Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

paradoxical effects: IF vs CR

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • paradoxical effects: IF vs CR

    Regarding: How Fasting Increases Lifespan | Mark's Daily Apple

    I decided to make this a forum thread because my thoughts go in a different direction than the comments on the actual blog post.

    The puzzling differences between calorie-restriction (CR) negatives which seem to turn into intermittent-fasting (IF) benefits are certainly intriguing. But I wonder if we're forgetting one of the main premises which separates our nutritional paradigm from CW. A calorie isn't a calorie.

    We know calories aren't calories. (Sorry elliptical machines)
    We know macronutrients aren't macronutrients (Sorry Zone)
    We know micronutrients aren't micronutrients (Sorry baby formula)
    We know foods aren't foods (Sorry CAFO beef)

    So a discussion of calorie restriction versus zero calories begs the question of what sorts of calories are being elminated? I think Gary Taubes likes to point out that when people go on traditional CW diets (e.g. Weight Watchers) they also tend to cut back on candy bars because even a misguided dieter knows that a candy bar isn't going to help anyone lose body fat.

    So you lose more muscle mass when CR than IF. Well, what are the calories in the first place? Maybe a CR protocol of mainly animal protein would look more like IF. Maybe the "magical pathway separate from caloric restriction" is ketosis. Maybe CR on low fat pasta decimates muscle mass.

    I have a hypothesis we would see differences between someone truely fasting versus someone fasting with "zero calorie" diet cokes.

    So what are the mice eating ad libitum? Effects of Intermittent Feeding Upon Growth and Life Span in Rats A "paleo mouse" food template or crap lab feed? I'm willing to bet eating nothing at all is better for mouse longevity than lab feed.

    My point is we can probably get closer to the answer if we compare apples to apples, which I believe is very difficult to do when the issue is eating a little versus not eating at all.
    Makin moves. Makin money. Makin bacon.

  • #2
    That certainly makes sense. The way you have to eat in order to fast would lend itself to more muscle mass preservation than a "regular" diet. I could calorie restrict all day long on a CW whole-grain low-fat diet, but I sure as hell couldn't have fasted for more than 4 hours without being an utterly useless, cranky human being.

    Comment


    • #3
      .

      IF is just a tool to make CR (weight loss) easier for some poeple. Plus it has other health benefits....

      .
      There is a huge difference between talking about how to do something and getting it fucking done.

      Comment


      • #4
        If you practice IF without calorie restriction (i.e. your eating window comes up and you eat a full daily allotment), do you get the same longevity benefits?
        Female, 5'3", 50, Max squat: 202.5lbs. Max deadlift: 225 x 3.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by marteen View Post
          Regarding: How Fasting Increases Lifespan | Mark's Daily Apple

          I decided to make this a forum thread because my thoughts go in a different direction than the comments on the actual blog post.

          The puzzling differences between calorie-restriction (CR) negatives which seem to turn into intermittent-fasting (IF) benefits are certainly intriguing. But I wonder if we're forgetting one of the main premises which separates our nutritional paradigm from CW. A calorie isn't a calorie.

          We know calories aren't calories. (Sorry elliptical machines)
          We know macronutrients aren't macronutrients (Sorry Zone)
          We know micronutrients aren't micronutrients (Sorry baby formula)
          We know foods aren't foods (Sorry CAFO beef)

          So a discussion of calorie restriction versus zero calories begs the question of what sorts of calories are being elminated? I think Gary Taubes likes to point out that when people go on traditional CW diets (e.g. Weight Watchers) they also tend to cut back on candy bars because even a misguided dieter knows that a candy bar isn't going to help anyone lose body fat.

          So you lose more muscle mass when CR than IF. Well, what are the calories in the first place? Maybe a CR protocol of mainly animal protein would look more like IF. Maybe the "magical pathway separate from caloric restriction" is ketosis. Maybe CR on low fat pasta decimates muscle mass.

          I have a hypothesis we would see differences between someone truely fasting versus someone fasting with "zero calorie" diet cokes.

          So what are the mice eating ad libitum? Effects of Intermittent Feeding Upon Growth and Life Span in Rats A "paleo mouse" food template or crap lab feed? I'm willing to bet eating nothing at all is better for mouse longevity than lab feed.

          My point is we can probably get closer to the answer if we compare apples to apples, which I believe is very difficult to do when the issue is eating a little versus not eating at all.
          I disagree with what you state as what "we know". Calories are in fact calories. Carlories, at the same time, may have different/multiple effects. Further, no food is absolutely distingushable from some food.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think ketosis has something to do with it. Fasting triggers a lot of biochemical processes that CR can't. Or so I've read.

            Comment

            Working...
            X