Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

General Discussions => Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine => Topic started by: ozaytheyellow on April 17, 2017, 02:31:01 AM

Title: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: ozaytheyellow on April 17, 2017, 02:31:01 AM
Hello everyone!
Long time listener, and new to the forums. I don't usually join forums, but I registered because I wanted to see if this topic had been discussed before here. The search resulted in no hits, so here goes:

I am pretty sure I am heading towards diabetes and as I was researching I stumbled upon this:
https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet (https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet)
Actually, I found an article talking about it first, but it led me there.
As far as my limited understanding of it goes, it looks promising but my non-experience at looking into these studies has me at a disadvantage.
I don't plan on buying from the website, there are a few recipes around the internet that mimic what the website is selling and will probably try with that first.

What do you, SGU hivemind, think of the validity in this?

I appreciate any insight that can be had!
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 09:53:50 AM
Looks like woo to me. You're eating food but your body does not recognize that you're eating? So it does not engage in digestion? The nutrients that they claim the diet has are not absorbed? You get no actual calories from all this "healthy" food?

If you think you are heading towards diabetes, I recommend seeing a doctor. (NOT a naturopath!) If you are overweight you'll need to lose weight. If you are sedentary, you'll probably need to exercise. If you smoke you should quit. Eating healthy food is very good, but you don't need a fly-by-night meal-delivery company for that. You just need to visit the fruit and vegetable section of your grocery store, and maybe fill less of your cart from the cookies & potato chips aisle.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 11:42:40 AM
On nutrition and weight loss the advice you get from most doctors these days is probably just as bad, if not worse, than the advice from naturopaths.

It's just not something they study. 

As for this plan, I'd avoid it. It seems like a way to monetize diet advice. If you want to avoid T2D, nothing has been found to be more effective than a LCHF ketogenic diet.


Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Friendly Angel on April 17, 2017, 11:45:40 AM
On nutrition and weight loss the advice you get from most doctors these days is probably just as bad, if not worse, than the advice from naturopaths.

It's just not something they study. 

Maybe not, but what they do is refer you to a nutritionist and diabetes educator.  https://www.diabeteseducator.org/
Those folks know their stuff... and they're cheaper than doctors.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 12:06:38 PM
On nutrition and weight loss the advice you get from most doctors these days is probably just as bad, if not worse, than the advice from naturopaths.

It's just not something they study. 

Maybe not, but what they do is refer you to a nutritionist and diabetes educator.  https://www.diabeteseducator.org/
Those folks know their stuff... and they're cheaper than doctors.

This is true. They do refer you to nutritionists and diabetes educators. And they indeed to know "their stuff."

But their stuff is not based on science.

What little science they cite to support their claims and practices came long after they began making their claims and doing their interventions; their most fundamental claims (avoid dietary cholesterol; avoid sodium; avoid saturated fats) have been debunked for years, yet they are only now starting to modify their practice and even then it's too little too late. Other claims and practices (eat whole grains; keep carbs at 45 to 65% of caloric intakes; follow a low-fat diet; avoid red meat) have also been debunked or were never supported by good science, and yet they show no sign of modifying their practices.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Johnny Slick on April 17, 2017, 12:24:16 PM
I just don't think there's an easy fix. If you want to lose weight, you need to burn more calories than you take in. Usually that's going to make you hungry or tired or both and these are perfectly natural reactions by your body to the situation you're putting it in. All I can say is that once you reach stasis it'll get a lot easier. Also, there are drugs out there that make you feel less hungry, so that might be a thing to try (on a *really* short term basis though; stimulants tend to have some really nasty side effects, especially if you abuse them) (although caffeine is one of those drugs). There are also diets like low-carb that restrict your food choices and as such make it harder to consume a lot of calories (low-carb can have a pretty big effect just because it makes you stay away from some of the worst sources of empty calories there are in the form of sweets and starchy foods) but you're going to be faced with the calories in, calories out conundrum. This particular site looks pretty BSy to me, no offense.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 01:13:49 PM
The assertion that LCHF is healthy, is a controversial one, with most health professionals recommending a balanced diet, and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific. There are also a few outliers at the other end recommending a low-fat diet, though that was more popular a few decades ago.

The conservation of energy is a bitch if you're trying to lose weight. Calories are a measure of the energy in food, and that energy has to go somewhere. You can poop it out undigested, but that's a tiny part of the calories you eat; you can burn it through metabolism; or you can store it as fat.

Increasing exercise is the healthy way to burn more calories, and has other benefits besides. There are chemical ways to increase metabolism but they are fraught with very nasty side effects and are addictive. At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Johnny Slick on April 17, 2017, 01:51:36 PM
The assertion that LCHF is healthy, is a controversial one, with most health professionals recommending a balanced diet, and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific. There are also a few outliers at the other end recommending a low-fat diet, though that was more popular a few decades ago.

The conservation of energy is a bitch if you're trying to lose weight. Calories are a measure of the energy in food, and that energy has to go somewhere. You can poop it out undigested, but that's a tiny part of the calories you eat; you can burn it through metabolism; or you can store it as fat.

Increasing exercise is the healthy way to burn more calories, and has other benefits besides. There are chemical ways to increase metabolism but they are fraught with very nasty side effects and are addictive. At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.
I think the controversial bit is that by getting into ketosis you enter this magical weight-losing paradigm in which you can eat all the steak you want or something and not lose weight. It's not *terribly* controversial that if you go to extreme measures to restrict your calories, you'll lose weight if you consume less than you use up. And anecdotally I've known a few guys who lost a *lot* of weight on Atkins. I do think that it has many of the same issues that other diets have - namely, that if you just use it to lose weight and then go off of it, you're probably going to gain that weight right back - but in the sense that it gets people to eat less, sure, it seems to work pretty well.

Also, it is all but impossible to lose weight only or primarily by exercising more. If you're very overweight and you can't work out strenuously for more than let's say half an hour, you might only burn 2-300 calories compared to your resting metabolism. And to make matters worse, it's been shown time and time again that people who work out, especially those who are kind of new to working out, tend to cut corners at other things (for instance, taking the elevator instead of walking up the stairs) so that a lot of the benefit of the exercise is mitigated. I mean, you *also* can't just expect to lose weight by dropping to 1000 calories a day - all a starvation diet is going to do is mess up your metabolism - but at the very least you need to do *both* the exercise and the diet if you want to lose weight, and I guess if you really, really wanted to dump one of them (which you shouldn't IMO). The ideal way, I guess, is to get yourself to a point that's close enough to stasis that you don't feel hungry all the time (or for that matter send your body crashing into starvation mode) but maybe still just a bit below and then just let the weight come off over time. We don't really live in a culture that approves of that, though, so it's tough.

Personally, I'm generally a fan of the idea that people should be more active just because it allows you to do more things in general. This applies whether you're morbidly obese or if you're HWP. Finding stuff that burns calories and elevates your heart rate is sometimes not easy and not fun but I think that most people would benefit from doing more of it.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 02:40:13 PM
Apparently, if you are sufficiently motivated to lose weight, pretty much any diet will work. As noted above, you just have to eat fewer calories than you burn. And of course, it's generally necessary to cut calories and exercise, both.

But there are people (including at least two regulars here) who assert that LCHF is a healthy diet overall, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight or not. This is what I was referring to when I said that most health professionals disagree, and the LCHF proponents assert that such professionals are uneducated or unscientific.

Most dieters fail in the long term. Successful weight loss requires lifestyle changes, not diet plans.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 02:58:43 PM
The assertion that LCHF is healthy, is a controversial one, with most health professionals recommending a balanced diet, and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific.

Not sure how you can measure consensus here. There are a large number of health practitioners who are advocating LCHF diets. The ADA is including it in recommendations as a weightless strategy. It's the Low Fat diehard outliers (Dean Ornish) who are the only ones claiming it's unhealthy.

Quote
and a few outliers recommending LCHF and asserting that the health profession is uneducated or unscientific.

In the field of nutrition. And the claim is supported by looking at the science. We embarked on a population-wide intervention without good science to support it (The Dietary Guidelines) and the result has been a hockey-stick like spike in rates of overweight; obesity; and T2D. Those guidelines and the practice of dietitians (who are not scientist and not health professionals) was not supported by science then or now or ever.

Quote
The conservation of energy is a bitch if you're trying to lose weight. Calories are a measure of the energy in food, and that energy has to go somewhere. You can poop it out undigested, but that's a tiny part of the calories you eat; you can burn it through metabolism; or you can store it as fat.

The idea you can poop out calories is very misleading. When the caloric content of food as reported on the labels is based on the Atwater values which account for the amount of calories in poop, urine, sweat, respiration, etc.

Quote
or you can store it as fat.

You can also build muscle and other lean tissue and store it that way.

Quote
Increasing exercise is the healthy way to burn more calories, and has other benefits besides.

Exercise is great for many health issues, but it's just not an effective way to burn more calories.

Quote
There are chemical ways to increase metabolism but they are fraught with very nasty side effects and are addictive. At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.


That's true. Both my sister and I went on Fenn/Phen for a time and both went off it before it was too late. A friend from high school died from heart damage caused by that diet drug. (She was trying to lose weight for our class reunion)

Quote
At the very least, when you stop taking them the effect is reversed, your metabolism drops way down, and you gain back all the weight you lost.

That is true for nearly every weightloss  strategy (including LCHF). To lose weight and keep it off one needs to make a lifelong lifestyle change.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Johnny Slick on April 17, 2017, 04:55:12 PM
Apparently, if you are sufficiently motivated to lose weight, pretty much any diet will work. As noted above, you just have to eat fewer calories than you burn. And of course, it's generally necessary to cut calories and exercise, both.

But there are people (including at least two regulars here) who assert that LCHF is a healthy diet overall, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight or not. This is what I was referring to when I said that most health professionals disagree, and the LCHF proponents assert that such professionals are uneducated or unscientific.

Most dieters fail in the long term. Successful weight loss requires lifestyle changes, not diet plans.
Well, yeah, and that's why we're responding here, because if we don't then those two will just troll up the thread some more and make it look like skepticism = LCHF. I will say that I don't know that health professionals are necessarily saying that it's *unhealthy* either (although it probably is for some populations), just that it's not necessarily the *only* healthy choice when it comes to diet.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 05:44:43 PM
Apparently, if you are sufficiently motivated to lose weight, pretty much any diet will work. As noted above, you just have to eat fewer calories than you burn. And of course, it's generally necessary to cut calories and exercise, both.

But there are people (including at least two regulars here) who assert that LCHF is a healthy diet overall, regardless of whether you're trying to lose weight or not. This is what I was referring to when I said that most health professionals disagree, and the LCHF proponents assert that such professionals are uneducated or unscientific.

Most dieters fail in the long term. Successful weight loss requires lifestyle changes, not diet plans.
Well, yeah, and that's why we're responding here, because if we don't then those two will just troll up the thread some more and make it look like skepticism = LCHF.

I don't know what you're saying here. We can move the discussion to the LC diet ghetto threads or keep going here. 

Skeptisim is not equal to LCHF diets. There are plenty of LCHF advocates who I wouldn't call skeptics at all.

But I don't think a skeptic can be a believer in the theory and practice of diet and nutrition that dietitians are following in the US today, which adheres to the the previous (out dated) version of the USDA dietary guidelines and provides advice with zero support from science.

Quote
I will say that I don't know that health professionals are necessarily saying that it's *unhealthy* either (although it probably is for some populations), just that it's not necessarily the *only* healthy choice when it comes to diet.

I don't think I've ever said it was the *only* healthy choice when it comes to diet in general or even weightloss diet specifically. I have said for nearly everyone it's most likely to be the healthiest and most likely to be the most effective and should be the default option diet option provided.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 17, 2017, 08:08:26 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 17, 2017, 08:19:59 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 18, 2017, 12:29:46 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.



It's true that the number of LCHF advocates on this forum does not prove anything. But it is telling that among a community of skeptics, so few buy into the notion that all the major health organizations are so completely wrong on such an important matter.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 18, 2017, 01:41:35 PM
Like I said, some folks here advocate LCHF. On this board they are a minority. Two, I think. Maybe three. Among the health professionals I have spoken with, none advocate either low-fat or LCHF. All advocate a middle ground, i.e. a balanced diet. And for weight loss, all advocate a combination of eating less and exercising more.

None of this is relevant, of course. How many LCHF advocates are in these forums; your perception of how many; the number of health professionals you've spoken with are anecdotes of second and third hand evidence.



It's true that the number of LCHF advocates on this forum does not prove anything. But it is telling that among a community of skeptics, so few buy into the notion that all the major health organizations are so completely wrong on such an important matter.

That's true. That might tell us something about the the community of skeptics here.

My opinion (which is just as relevant or irrelevant as yours) is that for the most part, medicine follows the science quite well, and while the scientific standards vary from field to field, for different reasons, for the most part you can rely on medicine to follow science fairly closely and come up with the best understanding/diagnoses/treatment and outcome.

But, nutrition is different. One of the basic tenants of nutrition science for the last 60 years or so (the lipid hypothesis; the diet heart hypothesis) was based on biased, cherry picked and epidemiological studies with no trials or experiments to support it. (7 Countries Study)

From there, a US Senate committee drafted the dietary guidelines (aka: Balanced diet; food pyramid; my plate). Those guidelines were drafted by a non-scientist, following a woo-vegetarian diet (not saying all vegetarian diets are woo, but his was). They were passed by the Senate and implemented over the objections of the government's own scientists, because they hadn't been tested or verified, nor had the underlying science. (and still haven't been to this day).

The result is that the US dietary guidelines are more influenced by political and commercial interests than by science or medicine.

Following the implementation of the USDA guidelines Americans changed their eating habits and consumed significantly more carbohydrates (as per the guidelines and their concept of "balance") and a significantly smaller percentage of calories from fat (as per the guidelines). 

The result of this population wide intervention has been an obesity epidemic. From newborns on up, and an epidemic in T2 Diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

Another result is that the medical and scientific communities, when concerned with diet (which, except for those in the field is best described as "casual") assume that the scientific standards for supporting the recommendations and guidelines are based on solid science, just like other areas of medicine. They're not.

And now nutrition science is a hot mess, and the USDA scientific advisory committee is recommending we ditch advice on macronutrient proportions in the dietary guidelines in favor of diets based on the weakest science (epidemiological studies) to develop healthy eating patterns.

The fact that the majority of skeptics here are skeptical of the current state of mainstream nutrition and science and how we got here tells us more about the majority of skeptics here than it does about the science.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Alex Simmons on April 18, 2017, 11:24:27 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C9RfT7IWsAA-ATl.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 18, 2017, 11:45:10 PM
And that's part of the problem.


Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: DG on April 19, 2017, 01:23:49 AM
What I don't understand (and I am going to regret this) is how some can argue that calorie deficit is the only necessity but at the same time blame a particular approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

On any nutrition plan, if you eat more than you use - you look like me.

I have some colleagues and family members who have found success with the fasting mimicking diet (including one who has reversed a diabetes diagnosis). I neither endorse or reject this approach.

I have tried various approaches, the things that I find most difficult/impractical, is portion management and dining out (especially when calorie counting). Exercise is the easy bit (Additionally, I suspect, based on short term experiements, my metabolic rate is much lower than expected by calculators in the vicinity of 400cal per day).
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 19, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
What I don't understand (and I am going to regret this)

Why will you regret that question?

Quote
is how some can argue that calorie deficit is the only necessity but at the same time blame a particular approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

Your question has this backwards. I'm not claiming that calorie deficit is the only necessity, and I am blaming a specific approach to nutrition for the obesity epidemic.

It's those who are claiming calorie deficit is the only necessity who are not blaming any specific approach.

Let's say you ate a perfectly energy balanced and nutritionally balanced diet. And suppose someone followed you around and gave you a dose of insulin after every meal, enough to lower your blood sugar by, say 10 points. What do you think would happen?

The extra insulin would force your body to store fat and would prevent your body from using stored fat. You would not have enough fuel to metabolize, so your body would signal you to bring in more energy (hunger) and would decrease your energy output (lethargy). Do that for a few years and, hey presto! obesity.

That's exactly what happens on a diet high in carbs, with significant fast simple carbs (sugars; processed flour; pasta). It is exactly the same effect. The response to the blood glucose spice that comes from a high carb diet with significant simple carbs is just like an injection of insulin.

Quote
On any nutrition plan, if you eat more than you use - you look like me.

Or Arnold Schwartzeneggar. Or Kareem Abdul Jabaar. The difference is that some of us store the extra energy in muscle and other lean tissue and some store it in fat.

The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet. The knee-jerk response is "energy surplus" or "calories in, calories out" but children, especially newborns, infants and toddlers, eat when they're hungry stop when they're full and they ate that way throughout human history up to today. 

Quote
I have some colleagues and family members who have found success with the fasting mimicking diet (including one who has reversed a diabetes diagnosis). I neither endorse or reject this approach.

I'm curious are you referring to the patented diet referred to in OP, or are you referring to intermittent fasting or one of the other diets that's been around for some time?

Quote
I have tried various approaches, the things that I find most difficult/impractical, is portion management and dining out (especially when calorie counting).

I'm guessing you haven't tried a LCHF Ketogenic diet. (Saying that, there are some that claim to be LCHF, but don't reduce carbs nearly enough for ketosis and allow too many simple carbs in the food mix.)

One advantage to that form of a weight loss diet is you eat when you're hungry, whenever you're hungry, and keep eating until you're full. You don't worry about portion control.

Quote
Exercise is the easy bit (Additionally, I suspect, based on short term experiements, my metabolic rate is much lower than expected by calculators in the vicinity of 400cal per day).

Right, but exercise doesn't help with weight loss much, if at all. (Though it does have other benefits)

As for your basal metabolic rate, it could well be off by that much. As in most of nutrition, it's not an exact science.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 19, 2017, 03:22:39 PM
... The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet.

Well, another plausible answer is diet AND exercise. When I was a kid, we used to play outside. Now kids play video games. And on the diet side, perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 19, 2017, 05:51:46 PM
... The worst part of the obesity epidemic, by the way, is the fact that it's now hitting children harder than adults. Young adults, teenagers, pre-teens, grade schoolers, pre-schooler, toddlers, infants, even newborns.

Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet.

Well, another plausible answer is diet AND exercise. When I was a kid, we used to play outside. Now kids play video games. And on the diet side, perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

I've never seen a toddler or a newborn play a video game.

The food environment is the answer.

Exercise is a good thing, but isn't effective in controlling weight as one would imagine.

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

As for adults, I don't think my either of my parents owned a pair of tennis shoes until later in life when they became physically active, and that anecdote is fairly typical for my generation.

Quote
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

Problem is blaming the obesity epidemic on "far too much fat" isn't supported by the evidence. Once the country got started on the low-fat fad, it took hold and exploded. Fat as a percentage of calories dropped and carbs, as a percentage of calories soared, especially the consumption of the worst carbs (sugars and refined grain products).

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: DG on April 19, 2017, 07:45:16 PM
(click to show/hide)
Something has changed in the environment to cause this, and the only plausible answer is diet. The knee-jerk response is "energy surplus" or "calories in, calories out" but children, especially newborns, infants and toddlers, eat when they're hungry stop when they're full and they ate that way throughout human history up to today. 
(click to show/hide)
One advantage to that form of a weight loss diet is you eat when you're hungry, whenever you're hungry, and keep eating until you're full. You don't worry about portion control.

(click to show/hide)

This may be a personally anomaly, but I have never had that point. As a baby, living off breast milk alone, I managed to get so fat that I was unable to breathe properly and was placed on a "diet" with measured portions. It caused my parents significant angst that I would constantly try to eat (and cry with hunger) at that age. Growing up, and into adulthood, I have had that same issue. I have never (in my recollection) gotten to the point that I did not desire to eat more food. The idea of "eating until full" is completely alien to me - I would just keep eating until the physical discomfort of the food in my digestive system before ceasing to feel the desire to eat more.

As I have gotten older I am trying to "learn" the difference between the desire for more food and being hungry, but I am really unable to do so. I am trying to convince myself that there is some line (even trying to tell myself that I never feel hungry, it's always just a desire for food). The only thing that worked for me, having tried various supervised and unsupervised dietary programs, was a strict portion and calorie controlled diet (lost some 30kgs). It's hard work and not really practical for long term sustainable eating (hence the issues identified above), but from what appears to be various limitations of my own philology (and perhaps psychology), it's the one that works for me.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 19, 2017, 08:36:09 PM

This may be a personally anomaly, but I have never had that point. As a baby, living off breast milk alone, I managed to get so fat that I was unable to breathe properly and was placed on a "diet" with measured portions. It caused my parents significant angst that I would constantly try to eat (and cry with hunger) at that age. Growing up, and into adulthood, I have had that same issue. I have never (in my recollection) gotten to the point that I did not desire to eat more food. The idea of "eating until full" is completely alien to me - I would just keep eating until the physical discomfort of the food in my digestive system before ceasing to feel the desire to eat more.

As I have gotten older I am trying to "learn" the difference between the desire for more food and being hungry, but I am really unable to do so. I am trying to convince myself that there is some line (even trying to tell myself that I never feel hungry, it's always just a desire for food). The only thing that worked for me, having tried various supervised and unsupervised dietary programs, was a strict portion and calorie controlled diet (lost some 30kgs). It's hard work and not really practical for long term sustainable eating (hence the issues identified above), but from what appears to be various limitations of my own philology (and perhaps psychology), it's the one that works for me.

Your anecdote is not anomalous. In fact it's fairly typical. Too typical.

Not to go too far into the weeds, but there is a hypothesis for exactly what you described.

It's basically insulin resistance. When your pancreas sees glucose it makes insulin. The insulin is expected to lower blood sugar and then insulin levels drop. It lowers the blood sugar by moving glucose into cells where it is burned or stored as glucagon.

If your body doesn't respond to the insulin by lowering blood sugar, then the pancreas produces more insulin.

And while your muscles and lean tissues may not be responding to the insulin by up taking more glucose, your fat cells are. Insulin causes your body's free fatty acids in circulation to be moved into fat cells and formed into triglycerides, which insulin prevents from breaking up. Triglycerides can't pass through cell membranes, so all the excess fat we store on our bodies is in the form of triglycerides held in cells by insulin.

So, little infant/child/teenager DG's body was confused, because the food environment our bodies evolved in did not equip us to handle this high carb food environment. Your muscles and lean tissue aren't getting enough glucose for fuel; you can't burn ketones or fat because the fat is being stored, so without enough readily available energy, your body tells you to eat more. You do eat more and the cycle continues and gets worse when you eat high carb foods.

It just so happens that most of the overweight and obese children we see today all have insulin resistance. It's a very strong correlation, and it was relatively rare before the obesity epidemic (<5% of the pop).

This is the most workable hypothesis that I've seen that explains everything but the root cause of insulin resistance. And that is a mystery that's being worked on.

I know you say you were born that way, and the insatiable hunger began before you ate your first donut, and you that's absolutely true. This began in utero.  You were directly effected by the high carb food environment your mother lived in. When her blood sugar rose, your blood sugar rose. When her insulin spiked, your insulin spiked. When her body stored more excess fat than it needed to your body stored excess, all in the womb. (And please don't think I'm blaming your mother, I am absolutely not. She was probably following the best mainstream medical advice and probably eating the foods and diets the doctors were telling her to eat. She is as much of a victim of the food environment as you.)

While I've been characterized here as some kind of woo-peddling crank, all of the above is perfectly in sync with the mainstream theories about nutrition and the role of insulin in regulating fat storage and energy transport. Not a spec of woo.

The part the mainstream doesn't agree with is:

Your scenario at every age (pregnancy; infancy; childhood; adolescence; adulthood) is where the LCHF Ketogenic diet does best (to a point). You eat the bare minimum of carbs, moderate protein and all the fat you want. Your blood sugar stays moderate; it never spikes. Your insulin stays low to moderate; low enough for your fat cells to release fat and for your liver to make ketones from fat.

Instead of being fueled nearly exclusively by glucose your body will be fueled by glucose, ketones and FFAs. The excess fat stored on your body will fairly rapidly burn away. You won't be hungry all the time and you'll have great food to eat when you do get hungry. And you can eat as much as you want.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: jt512 on April 19, 2017, 10:32:00 PM

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

Bullshit.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 20, 2017, 09:48:43 AM
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

What in the world are you talking about??? Look at the line you quoted:

"perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs."

I've added emphasis to draw your attention that I blamed both carbs and fat. The real emphasis of my statement, is that it's calories!

The real issue here is this: Who is better able to read the full literature on the subject and draw valid conclusions: A couple of posters on this board who are not medical professionals, or Dr. Novella and the entire medical profession? And note please that nobody outside of a few fringe outliers is still recommending a low-fat diet, so that's a straw man. Kids today are eating a lot more sugar than kids used to, and they are eating a lot more fat than kids used to, and they are getting a lot less exercise than they used to. It is indeed possible to lose weight without exercise, but it's much more difficult to do so. Caveat: There is genetic diversity: some people store fat easily, some burn calories easily. The former do well in times of famine; the latter do well in times of abundance. These people will gain weight, or lose it, respectively, pretty much regardless what they eat. The former will have great difficulty losing weight  in times of abundance; the latter will have great difficulty finding enough to survive in times of famine.

But it's still calories in vs. calories out. In early 21st century America people with high metabolism thrive, and people with low metabolism struggle. People with high metabolism can eat pretty much anything they like, and people with low metabolism need to exercise and apply great self-control in their portion sizes. And the majority somewhere in the middle have some difficulty both in times of famine and in times of abundance, and since we are in a time of abundance right now in North America, most of us need to control our portion sizes and exercise.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 20, 2017, 03:22:11 PM

Diet works. Diet and exercise works as well, or maybe insignificantly better. Exercise without dietary change doesn't work.

Bullshit.

Since you didn't elaborate, I assume you're referring to that single review you linked to previously that looked at the results from several studies (none of which found a significant weight loss effect for exercise without dietary restrictions, BTW) and did an analysis using partial results from most (all?) of the studies which showed a modest weightless benefit from exercise. But even then, some (all?) of the studies they included did have dietary restrictions. The dieters were told not to increase calorie intake above baseline. So, even though exercise made them hungry, the dietary restrictions prevented them from behaving the way they would if they weren't being studied.

Also, it's interesting that the only science that actually supports the exercise to lose weight mantra that mainstream nutrition science has been preaching for more than 40 years, comes so late in the game.

What science was that advice based on from the 1970's through the 20-teens?

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 20, 2017, 03:42:55 PM
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.

Is it the lipid phobia makes you suggest it's "far too much fat" but not carbs with the same language?

What in the world are you talking about??? Look at the line you quoted:

"perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs."

I've added emphasis to draw your attention that I blamed both carbs and fat. The real emphasis of my statement, is that it's calories!

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?
Quote

The real issue here is this: Who is better able to read the full literature on the subject and draw valid conclusions: A couple of posters on this board who are not medical professionals, or Dr. Novella and the entire medical profession?

I wouldn't listen to just me either. First, Dr. Novella is not a nutrition expert. That's not his specialty.  It is the specialty of Dr. Eric Westman, who runs the Obesity Clinic at Duke University; Dr. Richard Feinman (not that Feinman) who teaches biology at a New York university; Dr. Rober Lustig, who runs a juvenile obesity clinic and teaches at a San Francisco University; and numerous others.

It's like with climate change, we give more weight to the opinions of climate scientists than scientists in other fields, right? Shouldn't nutrition be the same?



Quote

And note please that nobody outside of a few fringe outliers is still recommending a low-fat diet, so that's a straw man.

I think you're misusing the word "outliers." That comes to statistics and refers to a few anomalous results far away from where the bulk of the results are.

Unless you know of some actual statistics on the opinions of Nutrition experts, outlier is the wrong word.

And, while it is true that low-fat weight loss diets have been found lacking, it's far more than a fringe who recommend them. Further, I was not speaking soley of low-fat weight loss diets but of the low-fat orientation of the dietary guidelines and general diet and nutrition advice that has been prevalent in the country since the 1970s.

And that is still going strong.

Quote
Kids today are eating a lot more sugar than kids used to, and they are eating a lot more fat than kids used to, and they are getting a lot less exercise than they used to.

And I'd like to see some actual data that supports those assertions. I agree that kids are consuming significantly more sugar. I do not agree that they are consuming significantly more fat.

Quote
It is indeed possible to lose weight without exercise, but it's much more difficult to do so.

And once again that claim has been studied and been debunked.

Quote
Caveat: There is genetic diversity: some people store fat easily, some burn calories easily. The former do well in times of famine; the latter do well in times of abundance. These people will gain weight, or lose it, respectively, pretty much regardless what they eat. The former will have great difficulty losing weight  in times of abundance; the latter will have great difficulty finding enough to survive in times of famine.

There is diversity, but genetics does not account for all of it, and there is doubt that it accounts for a significant amount of those differences.


Genetics is one of those special pleading that nutrition science uses to say "here be dragons and we can't do anything about it."

I would suggest that the genetic make-up of americans didn't not change between the 1950s and today to the extent that obesity rates went from <5% to over 50% and over-weight rates went from <15% to over 75%.

Quote
But it's still calories in vs. calories out. In early 21st century America people with high metabolism thrive, and people with low metabolism struggle. People with high metabolism can eat pretty much anything they like, and people with low metabolism need to exercise and apply great self-control in their portion sizes. And the majority somewhere in the middle have some difficulty both in times of famine and in times of abundance, and since we are in a time of abundance right now in North America, most of us need to control our portion sizes and exercise.

Yawn.

Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat.

And how are we supposed to manage caloric balance with kids? With newborns? With infants and toddlers? They are growing, they need to consume more calories than they burn in order to grow. How does the calories in vs. calories out mantra help us here?

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: daniel1948 on April 20, 2017, 04:18:23 PM

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?

So you're upset because I put in a comma. Let me clarify: I regard excess carbs and excess fat equally. I admit that perhaps I should have left out the comma. You and I have no disagreement whatsoever concerning the negative health effects of excess carbs.

... Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat. ...

There's really no place else excess calories can go. If you don't burn them, you store them as fat.

Building muscle is a process that requires resistance work, and if you do that resistance work, and get enough protein, you'll build muscle, whether your calories came from carbs, fat, or both. But not even Arnie can go on building muscle forever. There comes a point when you have to return to caloric balance if you want to maintain your weight.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 20, 2017, 05:35:00 PM

Seriously? You don't see a bias in the differences between: "far too much fat," and "as well as carbs"?

So you're upset because I put in a comma. Let me clarify: I regard excess carbs and excess fat equally. I admit that perhaps I should have left out the comma. You and I have no disagreement whatsoever concerning the negative health effects of excess carbs.

It's not the coma that shows the anti-fat bias it's the words in the context.  I see bias in this language.

Quote
perhaps the problem is carbs, or perhaps it's total calories, including far too much fat, as well as carbs.
But if you say it wasn't intentional fine.
Quote
... Caloric balance does not dictate if excess calories will go to stored fat. ...

There's really no place else excess calories can go. If you don't burn them, you store them as fat.

Muscle? Lean tissue?

Quote
Building muscle is a process that requires resistance work, and if you do that resistance work, and get enough protein, you'll build muscle, whether your calories came from carbs, fat, or both. But not even Arnie can go on building muscle forever. There comes a point when you have to return to caloric balance if you want to maintain your weight.

Muscle (and other tissue) are always breaking down. (Looks at Arnold today). You need to constantly store calories as muscle in order to maintain.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: Gerbig on April 20, 2017, 10:57:17 PM
Really, the only thing you can eat that doesnt result in your metabolism and other factors rising and falling is water.

Sugar free gum, calorie free things, even inedible objects result in your bodies digestive processes starting up, even if they dont do much.
I dont think the diet in the OP makes sense based on that.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on April 21, 2017, 10:30:33 AM
Muscle (and other tissue) are always breaking down. (Looks at Arnold today). You need to constantly store calories as muscle in order to maintain.
But you can only do that so much. Beyond that maintenance level, further excess calories still get stored as fat.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: The Latinist on April 21, 2017, 11:13:20 AM
But not if you reach the magical state of nirvana ketosis.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on April 21, 2017, 01:16:44 PM
But not if you reach the magical state of nirvana ketosis.

Even in the scientifically and medically documented state of nutritional ketosis, it's very difficult to reduce body fat percentage below a fairly reasonable threshold.

20 - 25%, for someone who was obese.

The higher one's peak body fat percentage, the higher the minimal stable body fat percentage would be.

This is not unique to LCHF Ketogenic diets, BTW. Even bariatric surgery patients report the same. Short of fasting (actual fasting not mimicking fasting) or lipo-suction I don't believe any diet plan can consistently do better.

Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: WeeDavie on May 19, 2017, 09:42:08 AM
Why is it always the same debate on ketosis by folk who have no knowledge of the actual science?

low carb - Low protein - High Fat diet triggers a unique metabolic state that causes the consumption of less calories and weight loss, its established science with dozens upon dozens of studies proving it. PubMed is your friend.

The trigger for vertebrates physiology to enter starvation is not the lack of food but the consumption of body fat, burn just body fat and the physiology goes into starvation mode and limits the intake of ones own body fat to a minimum. The state can be easily triggered by simply eating nothing but the rendered down body fat of other vertebrates i.e. lard. Then your appetite goes to a minimal and you lose weight without feeling very hungry.

It works, but its awful and adding protein into it does make it tasty but simply results in the excess protein being converted sugar, and the metabolic state being switched off again. That's why the Aitkens diet doesn't work and no-one in their right mind will pay someone to feed them nothing lard with vitamins and minerals in it but we can happily force mice to do it.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: estockly on May 19, 2017, 01:45:38 PM
Why is it always the same debate on ketosis by folk who have no knowledge of the actual science?

Well, there is a serious disagreement  on ketosis and diet and nutrition within the scientific community where one side (who currently seem to have the consensus opinion) refuse to even recognize that anyone who disagrees with them is anything but a crank and charlatan. (And, no, I'm not referring to myself, here, I'm referring to a large number of scientists, physicians (including many specializing in obesity), researchers and academicians who are critical of the consensus opinion and promote a well supported alternative theory). Yes, PubMed is your friend.

Quote
low carb - Low protein - High Fat diet triggers a unique metabolic state that causes the consumption of less calories and weight loss, its established science with dozens upon dozens of studies proving it.

I know of no one who's promoting a low carb - Low protein - High Fat diet. The LCHF diets promoted by Atkins, including ketogenic diets, all have moderate protein, not low protein.

To achieve moderate protein in practice is pretty simple. Avoid high protein, low fat foods. Most of the food and food combinations approved for those diets are high fat with moderate to high protein, but with other high fat foods, the net effect is moderate protein.

Quote
The trigger for vertebrates physiology to enter starvation is not the lack of food but the consumption of body fat, burn just body fat and the physiology goes into starvation mode and limits the intake of ones own body fat to a minimum. The state can be easily triggered by simply eating nothing but the rendered down body fat of other vertebrates i.e. lard. Then your appetite goes to a minimal and you lose weight without feeling very hungry.

No one is advocating a diet that causes one to "burn just body fat" (except those who advocate fasting and intermittent fasting). What's being advocated is a diet that keeps insulin levels moderate, and causes the body to release more stored fat than it stores. The body then burns the released fat, along with fat consumed, and moderate amounts of glucose from the small amounts consumed and the glucose converted from protein.

Starvation mode is not the same as nutritional ketosis.

Quote
It works, but its awful and adding protein into it does make it tasty but simply results in the excess protein being converted sugar, and the metabolic state being switched off again. That's why the Aitkens diet doesn't work and no-one in their right mind will pay someone to feed them nothing lard with vitamins and minerals in it but we can happily force mice to do it.

Also, Atkins is not being fed nothing but lard with vitamins and minerals.

Where do you get the idea that the Atkins diet doesn't work? It's been tested and shown to work as well or better than any other diet strategy. Again, pubmed is your friend too.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 26, 2017, 02:10:54 AM
Just fast.  Time tested and works a treat, even if one is not trying to lose weight. 

I like an eight hour eating window.   I eat as much as I like, weight stable, lots of energy and very healthy mitochondria.  Easy. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 26, 2017, 03:42:37 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 26, 2017, 05:19:29 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

I'm healthy. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: gmalivuk on May 26, 2017, 07:43:26 AM
Such impeccable logic.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 26, 2017, 08:20:17 PM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

I'm healthy.

(http://i.imgur.com/l7mefs2.gif)
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 27, 2017, 04:03:55 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 27, 2017, 09:53:34 PM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 28, 2017, 12:47:52 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.

Mitochondria benefit from autophagy. Intermittent fasting encourages autophagy. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 28, 2017, 02:22:45 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.

Mitochondria benefit from autophagy. Intermittent fasting encourages autophagy.
Again, this is an answer to a question I did not ask.

The question I asked was "how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?"

You might be doing all of the things that are supposed to benefit the health of your mitochondria, and yet they're still unhealthy because of something else. My question was how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy? You claim that they are healthy, which means that you must have some method of determining or measuring their health. What is that method?
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: lonely moa on May 28, 2017, 05:10:28 AM
How can you tell that your mitichondria are healthy?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3106288/
Thank you for this answer to a question I did not ask.

Mitochondria benefit from autophagy. Intermittent fasting encourages autophagy.
Again, this is an answer to a question I did not ask.

The question I asked was "how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy?"

You might be doing all of the things that are supposed to benefit the health of your mitochondria, and yet they're still unhealthy because of something else. My question was how can you tell that your mitochondria are healthy? You claim that they are healthy, which means that you must have some method of determining or measuring their health. What is that method?

I am not about to wait 50 years for peer reviewed publications to decide what will protect my health.  I will use methods that seem to be effective and be very sceptical of what passes as conventional good advice.  It isn't difficult to poke holes in the low fat, whole grains, calories in calories out, lower your cholesterol arguments. 
Title: Re: Fasting Mimicking Diet
Post by: arthwollipot on May 28, 2017, 05:41:44 AM
I am not about to wait 50 years for peer reviewed publications to decide what will protect my health.  I will use methods that seem to be effective and be very sceptical of what passes as conventional good advice.  It isn't difficult to poke holes in the low fat, whole grains, calories in calories out, lower your cholesterol arguments.

Well, for a start, you should. How else do you know what's real and what's just a scam?

Also, thank you for acknowledging that you actually don't have a method for measuring the health of your mitochondria, and that earlier when you claimed that your mitochondria are healthy it was based not on evidence but on supposition, assumption and hope.