Thinking of going on a fast to slow my metabolism- thoughts?

gonedrinking

I've been thinking of fasting for 2 or 3 days in order to slow down my metabolism to help my put on weight when I stop fasting. My reasoning is that:

1. Overweight people are advised to eat small meals frequently to help speed up their metabolism, so it makes sense for me to do the opposite (albeit in an extreme fashion admittedly).
2. I was in hospital for 2 weeks when I was younger, I didn't eat much during this time as the food was awful, and probably the medication I was taking suppressed my appetite I think. A few weeks after leaving hospital and eating normally again I had put on quite a bit of weight, so that I weighed more than I was before I entered hospital. I noticed the same with a friend of mine, he was in hospital for a while and when he got out he put on a lot of weight.
3. People who go on these mad diets where they eat virtually nothing, when they inevitally get sick/bored with the diet and go back to eating normally they usually put on more weight than they lost with the dieting.

I was thinking of doing it next weekend. I will stop eating at about 1pm on a Friday (therefore will only be half a day in work without eating) and stopping the fast on the Sunday night when I will have a massive feast.

What do people think of this plan? Have their been any studies into anything like this before? Do you think 2 and a half days would be enough time for my metabolism to slow down?

O.P.H

The last time I didnt eat for a whole three days, because of being sick, I lost over half a stone of a stone.

You want to put on weight and you think fasting is a good idead?

Isnt the word metabolism a combination of anabolism(building up processes) and catabolism(breaking down processes), if you slow your metabolism wont you will slow both processes?

Regardless of all that, my common sence is telling me, all extreme ideas like this are nonsence and if you are having trouble gaining weight you are doing the basics wrong. Read stickies for diet info and training info imo.

gonedrinking

O.P.H wrote: »

The last time I didnt eat for a whole three days, because of being sick, I lost over half a stone of a stone.

You want to put on weight and you think fasting is a good idead?

Regardless of all that, my common sence is telling me, all extreme ideas like this are nonsence and if you are having trouble gaining weight you are doing the basics wrong. Read stickies for diet info and training info imo.

I've just reached a bit of a plateau in terms of gaining weight, and want to try something different. The memory of putting all that weight on after I came out of hospital has always been at the back of my mind and I've always toyed with the notion of fasting to try and see similiar results again.

Once I stop fasting I am planning on eating a ton of food for the next week, to the point where I am almost puking I'll be that full. Neither the fasting nor the eating to the point of puking will be pleasant but I'm willing to give it a try in the hope of seeing good results.

PeakOutput

gonedrinking wrote: »

I've just reached a bit of a plateau in terms of gaining weight, and want to try something different..

eat more as you gain muscle you need to increase your intake as your burning more

Scuba Ste

I know a guy who used to do this regularly (every few moths or so) to detox. He'd just drink water for a few days and eat certain herbs and veg, he was a bit mad though. He was in the russian navy as a young guy, on a nuclear sub for a while. Lots of his navy buddies had issues afterwards but he swears this sorted him.

Id say you'll adapt pretty quick afterwards tbh, so unless you been on a sub recently I'd say no.

Parsley

i'm gonna put this crazy idea out here, but try eating more.

d'Oracle

OP you could try it and see what happens.

But the majority of people who have gotten big got there by eating like a pair or stallions and lifting heavy stuff.

I mean if you are a scientific mind sure, you could try it and observe everything.
But bear in mind your reasoning in your post implies you know half of bugger all about nutrition. And most if not all of the coaches who post on here usually recommending eating obscene amounts of food to put on mass.

gonedrinking

d'Oracle wrote: »

OP you could try it and see what happens.

But the majority of people who have gotten big got there by eating like a pair or stallions and lifting heavy stuff.

I mean if you are a scientific mind sure, you could try it and observe everything.
But bear in mind your reasoning in your post implies you know half of bugger all about nutrition. And most if not all of the coaches who post on here usually recommending eating obscene amounts of food to put on mass.

I'm not doubting that I need to simply eat more to put on weight, but my reason for considering this is twofold.

First off I recently upped my daily food intake and I'm still getting used to eating my current amount, I just couldn't face upping my intake again so soon.

Secondly I'm also interested in trying new things. I was expecting to be jeered and mocked on this thread, but the world needs people like me. People who will not simply accept what has gone before is the best way of approaching something. People who will challenge conventional wisdom.

If it was up to people like Parsley we'd all still believe the world is flat and smoking is good for you. Open your mind.

O.P.H

gonedrinking wrote: »

I'm not doubting that I need to simply eat more to put on weight, but my reason for considering this is twofold.

First off I recently upped my daily food intake and I'm still getting used to eating my current amount, I just couldn't face upping my intake again so soon.

Secondly I'm also interested in trying new things. I was expecting to be jeered and mocked on this thread, but the world needs people like me. People who will not simply accept what has gone before is the best way of approaching something. People who will challenge conventional wisdom.

If it was up to people like Parsley we'd all still believe the world is round and smoking is good for you. Open your mind.

Thats complete bull!

When science proves things, thats it, its proven, no amount of "mind opening" is going to change what has been proven. People had to "open their mind" to prove the world is not flat, but thats done now. Science has proven that eating alot makes you bigger etc. I guarentte you that you will not stumble across some amazing new way of getting big by fasting for 3 days to mess with your metabolism.

But despite all that, if you are hell bent on doing what you want regardless of advice given, why bother posting in the first place?

gonedrinking

O.P.H wrote: »

Thats complete bull!

When science proves things, thats it, its proven, no amount of "mind opening" is going to change what has been proven. People had to "open their mind" to prove the world is not flat, but thats done now. Science has proven that eating alot makes you bigger etc. I guarentte you that you will not stumble across some amazing new way of getting big by fasting for 3 days to mess with your metabolism.

But despite all that, if you are hell bent on doing what you want regardless of advice given, why bother posting in the first place?

I didn't say I'm definitely doing it, I'm simply considering it and looking for opinions/thought/debate/evidence of research that people know of. I wasn't looking to be dismissed with a mere "eat more" comment.

Riding a horse was once considered a quick way of getting from A to B. Thanks to inquisitive and visionary people, cars were invented. I'm sure the people making them were ridiculed by people like you for questioning the proven effectiveness of the horse.

Science has neither proven or disproven what I'm suggesting. There are however signs suggesting that what I'm saying is true therefore I'd like to investigate this area more.

I really can't understand why you are so against a harmless experiment like this.

BobbyOLeary

gonedrinking wrote: »

the world needs people like me.

Damn right we do. My gran is watching Murder, She Wrote and I can't watch Paramount Comedy. You'll do perfectly for now.

Really, noone cares if you follow this experiment or not. It's a stupid way of trying to gain weight and everyone has told you that. If you want to do it grand, just don't expect anyone here to salute you for the great service you're providing to the world of fitness.

Parsley

gonedrinking wrote: »

I didn't say I'm definitely doing it, I'm simply considering it and looking for opinions/thought/debate/evidence of research that people know of. I wasn't looking to be dismissed with a mere "eat more" comment.

Riding a horse was once considered a quick way of getting from A to B. Thanks to inquisitive and visionary people, cars were invented. I'm sure the people making them were ridiculed by people like you for questioning the proven effectiveness of the horse.

Science has neither proven or disproven what I'm suggesting. There are however signs suggesting that what I'm saying is true therefore I'd like to investigate this area more.

I really can't understand why you are so against a harmless experiment like this.

that horse-car analogy is a bit crap. a horse will get you there, a car will get you there faster. eating food will get you bigger, eating even more food will get you bigger still... this was realised by inquisitive and visionary people, who then became the biggest and strongest people in the world.

rubadub

Many people do short fasts to help them lose weight. One or 2 posters in the nutrition & diet forum do fasts once a week. I am not just talking about the missing/fewer calories making them lose fat. I think, it might take long term calorie deficit to slow your metabolism.

gonedrinking

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Damn right we do. My gran is watching Murder, She Wrote and I can't watch Paramount Comedy. You'll do perfectly for now.

Really, noone cares if you follow this experiment or not. It's a stupid way of trying to gain weight and everyone has told you that. If you want to do it grand, just don't expect anyone here to salute you for the great service you're providing to the world of fitness.

3 people have disagreed with me, hardly "everyone."

d'Oracle

gonedrinking wrote: »

. People who will challenge conventional wisdom.

Thats not what you are doing.

gonedrinking wrote: »

If it was up to people like Parsley we'd all still believe the world is flat and smoking is good for you. Open your mind.

Yeah, I was thinking of using arsenic as an anabolic.

gonedrinking

Parsley wrote: »

that horse-car analogy is a bit crap. a horse will get you there, a car will get you there faster. eating food will get you bigger, eating even more food will get you bigger still... this was realised by inquisitive and visionary people, who then became the biggest and strongest people in the world.

No the horse-car anology was perfectly fine, a horse will get me there, a car will get me there faster, eating more food will make my gain weight, going on a fast followed by a week long feast *may* help me gain weight quicker.

rubadub

gonedrinking wrote: »

Sunday night when I will have a massive feast.

If I was trying to put on weight I would try eating more at night. In some study rats put on more weight by eating the same calories later on. Sumos eat up a big lunch and then sleep.

Rikishi (sumos) are not normally allowed to eat breakfast and are expected to have a form of siesta after a large lunch. The most common type of lunch served is the traditional "sumo meal" of chankonabe which consists of a simmering stew cooked at table which contains various fish, meat, and vegetables. It is usually eaten with rice and washed down with beer. This regimen of no breakfast and a large lunch followed by a sleep helps rikishi put on weight so as to compete more effectively.

But I am not sure if this is moreso fat being put on. Many will eat casein shakes at night with the aim of building muscle, your body is meant to be in a state of repair while sleeping so I did wonder why late eating is not more popular for skinny guys or BBers.

gonedrinking

rubadub wrote: »

Many people do short fasts to help them lose weight. One or 2 posters in the nutrition & diet forum do fasts once a week. I am not just talking about the missing/fewer calories making them lose fat. I think, it might take long term calorie deficit to slow your metabolism.

Thats not the same as what I am proposing though. I am proposing a once-of fast, lasting 2.5 days, to shock my body into survival mode. I will then follow the fast with a feast. I will eat more food in the week following the fast than I usually eat. Hopefully my body will store more of this energy than it usually does due to me being in "survival" mode. I will also be working out during the whole fast/feast period to ensure my body does not simply store all the food as fat.

Although whether 2.5 days is enough to shock my system is up for debate.

gonedrinking

rubadub wrote: »

If I was trying to put on weight I would try eating more at night. In some study rats put on more weight by eating the same calories later on. Sumos eat up a big lunch and then sleep.

But I am not sure if this is moreso fat being put on. Many will eat casein shakes at night with the aim of building muscle, your body is meant to be in a state of repair while sleeping so I did wonder why late eating is not more popular for skinny guys or BBers.

The problem with eating late at night is that it disrupts your sleep quite significantly.

BobbyOLeary

gonedrinking wrote: »

3 people have disagreed with me, hardly "everyone."

Everyone is this thread has. Look, go and do your fast and then eat loads and report back. Noone here is going to agree with you or congratulate you on your big achievement. If you want to gain weight, eat more. There's no big elaborate solution to the problem. Want to be heavier = eat more. Want to be lighter = eat less.

gonedrinking

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Everyone is this thread has. Look, go and do your fast and then eat loads and report back. Noone here is going to agree with you or congratulate you on your big achievement. If you want to gain weight, eat more. There's no big elaborate solution to the problem. Want to be heavier = eat more. Want to be lighter = eat less.

You can keep repeating the "eat more" phrase till the cows come home, but it will still have next to no relevance to this thread. I've already said I agree with it but for reasons already stated I'm interested in trying something different.

And I'm not looking for congratulations, why would I care what a bunch of anonymous people on the internet care about my anonymous internet persona. I've got a goal that I want to achieve, thats all I care about.

I'll reiterate why I started this thread since you seem to have trouble grasping it. I started it to hear peoples intelligent well thought out opinions (not dismissive snearing comments), peoples experience with fasting due to sickness/ramadam/experimentation whatever. I also wanted to know if anyone was aware of any empirical research on the subject.

TommyKnocker

BobbyOLeary wrote: »

Everyone is this thread has. Look, go and do your fast and then eat loads and report back. Noone here is going to agree with you or congratulate you on your big achievement. If you want to gain weight, eat more. There's no big elaborate solution to the problem. Want to be heavier = eat more. Want to be lighter = eat less.

OP

It really is this simple, if you want to gain weight eat more calories.

Quoted from your post from 10:30 today

First off I recently upped my daily food intake and I'm still getting used to eating my current amount, I just couldn't face upping my intake again so soon.

Quoted from your post at 12:40 today

I will then follow the fast with a feast. I will eat more food in the week following the fast than I usually eat.

Now ignoring the fact that your second post contradicts your first. Why not just start you feast now and skip the so called fast which I don't believe you will benefit from.

All you need to do is to look for calorie dense foods. i.e. 100g of most nuts would provide circa 600 calories. Personally I could eat 300g of nuts at a time. Likewise 1lt of whole milk will provide circa 650 calories. I could drink a liter of milk in 1 go (and I don't really like the taste of milk).

I am no expert. But IMHO I don't see either the need or the benefit of your proposed fast. But as has been said already, it's your body and your life, so if you think that fasting is the way to go, then go ahead. Either you will discover a new way of bulking or you will lose some weight (due to not eating) and then gain it back again plus a little more when you start eating again, as you will be eating more then you are at present.

Best Regards,

M

gonedrinking

I would eat more in the week after as my body would be craving food and I would have a bigger appetite. If this didn't happen then I would just force myself to eat to uncomfortable levels for the purpose of the experiment. If it was only for a week then I could manage it.

The reason I'm not skipping the fast is that it is needed to trick my body into storing more food.

And I already do the whole 2 litre of milk a day and tons of peanuts.

Just found an article about the subject matter which I'm going to have a read of now:

http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/forums/diet-nutrition-chat/48868-fasting-body-recomp.html

BobbyOLeary

gonedrinking wrote: »

And I'm not looking for congratulations, why would I care what a bunch of anonymous people on the internet care about my anonymous internet persona. I've got a goal that I want to achieve, thats all I care about.

Then go and do it. There's a reason noone is coming forward with empirical evidence for what you're proposing. It doesn't work as well as stuffing your face.

Intermittant fasting is something paraded around by a lot of the paleo groupies. I'm not dismissing it but I really feel people are buying too much into what Grok was doing and not enough into what works for you. Look at Hanley's blog on here or, actually better still look at Cardio's. He's put on a shed load of weight since starting on here (once he got off the leg press :pac:).

Calling us all closed minded because we're dismissing your idea is insulting. The people who have responded to your thread are some of the biggest contributers to this forum and their opinions are usually quite well thought out and backed up by either empirical or anecdotal evidence. You came on here looking for thoughts on your idea. We gave you our thoughts - it's a crock. It wasn't what you wanted to hear but that's life really.

Ignore what we've said and call me closed minded if you want, I don't care. I just know that anyone who's put on any amount of muscle hasn't done it by fasting first and THEN eating. They've skipped the middleman and just gone for the milk.

TommyKnocker

Ok, again I am no expert. I possess qualifications in neither physical training, nutritional or medical fields. However, even to this layman your reasoning is flawed.

gonedrinking wrote: »

I would eat more in the week after as my body would be craving food and I would have a bigger appetite.

You will be craving food for sure after 2.5 days, but this craving will last exactly as long as it takes to fill your stomach. Try to cram too much in and you will just throw it back up.

If this didn't happen then I would just force myself to eat to uncomfortable levels for the purpose of the experiment. If it was only for a week then I could manage it.

Again this is not required. Just eat calorie dense foods, so that the same quantity gives you a higher calorie yield.

The reason I'm not skipping the fast is that it is needed to trick my body into storing more food.

Absolute rubbish. The human body has evolved over thousands of years. It's function is to keep you alive. It naturally stores excess food as fat when there is an abundance. A two day fast is not going to trick you body into doing what it is designed to do or make it better at doing it.

And I already do the whole 2 litre of milk a day and tons of peanuts.

So up your milk intake to 4 lt and seriously, peanuts have to the least beneficial varieties of nuts around. Try Brazil nuts, Almond nuts, Hazelnuts, Cashew, Walnuts, Pecans etc. These are much better varieties.

Just found an article about the subject matter which I'm going to have a read of now:

http://www.bodybuildingforyou.com/forums/diet-nutrition-chat/48868-fasting-body-recomp.html

I'll leave you to it

The reason I'm not skipping the fast is that it is needed to trick my body into storing more food.

This just shows that you are in fact the one with the closed mind. You came on here with an idea. Other members have tried to show you that although your idea is not harmful to your health, it is certainly not necessary. However you refuse to listen and are intent to go with your experiment. So off you go. Obviously nothing I or anybody else on here will say will change your mind.

Best of luck,

M

Parsley

OP, it's your life. if you feel you need to do this to satisfy your scientific curiousity, just do it and don't be offended by people telling you it's probably retarded. hell, if it works you could send your findings on to jay cutler and teach him how bulking is done.

gonedrinking

I know most people here won't, but I would recommend that anyone interested in this topic has a look at that article I posted, a lot of interesting points were made and plenty of empirical research quoted to back up the article. Intermittent fasting is diffently something I will do at some point. I need to buy weighing scales first before I do anything though. Points of note and points which I agree with in the article are:

---

"The fasting aspect of the diet has several positive effects on lipolysis, partly mediated by catecholamines and growth hormone release during the fast. Besides acting as an appetite suppressant, the catecholamines provides a stimulant effect; you will most likely feel like you have more energy and focus than usual (in this state any other stimulants, like caffeine for example, also has a more potent effect in comparison to being consumed on a full stomach).."


*"No more obsessive thinking about food and worrying about eating every second hour.
* Increased mental focus, energy and productivity during the fast."

"despite the popular dogmatic thinking, this is called "normal eating". It seems 90% of people have to be forced to eat breakfast(suprisingly, its the breakfast food companies that keep pushing the whole "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" crap )

The simple fact is, when you eat food you engage the parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn shuts off the sympathetic nervous system. The PS system is the "rest and digest" system, while the S system is the "fight or flight". The S system is the one that innervates adipose tissue and stimulates catecholamine release."

"If you look at research from studies of a Frenchman named Yves Boirie. His work is probably the most referenced work in the protein literature, and he's conducted several studies comparing protein in a spread pattern vs protein in a "pulse" fashion, getting 80% protein in one large meal. Protein is actually digested better in a pulse pattern, protein synthesis increases dramatically so u basically utilize more protein, needing to take in less. Subsequent protein meals in a spread pattern, eating protein several times a day, does cause it to necessarily be used for tissue growth/repair/maintenance, but causes the subsequent protein meals to be burned as fuel. Now this can be beneficial as protein has a greater thermic effect than fats and carbs, but its not optimal to preserve muscle since muscles has receptor sites to aminos that downregulate for a period of time when fed protein."

---

One of my main gripes with trying to put weight on is the frequency and amount of time I have to devote to eating each day. IF will solve this problem for me (if it works).

Also bizarrely I have noticed that my energy levels are highest when I haven't eaten in a long time. My energy levels are at their lowest in the hours after a meal, and since I am eating every 2 hours I am constantly feeling lethargic throughout the day.

brianthebard

You didn't post a link so for all we know that article could be something you made up. However you probably didn't realise that its trying to prove fasting will help weight loss, so I doubt you made it up, or indeed understand what its saying.
If you feel lethargic after eating you're probably having a ton of simple carbs like pasta, or else are lactose intolerant and drinking lots of milk. You really just don't have the first clue how to gain weight judging from your posts in this thread, but you've convinced yourself that the 'right' thing isn't working because that's not what you want to do. You're not the first person to do that, but you're just as deluded as the rest. Personally I love the arbitrary selection of 2.5 days for a fast, based on nothing other than your opinion that you might be hungry after that.
I know based on your earlier posts that this one won't dissuage you from your mission of 'scientific discovery' and tbh I don't want it to, because sometimes its just fun to stand back and watch someone poke a fork in a live socket.

FTA69

gonedrinking wrote: »

I'm not doubting that I need to simply eat more to put on weight, but my reason for considering this is twofold.

First off I recently upped my daily food intake and I'm still getting used to eating my current amount, I just couldn't face upping my intake again so soon.

Secondly I'm also interested in trying new things. I was expecting to be jeered and mocked on this thread, but the world needs people like me. People who will not simply accept what has gone before is the best way of approaching something. People who will challenge conventional wisdom.

If it was up to people like Parsley we'd all still believe the world is flat and smoking is good for you. Open your mind.

Starve away lad. You won't end up putting on any weight though.

shootermacg

IMO this won't work although I understand why you think it will. The reason for some people having a slow metabolism (besides genetics/medical problems) is a lifestyle of bad eating:
Skipping breakfast eating a huge dinner/lunch to make up for it, then starving during the evening leading them to crave sugary/savioury carbs at night + a lack of exercise.

Fasting for 2.5 days IMO will just lead to weight loss (looks like a more extreme form of the zigzag cutting diet) your fast metabolism will not cut out because of 2 days. it'll kick back in after you start eating properly.
I personally don't have a problem with gaining weight...more with losing weight tbh ^ ^.

I would echo the other posters here, eat big, eat often and if you are trying to gain weight eat a langer load late at night. I don't care who you are..if you eat enough you will gain weight.

If it's muscle you're after eat a nice balance of carbs/protein and fat (add more carbs if desired), if you eat enough of that then you will gain weight, if you workout hard you will gain weight.
The people with bad eating habits aren't beefcakes they are actually unfit and overweight/fat. You cannot turn fat to muscle.
If you workout on a fast day you will actually be losing muscle. I'd rather eat and workout to gain weight on those days.
So if you actually succeed in gaining fat what then?

PeakOutput

dude just try it you have gotten the opinion of the people you asked so now go and do it and report back

gonedrinking

brianthebard wrote: »

You didn't post a link so for all we know that article could be something you made up. However you probably didn't realise that its trying to prove fasting will help weight loss, so I doubt you made it up, or indeed understand what its saying.
If you feel lethargic after eating you're probably having a ton of simple carbs like pasta, or else are lactose intolerant and drinking lots of milk. You really just don't have the first clue how to gain weight judging from your posts in this thread, but you've convinced yourself that the 'right' thing isn't working because that's not what you want to do. You're not the first person to do that, but you're just as deluded as the rest. Personally I love the arbitrary selection of 2.5 days for a fast, based on nothing other than your opinion that you might be hungry after that.
I know based on your earlier posts that this one won't dissuage you from your mission of 'scientific discovery' and tbh I don't want it to, because sometimes its just fun to stand back and watch someone poke a fork in a live socket.

I posted the link to the article in post 23 on this thread. If you read it you will understand it is not trying to prove fasting will cause weight loss.

The 2.5 days was selected, because its the most amount of time I can do without it impacting on my work. I work mon-fri 9.50 so I can manage half a day without food at work. So doing that to the end of the weekend will be 2.5 days.

gonedrinking

Heres another interesting article, by Dr. Bernarr, D.C. D.D:

Fasting is an effective preliminary to gaining weight. Fasting is abstention entirely or in part, and for longer or shorter periods of time, from food and drink or from food alone. No weight is gained while the fast is in progress. The body must lose weight when it goes without food. The changes produced by fasting affect the body's ability to handle food. Fasting increases the ability of the cells to take up and appropriate nutrient materials. Fasting helps gain-more weight on less food.

Fasting improves the appetite and the body's ability, and powers to digest, absorb, assimilate and utilize food. Fasting gives the body a physiological rest and helps it to recoup its vitality and nervous energy. Fasting helps to purify the tissues and clear then of their metabolic wastes. Fasting will enable the body to utilize the nutrients provided in order to build up compact and more healthy tissues.

When eating is resumed, new tissue is rapidly built up. Fasting restores not only the weight that was lost, but goes beyond that point, if the food intake is unrestricted, after fasting. The rate of metabolism is materially increased by a fast. This means that the cells are more active and oxidize more food. Enough additional food is eaten not only to support the increased metabolism, but causes the persons who fast to attain a greater weight than they had carried before fasting. This effect lasts for a long time after the fast. This is the effect partly of the recuperation of the digestive organs through rest and partly of the demand of the body for more food.

d'Oracle

Just for the sake of correctness.

If you post an article, post the article or a link to the article.
Don't post 3 paragraphs from the article because context is an important thing. It helps nothing.

Unless of course the article is only those 3 paragraphs, which would lead one to dismiss it immediately.

bubblyone

Did a quick search on Dr Bernarr since you seem to think he is a guru. He believes in sunbathing as therapy and is also very much against the surgical treatment of hernias,claiming a strangulated hernia will not harm you. Trust me,I've seen enough cases of people almost dying of the complications of hernias to know that they can harm you. And he's therefore not only a quack,but a dangerous one. And what qualifications are DD and DC? Neither means medical doctor.
As for fasting for weight gain,I think you're confused. To gain mass you need a caloric surplus. If you fast,you'll be in a deficit for those days and will then have to work very hard to catch up and overeat if you want a surplus. Like a bulimic without the laxatives or puking. You'll gain weight when you start eating but that's because you'll have lost a few pounds between fluid,muscle glycogen and the physical weight of the food in your bowel during the fast. So you get to go between depleted and a bit puffy. I also think you're overestimating the power of 'starvation mode'. You're only aiming to fast for a couple of days,not undereat chronically. I think you'll find most people who advocate fasting do it for religious or fat loss reasons...or as a 'detox'. You seem hell bent on trying though so off with you. It just makes no logical sense.

d'Oracle

bubblyone wrote: »

Did a quick search on Dr Bernarr since you seem to think he is a guru. He believes in sunbathing as therapy and is also very much against the surgical treatment of hernias,claiming a strangulated hernia will not harm you. Trust me,I've seen enough cases of people almost dying of the complications of hernias to know that they can harm you. And he's therefore not only a quack,but a dangerous one. And what qualifications are DD and DC? Neither means medical doctor.
.

Gonna point out here that Sunbathing is a therapy for a number of ailments.

Also that this has gone beyond a joke.
Why the hell do people have to continuously attack this dude?
This got old in the first 5 posts.

rubadub

bubblyone wrote: »

As for fasting for weight gain,I think you're confused. To gain mass you need a caloric surplus.

I can follow his logic, if the basal metabolic rate drops then a calorie surplus is now lower (if the theory holds true) so easier to achieve. So say your basal rate was 3000kcal a day, you need to eat 21,000kcal per week to remain the same weight. Now if you did not eat for 1 full day and it slowed your metabolism to 2000kcal indefinitely (extremes just for ease of figures), then he only needs to eat 14,000kcal per week from now on to maintain the same weight. So if he does not like eating he will find it easier to achieve a calorie surplus.

BUT it will not change indefinitely, the metabolism would decrease again so you would need to be regularly fasting to increase it again (if the theory holds true). So there will come a break even point. If you have to fast for 2.5 days every single week to lower your metabolism from 3000 to 2900kcal then you will probably lose weight during those fasting periods and probably would have had a far easier time just eating a small surplus ever single day.

The rate of metabolism is materially increased by a fast. This means that the cells are more active and oxidize more food. Enough additional food is eaten not only to support the increased metabolism, but causes the persons who fast to attain a greater weight than they had carried before fasting.

This sounds like your metabolism will increase but you will be so hungry you will eat over and beyond your basal needs. But if somebody does not like eating I wonder if this might happen -most skinny guys I know simply do not appear to enjoy food, some of my mates look like they are attacking food when they eat, and getting no enjoyment at all.

gonedrinking wrote: »

The problem with eating late at night is that it disrupts your sleep quite significantly.

I don't have this problem so it would suit me fine. It could be due to indigestion so you could find more easily digestible foods to eat.

kevpants

Everyone may be shouting down the idea but guys have been putting on weight for years by eating 2x massive meals a day, early morning and late at night.

None of them could even spell metabolism but it's a common enough idea to starve yourself between binges.

Check out the video "10 mins to 6" on youtube (don't have access in work) where a very large black man lifts very large weights and talks about this.

Barry.Oglesby

gonedrinking wrote: »

but the world needs people like me. People who will not simply accept what has gone before is the best way of approaching something. People who will challenge conventional wisdom.

You're exactly right. Go you. You need to go against the grain of all those learned men and tell them that NO, I will not lie down and allow you to dictate the laws of biology to me! I will write my own chapter!

Does the term delusions of grandeur mean anything to you?

rubadub

kevpants wrote: »

it's a common enough idea to starve yourself between binges.

I think it was amazingemmet who posted some guy talking about wolfing down food quickly to get within the "20min window", i.e. when people are dieting they are told not to rush food as your body does not recognise that you have eaten for about 20mins, so they keep horsing down food until their body says to stop. So if you have a starter and a delay until your next course your hunger will be satisfied. So if you have gone all day with no food you would be ravenous and be able to demolish more in this 20min window.

My 20min window lasts several days though :pac:

Remmy

Op go for it but your appetite wont significantly increase over that 'feast week'.You keep eating after you feel full and eventually you will throw it back up and thats just a waste.I'm not saying dont eat big but its not as if you can just tough it out and keep eating indefinitly.I threw up about four or five times from over-indulgence.It sucks.