2 replies to this topic

[newbieLLP]

I've been reading up on fasting. I see various methods such as:

 

- Eating window of 4-8 hours every day

- Eat 500 calories 1 day, as much as you want the next, repeat

- Eat 800 or less calories for 6 days in a row once every month or so

 

etc etc.  Has it been shown whether a certain method of fasting gets better results than the others (in terms of anti-aging)?  I'm assuming fasting results were similar to calorie restriction? Thank you

[Daniscience]

As you are not eating all day long, as most people do, you are fine.

 

I talk about the importance of meal timing here.

[WillNitschke]

It's not clear to me, now that I've started digging into the actual published research papers, that fasting is a good strategy except perhaps for special conditions. As I commented elsewhere, I've trialed restricted time window feeding for around 9 months. My fasting blood glucose went up. My cholesterol levels went up. Even when I lost weight. I have since stopped doing this and now monitor my fasting blood sugar regularly and have gone back to eating a healthy breakfast and lunch. Two papers I've read so far, are showing a very mixed mag of results. One paper shows decreased insulin sensitivity, another increased sensitivity. (Although the claimed increase I suspect is an artifact of a poorly though out measuring protocol.) One study shows a lowering of blood pressure, but overall increases in 'bad' cholesterol and decreases in 'good cholesterol' and so on. So I am trying to now establish the scientific basis of these health claims, if any.

So to attempt to answer your above question, none of them may produce 'better results'. They might be producing 'worse results'. This makes me a heretic of course, at least against popular perception. But if there any studies out there I should be looking at specifically -- IN HUMANS -- please let me know about them.