10 ms·

Having gone back and forth on this (a 16-hour fast for a several week period more than one time), and having read a bunch on the topic, I've concluded thus far

Having gone back and forth on this (a 16-hour fast for a several week period more than one time), and having read a bunch on the topic, I've concluded thus far that, fundamentally, there's no one-size-fits-all for human bodies. In other words, human bodies are so complex that results for almost any food program vary a lot. Aside from the individual factors, which include your gender and age and whatever uniqueness about your body that we don't know yet (like effects of gut flora on metabolism), there's the type of exercise you do. If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. If you do a short conditioning workout or strength workout right before breaking your fast (if you're lucky enough to have a schedule that allows that), that sounds okay. There's some speculation that fasting 'resets' the gut flora, or that there's a benefit to 'giving the digestive system a rest', then there's some science around the impact on fasting on circadian rhythm reset benefits, some other science around fasting to 'reset the immune system.' My personal experience was that I didn't get much benefit in terms of body fat cutting, I didn't notice a performance increase or decrease in the gym (where I do strength training and calisthenics primarily with a bit of cardio). I DID notice I was obsessing over food in the mornings and when 2pm came around, there was a feeling of accomplishment. I'm not sure it was worth it for me. As for everyone else, the jury's still out. It's just that I'm not convinced it'll be back within my lifetime in this complex area of study.

arif_sohaib 8y ago
Sounds like Ramadan. Especially the "obsessing over food" part. Some of us actually end up fatter after the month of 16 hour fasts.
- msiyer 8y ago
  If you are "obsessing over food" during Ramadan you are doing it wrong.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- user3359 8y ago
  Having spent time with Muslim friends around Ramadan, I have no doubt that this is due to OVEREATING after sunset and before sunrise. I've seen people pack 3000 calories into 2 meals when they should be getting 1500-2000, especially with the reduced activity levels due to lower energy. Fasting doesn't give you the ability to break rules of biology.
msiyer 8y ago
Why do all wild lions look the same? Are their bodies not complex like ours? Fasting is followed by animals too. When they fall sick they fast. Deliberate fasting in humans is a necessity because humans eat unnatural food.
- soared 8y ago
  Animals also eat their own throw-up, that doesn't mean we should too.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Lion diets haven't changed since lions became a distinct species. Human diets have changed drastically in the last 10k years. And there are well known examples of humans evolving adaptations to changing diets (lactase persistence in Northern Europeans being the most obvious). It would be crazy to think that other, less obvious adaptations to diet haven't occurred in basically every other region with a distinct diet.
  - msiyer 8y ago
    Also look at osteoporosis rates in Western cultures. Lactose tolerance\intolerance is the term. I can smoke 20 cigarettes a day and my body tolerates that. Does not mean it is good for me.
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Lactase persistence is the name of the trait that makes a person tolerant of lactose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence And I’m not sure what you thought I said, but I’m not arguing that milk consumption is great. Well, not in the post you responded to; I do think milk is pretty amazing. All I was saying is that it is an example of humans evolving adaptations to their diets. But on the topic of milk consumption: there may be drawbacks, but the gene for lactase persistence is one of the fastest spreading genes in recent history. Consuming milk was an utter (there’s a pun to be made here, but I will exercise restraint) game changer for Northern Europeans. Even today, milk is an amazing source of well-balanced nutrition. It’s cheap, easy to consume, and pretty tasty at room temperature. If it doesn’t cause explosive things to happen to your intestines, that is.
vlasev 8y ago
What about water fasting for longer periods? Have you gone 24/48/72 hours without any food? I find that longer fasts tend to work better for me, since I end up eating more calories in the 8 hours window in a 16/8 IF regime. But if don't eat for close to 36 hours, even with the increased food intake, I would still come out ahead. If you fast long enough, say 48 hours I think, your body enters a mode of "autophagy", which is highly beneficial. So there's that.
- verall 8y ago
  I fasted for around 40 hours once, and by the end I felt extremely low energy. I noticed I was avoiding standing, leaning on things if I did, and my normal foot-tapping or idle movements completely stopped. Does anything like that happen to you? Do you know if it would feel better during autophagy?
  - cabinguy 8y ago
    I've done a 12 day fast. The first 4-5 days were extremely difficult (caffeine withdrawal didn't help) , but by day 6, I had a feeling of euphoria. My original goal was a 10 day fast, but I didn't want to give up the clear mind and energy I was experiencing, so I extended it to 12 days. I think this is a pretty common experience. You don't start feeling the "good feels" until you get past the 4-5 day mark. Anyway, this was about 7-8 years ago and I haven't tried again since, but I often think about it. For what it's worth, I do IF as a lifestyle (18:6). Basically (for me) it's a very easy way to help restrict calories. Hopefully there are some health benefits, too.
  - scarecrowbob 8y ago
    Here's an anecdote: The first time I did a longer fast (72 hours) I felt low-energy, as you describe. Then I ate a single large meal and did another long fast; that felt quite good for the duration of that fast... so I did that for a month, more or less, and lost a lot of body fay (I'm 6'4" and I went from 225 to 200). And then I was being pretty healthy for 8 months before going back to occasional drinking, but I still don't do sweets other than fruit. I mostly eat a single meal in the middle of the day (though I make a lot of compromises due to being around other humans) and I don't usually find myself hungry in a way that is intrusive on my thoughts. However, I did start rock climbing in a gym and I upped my caloric intake and would eat a small meal afterwards. I did another series of fasts this spring to bring my weight down to 175, and it's stayed there. And then I did a short series of longer fasts this fall, and didn't feel low-energy during them.
wdewind 8y ago
So Jason Fung is actually misreading this study. The main issue around all of this is: If someone eats the exact same amount of calories but spreads it out throughout the day does this have any effect on metabolism or weight? So far IF proponents have had a really hard time showing isocaloric diets have any different outcomes regardless of meal timing. This study attempts to address this issue by serving the same amount of food, but it does not ensure that the same amount of food is consumed, and so we are right back to where we are with all IF studies that show results like this: IF contributed to the participants abilities to eat the right amount of food, but there is still not a single study showing isocaloric intake and any different outcomes. Besides that the standard: this is done on 8 people over a very small period of time, so it's at best a pilot study anyway. IF may be a great way for some people to comply to their dietary goals better, but there is still not a single study that shows it actually does anything besides that.
- jmull 8y ago
  Which study are you referring to? He references different studies to make different points and I can’t tell which one you’re talking about.
  - wdewind 8y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952 This one, mentioned in this context: > This was a randomized crossover, isocaloric and eucaloric study. That is, all patients did both arms of the study eating the same foods and the same calories and then compared against themselves. The two arms of the study were eating between 8am and 8pm, and the eTRF strategy of eating between 8am and 2pm, but remember, both groups ate three meals per day of the same foods. Some would start with the conventional diet, then cross over to eTRF, and others did the opposite, separated by a seven-week washout period. Subjects were men with prediabetes. > The benefits were huge. Mean insulin levels dropped significantly, and insulin resistance dropped as well. Insulin is a driver of obesity, so merely changing the meal timing and restricting the number of hours you ate, and also by moving to an earlier eating schedule, produced huge benefits even in the same person eating the same meals. That’s astounding. Even more remarkable was that even after the washout period of seven weeks, the eTRF group maintained lower insulin levels at baseline. The benefits were maintained even after stopping the time restriction. Blood pressure dropped as well. Specifically this sentence: > so merely changing the meal timing and restricting the number of hours you ate, and also by moving to an earlier eating schedule, produced huge benefits even in the same person eating the same meals is incorrect, and is basically the lynchpin of the entire IF idea.
foldr 8y ago
>If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. This isn't obvious to me. I don't run seriously, but I don't find that fasting has any adverse effect on my performance. If you are talking about running a marathon or something like that, then sure, but hardly anyone is doing exercise that intense multiple times a week, so you could still have fast days. 16 hours really isn't a very long time to go without food. Your body can cope with it fine, even if you're doing quite intense exercise.
- scott_s 8y ago
  I imagine that if you're training for an endurance-based competition, getting all of your required calories in one sitting once a day will either not happen reliably, or be really uncomfortable.
  - gamblor956 8y ago
    There's a lot of calorie in fats and sugars. It's quite easy to eat a single meal at some place like Carls Jr or Burger King and meet your calorie needs for the day of a run...and then some. If you eat at Cheesecake Factory, it's hard to find a meal which wouldn't satisfy your calorie needs for an several days.
  - oe 8y ago
    Endurance training involves eating a lot in any case. It's not that difficult. Fasting for 16 hours would still give you an 8 hour window to down the foods.
- Tharkun 8y ago
  Exactly. Your body is very good at storing energy (fat). It's also pretty good at burning fat while running, especially at the slower pace that is typical of long distance running. You can eat a couple of thousand kcal in one sitting, but you can store a hell of a lot more around your waist. Getting enough water and electrolytes during a long distance run is much more important than having breakfast beforehand.
- denebo 8y ago
holri 8y ago
> If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go I did a one week Buchinger fasting and did several long distance runs (as I always do) after 2 days fasting. (after switching to cetogen burning) I noticed a small decrease in power, but in no way this was a no go. It was actually fun.
- steve_adams_86 8y ago
  Likewise, I found my energy was slightly lower but it was also very consistent. Like burning hardwood. You don't get explosive power, but you can go steady without hitting walls.
gamblor956 8y ago
If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. Not obvious at all. My best marathon times followed training cycles where I didn't eat breakfast before long runs (i.e., 13+ miles).
loceng 8y ago
As you point out there are cycles that will influence the experience of a fast - not limited to physical energy available at any time, possible discomfort due to coping mechanisms food/eating may part of, and so on. I am still managing significant chronic pain, and although sugar is bad for inflammation - which has its own problems - it is "comforting" and numbs the pain to some degree as well. I generally go through cycles of pure water fasting for 3 days to break the sugar cravings and to bring back mental clarity, at the cost of the remaining pain localizing and becoming sharper. Still waiting for refuge from pain, potentially some more healing next week, and then have to wait another ~3 months for another stem cell treatment.
parliament32 8y ago
>If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. I always do my runs in the morning, right out of bed, fasted. Your body is very good at storing energy and using it later, I've had no issues (if anything, trying to eat before a run just causes problems for me).
- poslathian 8y ago
  Same - and I’ve recently upped my long runs to 12mi, which I do before eating anything. I’m sure there are limits where you need to fuel before or during an endurance activity, but I’m surprised and happy to not have found it yet.
  - kareemsabri 8y ago
    I think we really over-estimate the degree to which "fasting" for less than one day affects our ability to perform. We're blessed with such an abundance of food in the west that few of us have ever felt real hunger. Your body is so far from hitting a wall after 12 hours of no food it doesn't seem to be anything but mental. I've done tons of fasted weight training and high-intensity cardio. I grew up doing sunrise to sunset fasts for Ramadan, with no water, and even that was mostly mental.
    - dingaling 8y ago
      Alternative perspective: after three hours without food during the day I begin physically shaking and have to fight an urge to curl up in a ball. I can manage about seven hours sleep + a run first thing but I have to start eating as soon as I'm back in the house, and just keep grazing until 22:00
      - kareemsabri 8y ago
        You're an outlier.
      - makewavesnotwar 8y ago
        You might want to get checked for hypoglycemia. That doesn't sound normal. (Unless you pair too much caffeine with your fasting)
mtgx 8y ago
Did you continue to eat high-carb meals after your fasting? I recently had to give up eating keto for a few weeks and then I noticed I got very hungry in the mornings. On keto I would normally eat around noon without much effort. If your body gets used to high insulin it will naturally make you crave food more often.
mancerayder 8y ago
To all those who replied saying they fast and do long distance running, I guess I stand corrected. But I'd be concerned about muscle catabolism, as if the body is asked to retrieve energy due to demands placed on it, surely after a prolonged fast the muscle tissue is a strong candidate.
- foldr 8y ago
  Well we're talking about intermittent fasting here. You'd gave to be pretty damn skinny for your body to have run out of fat to burn within 16 hours (max).
  - mancerayder 8y ago
    There are comments above about prolonged fasting (more than typical IF) and long distance running.
arcturus17 8y ago
> I've concluded thus far that, fundamentally, there's no one-size-fits-all for human bodies Exactly. I've had pretty bad experiences with a no-breakfast IF. After two or three weeks on the diet, I get insomnia, and I definitely feel more stress. On the latter, I've read that IF raises cortisol levels, so that might be it. That's actually pretty good when you're at low baseline stress levels (it puts you in a state of "positive anxiety"), but when you're stressed from work it can take you over the limit. Ultimately I stopped it because I'm already at around ~12% BF - I couldn't even say why I was doing it anymore. Three healthy meals a day and regular exercise does it for me. If this works for people without negative consequences, then all the more power to them. I really like how it goes against the "shove things into your mouth at every waking hour" philosophy, which has become a ridiculous dogma in modern society.

arif_sohaib 8y ago

Sounds like Ramadan. Especially the "obsessing over food" part. Some of us actually end up fatter after the month of 16 hour fasts.

msiyer 8y ago
If you are "obsessing over food" during Ramadan you are doing it wrong.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
user3359 8y ago
Having spent time with Muslim friends around Ramadan, I have no doubt that this is due to OVEREATING after sunset and before sunrise. I've seen people pack 3000 calories into 2 meals when they should be getting 1500-2000, especially with the reduced activity levels due to lower energy. Fasting doesn't give you the ability to break rules of biology.

msiyer 8y ago

Why do all wild lions look the same? Are their bodies not complex like ours? Fasting is followed by animals too. When they fall sick they fast. Deliberate fasting in humans is a necessity because humans eat unnatural food.

soared 8y ago
Animals also eat their own throw-up, that doesn't mean we should too.
toasterlovin 8y ago
Lion diets haven't changed since lions became a distinct species. Human diets have changed drastically in the last 10k years. And there are well known examples of humans evolving adaptations to changing diets (lactase persistence in Northern Europeans being the most obvious). It would be crazy to think that other, less obvious adaptations to diet haven't occurred in basically every other region with a distinct diet.
- msiyer 8y ago
  Also look at osteoporosis rates in Western cultures. Lactose tolerance\intolerance is the term. I can smoke 20 cigarettes a day and my body tolerates that. Does not mean it is good for me.
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Lactase persistence is the name of the trait that makes a person tolerant of lactose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactase_persistence And I’m not sure what you thought I said, but I’m not arguing that milk consumption is great. Well, not in the post you responded to; I do think milk is pretty amazing. All I was saying is that it is an example of humans evolving adaptations to their diets. But on the topic of milk consumption: there may be drawbacks, but the gene for lactase persistence is one of the fastest spreading genes in recent history. Consuming milk was an utter (there’s a pun to be made here, but I will exercise restraint) game changer for Northern Europeans. Even today, milk is an amazing source of well-balanced nutrition. It’s cheap, easy to consume, and pretty tasty at room temperature. If it doesn’t cause explosive things to happen to your intestines, that is.

vlasev 8y ago

What about water fasting for longer periods? Have you gone 24/48/72 hours without any food? I find that longer fasts tend to work better for me, since I end up eating more calories in the 8 hours window in a 16/8 IF regime. But if don't eat for close to 36 hours, even with the increased food intake, I would still come out ahead. If you fast long enough, say 48 hours I think, your body enters a mode of "autophagy", which is highly beneficial. So there's that.

verall 8y ago
I fasted for around 40 hours once, and by the end I felt extremely low energy. I noticed I was avoiding standing, leaning on things if I did, and my normal foot-tapping or idle movements completely stopped. Does anything like that happen to you? Do you know if it would feel better during autophagy?
- cabinguy 8y ago
  I've done a 12 day fast. The first 4-5 days were extremely difficult (caffeine withdrawal didn't help) , but by day 6, I had a feeling of euphoria. My original goal was a 10 day fast, but I didn't want to give up the clear mind and energy I was experiencing, so I extended it to 12 days. I think this is a pretty common experience. You don't start feeling the "good feels" until you get past the 4-5 day mark. Anyway, this was about 7-8 years ago and I haven't tried again since, but I often think about it. For what it's worth, I do IF as a lifestyle (18:6). Basically (for me) it's a very easy way to help restrict calories. Hopefully there are some health benefits, too.
- scarecrowbob 8y ago
  Here's an anecdote: The first time I did a longer fast (72 hours) I felt low-energy, as you describe. Then I ate a single large meal and did another long fast; that felt quite good for the duration of that fast... so I did that for a month, more or less, and lost a lot of body fay (I'm 6'4" and I went from 225 to 200). And then I was being pretty healthy for 8 months before going back to occasional drinking, but I still don't do sweets other than fruit. I mostly eat a single meal in the middle of the day (though I make a lot of compromises due to being around other humans) and I don't usually find myself hungry in a way that is intrusive on my thoughts. However, I did start rock climbing in a gym and I upped my caloric intake and would eat a small meal afterwards. I did another series of fasts this spring to bring my weight down to 175, and it's stayed there. And then I did a short series of longer fasts this fall, and didn't feel low-energy during them.

wdewind 8y ago

So Jason Fung is actually misreading this study. The main issue around all of this is: If someone eats the exact same amount of calories but spreads it out throughout the day does this have any effect on metabolism or weight? So far IF proponents have had a really hard time showing isocaloric diets have any different outcomes regardless of meal timing. This study attempts to address this issue by serving the same amount of food, but it does not ensure that the same amount of food is consumed, and so we are right back to where we are with all IF studies that show results like this: IF contributed to the participants abilities to eat the right amount of food, but there is still not a single study showing isocaloric intake and any different outcomes. Besides that the standard: this is done on 8 people over a very small period of time, so it's at best a pilot study anyway. IF may be a great way for some people to comply to their dietary goals better, but there is still not a single study that shows it actually does anything besides that.

jmull 8y ago
Which study are you referring to? He references different studies to make different points and I can’t tell which one you’re talking about.
- wdewind 8y ago
  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952 This one, mentioned in this context: > This was a randomized crossover, isocaloric and eucaloric study. That is, all patients did both arms of the study eating the same foods and the same calories and then compared against themselves. The two arms of the study were eating between 8am and 8pm, and the eTRF strategy of eating between 8am and 2pm, but remember, both groups ate three meals per day of the same foods. Some would start with the conventional diet, then cross over to eTRF, and others did the opposite, separated by a seven-week washout period. Subjects were men with prediabetes. > The benefits were huge. Mean insulin levels dropped significantly, and insulin resistance dropped as well. Insulin is a driver of obesity, so merely changing the meal timing and restricting the number of hours you ate, and also by moving to an earlier eating schedule, produced huge benefits even in the same person eating the same meals. That’s astounding. Even more remarkable was that even after the washout period of seven weeks, the eTRF group maintained lower insulin levels at baseline. The benefits were maintained even after stopping the time restriction. Blood pressure dropped as well. Specifically this sentence: > so merely changing the meal timing and restricting the number of hours you ate, and also by moving to an earlier eating schedule, produced huge benefits even in the same person eating the same meals is incorrect, and is basically the lynchpin of the entire IF idea.

foldr 8y ago

>If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. This isn't obvious to me. I don't run seriously, but I don't find that fasting has any adverse effect on my performance. If you are talking about running a marathon or something like that, then sure, but hardly anyone is doing exercise that intense multiple times a week, so you could still have fast days. 16 hours really isn't a very long time to go without food. Your body can cope with it fine, even if you're doing quite intense exercise.

scott_s 8y ago
I imagine that if you're training for an endurance-based competition, getting all of your required calories in one sitting once a day will either not happen reliably, or be really uncomfortable.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  There's a lot of calorie in fats and sugars. It's quite easy to eat a single meal at some place like Carls Jr or Burger King and meet your calorie needs for the day of a run...and then some. If you eat at Cheesecake Factory, it's hard to find a meal which wouldn't satisfy your calorie needs for an several days.
- oe 8y ago
  Endurance training involves eating a lot in any case. It's not that difficult. Fasting for 16 hours would still give you an 8 hour window to down the foods.
Tharkun 8y ago
Exactly. Your body is very good at storing energy (fat). It's also pretty good at burning fat while running, especially at the slower pace that is typical of long distance running. You can eat a couple of thousand kcal in one sitting, but you can store a hell of a lot more around your waist. Getting enough water and electrolytes during a long distance run is much more important than having breakfast beforehand.
denebo 8y ago

holri 8y ago

> If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go I did a one week Buchinger fasting and did several long distance runs (as I always do) after 2 days fasting. (after switching to cetogen burning) I noticed a small decrease in power, but in no way this was a no go. It was actually fun.

steve_adams_86 8y ago
Likewise, I found my energy was slightly lower but it was also very consistent. Like burning hardwood. You don't get explosive power, but you can go steady without hitting walls.

gamblor956 8y ago

If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. Not obvious at all. My best marathon times followed training cycles where I didn't eat breakfast before long runs (i.e., 13+ miles).

loceng 8y ago

As you point out there are cycles that will influence the experience of a fast - not limited to physical energy available at any time, possible discomfort due to coping mechanisms food/eating may part of, and so on. I am still managing significant chronic pain, and although sugar is bad for inflammation - which has its own problems - it is "comforting" and numbs the pain to some degree as well. I generally go through cycles of pure water fasting for 3 days to break the sugar cravings and to bring back mental clarity, at the cost of the remaining pain localizing and becoming sharper. Still waiting for refuge from pain, potentially some more healing next week, and then have to wait another ~3 months for another stem cell treatment.

parliament32 8y ago

>If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. I always do my runs in the morning, right out of bed, fasted. Your body is very good at storing energy and using it later, I've had no issues (if anything, trying to eat before a run just causes problems for me).

poslathian 8y ago
Same - and I’ve recently upped my long runs to 12mi, which I do before eating anything. I’m sure there are limits where you need to fuel before or during an endurance activity, but I’m surprised and happy to not have found it yet.
- kareemsabri 8y ago
  I think we really over-estimate the degree to which "fasting" for less than one day affects our ability to perform. We're blessed with such an abundance of food in the west that few of us have ever felt real hunger. Your body is so far from hitting a wall after 12 hours of no food it doesn't seem to be anything but mental. I've done tons of fasted weight training and high-intensity cardio. I grew up doing sunrise to sunset fasts for Ramadan, with no water, and even that was mostly mental.
  - dingaling 8y ago
    Alternative perspective: after three hours without food during the day I begin physically shaking and have to fight an urge to curl up in a ball. I can manage about seven hours sleep + a run first thing but I have to start eating as soon as I'm back in the house, and just keep grazing until 22:00
    - kareemsabri 8y ago
      You're an outlier.
    - makewavesnotwar 8y ago
      You might want to get checked for hypoglycemia. That doesn't sound normal. (Unless you pair too much caffeine with your fasting)

mtgx 8y ago

Did you continue to eat high-carb meals after your fasting? I recently had to give up eating keto for a few weeks and then I noticed I got very hungry in the mornings. On keto I would normally eat around noon without much effort. If your body gets used to high insulin it will naturally make you crave food more often.

mancerayder 8y ago

To all those who replied saying they fast and do long distance running, I guess I stand corrected. But I'd be concerned about muscle catabolism, as if the body is asked to retrieve energy due to demands placed on it, surely after a prolonged fast the muscle tissue is a strong candidate.

foldr 8y ago
Well we're talking about intermittent fasting here. You'd gave to be pretty damn skinny for your body to have run out of fat to burn within 16 hours (max).
- mancerayder 8y ago
  There are comments above about prolonged fasting (more than typical IF) and long distance running.

arcturus17 8y ago

> I've concluded thus far that, fundamentally, there's no one-size-fits-all for human bodies Exactly. I've had pretty bad experiences with a no-breakfast IF. After two or three weeks on the diet, I get insomnia, and I definitely feel more stress. On the latter, I've read that IF raises cortisol levels, so that might be it. That's actually pretty good when you're at low baseline stress levels (it puts you in a state of "positive anxiety"), but when you're stressed from work it can take you over the limit. Ultimately I stopped it because I'm already at around ~12% BF - I couldn't even say why I was doing it anymore. Three healthy meals a day and regular exercise does it for me. If this works for people without negative consequences, then all the more power to them. I really like how it goes against the "shove things into your mouth at every waking hour" philosophy, which has become a ridiculous dogma in modern society.