To me, it's a marginally interesting study, but the sample size was so small (barely more than a dozen on the 1/d diet), and the duration was so short (2 weeks), I feel that physiologically it proved the point of intermittent fasting without providing a duration to create any real change. The 1 meal/day subjects were eating a full day's caloric load each meal, but still lost body fat.
I'd point out from purely personal experience that two weeks isn't enough time for a body (at least mine) to fully acclimate to an intermittent fasting regimen. Like the study showed, hunger can be a challenge in the initial phases. However, I would argue that hunger becomes practically a non-issue well before a 30-day marker is hit. I don't think a study like this would be effective with anything less than a 60-day testing window. The body's programmed response to food doesn't turn on a dime. I've actually gained quite a bit of weight since my divorce, not fasting and overeating daily. I've found, however, that after IF'ing in the past for prolonged periods, I'm not having any hunger issues now that I'm back to a calorie-restricted eating window.
Just my non-scientific two cents worth.
From: Vijay Kulkarni <vjkulkarni@yahoo.com>
To: "fast5@yahoogroups.com" <fast5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:08 PM
Subject: [fast5] Fw: A confusing study
To: "fast5@yahoogroups.com" <fast5@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2012 8:08 PM
Subject: [fast5] Fw: A confusing study
The above study seems to suggest that 1 meal per day with the same calorie intake as 3 meals per day could have some unwanted affects like increased blood pressure, and worse cholesterol measures. What do you all think?
Regards,Vijay Kulkarni
__._,_.___
0 comments:
Post a Comment