Alternate Day Fasting, Anyone giving it a go? Options

[stretchmonkey]

Okay, so ADF ISNT just some new fad diet. It's a lifestyle change that some nutritionists are claiming can make us incredibly more healthy and extend our natural lifes by years and also may even increase your brain power!
Having watched the "Horizon" programmes over the years i was always interested in the Calorie Restriction phenomena. This is a process that has been shown time and again to dramatically extend the life of mammals by restricting calorific consumption down to the minimum. Certainly something i might have been willing to try...but i love my body building too much.... When i saw the recent "Live Fast and Live Longer" Horizon doco i was VERY impressed by ADF. It appears to produce the same effect as CR but with so much less pain. Here was something that I could fit round my life very easily.
Basically you follow a course of "feast and fast", ie on Day One you may only have ONE meal daily of roughly 600 calories. Which isnt a bad meal in itself, but ofcourse for a whole day it is low, roughly a third of what you should normally have. This puts the body into "starvation" mode and is like "tuning up" an engine. Now this is the good bit....one Day TWO you can eat WHATEVER YOU LIKE! No calorie count, no healthy options..just whatever..and as much as you want!! It dosnet seem to have any negative effects on the process.
I started it on Monday along with my other half.
No breakfast felt a bit weird..normally have a five egg scramble and wholemeal toast. Had Bush Tea no sugar instead. Was worried i'd feel faint at work but i didnt, nor did i feel any strong hunger pangs. Just had diet coke and tea. By lunch time i was hungry, and fixed up a chicken and salad sandwich, mug of homemade carrot and onion soup, a pickled egg, and apple and as i had a spare 100 calories a small shop bought creme brule. Took an hour to eat it all and felt full afterwards. Went to the gym and took it a bit gingerly at first, but pretty soon realised that i didnt feel weak or anything and had a good workout. Kind of missed my post workout shake but had creatine anyhow. Now as evening came i was REALLY worried that i would be restless, have a gnawing hunger etc, but apart from a few fantasies about my impending breakfast i felt okay again. It was mainly weird cause i didnt have to make dinner or wash up etc...result! Was also expecting a rumbling tummy and difficulty sleeping but again no problem, went straight off. Next morning i expected to feel ravenous for brekky, but didnt. Had my usual and felt just..normal. The "blow out" of being able to eat whatever i wanted didnt really happen. Snacked a fair bit, just cause i COULD, previously i would have denied myself that day to day. Dinner was spectacular..spaghetti bolognese with heaps of cheese and choccy cake for pudding, rounded off by protein shake for bedtime.
So today is "fast" day again, but without the fears i originally had, so i reckon i'll not feel too many negatives.
Would be interested if anyone has any advice, or is trying it too. I'm following Dr.Michael Moseley's twitter (the Horizon presenter) and he is doing a 5:2 regime whereas i am going to try a 4:3 one as i dont want to fast at weekends. He's REALLY taken with it. And so, I think...am I.......

This post has been edited by stretchmonkey: Aug 15 2012, 10:46

[ic1male]

I do a fast day roughly every six months and I do feel a whole lot better. I might actually give this a whirl as my diet is shit at the moment and I do feel sluggish and tired. Where are the details on what to do?

[stretchmonkey]

I do a fast day roughly every six months and I do feel a whole lot better. I might actually give this a whirl as my diet is shit at the moment and I do feel sluggish and tired. Where are the details on what to do?

The Horizon documentary is available on the iplayer for a few more weeks or you can watch it internationally on here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfna7nV7WaM

My favourite scene is where Dr Varady takes Dr Mosely out to lunch on his "feast" day and goes to a drive by fast food place and basically tells him to "eat what you like. It doesnt seem to affect the good end result at all". Which is when i got converted!

You can also check out:
http://www.healthyfellow.com/511/alternate...terview-part-1/

An interview with Dr Krista Varady who is at the centre of the research.

As my family generally havnt had good health stretching back generations and my Dad had three heart attacks and a stroke before he died, i feel i should definitely try and change the way i eat.
(Just coming up to lunch....not really hungry at all. i think we are just so conditioned to gorge all day that we have lost touch with what we really need, nutritionally.

[nomadwa85]

I've tried alternate hour fasting. So far it hasn't worked.

[stretchmonkey]

I've tried alternate hour fasting. So far it hasn't worked.

Well, that IS kind of how the Western diet is going now though isnt it? Just all day snacking and nibbling. Apparently our internal "engines" are constantly in "revving" mode, hence the fact that we wear out and get ill all the time.....

[phallus]

Wouldn't you just end up eating more on your non-fasting days?


p.s. totally read that as alternate day fisting first time round.

This post has been edited by phallus: Aug 15 2012, 12:47

[stretchmonkey]

Wouldn't you just end up eating more on your non-fasting days?


p.s. totally read that as alternate day fisting first time round.

Well aparently not....usually just about 10% more than one would normally, which i would say was about right from my own experience. I expected to be really hungry the next day but i was just normally hungry.

Another interesting link:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

A quote from it, by Dr. Michael Moseley:
"There are no firm rules because so far there have been few proper human trials. I found that I could get through my fast days best if I had a light breakfast (scrambled eggs, thin slice of ham, lots of black tea, adding up to about 300 calories), lots of water and herbal tea during the day, then a light dinner (grilled fish with lots of vegetables) at night.
On my feed days I ate what I normally do and felt no need to gorge.
I stuck to this diet for 5 weeks, during which time I lost nearly a stone and my blood markers, like IGF-1, glucose and cholesterol, improved. If I can sustain that, it will greatly reduce my risk of contracting age-related diseases like cancer and diabetes."



I might try his approach of light breakfast and light dinner totalling 600 calories. It would give me something to do in the evenings i suppose.

This post has been edited by stretchmonkey: Aug 15 2012, 15:47

[stulancs]

There is quite a consensus of opinion (though also some controversy) that taking resveratrol mimics the effects of caloric restriction without having to actually do coloric restriction.

[ItIsHairy]

There is quite a consensus of opinion (though also some controversy) that taking resveratrol mimics the effects of caloric restriction without having to actually do coloric restriction.

I hope it doesn't work because people will carry on stuffing themselves with food and think a tablet will simply fix things.

[AdrienAsche]

This sounds ridiculous. But I'll be the first to try it if it lasts three months.

[stulancs]

There is quite a consensus of opinion (though also some controversy) that taking resveratrol mimics the effects of caloric restriction without having to actually do coloric restriction.

I hope it doesn't work because people will carry on stuffing themselves with food and think a tablet will simply fix things.

Well you can get resveratrol from food also, red wine especially.

[stevo]

I haven't read such unmitigated tripe in ages.

The human body is designed to operate in direct correlation to the nutrients put into it. Stop eating and you'll start to slow up. Physically we are still the same as 20,000 years ago, when we ate to live. We went where the food was, and ate what we needed in order to find more food.

Just as we are buggering about with our system eating processed foods, so the latest fads, Atkins-lo-carb-no-carb, 'avoid foods that fight each other' and this bollocks, ultimately does more harm than good.

God preserve us all from those "doctors" whose common sense seems to exit along with the next big cheque for writing up the newest wonder diet.

This puts the body into "starvation" mode and is like "tuning up" an engine. Now this is the good bit....one Day TWO you can eat WHATEVER YOU LIKE!

Sorry, no, it's not like tuning up an engine, it's starvation, as you say. And no, you cannot eat whatever you like. Simply because surface results might look good, don't be fooled into thinking there's no chance whatever internal organs aren't getting fucked up in the process.

This post has been edited by stevo: Aug 16 2012, 22:42

[stretchmonkey]

I haven't read such unmitigated tripe in ages.

The human body is designed to operate in direct correlation to the nutrients put into it. Stop eating and you'll start to slow up. Physically we are still the same as 20,000 years ago, when we ate to live. We went where the food was, and ate what we needed in order to find more food.

Just as we are buggering about with our system eating processed foods, so the latest fads, Atkins-lo-carb-no-carb, 'avoid foods that fight each other' and this bollocks, ultimately does more harm than good.

God preserve us all from those "doctors" whose common sense seems to exit along with the next big cheque for writing up the newest wonder diet.

This puts the body into "starvation" mode and is like "tuning up" an engine. Now this is the good bit....one Day TWO you can eat WHATEVER YOU LIKE!

Sorry, no, it's not like tuning up an engine, it's starvation, as you say. And no, you cannot eat whatever you like. Simply because surface results might look good, don't be fooled into thinking there's no chance whatever internal organs aren't getting fucked up in the process.

Stevo, i don't think you've done anything other than read my clumsy attempts to explain the process. Have a look at the research and then come back to me.
This is an interesting page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19112549

It's not a weight loss diet at all, but a way of mimicking the very well researched process of CR (calorie reduction) to extend life and protect from disease. There is pretty much undisputable evidence that radically reducing calorie intake in mammals will dramatically extend life and improve health. That's been known for about 80 odd years apparently. Seeing humans that have been trying this process is a real eyeopener. They are extremely fit people. I've seen a guy of 55 who barely looks out of his thirties.
Recent research in the U.S. ( and believe me, there is a LOT of research being done in the U.S. to prolong healthy life!) has uncovered a growth hormone called IGF-1, high levels of which seem to lead to accelerated ageing and age-related diseases, while low levels are protective. We are constantly in a "grow" phase when we should be in a "repair" phase regularly too.The "fasting", in effect just eating a diet of about 600 calories on alternate days, has been shown to reduce this hormone by about half. Obviously our high calorie/high protein Western diets are killing us. With the ADF they found that it didnt seem to make a difference to the results what you ate on your "feast" days, almost all levels of harmful " blood markers" reduced, cholesterol, glucose etc., all things that contribute to diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc.
Frankly, with a Dad who had two three heart attacks and a stroke, i am willing to have an open mind and try anything which has sound scientific research behind it. I've certainly never bothered with "fad" diets like you've mentioned. I also will be eating good healthy foods but if i fancy a chocolate cake then i'll have that too.

Well, it's my third "fast" day today and as I've got a cold suddenly come on i'm off my food anyway, so didnt really want much on my "feast" day anyway. I have found each "fast" day easier than the last so far. I think once it become routine i won't even think about it. The other half has suggested having two smaller meals midday and evening rather than one bigger one at midday and frankly that would be a synch.

This post has been edited by stretchmonkey: Aug 17 2012, 09:27

[stevo]

It's not a weight loss diet at all, but a way of mimicking the very well researched process of CR (calorie reduction) to extend life and protect from disease. There is pretty much undisputable evidence that radically reducing calorie intake in mammals will dramatically extend life and improve health. That's been known for about 80 odd years apparently. Seeing humans that have been trying this process is a real eyeopener. They are extremely fit people. I've seen a guy of 55 who barely looks out of his thirties.
Recent research in the U.S. ( and believe me, there is a LOT of research being done in the U.S. to prolong healthy life!) has uncovered a growth hormone called IGF-1, high levels of which seem to lead to accelerated ageing and age-related diseases, while low levels are protective. We are constantly in a "grow" phase when we should be in a "repair" phase regularly too.The "fasting", in effect just eating a diet of about 600 calories on alternate days, has been shown to reduce this hormone by about half. Obviously our high calorie/high protein Western diets are killing us. With the ADF they found that it didnt seem to make a difference to the results what you ate on your "feast" days, almost all levels of harmful " blood markers" reduced, cholesterol, glucose etc., all things that contribute to diabetes, heart disease, cancer etc.
Frankly, with a Dad who had two three heart attacks and a stroke, i am willing to have an open mind and try anything which has sound scientific research behind it. I've certainly never bothered with "fad" diets like you've mentioned. I also will be eating good healthy foods but if i fancy a chocolate cake then i'll have that too.

Well, it's my third "fast" day today and as I've got a cold suddenly come on i'm off my food anyway, so didnt really want much on my "feast" day anyway. I have found each "fast" day easier than the last so far. I think once it become routine i won't even think about it. The other half has suggested having two smaller meals midday and evening rather than one bigger one at midday and frankly that would be a synch.

I need to apologise - I wasn't directing my rant at you but these approaches in general.

I have no argument with the principles - certainly, the increase in calorific intake which dominates Western diets are indisputably unhealthy, and certainly the cocktail of high calories plus the high element of processing in our food is potentially lethal.

However, look at it this way. As I mentioned before, we are fundamentally the same as our ancestors of thousands of years ago. Our bodies are designed to consume and process in accordance with an even longer evolutionary span. Now if our ancestors were in a position which you are now creating - food one day, virtually nothing the next, and so on - is it conceivable that they would have remained that way? Intermittent food, long gaps with nothing? Of course not - they would have moved to a place and/or adapted to a lifestyle where food was regularly available.

The fact is that we are built to operate on a natural, balanced, regular diet. What you are doing is a radical departure from that, and as the doctor at least has the good grace to admit, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that it is beneficial, other than the unscientific, anecdotal experiences supplied.

I understand your concerns based on your family history. But a healthy, balanced diet based on unprocessed foods, one that reflects the diet and consumption patterns our bodies have evolved to handle is surely the most sensible way to go.

This post has been edited by stevo: Aug 17 2012, 12:28

[thespunkpup]

I thought the Horizon programme was the most interesting, fascinating and surprising programme I think I've ever seen. Having watched it, I can support asdea that it's not devised as a diet, it's devised as a way of curbing strokes, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer's and diabetes. Numerous studies have gone into it, as the diet has been around as a theory for about 80 years or so although it's only more recently that it's been getting the research.

As cancer, heart disease, strokes and Alzheimers all feature in my family, I was obviously interested in what they had to say. I'm not a scientist, but basically for those who didn't watch it, when someone overeats, cells multiply and grow (and not necessarily in a good way). The fasting diet idea means that whatever this scientific thingy is doesn't over-develop, but puts its slightly starved resources into repairing the cells that are already there so. As the brain is obviously a bit starved too, it is also responsible for creating new brain cells - probably to help the individual find food easier.

Dr Michael Mosley tried a less extreme version of the diet, having 600 calories a day on two days a week (ie the fast days) and eating normally on the other five. Research in the programme shows that of those who also followed the diet, those who restricted their fat intake on the non-fast days had levels of cholestrol in the blood that were not significantly different from those who literally just ate what they wanted. To my mind, it's like a cleansing diet. If a diet is good enough for a doctor, I'm really not qualified enough to contradict him.

And for those who have been saying that you shouldn't starve the body, I somehow doubt you'd be shouting your objections quite so loudly to all those who do starve the body for religious reasons... Just saying.

As I say, as most of the diseases that are helped by having a diet like this are in my family and as I'm nowhere near anorexic, I plan to try it. I suspect I'll go for whatever's lowest in calories so I can eat more of it! Frankly, the thought of only bothering about what I'm eating two days a week seems a much easier thing than worrying about my food intake every mealtime throughout the whole week.

[ItIsHairy]

However, look at it this way. As I mentioned before, we are fundamentally the same as our ancestors of thousands of years ago. Our bodies are designed to consume and process in accordance with an even longer evolutionary span. Now if our ancestors were in a position which you are now creating - food one day, virtually nothing the next, and so on - is it conceivable that they would have remained that way? Intermittent food, long gaps with nothing? Of course not - they would have moved to a place and/or adapted to a lifestyle where food was regularly available.

The fact is that we are built to operate on a natural, balanced, regular diet. What you are doing is a radical departure from that, and as the doctor at least has the good grace to admit, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that it is beneficial, other than the unscientific, anecdotal experiences supplied.

Of course, it's conceivable that humans a very long time ago would have eaten in this way. They ate when they had food. No fridges, no supermarkets, not even crops. Only in very recent times have we been able to eat what we want, when we want - possibly/probably causing the increase in obesity. I would say our bodies are more designed to have intermittent food than the regular feeding we get now since that was the way humans lived for a long time.

We do not live like our ancestors any more, because we don't have to.

[stevo]

Of course, it's conceivable that humans a very long time ago would have eaten in this way. They ate when they had food. No fridges, no supermarkets, not even crops. Only in very recent times have we been able to eat what we want, when we want - possibly/probably causing the increase in obesity. I would say our bodies are more designed to have intermittent food than the regular feeding we get now since that was the way humans lived for a long time.

Many would beg to differ. Intermittent means uncertain, and there is no evidence that humans prospered where food supplies were intermittent or uncertain. We CAN live on an intermittent diet, because, as you say, at times humans needed to. But because settlements developed where food was comparatively abundant, our default position is regular, but not over, eating.

This post has been edited by stevo: Aug 17 2012, 19:24

[Roger Mellie]

Well, it's my third "fast" day today and as I've got a cold suddenly come on

I can't help wonder if the two are related. If you're not taking in nutrients, does your immune system then weaken (annorexics are not usually a picture of health...)

Personally I have a balanced diet in moderation every day, combined with exercise; and strangely enough my weight remains at a healthy level (as do my energy levels), without need to go on any of these other diets.

This post has been edited by Roger Mellie: Aug 19 2012, 17:19

[Okto]

Of course, it's conceivable that humans a very long time ago would have eaten in this way. They ate when they had food. No fridges, no supermarkets, not even crops. Only in very recent times have we been able to eat what we want, when we want - possibly/probably causing the increase in obesity. I would say our bodies are more designed to have intermittent food than the regular feeding we get now since that was the way humans lived for a long time.

Many would beg to differ. Intermittent means uncertain, and there is no evidence that humans prospered where food supplies were intermittent or uncertain. We CAN live on an intermittent diet, because, as you say, at times humans needed to. But because settlements developed where food was comparatively abundant, our default position is regular, but not over, eating.

From the examples I know of, evolution has never picked and developed something to suit a single ideal perfectly. Usually a compromise is made that offers something in multiple situations and environments. So, I find it plausible that we many have traits which are advantageous during food shortages that also come with some penalty to us when we eat more.

Also, it shouldn't be assumed that evolutionary pressure leans towards us living to our longest possible life spans, as in fact outliving our reproductive years by much more than it takes to raise any offspring which we might have near the end of them has no obvious evolutionary advantage to us as individuals or a species.

[stevo]

From the examples I know of, evolution has never picked and developed something to suit a single ideal perfectly. Usually a compromise is made that offers something in multiple situations and environments. So, I find it plausible that we many have traits which are advantageous during food shortages that also come with some penalty to us when we eat more.

Also, it shouldn't be assumed that evolutionary pressure leans towards us living to our longest possible life spans, as in fact outliving our reproductive years by much more than it takes to raise any offspring which we might have near the end of them has no obvious evolutionary advantage to us as individuals or a species.

There isn't a single example of settlements thriving where food supplies were intermittent, or at the very least, not storeable to maintain a regular eating pattern. There's no doubt we can survive where this is the case (and that would be the compromise) but it is not the optimum (a better word than 'ideal' I think). Remember we are talking here of picking and choosing what to eat on fast and non-fast days. This has no parallel in the scenarios we're taking about, and is as skewed an approach from the optimum as eating processed foods all the time.

You're right - evolutionary pressure does't lean towards length of life, but it does lean towards effectiveness during whatever lifespan there is. And this effectiveness is the consequence of a regular, balanced diet.

And for those who have been saying that you shouldn't starve the body, I somehow doubt you'd be shouting your objections quite so loudly to all those who do starve the body for religious reasons... Just saying.

You'd be wrong. People who starve themselves because of mythological mumbo-jumbo deserve all they get. At least the discussion here about fasting has an origin based on rational thought, in this case whether it is nutritionally advantageous to do so.

This post has been edited by stevo: Aug 18 2012, 12:36