#1 Fasting Danger You Absolutely MUST Know
Type 2 diabetics need intermittent fasting more than anyone else. The new level of proof is that
you let the results speak for themselves. If you believe them when they say that
intermittent fasting is extreme and dangerous, you may never take the time to understand what
intermittent fasting is. You may never understand how incredibly simple and natural it is. Hello,
champions. Today we're going to talk about the number one fasting danger that you have to know
because it can affect your health. We're also going to talk about the fact that there seems to
be a lot of resistance to fasting from mainstream medicine and dietitians, even though humans have
fasted for as long as we've been on the planet, and the positive evidence for intermittent fasting
is growing every day. And I think this somewhat strange resistance comes down to three things:
money, prestige, and human nature. Because as humans, we don't like to change. It's so much
easier to leave the status quo, to leave things the way that they are, the way that they've always
been, especially if there's prestige at stake and if there's authority at stake. So if there are
millions of people in a big system, in a health care system, that have earned their way into a lot
of recognition and a lot of power, then they don't want to just give that up willy-nilly and say,
'Oops, I was wrong. You better go do something else, and I didn't know what I was doing all
along.' And of course, that's not all doctors and dietitians because there are plenty of
them that are coming around. Another big factor, unfortunately, is that healthy people are really
bad for profits. And it's not to say that everyone involved is evil, but it does say that there's
not a lot of incentive for solving root causes and getting people help if you're going to lose
money in the process. But despite this strange resistance, the world is still changing at a very
fast rate, and we're switching from an old type of proof, where we required science—and there's
nothing wrong with science, we should still pursue it—but for individuals who are seeking
health solutions, there's a higher level of proof that's called results. So if you read something,
if you learn about something, and it makes sense, and you try it, and you get good results,
then that becomes a higher level of truth for you. So, let me give you an example that I came across
from WebMD, where the staff writers of WebMD came up with an article, and it was medically
reviewed by a medical doctor, and they started out by saying it may help you lose fat. In fact,
in a certain study where people ate one meal a day, they ended up with less body fat. But then
they had to backtrack and make it sound like that wasn't such a good thing, and they added that in
this study, they did not lose significant weight, and they make that sound like a bad thing when
actually, most people are trying to lose fat and gain muscle, which is exactly what happened here.
But then later on, they did have to admit that intermittent fasting is generally a good way to
lose weight, and you could lose anywhere from 7 to 11 lbs in 10 weeks. And then they further agreed
that it can help your metabolism, that in a group of obese and pre-diabetic people, intermittent
fasting would actually lower blood sugar. But then they continued with something that seemed really
strange to me. They said that it worked to improve metabolism, but in that study, they did something
that was more general. It wasn't as strict as one meal a day, and they said, therefore, we
would have to do more research to find out if one meal a day would work as well as 18:6 intermittent
fasting. No, you don't have to do the research for that because it's a physiological principle that
when you go for a period of time, your insulin drops, and it's just a matter of degree whether
you're fasting for 18 or 24 hours. They're both intermittent fasting, so they will both work.
But this is typical of how they get so confused by the details; they don't see the principles or
the mechanisms behind what's going on. And then they start pointing out drawbacks and problems,
and they say that one meal a day can be very difficult to sustain, that intermittent fasting
regimens like one meal a day could have a dropout rate of up to 65%. And we call it a regimen, if
you notice, because that sounds really difficult and really involved, as opposed to just calling
it a method or a lifestyle. But the 65% sounds pretty good to me because the dropout rate of
calorie restriction long-term is near 100%. Very, very few people can follow through on that. And
then they also claim that intermittent fasting is no easier to follow than calorie restriction,
and I would beg to differ. And probably, if you look at some of the comments in this video,
there would probably be millions of people who have tried calorie restriction and couldn't get
any results or couldn't follow through, and now they're getting amazing results with intermittent
fasting. So, again, the new level of proof is that you let the results speak for themselves. And then
they continue to say that it is no more effective than calorie restriction. And then here's one of
these really weird statements again: even if one meal a day makes you feel hungrier, it is not
likely to result in more weight loss than if you simply reduced your calories. So they're making it
sound as if hunger is the thing that makes you lose weight, as if hunger is necessary to lose
weight when, in fact, hunger results from calorie restriction, which is the reason they don't work.
And the fact that you're not getting hungry on one meal a day or intermittent fasting is why
you get the results. So there are so many backward statements in there, and maybe the biggest one is,
'Why don't you simply reduce your calories?' Well, if it was that simple, people wouldn't have weight
problems, would they? There would be no such thing as metabolic disease if you could simply
reduce the number of calories. So the fasting we're talking about is intermittent fasting,
and that simply means time-restricted eating. You can still eat to satisfaction; you can still eat
real food, but you do it in a shorter time window. And usually, this gets described as an extremely
restricted time window of 1 hour to 8 hours, as opposed to the normal feeding window of 12 to 16
hours. And we have to ask, when did that become normal? How is that possibly normal in any way?
Now, there are animals who need to eat all day long because they eat very low-density food,
such as grass and leaves, and they're called grazing animals. They eat all day long,
and one such animal is a deer. And this guy hangs out in my backyard, and everything that we plant,
he refers to as 'I Can't Believe It's Not Lettuce.' But if you are a human, you don't eat
exclusively low-density foods. If you're a human, you're an omnivore, and you eat various different
kinds of foods. You eat meat and fish and nuts and seeds and vegetables and tubers and so forth. And
most carnivores and omnivores in nature, they eat once or twice a day. And therefore, I would make
the case that, for humans, being omnivores, the normal feeding window is somewhere between 1 and
10 hours. Another alleged danger is nutrient deficiencies associated with fasting. Well,
if you fasted for weeks or months, that could be the case. But if you just do intermittent fasting,
where you eat once or twice a day, and as long as you eat real food, then you're going to
get plenty of nutrients. And as long as you eat real food, you're eating food that has a higher
nutritional density. And real food is high both in macronutrients, meaning fat, protein, and some
carbohydrate, and it's high in micronutrients, meaning vitamins and minerals. Another thing we
need to understand is one of the primary purposes of nutrients, the vitamins and minerals, is to
help us process through the food that we're eating and turn it into energy. And if we eat less food,
then we actually need fewer nutrients. However, it is a really good idea that if you fast more
than 24 hours, then you want to add electrolytes because short-term, your body loses electrolytes
when you stop eating. So you want to add back some sodium, potassium, magnesium, and calcium.
And it's also a really good idea if there are some trace minerals in there. And I'll put a link down
below for my product that has all that. And the same goes for fasting and dehydration. If you
went more than one day, up to 3, 4 days, then if you didn't take electrolytes, then you might get
a little lightheaded, a little nauseous, a little tired. So it's not dangerous to just drink water,
but you could avoid a lot of discomfort just by supplementing some minerals. Very often, we also
hear that there's an increased risk of gallstones when you do intermittent fasting, and there is
some truth to that, but we're kind of pointing in the wrong direction when we're saying that
because here's how it works. Whenever you eat, you produce a hormone called CCK, cholecystokinin, and
this stimulates the gallbladder to contract and squeeze out the bile. And then, if we don't eat,
then there is less food, less hormone, and less contractions. So now, there could be a tendency
for that bile to get stagnant, to be sitting in the gallbladder, and therefore, to start
forming stones. But here's how it really works: that it's not primarily food but it's fat that
stimulates this cholecystokinin. So when we go for years or decades eating a low-fat diet, then
we never properly empty out that gallbladder, and that's where we get the sludge and the stones as a
pre-existing condition. So it's really the low-fat diet that's the culprit here. So if you combine
the intermittent fasting with a low-carb, high-fat diet, then you're going to start emptying out that
gallbladder and not experience these gallstones. But here's the problem: the toughest thing there
is, is to convince people that it's okay to eat fat. We've been told so many years that we should
avoid fat, and there is no evidence, there is no study, there is no properly conducted study,
that suggests that low-fat would be a healthy thing. The 30% recommendation of getting 30% of
your calories from fat is completely arbitrary. So what does 'normal' fat for humans mean? Well,
if you eat real food, you're going to eat meat, fish, vegetables, nuts, and seeds, just like
your ancestors did tens of thousands of years ago. I'm not talking about your grandpa, two or three
generations back, but way, way back. And you also stop processed foods and sugar and grain because
your ancestors didn't have any of that. And we assume for an average-sized person, you need 2,000
calories. If you need 3,000, then you up these numbers a little bit. What you would find, most
likely, is that your protein consumption would be somewhere between 15 and 25% of your calories. And
this is true even of a person doing carnivore, eating nothing but meat because all meat comes
with fat. And if a steak has about 20% fat and 20% protein, then that's by weight. By calories,
the protein is going to fall between 15 and 25%. And that would mean that we eat about 75 to 125
grams of protein. And again, that's not 75 to 125 grams of meat; it is of all the protein in all
the foods that we eat. So you could eat a pound of beef and get somewhere around 100 grams of
protein. And if you eat like that, you'd probably end up somewhere between 25 and 150 grams of
carbohydrates. And I made this range kind of wide for a reason, just to sort of cover all bases.
If you're insulin-resistant, if you're obese, if you're type 2 diabetic, pre-diabetic, and you're
trying to change that, you want to be on the lower end of that, somewhere around 25 grams. And your
vegetables would be primarily leafy greens and non-starchy vegetables like cauliflower
and broccoli and asparagus. However, if you are insulin-sensitive, if you are lean, and especially
if you're active, now you could include some other things. You could include some tubers, maybe some
beans. You could eat some sweet potato, and it would probably be okay, all the way up to 150
grams of carbs per day. But keep in mind, this is half of the standard recommendations that include
a bunch of grain and processed foods and sugar. So, percentage-wise, that would put us between 5%
and 30% of calories from carbohydrates. And the 5% would be a ketogenic diet or near ketogenic diet,
and the 30% would be at the very high end but which is still half of the standard guidelines.
And what that means now is that the rest becomes fat. So, by definition, now we are consuming
between 45 and 80% of our calories from fat, which means anywhere from 100 to 178 grams of fat per
day. And this would be a whole food, real food, either low-carb, high-fat diet or a moderate-carb,
moderate-fat diet. And I think 45% fat is moderate. I think 80% is high, and I think that is
totally healthy and perfectly natural for humans to eat, as long as you eat real food. And if
you start eating that way, you will dramatically reduce your risk of gallstones. Another thing we
often hear is that if you do intermittent fasting, you will have a loss of muscle mass. And there are
several different levels to this misconception. The first is the notion that the brain only uses
glucose for energy. 100% of the brain's energy has to come from glucose, and that is just plain
false. It is wrong. But we still, to this day, hear it everywhere we look. We are told that if
you don't eat carbohydrates, then it's dangerous. You can't focus. Your brain won't get any energy,
and so forth. But if you think about it, if that was true, if we would perish just because we went
without carbohydrate for a little bit, then the human race wouldn't be here anymore. So the fact
is that when you fast for any length of time, more than 24 hours, you get into a state of ketosis,
and now the ketones become a backup or even a preferred fuel for the brain. So after a couple
of days, your brain is running on 75% ketones and 25% glucose. But the body still would like to have
a little bit of glucose, so the body takes care of that through something called gluconeogenesis,
making glucose from something other than carbohydrate. And now we have something
called glycerin. So the body, during a fast, runs almost exclusively on fat,
but the fat is stored in a very ingenious way. So we have these things called triglycerides,
which means that we have three fatty acids, and they're not swimming around by themselves;
they're hooked together in a triglyceride. So we have something called glycerin or glycerol,
and this thing, we can take it apart. We can't make glucose from the fat itself, but once we hook
these fat molecules off and burn them for fuel, we're left over with this glycerin, and that one
can be turned into glucose. So in every gram of fat stored on the body, about 5% of the calories
can be turned back into sugar, into glucose. And this is where the body actually gets its glucose
during a fast or during a very low-carb diet. But the detractors, they claim that it comes
from protein because that's another way that we can have gluconeogenesis. So when we eat excess
protein, we use part of it to make body tissues, to make skin and bones and hair and muscles,
but the excess gets converted into glucose through gluconeogenesis. We burn it for energy. However,
that doesn't always happen. The excess protein always gets turned into fuel, but the body protein
does not. The muscles don't break down and turn into glucose because the body really doesn't want
to do that. The body wants to keep the muscles to move us around so we can go hunt during a fast,
during a period without food. And the brilliant mechanism here is that there's a hormone called
human growth hormone that is muscle-sparing. It makes sure that the body doesn't break
down muscle, but it keeps the muscle and uses the glycerol for energy. And the longer a fast goes,
the higher the levels of this muscle-sparing human growth hormone. And very often, we hear
that the body stores carbohydrate as glycogen, and this is true. But most people think of it
as the only source of stored carbohydrate, and we can store about 1,500 calories worth of glycogen,
of carbohydrate, in the form of glycogen. But if you have a very overweight person,
somebody weighing around 400 lb, and they have upwards of 200 or 200-plus pounds of fat,
they have a million calories stored as fat, as triglycerides. And out of that million calories,
50,000 calories would be stored as glycerol that can turn into glucose. So that really is
a form of carbohydrate storage that is many, many times greater than the glycogen. So, is there any
truth to the claims that you will lose muscle with intermittent fasting? Well, it depends on how long
you go. So if you're doing a 16:8, meaning you eat during eight hours and you fast for 16, or
you eat one meal a day, then there's no problem at all because you're still going to eat real food.
You're still going to supply the body the protein it needs. If you go 3 to 5 days, there's still
no problem because during those 3 to 5 days, your body is going to dramatically increase the amount
of growth hormone, like we talked about. That's muscle-sparing, so you will not lose muscle during
that time. In fact, if you recall the study, they even admitted that there were some people that
lost body fat but increased muscle mass during that time. But what if you go a whole lot longer
than that? What if you go months or several months or even a year? Well, the record to date is 382
days. It was a Scotsman called Angus Barbieri. He checked into a hospital and said, 'Hey, I need to
lose this weight. I want you to help me fast.' And they never intended for it to go that long,
but he felt so good and got such great results that he convinced them to just keep going until
he had reached his goal weight. So during that time, he mostly ate tea, coffee, water,
and some multivitamins. Now, I'm not suggesting that this is a healthy thing to do. I don't know
if he increased his lifespan or shortened it, but it just goes to show how adaptive the body
is. When he started out, he was 456 lb, over 200 kilos, and when he started eating again, he was
180 lb or 82 kilos. So after this long fast, he dropped 60% of his body weight, and he was down
to 40% of his original body weight. So when you go that long, when you lose that much weight,
you will absolutely have some muscle loss. But that's not a bad thing because when you're down to
40% of your weight, you don't need so much muscle to move you around. Even if a person is morbidly
obese, he's still going to have some muscle just to carry around that weight. And interestingly,
unlike all the participants of The Biggest Loser, after 5 years, he had only marginally gained some
weight. He was still in his ideal range. And here's perhaps the biggest detractor from fasting:
the risk of hypoglycemia. Now, this can happen for a couple of different reasons. The first one
is temporary because if you have trained your body to depend on frequent meals and on carbohydrates,
and you stop that, then your body is going to have a temporary tough time. It doesn't know where to
get the energy. It's going to have a lesser supply of the food that it's used to, and therefore,
you're going to feel bad for a few days. But very, very quickly, especially if you train your body
to eat real food, your body will learn how to get the energy from it. So within 3 to 5 days,
you should be fine again. The other reason is type 2 diabetes. And here's where they
say it's so dangerous because if you're a type 2 diabetic and you start doing intermittent fasting,
you can have dangerous bouts of hypoglycemia, of extremely low blood sugar. And this is true,
but not for all type 2 diabetics, only the ones who take medication. Because if you take
medication to lower your blood sugar to counteract the excess carbohydrates you've been eating,
and now you stop eating for a period of time, that insulin is going to drive that glucose too far
down. But it's very tragic that they try to scare type 2 diabetics away from fasting without giving
them the full explanation because type 2 diabetics need intermittent fasting more than anyone else.
So here's what we need to understand: that if we start out with the standard American diet,
it's called SAD, then it's lots of processed foods, lots of carbohydrate, low-fat yogurts,
lots of soda. Now we get high blood glucose, high blood sugar. And then, because of that high blood
sugar, the body starts increasing its production of insulin. And if we keep that up for any length
of time, like 10 or 20 years, now that high level of insulin results in chronic insulin resistance.
And the progressed form of insulin resistance is called type 2 diabetes. And now they say,
insulin resistance is when insulin doesn't work anymore. So now the body makes more and more
insulin, but eventually, it doesn't work the way it used to. So insulin resistance now contributes
to ever-higher blood sugar. And once we finally abuse the system to the point where it breaks,
when we are so carbohydrate-intolerant that the insulin doesn't work, now the conclusion
in the medical field is that now we have to add something to help the body process this glucose.
And the first one is called metformin, and that's not a terrible idea. That's a relatively benign
medication that helps the cell become more insulin-sensitive. But when that doesn't work,
and they go to the next step, that means that they add additional exogenous insulin, insulin
from the outside. And now we're really adding insult to injury because the problem is that
the insulin was already too high, and now we're adding more. So we're increasing their obesity,
we're increasing their insulin resistance, we're making their metabolic disease worse. So now,
something comes along called intermittent fasting. And intermittent fasting means that you eat less,
or you don't eat at all during a period of time, which means that your blood glucose goes down.
And when your blood glucose goes down during that time, you are more insulin-sensitive. That
means your insulin resistance, your degree of insulin resistance, goes down. And now,
when your blood sugar is lower and you're less insulin-resistant, but you are on metformin and
exogenous insulin, now you become hypoglycemic. And this could reach dangerous levels. So now,
they conclude that the problem is intermittent fasting. That even though this is the solution for
metabolic disease and type 2 diabetes, they say this is the thing that you need to stop because
you're on insulin. Well, why don't we reduce or eliminate the insulin so that the intermittent
fasting can start solving the problem? It is not the intermittent fasting that is causing
the extreme hypoglycemia. That extreme low blood sugar can only happen if you artificially suppress
that blood sugar from the outside. And related to that temporary, not-so-serious, non-medicated,
slight hypoglycemia, we also have loss of energy and focus. But again, this is temporary because
your body just hasn't learned to make energy yet. In fact, this same article that we were looking
at before says the following about energy: that intermittent fasting can actually make you feel
more alert because during fasting, your body makes a chemical called orexin-A that increases
your attention, your energy levels. So this brings us to the only real number one fasting danger that
you have to be aware of. And the danger is that you buy into and you believe in this resistance
and these scare tactics from the detractors, from people who feel threatened by people
getting healthy. If you buy into the idea that we should eat low-fat, high-carb diets full of grain
and low-fat yogurt; if you buy into the idea of calories in, calories out as the only thing that
matters in diet; and if you buy into eating three meals a day plus snacks and topping off your blood
sugar all the time; if you buy into the fact that the brain needs carbs; and if you believe them
when they say that intermittent fasting is extreme and dangerous, that it is rigorous and difficult,
then you may never take the time to understand what intermittent fasting is. You may never
understand how incredibly simple and natural it is. So here's how crazy simple it is: you do three
things. You eat real food. Number two, you eat if you're hungry. Number three, don't eat if you're
not hungry. And if you follow these three steps, then completely spontaneously, you will develop
a new way of life where you will be eating one to three times per day, and you will probably
fit these meals within a 1 to 10-hour window. One example could be three meals a day where you eat
at 8:00 a.m., you eat at 1:00 p.m., and you eat again at 6:00 p.m. That doesn't seem so extreme
and rigorous now, does it? And that would be that you fast for 14 hours and you eat during 10 hours.
That is one version of intermittent fasting. Or, if you want to do it a little stricter and
you have some metabolic disease to turn around, you could eat two meals a day, one at 1:00 p.m.
and one at 7:00 p.m. That would give you 18 hours of fasting and six hours of eating. And then, for
some people, they just feel really good doing one meal a day. And no, you do not get particularly
hungry doing that either. If you enjoyed this video, you're going to love that one. And if you
truly want to master health by understanding how the body really works, make sure you subscribe,
hit that bell, and turn on all the notifications so you never miss a life-saving video.