Recommended nutrients intake and other doubts

[leofruit]

Hello everybody, it's about 2 months i discovered the Wai diet; i found it when i was looking for specific substances (beta-carbolines) and i decided it was worth to give it a chance, at least theoretically. With this, i mean i've applied some principles of the diet, but i surely haven't been 100%.
Now, before making a full transition to this diet i naturally have to be sure of what i'm doing.
The most serious doubt is about nutrients, vitamines specifically. What is often referred to be a problem of the "alternative" diets is the lack of some vitamines, which can even lead to hospitalization.
I made a list of the recommended daily intake of vitamines, and the wai food providing them for significant percentages; what i noticed is that vitamines as zinc, iron and calcium are especially difficult to obtain in the recommended quantities. The other vitamines are quite easily obtained eating several (not few) wai foods.

Zinc: recommended daily intake is 11mg, which is provided for the most (8% for 6 nuts) with brasil nuts, 8% with 28 grams of beef (which is good in this case, but is related to the other doubt). The problem is nuts are very expensive, and other foods doesn't seem to provide large quantities of zinc.
Iron: 9% of daily intake with 100g of mackerel, 15% with 100g of dried apricots, about 5% with 7 nuts (average of different types). Again, i'm not sure this is enough.
Calcium: 5% per orange, 5% for 6 brasil nuts. Some kinds of nuts, e.g. hazelnuts, provide a good ammount of calcium, in this case 13% of recommended daily intake, but only on 100g quantity, which is a lot and very expensive. I found a table showing the calcium content of foods
http://www.uchospitals.edu/pdf/uch_015741.pdf
Calcium daily intake should be about 800-1000mg.

The thing is fruit doesn't cointain great ammounts of these minerals, and nuts should be eaten in great quantities, and i'm doubting about the convenience of this. Instead, some legumes and vegetables can provide great quantities of these minerals. Wouldn't be wise to accept some of the trade off given by the opioid peptides in order to get the needed vitamins?

Now, the other way to get these vitamins may be to eat raw fish/ raw beef every day, and my other doubt is:
1) aside from mercury content, low in some fish (salmon, mackerel), other heavy metals like arsenic may be found, and it's often said that heavy demanded fish are farmed in poor conditions. This makes me think that eating fish everyday may not be a good choice.
I found something here
http://www.ijens.org/103205-6565%20IJBAS-IJENS.pdf

2) raw beef, which i'd like to eat in form of carpaccio (largely available and not expensive), may be associated with colon-rectal cancer, which seem can be caused from virus also, so eliminating the cooking process won't eliminate the problem (as i thought initially).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 27413/full

I found this diet very interesting, and i truly thank it as i found raw egg yoks and fruit really beneficial; anyway i have to find a convenient way to provide essential vitamines. Beef seemed good until i found the evidence above, and thats why i'm considering to introduce few quantities of vegetables, legumes and cereals which are far more available and cheaper than nuts and have some beneficial effects too.
But do you think there is an alternative to this? how can these vitamins be provided easily with the Wai diet?

[RRM]

Hi Leofruit,

In order to have information on this forum offered to readers in such a way that they may readily read much more about a specific issue, we use sub-forums. One of these subforums is url=http://www.waitalk.com/viewforum.php?f= ... 4225bdc2db]"Specific Nutrients"[/url].
I would like to address your concerns in this subforum, per nutrient, if that is ok for you.
Zinc will be discussed here: http://www.waitalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=365
Iron is not an issue when eating egg yolks, as you will see at the bottom of this page.
Calcium will be discussed here: http://www.waitalk.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3718

The thing is fruit doesn't cointain great ammounts of these minerals, and nuts should be eaten in great quantities, and i'm doubting about the convenience of this. Instead, some legumes and vegetables can provide great quantities of these minerals.

An essential difference between fruits and veggies is that veggies are the leaves, stems or roots of plants. These plants need those parts to survive. They do not want to be consumed. Therefore, plants contain a wide variety of anti-nutrients; substances that must defend them against consumption. Most of these anti-nutrients can be greadly reduced by cooking, but you know our stance on cooking.
Fruits, on the other hand are specifically designed to increase reproduction chances of the tree that they grow on. They are meant to be eaten by specific consumers so that this consumer will spread the seeds that they contain (in their fecal matter). That is whyfruits generally taste sweet and smell attractive to us, whereas veggies do not; the nutrients:anti-nutrients ratio in fruits is higher. (less anti-nutrients)
Thus, naturally, fruits are meant to be consumed raw, but not veggies. Consuming veggies, your digestion will function less optimally. Thus, in general also the absorption rates of minerals will be lower.
Fruit juices taste great and can readily be consumed in large quanities.
Veggie-juices not so much.

Wouldn't be wise to accept some of the trade off given by the opioid peptides in order to get the needed vitamins?

All nutrients contained in veggies, are also contained in fruits, but in general, digestion will be more effective when consuming fruits.

Now, the other way to get these vitamins may be to eat raw fish/ raw beef every day, and my other doubt is:
1) aside from mercury content, low in some fish (salmon, mackerel), other heavy metals like arsenic may be found, and it's often said that heavy demanded fish are farmed in poor conditions. This makes me think that eating fish everyday may not be a good choice.
I found something here http://www.ijens.org/103205-6565%20IJBAS-IJENS.pdf

Well, what is true for raw animal food, is of course also true for cooked animal food.
So, this discussion is not so much about the Wai diet, but more about vegan/vegetarian versus any diet that includes animal food.
Of course, one should always carefully consider various options to minimize intake of heavy metals and other pollutants.
I mainly eat wild salmon since many years, because i developed a physical 'aversion' (nausea) against eating farmed salmon, maybe due to high levels of pollutants.

2) raw beef, which i'd like to eat in form of carpaccio (largely available and not expensive), may be associated with colon-rectal cancer, which seem can be caused from virus also, so eliminating the cooking process won't eliminate the problem (as i thought initially).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 27413/full

You cannot conclude that from the mentioned study.
You would have to compare raw food consumption cancer rates with cooked food consumption cancer rates.
Comparing various cooked diets will only yield relative carcinogenety of foods. Cooked plant foods contain many carcinogens, but its consumption may be associated with an inverse cancer risk. Not because these foods do not cause cancer, but because they are only less cancerous. If everybody smokes cigarettes, consumption of some types of cigarettes may be inversely related to lung cancer. Not because they do not cause (or even prevent) lung cancer, but because other types of cigarettes are worse.
There are so many different cancerous substances in any cooked foods diet, that you need very extreme studies to eliminate all the consfusion.
From the study mentioned, you cannot conclude that eating carpaccio may contribute to colon cancer.

Beef seemed good until i found the evidence above

Can you point out the "evidence" in the mentioned study please?

how can these vitamins be provided easily with the Wai diet?

I think you meant to say minerals? (calcium, iron, zinc)
If you dont want to consume (much) raw fish / meat; by consuming 10 egg yolks plus fruit juices, a handfull of Brazil nuts and a handfull of walnuts, for example, you may consume 720 mg calcium, 22 mg iron and 11 mg zinc.
The amount of iron is so high because egg yolks are an excellent source of iron. (here is a thread about yolks & iron)

[leofruit]

I would like to address your concerns in this subforum, per nutrient, if that is ok for you.

Yes thanks, it's ok of course! i should have posted in different subforums

An essential difference between fruits and veggies is that veggies are the leaves, stems or roots of plants.[...]

I agree to some extent, because vegetables and legumes have some healthy effects too and antinutrients can be eliminated in significant percentages through cooking. So even if i think that wai foods would be better overall, it is to consider pollution also. Organic legumes at least are more easily available, while organic fish isn't.
Also, raw fish/meat is associated with bacterious/viral risks (about this, do you always freeze meat and fish before eating?) and i found that some other serious complicances can be experienced (scombroid food syndrome is an exemple)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scombroid_food_poisoning

Well, what is true for raw animal food, is of course also true for cooked animal food.
So, this discussion is not so much about the Wai diet, but more about vegan/vegetarian versus any diet that includes animal food.

I recognize this, but my idea indeed would be to mix various foods to minimize the risks; for example eating fish 2 times a week instead of 4, and replacing it with well cooked legumes. Do you think antinutrients can be eliminated sufficiently (through cooking) resulting in a little "side effect"? And will the body adapt to the remaining antinutrients (some people say legumes side effects reduce with prolonged consumption)?

You would have to compare raw food consumption cancer rates with cooked food consumption cancer rates.

Can you point out the "evidence" in the mentioned study please?

It's been said that "In Saudi Arabia, beef consumption is high and has even increased during the past 30 years.27 Apparently, it exceeds beef consumption in Korea. Yet, the colorectal cancer rate is lower than in Korea. A major difference, however, seems to exist in the preparatory steps for consumption: whereas Saudi Arabians prefer to eat well-done meat, Koreans as well as Japanese frequently consume raw or undercooked meat.
And also "As discussed previously, the majority of epidemiological studies do not reveal an increased risk for colorectal cancer development after prolonged poultry or fish consumption or in countries where well-cooked mutton/lamb and goat meat are usually consumed."

In my opinion this is a comparison; of course there's not the full certainty, but there's a correlation between this type of cancer and factors external to cooking. With this it's not intended that, overall, cooked chicken is better than raw beef, but that raw beef can lead to that specific condition, otherwise than cooked chicken.

Anyway i found this study article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850217/) showing the ammounts of HCAs related to different cooking methods; what i see is in some cases there are very few or even none total HCAs produced, e.g. well done pan fried salmon (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article ... /table/T8/). So could a steamed-cooked fish/meat be "that bad"? Also, cooking meats with some antioxidants vegetables/spices contrasts the production of HCAs, and i can't resist to think the problem with cooked meat maybe isn't this big, when you cook it properly (avoiding grills et cetera) and you eat fruit along with it (as in a balanced diet).

If you dont want to consume (much) raw fish / meat; by consuming 10 egg yolks plus fruit juices, a handfull of Brazil nuts and a handfull of walnuts, for example, you may consume 720 mg calcium, 22 mg iron and 11 mg zinc.

I recognize this is true, i just have to start juicing more fruit!

[Aytundra]

It's been said that "In Saudi Arabia, beef consumption is high and has even increased during the past 30 years.27 Apparently, it exceeds beef consumption in Korea. Yet, the colorectal cancer rate is lower than in Korea. A major difference, however, seems to exist in the preparatory steps for consumption: whereas Saudi Arabians prefer to eat well-done meat, Koreans as well as Japanese frequently consume raw or undercooked meat.
And also "As discussed previously, the majority of epidemiological studies do not reveal an increased risk for colorectal cancer development after prolonged poultry or fish consumption or in countries where well-cooked mutton/lamb and goat meat are usually consumed."

There might be confounding variables. Such as milk consumption in Japan and Korea were probably on the rise at the same time as consumption of beef products. imo, I do not think the article can say it was only by beef. Another variable could be: How was the beef was produced?. Production of the beef product might not have been in the best state as in maybe the animals were not raised properly or were not fed properly. The article mentioned Mongolians did not have much colon cancer, thought they eat Yak tartare. If you think about it, I don't think Yaks can be domesticated as much than cows, I think Yaks would be raised out in the open space rather than in a manufactured space that cows can be confined to easily. Japan and Korea are countries have limited agricultural lands, I wonder how they raise their cows?, and what did they feed their cows? or where do they import the food for their cows?, or where do they import the meat, if they do not have much space to plant crops to feed the cows and space for cows to roam? I doubt Japanese eat only the Wagyu beef (their specialty beef) that has the open space to roam and music to listen to, as opposed to the open space that Yaks may have in Mongolia. The article also talked about mutton/lamb and goat meat, again these animals are more likely to roam freely over open pasteur or grassy mountain lands, than be confined to a manufactured space. Also more space mean less chance of animals getting sick from viruses... But as the article said, viruses can still be present after cooking. Some middle eastern cultures do eat raw meat they have raw dishes like Kibbeh Nayeh. Hence, I don't think the article can say raw beef as the cause, maybe it is still a beef factor, but there may be other factors that create the beef factor, such as how where the animals raised?

[RRM]

There might be confounding variables.

Yes, with studies like that, there are always a lot of confounding variables.
That is why it took the WHO decades to conclude from truckloads of scientific studies that processed meat contribute to cancer.
Compared to that, the study mentioned is simply very much unconvincing.

[RRM]

vegetables and legumes have some healthy effects too

These 'healthy effects' come from compounds that they contain that might also be contained in 'natural' medication.
The idea is that veggies / legumes may therefore be healthy.
Similarly, one might argue that it is healthyfor healthy people to take various medications.
IMO we should not look at foods for medicinal health benefits. Instead, our foods should contain as little as possible of such medicinal coumpounds.
You may find 'healthy compounds' in the leaves of any tree, whereas in fact, they are originally designed to fend off consumers in various sizes and shapes.

Organic legumes at least are more easily available, while organic fish isn't.

Cooked legumes will, by definition, always contain newly originated compounds, of which some are harmful, whereas raw fish may sometimes be free of any pollutant, particularly when organic.

Also, raw fish/meat is associated with bacterious/viral risks

And yet, none of the raw fooders that i know has ever experienced any adverse effect from eating raw fish / meat.
Whereas it is certain that you will daily ingest carcinogenic substances from cooked foods that may cause cancer if only you live long enough.
Bacterial and viral risks (and even parasytic risks) have much to do with the competence of your defense, which requires an optimal diet to perform optimally.

do you always freeze meat and fish before eating?

No.

Do you think antinutrients can be eliminated sufficiently (through cooking) resulting in a little "side effect"?

Sure, but that creates a different evil...

Can you point out the "evidence" in the mentioned study please?

there's a correlation between this type of cancer and factors external to cooking.

That is not evidence.

i found this study article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2850217/) showing the ammounts of HCAs related to different cooking methods

"Total amounts of HCAs" stands for the HCAs actually measured (in samples).
Of course, there certainly are 'degrees of bad', and more baddies originate at higher temps and longer cooking times.
You can opt for the least bad cooking options, naturally. If you do, please consider slow cooking (at temps below boiling point).
AGEs (to which also the HCAs belong) originate at all temperatures, and therefore range from harmless to harmful. There are many shades of grey.
For myself, I do not like to make any compromises when possible.
I opt for the optimal diet, and not the sub-optimal.

i can't resist to think the problem with cooked meat maybe isn't this big

That is completely normal and logical. Everybody who eats cooked foods has that same issue.
The Wai diet aims at the optimal diet, which is too extreme for most people.
I completely understand that. We all choose different paths.

[leofruit]

Thank you for the explanation! So, in this conception, legumes/vegetables should be consumed only in case of need, as we do with drugs (e.g. conditions like flu which may be improved by some vegetables properties)?

Bacterial and viral risks (and even parasytic risks) have much to do with the competence of your defense, which requires an optimal diet to perform optimally.

Well i don't think all the parasites can be stopped by the immune system (if you are referring to the immune system) and even if the risk is low, it's still present. This is surely why restaurants must deep freeze all the raw fish before serving, and i will be start freezing raw fish before eating it; it would lose some of its taste but it will be safer.

Anyway what do you think of this? how could it be avoided?
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1009464-overview
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/criem/2014/482531/

That is not evidence.

Well effectively it's not an evidence but it's still a suspect. As you said WHO took much time to conclude processed meats aren't so healthy, but everything starts with a suspect; someone may take the risk even if it is very very little and remote, i prefer not. I would eat raw beef time to time, but not often.

That is completely normal and logical. Everybody who eats cooked foods has that same issue.
The Wai diet aims at the optimal diet, which is too extreme for most people.
I completely understand that. We all choose different paths.

I'm still in the phase of evaluating pros and cons of this diet; i have nothing against raw food, and i would prefer it over cooked food (for HCAs, AGEs, betacarbolines...), but i want to be sure of the satefy of the diet complessively.

For last, i have two doubts about the "many meals per day"
1) won't it have the same result of increased colon rectal cancer of studies like this? http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/conte ... 3589.short
2) aren't few meals better for the autophagy process? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534972

[RRM]

So, in this conception, legumes/vegetables should be consumed only in case of need, as we do with drugs (e.g. conditions like flu which may be improved by some vegetables properties)?

Hmm yes, but the flu is a bad example, as it is a viral infection that needs to be overpowered by our own defense. This strengthens our defense, as it is trained to fight various forms of viral infections. Antibiotics, on the other hand, weaken our own defense severely, and should only be used (as a last resort) when a virtal infection has become a bacterial issue as well (inflammation); to save lives when our own defense is too weak to deal with it.
Im rather thinking about inflictions that cannot be dealt with by our own defense, such as a specific parasytic infection, for example.
Im not into herbal medication, but im sure there are various inflictions that may be reversed by specific plant compounds. Of course that would first require proper diagnosis and subsequent associated medication (plant- or chemical-based).

i don't think all the parasites can be stopped by the immune system

I dont think so either.
But, most people actually have parasites in their system, mostly without any adverse effects.
Of course, some are very dangerous.

This is surely why restaurants must deep freeze all the raw fish before serving, and i will be start freezing raw fish before eating it; it would lose some of its taste but it will be safer.

This is not true in all countries.
Yes, that would be safer.
Personally, im not that worried, as nobody i know who has been eating raw fish for years has ever had any experience with a parasytic (or bacterial) infection. But of course, only non-infected people will tell you this.

Anyway what do you think of this? how could it be avoided
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1009464-overview
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/criem/2014/482531/

Histamine 'poisoning' - allergic like reactions are very much related to the strength and competence (no 'over reaction') of your defense, and the activity of detoxing enzymes (such as the CYP family). These characteristsics are partly inherited and partly environmental (training) determined.
My advice: if you are not used to eating a specific type of fish raw, just eat a little bit of it and wait 24 hours before you eat more.
The same is true for salmonella; if you never get exposed to salmonella, your defense is most likely underequipped to be a convincing combatant. You need regular exposure to be trained properly. This may take time.

everything starts with a suspect; someone may take the risk even if it is very very little and remote, i prefer not. I would eat raw beef time to time, but not often.

I understand completely.
Personally, im not worried at all. I have been eating raw beef, -egg yolks, -ox heart, -chicken and various fish for over 20 years now. My 3 kids all received fresh raw egg yolks daily since they were 6 months old. They are 1, 3 and 4 years old now, and all very healthy. They love eating raw grinded meat often. They daily eat raw salmon (though the salmon is previously frozen).

For last, i have two doubts about the "many meals per day"
1) won't it have the same result of increased colon rectal cancer of studies like this? http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/conte ... 3589.short

Meal frequency by itself means nothing. Consuming 3 meals per day, evenly spread throughout the day, with some minor snacking in between, will lack any autophagy, while autophagy is what makes up the health effect.
But of course, people who do IF will fall into the category of "few meals per day", which lifts up this entire category.
Colon cancer is very much related to the intake of carcinogens from food. When those carcinogens are lacking in your diet (Wai diet), your colon cancer risk will be sharply reduced. But of course, intermittent fasting will have susbstantial additional health benefits (also regarding colon cancer).

2) aren't few meals better for the autophagy process? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20534972

Not so much just a few meals per day, but an eating window and a significant fasting window. The fasting needs to be adequately extensive to exhaust the glycogen depots first, before autophagy becomes effective.
Yes, that is absolutely required for autophagy.
But not everybody wants, or is ready for IF ("Wai Warrior"), so they may start on Wai regular.

[leofruit]

Thank you for the answer(s)

Histamine 'poisoning' - allergic like reactions are very much related to the strength and competence (no 'over reaction') of your defense, and the activity of detoxing enzymes (such as the CYP family). These characteristsics are partly inherited and partly environmental (training) determined.
My advice: if you are not used to eating a specific type of fish raw, just eat a little bit of it and wait 24 hours before you eat more.
The same is true for salmonella; if you never get exposed to salmonella, your defense is most likely underequipped to be a convincing combatant. You need regular exposure to be trained properly. This may take time.

Yes probably some individuals are more prone than others to be seriously affected by the intoxication; anyway from here it seems that risky fish species have to be tested for histamine, which would be a good news
http://www.foodsafetywatch.org/factshee ... histamine/

Not so much just a few meals per day, but an eating window and a significant fasting window. The fasting needs to be adequately extensive to exhaust the glycogen depots first, before autophagy becomes effective.
Yes, that is absolutely required for autophagy.

I learned something about IF, which i knew nothing about, and it's really interesting.
My doubt about IF is therefore that fruit, and juice especially (due to fast digeribility and concentration of sugar) along with the other food, would cause high spikes of blood sugar when eating the meal in the eating window; isn't this possible (and bad)?

[RRM]

My doubt about IF is therefore that fruit, and juice especially (due to fast digeribility and concentration of sugar) along with the other food, would cause high spikes of blood sugar when eating the meal in the eating window; isn't this possible (and bad)?

There is sugar (glucose) in the blood, and in the depots for storing glucose (as glycogen).
During the fasting window, glycogen depots are completely (liver-glycogen; 400 kcal) emptied, or emptied to at least some extend (1200 kcal in the muscles, depending on physical activity).
When you start eating again, the extra glucose (from sugars / carbs) is immediately stored in the liver and the muscles, as glycogen.
This prevents an unwanted spike in blood glucose (beyond the level required to stimulate conversion of glucose to glycogen).
The spike experienced, is the spike that you need to be able to replenish depleted glycogen depots, and for stimulating the uptake of amino acids in the brain, by insulin.
So, it really does not matter how high-sugar your meals are during the intitial phase of the eating window, due to the great availability of glycogen storage capacity.
Not until the glycogen depots have been completely replenished, you need to watch your sugar intake.
Once your glycogen depots are full, then consuming (a lot) more sugars is detrimental indeed. That is because that sugar either needs to be converted to fatty acids (which is a relatively slow process), or sufficient free fatty acids need to be available to store the extra sugar as glycerol in triglycerides.
For the latter process (glucose>glycerol>bodyfat), you need 3 fatty acids for every glucose (glycerol) molecule.
So, when consuming sugary foods when already repleted, all that extra sugar in the blood keeps on stimulating the release of insulin, while that insulin cannot sufficiently trigger the uptake of sugar from the blood (into glycogen or fat depots). So, a substantial percentage of that extra sugar remains in the blood, where it will, again, trigger the release of insulin. And again, the insulin is unable to have all the excess sugar removed. Thus, one sugar molecule will repeatedly trigger the release of insulin, without immediate avail. You can imagine that this will eventually evoke a decrease in the sensitivity of the insulin receptors (to counteract the overstimulation). In the long term this may result in insulin resistence.
Fortunately, fasting has the opposite effect, (partially) reversing decreased insulin sensitity.

So, if you still want to consume a lot of energy in the second phase of the eating window, it better be only fatty food, and not sugary food.
But anyway, once your glycogen depots are filled up, you will feel no lust for sugars (or energy in general) at all.
It may be that you still need protein though, and also protein stimulates insulin secretion.
Thus it is better to also (besides sugars) consume sufficient protein in the intitial phase of the eating window, to prevent overeating due to a still present need for protein in the second phase.

So, regarding insulin resistence;
1. Consume mostly sugary and proteinaceous food In the initial phase of the eating window
2. If you still want to eat more, and you are not so much in tune with your remaining energy requirements, then consume more fatty foods in the second phase of the eating window

Of course, overeating results in gaining bodyfat, and therefore it is best to prevent overeating by carefully listening to your energy needs, but when in doubt, consume fatty foods instead of proteinaceous or sugary foods.

[leofruit]

Thank for the explanation, this is indeed very interesting. Anyway there are some things still not clear to me:

When you start eating again, the extra glucose (from sugars / carbs) is immediately stored in the liver and the muscles, as glycogen.
This prevents an unwanted spike in blood glucose (beyond the level required to stimulate conversion of glucose to glycogen).

Aren't needed some hours to replenish glycogen stores? (as it says here http://thesportjournal.org/article/glyc ... -exercise/)

So, when consuming sugary foods when already repleted, all that extra sugar in the blood keeps on stimulating the release of insulin, while that insulin cannot sufficiently trigger the uptake of sugar from the blood (into glycogen or fat depots). So, a substantial percentage of that extra sugar remains in the blood, where it will, again, trigger the release of insulin.

Knowing this, wouldn't be wise to replenish glycogen stores more slowly, avoiding fruit juices and preferring fibers? in this way after the replenishment insulin spikes should reduce in intensity due to slower release of glucose in the blood.

Of course, overeating results in gaining bodyfat, and therefore it is best to prevent overeating by carefully listening to your energy needs, but when in doubt, consume fatty foods instead of proteinaceous or sugary foods.

I'm not much worried by gaining some body fat, but by getting unwanted insulin spikes! I'll have a glucometer in few days, and i'll measure blood glucose in different situations. Do you think it would be useful to measure BG in some moments while(or post) fed state after fasting?

[RRM]

When you start eating again, the extra glucose (from sugars / carbs) is immediately stored in the liver and the muscles, as glycogen.

Aren't needed some hours to replenish glycogen stores? (as it says here http://thesportjournal.org/article/glyc ... -exercise/)

Correct.
When i said "immediately stored, i referred to the extra glucose entering the blood being immediately stored as glycogen. I did not mean to say that all lost glycogen will be replenished immediately.

wouldn't be wise to replenish glycogen stores more slowly, avoiding fruit juices and preferring fibers? in this way after the replenishment insulin spikes should reduce in intensity due to slower release of glucose in the blood.

There is no problem with insulin spikes if they are justified (lots of glucose to store) and if the insulin is not released in vain (sufficient glycogen storage capacity). For each glucose stored as glycogen, you need insulin.
It takes a while before empty glycogen depots are fully replenished.
Just try consuming 1600 kcal in sugars in one hour; that simply doesnt work.
What you want, is to replenish your glycogen depots in a few hours, because your eating window is limited.
Adding fiber to the equation makes that a lot harder.
And if you fail to sufficiently replenish your glycogen depots, you will increasingly feel weaker, and then you will fail eventually.
Fasting maximally is about optimizing your energy management. Fiber can easily ruin that.
So my advice would be to take it slow on fiber, particularly in the beginning.
You can always put more fiber back into your diet once you are full in control.

I'm not much worried by gaining some body fat, but by getting unwanted insulin spikes!

To store glycogen, you need insulin.
That insulin is wanted; it is required.
To replenish empty glycogen within hours, you need those insulin spikes.
The opposite of unwanted.
What is unwanted, is spikes of insulin that keep returning because there are storage problems, eventually causing insulin resistence.
What is wanted are accurate insulin spikes; insulin release in correspondence with glucose availability, and effecting the storage of glucose in accordance.

I'll have a glucometer in few days, and i'll measure blood glucose in different situations. Do you think it would be useful to measure BG in some moments while(or post) fed state after fasting?

No, every body is different. You just need to learn to listen to your body. When you do not feel like consuming sugars, do not consume sugars. When you dont feel like consuming fat; dont. When you dont feel like consuming protein; dont.
But yes, it can make you feel more comfortable knowing that no unwanted BG levels occur.