Fast-5 Diet and Lifestyle: [fast5] Re: New member, curious, welcomes feedback

Saturday, October 10, 2009

[fast5] Re: New member, curious, welcomes feedback

Fat is food -- food that's been stored in a time of plenty to be used in a time of scarcity. If the time of scarcity never comes along, and you don't create one yourself, then the fat is never used.

Have you ever heard of a fat person starving to death? No -- the fat goes away first, because that's what it's for -- to provide fuel. Because fat is such good fuel storage, you could live for a long time -- months -- on zero calories if you had water available. In your case, the fat you carry is ready, willing, and able to provide at least 805,000 calories of energy. So how much do you need to take in? None.

What about other nutrients? Protein etc? Eventually those would become a problem, but only in a time frame of weeks to months, not days, and a gram of protein per kg of lean body mass per day is enough to ensure an excess of dietary protein. As dietary protein intake drops, the body's recycling systems improve their efficiency and conserve more, so one can get by on a lot less than 1 g/kg/day.

Aside from fuel and protein, what do you need? Microgram quantities of other essentials like vitamins and minerals. That's it. The requirements for bulky stuff are just fuel and protein.

The "conservation mode" to which you refer is of questionable existence in the short time frame of fasting we're talking about -- 19 hours, even a couple of days. To whatever extent it may exist in short-term fasting, it's desirable rather than something to be avoided, because calorie restriction, possibly in combination with intermittent fasting, is the only thing that's been proven to enhance longevity. So the mechanisms that may be activated in "conservation mode" appear to be a very good thing to have going on. Your body must consume energy to be alive, so it cannot and will not avoid using fat as fuel if your calorie intake is below your calorie usage.

It is true that a heavier person will spend more calories than a light one IF they are maintaining identical activity. If the encumbrance of the weight reduces activity in the slightest degree (which is usually the case as activity includes even brief, small walks within the house) then the comparison is invalid.

The point of the Fast-5 diet is to let your body take care of itself. Let your body determine your calorie intake by respecting and following your appetite, whether it's 0 or 600 or 1400 or even the 2000+ calories a day. Your body's system for integrating stored energy, energy intake and energy expenditure to determine appetite is amazingly good and far superior to calculators when given the chance to work. If that doesn't work, then you step in with the calculator and see what you can do to help your body get rid of the excess.

If that still doesn't work, it may be prudent to consult a physician to be sure that your thyroid hormone levels are where they should be. Another element that may impair the process is medicines (some that are intended to deal with the consequences of weight gain like the anti-cholesterol drugs can cause additional weight gain) but you have to consult your physician about that.

Bert

Bert Herring
Fast-5 Corporation

--- In fast5@yahoogroups.com, HELENA <hastings.press@...> wrote:
>
> Oooh I forgot to say.
>
> OK so what you are saying is, I weigh 354 but I should eat the calorie
> requirement of someone who weighs 124.
> But what about the fact that being 354 I use up a lot more calories than
> someone of 124, even just walking down the street? Surely this will
> result in semi-starvation, which in turn will cause me to go into
> "conservation mode"; alternatively I could end up malnourished.
>
> Mind you, I have checked on Fitday and 16oz of sirloin with 1/4 inch of
> fat on it contains 1,000 calories, one ounce of lard to cook it in is
> 250 calories, and one ounce of butter to spread on it is 200 calories =
> total 1,450. I lose about 250 calories because I cannot bring myself to
> eat the strip of fat along the edge of the steak ( I try, but I always
> spit it out!)
>
> ... so maybe I could indeed live on 1,200 calories without starving?
>
> Thanks Rick for giving me much to think about!
>
> Helena
>