Fasting ineffective for shrinking belly fat, may actually increase it

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,799
Location
USA / Europe
Hopefully, this study will give some serious food for thought to people who use (intermittent) fasting (IF) with the goal of losing excess weight. A recent post of mine discussed that IF is ineffective for fat loss and actually leads to loss of lean mass. The lead author of that study, himself an IF practitioner for many years, immediately stopped practicing IF and stopped recommending it to his patients. Now, the study below demonstrates (perhaps unsurprisingly) that not only does IF not work for losing the most dangerous type of fat (visceral), but in fact likely contributes to its long-term growth by increasing the capacity/propensity of those regions to store new fat ingested from diet or synthesized de-novo (usually due to high cortisol/estrogen). Moral of the story once again is this - obesity is an endocrine/metabolic problem and cannot be healthily resolved through starving/exercising oneself to no end. Professional athletes, as unhealthy as they are, almost never fast. They use metabolic enhancers such as DNP, T3, anabolic steroids, etc because they know quite well torturing oneself with diets and "endurance" exercise does nothing but ruin health. The only people for who fasting/exercise are beneficial are the ones selling books/tutorials on such "holy inquisition" practices.

Redirecting
Belly fat resistant to every-other-day fasting: study
"...A research team led by Dr Mark Larance examined fat tissue types from different locations to understand their role during every-other-day fasting, where no food was consumed on alternate days. The fat types where changes were found included visceral "belly" fat, which is fat tissue surrounding our organs including the stomach, and subcutaneous fat, which lies just under the skin and is associated with better metabolic health.

"...During fasting, fat tissue provides energy to the rest of the body by releasing fatty acid molecules. However, the researchers found visceral fat became resistant to this release of fatty acids during fasting. There were also signs that visceral and subcutaneous fat increased their ability to store energy as fat, likely to rapidly rebuild the fat store before the next fasting period. Dr Larance said it was possible that a history of repeated fasting periods triggered a preservation signalling pathway in visceral fat. "This suggests the visceral fat can adapt to repeated fasting bouts and protect its energy store," he said. "This type of adaptation may be the reason why visceral fat can be resistant to weight loss after long periods of dieting."
 

grithin

Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2020
Messages
120
Particularly intermittent fasting in mice.

Let's consider a few things from the study and article:

"Mouse physiology is similar to humans, but their metabolism is much faster, allowing us to observe changes more rapidly than in human trials"
"Mice in the EODF group had total deprivation of food and Ad libitum access to water from 1200 h – 1200 h on alternate days with Ad libitum food and water access"

As such, this study could be more likened to a longer fast followed by a splurge (ad libitum access to food for a day ("standard chow containing 12% calories derived from fat; 23% calories derived from protein and 65% calories derived from carbohydrates (Specialty Feeds, Australia).") ), repeated multiple times.

When you have a depressed metabolic rate from starvation, and you introduce a long period of excess food intake (ab libitum food intake for a day (consider this to be a longer period since the mice have faster metabolism)), you end up with excess calories stored as fat. Particularly visceral, since the organs are downregulated by lower metabolism, they will just store the fat.

There is a notion in keto/fasting of one's capacity to burn fat or "get into ketosis". There is truth to this, and there are mechanisms behind this, but I've not seen any doctors or people in that community mention the mechanisms. Worse is, these mechanisms differ between humans and mice, making extrapolations from experiments with mice regarding fasting even more complex.

What is probably better is extracting specifics from human case studies of successful and unsuccessful fasting. As a clue, I'll mention they will probably relate to:
- physical shape of person fasting (high muscle, high metabolism)
- diet and body fat composition
- exercise habit in proximity to fasting period
- recent history of fasting, or periods of insufficient calorie intake
- recent history of overeating

These all affect gene expressions that will affect success or failure of a fast. From what I've seen, most people following Peat would do terrible on fasts.
 

scoobydoo

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
390
Particularly intermittent fasting in mice.

Let's consider a few things from the study and article:

"Mouse physiology is similar to humans, but their metabolism is much faster, allowing us to observe changes more rapidly than in human trials"
"Mice in the EODF group had total deprivation of food and Ad libitum access to water from 1200 h – 1200 h on alternate days with Ad libitum food and water access"

As such, this study could be more likened to a longer fast followed by a splurge (ad libitum access to food for a day ("standard chow containing 12% calories derived from fat; 23% calories derived from protein and 65% calories derived from carbohydrates (Specialty Feeds, Australia).") ), repeated multiple times.

When you have a depressed metabolic rate from starvation, and you introduce a long period of excess food intake (ab libitum food intake for a day (consider this to be a longer period since the mice have faster metabolism)), you end up with excess calories stored as fat. Particularly visceral, since the organs are downregulated by lower metabolism, they will just store the fat.

There is a notion in keto/fasting of one's capacity to burn fat or "get into ketosis". There is truth to this, and there are mechanisms behind this, but I've not seen any doctors or people in that community mention the mechanisms. Worse is, these mechanisms differ between humans and mice, making extrapolations from experiments with mice regarding fasting even more complex.

What is probably better is extracting specifics from human case studies of successful and unsuccessful fasting. As a clue, I'll mention they will probably relate to:
- physical shape of person fasting (high muscle, high metabolism)
- diet and body fat composition
- exercise habit in proximity to fasting period
- recent history of fasting, or periods of insufficient calorie intake
- recent history of overeating

These all affect gene expressions that will affect success or failure of a fast. From what I've seen, most people following Peat would do terrible on fasts.
I think this is a very fair response. Long term fasts are very different than shorter fasts which adequate calories
 
P

pineywoodrooter

Guest
I got ripped fasting. Ended up with a pretty good six pack.

Fasting does increase stress hormones though. I could feel it.
 

Runenight201

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2018
Messages
1,942
I feel like fasting is a good way to achieve mental clarity and become more aware of your body’s cues. Many, many people stress eat or eat out of boredom and that usually leads to negative physiological outcomes. Fasting for an ideology (IF) vs fasting during a period of meditation/focus are two different things. The former is bound to lead to the problems while the latter is empowering.
 
Joined
Mar 10, 2021
Messages
21,516
I think fasting can cure certain conditions, because the condition is worse than the fast, but to fast to lose weight makes the fast worse than the condition.
 

Aad

Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2019
Messages
433
I just completed a 96 hour dry fast. It was very hard, but extremely satisfiying. Rapid fat loss occured after the 60 hour mark.
 

revenant

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2018
Messages
300
How do you know it was fat? One kilogram of fat is 7000 kcal, and 36 hours would be 1.5 x your daily expenditure so maybe 4500 kcal maximum of fat could be burned, which would be less than a kilo. Which is assuming you'd be burning 100% fat and not muscle.
 
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom