New study shows intermittent fasting doesn't work

[DEVILsSON]

One thing that maybe researchers overlook is participants using fasting or intermittent fasting to reset their equilibrium body weight. I noticed 24-36 hours fasting does help me drop a couple pounds in mostly water weight but the bigger benefit I get is getting my appetite under control.

 

[aus101]

You lose weight by burning more calories over time than you are taking in. Consuming all your daily calories in a smaller time window doesn't change the law of thermodynamics.

 

[aus101]

Because you burn way more calories fasting for a day than running on a thredmill for 2 hours while eating three meals a day. Fasting isn’t hard or torment. People just need to man up when it comes to fasting. Torment is prolong fasting, like a 7 day fast or a 30 day fast. One meal a day or 16 hours is easy.

If you don't eat anything (or eat all your cals in one or two meals) you won't have any energy for activity throughout the day and your basal metabolic rate will drop to ensure you don't starve, negating the whole purpose of cutting out all the cals.

Thus as small a caloric deficit as possible is recommended so you have as much energy for working out and life in general (as well as more scope for varied micro nutrients). That's how one gets lean while maintaining muscle mass and energy levels.

Once you stop losing weight from the slight deficit you up cardio or cut cals. If you jump straight into a huge deficit you won't have anywhere to go

 

[monkeyrhythm]

If you don't eat anything (or eat all your cals in one or two meals) you won't have any energy for activity throughout the day and your basal metabolic rate will drop to ensure you don't starve, negating the whole purpose of cutting out all the cals.

Thus as small a caloric deficit as possible is recommended so you have as much energy for working out and life in general (as well as more scope for varied micro nutrients). That's how one gets lean while maintaining muscle mass and energy levels.

Once you stop losing weight from the slight deficit you up cardio or cut cals. If you jump straight into a huge deficit you won't have anywhere to go

There are a number of studies now which show the opposite i.e. that intermittent fasting protocols like Time Restricted Feeding or Alternate Day Fasting (for example) will NOT drop basal metabolic rate whereas chronic calorie restriction, for example a 500 calorie a day deficit, will.

Each to their own but I've practiced IF in various forms for around a decade and I'm doing pretty well in comparison to my peers...

 

[7even]

If you don't eat anything (or eat all your cals in one or two meals) you won't have any energy for activity throughout the day and your basal metabolic rate will drop to ensure you don't starve, negating the whole purpose of cutting out all the cals.

Thus as small a caloric deficit as possible is recommended so you have as much energy for working out and life in general (as well as more scope for varied micro nutrients). That's how one gets lean while maintaining muscle mass and energy levels.

Once you stop losing weight from the slight deficit you up cardio or cut cals. If you jump straight into a huge deficit you won't have anywhere to go

You’re replying to a guy that did multiple 7 day fasts. While doing my first 7 day fast, I actually had plenty of energy on the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th day. I wasn’t even hungry after the 3rd day. I even had a low body fat percentage. I had visible abs before the fast and I became even more shredded after completing the 7 day fast. I didn’t look like l lost any muscle mass. Maybe I did, but it wasn’t significant. If you want to lose weight and burn fat, then there is no better way than fasting. You can even do fasted cardio to accelerate the process. Eating small meals while working out is counterintuitive if you’re trying to burn fat.


If you’re lifting weights and want to build lean muscle while trying to get shredded or keep a low body fat percentage then OMAD ( One Meal A Day ) is the way to go.

 

[TrueBias]

16:8 is barely IF. Minimum should be 18:6 or ideally 20:4.

Plus that's a pretty small sample with a lax protocol (ie the "fasters" could eat what they want whilst the other group had set meals) yet the IF group still lost more weight.

The benefits of IF (and longer fasts 24-72hrs) are well known and its an easy regime to follow.

Ive had personal experience with IM fasting and those 4 or 6 hour windows are what made me FEEL different but ultimately fails.

Why?

Because satiety being satisfied. How many meals can 1 have in a 4 hour window? Lets say you shove nothing but cakes and ice creams down your throat, just to make caloric needs. Then i suppose youre gonna have to forget about macros.

 

[DEVILsSON]

Ive had personal experience with IM fasting and those 4 or 6 hour windows are what made me FEEL different but ultimately fails.

Why?

Because satiety being satisfied. How many meals can 1 have in a 4 hour window? Lets say you shove nothing but cakes and ice creams down your throat, just to make caloric needs. Then i suppose youre gonna have to forget about macros.

Someone doing IF is not likely to eat that poorly. If you have enough self control to do IF, then most likely you will have enough self control to eat properly and likely much better than the average person. We can debate what 'proper' diet entails because it does differ person to person but it almost certainly won't contain junk food, especially for the entire daily caloric intake.

IF, especially in longer periods is purported to do a slew of positive changes in the body. For me these aspects make it worthwhile on their own.

I recently read a 3+ day fast is able to 'reset' one's immune system.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steven...ntermittent-fasting-reset-your-immune-system/

 

[Blake_UK]

Ive had personal experience with IM fasting and those 4 or 6 hour windows are what made me FEEL different but ultimately fails.

Why?

Because satiety being satisfied. How many meals can 1 have in a 4 hour window? Lets say you shove nothing but cakes and ice creams down your throat, just to make caloric needs. Then i suppose youre gonna have to forget about macros.

I found with a high protein (200g+), medium/high fat diet I wasn't hungry. 2 meals and 2 protein smoothies totaling 2000 calories in 5 hours is perfectly doable.
I aimed my gym session for the end of the fast to keep my mind off of food. I definitely felt less hungry doing IF than cutting calories but eating throughout the day.

 

[monkeyrhythm]

Someone doing IF is not likely to eat that poorly. If you have enough self control to do IF, then most likely you will have enough self control to eat properly and likely much better than the average person. We can debate what 'proper' diet entails because it does differ person to person but it almost certainly won't contain junk food, especially for the entire daily caloric intake.

IF, especially in longer periods is purported to do a slew of positive changes in the body. For me these aspects make it worthwhile on their own.

I recently read a 3+ day fast is able to 'reset' one's immune system.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/steven...ntermittent-fasting-reset-your-immune-system/

Longo et al's work is one of the main reasons I started throwing in a longer water fast a couple of times a year; I started this year with a 7-dayer (I've no desire to go longer than that).
Obviously there's (currently) no way for me to directly identify/measure any positive benefits to my immune system etc. but I reckon it's worth a punt.

 

[DEVILsSON]

Longo et al's work is one of the main reasons I started throwing in a longer water fast a couple of times a year; I started this year with a 7-dayer (I've no desire to go longer than that).
Obviously there's (currently) no way for me to directly identify/measure any positive benefits to my immune system etc. but I reckon it's worth a punt.

Could you please post your routine during the 7 day fasts?

The longest I have done is 48 hour fast with minimal water intake and by the end it was tough. I wanted to push it to 3 days but decided against it.

Do you supplement with anything while on the fast? Do you use fiber filler for your water? Do you take anything caffeinated?

 

[monkeyrhythm]

Could you please post your routine during the 7 day fasts?

The longest I have done is 48 hour fast with minimal water intake and by the end it was tough. I wanted to push it to 3 days but decided against it.

Do you supplement with anything while on the fast? Do you use fiber filler for your water? Do you take anything caffeinated?

Sure:

On waking I have a large glass of water with 5ml of this added https://uk.iherb.com/pr/trace-minerals-research-keto-electrolyte-drops-4-fl-oz-118-ml/86299
Then I'll have a double espresso not long after, take the dogs for a walk and then when I get back another double espresso.
That's the only caffeine I'll have all day. I have drunk more coffee/green-tea throughout the day in previous fasts but I didn't want to affect my sleep or stomach too much. Also, I've realised that poor quality coffee beans (i.e. not roasted relatively recently) can cause me stomach issues so I mostly just drink coffee at home now.
Then just water all day, I'll add some celtic salt to a glass in the evening to top up electrolytes.
I had a mild cannabis edible some evenings to help me sleep as that can be disrupted sometimes when I fast. I wouldn't recommend that for most people though as I think there's a good chance their appetite would go through the roof (I knew I'd likely be okay from previous experimentation).
I didn't supplement with fibre or vitamins etc.

The first longer fast I did was really tough, one of the reasons was I supplemented with an electrolyte powder which had magnesium citrate in, so I was shitting through the eye of a needle. I wouldn't like to try a dry fast, dehydration and tiredness go hand in hand for me.

What I will say is that the first time doing a longer fasting period than I've done previously is always hard, after that it's typically okay. It may sound strange when talking about fasting but practice/experience is definitely a big factor (for me anyway).
Also, it's toughest around day 3 (for me), 5 - 7 were/are pretty straightforward; that said, my energy levels were pretty low but I was still sharp cognitively (not 100% day 3 but I was trying to solve some pretty complex problems, I'm not sure I'd have noticed otherwise).

Hope that helps, please feel free to ask if you have other questions.

 

[DEVILsSON]

Sure:

On waking I have a large glass of water with 5ml of this added https://uk.iherb.com/pr/trace-minerals-research-keto-electrolyte-drops-4-fl-oz-118-ml/86299
Then I'll have a double espresso not long after, take the dogs for a walk and then when I get back another double espresso.
That's the only caffeine I'll have all day. I have drunk more coffee/green-tea throughout the day in previous fasts but I didn't want to affect my sleep or stomach too much. Also, I've realised that poor quality coffee beans (i.e. not roasted relatively recently) can cause me stomach issues so I mostly just drink coffee at home now.
Then just water all day, I'll add some celtic salt to a glass in the evening to top up electrolytes.
I had a mild cannabis edible some evenings to help me sleep as that can be disrupted sometimes when I fast. I wouldn't recommend that for most people though as I think there's a good chance their appetite would go through the roof (I knew I'd likely be okay from previous experimentation).
I didn't supplement with fibre or vitamins etc.

The first longer fast I did was really tough, one of the reasons was I supplemented with an electrolyte powder which had magnesium citrate in, so I was shitting through the eye of a needle. I wouldn't like to try a dry fast, dehydration and tiredness go hand in hand for me.

What I will say is that the first time doing a longer fasting period than I've done previously is always hard, after that it's typically okay. It may sound strange when talking about fasting but practice/experience is definitely a big factor (for me anyway).

Also, it's toughest around day 3 (for me), 5 - 7 were/are pretty straightforward; that said, my energy levels were pretty low but I was still sharp cognitively (not 100% day 3 but I was trying to solve some pretty complex problems, I'm not sure I'd have noticed otherwise).

Hope that helps, please feel free to ask if you have other questions.

Awesome. Thank you.

I usually just took a multi, vitD, vitC, and other similar such supplements with a couple sips of water. I am also debating whether to take any of my other supplements but probably not. I am likely not taking any of my supplements that I normally take with juice or things like resveratrol, pterostilbene, berberine, etc.

 

[Beechwood]

I've been IFing for over a month now. or maybe better said doing a better job at it for over a month now. I'm not losing weight so much, but can notice and see the fat loss. In particular, typically I wear a belt with my pants. The first notch on the belt is what I've been using. For the last few days though i've had to move down to the 2nd notch to keep my pants tight.

 

[monkeyrhythm]

Awesome. Thank you.

I usually just took a multi, vitD, vitC, and other similar such supplements with a couple sips of water. I am also debating whether to take any of my other supplements but probably not. I am likely not taking any of my supplements that I normally take with juice or things like resveratrol, pterostilbene, berberine, etc.

No worries.

One of the reasons I don't supplement during a fast is that as my body starts to upregulate lipolysis it should mobilise plenty of fat-soluble vitamins from my adipose tissue. I have considered supplementing with B Complex and C (water soluble) but I don't think it's a big deal for a 7 day fast, much longer and I would do.

Yeah, I'd personally take a break from the others on your list during a fast too.

 

[JSN]

Statistical significance =/= clinical significance. I wish they taught this shit in stats.

"In this prospective randomized clinical trial that included 116 adults with overweight or obesity, time-restricted eating was associated with a modest decrease (1.17%) in weight that was not significantly different from the decrease in the control group (0.75%)."

Assuming a person was overweight at 200lbs (easy round figure to work with).

2.34lbs extra weight loss after 8 weeks.
Vs.
1.5lbs weight loss after 8 weeks.

This works out to 0.84lb difference, so basically a pound. Is it the biggest deal? No, not necessarily. Is it better? Yes. Clearly.

Also...."group was instructed to eat 3 structured meals per day, and the time-restricted eating (TRE) group was instructed to eat ad libitum from 12:00 pm until 8:00 pm and completely abstain from caloric intake from 8:00 pm until 12:00 pm the following day."

So one group is assigned a potential caloric deficit as per the design, while the other group is neither intentionally reaching a deficit that is identical, or a surplus. This isn't even the same damned thing now.

we can agree that statistical significance =/= clinical significance however I think you're a little confused beyond that. How the hell are you going to assert that there's a clinical significance when you can't determine that you have a significant difference at all? Especially when it would be 0.84lbs, the weight of a respectable but unremarkable, shit?

 

[Badger67]

we can agree that statistical significance =/= clinical significance however I think you're a little confused beyond that. How the hell are you going to assert that there's a clinical significance when you can't determine that you have a significant difference at all? Especially when it would be 0.84lbs, the weight of a respectable but unremarkable, shit?

One is better than the other. Even the study had some flaws lets assume it didnt.

The study claiming there is no statistical significance is looking at it from a T test perspective. The real world doesn't. The real world looks at results. Results are one was better. One group on average lost basically a pound more. That matters to people who need to lose that or want to lose that (clinical significance because it holds more value to the individual using it), as the outcome measure, is well, different in their favor.

The only way to break this down further is if the study design was identical in other parameters as i've noted, and if they performed DXA or something to see if that difference was water vs fat/muscle etc.

 

[JSN]

One is better than the other. Even the study had some flaws lets assume it didnt.

The study claiming there is no statistical significance is looking at it from a T test perspective. The real world doesn't. The real world looks at results. Results are one was better. One group on average lost basically a pound more. That matters to people who need to lose that or want to lose that (clinical significance because it holds more value to the individual using it), as the outcome measure, is well, different in their favor.

The only way to break this down further is if the study design was identical in other parameters as i've noted, and if they performed DXA or something to see if that difference was water vs fat/muscle etc.

You realize people use P values for a reason though right?

 

[BiestaGetse]

I tried it and it didn't work for me

 

[OpusImpetus]

That's all intermittent fasting is? That you have to eat within an 8 hour window? That's barely different than what the average person does anyways, I thought you actually had to fast for an extended amount of time

That's time-restricted eating or time-restricted feeding.

 

[SHAOLINMONK420]

Surprised they concluded that it doesn't work at all. I would've thought at the very least they would conclude that it works but only because it makes it easier to stay below a calorie limit. But I guess not.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/28/intermittent-fasting-doesnt-help-weight-loss-ucsf-study.html

yeah ok believe cnbc fox cnn and all that bs