Intermittent fasting is the Chuck Norris of preventative medicine

Narz

keeping it real
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
31,514
Location
Haverhill, UK
Look at all this stuff on CR alone and intermittent fasting has all of the benefits of CR without some of the side effects. Plus you get to eat more than on an intense CRed diet (say about 4400 Calories every other day instead of only 1900 Calories every day). The downside of course is that you only get to eat every other day. :cry:

From wiki :

Intermittent fasting as an alternative approach to CR

Studies by Mark P. Mattson, Ph. D., chief of the National Institute on Aging's (NIA) Laboratory of Neurosciences, and colleagues have found that intermittent fasting and calorie restriction affect the progression of diseases similar to Huntington's disease, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease in mice (PMID 11119686). In one study, rats and mice ate a low-calorie diet or were deprived of food for 24 hours every other day (PMID 12724520). Both methods improved glucose metabolism, increased insulin sensitivity, and increased stress resistance. Researchers have long been aware that calorie restriction extends lifespan, but this study showed that improved glucose metabolism also protects neurons in experimental models of Parkinson's and stroke.

Another NIA study found that intermittent fasting and calorie restriction delays the onset of Huntington's disease-like symptoms in mice and prolongs their lives (PMID 12589027). Huntington's disease (HD), a genetic disorder, results from neuronal degeneration in the striatum. This neurodegeneration results in difficulties with movements that include walking, speaking, eating, and swallowing. People with Huntington's also exhibit an abnormal, diabetes-like metabolism that causes them to lose weight progressively.

This NIA study compared adult HD mice who ate as much as they wanted to HD mice who were kept on an intermittent fasting diet during adulthood. HD mice possess the abnormal human gene huntingtin and exhibit clinical signs of the disease, including abnormal metabolism and neurodegeneration in the striatum. The mice on the fasting program developed clinical signs of the disease about 12 days later and lived 10 to 15% longer than the free-fed mice. The brains of the fasting mice also showed less degeneration. Those on the fasting program also regulated their glucose levels better and did not lose weight as quickly as the other mice. Researchers found that fasting mice had higher brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) levels. BDNF protects neurons and stimulates their growth. Fasting mice also had high levels of heat-shock protein-70 (Hsp70), which increases cellular resistance to stress.

Another NIA study compared intermittent fasting with cutting calorie intake. Researchers let a control group of mice eat freely (ad libitum). Another group was fed 60% of the calories that the control group consumed. A third group was fasted for 24 hours, then permitted to free-feed. The fasting mice didn't cut total calories at the beginning and the end of the observation period, and only slightly cut calories in between. A fourth group was fed the average daily intake of the fasting mice every day. Both the fasting mice and those on a restricted diet had significantly lower blood sugar and insulin levels than the free-fed controls. Kainic acid, a toxin that damages neurons, was injected into the dorsal hippocampus of all mice. Hippocampal damage is associated with Alzheimer's. Interestingly, the scientists found less damage in the brains of the fasting mice than in those that ate a restricted diet, and most damage in mice with an unrestricted diet. But the control group which ate the average daily intake of the fasting mice also showed less damage than the mice with restricted diet.[32]

Another Mattson study[33] in which overweight adult asthmatics followed alternate day calorie restriction (ADCR) for eight weeks showed marked improvement in oxidative stress, inflammation, and severity of the disease. Evidence from the medical literature suggests that ADCR in the absence of weight loss prolongs lifespan in humans[34].

Pretty much every other anti-aging strategy pales in comparison (and generally requires you to buy something). Now if only food didn't taste so good! (in fact just thinking about this CR stuff makes me want to eat!!)

Decided to make this thread about someone linked me to this article about intermittent fasting and spinal cord injury recovery.
 
It makes sense: Humans are probably hardwired to consume large amounts of food at once, rather than eat small amounts often.
 
It makes sense: Humans are probably hardwired to consume large amounts of food at once, rather than eat small amounts often.
Yeah, we never would have made it thru the deserts, mountains, ice ages, sea voyages, etc. if we couldn't (survive on very little for long periods and then gain it back). I'm skeptical of the benefits of long (more than one week) fasts undertaken multiple times thruout life (seems like that might be a bit drainng) though but the every other day thing seems to be mostly positive (albeit monumentally difficult) and it makes sense that it would make the body more efficient. Some diets like The Warrior Diet seem to try to mimic that undereating/overeating cycle without the deprivation of not eating at all half the time, I don't think there has been any research on that particular though. I am skeptical that people had much in the way of breakfast before modern refrigeration besides maybe a piece of fruit or something for energy.
 
I saw something on tv that said there were studies that showed the less you eat overall the longer you live and the "younger" all of your organs are.
 
My personal recommendation is that instead of putting yourself through a different silly faddish diet every month you eat whatever you like and keep fit.

Seriously, just go for a run a couple times a week and stop looking up this weird crap.
 
My personal recommendation is that instead of putting yourself through a different silly faddish diet every month
I agree one shouldn't go with faddish diets but when something's been scientifically tested and proven to work it can hardly be called faddish. I know you're perhaps quite young and don't feel the effects of anything you eat but me personally I want the best for myself (and my family/children eventually). I don't want to get old and get Parkisons disease & cancer like my dad or even arthritis like my mom. Just not my thing.

you eat whatever you like and keep fit.
That was Jim Fixx's philosophy - diet doesn't mean jack, exercise is everything. He died of a heart attack at 52. Obviously exercise & overall fitness are important but not everything.

Seriously, just go for a run a couple times a week and stop looking up this weird crap.
If you're not interested in the thread topic, don't open the thread.
 
I know you're perhaps quite young and don't feel the effects of anything you eat
Ah the old 'only spotty teenagers can be liberals' fallacy. Unless your details are a fib I am 5 years and a day older than you. So there. :p
That was Jim Fixx's philosophy - diet doesn't mean jack, exercise is everything. He died of a heart attack at 52. Obviously exercise & overall fitness are important but not everything.
anecdote =/= evidence.

"Fixx started running in 1967 at age 35. He weighed 240 pounds and smoked two packs of cigarettes per day... <Good start huh?>...Fixx came from a family where the men had poor health histories. His father suffered a heart attack at the age of 35 and died of one at 42."

Nice example.

Btw, when I say 'eat whatever you like', I don't advocate subsisting on McDonalds. Keep it sensible.
If you're not interested in the thread topic, don't open the thread.
I am interested, I just object to people screwing up their bodies with weird diets instead of eating properly and getting off their lazy backsides and doing some exercise.
 
I saw something on tv that said there were studies that showed the less you eat overall the longer you live and the "younger" all of your organs are.

I know that too. A slight undereating can increase one's life expectancy by several years by slowing down the metabolism. Cold showers and baths have the same effect (with some side-effects which are good or bad depending on your occupation)
 
The irony is that high-metabolism people die earlier of aging, but low-metabolism people have a higher chance of dying before life expectancy due to obesity.
 
Ah the old 'only spotty teenagers can be liberals' fallacy. Unless your details are a fib I am 5 years and a day older than you. So there. :p
Ah, now I know why you're so crabby. ;)

anecdote =/= evidence.
I know.

"Fixx started running in 1967 at age 35. He weighed 240 pounds and smoked two packs of cigarettes per day... <Good start huh?>...Fixx came from a family where the men had poor health histories. His father suffered a heart attack at the age of 35 and died of one at 42."

Nice example.
Well, my point is that his exercise regime wasn't enough to overcome his genetics whereas the intermittent fasting studies with rats do show that they are able to somewhat overcome their genetics.

Btw, when I say 'eat whatever you like', I don't advocate subsisting on McDonalds. Keep it sensible.
Ok.

I am interested, I just object to people screwing up their bodies with weird diets instead of eating properly and getting off their lazy backsides and doing some exercise.
Dietary changes & exercise regimes aren't mutually exclusive though.

I know that too. A slight undereating can increase one's life expectancy by several years by slowing down the metabolism. Cold showers and baths have the same effect (with some side-effects which are good or bad depending on your occupation)

I didn't know that about cold showers. I do try to end my showers cold but can only stand it for about 15-20 seconds.

The irony is that high-metabolism people die earlier of aging, but low-metabolism people have a higher chance of dying before life expectancy due to obesity.
I think the ideal is to be somewhere in the middle.

Ironically many overweight people take drugs to speed up their metabolism instead of realizing their slow metabolisms may actually be an advantage.

I think exercise is also very important here as it lowers one's resting heart rate, which is less taxing on the heart long term.
 
My friend at work had a diet going not too long ago. She was cleaning out her mothers attic I guess and came upon this pamphlet from the 70's. The "doctor" in the picture had his shirt open to near his belly button. Anyway the claim was that you caould get all of the nutrients your body needed from lemon water, and pure maple syrup. So there would be shots of maple syrup lined up on her desk.... the most disgusting thing I've probably witnessed...
 
ok that's nice that it helps mice with rare diseases, but the study doesn't really get into if such a diet benefits healthy humans.
 
I'm not buying it. Mice aren't humans. The human studies were glossed over, maybe if they went into detail of methodology I'd buy it.
ok that's nice that it helps mice with rare diseases, but the study doesn't really get into if such a diet benefits healthy humans.
It needs to be tested on humans next. simple.
 
We don't know how ageing works. We do know that if you fast for more than 14 hours your body starts breaking down muscle mass as an energy supply (yes, even if you're fat).
We can see from mouse studies that caloric restriction of various sorts helps prevent the effects of stress.
We know from bulk data that CR helps mice live longer.

My first conclusion would be that lab mice are under stress, not that CR is a wonder treatment for an otherwise healthy human. Until someone shows that this obvious idea is wrong, I'm not interested in CR for myself. I value my muscle mass.

We already know that stress is harmful. That's mechanism enough, without needing a new one by which CR works.
 
We don't know how ageing works. We do know that if you fast for more than 14 hours your body starts breaking down muscle mass as an energy supply (yes, even if you're fat).
I don't think it's quite that simply. The body seems to become more efficient with fasting, attacking the weakest cells first for nourishment. I don't think fasting is going to make you weaker unless you overdo it.

We can see from mouse studies that caloric restriction of various sorts helps prevent the effects of stress.
We know from bulk data that CR helps mice live longer.

My first conclusion would be that lab mice are under stress, not that CR is a wonder treatment for an otherwise healthy human. Until someone shows that this obvious idea is wrong, I'm not interested in CR for myself. I value my muscle mass.
What do you mean by "lab mice are under stress"? Also, I didn't see anything about the CR mice being weaker than the control mice. If anything it seems that the fasting culls the weak cells in the organs leaving the strongest ones to replicate. I don't see why this would be any difference in the muscle tissue. The brake down of muscle in & of itself is not a bad thing. After all, that is how the body knows to generate new muscle tissue.

We already know that stress is harmful. That's mechanism enough, without needing a new one by which CR works.
Stress is not necessarily harmful. If you put a lab mouse in a 100% stress free environment I imagine it would start to go kind nutty and likely develop neurotic behaviors & eventually disease.

I think the point of CR is that it minimizes oxidative stress, which is the main type of stress that causes disease and eventually death.
 
Er, hang on just a sec, this isn't a study into anti-aging at all. This studies the effect on the onset of disease of slowing the metabolism via a regime of starvation.
 
I don't think it's quite that simply. The body seems to become more efficient with fasting, attacking the weakest cells first for nourishment. I don't think fasting is going to make you weaker unless you overdo it.
Now, I don't want to appear too patronising, but actually it is that simple. Afetr 14 hours you start to break down muscle protein. This means that you have less strength in your muscles. In organs there generally aren't weaker cells and stronger cells, and a mini-evolutionary process. They all contribute.

What do you mean by "lab mice are under stress"? Also, I didn't see anything about the CR mice being weaker than the control mice. If anything it seems that the fasting culls the weak cells in the organs leaving the strongest ones to replicate. I don't see why this would be any difference in the muscle tissue. The brake down of muscle in & of itself is not a bad thing. After all, that is how the body knows to generate new muscle tissue.
No-one measured their strength, because the researchers haven't thought about it. Furthermore, it may be that mice, as opportunistic scavengers, are capable of fasting for longer than humans without negative side-effects. The break-down of muscle is a bad thing. The body knows to generate more muscle when your exercising muscle generates growth signals, which are caused by increased metabolism and lack of glucose. Breaking down myofibrils does not help; that's called muscle damage.

Stress is not necessarily harmful. If you put a lab mouse in a 100% stress free environment I imagine it would start to go kind nutty and likely develop neurotic behaviors & eventually disease.
Well, a completely barren environment is not a stress-free environment. We can measure stress by looking at things such as cortisol levels. I would imagine that the variations in signal caused by CR or intermittent fasting make the body more resistant to, or less likely to produce, the same level of stress signal at a given level of nutritional intake. That doesn't mean that these things will overall be helpful, but that they have an interesting effect on stress, which we can effect (and affect) by other means.
I think the point of CR is that it minimizes oxidative stress, which is the main type of stress that causes disease and eventually death.
Oxidative stress is a bit of a deus ex machina for many scientists. It is frequently invoked, but rarely adequately studied. CR may reduce ROS levels, but so do adequate supplies of vitamins, amongst other things.
 
Now, I don't want to appear too patronising, but actually it is that simple. Afetr 14 hours you start to break down muscle protein. This means that you have less strength in your muscles. In organs there generally aren't weaker cells and stronger cells, and a mini-evolutionary process. They all contribute.
AFAIK, at any given time your body is breaking down any number of different things for fuel. Granted I haven't studied this in depth but I was under the impression that when one fasted for more than a day or two glycogen was the primary fuel, not muscle tissue.

No-one measured their strength, because the researchers haven't thought about it. Furthermore, it may be that mice, as opportunistic scavengers, are capable of fasting for longer than humans without negative side-effects.
Humans are also opportunistic scavengers. ;)

The break-down of muscle is a bad thing. The body knows to generate more muscle when your exercising muscle generates growth signals, which are caused by increased metabolism and lack of glucose. Breaking down myofibrils does not help; that's called muscle damage.
Are you sure about your 14 hour = most of fuel comes from break down of muscle tissue? Cause if that's true that this regime would totally screw up ones body but I'm not sure you have it quite right.

Well, a completely barren environment is not a stress-free environment. We can measure stress by looking at things such as cortisol levels. I would imagine that the variations in signal caused by CR or intermittent fasting make the body more resistant to, or less likely to produce, the same level of stress signal at a given level of nutritional intake. That doesn't mean that these things will overall be helpful, but that they have an interesting effect on stress, which we can effect (and affect) by other means.
Perhaps. I'm skeptical that scientists will be able to find a little pill to mimic the full effects of frugal eating though. Likely, like exercise, it is too complex a process to mimick with a single chemical (or batch of chemicals).

Oxidative stress is a bit of a deus ex machina for many scientists. It is frequently invoked, but rarely adequately studied. CR may reduce ROS levels, but so do adequate supplies of vitamins, amongst other things.
Well, it seems intuitive that the more we make our body work (process things) the faster it's going to break down. The more oxygen we breathe (rapid heartrate, rapid breathing), the more food we eat, the more stressed we are and fast paced our lifestyle is in general I'd imagine the more likely we're going to die prematurely.

As for exercise. Well exercise lowers our resting heart rate and makes our body more relaxed the 80-90% of the time we're not actively working out (as well as accelerated detoxification and improving mood, thus lowering mental/emotional stress/tension/overwork) so actually it still fits into my theory.

"Too many wanna be hard, be easy" - Method Man
 
Er, hang on just a sec, this isn't a study into anti-aging at all. This studies the effect on the onset of disease of slowing the metabolism via a regime of starvation.
Starvation is a misnomer. Starvation tends to increase mortality. ;)

A drop from say 2,500 Calories to 2,100 (or less depending on your sex & frame, some girls can get away with as little as 1,200) is not starvation (though you'll probably get skinny at first while your body adapts).

Ironically, many people in our society are trying desperately to speed up their metabolism (instead of slow it down) so they can eat more and "get away with it" but, from a aging perspective I don't think that (getting away with it) is possible.

Actually, heavier people with already slow metabolisms may have an advantage in terms of longevity.

My theory on the study a couple years back showing the slightly overweight people actually had slightly lower mortality than average weight people (someone can dig this up I'm sure) is that the slightly heavier people probably ate, on average, about the same as the average weight people, they just had slower metabolisms and therefore stored some of the extra weight as fat.

A decent amount of body-fat is also good for storing toxins (thus keeping them out of the blood stream). Another theory of mine (on why I get sick in the early 00's) is that my body fat was way too low (around 3.5%) and my activity level way to high (I was a bike messenger so I was out biking in some of the worst pollution in North America for 8-9 hours a day) thus I was unable to handle the toxic load that was NYC (not to mention I was eating really crappy at the time). That combined with my own internal stress (both from that era and unresolved past BS) and food allergies I didn't discover until a couple years later (when my stomach pain because particular intense) probably made me far unhealthier than I actually would've been if I was an endomorphic type (but you know, no regrets, cause then I might still be eating really bad and not thinking about my lifestyle choices).
 
Back
Top Bottom