[Winomaster]

I recently came across a book by a medical doctor, Jason Fung, who uses fasting in his treatment of diabetics. The book is "The Diabetes Code". You don't have to buy the book. Most of what he says can be found in his U-tube videos. Check him out there.

Inspired by what he had to say, I recently did six weeks of one-meal-a-day dieting (Loosely adhered to) and then five weeks of fasting. I lost 12 lbs in the first phase and then another 28 lbs in the second phase. For a total of 40 lbs. After the first 6 weeks of dieting I discovered that I could eliminate my entire dosage of long acting (Basal) insulin. And now, having finished up the fasting phase, as I have returned to eating the past two days I find I no longer need the short-acting insulin I had been taking. My after meal BG peak the past two days has been 111 and 112. And both of those meals were on the larger size. But, not particularly carb intensive. Though I am not eating a Keto style diet.

Dr Fung says that whatever your starting weight, when you begin to lose weight, the body first takes the visceral fat from inside the body cavity. This is the most dangerous fat, the fat that is penetrating the liver and the pancreas. This fat in the liver drives IR and the fat in the pancreas, according to Dr Fung, drives a suppression of the insulin producing capacity of the Beta cells.

I still remain 65 lbs overweight, but my diabetes has apparently, for the moment at least, been reversed. If I was to consume a massive amount of carbs, I might discover that my current insulin producing ability has its limits. But, being off the insulin altogether promises further reductions in my insulin resistance. Insulin drives insulin resistance.

I had been taking 40 units of Lantus x 2 and around 35 units Novalog at meals. Going to 0 insulin feels real good.

 

[itissteve]

Thanks, Winomaster. I've long suspected that staying low-carb let my pancreas "rest" enough so that if I underestimated the carbs in a meal out or occasionally ate something carby that I just had to try, my body was better able to recover from that than it was before low-carb. Dr. Fung's findings applies well to that. Always nice to know there's some science behind what I'm feeling.

 

[mbuster]

Congrats on your success Winomaster!!!

I started out strict OMAD for about 5 months, but have gotten a little looser lately. I haven't fasted more than 25-26 hours but I am curious to try doing 48-72 hours. I need to check up a little more on the Jason Fung videos, seen a few but probably not enough. I do Keto and find when I do eat some carby (starchy not sugary) things, like @itissteve, my BG does recover a lot better now than it did.

Insulin drives a lot of things besides shuttling glucose into cells, i.e. shuts down fat burning and increases fat storage. Hyperinsuliinemia and insulin resistance are also associated with inflammation and vascular disease.

 

[Winomaster]

The problem I see with shorter fasts is that you take about three days to get into fat-burning mode. And you really don't feel that great during the first five days as the "pipes" clear and you make that changeover. You have to stay close to home. I had been a purely carb-burning machine. And this is why diabetics find it so hard to lose weight. Many require severe restriction of carbs or fasting to get insulin levels low enough that the fat can come out of storage. High insulin blocks fat release.

And the problem with longer fasts is that they say shouldn't try to be working or be under stress during a fast. So, for most people they would have to save up four weeks of vacation to do much of an extended fast. The longest fast on record is over a year where the guy started at about four hundred pounds. I could never go that long. I couldn't keep my mind off food well enough to avoid triggering insulin release with my thoughts. The point is to keep insulin levels low.

I'm going to do the one-meal-per-day routine now. (intermittent fasting) Limiting my eating to about four hours each day. Its also supposed to work well for diabetics.

In my third day since the fast, my post meal BG has come up. Instead of 111 postmeal, today I had 145 on a smaller meal. So, perhaps my cells were just refilling with glucose when I had the 111 and 112. I seem to have some more weight loss to do.

 

[mbuster]

The problem I see with shorter fasts is that you take about three days to get into fat-burning mode. And you really don't feel that great during the first five days as the "pipes" clear and you make that changeover. You have to stay close to home. I had been a purely carb-burning machine. And this is why diabetics find it so hard to lose weight. Many require severe restriction of carbs or fasting to get insulin levels low enough that the fat can come out of storage. High insulin blocks fat release.

I eat Keto, less than 30 grams of carbs per day, so I am in fat burning mode. I don't consider it sever restriction of carbs, but rather a necessary restriction of something I don't really need anyway.

And the problem with longer fasts is that they say shouldn't try to be working or be under stress during a fast. So, for most people they would have to save up four weeks of vacation to do much of an extended fast. The longest fast on record is over a year where the guy started at about four hundred pounds. I could never go that long. I couldn't keep my mind off food well enough to avoid triggering insulin release with my thoughts. The point is to keep insulin levels low.

Thats kind of the point of carb reduction too. Limiting the source of BG limits the amount of insulin secreted.

I'm going to do the one-meal-per-day routine now. (intermittent fasting) Limiting my eating to about four hours each day. Its also supposed to work well for diabetics.

It has worked well for me since September. I eat in the afternoon or early evening. I often ride a bicycle on my off days and the rides are usually while in a fasted state and I'm not feeling a lack of energy.

In my third day since the fast, my post meal BG has come up. Instead of 111 postmeal, today I had 145 on a smaller meal. So, perhaps my cells were just refilling with glucose when I had the 111 and 112. I seem to have some more weight loss to do.

How many grams of carbs was in that smaller meal?

 

[vicky3vicky]

During the 5 week fast, did you consume nothing but water? I am so curious about longer fasting.

 

[div2live]

Winomaster, well done and thanks for sharing. I too lost a bunch of weight and still need to drop another 60-70lbs. I did it by following LCHF eating, nothing more. I went from 320lbs. to 250lbs. This all happened in less than 12 months. I did not increase my activity or do anything except follow LCHF.

 

[robertprice]

. I went from 320lbs. to 250lbs. This all happened in less than 12 months. I did not increase my activity or do anything except follow LCHF.

Wow, well done! I lost 40 lbs but it took almost a year. However, it was constant, about one lb a week. Doc said that was a realistic goal.

Now, I'm in kindergarten and you guys have PHD's on this subject so I'm sorry for my possibly naive comment. But what I have read / heard / about fasting is the possible reverse effect.

When the body goes into fasting mode, it "thinks" it's starving and will try to retain fat. Similarly, after fasting, it will try to retain all the new fat.

My doc prefers I eat 3-5 tiny meals rather than one or two large ones.

So is this theory antiquated? Naive? Just plain wrong?

[I obviously have a lot to learn]

 

[mbuster]

Wow, well done! I lost 40 lbs but it took almost a year. However, it was constant, about one lb a week. Doc said that was a realistic goal.

I think slow and steady is best. My wife, when she we were much younger, would try to starve herself to lose weight quickly. The weight would come off, but as soon as she returned to eating the stuff she always ate, it would come back.

Now, I'm in kindergarten and you guys have PHD's on this subject so I'm sorry for my possibly naive comment. But what I have read / heard / about fasting is the possible reverse effect.

WE were all where you are when we first joined the forum. Reverse effect? on Diabetes? Fasting can usually lower your BG, but if you break your fast with stuff that raises your BG. In that scenario I'd say no reversing effect. Break your fast with stuff that doesn't raise your BG, then I'd say there was a reversing effect. It is my opinion that maintaining normal BG numbers is the reversing effect and that is what I do. As long as I keep eating things that keeps from raising my BG, lab test will never show that I am diabetic. Let me eat an apple fritter, bowl of oatmeal, a slab of German chocolate cake, grapes, etc., my meter will read out the roof. That is the way it works for me.

When the body goes into fasting mode, it "thinks" it's starving and will try to retain fat. Similarly, after fasting, it will try to retain all the new fat.

Almost everyone at some point in time every day will quit burning glucose for fuel and will burn fat. Don't confuse fasting with starving but at some point in time your metabolism will slow down. Breaking the fast with stuff that raises your BG a bunch makes you produce more insulin. The insulin will shut down fat burning. If that glucose is not needed, then some is converted to glycogen and stored in the liver. The excess glucose is usually converted to triglycerides and the insulin will store that in your fat cells for future energy needs.

My doc prefers I eat 3-5 tiny meals rather than one or two large ones.

So is this theory antiquated? Naive? Just plain wrong?

[I obviously have a lot to learn]

What is his reasoning for more meals? It may be necessary for certain circumstances.

The body can do funny things. I lost weight going to a LCHF way of eating from 240 lbs down to 185 lbs, I quit losing weight and actually gained 10 back and just leveled off at 195. I thought maybe I ought to cut some calories, so I weighed everything I ate for a while, figured what my carb, fat, and protein ratios were, and found that I was eating around 3300 kcal per day. I saw where I could cut some protein and carbs to lower the calories, but I still needed more fat in my diet to try and get in ketosis. I decided to pick up more on the fats first. Still weighing everything, I figured out that I was now eating 4100 kcal/day. And to my amazement without changing anything else, I started losing weight and before I knew it, that 10 lbs was gone again. Go figure!!!

 

[robertprice]

What is his reasoning for more meals? It may be necessary for certain circumstances.

It was many years ago when I had really high and dangerous blood pressure. That was just one of the things which worked. With only one mild BP pill now it's quite good.

So it was related to high BP and not BG, or weight or carbs.

[lots of good info--thanks]

 

[VeeJay]

The several small meals a day was recommended many years ago to me because of hypoglycemia, and recently to help minimize acid reflux from having a hiatal hernia.

I can see it could possibly be helpful for diabetes only in that there could be fewer carbs at a time so one's insulin production would better match the need. Perhaps a nice theory but in the real world not of much practical use for blood sugar control.

 

[div2live]

Winomaster, thanks for your reply. You seem to be going on a real good path, just remember we all react differently, so expect somethings to be different and unique to you.

I have never been a fan of fasting, but I know many others find it useful. On the other hand I usually have eaten dinner by 7pm every night. I go to bed around 10pm to 11pm. I get up between 6:30 to 7:00am. Therefore I fast for 11-12hrs. every day. Sometimes I see my fasting blood sugar spiking over 140, that's the morning phenomenon many of us talk about. When I start doing this I will eat a few small pieces of hard cheese before bed, and that fixes the morning spike for me!

Also, a word of caution to all about weight loss. I lost 70lbs. in less than a year. I was taking both blood pressure medication and a water pill when I started the weight loss. within a few weeks I started getting light headed. Part of it was salt loss, my body was throwing off water and so I had to drink more water and salt my food a lot more. That worked right away. Then a few weeks more and it happened again and taking salt did not help! I check my blood pressure and it was very low. I called my doctor and he cut my dosage of medication for blood pressure in half. That fixed it!

After I had lost all this weight with in a few months I had a bad gout attack (Ouch), it was really painful. My doctor started me on medication to stop these attacks and gave me something to take if I had another attack. These were strong meds with lots of potential complications, but I had to use them. I continued to have these attacks every 4-6 weeks in my big toe and then my ankles. After over 6 months of this my doctor finally realized that my water pill I was taking was no longer needed. It was cause my body to pass water to fast, not allowing my kidneys to filter properly. I stopped the water pill and had two more attacks, but each was smaller than before. That was over 5 months ago, and I have had no attacks since....thank God, if you have lots of these attack you will get permanent Arthritis in those joints....

So if you lose weight challenge your doctor to back you off on meds....

 

[Winomaster]

When the body goes into fasting mode, it "thinks" it's starving and will try to retain fat. Similarly, after fasting, it will try to retain all the new fat.]

My thinking is that when you are a diabetic, you have constant elevated levels of both glucose and insulin. And in the presence of insulin, your body will not release fat from storage. So, if you don't have enough insulin circulating to drive the glucose into the cells where it can be burned...and you cant release fat from storage because there is none-the-less too much insulin circulating for fat stores to be released...then yes, you are starving.

The greatest aid to the diabetic, as I have begun to realize, is fasting or intermittent fasting. Total fasting has you with insulin levels at rock bottom all day and night. So, your body makes the transition to burning fat nearly exclusively. And you lose fat at the highest possible rate. Intermittent Fasting or even the keto diet leaves your insulin levels at rock bottom for LESS than 24 hours. Any glucose you eat, or protein that breaks down to glucose, will have to be burned off before insulin levels return to rock bottom and fat can once more be released. A total fast strikes me as the more efficient way to go about clearing the body of fat stores. But, I have total fasted twice(Only water intake), one time it was a breeze..The last time it was somewhat more challenging. I was consuming (zero cal ) bouillon for the salt and that may have been a mistake.

My doc prefers I eat 3-5 tiny meals rather than one or two large ones.

So, is this theory antiquated? Naive? Just plain wrong?

I have read that this is absolutely wrong (See Dr Fung's U-tube videos) It keeps your insulin levels too high for a longer portion of the day. The idea is to keep your eating to a 4-5 hr window and then to have a long period where insulin levels have returned to rock bottom and fat loss can resume.

When I told my diabetes Doctor's nurse practioner that I intended to fast, she said OK but dilute 90 grms of carbs from orange juice into that water and drink it through my waking hours. First of all, if you are taking in 90 grams of glucose over the day, you are not on a real fast. And you will not lose weight because all that glucose will keep your insulin levels too high to have any fat release. You could hit that sugar with injected insulin, but that just stores some as fat and keeps you with elevated insulin levels. They know nothing about fasting.

 

[Winomaster]

div2live
When I started losing weight, my first order of business was to eliminate the water pill after talking with my doctor. I too have had to reduce my blood pressure med during weight loss. I honestly don't know for certain that it is the water loss associated with weight loss that is causing the lowered BP. But I read that insulin is water retaining and when you are dieting, you are using less insulin and so the water drops out.

The reservation I have about the water loss lowering BP is that as I resumed eating and presumably my water levels returned to my norm, my BP remained low. So, the issue remains unsettled in my mind.