Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
The Latest Trend is Fasting: What say you?
Replies
-
I don't believe that fasting is the latest trend. It's been around for as long as people have ... because when you don't eat, you are technically fasting. We do it every night when we sleep. Those of us who are getting ready for certain lab or medical routines need to 'fast' for a period of time before hand. What is a trend though, is the mistaken belief some people have that they can play around with eating time schedules to allow feasting periods without gaining weight from those feasts ... and that really does not work well. Those feasts often wreak havoc on your hormones and make refraining from eating for periods of time harder to accomplish ...
2 -
I don't believe that fasting is the latest trend. It's been around for as long as people have ... because when you don't eat, you are technically fasting. We do it every night when we sleep. Those of us who are getting ready for certain lab or medical routines need to 'fast' for a period of time before hand. What is a trend though, is the mistaken belief some people have that they can play around with eating time schedules to allow feasting periods without gaining weight from those feasts ... and that really does not work well. Those feasts often wreak havoc on your hormones and make refraining from eating for periods of time harder to accomplish ...
That hasn't been my experience.
I've been doing IF for nearly a year as prescribed by a top neurologist.
I generally eat one huge meal each day with no "havoc." Not eating the rest of the time is easy and very comfortable. I anticipate happily living this way for the rest of my life because my body is actually less reactive now that I eat less frequently.
Different bodies react differently to different lifestyles, but my experience and the experience of all of my IF friends is that our bodies respond very well to it.
IF is increasingly being prescribed to people with autoimmune and chronic pain conditions specifically for its potential capacity to lower inflammation and reactivity in the body.
The research on it is very limited, so most of this is coming from empirical treatment, which is the basis for many medical treatments. Non-drug treatments rarely have extensive scientific literature backing them up, just clinical experience.
Time will tell if that compendium of clinical experience bears out or not, but the fact that many highly reputable specialists are prescribing it suggests that they're seeing a certain degree of outcome success and not seeing harmful effects.
Again, time will tell on a populational level, but I can certainly say from my n=1 experience that despite having no weight to lose, I plan to stick with IF indefinitely because it feels good.4 -
I practice intermittent fasting. I don't eat during the hours that I sleep.
1 -
Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.
Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.
When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.
In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.
Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.
Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.
Fasting means different things to different people.
4 -
neanderthin wrote: »Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.
Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.
When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.
In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.
Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.
Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.
Fasting means different things to different people.
Context is important. I fasted this afternoon because I missed lunch and dinner will be around 9.00 and I feel swell.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.
Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.
When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.
In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.
Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.
Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.
Fasting means different things to different people.
Context is important. I fasted this afternoon because I missed lunch and dinner will be around 9.00 and I feel swell.
Context may be important, but you can't have it both ways.
If you "fasted this afternoon" because you went a few extra hours without eating, but it's "not fasting" if you plan to only eat in a smaller time window, then you are contradicting yourself.
For context, I don't consider that I do intermittent fasting even though I almost never eat breakfast. Back in the '70s I used to do multi-day fasts since I had some idea that there was a benefit to it. Sometimes a water fast, sometimes a juice fast. Doing a fast without water is risky in my opinion.
So, since you consider yourself fasting because you skipped lunch but don't consider "planned eating" as fasting, how do YOU define fasting?
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Timed meal planning isn't really fasting. Not eating for 3 days, that's fasting for example. Try google scolar if you want to research it's effects as opposed to listen and relying on people like me for accurate information.
Well maybe and maybe not. Since around 1400 there's been a word in the English language you may have heard of. The word is breakfast. It literally comes from two middle English words, break and fast. It is breaking a fast from the previous night.
When I get bloodwork done, they usually call it "NOI" (no oral intake) for some period of time, usually eight hours or so. When I get the results, the report uses the word FASTED in describing how they interpret the sample.
In Jewish tradition, fasting is typically 26 hours or sunrise to sunset (depending on which fast) without any food or water.
Islamic tradition of fasting during Ramadan is abstaining from food and water from sunrise to sunset for a month.
Some Christians consider Lent a type of fast even though food and water are taken in.
Fasting means different things to different people.
Context is important. I fasted this afternoon because I missed lunch and dinner will be around 9.00 and I feel swell.
Context may be important, but you can't have it both ways.
If you "fasted this afternoon" because you went a few extra hours without eating, but it's "not fasting" if you plan to only eat in a smaller time window, then you are contradicting yourself.
For context, I don't consider that I do intermittent fasting even though I almost never eat breakfast. Back in the '70s I used to do multi-day fasts since I had some idea that there was a benefit to it. Sometimes a water fast, sometimes a juice fast. Doing a fast without water is risky in my opinion.
So, since you consider yourself fasting because you skipped lunch but don't consider "planned eating" as fasting, how do YOU define fasting?
Basically I said skipping a meal wasn't really fasting and you went on to explain in a history lesson that it was and my response was in jest but obviously that didn't come across well lol.0 -
I really enjoy fasting. I’ve been doing it for over 2 weeks. Flirted with the idea for around 2 years when I read about “Eat Like A Bear”. I thought I would hate it in the beginning. But I LOVE it. From someone who thought about food all day to someone who doesn’t think about food at all. Pretty amazing stuff to me.
I don’t “starve” all day long. Quite the opposite. I am comfortable with coffee, water and unsweetened tea. I don’t even think about eating, even when cooking breakfast and lunch for my family. I start feeling a little hungry about 5 pm when I sit down to eat with my family.
I eat my meal over an hour and that’s that. I’m very comfortable with it. I eat 1200 to 1400 calories each day. Lots of salad and proteins.
When I get there- My maintenance plan will be to widen the fast window to about 6 hours and split my maintenance calories between 2 meals. I have never been a big morning eater so that plan will work great for me.
I read Dr. Fungs book “The Obesity Code” this past weekend and I learned a lot! I am on the right track for me. To each his/her own!2 -
Just a note to people that want to understand autophagy more in-depth if your so inclined. I suggest researching the terms: macroautophagy, microautophagy, chaperone-mediated autophagy and xenophagy. Here's a few examples.
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3135626/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32907930/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28026986/
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2658709/
0 -
Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm0 -
Not eating for 72 hours doesnt sound a very good plan.4
-
pollohermano12 wrote: »Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.
Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.
Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.
6 -
pollohermano12 wrote: »Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.
Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.
Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.
3 or 4 times a month.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »pollohermano12 wrote: »Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.
Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.
Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.
3 or 4 times a month.
Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.
Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »pollohermano12 wrote: »Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.
Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.
Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.
3 or 4 times a month.
Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.
Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.
No problem, just though I'd mention it.
If a person had no body fat then I'd agree it's not enough but it someone has 30 lbs of extra adipose tissue that's about 120,000 calories of stored energy, which I think the body can afford to cash in.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »pollohermano12 wrote: »Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.
Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.
Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.
3 or 4 times a month.
Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.
Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.
No problem, just though I'd mention it.
If a person had no body fat then I'd agree it's not enough but it someone has 30 lbs of extra adipose tissue that's about 120,000 calories of stored energy, which I think the body can afford to cash in.
Maybe not.
A 45-year-old male at 5' 8" who weighs 200 pounds could easily stand to lose 30 pounds. Probably more. That's a BMI of 30.4. If that person is sedentary and wants to lose one pound per week, their calorie target is 1600 per day. If they are slightly active, then it's 1900. For grins, let's just call it 1800.
In a 30-day month, 1800 calories per day is 54,000 per month. In order to get 54,000 in 18 days, a person would need to eat 3000 calories on the days that person eats. If that person restricts their eating to a four-hour window on those 18 days, that's 3000 calories in four hours. It's possibly attainable, but perhaps unrealistic for most humans. Go to your favorite search engine and ask it "What does 3000 calories look like." Then decide if you can eat that much food in four hours on the 60% of the days in a given month that you eat. It's about four Big Mac sandwiches plus two large orders of fries.
Fasting can be a useful tool for weight management, and it may have other benefits. Doing it safely is important. There are many heath issues associated with very low calorie diets (VCLDs).
4 -
Personally it's not something I could do and I'm 6'1" and 182 this morning. We don't know any details and are making assumptions which is fine but there's so many scenarios that make up this space that anything is possible. Maybe they mostly do 48 hr fasts with a 72 thrown in to impress, and eat like it's their last meal, who knows.neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »pollohermano12 wrote: »Living it. Intermittent fasting 3-4 times a month. 48 and 72 hours.
OMAD rest of the week. One meal 4 hour window 3-7 pm
If you don't eat for 72 hours four times a week, that's 12 days a month with no food. For 40% of the month you aren't eating.
Assuming 30 days in a month and 1500 calories per day as a goal, a goal for the month would be 45,000 calories. If you need to fit 45,000 calories into only 18 days, that means you have to eat 2500 calories on those days just to average 1500 per day for the month. That would not even be enough calories to support a 165-pound man at 5' 8" to lose a pound a week. I suspect I could cram 2500 calories into a four-hour window, but I don't think it would be fun to do on the only 18 days per month that I eat.
Sounds like you might not be giving your body enough calories.
3 or 4 times a month.
Oops. Yeah. That was a typo. Change the word "Week" to the word "Month" and the math still works out. 72 hours = three days. Four times a month is 12 days or about 40% of the month without eating.
Sorry about that. Too late to edit to fix.
No problem, just though I'd mention it.
If a person had no body fat then I'd agree it's not enough but it someone has 30 lbs of extra adipose tissue that's about 120,000 calories of stored energy, which I think the body can afford to cash in.
Maybe not.
A 45-year-old male at 5' 8" who weighs 200 pounds could easily stand to lose 30 pounds. Probably more. That's a BMI of 30.4. If that person is sedentary and wants to lose one pound per week, their calorie target is 1600 per day. If they are slightly active, then it's 1900. For grins, let's just call it 1800.
In a 30-day month, 1800 calories per day is 54,000 per month. In order to get 54,000 in 18 days, a person would need to eat 3000 calories on the days that person eats. If that person restricts their eating to a four-hour window on those 18 days, that's 3000 calories in four hours. It's possibly attainable, but perhaps unrealistic for most humans. Go to your favorite search engine and ask it "What does 3000 calories look like." Then decide if you can eat that much food in four hours on the 60% of the days in a given month that you eat. It's about four Big Mac sandwiches plus two large orders of fries.
Fasting can be a useful tool for weight management, and it may have other benefits. Doing it safely is important. There are many heath issues associated with very low calorie diets (VCLDs).
Longer fasts are generally but not always from people that have more understanding than the average person that wants to lose weight, but again with the popularity with band wagon fanatics, who knows.
I do agree that VLCD's are rife with complications and nutrient deficiencies and of course being in a constant state of deprivation is no way to have a healthy brain/gut connection and is doomed to fail and I see it constantly, hell just take a look of the general population for proof. Cheers
0 -
It triggers bingeing for me.2
-
For the IF demographic, pretty interesting.
Circadian physiology of metabolism
https://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7261592/
Circadian expression of secreted molecules and signaling components transmits timing information between cells and tissues. Such intra- and intercellular daily rhythms optimize physiology both by managing energy use and by temporally segregating incompatible processes. Experimental animal models and epidemiological data indicate that chronic circadian rhythm disruption increases the risk of metabolic diseases. Conversely, time-restricted feeding, which imposes daily cycles of feeding and fasting without caloric reduction, sustains robust diurnal rhythms and can alleviate metabolic diseases. These findings highlight an integrative role of circadian rhythms in physiology and offer a new perspective for treating chronic diseases in which metabolic disruptionis a hallmark.
0 -
Was this study one-and-done, or have the results been expanded upon (or found incorrect) in the six years since it was published? Because if the results had merit, I'm sure there would be follow-up work on the topic.
It also seems like they are talking about normal overnight "fasting" periods - the time between an evening meal and a morning meal. The study found that when subjected to a 24-hour fast, mice showed an 80% reduction in the number of rhythmic transcripts.
Again - this study is looking at daily patterns. It says, "As feeding and fasting naturally alternate between day and night, interactions among feeding-fasting–driven regulation, metabolism, and circadian clocks have evolved to maintain normal physiology."
Don't eat while you're sleeping. Seems like reasonable advice to me.3 -
Fasting works. There is not a sliver of doubt about that. It can lead to great success, just check out Angus Barbieri, as far as I know, history's most successful well-documented faster.paperpudding wrote: »I say I am better off eating smaller amounts more frequently and I don't do well without breakfast so IF is not for me.
What remains usually unmentioned though, is the fact that he died at the very young age of 51. I have never been able to find a reasonable explanation for this, so his fast may or may not be related to his early death.
Also, check out the concentration camps of the second world war. While Angus Barbieri fasted because he wanted to, the victims of the concentration camps fasted because they were not given a choice. And the results, including shocking pictures, can be found in just a few clicks.
Fasting works because it is impossible for it not to.
Unfortunately, that does not make it advisable.
While a short fast is not likely to do much harm or more harm than being overweight or downright fat, it is also only going to have meaningful results if done for relatively long periods of time, or for very many short periods of time.
I would stay away from it until scientists have come up with some trustworthy results in favour of fasting and I would not hold my breath until then. No need to take unnecessary risks when we already have methods that do work and that are reasonably safe, i.e. safer than being overweight or obese.
And I agree with a previous commenter: experts never said that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. Companies did that, and quacks did that. Experts did not, for the very simple reason that we have no data upon which to base such a claim. Even in a post-truth world, facts and reality continue to matter.
2 -
Was this study one-and-done, or have the results been expanded upon (or found incorrect) in the six years since it was published? Because if the results had merit, I'm sure there would be follow-up work on the topic.
It also seems like they are talking about normal overnight "fasting" periods - the time between an evening meal and a morning meal. The study found that when subjected to a 24-hour fast, mice showed an 80% reduction in the number of rhythmic transcripts.
Again - this study is looking at daily patterns. It says, "As feeding and fasting naturally alternate between day and night, interactions among feeding-fasting–driven regulation, metabolism, and circadian clocks have evolved to maintain normal physiology."
Don't eat while you're sleeping. Seems like reasonable advice to me.
Dr. Sangin Panta is the foremost authority on the subject and most of the current literature on intermittent fasting and time restricted eating can largely be attributed to Sangin and he's world renowned in this field and has a book called the Circadian Code and yes there's many studies that actually came before and after and you can take a look at his work and look under publications.
https://salk.edu/scientist/satchidananda-panda/
This study is about the body's circadian Rythm and it's biological effects which is dictated by sunlight and darkness so basically an overnight fast for all intents and purposes generally will represent about 12 hours. Empasis on time restricted eating and his reasoning you'll find in other publications, which there are plenty in the link I provided. It appears from my observation that the 16:8 is preferred. It appears also that eating just before you're going to go sleep is not a good idea and to leave 3 or 4 hours of leeway to get out of the anabolic state which allows the fasted state to be more pronounced for those particular benefits during sleep, which also helps setting the 8 hr window for feeding. I think if you go down the rabbit hole, you'll enjoy it, I know I do. Cheers
1 -
[quote="mtaratoot;c-47073073
"Don't eat while you're sleeping. Seems like reasonable advice to me.
And if we can expand on your insight, then it's probably not a good idea to fast with our mouths full. cheers. lol2 -
neanderthin wrote: »[quote="mtaratoot;c-47073073
"Don't eat while you're sleeping. Seems like reasonable advice to me.
And if we can expand on your insight, then it's probably not a good idea to fast with our mouths full. cheers. lol
That would take extraordinary willpower. And it would be extremely uncomfortable. And if it was a long fast, the food could actually spoil in your mouth and give you food poisoning when the fast was over.
I would only start a fast after I swallowed whatever I was eating.
And of course if you fast with your mouth full, you can end the fast at any moment. Choking hazard though if it's overnight.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »[quote="mtaratoot;c-47073073
"Don't eat while you're sleeping. Seems like reasonable advice to me.
And if we can expand on your insight, then it's probably not a good idea to fast with our mouths full. cheers. lol
That would take extraordinary willpower. And it would be extremely uncomfortable. And if it was a long fast, the food could actually spoil in your mouth and give you food poisoning when the fast was over.
I would only start a fast after I swallowed whatever I was eating.
And of course if you fast with your mouth full, you can end the fast at any moment. Choking hazard though if it's overnight.neanderthin wrote: »[quote="mtaratoot;c-47073073
"Don't eat while you're sleeping. Seems like reasonable advice to me.
And if we can expand on your insight, then it's probably not a good idea to fast with our mouths full. cheers. lol
That would take extraordinary willpower. And it would be extremely uncomfortable. And if it was a long fast, the food could actually spoil in your mouth and give you food poisoning when the fast was over.
I would only start a fast after I swallowed whatever I was eating.
And of course if you fast with your mouth full, you can end the fast at any moment. Choking hazard though if it's overnight.
Obviously there no fooling you, great answer. Cheers.
0 -
While it is totally anecdotal, during some stages of my weight loss, I had developed some routines that could have been considered fasting. I never considered it fasting. Some might.
I am not much of a breakfast eater. There's exceptions, like when on the dive boat and it's time for breakfast. I have an option to have it made right before the galley closes and have it warm when I get back from my first dive, but that puts lunch too soon after breakfast. Under normal circumstances, my breakfast is usually just coffee.
My routine was typically to have some food between 10:00 and 11:00 or thereabouts. It was usually yogurt that I had mixed in some rolled oats and let sit for an hour or two. I got to enjoy the "empty" feeling. This meal was so close to mid-day that I often would eat a pretty small lunch, and then not until later in the afternoon. It worked for me, but one reason I can't really call it fasting is that I did have coffee in the morning and usually a packet of electrolyte replacement and vitamin supplement powder. The powder has some sugar in it as well.
The thing is, and again this is anecdotal evidence, it did work for me. I also was tracking my calories pretty close, and my weight loss followed the path that would be expected from calorie restriction.
I have no idea of the longer windows without eating contributed to my success or were ancillary. I do know that I never had an issue eating later at night. In fact, I'd check if I had calories left and often would make something really tasty later in the evening.
So I'm interested in some of the research. I'm also a recovering scientist, so I'm at least a little cynical about claims that seem counter to what people generally observe. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence?" It will take more than a passing reference to circadian "fasting" to convince me there's something more to it. I am very much open to the idea. It might be nice if it's true, but that doesn't make it true. So show me more.
2 -
Ok, fair enough. You're a diver, cool. I'm a chef and today is lobster day so it's breakdown for lobster rolls and bisque but I'll put something together tonight. Cheers0
-
The science of Chronobiology isn't new and has been around a long time and the first encounter of the phenomena dates back to the 18th century, anyway Circadian rhythm is well researched around the world, and most would probably recognize "jetlag" as one of those phenomena. When we travel across multiple time zones our internal clock will be different to local time and for example flying from the east coast to the west or to Europe can take a few days for our clocks to realign properly.
In 2017 a new discovery was made, and it was determined that not only do we beat along with our circadian rhythm but every cell in the body has a clock (actually a protein) kind of like a natural timing device that regulates the circadian rhythm in that cell and CR has also been observed in our microbiome. Not only cells but all of our organs independently have these internal clocks and have been observed everywhere in nature now including plants. It kind of freaked me out a little when I read that the master clock which is in the brain syncs all internal clocks together called the suprachiasmatic nucleus or SCN was in the hypothalamus which receives its direct input from our eyes. There are literally thousands of studies easily found using Google Scholar but if you need some help there, let me know.
Anyway, now the part that has everyone on the interwebs going berserk, Time Restricted Eating or Feeding and, as it relates to our circadian rhythm.
Sangin Panda the scientist I mention above who authored the Circadian Code came out with a landmark study in 2012 called "Time-Restricted Feeding without Reducing Caloric Intake Prevents Metabolic Diseases in Mice Fed a High-Fat Diet" which pioneered the path to time restricted eating (TRE) basically he's the guy that got the ball rolling around the world in TRE and fasting in general. Now there's hundreds of studies on humans for TRE from that point on.
There were 4 groups of mice in this study and they gave them different types of food and in the 1st group they gave them unlimited amounts of normal mouse chow ad libitum or basically any time they felt like eating over the 24hour cycle and a 2nd group with normal mouse chow but were restricted to an eating window of 8 hours but were given as much food as they wanted during that time. The 3rd group were given a high fat diet and again ate at any time they wanted over that 24hr cycle. 4th group given the high fat diet but again restricted to 8 hours.
The basic takeaway from the study was the mice that ate the high fat but were restricted to 8 hours either maintained their weight or lost weight over time. The other group that ate the same high fat diet but were not time restricted, ate the same number of calories gained weight, some obese and quite sick. The other point was the 2 groups that were restricted showed improvement in health markers. Another important point was that when we eat is as important as what we eat which ties into our internal clock and matched to the light/dark cycle and everything is in harmony, genes are expressed properly, so to speak but when these mice ate whenever they wanted with no time restriction it caused an 80% reduction in rhythmic transcripts and gene expression and that's when bad things happened downstream. For example the liver had the signs of liver disease with fatty deposits and now studies in humans show that for fatty liver TRE can enhance liver health.
The body needs time to digest and rejuvenate and it takes a lot of energy to do this mostly while we're sleeping and digestion can take 5 or 6 hours and if a person is eating from 8 in the morning and still having a snack at 11they're still basically digesting food, which is anabolic in the fed state until the middle of the night, 3am possibly. All of these studies have been replicated in humans and again google time restricted eating or time restricted feeding and hundreds of studies come up and there's studies for TRE just for organs as. I believe and so do most people in the space that when you eat is important for overall health based on the science and this has nothing to do with weight lose, this is about general health. if someone thinks that TRE will contribute to a calorie defict, well that's the diet industry, what can you do but say sure give it a go.
Anyway here's a pod cast with Sangin Panda who basically talks with Dr. Bret Sheer and it pretty relaxed and geared towards less technical speak and makes himself understood quite well as far as a PhD can, I would imagine.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Mj-qleik1P0&t=855s
1 -
The data supporting IF are increasing but still need greater study. The science behind IF point to significant benefits from improved insulin resistance and other hormone activity to improved cellular autophagy. There are many factors that impact the “success” or impact of IF based on the ratio of fast vs feeding, how the fast is broken and the diet your are eating when not fasting. There is no one size fits all so not everyone will find IF as an option. But the science is pointing to significant benefits in overall wellnesssnd longevity.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions