10 ms·

Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects

228 points by clumsysmurf 8y ago

sytelus 8y ago
Better way to state this is: Make sure you have 14hr period where you are not consuming any food (i.e. fasting period).
allforJesse 8y ago
Interesting how this time restricted eating seems to differ from perspectives in the intermittent fasting community. Intermittent Fasting folks tend to espouse avoiding caloric intake for long periods of time every day, but they're fine with black coffee/tea (since it doesn't trigger an insulin response). But here Dr. Panda seems to believe that even coffee would compromise the fasting window: https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s There goes that 7am cup of coffee...
- will_brown 8y ago
  Definitely if you trigger insulin response it is safe to say you break a fast, but any caloric intake breaks the fast, even without insulin response. I’m not sure that video supports your conclusion that coffee/tea breaks the fast, seems to me it’s more of a maybe. I personally appreciated the acknowledgement of the microbiome. The idea that simply...we don’t know and don’t understand the interactions of the microbiome. The example given was artificial sweetener that most every Keto/paleo/low carb/IF advocate would say is ok...well no,it’s probably not because even with zero calorie and no insulin response the interaction with the microbiome likely breaks the fast and is an over all negative (unhealthy) interaction.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >Definitely if you trigger insulin response it is safe to say you break a fast, but any caloric intake breaks the fast, even without insulin response. "Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that. If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology. If we mean "insulin response", then there would be other criteria for breaking a fast. Even traditional religious and cleansing fasts allowed lots of different foods (e.g. plants) and were still considered fasts. Fast is not some one-size-fits-all word that means "absolutely no calories" during it.
    - will_brown 8y ago
      >Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that. If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology. Yes...that is how definitions work. Consuming calories triggers a metabolic response and breaks a fast. That is the generally accepted definition of breaking a fast. There are types of fasts dry fast, water fast, intermittent fast. But the fast part is consistent and means no calories/no metabolic response. The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast. If I consume nothing but sugar and went around calling it a sugar fast, that doesn’t change the definition of fast. Similarly if you have a diet that doesn’t trigger insulin, that is a Dietary ketosis. If you are fasting you will also enter ketosis but since it’s induced through fasting not diet we call it fasting ketosis.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        >The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast. Actually it does. It might not make it "a period of no food consumption at all", but it does make it a fast. It's not the etymology or scholarly definition of words that dictates their meaning, but how they are actually used by the people speaking a language. The word fast (and it's analogous in different languages) has been in use for centuries/millennia longer than people actually knowing what a "metabolic response" is -- so such a concern couldn't be part of how they used the term unless until very recently. As Wikipedia puts it: "Fasting is the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time". Notice the "some or all food"? Here's how the fast period is defined for catholics for example: "For Roman Catholics, fasting, taken as a technical term, is the reduction of one's intake of food to one full meal (which may not contain meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays throughout Lent) and two small meals (known liturgically as collations, taken in the morning and the evening), both of which together should not equal the large meal. Eating solid food between meals is not permitted. Fasting is required of the faithful between the ages of 18 and 59 on specified days. Complete abstinence of meat for the day is required of those 14 and older. Partial abstinence prescribes that meat be taken only once during the course of the day. Meat is understood not to include fish or cold-blooded animals."
      - 8y ago
- mark_l_watson 8y ago
  I just signed up and installed their iOS app. You are correct: drinking coffee or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period. This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work. I will shift my morning coffee to when I have breakfast. I have been non-fasting and fasting with an even split of 12 hours / 12 hours per day, so this will be an adjustment.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work. Or you can ignore their advice (others advice otherwise anyway), and still drink coffee as part of your fasting... It's not like any of this is particularly scientific...
  - browsercoin 8y ago
    > drinking coffee or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period major bummer. I almost entirely rely on caffeine while I'm fasting and it inhibits my appetite.
- mrfusion 8y ago
  But 8am to 6pm would be a ten hour window. So you could have your coffee and a big breakfast. That wouldn’t be so bad. It really just mirrors the advice our lacrosse coaches have been telling us all along. Don’t snack at night.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
crehn 8y ago
Completely anecdotal, but I had some digestive issues for a few weeks, fasted for two days, and everything returned to normal.
leptoniscool 8y ago
Is it better to eat in the morning or night for humans?
- ztjio 8y ago
  A separate study showed a small increase in the effects associated with these windowed eating patterns if the majority of food was consume earlier, and meal size tapered off as the day went on. But the difference wasn't big enough to worry about it.
- abledon 8y ago
  Middle of the day for largest meal. Try to eat less before bed so liver can detox instead of digest food while u sleep. Also if your a man try working on peacock pose each morning 30 mins before eating (up to 5 mins) to boost digestion , if woman be careful when menstruating
  - dexterdog 8y ago
    Peacock pose is not exactly for the faint-hearted.
    - wumms 8y ago
      Peacock pose: "[...] oneself is raised like a horizontal stick holding the floor with both palms while the body is supported by the elbows" (Cited Wikipedia entry with image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayurasana https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayurasana)
  - Franciscouzo 8y ago
    Everything you said sounds like bullshit, do you have any source to back it up?
    - abledon 8y ago
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/ Through an evolution lense we evolved to not be eating huge meals in the middle of the night. When the liver doesn’t have to work on digestion it can better focus on the myriad of other tasks it’s responsible for. As for mayurasana, I doubt any pharma company is going to drop 500 Gs to perform a double blind random controlled study with >1000 participants , but just try it for a month: http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock “”” Benefits of The Peacock (Mayurasana) 1. Because of the pressure on the abdomen,the blood is directed towards the digestive organs.as the intra-abdominal pressure is increased,the abdominal viscera is toned 2. Liver,pancreas,stomach and spleen are invigorated.The nerves and muscles connected with the kidneys and intestines are revitalised. 3. Sluggishness of the liver or hepatic torpidity disappears. “”” It’s dangerous for women because the intense pressure and slight inversion can mess up their menstrual process during the height of it (3day span usually). Sadly no pharma studies are available on this (what company would drop money on studying that !)
djrogers 8y ago
In mice. Whose genes have been altered. And who show no adherence to a circadian rhythm. Not exactly relatable, is it?
- scotty79 8y ago
  Humans too I guess: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-timings-can-reduce-body-fat https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-t...
neuro_imager 8y ago
I'm not sure how well this translates to humans.
- onetimemanytime 8y ago
  I doubt they would do these experiments unless, one way or another, they also apply to us. They are not trying to make mice live longer :)
  - Broken_Hippo 8y ago
    Actually, studies in mice don't always pan out to humans. There are flaws in mouse studies and sometimes the results in humans are wildly different. But mice are cheap, bread readily, and are a great starting point for laboratory tests.
projectramo 8y ago
Another major victory in mankind’s long quest to render mice immortal.
- vedtopkar 8y ago
  A witty quip, and I totally agree with the sentiment, but I'm wondering what other way we have to test hypotheses in vivo. Animal models are pretty key, but my knowledge of the field is incomplete.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    "I guess doing strange things to rodents and measuring the outcomes is useful, but going so far as to turn it into health advice for humans is absurd." 16 days ago I said that. This one seems a little more legitimate and a target for further research. Animal models are a start, but you shouldn't use them to give definitive advice or conclusions. The headline is " Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects" and it is a deception. You are not a mouse, health advice for mice and health advice for humans surely overlaps but there are certainly very many differences. You solve this by doing a human study. It is a lot harder.
    - yostrovs 8y ago
      Interestingly, though, this correlates with the common idea of not eating in the evening. Say you have breakfast at 8, you don't eat after 6pm, when you have your dinner. 10 hours of eating right there with snacks and all. I'm guessing that's why the study was tried, though what do I know.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        And yet some of the population that live more than everybody else of the planet, e.g. the population of Icaria, eat whenever they like, and its very common to eat at late hours (after 10pm). Then again they have a few other tricks up in their sleeves: they eat lots of quality plants grown in their island, they have minimal work related stress (or, for that matter, minimal work in general), leave close to calming nature (including sea), have good community ties, and are legendary for not giving a fuck...
sharmi 8y ago
How does 10 hours of eating and 14 hours of fasting translate to humans? The life span of a mouse is much smaller than humans amd their metabolic rate is higher, 4 times that of humans. So I wonder if that would mean a much longer eating window and fasting window for humans.
- yostrovs 8y ago
  The sun and the moon spin at rates independent of the lifespan of the animal in question.
  - sharmi 8y ago
    Yes, but the effect of food restriction have more pronounced effect in mice vs humans. So, we cannot expect the same efficacy in humans when fasting for the same periods. """ Fasting of mice for 48 h (which causes ∼20% weight loss) or starvation of human volunteers for up to 4 d (which causes <2% weight loss) """ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587
  - coldtea 8y ago
    And are bot irrelevant when we concern ourselves at changes to metabolic rate and other such processes in different animals.
tluyben2 8y ago
If it would work on humans, I guess I am good; I cannot (i am never hungry that early) eat before 10am and I cannot sleep if I eat after 8 pm.
SwellJoe 8y ago
I've been on an intermittent fasting schedule (I usually do 16/8) for about a year and a half. I lost some weight during the first several months, but have leveled off to a reasonable weight (which is probably 10 pounds heavier than I'd like, but ~25 pounds lighter than when I started intermittent fasting). Overall, I don't see any dramatic changes. Lots of people claim to see a significant difference, usually positive, in energy, strength, mood, sleep, etc. But, I generally think all of those metrics are "about the same" for me. Maybe I'm mildly more energetic because of carrying less weight around. But, I'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be noticeable...so, maybe just maintaining levels is progress? Nonetheless, after several years of research into the topic, and related topics like caloric restriction, a couple of years ago I was convinced that the evidence was compelling enough to make it part of my life and started reducing my eating period each day until I was comfortable with 16 hours of fasting each day (sometimes I'll do 20 or 24, if I'm busy and feel OK). I recommend it to people who ask about it, but not because it's a magical cure for all that ails you. I just think the evidence is strong enough to be worth the minor trade-offs. It isn't a risky decision (with the caveat that it probably isn't appropriate for people with diabetes or hypoglycemia or similar)...none of the science indicates negative results, and nearly all of it indicates positive results to one degree or another. It's pretty much like any other diet decision, e.g. eat more vegetables because you'll probably live longer, not because it'll cure cancer or make you an Olympic athlete.
- dave1619 8y ago
  Are you doing LCHF (low carb high fat) as well or just IF (intermittent fasting)?
  - SwellJoe 8y ago
    No, I eat mostly how I've eaten for many years, just on an intermittent schedule. But, I've always eaten pretty healthy; I've been vegetarian for 24 years and relatively conscious of what I eat. I tend to a eat a lot, so if I don't eat good stuff, I get fat. I eat probably more fat than average, and I don't avoid fat, but my diet isn't "high fat", I don't think, and it's certainly not low carb, though I do avoid sugars and many kinds of processed foods, and I never eat fast food. I eat bread, rice, and/or tortillas, regularly, at least once a day, and I tend to eat a pretty sizeable serving. Fruit and vegetables probably make up the majority of the volume/mass I'm consuming most days, but a significant portion of calories come from carbs. My health has always been, thankfully, very good. I'm not doing intermittent fasting to address any specific problem. Losing weight was a goal, because my pants (the same size I've been wearing since college) weren't fitting comfortably anymore...it worked for that, and all my pants fit again. But, I wasn't trying to reboot my eating in some dramatic way. I did try a low carb high fat/protein thing for a while before beginning intermittent fasting, as a way to lose weight, but it didn't work for me. The restrictions just took the fun out of meals. I love food, I love cooking it, love eating it with friends/family, etc. It's pretty hard to have normal meals on a very restrictive diet. I couldn't imagine living out the rest of my days without bread or rice, and any diet change has to be sustainable for decades or it's going to be part of a cycle of weight gain and loss. Intermittent fasting has been sustainable for me. I don't even think about it most days.
zeroimpl 8y ago
Did the mice which had access to food 24/7 eat more overall than the mice with restricted food access? If so, then the study seems useless because the results can entirely be explained as excessive eating leads to health problems. I don't see anything in the article saying how they controlled for quantity of food consumed.
- jayzee44 8y ago
  No the article said that's both groups consumed the same number of calories per day.
  - zeroimpl 8y ago
    Thanks. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time but I see that mentioned now.
browsercoin 8y ago
Is it possible that with economic affluence of the West, overconsumption is harmful? It used to be that there would be days where our ancestors would not be able to bring home any meat so fasting probably was built in as part of our metabolism process. It was only in the past 100 years that we've seen mass produced sugary food and drinks. Like the diet difference is painfully obvious when you go to Japan's 7-11. Healthy stuff all around compared to deep fried fast food. Some days I will only eat 1 meal, and I honestly feel great. The biggest difference being I have way more energy and just feel "light". These days I've converted to mostly Korean food consisting of rice and veggie side dishes incl kimchi of course. I've lost 4kg within 3 weeks just by changing diet. Of course can't resist the burger and fries once in a while....but eating primarily Korean food because I'm Korean I realize is the wise choice....our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably "right" for my metabolism. there's a study that showed East-Asian men living in North America have high rate of prostate related issues which has traditionally never been prevalent in East Asia...and also the rise of American fast food chains have collectively made the world a lot less healthier with the increase of diabetes and obesity.
- sddfd 8y ago
  > our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably "right" for my metabolism. There might be a genetic factor here. The other thing is that the food habits of our ancestors were more thought out than we think. It might be that what they have been eating is not only better because of genetics, but more healthy in general than the terrible foods we can buy everywhere today.
  - browsercoin 8y ago
    Absolutely. It's fascinating how different dietary cultures develop and adapt to their environment in a surprisingly efficient manner. Nothing is wasted. Need to store meat for long periods of winter? Smoke it. Need it on the go? We'll use the left over bits to make sausages. What? You need side dishes that doesn't go bad for a long time? We'll pickle it, store it under ground to ferment it. Huh, you are throwing away all that extra cabbage roots from making kimchi? Put that in a soup or 시락국 containing high levels of Omega-H3 from the broth containing tiny fishes.
m3kw9 8y ago
Just don’t eat too much
throwaway66666 8y ago
I 've spent 3.5/4 years eating nothing except on the weekends (my undergrad). So I would go for 2-5 days at a time without food. Not because of fasting fads or anything, I didn't even know what fasting was. I was just from a very poor family and if I wanted to go for vacations with my friends or party in the weekend or buy a computer I had to save every penny I could. (that's how I bought my first laptop etc). I would eat properly during holidays and the summer only at my parent's home. I was very skinny, but somehow still had fat. Sometimes I bought pants from the women's section or I would take pants to my mom to sew the waist tighter, because I was so thin I couldn't find clothes that fit me (I have some pictures of me wearing my 108lb girlfriend's pants stashed somewhere). I exercised a bit but seeing me without a shirt you could tell I had manboobs and a tiny-lil bit of a potbelly and no abs at all, not even the skinny ones. At some point I developed fainting on sight of blood. I would brush my teeth, and if I scratched my gum and blood came out -- I had to run to the bed asap before passing out. To this day I don't know if I was just afraid of blood (blood doesn't affect me anymore), or I had gotten so weak I was actually nearing total collapse. Blood tests were surprisingly fine I just had low iron. Looking at that period back, I 'm trying to see if the advertised benefits applied to me. I didn't get sick much, but I don't get sick in general. Aging... well what can you say to an 18-22 year old about aging. My libido was low which makes sense I guess. Energy, regular levels. I don't know, I was just a very thin dude, fasting or not, no major epiphanies or amazement. I suppose it's amazing that one can survive fine, no suffering, going for so long without food, but it wasn't better than eating. I am very surprised at how people swear by it. Maybe life is much worse when you eat 3 meals per day? I don't know, nowadays (early 30s) I eat 2 meals and exercise a lot and I 'm pretty content. I think for me, exercise did the trick that elevated both my mood and my energy levels. Would I do the crazy 5-day 4 year fast again? If I was young and "hungry" sure, but it's definitely miserable. Food can be a great social thing to do with friends, and a cool experience especially when trying new dishes and restaurants. The huge food diversity in SF spoiled me. Edit: back then I was very ashamed of my fasting and try to hide it from friends etc. A few weeks ago I was shocked when a coworker told me he was doing a 7 day water-only fast. We 've come a long way!
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  It sounds like you were just starving yourself. I'm going to guess that you weren't eating 2-5 days worth of food whenever you chose to eat? I'm sorry but going that long without eating just doesn't make any sense. Did you/your family only have the ability to buy/acquire one meal at a time or what?
actuator 8y ago
I have tried eating with long gaps in between but somehow that leads me to lose a lot of muscle mass as well. Recently I was trying it again with an overall caloric deficit but sufficient amount of protein intake but I lost both fat and muscle in 1:1 ratio even with regularly working out. I don't know if that was just because of caloric deficit or long gaps in between. I have seen the 5-6 evenly spaced out meals in a day work the best for me if I want to maintain/put on muscle mass.
nickjj 8y ago
I'm kind of surprised this isn't the default for most people. For example let's say you eat dinner at 6-7pm and then goto bed at 11pm. After that you wake up around 7am and then maybe eat breakfast an hour or 2 later. At this point you've gone from about 7pm to 8am or 9am without eating (~13-14 hours) but it fits pretty well into a schedule. Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Of course you would adjust the numbers based on how late you goto bed and rise in the morning, but the ratios would be about the same -- maybe even more fasting if you sleep longer than 8 hours.
- jvvw 8y ago
  That implies eating breakfast at work for most people. Also you need to be leaving work promptly at 5pm, not have too long a commute home and then start cooking straight away if you want to eat dinner by 6.30pm. (I do this, but didn't pre-kids, and don't think it fits by default into most people's lives).
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Depends on the country and culture. In these here parts we still go to work at 8am or 9am, but we dine at 10pm or later (going to a restaurant at 11pm is very common, and similarly for eating at home).
  - nickjj 8y ago
    What time do you get home from work? That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm. I'm from the US btw. I happen to do freelance work but most people I know work from about 9am to 5pm where they leave the house around 8:30am and are home by 5:30pm or 6pm at the latest. Eating breakfast at 8am and dinner at 7pm is normal for them, or sometimes they skip breakfast at home and eat something small at work.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >What time do you get home from work? Depends on the job. Office jobs are nominally 9-5 but it's easy for employees to stay until 7pm or so in some places. Retail shops (anything from butchers and grocery places to supermarkets and shoe shops and electronics shops) close at 8-8:30pm (they usually open around 9am or a little later) -- but those have shifts too (e.g. those working there don't stay all day from 9am to 8:30pm, unless they're the owners). Some places (usually the self-run ones) also close around 2:30/3:00pm and open again at 5:30pm or so. >That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm. Not "still at the restaurant at 11pm" - it's first sitting down at the restaurant at 11pm (they'd leave at 12:30 - 1am or so). They I guess you sleep for 6-7 hours or so and wake at 7 or 8.
laurex 8y ago
The comparison was between rats who could eat anytime and rats eating within a 10 hour window. What makes 10 hours the magic? Could it be 11, 12, 14 hours? Is it better if the window is 6 or 8 hours? Would it be different on a day in which the sun shone for 16 hours or 12 his? There is clearly something there but 10 hours seems arbitrary.
stochastic_monk 8y ago
I’ve experimented with intermittent fasting, carb cycling, and a variety of other methods. Intermittent fasting’s benefits for me are primarily the lack of distraction and fluctuations in my blood glucose level. I found that consuming protein or fats in the morning does not affect the latter benefit. It seems to me that it’s more about a diet that’s easy to stick to than dramatically altering one’s metabolism. Lately, I’ve become more serious about strength training and have given up on it because my caloric needs have skyrocketed (I found myself losing weight at over 3000 calories a day.) and I need to eat frequently to recover. However, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who isn’t an athlete, and to the latter I’d still suggest experimenting.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
scottlocklin 8y ago
I picked it up from Martin Berkhan's leangains. It was a lot easier than counting calories for long term maintenance, and it kept the lard off. It made sense to me from an evolutionary point of view; cavemen don't eat "3 square meals" before attacking wooly mammoths, and virtually every religion in the world includes a rigorous fasting period, which, IMO emulates hunter gatherer eating patterns. For me, the main side effect is I feel a lot more alert, and I waste less time during the day, as preparing and eating food takes up less of it. You know that sleepy feeling you get after a huge breakfast or lunch that makes you reach for an extra cup of coffee? It is no longer a problem. Hunger pangs were an issue for the first two days I did this, and haven't been since then. Oh yeah, and I also feel REALLY FULL when I've eaten too much. Keeping your gut empty from time to time helps you to self regulate. I think I won the genetic lottery as far as aging goes, and I exercise and try to not eat too much junk food, but "so far so good."
dixonge-2 8y ago
I keep reading the study to verify, but the wording is wishy-washy. I can find no numbers that they actually measured the calories taken in by the mice who had access to food ad libitum (24/7). If those numbers aren't measured, you'll never know if the time-restricted mice ate the same calories. Let me know if you can find those calorie intake numbers anywhere...
- dixonge-2 8y ago
  and here's what happened when Panda tracked actual humans - "Even though the participants didn’t change the content of their diet, Panda confirms that reducing the hours they ate resulted in the reduction of about 20 percent of calories, which may be one reason why they were able to lose weight." So it's the calories after all. Regardless, if any technique (well, almost any) helps you cut calories without having to 'count' them, then that's still a win!
Mikho 8y ago
There is more detailed research as to food consumption patterns. Basically fasting for around 16 hours a day is good for health. From the evolutionary perspective--that invested in a human body 200K years--the way we eat today is really broken. And our body can't adapt to a new pattern even during 1000 years. Not to mention like 50. A human body during 200K years was not prepared to eating a lot. It needs to store energy and to use stored energy. That's a natural cycle and different function that our body needs to execute. Nowadays we just store energy 24/7. "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. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage." Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/ Also here are patterns of daily and weekly food consumption from this research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/fig03/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/...

228 points by clumsysmurf 8y ago

Better way to state this is: Make sure you have 14hr period where you are not consuming any food (i.e. fasting period).

Interesting how this time restricted eating seems to differ from perspectives in the intermittent fasting community. Intermittent Fasting folks tend to espouse avoiding caloric intake for long periods of time every day, but they're fine with black coffee/tea (since it doesn't trigger an insulin response). But here Dr. Panda seems to believe that even coffee would compromise the fasting window: https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s https://youtu.be/iywhaz5z0qs?t=1h15m15s There goes that 7am cup of coffee...

will_brown 8y ago
Definitely if you trigger insulin response it is safe to say you break a fast, but any caloric intake breaks the fast, even without insulin response. I’m not sure that video supports your conclusion that coffee/tea breaks the fast, seems to me it’s more of a maybe. I personally appreciated the acknowledgement of the microbiome. The idea that simply...we don’t know and don’t understand the interactions of the microbiome. The example given was artificial sweetener that most every Keto/paleo/low carb/IF advocate would say is ok...well no,it’s probably not because even with zero calorie and no insulin response the interaction with the microbiome likely breaks the fast and is an over all negative (unhealthy) interaction.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >Definitely if you trigger insulin response it is safe to say you break a fast, but any caloric intake breaks the fast, even without insulin response. "Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that. If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology. If we mean "insulin response", then there would be other criteria for breaking a fast. Even traditional religious and cleansing fasts allowed lots of different foods (e.g. plants) and were still considered fasts. Fast is not some one-size-fits-all word that means "absolutely no calories" during it.
  - will_brown 8y ago
    >Breaks a fast" is meaningless without specifying what we mean by that. If we mean "breaking fast = you eat something with calories" then yes, but then it's a tautology. Yes...that is how definitions work. Consuming calories triggers a metabolic response and breaks a fast. That is the generally accepted definition of breaking a fast. There are types of fasts dry fast, water fast, intermittent fast. But the fast part is consistent and means no calories/no metabolic response. The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast. If I consume nothing but sugar and went around calling it a sugar fast, that doesn’t change the definition of fast. Similarly if you have a diet that doesn’t trigger insulin, that is a Dietary ketosis. If you are fasting you will also enter ketosis but since it’s induced through fasting not diet we call it fasting ketosis.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >The idea some religion somewhere ate plants only a called it a fast, doesn’t make it a fast. Actually it does. It might not make it "a period of no food consumption at all", but it does make it a fast. It's not the etymology or scholarly definition of words that dictates their meaning, but how they are actually used by the people speaking a language. The word fast (and it's analogous in different languages) has been in use for centuries/millennia longer than people actually knowing what a "metabolic response" is -- so such a concern couldn't be part of how they used the term unless until very recently. As Wikipedia puts it: "Fasting is the willing abstinence or reduction from some or all food, drink, or both, for a period of time". Notice the "some or all food"? Here's how the fast period is defined for catholics for example: "For Roman Catholics, fasting, taken as a technical term, is the reduction of one's intake of food to one full meal (which may not contain meat on Ash Wednesday and Fridays throughout Lent) and two small meals (known liturgically as collations, taken in the morning and the evening), both of which together should not equal the large meal. Eating solid food between meals is not permitted. Fasting is required of the faithful between the ages of 18 and 59 on specified days. Complete abstinence of meat for the day is required of those 14 and older. Partial abstinence prescribes that meat be taken only once during the course of the day. Meat is understood not to include fish or cold-blooded animals."
    - 8y ago
mark_l_watson 8y ago
I just signed up and installed their iOS app. You are correct: drinking coffee or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period. This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work. I will shift my morning coffee to when I have breakfast. I have been non-fasting and fasting with an even split of 12 hours / 12 hours per day, so this will be an adjustment.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >This will be rough for me because I usually have coffee at 5:30am, read or study for 90 minutes, then have breakfast and go to work. Or you can ignore their advice (others advice otherwise anyway), and still drink coffee as part of your fasting... It's not like any of this is particularly scientific...
- browsercoin 8y ago
  > drinking coffee or tea in the morning starts the non-fasting period major bummer. I almost entirely rely on caffeine while I'm fasting and it inhibits my appetite.
mrfusion 8y ago
But 8am to 6pm would be a ten hour window. So you could have your coffee and a big breakfast. That wouldn’t be so bad. It really just mirrors the advice our lacrosse coaches have been telling us all along. Don’t snack at night.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

crehn 8y ago

Completely anecdotal, but I had some digestive issues for a few weeks, fasted for two days, and everything returned to normal.

leptoniscool 8y ago

Is it better to eat in the morning or night for humans?

ztjio 8y ago
A separate study showed a small increase in the effects associated with these windowed eating patterns if the majority of food was consume earlier, and meal size tapered off as the day went on. But the difference wasn't big enough to worry about it.
abledon 8y ago
Middle of the day for largest meal. Try to eat less before bed so liver can detox instead of digest food while u sleep. Also if your a man try working on peacock pose each morning 30 mins before eating (up to 5 mins) to boost digestion , if woman be careful when menstruating
- dexterdog 8y ago
  Peacock pose is not exactly for the faint-hearted.
  - wumms 8y ago
    Peacock pose: "[...] oneself is raised like a horizontal stick holding the floor with both palms while the body is supported by the elbows" (Cited Wikipedia entry with image: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayurasana https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayurasana)
- Franciscouzo 8y ago
  Everything you said sounds like bullshit, do you have any source to back it up?
  - abledon 8y ago
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072577/ Through an evolution lense we evolved to not be eating huge meals in the middle of the night. When the liver doesn’t have to work on digestion it can better focus on the myriad of other tasks it’s responsible for. As for mayurasana, I doubt any pharma company is going to drop 500 Gs to perform a double blind random controlled study with >1000 participants , but just try it for a month: http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock http://www.hathayogamysore.com/asanas/mayurasana-the-peacock “”” Benefits of The Peacock (Mayurasana) 1. Because of the pressure on the abdomen,the blood is directed towards the digestive organs.as the intra-abdominal pressure is increased,the abdominal viscera is toned 2. Liver,pancreas,stomach and spleen are invigorated.The nerves and muscles connected with the kidneys and intestines are revitalised. 3. Sluggishness of the liver or hepatic torpidity disappears. “”” It’s dangerous for women because the intense pressure and slight inversion can mess up their menstrual process during the height of it (3day span usually). Sadly no pharma studies are available on this (what company would drop money on studying that !)

djrogers 8y ago

In mice. Whose genes have been altered. And who show no adherence to a circadian rhythm. Not exactly relatable, is it?

scotty79 8y ago
Humans too I guess: https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-timings-can-reduce-body-fat https://www.surrey.ac.uk/news/changes-breakfast-and-dinner-t...

neuro_imager 8y ago

I'm not sure how well this translates to humans.

onetimemanytime 8y ago
I doubt they would do these experiments unless, one way or another, they also apply to us. They are not trying to make mice live longer :)
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Actually, studies in mice don't always pan out to humans. There are flaws in mouse studies and sometimes the results in humans are wildly different. But mice are cheap, bread readily, and are a great starting point for laboratory tests.

projectramo 8y ago

Another major victory in mankind’s long quest to render mice immortal.

vedtopkar 8y ago
A witty quip, and I totally agree with the sentiment, but I'm wondering what other way we have to test hypotheses in vivo. Animal models are pretty key, but my knowledge of the field is incomplete.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  "I guess doing strange things to rodents and measuring the outcomes is useful, but going so far as to turn it into health advice for humans is absurd." 16 days ago I said that. This one seems a little more legitimate and a target for further research. Animal models are a start, but you shouldn't use them to give definitive advice or conclusions. The headline is " Eating in 10-hour window can override disease-causing genetic defects" and it is a deception. You are not a mouse, health advice for mice and health advice for humans surely overlaps but there are certainly very many differences. You solve this by doing a human study. It is a lot harder.
  - yostrovs 8y ago
    Interestingly, though, this correlates with the common idea of not eating in the evening. Say you have breakfast at 8, you don't eat after 6pm, when you have your dinner. 10 hours of eating right there with snacks and all. I'm guessing that's why the study was tried, though what do I know.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      And yet some of the population that live more than everybody else of the planet, e.g. the population of Icaria, eat whenever they like, and its very common to eat at late hours (after 10pm). Then again they have a few other tricks up in their sleeves: they eat lots of quality plants grown in their island, they have minimal work related stress (or, for that matter, minimal work in general), leave close to calming nature (including sea), have good community ties, and are legendary for not giving a fuck...

sharmi 8y ago

How does 10 hours of eating and 14 hours of fasting translate to humans? The life span of a mouse is much smaller than humans amd their metabolic rate is higher, 4 times that of humans. So I wonder if that would mean a much longer eating window and fasting window for humans.

yostrovs 8y ago
The sun and the moon spin at rates independent of the lifespan of the animal in question.
- sharmi 8y ago
  Yes, but the effect of food restriction have more pronounced effect in mice vs humans. So, we cannot expect the same efficacy in humans when fasting for the same periods. """ Fasting of mice for 48 h (which causes ∼20% weight loss) or starvation of human volunteers for up to 4 d (which causes <2% weight loss) """ [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28059587
- coldtea 8y ago
  And are bot irrelevant when we concern ourselves at changes to metabolic rate and other such processes in different animals.

tluyben2 8y ago

If it would work on humans, I guess I am good; I cannot (i am never hungry that early) eat before 10am and I cannot sleep if I eat after 8 pm.

SwellJoe 8y ago

I've been on an intermittent fasting schedule (I usually do 16/8) for about a year and a half. I lost some weight during the first several months, but have leveled off to a reasonable weight (which is probably 10 pounds heavier than I'd like, but ~25 pounds lighter than when I started intermittent fasting). Overall, I don't see any dramatic changes. Lots of people claim to see a significant difference, usually positive, in energy, strength, mood, sleep, etc. But, I generally think all of those metrics are "about the same" for me. Maybe I'm mildly more energetic because of carrying less weight around. But, I'm also at the age where the effects of aging begin to be noticeable...so, maybe just maintaining levels is progress? Nonetheless, after several years of research into the topic, and related topics like caloric restriction, a couple of years ago I was convinced that the evidence was compelling enough to make it part of my life and started reducing my eating period each day until I was comfortable with 16 hours of fasting each day (sometimes I'll do 20 or 24, if I'm busy and feel OK). I recommend it to people who ask about it, but not because it's a magical cure for all that ails you. I just think the evidence is strong enough to be worth the minor trade-offs. It isn't a risky decision (with the caveat that it probably isn't appropriate for people with diabetes or hypoglycemia or similar)...none of the science indicates negative results, and nearly all of it indicates positive results to one degree or another. It's pretty much like any other diet decision, e.g. eat more vegetables because you'll probably live longer, not because it'll cure cancer or make you an Olympic athlete.

dave1619 8y ago
Are you doing LCHF (low carb high fat) as well or just IF (intermittent fasting)?
- SwellJoe 8y ago
  No, I eat mostly how I've eaten for many years, just on an intermittent schedule. But, I've always eaten pretty healthy; I've been vegetarian for 24 years and relatively conscious of what I eat. I tend to a eat a lot, so if I don't eat good stuff, I get fat. I eat probably more fat than average, and I don't avoid fat, but my diet isn't "high fat", I don't think, and it's certainly not low carb, though I do avoid sugars and many kinds of processed foods, and I never eat fast food. I eat bread, rice, and/or tortillas, regularly, at least once a day, and I tend to eat a pretty sizeable serving. Fruit and vegetables probably make up the majority of the volume/mass I'm consuming most days, but a significant portion of calories come from carbs. My health has always been, thankfully, very good. I'm not doing intermittent fasting to address any specific problem. Losing weight was a goal, because my pants (the same size I've been wearing since college) weren't fitting comfortably anymore...it worked for that, and all my pants fit again. But, I wasn't trying to reboot my eating in some dramatic way. I did try a low carb high fat/protein thing for a while before beginning intermittent fasting, as a way to lose weight, but it didn't work for me. The restrictions just took the fun out of meals. I love food, I love cooking it, love eating it with friends/family, etc. It's pretty hard to have normal meals on a very restrictive diet. I couldn't imagine living out the rest of my days without bread or rice, and any diet change has to be sustainable for decades or it's going to be part of a cycle of weight gain and loss. Intermittent fasting has been sustainable for me. I don't even think about it most days.

zeroimpl 8y ago

Did the mice which had access to food 24/7 eat more overall than the mice with restricted food access? If so, then the study seems useless because the results can entirely be explained as excessive eating leads to health problems. I don't see anything in the article saying how they controlled for quantity of food consumed.

jayzee44 8y ago
No the article said that's both groups consumed the same number of calories per day.
- zeroimpl 8y ago
  Thanks. I didn't read it carefully enough the first time but I see that mentioned now.

browsercoin 8y ago

Is it possible that with economic affluence of the West, overconsumption is harmful? It used to be that there would be days where our ancestors would not be able to bring home any meat so fasting probably was built in as part of our metabolism process. It was only in the past 100 years that we've seen mass produced sugary food and drinks. Like the diet difference is painfully obvious when you go to Japan's 7-11. Healthy stuff all around compared to deep fried fast food. Some days I will only eat 1 meal, and I honestly feel great. The biggest difference being I have way more energy and just feel "light". These days I've converted to mostly Korean food consisting of rice and veggie side dishes incl kimchi of course. I've lost 4kg within 3 weeks just by changing diet. Of course can't resist the burger and fries once in a while....but eating primarily Korean food because I'm Korean I realize is the wise choice....our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably "right" for my metabolism. there's a study that showed East-Asian men living in North America have high rate of prostate related issues which has traditionally never been prevalent in East Asia...and also the rise of American fast food chains have collectively made the world a lot less healthier with the increase of diabetes and obesity.

sddfd 8y ago
> our ancestors have been eating the same stuff for millenias so it's probably "right" for my metabolism. There might be a genetic factor here. The other thing is that the food habits of our ancestors were more thought out than we think. It might be that what they have been eating is not only better because of genetics, but more healthy in general than the terrible foods we can buy everywhere today.
- browsercoin 8y ago
  Absolutely. It's fascinating how different dietary cultures develop and adapt to their environment in a surprisingly efficient manner. Nothing is wasted. Need to store meat for long periods of winter? Smoke it. Need it on the go? We'll use the left over bits to make sausages. What? You need side dishes that doesn't go bad for a long time? We'll pickle it, store it under ground to ferment it. Huh, you are throwing away all that extra cabbage roots from making kimchi? Put that in a soup or 시락국 containing high levels of Omega-H3 from the broth containing tiny fishes.

m3kw9 8y ago

Just don’t eat too much

throwaway66666 8y ago

I 've spent 3.5/4 years eating nothing except on the weekends (my undergrad). So I would go for 2-5 days at a time without food. Not because of fasting fads or anything, I didn't even know what fasting was. I was just from a very poor family and if I wanted to go for vacations with my friends or party in the weekend or buy a computer I had to save every penny I could. (that's how I bought my first laptop etc). I would eat properly during holidays and the summer only at my parent's home. I was very skinny, but somehow still had fat. Sometimes I bought pants from the women's section or I would take pants to my mom to sew the waist tighter, because I was so thin I couldn't find clothes that fit me (I have some pictures of me wearing my 108lb girlfriend's pants stashed somewhere). I exercised a bit but seeing me without a shirt you could tell I had manboobs and a tiny-lil bit of a potbelly and no abs at all, not even the skinny ones. At some point I developed fainting on sight of blood. I would brush my teeth, and if I scratched my gum and blood came out -- I had to run to the bed asap before passing out. To this day I don't know if I was just afraid of blood (blood doesn't affect me anymore), or I had gotten so weak I was actually nearing total collapse. Blood tests were surprisingly fine I just had low iron. Looking at that period back, I 'm trying to see if the advertised benefits applied to me. I didn't get sick much, but I don't get sick in general. Aging... well what can you say to an 18-22 year old about aging. My libido was low which makes sense I guess. Energy, regular levels. I don't know, I was just a very thin dude, fasting or not, no major epiphanies or amazement. I suppose it's amazing that one can survive fine, no suffering, going for so long without food, but it wasn't better than eating. I am very surprised at how people swear by it. Maybe life is much worse when you eat 3 meals per day? I don't know, nowadays (early 30s) I eat 2 meals and exercise a lot and I 'm pretty content. I think for me, exercise did the trick that elevated both my mood and my energy levels. Would I do the crazy 5-day 4 year fast again? If I was young and "hungry" sure, but it's definitely miserable. Food can be a great social thing to do with friends, and a cool experience especially when trying new dishes and restaurants. The huge food diversity in SF spoiled me. Edit: back then I was very ashamed of my fasting and try to hide it from friends etc. A few weeks ago I was shocked when a coworker told me he was doing a 7 day water-only fast. We 've come a long way!

oh_sigh 8y ago
It sounds like you were just starving yourself. I'm going to guess that you weren't eating 2-5 days worth of food whenever you chose to eat? I'm sorry but going that long without eating just doesn't make any sense. Did you/your family only have the ability to buy/acquire one meal at a time or what?

actuator 8y ago

I have tried eating with long gaps in between but somehow that leads me to lose a lot of muscle mass as well. Recently I was trying it again with an overall caloric deficit but sufficient amount of protein intake but I lost both fat and muscle in 1:1 ratio even with regularly working out. I don't know if that was just because of caloric deficit or long gaps in between. I have seen the 5-6 evenly spaced out meals in a day work the best for me if I want to maintain/put on muscle mass.

nickjj 8y ago

I'm kind of surprised this isn't the default for most people. For example let's say you eat dinner at 6-7pm and then goto bed at 11pm. After that you wake up around 7am and then maybe eat breakfast an hour or 2 later. At this point you've gone from about 7pm to 8am or 9am without eating (~13-14 hours) but it fits pretty well into a schedule. Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Of course you would adjust the numbers based on how late you goto bed and rise in the morning, but the ratios would be about the same -- maybe even more fasting if you sleep longer than 8 hours.

jvvw 8y ago
That implies eating breakfast at work for most people. Also you need to be leaving work promptly at 5pm, not have too long a commute home and then start cooking straight away if you want to eat dinner by 6.30pm. (I do this, but didn't pre-kids, and don't think it fits by default into most people's lives).
coldtea 8y ago
>Wouldn't you have to really go out of your way to deviate from that? Depends on the country and culture. In these here parts we still go to work at 8am or 9am, but we dine at 10pm or later (going to a restaurant at 11pm is very common, and similarly for eating at home).
- nickjj 8y ago
  What time do you get home from work? That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm. I'm from the US btw. I happen to do freelance work but most people I know work from about 9am to 5pm where they leave the house around 8:30am and are home by 5:30pm or 6pm at the latest. Eating breakfast at 8am and dinner at 7pm is normal for them, or sometimes they skip breakfast at home and eat something small at work.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >What time do you get home from work? Depends on the job. Office jobs are nominally 9-5 but it's easy for employees to stay until 7pm or so in some places. Retail shops (anything from butchers and grocery places to supermarkets and shoe shops and electronics shops) close at 8-8:30pm (they usually open around 9am or a little later) -- but those have shifts too (e.g. those working there don't stay all day from 9am to 8:30pm, unless they're the owners). Some places (usually the self-run ones) also close around 2:30/3:00pm and open again at 5:30pm or so. >That sounds like an unreasonably long day if you have to be in work by 8am but you're still at a restaurant at 11pm. Not "still at the restaurant at 11pm" - it's first sitting down at the restaurant at 11pm (they'd leave at 12:30 - 1am or so). They I guess you sleep for 6-7 hours or so and wake at 7 or 8.

laurex 8y ago

The comparison was between rats who could eat anytime and rats eating within a 10 hour window. What makes 10 hours the magic? Could it be 11, 12, 14 hours? Is it better if the window is 6 or 8 hours? Would it be different on a day in which the sun shone for 16 hours or 12 his? There is clearly something there but 10 hours seems arbitrary.

stochastic_monk 8y ago

I’ve experimented with intermittent fasting, carb cycling, and a variety of other methods. Intermittent fasting’s benefits for me are primarily the lack of distraction and fluctuations in my blood glucose level. I found that consuming protein or fats in the morning does not affect the latter benefit. It seems to me that it’s more about a diet that’s easy to stick to than dramatically altering one’s metabolism. Lately, I’ve become more serious about strength training and have given up on it because my caloric needs have skyrocketed (I found myself losing weight at over 3000 calories a day.) and I need to eat frequently to recover. However, I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who isn’t an athlete, and to the latter I’d still suggest experimenting.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

scottlocklin 8y ago

I picked it up from Martin Berkhan's leangains. It was a lot easier than counting calories for long term maintenance, and it kept the lard off. It made sense to me from an evolutionary point of view; cavemen don't eat "3 square meals" before attacking wooly mammoths, and virtually every religion in the world includes a rigorous fasting period, which, IMO emulates hunter gatherer eating patterns. For me, the main side effect is I feel a lot more alert, and I waste less time during the day, as preparing and eating food takes up less of it. You know that sleepy feeling you get after a huge breakfast or lunch that makes you reach for an extra cup of coffee? It is no longer a problem. Hunger pangs were an issue for the first two days I did this, and haven't been since then. Oh yeah, and I also feel REALLY FULL when I've eaten too much. Keeping your gut empty from time to time helps you to self regulate. I think I won the genetic lottery as far as aging goes, and I exercise and try to not eat too much junk food, but "so far so good."

dixonge-2 8y ago

I keep reading the study to verify, but the wording is wishy-washy. I can find no numbers that they actually measured the calories taken in by the mice who had access to food ad libitum (24/7). If those numbers aren't measured, you'll never know if the time-restricted mice ate the same calories. Let me know if you can find those calorie intake numbers anywhere...

dixonge-2 8y ago
and here's what happened when Panda tracked actual humans - "Even though the participants didn’t change the content of their diet, Panda confirms that reducing the hours they ate resulted in the reduction of about 20 percent of calories, which may be one reason why they were able to lose weight." So it's the calories after all. Regardless, if any technique (well, almost any) helps you cut calories without having to 'count' them, then that's still a win!

Mikho 8y ago

There is more detailed research as to food consumption patterns. Basically fasting for around 16 hours a day is good for health. From the evolutionary perspective--that invested in a human body 200K years--the way we eat today is really broken. And our body can't adapt to a new pattern even during 1000 years. Not to mention like 50. A human body during 200K years was not prepared to eating a lot. It needs to store energy and to use stored energy. That's a natural cycle and different function that our body needs to execute. Nowadays we just store energy 24/7. "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. The mechanisms involve a metabolic shift to fat metabolism and ketone production, and stimulation of adaptive cellular stress responses that prevent and repair molecular damage." Here is the link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/ Also here are patterns of daily and weekly food consumption from this research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/fig03/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4250148/figure/...