IGX "...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."

IGX "...overflowing with foulmouthed ignorance."
It is currently Wed Dec 12, 2018 2:58 am

<


All times are UTC




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: When We Eat
PostPosted: Tue Jul 24, 2018 5:41 pm 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
A growing body of research suggests that our bodies function optimally when we align our eating patterns with our circadian rhythms, the innate 24-hour cycles that tell our bodies when to wake up, when to eat and when to fall asleep. Studies show that chronically disrupting this rhythm — by eating late meals or nibbling on midnight snacks, for example — could be a recipe for weight gain and metabolic trouble.

That is the premise of a new book, “The Circadian Code,” by Satchin Panda, a professor at the Salk Institute and an expert on circadian rhythms research. Dr. Panda argues that people improve their metabolic health when they eat their meals in a daily 8- to 10-hour window, taking their first bite of food in the morning and their last bite early in the evening.


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/24/well ... ealth.html

Interesting that this dovetails with a common form of IF.

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:14 pm 
Offline
Top

Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:30 pm
Posts: 1099
https://medium.com/@kevinrose/introduci ... 9935e8245d

It's got your circadian setting as the default.

_________________
"All you have to do is decide that wherever you are is the best place there is. Once you start comparing one place to another, there's no end to it."- Sodo Yokoyama


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline
Lifetime IGer
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm
Posts: 21027
IF is often 8/16, and the 8 hour eating window is from noon until 8.

Robb Wolf has been saying that eating in the morning and starting your fast in late afternoon/early evening is more in line with circadian rhythms for a few years.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:56 pm 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
I don't know about circadian rhythms, but what about people that don't have an appetite in the morning? Does appetite not correspond to circadian rhythm?

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:48 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:38 am
Posts: 5260
"One group of researchers in Israel found in studies that overweight adults lost more weight and had greater improvements in blood sugar, insulin and cardiovascular risk factors when they ate a large breakfast, modest lunch and small dinner compared to the opposite"

Good read!

I helped my Dad lose 40lbs in 6 months by having him switch from:

Small breakfast, moderate lunch, moderate dinner, followed by lots of snacks and wine

To:

Moderate breakfast, moderate lunch, moderate in between meal, moderate dinner, no snacks after and occasional wine

The difference when I eat breakfast quickly after waking up, or if I wait an hour (or longer) is substantial on my energy levels.

_________________
"Believe strongly that the world is on your side if you keep true to what is best in you." - Master Carlos Gracie


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:02 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
To be frank I am not convinced. I believe in fasting, including intermittent varieties, but I am not sure time when you eat is that important. Insulin sensitivity is the highest in the morning simply because of the preceding fasting period, and if you don't eat until two pm it will probably be even higher. There are studies on eating in the evening vs morning, and there is no difference between weight gain/loss.

Panda's mice experiment mentioned in the article is largely irrelevant to us. Feeding rats high fat diet and extrapolating the results to humans is the same as feeding humans grass and coming to the conclusion that plant food is not good. So indeed, if you are a "12 weeks-old male C57/BL6" mouse you should definitely limit your feeding to 8 hour window.

Skipping breakfast (not coffee) I have more energy and better mood. If I also manage to spend half hour on the stationary bike then my appetite is killed for at least 4 - 5 hours. Yes, I do overcompensate for morning fasting by binging on food in the evening if I don't make a conscious effort. But then nothing works without conscious effort anyway.

Just my 50 cents, based on absolutely no evidence.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:24 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
Regarding Israeli studies, here is another one. Not exactly the same, but sort of similar.

Greater weight loss and hormonal changes after 6 months diet with carbohydrates eaten mostly at dinner.
Quote:
This study was designed to investigate the effect of a low-calorie diet with carbohydrates eaten mostly at dinner on anthropometric, hunger/satiety, biochemical, and inflammatory parameters. Hormonal secretions were also evaluated.

Seventy-eight police officers (BMI >30) were randomly assigned to experimental (carbohydrates eaten mostly at dinner) or control weight loss diets for 6 months.

Greater weight loss, abdominal circumference, and body fat mass reductions were observed in the experimental diet in comparison to controls. Hunger scores were lower and greater improvements in fasting glucose, average daily insulin concentrations, and homeostasis model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA(IR)), T-cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol, C-reactive protein (CRP), tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were observed in comparison to controls. The experimental diet modified daily leptin and adiponectin concentrations compared to those observed at baseline and to a control diet. A simple dietary manipulation of carbohydrate distribution appears to have additional benefits when compared to a conventional weight loss diet in individuals suffering from obesity. It might also be beneficial for individuals suffering from insulin resistance and the metabolic syndrome. Further research is required to confirm and clarify the mechanisms by which this relatively simple diet approach enhances satiety, leads to better anthropometric outcomes, and achieves improved metabolic response, compared to a more conventional dietary approach.
I foresee the next post on health blogs: eat big breakfast, no carbs, and eat your carbs before bed.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:30 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
And to add more confusion (abstract edited by yours truly):

Are large dinners associated with excess weight, and does eating a smaller dinner achieve greater weight loss? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Quote:
In all, ten observational studies and eight clinical trials were included in the systematic review with four and five included in the meta-analyses, respectively.

Four observational studies showed a positive association between large evening intake and BMI,
five showed no association and
one showed an inverse relationship.

The meta-analysis of intervention trials showed no difference in weight change between small and large dinner groups.

Recommendations to reduce evening intake for weight loss cannot be substantiated by clinical evidence, and more well-controlled intervention trials are needed.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:43 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
And some more (abstract edited):

The timing of the evening meal: how is this associated with weight status in UK children?
Quote:
We tested for an association between evening meal timing (consuming the evening meal before or after 20.00 hours) and risk of overweight and/or obesity, adjusting for relevant confounding variables.

We also explored whether evening meal timing was associated with overall nutrient intake.

We found no association between evening meal timing and risk of obesity or risk of overweight and obesity combined.
No significant associations were found between evening meal timing and energy intake, and
no clear patterns in variation of nutrient intakes with evening meal times were identified.

In conclusion, we found no evidence that, for children aged 4-18 years in the UK, eating the evening meal after 20.00 hours was associated with excess weight or increased energy intake.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Wed Jul 25, 2018 11:48 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
This is the fucking problem with science: every research group pushes their agenda. As the result, I can find "evidence" for any idea that comes to my mind.

At the end of the day the trick is to find what works for you, personally. Which, to make things more complicated, can also change over time.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 12:48 am 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
Quote:
"One group of researchers in Israel found in studies that overweight adults lost more weight and had greater improvements in blood sugar, insulin and cardiovascular risk factors when they ate a large breakfast, modest lunch and small dinner compared to the opposite"

Good read!

I helped my Dad lose 40lbs in 6 months by having him switch from:

Small breakfast, moderate lunch, moderate dinner, followed by lots of snacks and wine

To:

Moderate breakfast, moderate lunch, moderate in between meal, moderate dinner, no snacks after and occasional wine

The difference when I eat breakfast quickly after waking up, or if I wait an hour (or longer) is substantial on my energy levels.
Not gonna lie, you lost me at "occasional wine".

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 3:51 am 
Offline
Top
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 1278
Quote:
Panda's mice experiment mentioned in the article is largely irrelevant to us. Feeding rats high fat diet and extrapolating the results to humans is the same as feeding humans grass and coming to the conclusion that plant food is not good.
Panda's mouse diet was not actually a 'high fat diet'... It was fats and sugars, similar to a diet that your average American might eat, which btw, isn't what we evolved for. In a similar manner these mice are bred for lab experiments, they didn't go into the wilderness and catch natural living wild mice.

Having said that, Satchin's work was actually pretty cool in that all he changed was the timing. It's a fairly clean application of the 'lab rat = human' supposition that pervades almost all medical science, regardless of how stupid the application becomes.

Maybe the importance of 'when' we eat is just something we forgot long ago, which isn't surprising really.


This is my write up I posted in another thread about the stuff. It still stands. I'm getting back into my regular timetable after a a couple of months of chaos and will be implementing the time restricted eating again...
Quote:
I stumbled onto something interesting about a month ago. My thing is nervous system coherence as the foundation of health and a good life (aka the body is self-organising system that manufactures its own parts). These podcasts popped up whilst looking into some stuff about pineal gland and coherence (synchronising physiological clocks etc). I recognised Rhonda Patrick's name and listened to the 2 podcasts during a long drive. Fairly easy listening, good balance of science and lay-man's terminology.

Dr. Satchin Panda, is a professor at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies and Dr Ronda Patrick has a PhD in biomedical/biochemestry. So this info is coming from a slightly different angle to that snake diet fuckwit.

We generally class nutrition into 'how much' you eat and 'what' you eat. But it could be that 'when' you eat has as much (if not more in some cases) leverage on resultant physiology and health markers/body composition. Seems pretty cool, with sound reasoning and some good studies. I liked it because their studies weren't pushing an idea, more asking questions and letting it evolve depending on the findings. In a nutshell its about sleeping/eating cycles with 15-16 hour daily fast (8-9 hour eating time).

Anyhow, I've been trying it, with no particular goal/desire, just to see what happens and have had some interesting (n=1) results:
Consistently wake with more energy/clarity.
More stable energy all day.
Noticeably less heavy lactic feeling at end of hard 800m swim 3-4x per week.
Also, I lost 2.5kg in 2 weeks. This was NOT a goal, and not necessarily a good thing for me, as I already weigh fuck-all. However, weight loss 'appears' to be mostly fat loss. My nutritional intake has not been cleaner. Maybe naturally a little less as i'm not snacking in evening. although I did very little of that anyway.

Just last night I broke 'the rules' and had a solid evening meal around 8:30pm (due to family member's birthday). Really noticed the food hangover this morning. Reverting to the protocol today and will see how things clear up.

Links to podcast...
Part 1
https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/satchin-panda

Part 2
https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/satchin-round-2

There's also a clip of a guy who followed this for something like 6 months and had some interesting results that (n=1) validated their research findings with improved heart health. Again, for me it wasn't so much about 'diet' but how we can better bring our system into coherence (hence the heart findings are pretty fucking cool).
http://blog.mycircadianclock.org/a-stud ... g-results/

From Prof Sachin's blog here..
http://blog.mycircadianclock.org/
Originally from this thread
http://irongarmx.net/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=229472

_________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 1:42 am 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
Quote:

Panda's mouse diet was not actually a 'high fat diet'... It was fats and sugars, similar to a diet that your average American might eat, which btw, isn't what we evolved for. In a similar manner these mice are bred for lab experiments, they didn't go into the wilderness and catch natural living wild mice.

Having said that, Satchin's work was actually pretty cool in that all he changed was the timing. It's a fairly clean application of the 'lab rat = human' supposition that pervades almost all medical science, regardless of how stupid the application becomes.
Here is the full text of the study in question:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491655/
Quote:
To test whether a distinct tRF regimen can prevent diet-induced obesity, we subjected 12 weeks-old male C57/BL6 mice to high fat diet (HF; 61% energy from fat) or normal chow (NC; 13% fat) under either ad lib or time restricted access to food during their natural nocturnal feeding time
Lab rat = human does not pervade medical science, it pervades medical journalism. Rat experiments are useful to establish a hypothesis, but the results of such experiments must not be extrapolated to humans. In this experiment high fat ad libitum diet suppressed physical activity while time restricted did not, thias is the only possible explanation why the former gained weight and the latter did not. Is this the effect of eating in sync with the circadian rhythms or is it the effect of time restricted eating per se? Panda conveniently concludes the former, though it is questionable.

As far what we evolved to eat, it is another problem for me. What is this mysterious diet we evolved for? There was a nice and quite funny TED talk on Paleo diet. The gist of it was that vast majority of fruits and vegetables we have now did not exist in prehistoric times. Broccoli, tomato, cucumber, cabbage etc. - it is all human creation by selection and cultivation. I also believe being omnivores is part of adaptability of humans to the environment. I still think that reducing intake will bring 90% of health benefit. The rest is minutae.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:28 pm 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
Quote:
As far what we evolved to eat, it is another problem for me. What is this mysterious diet we evolved for? There was a nice and quite funny TED talk on Paleo diet. The gist of it was that vast majority of fruits and vegetables we have now did not exist in prehistoric times. Broccoli, tomato, cucumber, cabbage etc. - it is all human creation by selection and cultivation. I also believe being omnivores is part of adaptability of humans to the environment. I still think that reducing intake will bring 90% of health benefit. The rest is minutae.
While it is no doubt true that most of the produce that we eat has been selectively bred over hundred and sometimes thousands of years, I have a hard time believing that that means all of the vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, enzymes, etc. are therefor virtually worthless or of no greater benefit than white flour, white sugar, etc. Because that's the implication of what you're saying.

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 10:00 pm 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
More on timing yo: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/89 ... faf=1#vp_2

Timing of Dinner and Bedtime Tied to Increased Cancer Risk

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:18 am 
Offline
Top
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 1278
Quote:

Here is the full text of the study in question:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3491655/
Quote:
To test whether a distinct tRF regimen can prevent diet-induced obesity, we subjected 12 weeks-old male C57/BL6 mice to high fat diet (HF; 61% energy from fat) or normal chow (NC; 13% fat) under either ad lib or time restricted access to food during their natural nocturnal feeding time
I can't find that actual quote in the paper you linked, so maybe youre looking at a different paper(?)
BUT, it doesn't matter becaus it does say this,
"Diets used in this study are
a normal chow diet (LabDiet-5010),
a 60% high fat diet (TestDiet-58Y1),
a high fructose diet (Harlan-TD.89247),
and a high fat high sucrose diet (ResearchDiets-D12266B) (table S1)".

So they actually tested three diets (including the one you mention, and the one I was referring to). This actually makes the results even more impressive than Panda had stated in the podcasts...

If you look at Table S3 (the excel spreadsheet in the full text of the paper you link above), it shows improvements across all 3 diets for the Time Restricted Feeding (either by body comp, or biomarkers for health, or both).

Regarding calories consumed. I don't think anyone is saying TRF means not having to worry about the amount or the quality of the food you eat...

It is showing us that the TIMING of food intake may be as important as how much and what and could be why some people who watch how much and what they eat, aren't getting the results they think they should.

Yes people seem to respond to nutritional parameters on an individual basis, maybe also for the parameter of timing. To disregard it as a parameter worth looking into, after looking at those results seems to indicate a rigid view...

Maybe I welcome this sort of thing because (I like to think) I look at the human as a complex system (...within a complex system etc). The better complex systems can follow their natural dynamical synchronisation, the more adaptable they are, and the more organisation (evolution/growth) can occur.

What if a departure from some long forgotten diurnal patterning has led to a chronic foundational stress. Those markers they're looking at, inflammation etc... Right there that's immune function, dysregulation of an ancient, intelligent system (...did someone say cancer etc). Plus cytokines can induce expression across the blood brain barrier so that then leads to impaired contextual information and what we are learning about cognition, neuro development and degeneration etc...

I don't want to seem too excited, but I am certainly interested in where this can go as far as helping with improving people's lives.

As to that ugly woman with her strawman anti-paleo rant on TEDx... Just as bad as that other cynical self-promoting cunt with the TEDx talk about stress being good for you... Jesus... I've never been a fan of the whole 'paleo' thing, but this trend of doing 'clickbait' TEDx talks to enhance professional exposure will be looked back on as the scientific profession's version of doing a sex tape.

_________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:43 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
Might be another article, though I doubt it. A click from the original magazine article got me there, so that's what I am quoting. In any case, I am not going to spend much effort on dissecting mice experiments trying to decide if I should eat dinner. As I said, high fat diet (as well as high fat and high fructose/sucrose) is very alien to rodents, and while it does point at something it is not transferable to humans. Trust me on that, in my early years in cardiac surgery research I have seen a lot of amazing work on isolated rat hearts that made perfect sense and promised really good things. Alas, in clinical practice it was completely useless. As you said, human system is very complex, and while one factor can play a role, modifying a few others may completely mitigate the effects, either good or bad. All we can say from this research is that mice fed high fat or high fat/fructose diet are going to get fat, and limiting eating window mitigates it, that's all. I mean, THAT'S ALL.

PS. I can easily argue that the benefits observed in the experiment in question are the result of limiting eating window and not necessarily eating in sync with the circadian rhythms. The way to do it would be to have two intervention groups for each diet: day time and night time feeding, ad libitum being controls.

_________________
Image


Last edited by Sangoma on Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 8:44 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
Quote:
Quote:
As far what we evolved to eat, it is another problem for me. What is this mysterious diet we evolved for? There was a nice and quite funny TED talk on Paleo diet. The gist of it was that vast majority of fruits and vegetables we have now did not exist in prehistoric times. Broccoli, tomato, cucumber, cabbage etc. - it is all human creation by selection and cultivation. I also believe being omnivores is part of adaptability of humans to the environment. I still think that reducing intake will bring 90% of health benefit. The rest is minutae.
While it is no doubt true that most of the produce that we eat has been selectively bred over hundred and sometimes thousands of years, I have a hard time believing that that means all of the vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, enzymes, etc. are therefor virtually worthless or of no greater benefit than white flour, white sugar, etc. Because that's the implication of what you're saying.
I am not saying that all these things are worthless. I believe though they are in the 10% in terms of importance.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:57 pm 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
I'm not trying to unfairly characterize your position, but do you really think you can eat a highly processed Standard American Diet in moderation and enjoy 90 percent of the good health of a diet of natural foods? Full disclosure, I do not. I am totally on board with quantity being a very important factor, but simply eating less of low nutrient foods hasn't made the third world a picture of good health in the past.

Image

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 6:56 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
In short - I do. There are numerous examples of experiments where people lost considerable amount of weight AND improved health markers by eating exclusively so called junk food. Some examples:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/how-to-lo ... &r=US&IR=T

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/0 ... index.html

https://www.delish.com/food-news/a45300 ... junk-food/

Am I saying this is this is the best way to eat to stay lean and healthy? No, but for a reason different to what mainstream nutritionists and magazines say. Mostly because it is pretty difficult: you swallow couple of burgers, a portion of chips and couple of cokes and you reach your allowance for the day. Sticking to low(er) caloric density choices makes it easier: you increase vegetables in your diet, the amount of food goes up, appetite control improves and you consume fewer calories. What's overlooked is that this reduction is the primary factor that makes these diets "healthy". That is the short version of my opinion.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Fri Aug 03, 2018 8:19 pm 
Offline
Jesus Christ®
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:54 pm
Posts: 37050
Location: 鬼ヶ島
I can kinda dig what you're saying. Give me a bit to read through some of the links.

_________________
"One's actions alone define whether one belongs to a good family or a bad family, valiant or arrogant, and disciplined or undisciplined." -Lord Rāma, Rāmāyaṇa


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Sat Aug 04, 2018 8:27 am 
Offline
Top
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:54 pm
Posts: 1278
Smet, I'm totally not doubting that you quoted from a Panda paper at all, they probably had a wrong link or link to an older version of the paper. Just mentioned it because the actual paper linked may have had more info than the one you read.

I agree that eating less is better. The digestive system, like the musculoskeletal system suffers wear and tear and must restore. Anything that helps us get more nutrients from a given amount of food, means the gut as a system is doing less work and can have more 'down time' to more completely repair. Again, more overall health. This is probably another reason for the improvements with rodents.

I also agree that if we are being conservative, the only thing we can say from Pandas paper is the time restricted eating mitigates some of the negative side effects of an unnatural diet (for that animal).

However, it's interesting that you'd swing from saying Panda has an agenda and we should disregard his fairly well designed study, because he went to the detail of forcing the time restricted feeding to be in the rodent's natural nocturnal feeding time. Which is also their active time. Then you present three turkeys doing the old 'this will make me famous diet' (no agendas there).
Two were fat fucks before starting and just underfed a lot. So, of course their lipid profile will change (most of us have more in common with Pandas mice than those two fat fucks). The third bloke seems like he'd do anything for a headline. So...
What did these red herrings prove..? That you can also under-eat with junk food?
Ok then, i'm convinced... A healthy human system requires to nothing more than calories in and calories out.

Seriously though. Panda's work is compelling, and requires further investigation. It'll be interesting to see what the human studies show. I'm truly at a loss as to why that thought has attracted so much dismissal (???)

_________________
What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.
Ralph Waldo Emerson


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 7:40 am 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
There are a lot of things in your post I want to comment on. However. I am on holiday away from home, and Internet is of varying quality. I will get to it when I can.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:13 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
Wear tear and repair of the digestive system does not even start to scratch the surface of complex physiological cascades that follow eating. Below is a short list of postprandial physiological effects. For the uninitiated, postprandial means after having a meal.

1. Increase of plasma glucose. That's obvious. Less obvious - it causes endothelial dysfunction. Mechanism is unclear, but probably something to do with oxidative stress. Endothelial dysfunction is measured as follows: a the diameter of an artery (usually racial) is measured by ultrasound, then the artery is occluded for several minutes by inflating the cuff around the upper arm (similarly to what we do when we check blood pressure), then the diameter is measured again. Temporary ischaemia causes compensatory vasodilatation. Postprandial hypoglycaemia reduces this response.

2. Endotoxin release. In my modest opinion this is the most important effect of food. Gut bacteria constantly produce endotoxins. Immediately after eating fat there is an increase in endotoxin concentration in the bloodstream. Not a problem per se, but it triggers the release of various inflammatory mediators. Hence some food causes inflammation. Doesn't take a lot of mental energy to figure out that the shorter and the less frequent this inflammatory response is the better. Before jumping to conclusion that fat is bad we should remember that fat is vitally important to life. There is a phenomenon, rabbit starvation, which is severe form of malnutrition resulting from insufficient fat in the diet.

3. The more you eat the more stuff you have in the gut - the more food for bacteria that produce endotoxins. These toxins are contained in the lumen in the gut by healthy enterocytes and whatever is absorbed is deactivated in the liver. However, chronic overload of the enteral barrier can lead to the much talked about leaky gut syndrome. Incidentally, even conventional science has started looking at this. The effects of endotoxin spilling into the blood stream - inflammation.

4. Digestion of fat takes up to 18 (eighteen) hours. Fatty acids absorbed from the intestine are transformed inside the gut cell, enterocyte, into triglycerides and are packaged into chylomicrons, kind of droplets of fat tied with the protein called apoB48 (or apolipoprotein). High levels of apoB48 - especially associated with the larger size of LDL cholesterol particles - is associated with atherosclerosis. Chylomicrons are secreted into the blood stream during both fasted and fed states, but during fasted state secreted chylomicrons are 5 - 10 times smaller. Personally, I am not sure of what the significance of this is, but apoB is the marker of "not so good". Curiously, insulin inhibits the secretion of apoB48 particles, and as we know insulin is released in response to the ingestion of carbohydrates and - though many are oblivious to this fact - protein.

There is more, but these are the most notable effects for our discussion. Immune response to eating seems to be the most important effect.

And here is where intermittent fasting comes into play. During the breaks from eating immune system inflammation is down, plasma glucose is not elevated, which keeps blood vessels responsive and insulin receptors sensitive. Is timing of food intake as important? You decide. For me argument about this is like arguing that smoking in the evening - when stress hormones are at their lowest levels - is healthier. In any case, therein plenty of data showing that abstaining from food has numerous health effects, while data on timing not so much. I am not dismissing its possible significance, but it comes back to the 80/20.

_________________
Image


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: When We Eat
PostPosted: Sun Aug 05, 2018 9:22 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Commanding
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Posts: 6356
Now, another point in Terra's post "Anything that helps us get more nutrients from a given amount of food, means the gut as a system is doing less work and can have more 'down time' to more completely repair. Again, more overall health." Following this logic McDonald's hamburger should be the food of choice: it is full of nutrients in a small package, no?

There are two groups of nutrients: macro- and micronutrients. Macronutrients - protein, fat and carbohydrate. Micronutrients - vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients and so on. By definition micronutrients is something we need a little of. Moreover, the requirements for micronutrients depends a lot on the amount of consumed macronutrients. Apparently, if you don't consume much carbohydrate you don't need as much Vitamin C as when you do. That's probably the reason Inuits and Viljamus Stephansoson didn't get deficient eating when consuming exclusively boiled salmon.

For some reason though micronutrients are considered "nutrients" and the rest "empty calories". There are no empty calories, they all have to come from either protein, fat or carbohydrate.

_________________
Image


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Grandpa's Spells and 15 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited