Intermittent Fasting

Hi guys

Just thought I kick off a topic on Intermittent Fasting...

I have been trying it out for the past two weeks and I must admit that it does wonders...

Despite worries about gastric issues or "lack of energy", I must say that these concerns were overwrought and unfounded...

To the contrary, I feel slightly more alert and I did not notice any dip in my energy levels (still can swim, workout etc) i.e. go about my usual routine as per normal...

In addition, I found that these fasts of between 12 and 18 hours to be quite addictive...hahah

Anyway, I will post more articles on this topic and in the meantime, please feel free to share your own experiences plus any tips on helping others to embark on these intermittent fasts

X, I'm now on the "Warrior Diet" one meal a day, 24hrs between. Can't workout as intensive as before, then again, I don't really care,
as long as I drop more weight, which I'am, my pants are already very loose, no belt will drop and 3rd time I'm changing pant size.
Even my belt, is on the very last hole and I need to put out more holds, use to be left 3-4 holes.

I am still doing more intermittent than on a strict one-meal-a-day routine

But it really does work especially after I plateaued at a constant weight for a while...hahah

As I am typing this, I have not eaten for 20 hours and still going strong...

So by the time I take my dinner later, it will be a complete 24 hour fast as well

And as always, what we do are backed by science...heheh

http://www.leangains.com/2011/01/better-blood-glucose-with-lower-meal.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Leangains+%28Leangains%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

by noreply@blogger.com (Martin Berkhan)

A new study called "Effect of meal frequency on glucose and insulin excursions over the course of a day" questions the all too popular recommendation of eating every so often to keep blood sugar in check. It actually shows that such advice can be counterproductive, as high meal frequency leads to higher blood sugar levels compared to low meal frequency.

Yes, that's right - eating every 2-3rd hour to manage blood sugar is nonsense and a myth that's just about to die.


The World is Upside Down


It's funny how mainstream health advice in regards to diet and meal frequency gets turned upside down by new and more accurate research. In 2010 we learned that three meals is better for appetite control.

We also saw more hard evidence for the fact that a higher meal frequency does not "stoke your metabolism" or lead to better fat loss. Fortunately, some mainstream media outlets are starting to wake up and has enough sense to inform people - as we saw when New York Times debunked the myth about meal frequency and fat loss. Sad thing is that they're more than a decade late. That's OK though. Hell, even I was late to finding out but I've been talking about this nonsense since 2005.

We also saw New York Times cover the benefits of fasted training. Again, the NYT is late to the party - I summarized that study back in September.

(Furthermore, I've been training fasted, and have been using fasted training as part of diet regimens for myself and my clients since around 2006. Check out the "Fasted Training"-tag.)

We should be thankful that a big and influential magazine like NYT is relaying this information to its large audience. Indeed, as far as mainstream media outlets go you can say that they're "on the cutting edge" as far as new diet research is concerned. (...But if you want to stay on the true cutting edge, you better have Leangains bookmarked )

I remember way back in the days when I first started talking and writing about meal frequency, fasting and fasted training on blogs and forums. Everyone thought I was crazy. Guess who's laughing now. But I digress; back to the topic.


The Meal Frequency Myth


As you have probably heard and read many times over - in the form of weight loss advices given by health enthusiasts and dietitians alike - eating small meals every second to third hour is supposed to keep your blood sugar in check. That's on top of other benefits that include boosting metabolism, improving appetite control, preventing muscle catabolism, and so forth.

If you are a regular reader of this site, you know that this is utter nonsense - and even in complete opposition to what actually happens. I thoroughly debunked these myths in "Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked" (a must read if you haven't read it yet).


Blood Glucose and Health


Maintaining blood sugar within a healthy range is important, as higher blood sugar levels may predispose people to insulin resistance and glucose intolerance. That's on top of other diseases such as atherosclerosis and Alzheimer's. Furthermore, it as long been hypothesized that high blood sugar (blood glucose) may accelerate the aging process.

It should be noted that the aging-hypothesis, and the link between blood glucose and Alzherimer's, is based on animal and cell culture studies. As you can understand, it would be hard to establish a definite link between blood glucose, aging and other diseases in free-living humans.

That said, it is not far-fetched to assume that our bodies hasn't adapted to the modern diet with its high calorie intakes and highly refined carb sources. The abundance of junk food and highly concentrated carb sources provides endless opportunities for spiking blood glucose to heights that we are ill equipped to deal with. That there will be a backlash for those who continuously maintain higher blood glucose may not be a wild theory.

In summary, maintaining blood sugar within a healthy range is very important - especially for individuals with poor glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity ("prediabetes"). However, it might also be of interest for just about anyone who wants to live a longer and disease-free life.


Blood Glucose and Meal Frequency


While debunking myths about meal frequency and metabolism is easy, the scientific literature on meal frequency and blood glucose (BG) is harder to explore and reach a conclusion on. For one thing, there is the issue of taking blood samples at the right time point in order to make a fair assessment on the result.

Let's say we want to track average BG levels during a day of either 3 or 6 meals. We split meals equally in terms of calories (i.e. 3 x 800 kcal vs 6 x 400 kcal) and measure BG at various time points. The first time point is one hour after the first meal. Needless to say, the first reading is going to show a higher value after the 800-kcal meal (3-meal group).

On the other hand, the 3-meal group will have a lower BG reading in the third and fourth hour of the experiment - just as the 6-meal group is eating or finishing the second meal.

The above is an example but illustrates the problem. Proper timing of sampling is a huge confounder - and this has been handled poorly in earlier studies on meal frequency, BG, and insulin. In order to make a fair assessment of the results, researchers need perfect timing in relation to meals or draw several blood samples throughout the day. Otherwise, the results will be highly misleading.

Another monumental confounder have been that of using different nutrient compositions of meals. Not standardizing calorie and macronutrient composition in the above mentioned context makes any conclusion drawn from results worthless. Each nutrient has an independent effect on BG and insulin. Carbs raise BG and insulin the most, protein much less so, and fat the least.






Feast your eyes upon this beauty. I ate a lot of cheesecake this Christmas. The events that transpired will not go unnoticed and I shall tell you more about it soon. Keep in mind that I don't recommend this practice for optimal blood glucose control. (You might wonder what a picture of a cheesecake slice is doing in the middle of a diet study review. First of all, your brain needed a break from the science-talk. Second of all, cheesecake is a hell of a lot better than lame graphs, a bodybuilder holding a dumbbell, or some chick doing yoga.)


The New Study: Greater Accuracy


The new study seeks to improve on the lacking methodology used in past studies. From the paper:


In contrast to previous research, this study used frequent blood sampling to track glucose and insulin concentrations to three and six subsequent nutrient ingestions.

OK, so let's look at how the study was conducted, what the results showed, and what we can take away from it all.


Method


The participants arrived to the laboratory fasted, after which baseline blood samples were taken. On three separate occasion, each participant was then fed the following 1500-kcal diets:

6 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 250 kcal x 6.
3 CHO: 65% carbs, 15% protein, 20% fat, split 500 kcal x 3.
3 PRO: 35% carbs, 45% protein, 20% fat, split 500 kcal x 3.

Meals were taken in the form of liquids; carbs in the form of sucrose and corn syrup, protein in the form of soy protein. Fat came with the protein supplement. Certainly not "ideal" but liquid meals are standard in these types of experiments.

Meals were eaten every second hour starting at 7 A.M. for the 6-meal groups (6 CHO and 6 PRO) and every fourth hour starting at 7 A.M. for the 3-meal experiment. Blood samples were drawn every 15th minute during the study period (7 A.M. - 7 P.M). The results were added together and values for BG and insulin were then calculated to establish averages for each diet.


Results


Baseline (fasted) glucose and insulin values were similar across the three study days. Let's look at the average BG values for each diet-experiment.



6 CHO: 710.0 +-251.0 mmol/L*min
3 CHO: 522.7 +-99.3 mmol/L*min
3 PRO: 442 +- 121.0 mmol/L*min


The 6 CHO-experiment exhibited significantly higher BG values than the other groups. Despite identical carb and calorie-intakes, those who ate 6 meals had 30% higher blood sugar values than those who ate 3 meals. That's a rather striking difference considering the energy- and nutrient-matched condition.

The difference between 6 CHO compared to the high-protein experiment (3 PRO) was even more pronounced (60% higher), but this is not so strange considering the effect of protein on BG.


Insulin values were not significantly different between the CHO-groups and the PRO-group had the lowest values; again, this is not unexpected given that carbs are more insulinogenic than protein.




Summary


The authors of the paper sums up the results:


The present study is one of the first to investigate glucose and insulin excursions in response to altered meal frequency and macronutrient composition in healthy young adults over a 12 h period. Our primary finding is that consumption of 6 frequent meals in 12 h resulted in higher blood glucose levels over the course of the day than the consumption of 3 meals, although there was no difference in the insulin response between these two conditions.

The implication here is that it seems insulin was able to do its job better, that of lowering blood sugar, with less meals.


There has been considerable promotion both by the medical community and the lay press to consume 6 meals per day for weight loss or for glycemic control but our data indicate that the glucose AUC is 30% higher over the course of the day with a frequent high carbohydrate feeding than when consuming 3 meals per day.

This is just a nice way to say that mainstream diet advice is a bunch of bullshit.


This could potentially have profound implications for individuals with glucose intolerance or those with type 2 diabetes, and should be studied further in this population.

Not only is it bullshit, but it might even be counterproductive for some individuals.


My Thoughts


A few remarks from my point of view:

1. The subjects were lean, healthy and young; 18-35 year old males and females with an average of 12% and 30% body fat respectively. Thus they were metabolically healthy and representative of the health conscious crowd. If they saw a negative effect of high-frequent feedings, one can speculate about what someone in worse metabolic condition, i.e. poor glucose tolerance or insulin resistance, might experience.

2. Ironically, eating six meals a day is pretty much the norm among the fitness crowd - partly due to the belief that it will help be beneficial for blood sugar control...when it does the exact opposite.


3. While the study design was excellent, it can be argued that the sample size was fairly small (8 subjects). This makes the results less definitive than if the sample size were larger. However, this is still a larger sample size than some studies that have been cited when questionable claims of benefits of high meal frequency has been brought up (e.g, this widely cited study by Speechly, et al which used 7 subjects). Furthermore, a sample size of 7-10 subjects are quite typical in these kinds of studies.

4. There was considerable variance in the average BG values of subjects in response to the 6 CHO-diet; a whopping +-251 mmol/l*min compared to the +-99 mmol/l*min for the 3 CHO-diet. The implication of this is that it seems some subjects handled 6 meals very poorly while everyone handled 3 meals well, relatively speaking.

5. It's unfortunate that the researchers did not compare the effects of six high-protein meals compared to three high-protein meals. However, I'd be surprised if the results of such an experiment would differ much from those of the 6 CHO vs 3 CHO-experiments.

It seems like another myth is about to go to the grave; that of frequent feedings and blood sugar control.


Fake Diet Gurus


Take heed of "diet gurus" and "health experts" who claims that a high meal frequency is best for health, metabolism or fat loss. The advice has always been questionable from a physiological point of view, but the truths have remained hidden and obscured to the public. Buried in academic papers that are unavailable to the lay person or hard to decipher for anyone without solid understanding of the topic. (...And not the "solid understanding" displayed by the so-called experts.)

Remember, there was no incentive to talk about the meal frequency myth; but there has been, and still is, lots of monetary incentive to have people believe that smaller meals and frequent feeding is important. Supplement companies makes billions from people that gulp down protein shakes, bars and meal replacements in the false belief that it might be beneficial.

However, we've all been there, believing the myths. Eating breakfast, drinking whey shakes, watching the clock for the next meal, worrying about catabolism, etc. Given that the noise of those who have something to gain by keeping these myths alive is much higher than those who spread the right information, it's perfectly reasonable that we buy into the things we hear everyone saying. After all, it is not until fairly recently, in the last few years, that the myths has been exposed - by myself and others.

The evidence against any supposed benefits of high meal frequency is mounting up, while the evidence that speaks for a lower meal frequency is emerging. The information has been presented - it is available. Now you just can't get a free pass if you keep spinning the same bullshit about how meal frequency stokes your metabolism and all that other nonsense.

In this day and age, anyone that claims to be a health or diet expert and keeps regurgitating these myths displays the mark of incompetence. Be wary of them. They are still around and their number is legion. Confront them when you can and watch them squirm when you ask them to back their claims up with scientific evidence. Ignorance is inexcusable today if you claim to be an expert.

That's all for tonight, folks.

Good, I no longer consider it fasting for me, it's just one meal a day. I guess it would be good to alternate
between two meals and one meal a day, weekend, was all of a sudden hungry at 3pm, so whack some beef curry
I had cooked,meant for dinner, then come dinner, whack again. Feels damn good. BTW,your posting post sala, mix with discussions.
you take out and post again, this one is for discussion on fasting. Mod, wake up your idea hor!!

xtrocious wrote:I am still doing more intermittent than on a strict one-meal-a-day routine

But it really does work especially after I plateaued at a constant weight for a while...hahah

As I am typing this, I have not eaten for 20 hours and still going strong...

So by the time I take my dinner later, it will be a complete 24 hour fast as well

Oh I thought it would be good to mix it up a little so that it doesn't get stale or boring mah

Don't want to be another guy who makes statements without backing them up with hard science/studies

Anyway it's probably good to have variety cos our body (when it's working properly) is a very efficient machine

Just like training - too much of the same routine and we get less of a workout instead lol

If got people here say that, I tell you I will kick the bugger out lor. why waste time.
I don't train as much as I used to now, twice a week or max 3 times, I will train till very terok, and then rest
once I recover, which can be a few days, like 3-4 days, then I will work out again, so now, sort of flexible.

xtrocious wrote:Oh I thought it would be good to mix it up a little so that it doesn't get stale or boring mah

Don't want to be another guy who makes statements without backing them up with hard science/studies

Anyway it's probably good to have variety cos our body (when it's working properly) is a very efficient machine

Just like training - too much of the same routine and we get less of a workout instead lol

Just came back to Singapore last night and as expected, put on some fat due to the 3 meals a day + plenty of non paleo foods.

I'm going for a 48hour fast to start the year off. It's been 27 hours since I pur something chewable in my mouth.

Still feeling good!

I think when you resolve to fast for a certain period, your mind will let go of the expectations of eating food. That in turn makes you very aware of what true hunger is.

People have successfully fasted for up to a year. Common longer fasts are 1-2 weeks long. I think I'll try a one week fast some time in my life just to see the effects.

Eyh, towkey, don't tempt me leh. I now one meal a day from two. I better start practicing, 2 days 3 days then go longer.

chickenbackside wrote:Just came back to Singapore last night and as expected, put on some fat due to the 3 meals a day + plenty of non paleo foods.

I'm going for a 48hour fast to start the year off. It's been 27 hours since I pur something chewable in my mouth.

Still feeling good!

I think when you resolve to fast for a certain period, your mind will let go of the expectations of eating food. That in turn makes you very aware of what true hunger is.

People have successfully fasted for up to a year. Common longer fasts are 1-2 weeks long. I think I'll try a one week fast some time in my life just to see the effects.

wow, boss standard very leh (joking)

uncle2 wrote:wow, boss standard very leh (joking)

I think if any of us go one month fasting, have to go it on temple altar,
Cho sian let people pray to us, become saint liow.

I already suan by my friend saying I want
to cho sian and I only on low carb. if i fast
sure genna jialat-jilat one.

Speaking about fasting...

I saw a documentary about a holy man in India once - he claims he has fasted for over 60 years and his only source of nutrients was from the sun i.e. he will stand in the sun for a few hours...

http://www.4us2be.com/health-fitness/holy-man-claims-to-have-had-no-food-or-drink-for-years/

I wonder if he's human or a plant

uncle2 wrote:I already suan by my friend saying I want
to cho sian and I only on low carb. if i fast
sure genna jialat-jilat one.

I don't tell people what I do, so no one need ask further, as it's a waste of time
Explaining and people give you the one kind look, well, I've had the one kind look
From people all the time, so I do t really bother to say anything. Makan, I went from 6 meals to 4 meals then this became two and now one meal. Don't let it bother you, just say you had a heavy breakfast and that will end it all.

xtrocious wrote:Speaking about fasting...

I saw a documentary about a holy man in India once - he claims he has fasted for over 60 years and his only source of nutrients was from the sun i.e. he will stand in the sun for a few hours...

http://www.4us2be.com/health-fitness/holy-man-claims-to-have-had-no-food-or-drink-for-years/

I wonder if he's human or a plant

I ask you one question, this kind of ah neh, can believe ah? There's your answer.

Admin wrote:

xtrocious wrote:Speaking about fasting...

I saw a documentary about a holy man in India once - he claims he has fasted for over 60 years and his only source of nutrients was from the sun i.e. he will stand in the sun for a few hours...

http://www.4us2be.com/health-fitness/holy-man-claims-to-have-had-no-food-or-drink-for-years/

I wonder if he's human or a plant

I ask you one question, this kind of ah neh, can believe ah? There's your answer.

I was being PC mah...hahah

Then again, we have seen stranger things before - like eating fats to lose weight!

xtrocious wrote:

I was being PC mah...hahah

Then again, we have seen stranger things before - like eating fats to lose weight!

Oi! Careful hor, got MEDICIAL PROFESSIONAL AKA CB KIA. Say sure die one leh!,

I haven't try fasting maybe oneday will try.
But because I look skinny don't know is it
good to fast.

uncle2 wrote:I haven't try fasting maybe oneday will try.
But because I look skinny don't know is it
good to fast.

Brother, skinny or fat, fasting is good. I was on my one meal a day thing today,
On leave, so cook beef curry, then the pork lard I fry for the oil I buay tahan,
Just whack, solid lah, so now, is TWO meal liow today. Kekekekeke...

ok will try someday, I took pork lard with kopi-o
kosong with anchor butter. shoik!

uncle2 wrote:ok will try someday, I took pork lard with kopi-o
kosong with anchor butter. shoik!

Steam - sure to warm the cockles of my heart...hahah

uncle2 wrote:ok will try someday, I took pork lard with kopi-o
kosong with anchor butter. shoik!

Espresso cannot mix, sayang. But if you take pork lard pepper and sea salt, wah, heaven also.

Intermittent Fasting
Posted by Tom Naughton in Good Science

http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2011/01/10/intermittent-fasting/

I’ve been reading and hearing about the supposed benefits of intermittent fasting for some time now. Several bloggers I follow have recommended intermittent fasting, including Mark Sisson, Richard Nikoley, and Dr. Mike Eades. Richard (of the Free the Animal blog) in particular seems to have good success with IF.

I never tried it, however, for the simple reason that going 24 hours or more without eating sounded rather awful. Whenever I tried very-low calorie diets, I was usually halfway to miserable by bedtime on the first day … cranky, mentally foggy, and waaaay hungry. I remember trying to get by on Slim-Fast for breakfast and lunch, only to find my hands shaking by mid-afternoon. I would be counting the minutes until dinner, when I could eat a real meal.

Of course, I tried those low-calorie diets back when I was living primarily on carbohydrates and had conditioned myself to be a sugar-burner. Now that I’m on a low-carb diet and have conditioned my body to depend primarily on fat for fuel, I often skip breakfast anyway just because I’m not hungry yet. So when I recently listened to a podcast about intermittent fasting, it occurred to me that I could probably try a 24-hour fast now without feeling miserable.

It so happened that I slept late on Wednesday, and by the time I finished dealing with emails, DVD orders, blog comments, and a couple of phone calls with clients, it was already 2:00 p.m. My last meal had been some sliced turkey at midnight, so if I could just go without eating for another 10 hours, I’d have a 24-hour fast under my belt.

I haven’t read up on intermittent fasting nearly as much as Mike Eades or Richard Nikoley, but from what I understand, the benefits are largely hormonal. Insulin levels come down, while both glucagon and human growth hormone go up. Some body-builders claim intermittent fasting not only makes them leaner, but stronger, thanks to the human growth hormone.

So, what the heck, I decided to push on through until midnight without eating. (I did, however, start the day with my usual big cup of coffee. You don’t want to be anywhere near me if I don’t get my morning coffee.)

The biggest surprise was how easy it was. I felt a few “Feed me, Seymour!” grumbles around dinnertime, but they passed. No mental fog, no shakes, no sudden urges to beat my children. I can only assume my body was doing a good job of mobilizing fatty acids and ketones for fuel.

I considered going to bed without eating, but decided 24 hours was good enough for my first fast. I ate some turkey and a handful of almonds at midnight. (My wife, a dedicated bargain shopper, bought turkeys on sale before Christmas and froze them. I believe we’ll be having a roasted turkey once per month until the Fourth of July.)

My first fast was so painless, I decided to try a 36-hour fast next. On Saturday night, I indulged in some red wine, cheese, and two big handfuls of mixed nuts while watching “Band of Brothers” on DVD. As is often the case when I eat a late-night meal, I wasn’t hungry at all on Sunday morning. I didn’t have plans for the day other than reading and watching the football playoffs, so it seemed like a good choice for an all-day fast.

Once again, I was surprised at how painless it was. Curious as to why I didn’t have the shakes or feel light-headed, I checked my blood glucose around 6:00 PM and was surprised see it was around 95. It’s usually in the 85-90 range when I wake up in the morning. Apparently my body was adjusting with no trouble.

From an evolutionary standpoint, it all makes sense, of course. Paleolithic hunters almost certainly had to go without eating now and then, and if missing a few meals meant their hands were too shaky to toss a spear accurately, they’d miss quite a few more. We’re almost certainly well adapted to intermittent fasting, at least if what we eat day-to-day doesn’t mess up our ability to mobilize body fat for fuel when we need it. I couldn’t get by on Slim-Fast because I was an insulin-resistant sugar-burner consuming little cans of liquid sugar for meals. Not enough sugar to get me through the day, and I couldn’t release fatty acids quickly enough to make up the difference.

I went to bed after midnight and slept like a rock. I was hungry when I woke up this morning, but the feeling went away after my first big cup of black coffee. I finally began to feel really and truly hungry around noon, which was the 36-hour mark. Fortunately, my wife had saved a ribeye steak from the dinner she served the girls last night. I ate about half the steak and a cup of her delicious chili, which is light on the beans and heavy on the ground beef.

I don’t know if I’ll ultimately continue intermittent fasting once per week, twice per week, or get bored with it altogether and stop. But since it was nowhere near as difficult as I anticipated, I’ll give it a shot for now. I’ll keep you posted on the results.

Recently had a break from work, and i began to start exercising in the morning. As i usually don't eat breakfast, does that count as exercising while fasted? [since my last meal was at dinner, which means at least 12 hours without food]

Anyway, i felt more lethargic than usual. My exercise is pretty light, just a 3km run, and i used to run at night, around 10ishpm. Now i am running at about 9ish in the morning.

Anyone face the same problem as me? I feel more energetic after a good meal.

dowz wrote:Recently had a break from work, and i began to start exercising in the morning. As i usually don't eat breakfast, does that count as exercising while fasted? [since my last meal was at dinner, which means at least 12 hours without food]

Anyway, i felt more lethargic than usual. My exercise is pretty light, just a 3km run, and i used to run at night, around 10ishpm. Now i am running at about 9ish in the morning.

Anyone face the same problem as me? I feel more energetic after a good meal.

Dowz, this is normal, specially when you're working out on empty, if you stop carbs, the lethargy will wear off
after a few days and your body will be burning body fat for fuel. But yes, you are working on empty. Just remember not to
load up on shit food after. I'm now on one meal a day so that's fasting per say 24hrs or more at times, before my next meal.
working out wise, I need not do as heavy and as much as before, and I tire easily, so I will stop my workout and listen to my body.
I just came back form Malacca, and had some carbs, now back to zero carbs, I have to go thru everything again. Ok lah, sometimes
take a little break off, then shock the body again.

4kgs more to go!!!