Top Ten Fasting Myths Debunked (Major Update Nov 4th). Or . That would have fit almost as well. Ok, so in retrospect, I think I screwed up on the title. Many myths just happened to be connected to intermittent fasting (meal frequency, breakfast skipping, etc.). Well, live and learn. In addition to the military diet plan menu, it is advised to drink as much water as you can (at least 3 to 4 liters per day). November 4th Addendum: Section added at the end of the article. Everyone who learns about nutrition through the usual channels, be it fitness magazines, mainstream diet books and forums, gets cursed with the prevailing belief system of what constitutes a good diet. Though specific dietary recommendations vary slightly depending on who you listen to, there are many common denominators and . Call it broscience, incompetence or ignorance, same thing. We've all been there and we've all followed these rules. Led like sheep, not knowing better. Trusting that those we listen to knew what they were talking about. While these dietary myths run rampant in the bodybuilding and fitness community, you'll find that many are being endlessly propagated in the mainstream as well. Upon closer scrutiny, the great majority lack scientific basis. They are born out out of half- truths, faulty conclusions drawn from poorly conducted studies or created when a study gets cited out of context. Sometimes, what's claimed is even in exact opposition to what really occurs at a physiological level. Many people believe that alcohol is fattening, more so than any other macronutrient. Yet, if you look at how inefficiently the body converts ethanol to fat, you'll find that it's completely backwards. I talked about this in . Also note how the proposed negative effect of alcohol on muscle growth doesn't even exist in the scientific literature. You'll see similar examples in this article. For example, in short- term fasting, it's often claimed that metabolic rate slows down - yet looking at the studies, the opposite is true. The myths I'll debunk today are being kept alive by: 1. My name is Vit and this is my intermittent fasting manual calledRepeat something often enough and it becomes the truth. If everyone is saying the same thing, it must be true. No need to look into it and think for yourself. The fact that bodybuilders and fitness celebrities keep propagating these myths doesn't help either. Most people reason that if these people do it, it must be great. Unfortunately, bodybuilders and fitness celebrities might just be one of the last people on earth you should listen to if you want objective and accurate opinions in nutrition. For example, the supplement industry benefits greatly from people believing that frequent feedings provide a metabolic advantage. People don't have time to eat six cooked meals a day. Instead, they turn to meal replacement powders, shakes and protein bars. The cereal and grain industry benefits by preaching about the virtues of breakfast for weight control, health and fat loss. There's no commercial incentive in telling people that they would do just fine with three squares a day. Few people have the knowledge or interest needed to interpret the scientific evidence and draw their own conclusions. In order to do this you would need an academic background that included critical examination of studies and study methodology as part of the learning process. However, an academic background, or an extensive education in nutrition or physiology, seems to correlate very poorly with truthfulness and objectivity in the field of dietetics in my experience. The advice and claims I have seen made by many RDs (Registered Dietitians) has been so shamelessly wrong that I put little stock in anything they have to say. The same goes for many . Perhaps they lose interest in keeping up with research. What we know today is a bit different from what we knew twenty years ago after all. Or maybe they're afraid that their credibility would be questioned if they change the advice they have been giving for years. I've been thinking about it quite a bit. Back to the topic. The top ten fasting myths debunked. The dietary recommendations and advice given in mainstream media and most fora will have you believe that fasting is a hazardous practice. On top of wrecking your metabolism, you should expect ravenous hunger, fat gain, muscle loss, and severe mental impairment. Or so you are told. Needless to say, people who are introduced to Leangains and the intermittent fasting diet concept have many fears that will make them think twice before embracing it. Fears grounded in years of a dietary indoctrination based on faulty ideas and lies.
We've all been there. I've listed the ten most common fasting and diet myths that exist to make people resistant to intermittent fasting. I've explained why they're wrong and linked out to references and other resources for those who would like to read a more detailed review of the issues. I've also listed their origins, or what I believe to be their origins. I've dealt with each myth many times before on this site but it would be good to have everything in one place. Even if you've been following me for a while, you'll find some new information here I haven't discussed in the past. It's a long read but it'll be worth your while. Myth: Eat frequently to . Paradoxically, it takes energy to break down and absorb energy. This is the Thermic Effect of Food (TEF). The amount of energy expended is directly proportional to the amount of calories and nutrients consumed in the meal. Let's assume that we are measuring TEF during 2. We run three different trials where the only thing we change is the the meal frequency. A) Three meals: 9. B) Six meals: 4. 50 kcal per meal. C) Nine meals: 3. What we'd find is a different pattern in regards to TEF. The total amount of energy expended by TEF would be identical in each scenario. Meal frequency does not affect total TEF. It looked at many different studies that compared TEF during meal frequencies ranging from 1- 1. For a summary of the above cited study, read this research review by Lyle Mc. Donald. Earlier this year, a new study was published on the topic. As expected, no differences were found between a lower (3 meals) and higher meal (6 meals) frequency. Read this post for my summary of the study. This study garnered some attention in the mass media and it was nice to see the meal frequency myth being debunked in The New York Times. Origin. Seeing how conclusive and clear research is on the topic of meal frequency, you might wonder why it is that some people, quite often RDs in fact, keep repeating the myth of . My best guess is that they've somehow misunderstood TEF. After all, they're technically right to say you keep your metabolism humming along by eating frequently. They just missed that critical part where it was explained that TEF is proportional to the calories consumed in each meal. Another guess is that they base the advice on some epidemiological studies that found an inverse correlation between high meal frequency and body weight in the population. What that means is that researchers may look at the dietary pattern of thousands individuals and find that those who eat more frequently tend to weigh less than those who eat less frequently. It's important to point out that these studies are uncontrolled in terms of calorie intake and are done on Average Joes (i. Just because there's a connection between low meal frequencies and higher body weights, doesn't mean that low meal frequencies cause weight gain. Those studies likely show that people who tend to eat less frequently have: * Dysregulated eating patterns; the personality type that skips breakfast in favor of a donut in the car on the way to work, undereat during the day, and overeat in the evening. They tend to be less concerned with health and diet than those who eat more frequently.* Another feasible explanation for the association between low meal frequencies and higher body weight is that meal skipping is often used as a weight loss strategy. People who are overweight are more likely to be on a diet and eat fewer meals. The connection between lower meal frequency and higher body weight in the general population, and vice versa, is connected to behavioral patterns - not metabolism. Myth: Eat smaller meals more often for hunger control. Truth. Given the importance of finding the most favorable meal pattern for hunger and appetite control, there's a surprising scarcity of studies on the topic. The most widely cited study is one where obese males were fed 3. However, the single meal was now split into five smaller meals, which were consumed every hour leading up to the ad libitum meal. The results showed that subjects undergoing . The same setup was used by the same researchers on lean males and showed similar results. However, upon closer scrutiny it's clear how little real world application those results have. The macrocomposition of the pre- load was 7. The situation created was highly artificial and abnormal. Who sits around nibbling on pasta and ice cream, sipping orange juice, every hour leading up to a regular meal? The latest research, performed under conditions that more closely resemble a real- world scenario, shows the opposite result. In this study, three high- protein meals lead to greater fullness and appetite control when compared to six high- protein meals. You can read my summary of the study here: Three Meals Superior for Appetite Control. There's no doubt that meal frequency is highly individual. However, absolute statements claiming smaller meals are superior for hunger and appetite control are untrue and are based on studies using methods that greatly differed from real- world meal patterns. Current research with a normal meal pattern and protein intakes that are closer to what can be seen in a typical non- retarded diet, suggests superior appetite control when eating fewer and larger meals. Origin. This myth might have originated from the limited data from studies on meal frequencies and appetite control. The Intermittent Fasting Dilemma. By Ori Hofmekler. The intermittent fasting approach has been getting increased recognition these days. But 1. 0 years ago, it was a different story. When I introduced The Warrior Diet concept about 1. Telling people to skip breakfast and lunch was like committing dietary heresy. The Warrior Diet book was the first to offer a diet plan based on intermittent fasting. Yes, at that time, it felt like I was the only person in the world arguing for substituting the frequent feeding approach of several meals per day with one meal per day. Then, a few years later, studies on intermittent fasting (conducted by Dr. Marc Mattson/NIH) shocked the world with the news that this . Since then, a growing number of health and fitness gurus have been jumping on the intermittent fasting (IF) wagon. Just Google intermittent fasting and check for yourself. Multiple websites and many bloggers are now claiming credit for their IF plan. The variations include fasting all day, every other day, every third day, twice per week, once per week, or once every other week. Some recommend skipping breakfast or skipping dinner, whereas others advise . According to Weil, simply eating three meals per day with no snacks should be called in America . And there is always a reason to avoid fasting. Virtually all IF websites are happy to give you these reasons. Plenty of Reasons (or Perhaps Excuses) to Avoid Fasting They tell you: don't fast if you're hypoglycemic; don't fast if you're diabetic; don't skip meals if you suffer from heartburn, or don't get yourself overstressed with fasting if you're already overstressed. It is also very popular these days to say, . Nonetheless, even in these or similar cases, the exclusion of fasting is not necessarily wise, as fasting could be potentially useful as a therapeutic strategy. Fasting has shown to improve conditions of metabolic disorders, lower the need for insulin medication, and help relieve inflammation. So how can fasting benefit you? To figure that out, you need to take a look at the science behind fasting. You need to know how fasting induces its beneficial effects on your body, and what meal frequency allows you to take maximum advantage of that. How Fasting Benefits Your Body. Scientists acknowledged three major mechanisms by which fasting benefits your body, as it extends lifespan and protects against disease: Reduced oxidative stress – Fasting decreases the accumulation of oxidative radicals in the cell, and thereby prevents oxidative damage to cellular proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids associated with aging and disease. Increased insulin sensitivity and mitochondrial energy efficiency – Fasting increases insulin sensitivity along with mitochondrial energy efficiency, and thereby retards aging and disease, which are typically associated with loss of insulin sensitivity and declined mitochondrial energy. Increased capacity to resist stress, disease and aging – Fasting induces a cellular stress response (similar to that induced by exercise) in which cells up- regulate the expression of genes that increase the capacity to cope with stress and resist disease and aging. There is Only One Fasting Regimen that Makes Sense in Practice.. So given the above, what kind of fasting regimen will benefit you most? If you learn the facts behind human biology and how your body is programmed to thrive, you will realize that almost every popular IF program today, including alternate day fasting, once or twice a week fasting, and once every other week fasting are, in the best case, only partially beneficial. Most IF programs cannot and will not yield the results you're looking for. The reason: Your body operates around a 2. Most IF programs are not designed to accommodate that cycle. Most IF Programs Disregard Your Circadian Clock. Your innate clock is an essential factor in your life as it controls all your circadian rhythms. Called the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus (SCN), it is located in your hypothalamus, where it regulates how your autonomic nervous system operates along with your hormones, your wake and sleep pattern, your feeding behavior, and your capacity to digest food, assimilate nutrients, and eliminate toxins. What happens when you go against your innate clock? If you're routinely disregarding your innate clock – working during sleeping hours, or feeding at the wrong time – you'll sooner or later pay the consequences with symptoms that may include disrupted sleep, agitation, digestive disorders, constipation, chronic fatigue, chronic cravings for sweets and carbs, fat gain, and lower resistance to stress. Note that chronic disruptions in circadian rhythms have been linked with increased risk for chronic inflammatory disease and cancer. Most IF programs overlook this issue. Their timing of feeding is either random or wrong. But the timing of your feeding is not something you can afford overlooking. There is a dual relationship between your feeding and innate clock. And as much as your innate clock affects your feeding, your feeding can affect your innate clock. Routinely eating at the wrong time will disrupt your innate clock and devastate vital body functions; and you'll certainly feel the side effects as your whole metabolic system gets unsynchronized. Your Biological Feeding Time is at Night. So when is your right feeding time? Your body is programmed for nocturnal feeding. All your activities, including your feeding, are controlled by your autonomic nervous system which operates around the circadian clock. During the day, your sympathetic nervous system (SNS) puts your body in an energy spending active mode, whereas during the night your parasympathetic nervous system (PSNS) puts your body in an energy replenishing relaxed and sleepy mode. These two parts of your autonomic nervous system complement each other like yin and yang. Your SNS, which is stimulated by fasting and exercise, keeps you alert and active with an increased capacity to resist stress and hunger throughout the day. And your PSNS, which is stimulated by your nightly feeding, makes you relaxed and sleepy, with a better capacity to digest and replenish nutrients throughout the night. This is how your autonomic nervous system operates under normal conditions. But that system is highly vulnerable to disruption. If you eat at the wrong time such as when having a large meal during the day, you will mess with your autonomic nervous system; you'll inhibit your SNS and instead turn on the PSNS which will make you sleepy and fatigued rather than alert and active during the working hours of the day. And instead of spending energy and burning fat, you'll store energy and gain fat. This is indeed a lose- lose situation. Unfortunately, most IF programs fail to recognize this. Most IF Programs Miss the Boat. Let's take a brief look at some of the most notable IF regimens. This program seems to be the most difficult to handle. Followers of this regimen have been complaining of a significant increase in hunger and a chronic excruciating desire to eat on their fasting day. But what makes this IF program even more problematic is the adaptability issue – as followers seem to be just as hungry on the last day of fasting as on their first day. There have also been reports of side effects such as sleeping disorders, constipation, and a persistent fatigue among the followers. The alternate day fasting has one major caveat: the 2. This regimen has been shown to cause sleeping issues due to the fact that night fasting turns on the SNS which keeps you alert and anxious rather than relaxed and sleepy during the night – thereby disrupting your sleep- wake cycle. Furthermore, based on epidemiological evidence, it seems that the human body is programmed for a daily cycle of 2. Anything beyond that may put your body in a starvation- catabolic mode which if done chronically, may lead to metabolic shutdown's symptoms such as underactive thyroid, decreased sex hormones, loss of muscle mass, and declined energy. Both once or twice a week seem to be easier to follow than the alternate day fasting, only that these regimens are less effective than the alternate day fasting. Eating 3- 4 square meals every day for most of the week is a serious compromise of the original IF concept, as it minimizes the weekly impact of fasting to merely 1- 2 days per week. These IF programs seem to target the typical American dieter who is constantly looking for an . The skipping dinner approach goes against your innate clock. This regimen may cause sleep disorders and similar side effects as the alternate day fasting diet, only that skipping dinner is less effective than the alternate day fasting due to its shorter fasting time. Nonetheless, the science clearly indicates the opposite – the typical breakfast antagonizes the SNS and disrupts healthy circadian rhythms. There is growing evidence that the typical breakfast is the most harmful meal of the day. A study by the Human Nutrition Research France. These included a strong inhibition of fat burning throughout the day, increase in serum triacylglycerol, decrease in HDL (good cholesterol), and over- glycemic reactions. The researchers concluded that high- energy breakfast does not appear to be favorable to health; they also indicated that the study's results do not support the current advice to consume more energy at breakfast. Note that the average consumption of energy at breakfast among breakfast eaters is between 1. The typical breakfast composition: 1. Other reports coming from epidemiological surveys have been indicating that the consumption of a high energy breakfast leads to a significant higher energy consumption for the whole day. Furthermore, a big breakfast has shown to yield only a limited satiety effect which lasts merely 2 hours after breakfast. Overall, science confirms that the typical high carbohydrate breakfast tends to increase fat storage, increase body weight, and increase the risk for cardiovascular disease and long term health.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
July 2017
Categories |