Pros/Cons of a 24 hour fast

[amac5261]

Another thread was hijacked with this topic, so I figured I would bring it to the right forum.

Please post what you think and we can discuss it.

[eskaar]

I've heard that periodically fasting for 24 hrs can be beneficial to some of your bodies systems so long as you remain hydrated. However I think this was asked with respect to endurance training, where I can imagine there is no benefit of depriving your body of the nutrients and calories it is craving to keep going.

[amac5261]

Wasn't asked in respect to any sort of training.

Just a debate sparked in another thread so brought it to the nutrition forum.

However, I will add that I think it is a good thing. It helps regulate blood sugar and can help cleanse your system out, and there are other perks as well.

[king henry viii]

Wasn't asked in respect to any sort of training.

Just a debate sparked in another thread so brought it to the nutrition forum.

However, I will add that I think it is a good thing. It helps regulate blood sugar and can help cleanse your system out, and there are other perks as well.

well what are the other perks?

[amac5261]

Well...

University of Utah, did a study, and according to them, people who fast one day a month are 40% less likely to have clogged arteries.

I once read a book by Brad Pilon, who is a Nutrition expert and has been in the field for 7 years. He wrote in the book, "metabolism doesnot decrease during brief fasting. In fact, evidence suggests that it may even go UP!"

A 24 hour fast can help you re-tune your body, suppress insulin secretion, reduce the taste for sugar, so sugar becomes something you crave less.

Also, it gives the digestive organs a rest ... stomach, intestines, pancreas, gallbladder and the liver, which is given some quality time to dissolve stored and circulating chemicals. The blood and lymph are also cleared of toxins as all the eliminative functions are enhanced. With fewer new demands, each cell can repair itself and expell its waste.

All in all, a 24 hour fast can help your body, and can even possibly boost your metabolism. It helps you with breaking a craving, and it helps cleanse your system out. It also gives organs that are always working, a break and a chance to recover and clean themselves out.

[scskowron]

And what about skinny guys like me who have to eat 3000 calories a day just to keep from getting skinnier? My weight can fluctuate extremely quickly. One day I can be 149, and the next I can be 145.

[blodgettrunner]

what are the maximum recommended levels of activity allowed during this fast?

[amac5261]

I'll look into both of those questions. I am by no means an expert, nor have I done much research on the matter. I just remember bits and pieces from notes I had my my nutrition classes in college.


However, I am about to head out the door, so I will do that later this evening!

Go Packers!

[9007112]

From the former thread:

Remember that your body will burn more fat if you eat many small meals throughout the day.

Think of your metabolism like a fire. If you feed it a little wood all day, it will burn strong constantly, but if you forget to feed it for many hours, it will go out and be slow to start. And you'll have to build it up to burning strong again.

Always eat breakfast, and try your best to eat small meals 2-3 hours apart if you can. That will keep your metabolism burning full force.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but you are quiet wrong.

"Early starvation (1-3 days) is frequently associated with a transient increase in basal metabolic rate (BMR) and protein oxidation."

http://www.unu.edu/unupress/food2/UID07E/uid07e11.htm

Actually, I'm still right. And a million other nutritionists, personal trainers, bodybuilders and other athletes are right as well. That study shows the effects of a short period of starvation and BMR. You can also boost BMR by upping your caloric intake about 300 cals a day for 2 weeks. Messing with any of these things should be done under the supervision of a professional. Otherwise you'll just screw up your systems. Eating small, frequent meals does in fact increase metabolism and it does it for a sustained period of time.

Regarding the 300cal/day increase, true, but that would not help him reach his goal, if his activity level is the same.

Regarding the original issue, that's still debated, wether 5-6 smaller meals a day are more beneficial, no solid proof that it provides help(>5%)

Essentially I had a 24 hour fast, which isn't a big deal.

Thank you for the info about eatting 6 meals a day. I had already known that and had been following it.

Being a big boy, and loving food, It was also a challenge to go without the food and tell myself I wasn't hungry. I guess nobody picked up on that part of the challenge there.

However, 24 hour fast are not bad for you. Before I stopped going to college, I was a pre-med major and in the two nutrition classes I took we talked about benifits of a 24hour fast, or a partial fast. You can re-tune your body, suppress insulin secretion, reduce the taste for sugar, so sugar becomes something you're less fond of taking on a 24 hour fast. Other benefits mentioned included: lowering blood pressure, and possibly reducing the risk of cancer. Some researchers say it may extend lifespan in general because it stresses cells in a way that basically gives them a workout. There are more different benifits for partial fast as well.

All in all, I don't think not eatting for a day did me wrong. I know that eatting 6 times a day helps boost the metabolism because it is constantly adding "fuel to the fire" but, there are benifits to a 24 hour fast as well.

Anyways, thanks for the tips though you all. Good luck!

Maybe in 20 years ago, when that study was done. It has been proven time and time again that small meals do help speed up metabolism. Amac was a pre-med student so obviously he already knew that. Here's some reading to get you up to date.

Acute effects on metabolism and appetite profile of one meal difference in the lower range of meal frequency.
Br J Nutr. 2007 Dec 6;:1-6
Smeets AJ, Westerterp-Plantenga MS.
Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation. Decreasing the inter-meal interval sustains satiety, particularly during the day, and sustains fat oxidation, particularly during the night.

Beneficial metabolic effects of regular meal frequency on dietary thermogenesis
Am J Clin Nutr. 2005 Jan;81(1):16-24.
Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
CONCLUSION: Regular eating has beneficial effects on fasting lipid and postprandial (post feeding) insulin profiles and thermogenesis (calorie burning).

Impact of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction on glucose regulation
Metabolism. 2007 Dec;56(12):1729-34
Carlson O, Martin B, Stote KS, Golden E, Maudsley S, Najjar SS, Ferrucci L, Ingram DK, Longo DL, Rumpler WV, Baer DJ, Egan J, Mattson MP.
Subjects consuming a single large daily meal exhibit elevated fasting glucose levels (not desireable) and impaired morning glucose tolerance associated with a delayed insulin response (not desireable).

Regular meal frequency creates more appropriate insulin sensitivity and lipid profiles compared with irregular meal frequency
Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Jul;58(7):1071-7
Farshchi HR, Taylor MA, Macdonald IA.
The irregular meal frequency was associated with higher fasting total and LDL cholesterol. CONCLUSION: The irregular meal frequency appears to produce a degree of insulin resistance and higher fasting lipid profiles, which may indicate a deleterious effect on these cardiovascular risk factors.

A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction
Am J Clin Nutr. 2007 Apr;85(4):981-8.
Stote KS, Baer DJ, Spears K, Paul DR, Harris GK, Rumpler WV, Strycula P, Najjar SS, Ferrucci L, Ingram DK, Longo DL, Mattson MP.
When meal frequency is decreased without a reduction in overall calorie intake, modest changes occur in body composition, some cardiovascular disease risk factors, and hematologic variables. Subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol.

[9007112]

If you closely examine these studies:

1st Study:

Eating three meals compared with two meals had no effects on 24 h energy expenditure, diet-induced thermogenesis, activity-induced energy expenditure and sleeping metabolic rate. Eating three meals compared with two meals increased 24 h fat oxidation, but decreased the amount of fat oxidised from the breakfast.

Plus, this study was done on 14 women only.

2nd Study:

Regular eating was associated with lower EI (P < 0.01), greater postprandial thermogenesis (P < 0.01), and lower fasting total (4.16 compared with 4.30 mmol/L; P < 0.01) and LDL (2.46 compared with 2.60 mmol/L; P < 0.02) cholesterol. Fasting glucose and insulin values were not affected by meal pattern, but peak insulin concentrations and area under the curve of insulin responses to the test meal were lower after the regular than after the irregular meal pattern (P < 0.01 and 0.02, respectively).

Value of P over 0.01 and 0.02? 1% and 2%....not at all significant and the study number is only 10.

3rd Study:

Not enough info, quality of food, control number, etc... a lot of unknown factors.

4th Study:

The value of P is 0.01 and 9 women only in this study.

Last Study:

Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass;

All those studies don't really prove you're right, very small number of subjects, a lot of unknowns, short time frame, etc...

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting/fast-way-to-better-health/

http://www.arthurdevany.com/2006/12/intermittent_fa_2.html

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting/

http://www.warriordiet.com/faq

Fasting has proven over and over again to be extremely beneficial to the body while increased meal frequency rarely has.

[missathletic]

This started out as you telling me I was wrong for suggesting that he eat 5-6 meals a day, which he already stated was the right thing to do and he's premed and can handle his own nutrition. I'm not interested nor want to be involved in the fasting debate. Eating smaller more frequent meals is the healthy way to eat for life. This is FACT in the world of bodybuilding, athletics, fitness, nutrion, health, and the medical field. I'm done trying to convince you that the sky is in fact blue.

[amac5261]

Yes, I did say that 5-6 meals throughout the day is better for you.

However, I never said it was distantly better than 3 a day.

I've noticed going from a 3MPD to 5MPD diet that I have less cravings and tend to have the "full stomach feeling" a bit more.

However, another thing I've noticed is that when eatting 5MPD, I take in about an EXTRA 400-600 calories.

But the experts are usually right in most cases and they do day 5MPD or so increases your metabolic rate due to the fact that it forces your body to break the food up and that in itself requires a lot of calories to do. However, they also state that if you are use to 3 meals a day, that it is still alright to eat just 3. So, it comes down to preference.

Thats all...oh and by the way, the sky only appears to be blue, due to light refraction, it is actually made of colorless gasses, thats why it appears to change color when the sun is setting. Lol, just had to mess with ya :P

[amac5261]

Gary Schwartz, a researcher with the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, answered, "There's no strong data supporting either [three meals a day or six meals a day] as being more effective" for losing weight or maintaining lost weight. "Clearly there is an emphasis on reducing caloric intake overall, whether it be by decreasing meal size and/or decreasing meal frequency."

In a recent American Journal of Clinical Nutrition editorial, a team of nutrition researchers concluded that whether you are practicing the "three" or "six" meal daily dietary pattern, weight loss ultimately comes down to "how much energy (or calories) is consumed as opposed to how often or how regularly one eats."

http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/3-hour-diet-or-3-meals-a-day

Once again, I think it just comes down to personal opinion on that.

Let it be known as well...Fasting for weight loss is a TERRIBLE idea, if thats what people were thinking when I started this thread or mentioned it in the other. Fasting in terms screws up your metabolism a bit, however if you are healthy there is no major side-effect. But yea, fasting for weight loss is a huge error.

[amac5261]

And what about skinny guys like me who have to eat 3000 calories a day just to keep from getting skinnier? My weight can fluctuate extremely quickly. One day I can be 149, and the next I can be 145.

Honestly, I can't answer this. Not being a professional, I honestly don't know.

Obviously, if you do it, just listen to your body. If its telling you to eat something, its probably a wise choice to do so.

[amac5261]

what are the maximum recommended levels of activity allowed during this fast?

I google'd this, because I thought it was a really good question.

Sadly, google returned no answers, nor did WebMD.

When I did my 24-hour fast, I did a 24hr endurance run as well. Through the 24 hours, I consumed plenty of water while running, walking, and doing basic Calisthenics. (gotta love those 8 count body builders)

Basically, thats all I can add since I wasn't able to find anything on the topic.