eat stop eat
- Thread starter gavtatu
- Start date
I dont want to sound like a jerk, but this sounds pretty terrible to me. Eating 5 or 6 meals per day is the only way to go imo. And that goes double for people that train hard.
Think of your body as a machine like a car. You need to fuel it with all the proper nutrients to keep it running in top condition.
Cool bike BTW.
Think of your body as a machine like a car. You need to fuel it with all the proper nutrients to keep it running in top condition.
Cool bike BTW.
Lol....
I'm not gonna start anything about this subject. All I'm gonna say is that there's a BUNCH of research to back up that book.
For bodybuilders obsessed w/ having giant muscles...it might not be the best, although I think every person on this Earth should fast once in awhile, ESPECIALLY people who think 6 meals per day is healthy in the long run.
But for the average person who wants more of the kind of Spartan warrior look and not a big bulky look - I think it's perfect.
Oh, and by the way...
You don't lose muscle, and you can get your workout absolutely fine if it's under 45 minutes. I've proven this over and over again with myself, so I'm not just saying it.
I know it sounds kind of hokey to a lot of people but don't bash it unless you know the science behind it. A lot of awesome things happen in your body when you're fasting
Anyway, I don't wanna start a huge discussion on this and get in fights b/c I don't have time for that...just wanna let every1 know that there's a ton of research to support 24 hour fasts, so don't bash it without reading it.
I'm not gonna start anything about this subject. All I'm gonna say is that there's a BUNCH of research to back up that book.
For bodybuilders obsessed w/ having giant muscles...it might not be the best, although I think every person on this Earth should fast once in awhile, ESPECIALLY people who think 6 meals per day is healthy in the long run.
But for the average person who wants more of the kind of Spartan warrior look and not a big bulky look - I think it's perfect.
Oh, and by the way...
You don't lose muscle, and you can get your workout absolutely fine if it's under 45 minutes. I've proven this over and over again with myself, so I'm not just saying it.
I know it sounds kind of hokey to a lot of people but don't bash it unless you know the science behind it. A lot of awesome things happen in your body when you're fasting
Anyway, I don't wanna start a huge discussion on this and get in fights b/c I don't have time for that...just wanna let every1 know that there's a ton of research to support 24 hour fasts, so don't bash it without reading it.
While I don't really see anything wrong with fasting now and then, I don't think that is a very effective path to long term weight management. Think about it, if every couple of day, your body gets no fuel at all to run on, what's it going to do? It's either going to rob the nutrients it needs from your muscles and bones, or it's going to assume starvation is at hand, and hold on to every bit of fat that it can, because it knows not when its next meal might be.
I don't want to get into an argument on this either, and if it works for you, it may be a short term alternative, tho I doubt it. Far better, in my opinion, is to eat healthy, cut out junk food, increase overall exercise. Diets, of any kind, may work short term, but long term we need to eat properly, otherwise, old habits will return, and along with them, the weight you are working so hard to lose.
For the record, I eat 5 or 6 mini meals per day (350 to 400 cals each) and I weigh 131 pounds. So eating often does not have to mean getting huge.
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
I don't want to get into an argument on this either, and if it works for you, it may be a short term alternative, tho I doubt it. Far better, in my opinion, is to eat healthy, cut out junk food, increase overall exercise. Diets, of any kind, may work short term, but long term we need to eat properly, otherwise, old habits will return, and along with them, the weight you are working so hard to lose.
For the record, I eat 5 or 6 mini meals per day (350 to 400 cals each) and I weigh 131 pounds. So eating often does not have to mean getting huge.
Just throwing in my 2 cents.
I'm not gonna start anything about this subject. All I'm gonna say is that there's a BUNCH of research to back up that book.
I know it sounds kind of hokey to a lot of people but don't bash it unless you know the science behind it. A lot of awesome things happen in your body when you're fasting
Anyway, I don't wanna start a huge discussion on this and get in fights b/c I don't have time for that...just wanna let every1 know that there's a ton of research to support 24 hour fasts, so don't bash it without reading it.
Come on then, I'd love to read up on the whole bunch of science this has backing it; why don't you post some links for us all to read?
How anyone can suggest that starving someone is a good idea is beyond comprehension
Googled it, and read a bit about it. Seems the basic theory is eat what you normally eat 5 days a week. Eat nothing, and drink only water or coffee on fasting days. So that if you normally eat say 2500 cals a day, by fasting 2 days a week, you would reduce overall caloric intake by 5000 for the week, and should thereby lose 1 to 1.5 pounds a week. Didn't really do any in depth reading of the "science" behind it. My only concerns would be these. 1 denying your body the vital nutrients it needs even only two days a week seems like a bad idea. 2 would there be a tendency to over eat the day after fasting and end up at the end of the week even or only slightly below on calories. A better idea, to me anyway, would be to cut some calories everyday, burn some through exercise, and concentrate on eating the foods that give the body what it needs to function.
Lol....
I'm not gonna start anything about this subject. All I'm gonna say is that there's a BUNCH of research to back up that book.
For bodybuilders obsessed w/ having giant muscles...it might not be the best, although I think every person on this Earth should fast once in awhile, ESPECIALLY people who think 6 meals per day is healthy in the long run.
But for the average person who wants more of the kind of Spartan warrior look and not a big bulky look - I think it's perfect.
Oh, and by the way...
You don't lose muscle, and you can get your workout absolutely fine if it's under 45 minutes. I've proven this over and over again with myself, so I'm not just saying it.
I know it sounds kind of hokey to a lot of people but don't bash it unless you know the science behind it. A lot of awesome things happen in your body when you're fasting
Anyway, I don't wanna start a huge discussion on this and get in fights b/c I don't have time for that...just wanna let every1 know that there's a ton of research to support 24 hour fasts, so don't bash it without reading it.
Please point me towards said research...:action13:
Yeah, I can see how the thinking goes; shame it's such a stupid way of thinking.
There is no 'science' behind it, it's just another fad diet finding a new way to cut out calories.
My main concern with this is the way it promotes an unhealthy attitude to food where eating is seen as bad and in effect optional. I imagine diets like this can easily be a precursor to eating disorders as it creates the association between eating and poor health whereas in reality the opposite is true.
Denying your body nutrients is unhealthy and I challenge anyone to come up with decent research or scientific theory that backs the idea that starvation can have positive long term effects
We should learn not to take some research at its face value without investigating its contents to determine its validity and quality. It is good to be reasonably skeptical.
There are simply quite a few dietary programs that claim to be supported by research, only to have them be over-hyped BS to earn your hard earned money (think the over-the-counter fat loss pills market, and other diet program outlines).
Think about how complicated our metabolisms can be. If one is eating rather normal so-to-speak for a lengthy trend, and then suddenly fasts for 24 hours, is this really going to send someone in this previous type trend into starvation mode? Likely not. Within what I read about this diet, this I would tend to agree with.
Like the mighty Carbohydrate and Insulin, the starvation response can be severely misunderstood in the sense of the bad/good relationship they tend to play in our bodies.
The so-call starvation response appears not to shut and on and off like a light switch.
Rather its an "adaption/adjusting/surviving" process (or the body's own internal thermostat made up of a series of biological processes/hormones, etc), where the body shuts off expensive biological processes (to conserve energy), while turning on others, and it appears to have more to do with current bodily "composition" (fat level to lean mass), the persons dietary/activity and its trends, and the persons unique biological processes (which can vary in efficiency/deficiency).
Therefore, its my opinion (again dependent on the persons prior dietary trend history), that fasting for 24 hours, is not going to trigger the starvation response--again dependent on the persons independent diet trend and particulars.
This is not addressing the psychological, physiological, and biological processes one could possess when fasting, such as intense hunger (which can cause over eating binges). Nor is it addressing the basic understood need of base calories each day and associated macro nutrient needs that are better served (on average) to come from the mouth, rather than from the body having to revert to itself for this need.
When I look at diet related programs and its claims, the very first question (among many I ask myself) is:
Does this pass the basic common sense test when applying the basic and raw fundamentals of diet as we currently understand them to be?
Dependent the answers (and other questions the article may stimulate), will depend on whether the "approach" then becomes "practical" to one's personal lifestyle and their personal (likes and dislikes, weaknesses, and strengths). One is most interested in what will work for them, and not interested in whether another person has the opinion they are weak and could cut the mustard in working with the program.
As in one reviewers "opinion" on the: "Eat STOP Eat" program:
When I read this above, the writer completely turned me off. Getting headaches from dietary habits and deducing them to simple psychology is being far too narrow minded, and to me is a rather stupid comment to make.
Simply reducing carbohydrates at a low level for a long enough trend can cause headaches (and other side effects) and this is a biological complication at its "root" and not psychological (though it can effect you mentally).
However, he goes on to say:
So the question is: Why would I want to starve myself periodically, when I could enjoy 5 to 6 meals (and possibly stave off eating binges), and still lose fat tissue?
Isn't the goal of the fat loss dieter to suffer "the least amount necessary" to accomplish their goal? I think in most cases this is very safe assumption.
One of the problems I have with fasting diet protocols, is that it doesn't pass a major fundamental basic we understand:
The body has BASE calorie needs each day (not counting activities), is continually building/repairing tissue (whether weight training or not), of which require macro and micro nutrients to accomplish. For example, The body needs protein each day (whether you weight train or not).
This is very unsettling to me, despite some of the opinions on health benefits--that tend to stray away from recognizing this basic and raw fundamental understanding.
The Eat-STOP-Eat dietary program specifies that one follows a 5/6 day eating program, followed by 1/2 days of fasting where nothing is eaten, and water and coffee is consumed.
Basically its an intermittent fasting diet, with a different name applied.
I have been on this forum long enough to know that this diet is a recipe for personal disaster for the "average person" wanting to lose fat tissue.
A lot of persons have trouble sticking to "traditional calorie deficit" guidelines 7 days per week, let alone adding in 1 or 2 days of fasting. Are they weak of course not. Therefore, if one can eat 7 days a week, and just simply tweak the calories (and macros), and lose tissue, then why starve yourself unnecessarily?
Its really basic and raw diet common sense.
Within the 5/6 days of so called normal eating there is no counting calories/measuring food. Sounds pretty good on the surface doesn't? It removes an irritant with some dieters: Counting calories and/or measuring food. But can it cause another irritant? With one in the know of basic and raw fundamentals, one working with a nutritionist, probably not. A new person who doesn't have an understanding of calorie content in food (on-the-fly), etc, it is likely to cause some complications.
The potential irritating variable is the person will not know whether they are overeating or not, and the 1/2 days of fasting just may not be enough to compensate the difference, and it is possible one could balance out. The 5/6 days need more refined structure applied, and I still do not like the 1/2 day fasting period.......
This diet sucks basically.
Best wishes
Chillen
There are simply quite a few dietary programs that claim to be supported by research, only to have them be over-hyped BS to earn your hard earned money (think the over-the-counter fat loss pills market, and other diet program outlines).
Think about how complicated our metabolisms can be. If one is eating rather normal so-to-speak for a lengthy trend, and then suddenly fasts for 24 hours, is this really going to send someone in this previous type trend into starvation mode? Likely not. Within what I read about this diet, this I would tend to agree with.
Like the mighty Carbohydrate and Insulin, the starvation response can be severely misunderstood in the sense of the bad/good relationship they tend to play in our bodies.
The so-call starvation response appears not to shut and on and off like a light switch.
Rather its an "adaption/adjusting/surviving" process (or the body's own internal thermostat made up of a series of biological processes/hormones, etc), where the body shuts off expensive biological processes (to conserve energy), while turning on others, and it appears to have more to do with current bodily "composition" (fat level to lean mass), the persons dietary/activity and its trends, and the persons unique biological processes (which can vary in efficiency/deficiency).
Therefore, its my opinion (again dependent on the persons prior dietary trend history), that fasting for 24 hours, is not going to trigger the starvation response--again dependent on the persons independent diet trend and particulars.
This is not addressing the psychological, physiological, and biological processes one could possess when fasting, such as intense hunger (which can cause over eating binges). Nor is it addressing the basic understood need of base calories each day and associated macro nutrient needs that are better served (on average) to come from the mouth, rather than from the body having to revert to itself for this need.
When I look at diet related programs and its claims, the very first question (among many I ask myself) is:
Does this pass the basic common sense test when applying the basic and raw fundamentals of diet as we currently understand them to be?
Dependent the answers (and other questions the article may stimulate), will depend on whether the "approach" then becomes "practical" to one's personal lifestyle and their personal (likes and dislikes, weaknesses, and strengths). One is most interested in what will work for them, and not interested in whether another person has the opinion they are weak and could cut the mustard in working with the program.
As in one reviewers "opinion" on the: "Eat STOP Eat" program:
When I read this above, the writer completely turned me off. Getting headaches from dietary habits and deducing them to simple psychology is being far too narrow minded, and to me is a rather stupid comment to make.
Simply reducing carbohydrates at a low level for a long enough trend can cause headaches (and other side effects) and this is a biological complication at its "root" and not psychological (though it can effect you mentally).
However, he goes on to say:
So the question is: Why would I want to starve myself periodically, when I could enjoy 5 to 6 meals (and possibly stave off eating binges), and still lose fat tissue?
Isn't the goal of the fat loss dieter to suffer "the least amount necessary" to accomplish their goal? I think in most cases this is very safe assumption.
One of the problems I have with fasting diet protocols, is that it doesn't pass a major fundamental basic we understand:
The body has BASE calorie needs each day (not counting activities), is continually building/repairing tissue (whether weight training or not), of which require macro and micro nutrients to accomplish. For example, The body needs protein each day (whether you weight train or not).
This is very unsettling to me, despite some of the opinions on health benefits--that tend to stray away from recognizing this basic and raw fundamental understanding.
The Eat-STOP-Eat dietary program specifies that one follows a 5/6 day eating program, followed by 1/2 days of fasting where nothing is eaten, and water and coffee is consumed.
Basically its an intermittent fasting diet, with a different name applied.
I have been on this forum long enough to know that this diet is a recipe for personal disaster for the "average person" wanting to lose fat tissue.
A lot of persons have trouble sticking to "traditional calorie deficit" guidelines 7 days per week, let alone adding in 1 or 2 days of fasting. Are they weak of course not. Therefore, if one can eat 7 days a week, and just simply tweak the calories (and macros), and lose tissue, then why starve yourself unnecessarily?
Its really basic and raw diet common sense.
Within the 5/6 days of so called normal eating there is no counting calories/measuring food. Sounds pretty good on the surface doesn't? It removes an irritant with some dieters: Counting calories and/or measuring food. But can it cause another irritant? With one in the know of basic and raw fundamentals, one working with a nutritionist, probably not. A new person who doesn't have an understanding of calorie content in food (on-the-fly), etc, it is likely to cause some complications.
The potential irritating variable is the person will not know whether they are overeating or not, and the 1/2 days of fasting just may not be enough to compensate the difference, and it is possible one could balance out. The 5/6 days need more refined structure applied, and I still do not like the 1/2 day fasting period.......
This diet sucks basically.
Best wishes
Chillen
Last edited:
lol, it's amazing to me how narrow-minded people are.
Are you all seriously saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for their to be a better diet than the traditional "eat 6 meals per day" diet?
I mean seriously, be a little open minded.
Also before I say anything, I DIDN'T say it's the best for everybody, nor will I ever claim that.
But first of all...I think it's WAY easier to follow an Eat Stop Eat diet than eating 6 meals per day. I still eat healthy when I'm not fasting, because I want to. I still get all my nutrients I need and have never felt better.
Plus, it's not even hard to fast 24 hours. The first 1-2 fasts were "kind of" difficult...now I don't even realize it. It's all about noticing your habits.
I can workout the EXACT same whether I have food in me or whether I just did a workout after 24 hours (and I do crossfit-type workouts)
Haven't lost ANY strength or muscle...I've gained it.
As for recovering from workouts...I don't get any more sore or have noticed any negative side effects since fasting 1-2x per week.
For the person quoting reviews...ummmm they are REVIEWS. Idiots write reviews all the time, just look at movie critics.
Want research?
Check out these websites. I don't have time to quote them all in this post cuz I'm in the middle of working
I can do this all day if you'd like...
I'm not going into a huge war on this. I'm guessing that most of everybody posting here is a bodybuilder and trying to get huge, and I don't expect you to try and wrap this around your head.
But...it's PROVEN (there are dozens of other studies, I'm not posting them all though b/c you guys probably won't accept it anyway) and for some people, it works amazingly.
I think the biggest benefit that negates not having nutrients for the day (I take a vegetable multivitamin with only a few calories which is fine anyway) - is that you finally give your body a break and it detoxifies itself, something you never allow it to do eating a traditional 6 meal/day diet.
Another thing I just want to mention is that, at least for me personally, it's easier to say no to food for 24 hours than it is to say no to a random snack. That's probably b/c when I'm fasting, I don't have a choice, so the choice is always no. When I'm not fasting, it makes me choose whether or not to eat it - and I don't have strong-as-steel willpower..so it works beautifully for me.
Just open your minds a little. I'm not telling you it's better than eating 6 meals per day, but for some people it is.
It's not a fad and not meant to be. Trust me, it's EASIER to follow a lifestyle where you fast 1-2x per week than it is to eat perfectly all week. Common sense would say I'm wrong, but "common sense" doesn't always serve us right now does it?
Anyway I'm out. Have a fun time arguing, but I gave enough proof to show my case and there's tons more out there. If you can't find the research within 10 seconds, you need to get better Google searching skills
P.S. - I'm not going to reply anymore to this thread. As much as I'd love to argue back and forth and try to open your minds, I have a lot of work and research to do.:action11:
Are you all seriously saying that it's IMPOSSIBLE for their to be a better diet than the traditional "eat 6 meals per day" diet?
I mean seriously, be a little open minded.
Also before I say anything, I DIDN'T say it's the best for everybody, nor will I ever claim that.
But first of all...I think it's WAY easier to follow an Eat Stop Eat diet than eating 6 meals per day. I still eat healthy when I'm not fasting, because I want to. I still get all my nutrients I need and have never felt better.
Plus, it's not even hard to fast 24 hours. The first 1-2 fasts were "kind of" difficult...now I don't even realize it. It's all about noticing your habits.
I can workout the EXACT same whether I have food in me or whether I just did a workout after 24 hours (and I do crossfit-type workouts)
Haven't lost ANY strength or muscle...I've gained it.
As for recovering from workouts...I don't get any more sore or have noticed any negative side effects since fasting 1-2x per week.
For the person quoting reviews...ummmm they are REVIEWS. Idiots write reviews all the time, just look at movie critics.
Want research?
Check out these websites. I don't have time to quote them all in this post cuz I'm in the middle of working
I can do this all day if you'd like...
I'm not going into a huge war on this. I'm guessing that most of everybody posting here is a bodybuilder and trying to get huge, and I don't expect you to try and wrap this around your head.
But...it's PROVEN (there are dozens of other studies, I'm not posting them all though b/c you guys probably won't accept it anyway) and for some people, it works amazingly.
I think the biggest benefit that negates not having nutrients for the day (I take a vegetable multivitamin with only a few calories which is fine anyway) - is that you finally give your body a break and it detoxifies itself, something you never allow it to do eating a traditional 6 meal/day diet.
Another thing I just want to mention is that, at least for me personally, it's easier to say no to food for 24 hours than it is to say no to a random snack. That's probably b/c when I'm fasting, I don't have a choice, so the choice is always no. When I'm not fasting, it makes me choose whether or not to eat it - and I don't have strong-as-steel willpower..so it works beautifully for me.
Just open your minds a little. I'm not telling you it's better than eating 6 meals per day, but for some people it is.
It's not a fad and not meant to be. Trust me, it's EASIER to follow a lifestyle where you fast 1-2x per week than it is to eat perfectly all week. Common sense would say I'm wrong, but "common sense" doesn't always serve us right now does it?
Anyway I'm out. Have a fun time arguing, but I gave enough proof to show my case and there's tons more out there. If you can't find the research within 10 seconds, you need to get better Google searching skills
P.S. - I'm not going to reply anymore to this thread. As much as I'd love to argue back and forth and try to open your minds, I have a lot of work and research to do.:action11:
personally i think everyone works differently on different diets. i've tryed a bunch of diets, i feel that fasting isn't the best of ideas. mainly for the fact that when you are able to eat again your going to be more hungrier then not, But on the other hand if done correctly i guess your stomach would eventually shrink and take less to fill you up. the fasting diet seems to have too many variables for myself to try it.
and as for the coffee enema 1 cream 2 sugars and make sure its decaf. make sure you don't give it time to cool.
:action14:
and as for the coffee enema 1 cream 2 sugars and make sure its decaf. make sure you don't give it time to cool.
:action14:
I have done fasting for most of the day than eating a large meal at night with work out during my fasting time in the day for about 2 weeks now. I have to say I feel amazing and I toned up a bit.
If your tryin to bulk up i would say don't do this true, 6 meals a day is the best. But its like reseting the inside of your body, feels great and should be tried by everyone at least once. Not a diet to lose weight and not to gain muslce but just to be in shape.
Thats my 2cents-
If your tryin to bulk up i would say don't do this true, 6 meals a day is the best. But its like reseting the inside of your body, feels great and should be tried by everyone at least once. Not a diet to lose weight and not to gain muslce but just to be in shape.
Thats my 2cents-