Barbara Fairbanks
Dhru Purohit
comments
Comments by "Barbara Fairbanks" (@barbarafairbanks4578) on "The "Healthy" Food You Need To AVOID EATING To Prevent Disease u0026 Inflammation | Jeff Nobbs" video.
@chrish1564 be careful with fasting. There is nominal, if any, autophagenic action in short fasts, e g. Intermittent fasting that is trending in popularity rn.
Longer fasts can have autophagenic benefits (autophagy generally kicks in around 48 hours), BUT there is a big drawback there for older folks, bc the lack of protein can result in loss of muscle mass.
Especially, with periodic 48 hour fasts over, say a year's time - maybe once a month, or 4x/a year (every quarter), for instance - the end result can easily be an overall reduction in weight which seems 'healthy'.
However, a dexa scan reveals, more often than not, that the individual has - for instance lost 5lbs body weight - as measured by the scale - but what's happened is they gradually lost 10 lbs muscle mass over a years time, but gained 5 lbs fat.
So, the weight scale reflects a loss of 5lbs, but, in truth, they gained 5lbs in fat tissue while losing 10 lbs muscle tissue. Not a good place to be for the over 40 crowd. That's a body composition moving in the wrong direction.
10
10
7
@deboraballes9044 IF is too short of a fast to reap autophagy benefits.
Now that the data are in, health experts are beginning to agree that autophagy does not even begin until around 36-48 hours of fasting.
The body still has at least 36 hrs of glycolic stores to burn during a fast, (generally speaking), and autophagy does not set in until glycogen stores are depleted.
There really is no autophagenic benefit to a short fast, like IF.
And no, the body does not 'reset' with a short fast (if by reset, you meant autophagy).
An IF can have health benefits if one wants to control their caloric intake by way of restricting their feeding window.
But, an IF should be done early in the day -per scientific studies - mainly by ending the eating window early eve (at least 3hrs prior to bedtime), and fasting those 3-4 hours in the eve, plus overnight. This is all science based, and not my opinion.
Break the fast early with breakfast at least by 10a.m. at the latest, & eat a protein forward breakfast (suggested by scientific dietary studies).
Per Dr. Satchin Panda @ Salk Institute - this is a healthy practice for our circadian rhythm and is the way the body's circadian rhythm & metabolism has been programned to take in & process food.
This is study supported data - (published research in 'Cell' Journal, by Dr. Satchin Panda @ Salk Institute for Circadian Studies) that the body is more efficient at processing food and the mTOR pathway (for muscle protein synthesis), early in the day- as opposed to the same meal later in the day....The body will process that later meal differently (less efficiently), and in that case it is muscle protein synthesis that suffers as a result.
Unfortunately, many people think there is a big health advantage to IF, by fasting overnight then skipping breakfast and pushing the fast out well into the afternoon, or beyond.
Meanwhile, they are often going about their day - working, or playing, or
working-out in a catabolic state.
They think they are 'resetting' their bodies, but they are expending energy whilst in a catabolic state and breaking the body down.
Skipping breakfast is a very bad idea, per recent dietary studies. It's bad for circadian health, bad for muscle growth, skeletal tissue, and bad for the metabolism.
Not simply my opinion, but rather study based data.
6
@Kyarrix you are incorrect- doubly so - bc TWO major studies are published, now,
on how the body's circadian rhythm affects caloric intake - as being beneficial to efficient caloric usage, AND efficacy of the mTOR pathway for increased muscle protein synthesis, with the 1st meal if the day consumed early a.m. (b/4 10am).
Both studies are published in respectable scientific journals, namely, 'CELL' and 'JAMA'.
These are scientific journals that fully vet the studies they are considering, prior to publishing the study they've selected.
The study by Dr. Satchin Panda's lab was published in 'Cell' , 3 years ago, now.
Dr. Panda Satchidananda (Satchin) Panda, PhD is a professor at The Salk Institute, La Jolla, California. His lab studies how circadian rhythm in metabolism is an integral part of metabolic health and longevity.
Bottom line in this study's abstract is that the body is more efficient at processing caloric intake early a.m., rather than later....sometime after 10am.
Also, the mTOR pathway works more efficiently for muscle protein synthesis early in the a.m. (so dietary protein is better utilized, early a.m.)
The more efficient mTOR pathway in the early am eaters resulted in an increase in overall strength of subjects eating THE SAME MEAL early a.m. - 6am to 10a.m. (10am @ the latest) than the study's control group who ate (exact same meal) later in the day.
The most recent study of this type was published this year in JAMA.
The thesis of the JAMA published study differed from Satchin Panda's study, in that study cohorts who ate the same meal (this time, the meals were at an energy deficit to promote weight loss.)
Again - 1st meal of the day was from 6a.m. to 10am. This group was found to have lost more weight over the length of the study, than subjects eating the SAME calorically restricted meals, but with the first meal of the day consumed LATER in the day.
And the weightloss differential btw the 2 groups was statistically significant.
Bottom line - The group cinsistently eating their calorie deficit meal -FIRST meal of the day - lost more weight over the course of the study than the group eating their first CR meal sometime after 10a.m.
Your idea that we should let ghrelin FULLY kick in to create a fully hungered state into the early afternoon before we consume our first meal, is completely flawed.
One unexpected finding in the JAMA published study was that the subjects who ate their first CR meal, early am, reported higher satiety with their 1st meal, and a lowered appetite throughout the rest of the day - than the group who ate later in the day...with less overall satiety and higher appetites throughout the day.
3
3
3
@chrish1564
Yah, you may want to find a Peter Attia, MD, YT podcast that talks about issues with the problem of sustaining muscle tissue and fasting - the 2 are not mutually compatible for positive results in 'older' adults.
There are a whole host of online med influencers, exercise physiologists, clinicians, MDs, dieticians, and fitness experts (folks like Dr. Gabrielle Lyon, MD; Lane Norton, PhD; Andy Galpin, PhD; Stacy Sims PhD; Donald Layman, PhD) who (now that the data are in) are starting to agree, that even with strength training & a high protein diet, sustaining muscle mass after the age of 50-ish, is already an uphill battle.
Throwing a dietary protein deficit (by fasting) into the mix is a bad idea - in that age group.
Younger people can fast without fear of muscle loss, fairly easily, because they are still fairly plush with 'youth hormones.
Anyhow, Dr. Attia's podcast is called The Drive - you can search YT, or listen on Spotify. or Apple. The Drive is free listening, and there is plenty of valuable health data within.
Attia found this out personally while tracking his body composition over a year's time while doing periodic 36-48 hr fasts. (once each quarter IIRC...so not excessive).
Results were disappointing to him, as he lost muscle mass.
And Peter Attia does everything right, as far as strength training/diet/lifestyle, etc.
(but this outcome was, of course, an 'N of 1' -so-to-speak, evidence wise, and everyone's' different, as they say.
If you strength train and are what's known in fitness circles as a 'gainer' 💪(easily add muscle tissue to your frame)...fasting periodically could yield a different result for you. Generally speaking, though, for the average over 50 Y O, it's quickly becoming a No-No.
So, Dr. Attia no longer recommends fasting -even 36-48 hrs - done periodically over a year's time in an older age group - for his patients.
He used to recommend fasting for Autophagy benefits, or even weightloss for obesity, but no longer feels it's a healthy practice for, say, 50's & beyond.
Just something to consider🤔 before we go headlong into the popular & trending practice of 'fasting', while we are also trying to age well.
2
2
@kyarrix
Also...you actually think I'm here directing people to eat @ an energy deficit? AND when to eat their first MOTD? NO, I did not. I merely cited scientific studies that included these dietary controls.
I do not advise people what, when, or under what circumstances to eat.
OTOH, you do, and it's based on your own preferences and what you think works for you. (and, per you... should, therefore, work for everyone).
smh
You assume that study findings - that don't fit your own biases-
are either 'misinterpreted', or are a one-off 'piece of information in a vacuum.
Get real😄
Here's a suggestion for you, Bud- try brushing up on your reading comprehension. Stop taking liberties with what others are writing here.
I never suggested others eat @ a caloric deficit. The CD meals were part of the study I cited.
All subjects in the study were obese and willing to eat @ a caloric deficit in order to lose weight, over time. All these subjects were under medical & dietary supervision during the study.
It was a scientific study, OK? Not me telling people how/what/when to eat.
Yah, I totally agree.. 'Let's not tell people...' - your words of advice to me, 😄 haha.
And yet, YOU seem to think 'telling people how, what, when... is perfectly fine for you to do.
Presumptive af🙄
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
@wayland7150 AH, sure! You are one who can 'do science', haha. You are so FOS, it's laughable.
Done your own RCT on this EVOO fridge test, eh? 😅
How did you adapt for the possible presence of alternate oils (that would also solidify in cold temps)?
You said yourself that the unknown factor of the presence of other oils, is what we wouldn't know with this test.
And, YET(!), per you, this Fridge Test is 100% scientific.😅
...Umm , NO, the possibility of other oils in the mix that would also solidify - makes this test, at best, 30% reliable, if even that.
This not even accurate as a hypothesis, much less a 'scientific' testing method. What's wrong with your brain that you don't understand this?🥴
This is all wishful thinking on your part, not 'science'🙃
Sorry, but in my pov you are a wanna be 'scientist'.
Don't quit your day job to pursue this line of work O.K?😉
2
2
1
1