Fasting Affects the Brain(brainfacts.org)
brainfacts.org
Fasting Affects the Brain
http://www.brainfacts.org/thinking-sensing-and-behaving/diet-and-lifestyle/2018/how-does-fasting-affect-the-brain-071318
134 comments
“Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" was an advertising slogan for Kellogg's.
The saddest part of that is that I heard that phrase not through overt advertising but from school.
I remember a handful of occasions in elementary school where they had someone come in and teach kids about nutrition, and the one lady told us that breakfast is the most important meal because we need to start off our day with "lots of energy". These lessons included the food pyramid, which is bad science to start with.
As kids, we were being fed corporate propaganda through government sanctioned education, and sadly I don't think the students or any of the adults at the time realized it.
I remember a handful of occasions in elementary school where they had someone come in and teach kids about nutrition, and the one lady told us that breakfast is the most important meal because we need to start off our day with "lots of energy". These lessons included the food pyramid, which is bad science to start with.
As kids, we were being fed corporate propaganda through government sanctioned education, and sadly I don't think the students or any of the adults at the time realized it.
The Simpsons have parodied corporate-sponsored education for years: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zR_4h5A5z_A&t=1s
>told us that breakfast is the most important meal because we need to start off our day with "lots of energy"
No wonder elementary kids can't sit still then and are diagnosed with hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)!
No wonder elementary kids can't sit still then and are diagnosed with hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)!
My favorite trick in this vein, now I believe defunct, is "doctors recommend starting your morning with a bowl of cereal".
The trick to that, of course, is the ambiguity of recommend'. You can ask a dozen doctors if a bowl of cereal with fresh fruit is healthier than nothing at all, or a bowl of plain oatmeal; if they say yes then they "recommend cereal". The same trick still works great for things like toothpaste, where a brand might be dentist-recommended not relative to the competition but to baking soda or plain water.
The trick to that, of course, is the ambiguity of recommend'. You can ask a dozen doctors if a bowl of cereal with fresh fruit is healthier than nothing at all, or a bowl of plain oatmeal; if they say yes then they "recommend cereal". The same trick still works great for things like toothpaste, where a brand might be dentist-recommended not relative to the competition but to baking soda or plain water.
Some interesting story surrounding that!
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfa...
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfa...
So then it is the most important meal of the day, for Kellogg’s shareholders.
That sounds plausible (and interesting) but do you have a source for it?
No, that's false. It was actually General Foods for Grape Nuts: https://priceonomics.com/how-breakfast-became-a-thing/
I can't speak to the origins, but Kelloggs does use "the best way to start a day" as a slogan, not just to describe their own brands but about cereal in general: https://www.kelloggcompany.com/content/dam/kellogg-company/f...
https://youtu.be/9Ffceu672c4?t=173
Dr. Kellogg and his brother had a business creating various supposed health products and Corn Flakes was part of that.
In 1917 a magazine called Good Health, edited by Dr. Kellogg, wrote "in many ways breakfast is the most important meal of the day". That seems to be the origin and cereal makers ran with it.
Dr. Kellogg and his brother had a business creating various supposed health products and Corn Flakes was part of that.
In 1917 a magazine called Good Health, edited by Dr. Kellogg, wrote "in many ways breakfast is the most important meal of the day". That seems to be the origin and cereal makers ran with it.
> Dr. Kellogg and his brother
More importantly, Dr. Kellogg and his brother started two rival companies. The brother believed that sugar should be added to the formula Dr. Kellogg has been using to treat his patients.
Dr. Kellogg refused, believing sugar to be awful for the body.
Needless to say, we all know which of the two rival companies became the corporate giant, and which of the two rival companies disappeared into history. There was a big court case between the two rival brothers over the "Kellogg" name. After that, the two brothers never talked with each other for the rest of their lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Breakfast_...
Since the two were brothers, it is somewhat ambiguous to who really invented modern cereal. But Dr. Kellogg was the health-fanatic who would have been studying "healthy breakfasts" and other such stuff.
EDIT: It should be noted that 1890s / early 1900s medical science was downright awful. So definitely take any health claims from that era with suspicion. Be sure to look up "sanatoriums" and how awful their medical practices / beliefs were. There's probably a nugget of truth somewhere in Dr. Kellogg's research, but you've gotta look at his claims through the lens of history to really understand him.
More importantly, Dr. Kellogg and his brother started two rival companies. The brother believed that sugar should be added to the formula Dr. Kellogg has been using to treat his patients.
Dr. Kellogg refused, believing sugar to be awful for the body.
Needless to say, we all know which of the two rival companies became the corporate giant, and which of the two rival companies disappeared into history. There was a big court case between the two rival brothers over the "Kellogg" name. After that, the two brothers never talked with each other for the rest of their lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harvey_Kellogg#Breakfast_...
Since the two were brothers, it is somewhat ambiguous to who really invented modern cereal. But Dr. Kellogg was the health-fanatic who would have been studying "healthy breakfasts" and other such stuff.
EDIT: It should be noted that 1890s / early 1900s medical science was downright awful. So definitely take any health claims from that era with suspicion. Be sure to look up "sanatoriums" and how awful their medical practices / beliefs were. There's probably a nugget of truth somewhere in Dr. Kellogg's research, but you've gotta look at his claims through the lens of history to really understand him.
I can't find a clear source for Kellogg's coining that phrase, but they definitely use "The best way to start the day" as a slogan. For instance, this Kellogg promotional flyer: https://www.kelloggcompany.com/content/dam/kellogg-company/f...
Page three is what you want, and it's worth looking at for a masterclass in garbage science.
The big header gives us "A cereal breakfast. Why it’s the best way to start the day." The subhead asserts "Experts worldwide agree: Breakfast is the most important meal of the day", which is somewhere between disputable and a lie. Below that is a list of wild claims like "People who regularly eat cereal tend to be less stressed, less anxious and are less likely to be depressed."
Wow! Let's see the evidence! Well, about half the studies listed appear to be directly funded by Kelloggs. Many that weren't are about breakfast in general, so "eat cereal" is a misrepresentation of "compared to skipping breakfast and eating unhealthy snacks". And they're full of hilariously poor controls - there's some fumbling with "difficulty sleeping" and a "negative job score", but ultimately the study can't discern "the benefits of eating breakfast" from "the harms of working the night shift" or "leaving at 5AM in a rush".
It's actually fascinating just how many bold, impressive claims Kelloggs manages to make without lying while relying on laughably thin evidence.
Page three is what you want, and it's worth looking at for a masterclass in garbage science.
The big header gives us "A cereal breakfast. Why it’s the best way to start the day." The subhead asserts "Experts worldwide agree: Breakfast is the most important meal of the day", which is somewhere between disputable and a lie. Below that is a list of wild claims like "People who regularly eat cereal tend to be less stressed, less anxious and are less likely to be depressed."
Wow! Let's see the evidence! Well, about half the studies listed appear to be directly funded by Kelloggs. Many that weren't are about breakfast in general, so "eat cereal" is a misrepresentation of "compared to skipping breakfast and eating unhealthy snacks". And they're full of hilariously poor controls - there's some fumbling with "difficulty sleeping" and a "negative job score", but ultimately the study can't discern "the benefits of eating breakfast" from "the harms of working the night shift" or "leaving at 5AM in a rush".
It's actually fascinating just how many bold, impressive claims Kelloggs manages to make without lying while relying on laughably thin evidence.
I'm in awe at how well that advertising slogan permeated culture as pseudoscience. I hope someone at Kellogg's got a nice bonus for that.
Can we please dismantle Christmas next?
The current insanity also grew out of commercials promoting the idea that you needed to spend big for this holiday. Historically, Christmas gifts were basically for children and poor people and the rest of it could be handled as a social get together based on a big meal and/or attending some kind of spiritual/religious thing. It wasn't some obligation to bleed yourself to participate in some out-of-control spending ritual in order to not be on the outs socially with everyone you know.
The current insanity also grew out of commercials promoting the idea that you needed to spend big for this holiday. Historically, Christmas gifts were basically for children and poor people and the rest of it could be handled as a social get together based on a big meal and/or attending some kind of spiritual/religious thing. It wasn't some obligation to bleed yourself to participate in some out-of-control spending ritual in order to not be on the outs socially with everyone you know.
> Pro-breakfast proponents say that eating breakfast results in eating less throughout the day, but I can't say this has been true at all for myself.
Another sample size of 1, but I had the same experience. Eating or not eating breakfast has no apparent impact on my hunger at lunchtime. (Not eating dinner the night before, however, does, so I'm hardly immune to hunger. I wish)
> The only negative effect I'm having is that my sex drive has plummeted to near-zero
This symptom I do not share, however.
Another sample size of 1, but I had the same experience. Eating or not eating breakfast has no apparent impact on my hunger at lunchtime. (Not eating dinner the night before, however, does, so I'm hardly immune to hunger. I wish)
> The only negative effect I'm having is that my sex drive has plummeted to near-zero
This symptom I do not share, however.
> This symptom I do not share, however.
Yeah, it's funny because I eat plenty of eggs and fat, which have constituents used by the body to produce hormones like testosterone. If anything, I'd expect the opposite effect but I haven't read any literature on the effects it can have on libido, so I'm not sure what's typical.
Yeah, it's funny because I eat plenty of eggs and fat, which have constituents used by the body to produce hormones like testosterone. If anything, I'd expect the opposite effect but I haven't read any literature on the effects it can have on libido, so I'm not sure what's typical.
Are you a skinny person? I've read people under a certain body% fat can have lower sex drive as the body is signaling to them that they do not have enough nutrients to spare/procreate.
Could be made up but sounds like a plausible theory to me.
Could be made up but sounds like a plausible theory to me.
People describe me as "skinny" or "slender", but I've got a fair amount of muscle and still some fat left over from when I was overweight.(I dropped over 60 lbs from 2013 to 2015 and have stayed at around 160 lbs) But I don't have calipers and haven't measured my body fat percentage, so I guess that'd be a good thing to figure out.
> I'm hardly immune to hunger. I wish
Why would you wish such a thing? Being hungry and then eating is one of the nicest things in life.
Why would you wish such a thing? Being hungry and then eating is one of the nicest things in life.
> Why would you wish such a thing? Being hungry and then eating is one of the nicest things in life.
"hunger is the best sauce" - yes, I agree. Several years ago, I even made a similar comment to yours when I discovered a coworker disliked eating. But that was 50 pounds ago and I was overweight then.
Now I find that a lot of pleasures of the world are less pleasurable because I'm fat. Eating less (and appropriately, but still less) is the key component to not being fat, but that's hard because I'm hungry. I wish to continue to eat, and to enjoy eating, but I'll happily give up that extra burst of enjoyment while eating for the benefits I'd get in the rest of my life - both from the better health and the reduced unhappiness of wanting to eat.
Thus my comment.
"hunger is the best sauce" - yes, I agree. Several years ago, I even made a similar comment to yours when I discovered a coworker disliked eating. But that was 50 pounds ago and I was overweight then.
Now I find that a lot of pleasures of the world are less pleasurable because I'm fat. Eating less (and appropriately, but still less) is the key component to not being fat, but that's hard because I'm hungry. I wish to continue to eat, and to enjoy eating, but I'll happily give up that extra burst of enjoyment while eating for the benefits I'd get in the rest of my life - both from the better health and the reduced unhappiness of wanting to eat.
Thus my comment.
Thanks for the response! Still, I wonder what we as society get so wrong. People used to eat whatever they wanted (and was available) whenever they wanted and not be fat. I recently watched the original woodstock 69 footage. There are zero fat people there.
For all I know it may have nothing to do with eating.
There's a big difference between "eating when you want" and having an active lifestyle that restricts eating naturally, versus binging TV on the couch with junk food 10 feed away.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102055/
Conclusion
Over the last 50 years in the U.S. we estimate that daily occupation-related energy expenditure has decreased by more than 100 calories, and this reduction in energy expenditure accounts for a significant portion of the increase in mean U.S. body weights for women and men
That's 3000 calories per month, or almost 10 lbs of fat per year.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102055/
Conclusion
Over the last 50 years in the U.S. we estimate that daily occupation-related energy expenditure has decreased by more than 100 calories, and this reduction in energy expenditure accounts for a significant portion of the increase in mean U.S. body weights for women and men
That's 3000 calories per month, or almost 10 lbs of fat per year.
Here's my schedule. I do enjoy it a lot, and I feel like it's benefitting my metabolism, mood, and digestion:
1. I fast every week from Sunday after (a big) lunch (1 pm) to Monday lunch (noon).
2. Mon - Sat (i.e., 6x/week) I work out in the morning from 6-7 am so I do feel like I "need" a substantial breakfast to bulk a bit.
* Mon (fasting day): 30' of light cardio and a few minutes of cardio * Tue: Weights (upper body) * Wed: Weights (lower body) * Thu: Cardio + Yoga * Fri: Weights (upper body) * Sa: Weights (lower body) * Sun: Rest
3. I eat lunch at noon.
4. I don't eat dinner, but maybe a handful of nuts and dates.
Works well for me. :)
1. I fast every week from Sunday after (a big) lunch (1 pm) to Monday lunch (noon).
2. Mon - Sat (i.e., 6x/week) I work out in the morning from 6-7 am so I do feel like I "need" a substantial breakfast to bulk a bit.
* Mon (fasting day): 30' of light cardio and a few minutes of cardio * Tue: Weights (upper body) * Wed: Weights (lower body) * Thu: Cardio + Yoga * Fri: Weights (upper body) * Sa: Weights (lower body) * Sun: Rest
3. I eat lunch at noon.
4. I don't eat dinner, but maybe a handful of nuts and dates.
Works well for me. :)
FWIW, saw this study pass the NYT radar a few weeks back.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/well/eat/skipping-breakfa...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/22/well/eat/skipping-breakfa...
Very interesting. This is just a correlational study, and is limited to 40-65 year old americans.
But it stills strikes for a need of more investigation.
But it stills strikes for a need of more investigation.
I agree. Purely anecdotal from me too, but I feel so much more productive when I fast 16/8. I stopped feeling ravenously hungry after the first couple of days, and frequently fast for longer than the 16 hours in a single cycle.
Do you do any exercise in the morning?
I naturally fell into this routine when I started working. A coffee around 9am then lunch around noon is plenty for me. I also never snack naturally (if it's there I can't stop myself, so I just don't take anything to my desk).
The only problem is lately I work from home and I can schedule some gym time into my day. A hard workout before that first meal is very hit or miss. Some days it's fine - some days I'll be light-headed and feel physically sick. It passes quickly though if I monitor my effort.
I naturally fell into this routine when I started working. A coffee around 9am then lunch around noon is plenty for me. I also never snack naturally (if it's there I can't stop myself, so I just don't take anything to my desk).
The only problem is lately I work from home and I can schedule some gym time into my day. A hard workout before that first meal is very hit or miss. Some days it's fine - some days I'll be light-headed and feel physically sick. It passes quickly though if I monitor my effort.
If it works for you, sure. Interesting, I often eat a big but healthy breakfast and then eat nothing for the rest of the day, and that works really well for me.
Everyone's a bit different and have their own preferences. I just think that the idea that everyone must eat breakfast(or any meal), and eat it promptly, is bogus.
A better general rule, I think, is that people should only eat when they're actually hungry. That could be in the morning or any time. I have an empty stomach in the morning(waking up around 6pm), but I don't usually feel hunger until between 10:30a and 12pm.
Even better, people should avoid the usual breakfast foods that are high in sugar and low in beneficial fats. I would only discourage people from eating breakfast if they're going to regularly eat foods that spike insulin and not exercise enough to compensate, in which case I believe they're setting themselves up for failure in the long term. A healthy breakfast, on the other hand, isn't harmful by any stretch of the imagination.
A better general rule, I think, is that people should only eat when they're actually hungry. That could be in the morning or any time. I have an empty stomach in the morning(waking up around 6pm), but I don't usually feel hunger until between 10:30a and 12pm.
Even better, people should avoid the usual breakfast foods that are high in sugar and low in beneficial fats. I would only discourage people from eating breakfast if they're going to regularly eat foods that spike insulin and not exercise enough to compensate, in which case I believe they're setting themselves up for failure in the long term. A healthy breakfast, on the other hand, isn't harmful by any stretch of the imagination.
You’re right, but the problem is that most people have forgotten what real hunger feels like. They confuse “hormone dependence” from years of eating carb heavy meals with actual hunger.
The easiest way to retrain yourself is to stick to simple rules about when to eat (and what to eat).
The easiest way to retrain yourself is to stick to simple rules about when to eat (and what to eat).
From what I've read in some research, this actually might be slightly more optimal, in terms of timing metabolism and circadian rhythms, etc. However, socially, skipping breakfast is easier, because the alternative (in order to get 16+ hours of fasting in) is to skip dinner, which might be weird for family or friends. The tradeoff is probably minor.
> The only negative effect I'm having is that my sex drive has plummeted to near-zero.
Are you eating enough healthy fats? (whole eggs, avocados etc). Also maybe look into ZMA (zinc, magnesium aspartate, and vitamin B6) supplementation or at least get your blood work done to see if you are low on anything. A lot of people have lower testosterone levels and sex drive due to low zinc.
Are you eating enough healthy fats? (whole eggs, avocados etc). Also maybe look into ZMA (zinc, magnesium aspartate, and vitamin B6) supplementation or at least get your blood work done to see if you are low on anything. A lot of people have lower testosterone levels and sex drive due to low zinc.
It rather depends upon what one has for Breakfast.
I'll have a quarter pound steak (sirloin or ribeye), with veggies at 7am, and then not eat again until 6-7pm, when I'll have something light (say salad).
No lack of energy during the day, no cravings. However this does tend to mean that one is largely running on burning fat during the day.
I'll have a quarter pound steak (sirloin or ribeye), with veggies at 7am, and then not eat again until 6-7pm, when I'll have something light (say salad).
No lack of energy during the day, no cravings. However this does tend to mean that one is largely running on burning fat during the day.
> my sex drive has plummeted to near-zero.
you write that you started this regimen "recently". possibly your body is still adapting to it. initially the effect is weakening to some extent. after a while - provided a healthy diet and body - this should change and make you feel stronger and more vital.
you write that you started this regimen "recently". possibly your body is still adapting to it. initially the effect is weakening to some extent. after a while - provided a healthy diet and body - this should change and make you feel stronger and more vital.
You just need to get a decent intermittent fasting period, whether you achieve that by skipping breakfast or other means doesn't matter much I guess.
Insulin sensitivity is highest in the morning though and decreases throughout the day.
Insulin sensitivity is highest in the morning though and decreases throughout the day.
> The only negative effect I'm having is that my sex drive has plummeted to near-zero.
Wondering why this happens. Any idea?
Wondering why this happens. Any idea?
My hypothesis is that, when the body is in a survival or self-repair mode, libido is placed on the backburner because it's just not that important to individual survival. If the body isn't seeking food, reproduction takes a higher priority. Someone else here was talking about how it might be related to a low body fat percentage, which would play into this hypothesis, and I am a fairly skinny guy(not scrawny or lanky, though).
"I fast for greater physical and mental efficiency" Plato
> And that’s what we’re finding in lab animals — the brain and body actually perform better during fasting. In the case of the brain, cognitive function, learning, memory, and alertness are all increased by fasting.
I find this to be true whenever I fast for 12+ hours. It feels like I'm on a drug.
It's strange to realize how not eating can be good for you.
Fun trivia: the longest a human went without food is 382 days. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast
I find this to be true whenever I fast for 12+ hours. It feels like I'm on a drug.
It's strange to realize how not eating can be good for you.
Fun trivia: the longest a human went without food is 382 days. [0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast
> I find this to be true whenever I fast for 12+ hours. It feels like I'm on a drug.
Totally this - when I was suffering with anorexia, in the early days where I was skipping meals all the time and burning fat, I felt amazing. Literally, "skipping down the streets because I had so much energy" amazing.
Just remember to eat afterwards or you'll f* yourself up. Please.
Totally this - when I was suffering with anorexia, in the early days where I was skipping meals all the time and burning fat, I felt amazing. Literally, "skipping down the streets because I had so much energy" amazing.
Just remember to eat afterwards or you'll f* yourself up. Please.
I don't think "remembering to eat" is really in line with anorexia, if that's the parallel you're trying to draw.
I know you're joking, but it's really not a concern at all. A healthy mind will seek food after a fasting period.
I'd add a caution of my own, which is not to gorge yourself during this period. Your body should be given time to adjust back to a normal diet. Though this isn't much of a concern for brief fasts under the intermittent fasting regimen.
I know you're joking, but it's really not a concern at all. A healthy mind will seek food after a fasting period.
I'd add a caution of my own, which is not to gorge yourself during this period. Your body should be given time to adjust back to a normal diet. Though this isn't much of a concern for brief fasts under the intermittent fasting regimen.
I was only being slightly flippant - one of the factors (aside from body image and weight loss) that tipped me over the edge was continuing to strive for the buzz from fasting long after it became healthy to do so.
From my lived experience I can tell you that if you're vulnerable from the other mental health signals of anorexia, the mental and physical benefits of fasting can be a trigger. So as simplistic as it is to say, break the fast when you intend to break it, and never just stretch it out or do it more regularly simply "because I feel good now".
Maintaining a healthy relationship with food is crucial in the early days. Otherwise you'll find yourself stood in the ready meal aisle of the supermarket for 30 minutes paralysed by a choice between a 300 and 400 calorie ready meal and being mentally unable to rationalise eating either.
TL;DR - set an defined end to your fast and stick the heck to it.
From my lived experience I can tell you that if you're vulnerable from the other mental health signals of anorexia, the mental and physical benefits of fasting can be a trigger. So as simplistic as it is to say, break the fast when you intend to break it, and never just stretch it out or do it more regularly simply "because I feel good now".
Maintaining a healthy relationship with food is crucial in the early days. Otherwise you'll find yourself stood in the ready meal aisle of the supermarket for 30 minutes paralysed by a choice between a 300 and 400 calorie ready meal and being mentally unable to rationalise eating either.
TL;DR - set an defined end to your fast and stick the heck to it.
Oh yeah that makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Similar to how the positive affects of meditation can be quite addicting, I imagine!
We humans sure do like getting addicted to stuff.
We humans sure do like getting addicted to stuff.
I've done 7 day water fasts (I try to do them quarterly, or bi-annually) and I find by day three I'm full of energy to the point where I have a hard time sleeping. I'm also way more productive during those 7 days. The only thing that tends to suffer is my weight lifting. I drop in strength a tiny bit, but not nearly as much as you'd expect. I also drop about 5-10 lbs in mass, with about half of that coming from water. Almost no lean muscle loss as far as I can tell. In fact, I always look shredded after the fast. I just ease back in with keto for a week or two, then back to low carb diet.
Being hungry increases alertness. This is discussed in "The Willpower Instinct", in the context of keeping you from sleeping well. It's natural - the body knows it needs to find food, so it makes you hyper until you do, negatively affecting the ability to get essential sleep.
So, there is nothing weird about what you are experiencing - it's like wanting to get air when you are under water. Doesn't make it a good way to do things.
It's amazing how much of a trend fasting is lately.
So, there is nothing weird about what you are experiencing - it's like wanting to get air when you are under water. Doesn't make it a good way to do things.
It's amazing how much of a trend fasting is lately.
>Being hungry increases alertness. This is discussed in "The Willpower Instinct",
Being hungry decreases your will power, as said in the book. That also means refusing offered food affects your will power
Being hungry decreases your will power, as said in the book. That also means refusing offered food affects your will power
Yeah I'm aware of the biological reasons for why I feel the way I do when I fast. There's a lot of science backing why fasting is good for you, and it has to do with mTOR and the science behind apoptosis, for which Yoshinori Ohsumi won the nobel prize in 2016. Fasting isn't a 'trend' like say 'cleansers' are a trend. One is backed by science, and the other is just a catch phrase to sell products to people.
The question is of balance. For example, if fasting keeps you from sleeping, I consider it an issue. If fasting causes muscle loss, I consider it an issue. I read the cancer research - how much is damage is being done by not getting the nutrition you need though? It's still a trend - there is no balance defined.
If it feels so good why don't you do it more often? Is it a mental block or are there solid reasons that it's too bad in excess? Do you just need some time to gain more fat stores?
Yeah, it feels like getting a "second wind" when exercising.
Getting there can be brutal though as my mind and body feel weak and it's hard for me to do any highly cognitive tasks. But after my body accepts it I feel "in the zone" and I don't want to eat and disrupt the feeling.
I've never gone longer than 18hrs though.
Getting there can be brutal though as my mind and body feel weak and it's hard for me to do any highly cognitive tasks. But after my body accepts it I feel "in the zone" and I don't want to eat and disrupt the feeling.
I've never gone longer than 18hrs though.
I'm not a doctor or anything but my own interpretation of this affect is that you are depleting your glucose stores, and when you reach ketosis, you once again have energy to burn.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketosis
I was very skeptical of fasting for quite a while, but over winter I was on a contract with a guy that did intermittent fasting and his particular schedule had him eating after 3pm. The guy was like a machine. Just this sense of urgency in his work that was incredible to watch. He accomplished so much more than the other guys in the same position. I'm sure part of that was his own character and his work ethic, but when I talked to him he attributed a lot of it to his fasting. Turns out he's probably correct.
I wonder how these findings can be reconciled with the research on the importance of breakfast for school children. There are obvious differences between the two issues, but nevertheless when I think about how to apply these insights, they seem to conflict, and I'm not sure how to resolve those conflicts.
Edit: The biggest difference is age, but conventional wisdom says adults, too, should eat a good breakfast before an important exam. Should you skip breakfast before your LSAT?
Edit: The biggest difference is age, but conventional wisdom says adults, too, should eat a good breakfast before an important exam. Should you skip breakfast before your LSAT?
>I wonder how these findings can be reconciled with the research on the importance of breakfast for school children.
A lot of that research is bogus anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfa...
https://priceonomics.com/how-breakfast-became-a-thing/
A lot of that research is bogus anyway.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfa...
https://priceonomics.com/how-breakfast-became-a-thing/
If you want to ace your LSAT, you're better off getting a good nights sleep and writing the exam fasted. Sleep is way more important than anything else when it comes to memory recall. Also, you should study with a particular type of perfume, and then write the exam with that same perfume. That'll also help memory recall. Breakfast is probably the worst meal of the day, in terms of metabolic health, which is why I haven't regularly had breakfast in over a decade.
I agree, except It would recommend people fast regularly before test day so the body is adapted.
I teach the LSAT and I'm astonished how some people try to do it while sleep deprived. In their regular studying too.
(Day before test nerves can impede that night's sleep, which is really unfortunate)
I teach the LSAT and I'm astonished how some people try to do it while sleep deprived. In their regular studying too.
(Day before test nerves can impede that night's sleep, which is really unfortunate)
The simple answer is that children's physical and hormonal makeup is different to that of adults. I've always seen it recommended that children should not fast.
There is really no good evidence that breakfast is "the most important meal of the day", despite what folk wisdom and cereal advertising say. For many people it can easily be skipped.
It's far healthier to skip dinner though. Breakfast is the easiest to skip (for social/practical reasons), but generally your body will digest things better when ingested earlier in the day.
An easy compromise is to get most of your calories around lunch time (or earlier).
An easy compromise is to get most of your calories around lunch time (or earlier).
>"how these findings can be reconciled with the research on the importance of breakfast"
Research, sometimes, is not what it should be.
"It was a combination of fear of indigestion, religious moralization and advertising that helped push the idea of breakfast as the most important meal of the day – but it was a campaign to sell more bacon that really solidified the idea. [..] Edward Bernays [..] exploited all the moralization and health fears around breakfast to help the company push its bacon."
From: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfa...
Research, sometimes, is not what it should be.
"It was a combination of fear of indigestion, religious moralization and advertising that helped push the idea of breakfast as the most important meal of the day – but it was a campaign to sell more bacon that really solidified the idea. [..] Edward Bernays [..] exploited all the moralization and health fears around breakfast to help the company push its bacon."
From: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/nov/28/breakfa...
If I had a big test coming up, I wouldn't experiment with fasting on the day. However, if you've been fasting while studying and you find it to be a help, then fasting the day of the test is probably a good idea.
I know it's anecdotal but I've only managed a few points increase by fasting.
I'm not sure this research applies to kids. Also, you can totally have breakfast and still be fasting, i.e. by following a 16:8 diet (fasting during 16 hours, eating during a 8 hour window).
Oh, come on now, we call that intermittent fasting (or time restricted eating) for a reason! This like saying that you can pronounce the alphabet aloud while being silent. No, but you can pronounce the alphabet while being intermittently silent :) You're not fasting while you're eating breakfast.
I think the breakfast only shows improvement for school children if they are malnourished.
Thanks, I was having trouble on my phone accessing the site.
Interesting that this is "news" when the medical understanding of fasting and ketosis is pretty far along.
Highly recommend the book "The Complete Guide to Fasting" by Dr. Jason Fung.
When you think about it, while the "naturalness" argument is always suspect, it's very odd that humans eat as often as we do in the US, and unsurprising that negative health consequences follow (and positive health consequences follow fasting).
Highly recommend the book "The Complete Guide to Fasting" by Dr. Jason Fung.
When you think about it, while the "naturalness" argument is always suspect, it's very odd that humans eat as often as we do in the US, and unsurprising that negative health consequences follow (and positive health consequences follow fasting).
>Highly recommend the book "The Complete Guide to Fasting" by Dr. Jason Fung.
Such books and doctors, promoting this or that diet, heavily cherry-pick from research papers, they don't reflect the scientific consensus on the matter.
Such books and doctors, promoting this or that diet, heavily cherry-pick from research papers, they don't reflect the scientific consensus on the matter.
I'll be interested to see where the scientific consensus is in 10 years. I think the evidence is very much on the side of the hormonal theory of obesity and fasting, especially given the monumental failure of the "calories in calories out" model.
> especially given the monumental failure of the "calories in calories out" model.
Can you explain this in more detail? CICO seems like it might oversimplify things but it always seemed like a really sane basis for helping shape your diet. If you need to lose weight, you should plan meals to create a calorie deficit. But yes, I would not be surprised to learn that fasting on day X and consuming double your normal calories on day X+1 are not equivalent.
The description of CICO as a "monumental failure" sounds like there's substantial evidence to the contrary -- can you share more info?
Can you explain this in more detail? CICO seems like it might oversimplify things but it always seemed like a really sane basis for helping shape your diet. If you need to lose weight, you should plan meals to create a calorie deficit. But yes, I would not be surprised to learn that fasting on day X and consuming double your normal calories on day X+1 are not equivalent.
The description of CICO as a "monumental failure" sounds like there's substantial evidence to the contrary -- can you share more info?
This article makes a case against a calorie-centric approach to dieting. It boils down to something like Michael Pollan's "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." A guy (who has since become an expert in public health) wasn't able to control his weight using standard calorie-counting techniques and had a lot of success changing his diet to "high quality" (as opposed to "highly processed") food. The article isn't super clear on specifics of what that means but it sounds like there might be something to it. Also worth noting that he began exercising in between this switch.
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
Eh. the articles argument appears to be that even though nutritionists, physicists, and dieters all agree that eating fewer calories than you expend causes weight loss, it isn't easy for a variety of factors. No shit. The thing is, it is the simplest expression of what needs to happen, and there is no getting around it.
I was once well north of the weight of the subject in the article and have since shed about half of it and kept it off for years. I've been through all the games your brain and body play to try and get you to eat more, and all the fad diets out there sound to me exactly like those games. It's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals, but it isn't true and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
I was once well north of the weight of the subject in the article and have since shed about half of it and kept it off for years. I've been through all the games your brain and body play to try and get you to eat more, and all the fad diets out there sound to me exactly like those games. It's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals, but it isn't true and anyone telling you otherwise is trying to sell you something.
There's also good evidence that people don't maintain that weight loss over time despite maintaining their lower calorie consumption. Because base metabolic rate is something that the body can adjust, just like if you had less money to pay for heat, you could just put less heat into the house.
The role of hormones (especially insulin) in regulating fat storage and whether stored fat is available to the body as energy is better understood now, and much has been documented about how high insulin combined with low calories over time results in a lowering of the metabolic rate (resulting in stalling weight loss and then weight gain) rather than sustainable weight loss.
Also "it's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals" is a silly and moralistic thing to say. But it typifies the american "scientific understanding" of weight loss. Fat is immoral, suffering is virtue, therefore in order to lose your immoral fat you must suffer.
Just look at all the massive success of those in the IF and keto community in living joyful lives, not deprived, losing fat etc. etc. And then look at all the people for whom calorie counting has completely failed. The information is out there (shruggie)
The role of hormones (especially insulin) in regulating fat storage and whether stored fat is available to the body as energy is better understood now, and much has been documented about how high insulin combined with low calories over time results in a lowering of the metabolic rate (resulting in stalling weight loss and then weight gain) rather than sustainable weight loss.
Also "it's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals" is a silly and moralistic thing to say. But it typifies the american "scientific understanding" of weight loss. Fat is immoral, suffering is virtue, therefore in order to lose your immoral fat you must suffer.
Just look at all the massive success of those in the IF and keto community in living joyful lives, not deprived, losing fat etc. etc. And then look at all the people for whom calorie counting has completely failed. The information is out there (shruggie)
>There's also good evidence that people don't maintain that weight loss over time despite maintaining their lower calorie consumption. Because base metabolic rate is something that the body can adjust, just like if you had less money to pay for heat, you could just put less heat into the house.
Well, it's not just some fixed calorie amount they need to take for an eternity. It's the amount that corresponds to their current weight and muscle mass. As those change over time (and their base metabolic rate changes), they should change their calorie target too.
>Also "it's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals" is a silly and moralistic thing to say. But it typifies the american "scientific understanding" of weight loss. Fat is immoral, suffering is virtue, therefore in order to lose your immoral fat you must suffer.
Actually the 'silver bullet' is more typical of the american "understanding" of weight loss.
There's no silver bullet. No pain, no (weight) loss.
Well, it's not just some fixed calorie amount they need to take for an eternity. It's the amount that corresponds to their current weight and muscle mass. As those change over time (and their base metabolic rate changes), they should change their calorie target too.
>Also "it's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals" is a silly and moralistic thing to say. But it typifies the american "scientific understanding" of weight loss. Fat is immoral, suffering is virtue, therefore in order to lose your immoral fat you must suffer.
Actually the 'silver bullet' is more typical of the american "understanding" of weight loss.
There's no silver bullet. No pain, no (weight) loss.
LOL ok, so "eat a diet and time your eating in a way that promotes healthy hormone balance and use of fat as energy" is a silver bullet but "use our magic equations based on state of the art info from 1958 to calculate your daily food needs and all your food and exercise as numbers and if your equation balances you'll lose weight" isn't. Sure.
>"eat a diet and time your eating in a way that promotes healthy hormone balance and use of fat as energy" is a silver bullet
If it promises you to lose weight without limiting your calorie intake (e.g. have your weight loss cake and eat it too), then yes.
>but "use our magic equations based on state of the art info from 1958 to calculate your daily food needs and all your food and exercise as numbers and if your equation balances you'll lose weight" isn't
The laws of thermodynamics don't change because we don't have good formulas to calculate the exact amount of calories a person has a basic metabolic rate just based on their weight and height...
Calories still matter, and you should still limit your intake -- whether you do it approximately by "state of the art info from 1958" or with modern medical tests and expensive equipment. Or you know, just with eating less that you normally do, even without counting calories (if you ate 1 steak per day, and you change it to 1/2 a steak, you're eating half as much calories, even if you don't know how many exactly). Skipping BS deserts will cut even more...
No great science required, millions of people have lost way by just eating less...
If it promises you to lose weight without limiting your calorie intake (e.g. have your weight loss cake and eat it too), then yes.
>but "use our magic equations based on state of the art info from 1958 to calculate your daily food needs and all your food and exercise as numbers and if your equation balances you'll lose weight" isn't
The laws of thermodynamics don't change because we don't have good formulas to calculate the exact amount of calories a person has a basic metabolic rate just based on their weight and height...
Calories still matter, and you should still limit your intake -- whether you do it approximately by "state of the art info from 1958" or with modern medical tests and expensive equipment. Or you know, just with eating less that you normally do, even without counting calories (if you ate 1 steak per day, and you change it to 1/2 a steak, you're eating half as much calories, even if you don't know how many exactly). Skipping BS deserts will cut even more...
No great science required, millions of people have lost way by just eating less...
Some people don't want to lose "weight", but "fat" (often specifically "subcutaneous fat", often from some specific body area).
If you're already very fit and lean, but have some stubborn fat around the "love handle" area or elsewhere, "eat less" doesn't cut it any more. Sure you can reduce that area, but not completely, and while the rest of you turns into an ugly skeleton.
If you're already very fit and lean, but have some stubborn fat around the "love handle" area or elsewhere, "eat less" doesn't cut it any more. Sure you can reduce that area, but not completely, and while the rest of you turns into an ugly skeleton.
>Some people don't want to lose "weight", but "fat" (often specifically "subcutaneous fat", often from some specific body area).
The latter people are then delluded, surgery aside, you can't lose targeted fat from a specific body area. You lose fat across your body AND from that area, or you don't lose fat.
At best, you can trait that area and build some muscle next to the fat.
The latter people are then delluded, surgery aside, you can't lose targeted fat from a specific body area. You lose fat across your body AND from that area, or you don't lose fat.
At best, you can trait that area and build some muscle next to the fat.
You don't need any magic equations. It's really much more simple than that: if you're not losing weight, eat fewer calories until you are.
In fact, just weight yourself each day, and unless you weight less than the day before, eat very little. Repeat, and you'll shed weight (the so-called "graph/grid paper diet").
https://kottke.org/09/07/the-steve-ward-diet
https://kottke.org/09/07/the-steve-ward-diet
> Just look at all the massive success of those in the IF and keto community in living joyful lives
I'm not convinced most of those evangelists have actually lost and kept off significant amounts of weight, and nearly everything they say reads like a sales pitch so I'm not inclined to trust it.
> Also "it's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals" is a silly and moralistic thing to say. But it typifies the american "scientific understanding" of weight loss.
Saying you can achieve your goals with less effort if you BUY NOW is even more american. Even if no one is asking you to actually pay money for a program, they're still shilling an idea.
I'm not convinced most of those evangelists have actually lost and kept off significant amounts of weight, and nearly everything they say reads like a sales pitch so I'm not inclined to trust it.
> Also "it's nice to believe you don't have to suffer to reach your goals" is a silly and moralistic thing to say. But it typifies the american "scientific understanding" of weight loss.
Saying you can achieve your goals with less effort if you BUY NOW is even more american. Even if no one is asking you to actually pay money for a program, they're still shilling an idea.
Somehow, among weight loss subreddits, /r/keto (and more specialized cousins) and /r/fasting stand out with a lot more success by average people who aren’t trying to sell anything.
Keto and fasting are fighting an up-hill battle: the only thing you can sell is guidance, and that is freely available. The keto bar/additive industry is minuscule.
Keto and fasting are fighting an up-hill battle: the only thing you can sell is guidance, and that is freely available. The keto bar/additive industry is minuscule.
Yeah, it's one of the regular "personal anecdote + some few random expert quotes" sensationalist article that comes several times per year pointing to this or that direction.
People self-report they did "all the right things" and when checked found out they undercounted, cheated, etc all the time.
In fact, the article says "He kept to low-fat, low-calorie food for three years. It simply didn’t work. At one point he lost about 10kg but his weight rebounded, though he still restricted his calories."
Keeping a diet like low-carb or low-fat etc (and other fads), is difficult, so many rebounce.
But the true lifestyle change of a balanced diet is difficult anyway too, and most can't do that either.
(And you do need a balanced diet, whether you follow the calories/in out or not).
This doesn't invalidate the calories in/out, just their ability to apply it (and it's not necessarily their fault, they can have all kinds of impediments causing them to overeat, eg. situational depression).
On the other hand, if you know 100% your calories, you can diet even with the most surprising foods:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profes...
In fact, the article says "He kept to low-fat, low-calorie food for three years. It simply didn’t work. At one point he lost about 10kg but his weight rebounded, though he still restricted his calories."
Keeping a diet like low-carb or low-fat etc (and other fads), is difficult, so many rebounce.
But the true lifestyle change of a balanced diet is difficult anyway too, and most can't do that either.
(And you do need a balanced diet, whether you follow the calories/in out or not).
This doesn't invalidate the calories in/out, just their ability to apply it (and it's not necessarily their fault, they can have all kinds of impediments causing them to overeat, eg. situational depression).
On the other hand, if you know 100% your calories, you can diet even with the most surprising foods:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.profes...
Right. It seems like the issue is that "calorie in/out" means different things to different people. For some people it refers to the simple fact that humans are subject to the laws of thermodynamics. For people trying to lose weight, it refers to diets which are structured around counting your calories.
It's hard to doubt that lowering your calories consumed will cause weight loss. However, it's not obvious that the physical mechanism behind weight loss in itself provides enough structure for people to use as a practical tool for weight loss.
It's like if someone is trying to pitch a faster baseball and their coach introduces them to the "conservation of momentum" strategy for throwing faster. The idea being that if you want to move the ball faster, you have to move your arm faster too. Well, duh, but it's not obvious whether this will help anybody. It might be the case that practical strategies for pitching faster never make reference to the principle of conservation of momentum. That doesn't mean that conservation of momentum doesn't ultimately explain why every different strategy works, but it doesn't make "conservation of momentum" a strategy all by itself.
"Eat high quality foods" may very well be a better strategy for losing weight than counting your calories. It might be easier and more healthy than calorie counting for most people. That doesn't mean that "calorie in/out" doesn't on some level explain why this strategy works (although, there might be good reason to doubt this in some cases, new research suggests that the interaction between gut bacteria and food are an important factor in how people respond to different diets). But the fact that "calorie in/out" explains weight loss doesn't mean that it needs to be the central concept in everybody's dieting decisions.
It's hard to doubt that lowering your calories consumed will cause weight loss. However, it's not obvious that the physical mechanism behind weight loss in itself provides enough structure for people to use as a practical tool for weight loss.
It's like if someone is trying to pitch a faster baseball and their coach introduces them to the "conservation of momentum" strategy for throwing faster. The idea being that if you want to move the ball faster, you have to move your arm faster too. Well, duh, but it's not obvious whether this will help anybody. It might be the case that practical strategies for pitching faster never make reference to the principle of conservation of momentum. That doesn't mean that conservation of momentum doesn't ultimately explain why every different strategy works, but it doesn't make "conservation of momentum" a strategy all by itself.
"Eat high quality foods" may very well be a better strategy for losing weight than counting your calories. It might be easier and more healthy than calorie counting for most people. That doesn't mean that "calorie in/out" doesn't on some level explain why this strategy works (although, there might be good reason to doubt this in some cases, new research suggests that the interaction between gut bacteria and food are an important factor in how people respond to different diets). But the fact that "calorie in/out" explains weight loss doesn't mean that it needs to be the central concept in everybody's dieting decisions.
CICO is only true in a useless sense. Do you know how much energy you are putting in? Paper (cellulose) is carbohydrates, but not used by the body; gasoline is more energy dense than fat (at 12kcal/gr) and still unusable by the body....
So, it obviously isn’t just “carbs time 4k/cal”. Ok, let’s assume we can tell which carbs are useful and which aren’t. It takes energy to extract that energy. How much? IIRC there is over 50% variation between people (and even same person at different time) of the amount of energy actually extracted - yet almost everyone uses 100year old Atwater factors as if they were a fundamental physical constant.
Glucose storage is supply based. But gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to glycogen) is demand based, so you must be at a deficit for the 4kcal/gr protein measure to be used.
How about body temp? A person at 35.6C uses a few tens or hundred calories less per day than a standard 36.7C person. Yes, these exist. Did you take this into the CO equation?
Did you consider the liter of ice cold water you drank? Takes 37kcal to warm it up to body temp.
CICO as usually practiced has 20-30 margin of error, which makes it much less useful than people assume. Unsurprisingly, it does work for e.g. 70% of the people, who assume the rest are not properly counting.
So, it obviously isn’t just “carbs time 4k/cal”. Ok, let’s assume we can tell which carbs are useful and which aren’t. It takes energy to extract that energy. How much? IIRC there is over 50% variation between people (and even same person at different time) of the amount of energy actually extracted - yet almost everyone uses 100year old Atwater factors as if they were a fundamental physical constant.
Glucose storage is supply based. But gluconeogenesis (conversion of protein to glycogen) is demand based, so you must be at a deficit for the 4kcal/gr protein measure to be used.
How about body temp? A person at 35.6C uses a few tens or hundred calories less per day than a standard 36.7C person. Yes, these exist. Did you take this into the CO equation?
Did you consider the liter of ice cold water you drank? Takes 37kcal to warm it up to body temp.
CICO as usually practiced has 20-30 margin of error, which makes it much less useful than people assume. Unsurprisingly, it does work for e.g. 70% of the people, who assume the rest are not properly counting.
I used to be firmly in the CICO camp, with the whole 1st law of thermodynamics as a sane argument. But I've recently changed my views on this. If you think about it, the human body doesn't have a 'calorie sensor'. All it has are nutrient sensors, and cells metabolize nutrients depending on the current metabolic environment, which includes proteins and hormones for example.
This is a good place to start: https://idmprogram.com/how-do-we-gain-weight-calories-part-1...
> especially given the monumental failure of the "calories in calories out" model.
I don't think that's the case at all - do we have examples where people, strictly observed didn't lose weight when eating under their caloric requirements?
There absolutely is a pile of mitigating factors in how someone eats or lives, but that's like saying "exercise has been proven to not help people run marathons" just because most people who try to run a marathon don't succeed.
I don't think that's the case at all - do we have examples where people, strictly observed didn't lose weight when eating under their caloric requirements?
There absolutely is a pile of mitigating factors in how someone eats or lives, but that's like saying "exercise has been proven to not help people run marathons" just because most people who try to run a marathon don't succeed.
There is a serious problem with counting both in and out calories, to the point that makes this useless in general - e.g. in serious studies they lock you in a room with controlled air and temperature in order to measure carbon out (or fit a respiration mask to do that). Anything less involved has error in the tens of percents.
Furthermore - on phone now, can’t find ref - but mass general IIRC had a study where people where being significantly over fed (with a feeding tube) yet lost weight; google Robert Israel and Michel Cabanac for more info.
CICO is an often useful approximate description - but it is not (other than tautologically useless) a law.
Furthermore - on phone now, can’t find ref - but mass general IIRC had a study where people where being significantly over fed (with a feeding tube) yet lost weight; google Robert Israel and Michel Cabanac for more info.
CICO is an often useful approximate description - but it is not (other than tautologically useless) a law.
You're not describing a failure of the calories in/out, you're describing a failure to measure the caloric requirements correctly. How do you find that? Eat less, measure your weight. Titrate as required. Worked for me, works for many.
Why do you call it ci/co then? Call it “weight in / weight out” - it better describes your system, in which calories (and their elusive measurement) is a red herring.
Because in order to determine how much I eat I'm going to calculate it with calories.
“Eat less” is fine, but reference to calories is mostly useless given that your ability to measure them going in or going out has an overall 50% error.
The fallacy is that those numbers are anything but a very vague approximation.
The fallacy is that those numbers are anything but a very vague approximation.
It's only considered a "monumental failure" by people peddling this or that alternative diet.
On the regular medical world, there are just new inputs about things that also matter, as science and our understanding progresses (as opposed "the calories thing is wrong, let's throw it out altogether").
On the regular medical world, there are just new inputs about things that also matter, as science and our understanding progresses (as opposed "the calories thing is wrong, let's throw it out altogether").
The calories thing is wrong in the context of telling people to count them. In practice it is very hard to know exactly how many calories are coming in or going out in real life situations. Even labeled boxed foods are often way off from their official calorie numbers, and it’s not like most people are running their poop through a crucible, or doing all their exercise in a tank of water to measure their heat output.
As far as dieting goes what would a scientific consensus look like? FWICT, it looks like our metabolism differs enough from person to person, to allow for various diets to work.
Intermittent fasting changed my life. I've quit coffee, eat way healthier and generally feel better & have a uplifted outlook on life. I'd definitely recommend the Zero app. I do the 13 hour fast but sometimes will go up to 15-16-17 hours whenever possible. Also don't forget to take a cheat day every now and then!
Fasting is a periodic religious observance for me. The main effect I have noticed is increased irritability, but then I've never done cognitive tests while fasting.
That might be from the caffeine withdrawals. I'm trying it wihtout caffeine at all this year, and it's been great.
Or, a carb-heavy diet. When I fast while doing keto, it's almost not noticeable, and I'll often just forget to eat and suddenly realize I haven't eaten in a day or more. If I've cheated on carbs and try to jump back into fasting, I'm ready to commit murder after 10 hours.
Thanks for the info. I tend to have a carb-heavy diet. I wonder if doing a low-carb diet for a couple days before fasting would help. Or do you think it would take longer than that to acclimate?
Espresso has no calories
Grandparent is talking about religious fasting, not a diet. It's likely not about calories.
Indeed. It's abstaining from all food and drink for a goal of 24 hours. I generally manage about 12, but it's something I'm working on improving.
Do note that almost everyone else only abstains from food, but does drink a lot of water (often with electrolytes). It makes a huge difference, irritability and otherwise.
That's good to know. Fasting for me is partly an exercise in choosing to do something that's uncomfortable for my body to achieve a higher purpose. It is explicitly not supposed to be damaging or unhealthy in any way (people who are sick etc are discouraged from fasting). I will look into staying hydrated while abstaining from food.
I'm trying it with caffeine pills; also great!
Some people might just be built differently.
Take me, for example. Ever since I was a teen I have fasted until midday most days (for lack of time) and it significantly affects my cognition. I start feeling irritable at about 10am and unable to concentrate because of feelings of hunger, stomach grumbling, and slight shakiness.
I am a teacher now, and I can tell how my cognition is doing every morning depending on my performance in the classroom. I find that I often mumble and screw up my grammar while lecturing if I haven't had breakfast. I am not calm, but I would not say I feel "energized." I am clearly anxious. My anxiety gradually increases until I have lunch. Then I feel calm and with the ability to think.
It might be genetic. My grandmother was known to be unable to function without breakfast. My mother was the same way.
Take me, for example. Ever since I was a teen I have fasted until midday most days (for lack of time) and it significantly affects my cognition. I start feeling irritable at about 10am and unable to concentrate because of feelings of hunger, stomach grumbling, and slight shakiness.
I am a teacher now, and I can tell how my cognition is doing every morning depending on my performance in the classroom. I find that I often mumble and screw up my grammar while lecturing if I haven't had breakfast. I am not calm, but I would not say I feel "energized." I am clearly anxious. My anxiety gradually increases until I have lunch. Then I feel calm and with the ability to think.
It might be genetic. My grandmother was known to be unable to function without breakfast. My mother was the same way.
I stopped doing fasts because even though I did notice a boost to my productivity, most of it was due to not having to stop in the middle of the day to eat or waste time thinking about eating. In terms of cognitive benefits, going for a run for 30 minutes in the morning still seemed far superior.
>> going for a run for 30 minutes in the morning still seemed far superior
Why not both?
Why not both?
Fasting combined with exercise sounds like a recipe for overeating after the fact.
Once the body gets habituated to using fat stores for energy rather than glucose or glycogen, there's no particular need or urge to eat after exercise.
What if you are low on fat stores?
Define low.
Unless you're a competitive body builder on show day, you've probably got enough fat to cover a few weeks worth of energy needs.
Unless you're a competitive body builder on show day, you've probably got enough fat to cover a few weeks worth of energy needs.
12% is not that low, but hardly weeks worth of energy needs.
12% fat on a 150 pound person is good for about 63000 kcal. 31 days at 2000 kcal per day.
Seems like the link is dead. Anyone have a summary (or cache)? I've been thinking of fasting, just to test it out - but it's hard to research as a topic because there is so much pseudo science and so many "miracle diet" blogs out there.
Cached text version: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YXae0gV...
Hug of death, I believe. I've been fasting this year and it has worked in terms of weight loss, down nearly 20lbs since December. As far as brain effects...I'm not sure if it's related to the diet or just because it's summer and I'd rather be outside, but I've become somewhat apathetic to work.
What doesn't affect the brain?
I found that skipping hunger (not real nutritional needs, the need to satisfy a moment through eating) made me a little hyperactive and in a way if I divert this slightly manic like rush, I can do things in deep, not in flow but almost.
Anecdotal evidence but this is my third day of fasting and my productivity is significantly higher. Oddly enough, the hunger I feel is similar to what I'd feel if I skipped breakfast going into lunch.
yes fasting can have benefits, but the way most Muslims do it (in summer specifically) actually hurts. your body needs a minimum amount of water and salt to work properly throughout the day.
As someone who does Ramadan right now, I partly disagree. You are right that not drinking has adverse effects on cognitive performance, at least in the initial days.
But remember that this fast is done for mental reasons, and not physique. Even though it can be difficult, I really look forward to it throughout the year. It does bring euphoria and increased focus and other positive "mental" effects.
To say it has no benefits is obviously wrong. It can be a great experience!
But remember that this fast is done for mental reasons, and not physique. Even though it can be difficult, I really look forward to it throughout the year. It does bring euphoria and increased focus and other positive "mental" effects.
To say it has no benefits is obviously wrong. It can be a great experience!
Common! We're talking about what? 12 or 15 hours? The body is a lot more resilient than we give it credit for.
Think about it, you don't drink while sleeping, so that's 7 or 8 hours right there. If you ever been not drinking for 2 or 3 hours before going to bed, than you're close to 12 hours.
In fact, google "dry fasting", lots of people are experimenting with it. "dry fasting" for 24 hours feels very different than "water fasting" for the same amount of time. There is no published scientific studies about it, I suspect because of liabilities fear when people go to extremes, but I am convinced that short term (~ 24 hours) it is different and beneficial. Every theory you will find online is bro science, but, you can't dismiss hundreds (thousands) of people experimenting and and reporting positive results.
Think about it, you don't drink while sleeping, so that's 7 or 8 hours right there. If you ever been not drinking for 2 or 3 hours before going to bed, than you're close to 12 hours.
In fact, google "dry fasting", lots of people are experimenting with it. "dry fasting" for 24 hours feels very different than "water fasting" for the same amount of time. There is no published scientific studies about it, I suspect because of liabilities fear when people go to extremes, but I am convinced that short term (~ 24 hours) it is different and beneficial. Every theory you will find online is bro science, but, you can't dismiss hundreds (thousands) of people experimenting and and reporting positive results.
If you're fasting, you learn to keep yourself well hydrated. I put a little lite salt in whatever I'm drinking in the morning. If you're not well hydrated and your electrolytes are low, you get fatigued during the day (or at least I do).
I fast for 23 hours every day, eating one larger than normal meal in the evenings.
I fast for 23 hours every day, eating one larger than normal meal in the evenings.
Wouldn't that be mitigated by having enough water before he fast begins? I usually gorge water before and after my fasting for the day.
I would think that depends. In Indonesia a lot of people do just that and seem ok (though lots of hacking and coughing), and in Jordan I saw construction workers toiling in the sun all day who wouldn't drink water while fasting, which seemed dangerous to me. The Bedouins I met in Wadi Rum were more lax, saying while traveling or working, they are allowed to eat and drink even during Ramadan, as a matter of a practicality...being in the desert and all.
The results are profound. I'm a lot more focused and emotionally stable. The only distraction is the frequent "gotta find food" feeling, but that usually subsides within minutes. It's usually not even true hunger, but an impulse instilled in me by a culture focused on eating and "never starving".
Pro-breakfast proponents say that eating breakfast results in eating less throughout the day, but I can't say this has been true at all for myself. When I ate breakfast, I also would snack more throughout the day. Without breakfast, I look forward to meals more and those two meals, which are almost always ketogenic, are more satisfying.
The only negative effect I'm having is that my sex drive has plummeted to near-zero. I suppose that's a good thing for focusing on work, but I wouldn't want to keep that up forever.