3 ms·

1. Agree for the first 24 to 48, disagree thereafter. 2. True, depends heavily on diet. The liver and muscles can store a ton of glycogen. Also this is where a

1. Agree for the first 24 to 48, disagree thereafter. 2. True, depends heavily on diet. The liver and muscles can store a ton of glycogen. Also this is where a lot of the water weight comes from. Dunno about OP, but I’m in a pretty quick 12 to 18 hours back into ketosis pattern with fasting now. 3. Strongly agree, it’s too much. 4. Disagree completely, huge difference metabolically in calorie restriction vs calorie abstinence. 5. Somewhat agree, but the caveat I take issue with is ‘easily’, also most people who will be reading this post are likely quite far away from ‘running out of fat’. 6. Rounding error. 7. Agree. 8. Strongly disagree. I was burning the same 3500kcal or so per day on day 1 as I was on day 60 of my fast, experienced little to no metabolic slowdown. > To lose 1kg, all this guy has to do is make one small adjustment to his daily routine. One less sugar in his coffee, one less take-out a month, a little more cardio, etc For some people, It’s easier and more sustainable to just not eat sometimes.

me_me_me 6y ago
> 1. Agree for the first 24 to 48, disagree thereafter. a neat-pick. That is BS. If you dont eat for 24 to 48. You will loose roughly 2500 x2 calories worth of weight. And On top of that you will loose weight due to water being dumped from you muscles. After refeeding that amount of water will be reabsorbed 'gaining back the weight'. So its not like you have to fast for +3 days to loose some weight.
bArray 6y ago
> 1. Agree for the first 24 to 48, disagree thereafter. It'll still come back. > 4. Disagree completely, huge difference metabolically in > calorie restriction vs calorie abstinence. Yeah, with one you risk your metabolism slowing down. In terms of fat burning, there shouldn't be that much difference. There is only so much fat your body can convert into energy at any one time, if you go over this you're in trouble. > 5. Somewhat agree, but the caveat I take issue with is > ‘easily’, also most people who will be reading this post > are likely quite far away from ‘running out of fat’. You don't need to run out of fat, you just need to run out of accessible fat. You have an upper limit to how much you can instantly access, the process takes time. That's why people carb feed just before exercise to increase their workout performance, otherwise you'll literally run out of energy and crash. > 6. Rounding error. I'm not talking about an increase in weight, I'm talking about the vitamins not having the desired affect. > 8. Strongly disagree. I was burning the same 3500kcal or > so per day on day 1 as I was on day 60 of my fast, > experienced little to no metabolic slowdown. It of course depends per person, but metabolic slowdown is a real concern. To me it sounds like this person switches from fasting to OMAD (intermittent fasting) + VLCD, which is still unsustainable over long periods but is much more sustainable than a water-based diet.

me_me_me 6y ago

> 1. Agree for the first 24 to 48, disagree thereafter. a neat-pick. That is BS. If you dont eat for 24 to 48. You will loose roughly 2500 x2 calories worth of weight. And On top of that you will loose weight due to water being dumped from you muscles. After refeeding that amount of water will be reabsorbed 'gaining back the weight'. So its not like you have to fast for +3 days to loose some weight.

bArray 6y ago

> 1. Agree for the first 24 to 48, disagree thereafter. It'll still come back. > 4. Disagree completely, huge difference metabolically in > calorie restriction vs calorie abstinence. Yeah, with one you risk your metabolism slowing down. In terms of fat burning, there shouldn't be that much difference. There is only so much fat your body can convert into energy at any one time, if you go over this you're in trouble. > 5. Somewhat agree, but the caveat I take issue with is > ‘easily’, also most people who will be reading this post > are likely quite far away from ‘running out of fat’. You don't need to run out of fat, you just need to run out of accessible fat. You have an upper limit to how much you can instantly access, the process takes time. That's why people carb feed just before exercise to increase their workout performance, otherwise you'll literally run out of energy and crash. > 6. Rounding error. I'm not talking about an increase in weight, I'm talking about the vitamins not having the desired affect. > 8. Strongly disagree. I was burning the same 3500kcal or > so per day on day 1 as I was on day 60 of my fast, > experienced little to no metabolic slowdown. It of course depends per person, but metabolic slowdown is a real concern. To me it sounds like this person switches from fasting to OMAD (intermittent fasting) + VLCD, which is still unsustainable over long periods but is much more sustainable than a water-based diet.