Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

Intermittent fasting is NOT superior to normal calorie restriction for weight loss or insulin sensitivity 🤷🏼‍♂️

31,664 görüntüleme • 2 yıl önce •via X (Twitter)

5 Yorum

Six Pack Billy profil fotoğrafı
Six Pack Billy2 yıl önce

Intermittent fasting zealots about to get on here and complain. 😂

convexbets profil fotoğrafı
convexbets2 yıl önce

does it matter if the glucose spikes (as measured using CGM) are consistently higher and more frequent, keeping total daily calories constant?

Pete Shaw profil fotoğrafı
Pete Shaw2 yıl önce

It is a tool like many others.

z Boží vůle frajer profil fotoğrafı
z Boží vůle frajer2 yıl önce

Even so, one can't fail to notice that during, for example, a five-day fast, the quality of sleep is incomparable for several hours compared to a saturated state, if the person in question doesn't underestimate electrolytes.

John Smith profil fotoğrafı
John Smith2 yıl önce

Agree! I use TRE as a calorie restriction tool. Eat first meal at 11am-noon, a snack around 3-4pm, and dinner 6-7pm. Very easy to stay at or under 2k calories for the day plus I seem to have more consistent energy levels all day. Effective for me for fat loss and I feel better!

Benzer Videolar

Fasting is NOT Superior for Autophagy Autophagy has become the biggest buzzword in nutrition in the last 5 years & whenever I do videos or posts on intermittent fasting & why it is a useful tool for fat loss, but NOT superior to other calorie equated diets, people invariably say that ‘tHeSe StUdIeS dOn’T aCcOuNt FoR aUtoPhAgY!’ When I cite studies showing that normal calorie restriction gets the same benefits as calorie equated fasting diets, people often say that fasting gets you the benefits WITHOUT calorie restriction. Well, a very highly controlled study showed that this is NOT the case Well this study did (PMID: 34135111). They had people follow one of 3 diets: 1) Alternate day fasting without calorie restriction where they ate 200% of their maintenance calories on feeding days, & 0% the next day (200:0) & continued to alternate them throughout the course of the study 2) Alternate day fasting with 25% calorie restriction where they ate 150% of their maintenance calories on feeding days & 0% the next day (150:0) & continued to alternate those throughout the course of the study or 3) Continuous calorie restriction where they had people eat 75% of their maintenance calories every day for the duration of the study (75:75) Both the 150:0 & 75:75 diets reduced body weight to the same extent, but the 75:75 group lost slightly more fat mass & retained slightly more lean mass than the 150:0 fasting group. Both restricted groups lost more body fat & weight than the 200:0 group which did not lose weight or fat. Markers of autophagy were also equivalent between the 150:0 & 75:75 groups as well as other adipose tissue genes, gut hormones, and markers of cardiometabolic health This study demonstrates that it is the caloric restriction that drives these improvements in health & the changes in autophagy, NOT because fasting has some magical effect on autophagy that exists outside of the caloric restriction it imposes I am NOT saying fasting is bad. I’m not saying it’s not a useful tool or that you can’t lose fat with it. You can & it can be a great tool for many people… it’s just not magic like many proponents of fasting try to make it out to be Tired of the diet wars & not knowing how to make sense of all the contradictory information out there? Comment ‘FRAMEWORK’ and I’ll send you my simplified guide on how to lose fat & build muscle for FREE

Layne Norton, PhD

29,887 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce