Jump to content
Acne.org
Search In
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
running_bear

Interesting Article

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archive...way_to_bet.html

An article written about health benefits of IF. Seems like health problems are caused by constant consumption of food and the body is conditioned(through evolution) such that it is healthier to take breaks between food consumption(usually a day or 2).

It seems that the studies done on hunter-gatherer society(in new guinea) must have been affected by their lifestyle. Since they are hunter-gatherer, they might not be eating food constantly. So it might not be that they eat natural foods etc., but they don't eat every few hours.

I'll try it out anyway, seems like it has a ton of health benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archive...way_to_bet.html

An article written about health benefits of IF. Seems like health problems are caused by constant consumption of food and the body is conditioned(through evolution) such that it is healthier to take breaks between food consumption(usually a day or 2).

That doesn't convince me ... for the simple fact that studies on hunter-gatherer societies (especially when they have a diet which is as much plant products than animal products) show that even when they live on arid zones, where they have been exiled centuries ago, are pretty than good at finding enough food to thrive in an amount of time that is less than 20% of our western time spent at job

There are no shortage days in their dietary pacterns and in fact the agriculture populations of the world and the ones still based on agriculture rater than gathering suffered and suffer way more food shortare and famine. Nibbling and grazing on fruits, nuts and berries seems also to be a commong practice among healthy hunter-gatherers and primates

Althought I think that intermitted fasting may bring healthy benefits there are no evidences that hunter-gatherers or the papua new guinea populations live on intermitted fasting unless they choose so

A diet which works by a similar principles: the Warrior diet ... has been showed to be unsustainable by many and the author himself appears anything but healthy; more like emaciated and drawn

Intermitted fasting is just another form of caloric restriction and I believe that other caloric restriction patterns like fasting on just water one day per week or decreasing your average caloric intake by 20% work better

The evidence on hunter-gatherers still lead to their food choices and not eating patter (which varies a lot among them while the data about their health remains rather consistent) as the reason for their health, resistance and western diseases immunity

On the other hand there seem to be as many proof that "snacking" versus "eating meals" improves lipid profiles, glucose tolerance, decrease oxidization and help to burn more visceral fat

Not only that but eating a big meal in a sitting seems to increase post-prandial lipedia and glucose intolerance and promote sugar and hormonal inbalance

If you consider stomach capacity and how it shrinks or enlarge it seems that we're more genetically and biologically predisposed to small grazing rather than a big meal once in a while which would present many contraindications

Also since the most effective form of caloric restriction (in increasing longevity and decreasing body oxidization) is real daily caloric restriction, intermitted fasting may work against caloric restriction benefits by increasing the appetite so much on the ad libitum day to result in a caloric overconsumption that when considered as divided by day (so that 4000 calories on sunday and 0 calories on monday is considered 2000 on sunday and 2000 calories on monday) may not result in a caloric restriction at all.

On the other hand snacking, grazing and nibbling may improve satiety leading to a natural form of caloric restriction.

Consider this:

Smaller, More Frequent Meals Improve Blood Lipids

An epidemiological study found significantly lower blood concentrations of total cholesterol (TC) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) but no difference in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) in people who ate smaller, more frequent meals. Smaller, more frequent meals appear to lower LDL-C primarily by reducing cholesterol synthesis in the liver.

A controlled clinical trial compared the effects of eating the exact same diet either as 3 meals daily or by nibbling (17 snacks daily). Blood lipid and lipoprotein concentrations were measured after 2 weeks of meal eating or nibbling. TC, LDL-C, and apolipoprotein B decreased by 8.5%, 13.5%, and 15.1%, respectively. More modest changes in blood lipids were observed when subjects were fed either 3 or 9 meals daily for 3 weeks.

It seems likely that increasing meal frequency, independent of changes in body weight, will improve blood lipids and reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease in most patients. However, if snacking leads to weight gain, then it seems likely that its metabolic effects would increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

Snacking May Mimic Some of the Metabolic Effects Of Low-Glycemic Index Meals

The metabolic impact of a low-glycemic index meal and a high-glycemic index meal is quite different. In some regards, a low-glycemic index meal mimics the impact of eating smaller, more frequent meals. In both cases the rise in blood sugar and insulin output will be less when the absorption of carbohydrate is delayed. Indeed, compared to a high-glycemic index breakfast, a low-glycemic index breakfast has been shown to lower concentrations of insulin, blood sugar, free fatty acids (FFA), and triglycerides (TG) after the meal and after a subsequent standard lunch meal.

It seems likely that the improvement in glucose tolerance to a second meal following a low-glycemic index meal is due to metabolic changes that result from the delayed digestion and absorption of dietary carbohydrate. The slower absorption of carbohydrate would be expected to suppress the release of FFA from adipose tissue. An elevated plasma concentration of FFA increases glucose intolerance by impairing insulin-mediated glucose disposal and enhancing liver glucose output. A higher plasma concentration of FFA also increases the production and release of very low-density lipoprotein triglycerides (VLDL-TG) from the liver.

In the 1930s, it was demonstrated that spreading out the glucose load (the amount of glucose delivered to the bloodstream over a set period) reduced insulin requirements in diabetics. This reduced need for insulin may be due to a diminished release of counter-regulatory hormones such as glucagon and catecholamines, which is related to the prolonged suppression of FFA that occurs when glucose enters the bloodstream more slowly.

It appears that a diet consisting of a large amount of highly processed and refined high-carbohydrate foods such as breads, dry cereals, crackers, cookies, and cakes would lead to a rapid rise in blood sugar and an increased need for insulin. However, because the carbohydrate in such foods is absorbed too quickly, it can be expected that blood sugar would drop precipitously an hour or so after such a meal, which would trigger the release of glucagon and catecholamines. These hormones would increase the release of FFA from adipose tissue. Elevated FFA would then increase glucose intolerance. Consuming high-glycemic index foods in smaller, more frequent meals could diminish their metabolic insult. Alternatively, if foods with a lower glycemic index were consumed, which are digested and absorbed more slowly, there would appear to be less metabolic advantage to spreading those foods out over smaller, more frequent meals.

A recent study examined the impact of feeding an isoenergetic preload consisting of 1/3 of the subject's average daily calorie intake either as a single meal or as several small meals. This study found that obese men consumed 27% fewer calories at their next meal (which was given 5 1/2 hours after the single meal) when the same food was divided into several small meals compared to when it was consumed as a single meal. The results of this study suggest that eating smaller, more frequent meals may help people feel satisfied while consuming fewer calories.

Eating breakfast may impact snacking behavior in overweight people. Many obese people skip breakfast. However, a study that randomly assigned overweight people to various weight-loss programs showed that those who consumed breakfast lost significantly more weight over a 12-week program. This may be because those who skip breakfast tend to select more calorie-dense foods later in the day than those who regularly eat breakfast.

Another potential advantage in eating smaller, more frequent meals is that stomach capacity is likely to shrink. A study that examined the stomach capacity of people on a very-low-calorie diet for 4 weeks showed that it was reduced by 27 to 36% compared to control subjects who maintained their usual eating habits. This study suggests that people who regularly eat smaller, more frequent meals will begin to feel more satisfied with less food over time. In theory, this might be why those eating smaller, but more frequent meals tend to be thinner.

Eating until one is uncomfortably full or "stuffed" will likely increase stomach capacity over time. This could lead to the consumption of even larger meals and more metabolic stress. Consuming large, infrequent meals appears to raise blood cholesterol (mainly LDL-C) and promote insulin resistance. Larger meals increase postprandial plasma TG concentration. Higher postprandial TG levels have been associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

# Booth DA. Mechanisms from models - actual effects from real life: the zero-calorie drink-break option. Appetite 1988;11(suppl):94-102

# BBasdevant A, Craplet C, Guy-Grand B. Snacking patterns in obese French women. Appetite 1993;21:17-23

# BDrummond SE, Crombie NE, Cursiter MC, Kirk IR. Evidence that eating frequency is inversely related to body weight status in male, but not female, nonobese adults reporting valid dietary intakes. Int J Obesity 1998;22:105-12

# BFabry P, Tepperman J. Meal frequency - a possible factor in human pathology. Am J Clin Nutr 1970;23:1059-68

# BEdelstein SL,Barrett-Connor EL, Wingard DL, Cohn BA. Increased meal frequency associated with decreased cholesterol concentrations: Rancho Bernardo, CA 1984 -1987. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;55:664-9

# BJones PHJ. Regulation of cholesterol biosynthesis by diet in humans. Am J Clin Nutr 1997;66:438-46

# BJenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Vuksan V, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med 1989;321:929-34

# BArnold LM, Ball MJ, Duncan AW, Mann J. Effect of isoenergetic intake of 3 or 9 meals on plasma lipoproteins and glucose metabolism. Am J Clin Nutr 1993;57:446-51

# BLiljeberg HGM, Akerberg AKE, Bjorck IME. Effect of the glycemic index and content of indigestible carbohydrates of cereal based breakfast meals on glucose tolerance at lunch in healthy subjects. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;69:647-55

# BLiljeberg and Bjorck I. Effect of a low-glycaemic index spaghetti meal on glucose tolerance and lipaemia at a subsequent meal in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000;54:24-8

# BFraze E, Donner CC, Swislocki ALM, et al. Ambient plasma free fatty acids concentrations in noninsulin-dependent diabetes mellitus: evidence for insulin resistance. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1985;61:807-11

# BHavel RJ, Kane JP, Balesse O, et al. Splanchnic metabolism of free fatty acids and the production of triglycerides of very low density lipoproteins in normotriglyceridemic and hypertriglceridemic humans. J Clin Invest 1970;49:2017-35

# BEllis A. Increased carbohydrate tolerance in diabetes following hourly administration of glucose and insulin over long periods. Q J Med 1934;27:137-53

# BJenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Ocana AM, et al. Metabolic effects of reducing rate of glucose ingestion by single bolus continuous sipping. Diabetes 1990; 39:1339-46

# BMarmonier C, Chapelot D, Louis-Sylvestre J. Metabolic and behavioral consequences of a snack consumed in a satiety state. Am J Clin Nutr 1999;70:854-66

# BTuomistro T, Tuomistro MT, Hetherington M, Lappalainen R, Reasons for the initiation and cessation of eating in obese men and women and the affective consequences of eating in everyday situations. Appetite 1998;30:211-22

# BGarrow J. Christmas factor and snacking. Lancet 2000;355:8

# BSpeechly DP, Rogers GG, Buffenstein R. Acute appetite reduction associated with an increased frequency of eating in obese males. Int J Obesity 1999;23:1151-9

# BSchlundt DG, Hill JO, Sbrocco T, et al. The role of breakfast in the treatment of obesity: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Clin Nutr 1992;55:645-51

# BMorgan KJ, Zabik ME, Stampley GL. The role of breakfast in the diet adequacy of the U.S. adult population. J Am Coll Nutr 1986;5:551-63

# BGeliebter A, Schachter S, Lohmann-Walter C, et al. Reduced stomach capacity in obese subjects after dieting. Am J Clin Nutr 1996;63:170-3

# BMarmonier C, Chapelot, D, Fantino M, Louis-Sylvestre J. Snacks consumed in a nonhungry state have poor satiating efficiency: influence of snack composition on substrate utilization and hunger. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:518-28

# BJenkins DJA, Wolever TMS, Vuksan V, et al. Nibbling versus gorging: metabolic advantages of increased meal frequency. N Engl J Med 1989;321:929-34

# BPatsch JR, Miesenbock G, Hopferweiser T, et al. Relation of triglyceride metabolism and coronary artery disease. Studies in the postprandial state. Arterioscler Thromb 1992;12:1336-45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems that the studies done on hunter-gatherer society(in new guinea) must have been affected by their lifestyle. Since they are hunter-gatherer, they might not be eating food constantly. So it might not be that they eat natural foods etc., but they don't eat every few hours.

I'll try it out anyway, seems like it has a ton of health benefits.

On second thought I may not properly replied to this post

The point about IF is not that you must consume fewer meals but that literally every three to four day you must fast and drink just water

On a recent studies on caloric restriction it has been showed that mice would eat as often as they can and would avoid eating every four day.

My cat too has many days she doesn't want to it

Eating is the biggest stress we can put on the body, more than sport or exercising

Eating both keeps us alive but also kills us

I may be wrong but it seems to me that modern humans are the only living beings who have no fasting culture (although babies do and they instinctively and smartly reject food when sick) while all other animals do

What if the only way to make eating a "relatively safe" practice would be to instinctively fast after four days of constant feeding (because of instinctively felt effects of eating on body health, vitality ... a sort of feeling instinctively the oxidative stress accumulating and the need to "rest" ... not different from the need to sleep when tired) and we just lost this vital instinct because of cultural conditioning?

I rest by my case that IF doesn't mean eating less often, which would cause meals to be bigger and create even more oxidative stress, but it should be applied by fasting once per week or twice per week or if not fasting just eating low-calories foods in the fasting day. I'm sure such practice as studies show would have the same effect of caloric restriction

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I tell people at work that im taking a week out and im not going to eat they all say 'OMG you will die'. I think your right that fasting in any form for most westerners died out when food became freely available all year round. Detoxing releases toxins and gives the body a break and removes mucoid plaque from the bowels. A typical 40 year old westerner will have alot of toxins and junk in their body from not being able to release it naturally. Any ideas what disease the human body could create in such an environment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that if you are hungry, you should eat. And if you aren't hungry, you shouldn't eat. Problems occur when people disobey either of these principles.

And it is true, most people naturally lose their appetite when they get sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Personalized Advice Quiz - All of Acne.org in just a few minutes


×