Interesting study with, as always, a lot of caveats. The most we can take from this is that it's worth to study more, the effect is existing but not extreme.
I don't get the submitted title here claiming that it protects from side effects. The study does not mention this at all, just that the side effects are similar despite omission of dexamethason in the fasting arm of the trial - it increases appetite, so makes sense to omit it if you want any reasonable compliance rate.
As with any fasting and dieting study, compliance is moderate at best. In this study, only 33% of patients were compliant for at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy, out of 12 cycles total. Most of them were compliant with at least once cycle though.
Overall, we need some more research on this in a larger trial. This paper is a call for funders to do just that - the trial ended prematurely due to needing to include more patients but there was a lack of funding to do so.
I'm currently doing research on a similar patient population, so open to answer any questions.
I'm not convinced the 2/3 dropout rate of the FMD didn't simply select for people with less aggressive tumors, given that the Intention-To-Treat analysis found no difference in response rate, and that this paper is telling a nice story that actually happens to reverse cause and effect.
Basically, this?
HAS AGGRESSIVE TUMOR ---> CANNOT DO THE FMD
HAS SLOW-GROWING TUMOR ---> ABLE TO MAINTAIN FMD
Since you're researcher in this field and I'm just a weirdo who likes watching scientists argue on Twitter, I'll ask: Anything you can see in the paper that would give a clearer picture regarding possible bias that might have snuck in?
I started fasting every Monday for multiple reasons: reduce caloric intake, the recent studies on reduction of cancer growth (family history cancer and heart issues), and optimizing brain functions.
My wife is Stage 3, ++- (43 yo) and half way through the taxol phase of an ACT regimen; she is progressing well but I know she has the discipline to do a fasting diet if we thought it would help. Any thoughts on starting this mid-way through the treatment?
"Importantly, DNA damage in T-lymphocytes was less in patients who received the FMD in combination with chemotherapy compared to those receiving chemotherapy while on a regular diet"
You may be right, but the reason I put that in the title was because it begins by siting a bunch of other research evidencing that “short-term fasting ...can protect healthy cells against a wide variety of stressors, including chemotherapy”, because in the trial they were able to omit dexamethasone with no negative effects, and because “chemotherapy-induced DNA damage in T-lymphocytes“ was “significantly curtailed”
If there were ever a panacea, it would be fasting. The more tight and widespread the research becomes, the more that we prove what humanity has known anecdotally throughout civilisation.
From being a Roman cure for epileptic seizures, through the integral practice in most religions, and to the 21st century where we start to prove that it increases both healthspan and lifespan.
I find it quite interesting that something so simple, which practically anybody can do, can have such a positive effect on one's life. You are literally healing and regenerating yourself by doing nothing! And instead of compounding medical bills you actually save money!
Thank you modern science for validating my no longer fringe medical beliefs :)
I always find it funny that fasting comes up so often, but a ctrl-f almost never turns up someone mentioning Ramadan. Nearly 25% of the world population fasts for an entire month, but it's almost invisible to the western world. While I don't agree with all of the details of the fast (I drink water), I think it is an admirable holiday, it's way healthier for the world than Christmas or Thanksgiving.
How does a fasting mimicking diet (FMD, like the one described in the article) work? I had a skim and didn’t see a detailed explanation. What’s your experience like?
I should dig what people were saying about fasting in the previous eras. Of course it's well known how integrated with religion it was but it was never mentioned as a physiological lever.. more like an emotional/moral act.
Also it would be weird to see people in those days, allegedly not having access to the cornucopia of yummy food we have in 2020, going into fasting. Maybe more diseases on average made them realize that the less fed survived better ?
Works for other things too like plants. A bit of stress ends up making them more resilient. Depriving them a bit of water and Sun can make for a stronger plant.
Of course there are limits but when done right you end up with a plant that on average is stronger.
And yet, most of what you said is bullshit that's not evidence based.
"Autophagy", that famous process which supposedly happens during fasting, that miraculously regenerates us, actually happens during caloric restriction, and it's actually a daily process that happens during the night, in everyone, while glycogen stores get naturally depleted.
And we have no evidence that increased autophagy levels are beneficial, quite the contrary, we have some evidence that, right after fasting, the immune system is suppressed. The bigger the caloric restriction, the larger effect on refeeding. An effect very relevant for malnourished populations that suddenly get access to food.
This is basically modern quackery, medical technobabble lacking any evidence other than obscure studies done on mice.
What "healers" and witches used to do, but taken to the next level.
And unfortunately it is also a recipe for serious eating disorders. Hello anorexia.
Cancer needs sugar. One of the primary ways they detect cancer is via a PET-CT with a radioactive glucose tracer. It lights up where glucose uptake is the highest. This article talks about starving cells going into defensive repair mode, but also about how energy-hungry cancer cells are.
I had cancer (lymphoma) and did three years of chemo (mostly maintenance/preventative, as it was wiped out in the first couple months). I actually gained an enormous amount of weight, because the steroids I was on (and all the weed I smoked) made me ravenously hungry. If I end up in that situation again, I'm going to make a concerted effort to dramatically reduce my calorie intake, and in particularly carbs, because I've read a lot about the potential benefits of starving the cancer out.
A young biology researcher pitched in to explain the warburg factor in tumors, he made a long paragraph explaining the oh so twisted metabolysm of cancerous cells. The amount of counter intuitive disruptions that mechanically benefited the tumoral tissue was .. almost impressive.
If I understand correctly this is a low-calorie diet, which is easier to follow than a strict water-only diet, but they claim it is equally effective. They recommend it also for healthy individuals, 5 days a month. Does anyone have experience with it?
Just from personal experience, I've found that fasting is actually easier that something like a fast-mimicking diet. Maybe there's something physiological going on, or maybe it's just psychological, but I find it much harder to eat a little bit than to just not eat. Then when I do get to eat, I can eat enough to feel satisfied.
I do actually, did it twice this year one week in January and then again during lockdown during the last week of March I think. I heard about it from the guy who came up with it, he wrote a book about the merits of a Mediterranean plant-based diet (with the occasional fish, but no meat) that resonated quite well with me, since it's easy to implement and also really delicious - I mean there isn't really all that much that go wrong with eating vegetables, some bread and pasta, nuts, olive oil, and fish (also had the welcome side-effect to reduce my meat-consumption to pretty much zero now)
Anyway, so after I switched my diet I decided to give his FMD a go and was pleasantly surprised - it's pretty tough, the second and third day were the worst for me, I was just incredibly hungry (and honestly speaking I did'n really achieve any mental clarity during those days), just went on a ton of walks. But I felt I gained a lot of mental strength following that experience, it was easier for me change eating or drinking habits simply because this exercise of control over your most basic need really provides you with a boost of confidence.
You obviously also lose a lot of weight (around 4kg per week) and I've lost even more since then, maybe 20kg since the beginning of the year (though that's a combination of sport, this pescatarian Mediterranean diet, but probably also those 2 fasting sessions). I plan on doing it again, though I want to try out 'real' water fasting next time. I think this is a great starting-point into fasting, though.
My little advice would be to pick a right season of the year(if you live in 4 seasons). If you start fasting, from day 2-3 you would feel cold. And if outside is around 0 C and you have to walk somewhere, wind blows, it's not nice. Even sitting in regular office feels colder then.
Almost no one reads these papers when stuff like this gets posted on HN.
And there is shameful statistical fuckery afoot in this paper. People are only repeating the hype statistics at the top of the paper.
Their "pathological response" rates touted at the top of paper only come from the 1/3 of women able to actually carry out the diet. This is the "per-protocol" language in the abstract. An honest evaluation here would be "intention to treat" and analyze chemo responses in every assigned to each arm.
And they do that evaulation, but bury it later in their paper. Turns out when you account for the 2/3 of women who can't do that fasting, there's NO DIFFERENCE in response rate:
"The overall pCR rate was 11.7% and did not differ between the two groups (10.8% in FMD group versus 12.7% in control group; OR 0.830, 95% CI 0.282–2.442, P = 0.735."
A lot of people might think "Ah, well, fasting is clearly effective for the 1/3 that are able to carry it out, just gotta make sure you have the willpower to be the 1/3."
But hold on. Slow down. There's a good chance the "women who fasted had better chemo responses" story completely REVERSES cause and effect. Here's how:
WOMEN 1 - Has indolent biology, slower growing tumor than your average breast cancer at this stage.
- Symptoms: Less pain, neuropathy, less swelling, tumors not affecting distant organs as much
WOMEN 2 - Has aggressive biology, faster growing tumor than your average breast cancer at this stage.
- Symptoms: More pain, neuropathy, more swelling, tumors begin to affect distant organs
So ask yourself: Which women is more likely to be able to follow a strictly regimented diet?
That's absolutely right and it's a major problem of this study. There is one caveat though, in the most common ER+ breast cancer, radiological response is more predictive of survival than pCR. And in this study, they do observe a better radiological response in the fasting group, even when looking at ITT (though just barely significant).
Correct me if I'm missing something, but this isn't the type of fasting most people in the thread are talking about.
In the study they say "FMD" or "Fasting mimicking diet", in particular, Xentigen (ProLon?), which is sold by L-Nutra. These are "healthy plant-based meals". [0]
If this turns out to be true, then the practice through the centuries, of a "Religious Pilgrimage" might be effective too. Walking all day, with little food, would put someone in a calorie deficit, combined the stress of extraneous exercise might trigger cell death in cancer cells.
Perhaps, completely changing one's environment. Example going from a city to live in a forrest, might also trigger different genetic pathways, and awaken the immune system.
Many narrative stories have this pattern of someone getting sick and retreating, going into nature, in pursuit of fresh air or sunshine.
Since this is likely to attract a lot of fasting practicioners to the comments I want to ask - I've occasionally tried out fasting or severe calorie restriction in the past but I always seem to get dizzy, weak and shaky in the first 24 hours and have to give up. This seems like a normal physiological response to be honest, how are people either avoiding or coping with this?
I've been doing some variant of intermittent fasting for about 8 years now. Of course, I'm not always consistent. There have been days, weeks or even months when I'm not disciplined.
At least in my experience, the sense of hunger is extremely tuned to one's internal clock. The body seems to absolutely know at what time of day it expects to eat. If I go a long time and never eat before 6 PM, I won't feel even a tinge of hunger until the evening. If I go on vacation, and eat lunch for a week, then the next day I'm ravenous by 12 PM.
The hardest thing about fasting is the transition. Once you've got a pattern, your body seems to pretty much just adjust and it becomes just as normal and effortless as eating breakfast, lunch and dinner. I say that because a lot of people try out fasting for a few days, suffer enormously and decide that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Whereas I think if you get over the transition hump, most will find it's not nearly as bad as it seems to be when you first start out.
One technique that I think makes for a smooth transition is a modified version of partial fasting. To start, instead of completely abstaining during the fast window, restrict yourself to vegetables and berries. Don't touch the higher caloric density foods like meats, dairy, and starches inside the fast window. Truth be told, this probably isn't that bad a diet just to stay on forever, because it ups vegetable consumption so much. But if your goal is full fasting, it's a good way to make a full transition. Your body's internal clock starts getting used to much lower calories consumption in the fast window, but you don't have to feel like you're starving.
I’m by no means an expert, but I think there’s some amount of adaptation that occurs. I feel like I had to “train” my body to fast. I had a similar problem and it was really unpleasant the first time I tried a fast, but recently did a three day fast with no discomfort right until the end. The end was weird because I told myself I was going to break my fast, and my stomach kicked into action too early, making me sick. Like I went from very little hunger to RAVENOUS. Had to break my fast at a drive through (best chalupa I’ve ever tasted!)
For me at least I go into fasting by first skipping breakfast for a few days, then skipping breakfast and lunch. Skipping dinner is mostly a mental hurdle because there’s so much psychological signaling that you should eat at dinner time and don’t really know what else to do with yourself. Going to bed without eating in a day feels weird at first.
I also make sure to get lots of electrolytes during all of this, magnesium glycinate and lite salt seem to do the trick. Otherwise I start to get shaky and have bad headaches.
It's tricky, make sure you drink enough water, but not too much (too much water washes out too much salt from your body, dropping your blood pressure too low). A backup plan if this doesn't work is bone broth soup. It's not a lot of calories so keeps you in the fasting state and can pick you up pretty nicely. Salt the soup but not too much. The key seems to be to keep your electrolyte levels in the Goldilocks-zone.
Everyone has a differing body chemistry. I can only speak for myself. I do have some mild symptoms when starting a fast, but they go away quite quickly. It could be related to the fact that I'm not usually hungry in the mornings (excluding having done heavy exercise) and can quite easily go most the day without eating and from there it is not much of a stretch to go another day and another...
Not recommended but I just kind of white knuckled it through the experience and it settled down pretty quickly after that. In subsequent fasts you have the visceral memory of it getting better and those negative experiences aren’t amplified by the doubt of the whole process.
There's something called snake juice, which is just a mixture of water and salts. Apparently this helps balance electrolytes which solves the problems you're experiencing.
I'm not doubting the results (yet), but I just can't understand how is this possible. Chemotherapy basically damages host cells, with a lot of collateral damage. It already can cause all sorts of digestive tract problems and weight loss among other things. And now they propose to cut energy intake even more. How is this beneficial I can't understand.
Chemotherapy is tuned to kill cells that divide. Cancer cells happen to divide a lot, but sometimes normal healthy cells do too. (Not all of them.) Thus they become collateral damage along the cancerous ones. Hence nausea and other unpleasant effects.
If you can persuade the normal healthy cells to hunker down and stop dividing for a while, the killing effect of the drugs will concentrate on the cancerous cells alone. This is what fasting is expected to achieve. It is not alone in this regard, anything that inhibits mTOR (e.g. rapamycin) should in theory have similar effect.
The idea, as far as I understand it, is that fasting makes cells more quiescent and less likely to undergo mitosis. But cancer cells cannot respond the same way and continue dividing, causing more specific uptake of chemo drugs that damage cells during mitosis. Fewer bystanders get damaged.
That's what I keep thinking. One wrinkle here is that the calorie restricted days are those leading up to chemo, which were the only days my dad (who had esophageal cancer) could eat very much.
How could we know if this was survivorship bias? What if the folks who can best comply with the calorie restrictions are those who are already in a good state?
What are the recommended ways to fast? I did intermittent fasting for about 5 months to shed 25lbs. It likely contributed, but I was also laser focused on dropping.
I've been doing intermittent fasting for 5 weeks as of today and in that time have lost 22 pounds. I have more energy and have noticed a generally heightened sense of well-being (though perhaps as a result of the weight loss and improved appearance).
I am doing 18:6, so I generally eat from 12pm to 6pm. During that time I typically eat two meals, and one or two small snacks. I try to eat pretty healthy, but there have been plenty of times in the past 5 weeks when I've just pigged out at Waffle House. I still have lost significant weight.
I have two major recommendations: first, drink tons of water. I try to drink about 16oz of water every hour. Besides hydration, it helps a lot with hunger. You will get hungry at times. For me it isn't every day - some days it's easy to stay on track. Others, it's tough. When you're feeling hungry, chug water. It really helps. (tip: try sparkling water to change things up if you get sick of regular flat water).
Second, I recommend using an app to track your fasting. Mine was free and tracks your start and end times for fasting and tells you how long until your fasting period is over. It also lets you track your weight, and even water drinking progress if you want.
Last thing - the hardest day of fasting, by far, is the very first day. After that, it will get easier.
ETA another tip: If you're doing it for weight loss, don't weigh yourself every day. Your weight will fluctuate a pound or two from one day to the next, and even throughout the day. It can be demoralizing to fast for a day and then the scales tell you that you're up a pound. Instead, weigh yourself maybe twice a week, and always near the end of your fasting period.
I've found 20:4 successful only as a means of preventing me from eating too much; prior to IF I'd habitually graze throughout the day. It's basically a diet where you don't have to think that much about what you eat (you should a bit, still, obviously).
If you aggressively fast on chemo you must must must take vitamins. Have seen personally what can happen when one does this without supplementing and have a result of low levels of thiamine which is lethal and has life long effects when it isn't.
Fasting has been practiced for millennia, but only recently studies have shed light on its role in adaptive cellular responses that reduce oxidative damage and inflammation, optimize energy metabolism and bolster cellular protection. In lower eukaryotes, chronic fasting extends longevity in part by reprogramming metabolic and stress resistance pathways. In rodents intermittent or periodic fasting protects against diabetes, cancers, heart disease and neurodegeneration, while in humans it helps reduce obesity, hypertension, asthma and rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, fasting has the potential to delay aging and help prevent and treat diseases while minimizing the side effects caused by chronic dietary interventions.
I haven't read the article yet but I just want to point out something that may be fairly important to understand here: chemotherapy drugs target cellular division. This means that if fasting slows down cellular division in normal cells but not cancer cells, it could make the chemotherapy drugs able to target the cancer cells more selectively than normal.
However, this would not necessarily translate into anything relating to situations in which chemotherapy drugs are not being taken.
> Essentially, fasting causes a switch in healthy cells from a proliferative state towards a maintenance and repair state.
Is this autophagy?
In this interview with Dr. Eileen White, Chief Scientific Officer at the Rutgers Cancer Institute, she mentions that certain types of cancer cells can actually use the effects of autophagy to survive.
If you read “Tripping over the Truth: The Metabolic Theory of Cancer”[0], the fundamentals of this are discussed quite extensively. Highly recommended for anyone interested in both fasting and cancer.
Fasting also has excellent results for treating many illnesses including mental ones.
There is a documentary that covers two clinics that offer fasting as a treatment and scientific research in this area.
In case anyone else, like me, saw "pCR" and didn't know what it meant, I believe that it means "pathologic complete response". Not "polymerase chain reaction" which is all you get by googling.
It's really unfortunate people use overloaded acronyms like this without a definition.
The first sentence was misleading to me as well (it does refer to mice, but only as a "was also effective on mice" sense), but the study was done on humans.
If I'm reading this correctly, the "harm from chemo" to the person was about the same, but the "harm from chemo" to the cancer was much more significant in the fasting group.
PS in case anyone stumbles on this and wants to look deeper, I just recollected one of the pioneers of this sort of treatment:
The Gerson Institute - https://gerson.org/
If you have to provide a simple (ELI5, if you mention one scientific word their eyes rollup into their skull etc..) way to view how fasting 'controls' the cancerous growth in the body... sadhguru makes an easily digestible concept of 'crime' in the body [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWnyTJ96upw
markus92|5 years ago
I don't get the submitted title here claiming that it protects from side effects. The study does not mention this at all, just that the side effects are similar despite omission of dexamethason in the fasting arm of the trial - it increases appetite, so makes sense to omit it if you want any reasonable compliance rate.
As with any fasting and dieting study, compliance is moderate at best. In this study, only 33% of patients were compliant for at least 4 cycles of chemotherapy, out of 12 cycles total. Most of them were compliant with at least once cycle though.
Overall, we need some more research on this in a larger trial. This paper is a call for funders to do just that - the trial ended prematurely due to needing to include more patients but there was a lack of funding to do so.
I'm currently doing research on a similar patient population, so open to answer any questions.
blithedale|5 years ago
Basically, this?
Since you're researcher in this field and I'm just a weirdo who likes watching scientists argue on Twitter, I'll ask: Anything you can see in the paper that would give a clearer picture regarding possible bias that might have snuck in?NewOrderNow|5 years ago
What are some of the downsides to doing this?
keithwarren|5 years ago
late_groomer|5 years ago
Does this not qualify as a protective effect?
alz|5 years ago
cellularmitosis|5 years ago
Cro_on|5 years ago
From being a Roman cure for epileptic seizures, through the integral practice in most religions, and to the 21st century where we start to prove that it increases both healthspan and lifespan.
I find it quite interesting that something so simple, which practically anybody can do, can have such a positive effect on one's life. You are literally healing and regenerating yourself by doing nothing! And instead of compounding medical bills you actually save money!
Thank you modern science for validating my no longer fringe medical beliefs :)
zhynn|5 years ago
mmhsieh|5 years ago
hazz99|5 years ago
rlv-dan|5 years ago
agumonkey|5 years ago
Also it would be weird to see people in those days, allegedly not having access to the cornucopia of yummy food we have in 2020, going into fasting. Maybe more diseases on average made them realize that the less fed survived better ?
nemo44x|5 years ago
Of course there are limits but when done right you end up with a plant that on average is stronger.
bad_user|5 years ago
"Autophagy", that famous process which supposedly happens during fasting, that miraculously regenerates us, actually happens during caloric restriction, and it's actually a daily process that happens during the night, in everyone, while glycogen stores get naturally depleted.
And we have no evidence that increased autophagy levels are beneficial, quite the contrary, we have some evidence that, right after fasting, the immune system is suppressed. The bigger the caloric restriction, the larger effect on refeeding. An effect very relevant for malnourished populations that suddenly get access to food.
This is basically modern quackery, medical technobabble lacking any evidence other than obscure studies done on mice.
What "healers" and witches used to do, but taken to the next level.
And unfortunately it is also a recipe for serious eating disorders. Hello anorexia.
caymanjim|5 years ago
I had cancer (lymphoma) and did three years of chemo (mostly maintenance/preventative, as it was wiped out in the first couple months). I actually gained an enormous amount of weight, because the steroids I was on (and all the weed I smoked) made me ravenously hungry. If I end up in that situation again, I'm going to make a concerted effort to dramatically reduce my calorie intake, and in particularly carbs, because I've read a lot about the potential benefits of starving the cancer out.
agumonkey|5 years ago
C1sc0cat|5 years ago
eperfa|5 years ago
https://l-nutra.com/pages/fasting-mimicking-diet
If I understand correctly this is a low-calorie diet, which is easier to follow than a strict water-only diet, but they claim it is equally effective. They recommend it also for healthy individuals, 5 days a month. Does anyone have experience with it?
wtetzner|5 years ago
BillyTheKing|5 years ago
Anyway, so after I switched my diet I decided to give his FMD a go and was pleasantly surprised - it's pretty tough, the second and third day were the worst for me, I was just incredibly hungry (and honestly speaking I did'n really achieve any mental clarity during those days), just went on a ton of walks. But I felt I gained a lot of mental strength following that experience, it was easier for me change eating or drinking habits simply because this exercise of control over your most basic need really provides you with a boost of confidence.
You obviously also lose a lot of weight (around 4kg per week) and I've lost even more since then, maybe 20kg since the beginning of the year (though that's a combination of sport, this pescatarian Mediterranean diet, but probably also those 2 fasting sessions). I plan on doing it again, though I want to try out 'real' water fasting next time. I think this is a great starting-point into fasting, though.
batushka3|5 years ago
blithedale|5 years ago
Almost no one reads these papers when stuff like this gets posted on HN.
And there is shameful statistical fuckery afoot in this paper. People are only repeating the hype statistics at the top of the paper.
Their "pathological response" rates touted at the top of paper only come from the 1/3 of women able to actually carry out the diet. This is the "per-protocol" language in the abstract. An honest evaluation here would be "intention to treat" and analyze chemo responses in every assigned to each arm.
And they do that evaulation, but bury it later in their paper. Turns out when you account for the 2/3 of women who can't do that fasting, there's NO DIFFERENCE in response rate:
Argh...blithedale|5 years ago
But hold on. Slow down. There's a good chance the "women who fasted had better chemo responses" story completely REVERSES cause and effect. Here's how:
So ask yourself: Which women is more likely to be able to follow a strictly regimented diet?Clearly WOMEN 1.
markus92|5 years ago
CamelCaseName|5 years ago
In the study they say "FMD" or "Fasting mimicking diet", in particular, Xentigen (ProLon?), which is sold by L-Nutra. These are "healthy plant-based meals". [0]
[0] https://l-nutra.com/pages/prolon-nutritional-information
projektfu|5 years ago
jungletime|5 years ago
Perhaps, completely changing one's environment. Example going from a city to live in a forrest, might also trigger different genetic pathways, and awaken the immune system.
Many narrative stories have this pattern of someone getting sick and retreating, going into nature, in pursuit of fresh air or sunshine.
lawlorino|5 years ago
kyle_morris_|5 years ago
Try eating breakfast at 10 am instead of 8(let’s say) for a couple of weeks.
Then see if you can hold off until noon without going to bed later.
If you can eat between the window of noon and 8PM you’re effectively on a 16/8 diet.
After you’re comfortable, try eating no later than 6PM, then try 4PM. Before you know it you’re on a 20/4 schedule.
dcolkitt|5 years ago
At least in my experience, the sense of hunger is extremely tuned to one's internal clock. The body seems to absolutely know at what time of day it expects to eat. If I go a long time and never eat before 6 PM, I won't feel even a tinge of hunger until the evening. If I go on vacation, and eat lunch for a week, then the next day I'm ravenous by 12 PM.
The hardest thing about fasting is the transition. Once you've got a pattern, your body seems to pretty much just adjust and it becomes just as normal and effortless as eating breakfast, lunch and dinner. I say that because a lot of people try out fasting for a few days, suffer enormously and decide that the juice isn't worth the squeeze. Whereas I think if you get over the transition hump, most will find it's not nearly as bad as it seems to be when you first start out.
One technique that I think makes for a smooth transition is a modified version of partial fasting. To start, instead of completely abstaining during the fast window, restrict yourself to vegetables and berries. Don't touch the higher caloric density foods like meats, dairy, and starches inside the fast window. Truth be told, this probably isn't that bad a diet just to stay on forever, because it ups vegetable consumption so much. But if your goal is full fasting, it's a good way to make a full transition. Your body's internal clock starts getting used to much lower calories consumption in the fast window, but you don't have to feel like you're starving.
wincy|5 years ago
For me at least I go into fasting by first skipping breakfast for a few days, then skipping breakfast and lunch. Skipping dinner is mostly a mental hurdle because there’s so much psychological signaling that you should eat at dinner time and don’t really know what else to do with yourself. Going to bed without eating in a day feels weird at first.
I also make sure to get lots of electrolytes during all of this, magnesium glycinate and lite salt seem to do the trick. Otherwise I start to get shaky and have bad headaches.
wtetzner|5 years ago
Make sure that you get plenty of water and electrolytes.
Also, if 24 hours is too much, you can try intermittent fasting, and do 16 to 20 hour fasts.
0-_-0|5 years ago
PoachedSausage|5 years ago
jcims|5 years ago
jdhn|5 years ago
blueterminal|5 years ago
Yizahi|5 years ago
inglor_cz|5 years ago
If you can persuade the normal healthy cells to hunker down and stop dividing for a while, the killing effect of the drugs will concentrate on the cancerous cells alone. This is what fasting is expected to achieve. It is not alone in this regard, anything that inhibits mTOR (e.g. rapamycin) should in theory have similar effect.
projektfu|5 years ago
tyingq|5 years ago
kevinmchugh|5 years ago
How could we know if this was survivorship bias? What if the folks who can best comply with the calorie restrictions are those who are already in a good state?
luxurytent|5 years ago
valar_m|5 years ago
I am doing 18:6, so I generally eat from 12pm to 6pm. During that time I typically eat two meals, and one or two small snacks. I try to eat pretty healthy, but there have been plenty of times in the past 5 weeks when I've just pigged out at Waffle House. I still have lost significant weight.
I have two major recommendations: first, drink tons of water. I try to drink about 16oz of water every hour. Besides hydration, it helps a lot with hunger. You will get hungry at times. For me it isn't every day - some days it's easy to stay on track. Others, it's tough. When you're feeling hungry, chug water. It really helps. (tip: try sparkling water to change things up if you get sick of regular flat water).
Second, I recommend using an app to track your fasting. Mine was free and tracks your start and end times for fasting and tells you how long until your fasting period is over. It also lets you track your weight, and even water drinking progress if you want.
Last thing - the hardest day of fasting, by far, is the very first day. After that, it will get easier.
ETA another tip: If you're doing it for weight loss, don't weigh yourself every day. Your weight will fluctuate a pound or two from one day to the next, and even throughout the day. It can be demoralizing to fast for a day and then the scales tell you that you're up a pound. Instead, weigh yourself maybe twice a week, and always near the end of your fasting period.
samhh|5 years ago
ideals|5 years ago
nabla9|5 years ago
wombatmobile|5 years ago
-- Longo and Mattson
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/
resoluteteeth|5 years ago
throw5543245|5 years ago
Is this autophagy?
In this interview with Dr. Eileen White, Chief Scientific Officer at the Rutgers Cancer Institute, she mentions that certain types of cancer cells can actually use the effects of autophagy to survive.
https://peterattiamd.com/eileenwhite/
voisin|5 years ago
[0] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/23496164
givan|5 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1b08X-GvRs
perl4ever|5 years ago
It's really unfortunate people use overloaded acronyms like this without a definition.
mensetmanusman|5 years ago
With almost half of America now obese, we are seeing the downside of ignoring good diet as COVID devastates those suffering from obesity and diabetes.
valuearb|5 years ago
maerF0x0|5 years ago
Ignore below...
Wasn't the whole impetus for getting "medicinal" marijuana for the snacking? Seems like someone is talking out both sides of their mouth.
Nonetheless glad to see additional evidence for fasting's multiple benefits.
bitdizzy|5 years ago
wdroz|5 years ago
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
vmchale|5 years ago
scott31|5 years ago
Does it mean more deaths or less?
unknown|5 years ago
[deleted]
temptemptemp111|5 years ago
[deleted]
chipaca|5 years ago
markus92|5 years ago
gwd|5 years ago
eperfa|5 years ago
feralimal|5 years ago
0-_-0|5 years ago
feralimal|5 years ago
abledon|5 years ago
ramblerman|5 years ago
Not here is some Deepak Chopra figure to explain it to you in voodoo