# Fasting as a survival tool.



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

I was talking to a personal trainer the other day who told me that she personally fasts two days a week. I have heard of fasting for religious reasons, but she claimed there were health benefits to fasting, which got me wondering: is fasting a way to stretch out foodstuffs? If so what is the best way to do it, is it better to go to half rations for part of a week, all of a week, or to throw in a day or two of total fast each week? Also is fasting a bad idea for certain people because of age or weight? I am assuming that it would be best for someone like me who could afford to loose dome weight.

It seems to me that if the body can survive three weeks without food, perhaps you could extend that to four or five weeks if you planned not eating into your rationing scheme.

Responses from medical professions sought.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

Digestion,other than child birth is one of the hardest things your body does, so giving it a break every so often is O.K. if your healthy to begin with. However there are certain medical conditions which would preclude fasting such as Hypoglycemia or Diabetes. Just remember if you do fast, drink lots and lots of water and be prepared to feel pretty crappy as toxins are released.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Padre said:


> It seems to me that if the body can survive three weeks without food, perhaps you could extend that to four or five weeks if you planned not eating into your rationing scheme.


Which is of course why rationing has been attempted throughout history when food ran short. My question is, was this done for psychological and morale reasons alone, OR is there a scheme for rationing that is biologically healthier and likely to contribute to your longevity.

For instance in my 15 minute evac kit I have 60 meals worth of rations, along with supplements and what I could forage here in lush NE, I hope this will last me 1-2 months. But if I could get away with eating only say 5-6 emergency meals a week, instead of the 7 I initially planned (+ forage) I could get 10 weeks out of those 60 meals.



camo2460 said:


> Digestion,other than child birth is one of the hardest things your body does, so giving it a break every so often is O.K. if your healthy to begin with. However there are certain medical conditions which would preclude fasting such as Hypoglycemia or Diabetes. Just remember if you do fast, drink lots and lots of water and be prepared to feel pretty crappy as toxins are released.


Anything that can be done about the crappiness? I have both electrolyte and vitamin energy powder, would either help with the lots of water I am drinking? I know from my experience of fasting that the crappiness can be distracting doing office work, I wonder if the physical activity of survival would be better to distract me from the discomfort?


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

If you are buggin in I guess I could see it but I think in a bad situation energy requirements will most likely increase due to increased activities. I wouldn't want tohave to do and aggressive bug out at the tail end of even a two day fast. Unless its a gotta do it or I may starve thing I'd avoid it personally.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Not a medical professional but got alot of experience doin' what you propose. First, fasting and goin' on short rations are very different. I don't think fasting will hurt a healthy person and will probably help. In a bugout situation the down side is that your energy level will be very low and the scary part is that you are not as sharp mentally. I find it easier to just not eat one day than to cut back/diet. Hunger comes in two varieties, the belly hunger you feel when you stomach empties out and the brain hunger that is telling you you are starving. The belly hunger goes away. The brain hunger just gets worse. 

About the longest I have gone is a week. You can figure on losing about a pound a day of body weight if you are moving/walking. The best way is just to try it. I find it easiest for me to just set a goal. I get up one morning and say I will eat dinner or lunch tomorrow. If I was gonna fast in the field it would be when I didn't have to move.

On the short ration side, you can function on short rations and work pretty good for a long time. Eating statisfies the brains need to keep from starving. After a week or so in calorie deficit the ravenous hunger will set in. On the Appalachian Trail they call it hiker hunger. You will think about food alot. You will gorge yourself if given the opportunity. I try to keep a steady flow of food into me, eating every 3 hours or so and plan out my meals well in advance to contol the urge to cheat.

On long patrols we could carry only one MRE/day, about 1,250 calories. We would go this way for a couple of weeks. No downside except losing a bunch of weight and the conversation turning from guns and girls to cheeseburgers and steaks. On the Appalachian Trail we kept this up for five months or so except it would be 3 - 5 days on the trail burning 4,000 - 5,000 calories/day but eating only half that much. When you get to town you eat everything in sight concentrating on fat and sugar.

One way to stretch your rations is to carry calorie dense foods. If you choose carefully you can get about 100 calories/ounce. About the most food I can imagine someone carrying along with others bugout stuff is 20 pounds. After that the bulk and weight just becomes unmanageable. That 20 pounds could give you about 32,000 calories at 2,000/day about 16 days.


----------



## camo2460 (Feb 10, 2013)

As mentioned above, fasting in a bug out situation is probably not a good idea, if you want to fast for health reason in a controlled enviroment, thats o.k. and further it will give you a good idea of what you can and cannot do in an emergency situation. Short rations are another matter, you can do pretty well as swj said but make sure you eat small amounts of calorie dense foods often and if you can, supplement your rations by foraging along the way. As far as the crappy feeling, not much you can do except to drink lots of water to flush the toxins. Ginger and or chamomile tea may help


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

Sorry to be contradictory to camo2460 but I really don't believe it is the "toxins" that make you feel bad. I understand this is considered fact in certain circles but this happened hundreds of years ago and with different diets so...
Hydration is very helpful though, ideally some kind of broth imo.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

> The best way is just to try it. I find it easiest for me to just set a goal. I get up one morning and say I will eat dinner or lunch tomorrow. If I was gonna fast in the field it would be when I didn't have to move.


Most definitely you don't want fast if you are bugging out by foot, or in what might be considered a combat situation. I am thinking I might try it next week when I do my quarterly bug out drill. I hope to be able to bug out by car, but my back up plans are more physically stressful. As I said I have fasted before, but usually when at work, which generally caused me difficulties in concentrating. I wonder how it will feel when I have a few days off and am working physically, to pack, bug out, and unpack...



swjohnsey said:


> First, fasting and goin' on short rations are very different... Hunger comes in two varieties, the belly hunger you feel when you stomach empties out and the brain hunger that is telling you you are starving. The belly hunger goes away. The brain hunger just gets worse.


Would you say that one causes belly hunger and the other doesn't? Despite the fact that psychologically easier to fast a day than to go on half rations for two days, I wonder which is better for you? People talk about detoxing and the general feeling of unwellness that comes from it (which I understand can even be life threatening depending on the toxins being released), would this happen if you cut back to a 1250 calorie diet?


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

cowboyhermit said:


> Sorry to be contradictory to camo2460 but I really don't believe it is the "toxins" that make you feel bad. I understand this is considered fact in certain circles but this happened hundreds of years ago and with different diets so...
> Hydration is very helpful though, ideally some kind of broth imo.


I don't think toxins mean pollution that is now in the air or chemicals that we used today but wouldn't have been 100 years ago. By toxins I think nutrition people are talking about naturally occurring stuff in food and drink and our environment, which in small doses are harmless, that has been ingested and incorporated into (or created in the process of making) fat and which will be released, in perhaps harmful doses if the body starts eating fat because of starvation.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

There are some rational "nutrition people" then there are the others
I have heard so many incorrect things from "experts" in the field it has made me a tad touchy on this aspect. 
There are certain substances that may be elevated in the body during fasting, though testing shows this not to be very significant. However I have seen little to indicate that this is responsible for making people feel bad and much to suggest that it is unrelated.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

It takes your body awhile to switch gears. I don't buy into much of this detox stuff. I do belive your body go into a survival mode when you aren't eatin' enough. I do know that you will feel very tired if you are fasting and that you won't be thinking as sharp as you normally do. You will forget things, lose thing, have trouble doing things that are normally easy, like adding up a bunch of numbers. Just a little food goes a long way to alleviating these problems. I think it fools the brain. It takes a week or two until the real hunger sets in and all you think about is food.


----------



## Caribou (Aug 18, 2012)

If you fast for the first twenty-four hours you will reset your metabolism to a slower pace. Medical conditions may make this a poor choice for some. If you are in a bug put situation or are otherwise burning massive calories you may not wish to deal with the loss of energy or mentation.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Padre said:


> I was talking to a personal trainer the other day who told me that she personally fasts two days a week. I have heard of fasting for religious reasons, but she claimed there were health benefits to fasting, which got me wondering: is fasting a way to stretch out foodstuffs? If so what is the best way to do it, is it better to go to half rations for part of a week, all of a week, or to throw in a day or two of total fast each week? Also is fasting a bad idea for certain people because of age or weight? I am assuming that it would be best for someone like me who could afford to loose dome weight.
> 
> It seems to me that if the body can survive three weeks without food, perhaps you could extend that to four or five weeks if you planned not eating into your rationing scheme.
> 
> Responses from medical professions sought.


I don't believe there are health benefits to fasting. I think it's a bad idea for children for sure. In a SHTF situation you need to have energy and you need to be mentally sharp. You can't be thinking about food in a situation that could become dangerous like when you're bugging out. Another part of being mentally sharp is getting enough sleep and I don't know how you get to sleep if you didn't eat today.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Getting to sleep never seemed to be a problem when I was starvin', maybe because I was exhausted from movin' all day.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

The other week when I was sick I was fasting for bascially 9 days ( had 2 meals during those 9 days)

Lost lots of weight and (after I was well) felt great.
Even when I was fasting though I felt a bit dizzy and my judgement was not 100% but I was generally even on day 9 in comeplet control of my body and mind.
Could still lift a gun just fine, walk just fine (tho not run extended distance) and think more or less straight though perhaps with somewhat reduced IQ..
I was thinking about this from a survilaist perspective too.

I am not longer afraid of gpoing w/o food.
A modern slightly overweight guy such as myself thats generally very well fed, can go quite a while w/o food before lack of food will debilitate him in a significant way.

From that I get the feeling thata n MRE every other day would hold me over and it would be quite a while before starvation symptoms would debilitate me.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

swjohnsey said:


> One way to stretch your rations is to carry calorie dense foods. If you choose carefully you can get about 100 calories/ounce. About the most food I can imagine someone carrying along with others bugout stuff is 20 pounds. After that the bulk and weight just becomes unmanageable. That 20 pounds could give you about 32,000 calories at 2,000/day about 16 days.


Some variety of nuts pack 200 calories per ounce. Olive oil is pretty calorie dense. Same with animal fats. Same with peanut butter. Cheese too.

For a regular diet you wouldn't want to be munching on lard all the time or chugging olive oil but for a short duration, high intensity period where you are limited in what you can carry, these food energy batteries might work for you.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

Bobbb said:


> Some variety of nuts pack 200 calories per ounce. Olive oil is pretty calorie dense. Same with animal fats. Same with peanut butter. Cheese too.
> 
> For a regular diet you wouldn't want to be munching on lard all the time or chugging olive oil but for a short duration, high intensity period where you are limited in what you can carry, these food energy batteries might work for you.


I liked your post by accident Bobbb but you make a good point.
The thing I would mention though is that I have seen people get really ill from eating food that they were not accustomed to, especially under stressful circumstances. If you plan to carry all your food then certainly consider calories but also consider how they might affect your body overall. 
Personally I do fine without food for a short period of time (days not weeks) as long as I have lots of liquids, preferably stock or broth and milk (powdered, canned evaporated or whatever)


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

When you think about carrying calorie dense food you also have to consider what it tastes like, how it lasts and ease of preparation. The all time winner for calorie density is plain old lard. It also lasts forever without refrigeration.


----------



## Padre (Oct 7, 2011)

Bobbb said:


> Some variety of nuts pack 200 calories per ounce. Olive oil is pretty calorie dense. Same with animal fats. Same with peanut butter. Cheese too.
> 
> For a regular diet you wouldn't want to be munching on lard all the time or chugging olive oil but for a short duration, high intensity period where you are limited in what you can carry, these food energy batteries might work for you.


I have slim jims in my BOB for fats.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

cowboyhermit said:


> The thing I would mention though is that I have seen people get really ill from eating food that they were not accustomed to, especially under stressful circumstances. If you plan to carry all your food then certainly consider calories but also consider how they might affect your body overall.


I do believe that Padre practices his bug outs, so maybe he should do trial runs on either fasting or drastic dietary changes in order to address this issue which your raise.

Here's a recipe for Pemmican:

About five pounds of meat are required to make one pound of dried meat suitable for pemmican. Then it was pounded into very small pieces, almost powder-like in consistency, using stones. *The pounded meat was mixed with melted fat in an approximate 1:1 ratio*.[5] In some cases, dried fruits such as saskatoon berries, cranberries, blueberries, or choke cherries were pounded into powder and then added to the meat/fat mixture.​
That animal fat is very calorie rich.

I did some checking on the other foods I listed.

Olive oil/ 100 grams = 884 calories
Dry roasted pecans/ 100 grams = 715 calories
Cod Liver Oil or Lard/ 100 grams = 902 calories
Peanut Butter/ 100 grams = 588 calories
Cheddar Cheese/ 100 grams = 403 calories

Dried Cured Beef / 100 grams = 153 calories


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

100 calories/oz = 400 calories/100 grams. All nuts have about the same number of calories, same for vegetable oils. My favorite "vegetable oil" is squeeze margarine because it adds some flavor and is cheap.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

One other point is how the body breaks down the energy. Sugars are processed fairly quickly so the calories are released and you experience a peak of energy followed by a trough. Animal fats though are processed more slowly so you get a steady release of energy. Carbs fall in between.


----------



## Bobbb (Jan 7, 2012)

swjohnsey said:


> All nuts have *about* the same number of calories.


That depends on much latitude you assign to the word "about."

Dried Sesame Seeds = 573
Dried Acorns = 509
Dried Almonds = 597
Dried Butternuts = 612
Dried Cashews = 574
Dried, peel Chestnuts = 369
Dried Hazelnuts = 646
Dried Macadamia = 718
Dried Pecans = 710
Dried Walnuts = 618
Dried Pistachio = 571

So if you have a choice between dried macadamia nuts or dried chestnuts, those macadamia nuts are twice as energy dense. If your choice is between sesame seeds and pistachios and cashews, there's little difference.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

It actually gets really complicated when you get into how many calories are actually available to the body, digestion is not perfect and the way in which they measure these things is pretty messy. It has improved since they just burnt the stuff and compared with the "digested version" but not that much.

That has little to do with this though, fats have many calories, available to the body relatively easily. Proteins are necessary for many reasons but are not high in calories. Carbs are what they are, cheap easy calories to produce and consume but not as many calories per pound as fat.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Bobbb said:


> That depends on much latitude you assign to the word "about."
> 
> Dried Sesame Seeds = 573
> Dried Acorns = 509
> ...


Take a look at the "nuts" you normally find in a grocery store and tell me what you find. For survival on the move I plan on around 2,000 calories/day and 50 grams of protein. This puts most folks at a calorie deficit but enough to keep you goin' at a high level of performance while still carrying a manageable amount of weight and bulk, about 1 1/2 lbs food/day.


----------



## JSank80 (Apr 30, 2013)

Let's get back to Padre's initial post, great Pemmican recipe Bobbb. There is no way to healthily fast. Even that Arabs, whom fast the most consistently for religious reasons, eat after the sun sets. In Army Ranger school we were on "reduced rations", every article of clothing we owned reeked of ammonia, why? Because the body breaks down muscle when it needs energy. The way the body works is this; it starts with simple carbs, monosaccharaides/ sugars , then moves on to polysaccharides/ complex carbs, then into proteins. The body will take what it needs to survive, and within less than a day it will burn proteins to get it, thus the ammonia smell. If you are doing any amount of daily activity, your body will start to burn proteins. Where is the only place that the body stores protein..... your muscles. Reduced rations are fine if you are sedentary, but when you are post SHTF, you are not going to be sedentary. You will need to maintain at least 2350 calories per day for a post SHTF lifestyle to maintain your body composition. I understand that most people expect to lose weight, and body mass post SHTF, but one can not continually lose mass and still survive. In summation there is now healthy way to fast, but you can reduce rations so long as you consume approx. 2000 calories per day. The calories per day were based on a 195lbs. male with vigorous daily activity.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Human metabolism is set up to burn fat before it burns protein.

The reason is, it takes less resources for the body to convert excess calories into fat and fat into extra calories.
Protein is more difficult both directions .

the body will choose the way of least resistance.
You'd have to rbun off a LOT of fat before the body will turn to protein.

One thing it will however do, during periods of starvation, is switch off muscle replacement activity.

So muscle replacement stops after a few days which will result in slow loss of muscle mass.
This however is not (yet) the body consuming the muscle.

So in summary what does the body use:

1st : free glucose in blood
2nd glycogen in the liver ( which can be easily turned into glucose)
3rd: lipids from fat storing cells
4th: proteins from muscle
5th: parts of the nervous system when the muscle is reduced to a minimum


----------



## JSank80 (Apr 30, 2013)

I'm sorry Apache Pilot, who has moved how far on foot carrying how much weight after taking how many months of medical training, and who has sat in a cockpit moving their arms and feet around while a computer flies their airframe. You are right in the fact that the body does go through those steps, but...... The body does not take the path of least resistance, it takes the path that gets it the most energy per conversion, which is from protein. The point in which the body stops converting muscle is the point of emaciation, i.e. holocaust victims. If you think I am being too harsh in my example, well sorry but that's medical fact. Padre asked for information from medical professionals, not pilots. Anything concerning aircraft and I will personally direct people to you for answers.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

JSank80, that was totally uncalled for, if Padre or anyone else is not interested in BlueZ's opinion that is for them to decide, not you.

If you are so knowledgeable on this then how much more energy does the body get from burning protein than fat?


----------



## JSank80 (Apr 30, 2013)

A cell generates 144 ATP molecules from the breakdown of one 18-carbon fatty acid molecule—almost 1.5 times the energy obtained from the breakdown of three six-carbon glucose molecules. Even though the body can synthesize at least 400,000 different proteins, each with varied forms, functions, and structures, all proteins are composed of some combination of only 20 amino acids. Under normal conditions, a continuous recycling of cellular proteins occurs in the cytoplasm. Peptide bonds are broken, and the free amino acids are used to manufacture new proteins. If other energy sources are inadequate, mitochondria can break down amino acids in the TCA cycle to generate ATP. Not all amino acids enter the TCA cycle at the same point, so the ATP benefits vary. However, the average ATP yield is comparable to that of carbohydrate catabolism.


----------



## JSank80 (Apr 30, 2013)

cowboyhermit said:


> JSank80, that was totally uncalled for, if Padre or anyone else is not interested in BlueZ's opinion that is for them to decide, not you.
> 
> If you are so knowledgeable on this then how much more energy does the body get from burning protein than fat?


Uncalled for, no, that would be like me telling padre the best way to fly a helicopter when he wants FACTS about the subject. Bluez would have the right to correct me cause I would be way out of my area of expertice.... 
Rude, you are probably right.


----------



## JSank80 (Apr 30, 2013)

BlueZ said:


> Human metabolism is set up to burn fat before it burns protein.
> 
> The reason is, it takes less resources for the body to convert excess calories into fat and fat into extra calories.
> Protein is more difficult both directions .
> ...


Cowboy hermit is partially right, I was very rude to you on the forum and I shouldn't have been. Sorry if I offended you.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

The human body is set up for feast and famine. I went to Ranger school, too, Class 8-83 and to the SERE Instructor Course where instead of being on short rations you were on no rations. I agree with BlueZ. JSank80 didn't tell us where he got all his medical training. 

I don't know that Ranger school is a good analogy for bugging out. Folks thru-hiking the Appalachian Trail might be better. Here you have normal folk who suddenly go from a sedintary life style to walking 10 - 25 miles a day carrying a pack and sleeping in the woods. The guys on the AT lost lotsa weight. I went from about 180 to 150. In Ranger school I went from 155 to 135. Women lost very little weight for some reason on the AT.

When I am fasting I continue to work out. It has always amazed me that after not eating I can get up in the morning and run as far as fast as I ever do. Even strength training does seem to be affected. You just feel tired.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

JSank80 said:


> I'm sorry Apache Pilot, who has moved how far on foot carrying how much weight after taking how many months of medical training, and who has sat in a cockpit moving their arms and feet around while a computer flies their airframe. You are right in the fact that the body does go through those steps, but...... The body does not take the path of least resistance, it takes the path that gets it the most energy per conversion, which is from protein. The point in which the body stops converting muscle is the point of emaciation, i.e. holocaust victims. If you think I am being too harsh in my example, well sorry but that's medical fact. Padre asked for information from medical professionals, not pilots. Anything concerning aircraft and I will personally direct people to you for answers.


JS Swank. I am not a Pilot and I am not offended. 
My guess is your are one of those ExSf Medics turned PA's, who know just enough to cause trouble when dealing with the scientists or the MD's.

My source is a semester of graduate level mammalian Biochemistry as part of my graduate studies in Biochemistry at Minnesota State University.
My Biochemistry professors (who had forgotten more about metabolism that MD's know) did a pretty good job of explaining human metabolism.

let me summarize it a different way:

It would not make evolutionary nor metabolic sense for the body to attack and consume muscle protein before fat reserves (remember this is all assuming we are in the post-glycogen phase, some of which is stored in muscle not just liver, but again consuming that glycogen is also not the same as consuming muscle for fuel)

a) It is easier for the body to catabolize fat reserve
b), it has invested less calories per stored calorie to create them, in other words anabolisis of fat is "cheaper" in calories expended. The anabolism of proteins requires a lot of free energy invested by the body, more than is invested to create same calories stored in fat, which is a simpler and "cheaper " way to store energy.

That is why catabolism of proteins is not the preferred way to get energy before catabolism of lipids.
It is "a" way but not the prefered way.

And _fat reserves have purposefully evolved to prevent just such an occurance_ to prevent expensive muscle proteins being needlessly degraded too early in fasting/starvation. (except in the more advanced starvation states when the fat is used up.)

The reason the misconception about muscle being used as fuel so early in fasting, comes around from the simplification many exercise science people use.

The kernel of truth to your model is, that in a starvation state the body will reduce to a minimum, the replenishment of muscle protein (because its energetically expensive to do) and as a result muscle mass willdecline in fasting/starvation states.
This is until fat stores are used up and then the next stage of fuel finding starts during advanced starvation and then the muscles get attacked.

In some exteme high energy situations the body <might> and i emphasize might, use protein catabolism to assist fat catabolism, if fat catabolism alone is insufficient to supply the Acetyl-CoA to the Citric Acid cycle. This is subject to enzymatic regulation based on how much glucose needs your body has. 
But this is an exception in an unusual situation not a rule. Ranger School may be an example.

but this is _very _different and distinct from "the body uses protein before fat as a fuel"

Again the body's order of preference is:
- Free Glucose --> Acetyl-CoA 
- Glycogen --> Acetyl CoA
- Lipids from fat cells --> Acetyl-CoA
- Proteins broken down --> AA --> Acetyl-CoA

From Acetyl-CoA of course --> NADH/FADH2 (via CAC) --> ATP via oxidative phosphorylation

I don't know any other way to explain it, but in expectation of a disagreeable response i am grabbing my old Voet&Voet Biochem textbook 

PS: I really do think some of the confusion surrounding this subject is rooted in the muscles losing mass in early phases of fasting due to glycogen depletion (which is not really "muscle") and lack of protein anabolism. The shutting off of muscle anabolism is a protective reaction of the body to shut off energetic processes and will result is some muscle mass loss as well as there is no replenishment of muscle fibers going on. But this is very distinct from "using muscle-protein as fuel" which doesn't happen until later in the process.


----------



## JSank80 (Apr 30, 2013)

BlueZ, Thank You for the education, I'm sorry I get very passionate about these topics and don't want people getting injured by misinformation.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

JSank80 said:


> A cell generates 144 ATP molecules from the breakdown of one 18-carbon fatty acid molecule-almost 1.5 times the energy obtained from the breakdown of three six-carbon glucose molecules. Even though the body can synthesize at least 400,000 different proteins, each with varied forms, functions, and structures, all proteins are composed of some combination of only 20 amino acids. Under normal conditions, a continuous recycling of cellular proteins occurs in the cytoplasm. Peptide bonds are broken, and the free amino acids are used to manufacture new proteins. If other energy sources are inadequate, mitochondria can break down amino acids in the TCA cycle to generate ATP. Not all amino acids enter the TCA cycle at the same point, so the ATP benefits vary. However, the average ATP yield is comparable to that of carbohydrate catabolism.


So you are agreeing then that the body gets more energy from fat than protein.
Truth is, it is very difficult to maintain the same muscle mass after fasting this is due to multiple factors as mentioned. But that does not change the fact that fat is the bodies preferred energy source in that situation.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

You are actually both partially correct. Homostasis tries to maintain even in a starvation stage. The body uses what it needs when It's not getting it from routine diet and is overall controlled by the endocrine system. When you start talking about a grand and complex system on the biochemical scale, you miss some of the main components of the system. 

In a fasting state, 180 g of glucose per day are produced by gluconeogenesis in the liver (and kidneys) during fasting supplies 720 kcal of energy. Normal total energy expenditure for an average adult is 1500 to 3000 kcal/day. Therefore, gluconeogenesis cannot supply all the body's energy needs. The following adjustment must therefore take place during the transition from the absorptive to the postabsorptive state: Most organs and tissues markedly reduce their glucose catabolism and increase their fat utilization, the latter becoming the major energy source. This metabolic adjustment, termed glucose sparing, “spares” the glucose produced by the liver for use by the nervous system. (Widmaier 610)
Widmaier, Eric P.. Human Physiology, MP Vander et al's, 9th Edition. 

The liver is unique, however, in that most of the acetyl CoA it forms from fatty acids during the postabsorptive state does not enter the Krebs cycle but is processed into three compounds collectively called ketones (or ketone bodies). (Note that ketones are not the same as -ketoacids, which, as we have seen, are metabolites of amino acids.) Ketones are released into the blood and provide an important energy source during prolonged fasting for the many tissue, including the brain, capable of oxidizing them via the Krebs cycle. One of the ketones is acetone, some of which is exhaled and accounts for the distinctive breath odor of individuals undergoing prolonged fasting. 

Exercise and the postabsorptive state are not the only situations characterized by the endocrine profile of decreased insulin and increased glucagon, sympathetic activity, cortisol, and growth hormone. This profile also occurs in response to a variety of nonspecific stresses, both physical and emotional. The adaptive value of these endocrine responses to stress is that the resulting metabolic shifts prepare the body for exercise (“fight or flight”) in the face of real or threatened injury. In addition, the amino acids liberated by the catabolism of body protein stores because of decreased insulin and increased cortisol not only provide energy via gluconeogenesis but also constitute a potential source of amino acids for tissue repair should injury occur.

In summary, the body is catabolizing and metabolizing at the same time, just preferentially in different systems based on the hormonal control. glucose is still made for the brain. Muscle is broken down at the same time fats are, just initially at a slower rate. Muscle is being repaired, however fats are not stored until the hormonal shift signals the end of the fasting stresses. (they take enormous amount of energy to create) 

carbohydrate, 4.1 Kcal/g;
fats, 9.45 Kcal/g;
protein, 5.65Kcal/g
alcohol, 7.1 Kcal/g

(to answer the question above - fats do give more energy than protein, but protein catabolism is needed as well to free up proteins for repair of muscle tissues.) 

I can't recall the krebs cycle from memory anymore, but it wouldn't help me treat the average patient. I need to know how the body works and regulates itself in the presence of health, disease, and injury. You're not going to pick that up in a book or a lecture. You're going to see that on rounds, calculating TPN in the ICU, trending labs, serial examinations of very sick patients ect... As residents though, it was fair game to pimp any and all of the physiology pathways and its all fair game on Board exams.


----------



## drfacefixer (Mar 8, 2013)

Now to answer Padre, 
It really depends on the individual. We all starve at different rates and the side effects will differ depending on our stress hormones. Some people have a very keen sense of hypoglycemia where others can go a day without eating and never notice. This is all controlled by variations of growth hormone, insulin, glucacon, and cortisol. As someone mentioned with ranger training, its 61 days of intense training with minimal sleep and reduced rations. It's made to force you're body into extreme stresses. It's a challenge not only to see who is fit, but who can physically function under physiologic stresses. You might be able to extend your rations, if your body can compensate for the stresses with hormonal regulation. After a significant time fasting, you may start to show signs of adrenal insufficiency - hypoglycemia, dehydration, weight loss, and disorientation, weakness, tiredness, dizziness, low blood pressure that falls further when standing (orthostatic hypotension), cardiovascular collapse, muscle aches, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Stress dose steroids would help avoid this, but without breaking the fasting state altogether you would eventually crash and crash hard. Fasting for a few days at a time isn't going to tell you if (intermittent fasting) would help you. you would likely have to live that lifestyle for a minimum of a few weeks to completely deplete your stores of fat, go through some muscle wasting , in order to see your cortisol levels jump up and run you on fumes (if you really want to test it). Fasting in body building is a fad to help to increase insulin sensitivity, which can mean that you have a better chance of storing the carbohydrates you eat in the muscle cells rather than the body fat cells (that helps with pump aswell as builds cell volume quickly). Its part of the paleo diet. Cortisol blockers are also abused in steroid cycling to avoid catabolism of muscle gains.


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

Good points everyone, JSank80 sorry if I sounded harsh, it's just been so long since I ate anything I am starting to lose it a bit  Seriously though I know one woman in particular who if she don't have food I do not want her to have a gun eep: mind you she doesn't carry around as many stored up calories as I do.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Drface: I dont have the CAC memorized anymore either and wasn't really ready to go to this kind of granularity.
Way too much typing for me 

Another simple way I like to use to explain it to people is this:

" If muscle not fat where the preferred way for the body to get emergency energy then when we overeat we would all become incredibly muscular. But we dont, since the body's preferred way to store surplus calories and access extra energy when needed and free glucose and glycogen are depleted, is via lipids from fat cells. That's why they exist."


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

Padre said:


> I have slim jims in my BOB for fats.


Great Value brand trail mix has 4,000 calories per pound. That would seem to be pretty dense.


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Don't think it does. Even lard only has about 4,000 calories/pound.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

Very excellent point & idea.
I know a guy who has fasted every Tuesday for 24 hours. Same idea as Sabbath rest one day in seven.
He swears it let's the body rest & heal BC digestion is work I would say.
He says at exactly 2 am Wed am he feels his body flushing toxins.

So yes...a way to be in better health & eat one days less food per week....and for most of us...lose weight.


----------



## angie_nrs (Jul 26, 2017)

*I'm revisiting this OLD initial post*

I was wondering if anyone had discussed IF as a survival method so I was happy to see this thread. There seems to be much more information out there now as opposed to several years ago when this post was first initiated. It's been many many years since I've been tested on and hashed through the exact physiology and I remember it wasn't fun. So, I'm not arguing any of it one way or the other. Instead, for anyone who is interested......I would say.....why don't you try it out for yourself? Unless you have a medical issue that would prevent you from trying it out, why not give it a go? I've been doing a 20-24 hour fast (2 days per week) for a month now and it really has made a difference for me in losing belly fat and feeling much better overall.

A few misconceptions that have been tossed around in this thread are that you will have less energy. Well, I can say that for myself, that is totally NOT the case at all! I have so much more energy on fast days and get a ton of stuff done. I also have lots of energy to do difficult workouts on fast days, which was not something I anticipated.....but sure enough, LOTS of energy!

I think that maybe the disagreements in this thread are due to the definition of "fast". It makes a difference if you are referring to 16 hrs., 24 hrs., 36 hrs., 2 days, 2 weeks, etc. There are definitely different bodily functions happening depending upon how long your fast is.

I think it is definitely a good tool to have in your toolbox, but the only way that will happen is if you actually TRY it! I wonder how many have tried a 24 hour fast and then said they were exhausted by it? I'm not saying that's not possible, but that is certainly not what happened with me. After doing it 2 days per week for about a month now, I think I want to try a 48 hour fast and see how that goes. It's good to know what your body can do before you HAVE to find out by means out of your control. I'd say now is the time to put your body to the test and see how you react to it. If you don't know how to get started, there's lot of books on the subject out there and a quick google search will get you started in the right direction. It seems a bit scary at first, but it's really empowering and fairly easy to do. Start with an amount of time you can accept and gradually add to it.

Look back at pictures only 40-50 years ago. Most of the folks in those pictures were naturally thin. Why? Well, most of them didn't have food in front of them 24 hours per day and they also didn't have fast food or the option of "going out to eat". My parents and grandparents typically only ate 2 meals per day and didn't snack between meals. I'd say that was pretty much the norm. You don't see that happening much today....and look at what family pictures look like today. So much for the naturally skinny people huh? They didn't know this was a form of fasting........it's just what they did.

Does anyone else do IF? If so, please share your experiences.


----------



## jeremiyah (Feb 13, 2009)

angie_nrs said:


> I was wondering if anyone had discussed IF as a survival method so I was happy to see this thread. There seems to be much more information out there now as opposed to several years ago when this post was first initiated. It's been many many years since I've been tested on and hashed through the exact physiology and I remember it wasn't fun. So, I'm not arguing any of it one way or the other. Instead, for anyone who is interested......I would say.....why don't you try it out for yourself? Unless you have a medical issue that would prevent you from trying it out, why not give it a go? I've been doing a 20-24 hour fast (2 days per week) for a month now and it really has made a difference for me in losing belly fat and feeling much better overall.
> 
> A few misconceptions that have been tossed around in this thread are that you will have less energy. Well, I can say that for myself, that is totally NOT the case at all! I have so much more energy on fast days and get a ton of stuff done. I also have lots of energy to do difficult workouts on fast days, which was not something I anticipated.....but sure enough, LOTS of energy!
> 
> ...


Thank you for the great testimony .


----------



## Sentry18 (Aug 5, 2012)

angie_nrs said:


> I was wondering if anyone had discussed IF as a survival method so I was happy to see this thread. There seems to be much more information out there now as opposed to several years ago when this post was first initiated. It's been many many years since I've been tested on and hashed through the exact physiology and I remember it wasn't fun. So, I'm not arguing any of it one way or the other. Instead, for anyone who is interested......I would say.....why don't you try it out for yourself? Unless you have a medical issue that would prevent you from trying it out, why not give it a go? I've been doing a 20-24 hour fast (2 days per week) for a month now and it really has made a difference for me in losing belly fat and feeling much better overall.
> 
> A few misconceptions that have been tossed around in this thread are that you will have less energy. Well, I can say that for myself, that is totally NOT the case at all! I have so much more energy on fast days and get a ton of stuff done. I also have lots of energy to do difficult workouts on fast days, which was not something I anticipated.....but sure enough, LOTS of energy!
> 
> ...


Excellent post!

I use intermittent fasting for two purposes: to keep my body fat levels low and to maximize my body's production of testosterone and HGH on weight training days. But rest assured I will use it if society collapses. I will fast for 2-4 days before a physical or wellness check up and 20-24 hours leading up to an intense workout. I have never once failed to have the energy to complete it one of those workouts. I have also never suffered from gluconeogenesis (the cannibalization of aminos from muscle tissue and conversion to glucose to feed yourself internally). When I fast I actually feel better and more revitalized. I sleep better and feel very much so cleansed. The human body was never designed to eat "3 square meals" and it was never designed to eat processed foods, synthetic foods or non-foods used as additives, preservatives, etc.

As is always the case when we talk about long term survival, we look back to our ancestors and life before the modern world. If you think they ate "5-6 small meals a day" or Cornflakes for breakfast and Burger King for lunch you are horribly mistaken. They ate lots of fat, lots of protein and they skipped meals often. They also fasted with regularity, sometimes by choice and sometimes because they had no other choice. Whatever you read about fasting in the medical community was most likely a lie bought and paid for by the lucrative diet industry, food industry or medical community. All of which have been thoroughly corrupted by the almighty dollar.


----------



## angie_nrs (Jul 26, 2017)

Sentry18 said:


> Whatever you read about fasting in the medical community was most likely a lie bought and paid for by the lucrative diet industry, food industry or medical community. All of which have been thoroughly corrupted by the almighty dollar.


I agree with this 100%. The food industry has absolutely nothing to gain by touting the benefits of fasting. If this trend caught on, oh my!....just think of the money they'd lose! The only folks that have anything to gain monetarily are those pushing books.....which is not nearly as lucrative as pushing pills, special foods, magic powders, special doctors, etc.

I think the biggest piece of bunk out there is that you have to eat every 3-5 hours to keep your metabolism revved so that you don't go into starvation mode. People are still buying into that load of poo. Look around folks.....how many people around you do you see that are starving??? Yeah, great advice. But, this is only coming from my personal experiences and observations. I am quite the skeptic.

I also experience a mental sharpness and alertness with fasting that I was surprised by. No brain fog at all! I can assure you that if I needed to take a test or be especially sharp on any particular day, I would be in the middle of a fast. I wish I'd known about this in my college days. Hmmmmm....seems to me that common sense was more of a thing back in the day too......I wonder if there is a connection?


----------



## PreparedRifleman73 (Nov 2, 2012)

Interesting topic, I'll be watching for more


----------

