Slashdot Mirror
Fasting Can Improve Overall Health By Causing Circadian Clocks In the Liver and Skeletal Muscle To Rewire Their Metabolism, Study Finds (sciencedaily.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from ScienceDaily: In a University of California, Irvine-led study, researchers found evidence that fasting affects circadian clocks in the liver and skeletal muscle, causing them to rewire their metabolism, which can ultimately lead to improved health and protection against aging-associated diseases. The study was published recently in Cell Reports. The research was conducted using mice, which were subjected to 24-hour periods of fasting. While fasting, researchers noted the mice exhibited a reduction in oxygen consumption (VO2), respiratory exchange ratio (RER), and energy expenditure, all of which were completely abolished by refeeding, which parallels results observed in humans.
"The reorganization of gene regulation by fasting could prime the genome to a more permissive state to anticipate upcoming food intake and thereby drive a new rhythmic cycle of gene expression. In other words, fasting is able to essentially reprogram a variety of cellular responses. Therefore, optimal fasting in a timed manner would be strategic to positively affect cellular functions and ultimately benefiting health and protecting against aging-associated diseases." This study opens new avenues of investigation that could ultimately lead to the development of nutritional strategies to improve health in humans.
"The reorganization of gene regulation by fasting could prime the genome to a more permissive state to anticipate upcoming food intake and thereby drive a new rhythmic cycle of gene expression. In other words, fasting is able to essentially reprogram a variety of cellular responses. Therefore, optimal fasting in a timed manner would be strategic to positively affect cellular functions and ultimately benefiting health and protecting against aging-associated diseases." This study opens new avenues of investigation that could ultimately lead to the development of nutritional strategies to improve health in humans.
Shouldn't UC Irvine be testing on anteaters, not rats?
The newest diet fad is "intermittent fasting". 20 years ago it was "skipping breakfast" and was bad for you.
"1,500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was the center of the universe. 500 years ago, everybody knew that the Earth was flat. And 15 minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."
I follow this new fad called "I only eat when I'm hungry".
I got to tell you, so far it's really going greaH&goyLUKHgZZZzzzz....
#DeleteFacebook
I have noticed that dropping my calories way down for a day leads to dramatically improved sleep. FWIW, YMMV, etc.
The old religions have known about fasting for millennia. Science is way behind.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
This was worth logging in for.
I was overweight and staring down 50, so I did some research and decided to try it.
I did a 7 day water fast followed by a mostly keto style diet, but really just sticking to food that's been on the planet for longer than 100 years, no processed chemical foods. I lost maybe 10 pounds during that week but the weight just kept falling off. Down from 40's to 34's and even 32's after about 9 months of sticking to real food, cut back(not out) on sugar and bread. My blood panels showed no problems with cholesterol etc after eating bacon and eggs for breakfast for months. homemade soups etc for dinner.
Fasting is part of a natural cycle, your body uses the time when digestion is shut down to heal itself.
Don't believe me, prove me wrong.
DONT TREAD ON ME MOÎΩN ÎABÃ
False.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
It's a quote from the movie Men in Black
Only one way to find out... I started the "fad" a couple weeks ago, restricting my eating time to 8 hours a day and 16 hours of fasting with some 24+ hours fasts thrown in here and there. I'm less concerted about weight loss and more focused on cholesterol and an A1C that puts my blood glucose levels on the edge of pre-diabetic. I'm decently fit and athletic, healthy diet, middle of the "healthy weight" for my height and sex. I plan to fast this way every day for 3 months, though still keeping my typical diet, and get some bloodwork done to see if my numbers improve at all. It does seem effective for weight loss even though that's not my focus. It's a much easier plan to follow than calorie restriction, I just eat when I'm hungry during my 8 hour window... but I'm not as hungry after the first few days of the fasting which is causing me to run a slight calorie deficit. Interested to see if this has any positive or negative effect on my insulin resistance and cholesterol levels, I've had bloodwork done regularly for the past 8 years so I have a pretty good baseline.
In the VERY old days, periods of fasting were unavoidable. So, naturally, humans built some myths around it, as they did around basically everything. They sanctify the mundane as a psychological mechanism for coping with the existential emptiness of our existence.
The old religions simply inherited those myths.
It's really not surprising that they would, nor that our bodies would have some baked-in responses to this recurring survival need.
doubledown00 pointed out:
The newest diet fad is "intermittent fasting". 20 years ago it was "skipping breakfast" and was bad for you.
This is purely anecdotal evidence, of course, but I'm an insuliin-dependent, Type II diabeitc. I've been "daytime fasting" (fasting a minimum of 16 hours each day) for about 8 months now.
My weight is down about 40 lbs since I began this regimen. Just as importantly, I now need only half as much insulin per day as I did before I began fasting during the day. In fact, I have to be especially careful with my Lantus intake, because hypoglycemia is a fucking drag.
Oh, and I "cheat" on weekends by eating sparingly during the day, to reward myself for exercising the required self-discipline during the week.
YMMV - but it probably won't, as long as you stick to the schedule ...
Check out my novel.
I know you're trolling, but allow me to bite: Vegan doctrine doesn't include fasting, moreover, vegans love carbs and get fat if they don't also afford a nutrition coach. Muslims don't know the first thing about fasting, Ramadan is a joke: not even water during daytime, only to eat triple the normal daily amount all night long is NOT intermittent fasting, it's binge eating with a cooldown phase.
Keto and fasting (comes naturally, the hunger just goes away) for the win, and you can keep eating those steaks. But throw away the potato.
A World in a Grain of Sand / Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Infinity in the Palm of your Hand / And Eternity in an Hour.
>Don't believe me, prove me wrong.
That's not how it works. YOU make a claim, YOU provide proof.
Your post was fine until that last sentence.
Besides, it's impossible to prove that what worked for you won't work for others.
You probably understand that your body might be an exception as well, just because it worked for you it won't necessarily work for others.
This is all anecdotal, which is just fine. Just don't start asking for "disproving proof" when you provide none in the first place.
Skipping breakfast is impossible unless you stop eating until you starve to death.
Going in ketosis is not that hard. Sub 20 grams carbs/day is enough for most people.
When I was going keto last year, I had my Ketones checked at work (im a hospital microbiologist), I was in ketosis within a couple weeks.
The fasting traditions in religion didn't make health claims.
Fasting causes acidosis, which leads to mild euphoria.
People also fast to promote the odds of transcendental experiences.
It was an act of discipline.
But no religion had the liver, let alone circadian clocks in mind.
I wouldn't say religion *knew* fasting. It used it for an entirely different purpose.
That doesn't make it any more correct or relevant.
The quote is correct, in that it is a faithful representation of the line spoken in the movie. And that quote was far more relevant to the conversation than your pathetic protestation.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Today people still believe that people 500 years ago believed the world to be flat.
or you can assume that our body evolved mechanism to deal with the recurring lack of food and periods of fast might be where you are the sharpest. This would definitively be required to be able to find food. To the opposite, the constant influx of food is not "natural" to the body.
by definition, it *is*, as "breakfast" is litterally the "breaking of the period of fast" :-/
Potatoes are not that bad.
McDonalds style french fries are, especially if you top them with ketchup and majonaise (hint: look up how french fries are supposed to look).
The real problem is pasta from simple flour, white bread, the typical US processed rice, corn syrup in stuff where it simply does not belong, pizza with to much of everything. The "oversize" attitude. Artificial sweeteners in your drinks that completely mess up the digesting system.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Cant eat as much, cant buy as much alcohol or drugs...
Actually, the healthy stuff is more expensive. I picked up 1lb of grass-fed 90% ground beef at Walmart earlier this evening, and it's $6/lb. The ground lips-and-assholes in the opaque tube (because they don't want you seeing what it looks like until you've bought it) costs about half as much, but who knows how that vile sludge ever got approved for human consumption. It pretty much also holds true for hot dogs, chicken nuggets, and anything else they can fill with animal parts that should've gone into pet food - you're going to get what you pay for.
Furthermore, fresh fruit and veggies cost a lot more than a box of ramen, pasta, or generic instant mashed potato mix - pretty much anything that's a carbohydrate bomb. All things considered, being poor is more likely to lead to an unhealthy diet.
---
DRM is like antifreeze, to the MPAA/RIAA it's sweet, to the consumers it's poison.
Most of what had been "known" for millennia was wrong. That is the whole point of doing science.
But even a broken clock can be right twice a day.
The scientific process for doing dietary studies though is less than stellar today. But that can be fixed.
Science is working, not "struggling". Never before in human history has so much been uncovered in such a short time.
> "religions" are just archetypes of human biology pattern
If so, we would not have so many religions. Religions occasionally are codifications of natural human behavior - social, more than biological. Other times, they deny natural human behavior.
I live in Belgium, we know not only how fries supposed to look, but also that double frying is the answer to soggy fries. And you are supposed to eat them like this
I think I just gained a kilo just looking at those images.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Asserting health benefits with no data is cheap, even when occasionally correct. Showing with data and analysis is actually knowing (science).
There is still quite a bit that needs to be investigated with regards to diet. The basics are well understood. The long term effects are less well understood since that research is harder (to control).
> You seem not to belong to the "western world" anymore with your retarded science.
The only "retarded" arguments seem to be yours. What western world? I have not cared to divide the world into East and West here.
What makes you think I am from the "western world" in the first place? I don't remember declaring my location. Where I am from/at, religious fasting for the public usually simply means eating lightly for dinner, abstaining from the main staple diet, not complete caloric abstinence, which is left to monks.
In the data-centric modern world we collectively inhabit today, east and west is irrelevant. One measures. One verifies. Biological realities have little need for philosophies and theologies.
> in most religions fasting was done during periods were they had no food anyway.
> were fasting was artificially introduced, because they simply copied it from Christians.
> But they were smarter, as they had irrigation and food: they were allowed to eat after sunset. Hence: Ramadan is actually a big party.
What does all that have to do with my statement that religious fasting has little to do with health? Culturally, the point was an offering or sacrifice, that you cared about it enough to endure some discomfort and participated in a collective activity which perhaps contributed to some degree of social cohesion.
It is a well known pop culture reference which pertains the the concept underlying his statement. It was correctly quoted and it is certainly relevant. If he links an article containing a spelling error are you going to correct hat as well? It was the correction which wasn't relevant, his argument wasn't based on that detail.
Great, if you had a handy decoder ring to help separate the few things they got right from all the other batshit they didn't.
The modern definition of "known about" means that you have substantive evidence where you don't need to resort to a telepathic-genie powered decoder ring.
We know that Einstein's correction to Newton improves on Newton's original predictions of celestial motions. This will never change. We might come up with yet a better prediction than Einstein's, but nothing we could feasibly learn will cause Newton's old predictions to suddenly regain the lead.
The substantive import of "known about" has improved just a smidgen over the past 3000 years.
Nearly a Billion People Still Defecate Outdoors. Here's Why. — August 2017 CE
No, I did not drop the B from BCE, or write "billion" when I meant "million".
Potatoes are not that bad. McDonalds style french fries are, especially if you top them with ketchup and majonaise
It all comes down to your goals and what you're doing. Also genetics somewhat as well. Some people do great with low carb and ketosis. Some people it's almost dangerous for.
If you want to do endurance sports or focus on fat burning ketosis can be a good thing for you. If you're more of a sprinter, power lifter, or strength based athlete carbs may serve you a bit better as you would do best with quick energy you have immediate access to. Not to mention carbs are one of the easier ways to putting on weight (needed for muscle). Generally ketosis is better for endurance sports and fat burn focus.... with carbs being better suited to strength and explosiveness. Right now I've finished with my recent races and wanted to focus on strength so I'm enjoying eating a bit more reckless.... but I'm also lifting super heavy in the gym.
You don't lose 10 lbs in one week even if you eat ZERO food. Losing a pound of fat requires a calorie deficit of 3500 calories. An adult male has a breakeven point of about 2000 calories per day. So the most you are going to lose in one week of ZERO food is about 4 pounds.
You aren't accounting for lost water weight. At the start of caloric restriction, it's pretty common to have a sharp drop as the body gets rid of the extra water it carries around to help process all the extra calories that were being consumed previously.
Obs. this isn't sustainable long term, and it can be frustrating for someone that sees a quick drop when they start caloric restriction, and then their weight loss trend levels out after their water loss stops.
file: