3 ms·

What are the effects of hgh on a fasted nutrient state though? You aren't packing on muscle fasted for any length of time.

mikevm 6y ago
You are correct - there aren't (see my post above)
arcticbull 6y ago
Correct, it doesn't add to your muscle mass when fasting, of course, that wouldn't make sense. What it does is increase fat oxidation and prevent the breakdown of your existing muscle. The net of it is a better final body composition; specifically a better fat:muscle ratio.
- LegitShady 6y ago
  But you can get that ratio with any caloric deficit - no fasting hgh required.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    There are physiological differences between caloric restriction and fasting approaches. Fasting naturally ends up in ketosis where you body has switched to using lipids as your primary fuel and hgh supports that process. This isn’t the case with normal caloric restriction diets generally speaking. Continually eating keeps insulin levels up, suppresses hgh production and unless you’re very intentional about it, keeps you out of ketosis making your primary fuel glucose instead of fat. Your body also produces substantial amounts of noradrenalin while fasting. Further compliance is another area where you may see differences. A lot of people find it much easier to eat nothing at all than to count and document each calorie. Certainly if ketosis if your goal where getting to that point takes few days and accidentally eating a few grams of sugar physically switches your brains primary fuel source from ketones to glucose. Lastly the other big difference between continuous caloric restriction and fasting is that your metabolism will slow down when you’re on a CR diet to match your new food intake level over time. I can find some studies. However that is not true of fasting approaches. The reality is weight loss via caloric restriction is incredibly hard. WeightWatchers for instance published a study that showed people on their program were less likely to lose weight than the general public. Caloric restriction diets generally simply do not work. You can always blame compliance or the participants but at the end of the day the goal of a weight loss program is to have compliance. The reality is your body is in a very different mode when you eat nothing as compared to when you’re eating a little less.
    - LegitShady 6y ago
      It does not surprise me that weight watchers clients are less likely to lose weight - they are already looking for a miracle diet and miracle foods that don't have points to make them skinny. Instead buy a kitchen scale, keep track of how much you eat in a journal for a few weeks to find your maintenance caloric intake, and drop it by 10% and add some physical activity like walking. If you still aren't losing weight you're probably eating calories you aren't tracking. The problem with ketosis for people who struggle with diet control is that its easy to come out of,and then you're eating a high fat diet and not on ketosis. Id rather a balanced diet that allows me to go out and eat with friends occasionally without worrying about ketosis. Once you track and measure your normal food for a few weeks you get a better understanding of what 100grqms of pasta or 4 ounces of beef is, and it becomes easier to understand how much food you should be eating. If the goal of a weight loss diet is compliance then weight loss should be fairly slow 1% a week without extreme caloric or food type restriction.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        > If the goal of a weight loss diet is compliance then weight loss should be fairly slow 1% a week without extreme caloric or food type restriction. Again there is no evidence caloric restriction diets actually lead to sustained weight loss, and a lot of evidence that they simply do not. Kind of mind blowing, right? In fact this meta-study showed people would actually be better off not going on a diet in the first place. [1] Remember, your metabolism will slow down when you start restricting your caloric intake by a small quantity (while it increases when you do it by a large quantity) and you will start compensating for the food you don't eat with reduced desire for physical activity and cravings for food. You also start compensating for increased physical activity the same way. This is a natural evolutionary response: your body wants you to stockpile fat for a rainy day. The thesis for fasting is it tells your body it is that rainy day and it's time to dig into the larder. If it was that easy, there simply wouldn't be fat people. Caloric restriction diets don't do anything, and it's time we stopped pushing that narrative. > Id rather a balanced diet that allows me to go out and eat with friends occasionally without worrying about ketosis. And for what it's worth with intermittent fasting you're welcome to go to town when you're not fasting. That's one of the selling points. Another thing people don't really understand about fasting is they assume you're going to be hungry. This isn't the case. After a few hours your hunger goes away, and it doesn't really come back. Not for a long time. Like, days. It's hardly a challenge to not eat. Certainly not with some practice. [1] https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCL...

mikevm 6y ago

You are correct - there aren't (see my post above)

arcticbull 6y ago

Correct, it doesn't add to your muscle mass when fasting, of course, that wouldn't make sense. What it does is increase fat oxidation and prevent the breakdown of your existing muscle. The net of it is a better final body composition; specifically a better fat:muscle ratio.

LegitShady 6y ago
But you can get that ratio with any caloric deficit - no fasting hgh required.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  There are physiological differences between caloric restriction and fasting approaches. Fasting naturally ends up in ketosis where you body has switched to using lipids as your primary fuel and hgh supports that process. This isn’t the case with normal caloric restriction diets generally speaking. Continually eating keeps insulin levels up, suppresses hgh production and unless you’re very intentional about it, keeps you out of ketosis making your primary fuel glucose instead of fat. Your body also produces substantial amounts of noradrenalin while fasting. Further compliance is another area where you may see differences. A lot of people find it much easier to eat nothing at all than to count and document each calorie. Certainly if ketosis if your goal where getting to that point takes few days and accidentally eating a few grams of sugar physically switches your brains primary fuel source from ketones to glucose. Lastly the other big difference between continuous caloric restriction and fasting is that your metabolism will slow down when you’re on a CR diet to match your new food intake level over time. I can find some studies. However that is not true of fasting approaches. The reality is weight loss via caloric restriction is incredibly hard. WeightWatchers for instance published a study that showed people on their program were less likely to lose weight than the general public. Caloric restriction diets generally simply do not work. You can always blame compliance or the participants but at the end of the day the goal of a weight loss program is to have compliance. The reality is your body is in a very different mode when you eat nothing as compared to when you’re eating a little less.
  - LegitShady 6y ago
    It does not surprise me that weight watchers clients are less likely to lose weight - they are already looking for a miracle diet and miracle foods that don't have points to make them skinny. Instead buy a kitchen scale, keep track of how much you eat in a journal for a few weeks to find your maintenance caloric intake, and drop it by 10% and add some physical activity like walking. If you still aren't losing weight you're probably eating calories you aren't tracking. The problem with ketosis for people who struggle with diet control is that its easy to come out of,and then you're eating a high fat diet and not on ketosis. Id rather a balanced diet that allows me to go out and eat with friends occasionally without worrying about ketosis. Once you track and measure your normal food for a few weeks you get a better understanding of what 100grqms of pasta or 4 ounces of beef is, and it becomes easier to understand how much food you should be eating. If the goal of a weight loss diet is compliance then weight loss should be fairly slow 1% a week without extreme caloric or food type restriction.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      > If the goal of a weight loss diet is compliance then weight loss should be fairly slow 1% a week without extreme caloric or food type restriction. Again there is no evidence caloric restriction diets actually lead to sustained weight loss, and a lot of evidence that they simply do not. Kind of mind blowing, right? In fact this meta-study showed people would actually be better off not going on a diet in the first place. [1] Remember, your metabolism will slow down when you start restricting your caloric intake by a small quantity (while it increases when you do it by a large quantity) and you will start compensating for the food you don't eat with reduced desire for physical activity and cravings for food. You also start compensating for increased physical activity the same way. This is a natural evolutionary response: your body wants you to stockpile fat for a rainy day. The thesis for fasting is it tells your body it is that rainy day and it's time to dig into the larder. If it was that easy, there simply wouldn't be fat people. Caloric restriction diets don't do anything, and it's time we stopped pushing that narrative. > Id rather a balanced diet that allows me to go out and eat with friends occasionally without worrying about ketosis. And for what it's worth with intermittent fasting you're welcome to go to town when you're not fasting. That's one of the selling points. Another thing people don't really understand about fasting is they assume you're going to be hungry. This isn't the case. After a few hours your hunger goes away, and it doesn't really come back. Not for a long time. Like, days. It's hardly a challenge to not eat. Certainly not with some practice. [1] https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCLA-Researchers-7832 https://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/Dieting-Does-Not-Work-UCL...