4 ms·

You could ask the same question about eating 3-4 meals per day. This is a relatively new phenomenon for humans - starting in the 1700s. Feast/famine is how we

You could ask the same question about eating 3-4 meals per day. This is a relatively new phenomenon for humans - starting in the 1700s. Feast/famine is how we used to live. The Romans ate one meal a day and frowned upon breakfast, for instance - their default was what we would now consider OMAD fasting. [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20243692 https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20243692

throwawaymanbot 5y ago
what was their life expectancy?
onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
Just because you can ask the same question about eating 3-4 meals per day DOES NOT mean that we can automatically assume that fasting might be better but is definitely not worse. It could be better, worse, or the same. We don't know. And there's no reason to assume that it might be better while it is definitely not worse (and therefore an obvious choice).
- arcticbull 5y ago
  There are reasons to assume it might be better. It dramatically raises HGH levels [1] which improves body composition (increases the proportion of muscle to fat), improves insulin sensitivity, lowers blood pressure and reduces general inflammation / oxidative stress - even in the absence of weight loss [2]. It also burns fat (obviously, since there's nothing better to burn when fasting) which for the vast majority of folks is strictly better than the alternative. There's a lot of compelling studies being done at the moment, including the interaction of fasting with the immune system. [3] > Last week, in a paper just published in the New England Journal of Medicine [4], Rafael de Cabo and Mark Mattson reviewed multiple strategies for fasting that have been tested in the years since Longo's study. The news continues to be very encouraging: intermittent fasting is good for you. I'm not saying it's conclusive but to suggest there's no reason to think it might be better is disingenuous. There's been some pretty interesting studies over the last few decades (few and far between, but interesting) - and the idea of fasting for heath is enjoying something of a renaissance in nutrition research these days. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC329619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC329619/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990470/ [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/01/06/can-intermittent-fasting-reset-your-immune-system/?sh=75ff77527ac2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/01/06/can-i... [4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra1905136 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra1905136
  - onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
    > I'm not saying it's conclusive but to suggest there's no reason to think it might be better is disingenuous. I didn't say there's no reason to assume it might be better! I said there's no reason to assume it might be better AND that it is definitely not worse.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      I suppose that might be true, but I'm not sure how one would go about and prove a negative like that. Especially in the field of nutrition science which has famously alternated between calling coffee the Devil's Hot Bean Juice and the Second Coming. Current consensus appears to be, based on a 1.2 million person meta analysis that 3-5 cups per day reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. [1] I suspect in reality there are just too many factors to do that. [1] http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/6/643.long http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/6/643.long

throwawaymanbot 5y ago

what was their life expectancy?

onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago

Just because you can ask the same question about eating 3-4 meals per day DOES NOT mean that we can automatically assume that fasting might be better but is definitely not worse. It could be better, worse, or the same. We don't know. And there's no reason to assume that it might be better while it is definitely not worse (and therefore an obvious choice).

arcticbull 5y ago
There are reasons to assume it might be better. It dramatically raises HGH levels [1] which improves body composition (increases the proportion of muscle to fat), improves insulin sensitivity, lowers blood pressure and reduces general inflammation / oxidative stress - even in the absence of weight loss [2]. It also burns fat (obviously, since there's nothing better to burn when fasting) which for the vast majority of folks is strictly better than the alternative. There's a lot of compelling studies being done at the moment, including the interaction of fasting with the immune system. [3] > Last week, in a paper just published in the New England Journal of Medicine [4], Rafael de Cabo and Mark Mattson reviewed multiple strategies for fasting that have been tested in the years since Longo's study. The news continues to be very encouraging: intermittent fasting is good for you. I'm not saying it's conclusive but to suggest there's no reason to think it might be better is disingenuous. There's been some pretty interesting studies over the last few decades (few and far between, but interesting) - and the idea of fasting for heath is enjoying something of a renaissance in nutrition research these days. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC329619/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC329619/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990470/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5990470/ [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/01/06/can-intermittent-fasting-reset-your-immune-system/?sh=75ff77527ac2 https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2020/01/06/can-i... [4] https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra1905136 https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMra1905136
- onlyrealcuzzo 5y ago
  > I'm not saying it's conclusive but to suggest there's no reason to think it might be better is disingenuous. I didn't say there's no reason to assume it might be better! I said there's no reason to assume it might be better AND that it is definitely not worse.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I suppose that might be true, but I'm not sure how one would go about and prove a negative like that. Especially in the field of nutrition science which has famously alternated between calling coffee the Devil's Hot Bean Juice and the Second Coming. Current consensus appears to be, based on a 1.2 million person meta analysis that 3-5 cups per day reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease. [1] I suspect in reality there are just too many factors to do that. [1] http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/6/643.long http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/129/6/643.long