5 ms·

Note that this paper is heavy on theory, not so much on the evidence. The only "proof" of this conjecture is right at the end where they mention 10 people trie

by adwf 12y ago

Note that this paper is heavy on theory, not so much on the evidence. The only "proof" of this conjecture is right at the end where they mention 10 people tried starvation before chemo and reported feeling less side-effects afterwards. I'm actually trying out an intermittent fasting diet right now for weight loss. I'm just always skeptical of new fad diets when they start claiming all sorts of health benefits beyond weight loss.

debacle 12y ago
IF is only really about weight loss as an ancillary benefit to the actual benefits. It's incredibly easy to gain weight on IF if you are trying - just eat more - but IF helps you eat less via about a half-dozen different vectors. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-weight-loss/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-weight-loss/ The above is a good meta-resource on how and why IF helps you eat less.
reasonattlm 12y ago
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=intermittent+fasting http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=intermittent+fastin... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=calorie+restriction http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=calorie+restriction
Rainymood 12y ago
>I'm actually trying out an intermittent fasting diet right now for weight loss. I'm just always skeptical of new fad diets when they start claiming all sorts of health benefits beyond weight loss. Weightloss. To me, still means in < out. I tried everything (keto, atkins, low carb, high carb, paleo) and intermittent fasting just seems to work for me. I fast (skip breakfast/lunch and drink coffee) and start eating when I get back home out of work. I love it because I build up a 'caloric buffer', for when something unexpected happens (random cake/donuts/birthday). IF allows me to adjust my calories at the end of the day as I see fit.
- adwf 12y ago
  Exactly, it's all about "in < out". But it's the psychology that has me trying the intermittent approach. I don't eat excessively normally, so any weight gain I have is due to being 100-200 calories over on a vaguely consistent basis, which leads to weight gain in the long term. I figure I can stick to a diet better when it's only 1 day in 4 when I have to cut calories. Whereas if I was any good at cutting a moderate amount of calories every day, I probably wouldn't need to be dieting in the first place! ;)
  - mrfusion 12y ago
    Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that any diet based on will power just won't work. I've done will-power based diets for up to 8 months before but ultimately I just give in again. That's why I'm hopeful IF might help.
    - vinceguidry 12y ago
      I lost 40 pounds eating once a day and walking. 205-165. It was the quickest, most dramatic weight loss I ever experienced. For three months nobody could see me without remarking on how much better I looked. Yes, it will help.
      - s_q_b 12y ago
        240 -> 195 in three months with portion control and no snacking. For me, I charted what I was eating and when for three weeks before starting. Then I broke down the calories in my diet by origin. Then I rebalanced slightly by adding more green vegetables (I was eating virtually none), and reduced the portions of each other category by around %30-%50, bringing me about 500 calories below my basal metabolic rate. One slice of pizza, not two, half a sandwich rather than a whole, a salad once every couple days. Even without removing snack foods, changing the amount I put on a plate radically altered my caloric consumption without me really noticing. Now that I'm at a healthy weight (I should note I'm very tall so a healthy weight is 190-205ish for me), I brought consumption levels back up to slightly above BMR, and will probably increase more as I start weight training. On a side note, soda and Doritos were regular staples in my diet. When I stopped I noticed that there's a sort of "withdrawal" when you stop eating these hyper-engineered processed foods. Might be the brain not receiving the expected jolt of positive feedback from a high caloric treat. Either that or something in processed foods really affects my body chemistry. All I know is that for weeks in the middle the sight of a bowl of Lays made me feel both tempted and queasy.
mih 12y ago
A more scientific study on the benefits of fasting leading to improved cell regeneration was posted on HN a few days ago. Here's the corresponding journal paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014 (paywalled)
- adwf 12y ago
  Yeah, that was the discussion that got me going on the intermittent diet ;) I'm just too used to seeing extraordinary dietary benefits being promoted for all sorts of fad foods/diets like blueberries, grapefruit, atkins diet, paleo diet, etc... So I felt like pointing out that there was very little in the way of experimental evidence in that paper (I'm from a physics background, love my data). With any luck this won't be another one of those papers that gets perverted in the press to "Fasting cures cancer!"
gus_massa 12y ago
I agree. This is clearly not a double blind experiment [1]. And self reporting studies are more prone to produce false results, because the people are optimistic and want to recover and want to feel better. Also people want to be kind and make the doctors happy, so they unconsciously ignore some of the bad side effects. And also people confuse normal variations with treatment consequences, so perhaps the persons in the treatment group classify that as an improvement and the persons in the control group classify that as normal. [2] In this case, perhaps the comparison is worse because fasting has some side effects and you can get answers like: "I fell a little dizzy, but not as dizzy as the previous week while I was fasting." Should you classify that as an improvement? [1] Is it possible to do a double blind experiment for this? [2] Do they have control group?
leshow 12y ago
Proof is the wrong term here, I understand you put it in quotations but the correct term would be 'evidence'. In studies like this, there is no proof, there is only evidence for different arguments. In terms of your intermittent fasting diet. Meal timing won't really affect weight loss, what will affect weight loss is your overall energy balance (deficit or surplus), and to a lesser extent macronutrient intake (possible slight fat burn from thermic effect of feeding with higher protein).
- moogleii 12y ago
  Theory would be the wrong term, too.
Evgeny 12y ago
I'm just always skeptical of new fad diets when they start claiming all sorts of health benefits beyond weight loss There is a guy who did a nice work summarising the scientific findings. http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/ http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/ Many studies are on animal subjects, but there are human studies too which show more than just weight loss Calorie restriction in humans is associated with weight loss, reduced inflammation and improved markers for cardiovascular and metabolic health in obese (9,10) as well as non-obese (11,12) subjects In another study, fasting healthy men and women were compared to a matched non-fasting group with regard to inflammation markers and blood lipid status (61). No differences were observed in body weight, total cholesterol, triglycerides or LDL levels. There was however an increase in HDL levels and decreased inflammation – proposing a beneficial effect in the fasted subjects. In obese subjects, a modified 8-10 week alternate-day fasting regimen resulted in weight loss, reduced blood pressure and heart rate, and improved markers for cardiovascular health, such as decreased total cholesterol, decreased LDL and triglycerides, increased HDL concentrations and decreased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation, suggesting that alternate-day fasting might be a novel strategy for decreasing body weight and improving cardiovascular health in the obese population (64,68). eight healthy men were maintained on a 20h modified alternate-day fast for two weeks. Despite unaltered body weight and habitual physical activity, insulin dependent glucose uptake increased, and increased adiponectin levels were observed (65). In another trial, the insulin sensitizing effect of true alternate-day fasting was observed through reduced insulin response to a standardized meal in men, but not women – suggesting a potential sex difference in the effect of alternate-day fasting on glucose metabolism (66). I'm also doing intermittent fasting - a 36 hour fast each week - and plan to do longer fasts maybe every 3-4 months - for health reasons.
- leshow 12y ago
  In many studies they compare a control group eating a maintenance caloric intake with a fasting group that is in a caloric deficit. The results of positive health benefits of fasting usually have to do with the fact that the subjects are actually in a caloric deficit more than the studies choice of meal timing. I'd have to dig in to those specific studies to show that, but don't read an abstract and think that it in any way tells the whole story.

by adwf 12y ago

debacle 12y ago

IF is only really about weight loss as an ancillary benefit to the actual benefits. It's incredibly easy to gain weight on IF if you are trying - just eat more - but IF helps you eat less via about a half-dozen different vectors. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-weight-loss/ http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-weight-loss/ The above is a good meta-resource on how and why IF helps you eat less.

reasonattlm 12y ago

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=intermittent+fasting http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=intermittent+fastin... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=calorie+restriction http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=calorie+restriction

Rainymood 12y ago

>I'm actually trying out an intermittent fasting diet right now for weight loss. I'm just always skeptical of new fad diets when they start claiming all sorts of health benefits beyond weight loss. Weightloss. To me, still means in < out. I tried everything (keto, atkins, low carb, high carb, paleo) and intermittent fasting just seems to work for me. I fast (skip breakfast/lunch and drink coffee) and start eating when I get back home out of work. I love it because I build up a 'caloric buffer', for when something unexpected happens (random cake/donuts/birthday). IF allows me to adjust my calories at the end of the day as I see fit.

adwf 12y ago
Exactly, it's all about "in < out". But it's the psychology that has me trying the intermittent approach. I don't eat excessively normally, so any weight gain I have is due to being 100-200 calories over on a vaguely consistent basis, which leads to weight gain in the long term. I figure I can stick to a diet better when it's only 1 day in 4 when I have to cut calories. Whereas if I was any good at cutting a moderate amount of calories every day, I probably wouldn't need to be dieting in the first place! ;)
- mrfusion 12y ago
  Yeah, I've come to the conclusion that any diet based on will power just won't work. I've done will-power based diets for up to 8 months before but ultimately I just give in again. That's why I'm hopeful IF might help.
  - vinceguidry 12y ago
    I lost 40 pounds eating once a day and walking. 205-165. It was the quickest, most dramatic weight loss I ever experienced. For three months nobody could see me without remarking on how much better I looked. Yes, it will help.
    - s_q_b 12y ago
      240 -> 195 in three months with portion control and no snacking. For me, I charted what I was eating and when for three weeks before starting. Then I broke down the calories in my diet by origin. Then I rebalanced slightly by adding more green vegetables (I was eating virtually none), and reduced the portions of each other category by around %30-%50, bringing me about 500 calories below my basal metabolic rate. One slice of pizza, not two, half a sandwich rather than a whole, a salad once every couple days. Even without removing snack foods, changing the amount I put on a plate radically altered my caloric consumption without me really noticing. Now that I'm at a healthy weight (I should note I'm very tall so a healthy weight is 190-205ish for me), I brought consumption levels back up to slightly above BMR, and will probably increase more as I start weight training. On a side note, soda and Doritos were regular staples in my diet. When I stopped I noticed that there's a sort of "withdrawal" when you stop eating these hyper-engineered processed foods. Might be the brain not receiving the expected jolt of positive feedback from a high caloric treat. Either that or something in processed foods really affects my body chemistry. All I know is that for weeks in the middle the sight of a bowl of Lays made me feel both tempted and queasy.

mih 12y ago

A more scientific study on the benefits of fasting leading to improved cell regeneration was posted on HN a few days ago. Here's the corresponding journal paper http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2014.04.014 (paywalled)

adwf 12y ago
Yeah, that was the discussion that got me going on the intermittent diet ;) I'm just too used to seeing extraordinary dietary benefits being promoted for all sorts of fad foods/diets like blueberries, grapefruit, atkins diet, paleo diet, etc... So I felt like pointing out that there was very little in the way of experimental evidence in that paper (I'm from a physics background, love my data). With any luck this won't be another one of those papers that gets perverted in the press to "Fasting cures cancer!"

gus_massa 12y ago

I agree. This is clearly not a double blind experiment [1]. And self reporting studies are more prone to produce false results, because the people are optimistic and want to recover and want to feel better. Also people want to be kind and make the doctors happy, so they unconsciously ignore some of the bad side effects. And also people confuse normal variations with treatment consequences, so perhaps the persons in the treatment group classify that as an improvement and the persons in the control group classify that as normal. [2] In this case, perhaps the comparison is worse because fasting has some side effects and you can get answers like: "I fell a little dizzy, but not as dizzy as the previous week while I was fasting." Should you classify that as an improvement? [1] Is it possible to do a double blind experiment for this? [2] Do they have control group?

leshow 12y ago

Proof is the wrong term here, I understand you put it in quotations but the correct term would be 'evidence'. In studies like this, there is no proof, there is only evidence for different arguments. In terms of your intermittent fasting diet. Meal timing won't really affect weight loss, what will affect weight loss is your overall energy balance (deficit or surplus), and to a lesser extent macronutrient intake (possible slight fat burn from thermic effect of feeding with higher protein).

moogleii 12y ago
Theory would be the wrong term, too.

Evgeny 12y ago

I'm just always skeptical of new fad diets when they start claiming all sorts of health benefits beyond weight loss There is a guy who did a nice work summarising the scientific findings. http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/ http://www.lift-heavy.com/intermittent-fasting/ Many studies are on animal subjects, but there are human studies too which show more than just weight loss Calorie restriction in humans is associated with weight loss, reduced inflammation and improved markers for cardiovascular and metabolic health in obese (9,10) as well as non-obese (11,12) subjects In another study, fasting healthy men and women were compared to a matched non-fasting group with regard to inflammation markers and blood lipid status (61). No differences were observed in body weight, total cholesterol, triglycerides or LDL levels. There was however an increase in HDL levels and decreased inflammation – proposing a beneficial effect in the fasted subjects. In obese subjects, a modified 8-10 week alternate-day fasting regimen resulted in weight loss, reduced blood pressure and heart rate, and improved markers for cardiovascular health, such as decreased total cholesterol, decreased LDL and triglycerides, increased HDL concentrations and decreased oxidative stress and systemic inflammation, suggesting that alternate-day fasting might be a novel strategy for decreasing body weight and improving cardiovascular health in the obese population (64,68). eight healthy men were maintained on a 20h modified alternate-day fast for two weeks. Despite unaltered body weight and habitual physical activity, insulin dependent glucose uptake increased, and increased adiponectin levels were observed (65). In another trial, the insulin sensitizing effect of true alternate-day fasting was observed through reduced insulin response to a standardized meal in men, but not women – suggesting a potential sex difference in the effect of alternate-day fasting on glucose metabolism (66). I'm also doing intermittent fasting - a 36 hour fast each week - and plan to do longer fasts maybe every 3-4 months - for health reasons.

leshow 12y ago
In many studies they compare a control group eating a maintenance caloric intake with a fasting group that is in a caloric deficit. The results of positive health benefits of fasting usually have to do with the fact that the subjects are actually in a caloric deficit more than the studies choice of meal timing. I'd have to dig in to those specific studies to show that, but don't read an abstract and think that it in any way tells the whole story.