bad, that means no more consecutive fasting.

If they are good, well, good for me.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Which is also applicable to standard diets. There is consensus that no diet is muscle sparing. It's not "cherry-picking", is taking a load of evidence and understanding the general principles that can be extrapolated from it. The studies show that fasting is nowhere as muscle-consuming as believed, and the benefits of fasting are there in comparison with a severe calorie deficit.
> 
> 1


 incorrect that study clearly show it is only muscle sparring with the inclusion of GH (are you using GH??) plus when you read the full text (have you done that?) it clearly says that after 60hrs muscle breakdown is much higher so not as muscle sparring as you thought.

plus your comment about "There is consensus that no diet is muscle sparing" is incorrect as well, unless we are talking about extreme calorie reduction like this one then most diets spare muscle in fact it has now been shown that muscle loss actual tissue loss is extremely hard to achieve and that any diet with the lowest advised protein amount (0.8g/kg) will preserve muscle

listen you do what you want to do just stop filling the forum with studies that are irrelevant to what you are doing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> incorrect that study clearly show it is only muscle sparring with the inclusion of GH (are you using GH??) plus when you read the full text (have you done that?) it clearly says that after 60hrs muscle breakdown is much higher so not as muscle sparring as you thought.
> 
> plus your comment about "There is consensus that no diet is muscle sparing" is incorrect as well, unless we are talking about extreme calorie reduction like this one then most diets spare muscle in fact it has now been shown that muscle loss actual tissue loss is extremely hard to achieve and that any diet with the lowest advised protein amount (0.8g/kg) will preserve muscle
> 
> listen you do what you want to do just stop filling the forum with studies that are irrelevant to what you are doing.


 I already said, this is not a calorie-reduction diet. This is a fasting protocol, no calories (except the ones from ammino-acids).
I beg to differ. All my studies show that fasting promotes several benefits offset with very little lean mass loss.

What you say actually proves my point. Even low amounts of protein would preserve muscle mass - especially since you say that actual tissue loss is very difficult to achieve.

Think about it this way: our ancestors had to be able to be operational even for long periods without eating. If muscle mass was immediately attacked, humanity would have become extinct, because after prolonged periods without food, our ancestors would be fat balls incapable of hunting or farming due to muscle loss.

As I said, what you say about muscle mass being eaten is true - but at BF %s lower than mine. I mean, way lower. Lower than 10-15%.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Just keep in mind pscarb and UltraSonic aren't the type of people to wander around the forum trying to pick arguments with people for no reason, they both have a load of experience and are known for trying to help people out.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Quackerz said:


> *Came to see someone try and not drink water for a week. Leaving disappointed. *


 this

isnt not eating food just called a fast (at least that's what's most commonly refereed to when people say they will fast)

either way, just another 'shortcut' attempt that will fail

people always think theyve found the secret, its why i made a thread on it

just good old fashioned consistency is always the best method for any goal

and i just realized im still quoting you quackerz but this entire post isnt aimed at you


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> Just keep in mind pscarb and UltraSonic aren't the type of people to wander around the forum trying to pick arguments with people for no reason, they both have a load of experience and are known for trying to help people out.


 I appreciate what they are doing. I mean, I really do. I'm really pleased by the amount of attention and concern generated by my little experiment.

But the thing is, fasting does not generate money like other diets. So interest and knowledge about it is limited and very recent.

I just need to do something with my main sources (putting them into a computer-readable format) and then I'll be able to post them.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

swole troll said:


> this
> 
> isnt not eating food just called a fast (at least that's what's most commonly refereed to when people say they will fast)
> 
> ...


 Are you talking about this thread full of pretty obvious stuff?

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/299471-stop-looking-for-the-secret-its-not-that-difficult/?do=embed

I'm telling you. Fasting is NOT a shortcut. Nor it's easy. And it DOES require consistency to be successful.

I'm not promoting this. No one is paying me to "preach". I'm just logging this and I did my homework.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you talking about this thread full of pretty obvious stuff?
> 
> https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/299471-stop-looking-for-the-secret-its-not-that-difficult/?do=embed
> 
> ...


 pretty obvious stuff?

"Height: 183cms
Weight: 93kg
BF%: 24"

maybe you should have another read through it


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

swole troll said:


> pretty obvious stuff?
> 
> "Height: 183cms
> Weight: 93kg
> ...


 I had 2 readings and it doesn't tell me anything I already don't know.

And quote my initial stats all you want. I actually put on that fat during my absolutely first bulk - one year ago. Did you expect me to do it perfect? How many people here with my hormonal profile bulked their first time without putting fat on?


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I had 2 readings and it doesn't tell me anything I already don't know.
> 
> And quote my initial stats all you want. I actually put on that fat during my absolutely first bulk - one year ago. Did you expect me to do it perfect? How many people here with my hormonal profile bulked their first time without putting fat on?


 How many people with your stats and level of experience make posts in the tone that you do?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> How many people with your stats and level of experience make posts in the tone that you do?


 What tone? Am I supposed to say "OMG it's a brilliant thread!" when it's not? He came here telling me I'm taking shortcuts and being lazy, while this is the most difficult exercise in both body and mind I've ever done. I can't help but use this tone.

About my level of experience...
I've been training for, around, 10 years. Tried several PTs, diets, read many articles and theories, even sometimes experimented with AAS and DNP.

The only reason I never got the results I wanted was discovered September last year, I told you via PM. I actually surprised myself with the success of my first (and only) bulk.

So yeah, I'm not inexperienced. If my stats are a badge of dishonour, then I declare myself guilty. Even if it wasn't really my fault.


----------



## swole troll (Apr 15, 2015)

troll thread


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

swole troll said:


> troll thread


 Leave. Careful not to let the door hit your arse when you go.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> What tone? Am I supposed to say "OMG it's a brilliant thread!" when it's not? He came here telling me I'm taking shortcuts and being lazy, while this is the most difficult exercise in both body and mind I've ever done. I can't help but use this tone.
> 
> About my level of experience...
> I've been training for, around, 10 years. Tried several PTs, diets, read many articles and theories, even sometimes experimented with AAS and DNP.
> ...


 I never got results because I was overeating, lol


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> I never got results because I was overeating, lol


 I've actually experienced REAL lean mass loss. Back in 2009-2010, when I trained 7 days per week (lifts+cardio) and ate a 1500 kcal low fat and low carb diet.

Before you say anything, that wasn't my idea. That was that idiot PT, who I should classify as a criminal, really. I did reach my lowest weight, but the consequences were terrible. My sister, who is a doctor, after months of that 'treatment' told me I looked like a cachectic cancer patient. I don't have to say that I had no strength at all, do I?

So yeah, I have been there too.

EDIT: I'm prone to overeating sometimes too.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I've actually experienced REAL lean mass loss. Back in 2009-2010, when I trained 7 days per week (lifts+cardio) and ate a 1500 kcal low fat and low carb diet.
> 
> Before you say anything, that wasn't my idea. That was that idiot PT, who I should classify as a criminal, really. I did reach my lowest weight, but the consequences were terrible. My sister, who is a doctor, after months of that 'treatment' told me I looked like a cachectic cancer patient. I don't have to say that I had no strength at all, do I?
> 
> ...


 At 24% BF, wouldn't the best approach be a sensible calorie defecit coupled with a solid training plan?

weight should fly off...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> At 24% BF, wouldn't the best approach be a sensible calorie defecit coupled with a solid training plan?
> 
> weight should fly off...


 Define "solid training plan". Because as of today my training has been solid.

Secondly, 24% has crept up during months. I've not been at 24% forever.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Define "solid training plan". Because as of today my training has been solid.
> 
> Secondly, 24% has crept up during months. I've not been at 24% forever.


 But you said your weight has been stagnant for so long and won't drop anymore? (On page 1)

It seems to me diet is off and simply reducing your daily calorie intake would see you progress

Im not having a go, I just think sometimes we need to be brutally honest with ourselves and make required changes. Been there, was in denial that my diet was a load of s**t, thought I could out train it, tried every fad there is. In the end it took some harsh self critique and kicking myself up the arse to sort diet out to start progressing

IMO consistency and patience are the most important things to see real progress


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> But you said your weight has been stagnant for so long and won't drop anymore? (On page 1)
> 
> It seems to me diet is off and simply reducing your daily calorie intake would see you progress
> 
> ...


 Weight has been stagnant - but body composition has changed.

I am being brutally honest - you can hardly argue this is not a change.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Weight has been stagnant - but body composition has changed.
> 
> I am being brutally honest - you can hardly argue this is not a change.


 It's not a sustainable change and if you were so concerned with body composition, not something you would do

If body composition had changed, how has it? As you say, you've crept up to 24% BF, so body composition must be getting worse?

Im not gonna comment further, good luck with this experiment. But, if you wanna progress, just be honest with yourself mate.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

CG88 said:


> It's not a sustainable change and if you were so concerned with body composition, not something you would do
> 
> If body composition had changed, how has it? As you say, you've crept up to 24% BF, so body composition must be getting worse?
> 
> Im not gonna comment further, good luck with this experiment. But, if you wanna progress, just be honest with yourself mate.


 I don't plan to fast for all my life. I'm actually doing it because I'm concerned with body composition.

Body composition has changed in terms of body fat creeping up while muscle mass went down. This was also after a very invasive set of 2 surgeries.

I'm brutally honest with myself. If I were not, I wouldn't put myself through this.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I don't plan to fast for all my life.


 Certainly wouldn't recommend that , approx a year seems the realistic max. Death probable!

Joking aside it would be healthy to keep it in in some form maybe. Even if it's a 24 hr fast once a fortnight or what evs. Like i said i do 16/8 most of the time and feel it's probably helping my body composition not having insulin raging around my body all day because i had a bowl of cereal as soon as i got up or what evs

I tend towards fat gain fairly easily and it's the only eating pattern that's ever really helped me. Not because it's magic. Because adherence.

Totally get why anyone assisted would eat differently as I'm sure you gain better if your anabolic all the while due to gear and spaced out feedings but I'm am old f**k (49) so I'll sacrifice a little of that for longevity ( holla ampk pathway )

As i said I'm on a cut too . Doing 5:2 , sometimes 4:3 so training days are always fed. The fat loss that otherwise I've always found so hard IS coming and it's a system i can stick to so as long as my end result isn't brutally embarrassing I'll drop a before n after at some point maybe.

Goal is to get fat as lowwwwwwwww as i can then first, the join you good people on the juice bandwagon ( it'll be test 300-500 a week max, because of my ancientness) and try and build without the flabdominals making a comeback.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

I'm searching for the study that made me want to fast in the first place, but I can't find it... bear with me. I have also other things to do.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Modafinil helps with appetitive suppression for me btw and i do enjoy the mild spaced out buzz off it too lol. Also nicotine gum


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Modafinil helps with appetitive suppression for me btw and i do enjoy the mild spaced out buzz off it too lol. Also nicotine gum


 I know. I'm trying to keep it for emergencies however.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I know. I'm trying to keep it for emergencies however.


 Gotcha. Jordan peters also suggested ' fat lines of coke , for life balance ' when i told him i was plant based n he's legit as f**k. Maybe that's helpful on a cut too lol


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Gotcha. Jordan peters also suggested ' fat lines of coke , for life balance ' when i told him i was plant based n he's legit as f**k. Maybe that's helpful on a cut too lol


 By "emergency" I mean "sleepless nights"


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

DLTBB said:


> Just keep in mind pscarb and UltraSonic aren't the type of people to wander around the forum trying to pick arguments with people for no reason, they both have a load of experience and are known for trying to help people out.


 i give up mate, i have been in this game for 30years and been around the block more times than i can remember and IF is something i have done (not researched only) but actually done so i know what it can and cannot achieve and the pitfalls, i also understand the studies not just cherry pick what i want to believe.....i will leave him to his stupid experiment


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> i give up mate, i have been in this game for 30years and been around the block more times than i can remember and IF is something i have done (not researched only) but actually done so i know what it can and cannot achieve and the pitfalls, i also understand the studies not just cherry pick what i want to believe.....i will leave him to his stupid experiment


 I'm still finding the research I mentioned a couple posts above. Then we'll see who is stupid. And it won't be me.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm still finding the research I mentioned a couple posts above. Then we'll see who is stupid. And it won't be me.


 your research as you call it is not relevant to what you are doing no matter how you try to tell yourself, the very fact you linked to a study that only showed relevance if you used synthetic GH and fasted for 40hrs both you are not doing shows me what your researching abilities are.......


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> your research as you call it is not relevant to what you are doing no matter how you try to tell yourself, the very fact you linked to a study that only showed relevance if you used synthetic GH and fasted for 40hrs both you are not doing shows me what your researching abilities are.......


 Better than yours, since you missed the other studies found in the same message.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Better than yours, since you missed the other studies found in the same message.


 i didnt miss them i just chose to not look at them seeing as you linked to a study that shows zero relevance....

i did promise myself not to argue with stupid people and look what i am doing......damn


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> i didnt miss them i just chose to not look at them seeing as you linked to a study that shows zero relevance....
> 
> i did promise myself not to argue with stupid people and look what i am doing......damn


 So you looked at one, failed to understand it, and ignored the others. Lovely. Now, once I find the original ones that actually made me seek this strategy..
As I said, we will see who is stupid. If what I do ends up being good, will you take this insult back?


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i did understand it because i read the whole study not just the abstract did you?

What insult? i said i don't argue with stupid people which is true.......you going to report me like you have done with several others on this thread?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> i did understand it because i read the whole study not just the abstract did you?
> 
> What insult? i said i don't argue with stupid people which is true.......you going to report me like you have done with several others on this thread?


 I did read the whole study and you selectively ignored that only part 4 of the experiment involved GH administration to participants (specifically, part 4) and the disastrous consequences you keep mentioning were associated with artificial GH suppression. In fact, in the study it says, very clearly, that fasting PROMOTES endogenous GH production.

Several = 2? Who deserved it? I mean, I can report you if you want, so you can have fun reading what I write in the report!

You're being clever. You just called me stupid with some elaborate wording.

Besides, you didn't answer me: if I'm right and you are wrong, will you admit it?


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

I am a huge fasting fan. What I don't understand is why you didn't do something like ADF or PSMF for 2-3 weeks instead of this for 7-day water fast nonsense?

With your stats (ie 90kg and fat) your TDEE can't be much more than 2,500 cals. Which means you will create a deficit of circa 21,000 cals in this 7 day period, which is about 6lbs of fat lost. Tops.

You are 90kg and 25% BF so that's 22.5kg of fat mass, give or take. By the end of this you'll be 3kg of fat lighter (87kg) which will put you, by my maths, at 22% BF.

You still think this is worth it?

You could achieve a LOT more in a month of dedicated training, with the odd 24-48hr fast thrown in, and or some PSMFing... or even just throwing on a Fitbit and walking 25,000 steps a day and eating sensibly. (These are all things I have done).

Finally, the old adage that you cannot out train a bad diet is BS. Throw a 40lb Bergen on your back and walk hills for 10-15 miles a day and you will lose weight like crazy while eating whatever you like. But that's hard work that needs to be done consistently. So no one does it. (Again I have done this, in the forces).

My advice, although I know you won't take it, is to adandon this journal and plan, and start again with something more intelligently designed.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> I am a huge fasting fan. What I don't understand is why you didn't do something like ADF or PSMF for 2-3 weeks instead of this for 7-day water fast nonsense?
> 
> With your stats (ie 90kg and fat) your TDEE can't be much more than 2,500 cals. Which means you will create a deficit of circa 21,000 cals in this 7 day period, which is about 6lbs of fat lost. Tops.
> 
> ...


 My plan is to turn to ADF at a certain point.

If you actually read my first post you'll see that I calculated my TDEE at 2700 kcals, with more complete and accurate stats.

Do I want to do it for the rest of my life? Maybe. Always? definitely not.

Your advice is welcomed, and I will certainly take your advice - and everyone else's - next month (not too far from now). Specifically, after I endure some very invasive surgery (another reason I have to do this now and can't do it later). If all of you think I'm enjoying this incredibly, you're wrong.

I won't abandon this just yet. As I said, next week a caliper reading is scheduled, so we will all know how it went. However, should the insults keep rolling I could definitely decide to withhold the results and only send them via PM to the ones that have been even mildly supportive.

Speaking of that, it's log time.

*Day 4: *
Weight: 89kg
Ketostix: medium-moyen
Training intensity: N/A

First of all, I appreciate everyone voicing his opinion. That doesn't mean, however, that I have to agree. Nor that I will passively accept insults and deliberate distortion of facts.

Slightly higher weight loss than yesterday. Emphasis on slightly eh.

Very vivid dreams, not sure why.

Hunger is not really felt. Some shivering, however, is. Which is strange because I didn't have it before.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did read the whole study and you selectively ignored that only part 4 of the experiment involved GH administration to participants (specifically, part 4) and the disastrous consequences you keep mentioning were associated with artificial GH suppression. In fact, in the study it says, very clearly, that fasting PROMOTES endogenous GH production.
> 
> Several = 2? Who deserved it? I mean, I can report you if you want, so you can have fun reading what I write in the report!
> 
> ...


 and you seem to have skipped the part where it says that circulating IGF-1 dropped drastically if not using synthetic GH

*"whereas IGF-I and free IGF-I decreased 35 and 70%, respectively, during fasting without GH. "*

Or this part about Cortisol (a catabolic hormone) and thyroid decreased (not good for fat burning)

*"Glucagon and cortisol were significantly increased during fasting. Epinephrine increased after 40 h of fasting and thyroid parameters decreased"*

this part of the study observed more Amino Acids being oxidised, which in layman's terms means more muscle broken down

*"Whole-body protein metabolism. Plasma concentrations of amino acids are shown in Table 2. From the postabsorptive state to 40 h of fasting, there was a significant increase in plasma concentrations of valine, isoleucine, and leucine"*

Or this part which clearly shows that the oxidisation of FFA is reduced with fasting without synthetic GH

*"Levels of FFAs increased during fasting, but fasting with- out GH caused a relative decrease." *

if you read the whole study how can you read that part then conclude it would be a good thing to fast for 7 days, this study i about the effects of GH suppression and the use of Synthetic GH whilst fasting for 40hrs, you are extrapolating that it applies to your little experiment because they fasted and you are fasting but they fasted for 40hrs and several times clearly say that markers increased after 40hrs like cortisol etc and you are fasting or intended to fast for 7 days....so this study cannot be cherry picked as i stated before

plus you mention above that you are fasting but using BCAA supplements did i read that correctly because if you are that is NOT fasting as you are supplying the body with nutrition and insulin....


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> and you seem to have skipped the part where it says that circulating IGF-1 dropped drastically if not using synthetic GH
> 
> *"whereas IGF-I and free IGF-I decreased 35 and 70%, respectively, during fasting without GH. "*
> 
> ...


 The study cannot be cherry-picked, true. That's why I stuck to the final results:

"The level of GH was significantly lower postabsorptively and after 40 h of fasting with GH suppression than after the plain fasting and GH replacement situations (Table 1). *In plain english, GH was lower when eating normally and fasting with GH suppressed, normal fasting and fasting+external GH had very similar GH levels.*

[...]

Energy expenditure, measured by indirect calorimetry, increased after 40 h of fasting (basal 1,713 ± 59, fast 1,944 ± 44, fast-GH 1,916 ± 78, fast+GH 1,879 ± 51 kcal/24 h; P < 0.05) (Fig. 4). [...] Protein oxidation was higher during GH suppression (basal 0.70 ± 0.08, fast 0.81 ± 0.08, fast-GH 1.10 ± 0.15, fast+GH 0.74 ± 0.08 mg · kg-1 · min-1; P < 0.01), whereas lipid oxidation was significantly lower (basal 0.65 ± 0.05, fast 1.16 ± 0.05, fast-GH 0.89 ± 0.07, fast+GH 1.05 ± 0.07 mg · kg-1 · min-1; P < 0.01) (Fig. 4). *So, this proves me right, again: metabolism actually increases during fasting (in fact, highest value of kcal even in comparison with the extra GH). This also shows that protein breakdown did increase a bit during fast, but not much especially if in comparison with fat oxidation which was at its highest during the standard fast, even higher than fasting+GH. I attach the original table, so that everyone can see that GH was at its highest when fasting, and fat oxidation was too. It is true, however, that free IGF decreased when fasting. Exercise, however, helps to offset that. It's the principle beyond IF and possibly ADF.*

*More importantly, another study shows how fasting, for men, increases GH secretion and availability. See here. Also see the second table, which highlights normal fasting as highest energy expenditure period + highest fat oxidation levels (fasting is the solid black column).*

[...]

The present study demonstrates that phenylalanine flux (reflecting proteolysis) increases in healthy young men after 40 h of fasting. Tyrosine flux did not change, presumably because tyrosine flux represents protein breakdown as well as tyrosine appearance from phenylalanine hydroxylation. Our phenylalanine flux results support reports of an increase in leucine flux after 1.25 days of fasting in healthy subjects (9) and an even more pronounced increase after 3 days of fasting (4,41). *So, what you said about thyroid parameters being down is actually a good thing, because increased tyrosine is associated with protein breakdown. I'm a healthy young man, so this definitely applies.*

[...]

The present study strongly suggests that under conditions of physiological fasting, even small increments in circulating concentrations of GH have substantial preserving effects on whole body nitrogen balance and that these effects are due in part to inhibition of muscle protein breakdown. The apparent complexity of the impact of GH on protein metabolism is perhaps predictable, considering the widespread metabolic actions of GH mentioned above. So, standard fasting increases GH, and GH decreases protein breakdown. Presently, phenylalanine degradation did not change during fasting, although the urea-nitrogen synthesis rate increased in accordance with other studies (21,57,58). A strict comparison between urinary nitrogen excretion and labeled isotope turnover cannot be made, because several variables have to be taken into account.

The magnitude of this suppression indicates that free IGF-I may be an important mediator of the protein-conserving effects of GH during brief fasting. This notion is in line with the study in malnourished hemodialysis patients, which reported a strong correlation between GH-induced reduction in protein catabolism and increments in circulating free (but not total) IGF-I (52). Interestingly, IGF-I, when perfused across the human forearm, has been shown to inhibit muscle protein breakdown (46); it is thus tempting to suggest that the observed decrease in muscle protein catabolism could be generated by free IGF-I.

The metabolic effects of GH are complex and involve increased lipolysis, hyperinsulinemia, and stimulation of IGF-I activity, all of which have protein anabolic properties (15,39,40,41,42,43). In addition, GH has direct anabolic effects (44) and may-as observed presently-induce hyperglycemia and low circulating concentrations of tyrosine and phenylalanine. Of these potential secondary mediators, lipid intermediates have been shown to stimulate protein synthesis (15,39,40), insulin to inhibit breakdown (41,45), and IGF-I to act through both mechanisms (42,43,44,45,46). Furthermore, hyperglycemia may be protein sparing (47). So, since normal fasting increases GH, this not only makes protein breakdown decrease, but can actually prompt muscle growth. *So, this study and the other study I link highlight how increased GH due to fasting is beneficial for lean mass preservation.*

[...]

Notably, both total IGF-I and free IGF-I concentrations were comparable during fasting and during GH replacement, whereas IGF-I and free IGF-I decreased 35 and 70%, respectively, during fasting without GH. Insulin and C-peptide levels were slightly lower during somatostatin infusions. Glucagon and cortisol were significantly increased during fasting. Epinephrine increased after 40 h of fasting and thyroid parameters decreased, but no difference was found with or without GH substitution." *I decided to quote the whole paragraph you used, rather than the simple half-sentence you used, for clarifying. The "fasting without GH" obviously means Fasting with artificial GH suppression, because otherwise the sentence does not make sense.*"

Now that the above is out of the way, let me comment your other points.

About the ammino-acids: I'm not taking BCAA. I'm taking a full spectrum of ammino-acids, via tabs, 12 tablets per day split in three intervals. Each tablet provides just over one gram of pure amino acids. 12g*4kcal/g = 48 kcal, which can hardly count as eating. You'll never see the body shifting to a 48kcal/day BMR, especially if you consider what I posted above, that fasting actually increases expenditure. The only reason I'm taking them, even it *may* hinder autophagy (no one knows, research cannot say if 1.8g of Leucine hinders it, so I'm keeping it at 900mg) is to give lean mass a bit of support. Which is also the reason I'm training, because fasting WITHOUT training HAS BEEN PROVED to induce much greater muscle catabolism.

Ultimately, @Pscarb, I agree with what you say: mine is a bit of a gamble. Studies were done on a much shorter period, and I could definitely achieve the same results with a "standard" diet. When dieting, however, I tend to look at 3 factors: tolerability, results, and speed. A not too restrictive diet is tolerable and brings results, but not quick enough for my surgery to take place. Fasting brings results with speed, but is definitely intolerable in the long run. And I will definitely never consider something that is tolerable and quick, but with no results.

So, I'm sorry you feel frustrated when speaking with "stupids", in this case me. I'm not stupid, by far (even if I admit every human being is retarded in his/her own way), and I wouldn't have embarked on this if I never believed it was worth doing. And thank you for being present.

You never answered my question however. So please do that.
I also have another one for you: I found the original research that made me look into this. Do you want me to quote it here?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As I said, next week a caliper reading is scheduled, so we will all know how it went.


 What do you think any caliper reading will prove? Nobody is suggesting you won't lose fat, and calipers are nothing like accurate enough to tell you anything meaningful about muscle retention. I hope you get results you're happy with but I'm afraid you won't be in a position to somehow validate your interpretation of the study data based on these results.

It's an interesting question to what extent periodic ingestion of essential amino acids may mitigate muscle loss, and not something I know the answer to. The effect may well be greater than a simple assessment of the calories provided would suggest though.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> What do you think any caliper reading will prove? Nobody is suggesting you won't lose fat, and calipers are nothing like accurate enough to tell you anything meaningful about muscle retention. I hope you get results you're happy with but I'm afraid you won't be in a position to somehow validate your interpretation of the study data based on these results.
> 
> It's an interesting question to what extent periodic ingestion of essential amino acids may mitigate muscle loss, and not something I know the answer to. The effect may well be greater than a simple assessment of the calories provided would suggest though.


 I know they aren't stellar, but we all have to draw a line somewhere. I don't have any close DEXA center, unfortunately.

First of all, I'll be happy with minimising lean mass loss. I am aware that most of the weight lost is water weight, but the ketostix is clear: I am producing ketones, so effectively fasting and burning fat as primary nutrient source.

Secondly, the amount of fat mass lost will be compared to that and I'll make a simple evaluation: is this worth it, or I'd get similar results but with not as much sacrifice with ADF/IF+a diet recommended by the great minds here?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I know they aren't stellar, but we all have to draw a line somewhere. I don't have any close DEXA center, unfortunately.


 To be clear I'm saying calipers will tell you absolutely nothing about muscle retention. This works both ways BTW - the results won't be able to prove you wrong any more than they could somehow prove you right.

As a wider point, the only meaningful data would be a comparison of muscle retention for a seven day fast* vs a more conventional fat loss diet, and on people who are resistance training to be really applicable to people here. I doubt anyone is likely to carry out a controlled study looking at this though: primarily as I suspect experts in the field would think the outcome 'obvious' but also as they'd probably find it very difficult to recruit participants.

It might be interesting to compare nitrogen balance data between different diet studies, although there is the major complication of not being able to separate out muscle protein from the rest. You'd also need to find a resistance training plus fasting study to teally be meaningful to people here.

*What you are doing is not a true fast due to the amino acid intake, which BTW makes the study results you're quoting even less applicable.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> To be clear I'm saying calipers will tell you absolutely nothing about muscle retention. This works both ways BTW - the results won't be able to prove you wrong any more than they could somehow prove you right.
> 
> As a wider point, the only meaningful data would be a comparison of muscle retention for a seven day fast* vs a more conventional fat loss diet, and on people who are resistance training to be really applicable to people here. I doubt anyone is likely to carry out a controlled study looking at this though: primarily as I suspect experts in the field would think the outcome 'obvious' but also as they'd probably find it very difficult to recruit participants.
> 
> ...


 The ammino-acids do not count as "food" for the purpose of the fast since they are of very limited quantity and, more importantly, they are not considered even for glucose production. When you fast, you enter ketosis, and I am in ketosis. Had they kicked me out of it, I'd have agreed with you. But they didn't. In fact, most people who fast actually consume bone broth - I don't.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The ammino-acids do not count as "food" for the purpose of the fast since they are of very limited quantity and, more importantly, they are not considered even for glucose production. When you fast, you enter ketosis, and I am in ketosis. Had they kicked me out of it, I'd have agreed with you. But they didn't. In fact, most people who fast actually consume bone broth - I don't.


 The fact you are in ketosis doesn't tell you about any other effects the amino acids may be having. I don't know for example if they may make a significant difference to things like GH or not, but I would strongly suggest that you don't either. It's a moot point though.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> The fact you are in ketosis doesn't tell you about any other effects the amino acids may be having. I don't know for example if they may make a significant difference to things like GH or not, but I would strongly suggest that you don't either. It's a moot point though.


 That's true, I don't because I'm not a pharmacologist. However, I can make a couple educated guesses.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's true, I don't because I'm not a pharmacologist. However, I can make a couple educated guesses.


 Being honest I know I am not in a position to make a meaningful guess.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Being honest I know I am not in a position to make a meaningful guess.


 Well I'll tell you what you I believe.

During water fasts, people are allowed to drink as much bone broth as they want, as long as it's made with the proper ingredients (like, no oil).

Now, even the thinnest bone broth has a certain amount of protein, fat and carbohydrates. One cup has around 50 calories, mostly coming from protein and fats.

The research I quoted is old, and concerned exclusively with water. The new one, which I'm still waiting for "green light" to post, has been made with this in mind (and other drinks such as tea or coffee) and. While for some bone broth does only decrease ketosis intensity, for others this does not happen.

Ammino acids are protein only, possibly of higher quality than the nutrients found in a bone broth. Since bone broth does not hamper the benefits of fasting (GH etc) with the possible exception of a slightly less intense ketosis, a pure form of protein with fewer calories will behave the same, if not actually enhancing fasting benefits. The only concern that I have is that protein might stimulate insulin release, but at 12g per day I am somewhat doubtful that this can offset the fasting.

What bone broth and ammino acids may interfere with is autophagy. But as I told to PScarb, this has not been confirmed nor disconfirmed.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

i will say it again none bar one of the studies you have posted can be applied to your little experiment as they are of a much shorter period, the study i have mentioned here is for 40hrs and clearly show that IGF-1 levels are decreased when not using GH, the increase in GH through fasting is on the same level as it being increased via high-intensity training which although look big on paper are very very small in the grand scheme of things, now how intense do you think you will train when you have not eaten for 3-4 days? it certainly will not be of a high intensity so you can kiss the increase in GH good bye, you are grasping on to an increase in GH that is insignificant in any way to maintain muscle tissue.......

quoting 40hr fasting or EOD fasting studies to show that a 7 day fast is as effective is stupid, it is cherry picking to prove a stand point....that's like saying a study that shows 8iu of GH a day is effective proves that if you take 80iu a day it will be more effective.

as i say above only one of the studies you showed used a 7 day period and even then from what i understand your criteria is different so again the outcome will be as well......

and just so you know i don't apologise for what i believe and the pure fact you think this is a good path to me is stupid.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Water fast is the only name I've heard and, TBH, it's the only thing that makes sense - why would anyone fast water?
> 
> *It may not look like it, but I've been doing this for a long time. Longer than I would like to admit, in fact. I tried all sorts of diet and trainers and failed miserably.*
> 
> ...


 Just a logical point to consider OP. I'm not wishing to jump on the band wagon of you doing something stupid.

If this style of water-fasting (name seems bit misleading but neither here nor there) was very useful don't you think it would be well publicised by now and be taken up by a lot of people. Many diets come and go but the main ones all use the same underlying principles whether stated explicitly (IIFYM) or not (Atkins) , that is, a sensible calorie deficit and / or increase output

You mentioned that bulking didn't work for you before you got a PT, and you failed at weight loss with other diets. Well done for admitting it. However resorting to such an extreme methods, referring back to prehistoric times etc, and so on, coupled with the fact that you didn't achieve anything either way (bulk or cut) before, when 10's of millions world wide are doing it to varying degreess of success the standard way (eat less, move more ), is a point to consider.

You might want to have a look at a famous mathematics principle called of Occums Razor: Its a line of reasoning that states the simplest and most obvious answer to any problem is often the correct one. So in the case: the standard methods of dieting are not the problem, its you! It is worth reflecting upon


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well, what it "seems to you" does not equate real life. It is definitely not lazy, not unhealthy and it predates any idiotic herbalife or cambridge diet. I don't know how you can think fake beverages and whatnot better than this.
> 
> Also, thyroid meds - ditched. I assume you didn't read properly?
> 
> ...


 The point he is making is that it does relate to real life. Even people with actual thyroid conditions can lose weight when properly monitoring their diet. If you are not able to lose weight then, unfortunately, the issue is you. Hard to hear, but always the case.

As, in simple terms, you are not a unicorn. We are all, withing a small scope, even including medical conditions, going to respond the same .


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

JohhnyC said:


> Just a logical point to consider OP. I'm not wishing to jump on the band wagon of you doing something stupid.
> 
> If this style of water-fasting (name seems bit misleading but neither here nor there) was very useful don't you think it would be well publicised by now and be taken up by a lot of people. Many diets come and go but the main ones all use the same underlying principles whether stated explicitly (IIFYM) or not (Atkins) , that is, a sensible calorie deficit and / or increase output
> 
> ...


 Fasting doesn't bring money, unlike the majority of diets (vegan, bio, keto, low-fat, low-carb etc).

Also, you got me wrong. I NEVER bulked before last year. Ever. Because of criminal-like PTs who all put me on stupid drastic cuts.



simonboyle said:


> The point he is making is that it does relate to real life. Even people with actual thyroid conditions can lose weight when properly monitoring their diet. If you are not able to lose weight then, unfortunately, the issue is you. Hard to hear, but always the case.
> 
> As, in simple terms, you are not a unicorn. We are all, withing a small scope, even including medical conditions, going to respond the same .


 Yes. They can. As long as they supplement [thyroid medication].



Pscarb said:


> i will say it again none bar one of the studies you have posted can be applied to your little experiment as they are of a much shorter period, the study i have mentioned here is for 40hrs and clearly show that IGF-1 levels are decreased when not using GH, the increase in GH through fasting is on the same level as it being increased via high-intensity training which although look big on paper are very very small in the grand scheme of things, now how intense do you think you will train when you have not eaten for 3-4 days? it certainly will not be of a high intensity so you can kiss the increase in GH good bye, you are grasping on to an increase in GH that is insignificant in any way to maintain muscle tissue.......
> 
> quoting 40hr fasting or EOD fasting studies to show that a 7 day fast is as effective is stupid, it is cherry picking to prove a stand point....that's like saying a study that shows 8iu of GH a day is effective proves that if you take 80iu a day it will be more effective.
> 
> ...


 You are making hypotheses, like me, yet are trying to pass them for fact by putting a deliberate, and forced, negative spin. I mean, I at least took the time to prove your points wrong one by one. With the same document, eh.
I'm not asking you to apologise for what you believe. I'm asking if you will apologise if your obscurantism is proved wrong.

Oh, and by the way, I'm training at 90-95% intensity compared to non-fast days. So yeah, I think I can train pretty intense.

And I also want the answer to the other question: do you want me to post the original research? Or are you concerned?


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Nope.

Without meds.

And even with the meds. They only normalize function. You're looking for excuses as to why you are that "unicorn"

How many people here need to point out the obvious before you realise that you are not on the right track?

Serious question. How many must tell you you are wrong before you entertain the idea.

Many on here would certainly be classed as experts and are deep in to the science and studies and the real life day to day experience.

You.........none of the above.

Does that not register with you?

No argument. Just genuine desire to help.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

arbffgadm100 said:


> I am a huge fasting fan. What I don't understand is why you didn't do something like ADF or PSMF for 2-3 weeks instead of this for 7-day water fast nonsense?


 You sound like a guy that has tried stuff and found what works. What is your view of the effectiveness of adf ( which I've been referring to as e.o.d ) compared to a daily deficit or other protocols you may have done. I'm currently fasting ,5:2 or 4:3 , doing fortitude training m,t ,th Fri with wed,sat and sun being non training days (and therefore easy days to fast on,). I'm not experienced doing cuts but never found daily caloric restriction easy to adhere to whereas being fed on training days and a hard restriction on days when I'm not in the gym ( but trying to be active , at work , walking the dog , some hiit/liss ) feels sustainable for as long as i need to do it ( I'm about four weeks in and seeing steady fat loss without too much muscle loss ). Never had bodyfat levels below the low teens and really want to get there this time so any help greatly received ( going to give Injectable l-carnitine a run soon as unless we're living in a simulation then the entire membership of professional muscle can't be shills... Can they? ) Also have some 125mg caps of the dubious notorious poison handy ( not used before ) which some say pairs well with the l-carnitine . Cheers


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Nope.
> 
> Without meds.
> 
> ...


 First of all, I am not looking for excuses because I did nothing wrong. I absolutely believe that, had I done the exams I did in the past, things would have been really different and my personal situation is kind of frustrating. And this is also the opinion of my endocrinologist, eh, not mine. Unless you know more than a MD?

Second, your "unicorn" comparison is BS. If we were truly all the same, medications - including AAS - would work exactly the same for everyone. And they don't: they work more or less the same, but sometimes with substantial differences. If we were all the same, there would be no such thing as personalised nutrition plans, treatments, training regimes etc.

More importantly, I never claimed to be a "unicorn". I don't need to be coddled by strangers. I just said that I did both the wrong things for some time - sometimes it was my fault, sometimes it was someone else's fault - and also the right things for some time, but they didn't work as they could have. Only in the last 18 months I started to see some differences, and mostly because I had the courage, and support, to do something new which I never tried before.

Unlike what you may believe, I am taking into account the possibility of failure. But that doesn't deter me from trying something new. The assaults and insults I received, however, cemented me in my position because (despite what you think about me being "none of the above) I'm not a newcomer to this, I made my evaluations and I have all the rights to argue an opinion, rather than accepting it passively. Especially if worded offensively.

However, what I am doing is a win-win either way: if the results are lower than what I expect, then I can admit you were right and I was wrong + say goodbye to consecutive fasting - which I won't really miss, as it's not terribly pleasant; if the results are higher than what I expect, then not only it's great for me but we also all learn something new and you can admit you were wrong and thank me (if your egos will allow it, of course) for having done something innovative by taking a calculated risk; If the results are more or less what I expect, then I'll have to think carefully about the speed-tolerability-result wheel of fasting.

More importantly, I'm not doing anything so drastic that a negative aftermath can't be corrected.

I'm not arguing that they are all experts. But about this, I know more than they do - because I don't think any of them tried what I am doing or actually researched it before I made the thread, except one or two, because it didn't interest them. Also, define "science and studies". Because I brought research and can bring some more - when and if I get the answers I requested. About this, of course. I'm not arguing they know much more than I do about lots of other things. Most of them have been very helpful in the past, for which I already expressed my gratitude.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Fasting doesn't bring money, unlike the majority of diets (vegan, bio, keto, low-fat, low-carb etc).
> 
> Also, you got me wrong. I NEVER bulked before last year. Ever. Because of criminal-like PTs who all put me on stupid drastic cuts.
> 
> ...


 no i am not you are using studies that have not been carried out on anywhere near the time frame you have said will work to prove your theory, i am saying you cannot assume or cherry pick what a study says about EOD fasting or fasting for 40hrs to prove your theory.....

it is impossible for you to train with the near the intensity to train at fed when fasted that actually goes against simple logic, so you are saying you train as intense when you have not eaten for days as you do when fed.....well that is either bullshit or you train like a fairy when fed.....

but then we only have your word for this, in fact we only have your word you are actually doing this.....

how about you post up some before, during and after pictures i may have missed them but i cannot find any you have posted?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> no i am not you are using studies that have not been carried out on anywhere near the time frame you have said will work to prove your theory, i am saying you cannot assume or cherry pick what a study says about EOD fasting or fasting for 40hrs to prove your theory.....
> 
> it is impossible for you to train with the near the intensity to train at fed when fasted that actually goes against simple logic, so you are saying you train as intense when you have not eaten for days as you do when fed.....well that is either bullshit or you train like a fairy when fed.....
> 
> ...


 Unlike you, I didn't cherry-pick. My answer was long and very considerate, quoting parts of the discussion and with images. You did nothing of the sort.

"bullshit or you train like a fairy when fed"? You're incredibly full of yourself, aren't you? God forbid you might admit I am right.

I didn't post any pictures. I said that whoever wants them will get before-after (no sense in doing a during) of them, at the end of this, after asking via PM. You know better than me, however, that BF% visible changes tend to be more evident the lower the BF is (that is, no huge difference between 24 and, say, 22 - realistic estimate after this - while there's a huge difference between 7 and 5).

I'm still waiting for you to answer my 2 questions. Do that and then we'll see if I have to post studies that you might consider "more relevant".


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Re: insults and etc cementing your view: that is know to psychologists as "cognitive dissonance".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> Re: insults and etc cementing your view: that is know to psychologists as "cognitive dissonance".


 "In psychology, *cognitive dissonance* is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; when performing an action that contradicts one of those beliefs, ideas, or values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts one of the beliefs, ideas, and values.[1][2] In other words, the term refers to the perception of incompatibility of two simultaneous cognitions, which can impact a person's attitudes."

Thanks, but that's not what it is. What you are talking of is called "cognitive distortion". Stretching eh.

Also, I wasn't talking about you.

It's fascinating how quick you are to try to label me while saying no word about the crap I undeservedly got thrown at me.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Fasting doesn't bring money, unlike the majority of diets (vegan, bio, keto, low-fat, low-carb etc).


 Fat loss is achieved by eating fewer calories than you use. This is basic biology and not a concept that makes money for anyone. Least of all the people advising that a week long fast is likely to result in more muscle loss than a conventional low calorie diet.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Fat loss is achieved by eating fewer calories than you use. This is basic biology and not a concept that makes money for anyone. Least of all the people advising that a week long fast is likely to result in more muscle loss than a conventional low calorie diet.


 Are you trying to tell me that the Weight Loss circuit isn't a money-making machine?

Fasting, compared to other conventional (or fashionable) diets, requires nothing. So funding research on fasting would be difficult, because the only one benefitting from it would be the end-user, not the producer.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Are you trying to tell me that the Weight Loss circuit isn't a money-making machine?
> 
> Fasting, compared to other conventional (or fashionable) diets, requires nothing. So funding research on fasting would be difficult, because the only one benefitting from it would be the end-user, not the producer.


 I'm telling you that the advice being offered to you in this thread has nothing to do with what makes anyone money. Also large amounts (most?) of fat loss research is publically funded, to try and help tackle the huge individual and societal problems caused by obesity.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Unlike you, I didn't cherry-pick. My answer was long and very considerate, quoting parts of the discussion and with images. You did nothing of the sort.
> 
> "bullshit or you train like a fairy when fed"? You're incredibly full of yourself, aren't you? God forbid you might admit I am right.
> 
> ...


 ha ha long answers mean nothing when they speaking of a study that is cherry picked to back up a method that has no relevance to the study apart from the fact you and the subjects did not eat

study - 40hr fast

you - 7 day fast

result - not relevant no matter how you cut it

i am not full of myself my comment about your training is a logical one, you have no fuel (breaking fat down for fuel is not an instant thing hence why people in keto and fasting diets do not maintain or improve performance) you claim there is as little as 5% difference in your training fed compared to fasted......so my statement stands

what do you think you are right about? a 7 day fast will have you losing weight....yep you are right you will lose weight......will you maintain muscle and drop fat as you claim no you are wrong about that.........how do i know because i have had people fast for 3 and 4 days and they did not but then you have researched it so must know more than the practical application of people who know more 

but i have had my fun so i will leave you to your "stupid idea" oooops i said it again........


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> First of all, I am not looking for excuses because I did nothing wrong. I absolutely believe that, had I done the exams I did in the past, things would have been really different and my personal situation is kind of frustrating. And this is also the opinion of my endocrinologist, eh, not mine. Unless you know more than a MD?
> 
> Second, your "unicorn" comparison is BS. If we were truly all the same, medications - including AAS - would work exactly the same for everyone. And they don't: they work more or less the same, but sometimes with substantial differences. If we were all the same, there would be no such thing as personalised nutrition plans, treatments, training regimes etc.
> 
> ...


 Medications do all work the same in everyone. You're just showing how foolish you are now.

Effectiveness is varied, but the mechanisms of action are identical in us all.

You claim you're not looking for the unicorn. Then start talking "we're all different and everything works differently in everyone".

No. They do not.

Cool.

Enjoy your fast.

You will fail at this. As it isn't a course that will provide reaults.

You're not the first to try it. It doesn't work.

But you will not be dissuaded.

One point I'll leave you with.

You failed at everything. And everyone else has been wrong.

At what point do you realise that the likely hood of every diet and every person advising you can not be wrong.

If that was the case, you'd be jacked and ripped following your plans and they wouldn't.

Same as last post.

You are the one at fault.

You haven't "tried" everything. As if you had and stuck to it you would have achieved your desired results.

It is that simple.

You're the fat person everyone knows that says "I've tried every diet and they just don't work"

Utter bullshit.

Simple.


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> "In psychology, *cognitive dissonance* is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values; when performing an action that contradicts one of those beliefs, ideas, or values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts one of the beliefs, ideas, and values.[1][2] In other words, the term refers to the perception of incompatibility of two simultaneous cognitions, which can impact a person's attitudes."
> 
> Thanks, but that's not what it is. What you are talking of is called "cognitive distortion". Stretching eh.
> 
> ...


 Son, you are waaay out of your league here. I didn't have to visit Wikipedia to call a spade a spade. You are rationalising, adding cognitions, and are in denial. That is all three components of dissonance reduction. Period.

P.S. - re read your Wiki quote. Specifically, this bit: "mental stress ... when confronted with new information that contradicts [your] of the beliefs, ideas, and values".


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> ha ha long answers mean nothing when they speaking of a study that is cherry picked to back up a method that has no relevance to the study apart from the fact you and the subjects did not eat
> 
> study - 40hr fast
> 
> ...


 Your statement is bollocks. Then again, I don't need to prove it to you - I'm logging all I do and being checked so yeah, your statement stands for nothing.

How smug you are. And yet you refuse to answer me.

You can say stupid all you want. We will see who has the last laugh. IF I want to share it publicly, that's it - I think I'll just do it privately since your skulls are so thick you refuse to accept something new.

BTW I'm still waiting for you to answer. Are you blind or slow?



simonboyle said:


> Medications do all work the same in everyone. You're just showing how foolish you are now.
> 
> Effectiveness is varied, but the mechanisms of action are identical in us all.
> 
> ...


 Then pike off. I don't need a sermon from someone who clearly has no understanding or knowledge about what I did - not to mention, someone who couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote because you understood the exact opposite.



arbffgadm100 said:


> Son, you are waaay out of your league here. I didn't have to visit Wikipedia to call a spade a spade. You are rationalising, adding cognitions, and are in denial. That is all three components of dissonance reduction. Period.
> 
> P.S. - re read your Wiki quote. Specifically, this bit: "mental stress ... when confronted with new information that contradicts [your] of the beliefs, ideas, and values".


 You'd be surprised by how NOT out of my league I am. But I guess you know everything, don't you.
I'm not stressed by the new information. I'm disappointed by the deliberate hostility. I actually welcome the opposite points of view. Problem is, I'm the only one who actually took a scientific approach to this.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

To the OP your out of shape... yet pscarb whose in awesome shape and knows how to get in that shape (generally triangular, thick and ripped), and ultrasonic who knows how to train and diet, and is also one of the most knowledgable people I here are both telling you that what your doing is daft/pointless/dum then maybe there might be something in it, pictures from the start would show fat loss and muscle loss aswell so I see why you wouldn't want to post them... you might actually look like you don't even lift... oh wait that could be an issue...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> To the OP your out of shape... yet pscarb whose in awesome shape and knows how to get in that shape (generally triangular, thick and ripped), and ultrasonic who knows how to train and diet, and is also one of the most knowledgable people I here are both telling you that what your doing is daft/pointless/dum then maybe there might be something in it, pictures from the start would show fat loss and muscle loss aswell so I see why you wouldn't want to post them... you might actually look like you don't even lift... oh wait that could be an issue...


 Oh look someone voicing his opinion with no knowledge of fasting speaks.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh look someone voicing his opinion with no knowledge of fasting speaks.


 Yup I've not used intermittent fasting at all and not lost weight by using it (that was sarcasm as you seem to miss the obvious)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> Yup I've not used intermittent fasting at all and not lost weight by using it (that was sarcasm as you seem to miss the obvious)


 You miss the obvious and the subtle.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You miss the obvious and the subtle.


 Oh no I caught the arrogance of the bloke ignoring loads of good advice


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> Oh no I caught the arrogance of the bloke ignoring loads of good advice


 Advice? More like, plenty of insults which, in your mind, I am supposed to take without batting an eyelash.

Except for a couple guys, most here are more concerned with saying that I'm wrong rather than "giving good advice".

You, more importantly, doubted what I said and can pike off.

I already said I'm considering failure as a possible option. But I still have to know. It's only a couple days more anyway.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Advice? More like, plenty of insults which, in your mind, I am supposed to take without batting an eyelash.
> 
> Except for a couple guys, most here are more concerned with saying that I'm wrong rather than "giving good advice".
> 
> ...


 Ah so if everyone thinks your doing something stupid then by your logic they shouldn't say owt... don't put it out there for everyone to see if you don't want an opinion, they've even gone to the trouble of explaining why it's a dum idea and why your thinking is flawed, but your right everyone is just doing stuff to be mean lol, get over yourself!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> Ah so if everyone thinks your doing something stupid then by your logic they shouldn't say owt... don't put it out there for everyone to see if you don't want an opinion, they've even gone to the trouble of explaining why it's a dum idea and why your thinking is flawed, but your right everyone is just doing stuff to be mean lol, get over yourself!


 Not what I said - learn to read.

I expected criticism - was kind of counting on it just to highlight flaws. But not this bigotry and bile.

I'm putting it out for myself and for everyone else. I've got nothing to hide - and like someone on the first two pages said, I've also got nothing to prove. I can shut this log down at any moment.

Yeah most here have "explained", their explanation can be summed up as "You're wrong and I'm right" "this is insanely stupid" - then you dig a little deep and you see that there's little beyong that. The only one who put a proper argument was Pscarb, but it essentially came down to "the research you posted was only for 40 hours and not 7 days" - which is true, but doesn't prove what I am doing wrong.

Only today it came out - strangely - that Pscarb told to "some people" (who were they?) to fast for 3-4 days and they failed to get the wanted results. That's it. And it sounds a lot like a half-baked excuse. Then the other one trying to teach me what cognitive dissonance is. I mean seriously? Is this a PMQ session, an exercise of snark?

Speaking of him, I am STILL waiting for my answer.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Yeah everyone has explained which can be summed up as "You're wrong and I'm right" "this is insanely stupid" - then you dig a little deep and you see that there's little beyong that. The only one who put a proper argument was Pscarb, but it essentially came down to "the research you posted was only for 40 hours and not 7 days".


 Please read my posts again if you truly believe this.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Please read my posts again if you truly believe this.


 That's fair. I should have said "most here have explained, which...".

I mean, you still feel that the research I pointed out is not relevant. Since that other one is MIA, perhaps you'd like to see the original pieces which made me look into this?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's fair. I should have said "most here have explained, which...".
> 
> I mean, you still feel that the research I pointed out is not relevant.


 One study is very relevant - the one which I explained above demonstrated significant rates of protein loss over a seven day fast. This post in fact:

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/299645-7-day-water-fast-log-challenge-hellish-hence-why-its-a-challenge/?do=findComment&comment=5675693

Your basic premise is that fasting is more muscle sparing than other approaches. None of the studies you linked to make a comparison of this nature and so it is impossible for you to draw that conclusion. I've not spent time reading them all fully but I think at best what they do is show that fasting is not quite as bad as we might expect.

The limited duration of most of the studies is also hugely significant.



> Since that other one is MIA, perhaps you'd like to see the original pieces which made me look into this?


 Just post the links but unless they provide data comparing rates of muscle loss for fasting vs a high protein hypocaloric diet I'm afraid they really aren't going to be able to prove what you want.


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I've decided to do a 7 day water fast. After trying a 3-day one, and succeeding, I decided to try the full thing.
> 
> After having done my research, I decided to trust theories which state how complete fasting does not dramatically slow down metabolism, while significant calorie deficit does. Purpose of the water fast is also to trigger ketosis ASAP, which I will monitor via Ketostix - taking into account they can only help so far.
> 
> ...


 Dat dere death wish time brah? U still suckin air fam? Or is u pushin up daiseys innit fam...?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

SickCurrent said:


> Dat dere death wish time brah? U still suckin air fam? Or is u pushin up daiseys innit fam...?


 Oh, look, it's the moron of the day.



Ultrasonic said:


> One study is very relevant - the one which I explained above demonstrated significant rates of protein loss over a seven day fast. This post in fact:
> 
> http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/299645-7-day-water-fast-log-challenge-hellish-hence-why-its-a-challenge/?do=findComment&comment=5675693
> 
> ...


 Hold on. I said that fasting is muscle-sparing because of ketosis - so even a keto diet would be muscle-sparing - AND keeps metabolic rate high in comparison to a very restrictive calorie deficit, but only if you train. Not an absolute statement.

The study you request does not exist. I had to make the comparison with my own experience and the data I had available.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh, look, it's the moron of the day.
> 
> Hold on. I said that fasting is muscle-sparing because of ketosis - so even a keto diet would be muscle-sparing - AND keeps metabolic rate high in comparison to a very restrictive calorie deficit, but only if you train. Not an absolute statement.
> 
> The study you request does not exist. I had to make the comparison with my own experience and the data I had available.


 But a Keto diet is only muscle sparing because you have intake of protein and fats to allow the body to not go mental and burn everything, your controlling the calories not abstaining from giving the body anything but you seem to have missed that small fact


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> But a Keto diet is only muscle sparing because you have intake of protein and fats to allow the body to not go mental and burn everything, your controlling the calories not abstaining from giving the body anything but you seem to have missed that small fact


 I haven't. Fasting puts the body very quickly in ketosis, which has the same purpose.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Hold on. I said that fasting is muscle-sparing because of ketosis - so even a keto diet would be muscle-sparing


 Let me clarify then. The reason I am suggesting to you that what you are doing is not a a good idea is because I fear you are unnecessarily risking muscle loss. I believe this is @Pscarb's concern too.

Keto diets are not magically muscle sparing when compared to other high protein hypocaloric diets. If there is an advantage it is small. Furthermore I'm talking about regular keto diets here - muscle preservation when in ketosis achieved by fasting is a totally different situation. One for which the study measuring the rates of protein loss in this condition is again relevant.

You may feel you have so little muscle that you aren't concerned about losing a bit if you can lose a significant amount of fat at the same time. You have though written about feeling you'd gained some muscle for the first time in your life and so I thought you would probably like to be preserving this if you can. As has already been mentioned in this thread the concerns over muscle loss from a conventional high protein hypocaloric diet are generally signficantly overestimated, especially for someone at your current body fat level. You may even be in a position where you could even gain muscle whilst losing fat for a while.



> - AND keeps metabolic rate high in comparison to a very restrictive calorie deficit,


 Which of your studies shows this to be true? Not that metabolic rate is an important factor for just a single week diet, and a comparison to a 'very restrictive calorie deficit' may ultimately be rather less relevant than a comparison to a more normal, 'sensible' dieting approach.

Have you looked at a PSMF? This is the most widely known approach that will achieve most of what you want but with likely significantly less muscle loss that what you're doing.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Let me clarify then. The reason I am suggesting to you that what you are doing is not a a good idea is because I fear you are unnecessarily risking muscle loss. I believe this is @Pscarb's concern too.
> 
> Keto diets are not magically muscle sparing when compared to other high protein hypocaloric diets. If there is an advantage it is small. Furthermore I'm talking about regular keto diets here - muscle preservation when in ketosis achieved by fasting is a totally different situation. One for which the study measuring the rates of protein loss in this condition is again relevant.
> 
> ...


 And I appreciate your concerns - it's the reason I'm taking ammino-acids as well. However fasting, compared to other diets, has the highest production of GH which is anti-catabolic.

Well, all of the studies I quoted show that fasting, compared to calorie restriction, This is because fasting is acaloric, rather than restrictive. It also shows that there was little difference if compared to non-fasting period in terms of muscle breakdown - and the study was made on healthy young men.

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/299645-7-day-water-fast-log-challenge-hellish-hence-why-its-a-challenge/?do=embed&comment=5676545&embedComment=5676545&embedDo=findComment

But as I said many times, the bulk of studies I quoted were done on obese people - which is why I am positive they'd apply to me (I'm not obese eh) but to most of you, they won't, because your BF is so low.

On a purely personal projection, I believe that the results will be interesting, but not enough to warrant more extended fasting and, most likely, I will move to ADF+a more standard diet.

The surgery next month is another huge motivator for the current fast.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And I appreciate your concerns - it's the reason I'm taking ammino-acids as well. However fasting, compared to other diets, has the highest production of GH which is anti-catabolic.
> 
> Well, all of the studies I quoted show that fasting, compared to calorie restriction, This is because fasting is acaloric, rather than restrictive.
> 
> ...


 As said all the study's you have posted are irrelevant, they do not directly correlate with a 7 day fast. 'Similar' does not mean you can use them to evidence what it is that you are doing and many have stated already. Why can you not understand this?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Quackerz said:


> As said all the study's you have posted are irrelevant, they do not directly correlate with a 7 day fast. 'Similar' does not mean you can use them to evidence what it is that you are doing and many have stated already. Why can you not understand this?


 For a couple of reasons, little Trump:

- they do make my point at least for the beginning, meaning they can't be used to disprove me

- there are consistent enough with each other
- I only use them as supporting evidence and historical reliability.

- they will be useful for the future when I most certainly turn for ADF

To quote someone more knowledgeable than I am:

"Daily caloric reduction has been well documented to cause a dramatic reduction in BMR. In studies with a baseline daily calorie consumption of approximately 2500 calories per day, reducing calories consumed to approximately 1500 calories a day for a long stretch of time will result in a 25 to 30 percent reduction in BMR. On the other hand, overfeeding studies, where subjects are asked to deliberately eat more than they normally do, causes an increase in BMR. Reduced metabolism makes us generally cold, tired, hungry, and less energetic-our bodies are essentially conserving energy by not burning calories to keep us warm and moving. From a weight standpoint, reduced metabolism is a double curse. First, we feel lousy while dieting. Even worse, because we're burning fewer calories per day, it's both harder to lose weight and much easier to gain weight back after we've lost it. This is the main problem with most caloric-reduction diets.

Suppose you normally eat 2000 calories a day and cut back to only 1500. Your body cannot run a deficit indefinitely-it will eventually run out of fat to burn-so it plans ahead and decreases your energy expenditure. The end result is a decreased BMR. This has been proven repeatedly by experiments over the last century. Because of this well-known "starvation mode" effect of daily caloric restriction, many people assume that fasting will result in a similar but more severe decrease in BMR.

Luckily, this does not happen. If short-term fasting dropped our metabolism, humans as a species would not likely have survived. Consider the situation of repeated feast/famine cycles. During long winters back in the Paleolithic era, there were many days where no food was available. After the first episode, you would be severely weakened as your metabolism falls. After several repeated episodes, you would be so weak that you would be unable to get hunt or gather food, making you even weaker. This is a vicious cycle that the human species would not have survived. Our bodies do not shut down in response to short-term fasting.In fact, metabolism revs up, not down, during fasting. This makes sense from a survival standpoint. If we do not eat, our bodies use our stored energy as fuel so that we can find more food. Humans have not evolved to require three meals a day, every day.

When food intake goes to zero (fasting), our body obviously cannot take BMR down to zero-we have to burn some calories just to stay alive. Instead, hormones allow the body to switch energy sources from food to body fat. After all, that is precisely why we carry body fat-to be used for food when no food is available. It's not there for looks. By "feeding" on our own fat, we significantly increase the availability of "food," and this is matched by an increase in energy expenditure.
Studies demonstrate this phenomenon clearly. In one, fasting every other day for twenty-two days resulted in no measurable decrease in BMR. There was no starvation mode. Fat oxidation-fat burning-increased 58 percent, from 64 g/day to 101 g/day. Carbohydrate oxidation decreased 53 percent, from 175 g/day to 81 g/day. This means that the body has started to switch over from burning sugar to burning fat, with no overall drop in energy.

In another study, four days of continuous fasting increased BMR by 12 percent. Levels of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline), which prepares the body for action, increased by 117 percent, keeping energy levels high. Fatty acids in the bloodstream increased over 370 percent as the body switched over from burning food to burning stored fats.

The human body evolved to survive periods of fasting. We store food energy as body fat and use this as fuel when food is not available. Muscle, on the other hand, is preserved until body fat becomes so low that the body has no choice but to turn to muscle. This will only happen when body fat is at less than 4 percent. (For comparison, elite male marathon runners carry approximately 8 percent body fat and female marathoners slightly more.) If we did not preserve muscle and burn fat instead when no food is available, we would not have survived very long as a species. Almost all mammals have this same ability.

Real-world studies of fasting show that the concern over muscle loss is largely misplaced. At baseline, eating normally, energy comes from a mix of carbohydrates, fat, and protein. As you start fasting, the body increases carbohydrate oxidation. This is just a fancy way of saying that it is burning sugar, in the form of glycogen, for the first twenty-four to forty-eight hours after you stop eating, until it runs out of glycogen. With no more sugar to burn, the body switches to burning fat. Fat oxidation increases as carbohydrate oxidation decreases toward zero.

At the same time, protein oxidation-that is, burning protein, such as muscle, for fuel-actually decreases. The normal protein breakdown of around seventy-five grams per day falls to fifteen to twenty grams per day during fasting. Rather than burning muscle during fasting, we start conserving muscle. Much of the amino acids that are broken down during regular turnover of cells are reabsorbed into new proteins."

The original studies I looked upon are (mostly) more recent and I found them here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1274154/pdf/westjmed00207-0055.pdf (1983)

Wilmore, J.H., Costill, D.L., & Kenney, W.L. (2007). Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. (see the pic attached)

Christian Zauner, Bruno Schneeweiss, Alexander Kranz, Christian Madl, Klaus Ratheiser, Ludwig Kramer, Erich Roth, Barbara Schneider, and Kurt Lenz, "Resting Energy Expenditure in Short-Term Starvation Is Increased as a Result of an Increase in Serum Norepinephrine," American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 71, no. 6 (2000): 1511-5. (see attached pic)

Marshall D. McCue, ed., Comparative Physiology of Fasting, Starvation, and Food Limitation (New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012) (This is for you, @Ultrasonic, this one makes the comparison you want), see pic below

A. M. Johnstone, P. Faber, E. R. Gibney, M. Elia, G. Horgan, B. E. Golden, and R. J. Stubbs, "Effect of an Acute Fast on Energy Compensation and Feeding Behaviour in Lean Men and Women," International Journal of Obesity 26, no. 12 (2002): 1623-8.

Helene Nørrelund, K. Sreekumaran Nair, Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen, Jens Sandahl Christiansen, and Niels Møller, "The Protein-Retaining Effects of Growth Hormone During Fasting Involve Inhibition of Muscle-Protein Breakdown," Diabetes 50, no. 1 (2001): 96-104.

Darcy L. Johannsen, Nicolas D. Knuth, Robert Huizenga, Jennifer C. Rood, Eric Ravussin, and Kevin D. Hall, "Metabolic Slowing with Massive Weight Loss Despite Preservation of Fat-Free Mass," Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 97, no. 7 (20120): 2489-96.

Gjedsted, L. Gormsen, M. Buhl, H. Nørrelund H, O. Schmitz, S. Keiding, E. Tønnesen, et al., "Forearm and Leg Amino Acids Metabolism in the Basal State and During Combined Insulin and Amino Acid Stimulation After a 3-Day Fast," Acta Physiologica 197, no. 3 (2009): 197-205


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> And I appreciate your concerns - it's the reason I'm taking ammino-acids as well. However fasting, compared to other diets, has the highest production of GH which is anti-catabolic.


 Concluding that whatever diet leads to the highest levels of growth hormone will be the most muscle sparing, is, I'm afraid, nonsense. That would be like me arguing whichever has the highest levels of cortisol would be the worst because cortisol is catabolic. Neither would necessarily be correct. There is a complex interaction of factors at play.

In terms of taking amino-acids to help preserve muscle, yes, this is probably a step in the right direction. But again I would encourage you to switch to a PSMF so you are doing your best to preserve muscle.



> Well, all of the studies I quoted show that fasting, compared to calorie restriction,


 Please post a link to the specific study that lead you to conclude the following and I'll look at it again (I am not going to spend my time wading through all you links again):



Dark_Ansem said:


> AND keeps metabolic rate high in comparison to a very restrictive calorie deficit,


 I want to understand to what extent this statement might be true, and if so under what exact circumstances.



> The surgery next month is another huge motivator for the current fast.


 Whatever this surgery is may have a impact on this whole discussion. I'm not asking for personal details here, just making an observation. Also if your primary motivation is purely to lose as much fat a possible before this then I can see why muscle loss may be less of a concern to you. I'd still personally switch to a PSMF though.

I'm posting now primarily as you somehow feel all you've had is abuse. I'm trying to explain as clearly as I can where you have misinterpreted study data to lead you to conclude your particular course of action is a good idea. It doesn't bother me if you carry on just to see what happens, but it is your suggestion that what you are doing is somehow evidence based that is misguided. You have constructed what appears to you to be a logical argument to show that what you're doing is sensible, but unfortunately your steps in reaching this conclusion really don't stack up. If they did I'd say so, and would be very interested in them. (I've also partly posted to make this point clear to others who may be reading this.)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> [snip]


 As I've said many times, the previously posted studies were mainly there for support. Look at the post above yours. That should satisfy you.

Next month's surgery is a potentially massive tissue removal which will put me out of business for a couple weeks. Rather than fat loss, I'm concerned with the autophagy and cellular renewal, in order to speed up recovery, within reason. However, I will NOT fast after the surgery - that is the epitome of acting in a risky and unnecessary way.

I've certainly received a massive amount of abuse, by both cretins and people who I believed would more more sensible (such as moderators). So yeah, I'm very disinclined even in keeping this log or sharing the end results, whatever they may be. I expected a community which reacts with great understanding to people drugging themselves to gynecomastia (if not worse) and that promotes being "natty" to like, god-level, to be much more open-minded. (You can hardly get more natural than fasting).

Speaking of which, it is log time.

*Day 4*: Weight: 87.8kg

Ketostix: medium-moyen, possibly slightly darker

Training intensity: N/A

Huh. Day 5 prompted more weight loss than I imagined.
Visually speaking, there hasn't been much change. But that is to be expected.

Hunger is felt less often and less acutely. I woke up feeling satisfied, and mood is kind of improving.


----------



## MarkyMark (Jul 14, 2015)

im not to bothered about all the arguments and study to and for - fasting for anything more than 24 hrs is something that will never cross my mind personally - but answer me this:

over the past 4 days you have not eaten anything and only drank water and a helping of BCAA throughout the day? and you have another 3 days remaining?

during this time how many times have you gone to the gym? assume none after the first day or so?

Assuming the above is correct - I really cant understand (unless you have been held in Auschwitz) anyone could possibly go a week without proper food when living in a house with a fridge and a supermaket within a mile or so from your house?

I have to give you respect where due if you really have not eaten any solids, milk, whey etc however if it was me i would prefer to spend 1-2 hrs in gym doing cardio for ~1000 calories and then eat that in food thus making 0 cals consumed within that day.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

MarkyMark said:


> im not to bothered about all the arguments and study to and for - fasting for anything more than 24 hrs is something that will never cross my mind personally - but answer me this:
> 
> over the past 4 days you have not eaten anything and only drank water and a helping of BCAA throughout the day? and you have another 3 days remaining?
> 
> ...


 Your assumption is incorrect, I've gone to the gym in the first 3 days of the fast (Wednesday, Thursday, Friday). Unless you count half day on Tuesday which I also fasted to kickstart it.

Intensity 90-95% of normal lifting regime, despite what SOMEONE believes.

Reason for fasting is a ratio between tolerability-results-speed + fasting benefits in prevision of a potentially massive surgery next month.

No solid food eaten, unless you count the ammino-acid complex (not just BCAA).

It is also a challenge for me.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> For a couple of reasons, little Trump:
> 
> - they do make my point at least for the beginning, meaning they can't be used to disprove me
> 
> ...


 None of what you have written still does not have anything to do with a 7 day fast. As I said for this reason it's all irrelevant........


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Quackerz said:


> None of what you have written still does not have anything to do with a 7 day fast. As I said for this reason it's all irrelevant........


 I beg to differ. Have you even bothered to read the text and/or see the pictures?

Or paragraphs like this one:

"In another study, four days of continuous fasting increased BMR by 12 percent. Levels of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine (also known as noradrenaline), which prepares the body for action, increased by 117 percent, keeping energy levels high. Fatty acids in the bloodstream increased over 370 percent as the body switched over from burning food to burning stored fats." *I'm at day 5, am I not? so, well, this is highly relevant to me especially. The graphs were made according to longer periods studies - so yeah, VERY relevant. In fact, I'd say most relevant.*

The WL graph has also actually happened almost 100% exact, with the exception of today.

Also, 7 days fast is a forced choice - I will have to break it for sure at the 8th day for a couple days.

Oh, and by the way, double negation: "None of what you have written still does not have anything to do with a 7 day fast". So in fact I agree with you...


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I beg to differ. Have you even bothered to read the text and/or see the pictures?
> 
> Or paragraphs like this one:
> 
> ...


 Your body is not solely burning fats though, this is the issue and what you seem to not grasp.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Quackerz said:


> Your body is not solely burning fats though, this is the issue and what you seem to not grasp.


 No no. I grasp it in full: unlike you, I have read all of that. 5 days ago, when I started the log, I said VERY CLEARLY that I am taking the ammino-acid in order to help the muscle sparing. I don't have the delusion of not losing a bit of lean mass. But as you can see, it is not much, especially if compared to fat mass.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Energy levels will likely be low. However, I'll still aim to train just as hard.


 This is impossible.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Purpose of the water fast is also to trigger ketosis ASAP


 Why do this when there are much more efficient ways to achieve fat loss?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> This is impossible.


 I have to say you are wrong. I said low, not non-existent.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No no. I grasp it in full: unlike you, I have read all of that. 5 days ago, when I started the log, I said VERY CLEARLY that I am taking the ammino-acid in order to help the muscle sparing. I don't have the delusion of not losing a bit of lean mass. But as you can see, it is not much, especially if compared to fat mass.


 It's still fu**ing stupid and you can't cherry pick a few paragraphs from these study's to justify not eating for a week, you just can't. Fair play, you want to do it but you seem very disillusioned as to what is going to happen here......


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> Why do this when there are much more efficient ways to achieve fat loss?


 Such as?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Quackerz said:


> It's still fu**ing stupid and you can't cherry pick a few paragraphs from these study's to justify not eating for a week, you just can't. Fair play, you want to do it but you seem very disillusioned as to what is going to happen here......


 I am very disillusioned. The "magic bullet" does not exist - save, MAYBE, DNP. And even that needs to be done with caution.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

TBH I'm almost at the point of calling troll on this one. That you @banzi?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Quackerz said:


> TBH I'm almost at the point of calling troll on this one. That you @banzi?


 Knock yourself out with name-calling. I'm sorry if you are easily upset.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I have to say you are wrong. I said low, not non-existent.


 We all have a finite amount of energy to translate into our workouts. The most efficient use of that energy gives the best results - ie one pressing exercise and one flying exercise which achieves MMF is way more productive that two or three of each exercise which doesn't. To achieve this, energy levels need to be at their maximum. Even slightly lower energy levels will impact on this. Low energy levels make it impossible to come even close.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Such as?


 A small calorific deficit over several weeks.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> A small calorific deficit over several weeks.


 Ah, there you have it. I am well aware of this. I don't have the luxury of time, this time.



Mingster said:


> We all have a finite amount of energy to translate into our workouts. The most efficient use of that energy gives the best results - ie one pressing exercise and one flying exercise which achieves MMF is way more productive that two or three of each exercise which doesn't. To achieve this, energy levels need to be at their maximum. Even slightly lower energy levels will impact on this. Low energy levels make it impossible to come even close.


 And yet, that's what I did. If you read the research I posted, since you don't believe my word, it clearly states that fasting, after the first-ish day, does not hamper quality of workouts. I can still do at 90-95%.

Tomorrow is training day anyway. If you're still here, I will tell you how it goes.


----------



## Quackerz (Dec 19, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Knock yourself out with name-calling. I'm sorry if you are easily upset.


 Settle mate, was merely a jest, no need to twist your knickers.

You don't seem to want to listen to anyone though so I'll just leave you to it, just try not to damage yourself. 

All the best.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Quackerz said:


> Settle mate, was merely a jest, no need to twist your knickers.
> 
> You don't seem to want to listen to anyone though so I'll just leave you to it, just try not to damage yourself.
> 
> All the best.


 Sorry about that. If anything, not eating DOES make me irritable.
I am listening to everyone, actually, and what I hear is a barrage of insult and a deliberate intention to ignore whatever points I make by saying "this is stupid/insane/useless" with no real argument behind these claims.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Ah, there you have it. I am well aware of this. I don't have the luxury of tim


 Then you shouldn't be concerned with muscle loss and I fail to understand why you class it as a consideration.



Dark_Ansem said:


> I can still do at 90-95%.


 Then your pre-fast workouts must have been well below 100%. What you are basically saying is that you can train just as hard with low energy levels as you can with high. You must see that this can not be possible?

You are basically saying that recovery is a myth.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> Then you shouldn't be concerned with muscle loss and I fail to understand why you class it as a consideration.
> 
> Then your pre-fast workouts must have been well below 100%. What you are basically saying is that you can train just as hard with low energy levels as you can with high. You must see that this can not be possible?
> 
> You are basically saying that recovery is a myth.


 About muscle loss: because I earned it with lots of effort and sweat, and since I'm not in the obese range, I don't need to go all-out.

I can assure you, I always push myself to the limit in the gym.

Why am I saying that recovery is a myth? What I am saying, backed up by, well, science, is that acaloric intake is not like calorie deficit - the body cannot turn itself to 0, so instead of adapting it actually goes on.

What I did notice, the first two days at least, was being more breathless at the end of the workout. Not so on Friday.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

- Tried everything

- Pushes self to the limit

- Been at it ten years

- 24% body fat


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Tried everything
> 
> - Pushes self to the limit
> 
> ...


 How funny. How about you add:

- imbalanced hormonal profile

- still on therapy for said hormonal imbalance

- didn't train properly for quite a long time

- always told to focus on losing fat rather than gaining muscle

- genetic family history of overweight/obesity


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> How funny. How about you add:
> 
> - imbalanced hormonal profile
> 
> ...


 - Used DNP

- Starves self

- 24% body fat


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Used DNP
> 
> - Starves self
> 
> - 24% body fat


 Not in this order.

Fixed it for you:

- Used DNP

- Was fine

- Bulked up for first time in life

- Had massive surgery with lots of tissue being removed

- decided to bulk again, but did something wrong (excess calories)

- got to 24% BF

- fasting in provision of another surgery.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Quackerz said:


> Settle mate, was merely a jest, no need to twist your knickers.
> 
> You don't seem to want to listen to anyone though so I'll just leave you to it, just try not to damage yourself.
> 
> All the best.


 Don't worry , fasting isn't damaging. Gandi did several 21 day fasts for peace and managed to maintain most of his muscle mass and an active paedophile lifestyle!


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Don't worry , fasting isn't damaging. Gandi did several 21 day fasts for peace and managed to maintain most of his muscle mass and an active paedophile lifestyle!
> 
> View attachment 141373


 Hilarious! He didn't train, however, did he? Stayed in bed all day while drinking water with lemon.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not in this order.
> 
> Fixed it for you:
> 
> ...


 - Drinks nothing but bone broth for a week

- Twenty four percent body fat


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Drinks nothing but bone broth for a week
> 
> - Twenty four percent body fat


 Not even bone broth. Just water.

And the BF% was before this. Are you ignoring this on purpose?


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not even bone broth. Just water.
> 
> And the BF% was before this. Are you ignoring this on purpose?


 - Expert on fasting, dieting and fat loss

- 24% body fat


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Expert on fasting, dieting and fat loss
> 
> - 24% body fat


 I'm going to ignore you from now on. This is deliberate trolling.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Hilarious! He didn't train, however, did he? Stayed in bed all day while drinking water with lemon.


 He was actually known for a progressive squat depth technique where he dug a hole , stood in it and partially squatted an axle from a railway carriage, adding soil to the hole each day until he was full squatting it, eventually achieving 33 inch thighs and feats such as a 6000lb table lift ....

Ah f**k... Hang on , that might have been someone else who DIDN'T fast :s


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> He was actually known for a progressive squat depth technique where he dug a hole , stood in it and partially squatted an axle from a railway carriage, adding soil to the hole each day until he was full squatting it, eventually achieving 33 inch thighs and feats such as a 6000lb table lift ....
> 
> Ah f**k... Hang on , that might have been someone else who DIDN'T fast :s


 Oh, how funny. How about you worry about your own fasting?


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm going to ignore you from now on. This is deliberate trolling.


 - Says he will have the last laugh once all is said and done

- Will still be in excess of 20% body fat, best case scenario


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Says he will have the last laugh once all is said and done
> 
> - Will still be in excess of 20% body fat, best case scenario


 It's a 7 days fast. What did you expect, that I'd go underweight?


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh, how funny. How about you worry about your own fasting?


 Lol im sorry i was just being daft because the thread has gone so far off the rails already ( i did have a few questions that got lost in the mish mash back there ) . you'll note i did wish you luck with it and against the alledged odds i still hope it turns out well for ya


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Lol im sorry i was just being daft because the thread has gone so far off the rails already ( i did have a few questions that got lost in the mish mash back there ) . you'll note i did wish you luck with it and against the alledged odds i still hope it turns out well for ya


 That's the only reason I haven't told you to pike off.

However, those questions were answered by someone else.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> It's a 7 days fast. What did you expect, that I'd go underweight?


 - Says he will ignore me

- Quotes my next post


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Says he will ignore me
> 
> - Quotes my next post


 Someone has to educate the masses.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's the only reason I haven't told you to pike off.
> 
> However, those questions were answered by someone else.


 Fair play , you've stood up fairly well to the baiting considering you must be a touch on the hungry side.

Peace


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Someone has to educate the masses.


 - Sounds like a whiny girl with every post

- Has the hormonal profile of a whiny girl so it kinda makes sense


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - Sounds like a whiny girl with every post
> 
> - Has the hormonal profile of a whiny girl so it kinda makes sense


 Less whiny than you are. And definitely smarter. And manlier too.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Fair play , you've stood up fairly well to the baiting considering you must be a touch on the hungry side.
> 
> Peace


 Actually, I only felt really hungry this morning at, say, 9.

I suspect because a better way to fast would be to add electrolytes, like you're supposed to do with DNP.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Less whiny than you are. And definitely smarter.


 - 24% body fat


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

DLTBB said:


> - Sounds like a whiny girl with every post
> 
> - Has the hormonal profile of a whiny girl so it kinda makes sense


 Actual serious q off this. If you're dieting from a highish body fat and losing it quick is a lot of aromatase released maybe even requiring a serm of some other measure ?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> Actual serious q off this. If you're dieting from a highish body fat and losing it quick is a lot of aromatase released maybe even requiring a serm of some other measure ?


 As I said, my endocrinologist put me on a moderate Anti-Oestrogenic therapy. Which I am still on, BTW. Since september.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> - 24% body fat


 Er... so? Manlier than you too.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As I said, my endocrinologist put me on a moderate Anti-Oestrogenic therapy. Which I am still on, BTW. Since september.


 My bad , there has been a hail of rapid fire posts.

interesting


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Er... so? Manlier than you too.


 I know, you're a true caveman not eating for a week.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

gazzamongo said:


> My bad , there has been a hail of rapid fire posts.
> 
> interesting


 This was on Day 1, not to worry!



DLTBB said:


> I know, you're a true caveman not eating for a week.


 Do it yourself then, I'll even hug you when, after day 2, you are crying your arse off and begging for forgiveness.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> This was on Day 1, not to worry!
> 
> Do it yourself then, I'll even hug you when, after day 2, you are crying your arse off and begging for forgiveness.


 I think I'd rather walk around at 8-10% body fat, look awesome, eat a load of fresh meat daily and still be able to train and function at 100%. You're welcome to try getting to my level though.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> I think I'd rather walk around at 8-10% body fat, look awesome, eat a load of fresh meat daily and still be able to train and function at 100%. You're welcome to try getting to my level though.


 Spoken like a true whiny girl.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Spoken like a true whiny girl.


 *Spoken like somebody who wouldn't be 24% body fat to begin with.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> *Spoken like somebody who wouldn't be 24% body fat to begin with.


 Well, at least I have an excuse for being a whiny girl, you said it before.

Since you don't, I have to assume that you're whiny just because. Cheer up, you can improve.


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm going to ignore you from now on. This is deliberate trolling.


 Says he has no problem with disagreement provided it doesn't contain insults.

Ignores someone who presents nothing but the facts, in an unambiguous way, sans insults.

Says that isn't cognitive dissonance.

Is wrong about that, too.

And, you guessed it...

...is 24% body fat.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

If your ability to stick to ignoring my posts is in any way similar to your ability to stick to a diet...well....24% body fat.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> Says he has no problem with disagreement provided it doesn't contain insults.
> 
> Ignores someone who presents nothing but the facts, in an unambiguous way, sans insults.
> 
> ...


 Says that you need to go back to your classes, if you ever had any.

He presented the facts, I corrected him. So his facts are BS except the BF%, which is correct because it's literally copied from what I said. Which you also so graciously reported now.

You lot really have some spare time on your hands, don't you?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> If your ability to stick to ignoring my posts is in any way similar to your ability to stick to a diet...well....24% body fat.


 Aw, it's like listening to a broken record of an old man: it's annoying, but kind of entertaining.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh look someone voicing his opinion with no knowledge of fasting speaks.


 oh look someone voicing his opinion with no knowledge of losing fat speaks 

see what i did there


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> oh look someone voicing his opinion with no knowledge of losing fat speaks
> 
> see what i did there


 I did. I've seen plenty of you did here and I'm not impressed.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I can assure you, I always push myself to the limit in the gym


 But science, common sense, and every other yardstick you could care to mention will state that you can't push yourself as much with low energy levels as compared to high.

Try running a mile as fast as you can. Rest 5 minutes and do it again. You won't match your first time.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Not what I said - learn to read.
> 
> I expected criticism - was kind of counting on it just to highlight flaws. But not this bigotry and bile.
> 
> ...


 those "some people" were clients of mine i have coached Bodybuilders and normal guys and girls who train for nearly 20yrs, i have pretty done every conceivable way to lose fat myself in my 30yrs competing and used pretty much all of the methods with 3rd parties.....have i done fasting, Yes and i currently fast until midday not because i want to lose fat but because it fits with my lifestyle.....have i used prolonged fasting with clients again yes we have tried EOD, 2, 3 and 4 days fasting and with the exception of EOD and the 16/8 fast all other ways impacted on performance and the end result did NOT justify the method.....why do i need an excuse? i am not doing something that is stupid

you keep skipping over the research i mentioned but you fail to understand YOU posted it up along with one about EOD fasting (and a cpl more) as a way to show what you are doing is not stupid and has research to back it up, but no matter the way you slice it you cannot prove there is research to back up a 7 day fast by referencing a 40hr or EOD fasting study that's like saying you saying the car you drive is fast and show a study on how fast a bicycle can go to prove it........

i have made some very valid points yet your own bias has decided to ignore them and thats cool


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Marshall D. McCue, ed., Comparative Physiology of Fasting, Starvation, and Food Limitation (New York: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2012) (This is for you, @Ultrasonic, this one makes the comparison you want), see pic below
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


 None of those pictures compare metabolic rate between diets, which was the link I asked you to post for me? Unfortunately book references aren't as useful as those of the original research, since it's harder for others to track down. Also it's worth being a little more careful of data published in books rather than peer-reviewed journals, since books aren't peer reviewed.

The top graph makes me think of something else that I'll mention in passing though. The graph shows ~50g per day of protein loss after 3 days. The earlier study of yours I've commented on showed a loss of ~1.5g/kg of bodyweight per day. The meat we eat has ballpark 25g of protein per 100g, and although I don't know the actual figure for human muscle it's bound to be similar. So although 50g of protein per day doesn't sound like very much, this corresponds to the protein content of something like 200g of muscle, and if you look at say 200g of chicken breast you'll see this is quite a lot. Remember we're talking per day here. Now I'm not saying 100% of the protein lost will come from skeletal muscle, and I don't really have any good idea what the proportion might be, but it would be misleading to conclude that the graph suggests little muscle would be lost.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did. I've seen plenty of you did here and I'm not impressed.


 gutted


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> Son, you are waaay out of your league here. I didn't have to visit Wikipedia to call a spade a spade. You are rationalising, adding cognitions, and are in denial. That is all three components of dissonance reduction. Period.
> 
> P.S. - re read your Wiki quote. Specifically, this bit: "mental stress ... when confronted with new information that contradicts [your] of the beliefs, ideas, and values".


 :thumb


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Your statement is bollocks. Then again, I don't need to prove it to you - I'm logging all I do and being checked so yeah, your statement stands for nothing.
> 
> How smug you are. And yet you refuse to answer me.
> 
> ...


 You're on a public forum you child.

I'll stay and point out the nonsense for as long as it entertains me.

Probably up till the point you finish and realise you're still fat and failed again. Then it will be our fault huh?


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh look someone voicing his opinion with no knowledge of fasting speaks.


 And by the way. I fast regularly. And I'm still saying you're way off. You'll fail. And listen to the advice.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> As I've said many times, the previously posted studies were mainly there for support. Look at the post above yours. That should satisfy you.
> 
> Next month's surgery is a potentially massive tissue removal which will put me out of business for a couple weeks. Rather than fat loss, I'm concerned with the autophagy and cellular renewal, in order to speed up recovery, within reason. However, I will NOT fast after the surgery - that is the epitome of acting in a risky and unnecessary way.
> 
> ...


 They do not support your argument.

They are irrelevant.

You have no grasp of the scientific method. It is clear.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Less whiny than you are. And definitely smarter. And manlier too.


 Let's compare current body states... smarter at training and dieting??? Hmmm nice comeback there!! Delusional much!!


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did. I've seen plenty of you did here and I'm not impressed.


 Your not impressed by pscarbs physique and your cleverer when it comes to training than possibly the best physique on this board in the form of dltbb lol... I'm sure everyone will take you seriously now, would you like me to book a space shuttle to fetch your blanket and teddy back from orbit??


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Next month's surgery is a potentially massive tissue removal which will put me out of business for a couple weeks. Rather than fat loss, *I'm concerned with the autophagy and cellular renewal, in order to speed up recovery*, within reason. However, I will NOT fast after the surgery - that is the epitome of acting in a risky and unnecessary way.


 The part in bold I know absolutely nothing about BTW. I'm vaguely aware of general evidence for occasional fasting having health benefits but I've never looked further into this. So to be clear I am saying nothing one way or the other in relation to these aspects, or indeed whether they might actually make what you're doing in some sense a sensible plan. I honestly don't know.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> those "some people" were clients of mine i have coached Bodybuilders and normal guys and girls who train for nearly 20yrs, i have pretty done every conceivable way to lose fat myself in my 30yrs competing and used pretty much all of the methods with 3rd parties.....have i done fasting, Yes and i currently fast until midday not because i want to lose fat but because it fits with my lifestyle.....have i used prolonged fasting with clients again yes we have tried EOD, 2, 3 and 4 days fasting and with the exception of EOD and the 16/8 fast all other ways impacted on performance and the end result did NOT justify the method.....


 Interested in the work you did with the clients mentioned above ps

What was the motivation for the 16/8 and eod patterns in their case ? Was it just a preffered thing for them or did you find it helped for any specific reasons . i was motivated towards it as i gain fat easier than id like and lose it harder than id like and had read fasting helps with insulin sensitivity and thus nutrient partitioning. As mentioned earlier , once i get fat levels respectable im starting a noob level test run ( 300-500 , 12 weeks ) . given fat loss issues i want to gain without pilling too much fat on. Would i do better staying 16/8 throughout that run , 16/8 only on non training days or might i find test helps with nutrient partitiining to the extent that normal person eating ( ie breakfast then smaller meals throughout the day ) would give better results. Or indeed anything else you might suggest . Tia


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> But science, common sense, and every other yardstick you could care to mention will state that you can't push yourself as much with low energy levels as compared to high.
> 
> Try running a mile as fast as you can. Rest 5 minutes and do it again. You won't match your first time.


 That's not entirely true, is it? If you're trained the rest can allow you to match your first time, sometimes even exceed it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> you keep skipping over the research i mentioned but you fail to understand YOU posted it up along with one about EOD fasting (and a cpl more) as a way to show what you are doing is not stupid and has research to back it up, but no matter the way you slice it you cannot prove there is research to back up a 7 day fast by referencing a 40hr or EOD fasting study that's like saying you saying the car you drive is fast and show a study on how fast a bicycle can go to prove it........
> 
> i have made some very valid points yet your own bias has decided to ignore them and thats cool


 That's right, that's why I quoted research that covers up to a month of consecutive fasting. But hey, don't let me stop your "gloating" about not getting even the basic understanding.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> That's not entirely true, is it? If you're trained the rest can allow you to match your first time, sometimes even exceed it.


 Now you're an obvious troll. How can you exceed 100% effort.

I'm out.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> They do not support your argument.
> 
> They are irrelevant.
> 
> You have no grasp of the scientific method. It is clear.


 This from the guy who can't even be bothered to read them. Sure.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> Now you're an obvious troll. How can you exceed 100% effort.
> 
> I'm out.


 Who's talking about effort. I'm talking about result (time, distance). Was it really that difficult to grasp?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> You're on a public forum you child.
> 
> I'll stay and point out the nonsense for as long as it entertains me.
> 
> Probably up till the point you finish and realise you're still fat and failed again. Then it will be our fault huh?


 Yes, then it will be my fault. So?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> Your not impressed by pscarbs physique and your cleverer when it comes to training than possibly the best physique on this board in the form of dltbb lol... I'm sure everyone will take you seriously now, would you like me to book a space shuttle to fetch your blanket and teddy back from orbit??


 Who's talking about physique? I'm talking about attitude.


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Less whiny than you are. And definitely smarter. And manlier too.





Dark_Ansem said:


> Who's talking about physique? I'm talking about attitude.


 No you definately said you were smarter than dltbb and yet he can diet and stay trim while training, you also said manly which I'd include physique in with that, nothing to do with attitude!! And pscarb has been nothing but helpful and explained why he was saying what he did... the irony of the bloke with the wank attitude stating that one of the most helpful guys on here has a bad attitude lol


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

superdrol said:


> No you definately said you were smarter than dltbb and yet he can diet and stay trim while training, you also said manly which I'd include physique in with that, nothing to do with attitude!! And pscarb has been nothing but helpful and explained why he was saying what he did... the irony of the bloke with the wank attitude stating that one of the most helpful guys on here has a bad attitude lol


 Oh, I do feel sorry for you if you understood it that way. If YOU include physique in that, your problem.

Also, helpful? Hardly. Especially today, that he literally came in just to troll. Helpful in the sense that I had a good laugh?


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Who's talking about physique? I'm talking about attitude.


 I'm pretty sure anybody who has read, lurked or posted in this thread (besides you of course) would agree you have the worst attitude in here.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> I'm pretty sure anybody who has read, lurked or posted in this thread (besides you of course) would agree you have the worst attitude in here.


 First of all, it's false.

Secondly, if it were true (care to back that up?) you all can thank your sorry selves for that. If pretty much all of you had not started hurling insults as if there was no tomorrow and getting all prissy and upset when I actually counter-argument properly, my attitude would have stayed exactly like in the OP. The amount of close-mindedness here is outstanding. But of course you won't agree to any of that. I should have shut up and taken the insults just because eh?


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I am 24% body fat but I am also an expert in fat loss and fasting.


 Sounds legit.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Bollocks. I never said that.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I get upset sometimes because I have the estrogen levels of a teenage girl.


 Don't worry about it mate.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> I have a small dick and failed at everything in life except at pretending to look pretty because I'm a closeted cretin with so low self-esteem that when people tell me to f*ck myself I actually try. Also, I make completely fake posts because I'm one of the idiotic numbskull thickos who voted for Brexit so I prefer #alternativefacts to real life because I have no skills.


 Shh, shh, it's all right.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Shh, shh, it's all right.


 You typed your post in the wrong field.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> You typed your post in the wrong field.


 Took you long enough to notice.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Are you done with the pointless snarking?


----------



## superdrol (Aug 9, 2012)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh, I do feel sorry for you if you understood it that way. If YOU include physique in that, your problem.
> 
> Also, helpful? Hardly. Especially today, that he literally came in just to troll. Helpful in the sense that I had a good laugh?


 So you didn't say you were smarter than him?? In a thread about you being large and well... a bit fat... when he's in good nick?? And therefore far smarter in all aspects of what this threads about than you... yet in plain English you said you were smarter than him? I drew no assumptions just based what I thought on what you'd said lol, unlike you when reading studies... pot kettle and a dark colour springs to mind...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Yeah I did say that. I couldn't care less in what nick anyone is. If Pscarb or DLTBB tomorrow decide to stop training and get fat would their advice be less wise just because they aren't muscled anymore?

Not smarter - more experienced (that is, the others are, about muscle building and whatnot). Which I never denied. Certainly in fat loss. Don't think so about fasting.

You know, I read the studies in full. If you don't like them, fine. But don't go around telling me you know more than the people behind them.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Yeah I did say that. I couldn't care less in what nick anyone is.
> 
> Not smarter - more experienced. Which I never denied. Certainly in fat loss. Don't think so about fasting.
> 
> You know, I read the studies in full. If you don't like them, fine. But don't go around telling me you know more than the people behind them.


 Trying and failing miserably for ten years hardly counts as experience.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> Trying and failing miserably for ten years hardly counts as experience.


 When I say "more experienced" I'm talking about you people. Not me.

Let me say it in Simple English "I said that DLTBB, PScarb and the others are more experienced than me at fat loss and muscle building."
I admit it freely because my head isn't stuck up my arse like yours looks today (EDIT: today. heh. I suspect it's a lot more than that. Like, 365 days per year). You must be in your period - here, have back the tampon you gave me before, Lord knows why.

You may also be more experienced in fasting, suddenly now Pscarb says that - how convenient, he could have said it before.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

@Dark_Ansem are you going to be able to point me to the data that compares the effect of fasting on metabolic rate with other diets? I see the graph you posted above showed a small increase over the first few days of a fast but I've never actually seen equivalent data for other diets to know what to make of this.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> @Dark_Ansem are you going to be able to point me to the data that compares the effect of fasting on metabolic rate with other diets? I see the graph you posted above showed a small increase over the first few days of a fast but I've never actually seen equivalent data for other diets to know what to make of this.


 I'm sending it to you via PM.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm sending it to you via PM.


 Why not post it publicly? I'll only do this myself when talking about it...


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Why not post it publicly? I'll only do this myself when talking about it...


 You can make the point publicly, if you want. TBH I think it's more appropriate to simply abandon this thread because it's making me waste an immense amount of time because of idiot trolls. They may have all the time in the world, but I don't.


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You can make the point publicly, if you want. TBH I think it's more appropriate to simply abandon this thread because it's making me waste an immense amount of time because of idiot trolls. They may have all the time in the world, but I don't.


 Translation: I broke my fast because I had a hard day and binge ate a weeks worth of calories in one sitting.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

DLTBB said:


> Translation: I have no brain nor originality so I had to say the stupidest thing possible - which is still an improvement in comparison to the utter pish I said the rest of the day.


 There, I fixed your message for you. Thanks for proving my point.

At any rate, don't worry. One day you'll be strong too, instead of an easily triggered hysterical girl with a lousy sense of humour.

But thanks for sharing what you would have done. I really appreciate it.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

gazzamongo said:


> You sound like a guy that has tried stuff and found what works. What is your view of the effectiveness of adf ( which I've been referring to as e.o.d ) compared to a daily deficit or other protocols you may have done. I'm currently fasting ,5:2 or 4:3 , doing fortitude training m,t ,th Fri with wed,sat and sun being non training days (and therefore easy days to fast on,). I'm not experienced doing cuts but never found daily caloric restriction easy to adhere to whereas being fed on training days and a hard restriction on days when I'm not in the gym ( but trying to be active , at work , walking the dog , some hiit/liss ) feels sustainable for as long as i need to do it ( I'm about four weeks in and seeing steady fat loss without too much muscle loss ). Never had bodyfat levels below the low teens and really want to get there this time so any help greatly received ( going to give Injectable l-carnitine a run soon as unless we're living in a simulation then the entire membership of professional muscle can't be shills... Can they? ) Also have some 125mg caps of the dubious notorious poison handy ( not used before ) which some say pairs well with the l-carnitine . Cheers


 Hey @arbffgadm100

Sorry to be an ignorant f**k , bumping stuff , thought this might have got lost in the bants. Interested in any thoughts you might have on it  if none , no bother.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

gazzamongo said:


> Interested in the work you did with the clients mentioned above ps
> 
> What was the motivation for the 16/8 and eod patterns in their case ? Was it just a preffered thing for them or did you find it helped for any specific reasons . i was motivated towards it as i gain fat easier than id like and lose it harder than id like and had read fasting helps with insulin sensitivity and thus nutrient partitioning. As mentioned earlier , once i get fat levels respectable im starting a noob level test run ( 300-500 , 12 weeks ) . given fat loss issues i want to gain without pilling too much fat on. Would i do better staying 16/8 throughout that run , 16/8 only on non training days or might i find test helps with nutrient partitiining to the extent that normal person eating ( ie breakfast then smaller meals throughout the day ) would give better results. Or indeed anything else you might suggest . Tia


 Hey @Pscarb disclaimer as per previous post re bumping

Be grearful for any ideas or advice you might have.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> This from the guy who can't even be bothered to read them. Sure.


 I did. And as others have already said, and already pointed out why, the are irrelevant.

My points stand.

You have no clue what you are doing or what you are talking about. Others here do.

You should be seeking advice as opposed to turning your nose up at those helping you and telling you why you are wrong.

You are "that guy".

You are wasting your own time and no one elses.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> I did. And as others have already said, and already pointed out why, the are irrelevant.
> 
> My points stand.
> 
> ...


 Your point is non-existant. And you didn't read them, you liar, because most of them are under a subscription which you most certainly don't have and others are textbooks which you couldn't even bother to google!

I'm wasting time? Sure, but it's my time. If you are not interested, go. Have this thread deleted, even, I don't care! It's not my only log nor the most accurate. It's the one most full of idiotic trolls and know-it-alls however!


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> First of all, it's false.
> 
> Secondly, if it were true (care to back that up?) you all can thank your sorry selves for that. If pretty much all of you had not started hurling insults as if there was no tomorrow and getting all prissy and upset when I actually counter-argument properly, my attitude would have stayed exactly like in the OP. The amount of close-mindedness here is outstanding. But of course you won't agree to any of that. I should have shut up and taken the insults just because eh?


 Yes.

See?

Told you it would be our fault.

I concur.

You have a terrible attitude.

If you can't see the asshole in the room.......


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Yes.
> 
> See?
> 
> ...


 I can see them. Plenty. The stench is unbearable. Luckily, I washed.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> There, I fixed your message for you. Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> At any rate, don't worry. One day you'll be strong too, instead of an easily triggered hysterical girl with a lousy sense of humour.
> 
> But thanks for sharing what you would have done. I really appreciate it.


 "Strong" yet abandoning the thread?

Poor effort.

Support your points or just don't make them. You've came somewhere looking for advice. Received advice then argued with everyone and then spat the dummy as everyone took the piss.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> "Strong" yet abandoning the thread?
> 
> Poor effort.
> 
> Support your points or just don't make them. You've came somewhere looking for advice. Received advice then argued with everyone and then spat the dummy as everyone took the piss.


 This "thread" is making me waste an immense amount of time with your trollish comments.
I didn't ask for advice, if you read my OP. Someone was gracious enough to give some, and I appreciate it. This does not mean, by far, that I have to follow it. Especially considering that this advice is seasoned with insults.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Your point is non-existant. And you didn't read them, you liar, because most of them are under a subscription which you most certainly don't have and others are textbooks which you couldn't even bother to google!
> 
> I'm wasting time? Sure, but it's my time. If you are not interested, go. Have this thread deleted, even, I don't care! It's not my only log nor the most accurate. It's the one most full of idiotic trolls and know-it-alls however!


 Yeah. I'm capable of using the internet buddy.

Not that difficult.

Which ones in particular would you like to discuss?

You pick.

I'll respond.

And what about my points are you saying is non existent?

That they don't relate to you?


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I can see them. Plenty. The stench is unbearable. Luckily, I washed.


 Ah, you don't know the quote.

That doesn't surprise me.

The end is.......you are the asshole


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Yeah. I'm capable of using the internet buddy.
> 
> Not that difficult.
> 
> ...


 Sure, let's talk about this one:

Wilmore, J.H., Costill, D.L., & Kenney, W.L. (2007). Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Do you have ANYTHING that can disprove the graph that I bothered to post straight from the book?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Ah, you don't know the quote.
> 
> That doesn't surprise me.
> 
> The end is.......you are the asshole


 I know the quote full well, and I suggest you get a mirror, you wannabe comedian.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Sure, let's talk about this one:
> 
> Wilmore, J.H., Costill, D.L., & Kenney, W.L. (2007). Physiology of sport and exercise. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
> 
> Do you have ANYTHING that can disprove the graph that I bothered to post straight from the book?


 See when I said you don't understand the scientific method? This is exactly why. You cannot disprove anything. It doesn't work like that.

Google the scientific method and then get back to me. Disproving something is not something you can do within science. What you are looking for is an emergent truth. Which the study does not provide. You extrapolate from graphs like a fool. It doesn't work.that way.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I know the quote full well, and I suggest you get a mirror, you wannabe comedian.


 Oh I wasn't kidding.

I have many mirros.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Care to narrow down which bit you'd like to discuss as you are referencing an entire book.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> See when I said you don't understand the scientific method? This is exactly why. You cannot disprove anything. It doesn't work like that.
> 
> Google the scientific method and then get back to me. Disproving something is not something you can do within science. What you are looking for is an emergent truth. Which the study does not provide. You extrapolate from graphs like a fool. It doesn't work.that way.


 You are telling me I don't understand the scientific method... hilarious really.

Ah, so you don't have it.

The graph is very clear: it depicts which nutrients are consumed during a long fast. Subjects were overweight, male and female, of various age.

Chapter 14, PP 326-328. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate that the majority of weight lost during fasts is water, rather than fat - but at the same time, it demonstrates that fasting consumes a relatively small amount of lean mass, and several times the same amount in fat. However, the authors also say that athletes over weight standard should lose no more than 1kg per week-

But all of this is extra. Fact is the study made on the sample shows that fasting works, and works well, for burning fat - in fact, they did it for 30 days and no one died.



simonboyle said:


> Oh I wasn't kidding.
> 
> I have many mirros.


 Well you must have broken all of them when passing by because you're a living turd and don't know it.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> The graph is very clear: it depicts which nutrients are consumed during a long fast. Subjects were overweight, male and female, of various age.
> 
> Chapter 14, PP 326-328. The purpose of the study is to demonstrate that the majority of weight lost during fasts is water, rather than fat - but at the same time, it demonstrates that fasting consumes a relatively small amount of lean mass, and several times the same amount in fat. However, the authors also say that athletes over weight standard should lose no more than 1kg per week-
> 
> But all of this is extra. Fact is the study made on the sample shows that fasting works, and works well, for burning fat - in fact, they did it for 30 days and no one died.


 As I've already explained in the following earlier post, that graph doesn't show what you think/want it to:

http://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/299645-7-day-water-fast-log-challenge-hellish-hence-why-its-a-challenge/?do=findComment&comment=5677141


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You are telling me I don't understand the scientific method... hilarious really.
> 
> Ah, so you don't have it.
> 
> ...


 Why is it hilarious?

Again. You can not disprove something.

If you had any knowledge of the method you wouldn't respond with "hilarious really" . It's year one stuff for anyone who has studied any of the sciences. So no. No one can disprove it.

And to answer your question, see above post.

And no. None of my mirrors are broken. You even suck at insulting people. You are an all round failure.

Congrats.

Again, you are "that guy".


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

The graphs show muscle/protein loss.

You can surely see that, right? I mean it is there in colour and it is your link.

It does not show protein being spared. You need to 're read it as opposed to mis quoting it.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> The graphs show muscle/protein loss.
> 
> You can surely see that, right? I mean it is there in colour and it is your link.
> 
> It does not show protein being spared. You need to 're read it as opposed to mis quoting it.


 Oh that is precious, turning the facts on me!

And I'm a failure, that's rich coming from you - sorry it took so long to respond, but was doing something more important - and with someone far more interesting. After that I went to sleep.

Besides, your insults are so dumb and 'original' (heh) I had to keep myself to your level, it's so low down here, I can see the worms, oh, wait, here's one, hey simonboyle!

At least we agree that you can't disprove any of the studies I pointed. And since this one ran for so long, this will shut you up about "not being applicable for one week".

I am extremely aware that there is SOME lean mass being lost. But, if you had bothered to read from day 1, lean mass sparing quality is only one thing that I consider valid about fasting. I dare you to find one message in which I say "100% muscle sparing - no lean mass loss". Don't bother, you won't find any. Also, the fat oxydation properties are somewhat important to consider, no?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I am extremely aware that there is SOME lean mass being lost. But, if you had bothered to read from day 1, lean mass sparing quality is only one thing that I consider valid about fasting. I dare you to find one message in which I say "100% muscle sparing - no lean mass loss". Don't bother, you won't find any. Also, the fat oxydation properties are somewhat important to consider, no?


 The trouble is though you still seem to be under the impression that fasting may offer some form of muscle sparing advantage when in fact it may even be the absolute WORST option for trying to preserve muscle.

The amounts of muscle loss that graph suggests would be considered terrible by most here, especially at relatively high body fat levels.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> The trouble is though you still seem to be under the impression that fasting may offer some form of muscle sparing advantage when in fact it may even be the absolute WORST option for trying to preserve muscle.
> 
> The amounts of muscle loss that graph suggests would be considered terrible by most here, especially at relatively high body fat levels.


 I can understand that - how much you'd say that translates in terms of kg/lbs?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I can understand that - how much you'd say that translates in terms of kg/lbs?


 Read the post I linked to above.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Read the post I linked to above.


 I did that - according to your estimate, I'd have lost 1kg of muscle already.

Does that take into account the Glycogen?

Out of curiosity, is the estimate you made valid for fat as well?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I did that - according to your estimate, I'd have lost 1kg of muscle already.


 What I said was much less specific than that.



> Out of curiosity, is the estimate you made valid for fat as well?


 No.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> No.


 So what would be the equivalent for fat, in your opinion?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

That's more complicated and so I don't have a quick answer.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> That's more complicated and so I don't have a quick answer.


 No problem, thanks.

Well, we will just have to see. Since you disapprove of calipers and I can't get a DEXA scan, are there any other methods you'd consider for determining how much lean mass was lost?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> No problem, thanks.
> 
> Well, we will just have to see. Since you disapprove of calipers and I can't get a DEXA scan, are there any other methods you'd consider for determining how much lean mass was lost?


 Not that you can do, especially given you won't have a baseline. Note that lean mass and muscle are not the same thing BTW.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I think I know where I can find an estimate for the fat loss BTW - I'll have a look later. I'm training now.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> I think I know where I can find an estimate for the fat loss BTW - I'll have a look later. I'm training now.


 Have a great training session. I'll just see where to have a DEXA scan.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Have a great training session. I'll just see where to have a DEXA scan.


 It would be a total waste of money and would also actually expose you to a totally unnecessary radiation dose (albeit a very small one). Don't bother.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Oh that is precious, turning the facts on me!
> 
> And I'm a failure, that's rich coming from you - sorry it took so long to respond, but was doing something more important - and with someone far more interesting. After that I went to sleep.
> 
> ...


 So whitty.

No, not "I" can't disprove. It can not be done you absolute fool.

How do you disprove a graph then you complete fool?

There are reasons you are a fat slob and your attitude is the main one.

You, yes you, keep stating "muscle sparing " many times. In many posts. Then post links and graphs clearly.pointing to the opposite.

Fat and stupid is no way to go through life. Deal with your issues you utter pellet.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

OK. I've hidden some unnecessary posts. Any more personal abuse will accrue warning points and the thread locked. This is a debate. No need for schoolground insults.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Be a fu**ing man and admit your clueless and wrong.


 Also, let me be absolutely clear: once it's proved I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. I don't care about being right at all costs.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Way to avoid the points though, well done.

And sure. I only know ten words. Yup. Whatever makes you happy and gets you through being a fat fool who knows nothing.

You are full of win.

Just full of it.

****wit.

It suits you.

And plenty of "fasting" diets advocate amino acids. You'd know that had you read up on them.

Sparing still means sparing. You keep posting it.

And something is 100%. That you'll fail at this.

You're predictable. Like how you're now being nice to one poster. Like every guy who starts s**t. Picks one and will be "you're alright, don't have a problem with you, it's everyone else"


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Mingster said:


> OK. I've hidden some unnecessary posts. Any more personal abuse will accrue warning points and the thread locked. This is a debate. No need for schoolground insults.


 Well forgive me for defending myself. Or you expect me to simply take all of the abuse without batting an eyelash?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Way to avoid the points though, well done.
> 
> And sure. I only know ten words. Yup. Whatever makes you happy and gets you through being a fat fool who knows nothing.
> 
> ...


 I didn't avoid any points. I guess it's bus time for you.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Also, let me be absolutely clear: once it's proved I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. I don't care about being right at all costs.


 Your posts prove otherwise.

I apologise for the abuse.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I didn't avoid any points. I guess it's bus time for you.


 Uh huh.

So 're read my posts and answer the questions.


----------



## Mingster (Mar 25, 2011)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Well forgive me for defending myself. Or you expect me to simply take all of the abuse without batting an eyelash?


 Two wrongs don't make a right. Someone who retaliates is equally culpable as the instigator. Now carry on with your thread without commenting on mod decisions.

I suggest you read posting rule 11.

https://www.uk-muscle.co.uk/topic/73309-uk-musclecouk-posting-rules/?do=embed


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

simonboyle said:


> Your posts prove otherwise.
> 
> I apologise for the abuse.


 I doubt your sincerity.

I didn't post the final data, did I? So, as of now, I have nothing to admit I'm wrong about.

Also, FYI, fasting does NOT require ammino-acids to be taken, most authors would consider it superflous. In fact, no study I quoted actually showed an ammino-acid intake

I mean, I bet few people have done a full fast here on the forums. You all could AT LEAST be curious about how it goes without hurling insults and trolling.

PS: I am always nice. I only retaliated to the abuse you people started. Blame yourselves. I don't have to prove moral superiority to faceless online strangers who had no reservation at treating me like crap.



simonboyle said:


> Uh huh.
> 
> So 're read my posts and answer the questions.


 Recap them please. They got lost in the insults, abuse and general trolling.

Also, please do remember that I might have answered them, even if you don't like the answer.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> So what would be the equivalent for fat, in your opinion?


 The following link suggest that body 'fat' is about 85-90% actual fat:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/3500-calorie-rule.html/

Let's look at where I think you were going with this. From day 3 onwards your graph shows something like 50g of protein and 300g of fat lost per day. Earlier I suggested the protein figure would correspond to up to 200g of muscle, and taking the 85% figure above this would be compared to about 350g of fat. I would suggest that this doesn't look like a muscle sparing ratio to me. (Yes I don't know what proportion of protein loss will actually come from muscle, but in the absence of evidence that it overwhelmingly comes from other sources I think the point stands.)

This might be obvious but just I'll just explain why there is a big difference in the scaling for muscle and fat. The body stores fat in cells that essentially act like balloons filled with fat - they expand or contract depending how much fat they contain but it's rare for them to be destroyed, or for that matter for new fat cells to be created. When it comes to muscle though protein is the fundamental building block of the tissue structure, so when protein is lost from muscle the whole structure goes, along with all the water etc.

The next logical point is that the people fasting to provide the data for the graph probably weren't weight training? The trouble is I doubt anyone is too sure how muscle sparing weight training might be under fasting conditions, or indeed if it would be at all. Training itself leads to muscle damage after all.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> The following link suggest that body 'fat' is about 85-90% actual fat:
> 
> http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/3500-calorie-rule.html/
> 
> ...


 Thanks. I agree that, in doubt, it's better to be safe - even if we will take the glycogen into account.
I'm aware that fat cells are not destroyed nor created (unless you do liposuction or are morbidly obese).

Well, according to the research, any kind of fasting promotes GH - which is supposed to be anabolic - even if longer (more than 2 weeks) periods of fasting see a decrease of this bonus. The same research and the leading modern author for fasting say that weight training is recommended during fast periods (I can testify, I did it), as in theory autophagy, GH increase and nutrient usage due to the ketosis should provide for muscle repair, but fasting without weight training leads to faster muscle breakdown. Which sounds reasonable to me.

I can send you the original source if you want, but via PM because it's copyrighted material which I own legitimately (necessary clarification).


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Thanks. I agree that, in doubt, it's better to be safe - even if we will take the glycogen into account.


 I think I have already taken glycogen into account, since I used supermarket meat as my basis, which has virtually zero carb content.



> Well, according to the research, any kind of fasting promotes GH - which is supposed to be anabolic - even if longer (more than 2 weeks) periods of fasting see a decrease of this bonus.


 As I commented earlier I think looking at GH tells you absolutely nothing about muscle retention, just as looking at cortisol in isolation wouldn't.



> The same research and the leading modern author for fasting say that weight training is recommended during fast periods (I can testify, I did it), as not in theory both autophagy, GH increase and nutrient usage due to the ketosis should provide for muscle repair, but fasting without weight training leads to faster muscle breakdown. Which sounds reasonable to me.
> 
> I can send you the original source if you want, but via PM because it's copyrighted material.


 Sure, send it to me. Let me say one thing first though - there is an important distinction to be made between people who don't usually resistance train beginning to do so when fasting, as compared to people who have built any significant amount of muscle with previous weight training. If the research only covers the former we'd want to be very cautious about applying it to the latter.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

gazzamongo said:


> Interested in the work you did with the clients mentioned above ps
> 
> What was the motivation for the 16/8 and eod patterns in their case ? Was it just a preffered thing for them or did you find it helped for any specific reasons . i was motivated towards it as i gain fat easier than id like and lose it harder than id like and had read fasting helps with insulin sensitivity and thus nutrient partitioning. As mentioned earlier , once i get fat levels respectable im starting a noob level test run ( 300-500 , 12 weeks ) . given fat loss issues i want to gain without pilling too much fat on. Would i do better staying 16/8 throughout that run , 16/8 only on non training days or might i find test helps with nutrient partitiining to the extent that normal person eating ( ie breakfast then smaller meals throughout the day ) would give better results. Or indeed anything else you might suggest . Tia


 essentially the reason for both 16/8 and EOD was done to personal preferences, i prefer to use the 16/8 with clients but for some time frame and lifestyle means they can push this to EOD.

the underlying reason for using fasting in my opinion, is low calories and adherence (obviously an improvement in body composition) when i bring a clients calories down then spacing those calories over an 8hr period is far better than if they were spaced over a full day.......its not any more complicated than that to be honest, i have clients who for one reason or another cannot do cardio so the deficit has to come from the reduction in calories so getting them to fast helps with adherence........

EOD is a tad more extreme and really only tried this with a few clients who can and will adhere to the protocol, as i mentioned in previous posts i have tried 3-4 day fasts but never seen the benefit when looking at muscle retention and fatloss over say EOD fasting and adherence is a real issue with 3-4 day fasts.....

practical application of science has to be the number one rule when seeking verification from studies, just because a paper says xyz happens means nothing if the person cannot adhere to the protocol.....



Dark_Ansem said:


> That's right, that's why I quoted research that covers up to a month of consecutive fasting. But hey, don't let me stop your "gloating" about not getting even the basic understanding.


 i am not gloating i am disagreeing.......my track record and my own accomplishments in this industry speaks more for the fact i have not only the basics understanding of nutrition but a much higher level of understanding.



Dark_Ansem said:


> Who's talking about physique? I'm talking about attitude.


 and your's stinks



gazzamongo said:


> Hey @Pscarb disclaimer as per previous post re bumping
> 
> Be grearful for any ideas or advice you might have.


 weekend buddy time to spend with family not answer questions on a forum


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> and your's stinks


 I'm not a moderator/administrator nor someone with such a high track record of success. I guess you don't know what "mentoring" means, by far. If anything, YOU of all people should lead by example, in place of behaving like a thug.

EDIT: and at least I didn't act the way you did unwarranted - and always tried to argue and reason sensibly. You started the insults, I don't have to hold back.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm not a moderator/administrator nor someone with such a high track record of success. I guess you don't know what "mentoring" means, by far. If anything, YOU of all people should lead by example, in place of behaving like a thug.


 i am behaving like a thug because i disagree with you.......mmmm ok

i am not a mentor i am a MOD meaning i Moderate this forum.....nothing more nothing less


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> i am behaving like a thug because i disagree with you.......mmmm ok
> 
> i am not a mentor i am a MOD meaning i Moderate this forum.....nothing more nothing less


 I *like *disagreement. It's the only way to improve. What you did was disagreeing (which was OK), then hurling insults and quasi-witty remarks paired with boasting (Lord knows why you need to boast - no one here is denying your success).

Yes well, being a moderator you should lead by example. Are you familiar with Rules 1 & 2? I suggest you refresh your memory.


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I *like *disagreement. It's the only way to improve. What you did was disagreeing (which was OK), then hurling insults and quasi-witty remarks paired with boasting (Lord knows why you need to boast - no one here is denying your success).
> 
> Yes well, being a moderator you should lead by example. Are you familiar with Rules 1 & 2? I suggest you refresh your memory.


 nothing in the rules say i should lead by example.....and nothing i have said has broken rules 1 or 2

again you are not liking the fact that i disagree with you simple fact, i have not boasted i have said my success speaks for itself, boasting would be for me to name all those achievements which i have not done..........


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

gazzamongo said:


> Hey @arbffgadm100
> 
> Sorry to be an ignorant f**k , bumping stuff , thought this might have got lost in the bants. Interested in any thoughts you might have on it  if none , no bother.


 The effectiveness is individual. Not for any other reason than some people need to eat every day, and others don't.

ADF vs 5:2 vs 16/8 vs identical macros very day vs carb cycling vs whatever is a matter of preference.

Absolutely *nothing* makes any difference to the *RATE* at which you lose body fat, other than the consistency of your deficit per unit time. Period. (Which is why this fu**ing idiot is getting so much s**t for sounding off when he posts utter drivel on a public forum, then exhibits massive dissonance when confronted with the truth.)


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> nothing in the rules say i should lead by example.....and nothing i have said has broken rules 1 or 2
> 
> again you are not liking the fact that i disagree with you simple fact, i have not boasted i have said my success speaks for itself, boasting would be for me to name all those achievements which i have not done..........


 Well you are a poor moderator if you can't follow the rules you enforce for others, are you not? You'd make an excellent Conservative/UKIP however.

Well, you did. Sorry to break it to you - but calling others stupid breaks at least rule 1.

Secondly, I like the fact that you disagree - but I don't like how you try to spin reasonable facts just because you want to be right at all costs. I mean, Ultrasonic put a reasonable argument - did you see either of us getting carried away?

Saying "My success speaks for itself" is boasting, in case you don't know. But as I said, your successes are very evident, even if from pictures alone. So yeah, I know.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> The effectiveness is individual. Not for any other reason than some people need to eat every day, and others don't.
> 
> ADF vs 5:2 vs 16/8 vs identical macros very day vs carb cycling vs whatever is a matter of preference.
> 
> Absolutely *nothing* makes any difference to the *RATE* at which you lose body fat, other than the consistency of your deficit per unit time. Period. (Which is why this fu**ing idiot is getting so much s**t for sounding off when he posts utter drivel on a public forum, then exhibits massive dissonance when confronted with the truth.)


 Ah bless you, still using words incorrectly. But hey, don't let me stop you - what do these PhD and their peer-reviewed research know when there's you, knowing all answers?


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Ah bless you, still using words incorrectly. But hey, don't let me stop you - what do these PhD and their peer-reviewed research know when there's you, knowing all answers?


 You are literally a moron.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> You are literally a moron.


 Why, thank you. I wish you all the best in trying to reach this point of being a "moron". It's still a long way from down there, where you are, but not to worry, eventually you'll see the light.


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Incidentally, to choose the most effective method to lose bodyfat, since you're so au fait with the scientific method, you clearly and obviously have completed a thorough review of the literature, yourself. That is, all of it. Not just on fasting, but on every conceivable method. Then you must have weighed this again the practicalities of your personal situation (i.e., you're a moron, are really fu**ing fat, and depressingly lazy - regrettably, not an uncommon set of variables in modern Britain) in order to critically apply the methods that shine through in the weight of the literature. Last time I checked, I didn't see any systematic reviews/meta-analysis--which as you know are the gold standard in the hierarchy of evidence--that showed a 7-day water fast was effective, let alone advisable.

Finally, my above statement is entirely correct (i.e., nothing else matters but the consistency of the deficit per unit time). Were that not so, you wouldn't be FASTING, would you?

PS - in respect to your point about some Ph.D knowing more about a subject I am qualified in: I have four degree and post graduate qualifications, have been to both Durham and Oxford, and can spot your primary-school-like 'critical' (LOL) analysis a mile off. So bore off with the "you're wrong but I won't point out why" bullshit. Either quote me on something directly and point me to the WEIGHT of literature that states otherwise (i.e., not just some abstract of one study you spent 5 mins finding on pubmed), or STFU.


----------



## arbffgadm100 (Jun 3, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Why, thank you. I wish you all the best in trying to reach this point of being a "moron". It's still a long way from down there, where you are, but not to worry, eventually you'll see the light.


 Indeed. Call me when you lose your virginity.


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> Indeed. Call me when you lose your virginity.


 Lost it quite a long time ago with your sister and your mother, working in the traffic. I know!

That poor mother of yours. She told me that, when you were born, she asked to be cleaned with toilet paper.

Now, are you done with the cheap insults and ready to be as mature and "well-cultured" as you claim to be?


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

Hey, @Dark_Ansem

I'm sure you have answered this already but I have got a bit lost in all the pages.What's the reason again why you are trying a drastic approach to fat lost and not a standard tried and tested approach world over? Genuinely curious.

If you failed on other easier methods before (I think you mentioned) why do you think a much harder and far more controversial one (in terms of weight loss v retaining muscle) will work for you?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

arbffgadm100 said:


> Incidentally, to choose the most effective method to lose bodyfat, since you're so au fait with the scientific method, you clearly and obviously have completed a thorough review of the literature, yourself. That is, all of it. Not just on fasting, but on every conceivable method. Then you must have weighed this again the practicalities of your personal situation (i.e., you're a moron, are really fu**ing fat, and depressingly lazy - regrettably, not an uncommon set of variables in modern Britain) in order to critically apply the methods that shine through in the weight of the literature. Last time I checked, I didn't see any systematic reviews/meta-analysis--which as you know are the gold standard in the hierarchy of evidence--that showed a 7-day water fast was effective, let alone advisable.
> 
> Finally, my above statement is entirely correct (i.e., nothing else matters but the consistency of the deficit per unit time). Were that not so, you wouldn't be FASTING, would you?
> 
> PS - in respect to your point about some Ph.D knowing more about a subject I am qualified in: I have four degree and post graduate qualifications, have been to both Durham and Oxford, and can spot your primary-school-like 'critical' (LOL) analysis a mile off. So bore off with the "you're wrong but I won't point out why" bullshit. Either quote me on something directly and point me to the WEIGHT of literature that states otherwise (i.e., not just some abstract of one study you spent 5 mins finding on pubmed), or STFU.


 I love your insults when you have literally nothing to add. Also, I love your assumptions about who I am - I mean, you know nothing about me except a couple numbers and selectively ignore all the rest of data - which someone au fait with the scientific method like you claims to be should find inconcievable, thanks to your very impressive qualifications. I bet your CV is a bore.

Did I need to post a review of the entire literature here? I'm really sorry about it, I had no idea, since you qualify people on the basis of their body fat %. Oh but wait, I did! I posted peer-reviewed literature and extracts, including a couple pieces unconcerned with fasting! Riveting stuff.

I don't doubt your statement about calorie deficit. Point me where I did and I'll apologise. If you can eh, because I didn't.

PS: In respect to you pointless list of degrees, here are mine.

MJur, MA, LLL, MSc, MiA, currently a UoL MPhil/PhD student with published peer-review research - all degrees since the MJur achieved while also working (I also got professional qualification while I was at it). I'm so impressed you went to Oxford: if anything, it means that there's a chance for everyone! Which I didn't doubt, after all, even Boris Johnson and the beloved PM, two paragons of incompetence and stupidity, are Oxford Graduates. If anything, you only prove that even the most expensive private education in the world can't change the nature of a thick school.

PPS: I never said that your general points are wrong. But your general points being wrong don't invalidate my specific ones. Is it too difficult for you to get?


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

JohhnyC said:


> Hey, @Dark_Ansem
> 
> I'm sure you have answered this already but I have got a bit lost in all the pages.What'sthe reason again why you are trying a drastic approach to fat lost and not a standard tried and tested approach world over? Genuinely curious.
> 
> If you failed on other easier methods before (I think you mentioned) why do you think a much harder and far more controversial one (in terms of weight loss v retaining muscle) will work for you?


 You didn't miss much. Pages and pages of insults to which I rightfully answered. And lots of research being either downright ignored or argued by people who lack even the most basic critical skill (with a number of exceptions).

For a number of reasons:

- I didn't yet try this one, and unlike most people here I'm open minded to try new stuff

- I don't have much time: I'm going to the surgeon's table next month, and I *want *(not need) to get rid as much fat as possible in order to avoid possible complications. I'm sure a number of people here now would be delighted to see me die during the operation, and I plan to deny them this pleasure.

- I evaluated the protocol on the basis of "tolerability-speed-results" and fasting matches both speed and result, but is definitely intolerable in the long-run

- Fasting is shown to be more BMR-friendly in the long term and boosts BMR in the short term. which shouldn't worry a one-week experiment but still, diets with calorie deficit do lower BMR in longer periods, even with exercise

- Fasting puts the body into Ketosis, and I have experience of keto diet, and I like it, but it always kicks in too slow for my taste. Fasting triggers ketosis as early as 24 hours

- Believe it or not, I find it more tolerable than severe (1500/1000) calorie restriction. I feel hungry sometimes, but more satisfied.

- For the ratio of fat burned, fasting has been shown by research to be not extremely harsh in terms of fat free mass sparing. Not completely, hence why I am taking ammino-acids to at least partially compensate this, and of course I'm training

- fasting can trigger autophagy of body cells, and produing newer, fresher tissue would help me during my surgery. Not enough research has been done on this, so I'll take what I can get

Also, I need to clarify: when I say "fail" you have to distinguish between the most recent period (february-now) and previous ones. In the most recent period it means I hardly lost any weight. In the past it means that the weight loss was there, but not enough fat.

HOWEVER, since apparently I GOT A WARNING for giving an insult-happy user the answer he deserved and the other user (who came here insulting me first) DID NOT, I'm going to abandon this thread. If you want more information PM me because I will *NOT *tolerate this mafia-like environment.

And I don't like Double Standards either, and here literally EVERYONE has been allowed to throw crap at me and I'm denied the right to defend myself.

It's clear that one should never try to cast pearls before swine.

So long, and thanks for the delightful memories. If anything, you people prove that we are ready for a reform of cybercrime Law.

If anyone else is interested in knowing how the fast goes, PM me.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You didn't miss much. Pages and pages of insults to which I rightfully answered. And lots of research being either downright ignored or argued by people who lack even the most basic critical skill (with a number of exceptions).
> 
> For a number of reasons:
> 
> ...


 Shame the way the thread went. I am genuinely curious to see the end result.

I missed a lot of the arguments to and fro but surely not eating anything for 7 days *is* the *fastest *way to lose weight, otherwise the golden rule of cals in and cals out has been broken. (Your bit in red). Usually works a treat for people in concentration camps

As to the warning, maybe consider that the warnings have been given both ways. One wouldn't be aware if others got a warning due to this thread.

By the way, if you are going under the knife next month, you might want to run this by your docs. It could very well be relevant for the anaesthetist and surgeon


----------



## 3752 (Jan 7, 2005)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You didn't miss much. Pages and pages of insults to which I rightfully answered. And lots of research being either downright ignored or argued by people who lack even the most basic critical skill (with a number of exceptions).
> 
> For a number of reasons:
> 
> ...


 i have explained in the replies to your messages that insults are one thing but when you insult a members family that goes too far, plus how do you know no one has been warned for insulting you??


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Pscarb said:


> i have explained in the replies to your messages that insults are one thing but when you insult a members family that goes too far, plus how do you know no one has been warned for insulting you??


 I couldn't care less at this point. Pretty much all of you need to go back to Ethics 101 because you have failed what it means to be fair.


----------



## CG88 (Jun 4, 2015)

Wow this thread escalated fast


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Dark_Ansem said:


> - *For the ratio of fat burned, fasting has been shown by research to be not extremely harsh in terms of fat free mass sparing.* Not completely, hence why I am taking ammino-acids to at least partially compensate this, and of course I'm training


 For the record I would not agree with this statement. Nothing you have posted provides any evidence of fasting being less 'harsh' than any other option, let alone what most would consider a sensible one.

Edit: I mean 'sensible' in terms of normal dieting to improve body composition. I appreciate your priorities are different.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I doubt your sincerity.
> 
> I didn't post the final data, did I? So, as of now, I have nothing to admit I'm wrong about.
> 
> ...


 No. They're there. Read them.

And yes of course it was everybody else's fault wasn't it.

I don't care if you doubt my sincerity.

I stand by everything I've said.

But it was you who was rude and abusive to others before I even started on this thread. You are responsible for your own actions, no one else.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Pscarb said:


> weekend buddy time to spend with family not answer questions on a forum


 Ill keep that in mind in future  appreciate the answers thanks ( was worried the question would be lost totally as this spins out into a 300 plus page Joe Jefferey style bant fest lol)


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I'm not a moderator/administrator nor someone with such a high track record of success. I guess you don't know what "mentoring" means, by far. If anything, YOU of all people should lead by example, in place of behaving like a thug.
> 
> EDIT: and at least I didn't act the way you did unwarranted - and always tried to argue and reason sensibly. You started the insults, I don't have to hold back.


 Why should he.

As has been pointed out by many here, your attitude stinks. He doesn't owe you a god damn thing. Mentor you, pfft. Grow up.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Lost it quite a long time ago with your sister and your mother, working in the traffic. I know!
> 
> That poor mother of yours. She told me that, when you were born, she asked to be cleaned with toilet paper.
> 
> Now, are you done with the cheap insults and ready to be as mature and "well-cultured" as you claim to be?


 Pot, kettle!


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I love your insults when you have literally nothing to add. Also, I love your assumptions about who I am - I mean, you know nothing about me except a couple numbers and selectively ignore all the rest of data - which someone au fait with the scientific method like you claims to be should find inconcievable, thanks to your very impressive qualifications. I bet your CV is a bore.
> 
> Did I need to post a review of the entire literature here? I'm really sorry about it, I had no idea, since you qualify people on the basis of their body fat %. Oh but wait, I did! I posted peer-reviewed literature and extracts, including a couple pieces unconcerned with fasting! Riveting stuff.
> 
> ...


 Proof that you have published peer reviewed papers.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> You didn't miss much. Pages and pages of insults to which I rightfully answered. And lots of research being either downright ignored or argued by people who lack even the most basic critical skill (with a number of exceptions).
> 
> For a number of reasons:
> 
> ...


 See.

Told you.

You're right, everyone else is wrong.

It is everyone else's fault.

Sure.

"That guy"


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Dark_Ansem said:


> I couldn't care less at this point. Pretty much all of you need to go back to Ethics 101 because you have failed what it means to be fair.


 Again. Everyone else is at fault. God man, change the bloody record.


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

(Doesn't sound like a serious Q. Actually is)

Any info out there on the effect on gains of getting involved in Extreme bantz ? Gotta be catabolic having your body swimming in fight or flight hormones for hours, nay days or weeks on end?


----------



## anabolik (Aug 19, 2010)

OP seems to have mistaken this place for an anorexia forum. We are here to build muscle, not starve ourselves like teenage girls.


----------



## NorthernSoul (Nov 7, 2011)

This thing is only an experiment and clearly labbled it in the title. Maybe unhealthy but people do this for penance and religious reasons all over the globe. But these people who do it for these reasons do not train, e.g. Amir Kahn during September fasting has time out. But I'm guessing OP isn't a world level boxer training 6-8 hours a day. Suppose it could be looked at as a little fun to see what the outcome could be, if it doesn't work or do anything then that's trial and error and live and learn. Reminds me when I did 2 weeks of protein shakes when I was a teenager and people said I was dumb. I probably was a dumb teenager but I lost a sh*t load of body fat in those two weeks lol.

Positive or negative outcome, no one else is the labrat apart from the volunteer OP.

This isn't the first and won't be the last "stupid experiment" as everyone is calling it.


----------



## NorthernSoul (Nov 7, 2011)

Edit: Amir Kahn part, in aware he does eat something within a certain amount of hours in the day.


----------



## NorthernSoul (Nov 7, 2011)

anabolik said:


> OP seems to have mistaken this place for an anorexia forum. We are here to build muscle, not starve ourselves like teenage girls.


 When Einstein invented the lightbulb and churchilll founded America I bet everyone thought they were dumb at first also. This guy could be on his way to the holy grail for all we know.


----------



## anabolik (Aug 19, 2010)

Sean91 said:


> When Einstein invented the lightbulb and churchilll founded America I bet everyone thought they were dumb at first also. This guy could be on his way to the holy grail for all we know.


 Touche :lol:


----------



## gazzamongo (Nov 7, 2014)

Sean91 said:


> Edit: Amir Kahn part, in aware he does eat something within a certain amount of hours in the day.


 Funny you should mention that guy. Some say the ketones produced during fasting are very healing for brain injury. And as talented as he is ,he can't make a sandwhich without it ending in a spectacular knock out ( when he opens the door of a kitchen unit into the side of his head ) the fasting is probably a great idea for him


----------



## SickCurrent (Sep 19, 2005)

SickCurrent said:


> Dat dere death wish time brah? U still suckin air fam? Or is u pushin up daiseys innit fam...?


 U mad bro?


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

ONLY on an internet forum could someone such as:

i-fu**ing-water-fast-but-im-a-24%-bf-expert-in-fat-loss' @Dark_Ansem

start chopsing off to @DLTBB about knowing nothing about bodybuilding or fat loss

.....I just......i....f**k it


----------



## 0161M (Nov 17, 2015)

Sean91 said:


> When Einstein invented the lightbulb and churchilll founded America I bet everyone thought they were dumb at first also. This guy could be on his way to the holy grail for all we know.


 This is so incorrect i have to assume its a joke, but i dont get how it works as a joke ?


----------



## DLTBB (Jan 26, 2015)

TinTin10 said:


> ONLY on an internet forum could someone such as:
> 
> i-fu**ing-water-fast-but-im-a-24%-bf-expert-in-fat-loss' @Dark_Ansem
> 
> ...


 This is a blast from the past, strong BUMP.


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

Ive got to say, im loving this thread, only about half way through, but its just top notch!


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Lifesizepenguin said:


> Ive got to say, im loving this thread, only about half way through, but its just top notch!


 I can feel less guilty about unintentionally causing the thread bump then - enjoy  .


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

Ultrasonic said:


> I can feel less guilty about unintentionally causing the thread bump then - enjoy  .


 Oh yes, you may have made my day!


----------



## TinTin10 (Nov 22, 2016)

Ultrasonic said:


> I can feel less guilty about unintentionally causing the thread bump then - enjoy  .


 Thank f**k you did. It's refreshing to be able to read a thread without the subiect of which being a mouth-breather gobbing off at me!


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

I bet any money OP is still %20+ body fat


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

NoGutsNoGloryy said:


> I bet any money OP is still %20+ body fat


 Some say he still roams the land in search of a study proving his point.


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

We need a mod to sticky this


----------



## Dark_Ansem (Jun 25, 2013)

Lifesizepenguin said:


> Some say he still roams the land in search of a study proving his point.


 Found more than one, you stupid. the fast did what it was meant to do.


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Found more than one, you stupid. the fast did what it was meant to do.


 you come back a year later to say that?

:lol:

before after pics or am i meant to take your word on it?


----------



## Ares (Dec 3, 2015)

Lifesizepenguin said:


> you come back a year later to say that?
> 
> :lol:
> 
> before after pics or am i meant to take your word on it?


 Mate you are such a stupid!


----------



## ILLBehaviour (Dec 20, 2014)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Found more than one, you stupid. the fast did what it was meant to do.


 im really interested to see and hear about the results ?


----------



## Lifesizepenguin (Jul 25, 2016)

in for results @Dark_Ansem


----------



## Oioi (Jul 25, 2016)

Dark_Ansem said:


> Found more than one, you stupid. the fast did what it was meant to do.


 Pics or ye still a chubber


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

I heard op hit 0.5% bf and was found in the street almost dead. Op got force fed a pack of Pringles and a multi pack of mars bars which saved his life.

Op please confirm


----------



## MrGRoberts (Dec 30, 2013)

Pics or still 24% bodyfat


----------

