5 ms·

Most people feel worst around day 2/3 when transitioning from glycogen to ketosis, after that you feel great. Why should you fast if you eat healthy and have n

Most people feel worst around day 2/3 when transitioning from glycogen to ketosis, after that you feel great. Why should you fast if you eat healthy and have no extra weight? Two reasons: 1) What most people think is healthy is killing them. Even if someone eats paleo or keto, which are much closer to our ideal diet than anything else, they will still do things like eat a corn-fed steak. Corn-fed meat and fish is low in omega-3 and high in omega-6 and both of these things are very bad for you (omega-3 deficiency is the root dietary cause of depression as just one example). Yet, people think "I'm eating healthy". 2) Metabolically challenged cells are a definition of cancer cells. When doctors think your cancer may be metastatic they give you a PET scan. A PET scan measures the emission of positrons out of some radioactive glucose you're given. The glucose is disproportionately taken up by cancer cells for a couple of reasons, one is that they can't process ketones. Then they show you cool pictures of where the positron-emitting glucose is in your body, which is where the tumors are. If you fast, your glucose is low and those cells don't survive since there is no glucose. See 'Cancer as a Metabolic Disease' by Seyfried. [warning: The above is not medical orthodoxy, but then medical orthodoxy hasn't made any progress on cancer in ~60 years]

usaphp 10y ago
Thanks for the answer. In the first reason to fast you are saying that people don't get omega 3 from corn fed steak. But when you fast you don't get that either? How is that a reason to fast then? I just feel like most people going into fasting because they have some health issue and try to fix it by doing fasting (I am not saying it does not work for them), I am trying to find someone who did not feel any problems and started fasting out of curiosity and see how it benefited them. It's like having a bucket of water, when you eat it gets filled , then your body uses some of the water for energy. If you don't overeat the level of water in the bucket is always at the same, when you consistently overeat it overflows. When you fast - you can use the excess water you stored while overeating, it might be ok first couple years, but as since you are now eating less and your body uses water from a bucket more then you add to it - could it be that you will end up with an empty bucket at one point?
- SteveCoast 10y ago
  Your mental model of eating-as-a-bucket is broken, but you're not to be blamed since everyone thinks that and it's the official advice from most (all?) governments. The calories-in-calories-out (CICO) model is true in a thermodynamics sense but it's like saying that Bill Gates got rich because he followed the money-in-money-out system. It doesn't really help us explain anything about Bill Gates. Or another, more damning, problem is this: We say a child gets taller because of hormones but they get fat because of calories. If you think about it for a while you'll figure out something is deeply wrong with the model. This is a deep subject with a lot to say but I'd start with 'Why We Get Fat' by Gary Taubes. Then read his other books, then read Dr Fung. But to answer you first point directly: What I'm saying is that people thinking they are eating healthy and actually eating healthy are two different things. Usually they think they are but aren't in reality, and fasting can help in a long list of ways detailed in Dr. Fungs book on fasting (and many other places too, his is just a good book). You can also find people on /r/fasting on reddit with a lot more detail.
yowlingcat 10y ago
Interesting. I'd love to read some more about keto -- could you recommend any good sources?
- andai 10y ago
  Seconded!
- SteveCoast 10y ago
  /r/keto on reddit is a great community to start from. They have a FAQ and so on. For books, I'd actually start with The Obesity Code by Dr. Fung. It's not a keto book but it's very close, and you'll figure out that keto is metabolically very similar to fasting.
sergiosgc 10y ago
> (...) medical orthodoxy hasn't made any progress on cancer in ~60 years Are you crazy or am I reading you wrong? You are saying you are as likely to survive cancer in 2017 as you were in the fifties? (from a medical perspective)
- SteveCoast 10y ago
  '60s but yes. The last innovation was the invention of chemotherapy, which I won't tell you about since it's not very pleasant but you can find the whole thing in 'Tripping Over The Truth' by Travis Christofferson. If you look around your an find lots of graphs like this: http://medicine-opera.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cancer-death-rates-males-2011.jpg http://medicine-opera.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cancer-... which show that rates haven't really changed since 1930, give or take. The variance you see in the graph is things like lots more people smoking then not smoking any more, the prevention methodology of either finding cancer early or preventing high-risk people (e.g. mastectomies). But the actual chance of death hasn't really changed. Compare and contrast to things like surviving anything else (heart attack, stroke and so on) and it's night-and-day.
  - noam87 10y ago
    > The last innovation was the invention of chemotherapy. Um.. immune therapies, targeted genetic therapies, TIL therapies... all kind of a big deal. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. And rates say nothing about efficacy / quality of treatment. (And even when new treatments are not more effective, often the side effects are much milder (to non-existent): getting an extra three years sick and in pain, vs getting them as your normal self is a huge difference) Edit: what I mean by that is that rates of incidence say nothing about how effective the treatments are. It can both be true that rates are going up (say, due to air pollution) and that treatments are more effective. --- Reply to comment below: again, you are wrong. Jesus, stop. One example: Ipilimumab and PD-1 inhibitors have a ~20% effectiveness rate against melanoma, a cancer that was considered a sure death sentence just 15 years ago. Some patients have not had any recurrence in a decade, they seem cured, which was unheard of before. And targeted drugs like dabrafenib buy most patients an extra 6-18 months, almost side effect free. With more of these coming out, it seems like soon it'll be possible to cycle patients even longer (some combos already are known to extend their effect). This doesn't qualify as "major"? The ability to reprogram our immune system to kill cancer cells, or to reprogram pathways in faulty cells?
ZeroFries 10y ago
Omega-3 only resolves depression temporarily by lowering the immune system (and thus inflammation). Resolving the underlying sources of inflammation and brain insulin-resistance is what helps depression, and yes, grain fed steak can be fairly inflammatory due to polyunsaturated fats, lack of glycine in the amino-acids, high cysteine and methionine and iron, and an imbalanced calcium:phosphorous ratio. Eating the whole animal would solve a lot of these issues.

usaphp 10y ago

Thanks for the answer. In the first reason to fast you are saying that people don't get omega 3 from corn fed steak. But when you fast you don't get that either? How is that a reason to fast then? I just feel like most people going into fasting because they have some health issue and try to fix it by doing fasting (I am not saying it does not work for them), I am trying to find someone who did not feel any problems and started fasting out of curiosity and see how it benefited them. It's like having a bucket of water, when you eat it gets filled , then your body uses some of the water for energy. If you don't overeat the level of water in the bucket is always at the same, when you consistently overeat it overflows. When you fast - you can use the excess water you stored while overeating, it might be ok first couple years, but as since you are now eating less and your body uses water from a bucket more then you add to it - could it be that you will end up with an empty bucket at one point?

SteveCoast 10y ago
Your mental model of eating-as-a-bucket is broken, but you're not to be blamed since everyone thinks that and it's the official advice from most (all?) governments. The calories-in-calories-out (CICO) model is true in a thermodynamics sense but it's like saying that Bill Gates got rich because he followed the money-in-money-out system. It doesn't really help us explain anything about Bill Gates. Or another, more damning, problem is this: We say a child gets taller because of hormones but they get fat because of calories. If you think about it for a while you'll figure out something is deeply wrong with the model. This is a deep subject with a lot to say but I'd start with 'Why We Get Fat' by Gary Taubes. Then read his other books, then read Dr Fung. But to answer you first point directly: What I'm saying is that people thinking they are eating healthy and actually eating healthy are two different things. Usually they think they are but aren't in reality, and fasting can help in a long list of ways detailed in Dr. Fungs book on fasting (and many other places too, his is just a good book). You can also find people on /r/fasting on reddit with a lot more detail.

yowlingcat 10y ago

Interesting. I'd love to read some more about keto -- could you recommend any good sources?

andai 10y ago
Seconded!
SteveCoast 10y ago
/r/keto on reddit is a great community to start from. They have a FAQ and so on. For books, I'd actually start with The Obesity Code by Dr. Fung. It's not a keto book but it's very close, and you'll figure out that keto is metabolically very similar to fasting.

sergiosgc 10y ago

> (...) medical orthodoxy hasn't made any progress on cancer in ~60 years Are you crazy or am I reading you wrong? You are saying you are as likely to survive cancer in 2017 as you were in the fifties? (from a medical perspective)

SteveCoast 10y ago
'60s but yes. The last innovation was the invention of chemotherapy, which I won't tell you about since it's not very pleasant but you can find the whole thing in 'Tripping Over The Truth' by Travis Christofferson. If you look around your an find lots of graphs like this: http://medicine-opera.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cancer-death-rates-males-2011.jpg http://medicine-opera.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/cancer-... which show that rates haven't really changed since 1930, give or take. The variance you see in the graph is things like lots more people smoking then not smoking any more, the prevention methodology of either finding cancer early or preventing high-risk people (e.g. mastectomies). But the actual chance of death hasn't really changed. Compare and contrast to things like surviving anything else (heart attack, stroke and so on) and it's night-and-day.
- noam87 10y ago
  > The last innovation was the invention of chemotherapy. Um.. immune therapies, targeted genetic therapies, TIL therapies... all kind of a big deal. Sorry, you don't know what you're talking about. And rates say nothing about efficacy / quality of treatment. (And even when new treatments are not more effective, often the side effects are much milder (to non-existent): getting an extra three years sick and in pain, vs getting them as your normal self is a huge difference) Edit: what I mean by that is that rates of incidence say nothing about how effective the treatments are. It can both be true that rates are going up (say, due to air pollution) and that treatments are more effective. --- Reply to comment below: again, you are wrong. Jesus, stop. One example: Ipilimumab and PD-1 inhibitors have a ~20% effectiveness rate against melanoma, a cancer that was considered a sure death sentence just 15 years ago. Some patients have not had any recurrence in a decade, they seem cured, which was unheard of before. And targeted drugs like dabrafenib buy most patients an extra 6-18 months, almost side effect free. With more of these coming out, it seems like soon it'll be possible to cycle patients even longer (some combos already are known to extend their effect). This doesn't qualify as "major"? The ability to reprogram our immune system to kill cancer cells, or to reprogram pathways in faulty cells?

ZeroFries 10y ago

Omega-3 only resolves depression temporarily by lowering the immune system (and thus inflammation). Resolving the underlying sources of inflammation and brain insulin-resistance is what helps depression, and yes, grain fed steak can be fairly inflammatory due to polyunsaturated fats, lack of glycine in the amino-acids, high cysteine and methionine and iron, and an imbalanced calcium:phosphorous ratio. Eating the whole animal would solve a lot of these issues.