Apologies for the spotty posting the past month. The gym has been very busy which is great but it has really cut into my writing time. Add some CrossFit related travel, the holidays and some other fun and things have thoroughly ground to a halt!
I want to thank Shaf and Brad for sending some pdf’s I needed. I will link to the abstracts or full text article as available.
Hot topics in nutritional research are the interrelated concepts of meal frequency (intermittent fasting) and caloric restriction. Oddly, there is little debate on the topic of caloric restriction and it’s ability to reduce the frequency of diseases such as diabetes, cancer, Alzheimer’s and a host of other ailments. I say oddly because nutritional “science” seems unable to get out of its own way when ferreting out what does and does not constitute healthy eating. Someday nutrition texts or 101 courses may begin with the premise “…H. Sapiens evolved over the Millennia as Hunter Gatherers utilizing an economic strategy of foraging and food sharing that served our species remarkably well until the advent of agriculture…” Not bloody likely I know but worth a hope!
If you recall, caloric restriction has been shown to slow aging in everything from fruit flies to rodents and primates. This is interesting stuff and it offers enticing potential for extending human life except for the fact that most people cannot cope with the constant hunger that accompanies caloric restriction. Intermittent fasting offers a tool that is perhaps more livable than caloric restriction AND may work better, especially when one maintains a normal body weight and activity level with intermittent fasting.
Recent research looks at a few variables, such as a single meal per day and an alternating schedule of ad libitum eating followed by a day of calorie restriction. Both protocols show promise however there are some blind spots we still need to consider in future research.
The first paper I want to look at studies the effect of 3 meals per day (TMPD) vs. 1 meal per day (OMPD) on glucose regulation while keeping calories and macronutrients the same between the two groups. The findings are somewhat confusing and a bit of a let-down for fans (like me) of intermittent fasting:
Impaired morning glucose tolerance test, Impaired insulin release (insulin resistance) and from a related study I will get to in a moment, increased HDL’s’s and LDL’s’s (no particle size specified) and decreased triglycerides, all in the OMPD folks. One additional confounder is that the OMPD people lost body fat while maintaining their weight, which indicated an increase in fat-free mass. The OMPD protocol appears to improve some elements of insulin sensitivity such as decreased triglycerides, although this is far from clear when we see things like impaired glucose tolerance and sluggish insulin response. The authors cover their bases quite well in the discussion and they mention that one may still be processing the large meal from the previous day when the morning tests are taken, however no one is considering the composition of the meals consumed. This is one of the difficulties of nutrition research in that one must alter as few variables as possible to avoid confounders. This makes ones starting point all the more important. In this situation we find that the macronutrient composition for the two studies are as follows:
Protein-14.5%
Fat-35.6%
Carbohydrate-49.8%
Fiber-17g
The caloric intake was set at ~2364kcal for the OMPD subjects and to decrease the volume of the meal, energy dense (refined) food sources were chosen. So what does this mean in terms of meal size for the OMPD folks?
Protein-87g
Fat-93g
Carb-298g
The study authors wanted to take a standard American diet and compare the TMPD vs. OMPD approach. What we find is a modest decrease in fat mass (14.2 vs. 16.3) and increase in fat free mass in the OMPD vs. TMPD (50.9 vs. 49.4). This is fairly impressive to me considering the subjects consumed a large meal with nearly 300g of dense, refined carbohydrate in addition to a sizable chunk of fat and protein. As I mentioned earlier, the OMPD approach resulted in improved blood lipid markers such as increased HDL and decreased triglycerides, but the ambiguous increase of LDL’s, with no report on the particle size. With the decrease in triglycerides we might assume an increase in LDL particle size and consequently a decrease in atherogenic potential…but that is only a guess without lab verification.
What if macronutrient ratios were shifted towards ancestral levels? What if we saw less mixed meals and divisions along protein/fat meals and carbohydrate only meals, with AVERAGE caloric intake remaining the same? What if carbohydrate sources were not refined? We see marked improvements in blood lipid profiles with a shift towards an ancestral diet (low carb), so it would be interesting to use this as a baseline for future investigations.
Another paper I want to look at studies the effects of one day of ad libitum eating followed by a day of 80% calorie restriction on markers of oxidative stress and asthma in overweight adults. This alternate day caloric restriction (ADCR) approach is interesting for several reasons. We see marked improvements in inflammatory markers, systemic oxidative load, blood lipids, and a decrease in severity and frequency of asthma symptoms. At the end of 8 weeks we see an almost 10% decrease in bodyweight and improvements in subjective reports of hunger. If you recall, alternate day fasts in humans have historically fared poorly due to poor compliance due to the extreme hunger of the subjects. In this case however the small (~300kcal) meal on the CR day appears to be enough to stave off hunger and allow for fairly good compliance.
A few things come to mind when I consider these studies:
1-How much of the difficulty people face on either caloric restriction or intermittent fasting is due to the relatively high amounts of refined carbohydrate and the consequent effects this may have on insulin signaling. In Good Calories, Bad Calories Taubes mentions a study in which the individuals were feed up to 10,000kcals per day, far beyond their caloric needs, yet they remained ravenously hungry. Taubes mentions other studies in which individuals are maintained on low carb, calorie restricted diets with virtually no hunger. This is SUCH in interesting and important point that needs wider airplay.
2-What if we START our investigations with a diet that emulates that of our ancestors, then study the effects of meal spacing or caloric content? I think it’s telling that mild caloric restriction or intermittent fasting can mitigate the effects of a high carb diet, but why not start from a better position? One of the key metabolites studied in the asthma paper above was beta-hydroxy butyrate, a ketone. Ketones appears to confer some advantage both from a perspective of redox potential but also from oxidative stress attenuated via hormesis…why not START with a ketogenic or near ketogenic diet? If intermittent fasting improves insulin sensitivity as it appears to we may be able to alter the range of carbohydrate intake and still maintain therapeutic levels of ketosis. If nothing else one way start at a ketogenic level, add intermittent fasting or caloric restriction, and then titrate carbohydrate up until we see an increase in inflammatory markers and oxidative stress. The list of potential ailments that might benefit from this type of intervention includes cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, Huntington’s, asthma, a plethora of autoimmune diseases…we hear barely a whisper about this as a research topic yet therapeutic potential is stunning.
Chris says
Great post as always Robb.
Thanks Chris!
RW
Brad says
Nice write-up.
You start a clinical trial and I’ll sign up as a guinea pig (squeak). Just let me know how much to bribe the coordinator to ensure I’m in one of the fasting groups.
Brad
Reminds me of something from Wren & Stimpy- “Squeak! Squeak I say!”
It would be interesting to do a kitchen sink type of intervention…low carb, paleo foods, intermittent fasting or caloric restriction in a population of diabetics. Likely great results while in the metabolic ward, then it’s back to the real world. It would however be nice to stack this against a protocol designed by one of the vegan docs, agree on what constitutes “good outcomes” then let the thing run, cross the folks over in 8 weeks. The info would be entirely outcome based but it would be telling.
RW
Mike OD says
Good write up Robb. I agree to the fact that people need to first eat healthy (aka Paleo) and worry about IF second. IF while eating crap (refined foods/sugars) will only lead to muscle loss and eventual failure of the IF lifestyle because of cravings and other factors. IF with Paleo is a win-win but Paleo alone when compared to IF on crap (IFOC I will term it as) probably gives more improved health markers. Most people need to start IF 1-2days a week while eating healthy and make sure their performance and body composition is not going backwards, otherwise something needs to be modified.
Thanks MOD! That progression does seem to work well.
Robb
Noel Welsh says
For the OMPD vs TMPD study, it seems like a better study design would be to define eating windows rather than prescribe number of meals. Say have one group that is allowed to anytime in a 3 hour window, and another that can eat any time during the day. This would avoid the problem with the meal size (and hence composition) in the OMPD group without, I think, affecting the validity of the results.
Noel-
This is one of the tough elements of studies like this. Interesting artifacts pop up like the OMPD folks had markedly lower cortisol levels than the TMPD but that was most likely due to the fact that the blood tests were performed early in the day for the TMPD folks (before eating) and late in the day for the OMPD folks (also before eating). Normally cortisol falls later in the day, but it’s tough to discern what if any effect is due to the food, food timing or simply diurnal fluctuation in cortisol. Tweak one variable and everything can change just as a testing artifact.
Robb
Allen Yeh says
Great write up!
Joey says
Most likely IF has no benefit for people on a diet that emulates our ancestors and it only benefits people who are on a high carb diet.
Joey-
I’ll let Scotty Hagnas, Kurtis Bowler and the LeanGains guy ( He has a 600lb. DL x 3 I think) know that intermittent fasting is not working for them. They will be crushed.
Robb
Charles says
This could be why intermittent fasting works: it starves the gut bacteria, which allows the body to burn fat by releasing Fasting-induced adipocyte factor.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=15505215&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
A discussion at a blog where I found the link:
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Fiaf%3A%20starving%20amidst%20plenty
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/search/label/Fiaf%3B%20Who%27s%20fat%20is%20it%20anyway%3F
Awesome info! Thanks Charles.
Robb
Liam says
Great info in the post but I wouldn’t recommend fasting if you’re trying to build mass or get a six pack. People always think calories are a bad thing but what they don’t realize is that muscles require calories in order to grow. Do you mind if i post this on my blog and give you a link back? Thanks
Robb Wolf says
Liam-
totally, also check out Lean Gains for info on intermittent fasting used in a body-building context.