• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

I have been doing a lot of reading and regret to inform this.

fasting

  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Qowpel

  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • 28
  • Location:New jersey

Posted 23 May 2021 - 08:49 PM


Hello everyone. Serial intermittent faster (16:8), prolonged faster (7 days fasts), and Caloric Restriction person here....... Have been doing this all for roughly 7 years.

 

Upon all of my reading, I have come to the conclusion that the data in humans for CR is promising which is great. However, it seems for those who do not like CR, IF of course, could be an option to try to reap some of the benefits for longevity.... well it seems 16:8 in mice is great, but that is because a 16:8 in mice is like a 102 hour fast for humans. So the data showing benefits for 16:8 in humans may only be because of the naturally lower intake of calories one human would eat during an 8 hour window.... What I am trying to see is the hormetic benefits for humans doing 16:8 is less due to the actual time that has been restricted (16 hours), and more because the human being is only, even eating as much as they want in an 8 hour window, eating a lower total number of calories than if they ate all day for every 24 hours....... This may mean that 16 hour fasts in humans are too short to produce hormetic effects, but long enough that the human, when eating in an 8 hour window, still eats a low amount of calories, and that 16:8 for humans is only helpful due to the lower amount of calories they eat, rather than actual hormetic shifts....

 

What does everyone think? The first few studies here seem promising, but you have to dig further in the later links to see the not so awesome results we were hoping for in ters of actual hormetic changes in humans in 16:8

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...gov/pmc/arti...
https://www.ncbi.nlm...gov/pmc/arti...
https://pubmed.ncbi....ih.gov/31808...
https://www.cochrane...CD013496/VAS...
https://www.ncbi.nlm...gov/pmc/arti...
https://www.ncbi.nlm...gov/pmc/arti...

 

In conclusion, just like everyone here I will continue CR... but fear anything less than a 100 hour fast will not help hormetically in humans...... So I am guessing IF is possibly useless in humans and perhaps the only good move is prolonged fasting plus CR.


  • Informative x 1

#2 Davin8r

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 3
  • Location:United States

Posted 25 July 2021 - 08:02 PM

That's my take as well, based on accumulating evidence.  I still think/hope that the 5 day fasting-mimicking protocol is worthwhile (developed by V. Longo and patented by Prolon, lots of ongoing research with this).  I periodically do my own 5-day fasting-mimicking protocol using raw pecans for breakfast and Amy's Organic Soups (the low protein varieties) for lunch and dinner, keeping calories and protein in line with the Prolon protocol.



#3 Qowpel

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 344 posts
  • 28
  • Location:New jersey

Posted 26 July 2021 - 04:00 AM

That's my take as well, based on accumulating evidence.  I still think/hope that the 5 day fasting-mimicking protocol is worthwhile (developed by V. Longo and patented by Prolon, lots of ongoing research with this).  I periodically do my own 5-day fasting-mimicking protocol using raw pecans for breakfast and Amy's Organic Soups (the low protein varieties) for lunch and dinner, keeping calories and protein in line with the Prolon protocol.

 

 

Yeah man... At times I feel that, well, what if somebody is fasting intermittently, or heck, even 48 hours (which still would be not equal to a 16 hour mouse fast), and then refeed with like 3000 calories....

 

Lets say said person above, to achieve CR, needed only 1000 daily....

 

Now let's say said person ate 1000 calories daily for 3 days in a row (and said CR of daily restriction has resulting in an anti aging benefit)....

 

Well now let us say same person, instead decided not to do IF, but to fast for 72 hours... Then broke the fast with 3000 calories......

 

THey would be in the same boat right? Since over 3 days they ate a total of 3000 calories.... whether they ate 1000 (restricted/CR) per day for three days, or at 3000 calories once in 72 hours..... same number of calories intaken... meaning same amount of damage to organs and over all aging



#4 Davin8r

  • Guest
  • 10 posts
  • 3
  • Location:United States

Posted 27 July 2021 - 01:11 PM

Compared to 16:8, a 5-day fast mimicking diet *is* sufficient to crank up autophagy significantly, so that's where a key difference is for health benefits. Also, refeeding after a fasting state appears to have some potential benefits (activation of stem cells, I believe?). So it's more complicated than just calories when comparing either the 5-day fasting-mimicking protocol (or a "real" fast lasting 2-3+ days) with 16:8 IF.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: fasting

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users