Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects(salk.edu)
salk.edu
Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects
https://www.salk.edu/news-release/eating-in-10-hour-window-can-override-disease-causing-genetic-defects-nurture-health/
91 comments
> Is it possible that with economic affluence of the West, overconsumption is harmful?
Absolutely. As Michael Pollan points out, our food has changed more in the last 50 years than it did in the preceding 5000, in both composition and quantity.
There is no way we have adapted that fast.
Absolutely. As Michael Pollan points out, our food has changed more in the last 50 years than it did in the preceding 5000, in both composition and quantity.
There is no way we have adapted that fast.
The big difference in traditional diets is enough plant fibre to support the biota that lets us absorb choline:
https://medium.com/@russjj/choline-is-it-the-key-to-modern-i...
I live in Vietnam but we have a lot of Koreans in the area I live in and what they eat doesn't seem very healthy. Huge amounts of cheese and grilled meats and very heavy drinking. Is that typical for Koreans in Korea too?
Yes, it's a very unhealthy combo to do frequently. The bovine industry along with a connected global marketplace has made it far more abundant than is healthy.
For example, I heard that samgyupsal is mostly fat that isn't typically consumed for grilling, is really unhealthy as it consists mostly of fat lard with little pork meat. but once you taste it it's hard to put down. Typically, lettuce, garlic, onion, sesame oil and in traditionally green onions shredded with red pepper sprinkled. You take a bit of meat, bathe it in the sesame oil sauce with pepper and salt, wrap it up in lettuce, throw in some fermented bean sauce containing healthy probiotics also found in kimchi, and pop it in your mouth. When you get a bit tired of the grease, you yell "WUN SHUT!" ("one shot") and down what seemingly smells like acetone. There's a euphoria that happens when you combine it with family and friends, it's also a common way to bond with your co-workers and superiors.
Typically a traditional Korean meal consists of rice and banchan, or seasoned side dishes, but most people I know just eat rice and kimchi. Also, Koreans have a huge affinity for Pho and vietnamese cuisine because it feels familiar.
Writing about samgyupsal has gotten me salivating lol....
For example, I heard that samgyupsal is mostly fat that isn't typically consumed for grilling, is really unhealthy as it consists mostly of fat lard with little pork meat. but once you taste it it's hard to put down. Typically, lettuce, garlic, onion, sesame oil and in traditionally green onions shredded with red pepper sprinkled. You take a bit of meat, bathe it in the sesame oil sauce with pepper and salt, wrap it up in lettuce, throw in some fermented bean sauce containing healthy probiotics also found in kimchi, and pop it in your mouth. When you get a bit tired of the grease, you yell "WUN SHUT!" ("one shot") and down what seemingly smells like acetone. There's a euphoria that happens when you combine it with family and friends, it's also a common way to bond with your co-workers and superiors.
Typically a traditional Korean meal consists of rice and banchan, or seasoned side dishes, but most people I know just eat rice and kimchi. Also, Koreans have a huge affinity for Pho and vietnamese cuisine because it feels familiar.
Writing about samgyupsal has gotten me salivating lol....
"My mind is telling me no, but my body....my body is telling me YES"
- R. Kelly> our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably "right" for my metabolism.
There might be a genetic factor here. The other thing is that the food habits of our ancestors were more thought out than we think. It might be that what they have been eating is not only better because of genetics, but more healthy in general than the terrible foods we can buy everywhere today.
There might be a genetic factor here. The other thing is that the food habits of our ancestors were more thought out than we think. It might be that what they have been eating is not only better because of genetics, but more healthy in general than the terrible foods we can buy everywhere today.
Absolutely. It's fascinating how different dietary cultures develop and adapt to their environment in a surprisingly efficient manner. Nothing is wasted. Need to store meat for long periods of winter? Smoke it. Need it on the go? We'll use the left over bits to make sausages. What? You need side dishes that doesn't go bad for a long time? We'll pickle it, store it under ground to ferment it. Huh, you are throwing away all that extra cabbage roots from making kimchi? Put that in a soup or 시락국 containing high levels of Omega-H3 from the broth containing tiny fishes.
I 've spent 3.5/4 years eating nothing except on the weekends (my undergrad). So I would go for 2-5 days at a time without food. Not because of fasting fads or anything, I didn't even know what fasting was. I was just from a very poor family and if I wanted to go for vacations with my friends or party in the weekend or buy a computer I had to save every penny I could. (that's how I bought my first laptop etc). I would eat properly during holidays and the summer only at my parent's home.
I was very skinny, but somehow still had fat. Sometimes I bought pants from the women's section or I would take pants to my mom to sew the waist tighter, because I was so thin I couldn't find clothes that fit me (I have some pictures of me wearing my 108lb girlfriend's pants stashed somewhere). I exercised a bit but seeing me without a shirt you could tell I had manboobs and a tiny-lil bit of a potbelly and no abs at all, not even the skinny ones.
At some point I developed fainting on sight of blood. I would brush my teeth, and if I scratched my gum and blood came out -- I had to run to the bed asap before passing out. To this day I don't know if I was just afraid of blood (blood doesn't affect me anymore), or I had gotten so weak I was actually nearing total collapse. Blood tests were surprisingly fine I just had low iron.
Looking at that period back, I 'm trying to see if the advertised benefits applied to me. I didn't get sick much, but I don't get sick in general. Aging... well what can you say to an 18-22 year old about aging. My libido was low which makes sense I guess. Energy, regular levels. I don't know, I was just a very thin dude, fasting or not, no major epiphanies or amazement. I suppose it's amazing that one can survive fine, no suffering, going for so long without food, but it wasn't better than eating.
I am very surprised at how people swear by it. Maybe life is much worse when you eat 3 meals per day? I don't know, nowadays (early 30s) I eat 2 meals and exercise a lot and I 'm pretty content. I think for me, exercise did the trick that elevated both my mood and my energy levels.
Would I do the crazy 5-day 4 year fast again? If I was young and "hungry" sure, but it's definitely miserable. Food can be a great social thing to do with friends, and a cool experience especially when trying new dishes and restaurants. The huge food diversity in SF spoiled me.
Edit: back then I was very ashamed of my fasting and try to hide it from friends etc. A few weeks ago I was shocked when a coworker told me he was doing a 7 day water-only fast. We 've come a long way!
I was very skinny, but somehow still had fat. Sometimes I bought pants from the women's section or I would take pants to my mom to sew the waist tighter, because I was so thin I couldn't find clothes that fit me (I have some pictures of me wearing my 108lb girlfriend's pants stashed somewhere). I exercised a bit but seeing me without a shirt you could tell I had manboobs and a tiny-lil bit of a potbelly and no abs at all, not even the skinny ones.
At some point I developed fainting on sight of blood. I would brush my teeth, and if I scratched my gum and blood came out -- I had to run to the bed asap before passing out. To this day I don't know if I was just afraid of blood (blood doesn't affect me anymore), or I had gotten so weak I was actually nearing total collapse. Blood tests were surprisingly fine I just had low iron.
Looking at that period back, I 'm trying to see if the advertised benefits applied to me. I didn't get sick much, but I don't get sick in general. Aging... well what can you say to an 18-22 year old about aging. My libido was low which makes sense I guess. Energy, regular levels. I don't know, I was just a very thin dude, fasting or not, no major epiphanies or amazement. I suppose it's amazing that one can survive fine, no suffering, going for so long without food, but it wasn't better than eating.
I am very surprised at how people swear by it. Maybe life is much worse when you eat 3 meals per day? I don't know, nowadays (early 30s) I eat 2 meals and exercise a lot and I 'm pretty content. I think for me, exercise did the trick that elevated both my mood and my energy levels.
Would I do the crazy 5-day 4 year fast again? If I was young and "hungry" sure, but it's definitely miserable. Food can be a great social thing to do with friends, and a cool experience especially when trying new dishes and restaurants. The huge food diversity in SF spoiled me.
Edit: back then I was very ashamed of my fasting and try to hide it from friends etc. A few weeks ago I was shocked when a coworker told me he was doing a 7 day water-only fast. We 've come a long way!
One plausible physical explanation for IF is it promotes autophagy. 18-22 range probably doesn't gain much if any AIUI since you system is already running near optimum if you just eat regular times and don't snack around the clock. But older? Maybe the human body takes longer, in general, to switch on autophagy as it ages, and the additional time in the food-gap helps.
It sounds like you were just starving yourself. I'm going to guess that you weren't eating 2-5 days worth of food whenever you chose to eat?
I'm sorry but going that long without eating just doesn't make any sense. Did you/your family only have the ability to buy/acquire one meal at a time or what?
I'm sorry but going that long without eating just doesn't make any sense. Did you/your family only have the ability to buy/acquire one meal at a time or what?
No, I was living alone while going to school. I would starve myself so I could save more money. What is the difference between X day fasts and what I did?
I am not trying to claim that fasting doesn't work, just noting my personal experience. For me it certainly worked in the sense that I saw the fakeness of "if you don't eat for X days you get super hungry or weak/sick/you die", I was perfectly ok.. but not amazing.
I am not trying to claim that fasting doesn't work, just noting my personal experience. For me it certainly worked in the sense that I saw the fakeness of "if you don't eat for X days you get super hungry or weak/sick/you die", I was perfectly ok.. but not amazing.
The difference is that fasters aren't intentionally calorie restricting, they are just time restricting their eating. It sounds like you may have been starving yourself(getting fewer calories than you needed), and also time restricting yourself.
>I'm sorry but going that long without eating just doesn't make any sense.
That would be great news to the lower 1-2 billions in the developing world.
That would be great news to the lower 1-2 billions in the developing world.
I was saying it doesn't make sense to be eating once every 2-5 days, but eating 2-5 days worth of calories during those meals. Obviously if you are food insecure you don't have a choice - but if you have access to the food, only touching it every couple days doesn't make sense.
Even if you have to survive on little money, I don't understand why you would go that long without food and not at least have some ultra cheap foods like rice and beans in your fridge.
Even if you have to survive on little money, I don't understand why you would go that long without food and not at least have some ultra cheap foods like rice and beans in your fridge.
There is more detailed research as to food consumption patterns. Basically fasting for around 16 hours a day is good for health. From the evolutionary perspective--that invested in a human body 200K years--the way we eat today is really broken. And our body can't adapt to a new pattern even during 1000 years. Not to mention like 50. A human body during 200K years was not prepared to eating a lot. It needs to store energy and to use stored energy. That's a natural cycle and different function that our body needs to execute. Nowadays we just store energy 24/7.
"Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage."
Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/
Also here are patterns of daily and weekly food consumption from this research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/...
"Emerging findings from studies of animal models and human subjects suggest that intermittent energy restriction periods of as little as 16 h can improve health indicators and counteract disease processes. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage."
Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/
Also here are patterns of daily and weekly food consumption from this research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/...
I picked it up from Martin Berkhan's leangains. It was a lot easier than counting calories for long term maintenance, and it kept the lard off. It made sense to me from an evolutionary point of view; cavemen don't eat "3 square meals" before attacking wooly mammoths, and virtually every religion in the world includes a rigorous fasting period, which, IMO emulates hunter gatherer eating patterns.
For me, the main side effect is I feel a lot more alert, and I waste less time during the day, as preparing and eating food takes up less of it. You know that sleepy feeling you get after a huge breakfast or lunch that makes you reach for an extra cup of coffee? It is no longer a problem. Hunger pangs were an issue for the first two days I did this, and haven't been since then. Oh yeah, and I also feel REALLY FULL when I've eaten too much. Keeping your gut empty from time to time helps you to self regulate.
I think I won the genetic lottery as far as aging goes, and I exercise and try to not eat too much junk food, but "so far so good."
For me, the main side effect is I feel a lot more alert, and I waste less time during the day, as preparing and eating food takes up less of it. You know that sleepy feeling you get after a huge breakfast or lunch that makes you reach for an extra cup of coffee? It is no longer a problem. Hunger pangs were an issue for the first two days I did this, and haven't been since then. Oh yeah, and I also feel REALLY FULL when I've eaten too much. Keeping your gut empty from time to time helps you to self regulate.
I think I won the genetic lottery as far as aging goes, and I exercise and try to not eat too much junk food, but "so far so good."
I’ve experimented with intermittent fasting, carb cycling, and a variety of other methods.
Intermittent fasting’s benefits for me are primarily the lack of distraction and fluctuations in my blood glucose level. I found that consuming protein or fats in the morning does not affect the latter benefit. It seems to me that it’s more about a diet that’s easy to stick to than dramatically altering one’s metabolism.
Lately, I’ve become more serious about strength training and have given up on it because my caloric needs have skyrocketed (I found myself losing weight at over 3000 calories a day.) and I need to eat frequently to recover.
However, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who isn’t an athlete, and to the latter I’d still suggest experimenting.
Intermittent fasting’s benefits for me are primarily the lack of distraction and fluctuations in my blood glucose level. I found that consuming protein or fats in the morning does not affect the latter benefit. It seems to me that it’s more about a diet that’s easy to stick to than dramatically altering one’s metabolism.
Lately, I’ve become more serious about strength training and have given up on it because my caloric needs have skyrocketed (I found myself losing weight at over 3000 calories a day.) and I need to eat frequently to recover.
However, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who isn’t an athlete, and to the latter I’d still suggest experimenting.
I'm kind of surprised this isn't the default for most people.
For example let's say you eat dinner at 6-7pm and then goto bed at 11pm. After that you wake up around 7am and then maybe eat breakfast an hour or 2 later.
At this point you've gone from about 7pm to 8am or 9am without eating (~13-14 hours) but it fits pretty well into a schedule.
Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Of course you would adjust the numbers based on how late you goto bed and rise in the morning, but the ratios would be about the same -- maybe even more fasting if you sleep longer than 8 hours.
For example let's say you eat dinner at 6-7pm and then goto bed at 11pm. After that you wake up around 7am and then maybe eat breakfast an hour or 2 later.
At this point you've gone from about 7pm to 8am or 9am without eating (~13-14 hours) but it fits pretty well into a schedule.
Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Of course you would adjust the numbers based on how late you goto bed and rise in the morning, but the ratios would be about the same -- maybe even more fasting if you sleep longer than 8 hours.
That implies eating breakfast at work for most people. Also you need to be leaving work promptly at 5pm, not have too long a commute home and then start cooking straight away if you want to eat dinner by 6.30pm. (I do this, but didn't pre-kids, and don't think it fits by default into most people's lives).
>Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that?
Depends on the country and culture. In these here parts we still go to work at 8am or 9am, but we dine at 10pm or later (going to a restaurant at 11pm is very common, and similarly for eating at home).
Depends on the country and culture. In these here parts we still go to work at 8am or 9am, but we dine at 10pm or later (going to a restaurant at 11pm is very common, and similarly for eating at home).
What time do you get home from work?
That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm.
I'm from the US btw. I happen to do freelance work but most people I know work from about 9am to 5pm where they leave the house around 8:30am and are home by 5:30pm or 6pm at the latest.
Eating breakfast at 8am and dinner at 7pm is normal for them, or sometimes they skip breakfast at home and eat something small at work.
That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm.
I'm from the US btw. I happen to do freelance work but most people I know work from about 9am to 5pm where they leave the house around 8:30am and are home by 5:30pm or 6pm at the latest.
Eating breakfast at 8am and dinner at 7pm is normal for them, or sometimes they skip breakfast at home and eat something small at work.
>What time do you get home from work?
Depends on the job. Office jobs are nominally 9-5 but it's easy for employees to stay until 7pm or so in some places. Retail shops (anything from butchers and grocery places to supermarkets and shoe shops and electronics shops) close at 8-8:30pm (they usually open around 9am or a little later) -- but those have shifts too (e.g. those working there don't stay all day from 9am to 8:30pm, unless they're the owners).
Some places (usually the self-run ones) also close around 2:30/3:00pm and open again at 5:30pm or so.
>That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm.
Not "still at the restaurant at 11pm" - it's first sitting down at the restaurant at 11pm (they'd leave at 12:30 - 1am or so). They I guess you sleep for 6-7 hours or so and wake at 7 or 8.
Depends on the job. Office jobs are nominally 9-5 but it's easy for employees to stay until 7pm or so in some places. Retail shops (anything from butchers and grocery places to supermarkets and shoe shops and electronics shops) close at 8-8:30pm (they usually open around 9am or a little later) -- but those have shifts too (e.g. those working there don't stay all day from 9am to 8:30pm, unless they're the owners).
Some places (usually the self-run ones) also close around 2:30/3:00pm and open again at 5:30pm or so.
>That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm.
Not "still at the restaurant at 11pm" - it's first sitting down at the restaurant at 11pm (they'd leave at 12:30 - 1am or so). They I guess you sleep for 6-7 hours or so and wake at 7 or 8.
I keep reading the study to verify, but the wording is wishy-washy. I can find no numbers that they actually measured the calories taken in by the mice who had access to food ad libitum (24/7). If those numbers aren't measured, you'll never know if the time-restricted mice ate the same calories. Let me know if you can find those calorie intake numbers anywhere...
and here's what happened when Panda tracked actual humans - "Even though the participants didn’t change the content of their diet, Panda confirms that reducing the hours they ate resulted in the reduction of about 20 percent of calories, which may be one reason why they were able to lose weight."
So it's the calories after all. Regardless, if any technique (well, almost any) helps you cut calories without having to 'count' them, then that's still a win!
So it's the calories after all. Regardless, if any technique (well, almost any) helps you cut calories without having to 'count' them, then that's still a win!
The comparison was between rats who could eat anytime and rats eating within a 10 hour window. What makes 10 hours the magic? Could it be 11, 12, 14 hours? Is it better if the window is 6 or 8 hours? Would it be different on a day in which the sun shone for 16 hours or 12 his? There is clearly something there but 10 hours seems arbitrary.
Better way to state this is: Make sure you have 14hr period where you are not consuming any food (i.e. fasting period).
In mice.
Whose genes have been altered.
And who show no adherence to a circadian rhythm.
Not exactly relatable, is it?
Whose genes have been altered.
And who show no adherence to a circadian rhythm.
Not exactly relatable, is it?
Humans too I guess:
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-t...
https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-t...
[deleted]
Completely anecdotal, but I had some digestive issues for a few weeks, fasted for two days, and everything returned to normal.
Is it better to eat in the morning or night for humans?
I am not a medical professional, but I have lost a great deal of weight (was on the low end of obese before, and trend towards very thin now). I've kept it off for at least 5 years, with a small amount of fluctuation (one pant size, isn't so much). I always suggest folks eat most when they find they are the most hungry. It takes a bit of paying attention, but after that it gets easy.
I'm personally better off eating very lightly early in the day and eating a large meal at dinnertime. I feel satisfied being full then and don't miss the food early in the day. When I try to eat a full breakfast or lunch regularly, I'm actually more hungry the rest of the day and still want the full dinner. I'm also a night owl, but I do not know if this is related. This holds true no matter what waking schedule I'm on, however.
I personally eat a very light breakfast (a piece of bread with some cheese, for example), a light snack if I'm hungry during the day, and a full dinner. Only dinner is a warm meal, mostly vegetarian save for fish once a week.
My mother, on the other hand, has done the opposite, She's likely to eat a decent breakfast (instead of a piece of bread with cheese), a lunch, and a light dinner. Her weight loss wasn't as drastic as mine, but she didn't weigh as much either.
The thing is that us humans aren't all wired the same way. Even things like insulin response can vary from human to human. I'm guessing there is a genetic component or something to it, but that is an uneducated guess.
I'm personally better off eating very lightly early in the day and eating a large meal at dinnertime. I feel satisfied being full then and don't miss the food early in the day. When I try to eat a full breakfast or lunch regularly, I'm actually more hungry the rest of the day and still want the full dinner. I'm also a night owl, but I do not know if this is related. This holds true no matter what waking schedule I'm on, however.
I personally eat a very light breakfast (a piece of bread with some cheese, for example), a light snack if I'm hungry during the day, and a full dinner. Only dinner is a warm meal, mostly vegetarian save for fish once a week.
My mother, on the other hand, has done the opposite, She's likely to eat a decent breakfast (instead of a piece of bread with cheese), a lunch, and a light dinner. Her weight loss wasn't as drastic as mine, but she didn't weigh as much either.
The thing is that us humans aren't all wired the same way. Even things like insulin response can vary from human to human. I'm guessing there is a genetic component or something to it, but that is an uneducated guess.
A separate study showed a small increase in the effects associated with these windowed eating patterns if the majority of food was consume earlier, and meal size tapered off as the day went on. But the difference wasn't big enough to worry about it.
Middle of the day for largest meal. Try to eat less before bed so liver can detox instead of digest food while u sleep. Also if your a man try working on peacock pose each morning 30 mins before eating (up to 5 mins) to boost digestion , if woman be careful when menstruating
Everything you said sounds like bullshit, do you have any source to back it up?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/
Through an evolution lense we evolved to not be eating huge meals in the middle of the night. When the liver doesn’t have to work on digestion it can better focus on the myriad of other tasks it’s responsible for.
As for mayurasana, I doubt any pharma company is going to drop 500 Gs to perform a double blind random controlled study with >1000 participants , but just try it for a month: http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock “”” Benefits of The Peacock (Mayurasana) 1. Because of the pressure on the abdomen,the blood is directed towards the digestive organs.as the intra-abdominal pressure is increased,the abdominal viscera is toned 2. Liver,pancreas,stomach and spleen are invigorated.The nerves and muscles connected with the kidneys and intestines are revitalised. 3. Sluggishness of the liver or hepatic torpidity disappears. “””
It’s dangerous for women because the intense pressure and slight inversion can mess up their menstrual process during the height of it (3day span usually). Sadly no pharma studies are available on this (what company would drop money on studying that !)
Through an evolution lense we evolved to not be eating huge meals in the middle of the night. When the liver doesn’t have to work on digestion it can better focus on the myriad of other tasks it’s responsible for.
As for mayurasana, I doubt any pharma company is going to drop 500 Gs to perform a double blind random controlled study with >1000 participants , but just try it for a month: http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock “”” Benefits of The Peacock (Mayurasana) 1. Because of the pressure on the abdomen,the blood is directed towards the digestive organs.as the intra-abdominal pressure is increased,the abdominal viscera is toned 2. Liver,pancreas,stomach and spleen are invigorated.The nerves and muscles connected with the kidneys and intestines are revitalised. 3. Sluggishness of the liver or hepatic torpidity disappears. “””
It’s dangerous for women because the intense pressure and slight inversion can mess up their menstrual process during the height of it (3day span usually). Sadly no pharma studies are available on this (what company would drop money on studying that !)
Governments would pay for it. As would health insurances. It is in their own benefit that they study this sort of thing. "Big pharma companies" won't because that is honestly outside their field of study, which is the development of pharma products. It seriously isn't worth taking money away from better treatments for malaria or cancer to study it. However, universities and goverments and health insurance companies would be interested. The first is because some universities are research centers and the other two are interested in lowering their costs for health care. Simple solutions are good for these groups.
And about the woman stuff? I don't buy it. Of course they would drop money on it - at the same rate they drop money on menstral studies, anyway (it isn't as much as some other things, but they do study such things). Part of the menstral process is contributed by muscle cramps and gravity. Lying down in general will sometimes make things slow down, especially on the last day or two. Once the person is upright, the person might simply have a heavier flow those days. Without studies, this sort of advice is simply founded in superstition.
And about the woman stuff? I don't buy it. Of course they would drop money on it - at the same rate they drop money on menstral studies, anyway (it isn't as much as some other things, but they do study such things). Part of the menstral process is contributed by muscle cramps and gravity. Lying down in general will sometimes make things slow down, especially on the last day or two. Once the person is upright, the person might simply have a heavier flow those days. Without studies, this sort of advice is simply founded in superstition.
Big breakfast. Just water for the rest of the day. This approach causes no hunger for me unless I ate a lot of carbs.
Peacock pose is not exactly for the faint-hearted.
Peacock pose: "[...] oneself is raised like a horizontal stick holding the floor with both palms while the body is supported by the elbows"
(Cited Wikipedia entry with image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayurasana)
Interesting how this time restricted eating seems to differ from perspectives in the intermittent fasting community.
Intermittent Fasting folks tend to espouse avoiding caloric intake for long periods of time every day, but they're fine with black coffee/tea (since it doesn't trigger an insulin response). But here Dr. Panda seems to believe that even coffee would compromise the fasting window: https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s
There goes that 7am cup of coffee...
Intermittent Fasting folks tend to espouse avoiding caloric intake for long periods of time every day, but they're fine with black coffee/tea (since it doesn't trigger an insulin response). But here Dr. Panda seems to believe that even coffee would compromise the fasting window: https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s
There goes that 7am cup of coffee...
But 8am to 6pm would be a ten hour window. So you could have your coffee and a big breakfast.
That wouldn’t be so bad. It really just mirrors the advice our lacrosse coaches have been telling us all along. Don’t snack at night.
That wouldn’t be so bad. It really just mirrors the advice our lacrosse coaches have been telling us all along. Don’t snack at night.
Definitely if you trigger insulin response it is safe to say you break a fast, but any caloric intake breaks the fast, even without insulin response.
I’m not sure that video supports your conclusion that coffee/tea breaks the fast, seems to me it’s more of a maybe.
I personally appreciated the acknowledgement of the microbiome. The idea that simply...we don’t know and don’t understand the interactions of the microbiome. The example given was artificial sweetener that most every Keto/paleo/low carb/IF advocate would say is ok...well no,it’s probably not because even with zero calorie and no insulin response the interaction with the microbiome likely breaks the fast and is an over all negative (unhealthy) interaction.
I’m not sure that video supports your conclusion that coffee/tea breaks the fast, seems to me it’s more of a maybe.
I personally appreciated the acknowledgement of the microbiome. The idea that simply...we don’t know and don’t understand the interactions of the microbiome. The example given was artificial sweetener that most every Keto/paleo/low carb/IF advocate would say is ok...well no,it’s probably not because even with zero calorie and no insulin response the interaction with the microbiome likely breaks the fast and is an over all negative (unhealthy) interaction.
>Definitely if you trigger insulin response it is safe to say you break a fast, but any caloric intake breaks the fast, even without insulin response.
"Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that.
If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology.
If we mean "insulin response", then there would be other criteria for breaking a fast.
Even traditional religious and cleansing fasts allowed lots of different foods (e.g. plants) and were still considered fasts.
Fast is not some one-size-fits-all word that means "absolutely no calories" during it.
"Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that.
If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology.
If we mean "insulin response", then there would be other criteria for breaking a fast.
Even traditional religious and cleansing fasts allowed lots of different foods (e.g. plants) and were still considered fasts.
Fast is not some one-size-fits-all word that means "absolutely no calories" during it.
>Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that.
If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology.
Yes...that is how definitions work. Consuming calories triggers a metabolic response and breaks a fast. That is the generally accepted definition of breaking a fast.
There are types of fasts dry fast, water fast, intermittent fast. But the fast part is consistent and means no calories/no metabolic response.
The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast. If I consume nothing but sugar and went around calling it a sugar fast, that doesn’t change the definition of fast. Similarly if you have a diet that doesn’t trigger insulin, that is a Dietary ketosis. If you are fasting you will also enter ketosis but since it’s induced through fasting not diet we call it fasting ketosis.
Yes...that is how definitions work. Consuming calories triggers a metabolic response and breaks a fast. That is the generally accepted definition of breaking a fast.
There are types of fasts dry fast, water fast, intermittent fast. But the fast part is consistent and means no calories/no metabolic response.
The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast. If I consume nothing but sugar and went around calling it a sugar fast, that doesn’t change the definition of fast. Similarly if you have a diet that doesn’t trigger insulin, that is a Dietary ketosis. If you are fasting you will also enter ketosis but since it’s induced through fasting not diet we call it fasting ketosis.
>The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast.
Actually it does.
It might not make it "a period of no food consumption at all", but it does make it a fast.
It's not the etymology or scholarly definition of words that dictates their meaning, but how they are actually used by the people speaking a language.
The word fast (and it's analogous in different languages) has been in use for centuries/millennia longer than people actually knowing what a "metabolic response" is -- so such a concern couldn't be part of how they used the term unless until very recently.
As Wikipedia puts it: "Fasting is the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time".
Notice the "some or all food"?
Here's how the fast period is defined for catholics for example:
"For Roman Catholics, fasting, taken as a technical term, is the reduction of one's intake of food to one full meal (which may not contain meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays throughout Lent) and two small meals (known liturgically as collations, taken in the morning and the evening), both of which together should not equal the large meal. Eating solid food between meals is not permitted. Fasting is required of the faithful between the ages of 18 and 59 on specified days. Complete abstinence of meat for the day is required of those 14 and older. Partial abstinence prescribes that meat be taken only once during the course of the day. Meat is understood not to include fish or cold-blooded animals."
Actually it does.
It might not make it "a period of no food consumption at all", but it does make it a fast.
It's not the etymology or scholarly definition of words that dictates their meaning, but how they are actually used by the people speaking a language.
The word fast (and it's analogous in different languages) has been in use for centuries/millennia longer than people actually knowing what a "metabolic response" is -- so such a concern couldn't be part of how they used the term unless until very recently.
As Wikipedia puts it: "Fasting is the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time".
Notice the "some or all food"?
Here's how the fast period is defined for catholics for example:
"For Roman Catholics, fasting, taken as a technical term, is the reduction of one's intake of food to one full meal (which may not contain meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays throughout Lent) and two small meals (known liturgically as collations, taken in the morning and the evening), both of which together should not equal the large meal. Eating solid food between meals is not permitted. Fasting is required of the faithful between the ages of 18 and 59 on specified days. Complete abstinence of meat for the day is required of those 14 and older. Partial abstinence prescribes that meat be taken only once during the course of the day. Meat is understood not to include fish or cold-blooded animals."
"The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast."
Yes, it absolutely does, and sometimes comes along with abstaining from food entirely for short times. Not only that, but there are usually exceptions for children, the sick, and the elderly. Medical fasting sometimes means "nothing" and sometimes means "clear liquids" or a combination. It all depends on context.
I was raised Eastern Orthodox. Wednesdays and Fridays were supposed to be meat-free days, but fish, eggs, dairy, and oil were fine for most. For 6 weeks before easter, no meat. For a portion of that, you weren't supposed to eat dairy, eggs, or oil either. On Sundays, you were supposed to fast before communion at church - this meant liquids only, no food.
On the other hand, some Muslims fast entirely for a month between sunrise and sunset. No food, no liquids, with exceptions for health, elderly, and children.
Common medical procedures require fasting, but it is different depending on the procedure. Need blood tests? you might be able to have water and black coffee, but other times you wont have coffee. Operation? quit food at a certain time and no liquids at a different time, and the timing varies.
Fasting means different things depending on the context it is used in.
Yes, it absolutely does, and sometimes comes along with abstaining from food entirely for short times. Not only that, but there are usually exceptions for children, the sick, and the elderly. Medical fasting sometimes means "nothing" and sometimes means "clear liquids" or a combination. It all depends on context.
I was raised Eastern Orthodox. Wednesdays and Fridays were supposed to be meat-free days, but fish, eggs, dairy, and oil were fine for most. For 6 weeks before easter, no meat. For a portion of that, you weren't supposed to eat dairy, eggs, or oil either. On Sundays, you were supposed to fast before communion at church - this meant liquids only, no food.
On the other hand, some Muslims fast entirely for a month between sunrise and sunset. No food, no liquids, with exceptions for health, elderly, and children.
Common medical procedures require fasting, but it is different depending on the procedure. Need blood tests? you might be able to have water and black coffee, but other times you wont have coffee. Operation? quit food at a certain time and no liquids at a different time, and the timing varies.
Fasting means different things depending on the context it is used in.
[deleted]
I just signed up and installed their iOS app. You are correct: drinking coffee or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period. This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work. I will shift my morning coffee to when I have breakfast.
I have been non-fasting and fasting with an even split of 12 hours / 12 hours per day, so this will be an adjustment.
I have been non-fasting and fasting with an even split of 12 hours / 12 hours per day, so this will be an adjustment.
>This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work.
Or you can ignore their advice (others advice otherwise anyway), and still drink coffee as part of your fasting...
It's not like any of this is particularly scientific...
Or you can ignore their advice (others advice otherwise anyway), and still drink coffee as part of your fasting...
It's not like any of this is particularly scientific...
> drinking coffee or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period
major bummer. I almost entirely rely on caffeine while I'm fasting and it inhibits my appetite.
major bummer. I almost entirely rely on caffeine while I'm fasting and it inhibits my appetite.
[deleted]
I'm not sure how well this translates to humans.
I doubt they would do these experiments unless, one way or another, they also apply to us. They are not trying to make mice live longer :)
Actually, studies in mice don't always pan out to humans. There are flaws in mouse studies and sometimes the results in humans are wildly different. But mice are cheap, bread readily, and are a great starting point for laboratory tests.
Another major victory in mankind’s long quest to render mice immortal.
For anyone wondering about what's wrong with mouse testing, here is a funny but informative video on the subject[1]. One highlight:
>After a drug is confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies, it is tested in healthy human volunteers for first in man trials. In 2006, a phase I clinical study was conducted for a CD28 superagonist antibody TGN1412 in six human volunteers. After very first infusion of a dose 500 times smaller than that found safe in animal studies, all six human volunteers faced life-threatening conditions involving multiorgan failure for which they were moved to intensive care unit
Source[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/
>After a drug is confirmed as safe and efficacious in preclinical studies, it is tested in healthy human volunteers for first in man trials. In 2006, a phase I clinical study was conducted for a CD28 superagonist antibody TGN1412 in six human volunteers. After very first infusion of a dose 500 times smaller than that found safe in animal studies, all six human volunteers faced life-threatening conditions involving multiorgan failure for which they were moved to intensive care unit
Source[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvJHq2FJPDM
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/
Which shows that mice are an imperfect model, not that they don't have substantial value.
Right? It's like, "Woman dies from water overdosw during radio contest, therefore all water consumption is at very least unhealthy"
I believe it concludes that while 500x lower, 0.1mg would bind 85-98% of all possible CD28 receptors -meaning that "small" dose would have shown the maximum effect of the drug.
You're suggesting that mouse studies are not useful because they do not apply to humans are overly cynical. You're not giving enough credit to the similarities between mice and humans in physiology.
These time restricted feeding studies have been done in humans with effects in the same direction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311...
These time restricted feeding studies have been done in humans with effects in the same direction.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311...
For studies that are easy and safe to conduct in humans testing in mice seems largely pointless. Sure it might cost far less, but the data is also far less useful.
It’s the reverse that’s then useful. If you can find an animal model that replicates a known human result then you can investigate the mechanics more easily. Ex: Scurvy
It’s the reverse that’s then useful. If you can find an animal model that replicates a known human result then you can investigate the mechanics more easily. Ex: Scurvy
A witty quip, and I totally agree with the sentiment, but I'm wondering what other way we have to test hypotheses in vivo. Animal models are pretty key, but my knowledge of the field is incomplete.
"I guess doing strange things to rodents and measuring the outcomes is useful, but going so far as to turn it into health advice for humans is absurd." 16 days ago I said that.
This one seems a little more legitimate and a target for further research.
Animal models are a start, but you shouldn't use them to give definitive advice or conclusions. The headline is " Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects" and it is a deception. You are not a mouse, health advice for mice and health advice for humans surely overlaps but there are certainly very many differences.
You solve this by doing a human study. It is a lot harder.
This one seems a little more legitimate and a target for further research.
Animal models are a start, but you shouldn't use them to give definitive advice or conclusions. The headline is " Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects" and it is a deception. You are not a mouse, health advice for mice and health advice for humans surely overlaps but there are certainly very many differences.
You solve this by doing a human study. It is a lot harder.
Interestingly, though, this correlates with the common idea of not eating in the evening. Say you have breakfast at 8, you don't eat after 6pm, when you have your dinner. 10 hours of eating right there with snacks and all. I'm guessing that's why the study was tried, though what do I know.
And yet some of the population that live more than everybody else of the planet, e.g. the population of Icaria, eat whenever they like, and its very common to eat at late hours (after 10pm).
Then again they have a few other tricks up in their sleeves: they eat lots of quality plants grown in their island, they have minimal work related stress (or, for that matter, minimal work in general), leave close to calming nature (including sea), have good community ties, and are legendary for not giving a fuck...
Then again they have a few other tricks up in their sleeves: they eat lots of quality plants grown in their island, they have minimal work related stress (or, for that matter, minimal work in general), leave close to calming nature (including sea), have good community ties, and are legendary for not giving a fuck...
Agreed on that point. Mouse study results shouldn't be taken as human health advice. Need large-scale human studies for that.
If including even human testing in animals the furthest out theoretical way would be complete physical modeling. There would be so many issues involved there it isn't funny including building it from faulty assumptions. Even with sufficient processing power to completely model a human accurately from their DNA and wonder why the functions don't match up or show health problems - say because the communal bacteria weren't included or the physics model didn't include this one obscure molecular physics interaction we didn't even know existed before now.
How does 10 hours of eating and 14 hours of fasting translate to humans? The life span of a mouse is much smaller than humans amd their metabolic rate is higher, 4 times that of humans. So I wonder if that would mean a much longer eating window and fasting window for humans.
The sun and the moon spin at rates independent of the lifespan of the animal in question.
Yes, but the effect of food restriction have more pronounced effect in mice vs humans. So, we cannot expect the same efficacy in humans when fasting for the same periods.
""" Fasting of mice for 48 h (which causes ∼20% weight loss) or starvation of human volunteers for up to 4 d (which causes <2% weight loss) """
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587
""" Fasting of mice for 48 h (which causes ∼20% weight loss) or starvation of human volunteers for up to 4 d (which causes <2% weight loss) """
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587
And are bot irrelevant when we concern ourselves at changes to metabolic rate and other such processes in different animals.
If it would work on humans, I guess I am good; I cannot (i am never hungry that early) eat before 10am and I cannot sleep if I eat after 8 pm.
I've been on an intermittent fasting schedule (I usually do 16/8) for about a year and a half. I lost some weight during the first several months, but have leveled off to a reasonable weight (which is probably 10 pounds heavier than I'd like, but ~25 pounds lighter than when I started intermittent fasting).
Overall, I don't see any dramatic changes. Lots of people claim to see a significant difference, usually positive, in energy, strength, mood, sleep, etc. But, I generally think all of those metrics are "about the same" for me. Maybe I'm mildly more energetic because of carrying less weight around. But, I'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be noticeable...so, maybe just maintaining levels is progress?
Nonetheless, after several years of research into the topic, and related topics like caloric restriction, a couple of years ago I was convinced that the evidence was compelling enough to make it part of my life and started reducing my eating period each day until I was comfortable with 16 hours of fasting each day (sometimes I'll do 20 or 24, if I'm busy and feel OK). I recommend it to people who ask about it, but not because it's a magical cure for all that ails you. I just think the evidence is strong enough to be worth the minor trade-offs. It isn't a risky decision (with the caveat that it probably isn't appropriate for people with diabetes or hypoglycemia or similar)...none of the science indicates negative results, and nearly all of it indicates positive results to one degree or another. It's pretty much like any other diet decision, e.g. eat more vegetables because you'll probably live longer, not because it'll cure cancer or make you an Olympic athlete.
Overall, I don't see any dramatic changes. Lots of people claim to see a significant difference, usually positive, in energy, strength, mood, sleep, etc. But, I generally think all of those metrics are "about the same" for me. Maybe I'm mildly more energetic because of carrying less weight around. But, I'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be noticeable...so, maybe just maintaining levels is progress?
Nonetheless, after several years of research into the topic, and related topics like caloric restriction, a couple of years ago I was convinced that the evidence was compelling enough to make it part of my life and started reducing my eating period each day until I was comfortable with 16 hours of fasting each day (sometimes I'll do 20 or 24, if I'm busy and feel OK). I recommend it to people who ask about it, but not because it's a magical cure for all that ails you. I just think the evidence is strong enough to be worth the minor trade-offs. It isn't a risky decision (with the caveat that it probably isn't appropriate for people with diabetes or hypoglycemia or similar)...none of the science indicates negative results, and nearly all of it indicates positive results to one degree or another. It's pretty much like any other diet decision, e.g. eat more vegetables because you'll probably live longer, not because it'll cure cancer or make you an Olympic athlete.
But, I'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be noticeable...so, maybe just maintaining levels is progress?
The thing is we can't clone you multiple times and treat each replica of you differently, so we have no idea if you would be terribly sick or something by now if you had made other choices.
I'm always fascinated by anecdotes about fasting, etc. But it's actually incredibly hard to isolate one dietary factor and draw firm conclusions about cause and effect.
From what I gather, large scale longitudinal studies are our best data for diet in humans and they conclude things like "A handful of nuts a day is good for you."
The thing is we can't clone you multiple times and treat each replica of you differently, so we have no idea if you would be terribly sick or something by now if you had made other choices.
I'm always fascinated by anecdotes about fasting, etc. But it's actually incredibly hard to isolate one dietary factor and draw firm conclusions about cause and effect.
From what I gather, large scale longitudinal studies are our best data for diet in humans and they conclude things like "A handful of nuts a day is good for you."
It's actually not as hard as you think for experimental design to show strong causitive effects - I think randomized controlled trials (in animal and then human models) and meta-analysis are much more effective than epidemiological studies (which don't have effective controls, often don't appropriately correct for other factors, or are specific enough to target specific lines of inquiry and allow spurious conclusions to be drawn).
I've just started doing my own research digging through the literature in PubMed and there's a huge amount of research over the past decade especially that's really advanced our understanding of nutrition and metabolism (that sadly, has yet to get full traction in conventional wisdom/popular science).
Just a few examples from my collection on fasting (at this point I'm tracking hundreds of publications covering a whole range of different aspects of nutritional science, and this is only over the course of a couple weeks of research):
Nørrelund, Helene, K. Sreekumaran Nair, Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen, Jens Sandahl Christiansen, and Niels Møller. “The Protein-Retaining Effects of Growth Hormone During Fasting Involve Inhibition of Muscle-Protein Breakdown.” Diabetes 50, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 96–104. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.50.1.96.
Bhutani, Surabhi, Monica C. Klempel, Reed A. Berger, and Krista A. Varady. “Improvements in Coronary Heart Disease Risk Indicators by Alternate-Day Fasting Involve Adipose Tissue Modulations.” Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) 18, no. 11 (November 2010): 2152–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.54.
Harvie, Michelle N., Mary Pegington, Mark P. Mattson, Jan Frystyk, Bernice Dillon, Gareth Evans, Jack Cuzick, et al. “The Effects of Intermittent or Continuous Energy Restriction on Weight Loss and Metabolic Disease Risk Markers: A Randomised Trial in Young Overweight Women.” International Journal of Obesity (2005) 35, no. 5 (May 2011): 714–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.171.
Chaix, Amandine, Amir Zarrinpar, Phuong Miu, and Satchidananda Panda. “Time-Restricted Feeding Is a Preventative and Therapeutic Intervention against Diverse Nutritional Challenges.” Cell Metabolism 20, no. 6 (December 2, 2014): 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2014.11.001.
Rothschild, Jeff, Kristin K. Hoddy, Pera Jambazian, and Krista A. Varady. “Time-Restricted Feeding and Risk of Metabolic Disease: A Review of Human and Animal Studies.” Nutrition Reviews 72, no. 5 (May 1, 2014): 308–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12104.
Fontana, Luigi, and Linda Partridge. “Promoting Health and Longevity through Diet: From Model Organisms to Humans.” Cell 161, no. 1 (March 26, 2015): 106–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020.
I should add that the evidence was so strong for certain behaviors that I have changed my diet (VLCHF + 16+:8IF) and n=1 shows immediate improvements in weight, energy, mental clarity, and even skin health. Somewhat unexpected because I wasn't eating that badly according to common wisdom (and have maintained a moderate overweight, but stable weight for the past 3+yrs).
I've just started doing my own research digging through the literature in PubMed and there's a huge amount of research over the past decade especially that's really advanced our understanding of nutrition and metabolism (that sadly, has yet to get full traction in conventional wisdom/popular science).
Just a few examples from my collection on fasting (at this point I'm tracking hundreds of publications covering a whole range of different aspects of nutritional science, and this is only over the course of a couple weeks of research):
Nørrelund, Helene, K. Sreekumaran Nair, Jens Otto Lunde Jørgensen, Jens Sandahl Christiansen, and Niels Møller. “The Protein-Retaining Effects of Growth Hormone During Fasting Involve Inhibition of Muscle-Protein Breakdown.” Diabetes 50, no. 1 (January 1, 2001): 96–104. https://doi.org/10.2337/diabetes.50.1.96.
Bhutani, Surabhi, Monica C. Klempel, Reed A. Berger, and Krista A. Varady. “Improvements in Coronary Heart Disease Risk Indicators by Alternate-Day Fasting Involve Adipose Tissue Modulations.” Obesity (Silver Spring, Md.) 18, no. 11 (November 2010): 2152–59. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2010.54.
Harvie, Michelle N., Mary Pegington, Mark P. Mattson, Jan Frystyk, Bernice Dillon, Gareth Evans, Jack Cuzick, et al. “The Effects of Intermittent or Continuous Energy Restriction on Weight Loss and Metabolic Disease Risk Markers: A Randomised Trial in Young Overweight Women.” International Journal of Obesity (2005) 35, no. 5 (May 2011): 714–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2010.171.
Chaix, Amandine, Amir Zarrinpar, Phuong Miu, and Satchidananda Panda. “Time-Restricted Feeding Is a Preventative and Therapeutic Intervention against Diverse Nutritional Challenges.” Cell Metabolism 20, no. 6 (December 2, 2014): 991–1005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2014.11.001.
Rothschild, Jeff, Kristin K. Hoddy, Pera Jambazian, and Krista A. Varady. “Time-Restricted Feeding and Risk of Metabolic Disease: A Review of Human and Animal Studies.” Nutrition Reviews 72, no. 5 (May 1, 2014): 308–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/nure.12104.
Fontana, Luigi, and Linda Partridge. “Promoting Health and Longevity through Diet: From Model Organisms to Humans.” Cell 161, no. 1 (March 26, 2015): 106–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.020.
I should add that the evidence was so strong for certain behaviors that I have changed my diet (VLCHF + 16+:8IF) and n=1 shows immediate improvements in weight, energy, mental clarity, and even skin health. Somewhat unexpected because I wasn't eating that badly according to common wisdom (and have maintained a moderate overweight, but stable weight for the past 3+yrs).
I've been doing this for more than 17 years. Some thoughts:
1. Anything that makes a real change will have side effects. Some of those side effects can be negative. For people not familiar with the concept of a healing crisis, this can be a confusing fact. They can end up temporarily feeling worse and conclude this is a bad thing rather than a temporary stage of a process headed in the right direction.
2. Prescribed medicine typically has a long list of provisos and side effects. If you have a serious condition, prescribed medicine trades short term gains for long term costs. Doctors claim credit for the short term gains, then blame the long term costs on your condition or age rather than on long term drug use. You need to be leery of the possibility that you are doing the same sort of thing and crediting any positive changes to this dietary change and dismissing any negative changes as coincidental or due to something else.
3. I've seen people post questions to a discussion forum along the lines of "What are non drug alternatives for treating X issue? I would like to participate in a drug trial and they won't accept patients taking this drug. I need to get off it to qualify." So people doing stuff like that are confounding the results of the trial and will report changes in symptoms and attribute them to the drug being tried rather than attributing them to getting off some other drug and using non drug alternatives.
4. In practice, it's quite hard to isolate one specific dietary factor because dietary changes typically involve at least two factors. If you add some new food to your diet and eat the same calories, it displaces some other food. You can't say for certain if the changes are due to adding the new food or removing what was replaced. If you are experimenting with your own diet, it helps to start with supplements, make one and only one change at a time and track things somehow. This makes it possible to get some idea of what effect X is having.
5. It's a moving target. If you are calcium deficient and add calcium to your diet, this may be exactly what you need to start feeling better. Initially, more calcium may be better. If your mental model boils down to "more calcium is better," you may wind up resolving the deficiency and then enter a situation where you are actually consuming too much calcium. This can lead to problems that you may not attribute to consuming high levels of calcium because you already decided "more calcium is better." You may develop new issues and utterly fail to relate them to consuming high levels of calcium.
6. People have a really hard time mentally modeling the road not taken. It isn't completely impossible, but people tend to be bad at it. If you have a specific diagnosis and you know the usual course of the condition, you can compare your health to the typical outcome and make some inferences, but it isn't absolutely conclusive. This is why twin studies are valued: We can't make two copies of you, but if there are already two people with identical genes, that's the closest we get to that.
7. Life is chemistry and there can be myriad other factors being overlooked. I try hard to track not only diet, but how much I walk, environmental factors, etc. I've done this for years and I still find myself blindsided at times and struggling to pinpoint why X is happening currently.
Most people aren't going to be able to read hundreds of studies. If you can and that gives you a mental model that makes sense to you, awesome. That doesn't actually strike me as a convincing rebuttal. It strikes me as more evidence that it's actually rather challenging to figure out dietary stuff. You won't solve it by reading an article or two.
1. Anything that makes a real change will have side effects. Some of those side effects can be negative. For people not familiar with the concept of a healing crisis, this can be a confusing fact. They can end up temporarily feeling worse and conclude this is a bad thing rather than a temporary stage of a process headed in the right direction.
2. Prescribed medicine typically has a long list of provisos and side effects. If you have a serious condition, prescribed medicine trades short term gains for long term costs. Doctors claim credit for the short term gains, then blame the long term costs on your condition or age rather than on long term drug use. You need to be leery of the possibility that you are doing the same sort of thing and crediting any positive changes to this dietary change and dismissing any negative changes as coincidental or due to something else.
3. I've seen people post questions to a discussion forum along the lines of "What are non drug alternatives for treating X issue? I would like to participate in a drug trial and they won't accept patients taking this drug. I need to get off it to qualify." So people doing stuff like that are confounding the results of the trial and will report changes in symptoms and attribute them to the drug being tried rather than attributing them to getting off some other drug and using non drug alternatives.
4. In practice, it's quite hard to isolate one specific dietary factor because dietary changes typically involve at least two factors. If you add some new food to your diet and eat the same calories, it displaces some other food. You can't say for certain if the changes are due to adding the new food or removing what was replaced. If you are experimenting with your own diet, it helps to start with supplements, make one and only one change at a time and track things somehow. This makes it possible to get some idea of what effect X is having.
5. It's a moving target. If you are calcium deficient and add calcium to your diet, this may be exactly what you need to start feeling better. Initially, more calcium may be better. If your mental model boils down to "more calcium is better," you may wind up resolving the deficiency and then enter a situation where you are actually consuming too much calcium. This can lead to problems that you may not attribute to consuming high levels of calcium because you already decided "more calcium is better." You may develop new issues and utterly fail to relate them to consuming high levels of calcium.
6. People have a really hard time mentally modeling the road not taken. It isn't completely impossible, but people tend to be bad at it. If you have a specific diagnosis and you know the usual course of the condition, you can compare your health to the typical outcome and make some inferences, but it isn't absolutely conclusive. This is why twin studies are valued: We can't make two copies of you, but if there are already two people with identical genes, that's the closest we get to that.
7. Life is chemistry and there can be myriad other factors being overlooked. I try hard to track not only diet, but how much I walk, environmental factors, etc. I've done this for years and I still find myself blindsided at times and struggling to pinpoint why X is happening currently.
Most people aren't going to be able to read hundreds of studies. If you can and that gives you a mental model that makes sense to you, awesome. That doesn't actually strike me as a convincing rebuttal. It strikes me as more evidence that it's actually rather challenging to figure out dietary stuff. You won't solve it by reading an article or two.
I agree that it's really complex and not straightforward, especially since there are so many unknowns, confounding factors, and since so much is different from person to person (microbiota, genetic and especially epigenetic factors, the effects of hormesis, etc) but at the same time, just because it's complex doesn't mean that science (or individuals) should throw their hands up and say "well, there are no conclusions that can be made about human diet" as that seems to be patently untrue.
Also, just because people can't read hundreds of studies doesn't mean that they aren't out there, or that haven't been done (tens of thousands of studies, of all kinds, which taken together do point to much more specific things than "eat some nuts"), or that it's excusable when medical professionals make recommendations that are contradicted by the preponderence of scientific evidence.
Also, just because people can't read hundreds of studies doesn't mean that they aren't out there, or that haven't been done (tens of thousands of studies, of all kinds, which taken together do point to much more specific things than "eat some nuts"), or that it's excusable when medical professionals make recommendations that are contradicted by the preponderence of scientific evidence.
[deleted]
> Lots of people claim to see a significant difference, usually positive, in energy, strength, mood, sleep, etc.
I'm very skeptical of people's dieting claims in general.
First, lots of people, more or less unconsciously, omit their previous condition/background.
A typical example of this (that tragically gets always attention on HN) is an obese person making a post about how they made change X and lost Y kgs. When you're obese because of bad habits, any minimal healthy change will lead to weight loss.
Second, every [not seriously into sports] person I ever spoke to who applied a change in his/her nutrition, reported the same symptoms (more energy, better sleep, etc.etc.), independently of how absurd the change was.
Considering also how extremely variable between samples (=people) lifestyle is, the only reasonable way I accept is just to set emphasis on personal metrics and disregard other people's experience (I actually assume the vast majority of them to be inaccurate to the point of being false, for the above reasons).
I'm very skeptical of people's dieting claims in general.
First, lots of people, more or less unconsciously, omit their previous condition/background.
A typical example of this (that tragically gets always attention on HN) is an obese person making a post about how they made change X and lost Y kgs. When you're obese because of bad habits, any minimal healthy change will lead to weight loss.
Second, every [not seriously into sports] person I ever spoke to who applied a change in his/her nutrition, reported the same symptoms (more energy, better sleep, etc.etc.), independently of how absurd the change was.
Considering also how extremely variable between samples (=people) lifestyle is, the only reasonable way I accept is just to set emphasis on personal metrics and disregard other people's experience (I actually assume the vast majority of them to be inaccurate to the point of being false, for the above reasons).
At the end of the day I agree that it's pretty important to try things out for yourself and see how it goes - intermittent fasting is one of those things that's pretty easy/safe to do (and has shown some insane health, longevity, disease prevention/treatment results in the experimental research lately) - I will say that having never purposefully fasted before, the first couple days of 16:8 sucked but now is fine.
I also agree that while research can point you towards general guidelines, personal factors will be an issue. For example, from SNP analysis I carry rs1695(A;G) which reacts poorly to supplemental vitamin E, rs1801282(C;G) which may metabolize saturated fats differently, rs1535(A;G) which is associated with decreased ALA->EPA conversion efficiency, etc. (Which isn't even addressing the lifestyle/epigenetic aspects that are even more importantly, but largely unexplored, harder to test for.)
I also agree that while research can point you towards general guidelines, personal factors will be an issue. For example, from SNP analysis I carry rs1695(A;G) which reacts poorly to supplemental vitamin E, rs1801282(C;G) which may metabolize saturated fats differently, rs1535(A;G) which is associated with decreased ALA->EPA conversion efficiency, etc. (Which isn't even addressing the lifestyle/epigenetic aspects that are even more importantly, but largely unexplored, harder to test for.)
I too do 16:8 and am in my 50s. I'm losing moderate amount of weight, but probably because it has made me think about evening snacking. As with you, it's low risk, not a particular problem for me to carry out and cost neutral at worst.
The only problem is I tend to feel drowsy after lunch at work :)
The only problem is I tend to feel drowsy after lunch at work :)
Are you doing LCHF (low carb high fat) as well or just IF (intermittent fasting)?
No, I eat mostly how I've eaten for many years, just on an intermittent schedule. But, I've always eaten pretty healthy; I've been vegetarian for 24 years and relatively conscious of what I eat. I tend to a eat a lot, so if I don't eat good stuff, I get fat. I eat probably more fat than average, and I don't avoid fat, but my diet isn't "high fat", I don't think, and it's certainly not low carb, though I do avoid sugars and many kinds of processed foods, and I never eat fast food. I eat bread, rice, and/or tortillas, regularly, at least once a day, and I tend to eat a pretty sizeable serving. Fruit and vegetables probably make up the majority of the volume/mass I'm consuming most days, but a significant portion of calories come from carbs.
My health has always been, thankfully, very good. I'm not doing intermittent fasting to address any specific problem. Losing weight was a goal, because my pants (the same size I've been wearing since college) weren't fitting comfortably anymore...it worked for that, and all my pants fit again. But, I wasn't trying to reboot my eating in some dramatic way. I did try a low carb high fat/protein thing for a while before beginning intermittent fasting, as a way to lose weight, but it didn't work for me. The restrictions just took the fun out of meals. I love food, I love cooking it, love eating it with friends/family, etc. It's pretty hard to have normal meals on a very restrictive diet. I couldn't imagine living out the rest of my days without bread or rice, and any diet change has to be sustainable for decades or it's going to be part of a cycle of weight gain and loss. Intermittent fasting has been sustainable for me. I don't even think about it most days.
My health has always been, thankfully, very good. I'm not doing intermittent fasting to address any specific problem. Losing weight was a goal, because my pants (the same size I've been wearing since college) weren't fitting comfortably anymore...it worked for that, and all my pants fit again. But, I wasn't trying to reboot my eating in some dramatic way. I did try a low carb high fat/protein thing for a while before beginning intermittent fasting, as a way to lose weight, but it didn't work for me. The restrictions just took the fun out of meals. I love food, I love cooking it, love eating it with friends/family, etc. It's pretty hard to have normal meals on a very restrictive diet. I couldn't imagine living out the rest of my days without bread or rice, and any diet change has to be sustainable for decades or it's going to be part of a cycle of weight gain and loss. Intermittent fasting has been sustainable for me. I don't even think about it most days.
It seems like you’re on a diet very similar to what Valter Longo recommends, which is based on his longevity studies
https://valterlongo.com/daily-longevity-diet/
https://valterlongo.com/daily-longevity-diet/
Yeah, I'm not familiar with Valter Longo, but that diet does pretty well match up with what I'm trying to do. I might be a little high on the protein, when I'm making seitan regularly...it's roughly equivalent to meat in protein content, and as with most things I enjoy I tend to eat a lot of it when I cook it. I'll have to do some more reading about what the science says about vegetable proteins like seitan and tofu.
Did the mice which had access to food 24/7 eat more overall than the mice with restricted food access?
If so, then the study seems useless because the results can entirely be explained as excessive eating leads to health problems.
I don't see anything in the article saying how they controlled for quantity of food consumed.
If so, then the study seems useless because the results can entirely be explained as excessive eating leads to health problems.
I don't see anything in the article saying how they controlled for quantity of food consumed.
Just don’t eat too much
I have tried eating with long gaps in between but somehow that leads me to lose a lot of muscle mass as well. Recently I was trying it again with an overall caloric deficit but sufficient amount of protein intake but I lost both fat and muscle in 1:1 ratio even with regularly working out.
I don't know if that was just because of caloric deficit or long gaps in between. I have seen the 5-6 evenly spaced out meals in a day work the best for me if I want to maintain/put on muscle mass.
I don't know if that was just because of caloric deficit or long gaps in between. I have seen the 5-6 evenly spaced out meals in a day work the best for me if I want to maintain/put on muscle mass.
It used to be that there would be days where our ancestors would not be able to bring home any meat so fasting probably was built in as part of our metabolism process.
It was only in the past 100 years that we've seen mass produced sugary food and drinks.
Like the diet difference is painfully obvious when you go to Japan's 7-11. Healthy stuff all around compared to deep fried fast food.
Some days I will only eat 1 meal, and I honestly feel great. The biggest difference being I have way more energy and just feel "light".
These days I've converted to mostly Korean food consisting of rice and veggie side dishes incl kimchi of course. I've lost 4kg within 3 weeks just by changing diet.
Of course can't resist the burger and fries once in a while....but eating primarily Korean food because I'm Korean I realize is the wise choice....our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably "right" for my metabolism.
there's a study that showed East-Asian men living in North America have high rate of prostate related issues which has traditionally never been prevalent in East Asia...and also the rise of American fast food chains have collectively made the world a lot less healthier with the increase of diabetes and obesity.