> 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.
On average, sure, but there are plenty of metabolic outliers, and I doubt those seeking weight loss are on the higher end. My weight was surprisingly consistent at 1300kcal/day.
> 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.
Aside from what others have pointed out that it's perfectly okay for a scientific study to have limited scope and not try to solve the entire problem of how to lose weight and keep it off, which inherently requires following and monitoring people for a very long time, even the case you're describing here isn't necessarily all bad.
Given a person undergoes an intervention, succeeds in losing 40 pounds, then gains it all back over the next five years, that sounds like failure in a vacuum, but that means they spent five years not gaining more weight. If the non-intervention counterfactual is they would have ended up 40 pounds even heavier, then intervention is still a win. Yo-yo dieting with lifetime net zero progress is still better than steadily getting fatter for the rest of your life.
> 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.
It's (always) worth skimming the article, or at least the headline. From the subheadline:
> *Given the same energy intake and expenditure*, intermittent fasting two days versus one day per week increases weight loss in overweight men and women
This study isn't saying "2 day IF is a miracle weight-loss cure and you should just do it bada bing bada boom weight loss solved". It's holding everything constant except the number of fasting days, and finding that it's (quite dramatically) more effective in the short-term.
This is a data point, not a weight-loss plan. It doesn't call for "skepticism", just careful reading and limited application (or for a start, reading the article/headline at all).
Nutrition is intensely complicated and devilishly difficult to study. But for scientifically-literate people who take it seriously, data points like this shed light on limited portions of the "solution space". This is crucial to mapping out the space enough to understand how to improve your own diet; it's not amenable to an impatient approach that expects every study to be a magic bullet.
Even ignoring the signal that this provides, the absolute minimum value of this study is that somebody who's already doing a time-limited IF-1 diet can switch to a time-limited IF-2 diet. That's valuable in and of itself.
> 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.
With the same improvement in hunger levels, hormone profile, and cardiometabolic health (all mentioned in the for both the control and treatment)? I highly doubt it. Even assuming that IF isn't sustainable[1], people do have short-term weight loss goals sometimes, and IF provides a path to do so that keeps metabolic and hormonal health in mind relative to traditional crash dieting.
[1] I've been doing it for....five years now? Not only did I lose a reasonable amount of weight early on, it's been helpful for maintaining during a life phase of suddenly-expanding waistlines among my peers. Plus it's trivial to dial it up slightly when I do feel the need to tighten up a little.
I agree, I'm going on 50 and working hard on a beach body.
Traditional wisdom says that's nearly impossible at my age without "supplements" like "vitamin T".
I've found that IF is the real key for me.
I do one meal per day, and I can see all my nutrients laid out in front of me.
Aside from the other purported benefits of IF, this level of control I think is the main benefit to me.
I think that a lot of people don't realize how disconnected the feeling of hunger is from your actual (very minimal) caloric requirements.
Hunger is mostly a trained response, a production of ghrelin that's mostly a pavlovian response coupled with incredibly complex gut and psychological factors.
The hunger response can be trained away in about a week. I generally don't start getting hungry until around 6pm, when I've trained my body that it's dinner time.
Snacking, IMHO, is the single biggest weight loss killer.
"I think that a lot of people don't realize how disconnected the feeling of hunger is from your actual (very minimal) caloric requirements."
True, this is my observation as well.
"The hunger response can be trained away in about a week."
Unfortunately, it is quite easy to fall off the bandwagon in irregular conditions (holidays, vacations, a visit to an elderly relative who insists on feeding you). The adaptation to IF is, in my case, lost just after a day or two of non-IFing. And once it is gone, I have to undergo the week-long self-training again.
> ...it is quite easy to fall off the bandwagon in irregular conditions
YES. So, this is where being _committed_ makes the difference.
I have many rules that help me with this one is "feeling hunger is normal" and "being uncomfortable getting back on track is normal". (this rule is less refined, but key to overcoming falling off the wagon) And "admit when you fail, and try again", very key to dealing with getting started, or restarted on a good thing in life.
The self-training you mention was what I signed on for at the beginning, knowing full well this is normal, so it's not so bad when I have to do it.
> Self control is best method for maintaining weight, as it's free and guaranteed to work if used.
Studies done on it do not, as far as I've ever seen, back up the idea that it "works if used" in anything but the most tautological sense (ie. "Anyone who fails clearly didn't actually exert self-control").
If you're aware of any studies that show enduring weight loss in any but a small minority of participants with any regimen that fits your description, please share.
Food can't enter your body legally if you don't consent?
Well if you have this self control in the first place, you would not need to quit - if you are addicted, you lost the control over yourself.
So pure self control probably won't cut it for most people. Talking about myself: I can go past just so many sweets till I falter. I didn't got the chocolate bar today but ate the cake at the birthday. I knew it will hurt my progress at the gym but I was just to tired from self control that I just gave in.
And then I am telling me; I must get better at self control. But how?
If you have ever changed anything about yourself, I would start there.
I have had to relearn self change multiple times, because it feels just as hard every time.
I changed from a night person to a morning person by first declaring truthfully to myself "many things will be easier if I was a morning person." (work, sleep, schedules, etc...) When you state something truthful to yourself, and you believe it, then you can't let it go.
Then I go for a single moment of success, the first win. With food, I did it by accident by missing a meal because I was engrossed. Then I realized I was more hungry and enjoyed my dinner more than most I could recall in recent history, because I hadn't snacked, and I skipped lunch. I wanted this feeling again. But the next day, I was hungry again, and it sucked. I was in pain and just wanted to eat.
Eventually I read somewhere that hunger pain is temporary and you just need to be patient through it. I drank coffee, tea, water, hot cocoa, anything to get through hunger pain. And the first time that it worked was eye opening. I found that I (me, not a pill, coach, friend, wife) I successfully fought off hunger pain with reason, practice, environment, tools (drinks) and I made it through the day without snacking or eating a meal until dinner.
I have many stories of changing something about myself, the are all similar in the emotional turmoil you feel trying to take control.
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 ).
I would drink water for 5 days. It's not too difficult. The hardest part is the boredom. I'm quickly reminded how much of my life revolves around food. Farmers market, grocery shopping, happy hours, cooking dinner, work lunches, events, etc. You suddenly have all this free time. For me, I just play a lot of golf to take my mind off of it.
If you want an easy version, look up fast mimicking diet by Dr. Longo. Prolon sells premade kits.
This was my experience as well. The longest I've gone on a water/coffee fast is 7 days, and after the initial 24 hours of hunger subsides, the biggest factor was psychological. I learned that I often use food to relieve boredom, and it's honestly a struggle for me to find a replacement activity which is equally satisfying.
How do you mean? I just start eating as per usual. I often find that the portion I need to feel full is reduced, but I eat the same foods I did before the extended fast.
Have you tried fasting for 20 hours and only eating during a 4 hour window? That seems to work well for me. The first few days I was hangry but pretty used to it now. Biggest change in my lifestyle was switching to black coffee in the morning as you can't consume any calories during fasting. This is the paper that inspired me to do this:
In my experience, the first day is by far the most difficult. I find that it's most effective to start fasting on days where I am going to be occupied with something, since I don't think about food when I'm active.
I'd be miserable if I attempted to fast on a day where I was lounging around watching TV.
Second day is usually where it falls apart for me. Part of the issue is the rest of my family is not exactly helping ( 'hard to abstain from sweets when you are knee-deep in 'em' type situation ).
I will be trying again soon, but this time around I think I will need to properly plan it ( initial attempts were basically spur of the moment things ).
I have the same question. Specifically, for a fast lasting longer than 24 hours, is any supplement taken? What side effects occur?
I did Paleo in 2012 for several months with success. However, I have tried Keto/low carb again several times with less success. Specifically with Sated meal replacement. I get muscle cramps and other side effects that I assume are due to changes in the diet.
I completed a 7 day water fast about a month ago. For the first time in my life managed to break 70kg/154lbs barrier(30M,5'5) lost about 3.5kg/7.5lbs during that week. First day or two are tough due to cravings, best way to counteract that is to supplement with multivits, electrolytes and nutritional yeast, dissolved in water(for vitamin B). Once ketosis is in full gear, you will get used to it (around day 3) and feel an amazing euphoric energy. Sleep is another thing to factor in, sleep quality will be impacted during the first couple of days so brace yourself.
Also be careful when refeeding[1], I had bone broth to wake my digestive system slowly, then moved onto complex food within hours.
> 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.
Yeah, and having a single number makes no sense because on average men and woman have different requirements. I live a well above average active lifestyle and my maintenance is in the ballpark of 1400/day.
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.
Yeah, but my point is that IF is generally under 24 hours, yet has an effect. So they seem to not have a good explanation for why IF helps given that their hypothesis fits what we know happens after the 24 hour mark and you aren't doing that.
"We know it works because after 24 hours, X happens" does not explain why it works when you aren't hitting that mark. Sorry.
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.
Yeah unfortunately I’ve had these symptoms throughout my life, have been regularly checked for diabetes but no dice. My dad has type 1 so we recognised my symptoms, but apparently it isn’t diabetes.
Appreciate your concern! :) Apparently hypoglycemia without diabetes is a thing (you prompted me to google), so I've ordered a blood sugar monitor and I'll do tracking for a week or two with a fast.
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.
OMAD can be tweaked for stable weight - e.g. by increasing the eating window from 1 hour to 2 hours, by eating more, or by adding an extra meal once in a while.
Weight loss slowed down naturally once I've reached a healthy weight range.
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've been adding 0% greek yogurt to my breakfast - nice way to sneak some protein in there. I had no idea how low cal/ high protein that stuff was until recently.
Low fat cottage cheese has almost as favorable a protein to calorie ratio in case you want some variety. Also you can buy egg whites in a carton and that’s a pure complete protein. I like to chop up some vegetables fill up a muffin tin with those and egg white, and bake little fritata type snacks.
That's a good call - I used to love cottage cheese as a kid. I'm putting that on my list. I've never experimented with egg whites but I love the idea of no cholesterol, I think I'll try that too.
I really wish their was more definitive studies on protein needs, based on exercise/lifestyle. All of the studies I've read tend to contradict with each other. During a phase of bodybuilding training I befriended a guy at the gym and he went on to train me.
He convinced me that I needed more protein than ever before. This guys was massive, and had success locally at competitions. So I took his advice and started to consume on average 350 grams of protein, he wanted 400 but I just couldn't do it.
I'm honestly not sure if it made a difference but I was at my most biggest, and strongest when I trained with him.
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.
I've always wondered - do the 0.8 / 1.6 grams of protein per kg apply equally across someone's whole weight? If someone has a lot of body fat compared to lean mass (bones / muscle etc), would the protein requirement per kg go down accordingly?
In other words, does having more fat tissue increase protein requirements, or should we instead think of protein requirements only for lean body mass?
Recommendations I've seen that are targeted at people trying to lose fat are given in grams per kg of lean body mass.
I can't imagine a mechanism for fat to increase the need for more protein beyond needing more muscle to carry around the extra weight but that's already reflected in LBM.
They targeted a BMI > 27.5, which could be ‘fat’ or it could be ‘a little soft’, or it could be someone who’s really swole.
For reference a 27.5 BMI is 5’9” at 186lbs. I can attest that when I’m well muscled, nobody thinks I’m fat at 186, but when I’m not yolked, I look like a tad doughy.
The average adult male in the US has a BMI of 26.6 btw…
Let's be honest, a 99.999% of people with a BMI > 27.5 did not get that way from hitting the gym too much. Weight lifters love to call out BMI as being worthless, but they ignore the fact that any exercise for American adults is rare, much less the amount of exercise required to hit a BMI of >25 due to pure muscle mass.
The average adult male is in terrible shape.
FWIW, people who exercise regularly should combine waist to height ratio (WHtR) with BMI. If you're BMI is high, but your WHtR is <0.5, then you're good. Otherwise, you're at risks for heart disease and stroke, even if you "look" healthy.
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.
> 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.