Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 56

Thread: HST and Eat/Stop/Eat

  1. #31

    Default

    5 1/2 lbs down. Fasting 24hrs beginning tonight after dinner around 6pm. 7 days ago was at 211lbs, 205 1/2 lbs this morning. Would love to get down to 195-197lbs and see if I lost any strength or muscle mass. So far I've had no problems keeping up with the weight increases in my HST routine. Currently in middle of my 1st week of 10's and increasing with each workout.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  2. #32

    Default

    It's been mentioned in this thread that I should lift heavy while on E/S/E. Beginning with the 10's and skipping 15's. I plan to do this as I'm in my 10's right now. I will drop to 8's and then down to 5's. Question I have is when I begin my next HST cycle. Should I go rep ranges 10/8/6/5? Otherwise I'd be only doing a six week program if I went 10/8/5? I guess I could do four weeks of 5's but by the end of my 2nd week i'm typically maxed out on all of my lifts.

    Is a week of SD necessary if I'm feeling good after completing a cycle?
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  3. #33

    Default

    2 1/2 weeks in to E/S/E and I am down 11 lbs. Started at 212 and was right at 201 this morning. Goal next week is to drop to under 200. I think the loss will start to slow down now. Was about 7-8 lbs in the first week and a half anf 3 lbs in the last week. Hope to be around 199 next Friday.

    I've really liked the program. I don't feel like I've lost any strength or muscle at this point. I think the program is working nicely. It would probably work even better if I really counted and kept on top of my diet on regular days. I don't eat junk by any means, but also don't eat above maintenance either. I just try to eat sensible and throw in as much protein as I can. I don't think I get the .7-1 gram per lb but probably more like .5 grams per lb.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    423

    Default

    I would never recommend 24hr fasting for anyone regularly lifting weights. 16hrs is the max and I think 12hrs is better - where the first meal of the day can be a protein+fat meal.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  5. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blade View Post
    I would never recommend 24hr fasting for anyone regularly lifting weights. 16hrs is the max and I think 12hrs is better - where the first meal of the day can be a protein+fat meal.
    Why not? So far in I haven't experienced any muscle or strength loss, just weight loss(fat/water) I'm guessing. From a lot of what I've read your body really begins to start burning fat between the 18-22 hour mark of a fast. I don't see how a 16 hour fast would be the most beneficial.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Oslo, Norway
    Posts
    423

    Default

    Your body is burning fat all the time. If you have a lot of fat to cover a deficit, you can get away with a 24hr fast. Are there better ways to lose fat? Yes, I do believe so - there is no need for longer fasts, but if it makes diet adherence better for you - then go ahead. I would limit fasting to 16hrs and for someone lean - 12hrs.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  7. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Blade View Post
    Your body is burning fat all the time. If you have a lot of fat to cover a deficit, you can get away with a 24hr fast. Are there better ways to lose fat? Yes, I do believe so - there is no need for longer fasts, but if it makes diet adherence better for you - then go ahead. I would limit fasting to 16hrs and for someone lean - 12hrs.
    I'm curious if there is any evidence or scientific facts behind your theory? I'm not saying I disagree, in fact it makes logical sense what you are saying. I just wonder if there have been any studies done to prove that a shorter fast actually is better than a 24 hour fast. The only evidence I read mentioned the 18-22 hour mark as the target time for getting the most out of a fast.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Ketone production increases during a longer fast, that's why you end up burning more fat.
    At the same time gluconeogenesis increases, so you end up burning more muscles too.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  9. #39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by misev View Post
    Ketone production increases during a longer fast, that's why you end up burning more fat.
    At the same time gluconeogenesis increases, so you end up burning more muscles too.
    Does glucogeogenesis burn muscle? I thought ketosis was muscle sparing because glucogeogenesis will feed primarily from fatty acids....

    I'm puzzled now

    Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Ketosis is burning fat yes, but gluconeogenesis is burning protein. Since you're fasting, this protein comes from muscles normally.
    In the first 24 hours of a fast gluconeogenesis is rather high (especially if you're active).
    You need 2-3 days of fasting until gluconeogenesis drops down to minimal levels and you become efficient at ketosis.

    So I'd rather follow Blade's advice of fasting less than 24 hours, or if you are very fat then it might be more optimal to go on a prolonged fast of a several days.
    But fasting is a tricky business so take care and do your research..
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •