22 replies to this topic

[Believer]

This is junk science that is repeated everywhere on the Internet. Vitamin B3 in the form of nicotinic acid is touted as increasing growth hormone, but for how long? A few minutes and it has no physiological effects. It's basically a ghost effect.

It makes no sense that fasting should increase growth hormone (and more importantly igf-1). The opposite is true. When you fast you become deficient in growth hormone and igf-1 and perhaps because of this your bones will not widen at all. All thin people are thin-boned (practically) whereas all obese people more or less are broad boned.

 

For those that want to increase growth hormone and igf-1, increasing your body fat and eating constantly is the best way.

Bones don't grow because of pressure on them from increased bodyweight (otherwise your limbs would shorten but they don't), rather the high body fat and constant eating increases primarily igf-1 which causes the bone growth.

And it is precisely because of this that fat people tend to get acromegalic features like the chin, brow ridge, feet and hands, etc., growing. Of course this is a mild effect and it takes years of obesity for it to show itself.

 

Let's dispel the myth.

[Nate-2004]

This: https://www.ncbi.nlm...cles/PMC329619/

 

Or are you doing this?

 

https://www.dropbox....cunninghams.png

 

Edited by Nate-2004, 07 November 2017 - 08:34 PM.

[recon]

I honestly thought that reducing IGF-1 was the case for longevity for fasting.

I watched a BBC domentary that explores caloric restriction, fasting and intermittent fasting as means to reduce IGF-1 for longevity.

Here’s an article version for that documentary:
http://www.bbc.com/n...health-19112549

[Believer]

I honestly thought that reducing IGF-1 was the case for longevity for fasting.

I watched a BBC domentary that explores caloric restriction, fasting and intermittent fasting as means to reduce IGF-1 for longevity.

Here’s an article version for that documentary:
http://www.bbc.com/n...health-19112549

Was my thinking as well. At least if you have cancer then it certainly would be good to reduce any growth factor of the cancerous tissue. 

 

[xEva]

I believe IGF1 goes down during a fast. GH goes up after some time (when liver glycogen is depleted). Then GH is released as adaptation to "starvation" (as it prevents muscle catabolism).

 

 

[Believer]

I believe IGF1 goes down during a fast. GH goes up after some time (when liver glycogen is depleted). Then GH is released as adaptation to "starvation" (as it prevents muscle catabolism).

Why would the body stop catabolism when you need to survive? Sounds like the terrible thing. I'd rather lose my muscle mass than die from starvation.

 

Ketosis causes short stature in preteens and teens on the ketogenic diet (glycogen depletion causes ketosis) so it's evident that you need higher insulin to activate growth factors.

 

People think that they can fast to increase growth hormone to grow their bones or increase muscle mass or get slim. Makes little sense although fasting itself causes weight loss obviously. They also think they can fast or restrict calories to burn fat but maintain muscle size. How can they think this nonsense?

 

Nicotinic acid (b3) according to one or two studies increases growth hormone for 70 minutes or so but it has zero effect on anything, it's just a random, meaningless side-effect or whatever that people should not speak about.

 

[xEva]

 

I believe IGF1 goes down during a fast. GH goes up after some time (when liver glycogen is depleted). Then GH is released as adaptation to "starvation" (as it prevents muscle catabolism).

Why would the body stop catabolism when you need to survive? Sounds like the terrible thing. I'd rather lose my muscle mass than die from starvation.

 

Because you're supposed to survive on fat, not protein.

Before the 1960s, medical profession denied the possibility that humans can go on without food for months on end. A simple calculation showed that a healthy-weight human should run out of muscle mass in a matter of a week, two at most, just to supply the brain with its usual ~100g of glucose per day. In absence of food, body's protein is catabolized to produce glucose. But then they started to study the fasted state and discovered "ketosis of starvation" (which they distinguished from diabetic ketosis).
 
The whole idea of ketosis of starvation is to preserve muscle mass. Protein is precious but fat is disposable, but once you run out of disposable fat, then yes, the body starts to catabolize protein. That's the last phase of starvation, and it is poorly studied, certainly not on humans (barring some observations of famine victims). I imagine GH goes down during that final phase. 
 
So, consecutive phases of starvation are categorized by a different cocktail of hormones that regulate the process. The release of GH at the onset of ketosis protects muscles. That's a fact. And facts are best accepted, not argued against. If something does not make sense, maybe you should study the subject deeper?

 

Ketosis causes short stature in preteens and teens on the ketogenic diet (glycogen depletion causes ketosis) so it's evident that you need higher insulin to activate growth factors.
 
People think that they can fast to increase growth hormone to grow their bones or increase muscle mass or get slim. Makes little sense although fasting itself causes weight loss obviously. They also think they can fast or restrict calories to burn fat but maintain muscle size. How can they think this nonsense?

 

It is true, i once had an experience like this, when, after a long break, for 2-3 hrs I "worked out" very hard in a fasted state (2nd or maybe even 3rd day of fasting, no calories, water only) and then I had a light dinner, very late on the same day. This had 2 effects: one, I had no post-workout soreness, well, just a little, but I expected it to be debilitating,  and two, muscle tone noticeably improved from just that one session. I did not plan it this way, so when it happened, by sheer chance, due to circumstances, I was amazed.
 
 
You seem to have strong opinions, based on.. what? Logic? you need a broader knowledge base for this to work. Or direct experience (which beats everything else!)
 
 

Nicotinic acid (b3) according to one or two studies increases growth hormone for 70 minutes or so but it has zero effect on anything, it's just a random, meaningless side-effect or whatever that people should not speak about.

 

That's interesting. I did not know this about B3 --niacin or nicotinamide? I know niacin has interesting properties, some of which last much longer than 70 mins. 100 mg will sequester fatty acids from bloodstream for 2-3 hrs (maybe 4? ..it's been a while) which can be exploited during "ketosis of starvation". This should augment autophagy, specifically in the skeletal muscles, but that's in theory, 'cause no actual studies were done on this (only that niacin makes fatty acids disappear for a while and then flood the system in a rebound effect).

[Rocket]

 

I honestly thought that reducing IGF-1 was the case for longevity for fasting.

I watched a BBC domentary that explores caloric restriction, fasting and intermittent fasting as means to reduce IGF-1 for longevity.

Here’s an article version for that documentary:
http://www.bbc.com/n...health-19112549

Was my thinking as well. At least if you have cancer then it certainly would be good to reduce any growth factor of the cancerous tissue. 

 

 

Cancer rates are the HIGHEST in the elderly whom have HARDLY any HGH/IGF1 in their system. Look at a chart of how fast HGH falls off with age... Coincidentally as HGH drops cancer rates rise. If you are an adult and have cancer reducing your already LOW HGH/IGF1 won't do anything except PERHAPS make you lose weight even faster.

 

Sure HGH/IGF1 makes tissues grow (ONLY in high quantities) and therefore the argument that it therefore makes cancer grow and therefore must be reduced is crazy. Food and nutrients make tissue grow.... There is no talk of if you get cancer than you need to starve yourself to prevent the cancerous tissue from growing.

 

HGH is sooooo very mildly anabolic people........ and then its only MILDLY anabolic in very high doses.

 

 

Edited by Rocket, 25 December 2017 - 02:17 PM.

[Believer]

Cancer rates are the HIGHEST in the elderly whom have HARDLY any HGH/IGF1 in their system. Look at a chart of how fast HGH falls off with age... Coincidentally as HGH drops cancer rates rise. If you are an adult and have cancer reducing your already LOW HGH/IGF1 won't do anything except PERHAPS make you lose weight even faster.

 

Sure HGH/IGF1 makes tissues grow (ONLY in high quantities) and therefore the argument that it therefore makes cancer grow and therefore must be reduced is crazy. Food and nutrients make tissue grow.... There is no talk of if you get cancer than you need to starve yourself to prevent the cancerous tissue from growing.

 

HGH is sooooo very mildly anabolic people........ and then its only MILDLY anabolic in very high doses.

 

You partly misunderstood it. It isn't so much about igf-1 signaling cell division, it's the fact of it preventing apoptosis (which can be good, brain cells it protects) which protests cancer cells.

People with Laron's syndrome are almost immune to cancer thanks to lacking growth hormone receptors and thus having no igf-1.

 

Cell division also causes mutations in the dna and thus promotes cancer in of itself. Thus people with more cell division like acromegalics have a higher chance of cancer, although admittedly the increased chance is nowhere near as large as you'd expect (5% or so).

https://en.wikipedia...characteristics

"In 2011, it was reported that people with this syndrome in the Ecuadorian villages are resistant to cancer and diabetes and are somewhat protected against aging.^[6][7][8] This is consistent with findings in mice with a defective growth hormone receptor gene.^[9]"

 

^{The reasoning with igf-1 deficiencies protecting against cancer is simple but of course as we all learn reality is more complex and you do need igf-1 during your early phases of life. Later in life you really have no good reason to increase igf-1.}

[Believer]

This had 2 effects: one, I had no post-workout soreness, well, just a little, but I expected it to be debilitating,  and two, muscle tone noticeably improved from just that one session.

That's very simply because of muscle glycogen. It happens to everybody. Bodybuilders may carb load before a bodybuilding competition because it causes the muscle to noticeably inflate and harden, or they do it prior to a date.

Lack of soreness does not necessarily mean the muscle are repaired quicker. It may also mean a deficiency of some chemical. What is it called, I don't know?

Overtraining the same routines causes lack of soreness after a while in that particular muscle group and it often means that you won't be seeing any new growth there.

[sthira]

This is junk science that is repeated everywhere on the Internet.

I would offer that it may be less about "junk science" and more about "little to no science" regarding fasting's effects in (healthy) people. Since it doesn't pay to study a (potentially) beneficial therapy that's free to everyone, fasting's mysteries will likely remain unknown to us. Longo's lab's recent publications have been encouraging to those of us who are curious.

With regard to HGH's effects on fasting, remember that HGH is pulsatile, so it's difficult to measure, thus IGF1 can be used as one measure.

It makes no sense that fasting should increase growth hormone (and more importantly igf-1). The opposite is true. When you fast you become deficient in growth hormone and igf-1 and perhaps because of this your bones will not widen at all.

Not much has been done to answer you. In 1982, Kerndt et al published a study of a single patient undergoing a 40-day fast showed his HGH increased from baseline of 0.73 to a peak of 9.86, or about 1250% increase in growth hormone. In 1988, Ho KY et al studied fasting and also saw an increase in HGH. Hartman et al showed a 5 fold increase in HGH in response to a 2 day fast. These are found googling. It wouldn't be hard to test fasting's effects on a wide variety of health measures; we're hopeful for more.

Let's dispel the myth.

Fasting shows promise (e.g., lowered blood pressure, glucose, insulin...) and fasting gives the body a break from constant digestion. It may cause the body to switch from a program of growth and reproduction to a program of rest and repair (apoptosis, autophagy, senescent cell clearance).

Fasting in humans needs more study. We're told why it isn't more studied -- fasting isn't popular, even at no charge to you, and it seems to spook doctors and nutritionists because food and medicine are money. Fasting might be included as part of a health maintenance and disease prevention plan targeted to certain individuals, but in an obese culture that wants more food, fasting will likely stay hidden from mainstream. Tinkering with metabolism (like fasting) is unlikely to increase human life span, anyway, or so the tired old story goes.

[Nate-2004]

Until so called "ethicists" can get their filthy, puritanical religious view points out of the field of science, we'll know very little about fasting. The problem is one of respecting consent, self-ownership and the right to experiment and nothing more. When this is finally established, we'll not only see an end to the drug war, easier access to drugs and medication, and a pro choice world for women, but an advancement in what we know about the human body. Until then all they're ever going to do is waste tons of precious money, time and energy experimenting on mice and getting results that so rarely ever translate to human beings.

Edited by Nate-2004, 25 December 2017 - 04:26 PM.

[sthira]

Until so called "ethicists" can get their filthy, puritanical religious view points out of the field of science, we'll know very little about fasting. The problem is one of respecting consent, self-ownership and the right to experiment and nothing more. When this is finally established, we'll not only see an end to the drug war, easier access to drugs and medication, and a pro choice world for women, but an advancement in what we know about the human body. Until then all they're ever going to do is waste tons of precious money, time and energy experimenting on mice and getting results that so rarely ever translate to human beings.

Explain how ethicists enter the picture here with regard to fasting? Why would it be unethical to stop eating for a few days?

And religion of many flavors has indeed been supportive of fasting. But we don't really see renunciate nuns, for example, living wildly longer lives than the rest of us. They'd be really easy to study.

The beauty of "fasting" (first we should define our terms) is that "not eating" might be really good for you sometimes, and it's totally free. Nothing complicated here. But that's its detriment, too, since who's gonna bank off you when you stop buying and chewing, and start complaining for a few days? The True North clinic down in Santa Rosa offers supervised fasting by doctors who are experienced in overseeing fasts. That might be a way to turn cash; but to my knowledge they're a non-profit(?)

To me it seems like a no-brainer that fasting is beneficial -- the question seems how often, how long to abstain, and what are the long term effects? But literally no one I know shares my view outside these skinny little online discussions. Or someone selling another book.

Edited by sthira, 25 December 2017 - 05:06 PM.

[Nate-2004]

Read carefully, I'm talking about the so called "ethics" of preventing people from conducting studies on fasting. When I say religious, I mean philosophically religious in nature. In other words, made up, baseless answers/values, repressive, controlling disrespect for consent, not any one specific religion. I'm talking about the barriers to actually getting research done.

Edited by Nate-2004, 25 December 2017 - 05:21 PM.

[sthira]

Read carefully, I'm talking about the so called "ethics" of preventing people from conducting studies on fasting. When I say religious, I mean philosophically religious in nature. In other words, made up, baseless answers/values, repressive, controlling disrespect for consent, not any one specific religion. I'm talking about the barriers to actually getting research done.

Sorry I didn't read carefully, I guess I'm still not understanding how ethics is preventing fasting research. That's an interesting idea, I say non-ironically, and so I'd like to hear more.

To me lack of research seems partly financial, and partly because researchers know people are unlikely to fast anyway, regardless of outcome. Exercise is healthy, too, who does it? Eating vegetables is great. But I may be wrong; if some pills emerged out of human clinical trials that could give us the alleged benefits of fasting, they'd be great for investors, hence the ridiculous and wasteful search for CR memetics. CR memetics probably won't do much to extend human longevity, while simultaneously keeping the field stuck in near-neutral. Speaking of religion, thank god SENS is gaining more attention. I believe it's our way toward longer, healthier lifespans: repair, replace, render harmless the ravages caused by aging.

[Believer]

Until so called "ethicists" can get their filthy, puritanical religious view points out of the field of science, we'll know very little about fasting.

It has nothing to do with religion. It's secular, atheist politicians who say that morality is man-made, then they legalize everything which societies have made illegal for thousands of years due to the immorality of it (sexual immorality), and 10 seconds later they contradictorily assert that designer babies carry "ethics implications". I'd like to know the ethics implications of allowing sexual immorality in society and even encouraging it.

It's an IQ problem. They don't realize that "ethics" and morality are literally two words for the same thing.

 

How on earth did you get from me questioning whether fasting affects growth hormone to me saying fasting is bad?

I fast all the time. I am trying to get my relative to fast to increase his lifespan. I encourage fasting.

[sthira]

I'd like to know the ethics implications of allowing sexual immorality in society and even encouraging it.
It's an IQ problem. They don't realize that "ethics" and morality are literally two words for the same thing.

Sex sells, everyone wants to see my naked body doing tricks. The ethics and morality are part of the same theater. Hence Nate used the accurate word puritanical.

How on earth did you get from me questioning whether fasting affects growth hormone to me saying fasting is bad?
I fast all the time. I am trying to get my relative to fast to increase his lifespan. I encourage fasting.

Maybe your word choice and implied tone? Personally I thought you were hating on fasting, too, so I'm happy you're part of the exclusive club, too. I'm expecting very, very little from fasting, and does it raise or lower HGH or both or neither, who the fuck knows because it's too hard and expensive to study 20 people controlled fasting at a fasting resort for a few days.

[xEva]

 

This had 2 effects: one, I had no post-workout soreness, well, just a little, but I expected it to be debilitating,  and two, muscle tone noticeably improved from just that one session.

That's very simply because of muscle glycogen. It happens to everybody. Bodybuilders may carb load before a bodybuilding competition because it causes the muscle to noticeably inflate and harden, or they do it prior to a date.

Lack of soreness does not necessarily mean the muscle are repaired quicker. It may also mean a deficiency of some chemical. What is it called, I don't know?

Overtraining the same routines causes lack of soreness after a while in that particular muscle group and it often means that you won't be seeing any new growth there.

 

 

Re soreness, I drew a different conclusion from that experience. My take-home message was: the harder you worked out the longer you wait before eating afterward. I have followed this dictum ever since, regardless of fasting, and not once suffered from debilitating soreness.

 

The soreness is due to lactic acid stuck in overworked muscles, and yes, I knew that light jogging after workout should help by sorta spreading it around and making it circulate. This I learned back in middle school, when I was on track and field team. But we were also instructed not to eat or drink for at least 2 hrs after a training session and I never knew why. 

 

I'm still not sure about drinking and disregard this instruction whenever thirsty. As for eating, now I know that in a fasted state the liver will pick up lactate from the circulation and turn it into glucose (Cori cycle). But you gotta be hungry for this to work, as gluconeogenesis is inhibited in a fed state (which  means that if you eat too soon, lactate will stay in the muscles and make you miserable in the following days).

 

Going back to that experience, I remember how ~20 mins after the meal I watched in despair how the affected muscles began to swell, in a bad way -- which told me that I should have waited longer before eating. The alarming rate at which they were swelling and turning stiff -- I was sure I won't be able to move the next day. But it turned out not that bad at all

 

And the improved muscle tone was not a temporary thing. It stayed.

 

I should repeat this experience -- it just seems very counterintuitive to fast for a few days in order to grow muscles. 

[sthira]

...everyone wants to see my naked body doing tricks...

Actually someone over there, now drooling into bed quilts, took over the phone and posted some nonsense while I was dreaming about the beautiful horses.

Meanwhile, if sthira becomes three, we're united in belief that all babies need to eat food, right? I mean, yo' child gonna be a longhaired child, of course; but no fasting the baby until the baby is at least few decades into its illusory consciousness.

BTW, OP: according to half-sthira, you have no choice: you're programmed to fast, like it or not, y'all determined.

[sthira]

I'm gonna want that child to be

a longhaired child

https://youtu.be/SJdwukJwNH4

Hey don't hate for off topic on Christmas Day in a post about fasting, blame lack of satisfied replication.

...swelling and turning stiff -- I was sure I won't be able to move the next day. But it turned out not that bad at all

[Nate-2004]

Alright, so I'm not communicating clearly enough. First off, when I say "religious", I don't mean religion. I mean baseless, made up, irrational ideology. I'm not talking about religion. I'm talking about the kind of "ethics" that says we shouldn't be fixing people's DNA because somehow that's eugenics, or "playing god", both of which are nonsensical.  Religious in the sense that it's not rational, but rather prejudiced emotional reasoning (I'm uncomfortable with this therefore it's wrong). Atheists are just as guilty of this kind of thinking.

 

Sthira, I've talked to plenty of people in the field who say that ethical concerns are what has kept researchers from studying fasting on humans, concerns about the risks of doing biopsies and other tests to determine what effects fasting has on various biomarkers, the risks of going without food, etc. As if that risk is not the patient's risk to take. It's not just about patient recidivism or compliance with the study.

Edited by Nate-2004, 25 December 2017 - 11:23 PM.

[sthira]

I like the quote, something along the lines of if we don't play god then who will? I get what you're saying about overly conservative ethics. It's a struggle for all of us who wish to remain healthy for longer and push boundaries. It's almost as if we're fighting these misguided battles that have to do with others' idiocies.

Ethical concerns regarding fasting confuse me, though. I understand forced withholding of food to prisoners of war, or captive inmates, or children, or adults incapable of consent. But it's wrong to study fasting in healthy people? I don't get it. People pay big money to go on these long supervised fasting retreats all over the world. It just doesn't seem THAT impossibly hard or ethically perverse to study consenting fasters. Like us. And why the need for biopsies? Blood panels and the basics should be fine. One problem with studying health for increased longevity is that these researchers really can't even agree very well on what biomarkers are most meaningful. Or can they? Correct me, please. And this is why I think Aubrey has it right -- forget metabolism, we'll never, ever, eeeeevvvvverrrr understand it well enough. Maybe AI will understand human metabolism, but we never will. Work to figure out how to repair the damages, replace the broken parts, rejuvenate as much as possible to extend what's meant by "health" -- even if full understanding of why things break is never reached.

Anyway, I like the discussion, and thank you.

Edited by sthira, 26 December 2017 - 03:05 AM.

[Nate-2004]

The reason and need for biopsies I think are related to understanding exactly when autophagy begins from what I gather.