Merged Intermittent Fasting -- Good Idea or Not?

[Kaylee]

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.

That's great!

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Nice summary.

While I was trying to see what studies supported the BBC program I came across this 2008 abstract:

Long-term effects of calorie or protein restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentration in humans.

It suggests that at least some of the results (reducing IGF-1 which apparently reduces the chances of cancer) comes strictly from reducing calories from protein and not just overall calories.

Yet other studies (going from memory) show that reducing carbs also reduces insulin spikes which in turn I think would reduce other health problems such as diabetes.

So if one reduces both calories from protein and carbs -- chances are that total calories will go down. I would think its doubtful that the average person would make up the entire difference in fat, even non-saturated fat.

I'm finding that these studies are giving me a lot to think about!

 

[Kaylee]

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.

I was very surprised also. I also thought that fasting would lower one's metabolism rate and make it even more likely that one would gain weight.

But many of the bloggers and posters on 'teh webz' are currently saying that fasting doesn't lower one's MR until you go past the 72 hour mark. I haven't come across a link to any original studies yet -- that's on my to do list when I have time. But that appears to be the currently accepted words of wisdom now, for what that is worth. {shrug}. Not much in my book -- I want to see the study before I personally accept it. But apparently many people are accepting that as a fact now.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/really-to-lower-your-risk-of-diabetes-eat-breakfast/

Thanks, I knew my memory wasn't totally useless.

I find that very surprising. Again, I have no links to the original studies -- but many posters and bloggers are saying that one of the hormonal effects of intermittent fasting is to lower the blood sugar levels and thus insulin spikes and therefore the chances of acquiring diabetes type 2.

A casual perusal of the diet forums showed this belief to be the number 2 reason why people are choosing this diet. (First one appearing to be so they don't have to think about food and choices the rest of the day.) I know, I know the plural of anecdotes is not facts. Still I find the discrepancy surprising.

I'd also be interested to know if any work has been done on the differences between the modern high-carb cereal breakfast and the more traditional breakfast with more protein & fat.

Yeah, I would think that would make a big difference in any study's findings.

You know what's also unhealthy?
Working with me after I've skipped breakfast.

I once stabbed an intern with a pen. It's true.

 

[Kaylee]

Oh-kay.

Straight out, this is anecdotal. I have no expertise in this other than my experience.

Me? I am 5'8'', 10'6. Same all my life. My father? same all his life.

It matters not what I or he eats. It just stays the same. I do, and my father does also, put on a pound or four over Christmas, but that vanishes in the spring.

I have no idea why that should be so. Nor have I any clue why some colleagues will decamp for food "because they will not be able to function without".

I, and others have at times done 72hr stints working on computers, and inevitably, there are those who must go eat, and those, like myself, who shrug, and say "sure, whatever".

I have no idea why. But my three siblings are the very same.

It baffles me.

If I had to take a WAG, I would say an usually high tolerance for carbs due to unique genetics that runs in your family?

Your insulin kicks in much later than for the average person -- so you have a higher amount of glycogen stored and thus a lower tendency to store fat?

This is a WAG. I am definitely not a nutritionist! and I'm not even that confident in what I know about nutrition yet. I hope to continue to get more knowledgeable in this area.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

Isn't it weird that the typical American breakfast is probably the most sugary meal of the day?

 

[Kaylee]

"Slow-release" carbs are still Wile E. Coyote on rocket skates compared to meat and fats.

The difference is so minimal it's almost false advertising. Brown rice, 100% whole wheat, please. Low-sugar Chinese food on a bed of lettuce is light years beyond brown rice, which is only an inch ahead of white rice. (And much better than rice, too. I recommend trying it.)

A couple of months ago I started adding non-starch vegs to my breakfast and I really am pleased with the results.

It really keeps me going much longer before I start feeling hungry.

In the interest of full disclosure I'm a big fan of whole grains also -- I find steel cuts oats or buckwheat also keeps me going.

But the combo of steel cut oats or buckwheat, non-starch vegs (steamed collard greens with a tiny bit of soy sauce or hot sauce or even a tossed salad), and either an egg or half-cup of yogurt is dynamite. It easily keeps me going for 4 or 5 hours.

 

[Kaylee]

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.

I really like that idea. I doubt that I will take up fasting on a regular basis, but I think I will give that approach a try the next time my appetite starts growing in leaps and bounds.

Fasting definition varies. In this fast I would continue to drink plenty of water. Do you include water in your fasts?

==
==

I got a few deadlines this week, so I may not be back on til next weekend. But just want you all to know I appreciated the posts and got a lot out of them. Will definitely be lurking in case any of you decide to post some more.

 

[Kaylee]

For just an instant, I read the thread title as "intermittent farting". That is all.

 

[Kaylee]

Ooops! I'm deeply insulted nobody noticed earlier .....

Just think of it as most people completely trusting your summaries ...

It should have linked to this google scholar search

Thanks for the links! Should make for future interesting reading ...

Not just sex differences either. I've seen some work indicating other genetic differences in High Carb vs High Fat/Protein diet efficacy.

Cool. Perhaps due to our ancestors not likely to travel as far and each subpopulation adjusted to what foods were available locally?

 

[Tatyana]

Nice summary.

While I was trying to see what studies supported the BBC program I came across this 2008 abstract:

Long-term effects of calorie or protein restriction on serum IGF-1 and IGFBP-3 concentration in humans.

It suggests that at least some of the results (reducing IGF-1 which apparently reduces the chances of cancer) comes strictly from reducing calories from protein and not just overall calories.

Yet other studies (going from memory) show that reducing carbs also reduces insulin spikes which in turn I think would reduce other health problems such as diabetes.

So if one reduces both calories from protein and carbs -- chances are that total calories will go down. I would think its doubtful that the average person would make up the entire difference in fat, even non-saturated fat.

I'm finding that these studies are giving me a lot to think about!

IGF-1 is often deranged in cancer, yes, however, I wouldn't think that the link with proteins is that strong.

We do know severe calorie restriction promotes longevity.

There have also been some small studies that have demonstrated the reversal of type II diabetes with a low calorie diet.

Personally, the one macronutrient I wouldn't drop is protein. Maintaining muscle is far too important in preventing diabetes, preventing pathological fractures when elderly as well as maintaining higher metabolic levels.

 

[dlorde]

I really like that idea. I doubt that I will take up fasting on a regular basis, but I think I will give that approach a try the next time my appetite starts growing in leaps and bounds.

Fasting definition varies. In this fast I would continue to drink plenty of water. Do you include water in your fasts?

Oh yes - water and green tea ad libitum, but no sugar or milk. It helps to drink a glass of water or a cup of tea when the occasional hunger pang strikes.

If you're reasonably healthy, a 24 hour fast should be safe enough, but if you have any relevant medical condition it's advisable to check with your medical practitioner first.

 

[Eddie Dane]

As an aside:

I just made one litre of green tea, added honey and one squeezed lemon.
Let it cool off, put in an old water bottle in the fridge.

Serves a sports drink and fast alternative for coffee.

Another pleasant habit I picked up: drinking warm water.
Big tea glass, half filled with boiling water, top up with cold water.

Got that from a Chinese colleague.

Warning: might cuase immediate need for a toilet visit. Do not try before you commute.

 

[Kaylee]

IGF-1 is often deranged in cancer, yes, however, I wouldn't think that the link with proteins is that strong.

We do know severe calorie restriction promotes longevity.

There have also been some small studies that have demonstrated the reversal of type II diabetes with a low calorie diet.

Personally, the one macronutrient I wouldn't drop is protein. Maintaining muscle is far too important in preventing diabetes, preventing pathological fractures when elderly as well as maintaining higher metabolic levels.

What you say makes a lot of sense. My guess is that the finding would be meaningful to people who are overeating everything -- including proteins.

Would you happen to have an opinion on what the sweet spot is for protein intake (grams per kg)?

 

[Kaylee]

Oh yes - water and green tea ad libitum, but no sugar or milk. It helps to drink a glass of water or a cup of tea when the occasional hunger pang strikes.

If you're reasonably healthy, a 24 hour fast should be safe enough, but if you have any relevant medical condition it's advisable to check with your medical practitioner first.

I'm scheduled to see my physician the end of Sept for a blood sugar check to confirm that I'm no longer in the pre-diabetes stages.

So I'll ask her then what she things about occasionally fasting for 24 hours or restricting meals to windows varying from 4 - 10 hours. She generally toes the most conservative line and it will be interesting to see what that is currently.

I've been able to lose weight at an average rate of a lb a week since last December, but I'm concerned about being able to continue to do that and then being able to maintain it.

Most of the time I feel fine, except in the evenings. I'm usually hungrier after dinner than before dinner and that is not just going to work long term. Hormones always win in the end -- I need to figure out a way to change how my hormones are acting in the evenings for long term success.

 

[ectoplasm]

Would you happen to have an opinion on what the sweet spot is for protein intake (grams per kg)?

0.8 g/kg for most people, 1.1 g/kg for serious endurance athletes and 1.3 g/kg for serious strength athletes.
(ref. Which Comes first, Cardio or Weights? Alex Hutchinson p.118)

 

[Kaylee]

0.8 g/kg for most people, 1.1 g/kg for serious endurance athletes and 1.3 g/kg for serious strength athletes.
(ref. Which Comes first, Cardio or Weights? Alex Hutchinson p.118)

I looked up this book and found this review:

In Which Comes First, Cardio or Weights?, physicist and award-winning journalist Alex Hutchinson tackles dozens of commonly held beliefs and looks at just what research science has—and has not—proven to be true

It's going on my "to read" list. Thank you!

 

[ectoplasm]

I looked up this book and found this review:



It's going on my "to read" list. Thank you!

Here is another review. The other book mentioned, The Cure for Everything by Timothy Caulfield, is also good.

 

[Explorer]

If this diet catches on widely, the diet food manaufacturers are going to get very worried. Their preparations are relatively expensive, and no doubt also highly profitable.

I have tried the 5/2 now for three weeks and it seems to work for me.

On the fast days, I restrict my intake to 600 calories which are taken from protein enriched food like eggs and bacon around mid morning. The rest of the day I top up with tea and spring water. I do this on two consecutive days. A friend told me that consecutive days are not the way to do it, but it seems that insufficient research so far has been carried out to come to any firm recommendations.

Overall, I have lost about 7 lbs in those three weeks, and feel much better, although this feeling may be simply a placebo effect. I am impressed enough to carry on, and am finding that the fast days get easier after three weeks.

 

[pakeha]

A couple of months ago I started adding non-starch vegs to my breakfast and I really am pleased with the results. ...
It really keeps me going much longer before I start feeling hungry.

I've found the same.
Well, not collard greens in my case.
Green beans, broccoli, or spinach with slivered ginger, soy sauce and tofu.
Instead of tofu every day, I'll use whatever lean protein source I have to hand.

...Personally, the one macronutrient I wouldn't drop is protein. Maintaining muscle is far too important in preventing diabetes, preventing pathological fractures when elderly as well as maintaining higher metabolic levels.

Seconded!

I'm scheduled to see my physician the end of Sept for a blood sugar check to confirm that I'm no longer in the pre-diabetes stages. ...
Most of the time I feel fine, except in the evenings. I'm usually hungrier after dinner than before dinner and that is not just going to work long term. Hormones always win in the end -- I need to figure out a way to change how my hormones are acting in the evenings for long term success.

All the best with the blood sugar test!
About the evening binging- try binging on unlimited raw endive with a vinaigrette 'dip'.

 

[zooterkin]

On the topic of reduced calorie diets (as opposed periodic fasting), looks like the benefits may not apply to primates.

In a long-awaited study, underfed monkeys didn’t have longer life spans, raising doubts that severe calorie restriction could result in extended lives for most animals and possibly humans.

In research going back more than 75 years, a sharp reduction in caloric intake has been associated with increased longevity. The initial work was done with mice and rats but was later corroborated in other laboratory subjects such as fruit flies and worms, raising hopes that it would apply to humans.

But those hopes are being dimmed by the results published Wednesday online by the journal Nature. The National Institute on Aging study, begun in 1987, involved rhesus monkeys, which are much closer to humans, both genetically and in average longevity, than previous test subjects.

The scientists, led by Julie Mattison, were surprised to find that calorie restriction — the treated monkeys ate 30 percent fewer calories than those in the control group — didn’t affect life spans.