Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-28-2018, 07:35 AM
 
165 posts, read 240,171 times
Reputation: 133

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dport7674 View Post
And as far as 'no long term research' on fasting.. Thats just not true. I'm not sure why you're making that claim.
Because most articles that I read on this say 'recently it has got the interest of scientific world' or something similar. I think time restricted feeding study on mice was the one that kick started interest on this intermittent fasting topic and it was done only in 2014.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/

I know Jason Fung mentions that it has been a part of most religions traditionally, but let us not go there
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-28-2018, 07:48 AM
 
165 posts, read 240,171 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad70 View Post

Yes, nutritional research keeps evolving. Old advice is proven wrong. What is increasingly becoming evident is that the standard advice of eat less and exercise more doesn't work for most people. And, if dieters lose weight short term the vast majority will regain it within five years. Sorry folks.

The new thinking is that when you eat may be as important as what you eat - that is, intermittent fasting or time restricted feeding. What is the evidence? For mice, the data is unambiguous. Restricting their eating window to eight hours makes them lose weight and live longer. Although we are not mice we share 96 percent of their DNA.

For humans we know that their biomarkers improve - blood sugar is lower, insulin is lower, blood pressure is lower. What about longer term? A seven year follow up of breast cancer survivors showed those that fasted 13 hours or longer each night had 36 percent less breast cancer recurrence than those whose nighttime fasting was less than 13 hours. Also, “In multivariable linear regression models, each 2-hour increase in the nightly fasting duration was associated with significantly lower hemoglobin A1c levels (β = −0.37; 95% CI, −0.72 to −0.01) and a longer duration of nighttime sleep (β = 0.20; 95% CI, 0.14-0.26).” Prolonged Nightly Fasting Cuts Risk for Breast Cancer Return.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...__ffn_sectitle
While that breast cancer study is great, 7 years is decent amount of years, it may not be a full answer for long term study.

And sorry, except blood pressure and insulin (I'm not sure if there's any proof for validating insulin improvement), other key biomarkers glucose, cholesterol etc don't improve with fasting aka time restricted feeding in any way. Check this study..

https://content.iospress.com/article...ging/nha170036

There was a member here (Mickey I think) who was on normal weight but had high glucose tried intermittent fasting to improve his blood sugar. He didn't see any results at all and eventually gave up on this. You can find his posts few pages back.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 07:56 AM
 
165 posts, read 240,171 times
Reputation: 133
Quote:
Originally Posted by EmilyFoxSeaton View Post
Agree on this. If there is one lesson I have learned in my years.. it is how people will lie to push something that is good for them. So much in the health world is just bull. So "studies" are rather meaningless for me. But what does get my attention is:

(1) It simply makes sense that as hunter gatherers we would not have access to food like we do now-- 3 meals per day. We likely would get up... hungry, and have to go out and hunt food, and then feast for a few hours and then, sleep. So all the food would likely be in a small window naturally. It is similar to animals... they don't eat three meals a day. That is a construct of modern life.

(2) The fact that "fasting" has been promoted and talked about in various religions for many many years indicates that it has not been shown to be harmful before and likely helpful.

These two facts make me want to give fasting the benefit of the doubt.
Could be true, but nobody knows how long hunters lived or how healthy they lived. Same goes to people who lived in 'messengers' era.

As far as I know, life expectancy has only improved over last few hundred years and hasn't regressed in anyway. Why it could not be that those people lived only 30 or 40 years or something like that. Just because they lived in natural set up, it wouldn't necessarily mean they lived longer!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 08:05 AM
 
Location: SW Florida
15,205 posts, read 10,221,427 times
Reputation: 32155
I basically follow this IF plan regularly anyway. I have dinner around 6:30 p.m., then nothing till a light breakfast around 9:30 a.m. It's only 15 hours but I have consistently lost weight and so has a friend of mine. Of course I have given up sugar and rarely have carbs. Now my sister on the other hand has dinner around 6:30-7:00 p.m. and then nothing until 1 p.m. However she eats a lot of carb rich foods and she can't understand why she isn't losing any weight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 11:36 AM
 
57 posts, read 59,737 times
Reputation: 77
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228 View Post
I basically follow this IF plan regularly anyway. I have dinner around 6:30 p.m., then nothing till a light breakfast around 9:30 a.m. It's only 15 hours but I have consistently lost weight and so has a friend of mine. Of course I have given up sugar and rarely have carbs. Now my sister on the other hand has dinner around 6:30-7:00 p.m. and then nothing until 1 p.m. However she eats a lot of carb rich foods and she can't understand why she isn't losing any weight.
Hi, you are already on the IF team. In the 1960's three meals was the norm and according to dr. Fung a 14 hour nighttime fasting was normal. Of course, there was far less obesity then. Now, 6 feedings a day is the norm.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Middle of the valley
48,413 posts, read 34,578,908 times
Reputation: 73524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad70 View Post
Hi, you are already on the IF team. In the 1960's three meals was the norm and according to dr. Fung a 14 hour nighttime fasting was normal. Of course, there was far less obesity then. Now, 6 feedings a day is the norm.

Where do you get the idea that 6 feedings a day is "normal?"

I'm thin, and eating many small meals, no large meals. Is that what you mean?
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 12:15 PM
 
57 posts, read 59,737 times
Reputation: 77
Default 6 feedings

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikala43 View Post
Where do you get the idea that 6 feedings a day is "normal?"

I'm thin, and eating many small meals, no large meals. Is that what you mean?
Yes. Congrats on being thin. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The feeding number is from a 2003 American survey of 60000 adults and children. Dr. Fung says that " today the balance between the fed state and the fasted state has been destroyed. "
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Middle of the valley
48,413 posts, read 34,578,908 times
Reputation: 73524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad70 View Post
Yes. Congrats on being thin. If it ain't broke don't fix it. The feeding number is from a 2003 American survey of 60000 adults and children. Dr. Fung says that " today the balance between the fed state and the fasted state has been destroyed. "
I did fasting (18/6) for two weeks to see if it would help my blood sugar (I'm pre-diabetic) and it did nothing to lower the numbers. But it's not uncommon for me to stop eating around 7pm and not eat until 10 the next morning, so it wasn't a big change.

If it helps some people then great.

I'm thin, but still have lots of medical problems, despite lots of exercise. So thin doesn't equal healthy, but I do think it is....... healthier..

Where did you get the information that people regularly eat 6 meals a day? Without a source, it sounds like an opinion.
__________________
____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 03:07 PM
 
Location: Round Rock, Texas
13,441 posts, read 15,397,012 times
Reputation: 18969
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiluvr1228 View Post
I basically follow this IF plan regularly anyway. I have dinner around 6:30 p.m., then nothing till a light breakfast around 9:30 a.m. It's only 15 hours but I have consistently lost weight and so has a friend of mine. Of course I have given up sugar and rarely have carbs. Now my sister on the other hand has dinner around 6:30-7:00 p.m. and then nothing until 1 p.m. However she eats a lot of carb rich foods and she can't understand why she isn't losing any weight.
Your sister's conundrum has little to do with eating carb-rich foods and everything to do with fasting and then following that up with overeating on probably less than optimal food (all carbs aren't the same anyway). She's probably an older woman too so her caloric needs are probably lower to begin with. If there's no deficit, you won't lose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2018, 05:23 PM
 
71 posts, read 52,866 times
Reputation: 399
I'm of the opinion that one size does not fit all. Each body possesses a similar yet unique chemistry. It's why one medication doesn't fix everyone with the same malady. It's why some people get cancer and some don't, even when they've smoked their whole lives. Sure, there are environmental factors, such as living near nuclear waste, or growing up as the product of abuse. But even after having grown up within the same household, I do not have the same health as my siblings.

I can tell you what's worked for me and what hasn't. It doesn't mean I'm suggesting what might or might not work for you. Intermittent fasting had no impact on me. I tried it in conjunction with a low carb (keto) diet after my weight loss stalled. I did not get an improvement in energy, blood pressure, weight loss, etc. like others have reported. Whatever it is about my system, IF does not provide a benefit. Perhaps it's because I have thyroid, adrenal, and gut issues. Or something else not quite detectable by me or my health care practitioners.

That being said, if it works for you, great. I think the best thing anyone can do for themselves is to know their own body and how it reacts to external factors--diet, environment, behaviors. Keeping a simple log of intake, sleep, exercise and how we feel on each day can help us to identify trends and potential allergies and sources of inflammation. A simple search on the internet for just about anything can support or refute your views. Too much research can lead you to believe you have a brain tumor when all you have is a really bad headache.

I also think that many, if not most, so-called traditional doctors don't pry deeply enough to determine the root of our symptoms and place too much value on pharmaceuticals and not enough investigation into alternative solutions. (Money plays a huge role, but so does laziness and malfeasance). I also think there are a lot of quacks out there and one must be careful not to give too much credence to non-medical treatments in lieu of traditional medicine. Thinking a dab of essential oil will cure staph or elderberry will treat strep is not only delusional, it's dangerous. Sometimes serious meds are needed. On the other hand, I believe diet can play a huge role in the treatment of everything from migraines to cancer.

Everyone has the responsibility of knowing their bodies and trying to take care of themselves with good food, sleep, and exercise, and being informed about the best preventatives and treatments for their health. Just as my opinion isn't the authority, neither is yours.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Health and Wellness > Diet and Weight Loss
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top