Will taking Multi-vitamins during IF (fasting period) break the fast?

[AxeToFall]

Just curious if taking my vitamins and prescribed medication will break my fast?

[eriquee]

Since multivitamins and medication dont have macronuctrients ( protein, fat, carbs).

I dont think it will break your fast. Thats what logic tells me, but i could be wrong.

[cumminslifter]

why would you take a multi on an empty stomach. you need fat to absorb vitamin A,D,E,K

[EfficientLiver]

and what would happen if they did "break your fast"?

would you magically no longer lose weight because you consumed 1 calorie 4 hours before you were supposed to break your fast?

Let's assume you do 12 hour fasts.....you want to know the difference between:

fasting 8 hours eating multivitamins then fasting for 4 more hours VERSUS fasting 12 hours then eating your multivitamins.......

I'll just put my 2cents in here: you will see no significant difference in body composition.....now the absorption issue of the vitamins, well that is a separate issue.

[JeffyDOS]

why would you take a multi on an empty stomach. you need fat to absorb vitamin A,D,E,K

this and it fukkin hurts if you try and take it on an empty stomach

[xbayrockx]

This question belongs in the bin.

[germaine07]

This question belongs in the bin.

This ^

This is getting out of hand. People asking can they eat/drink/take x, y & z on IF. Just don't do it. Dieting isn't that complex.

[Obese2Stud]

From what I understand IF is bogus anyway? It's more of a satiation issue when you can indulge in a lot of food in a moderately short time.

[xbayrockx]

From what I understand IF is bogus anyway? It's more of a satiation issue when you can indulge in a lot of food in a moderately short time.

bogus ?

[Lightweight1988]

cant hurt to take em

[makeitright]

From what I understand IF is bogus anyway? It's more of a satiation issue when you can indulge in a lot of food in a moderately short time.

And that satiation factor is one big part of why IF works great for some people. Easier to adhere to daily macros/calories due to less frequent hunger.

[vsukicker]

And that satiation factor is one big part of why IF works great for some people. Easier to adhere to daily macros/calories due to less frequent hunger.

this. i dont even care if it works

[healthymommie]

and what would happen if they did "break your fast"?

would you magically no longer lose weight because you consumed 1 calorie 4 hours before you were supposed to break your fast?

Let's assume you do 12 hour fasts.....you want to know the difference between:

fasting 8 hours eating multivitamins then fasting for 4 more hours VERSUS fasting 12 hours then eating your multivitamins.......

I'll just put my 2cents in here: you will see no significant difference in body composition.....now the absorption issue of the vitamins, well that is a separate issue.

Some people are intermittent fasting for health reasons. Insulin resistance is a pre diabetic state. Fasting shuts down insulin response anything that spikes insulin breaks the fast and therefore doesnt give the benefit of reversing insulin resistance. The question is a valid one. Weight gain is merely a symptom for someone who is insulin resistant. They are attempting to cure the core issue not bulk up or tone down or live off some number on a scale. So it is not about body composition it is about not developing diabetes. When someone asks a question the answer shouldnt come from a place of assuming it is for weight loss but from evaluating the information given where no such assertion was made. That being said, to the original poster - take your vitamins after the fast. A prescription med cannot be moved around your fast, this is a good question. Someone qualified should put in their *2 cents*.

[healthymommie]

Just curious if taking my vitamins and prescribed medication will break my fast?

Good question. Hope someone qualified answers you with the due respect. Im sure you can move around your vitamins, the prescription meds however you may need to reach out to your doctor or the company which produces it to share with you some data on insulin response which will break your fast if you are fasting for health reasons.

[PhantomLancer]

Bigger meal will trigger more insulin than small meal so i dont think fasting as IF is good for IR vs multiple meals spread during the day.
High fat high protein low carb diet is fine for IR.
Ketone bodies provoke a (relatively weak) insulin response. If you're eating a TON of fat and ketogenesis is going nuts, your insulin will go up a little bit. This response is also why people with normal metabolism don't go into DKA. Since T1 diabetics can't produce significant insulin due to destruction of beta cells in the pancreas, ketogenesis goes nuts (as well as blood glucose levels).

[BS57]

Just curious if taking my vitamins and prescribed medication will break my fast?

What does the label on your meds bottle(s) say about taking with food?

[mgftp]

Don't worry about a med you need to take during your fast

Just take daily vitamins during your feeding period. Most things get absorbed better with fat. And although everyone has different fasting rules if you want to "maximize" it I would think there are things in your multi that would effect your insulin.

[TheGymJim]

Thread is 5 years old and IF works through creating a caloric deficit.

[mgftp]

Thread is 5 years old and IF works through creating a caloric deficit.

But who was insulin and hormones?

[Mrpb]

But who was insulin and hormones?

If insulin was important for fat loss low carb diets would outperform high carb diets, yet they don't.

Fat loss is driven by a calorie deficit, not by keeping insulin low.

IF doesn't have a special effect on fat loss, but it can make it easier for some to create a calorie deficit. Not for everyone though.

[mgftp]

If insulin was important for fat loss low carb diets would outperform high carb diets, yet they don't.

Fat loss is driven by a calorie deficit, not by keeping insulin low.

IF doesn't have a special effect on fat loss, but it can make it easier for some to create a calorie deficit. Not for everyone though.

23 Studies on Low-Carb and Low-Fat Diets

Keep in mind that all of these studies are randomized controlled trials, the gold standard of science. All are published in respected, peer-reviewed medical journals.

These studies are scientific evidence, as good as it gets, that low-carb is much more effective than the low-fat diet that is still being recommended all over the world.

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...diets#section9

[Mrpb]

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition...diets#section9

That article is written by Kris Gunnar, who's been promoting low carb diets on his blog for a long time.

The studies he cites didn't match protein between conditions. If you match protein low carb doesn't do better, in spite of lower insulin levels.

Suggested reading:
https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fa...r-weight-loss/
https://examine.com/nutrition/really...at-lower-carb/

Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962163/

Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/...131(15)00350-2

If you're comparing diets that match sufficient protein intake, you don't lose fat more quickly with lower carbs (yes, even at keto levels). This has been demonstrated repeatedly:

"Body-weight loss and weight-maintenance depends on the high-protein, but not on the 'low-carb' component of the diet, while it is unrelated to the concomitant fat-content of the diet." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22935440

"KLC [ketogenic low-carb] and NLC [non-ketogenic low-carb] diets were equally effective in reducing body weight and insulin resistance, but the KLC diet was associated with several adverse metabolic and emotional effects. The use of ketogenic diets for weight loss is not warranted." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16685046

Also see the results of this meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials (mean carb proportion in the LC groups was 23% of total kcals):

"Reductions in body weight, waist circumference and other metabolic risk factors were not significantly different between the 2 diets." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23035144

Regarding diet comparisons in general:

"Significant weight loss was observed with any low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet. Weight loss differences between individual named diets were small. This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25182101

"Trials show weight loss in the short-term irrespective of whether the diet is low CHO or balanced. There is probably little or no difference in weight loss and changes in cardiovascular risk factors up to two years of follow-up when overweight and obese adults, with or without type 2 diabetes, are randomised to low CHO diets and isoenergetic balanced weight loss diets."

Low Carbohydrate versus Isoenergetic Balanced Diets for Reducing Weight and Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0100652

"Significant weight loss was observed with any low-carbohydrate or low-fat diet. Weight loss differences between individual named diets were small. This supports the practice of recommending any diet that a patient will adhere to in order to lose weight."

Comparison of Weight Loss Among Named Diet Programs in Overweight and Obese Adults, A Meta-analysis
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1900510

A Diet by Any Other Name Is Still About Energy
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article....icleid=1900489

[TheGymJim]

But who was insulin and hormones?

Christ.

[Tommy W.]

. Weight gain is merely a symptom for someone who is insulin resistant.

Just no. Please don't post incorrect information

[mgftp]

That article is written by Kris Gunnar, who's been promoting low carb diets on his blog for a long time.

The studies he cites didn't match protein between conditions. If you match protein low carb doesn't do better, in spite of lower insulin levels.

Suggested reading:
https://examine.com/nutrition/low-fa...r-weight-loss/
https://examine.com/nutrition/really...at-lower-carb/

Energy expenditure and body composition changes after an isocaloric ketogenic diet in overweight and obese men
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962163/

Calorie for Calorie, Dietary Fat Restriction Results in More Body Fat Loss than Carbohydrate Restriction in People with Obesity
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/...131(15)00350-2

This first link is an interesting read for sure, thanks for posting something that actually makes me think and is worth time to look over, srsly. But after reading nothing changes really for me, my belief of calories being number one impact on weight lost and gained reinforced, but still believe there is a good chance carbs matter. The fact that such guidelines on what to eat were given make this FAR from what your average carb eater intakes, along with the fact that the average carb intake was 132, FAR from what your fitness minded person would consumer on low carb, keto being less than half of that. I think the guy who wrote this examine article has a carbs don't matter agenda, which is fine, most people want to reinforce what they believe but his agenda and take on the study is apparent to me. I find myself just thinking different about the study findings, calories matter, and food quality matters as the main takeaways. To me the biggest factors of this study are a calorie deficit of 500-600 and guidelines to not eat processed carbs, even for the carb group. Even the conductor himself focused more on food quality at his takeaway saying "Perhaps the biggest takeaway from this study, Gardner said, is that the fundamental strategy for losing weight with either a low-fat or a low-carb approach is similar. Eat less sugar, less refined flour and as many vegetables as possible. Go for whole foods, whether that is a wheatberry salad or grass-fed beef." To me a study like this is designed to test that calories are #1, that the average person can easily make any diet work that they please if they don't eat too much, which is great. But doesn't really challenge the impact, or lack of impact of the low carb diet. The low carb group eating well over 100 carbs a day and the difference between the two groups being just 48 - 30 % is simply not enough of a difference to test the theory IMO. A theory that becomes even more secondary than it already was when other stronger factors such as calories reduction and food quality are introduced in the mix. In other studies really testing low carb we are looking at much lower carb intake as well as greater ratios between the two groups. A quick google brought be to one that keeps protein consistent at 20% in both groups, but carb variance between the two groups at 55 - 5 % in this one, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271639/ .

[Mrpb]

The low carb group eating well over 100 carbs a day and the difference between the two groups being just 48 - 30 % is simply not enough of a difference to test the theory IMO.

True. That's why the Hall ketogenic study (3rd link) had people eating 31 gram carbs per day. It had the highest level of control because the study was ran in a metabolic ward. Metabolic ward studies are generally considered the highest level of evidence. Main outcome:

Despite rapid, substantial, and persistent reductions in daily insulin secretion and RQ after introducing the KD, we observed a slowing of body fat loss. Therefore, our data do not support the carbohydrate–insulin model predictions of physiologically relevant increases in EE or greater body fat loss in response to an isocaloric KD. However, it is possible that dietary carbohydrate restriction might result in decreased ad libitum energy intake—a prediction of the carbohydrate-insulin model that was not tested in the current study but deserves further investigation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962163/

In other studies really testing low carb we are looking at much lower carb intake as well as greater ratios between the two groups. A quick google brought be to one that keeps protein consistent at 20% in both groups, but carb variance between the two groups at 55 - 5 % in this one, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4271639/ .

The Jacob Wilson study. Caloric intake wasn't controlled. Heavy carb loading before the DEXA scans in the low carb group to make the results look better. After that study Wilson got fired at the university of Miami.

Good read: https://sci-fit.net/wilson-keto-analysis/

Keto doesn't provide a fat loss benefit over a high carb diet with matched calories. The only real benefit of a ketogenic diet is a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake. And some people feel better on it of course. I like the feeling of ketosis myself, I'm doing it at the moment.

[Goingviking]

Just curious if taking my vitamins and prescribed medication will break my fast?

Do they have calories?

[mgftp]

True. That's why the Hall ketogenic study (3rd link) had people eating 31 gram carbs per day. It had the highest level of control because the study was ran in a metabolic ward. Metabolic ward studies are generally considered the highest level of evidence. Main outcome:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4962163/



The Jacob Wilson study. Caloric intake wasn't controlled. Heavy carb loading before the DEXA scans in the low carb group to make the results look better. After that study Wilson got fired at the university of Miami.

Good read: https://sci-fit.net/wilson-keto-analysis/

Keto doesn't provide a fat loss benefit over a high carb diet with matched calories. The only real benefit of a ketogenic diet is a spontaneous reduction in caloric intake. And some people feel better on it of course. I like the feeling of ketosis myself, I'm doing it at the moment.

Sorry for the late response, your posts had me really want to dig into this and I've looked over a number of things as well listened to some podcast type things while in the car.

I must say I get the feeling of agenda from the way many things are worded on the sci-fi net. My very minor investigative work would indicate some of the same writers over at examine who had that very biased write-up you pasted before. So honestly, I definitely do not think they are as unbiased as they claim to be. However, with that said after going over many things and their evaluations of keto, it has changed my mind a bit, and my quick glance didn't find any glaring issues with what they presented. I would like to see some of these pro keto guys really evaluate their work, but until then your main point that if cals and protein are matched keto provides no significant benefit in regards to fat loss apeears valid. My conclusion and the conclusion of many that I see is that keto accelerates weight loss in other studies because a high fat diet helps patients stay under cals by simply keeping people feeling full. But like you, I enjoy the feeling of my body running off of fat rather than glycogen, and I have really surprised myself going from on and off keto to just staying on most of the time because I feel so much better, I am at the point now where unless it's a special occasion I rather just avoid the carbs because I feel so much better. A real shame however that I have seen statements like "ketosis accelerates fat burning" a billions times if there is not significant reduction in bodyfat.

But that makes me want to ask you, there is a significantly growing number of doctors and scientists claiming a link to insulin and other hormones to metabolic rate and body composition, do you completely dismiss that concept at this point? That's something I'd like to spend some time looking into next.

[Heisman2]

Mgftp, do you have any links regarding the doctors/scientists? As a doctor myself I would be happy to address that.

[mgftp]

Mgftp, do you have any links regarding the doctors/scientists? As a doctor myself I would be happy to address that.

I am not in a position now to spend a ton of time on a response but Jason Fung is one



Peter Attia is another



Best I could do with the 2min I have now but I'd love your opinion.