9 ms·

Time-restricted eating reshapes gene expression throughout the body

150 points by lxm 4y ago

sidcool 4y ago
Does restricted time eating mean intermittent fasting?
- SavageBeast 4y ago
  Presuming you read the linked study but more or less (and this is argument fuel among The Faithful here ), "time restricted eating" spoken of here is Intermittent Fasting. The "restriction" here is that not a single calorie of anything is consumed outside of an 8 hour window and the 16 remaining hours in the day are nothing but water. Some people even like to do a 18:6 split too. The hacks in this style of eating is that once you stop putting calories in your mouth, your insulin levels drop and that makes the fat cells in the body more willing to allow lipids into the bloodstream where the liver can make Ketones out of them - hence the term "ketosis" is often seen when reading about intermittent fasting. There are also small studies, I'd call them anecdotal yet still informative, that demonstrate a raise in GH in response to an IF style eating pattern. Leptin sensitivity/resistance is also positively impacted by this eating style. If you want to go down a rabbit hole and really geek all the way out on a topic, theres a lot out there to sort through, debunk and sort into useful information. I encourage you to give it a look. EDIT: For extra credit - it's natural to look at Fasted Training in the same context. The hack here is that when you train at near peak low insulin levels ( or near peak anyhow which takes about 14h of fasting ) your body will suffer in terms of absolute performance but if done correctly you can train burning mostly fat. Theres as much on this subject to sort through as the first one. A whole host of hormonal and health benefits are purported here and I can say from experience I believe most of them having seen it myself.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    > EDIT: For extra credit - it's natural to look at Fasted Training in the same context. The hack here is that when you train at near peak low insulin levels ( or near peak anyhow which takes about 14h of fasting ) your body will suffer in terms of absolute performance but if done correctly you can train burning mostly fat. Theres as much on this subject to sort through as the first one. A whole host of hormonal and health benefits are purported here and I can say from experience I believe most of them having seen it myself. I've done quite a bit of fasted training, but can't say I have seen a huge effect myself. That said, I was very fit at the time, most studies have been done on untrained subjects AFAIK. There are also studies that show that base metabolic rate increases after fasted training, but for men only while it decreases for women, which would be counterproductive if they would want to loose weight. The main problem with most of the studies is that they have been done with very small study populations.
    - arcturus17 4y ago
      > I've done quite a bit of fasted training, but can't say I have seen a huge effect myself I've tried it and haven't seen much of a difference in weight loss either. Also I have only been able to pull it off with cardio - any fasted training involving weight lifting has been a dreadful experience. I've completely abandoned the idea.
  - sidcool 4y ago
    Thanks for the detailed response. Are the advantages of fasting well researched?
- enkid 4y ago
  Intermittent Fasting can include fasting for longer periods, including days at a time.
- mhaberl 4y ago
  yes, but only for a short time, usually 16-20h long fasts. Some people do fasts that last for multiple days, usually 3-7 days - this not I.F.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    I have seen IF described as both in a day and in a week. Supposedly the effects are very similar as well.
    - QuarterReptile 4y ago
      In the most medical-establishment-adjacent space I could find in serious metabolic/longevity experimentation/ research, Peter Attia's podcast, the host talks about monthly 3-day fasts as an entering argument for decent garbage collection functioning (autophagy) that would potentially suppress/inhibit cancerous growth. https://peterattiamd.com/ama13/ https://peterattiamd.com/ama13/
- zargon 4y ago
  A lot of people (including me in the past) have used the term intermittent fasting to describe this, but it's not a good label for this. Intermittent fasting should describe protocols where one fasts for at least a full day. If one is eating daily but only during certain hours, it's better described as time-resricted eating. It's also possible to do both time-restricted eating and intermittent fasting.
sandermvanvliet 4y ago
* in mice
elgazzar 4y ago
[dead]
mrandish 4y ago
Notes: - In mice. - Tested 16:8 pattern. - Sustained consistently for nine weeks. - No exploration in this study of the effects and/or benefits from the gene expression. N=1 but I've been doing ~16:8-ish along with strict keto for the past five years and the net benefits for me have been transformative in fitness (Weight: -100+ lbs, BMI: Obese->Fit), long-term health (A1C, LDL/HDL, Trigs, BP, resting heart rate all from bad to great), cognitive acuity and emotional stability. First 12 weeks required serious effort/focus to transition habits, palette and metabolism (must RTFM and be rigorous) but after that it's been surprisingly easy to sustain long-term, requiring no will power or conscious effort. Other surprising experiential learnings: Dietary intake impacts long-term mental/emotional states FAR more than I ever suspected. Food & taste prefs I had since childhood are not innate. Many things I loved no longer even taste good. Hunger pangs and cravings are driven by my blood sugar cycle. Once I stabilized that I no longer get hungry or feel food deprived/obsessed. (<--- all N=1 of course.)
- yonibot 4y ago
  N=1 and also probably too many variables to learn from this - keto itself is already a massive lifestyle intervention. Did you restrict calories as well? Exercise?
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    most everyone sees body changes when using time-restricted eating WITHOUT any dietary changes. There’s no need to go keto like OP to see results.
  - mrandish 4y ago
    I started IF only after I had been doing keto for about six weeks. At that point it was frankly easy because I wasn't getting hungry or having cravings anymore. I can't tease out how much IF contributed but I'd already lost a remarkable amount of weight on just keto. In general, I'd recommend only making one significant change at a time. Calorie tracking and restriction pretty much comes with strict keto. Transitioning to keto rigorously requires detailed tracking of every molecule that goes in your mouth (with a food scale and measuring cups), at least for the first 12 weeks. I tracked constantly for about 6 mos until it was automatic for me and I knew every food and portion I typically encounter at a glance. It's hard at first but only tracking part way is the #1 reason for failing to get results. I didn't do any exercise at all while losing weight, in fact while changing diet I was more sedentary than my usual slug-like activity level due to work and life factors. For me, exercise has always been hard, unpleasant and inevitably makes me hungrier. N=1 but that's what worked best for me and my weight loss was dramatic and super fast (>100 lbs in 8 mos).
cush 4y ago
There's an excellent Huberman Lab episode that covers various studies on time restricted eating for both mice and humans. There's a high focus on cognitive, health, and sleep benefits in humans. https://hubermanlab.com/effects-of-fasting-and-time-restricted-eating-on-fat-loss-and-health https://hubermanlab.com/effects-of-fasting-and-time-restrict...
mariambarouma 4y ago
[dead]
pammf 4y ago
I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 2 years. Did a bunch of different protocols and eventually settled on ~18:6. Lost around 15kgs (from 105 to 90) and as a nice “side effect” got rid of all skin problems that I’d had during the previous 10 years or so. Today I don’t preach it anymore cause I got tired of debating whether it was healthy or not but I definitely recommend to everyone that’s truly interested in giving it a try.
- piqi 4y ago
  > ...got tired of debating whether it was healthy or not... I've had a similar experience. "unhealthy" seems to often be used in place of "not normal." I don't blame them. Advertising has been pushing "normal" food choices for 100+ years. Social gatherings are focused too much on eating. People are shamed for being "skin and bones." I've been doing it for more than 10 years. I never get hunger pangs. I don't feel the need to eat something before leaving the house, or stopping at a drive-thru while out. I'm able to make better food choices. It doesn't mean I starve myself, or abstain from eating lunch/dinner with friends. I get all necessary calories for whatever my goals are (ie fat loss, maintenance, or weight gain). Constant calorie intake from accessible food products designed to sit on store shelves for months should be considered not normal and unhealthy.
  - birdyrooster 4y ago
    I mean some people look unhealthfully slim like they would starve if there was too much snow or they couldn't leave their house for a protracted time.
    - piqi 4y ago
      Intermittent fasting has has nothing to do with being fat or skinny. My point about "skin and bones" is more about how normal it is to comment on someone that isn't overweight. I can't imagine people tolerating fat-shaming people in a friendly social context.
  - red-iron-pine 4y ago
    > People are shamed for being "skin and bones." In all of western and handful of middle eastern countries I've lived in, I've never once seen people say that except in jest; e.g. imitating the Concerned Italian Mother or Babushka, etc. With the exception of 2-3 very skinny coder-types, pretty much everyone I met could have lost 3kg and still looked fine, and most of them (myself included) could probably stand to lose 5kg or more. Pretty much everyone I met in Dubai and the US was fat as fuck; little more reasonable in Canada, Australia, and France. Asia was still pretty lean, but getting bigger.
nobaddays 4y ago
Yeah my doctor always tells me to intermittent fast, ie stop eating at 8ish pm and have breakfast at 10am.
andy_ppp 4y ago
A mouse only lives 5 years so if we scale everything based on this to humans you’d have to be fasting for 16h * (80 years / 5 years) = 256h or nearly 11 days. You could be damn sure doing this regularly your gene expression would change. Of course basing the scaling this way is completely ridiculous but no less ridiculous than inferring anything about humans from the original study.
- ford 4y ago
  I see where you're coming from, but just because mice don't live as long as humans doesn't mean all biological processes happen 16x as fast. They don't defecate 16x as often as humans or sleep 16x per day. Do you think there is 0 signal about potential impacts on humans from testing on mice? How would you prefer research be done with a similar cost, ability to control variables, & level of ethics?
  - andy_ppp 4y ago
    I think the extrapolations you’ve made from my comments are fighting an argument I’ve not made and am not interested in having because I’m not a scientist working on these things. What I’ve tried to explain in my comment is that we do not know how the metabolism of a mouse doing 16:8 relates to a human being. No more and no less, we simply do not know how to do that mapping and trying to draw conclusions about humans from this specific study is fairly futile because of this (unless they are using some methodology I’m not aware of)!
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Your theory is that we don't know anything about the biological similarities and differences between humans and the animal most studied, one picked because it has a lot of biological similarities? That seems like quite a stretch. I mean yes, people should not just assume that it will be the same. But as with a lot of studies in mice, it can inform what we study further in humans.
      - andy_ppp 4y ago
aquafox 4y ago
Computational biologist with >5 years experience in analyzing RNAseq data like the one in the paper: I find 80% of genes being differentially expressed very hard to believe. You usually see such strong effects only when there are other sources of variation not being controlled for (e.g. batch effects) or when inducing an unphysiological state (e.g. treating with a cytotoxic drug).
- manmal 4y ago
  Have you considered that 16h for a mouse might, from a metabolic POV, be comparable to 4+ days in humans? That’d be quite the intervention.
- 331c8c71 4y ago
  I think they are overselling... Not clear to me how they treated the multiple testing across 22 tissues - gene expression measurements across different tissues in a single mouse are clearly not independent from each other. > A total of 15,430 genes were DE in at least one tissue, but only 816 and 1,335 genes were differentially up- or downregulated, respectively, by TRF in ≥5 tissues
dukeofdoom 4y ago
I tried this. Ended up thinking about food too much until 1 pm. But I might try it again.
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  Try having an early dinner rather than skipping breakfast. I've been doing it this month, going alright.
- halfjoking 4y ago
  Best trick IMO is to take prebiotic fiber while fasting. That way your gut bacteria gets fed and doesn’t get desperate to tell your brain you’re starving. Personally I don’t feel ketogenic state is reached from 16 hours. Feels like I need at least 24 hours, but usually do 36. Only thing I need other than water is electrolytes. I would get bad headaches without my mineral/pink salt.
- shagie 4y ago
  Another approach that had some popularity a bit ago was "VB6" - Vegan Before Six (pm). Mark Bittman's VB6 Diet - https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/mark-bittman-vb6-diet https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/mark-bittman-vb6-diet Vegan by Day, Glutton by Night? Thinking About VB6 - https://www.bittmanproject.com/p/236239_vegan-by-day-glutton-by-night-thinking-about-vb6-10-15- https://www.bittmanproject.com/p/236239_vegan-by-day-glutton... You can find other posts of people trying it.
siliconc0w 4y ago
Metabolism for mice doesn't directly translate to humans, their metabolisms are a lot faster. I think the formula is roughly 7 times, so this is just above two days of fasting for humans. Which I'm sure would be fantastic for your health but pretty hard to do. TRF has had mixed research results vs normal calorie restriction - sometimes leading to a drop of muscle - but it's a bit hard to tell since the studies are not consistent about monitoring protein intake or weight training which is generally necessary to avoid muscle loss when doing any sort of weight lost protocol. I think the latest research is skipping dinner is generally better (eTRF).
torusenthusiast 4y ago
For posters who do time restricted eating, how do you deal with the panicked/dizzy feeling you often get when not eating for long periods. Does that eventually go away with IF, or do you just get used to it?
- exfatloss 4y ago
  [dead]
- lockyc 4y ago
  Electrolytes. You probably need at least more sodium. https://old.reddit.com/r/fasting/wiki/fasting_in_a_nutshell/you_need_electrolytes https://old.reddit.com/r/fasting/wiki/fasting_in_a_nutshell/...
- spirit557 4y ago
  That's from low blood pressure and/or electrolyte imbalance. So drink more fluid supplemented with electrolytes. You can also take a spoonful of a pure fat like coconut oil or ghee in the morning or in between a meal to help with any hunger pain. You don't faint from low blood sugar, you faint from low blood pressure. If you were losing consciousness from low blood sugar you're gong to start convulsing and having seizures, afaik. In normal homeostasis, insulin lowers blood sugar as needed and glucagon raises it. There is always a balance being made between the two I believe.

150 points by lxm 4y ago

sidcool 4y ago

Does restricted time eating mean intermittent fasting?

SavageBeast 4y ago
Presuming you read the linked study but more or less (and this is argument fuel among The Faithful here ), "time restricted eating" spoken of here is Intermittent Fasting. The "restriction" here is that not a single calorie of anything is consumed outside of an 8 hour window and the 16 remaining hours in the day are nothing but water. Some people even like to do a 18:6 split too. The hacks in this style of eating is that once you stop putting calories in your mouth, your insulin levels drop and that makes the fat cells in the body more willing to allow lipids into the bloodstream where the liver can make Ketones out of them - hence the term "ketosis" is often seen when reading about intermittent fasting. There are also small studies, I'd call them anecdotal yet still informative, that demonstrate a raise in GH in response to an IF style eating pattern. Leptin sensitivity/resistance is also positively impacted by this eating style. If you want to go down a rabbit hole and really geek all the way out on a topic, theres a lot out there to sort through, debunk and sort into useful information. I encourage you to give it a look. EDIT: For extra credit - it's natural to look at Fasted Training in the same context. The hack here is that when you train at near peak low insulin levels ( or near peak anyhow which takes about 14h of fasting ) your body will suffer in terms of absolute performance but if done correctly you can train burning mostly fat. Theres as much on this subject to sort through as the first one. A whole host of hormonal and health benefits are purported here and I can say from experience I believe most of them having seen it myself.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  > EDIT: For extra credit - it's natural to look at Fasted Training in the same context. The hack here is that when you train at near peak low insulin levels ( or near peak anyhow which takes about 14h of fasting ) your body will suffer in terms of absolute performance but if done correctly you can train burning mostly fat. Theres as much on this subject to sort through as the first one. A whole host of hormonal and health benefits are purported here and I can say from experience I believe most of them having seen it myself. I've done quite a bit of fasted training, but can't say I have seen a huge effect myself. That said, I was very fit at the time, most studies have been done on untrained subjects AFAIK. There are also studies that show that base metabolic rate increases after fasted training, but for men only while it decreases for women, which would be counterproductive if they would want to loose weight. The main problem with most of the studies is that they have been done with very small study populations.
  - arcturus17 4y ago
    > I've done quite a bit of fasted training, but can't say I have seen a huge effect myself I've tried it and haven't seen much of a difference in weight loss either. Also I have only been able to pull it off with cardio - any fasted training involving weight lifting has been a dreadful experience. I've completely abandoned the idea.
- sidcool 4y ago
  Thanks for the detailed response. Are the advantages of fasting well researched?
enkid 4y ago
Intermittent Fasting can include fasting for longer periods, including days at a time.
mhaberl 4y ago
yes, but only for a short time, usually 16-20h long fasts. Some people do fasts that last for multiple days, usually 3-7 days - this not I.F.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  I have seen IF described as both in a day and in a week. Supposedly the effects are very similar as well.
  - QuarterReptile 4y ago
    In the most medical-establishment-adjacent space I could find in serious metabolic/longevity experimentation/ research, Peter Attia's podcast, the host talks about monthly 3-day fasts as an entering argument for decent garbage collection functioning (autophagy) that would potentially suppress/inhibit cancerous growth. https://peterattiamd.com/ama13/ https://peterattiamd.com/ama13/
zargon 4y ago
A lot of people (including me in the past) have used the term intermittent fasting to describe this, but it's not a good label for this. Intermittent fasting should describe protocols where one fasts for at least a full day. If one is eating daily but only during certain hours, it's better described as time-resricted eating. It's also possible to do both time-restricted eating and intermittent fasting.

sandermvanvliet 4y ago

* in mice

elgazzar 4y ago

[dead]

mrandish 4y ago

Notes: - In mice. - Tested 16:8 pattern. - Sustained consistently for nine weeks. - No exploration in this study of the effects and/or benefits from the gene expression. N=1 but I've been doing ~16:8-ish along with strict keto for the past five years and the net benefits for me have been transformative in fitness (Weight: -100+ lbs, BMI: Obese->Fit), long-term health (A1C, LDL/HDL, Trigs, BP, resting heart rate all from bad to great), cognitive acuity and emotional stability. First 12 weeks required serious effort/focus to transition habits, palette and metabolism (must RTFM and be rigorous) but after that it's been surprisingly easy to sustain long-term, requiring no will power or conscious effort. Other surprising experiential learnings: Dietary intake impacts long-term mental/emotional states FAR more than I ever suspected. Food & taste prefs I had since childhood are not innate. Many things I loved no longer even taste good. Hunger pangs and cravings are driven by my blood sugar cycle. Once I stabilized that I no longer get hungry or feel food deprived/obsessed. (<--- all N=1 of course.)

yonibot 4y ago
N=1 and also probably too many variables to learn from this - keto itself is already a massive lifestyle intervention. Did you restrict calories as well? Exercise?
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  most everyone sees body changes when using time-restricted eating WITHOUT any dietary changes. There’s no need to go keto like OP to see results.
- mrandish 4y ago
  I started IF only after I had been doing keto for about six weeks. At that point it was frankly easy because I wasn't getting hungry or having cravings anymore. I can't tease out how much IF contributed but I'd already lost a remarkable amount of weight on just keto. In general, I'd recommend only making one significant change at a time. Calorie tracking and restriction pretty much comes with strict keto. Transitioning to keto rigorously requires detailed tracking of every molecule that goes in your mouth (with a food scale and measuring cups), at least for the first 12 weeks. I tracked constantly for about 6 mos until it was automatic for me and I knew every food and portion I typically encounter at a glance. It's hard at first but only tracking part way is the #1 reason for failing to get results. I didn't do any exercise at all while losing weight, in fact while changing diet I was more sedentary than my usual slug-like activity level due to work and life factors. For me, exercise has always been hard, unpleasant and inevitably makes me hungrier. N=1 but that's what worked best for me and my weight loss was dramatic and super fast (>100 lbs in 8 mos).

cush 4y ago

There's an excellent Huberman Lab episode that covers various studies on time restricted eating for both mice and humans. There's a high focus on cognitive, health, and sleep benefits in humans. https://hubermanlab.com/effects-of-fasting-and-time-restricted-eating-on-fat-loss-and-health https://hubermanlab.com/effects-of-fasting-and-time-restrict...

mariambarouma 4y ago

[dead]

pammf 4y ago

I’ve been doing intermittent fasting for 2 years. Did a bunch of different protocols and eventually settled on ~18:6. Lost around 15kgs (from 105 to 90) and as a nice “side effect” got rid of all skin problems that I’d had during the previous 10 years or so. Today I don’t preach it anymore cause I got tired of debating whether it was healthy or not but I definitely recommend to everyone that’s truly interested in giving it a try.

piqi 4y ago
> ...got tired of debating whether it was healthy or not... I've had a similar experience. "unhealthy" seems to often be used in place of "not normal." I don't blame them. Advertising has been pushing "normal" food choices for 100+ years. Social gatherings are focused too much on eating. People are shamed for being "skin and bones." I've been doing it for more than 10 years. I never get hunger pangs. I don't feel the need to eat something before leaving the house, or stopping at a drive-thru while out. I'm able to make better food choices. It doesn't mean I starve myself, or abstain from eating lunch/dinner with friends. I get all necessary calories for whatever my goals are (ie fat loss, maintenance, or weight gain). Constant calorie intake from accessible food products designed to sit on store shelves for months should be considered not normal and unhealthy.
- birdyrooster 4y ago
  I mean some people look unhealthfully slim like they would starve if there was too much snow or they couldn't leave their house for a protracted time.
  - piqi 4y ago
    Intermittent fasting has has nothing to do with being fat or skinny. My point about "skin and bones" is more about how normal it is to comment on someone that isn't overweight. I can't imagine people tolerating fat-shaming people in a friendly social context.
- red-iron-pine 4y ago
  > People are shamed for being "skin and bones." In all of western and handful of middle eastern countries I've lived in, I've never once seen people say that except in jest; e.g. imitating the Concerned Italian Mother or Babushka, etc. With the exception of 2-3 very skinny coder-types, pretty much everyone I met could have lost 3kg and still looked fine, and most of them (myself included) could probably stand to lose 5kg or more. Pretty much everyone I met in Dubai and the US was fat as fuck; little more reasonable in Canada, Australia, and France. Asia was still pretty lean, but getting bigger.

nobaddays 4y ago

Yeah my doctor always tells me to intermittent fast, ie stop eating at 8ish pm and have breakfast at 10am.

andy_ppp 4y ago

A mouse only lives 5 years so if we scale everything based on this to humans you’d have to be fasting for 16h * (80 years / 5 years) = 256h or nearly 11 days. You could be damn sure doing this regularly your gene expression would change. Of course basing the scaling this way is completely ridiculous but no less ridiculous than inferring anything about humans from the original study.

ford 4y ago
I see where you're coming from, but just because mice don't live as long as humans doesn't mean all biological processes happen 16x as fast. They don't defecate 16x as often as humans or sleep 16x per day. Do you think there is 0 signal about potential impacts on humans from testing on mice? How would you prefer research be done with a similar cost, ability to control variables, & level of ethics?
- andy_ppp 4y ago
  I think the extrapolations you’ve made from my comments are fighting an argument I’ve not made and am not interested in having because I’m not a scientist working on these things. What I’ve tried to explain in my comment is that we do not know how the metabolism of a mouse doing 16:8 relates to a human being. No more and no less, we simply do not know how to do that mapping and trying to draw conclusions about humans from this specific study is fairly futile because of this (unless they are using some methodology I’m not aware of)!
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Your theory is that we don't know anything about the biological similarities and differences between humans and the animal most studied, one picked because it has a lot of biological similarities? That seems like quite a stretch. I mean yes, people should not just assume that it will be the same. But as with a lot of studies in mice, it can inform what we study further in humans.
    - andy_ppp 4y ago

aquafox 4y ago

Computational biologist with >5 years experience in analyzing RNAseq data like the one in the paper: I find 80% of genes being differentially expressed very hard to believe. You usually see such strong effects only when there are other sources of variation not being controlled for (e.g. batch effects) or when inducing an unphysiological state (e.g. treating with a cytotoxic drug).

manmal 4y ago
Have you considered that 16h for a mouse might, from a metabolic POV, be comparable to 4+ days in humans? That’d be quite the intervention.
331c8c71 4y ago
I think they are overselling... Not clear to me how they treated the multiple testing across 22 tissues - gene expression measurements across different tissues in a single mouse are clearly not independent from each other. > A total of 15,430 genes were DE in at least one tissue, but only 816 and 1,335 genes were differentially up- or downregulated, respectively, by TRF in ≥5 tissues

dukeofdoom 4y ago

I tried this. Ended up thinking about food too much until 1 pm. But I might try it again.

LAC-Tech 4y ago
Try having an early dinner rather than skipping breakfast. I've been doing it this month, going alright.
halfjoking 4y ago
Best trick IMO is to take prebiotic fiber while fasting. That way your gut bacteria gets fed and doesn’t get desperate to tell your brain you’re starving. Personally I don’t feel ketogenic state is reached from 16 hours. Feels like I need at least 24 hours, but usually do 36. Only thing I need other than water is electrolytes. I would get bad headaches without my mineral/pink salt.
shagie 4y ago
Another approach that had some popularity a bit ago was "VB6" - Vegan Before Six (pm). Mark Bittman's VB6 Diet - https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/mark-bittman-vb6-diet https://www.webmd.com/diet/a-z/mark-bittman-vb6-diet Vegan by Day, Glutton by Night? Thinking About VB6 - https://www.bittmanproject.com/p/236239_vegan-by-day-glutton-by-night-thinking-about-vb6-10-15- https://www.bittmanproject.com/p/236239_vegan-by-day-glutton... You can find other posts of people trying it.

siliconc0w 4y ago

Metabolism for mice doesn't directly translate to humans, their metabolisms are a lot faster. I think the formula is roughly 7 times, so this is just above two days of fasting for humans. Which I'm sure would be fantastic for your health but pretty hard to do. TRF has had mixed research results vs normal calorie restriction - sometimes leading to a drop of muscle - but it's a bit hard to tell since the studies are not consistent about monitoring protein intake or weight training which is generally necessary to avoid muscle loss when doing any sort of weight lost protocol. I think the latest research is skipping dinner is generally better (eTRF).

torusenthusiast 4y ago

For posters who do time restricted eating, how do you deal with the panicked/dizzy feeling you often get when not eating for long periods. Does that eventually go away with IF, or do you just get used to it?

exfatloss 4y ago
[dead]
lockyc 4y ago
Electrolytes. You probably need at least more sodium. https://old.reddit.com/r/fasting/wiki/fasting_in_a_nutshell/you_need_electrolytes https://old.reddit.com/r/fasting/wiki/fasting_in_a_nutshell/...
spirit557 4y ago
That's from low blood pressure and/or electrolyte imbalance. So drink more fluid supplemented with electrolytes. You can also take a spoonful of a pure fat like coconut oil or ghee in the morning or in between a meal to help with any hunger pain. You don't faint from low blood sugar, you faint from low blood pressure. If you were losing consciousness from low blood sugar you're gong to start convulsing and having seizures, afaik. In normal homeostasis, insulin lowers blood sugar as needed and glucagon raises it. There is always a balance being made between the two I believe.