> Geoffrey Woo, CEO of biohacking and nootropics company HVMN (pronounced “human”),
There used to be a joke going around in the aftermath of the .com bubble burst, when startups that 'ate' the vowels in their .com domain name started popping up left and right, and the joke was that they were too broke to afford the vowels. Most famous of these was Twttr .
I agree biohacking is a stupid name, but there's a difference between fasting and dieting. Dieting is specially related to food you eat, while fasting is food you didn't eat.
This isn't a meaningful difference and it's also not really true. A "water fast" is a fast involving consumption of only water. Similarly a "juice fast". So a fast isn't just about "food you didn't eat".
Fasting is also absolutely a diet in the sense of a diet as a state of caloric restriction.
A juice fast isn't a fast, it's another stupid name like biohacking. The literal dictionary definition of "diet" is "the kind of food an animal eats" or maybe "the types of food someone is limited to for weight loss or medical reasons". A "juice fast" is a diet, not a fast. A water fast is just a normal fast, since water does not have any calories and is not a food.
A diet is not a state of caloric reduction, it's a description of the foods you're able to eat. A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories.
If you're dieting, you're eating food. If you're fasting, you're not. There is an infinite amount of difference between zero and anything-but-zero.
I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. Your own definition references weight loss, which implies caloric restriction. In common use, "caloric restriction" is the most common intent of a diet. Outside select groups (e.g. bodybuilders), "dieting" is exclusively a weight loss exercise.
> A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories.
If you're going to refer to the dictionary to support your claims, you should do so consistently: "abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance."
Keyword there is "some kinds". A fast needn't be total to be a "fast".
I do not. You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition. A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. There is a big difference between the two.
A weight loss diet defines the food you're allowing yourself to eat in order to lose weight. If someone tells you they are fasting, they mean they're eating nothing. If someone tells you they are dieting, it means they are restricting the foods they're allowed to eat, but are still eating food.
At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference.
> You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition.
I absolutely did not say that. All I said is that your distinction is vacuous and incorrect:
"Dieting is specially related to food you eat, while fasting is food you didn't eat."
I don't eat oysters. Am I "fasting"?
> A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition.
Many people go on X calorie diets. The FDA uses a "2000 calorie diet" as the reference. Nothing in this sort of "diet" restricts what foods you're allowed to eat.
Your definition does not match a very common usage. You're asserting your own personal definition as if it is the only valid one, but it's not.
> A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition.
I already gave an example where this is incorrect (juice fast). Medical fasting also often doesn't meet this definition (protein sparing modified fast). The dictionary doesn't even agree with your assertion of "zero food".
> There is a big difference between the two.
By your definitions, a fast is a diet. If a diet is a restriction of foods to certain types, and a fast is a complete restriction of foods, then a fast must be a diet.
> At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me.
At this point you're making up straw man definitions and ascribing them to me. Accusing me of trolling for pointing out the errors in your pedantry is a little ridiculous.
> There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference.
There's nothing incompatible with our definitions (well, yours and the straw man you created for me) except that one is untrue and that there is a big difference? I'm not sure what to do with that.
I fear there's little common ground at this point. Take care.
At 5’11” and 165lbs, Woo doesn’t need to lose weight, although he did drop 12lbs over the week.
12 lbs of fat in one week is 7000 Calories/day. Either he had crazy ketonuria (and was literally pissing away calories) or he was significantly dehydrated by the end of the week.
If you're planning on fasting, make sure you stay hydrated. Between the water content of food and the habit of drinking at meals, we get far more water from meals than most people realize; cutting that out without compensating is not healthy.
You need to consume salt (and other minerals) to retain the water. Just drinking water might actually hurt since you’re further diluting the salt you have left.
Sure, at the start some of the weight loss will be glycogen, and later some of it will be protein. Those aren't as energy dense as fat, but they still have a significant caloric content.
The point remains: If you're losing more than 1 lbs/day and you're not running an ultramarathon (or equivalent), you're almost certainly getting dehydrated.
Glycogen storage causes significant water storage. If you deplete your glycogen, you'll lose a significant amount of water weight. This is why people lose so much when they first start dieting.
12 pounds in a week of a real fast seems reasonable for someone who weighs 170. Call it 4 pounds of fat and 8 pounds of glycogen and water.
You can account for 12 pounds weight loss in a week without much dehydration.
Let's say he burns 2500 calories a day, or 17500 in a week. If he has 500g of glycogen, subtract 4 calories/gram and we're left with 15500 calories. He's already lost 500g from the glycogen, and somewhere around 2000g from the water storing the glycogen, so he's down about 5.5 pounds. If the other 15500 calories are from fat, at 3500 calories per pound, he would lose about 4.5 pounds, for a total of about 11 pounds.
12 lbs = 5450 g. 500 g of that could be glycogen, stored along with 1500 g of water. That's 2000 Calories and 2000 g in total.
If the remaining 3450 g is fat, it would be 31000 Calories, for a total of 33000 Calories, or 4700 Calories/day over the week. Not a reasonable amount!
Taking your 2500 Calorie/day value, I get about 1700 g of unexplained weight loss.
You're going to lose some water weight no matter how hydrated you stay. Carbs soak up water, so without carbs you will weigh less as the water disappears.
You don't want to be dehydrated, but especially if you're fasting, you can overdo it on the water and end up in the opposite arena: overhydrated. This can suck out minerals and nutrients from your body, and since you're not eating to replace them, you're in major trouble.
Agree with Libin's philosophy of treating carbs as a special treat. I normally do not eat carbs since I'm on a keto diet, but had the best pizza in my life in Florence and an amazing bowl of carbonara in Rome.
Anyone interested in this should check out /r/fasting.[1] Apart from the friendly and helpful community, their wiki[2] and FAQ[3] are also well worth reading.
I had to laugh at the top post there right now, linking to the same article as here. "Normally don't care about Silicon Valley wankery - but this article has made me at least pay attention to fasting. Do people here consider it accurate?"
Are you talking about Obesity Code? I find it to be quite convincing, he uses many studies to debunk the calories in calories out paradigm and provides ample evidence that obesity is a hormonal problem.
Lost over 100 pounds in 1.5 years after a lifetime of obesity by simply eating less and skipping meals. I've read the literature on both the medical and bro-science side. I know plenty.
This is something I don't quite get about Jason Fung. He is critical of calorie restriction being less effective (he says you will feel more tired). But I'd like to see strong arguments and evidence for that.
Oh I don't deny I felt like shit and every moment of it sucked. But like most things worth achieving you need to put something resembling effort into it. The results were definitely worth it.
It is the same thing if he his insulin homeostasis is out of whack. It's a constant struggle in that case. That's why most people who lose weight in the short term gain it right back when they "maintain".
A thin dude at work pretty much only eats junk food and washes it down with regular coca cola, of which he drinks 3-4 cans a day. Every single day. Doesn't exercise much either. And he doesn't gain weight. For me, god forbid I eat a single donut a week, I inflate like a balloon.
He sites several studies including the Minnesota Starvation Experiment[0]. It's pretty simple, if the body gets some calories but not enough, your metabolism is lowered and you have less energy along with a host of other symptoms. This also explains why this is a terrible dieting strategy, once your metabolism is lowered you regain the weight quite fast once you start eating more.
Fung's theory prescribes exactly what you did. Eat unprocessed foods, don't eat too much, don't snack all the time, skip breakfast, fast 24-36 hours every now and then. Whether or not you get fat is largely determined by insulin levels and homeostasis. Insulin level is elevated in obese people due to insulin resistance. Fasting and not snacking (and skipping breakfast) help reset insulin "thermostat" to within normal range and maintain it through relatively minor lifestyle adjustments.
Yes, eating too much food can cause weight gain. That is also the simplest and least helpful view that exists. It certainly does not explain how some people can gain weight with a calorie deficit and some people can loose weight on a calorie surplus.
By the way "skipping meals" (aka fasting) is exactly what Dr. Fung recommends to lose weight. Fasting drops your insulin levels and gives your body a chance to burn its stored fats.
There are entire sects of people in India that do 5-10 days of fasting many times a year [1]. This has been going on for thousands of years. Personally I know 3 people who fast like that. And they all look 10 years younger than they are, have lot of energy and focus. This may be anecdotal. For example they also only eat vegetarian and don't drink any caffeine. But they claim that fasting helps them a lot.
I've occasionally tried 17 hour fasting followed my endurance exercise such as 8 mile run + 25 mile bike. I feel more energized and "lighter" without food in my system. I also don't feel like I have a "crash" when my body uses up all the carbs in my body for energy. I know many people who feel terrible exercising on a fast, as if they are going to faint, so it might be something you should slowly work up to. I've also heard of taking BCAAs during fasting to preserve or even add muscle mass, but there seems to be conflicting opinions on this.
I definitely can't lift while in a fasted state, I simply can't produce a burst of energy. I find running to be easier as it just requires some steady state energy output and Glycogen stores tend to be good enough for steady state.
I still like I'm about to faint both times though.
Everything I've ever read on weightlifting says that aerobic exercise during a fast will destroy muscle gains. Aerobic exercise doesn't require large muscles, so if you don't have fuel to power your body it will break down big muscles to power your other systems. My understanding is that it's better to just cut back the weight during the fast, but continue to lift to continue telling your body that you need to keep those muscles and not burn them.
Truthfully it's less that I try specifically to work out faster but more that I work out in the morning and simply cannot fathom eating anything that early
When I was lifting more in college, I'd bulk for a month and cut fat for a month. My method was "protein-sparing modified fast", where it's still an absolutely massive cut in calories, but you do consume protein and continue to lift. The only thing you eat is protein, I was taking about 1400 calories per day of just whey powder. I'd usually manage to cut about 20 lbs in the 30 days.
I would like to add that it's impossible to fast and add muscle mass at the same time. To add muscle you need an abundance of calories since you're literally building new parts of your body from food. If you're fasting, even if you're taking BCAAs, you don't have the extra calories to spend adding muscle, your body will use any available calories to retain, not build, muscle. You might think you're adding muscle because your tone is revealed as you become dehydrated and/or burn off extra fat, which might fool you into thinking your muscles are getting bigger. They're not.
Look Tech CEOs are not real people. Just because they have cultivated crippling OCD into something resembling a functional lifestyle, doesn't mean you should follow. Some might not have OCD, some might be on the psychopathic spectrum, others might just be plain obnoxious bellends.
Of course there are CEOs who are fasting themselves. There are also poor people doing it too, but not through choice or some virtue signal to how "enlightened" they are.
Now, as someone who inadvertently starved themselves, its not something I'd recommend. You are irritable, ill, in pain, and sluggish. Anybody who says otherwise is either a lier or not doing it properly.
I agree ththat just because a startup CEO is doing something doesn't mean you should, but that aside, fasting can can be very beneficial.
You inadvertently starved yourself, does this mean you practised fasting or you had had an eating disorder? In any case sorry if you were hurt by it, but others can feel really good from it.
if you have bodyfat, you have energy reserves that are not particularly destructive to use.
if you run out of bodyfat you start you break down muscle. that is harder to recover from.
There is no concept of giving your digestion a "rest" you either use it or it atrophies. There is a great deal of evidence about what happens when you starve yourself.
"Silicon Valley" and "CEO" are just linkbait devices. When you rant like this in response, you're effectively feeding trolls. Please don't do that on HN; it doesn't make for substantive discussion.
I genuinely wonder what the point of fasting is, given that you can achieve the same results by just skipping carbs or following a keto diet. The ketosis these people get into happens because the body has no glycogen to burn, so whether you fast or you just skip the carbs should have the same effect.
I genuinely wonder what the point of skipping carbs or keto diet is, given that you can achieve the same results by just fasting every other day. The ketosis these people get into happens because the body has no glycogen to burn, so whether you fast or you just skip the carbs should have the same effect, but at least with alternate-day fasting you still get to eat like a normal human being.
Seriously? So many downvotes for asking a genuine question and hoping to have a discussion? I didn't think people could have such strong feelings about one type of diet vs another.
I've tried both fasting and keto and I've got more or less
the same results. I guess some people find fasting more convenient to doing keto, which is fine. I found that with fasting I have more difficulty doing resistance training, and it inevitably leads to a more severe loss of muscle mass, whereas with keto I find that I can more or less preserve the muscle mass and just lose body fat.
I fast at least 6 days/year for religious reasons. 3 are 12 hour fasts, and 3 are 25 hour fasts. It really does feel good, and I don't think it's harmful. I'm very consciousness about my weight in general, and this is accomplished by strict calorie counting.
You'll notice that the vast majority Silicon Valley CEOs are not overweight, and I believe it is an unspoken "filter" they use to judge a person (whether this is right/just/moral is another story). There seems to be a belief that if a person isn't disciplined enough to be in charge of his hunger, then he's not disciplined.
> At 5’11” and 165lbs, Woo doesn’t need to lose weight, although he did drop 12lbs over the week.
Well, I'm an inch shorter and 15# less. I don't think 5'11 and 165 is particularly skinny!
You are likely an observant Jew. I've starting drinking some water on 25 hr fasts as I didn't think it was healthy anymore to be so thirsty. It is a good reminder to appreciate what you have.
I just completed a 3 day water-only fast, eating breakfast yesterday morning. The reason I fast is not like what is being described here, but more as a way of reminding my body that hunger is not going to kill me and to be more mindful about what I eat.
One comment on the article, on the third day of fasting, I did not feel great like Libin describes: "I woke up on the third day feeling better than I had in 20 years." I probably over-did it with exercise though, playing Ultimate that morning on a hot turf field, then cycling around town. I've done a 2-day fast prior, and that was much more tolerable. I will probably continue with those, about 4 times per year.
Do you have a blog, or resources you you can link that helped you get there? I can't even make a 3 day day fast of caffeine... but I definitely see the benefits of fasting, so I'd like to try.
For me it really was more about the mental hurdles. I've done multiple 14 day water only fast and recently a 7 day fast a week ago. For me it's about learning all the many things we know so far that got me through and kept me fresh and energetic. For example - hydration and electrolytes are key, especially sodium(salt), potassium(Lite salt), magnesium citrate and possibly calcium. Knowing how the body loses what electrolytes during which phases is a big deal. Also knowing the risks is important e.g. Only so much potassium should be consumed at a time. And There is a thing called re feeding syndrome and edema. Refereeing properly is important to avoid something like this.
I've noticed upto 3 days is not that big a deal once you've done at least one. Also if you mess up your refeeding after a 3 day fast it seems easier. Remember that your gut biome will change. Longer fasts will experience different effects that you might or might not be prepared for hence the reading up.
One thing that made long fasts easier is by slipping into a fast after being in ketosis. That way I've always avoided the dreaded Keto flu.
Know your purpose though definitely. If it's weight loss, then I've learnt a better combination to be Keto + intermittent fasting 23:1 and when possible 4:3(4days feasting and 3 days fasting)
Water fasting has additional benefits like autophagy etc. but really I would not recommend to anyone whose not ready to take on some serious research and doesn't have an experimental mindset. One other thing that will take you by surprise is how much bored you'll get!!
I also struggled to give up caffeine on my first couple tries. On my last attempt, I noticed that I stopped getting migraines, which gave me all the motivation I needed to stick with it.
I only have a sample size of myself, so my advice may not be worth much, and it's definitely a cliche. What seems to work for me is to set a modest goal and don't get discouraged when I don't meet that goal the first time. Once I hit that goal, I stretch to something more ambitious. Sometimes you'll find you have goals that you don't really care about as much as you think. It's okay to set them aside and pursue the things that matter to you. Okay that's it for unwanted-advice time. :) Good luck with your goals!
One easy way to get started on this which isn't an extended fast is to do something like the Warrior Diet. What I do is skip breakfast and lunch virtually every day, except for fresh vegetable juice I make myself, and all the coffee and water I want. Occasionally I have one or two dates or a banana, if I really need something. Then I eat a big dinner, ideally balanced with vegetables, meat and carbs at the end--but usually it's not the ideal. Eating dinner is really enjoyable, and there's no guilt.
I started this just over a month ago and have lost ~15 pounds so far (from 240 to 225, I'm 6'3"). I've never felt better. The juice I make is: 5 lbs carrots, 4 red beets, 1 kale, fresh ginger root, fresh turmeric root. All organic. It lasts 3 days, which is good since cleaning a juicer is annoying. I bought the "Tribest GSE-5000Green Star Elite Jumbo Twin Gear Juice Extractor" from Amazon.
Ironically, I started this during a 1-week vacation at an all-inclusive resort. I'd never been to one before, and by the second day I resented being told when to eat enough that it seemed the perfect time to try something like this...
68 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadThere used to be a joke going around in the aftermath of the .com bubble burst, when startups that 'ate' the vowels in their .com domain name started popping up left and right, and the joke was that they were too broke to afford the vowels. Most famous of these was Twttr .
It's not fasting, it's biohacking.
It's not a tip, it's a life hack.
It's not custom, it's bespoke.
Edit: Aritcle title is "The Silicon Valley execs who don't eat for days: 'It's not dieting, it's biohacking'"
Fasting is also absolutely a diet in the sense of a diet as a state of caloric restriction.
A diet is not a state of caloric reduction, it's a description of the foods you're able to eat. A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories.
If you're dieting, you're eating food. If you're fasting, you're not. There is an infinite amount of difference between zero and anything-but-zero.
I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. Your own definition references weight loss, which implies caloric restriction. In common use, "caloric restriction" is the most common intent of a diet. Outside select groups (e.g. bodybuilders), "dieting" is exclusively a weight loss exercise.
> A fast is not a description of the foods you're able to eat, it's a description of the act of eating zero foods and zero calories.
If you're going to refer to the dictionary to support your claims, you should do so consistently: "abstain from all or some kinds of food or drink, especially as a religious observance."
Keyword there is "some kinds". A fast needn't be total to be a "fast".
I do not. You're the one claiming that "fast" and "diet" mean the same thing according to your own definition not backed up by anyone else's definition. A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition. There is a big difference between the two.
A weight loss diet defines the food you're allowing yourself to eat in order to lose weight. If someone tells you they are fasting, they mean they're eating nothing. If someone tells you they are dieting, it means they are restricting the foods they're allowed to eat, but are still eating food.
At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me. There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference.
I absolutely did not say that. All I said is that your distinction is vacuous and incorrect:
"Dieting is specially related to food you eat, while fasting is food you didn't eat."
I don't eat oysters. Am I "fasting"?
> A diet is the food you're allowed to eat. Literally everyone agrees with this definition.
Many people go on X calorie diets. The FDA uses a "2000 calorie diet" as the reference. Nothing in this sort of "diet" restricts what foods you're allowed to eat.
Your definition does not match a very common usage. You're asserting your own personal definition as if it is the only valid one, but it's not.
> A fast is abstaining from food. Literally everyone agrees with this definition.
I already gave an example where this is incorrect (juice fast). Medical fasting also often doesn't meet this definition (protein sparing modified fast). The dictionary doesn't even agree with your assertion of "zero food".
> There is a big difference between the two.
By your definitions, a fast is a diet. If a diet is a restriction of foods to certain types, and a fast is a complete restriction of foods, then a fast must be a diet.
> At this point I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me.
At this point you're making up straw man definitions and ascribing them to me. Accusing me of trolling for pointing out the errors in your pedantry is a little ridiculous.
> There is nothing incompatible with our definitions except you claim a fast is the same as a diet and a diet is the same as a fast, which I'm pretty sure you know this is untrue. There is a big difference.
There's nothing incompatible with our definitions (well, yours and the straw man you created for me) except that one is untrue and that there is a big difference? I'm not sure what to do with that.
I fear there's little common ground at this point. Take care.
Advertising is not always about selling products. It can be about selling a concept.
They find these new names to sell these concepts to the people who want to be "trendy" and "hip", and subsequently garner more following.
12 lbs of fat in one week is 7000 Calories/day. Either he had crazy ketonuria (and was literally pissing away calories) or he was significantly dehydrated by the end of the week.
If you're planning on fasting, make sure you stay hydrated. Between the water content of food and the habit of drinking at meals, we get far more water from meals than most people realize; cutting that out without compensating is not healthy.
- Glycogen (stored glucose in your muscles/liver) is depleted - Muscle breakdown may occur (gluconeogenesis-converting amino acids to glucose)
Glycogen is also a multiplier as it draws water into muscles. Less glycogen means less water.
The point remains: If you're losing more than 1 lbs/day and you're not running an ultramarathon (or equivalent), you're almost certainly getting dehydrated.
12 pounds in a week of a real fast seems reasonable for someone who weighs 170. Call it 4 pounds of fat and 8 pounds of glycogen and water.
Let's say he burns 2500 calories a day, or 17500 in a week. If he has 500g of glycogen, subtract 4 calories/gram and we're left with 15500 calories. He's already lost 500g from the glycogen, and somewhere around 2000g from the water storing the glycogen, so he's down about 5.5 pounds. If the other 15500 calories are from fat, at 3500 calories per pound, he would lose about 4.5 pounds, for a total of about 11 pounds.
If the remaining 3450 g is fat, it would be 31000 Calories, for a total of 33000 Calories, or 4700 Calories/day over the week. Not a reasonable amount!
Taking your 2500 Calorie/day value, I get about 1700 g of unexplained weight loss.
You don't want to be dehydrated, but especially if you're fasting, you can overdo it on the water and end up in the opposite arena: overhydrated. This can suck out minerals and nutrients from your body, and since you're not eating to replace them, you're in major trouble.
[1] - https://www.reddit.com/r/fasting/
[2] - https://www.reddit.com/r/fasting/wiki/fasting_in_a_nutshell
[3] - http://www.reddit.com/r/fasting/comments/fihek/introduction_...
If you can't lose weight, you're eating too much.
He doesn't have to, as he is now at his target weight. He only needs to maintain his current body weight, which isn't the same thing.
A thin dude at work pretty much only eats junk food and washes it down with regular coca cola, of which he drinks 3-4 cans a day. Every single day. Doesn't exercise much either. And he doesn't gain weight. For me, god forbid I eat a single donut a week, I inflate like a balloon.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Starvation_Experimen...
By the way "skipping meals" (aka fasting) is exactly what Dr. Fung recommends to lose weight. Fasting drops your insulin levels and gives your body a chance to burn its stored fats.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasting_in_Jainism
I still like I'm about to faint both times though.
I would like to add that it's impossible to fast and add muscle mass at the same time. To add muscle you need an abundance of calories since you're literally building new parts of your body from food. If you're fasting, even if you're taking BCAAs, you don't have the extra calories to spend adding muscle, your body will use any available calories to retain, not build, muscle. You might think you're adding muscle because your tone is revealed as you become dehydrated and/or burn off extra fat, which might fool you into thinking your muscles are getting bigger. They're not.
Look Tech CEOs are not real people. Just because they have cultivated crippling OCD into something resembling a functional lifestyle, doesn't mean you should follow. Some might not have OCD, some might be on the psychopathic spectrum, others might just be plain obnoxious bellends.
Of course there are CEOs who are fasting themselves. There are also poor people doing it too, but not through choice or some virtue signal to how "enlightened" they are.
Now, as someone who inadvertently starved themselves, its not something I'd recommend. You are irritable, ill, in pain, and sluggish. Anybody who says otherwise is either a lier or not doing it properly.
You inadvertently starved yourself, does this mean you practised fasting or you had had an eating disorder? In any case sorry if you were hurt by it, but others can feel really good from it.
Either way, I'm sure its great if you have bodyfat, but its really crap if you dont.
if you run out of bodyfat you start you break down muscle. that is harder to recover from.
There is no concept of giving your digestion a "rest" you either use it or it atrophies. There is a great deal of evidence about what happens when you starve yourself.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I've tried both fasting and keto and I've got more or less the same results. I guess some people find fasting more convenient to doing keto, which is fine. I found that with fasting I have more difficulty doing resistance training, and it inevitably leads to a more severe loss of muscle mass, whereas with keto I find that I can more or less preserve the muscle mass and just lose body fat.
You'll notice that the vast majority Silicon Valley CEOs are not overweight, and I believe it is an unspoken "filter" they use to judge a person (whether this is right/just/moral is another story). There seems to be a belief that if a person isn't disciplined enough to be in charge of his hunger, then he's not disciplined.
> At 5’11” and 165lbs, Woo doesn’t need to lose weight, although he did drop 12lbs over the week.
Well, I'm an inch shorter and 15# less. I don't think 5'11 and 165 is particularly skinny!
One comment on the article, on the third day of fasting, I did not feel great like Libin describes: "I woke up on the third day feeling better than I had in 20 years." I probably over-did it with exercise though, playing Ultimate that morning on a hot turf field, then cycling around town. I've done a 2-day fast prior, and that was much more tolerable. I will probably continue with those, about 4 times per year.
I've noticed upto 3 days is not that big a deal once you've done at least one. Also if you mess up your refeeding after a 3 day fast it seems easier. Remember that your gut biome will change. Longer fasts will experience different effects that you might or might not be prepared for hence the reading up.
One thing that made long fasts easier is by slipping into a fast after being in ketosis. That way I've always avoided the dreaded Keto flu.
Know your purpose though definitely. If it's weight loss, then I've learnt a better combination to be Keto + intermittent fasting 23:1 and when possible 4:3(4days feasting and 3 days fasting)
Water fasting has additional benefits like autophagy etc. but really I would not recommend to anyone whose not ready to take on some serious research and doesn't have an experimental mindset. One other thing that will take you by surprise is how much bored you'll get!!
Resources -
https://www.reddit.com/r/fasting/
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1NaNQcDjUR97yfF3bNYqAmGld...
http://a.co/hvVllDl
I also struggled to give up caffeine on my first couple tries. On my last attempt, I noticed that I stopped getting migraines, which gave me all the motivation I needed to stick with it.
I only have a sample size of myself, so my advice may not be worth much, and it's definitely a cliche. What seems to work for me is to set a modest goal and don't get discouraged when I don't meet that goal the first time. Once I hit that goal, I stretch to something more ambitious. Sometimes you'll find you have goals that you don't really care about as much as you think. It's okay to set them aside and pursue the things that matter to you. Okay that's it for unwanted-advice time. :) Good luck with your goals!
People in tech don't have any authority on nutritional practices.
CEOs don't have any increased insight into healthy living.
And the article itself just focuses on a tiny number of individuals. I can't even fathom how the writer tracked them down to weave a narrative here.
I started this just over a month ago and have lost ~15 pounds so far (from 240 to 225, I'm 6'3"). I've never felt better. The juice I make is: 5 lbs carrots, 4 red beets, 1 kale, fresh ginger root, fresh turmeric root. All organic. It lasts 3 days, which is good since cleaning a juicer is annoying. I bought the "Tribest GSE-5000Green Star Elite Jumbo Twin Gear Juice Extractor" from Amazon.
Ironically, I started this during a 1-week vacation at an all-inclusive resort. I'd never been to one before, and by the second day I resented being told when to eat enough that it seemed the perfect time to try something like this...
More importantly, are there any long term studies on the affects of this?