FASTING

By Billie-Jean Hayes

RE: The difference between enforced fasting and simply following the body's natural cues on ZC...

ZC places the body in a state where the therapeutic effects of running on ketones and fatty acids
is achieved but without the potential negative effects of actual starvation where the body goes into
an actual catabolic state and is thus compromised by those processes.

The reported 'benefits of fasting' work in part via these very metabolic pathways, to create an
environment where cellular repairs and reduction of inflammation can be achieved. So, ZC creates
the internal milieu for the reduction of inflammation without the strain which forced fasting may
otherwise place upon

immune function and organs and tissues and the processes involved in metabolism in general.

For every 'study' which suggests that forced fasting provides health benefits there are studies
which equally suggest that fasting is detrimental. Especially for women.

There may be certain medical conditions (such as some cancers) which may benefit from the
'therapeutic' application of such protocols, but we are speaking generally, and as such, fasting
tends to cause more problems in the long run than it ever 'helps' with.

It's not that going without food for long hours is 'bad'. It's that forcing it upon the body as a protocol
invariably gets people into trouble after a while.

Firstly it is very difficult to sustain, can cause strong cravings and lead people to suddenly find
themselves overwhelmed by a case of the 'f**k-its' - as, if you abstain for too long, then the
cravings for carbs can remain even after you have fed yourself a large meal.

The body needs time to assimilate what you just ate, and time too to send the signals via the
blood to the hypothalamus and the cells which are involved in satiation.

Forced situations of having abstained from eating against the bodily demands for fuel, can leave
you craving glucose/carbs even after a large meal of fatty meat.

If you go for too long without eating, in a forced manner, then be prepared to continue to feel
unsatisfied even after eating a ZC meal. You may feel full, but you will still be vulnerable to
seeking things like dessert.

This is just one of the classic problems for those who force IF or longer fasting protocols. They
eventually allow themselves to eat, such as during their 'window' in IF...and they may then feel full,
but their deeper cravings never truly go away under regular conditions of enforced deprivation,
because their physiology is continually forced into registering 'conditions' as those of lack, which
has implications on how the body respond to any fuel, once it is finally ingested.
These physiologically driven 'cravings' (which are effectively cellular signals), can resurface at any
moment, stronger than ever, even after eating a large meal of meat. So this makes people who IF
or fast for significant periods, find themselves constantly engaging in metal battles (which they
regularly lose).

And thus many end up getting trapped in a constant cycle of behaviour where they may manage
to sustain IF for a few weeks (if they are particularly hardy), but then find themselves having a
carb blow-out at regular intervals, or some related issue.

Either way, they aren't able to thus consistently remain ZC, in the majority of cases.

Over time on ZC, the body naturally will tend to lead one to go for longer periods without sending
those various signals which are the cellular callings for fuel.

That scenario is perfectly healthy, because it is driven by cellular demands and thus why some
people end up eating only twice per day, or even once per day. But in amidst that, they usually
have days or periods where they may eat 3 or 4 times per day instead, too. The point is it is led by
bodily cellular signalling and cues, not arbitrary mental ideas and theories.

However that is a very different set of internal conditions, which are driving that process. Very
different to what is at play internally in an environment of actual forced and sustained deprivation,
which is thus running counter to what the cells in the body are calling for.

The first is a healthy balance and thus the immune system is functioning well to support and
complement the internal processes which reduce inflammation and reduce stress and support
repairs and metabolic processes involved in maintaining homeostatic balance within more ideal
ranges.

The second however, since it is running counter to the actual internal needs, is one which can
trigger more inflammation, not less, via various repercussions from the catabolic processes
involved, due to the forced stress and demands placed upon the cells. Which cause, in turn, a
greater negative load on the immune system and organs and tissues too.

This is why we tend to specify that it is forced fasting that is the problem, not the natural situation
where someone on ZC, after a while, simply may not find themselves needing to eat as often.

It's important to understand that it is the internal conditions, ie the environment within which 'not
eating' operates, which determines whether it is a 'good' or 'bad' thing.

A person who is forcing fasting upon their cells when their cells are truly needing fuel, is causing
more stress and creating catabolic conditions, the longer it is extended; and thus causing potential
detriment to many systemic pathways.

A person who might naturally go for 12-18 hours or so without food, simply because their system
has fully adapted, their cells are 'well fed' and they have not thus received any bodily signals to
eat because their internal milieu is stable and functioning in proper homeostasis, is enhancing
their immune function, lowering inflammation and allowing for the proper cellular repairs etc, to
occur.

The bottom line though is that if you continue to try to force those conditions, you set yourself up
to not be able to sustain ZC.

It's one thing to naturally find yourself only eating a couple of times per day after you've been ZC a
while and the internal changes have naturally established that trend, meaning, that they are driven
by actual cellular demands.

It's completely different (and has completely different internal effects) when you force that that
upon yourself, when your cells are still trying to reverse the effects of years of metabolic damage
and internal cellular starvation. In that situation, fasting just causes added stress, so you won't be
doing them any favours by adding to it.

In general, healing conditions/environments can't be 'forced' in that way, they need to flow
naturally according to the body's needs.

It's the same principle as why we don't encourage measuring, macros, ratios or anything else.
Those forced contrivances don't work in the long run, and can actually instead just add to the
stress load on the bodily systems.

There are very real implications on body tissues and organs and systems, such as causing
adrenal issues and thyroid issues in the longer term, exponential to the severity, frequency and
duration of the fasting protocols, to name just a couple.

All of which can leave people far more likely to keep falling back into eating carbs and, ultimately,
making it almost impossible for them to restore proper homeostatic balance; and if they don't do
that, then it will be nigh impossible too for them to remain ZC consistently for very long.

*NB: These terms, as we all know, can be difficult to qualify and the confusion we see so often in
threads involving 'IF' and 'Fasting' can arise from the problems which surround the semantics and,
in particular, from the various contexts, which may not be always fully provided in the briefer
comments.

There's a fine line between what falls within the natural parameters of the process of relearning
true hunger signals and thus not eating for certain periods because we are healthfully following
those...and what is instead more overtly and extensively forced; which may potentially thus cause
negative longer-term effects.

The nuances of the terms can be subtle yet significant, depending on how they are used or
understood; and thus what may be then differentially inferred from them.