The Alternate Day Diet.
Replies
-
Here's a link that talks about regeneration etc etc during fasting
http://www.allaboutfasting.com/effects-of-fasting-ketosis.html
0 -
regeneration of what? No reputable sources listed in that link, and it's clearly a blog dedicated to the topic which means cherry picking the evidence they do decide to use.0
-
Oh ok. I don't have the energy right now to go trawling the internet. I just know IF works, from my own experience :-)0
-
LilyOfTheValley008 wrote: »Still don't understand why people would subject themselves to intermittent fasting instead of a consistent calorie deficit.
I don't have any experience with the IF method myself, but it definitely seems like a diet which could easily spiral someone out of control and lead to binges. But if you'd like to give it a go, it's your decision end of the day
So what you're saying is that you're happy to weigh in on a subject about which you admit you know little and have no practical experience with. This must be an IF thread.0 -
Assuming my TDEE is 2500.
Varady: 1640 or 1685 calories/day on average (way too low, and way too large of a deficit unless I were obese)
5:2 : 1930 or 1960, which would be doable for me. But not great when I am within 10-15lbs from my goal.
Of the two I would recommend 5:2 over Varady simply based on caloric intake.
Having actually read Varady, it isn't 500/600 and TDEE. It's 25% of TDEE (with 500/600 as approximations for anyone who doesn't want to figure out their TDDE) and ad libitum on alternate days. One of the advantages of ADF is that you don't have to log your food on non-fasting days.
Most of the studies have involved obese individuals, with larger deficits and faster losses. She did a small study that involved normal weight participants ( http://www.nutritionj.com/content/12/1/146 ) and it found they lost ~ 6kg in 12 weeks. That's fast - and fast is considered a feature (see the OP of this thread. Speaking of - OP, Varaday says it'll take 8-12 weeks for you to lose your 10lb, so you started a little late!)
As I recall, most of the research was comparing ADF to CR (daily caloric restriction) and found that it was roughly comparable. There may be slight advantage to ADF in maintaining lean body mass. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 )
Oh, and the cancer stuff. Clearly, I'm just looking for excuses not to go to bed - but here's a Varady cancer study - I'm pretty sure it said "Yeah, ADF probably helps cancer risk as much as CR" http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/1/7.long
IMO, the chief reasons why "people would subject themselves to intermittent fasting instead of a consistent calorie deficit" are:
It's easy - either you're eating freely/normally that day, or you're eating one small meal that you had to count calories for. There's no logging.
There's minimal sense of deprivation - you get the "new diet" high every other day, and if you go to bed hungry - it's only for one day.
Weight loss is fast. Everyone likes a quick fix, and 4-5% of your body weight over 8 weeks is pretty darn fast.
0 -
Assuming my TDEE is 2500.
Varady: 1640 or 1685 calories/day on average (way too low, and way too large of a deficit unless I were obese)
5:2 : 1930 or 1960, which would be doable for me. But not great when I am within 10-15lbs from my goal.
Of the two I would recommend 5:2 over Varady simply based on caloric intake.
Having actually read Varady, it isn't 500/600 and TDEE. It's 25% of TDEE (with 500/600 as approximations for anyone who doesn't want to figure out their TDDE) and ad libitum on alternate days. One of the advantages of ADF is that you don't have to log your food on non-fasting days.
Most of the studies have involved obese individuals, with larger deficits and faster losses. She did a small study that involved normal weight participants ( http://www.nutritionj.com/content/12/1/146 ) and it found they lost ~ 6kg in 12 weeks. That's fast - and fast is considered a feature (see the OP of this thread. Speaking of - OP, Varaday says it'll take 8-12 weeks for you to lose your 10lb, so you started a little late!)
As I recall, most of the research was comparing ADF to CR (daily caloric restriction) and found that it was roughly comparable. There may be slight advantage to ADF in maintaining lean body mass. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21410865 )
Oh, and the cancer stuff. Clearly, I'm just looking for excuses not to go to bed - but here's a Varady cancer study - I'm pretty sure it said "Yeah, ADF probably helps cancer risk as much as CR" http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/86/1/7.long
IMO, the chief reasons why "people would subject themselves to intermittent fasting instead of a consistent calorie deficit" are:
It's easy - either you're eating freely/normally that day, or you're eating one small meal that you had to count calories for. There's no logging.
There's minimal sense of deprivation - you get the "new diet" high every other day, and if you go to bed hungry - it's only for one day.
Weight loss is fast. Everyone likes a quick fix, and 4-5% of your body weight over 8 weeks is pretty darn fast.
It's actually about 13lbs in 12 weeks, which is not very fast for obese people. In fact, many people here lost up to 2lbs a week. Not that that's ideal, but when obese it's pretty normal to lose even more initially than one's caloric deficit would expect due to water losses. I suspect that if participants maintained knowledge/awareness/logging of their intake on non restricted days they would see faster results. I can see this method being quite problematic when near one's goal weight.
As far as the reasons you say that people would choose this over regular calorie restriction, I don't personally agree. Mostly:
1) easy is definitely subjective. One day of not eating much doesn't appeal to me, and it's easier for me to eat until full while in a caloric deficit every single day. It's also easier for me to track my intake, particularly because I plan on bulking next year and I need to maintain as much lean body mass as possible - hence tracking protein. I find logging easier than just arbitrarily guessing that I've been in a deficit for the week.
2) I don't feel deprived, but I also don't eat 1200 calories. I eat (as of today) 2150 calories. I also do IIFYM, so I eat anything I want as long as it's within my calories and macros. I had a donut today, was real nice.
3) Again, 13lbs in 12 weeks isn't all that fast, particularly for obese people. For 4% of body weight lost, that's about 7.4lbs in 2 months. Which is about the same rate I lost eating at a standard deficit of 20% below my TDEE every day when I first started. 4% now would be about 3lbs/month or 6lbs in 2 months, which is the same rate, if a bit more, than what I am currently aiming for. So really, no different than using standard calorie restriction.
So the reasons I guess seem to be entirely subjective and basically you won't lose weight faster/better than a noraml deficit unless it helps you maintain a deficit long term. As long as no one claims that it has magical healing powers or something, then it really doesn't matter if one chooses IF or standard deficit or even exercise as a deficit to lose weight.
Not related to this particular pool of studies though, I do wish that more studies would be conducted on non-obese people. Usually if I find an article pertaining to calorie deficit it's on rats or obese people. And usually it's something like "they ate 1300 calories" so... of COURSE they will lose weight. It would definitely be awesome if people could be given more reasonable deficits, matching participants as well as possible beforehand so that everyone would have similar estimated TDEEs and thus similar deficits at 20%.0 -
IMO, the chief reasons why "people would subject themselves to intermittent fasting instead of a consistent calorie deficit" are:
It's easy - either you're eating freely/normally that day, or you're eating one small meal that you had to count calories for. There's no logging.
There's minimal sense of deprivation - you get the "new diet" high every other day, and if you go to bed hungry - it's only for one day.
Weight loss is fast. Everyone likes a quick fix, and 4-5% of your body weight over 8 weeks is pretty darn fast.
yes spot on!!
I lose consistently most every week. 17, nearly 18lbs in under 8 weeks, with NO exercise! I'll be fasting forever. Once I get down to my goal weight I'll fast once or twice a week to maintain
0 -
I think if you average out the calories over the week to be what you would eat normally, it should be fine. It sounds like the opposite direction of having a cheat day diet where you eat sorta strictly for 6 days but let go for 1 day a week. I did it and it was pretty good diet so I don't see any objection to other way approach to it.
400 calories does sound a bit too low though, try it and see how you feel. The important thing is to average out your calories so you don't go too low on calories as for your weekly average.0 -
I have a couple of friends who have been doing this diet for hmmm maybe a year. They are about 3 pounds lighter than when they started!!! Obviously it doesn't work for everyone! I don't really get it but you could give it a bash for a month and see. Ultimately though you'd probaly be better just making a complete lifestyle change but sometimes we take a while to get to that way of thinking. Good luck :-)
If they only lost 3 lbs in a year, it's probably incorrect logging or too high intake on TDEE days. Don't blame the diet for poor execution. I lost 2 lbs a week doing this.
There's no magic pill. It's an alternative way of achieving caloric deficit.
What's amusing are all the opinions and negative nancy comments about a diet some posters here have not tried at all/short period of time or show very low knowledge of.
Dieting is like any other relationship. There is adjustment time. I'll quote the NYC cab driver quote book: On relationship "New shoes always hurt".
0 -
Try it and find out. I've lost close to 80 lbs using intermittent fasting. It's extremely easy for me and doesn't ignite bingey behavior in me whatsoever. And my fast days are real fast days, as in water only. I'll likely be IFing for life as maintenance. But then again I also fast for spiritual reasons, so fasting is a part of my life regardless.
But it's also awful for some. Some are so miserable in transition, no matter the method, that they stop before their bodies acclimate. And some give it the good college try and it's just not for them. I've read that it's more advantageous for men than women, and perhaps modifications need to be made for some women who want to try it out. I'm sure others can speak more to that.
The worst thing you can do is listen to those who are ignorant to IFing who state their assumptions, fears and paranoia as fact. Which, in my experience, is many people. Listen to those with real experience, both good and bad.
The 10 pounds by the 19th? Unlikely. Just stick to a method that works for you and let the weight fall off at whatever rate it does.0 -
another author to search for on matters intermittent is Dr Michelle Harvie - a breast cancer researcher using intermittent carbohydrate restriction as well as intermittent calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320 Meal frequency and timing in health and disease. (Review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women"0 -
I have a couple of friends who have been doing this diet for hmmm maybe a year. They are about 3 pounds lighter than when they started!!! Obviously it doesn't work for everyone! I don't really get it but you could give it a bash for a month and see. Ultimately though you'd probaly be better just making a complete lifestyle change but sometimes we take a while to get to that way of thinking. Good luck :-)
But what are their helath and fitness goals? I lost 20 pounds in four months when I started IF, and then I've gained back three pounds over the last year continuing with it. But I've gone down three dress sizes. Scale weight doesn't matter so much to some of us as body composition does.
Daily IF is really just how I like to eat - I've never been a breakfast fan and I prefer to work out on an empty stomach. I did ADF and 5:2 at first, but I found that I was stupidly starving by the second fast day of the week and I would blow my weekly calorie limit, so now I opt for daily fasting. Just make sure you do your research and figure out what your personal maintainance calories are (TDEE) and take a reasonable deficit from that to determine your calorie goal for the week. (Half a pound/week is reasonable for a ten pound loss.) And I would log everyday so you have accurate data to make adjustments from.
All IF is just another way of structuring your intake. I'm making no claims to any health benefits other than it is the easiest way - for me - to maintain. Try it and see if it works for you. It's not a magic weight loss formula, though, and asking for a 10 pound loss in such a short time isn't realistic, even with IF. It's still CICO, but what if you can shift three or four pounds? That would be awesome!
Best of luck!!0 -
another author to search for on matters intermittent is Dr Michelle Harvie - a breast cancer researcher using intermittent carbohydrate restriction as well as intermittent calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320 Meal frequency and timing in health and disease. (Review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women"
Also Valter Longo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/
The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905167
These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454633
These results indicate that the protection from chemotoxicity and retardation of the progression of certain tumors achieved with fasting is not obtained with short-term calorie and/or macronutrient restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440038
In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions.
And Mattson:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12558961
Accordingly, dietary restriction (DR; either caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, with maintained vitamin and mineral intake) can extend lifespan and can increase disease resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046
Intermittent fasting (IF; reduced meal frequency) and caloric restriction (CR) extend lifespan and increase resistance to age-related diseases in rodents and monkeys and improve the health of overweight humans. Both IF and CR enhance cardiovascular and brain functions and improve several risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke including a reduction in blood pressure and increased insulin sensitivity. Cardiovascular stress adaptation is improved and heart rate variability is increased in rodents maintained on an IF or a CR diet. Moreover, rodents maintained on an IF regimen exhibit increased resistance of heart and brain cells to ischemic injury in experimental models of myocardial infarction and stroke. The beneficial effects of IF and CR result from at least two mechanisms--reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Recent findings suggest that some of the beneficial effects of IF on both the cardiovascular system and the brain are mediated by brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling in the brain. Interestingly, cellular and molecular effects of IF and CR on the cardiovascular system and the brain are similar to those of regular physical exercise, suggesting shared mechanisms.
There are many, many more.
Now the "but it's mice!" "but it's a small sample!" "but it's not compared to daily CR!" type arguments will commence. And none of them matter. Because no one said the studies PROVE the effects in humans, just that there are studies that suggest the benefits.
0 -
Somebody earlier mentioned that it's all subjective. And that's the bottom line.
Logging, calorie counting, weighing foods, etc, all work well...if that's suited for you. I personally find that approach deplorable and unsustainable. I don't knock people who track, weigh and log, even recommend it to some, but it's hardly the only road to take.
IFing has provided me a freedom and ease with weight loss and maintenance, and my "relationship" with food, that no other method ever has. It's the easiest method to create a deficit I have ever undertaken, by far. Severe deprivation is easy for me. Eating freely and intuitively is easy for me. Daily mild deficits, tracking my every bite, budgeting food, planning ahead, limiting quantity? Nope, that's not enticing at all. When I eat I enjoy eating freely, regardless of whether I consume a lot or not (because no, I don't go buck wild on eating days just because I can). Fasting days allow me that freedom.
Those who think we're "subjecting" ourselves to something are projecting their own assumptions, and in some lesser cases genuine experiences, on to us. It's fine if the idea is unpalatable to you, perfectly fine. But know that your misery isn't a universal misery. Anymore than my hatred for tracking/logging suggests that all will feel shackled by that approach. Do what works for you. It's a cliche, but it never stops being relevant.0 -
regeneration of what? No reputable sources listed in that link, and it's clearly a blog dedicated to the topic which means cherry picking the evidence they do decide to use.
Seriously, i remember when i hadn't yet turned 25 and i KNEW EVERYTHING but two days of your constant criticism and debunking is getting RIDICULOUS. why dont you save your graduate research for graduate school, and let this social forum on the internet dedicated to supporting people in their weight loss journey.
Or maybe spend more time worrying about why you have to be so critical i think its a sign of bigger issues, maybe your diet strategy is leaving you HANGRY0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »another author to search for on matters intermittent is Dr Michelle Harvie - a breast cancer researcher using intermittent carbohydrate restriction as well as intermittent calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320 Meal frequency and timing in health and disease. (Review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women"
Also Valter Longo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/
The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905167
These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454633
These results indicate that the protection from chemotoxicity and retardation of the progression of certain tumors achieved with fasting is not obtained with short-term calorie and/or macronutrient restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440038
In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions.
And Mattson:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12558961
Accordingly, dietary restriction (DR; either caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, with maintained vitamin and mineral intake) can extend lifespan and can increase disease resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046
Intermittent fasting (IF; reduced meal frequency) and caloric restriction (CR) extend lifespan and increase resistance to age-related diseases in rodents and monkeys and improve the health of overweight humans. Both IF and CR enhance cardiovascular and brain functions and improve several risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke including a reduction in blood pressure and increased insulin sensitivity. Cardiovascular stress adaptation is improved and heart rate variability is increased in rodents maintained on an IF or a CR diet. Moreover, rodents maintained on an IF regimen exhibit increased resistance of heart and brain cells to ischemic injury in experimental models of myocardial infarction and stroke. The beneficial effects of IF and CR result from at least two mechanisms--reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Recent findings suggest that some of the beneficial effects of IF on both the cardiovascular system and the brain are mediated by brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling in the brain. Interestingly, cellular and molecular effects of IF and CR on the cardiovascular system and the brain are similar to those of regular physical exercise, suggesting shared mechanisms.
There are many, many more.
Now the "but it's mice!" "but it's a small sample!" "but it's not compared to daily CR!" type arguments will commence. And none of them matter. Because no one said the studies PROVE the effects in humans, just that there are studies that suggest the benefits.
Let's go back to your original claims, shall we?There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Please to point to which of these studies purport an advantage to ADF over a daily deficit. I've already waded through several others and none of them have even made this claim. Most didn't even compare them, and the one's that did showed them to be roughly equal.
0 -
I bolded all the occurences of "fasting" and "intermittent calorie restriction" in the above text. You'll need to hit 'see quotes'. If you choose to interpret things differently, be my guest. To me, that is not the same as daily, stable, shallow deficit levels.FunkyTobias wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »another author to search for on matters intermittent is Dr Michelle Harvie - a breast cancer researcher using intermittent carbohydrate restriction as well as intermittent calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320 Meal frequency and timing in health and disease. (Review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women"
Also Valter Longo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/
The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905167
These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454633
These results indicate that the protection from chemotoxicity and retardation of the progression of certain tumors achieved with fasting is not obtained with short-term calorie and/or macronutrient restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440038
In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions.
And Mattson:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12558961
Accordingly, dietary restriction (DR; either caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, with maintained vitamin and mineral intake) can extend lifespan and can increase disease resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046
Intermittent fasting (IF; reduced meal frequency) and caloric restriction (CR) extend lifespan and increase resistance to age-related diseases in rodents and monkeys and improve the health of overweight humans. Both IF and CR enhance cardiovascular and brain functions and improve several risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke including a reduction in blood pressure and increased insulin sensitivity. Cardiovascular stress adaptation is improved and heart rate variability is increased in rodents maintained on an IF or a CR diet. Moreover, rodents maintained on an IF regimen exhibit increased resistance of heart and brain cells to ischemic injury in experimental models of myocardial infarction and stroke. The beneficial effects of IF and CR result from at least two mechanisms--reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Recent findings suggest that some of the beneficial effects of IF on both the cardiovascular system and the brain are mediated by brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling in the brain. Interestingly, cellular and molecular effects of IF and CR on the cardiovascular system and the brain are similar to those of regular physical exercise, suggesting shared mechanisms.
There are many, many more.
Now the "but it's mice!" "but it's a small sample!" "but it's not compared to daily CR!" type arguments will commence. And none of them matter. Because no one said the studies PROVE the effects in humans, just that there are studies that suggest the benefits.
Let's go back to your original claims, shall we?There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Please to point to which of these studies purport an advantage to ADF over a daily deficit. I've already waded through several others and none of them have even made this claim. Most didn't even compare them, and the one's that did showed them to be roughly equal.
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I bolded all the occurences of "fasting" and "intermittent calorie restriction" in the above text. You'll need to hit 'see quotes'. If you choose to interpret things differently, be my guest. To me, that is not the same as daily, stable, shallow deficit levels.FunkyTobias wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »another author to search for on matters intermittent is Dr Michelle Harvie - a breast cancer researcher using intermittent carbohydrate restriction as well as intermittent calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320 Meal frequency and timing in health and disease. (Review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women"
Also Valter Longo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/
The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905167
These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454633
These results indicate that the protection from chemotoxicity and retardation of the progression of certain tumors achieved with fasting is not obtained with short-term calorie and/or macronutrient restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440038
In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions.
And Mattson:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12558961
Accordingly, dietary restriction (DR; either caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, with maintained vitamin and mineral intake) can extend lifespan and can increase disease resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046
Intermittent fasting (IF; reduced meal frequency) and caloric restriction (CR) extend lifespan and increase resistance to age-related diseases in rodents and monkeys and improve the health of overweight humans. Both IF and CR enhance cardiovascular and brain functions and improve several risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke including a reduction in blood pressure and increased insulin sensitivity. Cardiovascular stress adaptation is improved and heart rate variability is increased in rodents maintained on an IF or a CR diet. Moreover, rodents maintained on an IF regimen exhibit increased resistance of heart and brain cells to ischemic injury in experimental models of myocardial infarction and stroke. The beneficial effects of IF and CR result from at least two mechanisms--reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Recent findings suggest that some of the beneficial effects of IF on both the cardiovascular system and the brain are mediated by brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling in the brain. Interestingly, cellular and molecular effects of IF and CR on the cardiovascular system and the brain are similar to those of regular physical exercise, suggesting shared mechanisms.
There are many, many more.
Now the "but it's mice!" "but it's a small sample!" "but it's not compared to daily CR!" type arguments will commence. And none of them matter. Because no one said the studies PROVE the effects in humans, just that there are studies that suggest the benefits.
Let's go back to your original claims, shall we?There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Please to point to which of these studies purport an advantage to ADF over a daily deficit. I've already waded through several others and none of them have even made this claim. Most didn't even compare them, and the one's that did showed them to be roughly equal.
Now look to see how many of them actually compared fasting to a daily deficit and found the former to be superior to the latter. I'll wait.
0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »regeneration of what? No reputable sources listed in that link, and it's clearly a blog dedicated to the topic which means cherry picking the evidence they do decide to use.
Seriously, i remember when i hadn't yet turned 25 and i KNEW EVERYTHING but two days of your constant criticism and debunking is getting RIDICULOUS. why dont you save your graduate research for graduate school, and let this social forum on the internet dedicated to supporting people in their weight loss journey.
Or maybe spend more time worrying about why you have to be so critical i think its a sign of bigger issues, maybe your diet strategy is leaving you HANGRY
I eat 2150 calories. So no, it's not leaving me hangry. I simply asked her what she even meant by "regeneration" and that the article she posted wasn't evidence for anything because it's just an opinion piece.0 -
Don't hold your breath. I'm not here to convince anyone of anything. You drew your conclusions and that's great. Others may draw their own. You don't have to keep going until someone declares you "the most right person on MFP". Though here, I'll help you--FunkyTobias wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
I bolded all the occurences of "fasting" and "intermittent calorie restriction" in the above text. You'll need to hit 'see quotes'. If you choose to interpret things differently, be my guest. To me, that is not the same as daily, stable, shallow deficit levels.FunkyTobias wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »another author to search for on matters intermittent is Dr Michelle Harvie - a breast cancer researcher using intermittent carbohydrate restriction as well as intermittent calorie restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320 Meal frequency and timing in health and disease. (Review)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23591120 "The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women"
Also Valter Longo.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25404320
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.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2815756/
The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24905167
These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23454633
These results indicate that the protection from chemotoxicity and retardation of the progression of certain tumors achieved with fasting is not obtained with short-term calorie and/or macronutrient restriction.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24440038
In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions.
And Mattson:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12558961
Accordingly, dietary restriction (DR; either caloric restriction or intermittent fasting, with maintained vitamin and mineral intake) can extend lifespan and can increase disease resistance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15741046
Intermittent fasting (IF; reduced meal frequency) and caloric restriction (CR) extend lifespan and increase resistance to age-related diseases in rodents and monkeys and improve the health of overweight humans. Both IF and CR enhance cardiovascular and brain functions and improve several risk factors for coronary artery disease and stroke including a reduction in blood pressure and increased insulin sensitivity. Cardiovascular stress adaptation is improved and heart rate variability is increased in rodents maintained on an IF or a CR diet. Moreover, rodents maintained on an IF regimen exhibit increased resistance of heart and brain cells to ischemic injury in experimental models of myocardial infarction and stroke. The beneficial effects of IF and CR result from at least two mechanisms--reduced oxidative damage and increased cellular stress resistance. Recent findings suggest that some of the beneficial effects of IF on both the cardiovascular system and the brain are mediated by brain-derived neurotrophic factor signaling in the brain. Interestingly, cellular and molecular effects of IF and CR on the cardiovascular system and the brain are similar to those of regular physical exercise, suggesting shared mechanisms.
There are many, many more.
Now the "but it's mice!" "but it's a small sample!" "but it's not compared to daily CR!" type arguments will commence. And none of them matter. Because no one said the studies PROVE the effects in humans, just that there are studies that suggest the benefits.
Let's go back to your original claims, shall we?There are also valid health reasons for choosing it over a stable daily deficit. Studies have found it preserves more lean mass than daily dieting and leads to improvements in overall health. There is evidence that it can help prevent diabetes, dementia, cardiovascular disease and cancer.
Please to point to which of these studies purport an advantage to ADF over a daily deficit. I've already waded through several others and none of them have even made this claim. Most didn't even compare them, and the one's that did showed them to be roughly equal.
Now look to see how many of them actually compared fasting to a daily deficit and found the former to be superior to the latter. I'll wait.
You are THE MOST RIGHT PERSON ON MFP. There were never ANY studies that showed fasting or intermittent CR has any health benefits! I made it all up! You caught me! The books on it by MDs and PhDs... they made it all up, too! And you caught us at our clever deception!
0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Now the "but it's mice!" "but it's a small sample!" "but it's not compared to daily CR!" type arguments will commence. And none of them matter. Because no one said the studies PROVE the effects in humans, just that there are studies that suggest the benefits.
The problem is you cannot generalize findings in animals to findings in humans. So to say "x and y benefit exists" when discussing something pertaining to humans that is in reference to findings from rats... does not really help.
But for the articles linked, I do not have time to read full papers since class starts in 20 minutes:
Meal frequency - it's unfortunate that this is not an experiment, just because I'd be interested in seeing the actual methods etc, but I'm sure that going through the rerferences might provide other papers to look into.
The effect of intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction v. daily energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers in overweight women:
"Intermittent energy restriction may result in greater improvements in insulin sensitivity and weight control than daily energy restriction (DER). We tested two intermittent energy and carbohydrate restriction (IECR) regimens, including one which allowed ad libitum protein and fat (IECR+PF). Overweight women (n 115) aged 20 and 69 years with a family history of breast cancer were randomised to an overall 25 % energy restriction, either as an IECR (2500–2717 kJ/d, < 40 g carbohydrate/d for 2 d/week) or a 25 % DER (approximately 6000 kJ/d for 7 d/week) or an IECR+PF for a 3-month weight-loss period and 1 month of weight maintenance (IECR or IECR+PF for 1 d/week). Insulin resistance reduced with the IECR diets (mean − 0·34 (95 % CI − 0·66, − 0·02) units) and the IECR+PF diet (mean − 0·38 (95 % CI − 0·75, − 0·01) units). Reductions with the IECR diets were significantly greater compared with the DER diet (mean 0·2 (95 % CI − 0·19, 0·66) μU/unit, P= 0·02). Both IECR groups had greater reductions in body fat compared with the DER group (IECR: mean − 3·7 (95 % CI − 2·5, − 4·9) kg, P= 0·007; IECR+PF: mean − 3·7 (95 % CI − 2·8, − 4·7) kg, P= 0·019; DER: mean − 2·0 (95 % CI − 1·0, 3·0) kg). During the weight maintenance phase, 1 d of IECR or IECR+PF per week maintained the reductions in insulin resistance and weight. In the short term, IECR is superior to DER with respect to improved insulin sensitivity and body fat reduction. Longer-term studies into the safety and effectiveness of IECR diets are warranted"
So this one is mostly saying that insulin resistance is lower when eating a low carb diet. Also, if I'm reading it correctly then the low-carb group (also IF group) had less than half the caloric intake of the normal group. THey need to do long-term studies to see if it's effective.
Fasting and cancer:
"Short-term fasting (48 hours) was shown to be effective in protecting normal cells and mice but not cancer cells against high dose chemotherapy, termed Differential Stress Resistance (DSR), but the feasibility and effect of fasting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy is unknown. Here we describe 10 cases in which patients diagnosed with a variety of malignancies had voluntarily fasted prior to (48-140 hours) and/or following (5-56 hours) chemotherapy. None of these patients, who received an average of 4 cycles of various chemotherapy drugs in combination with fasting, reported significant side effects caused by the fasting itself other than hunger and lightheadedness. Chemotherapy associated toxicity was graded according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) of the National Cancer Institute (NCI). The six patients who underwent chemotherapy with or without fasting reported a reduction in fatigue, weakness, and gastrointestinal side effects while fasting. In those patients whose cancer progression could be assessed, fasting did not prevent the chemotherapy-induced reduction of tumor volume or tumor markers. Although the 10 cases presented here suggest that fasting in combination with chemotherapy is feasible, safe, and has the potential to ameliorate side effects caused by chemotherapies, they are not meant to establish practice guidelines for patients undergoing chemotherapy. Only controlled-randomized clinical trials will determine the effect of fasting on clinical outcomes including quality of life and therapeutic index."
So nothing here saying that fasting made the cancer patients.. not have cancer anymore. Or that it improved their cancer. IT's all about chemotherapy. Both those who fasted and didn't fast reported similar symptoms during chemo (although the wording there is confusing - they are saying that those who both did and didn't do fasting had these experiences while fasting?) Fasting basically might benefit side-effects of chemo. Which to me makes sense. considering the negative side-effects that can occur when eating and undergoing chemo - sickness, aversion to foods, etc. SO I'm not sure, was there a control group that did not utilize fasting? But again, this isn't about weight loss or about improving cancer or whatever.
ETA forgot to add, with the bolded statement - is this specifically IF? or is it calorie restriction? Were the patients on calorie restriction or on maintenance?
Prolonged fasting:
"Immune system defects are at the center of aging and a range of diseases. Here, we show that prolonged fasting reduces circulating IGF-1 levels and PKA activity in various cell populations, leading to signal transduction changes in long-term hematopoietic stem cells (LT-HSCs) and niche cells that promote stress resistance, self-renewal, and lineage-balanced regeneration. Multiple cycles of fasting abated the immunosuppression and mortality caused by chemotherapy and reversed age-dependent myeloid-bias in mice, in agreement with preliminary data on the protection of lymphocytes from chemotoxicity in fasting patients. The proregenerative effects of fasting on stem cells were recapitulated by deficiencies in either IGF-1 or PKA and blunted by exogenous IGF-1. These findings link the reduced levels of IGF-1 caused by fasting to PKA signaling and establish their crucial role in regulating hematopoietic stem cell protection, self-renewal, and regeneration. "
I have NO idea what this means. Since you posted the link I'll assume that you know what all of these terms and acronyms means, so could you explain this in simpler terms? And explain what this has to do with improving/reducing/whatever specific diseases?
Fasting molecular...
"Fasting has been practiced for millennia, but, only recently, studies have shed light on its role in adaptive cellular responses that reduce oxidative damage and inflammation, optimize energy metabolism, and bolster cellular protection. In lower eukaryotes, chronic fasting extends longevity, in part, by reprogramming metabolic and stress resistance pathways. In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma, and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions. "
This isn't saying that these effects of cancer etc are also found in humans? Just wondering if the findings they are referring to are specifically about IF or if they are actually about calorie restriction. Is the IF in this study conducted at maintenance caloric intake or at a deficit? I do know that there has been research about longevity genes in some animals (rats included, I believe) and that calorie restriction can help with longevity in this sense, but it's not IF that is doing this, it is a (i believe) 40% reduction of calories (Calorie restriction: what recent results suggest for the future of ageing research -- but then again, there's also this for nonhuman subjects: Calorie restriction does not elicit a robust extension of replicative lifespan in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.)
and I have class now so I will return to this at another time?
But as far as the "omg it's mice" thing is concerned, this IS something to mention if you generalize animal studies to HUMANs. If you find animal studies that are then replicated on humans and the findings are consistent, then go ahead and generalize to humans for that particular evidence.0 -
Please return to it at your leisure. I have no interest in debating the validity of studies with you. I've done my research, you do all the research you choose to and draw your own conclusions. I suggest you let others do the same.and I have class now so I will return to this at another time?
0 -
I tried it once in hopes of restarting my weight loss and decided it was an awful idea for me. Not only was I STARVING the entire fast day, as soon as I could eat again I did binge on pretty much all the food everywhere (and I've never had a binging-type personality). Also, there are a lot of anecdotes out there that fasting can be harder for women to maintain than men (although I'm not aware of any actual studies on it), so that is food for thought as well. In the end, it's another way of dividing up your calorie deficit. Whether it is sustainable or not will depend on your personality and appetite.
As for all of the health claims, the jury is still out on that one. The one study I've read was done in 2010 and indicated that there was no difference between a fasting diet and a regular daily calorie deficit in terms of health markers or overall weight loss in women. The only difference they saw was a slightly greater improvement in insulin resistance for fasting dieters. There may be more studies by now, but honestly I haven't read up since I gave it a try.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3017674/
ETA: some clarity.0 -
I don't believe in losing weight in a way that you can't maintain for the rest of your life. So if you want to eat prepackaged meals shipped to your home or eat on alternate days for the rest of your life - go for it. In most cases if you stop doing your "diet" then you are going to put weight back on.
Lifestyle change....no diets here.
Best of luck.0 -
I tried it last month (the fourth month of my health change). I learned some interesting things about my hunger patterns. I'm totally glad I did it, and will probably try it again or incorporate some lessons learned into my overall plans. I will say that no matter what, I weigh and measure and count everything. I'm trying to figure me out, and part of that is to document and track trends.
First, fasting was easy for me. When I'm hungry, I can eat all healthy things in the right macro compositions and still eat a meal of 1000 calories easily. That's watching what I eat! Then I have days when I'm simply not hungry. As an experiment, during the few days a month that - no matter how big I've been - I've never had much interest in food, I decided to see how long I could go without eating without feeling weak. I went 2 1/2 days and felt fine - no lightheadedness, very little to no hunger, no decrease in energy. Still, I ate dinner the 3rd day because I didn't think it was healthy to fast any longer even if I felt I could. Funny, because on other days, not having a second after-dinner snack has me sweating bullets. (Oh, and the month with Halloween in it was the PERFECT time to experiment. Man, people give out GOOD candy nowadays. When I was a kid we got cheap junk, now everyone's giving out candy bars!
)
I will say that I found myself putting too little willpower into the days I decided I wanted more to eat, just figuring I'd make up for it. Even though I did in fact make up those days with fasting days, I think it become a cycle I'm not sure wasn't too drastic. I think I let myself go too far a few days. Oh, and who knew that I could indulge myself with chocolate and keep some control but in the face of Hawaiian rolls I lose all perspective and spiral out of control on bread and mayonnaise and whatever filling is at hand.
This month I'm going for a more balanced approach and want my daily calories within a pre-determined min-and-max range. We'll see how that works for me. I don't think I'm going to like it, but the consistency might yield good results. And it will also answer my question about how much of my overeating was due to the fast, even if I wasn't hungry while I was fasting.
I lost the most weight I've lost so far last month, but I wouldn't recommend it. I might try it again, but with more restrictions that make sure I keep within some sort of moderation on "eat all you want" days. "All I want" can take 3 days of a fast to make up for; that's not sustainable. And it's worth nothing again that I tracked everything, so I knew exactly how much I was over my target and how much I'd have to under-eat to compensate and still hit or beat my weekly goals.
So, that's my experience, for what it's worth.0 -
Worth "NOTING", not worth "nothing", sorry...0
-
As far as the reasons you say that people would choose this over regular calorie restriction, I don't personally agree.
How can you "personally agree" or not to the reasons other people choose this method. Clearly, they are going to act based on their own responses, not yours.Mostly:
1) easy is definitely subjective. One day of not eating much doesn't appeal to me, and it's easier for me to eat until full while in a caloric deficit every single day. It's also easier for me to track my intake, particularly because I plan on bulking next year and I need to maintain as much lean body mass as possible - hence tracking protein. I find logging easier than just arbitrarily guessing that I've been in a deficit for the week.
Yes, IF doesn't appeal to me either. I find it easier to eat similar calories every day, and actually switched from MFP to TDEE method for that reason. However, it's quite easy for me to understand why other people might find it an easy and comparatively enjoyable way to keep a deficit.
0 -
0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »As far as the reasons you say that people would choose this over regular calorie restriction, I don't personally agree.
How can you "personally agree" or not to the reasons other people choose this method. Clearly, they are going to act based on their own responses, not yours.Mostly:
1) easy is definitely subjective. One day of not eating much doesn't appeal to me, and it's easier for me to eat until full while in a caloric deficit every single day. It's also easier for me to track my intake, particularly because I plan on bulking next year and I need to maintain as much lean body mass as possible - hence tracking protein. I find logging easier than just arbitrarily guessing that I've been in a deficit for the week.
Yes, IF doesn't appeal to me either. I find it easier to eat similar calories every day, and actually switched from MFP to TDEE method for that reason. However, it's quite easy for me to understand why other people might find it an easy and comparatively enjoyable way to keep a deficit.
I was doing TDEE, then did MFP net, and went back to TDEE. I also enjoy the more consistent daily intake, although if I happen to do cardio (almost never!) I now log it as extra cals, nomnom
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions