3 ms·

It worked (supposedly) in mice, not in humans. The title is misleading.

jhartmann 11y ago
No, they did a super small random pilot study. Here is the section from the actual paper on the results: In the FMD subjects, fasting blood glucose levels were reduced by 11.3% ± 2.3% (p < 0.001; FMD) and remained 5.9% ± 2.1% lower than baseline levels after resuming the normal diet following the third FMD cycle (p < 0.05; Figure 6B). Serum ketone bodies increased 3.7-fold at the end of the FMD regimen (p < 0.001) and returned to baseline levels following normal food intake (Figure 6C). Circulating IGF-1 was reduced by 24% by the end of the FMD period (p < 0.001) and remained 15% lower after resuming the normal diet (p < 0.01; Figure 6D). IGFBP-1 was increased 1.5-fold at the end of the FMD regimen (p < 0.01) and returned to baseline levels following normal food intake (Figure 6E). These results indicate that the FMD group was highly compliant and generally did not consume foods not included in the FMD box provided to them.
__z 11y ago
Did you read the whole thing? "In a pilot human trial, three cycles of a similar diet given to 19 subjects once a month for five days decreased risk factors and biomarkers for aging, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer with no major adverse side effects, according to Longo."
- thomasrossi 11y ago
  You don't eat, so you don't stuff your cardiovascular system with fat, nothing new there (and if your problem is not genetic diabetes, then you are good to go against diabetes that way too). Also for the aging, digestion is a pretty intensive biochemical procedure, I am sure your tissues may like some rest from time to time, nothing new there either. What is not mentioned is that other biochemical pathways are triggered by starving, for instance, you digest your own muscular tissues. This may or may not be what you want. So basically you are avoiding some biochemical machinery just to trigger another.. balacing it looks sort of difficult and for sure picking 5 days in a month looks pretty random, I will wait the try different timings at least;P
  - erkkie 11y ago
    I hope you're not trying to make the age-old (and proven by current research wrong) sentiment that eating fat "stuffs it in your cardiovascular system". Please do notice the study diet in question was relatively high in fat (9%–10% proteins, 34%–47% carbohydrates, and 44%–56% fat.)
    - thomasrossi 11y ago
      err.. yes, I am stating that, and the only research I am aware of which sort of helps your point is that our intestine does not absorb more than some fat. It really depends how much in detail we want to go, I can give you the stats if you like (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692399/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692399/ this is a pretty referenced one). My point anyway was that they are only proving obvious facts: "when you don't eat -> obvious facts". It could have been interesting if they studied different starving period because 5 days in a month looks random. They should compare 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - etc and see what works best. Thanks science for you method (and I am not saying anything on the diet composition)

No, they did a super small random pilot study. Here is the section from the actual paper on the results: In the FMD subjects, fasting blood glucose levels were reduced by 11.3% ± 2.3% (p < 0.001; FMD) and remained 5.9% ± 2.1% lower than baseline levels after resuming the normal diet following the third FMD cycle (p < 0.05; Figure 6B). Serum ketone bodies increased 3.7-fold at the end of the FMD regimen (p < 0.001) and returned to baseline levels following normal food intake (Figure 6C). Circulating IGF-1 was reduced by 24% by the end of the FMD period (p < 0.001) and remained 15% lower after resuming the normal diet (p < 0.01; Figure 6D). IGFBP-1 was increased 1.5-fold at the end of the FMD regimen (p < 0.01) and returned to baseline levels following normal food intake (Figure 6E). These results indicate that the FMD group was highly compliant and generally did not consume foods not included in the FMD box provided to them.

__z 11y ago

Did you read the whole thing? "In a pilot human trial, three cycles of a similar diet given to 19 subjects once a month for five days decreased risk factors and biomarkers for aging, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer with no major adverse side effects, according to Longo."

thomasrossi 11y ago
You don't eat, so you don't stuff your cardiovascular system with fat, nothing new there (and if your problem is not genetic diabetes, then you are good to go against diabetes that way too). Also for the aging, digestion is a pretty intensive biochemical procedure, I am sure your tissues may like some rest from time to time, nothing new there either. What is not mentioned is that other biochemical pathways are triggered by starving, for instance, you digest your own muscular tissues. This may or may not be what you want. So basically you are avoiding some biochemical machinery just to trigger another.. balacing it looks sort of difficult and for sure picking 5 days in a month looks pretty random, I will wait the try different timings at least;P
- erkkie 11y ago
  I hope you're not trying to make the age-old (and proven by current research wrong) sentiment that eating fat "stuffs it in your cardiovascular system". Please do notice the study diet in question was relatively high in fat (9%–10% proteins, 34%–47% carbohydrates, and 44%–56% fat.)
  - thomasrossi 11y ago
    err.. yes, I am stating that, and the only research I am aware of which sort of helps your point is that our intestine does not absorb more than some fat. It really depends how much in detail we want to go, I can give you the stats if you like (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692399/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2692399/ this is a pretty referenced one). My point anyway was that they are only proving obvious facts: "when you don't eat -> obvious facts". It could have been interesting if they studied different starving period because 5 days in a month looks random. They should compare 0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - etc and see what works best. Thanks science for you method (and I am not saying anything on the diet composition)