In a paper published May 17 in Cell Metabolism, scientists from Salk's Regulatory Biology Laboratory reported that mice limited to eating during an 8-hour period are healthier than mice that eat freely throughout the day, regardless of the quality and content of their diet. The study sought to determine whether obesity and metabolic diseases result from a high-fat diet or from disruption of metabolic cycles.
The abstract is at Time-Restricted Feeding without Reducing Caloric Intake Prevents Metabolic Diseases in Mice Fed a High-Fat Diet
7 comments:
Mice study! Most animals are probably more adapted to fasting/erratic eating schedule than humans.
@WoLong,
What makes you say that? Your argument sounds like a case of logic without evidence. Even if you argue that we come from cultures of regular eating schedules (which is hardly the case, given all the historical accounts of fasting), you would still have to demonstrate that this was more optimal.
Thanks for posting this. Too bad the paper is behind a pay-wall, but the abstract is useful. Also, if you click on the Science Direct link (try to not laugh at the misleading headline), they include a picture comparing liver samples between the two populations.
I hope someone shells out the $31.50 & blogs on this one.
Now, will start skipping breakfast & lunch.
You don't have to pay, you just have to be at an university...
I hope this link works (fulltext): http://ge.tt/2uOgdtH/v/0
I would have posted earlier but I have a hard time with captchas
It's a little off topic, but does it occur to anyone else that too many people look to a training program for fat loss and to a diet (or some "secret" dietary supplement) for muscle/strength gain when the evidence shows that fat loss is chiefly attained through dietary means and muscle/strength gain is achieved through a proper training program? Sure, exercise does contribute to fat loss and diet does contribute to muscle gain, but the largest gains (or losses) are made, by far, by the methods as I have described.
I definitely agree with this. Intermitted fasting is slightly uncomfortable, but very effective way to stay healthy. Slightly uncomfortable means, that not that many people will actually do it. People don't like even slightly uncomfortable, even if the benefits are incredibly. For the rest of you, who practice intermitted fasting, good for you. I love the benefits. I can clearly see them. Milan
Now that they've milked the "6+ meals a day" garbage for all it's worth, they're finally starting to empirically research IF. How heartwarming. I've studied nutrition for a long, long time. 5 Years ago when constant eating was the tune to dance to, I had no part of it. I never believed a word of what the gym rats and idiot kids were saying about it, and they all laughed in my face for it. Metabolic rate cannot be augmented without stimulants, and speeding it up in the first place isn't exactly healthy. Despite this foundation of knowledge that is in the back of the head of every nutritionist and doctor, we still had the morons preaching otherwise, and the empiricists cranking out their "studies" to back up all the hogwash.
It's alright, though. Now we have the truth, and our friendly, unethical scientists are going to slowly admit that they've been lying to us for what seems like eons for an educated, free-thinking man. They'll admit, for the 1000th time, that they were wrong, but will continue to be believed. We'll all keep listening to them with our mouths and wallets agape. So continues the age of Empiricist Academia: everyone's in the dark, and our intellectual leaders are even dimmer than the darkness they find themselves in. I guess money can do that to people, though.
Post a Comment