27 replies to this topic

[Nate-2004]

https://medicalxpres...s-diabetes.html

 

 

Fasting every other day to lose weight impairs the action of sugar-regulating hormone, insulin, which may increase diabetes risk, according to data presented in Barcelona at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting, ECE 2018. These findings suggest that fasting-based diets may be associated with long-term health risks and careful consideration should be made before starting such weight loss programmes.

 

Type-2 diabetes is a growing global epidemic that is often attributed to poor diet and a sedentary lifestyle, so is closely linked to obesity. Blood sugar is partially regulated by the hormone insulin, which is produced by the pancreas, if insulin levels are too low, or the body becomes resistant to its effects, type-2 diabetes results and high blood sugar levels can cause serious health issues, including heart, kidney and eye damage. In addition to medical strategies used to treat type-2 diabetes, patients are also advised to make lifestyle and dietary changes to lose weight. Recently, intermittent fasting diets have gained general popularity for weight loss, however, evidence on their success has been contradictory and there is a lack of knowledge and some debate on their potentially harmful long-term health effects. Previous research has also shown that short-term fasting can produce molecules called free radicals, which are highly reactive chemicals that can cause damage to the body at a cellular and may be associated with impaired organ function, cancer risk and accelerated aging.

In order to investigate whether an intermittent fasting diet could also generate damaging free radicals, Ana Bonassa and colleagues, from the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, examined the effects of fasting every other day on the body weight, free radical levels and insulin function of normal, adult rats, over a 3-month period. Although the rats' body weight and food intake decreased as expected over the study period, the amount of fat tissue in their abdomen actually increased. Furthermore, the cells of the pancreas that release insulin showed damage, with the presence of increased levels of free radicals and markers of insulin resistance were also detected.

Ana Bonassa comments, "This is the first study to show that, despite weight loss, intermittent fasting diets may actually damage the pancreas and affect insulin function in normal healthy individuals, which could lead to diabetes and serious health issues."

The researchers now plan to investigate how this diet impairs pancreas and insulin function. There are many conflicting reports on the benefits and disadvantages, and many different types of intermittent fasting diets. Although these data were obtained in normal weight rats with positive effects on weight gain and food intake, the results suggest that in the long-term harm may be caused and that more investigation is needed to assess how people may be affected, particularly those with existing metabolic issues.

Ana cautions, "We should consider that overweight or obese people who opt for intermittent fasting diets may already have insulin resistance, so although this diet may lead to early, rapid weight loss, in the long-term there could be potentially serious damaging effects to their health, such as the development of type-2 diabetes."

 

This is the exact opposite conclusion of other mouse studies and the exact opposite of the claims touted by people like Jason Fung. Why then have we seen diabetes reversals from people doing intermittent fasts? Why then are we seeing improvements in immune function and other markers from Valter Longo?

Edited by Nate-2004, 22 May 2018 - 08:52 PM.

[pamojja]

Don't know, but even as not a researcher myself I can fathom how to design a fasting study in mice - with their different metabolism to humans - to prove this non-lucrative fasting business isn't good for health. Maybe every other day fasting really isn't good for mice? What else they ate during non-fasting days? Anyone found the original paper?

[APBT]

According to this, the paper is unpublished.  http://www.scienceme...eting-ece-2018/

[sthira]

According to this, the paper is unpublished. http://www.scienceme...eting-ece-2018/

This:

“The exact method is unclear from the abstract, but if the rats were fasted for one day, this is equivalent to an approximately 3 to 4 week fast in humans! So it’s not applicable to the 24-hour or 48-hour fasts practised by humans on common fasting diets...."

...I can fathom how to design a fasting study in mice - with their different metabolism to humans - to prove this non-lucrative fasting business isn't good for health...

My guess is that continuing to fund rodent EOD fasting studies like this is less about conspiracy (if conspiracy was what you were suggesting) and more about publish or perish. Entrenchment. Academia. The study is irrelevant to humans. But now they'll spend years searching for funding to find out if something bad that happens within the pancreas cells of radically wasted rodents. Poor things -- both the rodents and the researchers have my sympathy. Meanwhile, the news piece is irresponsibly written.

Edited by sthira, 23 May 2018 - 12:13 AM.

[tunt01]

Starvation diabetes.  I'll wait to see the methodology before passing judgment.  I think Valter Longo's FMD is more about amino acid deprivation rather than a complete absence of insulin and food.

[pamojja]

This:

“The exact method is unclear from the abstract, but if the rats were fasted for one day, this is equivalent to an approximately 3 to 4 week fast in humans! So it’s not applicable to the 24-hour or 48-hour fasts practised by humans on common fasting diets...."

My guess is that continuing to fund rodent EOD fasting studies like this is less about conspiracy (if conspiracy was what you were suggesting) and more about publish or perish. Entrenchment. Academia. The study is irrelevant to humans.

 

Actually just got really angry about these scientist lack of integrity and prematurely announcing everywhere in the media, that because of this stupid mice study intermittent fasting would cause diabetes in humans. To read the same here on Longecity was just to much for me to take today. Sorry for me overreacting.
 

[Iporuru]

I've just come across this article: Intermittent fasting may prevent diabetes type-2 (http://www.ergo-log....ensitivity.html), a small but human study

 

"Our trial tested early time-restricted feeding in men with prediabetes - a population at great risk of developing diabetes - and indicates that early time-restricted feeding is an efficacious strategy for treating both prediabetes and likely also prehypertension", the researchers write.

 

"We speculate that early time-restricted feeding - by virtue of combining daily intermittent fasting and eating in alignment with circadian rhythms in metabolism - will prove to be a particularly efficacious form of intermittent fasting."

Edited by Iporuru, 24 May 2018 - 05:50 PM.

[xEva]

This:

“The exact method is unclear from the abstract, but if the rats were fasted for one day, this is equivalent to an approximately 3 to 4 week fast in humans! So it’s not applicable to the 24-hour or 48-hour fasts practised by humans on common fasting diets...."
 

 

He must have meant 3-4 days, not weeks.  A day for a mouse is about a week for a human. Rats have somewhat slower metabolic rate than mice.

Edited by xEva, 25 May 2018 - 12:18 AM.

[sthira]

He must have meant 3-4 days, not weeks. A day for a mouse is about a week for a human. Rats have somewhat slower metabolic rate than mice.

I've forgotten how much body weight a mouse or a rat loses during a one day fast. 10-30%?

Last month, I fasted water-only for two weeks. My weight fell from 154 pounds to 142. Most of that was water weight, of course, and it bounced right back. So clearly -- at least in my body -- fasting for two weeks doesn't equal fasting for two days in a mouse.

Every individual rodent within their respective strain may be nearly identical; but we sloppy free-range humans are all over the map of crazy.

But I'm thinking he's right -- it may be double what you wrote -- maybe two weeks (or even more) of water-only fasting in a healthy human is about a day (or even less) in a fasting rodent. It would be nice to have more data on fasting in HUMANS; maybe more is coming due to funding for IF studies because of the obesity epidemic.

I've just come across this article: Intermittent fasting may prevent diabetes type-2 (http://www.ergo-log....ensitivity.html), a small but human study

"Our trial tested early time-restricted feeding in men with prediabetes - a population at great risk of developing diabetes - and indicates that early time-restricted feeding is an efficacious strategy for treating both prediabetes and likely also prehypertension", the researchers write.

"We speculate that early time-restricted feeding - by virtue of combining daily intermittent fasting and eating in alignment with circadian rhythms in metabolism - will prove to be a particularly efficacious form of intermittent fasting."

This is really very hopeful. Not because of the results they're finding. But it's hopeful because there's funding and interest in fasting in humans AT ALL. Wtf cares about fasting in rodents -- move along, researchers. Move. Studying three day fasts in HUMANS just isn't that hard and expensive.

Edited by sthira, 25 May 2018 - 01:19 AM.

[orion22]

i thought of something similar myself if i fast than when i eat than my body will be in a rush to get food won t that increase the glycemic index of foods does this make any seance?

Edited by orion22, 25 May 2018 - 04:57 AM.

[sthira]

i thought of something similar myself if i fast than when i eat than my body will be in a rush to get food won t that increase the glycemic index of foods does this make any seance?

It's a good point; but there's just not much human testing to draw upon for guidance. Got any suggestions? Meanwhile, we're impelled to self experiment. I try not to gorge when refeeding, and eat foods stereotyped low on load. Testing after refeeding seems like a good idea since bodies respond differently. Even healthy low GL plants may kick up my blood glucose too high. A cooked and cooled sweet potato, for example, may raise my blood sugar to unhealthy levels, but have no such effect on you. Who knows, we're on our own, stay open to fasting and refeeding tweaks.

[misterE]

Prolonged fasting increases glucocorticoids and glucagon. 

[Nate-2004]

It's a good point; but there's just not much human testing to draw upon for guidance. Got any suggestions? Meanwhile, we're impelled to self experiment. I try not to gorge when refeeding, and eat foods stereotyped low on load. Testing after refeeding seems like a good idea since bodies respond differently. Even healthy low GL plants may kick up my blood glucose too high. A cooked and cooled sweet potato, for example, may raise my blood sugar to unhealthy levels, but have no such effect on you. Who knows, we're on our own, stay open to fasting and refeeding tweaks.

 

I had to break the fast for a dinner date last night, made the mistake of burgers and ice cream I think. It was only a 46 hour fast but pretty sure I just ruined it.

[sthira]

I had to break the fast for a dinner date last night, made the mistake of burgers and ice cream I think. It was only a 46 hour fast but pretty sure I just ruined it.

I plugged in two medium hamburgers (80% lean ground beef); two hamburger buns (medium, whole wheat); and ice cream (4 half-cup servings) guesses galore into cronometer.

There's good news and bad news regarding breaking the 46-hour fast this way.

More important, though, is that your dinner date didn't look at you like you're some kind of freak when you said -- somewhat suddenly -- hey sorry but I'm not eating, ok, I'm just, like fasting, because of, well, if you really wanna know, I just want to, um sorta, keep my body "healthy" (air quotes) for a long time, like, a long time enough to reach longevity escape velocity, you know, L.E.V.? (air quotes) and since, well, right now there aren't "any" (air quotes) "proven methods" to "reverse," or even "slow down" "aging" (all airily quoted probably annoyingly airily, thus digging you into even deeper chaos) as you said:

"I'm fasting."

And then maybe you rolled your eyes, ain't nothin, you shrugged casually, shrugged innocently, the shrug you think makes you look more charming when you unexpectedly disclose secrets usually reserved for Online Only. "Fasting" hmph, I mean, this is 'Merca after all, and you don't wanna get shot for doing anything stupid while on some silly Tinder date before you reach immortality. Then you sipped more Guillotine (https://www.beeradvo...e/34326/128849/

Wait. I didn't add beer to cronometer, so a question: did you have a 20oz beer or not?

Edited by sthira, 20 June 2018 - 07:50 PM.

[Nate-2004]

Yeah, I actually broke the fast with pumpkin seeds and a smoothie with broccoli, tomato, ground flaxseed, some whole milk yogurt and a serving of inulin. That was a couple hours before I ate a bacon cheeseburger with fries at the pub down the street with a glass of Bulleit Rye on the rocks. The ice cream was half a pint of Ben & Jerry's Milk and Cookies on my porch steps with the date. 

 

Yeah I tried to explain that I was fasting but I didn't explain why exactly. I think that probably was a stupid idea but it was a second date and she's a scientist so... I dunno where that's going but... probably not to a third date haha.

[WillNitschke]

Well here is a sample size of 1. I've been doing time restricted feeding now for around 9 months. This consists of a 16/8 for 5 days a week and a 20/24 for 2 days a week. Nothing else has changed, except I no longer eat a healthy breakfast. Exercise regime, sleep, etc., are all identical to what I was doing before I started. Except my weight is a few KG lower. Only a tiny difference. Well I got new blood work done recently and my fasting blood sugar is now higher than the acceptable normal range. My total cholesterol and LDL have gone up to the highest its ever been.

Not happy.

So I dug into the actual published research on restricted time window feeding (rather than just listen to the opinions of experts) and noticed it's virtually non existent. The rat studies are useless for reasons others have explained here. The human trials are tiny and generally show little benefit or what looks to me like noise. So is this whole thing a stupid fad? Maybe even a dangerous fad? (Except for certain groups with special circumstances perhaps?)

Of course I can only speak for myself. Perhaps an obese person might see benefits that I wouldn't, maybe... Certainly I can see how if you over eat, how such a regime might help you loose weight. Especially if you also restrict what you eat when you eat. Restricted time window feeding definitely can reduced appetite. Which I expect is very important for some people. But my BMI is only around the 23 mark. I am going to monitor my fasting glucose myself for a few weeks, then return to what I was previously doing. Which was to eat a healthy breakfast and not focus on feeding time restrictions, and see what happens over the next 3-6 months.

I have some theories on what has gone wrong, but I'll keep them to myself for now. If anyone has suggestions, or their own theories, then comments welcome.
 

[sthira]

So is this whole thing a stupid fad? Maybe even a dangerous fad? (Except for certain groups with special circumstances perhaps?)

Probably a stupid fad, yep, but a stupid fad that’s thousands of years old; and remember that being hungry, malnourished, existing on the edges of survival are what it means to be human. Until recently, of course. Starvation and dealing with it are parts of our heritage. Can modern day controlled fasting, CR, and “intelligent” refeeding allow us to live longer — shrug — evidently few care enough to investigate properly. Even if they could.

We want easier ways to extend longevity. Fasting and CR both kinda suck.

Meanwhile, keep checking your blood markers through time, and remember that these biomarkers themselves are sketchy; they’re just fuzzy snap shots at the infinity of human bodies. Stay lean, stay strong and healthy through movement and “exercise” — no one is getting out of here alive anyway, and the longevity advances shall probably only be for the wealthy.

What else is there to say in this sphere until convincing interventions in humans are developed by those working hard behind the scenes to develop them?

[WillNitschke]

Probably a stupid fad, yep, but a stupid fad that’s thousands of years old; and remember that being hungry, malnourished, existing on the edges of survival are what it means to be human. Until recently, of course. Starvation and dealing with it are parts of our heritage. Can modern day controlled fasting, CR, and “intelligent” refeeding allow us to live longer — shrug — evidently few care enough to investigate properly. Even if they could.

We want easier ways to extend longevity. Fasting and CR both kinda suck.

Meanwhile, keep checking your blood markers through time, and remember that these biomarkers themselves are sketchy; they’re just fuzzy snap shots at the infinity of human bodies. Stay lean, stay strong and healthy through movement and “exercise” — no one is getting out of here alive anyway, and the longevity advances shall probably only be for the wealthy.

What else is there to say in this sphere until convincing interventions in humans are developed by those working hard behind the scenes to develop them?

 

Claiming something is valid because it's been done for a long time is not a good argument, though. Human sacrifice has a long history too, but that doesn't mean it confers benefits on society. As for making an abstract argument based on what our ancient ancestors did... there are so many problems with such arguments. It seems plausible that we are tolerant of long periods of not eating.That doesn't mean it therefore confers health benefits. Perhaps the adaption just minimizes harm somewhat. Who knows.

As for dismissing accepted biomarkers of health... yes I appreciate they may be very imperfect. But I don't see any better alternative. If something is not only not working, but possibly harmful, I think it is more realistic to change what you're doing rather than emotionally invest in a counter productive strategy. I find restricted time window feeding easy. It's reduced my appetite so I'm almost never hungry. I don't have to worry about preparing breakfast or in some cases lunches. I lost (a little) weight. For me personally, it seemed great. Until I got these adverse outcomes.


 

[sthira]

Well here is a sample size of 1. I've been doing time restricted feeding now for around 9 months. This consists of a 16/8 for 5 days a week and a 20/24 for 2 days a week. Nothing else has changed, except I no longer eat a healthy breakfast. Exercise regime, sleep, etc., are all identical to what I was doing before I started. Except my weight is a few KG lower. Only a tiny difference. Well I got new blood work done recently and my fasting blood sugar is now higher than the acceptable normal range. My total cholesterol and LDL have gone up to the highest its ever been.

Not happy.

Did you track your daily diet on a tool, like cronometer, during this nine-months?

Also, it’ll be interesting if implantable BG monitors become a thing... maybe they already are... but it’d be more accurate to address your concerns based on your continuous, 24/7 readings rather than just snap shots at the doctor’s office or on your own every now and then...

Edited by sthira, 04 June 2019 - 11:43 AM.

[WillNitschke]

Did you track your daily diet on a tool, like cronometer, during this nine-months?

Also, it’ll be interesting if implantable BG monitors become a thing... maybe they already are... but it’d be interesting to answer your questioned based on your continuous 24/7 readings rather than just snap shots every now and then...

 

No I don't do food diaries. I'm not diabetic, etc. But I do track my weight closely and I'm almost 3kg lighter now than this time last year and lost 2cm off my waistline. So while my food choices did change, my total calories must have gone down. Let's say this is a WTF situation for me. I wasn't expecting to go significantly backwards on my blood test results doing this.
 

Edited by WillNitschke, 04 June 2019 - 11:52 AM.

[sthira]

I guess you threw me off because first you seemed to be saying your diet didn’t change except for skipping breakfast:

...Nothing else has changed, except I no longer eat a healthy breakfast. Exercise regime, sleep, etc., are all identical to what I was doing before I started.

Now are you saying you ate different foods during the nine-months?

...So while my food choices did change, my total calories must have gone down. Let's say this is a WTF situation for me. I wasn't expecting to go significantly backwards on my blood test results doing this.

I’m not sure what the apparent general aversion is to tracking what and how much people eat... Maybe people are afraid of eating disorders or hypochondria or think it’s obsessive...?

No I don't do food diaries. I'm not diabetic, etc.

I mean, for me it’s like why not know what I’m eating, even if the RDA-breakdown is far from settled (for optimal health) and we don’t even know how much of what we’re eating is absorbed....how much do you chew your food, I mean... on and on with unanswered questions....

Maybe you’re eating something new that’s causing these unwanted new changes; but if you don’t know with precision what you ate, then ...well... you have less information available to determine your answer.

I don’t work for cronometer and have nothing to do with them other than I use their free tool (which hasn’t changed much in about a decade...)

Edited by sthira, 04 June 2019 - 12:21 PM.

[pamojja]

Well I got new blood work done recently and my fasting blood sugar is now higher than the acceptable normal range. My total cholesterol and LDL have gone up to the highest its ever been.

 

I've got blood work for the last 10 years, fasting and postprandial tested for 1 month and averaged about each half year. I too wouldn't give any significance to any single fasting blood glucose, which in my case can change 40 mg/dl any day (I do have a strong cortisol wakening response). Any slight infection - not even felt - can throw off single lab-results. For example had a very high CRP recently, without any obvious condition. However, inflammation in my particular case puts heavily demand on cholesterol (it usually raises them). And short after had my unreal 'best' results: TC=158, HDL=58, LDL=73 mg/dl

 

My results for basic lipids the last 10 years:

 

(errors in graphic: Chol:LDL and HDL:Trig should actually read: Chol:HDL and Trig:HDL)

 

I also eat only twice in a 8 hour window. High healthy fat.

 

 

In this 10 years I only fasted once for a whole week end of 2011, for countering a loss of blood-glucose control even by lower carbs. It also back-fired - though in my case with numerous additional health conditions - in that my gluconeogenesis really got a workout. And since then I'm highly sensitive to proteins too.

 

 

 

Edited by pamojja, 04 June 2019 - 12:37 PM.

[sthira]

Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice to have more accurate tools and gauges and insights into what promotes longevity health. Not just the prescription tools for sick, diabetic people, but meaningful tools for anyone who wants them...

For example: https://www.niddk.ni...cose-monitoring

[Nate-2004]

Yeah, wouldn’t it be nice to have more accurate tools and gauges and insights into what promotes longevity health. Not just the prescription tools for sick, diabetic people, but meaningful tools for anyone who wants them...

For example: https://www.niddk.ni...cose-monitoring

 

You have to have a disease just to get any kind of tools for self-care.

[sthira]

You have to have a disease just to get any kind of tools for self-care.

Nice to see Illinois legalized recreational, though.

[APBT]

This CGM device is readily available, although, not exactly economical. https://www.dexcom.com/

[WillNitschke]

This CGM device is readily available, although, not exactly economical. https://www.dexcom.com/

 

The Freestyle Libre has a censor device you stick on your arm, and it monitors continuously for two weeks. Cost AUD$93.00. Then you toss it out, pay another $93.00 and start again. I think it might be useful for seeing how you would respond to different types of food of the course of a few weeks, but not as cost effective way to replace conventional blood testing devices.

[WillNitschke]

I guess you threw me off because first you seemed to be saying your diet didn’t change except for skipping breakfast:

Now are you saying you ate different foods during the nine-months?

I’m not sure what the apparent general aversion is to tracking what and how much people eat... Maybe people are afraid of eating disorders or hypochondria or think it’s obsessive...?


I mean, for me it’s like why not know what I’m eating, even if the RDA-breakdown is far from settled (for optimal health) and we don’t even know how much of what we’re eating is absorbed....how much do you chew your food, I mean... on and on with unanswered questions....

Maybe you’re eating something new that’s causing these unwanted new changes; but if you don’t know with precision what you ate, then ...well... you have less information available to determine your answer.

I don’t work for cronometer and have nothing to do with them other than I use their free tool (which hasn’t changed much in about a decade...)

Sthira, I'm not really impressed that you selectively quoted my post to make it look like I was contradicting myself. You even asked a question which was already answered, had you included the next sentence in your quote.

 

I didn't say I "ate different foods." You're projecting your interpretations on top of what I wrote and confusing yourself. Yes, I did drop weight and I did mention that in my original post. Cutting breakfast and lunch out meant I dropped some foods and to make up for the missing calories, and ate larger portions of what I was already eating. (I must have done this otherwise I would have lost far more weight.)

 

And sorry, yes, if you're otherwise healthy and have good weight control, logging everything you write into a diary is both obsessive compulsive and anally retentive.

Going back to my what I wrote earlier, I can't be 100% sure that I haven't altered my diet in some significant way. As I don't have a record beyond my memory. As explained, I did drop eating a healthy breakfast, however. This may or may not be significant, so am going to try to find out.

I rechecked my fasting blood sugar again this morning, and it's even higher than my recent blood test results. (But this may just be that the lab results are more accurate and/or natural variability.) I will periodically recheck this. The only significant change I've made to my life style is the introduction of restricted time window feeding. Maybe that has stuffed up my insulin sensitivity or maybe it's something else. But as mentioned, I'm going to stop doing this as of today and monitor my blood sugar levels over the next 3 months. If they improve, that is definitive for me, at least for my situation. If there is no change, then something else must be going on.