Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Aug-27-19, 13:23
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,586
 
Plan: Low Carb/IF
Stats: 217/206/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 19%
Location: UK
Default Fasting every other day boosts healthy weight loss as it mimics 'caveman' routine

Quote:
From The Telegraph
London, UK
27 August, 2019

Fasting every other day boosts healthy weight loss as it mimics hunter-gatherer 'caveman' routine

Fasting every other day could be the secret to losing weight while staying healthy because it mimics humans’ caveman diet, a new study suggests.

A trial showed that people who ate no food at all for 36 hours then anything they felt like for 12 hours lost more than half a stone within a month.

Crucially, their immune systems remained stable, even after six months, in contrast to many diets which aim to restrict calorie intake consistently each day.

Scientists at the University of Graz in Austria believe the strength of alternate-day fasting (ADF) may lie in its adherence to hunter-gatherers’ patterns of eating thousands of years ago, when food was not available every day.

However, they warn that it may not be suitable for everyone and that further studies need to prove its safety over the long-term.
Quote:
Does fasting really work?

Fasting for four to five days at a time can cut cholesterol and blood-pressure levels, and reduce the likelihood of cardiovascular disease. The way it works is simple. After 48 hours of fasting, the body has exhausted its glucose reserves and turns to other energy sources.

First, it uses up the fat stores, then muscle. Next the organs, including the liver and pancreas, start to break down. By day five of a fast, a mass of cells will have died, leading to a reduction in ‘bad’ components like excess glucose (which can lead to type 2 diabetes), IGF1 (a growth factor associated with cancer) and triglyceride (the unwanted fat component of blood cells).

Once you start eating again, your body regenerates new cells. In effect, the process serves as an MOT, as the old cells are replaced with healthy ones.
However, there are risks that come with fasting, including hypoglycemia (dangerously low blood-sugar levels) and heart palpitations; and those taking medication for high blood pressure or diabetes are at risk of hypertension (abnormally low blood pressure).

People over the age of 70, or anyone with anorexia, should not fast at all. Everyone should seek advice from a medical professional before fasting.

By Valter Longo, professor of biogerontology at the University of Southern California
Published in the journal Cell Metabolism, the study recruited 60 participants who were enrolled either into an ADF group or into a control group where they were were allowed to eat whatever they wanted.

The ADF group were required to fill in food diaries and also underwent continuous glucose monitoring to ensure they stuck to the routine.

The scientists found that, on average, the dieters ate normally during the 12 hours they were at liberty to eat an unlimited amount.

Overall, they reached an average calorie restriction of around 35 per cent and lost an average of 7.7 lb or 3.5 kg after four weeks of the programme.

"Why exactly calorie restriction and fasting induce so many beneficial effects is not fully clear yet," says Professor Thomas Pieber, head of endocrinology at the Medical University of Graz.

"The elegant thing about strict ADF is that it doesn't require participants to count their meals and calories: they just don't eat anything for one day."
His colleague, Professor Frank Madeo, added: “The reason might be due to evolutionary biology.

“Our physiology is familiar with periods of starvation followed by food excesses.”

A further 30 participants were put on ADF for six months to assess the safety of the diet over a longer period, with positive results.

Previous studies had suggested that consistent calorie-restrictive diets can result in malnutrition and a decrease in immune function.

In contrast, even after six months of ADF, the immune function in the participants appeared to be stable. They had a reduction in belly fat, which is increasingly linked to a higher risk of cancer.

The group also showed lower levels of the hormone triiodothyronine, which has been associated with longer life-spans in previous research.

The new study is likely to shift the ongoing debate in favour of intermittent rather than consistent dieting.

Many people find consistent calorie restriction difficult to sustain and often succumb to “yo-yo” eating, where they end up consuming more than they otherwise would have done.

Despite the apparent benefits, the researchers say they do not recommend ADF as a general nutrition scheme for everybody.

"We feel that it is a good regime for some months for obese people to cut weight, or it might even be a useful clinical intervention in diseases driven by inflammation," said Professor Madeo.

"However, further research is needed before it can be applied in daily practice.

“Additionally, we advise people not to fast if they have a viral infection, because the immune system probably requires immediate energy to fight viruses.

“Hence, it is important to consult a doctor before any harsh dietary regime is undertaken."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...unter-gatherer/



Quote:
Alternate Day Fasting Improves Physiological and Molecular Markers of Aging in Healthy, Non-obese Humans

Published:August 27, 2019

Caloric restriction and intermittent fasting are known to prolong life- and healthspan in model organisms, while their effects on humans are less well studied. In a randomized controlled trial study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02673515), we show that 4 weeks of strict alternate day fasting (ADF) improved markers of general health in healthy, middle-aged humans while causing a 37% calorie reduction on average. No adverse effects occurred even after >6 months. ADF improved cardiovascular markers, reduced fat mass (particularly the trunk fat), improving the fat-to-lean ratio, and increased β-hydroxybutyrate, even on non-fasting days. On fasting days, the pro-aging amino-acid methionine, among others, was periodically depleted, while polyunsaturated fatty acids were elevated. We found reduced levels sICAM-1 (an age-associated inflammatory marker), low-density lipoprotein, and the metabolic regulator triiodothyronine after long-term ADF. These results shed light on the physiological impact of ADF and supports its safety. ADF could eventually become a clinically relevant intervention.


DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.07.016

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Aug-27-19, 20:36
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 3,198
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

The ADF study on humans is very encouraging. Thanks, Demi.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 00:24
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,586
 
Plan: Low Carb/IF
Stats: 217/206/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 19%
Location: UK
Default

This research was also featured in The Times this morning, along with this interesting case study by a Times journalist:

Quote:
From The Times
London, UK
28 August, 2019

Case study: Illness I’d had for 20 years vanished after fasting

Jenni Russell


I have been an occasional faster for five years and couldn’t be more enthusiastic about it.

I came across fasting when I had a long-term autoimmune illness for which all drugs were becoming either toxic or too expensive for the NHS to bear.

Then I read about research by Valter Longo, of the University of Southern California, one of the leading fasting scientists, which showed that mice that were denied food for three days at a time generated new stem cells by the end of the third day, meaning that their immune systems began to repair themselves with each cycle. He said this held great promise not only for people with autoimmune conditions but for all of us as we age, since our immune systems become less efficient as the years pass.

I fasted twice, on water of various kinds, for just under and over three days at a time, before every symptom of an illness I’d had for 20 years vanished, never to recur. Since then I’ve become a fasting enthusiast, despite my natural greed and my chocolate addiction, only because the evidence and results are so compelling. Giving one’s body a break from food, for anything from 12 hours to five days is like taking a car to be serviced.

When you fast, your body goes into scavenger mode, breaking down and burning up anything it doesn’t need; damaged cells, tumours, viruses. This process is called autophagy.

I love food but I now fast whenever I feel my blood sugar’s quite high enough and I need a break. A couple of weeks ago, on holiday and eating splendid lunches and dinners with wine at every one, I stopped eating because I knew I’d had enough. I waited until I felt hungry again which wasn’t for 48 hours, irritatingly. Today it’s 5pm and I haven’t needed to eat since 8pm yesterday.

The first time you fast is a shock; you can feel faint unless you drink enough liquids, and your stomach complains at mealtimes. But hunger passes in an hour or two — it doesn’t get worse — and with practice you rapidly adapt. I can feel as I get older that I sadly don’t need as much food as I used to, and rather than dieting or calorie-counting, fasting is simple, and feels natural. And when you’re genuinely hungry again, you eat.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...sting-xjqstdzfb
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 05:55
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,586
 
Plan: Low Carb/IF
Stats: 217/206/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 19%
Location: UK
Default

Quote:
11 things nobody tells you before you start intermittent fasting

The first, and maybe most important thing you have to understand about nutrition is this: just because something makes perfect sense doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s true. It makes sense, after all, that eating fewer calories should be the only thing that matters for fat loss; that eating like our paleolithic ancestors did should make us healthier; and that eating loads of fat and almost no carbs will ‘force’ our bodies to use the former as a fuel source. And yet, whichever one of those things you believe, a sizable chunk of the nutritionist population is standing ready to call you insane.

So when someone tells you that just timing your food intake better might make all the difference – that you can still binge occasionally, as long as you’re willing to padlock the fridge for a few hours a day – you’d be right to be sceptical. But still: results are promising. Some experts claim that intermittent fasting can get you lean, help you manage hunger levels better than conventional dieting, and possibly even make you healthier, by stabilising your insulin levels or acting as a form of artificial calorie restriction.

A new study runs along exactly these lines: go without food for 36 hours, then eat whatever you like for 12, and you stand to lose, on average, more than half a stone within a month.

Scientists at the University of Graz in Austria believe the strength of alternate-day fasting (ADF) may lie in its adherence to hunter-gatherers’ patterns of eating thousands of years ago, when food was not available every day.

However, they warn that it may not be suitable for everyone and that further studies need to prove its safety over the long-term.
So, is intermittent fasting really the health feast it seems? Here’s what nobody tells you before you kick the KFC bucket for 36 hours at a time...

1. There are loads of versions of fasting...

If the 5:2 – that’s cutting down to 500 calories two days a week, as popularised by Dr Michael Mosley – doesn’t appeal, there are plenty of other options. 16/8 sees you restricting your eating to an eight-hour window (maybe a late breakfast, a small lunch, and an early dinner), while the ‘Warrior Diet’ trims it down to four.

Eat-stop-eat is arguably the most extreme, involving a 24-hour fast once or twice a week – and ‘spontaneous’ fasting is just a fancy name for skipping a meal occasionally.

2. ... And some of them are very unpleasant

Quite a few of the lab studies showing health benefits of intermittent fasting used some version of ‘alternate-day’ fasting – where subjects ate as little as 500 calories one day, and then went back to fasting the next. This isn’t an approach for the unsupervised or inexperienced, and it’s not entirely clear if it’s sustainable.

3. It’s a lot easier if you’re busy

In contrast to other popular diets - which often involve prep, or at least time to cook - IF actually works better if you’re on the go. With no time to think, you’re unlikely to miss snacking - especially once your blood-sugar stabilises.

4. You don’t actually get that hungry

Assuming you eat sensibly the rest of the time, fasting isn’t that bad. The eight and four-hour options, especially, are pretty easy: black coffee acts as an appetite suppressant, and along with guzzling a load of water, it’s more than enough to keep you going until lunch or dinner.

The effect of blood-sugar levels on your energy, for most people, are overstated - after an initial bedding-in period, you’ll do just fine.

5. …Unless you do the full-day version

I’ve done the full 24-hours without eating – well, from dinner one day to dinner the next – once. For the first 20 hours or so, everything was fine; for the last four, I felt like I was in the last legs of a marathon, and it was only extreme sluggishness that stopped me rushing to the shops on a biscuit mercy-dash.

6. There’s a much easier option

If you’re like most non-fasters, your current eating window’s likely to be around 15-16 hours of the day – almost all the time you’re awake – and a growing group of researchers think that might be a problem. Humans are diurnal: our metabolisms have evolved to be active during the day, with light exposure and food intake controlling when our enzyme activity switches on and off. By switching to a 10-12 hour eating window, these researchers suggest, we might be able to get our circadian clocks back on track, with results that range from improved digestion to better endurance and more muscle.

Better still, it’s nowhere near as punishing as fasting: make your breakfast a little bit later and stop eating after supper, and you’re technically doing TRE, or ‘time-restricted eating.’

7. Yes, coffee counts (sometimes)...

Conventional intermittent fasting tends to allow black coffee or green tea, since they’re calorie-free. TREaters, though, point out that coffee is technically a ‘xenobiotic’ (just a fancy word for ‘thing that doesn’t naturally occur in your body’) - so it’ll still kick off the metabolic processes that they’re concerned with. This might not necessarily be a problem for fat loss, but it’s something to consider if TRE turns out to be beneficial.

Water, since it doesn’t need any digestion, is fine. Fill your boots.

8. ... And that might actually be a good thing

Ah yes, we’ve all seen the coffee-shop chalkboards and ‘funny’ mugs, but let’s be honest: if you’re a mumbling, shambling mess until your first shot of morning java, that’s a problem. When I tried TRE, I had to shunt my first coffee to an hour after waking up and glug a pint of water instead, and after a week, I actually felt... better? This probably shouldn’t have been so surprising.

9. It’s absolutely the best way to ‘eat’ on planes

Plane food is: a) horrible, and b) really just there to stop everyone trotting up and down the aisles like excited toddlers. Fix your hunger levels, and you can reject this tyranny: it’s not the end of the world if you don’t eat for eight hours, and it certainly beats trying to get sachets of protein powder onto a plane.

10. It’ll reshape your long-term relationship with hunger

In the modern world, one might argue, we’re all a bit too used to getting what we want, as soon as we want it: banging our hands on the table if Netflix gets a bit wobbly, refusing to work when Spotify shuts down and grabbing a muffin at the first twinge of hunger. Deliberately resist your urges for a few weeks, though, and the process gets easier: and at some point, you’ll realise that it’s normal to actually be a bit peckish most of the time.

11. It never works when you’re hungover

You’re still going to need a fry-up. Work around it.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-...ittent-fasting/
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 07:11
Little Me's Avatar
Little Me Little Me is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,166
 
Plan: LC/GF
Stats: 208/166/168 Female 5'3
BF:
Progress: 105%
Location: SoCal
Default

Love #11. Sounds like the voice of experience.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 08:54
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 3,198
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

From the first article:
Quote:
“Additionally, we advise people not to fast if they have a viral infection, because the immune system probably requires immediate energy to fight viruses."

From the "Case study: Illness I’d had for 20 years vanished after fasting" article:
Quote:
"I fasted twice, on water of various kinds, for just under and over three days at a time, before every symptom of an illness I’d had for 20 years vanished, never to recur. Since then I’ve become a fasting enthusiast, despite my natural greed and my chocolate addiction, only because the evidence and results are so compelling. Giving one’s body a break from food, for anything from 12 hours to five days is like taking a car to be serviced."

I was going to comment on the point about advising people who have a viral infection to not fast, as that's not been my experience. A couple years ago, I was starting an IF and had what I would call cold symptoms with congested sinus and ear issues with occasional mild vertigo. Two days into the fast, everything resolved and after completing the fast, all previous symptoms were gone. I've heard about others having the same experiences, so the experience of Jenni Russell makes sense to me.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 10:26
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 12,300
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
"We feel that it is a good regime for some months for obese people to cut weight, or it might even be a useful clinical intervention in diseases driven by inflammation," said Professor Madeo.


Whaddaya know? I qualify on both counts!
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 10:33
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 12,300
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
11. It never works when you’re hungover

You’re still going to need a fry-up. Work around it.


LOL. My American husband, who was mentored for years by an English person, was contemplating the keto diet (which he's now on).

The first thing he said was, "I can still have a fry-up!"
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 10:35
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 12,300
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
A couple years ago, I was starting an IF and had what I would call cold symptoms with congested sinus and ear issues with occasional mild vertigo. Two days into the fast, everything resolved and after completing the fast, all previous symptoms were gone. I've heard about others having the same experiences, so the experience of Jenni Russell makes sense to me.


In fact, energy can be diverted from digestion to the immune system. It takes energy to digest! There are probably better places for it.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 10:43
Sagehill Sagehill is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,557
 
Plan: My own
Stats: 250/141.4/130 Female 5'3"
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Central FL
Default

I love fasting! Well, of course I don't ~love~ how I feel on the fast, the first 2-3 days are the worst, but I sure love how I feel afterwards! It's the best way to retrain your appetite and kill carb cravings.

I've done several 3-6 day fasts in July and August, and just yesterday I noticed that a large lipoma that I've had for many years on the back of my calf is completely gone! About the size of a large grape, it was really obvious, a round ball that stuck out, and hurt when pressed, so I'm really glad it's gone.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 10:47
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Posts: 12,300
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/123/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 139%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sagehill
I've done several 3-6 day fasts in July and August, and just yesterday I noticed that a large lipoma that I've had for many years on the back of my calf is completely gone! About the size of a large grape, it was really obvious, a round ball that stuck out, and hurt when pressed, so I'm really glad it's gone.


Dagnab! Mine, about that size, is gone too!
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 10:50
CityGirl8 CityGirl8 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 856
 
Plan: Protein Power, IF
Stats: 238/204/145 Female 5'8"
BF:53.75%/46.6%/25%
Progress: 37%
Location: PNW
Default

Quote:
the most extreme, involving a 24-hour fast once or twice a week...I’ve done the full 24-hours without eating – well, from dinner one day to dinner the next – once. For the first 20 hours or so, everything was fine; for the last four, I felt like I was in the last legs of a marathon, and it was only extreme sluggishness that stopped me rushing to the shops on a biscuit mercy-dash.
LOL. 24-hours is extreme? I've regularly done 42 and 64 and never felt like that--though I have been hungry (more mentally than physically). Of course, I don't live on carbs during my eating periods, so that makes a huge difference in avoiding that sluggish 'last leg of a marathon' exhaustion.

As for the original post and study: It's good to finally see some long term studies on fasting coming out. They're clearly trying to be very conservative with their recommendations, since it's still controversial. But good to see solid results.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 13:13
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,299
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Not to quibble but study fasted for 36 hours. Whoa...it even made The Today Show with one of those full set graphics boards, a three minute segment with a Doctor...positive.

https://www.today.com/health/how-lo...enefits-t161484

Last edited by JEY100 : Wed, Aug-28-19 at 13:21.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 14:37
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 21,144
 
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/350/280 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 71%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

Given that nobody makes money off people fasting -- except Dr. Fung who is selling subscriptions to a group of people for fasting -- I'm kind of astounded to see it in mainstream media at all, let alone some high profile stuff.

It's a good thing, I think.

Eating once a day and occasionally skipping a day is my norm. When I do IF, the only thing that changes is that I generally eat MORE -- and more consistently -- because I'm paying attention to doing it on purpose, rather than going, "Oh yeah, hmmn, it's 8pm, I should probably eat something."

Generally neither approach results in me getting enough food though, especially fats, unless I either prep bulk food in advance, or have a few choice foods high in cheese+mayo or bacon+avocado. I can eat a lot at once if I must, it's just having it all ready so it's not a hassle (e.g.: laziness) that interferes.

I generally lose more weight when I am eating a little more often, even if it's the same amount of food, not intaking much dairy, and particularly if I am drinking more water. I don't know why this is.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Wed, Aug-28-19, 15:10
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 12,776
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 255/214/153 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

PJ, this is the first time "laziness" is a vurtue. Lol
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:42.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.