• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Intermittent Fasting -- Good Idea or Not?

Kaylee

Illuminator
K
Joined
Feb 5, 2005
Messages
4,287
From the Bariatric Surgery - weight loss thread:

dlorde said:
There's increasing evidence that partial fast regimes are very effective, e.g. alternate days, or the more attractive 5+2 regime, consisting of two days 'fasting' (less than 600 cals/day) and five days eating normally (no restrictions at all). This kind of regime doesn't have the continuous hunger or difficult food preparation or monotony of most diets. It appears that on their 'eat anything' days people generally don't overcompensate, only eating a little more than their previous norm. Check out 'Eat, Fast and Live Longer'.
Click to expand...

I found the complete BBC episode here

Basically the gist of the show was that the main point of intermittent fasting is to stay healthy longer, or age well. Although the host did lose weight, that did not appear to be the main focus of eating for 5 days and "fasting" for two. The fasting is actually a very restricted diet of less than 600 calories for men and 500 calories for women, as dlorde said above.

However, after taking a quick look at pubmed to see if I could find any studies to support the episode, I found this abstract published in 2009 which said:

IF (my edit: intermittent fasting) does not affect whole-body glucose, lipid, or protein metabolism in healthy lean men despite changes in muscle phosphorylation of GSK and mTOR. The decrease in resting energy expenditure after IF indicates the possibility of an increase in weight during IF when caloric intake is not adjusted. This study was registered at www.trialregister.nl as NTR1841.
Click to expand...

I didn't happen to see anything that supported the BBC show but I'm not knowledgeable about this area and I can find wading through pubmed tough going sometimes. Anybody know more about studies in this area?
 
Last edited:
This is from 1963, found it via wikipedia: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2249073/?tool=pubmed

The wikipedia article sums that up like so:
n the early 1960s, one study of fasting as a method of weight control noted that "[We] have noticed an improvement in the last few months in the ability of these patients to keep their weight under control by observing one fast per week [water only]. This allows them to be more liberal with their diet on the other days. I cannot overemphasize the fact that they prefer this to perpetual daily denial with no alternative."
Click to expand...

Though the fact that they didn't have anything more recent makes me a little weary, I haven't had a chance to really look at it. :)
 
I IF every day. However the definitions of 'fasting' vary wildly, and as UNLoVedRebel says do not pay heed to this detox nonsense.

So.....

Fasting as described in the OP as a period of time with minimal calorie intake - if you break the timing intervals down into 24h intervals...

or.... fasting as a period of time, in a 24h interval, where calorie intake IS NOT drastically reduced.

I am the latter.

My eating usually breaks down like this:

Skip breakfast every day - hate it, never hungry - stopped the day I threw up onto my plate of scrambled eggs and grain based boxed crap made me hungry in 90mins. Coffee with heavy cream so a nice wee dose of fat nomnom.

Lunch @1pm, dinner at 8pm.

So my intermittant fast is from 8pm until 1pm ie approx 16-17h. Proper sized meals.

Maybe twice weekly I will skip lunch and not eat until 8pm, and if hungry later I shall eat something else - yes, almost immediately before bed. And that gives me a 24h 'fast'.

So I am really just compressing my calorie intake window, rather than IF-ing at 'starvation' levels.

Check out Leangains for a humourous no-nonsense take on diet and fitness.
 
I think the principal effect of all diets is to make us actually think about what we eat. What effect that has depends on the kind of person you are and what you ate before.
 
I saw the BBC programme and AIUI the theory is that occasionally reducing the amount of work your body has to do to break down and digest food allows it the time necessary to do some regular "essential maintenance". There does seem to be evidence that drastically reducing calories consumed lengthens lifespan, and this was suggested as a less painful way to get at least some of those benefits. It was definitely presented as principally a way to live a longer healthier life, rather than to lose weight.
 
Weather the alternate-day or the 5-2 fasting regime is looked at, does it not simulate the cyclic food consumption, in terms of timing and qty, that our species were used to experiencing for the first say 95% of it's presence on earth ?

Surely daily food intake, and eventual ludicrous expectation of 3 times per pay, is something relatively new and probably only goes back to the start of agriculture ? Before this, a forraging and hunting life-style would mean having irregular food intake in terms of timing and qty ?

It seems more natural to have food intake on such an alternate-day fasting or a 5-2 basis than daily. Maybe this is why positive effects are observed ?
 
Soapy Sam said:
I think the principal effect of all diets is to make us actually think about what we eat. What effect that has depends on the kind of person you are and what you ate before.
Click to expand...

I think there's a lot to this.

It seems to me that the problem with many diets is that they are difficult (and probably unhealthy) to maintain as a lifestyle, and so when the diet finishes, the damaging lifestyle tends to be resumed. I've rarely dieted, but over the years, when my weight starts creeping up, I've fasted for 24 hours and this seems to 'reset' my appetite control, perhaps partly by making me more aware of what and when I eat.

Being consciously aware of what you're eating and when is important when high calorie foods are always within reach - I've often found myself with my head in the cupboard looking for a snack, with no memory of consciously deciding to eat - and only noticing this when the cupboard is empty. It's a bit of a shock to find that packet of biscuits you bought yesterday is gone already. I no longer buy high calorie processed snack foods for this reason, and now I no longer miss them.

The 5 + 2 intermittent fasting regime reduces overall calorie intake and should make you more aware of your eating habits, but doesn't have the continuous stress of a traditional diet. If it also has positive metabolic effects beyond simple caloric regulation of intake, so much the better.

It's not a new idea, intermittent fasting has been around a long time, and has current advocates (e.g. bodybuilder Brad Pilon's 'Eat Stop Eat' regime), but it hasn't had the attention it's getting of late; it may be just another fad, but I guess we'll find out soon enough.

Personally, I think it's worth a shot. The jury is still out on the overall benefits - according to the Horizon programme, large scale human trials are just beginning, but preliminary results on a small scale with obese subjects have been very encouraging.
 
malicus said:
I IF every day. However the definitions of 'fasting' vary wildly, and as UNLoVedRebel says do not pay heed to this detox nonsense.

So.....

Fasting as described in the OP as a period of time with minimal calorie intake - if you break the timing intervals down into 24h intervals...

or.... fasting as a period of time, in a 24h interval, where calorie intake IS NOT drastically reduced.

I am the latter.

My eating usually breaks down like this:

Skip breakfast every day - hate it, never hungry - stopped the day I threw up onto my plate of scrambled eggs and grain based boxed crap made me hungry in 90mins. Coffee with heavy cream so a nice wee dose of fat nomnom.

Lunch @1pm, dinner at 8pm.

So my intermittant fast is from 8pm until 1pm ie approx 16-17h. Proper sized meals.

Maybe twice weekly I will skip lunch and not eat until 8pm, and if hungry later I shall eat something else - yes, almost immediately before bed. And that gives me a 24h 'fast'.

So I am really just compressing my calorie intake window, rather than IF-ing at 'starvation' levels.

Check out Leangains for a humourous no-nonsense take on diet and fitness.
Click to expand...

I know that website. :)

I have been experimenting with a similar protocol of skipping breakfast, but I typically only fast 12-14 hours per day, and I haven't gone any longer.

I quite like it, and I also have things like chicken and brown rice for 'breakfast' at lunch time.

I find it to be a really easy way to manage my calories, not only physiologically, but psychologically.

Breakfast is easy to skip, and it is nice to eat a lot in the evening when I prefer to eat.

I do have a goal of dropping some body fat, and I have been losing ~0.5 kg per week on 2100 kcals/day.
 
This kind of regime doesn't have the continuous hunger or difficult food preparation or monotony of most diets.
Click to expand...
There are reputed benefits from an occasional fast but easy weight loss is not one of them.
 
psionl0 said:
There are reputed benefits from an occasional fast but easy weight loss is not one of them.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends on the individual, their general dietary habits and lifestyle, what the 'fast' involves, and how often 'occasional' is. It's been very effective for me, but we're all different.
 
fagin said:
I'm not a nutritionist, but it makes no sense to me to skip a meal that will fuel you for the day, then load up on calories and go to sleep.
Click to expand...
To me it seems quite sensible not to eat until you feel hungry, and quite natural to be sleepy after a large meal. Many people just don't feel like breakfast first thing in the morning, and prefer to wait until lunchtime. Breakfast doesn't have to 'fuel you for the day' if you have lunch. Some people find that a high-carb breakfast actually makes them feel hungrier mid-morning (insulin overshoot?) than not having breakfast.

I don't think there are hard and fast rules for everyone, but I do think that the relatively recent traditions of having 3 meals a day, and making breakfast the most important meal, are open to question, and there are many diet myths and misunderstandings, often promulgated or reinforced by commercial interests.
 
Last edited:
I've started using modified fasting as part of my calorie control method and so far, two months in, I'm liking the results.
I find it much easier to focus on planning for one or two healthy meals a day than for three to five healthy mini-meals a day.

If this has positive repercussions on long-term health and longevity, all the better!
 
I know practically nothing about this subject but...

... I thought the Ramadan (Muslim traditional fast) was considered unhealthy by modern science.

And skipping breakfast was considered a fast way to get diabetes and whatnot?

Again, I confess my ignorance on anything diet related, but I'me very interested.

Even though I eat a pretty healthy diet, I've often wondered how much my eating habits differ from what my body was "designed" for.
That is, how much different from a hunter-gatherer? I try not to stray too far from the basics, such as daily exercises to compensate for my desk-job and not overeating, few convenience foods etc.

Obviously humans used to have a much lower calorie intake, so I'm curious what insights there are regarding that aspect.

To summarise: I though fasting was unhealthy, I'm surprised to find that it is regarded as part of a healthy lifestyle outside new-age circles.
 
Eddie Dane said:
... I thought the Ramadan (Muslim traditional fast) was considered unhealthy by modern science.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the evidence for that.

And skipping breakfast was considered a fast way to get diabetes and whatnot?
Click to expand...
Odd then, that the vast majority eat breakfast these days, and diabetes rates are soaring. Perhaps there are other factors involved. One has to question what the evidence is and the proposed mechanism connecting diabetes and no breakfast.

Obviously humans used to have a much lower calorie intake, so I'm curious what insights there are regarding that aspect.

To summarise: I though fasting was unhealthy, I'm surprised to find that it is regarded as part of a healthy lifestyle outside new-age circles.
Click to expand...

Check out the LeanGains web site; there's a lot of interesting and informative guidance based on recent research and critical thinking. The focus is on muscle gain and fat loss, but there's a lot of myth busting for everyone.
 
Eddie Dane said:
I know practically nothing about this subject but...

... I thought the Ramadan (Muslim traditional fast) was considered unhealthy by modern science.

And skipping breakfast was considered a fast way to get diabetes and whatnot?

Again, I confess my ignorance on anything diet related, but I'me very interested.

Even though I eat a pretty healthy diet, I've often wondered how much my eating habits differ from what my body was "designed" for.
That is, how much different from a hunter-gatherer? I try not to stray too far from the basics, such as daily exercises to compensate for my desk-job and not overeating, few convenience foods etc.

Obviously humans used to have a much lower calorie intake, so I'm curious what insights there are regarding that aspect.

To summarise: I though fasting was unhealthy, I'm surprised to find that it is regarded as part of a healthy lifestyle outside new-age circles.
Click to expand...

I think the issue with skipping breakfast is that people don't plan food, so they end up getting really hungry and then eating something that is high sugar, high fat, which is really not a great way to break a fast.
 
Those who regularly skipped breakfast had a 21 percent higher risk of developing diabetes than those who did not. The heightened risk remained even after the researchers accounted for body mass index and the quality of the subjects’ breakfasts.

Other studies have also found a link between skipping breakfast and greater risk of Type 2 diabetes. While it is not clear why the relationship exists, some scientists suspect that a morning meal helps stabilize blood sugar through the day.

Some studies show that consuming a larger proportion of your calories later in the day, especially carbohydrates, has a detrimental impact on blood sugar and insulin levels.
Click to expand...
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/really-to-lower-your-risk-of-diabetes-eat-breakfast/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom