5 ms·

For those looking to avoid alzheimer’s / dementia, there’s evidence linking it to metabolic dysfunction, and intermittent fasting has been shown to help in mice

by Empact 6y ago

For those looking to avoid alzheimer’s / dementia, there’s evidence linking it to metabolic dysfunction, and intermittent fasting has been shown to help in mice. https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-growing-science-behind-a-fasting-treatment-for-alzheimers https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-growing-science-...

sillysaurusx 6y ago
Yeah, sure. Just don't eat, and that'll prevent alzheimer's. If you study history, you have to reconcile these views with the fact that we've been wrong about every medical development until recent history. At one point we were killing cats to curtail the black plague, when in fact it was the fleas that were the cause. We just don't know. And it's fine not to know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
- hans1729 6y ago
  Replying to an article that lists a variety of studies with "we just don't know" doesn't really do your audience here justice tbh
- pmiller2 6y ago
  "There's evidence that..." does not equal "To prevent Alzheimer's, do...." Science does not work that way. We start from a hypothesis ("Alzheimer's is a type of metabolic dysfunction."), to test that hypothesis ("Intermittent fasting may delay or prevent the onset of Alzheimer's."), to finally saying "There's evidence that...." Eventually, once there's enough evidence, we can say with some certainty "To prevent Alzheimer's, do....", but we're not there yet.
  - sillysaurusx 6y ago
    Yes, and it's extremely unsettling that we have absolutely no idea what causes it or how to treat it. But jumping straight to "There is evidence in mice" with the implication of "try this yourself" is not justifiable.
    - peatmoss 6y ago
      On the other hand, even if it’s highly speculative, the cons for most people are “feeling hungry” and “a handful of other benefits that are supported by a growing body of evidence.” I’m all about rigorously testing the hypothesis over time, but the safety / risks of the intervention has been well studied for a very, very long time. “Might help and extremely unlikely to hurt” is not a bad basis on which to decide to take up IF.
- masterMiller_ 6y ago
  It’s pretty glib to just reduce the idea of intermittent fasting to “you don’t eat.” Intermittent fasting shouldn’t even be seen as some kind of innovation, since it’s essentially a return to how human beings have managed their metabolic processes for tens of thousands of years. It’s actually the idea of eating all day everyday that’s the innovation. We evolved to be hunter-gatherers; we had to chase down and kill animals for sustenance, and there was no reliable way to preserve that food. Which means that we are adapted to eating once or twice during a day, probably during the daytime, when our bodies are meant to be active, and then abstaining from food. It’s the relatively recent innovations that changed the way we handle our metabolic processes, like having food available all day and filling it with sugar, that are responsible for the proliferation of things like obesity and diabetes, which our ancient ancestor just didn’t have to deal with to the extent that we do, because their diets were more “natural” and less maladaptive compared to ours. All this is to say that when we’re talking about our diets from a normative point of view, we should think of intermittent fasting sort of as the null hypothesis, necessitating a rebuttal before it can be refuted, and our modern way of stuffing our faces all the time as the alternative hypothesis, requiring justification before it can be accepted. For a healthy adult it’s probably more sensible to consume one’s diet within a reasonable window, say 8 hours per day, than to be constantly digesting the hyper processed, over sugared nonsense we put into our bodies nowadays, to the point where it overlaps with things like our sleep cycle and when we get our exercise in. Of course, I’m not a physician, so don’t take my word for it. But you should consider the fact that formal research is increasingly coming to understand the benefits of IF; OP’s link is only one example. We don’t understand the full range of benefits that IF provides because modern medicine, in the grand scheme of things, is still pretty much in its infancy; we’ve existed for approximately 200,000 years, but we’ve only had modern antibiotics for less than 100. But it can’t be denied that so far, things are looking pretty good for intermittent fasting, at least when it comes to its suitability for “healthy” adults.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    I am an intermittent faster as well and IF got my blood pressure back to normal after 17 years of medication. But I have my doubts regarding usefulness of IF against dementias. These are strange, autodestructive diseases. Maybe IF can lower their incidence or push them to higher age, but unlike diabetes 2nd type, I cannot believe it can reverse them.
- curryst 6y ago
  You're being downvoted without anyone responding, which seems unfair to me. I disagree with you, but your point is valid (if more certainly phrased than I would have gone with). You're right. As a species, we are wrong nearly all the time. For all the things we know, there are dozens of theories that were contemporaries or predecessors of the correct answer as we understand it now. You are entirely ignoring that our understanding does generally get progressively better until we fully understand the subject in question. > At one point we were killing cats to curtail the black plague, when in fact it was the fleas that were the cause. You're right, the cats were not the direct cause, and doing so may have even increased the spread of the Black Plague by allowing rats to spread more quickly. On the other hand, blaming the cats is much closer to the actual answer than what we would have assumed 500 years before that. Namely that some deity was angry at us, and the only way to stop it was to offer gifts to that deity. And treating it through "humors" was a bad approach, but again, much better than guessing that the person had been cursed by a deity and that their survival hinged upon making good with that deity. Our understanding is progressive, not binary. Our correctness is binary (i.e. we're either right, or we're not), but our understanding usually comes in steps where we slowly get closer and closer to the right answer. For fasting and dementia, who knows? We might be right, and we're at the end of the tunnel. Or we might be wrong, but hopefully one step closer to figuring out what's actually going on. > We just don't know. This part I really don't like. There's a difference between "don't know" and "can't know". Assuming you place some level of inherent value on knowledge, it would be optimal if we did know all the things that can be known. Even if you don't place inherent value on knowledge, some knowledge is useful, and surely we should seek to know those things? It's just difficult to determine whether a particular piece of knowledge has use or not. The Planck constant doesn't strike me as particular useful, but I'm almost positive it is to other people. > And it's fine not to know. I also heavily disagree with this part. People are, quite literally, dying in a way that is unimaginable to most of us. Getting dementia is a terrifying thing; it's one of the few things in humanity that can make you entirely lose "you". I've lost several relatives to dementia, and it's heartbreaking to watch. Just alternating periods of dementia where they're practically not there, and periods of clarity where they're terrified about what's happening to them. Death truly is a blessing to someone in advanced stages of dementia. "We just don't know. And it's fine not to know." reads like some late-stage depression that has manifested itself into nihilism. There are tons of corollaries that are probably a lot less comfortable, but with the same implications. "Famine has always existed. And it's fine to not help.", "Racism has always existed. And it's fine to be racist.", "We've tried to stop child abuse and it hasn't worked, so it's fine to stop trying.". Just because something is currently true does not mean it will always be true, nor does it mean that trying to change it is futile. I'm not particularly religious, but your response does remind me of the beginning of the serenity prayer: > God grant me the serenity > To accept the things I cannot change; > Courage to change the things I can; > And wisdom to know the difference. The most important part of that to me is the wisdom to know the difference. I fundamentally believe that dementia is something we can change, given enough time and resources. That makes it something worthwhile to pursue.
Mc_Big_G 6y ago
FWIW, the man in the article has a genetic form of Alzheimer's that is unavoidable.

by Empact 6y ago

sillysaurusx 6y ago

Yeah, sure. Just don't eat, and that'll prevent alzheimer's. If you study history, you have to reconcile these views with the fact that we've been wrong about every medical development until recent history. At one point we were killing cats to curtail the black plague, when in fact it was the fleas that were the cause. We just don't know. And it's fine not to know. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q

hans1729 6y ago
Replying to an article that lists a variety of studies with "we just don't know" doesn't really do your audience here justice tbh
pmiller2 6y ago
"There's evidence that..." does not equal "To prevent Alzheimer's, do...." Science does not work that way. We start from a hypothesis ("Alzheimer's is a type of metabolic dysfunction."), to test that hypothesis ("Intermittent fasting may delay or prevent the onset of Alzheimer's."), to finally saying "There's evidence that...." Eventually, once there's enough evidence, we can say with some certainty "To prevent Alzheimer's, do....", but we're not there yet.
- sillysaurusx 6y ago
  Yes, and it's extremely unsettling that we have absolutely no idea what causes it or how to treat it. But jumping straight to "There is evidence in mice" with the implication of "try this yourself" is not justifiable.
  - peatmoss 6y ago
    On the other hand, even if it’s highly speculative, the cons for most people are “feeling hungry” and “a handful of other benefits that are supported by a growing body of evidence.” I’m all about rigorously testing the hypothesis over time, but the safety / risks of the intervention has been well studied for a very, very long time. “Might help and extremely unlikely to hurt” is not a bad basis on which to decide to take up IF.
masterMiller_ 6y ago
It’s pretty glib to just reduce the idea of intermittent fasting to “you don’t eat.” Intermittent fasting shouldn’t even be seen as some kind of innovation, since it’s essentially a return to how human beings have managed their metabolic processes for tens of thousands of years. It’s actually the idea of eating all day everyday that’s the innovation. We evolved to be hunter-gatherers; we had to chase down and kill animals for sustenance, and there was no reliable way to preserve that food. Which means that we are adapted to eating once or twice during a day, probably during the daytime, when our bodies are meant to be active, and then abstaining from food. It’s the relatively recent innovations that changed the way we handle our metabolic processes, like having food available all day and filling it with sugar, that are responsible for the proliferation of things like obesity and diabetes, which our ancient ancestor just didn’t have to deal with to the extent that we do, because their diets were more “natural” and less maladaptive compared to ours. All this is to say that when we’re talking about our diets from a normative point of view, we should think of intermittent fasting sort of as the null hypothesis, necessitating a rebuttal before it can be refuted, and our modern way of stuffing our faces all the time as the alternative hypothesis, requiring justification before it can be accepted. For a healthy adult it’s probably more sensible to consume one’s diet within a reasonable window, say 8 hours per day, than to be constantly digesting the hyper processed, over sugared nonsense we put into our bodies nowadays, to the point where it overlaps with things like our sleep cycle and when we get our exercise in. Of course, I’m not a physician, so don’t take my word for it. But you should consider the fact that formal research is increasingly coming to understand the benefits of IF; OP’s link is only one example. We don’t understand the full range of benefits that IF provides because modern medicine, in the grand scheme of things, is still pretty much in its infancy; we’ve existed for approximately 200,000 years, but we’ve only had modern antibiotics for less than 100. But it can’t be denied that so far, things are looking pretty good for intermittent fasting, at least when it comes to its suitability for “healthy” adults.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  I am an intermittent faster as well and IF got my blood pressure back to normal after 17 years of medication. But I have my doubts regarding usefulness of IF against dementias. These are strange, autodestructive diseases. Maybe IF can lower their incidence or push them to higher age, but unlike diabetes 2nd type, I cannot believe it can reverse them.
curryst 6y ago
You're being downvoted without anyone responding, which seems unfair to me. I disagree with you, but your point is valid (if more certainly phrased than I would have gone with). You're right. As a species, we are wrong nearly all the time. For all the things we know, there are dozens of theories that were contemporaries or predecessors of the correct answer as we understand it now. You are entirely ignoring that our understanding does generally get progressively better until we fully understand the subject in question. > At one point we were killing cats to curtail the black plague, when in fact it was the fleas that were the cause. You're right, the cats were not the direct cause, and doing so may have even increased the spread of the Black Plague by allowing rats to spread more quickly. On the other hand, blaming the cats is much closer to the actual answer than what we would have assumed 500 years before that. Namely that some deity was angry at us, and the only way to stop it was to offer gifts to that deity. And treating it through "humors" was a bad approach, but again, much better than guessing that the person had been cursed by a deity and that their survival hinged upon making good with that deity. Our understanding is progressive, not binary. Our correctness is binary (i.e. we're either right, or we're not), but our understanding usually comes in steps where we slowly get closer and closer to the right answer. For fasting and dementia, who knows? We might be right, and we're at the end of the tunnel. Or we might be wrong, but hopefully one step closer to figuring out what's actually going on. > We just don't know. This part I really don't like. There's a difference between "don't know" and "can't know". Assuming you place some level of inherent value on knowledge, it would be optimal if we did know all the things that can be known. Even if you don't place inherent value on knowledge, some knowledge is useful, and surely we should seek to know those things? It's just difficult to determine whether a particular piece of knowledge has use or not. The Planck constant doesn't strike me as particular useful, but I'm almost positive it is to other people. > And it's fine not to know. I also heavily disagree with this part. People are, quite literally, dying in a way that is unimaginable to most of us. Getting dementia is a terrifying thing; it's one of the few things in humanity that can make you entirely lose "you". I've lost several relatives to dementia, and it's heartbreaking to watch. Just alternating periods of dementia where they're practically not there, and periods of clarity where they're terrified about what's happening to them. Death truly is a blessing to someone in advanced stages of dementia. "We just don't know. And it's fine not to know." reads like some late-stage depression that has manifested itself into nihilism. There are tons of corollaries that are probably a lot less comfortable, but with the same implications. "Famine has always existed. And it's fine to not help.", "Racism has always existed. And it's fine to be racist.", "We've tried to stop child abuse and it hasn't worked, so it's fine to stop trying.". Just because something is currently true does not mean it will always be true, nor does it mean that trying to change it is futile. I'm not particularly religious, but your response does remind me of the beginning of the serenity prayer: > God grant me the serenity > To accept the things I cannot change; > Courage to change the things I can; > And wisdom to know the difference. The most important part of that to me is the wisdom to know the difference. I fundamentally believe that dementia is something we can change, given enough time and resources. That makes it something worthwhile to pursue.

Mc_Big_G 6y ago

FWIW, the man in the article has a genetic form of Alzheimer's that is unavoidable.