Intermittent fasting ? Does it work for you????

MistressPi wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

MistressPi wrote: »

mmapags wrote: »

ZeetaFit wrote: »

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/10-health-benefits-of-intermittent-fasting#section1[/url]
Maybe this will help. Evidence based medical benefits. As a former diabetic, IF lowers my risk of becoming one again. That is enough for me. The rest of it is just a bonus.

That's not evidence, that is an article. And it's filled with speculation as to IF benefits that are not proven in humans includng reduction of diabetes risk. Almost every one of the references is based on rat studies. Here is evidence in the form of a meta-analysis of some of those and more studies that says more study is needed before these kinds of benefits in humans can be claims. IMHO, articles like the one you referenced are irresponsible.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4516560/

"There are limited data from human studies to support the robust rodent data regarding the positive impacts of time-restricted feeding (i.e., eating patterns aligned with normal circadian rhythms) on weight or metabolic health."
"Large-scale randomized trials of intermittent fasting regimens in free-living adults are needed and should last for at least a year to see if behavioral and metabolic changes are sustainable and whether they have long term effects on biomarkers of aging and longevity. Future studies should incorporate objective measures of energy intake, sleep, and energy expenditure; assess numerous markers of disease risk; and enroll diverse populations who disproportionately suffer from obesity and related health maladies."

Mr. Gunnars is not claiming proof, but he IS providing evidence. We should not conflate one with the other. LIMITED data ≠ NO data. There are statistically significant changes in some markers in certain studies, and non-statistically significant changes in others.

The authors of the meta-analysis counsel more studies be done, and use much qualification in their writing, which is stylistically typical of responsible scientists sharing their findings. If the initial findings from these, and scores of other studies in the field, conducted over decades by scientists the world over, were not so promising, I doubt they would make such a recommendation.

Yes, there is evidence. In rats not humans. He is indicating these benefits for human. There is neither evidence or proof of those benefits for humans yet.

Many things look promising in rat trails that don't prove out for people. There is enough evidence to justify studying it. To call it "promising" is to editorialize.

Are we reading the same PubMed abstracts? The references in the article link to studies conducted on humans (and other creatures) which show statistically significant findings. Evidence of some efficacy. For some humans. As well as dogs, rats, nematodes, and yeast. Mr. Gunnars states that these protocols might be beneficial for humans. I am happy to editorialize and call the protocol promising, based on the weight of the evidence.

Let's take a look at some random samples:
Link 1, 16 participants. Alternate day fasting,. Calories not controlled. Evidence of weight loss and subjects experienced hunger.

Link 3, 9 subjects. They were looking at increases in HGH. There didn't get any of any significance.

Link 6, Autophagy in mice.

Link 12, "None of the interventions produced clinically meaningful reductions in glucose concentrations. Taken together, these preliminary findings show promise for the use of IF and ADF as alternatives to CR for weight loss and type 2 diabetes risk reduction in overweight and obese populations, but more research is required before solid conclusions can be reached."

In the human examples the samples sizes were small. Issue no.1. They weren't controlled for calories. Issue no. 2

In the mice studies they get more robust "evidence"

What you apparently view as evidence and what I do are very different. As I already stated, there is evidence in mice and rats. There is an indication for more study on humans. That is the objective evidence and what is shown in the meta analysis.

When one begins to editorialize, they lose objectivity and essentially begin to interpret information through the bias that confirms their editorial stance. Then one begins to see what they hope to see in the data as opposed to what is there. It's called confirmation bias.

FTR, I am a long term practitioner of IF. I have been able to successfully control calories utilizing it to lose 35lbs over the last 5 years or so. I would love it if there were additional benefits. But there have not been proven to date. So, to be clear, I am not anti IF. I am anti false or premature claims of evidence and proof.