Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25549805

by gps408 • 13 years ago

158 148 13 years ago

bbc.co.uk

gojomo• 13 years ago

I find it frustrating when people often discuss experience with 'intermittent fasting' without describing exactly what they mean. The term ranges over lots of approaches. I've seen it used to describe just 8 hours (perhaps every/most days) without food, to a full day or couple of days without food (perhaps every other day or once per week or two), to other things, as is the case here.

Fortunately, clicking through to another article in the series (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25498742) gives more details about what was tested here:

The food, during the [5-consecutive-day] period of the restricted diet, was designed to be highly nutritious. It consisted of plant-based soups, kale chips, a nutty bar, a herbal tea and an energy drink. The total number of calories, in five days, was about 2,500 - a little more than the average person consumes in one day. No additional food was allowed. For the rest of the month we were allowed a normal diet. The regime was repeated three times, followed by a control period, when we could eat anything.

Keats3• 13 years ago

8h without food wouldn't be intermittent fasting unless everyone does it when sleeping.

There is one diet type quite popular right now in fitness called Leangains which calls for about 16h of fasting and a 8h eating window (granted that you can reduce the eating window if you feel like it).

Some people even reduce the eating window to just one meal (warrior diet).

awjr5• 13 years ago

Isn't this just skipping breakfast?

kolev• 13 years ago

For nearly a year, I've been just having coffee with MCT oil in the morning, which pretty much keeps you satiated until 4 pm when I get a light "lunch" and then eat dinner around 9 pm. No hunger ever, no snacking, a few pound of weight loss even though I've increased my calories (get tons from the chunks of grass-fed cheese). Calorie counting is oversimplification of the complex metabolic processes in the human body and ignore major components such as hormones, thermogenesis, etc. Also, I don't get how sane people can accept that boosting your metabolism is healthier (like eating 5 times a day, exercising, etc.). It can't possibly be. Aging is a natural method of dealing the increasing cancer risk. Also, the faster your metabolism is, the sooner you will reach the Hayflick limit!

stickydink3• 13 years ago

I don't think we're even close to really understanding how the body works here.

I'm not obese, but I gain weight from eating a little more, very easily. Last summer, I followed a Keto ("ultra low carb, high fat, medium protein") diet for about 4 months. After the first week of feeling terrible, a well-known side effect, I felt perfectly fine. It felt like I was binge eating, I limited what I could eat and just went mad eating it. Any time I was remotely hungry, grab an approved snack. A big plate of bacon and eggs for breakfast, Chipotle for lunch, and a hefty meal for dinner.

I never went hungry, and as someone who likes food, it felt more like a treat than a diet. Colleagues thought I was trying to gain weight, and my girlfriend thought I'd gone mad with hunger. But the fat melted off. I didn't walk into a gym in those 3 months, and dropped 2-3lbs a week (starting ~250 at 6"3'), every single week.

I'm not saying it's perfect, or even viable for everybody -- it's not cheap, it's awkward to eat with friends, and the first week or two can be hell. Despite what people have been told, fat won't make you fat, and Keto has been shown over and over to reduce the risk factors for heart disease, 'cure' diabetics, and provide huge body transformations.

For anyone interested, /r/keto is a reasonably mature community, and can provide a lot more information.

sn0v• 13 years ago

Did you notice any long term (lasting) effects after those four months? Also, any particular reason you stopped?

Thanks.

stickydink3• 13 years ago

After I stopped, and started eating regularly again, I found nothing different at all. One of the side effects, is that you're really susceptible to alcohol. One beer, and I'd be really feeling it. Whereas before, I could drink 3 without really noticing. After I stopped, my tolerance was still pretty low, though it's fine now. I don't know if the low tolerance afterwards could be the diet specifically, or just whether I'd not really drank in 4 months.

I stopped because it was just too awkward. Living with my girlfriend, it was annoying that we had to cook separately (she only believes in low calorie, zombie cardio 5 days a week). We could only go out to dinner at certain places, which got a bit tedious. And to be honest, I'd done pretty well, and was back to the sort of weight I wanted to be at. The toss up between the cost/awkwardness, and the amount of weight I still had to lose, it wasn't worth the hassle.

Though, if I ever need to lose weight again (hopefully never), I wouldn't even dream of anything else.

AltanS4• 13 years ago

Maybe I can answer this question, been on a ketogenic diet for over a year now. As mentioned above there is an adaptation period to the diet that can take up to 4 weeks. During that time symptoms can be flu like, this is caused by an initial hormonal change due to low blood glucose levels and in return a low and stable insulin level. Because of this the kidney excretes more sodium, potassium and water, leading to low blood pressure. This can be prevented by supplementing broth, or adding more salt to servings, for as long as the symptoms occur. Once this phase is over you get to experience the real benefits of a ketogenic diet, constant energy levels throughout the day, controllable hunger, better sleep, elevated HGH and more. It really sounds too good to be true I guess, which is why a lot of people dismiss it right away. I'd encourage anyone to give it a try, at least 4 weeks however to ensure adaptation.

dharmach• 13 years ago

The book "The Endurance: Shackleton's Legendary Antarctic Expedition" mentioned about the group not able to eat carbohydrate for months. They had only animal products available to survive. They complained about lack of stamina and each physical tasks taking a lot longer to complete.

ehsanu1• 13 years ago

fulmato, you were hellbanned after your first comment saying "this is bs". Not a great comment, but hellbanning for a single comment is quite extreme. Posting your useful comment here:

On top of /r/keto Dr. Peter Attia has a great blog on this topic http://eatingacademy.com/ It's a great resource for a more scientific explanation of what happens to the metabolism when keto-adapted and on the effects of carbohydrates and more importantly insulin.

jimeuxx2• 13 years ago

People like Attia live in a parallel universe where there are healthy populations on Earth that eat no carbs and East Asia doesn't exist. My Japanese is good enough now to explain to my wife's active octogenarian grandparents why rice is going to give them heart disease and diabetes.

In all seriousness, the world of online nutrition is a nasty and insane place. There's a lot of dogma and cognitive dissonance in something that borders on religion among the followers of gurus like Attia. If you're simply looking for an objective explanation of science rather than an ideology, look elsewhere.

js2• 13 years ago

See also Prof Timothy Noakes, a professor of exercise and sports science, also a marathoner and ultra-marathoner. He struggled with his weight and pre-diabetic status until himself switching to a ketogenic diet.

http://www.runnersworld.co.za/nutrition/novel-dietary-ideas/

He doesn't say a ketogenic diet is right for everyone, rather that some people are very sensitive to carbs ("carbohydrate-resistant") and would be best served avoiding them.

theorique2• 13 years ago

Chipotle for lunch

How did you do Chipotle? I'm guessing you just went with beans / meat / vegetables and skipped the rice and tortilla?

stickydink3• 13 years ago

They have a pretty decent nutritional guide[1] on their website, my usual was the salad bowl (big lettuce), no salad dressing, no rice, no beans, fajita veggies, double meat steak + barbacoa, the green salsa (has the fewest net carbs), sour cream, cheese, guac. That leaves you with this: http://imgur.com/WZBEczv, 14g net carbs (net carbs = carbs - fiber). My target was <30g per day. Breakfast gave almost 0, dinner would be 10-15g.

[1] http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/menu/nutrition_calculator/nutr...

bobowzki5• 13 years ago

I'm a physician. While it's good to lose weight (at least if you are overweight), keep in mind that losing weight is not the only interesting outcome. Any diet might have long term side effects. Such as an increased risk of cancer, arteriosclerosis etc.

Also remember that weight loss is not the only benefit of exercise.

That said, congrats on losing weight. Now start exercising :-)

tokenizer• 13 years ago

Regarding the diet above, which limits your sugar intake to 20 grams a day, what are some potential consequences of starving your body of sugars?

Sounds good in theory (sugar is bad), but it sounds stressful (body starts producing ketones due to suck a lack of sugar, flu like symptoms for a week).

Nimi2• 13 years ago

I'd be curious to read be your response to this - genuinely asking here (skip to 37:30)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0

HNJohnC5• 13 years ago

"Also remember that weight loss is not the only benefit of exercise."

Weight loss is not part of any benefit of exercise. Though your statement is commonly held as a belief there is absolutely no scientific basis for your statement.

Anyone can easily verify this for themselves: take a chart showing calories in common foods beside a chart showing common activities and how many calories they burn and try to find any scenario where you can out exercise your mouth.

maxerickson2• 13 years ago

What's a big plate of bacon?

5 or 6 slices of bacon and 3 eggs is in the ballpark of 500 calories, which is a fairly light meal for someone at 200 pounds.

hessenwolf• 13 years ago

Waxy fat though. Gotta watch those arteries. Damn tasty pork.

AlexC04• 13 years ago

I too swear by keto. 65 lbs in ~4 months while never feeling hungry and having massive amounts of energy (hormonal changes crank up your testosterone levels)

Nothing else I've tried was as easy as keto... And as a guy with >65lbs to lose I've tried a lot of diets.

I don't know if it is for everyone, but my body responds really well to it.

awjr5• 13 years ago

Looks like a derivation on the 5/2 diet. The 25/5 diet. My personal issue with these types of diets is that my concentration levels initially drop. I find the first couple of days extremely uncomfortable.

The best lifestyle change I've made is to drastically cut down on carbs, generally avoiding wheat and try never to eat sugar, in particular fructose. Note this doesn't stop me eating carbs but that I generally try and avoid them in my day to day eating. I no longer feel tired in the afternoon.

I also cycle to work.

dualogy2• 13 years ago

What did wheat do to you? Are you a celiac, or are there other reasons one might be interested in avoiding it?

beagle34• 13 years ago

Not op - My experience is that all grains (corn, rice, wheat) make me bloated and puffy, regardless of caloric content. Wheat is by far the worst offender, also making my breath shorter about 30-60 minutes after eating, lasting a couple of hours, and corn not having an immediately noticeable effect, but causing bloating that will stay for days.

Not celiac, and not anything life threatening, but definitely a huge effect. After dropping wheat, I lost 30 lbs in one month, and it stayed off for 18 month without wheat (but some came on again after a week of eating mostly corn products - which is how I discovered that corn is evil too)

The best way to determine if this is relevant to you is not to read books or articles or consult with a doctor: rather, take a week or two off grains (much harder than it sounds - wheat and corn are used as fillers in many products), and then adding them sporadically and keeping a journal (what and when you ate each day; and whether you felt good/bad the next hour/day)

Not easy, but well worth it and not expensive.

awjr5• 13 years ago

I think it was a combination of issues:

1) If I eat a carb rich meal, I will happily go for a nap. Anecdotal evidence, had spaghetti carbonara with garlic bread at the weekend. Fell asleep watching a film for the first time in about a year. I can create the same effect with potato or rice. I don't like it. It wastes my time.

2) After eating a lot of bread I can feel extremely bloated and uncomfortable. I potentially have a gluten intolerance however I find the same when eating a lot of sugar. It could be yeast related. Through experimentation I've found that the white 'gacky' sliced bread is particularly bad.

3) I don't think we are designed to eat modern wheat. I switched from beer (ale) to cider and find I have no morning after 'bowel' effects.

4) I avoid sourdough bread. Who am I kidding. Best bread in the world. My crack cocaine. Thankfully there are some awesome artisan bakers in Bath, UK. However when I buy a loaf, I commit to a 20+ mile cycle ride.

5) If I eat a carb rich meal, I will get hungry quicker. I can feel 'fuller' for longer by avoiding carbs. It makes me avoid snacks.

A lot of the above is about feeling mentally alert at work/home. In the winter it means I cook up big pots of high protein stew, freeze them and take them to work and zap them in the microwave. Summer is all about big boxes of salads, heavy on the meat/cheese/dressing.

At work we have lunchtime Dirty Burger Wednesdays where we grab nasty takeaway food :) Like I said it's not about being religious about not eating wheat, just generally trying to minimise intake. I know what a high carb diet makes me feel like.

One proviso. I cycle to work. The morning is almost a free wheel 2.5 mile down hill ride. The evening is a 2.5 mile climb. It used to be a real bitch. Now only the last 0.5 mile is a bit nasty.

theorique2• 13 years ago

As some others have noted, white flour products and other high-carb, high glycemic-index foods tend to lead to hunger in the short term and lethargy ('food coma').

Anecdotally, I've noticed that if I eat a small breakfast high in protein - e.g. 3 eggs - then I don't get hungry for several hours. If I eat a large breakfast high in carbs - e.g. pancakes or waffles - then I am hungry much sooner.

terhechte2• 13 years ago

When you say no fructose, that that mean that you don't eat any fruits?

awjr5• 13 years ago

I eat some fruit in moderation, but avoid juices and carbonated drinks which use high-fructose corn syrup.

IIRC Fructose is processed in a similar way to the way alcohol is processed in your system. It's not an energy source that can be used by your body without processing. I also believe it's one of those energy types that is readily stored as fat.

Tarang• 13 years ago

There was a very interesting documentary on intermittent fasting on BBC Horizon titled 'Eat, Fast, Live Longer' where Michael Mosley experimented with himself fasting trying different types of fasting including intermittent fasting.

It did help him alot but the cool thing was there was a guy who lived on a meal a day which had athlete like body fat levels.

There's also a runner, Fauja Singh, who ran a marathon at 101 years of age featured in it who practices something close to intermittent fasting [1]

It was extremely interesting and I do feel after watching it that 3 meals a day is something conjured by man but may not really be all that natural.

Link to episode intro: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGHDBIaibok

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fauja_Singh

nodata• 13 years ago

This sounds awfully like regular crash dieting.

rosser2• 13 years ago

"Crash dieting", as commonly practiced, is to eat less until your weight goals have been reached, and then go back to "normal". IF is hardly that; instead, it's a controlled pattern of regularly, and for specific durations, reducing your caloric intake. Some IF practitioners use a 6:1 cycle, where they have one fast day a week, some 5:2, and yet others 25:5, as in TFA. Some just take a random fast day whenever they feel like it, even.

IF is much less about weight than it is the other, generally scientifically demonstrated benefits of reduced caloric intake — though it does tend to confer some benefit in weight reduction as well.

vidarh4• 13 years ago

And some just reduce the window of food intake within the day. E.g. leangains is 16 hours fasted, 8 hours or less eating window.

IF is much less about weight than it is the other, generally scientifically demonstrated benefits of reduced caloric intake

That depends on the type of IF. Again Leangains is not specifically about calorie reduction, but about obtaining some of the benefit of being in a fasted state part of the day coupled with avoiding adding body fat, which for many who uses Leangains still means consciously adding weight.

piyushpr134• 13 years ago

This is not really a new thing. In India, fasting is a like a culture. More common with females though. Some of them fast like once every week. There are festivals which are based around fasting. Like Karvachauth, in which girls fast for their husbands etc (we are not very feminist yet). There are festivals during which people fast for straight 2-10 days! (chath, durga puja, somwari etc).

Even in Islam, during ramzaan people fast everyday for 30 days . They eat before dawn break and eat again after dusk.

beagle34• 13 years ago

Note that in ramadaan they also don't drink any water during the day; and many who can afford to, flip their schedule to sleep through the day so they can eat at night.

Also, according to superfreakonomics, this wreaks havoc on gestating babies. Seems like all harm and no benefit fasting (which, perhaps is the idea - Jewish fasting on Yom Kippur is specifically spoused to be a soul-torture/soul-searching experience - both translations are valid - although it is often not experienced as either)

uberalex• 13 years ago

It's also worth noting that typically people gain weight during Ramadan. They eat way more, richer food as it's a time of celebration and dehydration from the day.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/07/cairo-the-...

sfjailbird2• 13 years ago

Pregnant women are exempt from fasting during ramadan.

sfjailbird2• 13 years ago

The recommended practice in Islam is actually to fast two days a week, in addition to the month of ramadan.

muraiki• 13 years ago

Orthodox, Coptic, and other pre-Great Schism Christians fast twice a week (Wednesdays and Fridays), where fasting is defined as eating only vegetables and grains. In addition, there are various other periods of fasting throughout the year, such as the 40 days before Pascha (Easter) and Christmas.

The intent of the fast isn't for health reasons, although from my own anecdotal experience it does seem to have healthful effects, such as sharpening the mind. The rules aren't set in stone but are an ideal for the purpose of cultivating self-discipline and a humble awareness of our limitations. If a person fasts from food but "consumes" their neighbor (through anger, jealousy, etc.), then the whole point of the fast has been missed.

iagomr• 13 years ago

It also might have given cancer to Steve Jobs

khafra• 13 years ago

Citation? I've seen a lot of studies saying intermittent fasting might not help bodyfat loss as much as you'd hope; but no studies saying it increases cancer risk.

collyw3• 13 years ago

I am really interested in intermittent fasting for the health benefits, having watched BBC's Horizon on it.

The thing is I am fairly skinny, and struggle to put on weight. Does anyone know if I am likely to loose weight?

And are there any good site to learn about it in a fairly scientific way? I see lots of blogs, but never sure how much is worth reading.

dualogy2• 13 years ago

I have for a time put on weight during intermittent fasting (daily 16-19h fast) easily, simply by ingesting excess calories in the "feeding window" for days/weeks on end. If you need 2000 a day and eat 2500-3000 a day or more (averaged over a longer time span), fasting isn't going to reverse that fact. Sometimes it is as simple as calories-in-calories-out.. I did this on purpose to grow some muscle, but some of the "gains" in that approach will always be bodyfat.

Theodores3• 13 years ago

A lot of the diets mentioned on this thread are a long way from the diet used in this article. Note it is not mentioned in the article, however it is mostly vegetables with some fish. That is a long way from 'chipotle'!!!

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food. Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else. Their ancestors invariably had toxins in them to dissuade any creatures (including us) from eating them.

Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten. Hence the wide range of defensive measures most animals/insects/fish have to make sure that does not happen too often. Again, toxins come into play. As you move up the food chain so you get an accumulation of those toxins, hence we tend not to eat apex predators.

Compare and contrast with fruit. Fruit has evolved specifically to be eaten, particularly by primates. The idea being that we eat some fruit, wander off to somewhere new, have a dump, eject some seeds from the fruit complete with a handy amount of manure and water. Yep, those pesky plants tricked us into doing all of their work for them! They even managed to get us to cover up our leavings, thereby planting their seeds properly.

Our vision system co-evolved with fruit, we (as in primates) see in colour not because god wanted us to live in some world of puppies and rainbows but so we could eat fruit that is ripe and ready to eat. The plants, knowing that we were evolving colour vision, kindly evolved through some process of natural selection to produce fruit that kick in to 'eat me' colours when they are nice 'n' ripe.

With this colour coded system it is possible for plants to avoid waste. We (as in primates) only pick the ripe fruit, the stuff that is still green is identifiably no good to us so we leave it until it magically changes colour.

Obviously there came a time when grasslands took over and we had to leave the trees, learn to stand up and walk on two feet (so we could see over the grass) and find new meals to try. At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne, we adapted, but not that much, our intestines are still a million miles longer than that of a dog, we still have hands for nabbling fruit rather than vicious claws to rip apart stray wildebeest and we can still chew, as you need to do for fruit, in a way dogs don't do.

Much like how multi-vitamins are of dubious benefit to you, so it is with fructose. Sugars in fruit are fine, nobody has died of diabetes due to eating too many apples. The 'fibre' is an important part of it, you need 'fibre' if you are to consume sucrose.

The problem with diet in America is corn. There is nothing edible about corn grown in America today unless it has been processed by an industrial process or another animal first. All of those corn-stuffed animals Americans eat get killed before the corn kills them. If Americans are not careful they will be remembered as 'the corn people' like some of those American Indian tribes that tried and failed to build corn-based civilisations in pre-Columbian times.

bluedino2• 13 years ago

Apex predators are hard to kill for humans (or other animals) and as they usually don't taste as good as slower, fatter animals.

PavlovsCat2• 13 years ago

What is taste other than a way to get us to eat things that are healthy for us? For example, I would think we like sweets because fruit are sweet, not because there is inherent value in things tasting sweet.

Apex predators are hard to kill for humans

No longer true, and we still don't eat them a whole lot.

codingdave• 13 years ago

Just FYI, botanically speaking, grains are fruit.

vidarh4• 13 years ago

It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food.

What they want is irrelevant. As they evolved to avoid being eaten, so we evolved to be able to obtains, eat and digest it. It's not a one-sided process of providing us with a ready made menu.

At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne

Why do you assume we did not eat animals "in the trees"? Is there any evidence to support that? Chimps eat meat on occasion, for example, and when they do the pack literally tears the victim apart.

And describing it as a "cult" is ridiculous. It became important because it is an immense source of nutrients, and available in many places where surviving on available plants/fruits was near impossible prior to the development of extensive trade. The ability to eat and digest meat provided us with yet another evolutionary advantage over many other animals.

We (as in primates) only pick the ripe fruit, the stuff that is still green is identifiably no good to us

There's plenty of fruit that's green when it is ripe, and plenty that is a different colour than green for a long time before it is ripe.

we still have hands for nabbling fruit rather than vicious claws to rip apart stray wildebeest

Which have proved superior in providing means for killing animals? Our hands can hold and wield weapons. Which approach to eating meat is better: Tearing apart raw meat, or cooking it? You seem to assume that we are not well adapted to handling our new menu entries and/or that these features somehow means we're better adapted to fruit just because we haven't taken on the characteristics of animals that are terribly limited in their abilities.

robbiep• 13 years ago

Excellent, strong and relevant counterpoints

Xephyrous• 13 years ago

Spot on critique. Two additions:

What about pure carnivores? Surely their food doesn't want to be food, but carnivores do just fine.

While I agree that the amount of corn we eat is absurd, to call it inedible is ludicrous. Raw corn on the cob is plenty edible, and sweet corn is quite tasty, although that's admittedly not what's grown on large corn plantations.

blendergasket• 13 years ago

I may be mistaken or we may be both using different myths to justify our food based belief systems but I was under the assumption that at least the larger pre-Columbian societies were done in by European diseases.

At least some pre-Columbian societies nixtamalized their corn (think hominy and masa harina), which unlocks many nutrients, greatly improving its nutritional value and making it a much better staple than non-nixtamalized corn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization

blktiger• 13 years ago

Not to mention many poisonous fruit that looks just like other, non-poisonous fruit.

dm3• 13 years ago

like some of those American Indian tribes that tried and failed to build corn-based civilisations in pre-Columbian times

Do you imply that corn had negative effect on Indians? From what I've read [1] it actually allowed Indians to maintain their population levels without having irrigation technology comparable to one developed in middle East and Europe.

[1] http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/technology-world-civilization

g8oz• 13 years ago

>like some of those American Indian tribes that tried and failed to build corn-based civilisations in pre-Columbian times.

Umm taking into account the Aztec, Maya, Inca and all the aboriginal nations that preceded and co-existed with them I would like to disagree with the failure part. It is as possible to build a civilization from corn as it was from rice and wheat.

Oh also, this whole "grains are bad for you because of our caveman roots" thing has to be the least provable piece of speculation passing around the Internet these days. It is backed by few facts and much smugness.

I like to speculate too though. I think the problem with corn is the petroleum refining style approach that is taken with it. If you read up about it corn is treated as almost like a chemical feedstock. The resulting "products" are a public health disaster hidden from scrutiny by the money of Archer Daniels Midland etc and politicians from the Corn Belt.

The problem with wheat is the post WWII intensive breeding programs designed to maximize yield and gluten content. Gluten makes a easier feedstock for bakers and food product manufacturers. It also counts towards protein measurements and that directly relates to price. Many governments like Saudi Arabia that buy wheat for their entire nation look for higher protein levels and bumping gluten is a nice shortcut. I believe these market driven wheat modifications have produced unexamined changes and proteins that negatively affect the health of a significant percentage of the population. I believe in the coming years we will see a movement promoting the revival of "heritage" strains of wheat like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fife_wheat.

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

Its not grains are bad for you - it is more like "over consumption of overly refined starches spiked with lots of sugar ingested 3 times a day could easily wreck havoc on your ability to regulate blood sugar and build up insulin resistance"

shiven• 13 years ago

A more general pattern appears to be along the lines of Monocotelydons[1] vs other types of plants that bear edible fruits. I forget where I read this but it appears that monocots are going to be the dominant class of plants across the globe, hand-in-hand with climate change.

Another interesting parallel in eating seeds is between seeds from angiosperms like pine seeds and those from grasses like wheat. Two very different types of plants, but primates ate the same part of each.

Also, did humans evolve to carry gluten digesting genes over time, hence a subpopulation that cannot handle gluten?

[1]http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monocotyledon

ronaldx• 13 years ago

Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten.

This is an attractive statement but is not trivial: I would question it. (with the caveat that evolution is a passive process)

Species may gain evolutionary benefit from being eaten: the weakest of the species are pruned, leaving the strongest candidates.

Using toxins to avoid being eaten might have a short-term benefit but a longer-term penalty as less robust creatures get a temporary escape pass: plus, maintaining adequate toxicity creates an arms race that has significant evolutionary cost.

As part of participating in a healthy ecosystem, it is likely better for many species to allow some of their members to be eaten.

The fact that mammals generally do not maintain toxicity suggests there are more downsides than upsides.

Theodores3• 13 years ago

I would like to know how your comment would fare at the Natural History Museum. This type of thought goes around the building for a long time...

I cannot think of an example where 'free food for predators' is part of the deal. I can see why lots of eggs are produced in the hope that some get to survive, but that is not the same as deliberately producing 'free food for predators' that also happens to be 'designed to be eaten'.

Did you have any examples in mind?

ironchef• 13 years ago

"Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten."

Plankton have largely evolved to be eaten.

sejje2• 13 years ago

As have some bacteria, which I guess he specifically excluded.

cma• 13 years ago

Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten.

Many parasites have done just that. Also the females of some species eat the males after mating.

mortenjorck• 13 years ago

  Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else.

This is the very definition of a fruit, against which you're drawing an emotionally-charged, pseudoscientific distinction. It's a seed-bearing structure that evolved to be carried to another location to be planted.

codex• 13 years ago

It bears mentioning that the sugar content of modern fruit is much higher than that of Paleolithic fruit. It's been bred to be sweeter and larger.

mikelat2• 13 years ago

Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten.

I would disagree. Most animals didn't evolve any defense mechanism to make them less appetizing, and animals at the bottom of the food chain reproduce the most so they have the most numbers to keep the species going. Meanwhile animals on the top of the food chain evolved in a manner to eat other animals. It's just nature for you.

hatu• 13 years ago

Here's the thing I don't like about fasting - how are you supposed to work out while you're fasting? I can't imagine going to the gym eating 500 calories a day without passing out.

vidarh4• 13 years ago

Intermittent fasting does not imply anything about calorie amount on a daily basis. I do IF now and again, and what makes me take periods off is that I get absolutely sick and tired of food on IF because I always feel stuffed.

My calorie intake on exercise days on IF is about 2800kcal (as a 6'1 male with a current weight of 108kg/238lbs and a substantially above average muscle volume), which usually meant a lunch consisting of 1800+ calories of protein heavy food.

I'd usually exercise fasted (I do power lifting) apart from a low quantity of bcaa's, and have my first meal at noon.

But in fact, you adjust to going to the gym on low calorie diets too. Intensity may suffer, but it's certainly possible.

thinkr• 13 years ago

A variation of intermittent fasting that is geared towards those that workout/weightlift is called leangains which you can learn about at leangains.com and r/leangains. I have been doing it for over 2 years and I lift fasted. You may feel light headed the first few times you do it (so go lighter on weights) but you get used to it. I do squats and deadlifts fasted no problem.

mswen• 13 years ago

I started a Lean Gains style fasting approach in Oct 2012. My version has me stop eating by 8PM and not eat again for about 15 to 18 hours. I work out right before the end of my fast. I lift weights 3 days a week and run 2 days a week. These are vigorous workouts lasting 35 to 50 minutes.

My body has adapted! Initially I couldn't lift as much nor run quite as quickly while working out on empty, but the fat melted off nicely at about a pound a week for the first 6 months. My weight then stabilized for about 3 months.

In the last few months I have been trying a very slow bulk while still keeping to the schedule. Trying to eat above maintenance level and add muscle. It seems to be working I have put back on about 7 pounds and I estimate that about 4 of those are muscle. And, my personal bests in weight lifting have just recently been matched.

I have to say that overall I am very pleased with the results of this style of intermittent fasting and the ability to keep working out.

Having said all that, I am thinking that this year I would like to experiment with some longer fasts of 24 to 36 hours. I anticipate that I will need to significantly reduce the intensity of my workout during that kind of fast.

venomsnake2• 13 years ago

Not a problem at all. You lose some peak performance but barely any endurance on short fasts.

When I was getting ready for the prom I was working out, swimming and fasting for two weeks (only protein 200-400 calories). It was uncomfortable but totally manageable.

Warriors have waged whole wars depraved of adequate nutrition.

Keats3• 13 years ago

You eat way more calories than 500 on IF. IF is only about the fasting period, I still eat more than 3k kcal doing IF.

I workout around 6-8 am and eat at 1pm and I actually find I have more energy fasted than if i go in the afternoon.

mrharrison• 13 years ago

Shameless plug. I made an app based on leangains. Which is an intermittent fasting fitness method. It should answer your questions. http://leanguideapp.com

rickdale2• 13 years ago

Been doing IF every day since July 1, 2013. Before that I was eating slow-carb diet and had lost about 50lbs.

When I started doing IF, I was lifting pretty heavy and after the first week I had gained weight. I was pissed because I was hungry all the time it seemed, but I gained weight this week? Huh? Well, fast forward to now, and I put about 20 pounds since July 1, and yet I am not fatter. I am muscular. It's weird, and yes I was lifting, but fasting helped my body get from that chubby kid phase to, 'oh wow, I think I am almost ripped'. There are definitely some real benefits to fasting and no one will tell you that because they can't sell it to you in a pill.

Something really intriguing to me about fasting for 24hrs+ and then having to eat. For me, I crave healthy foods at that point and I also have the instinct to stuff my face and thus one meal/day works for that. It's tough to eat a bunch of crap when you are only eating once/day.

Finally, if you are interested in IF, I recommend reading up on Ori Hofmekler. He is the type of guy who's ideas are so crazy at first they are brushed off. Then science proves him right.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Warrior-Diet-Biological-Powerhouse...

encoderer• 13 years ago

I too only have 1 meal a day. Some days (few a month?) I cheat, mostly for social reasons. It's hard to refuse every lunch request.

Usually, though, I have an apple and cup of tea about 2PM. Dinner about 8. So I'm doing all my eating in a 6 hour window, fasting the other 18 hours, every day.

rickdale2• 13 years ago

For lunch requests my go to excuse to people is that I am in the middle of a fast. Thus, I don't mind going to eat with them, I dont seem weird for eating healthy, and for whatever reason, people have been more understanding of the fasting excuse over, oooo I cant eat that.

But with cheating in general, I will move the hours of fast around. So if I do go to a lunch, I'll probably eat pretty damn big and then fast until 6-8 the next day, make a good dinner. It's funny how much you enjoy food when you learn how to eat.

brassybadger3• 13 years ago

Interesting to see how mainstream intermittent fasting has become. It's worth noting where it started.

A few years ago a few hardcore fitness fanatics started playing with the idea of using controlled fasting for weight loss and/or body recomposition. Two people that should be mentioned are Lyle McDonald[1] and Martin Berkhan[2]. Martin especially made IF popular via his blog, laying out the principles he used as a fitness consultant with his clients.

Most research (and especially the commercial IF knockoffs) only take some part of these principles, but the "diet" part is only part of the picture when it comes to body recomposition. It's almost worthless without the rest (high intensity, low volume weight training, basic compound movements, progressive overload, no focus on cardio).

Quite a few people/company are trying to rip off customers via their IF programs knockoffs and supplements. If you want give IF a shot, read through Martin's blog, and try the original Leangains protocol.

[1] http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/ [2] http://www.leangains.com/

jaiball2• 13 years ago

Another recommendation for Leangains.com - been following it for over a year and have seen good results. Although I haven't followed the protocol to the letter - I eat a good amount of junk food during the week, but also good food as well. The point is to narrow your window of time that you eat during the day. I believe I could be doing even better if I concentrated on eating better and cutting out the crap, but now I have a pretty good balance of being in shape and being able to eat what I want.

Dr Mercola also has some really good articles on IF - www.mercola.com

brassybadger3• 13 years ago

The whole "clean eating" thing is mostly a fad. Nobody has managed to define what food is "clean" and what is not (see e.g. what the typical bodybuilder thinks is clean, and what someone doing paleo, what the average dietitian recommends, etc). The only important things are 1) the number of calories you eat, and 2) what nutrients your diet provides.

When I'm cutting, I don't make a fuss about "junk food", as long as I'm below my calorie intake limit and I'm not missing any important nutrient. Usually hovering around 20% junk food.

DrPhish• 13 years ago

I also have a couple of years of leangains under my belt. Doing the fasted early morning training (modified stronglifts) with a feeding windows 10am-6pm. It gives me energy, I don't ever really feel hungry and my muscle gains have been good. Only thing is you really have to watch your macros. You can still gain fat on IF. I made it down to 9% BF by watching caloric intake and when I decided to just try eating as much of whatever I wanted to get some bulk I gained weight and BF (now 16%). Recomp (losing fat and gaining muscle at the same time) is hard and slow

Best part is that it has been a cinch to stick to. I simply don't get hungry during that 16h window

leshow• 13 years ago

if the study didn't control total calories between groups, the improved health markers on his tests were likely a result of lower total calories over time. i.e. the studies probably did not match calories between groups.

pjotr• 13 years ago

I guess this is one of the reasons Our Lady in Medjugorje has been calling us to fast on bread and water every Wednesday and Friday.

epipsychidion• 13 years ago

It's impossible to have an actual discussion about this in a non-moderated forum given how eager people are to talk about their personal experiences rather than the actual content of the article. For an amusing overview of some research on intermittent fasting (mildly NSFW) - http://www.leangains.com/search/label/Research

rficcaglia• 13 years ago

Maintaining a program year after year is more important to long term health than the immediate benefits of any diet. Most any diet studied shows a short term benefit. Even just participating in a study (placebo effect) usually happens short term. But few diets have notable retention rates after 2 years.

Having lost >30 lb multiple times and having regained more each cycle, the problem (for me) is that work, stress, sleep deprivation, children, family crises, work crises, business travel, etc. present significant obstacles to any extreme protocols.

I tried IF for 6 months; it worked short term. But I felt so unfocused and unstable during the fast days that it was difficult for me to maintain.

My latest effort (lost >100 lb, for over a year) has greatly simplified things - eat lots of veggies before I eat protein or other foods for any meal. No other restrictions, calorie counting, or biochemistry hacks. Very easy to eat out, travel, maintain. I did not join a gym or buy equipment this time - instead I walk to work (5 miles each way.) Also maintain sleep program - no more evening alcohol or coffee.

brazzy• 13 years ago

What has been working for me (I've lost 8kg in 4 months) is Weight Watchers - not the meetings, just access to their points-rated food database via Web and App, which makes keeping track of your points budget reasonably convenient.

The biggest advantage is that you don't have to make any fundamental changes to your diet or habits and it's flexible enough to accommodate occasional big, unhealthy meals - so there's not too much self control necessary to stick with it.

It also subtly pushes you towards eating fruit and veggies because most of those have no points and thus can be eaten at any time, as much as you want.

Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

Related Stories