> protein pacing diet for the remaining five/six days/week (Protein pacing refers to 4–6 meals/day evenly-spaced, where each meal contains 25–40g of protein)
> During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for women and men, respectively, and a macronutrient distribution consisting of 35% protein, 35% carbohydrate, and 30% fat.
That's somehow more calories/day than I would expect for a "fasting day", and fairly restrictive over-all. I'd be curious to hear how these compare to someone on the 1350/1700 kcal/day diet 7 days a week.
> Extending beyond 4-weeks reduces compliance and may be overly excessive for a caloric restriction and 2 day IF and create undue metabolic, physiologic, hormonal, and psychological stress in the study participants.
Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial. Does it do much good if you drop more but it bounces back?
> Isagenix International, LLC (Gilbert, AZ, USA) provided all meal replacement shakes, bars, beverages, and supplements.
> Whole Blend IsaLean® Shakes, Cleanse for Life®, Ionix® Supreme, Collagen Bone Broth, AMPED™ Hydrate, Harvest/Whey Thins™, IsaDelight® Chocolates,
> This study was supported by a grant (IRB#: 1911–859) from Isagenix International, LLC
> P.J.A. (the primary author) is a member of the scientific advisory board at Isagenix International LLC, the study’s sponsor. E.G. and A.E.M. are employed by Isagenix International LLC.
Assuming 2000 kcal/day is the normal amount blah blah blah.
For men, they are running a 300 kcal deficit for 5 days and 1500 kcal deficit for the other two. For a total of 4500 kcal per week. Or losing about a pound and a half.
Now, seeing as this is for overweight people, it's likely to be even more. As it takes more calories per day to maintain higher weights. So if the person's maintenance is about 3000 kcal/day, that's going to be a deficit of roughly 11,500 kcal per week. Which is close to 4 pounds.
But then again, restricting yourself to just 2000 kcal/day would have you lose about a pound and a half per week.
Because, when you are very overweight, lots of things work.
Study is definitely suspect, but if 400-500 kcal allowed for the benefits of fasting that would be really useful information for some. I have to eat some food for medication in the morning, and have always presumed that made fasting not a viable strategy for me.
> Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial.
This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters.
If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan.
Having water fasted many times, I swear this has something to do with burning all the stored glycogen. I have no backing other than what I’ve experienced myself. I get really hungry for a week after a fast and continue to lose weight or stay the same. Anecdotally, I’ve chalked this up to as long as your glycogen bank isn’t full, you can pretty much eat whatever you want. Water fasting is glorious btw.
To add some numbers - your liver and muscles store about 500g or 2000 calories of glycogen. Each gram of stored glycogen is bound to 4 grams of water, for a total of roughly 2.5kg / 5lbs of weight.
When you eat in a calorie surplus, your glycogen stores are full. When you eat in a sustained deficit, you operate with very low glycogen stores.
This is why when you start a diet you often immediately lose 5 pounds in the first few days.
This is also why when you are dieting and have a huge cheat meal, you "gain 5 pounds" and then lose it again immediately upon resuming your diet. It's mostly retained water since your body converts the giant influx of calories into glycogen then burns it off over the next several days.
For anyone considering zero-calorie fasting for more than 1 day, please read up on it first. Pay special attention to the need for salt. You need to start every day of the fast with a glass of saltwater, on the order of 3 teaspoons of salt. If you take hot baths, you will perspire and need more salt. Take a glass of saltwater to the tub with you. Because if you sweat in the tub there is a good chance walking to the kitchen will be a panic-inducing challenge. Also, it is best to do extended fasts, at least after day 3, on vacation/holiday. You may not feel like doing much.
Could you elaborate a little about your regimen? Each time I attempted water fasting, the next day I was basically famished ( and needless to say, any progress made was lost ).
> During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for women and men, respectively
That seems like the first claim is just untrue and the 2-day-fasters are consuming fewer calories overall? If all the non-fasting days are the same for both groups like this says, then the 2-day-fasting men are consuming 1100 fewer calories per week (and 750 fewer for women). Even if intermittent fasting did nothing at all, I would expect that extra calorie deficit to result in more weight loss.
A proper methodology would be to have all 3 groups consume the same 7-day baseline diet for 2 weeks, then switch into the IF groups and monitor increases in rate-of-change for body weight vs net body weight difference before/after. There should also be similar caloric input for all groups before and after program to see if there is actually an additional benefit to intermittent fasting vs caloric input reduction.
They use the term "eating freely" which to me would imply the option to consume nothing but popcorn and McDonalds. Or at least the option to eat as many calories as desired.
To have a caloric restriction below 2000 per day is a restricted diet to me - not that that's bad.
The reason why intermittent fasting works is that it is associated with increased oxidation of fatty acids (lipolysis) and ketone body formation (ketogenesis), activated cell-signaling pathways (insulin sensitivity, reduced inflammation, autophagy), and preservation of lean body mass, known as “metabolic switching”.
The interesting fact however is that typically, these mechanisms are not fully activated until at least 24 hours of fasting.
Well, this sounds to me like they know it has an effect but they don't actually know the full story on why it works.
One should note that the participants (N=20) were divided into two groups with the respective regimens, and put on a controlled calorie diet for the rest of the time. Evaluation was after four weeks.
This study tells us very little. Small sample size, constrained diets without a proper control (protein pacing without IF, or no restriction at all), short evaluation horizon.
There could be something to it, but as they say, that requires a lot of further study. In itself this study provides a hint, certainly nothing close to an authoratative conclusion.
If someone can make it so it doesn't feel like I can no longer think or move any muscles or start sweating if I go more than about 3 hours without eating, then I'm on board! Also hunger pangs. Please no.
This is the first of these kind of articles I see in a long time that actually has a tangible number for "calories allowed on a 'fasting' day", my main point usually being: does the milk in my coffee count against the fasting, or something like diet coke.
No, I really don't want to start a discussion on this - I just find it funny that most of them seem to imply fasting as 0.0 calories per day, without explicitly mentioning it. And then the discussion about the coffee follows...
I found that OMAD (one meal a day) works well for me. I've been consistently losing 1-2kg per month on it, and it's something I feel I could sustain forever.
As someone that intermittently fasts everyday, I don’t think weight loss has anything to do with the actual fasting, I think it just helps you control when you eat and helps you meet a caloric deficit. I do enjoy the clarity of mind that I feel when I don’t eat for 16-18 hours though.
I am current eating around that, and I am by no means a bodybuilder. I shoot for between 150 to 160 grams of protein per day.
There's new discussion these days that western diets are woefully under consuming protein. Based on my own anecdotal evidence this year, I would certainly agree.
Minimum for normal people should be 0.8*kg/day and muscle building gains top out at around 1.6*kg/day. If these people are fat then just 1.0*kg/day could be 125g/day.
Interestingly fasting which induces ketosis, has been shown to reduce cyst growth in rats with Polycistic Kidney Disease (PKD). A human trial is ongoing.
I tried fasting as well. Every Sunday I would limit myself to about 400cals. I was miserable and mean. It wasn't a good strategy for me.
I'm having a lot more success with a changed way of life, but to do that I also needed the support of those around me. In particular I needed to get my wife on board to help me make better food choices and to have healthy choices at dinner time. She has been incredible and very supportive. Once that shifted into place all the pieces came together. What's interesting is that I almost needed all of them in place to really start seeing the changes I wanted.
What worked for me:
I try and walk at least 30 mins everyday.
I track my activity using an apple watch.
I track what I eat since I don't really know the macronutrients in foods or the calories (lose it app, paid subscription). Before I would just eat until I felt full. What's really interesting is that eating more of the right things I feel just as full but it's many fewer calories and a much better macronutrient breakdown.
I try and get a lot more protein in my diet.
I try and drink at least 3L of water, I think this helps me to not feel hungry as well.
I've been at this for just about 2 months now and I feel and look much better than I have in a long time. I really think that these changes are ones that I can stick with for the rest of my life.
Submitted title was "IF 2 days vs. 1 day/week increases weight loss in overweight m/f" but I think we can just use a prefix of the article title. I've changed it to that now.
daviross|3 years ago
> During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for women and men, respectively, and a macronutrient distribution consisting of 35% protein, 35% carbohydrate, and 30% fat.
That's somehow more calories/day than I would expect for a "fasting day", and fairly restrictive over-all. I'd be curious to hear how these compare to someone on the 1350/1700 kcal/day diet 7 days a week.
> Extending beyond 4-weeks reduces compliance and may be overly excessive for a caloric restriction and 2 day IF and create undue metabolic, physiologic, hormonal, and psychological stress in the study participants.
Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial. Does it do much good if you drop more but it bounces back?
> Isagenix International, LLC (Gilbert, AZ, USA) provided all meal replacement shakes, bars, beverages, and supplements.
> Whole Blend IsaLean® Shakes, Cleanse for Life®, Ionix® Supreme, Collagen Bone Broth, AMPED™ Hydrate, Harvest/Whey Thins™, IsaDelight® Chocolates,
> This study was supported by a grant (IRB#: 1911–859) from Isagenix International, LLC
> P.J.A. (the primary author) is a member of the scientific advisory board at Isagenix International LLC, the study’s sponsor. E.G. and A.E.M. are employed by Isagenix International LLC.
Ok, that reads as very suspect, now.
bena|3 years ago
For men, they are running a 300 kcal deficit for 5 days and 1500 kcal deficit for the other two. For a total of 4500 kcal per week. Or losing about a pound and a half.
Now, seeing as this is for overweight people, it's likely to be even more. As it takes more calories per day to maintain higher weights. So if the person's maintenance is about 3000 kcal/day, that's going to be a deficit of roughly 11,500 kcal per week. Which is close to 4 pounds.
But then again, restricting yourself to just 2000 kcal/day would have you lose about a pound and a half per week.
Because, when you are very overweight, lots of things work.
NineStarPoint|3 years ago
saargrin|3 years ago
stormbrew|3 years ago
This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters.
If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan.
And then you gain it back.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
chasebank|3 years ago
cecilpl2|3 years ago
When you eat in a calorie surplus, your glycogen stores are full. When you eat in a sustained deficit, you operate with very low glycogen stores.
This is why when you start a diet you often immediately lose 5 pounds in the first few days.
This is also why when you are dieting and have a huge cheat meal, you "gain 5 pounds" and then lose it again immediately upon resuming your diet. It's mostly retained water since your body converts the giant influx of calories into glycogen then burns it off over the next several days.
klausnrooster|3 years ago
A4ET8a8uTh0|3 years ago
blastro|3 years ago
bhaney|3 years ago
> During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for women and men, respectively
That seems like the first claim is just untrue and the 2-day-fasters are consuming fewer calories overall? If all the non-fasting days are the same for both groups like this says, then the 2-day-fasting men are consuming 1100 fewer calories per week (and 750 fewer for women). Even if intermittent fasting did nothing at all, I would expect that extra calorie deficit to result in more weight loss.
tgtweak|3 years ago
I think that the logic of giving even less to those fasting is pretty obvious that it would lead to more weight loss.
You can read the full study here, but it seems to confirm a caloric defecit on the IF2 and IF group vs control.
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s1293...
...
IF1-P, 9058±692 kcals/week vs.
IF2-P, 8389±438 kcals/week
A proper methodology would be to have all 3 groups consume the same 7-day baseline diet for 2 weeks, then switch into the IF groups and monitor increases in rate-of-change for body weight vs net body weight difference before/after. There should also be similar caloric input for all groups before and after program to see if there is actually an additional benefit to intermittent fasting vs caloric input reduction.
sschueller|3 years ago
unethical_ban|3 years ago
To have a caloric restriction below 2000 per day is a restricted diet to me - not that that's bad.
ravedave5|3 years ago
_tom_|3 years ago
I'm literally twice the size of my friend, at the same BMI (more than a foot taller). So should I be eating 3400? Or should they be eating 850?
DoreenMichele|3 years ago
The interesting fact however is that typically, these mechanisms are not fully activated until at least 24 hours of fasting.
Well, this sounds to me like they know it has an effect but they don't actually know the full story on why it works.
WithinReason|3 years ago
qsi|3 years ago
This study tells us very little. Small sample size, constrained diets without a proper control (protein pacing without IF, or no restriction at all), short evaluation horizon.
There could be something to it, but as they say, that requires a lot of further study. In itself this study provides a hint, certainly nothing close to an authoratative conclusion.
icegreentea2|3 years ago
N=10 in each group, and the IF-2 day group has a single clear outlier (someone who is obviously larger than everyone else).
davman|3 years ago
fredrikholm|3 years ago
If so, it might be a good idea to go and check your blood sugar.
wink|3 years ago
No, I really don't want to start a discussion on this - I just find it funny that most of them seem to imply fasting as 0.0 calories per day, without explicitly mentioning it. And then the discussion about the coffee follows...
shaicoleman|3 years ago
playingalong|3 years ago
sudden_dystopia|3 years ago
leereeves|3 years ago
That's a lot of protein, comparable to the amount that bodybuilders consume. Does fasting increase protein requirements?
lbotos|3 years ago
"Low Carb" for 2200 Cals a day : Carbs:138g Protein:248g Fat:73g
Via: https://musclewiki.com/Macro_calculator
I think most of the modern world is actually not getting enough protein.
Every single person I talk to when I help coach them on macros we find out they are not getting near enough protein. (Myself Included)
rumblestrut|3 years ago
There's new discussion these days that western diets are woefully under consuming protein. Based on my own anecdotal evidence this year, I would certainly agree.
hackerlight|3 years ago
anonuser123456|3 years ago
My understanding is no, the body conserves protein during fasting conditions.
deanc|3 years ago
martin_a|3 years ago
> a group of 20 participants
That is unscientific and the results are anecdotal at best.
m3kw9|3 years ago
edmcnulty101|3 years ago
I'll just be fat.
ishjoh|3 years ago
I'm having a lot more success with a changed way of life, but to do that I also needed the support of those around me. In particular I needed to get my wife on board to help me make better food choices and to have healthy choices at dinner time. She has been incredible and very supportive. Once that shifted into place all the pieces came together. What's interesting is that I almost needed all of them in place to really start seeing the changes I wanted.
What worked for me:
I try and walk at least 30 mins everyday.
I track my activity using an apple watch.
I track what I eat since I don't really know the macronutrients in foods or the calories (lose it app, paid subscription). Before I would just eat until I felt full. What's really interesting is that eating more of the right things I feel just as full but it's many fewer calories and a much better macronutrient breakdown.
I try and get a lot more protein in my diet.
I try and drink at least 3L of water, I think this helps me to not feel hungry as well.
I've been at this for just about 2 months now and I feel and look much better than I have in a long time. I really think that these changes are ones that I can stick with for the rest of my life.
OJFord|3 years ago
(It looks like shouty 'if' at the moment, and then 1/2 days/week what?)
dang|3 years ago
Submitted title was "IF 2 days vs. 1 day/week increases weight loss in overweight m/f" but I think we can just use a prefix of the article title. I've changed it to that now.
unknown|3 years ago
[deleted]
hgazx|3 years ago
Judderman|3 years ago
[deleted]
ramesh31|3 years ago