the term for generally-favorable biological responses to low exposures to toxins and other stressors. A pollutant or toxin showing hormesis thus has the opposite effect in small doses as in large doses.
As you can see in the graph below, for any arbitrary "stressor" or substance, there is a band where that substance is stimulatory to the organism, and pretty much harmful at lower or higher doses. This is hormesis in action. If you don't like Greek, you can think of this as the Goldilocks principle, there is a dose range that is "just right!", which I propose to call the efficient frontier:
Before we get too lost in dry academic language here, let me put "stressor" into context. Let's consider that even one of the most fundamental constituents of our bodies, water, exhibits hormesis and an efficient frontier. We all know that without water for just a few days, we will die. Drink too much water, and you will die due to acute water intoxication. Get the right amount of water and you will thrive.
And this is where our paths diverge. I keep trying to answer the question "What is the range for meal frequency where we can thrive?" and replies are coming back with "What happens when you push the meal frequency to the extreme right in the hormesis graph?" To answer that question, I actually don't need to reference any study, because I can just go back to the principle of hormesis for the answer. It may be a tautology, but here goes "when you leave the efficient frontier of the hormesis graph, the stressor will cause damage to the organism, perhaps catastrophically so."
Nevertheless, there is work to do here. So, the initial quote above while interesting immediately raises some flags that I would want to investigate. I've highlighted the problematic issues in bold, and it essentially boils down to what did the authors of that original paper actually study? What is hiding behind the phrase "food deprivation?" How many calories? How often? For how many days? The fact that they refer to iodothyronine metabolism during "starvation" makes me suspect that we are looking at prolonged periods without food, much in excess of 48 - 72 hours, and more than likely beyond the efficient frontier for meal frequency. Without access to the full study, however, I cannot do anything but speculate at this point.
This is a pretty good reference, mostly because we have access to the full text of the study, so we can determine whether it applies here, or not. It does not because it addresses the effects of fasting over 10 days, which I believe is beyond the efficient frontier and definitely into potential starvation.
I'm not going to expressly look at this study, for lack of time, I may come back to it later. I will say, however, that it addresses an unhealthy population subsegment, those that have needed surgical intervention to address their problems. As such, I would be extremely cautious in drawing any conclusions from it if you do not belong to the same population as those under study ( ie individuals with a jejuno-ileal bypass )
+1000I do not see using "eating windows" or intermittent fasting being globally harmful. I do believe that intermittent fasting, for people with known rT3 issues, should be weighed carefully with input from their physician.
We are in violent agreement here. If you are not healthy, particularly with respect to your thyroid metabolism, see your doctor before doing things which will impact on thyroid metabolism. Fasting will impact thyroid metabolism. This is natural and expected. If fasting does not impact thyroid metabolism, that in itself is a pathological condition.
Maybe I may have time later to look at this...