Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Apr-29-19, 04:54
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,731
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Dr Michael Mosley: 'It's a good idea to have longer periods without food'

Quote:
From The Telegraph
London, UK
29 April, 2019

Dr Michael Mosley: 'It's a good idea to have longer periods without food'

Dr Michael Mosley is in the business of making people healthier, not upsetting them. Whether he is talking about people struggling with eating habits, or the food industry pushing unhealthy snacks, he always chooses his words carefully. But the man who revolutionised eating with the 5:2 diet is frustrated by the speed at which things change.

NHS nutritional advice tells us first about the importance of eating your five-a-day, and then it says that your meals should be mainly based on starchy foods like potatoes, bread, rice and pasta. So the NHS is telling us to keep up bodies constantly charged with carbohydrates, as if we have learnt nothing about the benefits of the intermittent fasting that was popularised by Dr Mosley.

“The NHS needs to move on, but because it’s based on consensus these things take a long time to change and that is frustrating,” he told my Healthy Beast podcast. "Having your blood sugar constantly elevated is not a good thing. Your body is constantly having to produce insulin, and this ultimately causes insulin resistance. This causes your cells to rebel and you need to pump out more and more insulin and that takes you down the road to various cancers and particularly type-2 diabetes.”

Dr Mosley speaks from personal, as well professional experience. In his mid-50s he was diagnosed as having type-2 diabetes. He had trained as a doctor and was then working as a science writer, so rather than going on medication, he decided to research non-medical solutions.

He had a telling conversation with a surgeon who performed bariatric surgery to reduce the size of obese patients’ intestines, who said: “I don’t see myself as a weight loss surgeon, I am someone who cures type-2 diabetes.” This led Dr Mosley to make the 2012 Horizon documentary Eat, Fast and Live Longer where he went to America and spoke to the leading experts on fasting.

By radically reducing his own calorie intake he lost weight and was able to reverse his diabetes. Now aged 62, his blood glucose levels remain normal. Using himself as a human guinea pig he ended up developing the 5:2 diet, where people would eat normally five days of the week, and have restricted calorie intake on the other two days of the week.

He is now back with The Fast 800, a book and online course that takes into account the latest scientific research on fasting and presents a number of diet options, including a modified version of the 5:2. The title refers to one of the options, which is to eat 800 calories a day for a minimum of two weeks, up to a maximum of 12 weeks.

That sounds a like a 'crash diet' to me – one of those negative terms that we've been warned against. But there is nothing wrong with losing weight quickly, according to Dr Mosley, because it mimics natural conditions that our ancestors had to endure.

“It’s a good idea to have longer periods without food. Our ancestors had periods of feast and famine. Our bodies are designed to do that and it’s quite clear that during the periods that you are not putting food into your bodies, a lot of repair goes on.”

So we're wrong to think that rapid weight loss is bad for your health? "If you do it properly then the evidence seems to be that it does lead to long-term benefit," says Dr Mosley. "There are lots of bad diets out there, and some of the old rapid weight loss diets were very bad. They were very low calorie, 3 or 400 calories a day, they didn’t have adequate levels of protein and the nutrient levels were poor; a lot were based on supplements or sachets that contained absolute junk. Not surprisingly the people on those diets tended to do rather badly.”

He added: “You need good quality protein, at least 50g of good quality protein every day, that’s one of the most essential nutrients. But beyond that there have been three really decent long-term trials that I’m aware of using the 800-calorie approach, which is pretty rapid weight loss, 800 calories a day for up to 12 weeks. Two [of those studies] have now got data gathered over two years and those doing the rapid weight loss did a lot better than people doing the slow and steady stuff.”

Dr Mosley also speaks persuasively about breakfast. He recommends daily “mini fasts” where you restrict eating to an eight to 12-hour window. So if you eat anything in the evening, this means no breakfast. This is particularly important, he says, because the process of autophagy, where the body starts to break down old cells and repair itself, “only starts to kick off seven to eight hours after you’ve stopped eating anything”.

But what about this idea of breakfast being the most important meal of the day? More lies and nonsense we’ve been sold?

“Your gut needs periods of downtime when it’s not dealing with food when the body gets on with the clean-up processes. Breakfast is a Victorian and post-Victorian thing. Prior to that having breakfast was seen as a form of weakness. People wouldn’t expect to eat until midday. Historically it’s an anomaly and the idea of having three meals a day is largely a modern construction and there seems no reason to keep it.”

If this sounds preachy, what is winning about Dr Mosley is that he completely understands the temptation everyone faces.

“I do acknowledge my weaknesses and also I do wrestle with my demons,” he said, adding: “If there is junky food in the house I will eat it, despite everything I know.”

So knowledge does not make it easy. But that doesn’t mean you should give in. “Snacking is one of the things that has driven obesity. It was encouraged by the snack food industry and oddly enough also encouraged by dieticians,” he says. And as for the NHS advice, he adds, it is “suitable for a peasant economy where people are doing a lot of physical activity. In the modern world that simply isn’t true.”

Dr Mosley doesn’t like upsetting people, but if he will permit me to put it more starkly, his advice goes something like this:
  • Stop stuffing your face with carbs all day
  • Give your body some time off from eating so it can recover
  • Big parts of the food industry cares more about your money than your health
  • Low blood sugar is good, not a sign that you desperately need to eat
  • Being a healthy weight is not about looking good, it is about not getting sick and dying



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-...endation-widget
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Apr-29-19, 05:35
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,433
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Thanks for copying the entire article. Sensible simple advice. Hope he still has a large fan base who will take his advice to heart.

Noticed the critical article about "Food Puritanism" was also in The Telegraph!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Apr-29-19, 07:31
Ms Arielle's Avatar
Ms Arielle Ms Arielle is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 19,218
 
Plan: atkins, carnivore 2023
Stats: 200/211/163 Female 5'8"
BF:
Progress: -30%
Location: Massachusetts
Default

Recently, I started asking myself if a day or two of fasting had more benefit than day after day of low enough intake to drop body weight. Seems he got to that idea long before I did. lol
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Apr-29-19, 09:18
CityGirl8 CityGirl8 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 856
 
Plan: Protein Power, IF
Stats: 238/204/145 Female 5'8"
BF:53.75%/46.6%/25%
Progress: 37%
Location: PNW
Default

I think fasting works, and I do it myself. I've also seen studies on fasting mimicking diets (500–700 calories/day) that seem to have a lot of the same benefits as fasting (weight loss, autophagy).

I wonder about the metabolism slowing effects of such a low calorie diet for 12 weeks. I'm not quite sure where the line is between fasting mimicking diets and very low calorie, or if fasting mimicking diets have the same protective effect on metabolism as outright fasting does.

I do worry that when people see things like "800 calories a day for up to 12 weeks," they automatically go to "if 12 weeks is good, then 24 weeks must be better!"
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Apr-29-19, 11:27
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

I don't actually think the "fasting doesn't slow down your metabolism" idea is valid. It's based on things like bariatric surgery--which does have an effect on hormone etc. regulation, since the various procedures bypass parts of the gut that would normally be secreting various peptides and hormones in response to food etc. And short term fasting--a 24-48 hour fast may increase a person's metabolic rate. But that's a short-term thing, not much weight has been lost. You don't expect much decrease in metabolic rate after a couple of days of a diet with say 20 percent calorie restriction, either. Alternate day fasting studies showing no decrease in metabolic rate--there haven't been that many of them, and they don't involve much weight loss.

Want calorie restriction to greatly reduce metabolic rate? Go to the go-to, the Minnesota starvation study. Yes, metabolic rate went down. It wasn't a "fat-loss" study, it was a true starvation study, these guys wound up emaciated. There are parallels, a lot of what we go through trying to get lean is our body fighting against getting to the point of emaciation--but if these guys had just not eaten until they were in that physical state, their metabolic rate would have been just as slow.

Cahill did a study in the 60's on lean divinity students, mostly in their twenties. Their metabolic rate went down to about 1100 calories a day--that was a bit over a week in. That's well below what you'd expect their basal metabolic rate to be, at least 1600 plus. The usual figure I see in those old studies for obese people on long fasts is 1600-1800 calories, somewhat higher, but still well below what you'd expect in an obese person.

I'm not against intermittent fasting, I just don't think this particular benefit has actually been established. To do a fair comparison, you have to get people to pretty much the same physical state, percent body fat versus lean, etc., and that just hasn't been done.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Tue, Apr-30-19, 11:11
RonnieScot RonnieScot is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 352
 
Plan: LCHF, no breakfast.
Stats: 256/178/140 Female 5ft 3"
BF:
Progress: 67%
Location: Scotland, UK
Default

I was under the impression that fasting short term does not slow basal metabolism, only longer fasts (more than a day or two). Low calorie diets slow metabolism. This results in slower weight loss, but also potentially increased longevity..?
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Tue, Apr-30-19, 11:38
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

The point I'm trying to make here--yes, short term fasting does not slow basal metabolism. Thing is--neither does short term calorie restriction. It's the marked reduction in body weight that causes the decrease in basal metabolism.

I like Brad Pilon of EATSTOPEAT, but I blame him for some misinformation that Dr. Fung has continued with. Brad has written some stuff about how a short term fast doesn't lower metabolic rate. I don't care about this. Most people are worried about what happens once they've lost the weight--will a decrease in metabolic rate at that point make maintenance of that weight loss difficult? A lack of a decrease in metabolic rate during a single 24 hour fast just doesn't address this question, let alone answer it--but it's trotted out as if it did.

It may be that people fasting every other day will experience less hunger than they would spreading the same food sparsely over two days. Or that OMAD and other condensed eating windows allow for greater satiety with the same amount of food. That has worked for me in the past. I'm not saying fasting doesn't have advantages, just that the lack of slow down in metabolism at a given level of fat loss isn't one I'm convinced of.

Take a set of twins who lose 100 pounds, one with a series of fasts, one with a fasting protocol, one with a reduced calorie diet. Which will have a faster metabolism at the end? We don't know, this study has not been done, people have extrapolated from various different protocols--and I think, extrapolated wrongly. Maybe the closest is the Biggest Loser versus bariatric surgery. Bariatric surgery has, besides the enforced near-fasting of the very low calorie diet, hormonal effects due to resectioning the gut, which is after all an endocrine organ. There are also differences in prescribed diet. There is some evidence from Ludwig's keto versus low fat maintenance studies that, at an comparable reduced body weight--and there, everybody lost weight on the same protocol--at that point, which maintenance diet is used will have an effect on metabolic rate. So there's hope there. That fasting to lose weight doesn't reduce metabolic rate hasn't been established. Fung may have clinical data, I'm not sure he does on metabolic rate specifically--but if so it may be sort of tainted because the diet they try to get people eating between fasts is that very diet, the low carb, that Ludwig's studies show might maintain a higher metabolic rate.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Tue, Apr-30-19, 11:50
thud123's Avatar
thud123 thud123 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 7,422
 
Plan: P:E=>1 (Q3-22)
Stats: 168/100/82 Male 182cm
BF:
Progress: 79%
Default

I'm doing some feed/feast sequences and have bought into the idea that BMR at the end may be higher at end weight than one fed continuous reduced calories over the same period to the same weight.

More than likely tho, the would be the same for me. I just like the current rumor/hyperbole/MEME stuff. In fact, eating less each day might accustom you to eat less at a "maintenance" as I'm sure that what I'm shuving into my pie hole on feast days is WAY more that daily maint could withstand without some increase in body weight.

Who knows! Experiment, have fun!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:48.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.