reply to post by 27jd
You can always count on the internet for people to come up with theories to starve yourself on alternative days and call it a health benefit.
Eat nothing one day then eat whatever you want the next, then go back to eating nothing, etc. etc... the effects aren't surprising. Yes, you're
obviously going to lose weight. Yes, you're Insulin Sensitivity is obviously going to increase. That's what happens when you starve yourself. Your
body leeches from other parts of the body to feed itself, no surprise there.
You know what else causes your body to tap into the energy reserves? Not over indulging. You know what else helps your Insulin Sensitivity, not eating
foods high in sugar.
So here we have two options. Eat responsibly, or starve yourself. Both are going to help you lose weight, both are going to show positive effects on
insulin levels, IS, and the kinds of fats your body is storing/producing.
Starving yourself on and off means there will be times where your body isn't getting proper nutrition, eating responsibly means you will.
Don't give me those "our ancestors" crap, they were often had terrible nutrition and died much younger than we do now. They may have been lean, but
they weren't healthy.
"It ispossible that these effects resulted from the decreases in body weight (2.5%) and fat mass (4.0%) observed in these subjects, who were unable
to consume sufficient calories on the feast day to maintain an isocaloric state."
Also the study says that adiponectin was increased significantly by this diet. That's really no surprise as losing weight causes this protein to rise
in levels. It just so happens that adiponectin has been shown, in combination with leptin (leptin level as said to be unchanged by this diet), to
completely reverse insulin resistance in mice. So there's a real strong possibility that the diet simply causes you to lose weight because you can't
intake as many calories. That weight lose promotes adiponectin production, and this causes insulin resistance to go down. So there you have the weight
loss explained, the insulin sensitivity improvement explained, and many other effects were very similar to CR method.
The only thing this study proved was that losing weight led to health benefits. Having actually just read the entire science journal, not the blog, I
have to wonder whether you actually read it or not.
"An important study design issue is whether weight loss should be prevented in human ADF studies by "forced" maintenance of calorie intake. Forcing
maintenance of intake may produce harmful effects over the long term, so this approach cannot currently be recommended."
So basically, Alternate-day fasting could really just be another form of calorie reduction, and they can't test that because forcing a non-calorie
reduction version of ADF would be dangerous. And did you read the conclusion? They basically said that few real studies have been done in the human
trials. The one that were done varied from the animal trials.
At best, this diet might be AS effective as a calorie reduction diet, but I doubt it. So far, the only real evidence I've seen for this diet is that
you'll likely see health benefits from losing weight. But you'll probably lose that weight because you can't stuff your face enough to eat twice
your daily diet on the days you aren't fasting.
Your argument about caveman diet is just nonsense. They were hardly the poster children for good nutrition.
Eating responsibly and getting exercises is still the top dog when it comes to being healthy. Sorry to burst your magic diet bubble.