Intermittent fasting: Is it all it's cracked up to be?

Intermittent fasting is an increasingly popular weight loss dieting strategy. Beyond weight loss however, the diet has promising benefits that may reduce the risk of developing some chronic, lifestyle diseases. In this Honest Nutrition feature, we explain all that you need to know about intermittent fasting, and whether it is worth the hype.

Intermittent fasting is a term used to describe a variety of eating patterns that have alternating periods of fasting — abstinence from foods — and eating.

The fasting period may last from 12 hours per day to several consecutive days, with a consistent, recurring pattern over the course of a week.

The main typesTrusted Source of intermittent fasting are:

• modified fasting or the 5:2 diet — this protocol involves fasting for 2 non-consecutive days of the week, and eating normally for 5 days
• alternate-day fasting — fasting days are alternated with days where foods and beverages are consumed normally, without restrictions
• time-restricted eating — a type of intermittent fasting that limits the “eating window” to 4–12 hours, inducing a daily fasting period of 12–20 hours. Persons eat to satiety during their eating windows without caloric restrictions.

Of these, time-restricted eatingTrusted Source is the most popular, and may be what most people refer to when they mention intermittent fasting.

The 16:8 pattern — eating during an 8-hour window and fasting for 16 hours each day — may be the most recommended time-restricted eating pattern.

The circadian rhythm

Much of the research on intermittent fasting and time-restricted eating considers the impact of fasting on the body’s natural circadian rhythm.

The circadian rhythmTrusted Source, also called the circadian clock, represents the 24-hour cycle of metabolism in the body, including control of the sleep-wake cycle, blood pressure, mood regulation, and hormonal balance, to name a few.

It is influenced by light and darkness over the course of the day, eating behaviors, and the timing of meals.

A growing body of researchTrusted Source suggests that eating for lengthy periods in the day, ranging from 12–15 hours, may disrupt the circadian rhythm and increase the risk of chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes.

Thus, a major goal of fasting, specifically time-restricted eating, is to reduce the time spent eating in the day by extending the overnight fasting period.

The study of the relationship between circadian rhythms and food timing is called chrono-nutritionTrusted Source.

Benefits

Many of the benefits of intermittent fasting are attributed to daily fasting periods of no less than 12 hours, although some research suggests that a minimum of 16 hours of fasting may be required.

Generally, during 12–36Trusted Source hours of uninterrupted fasting, the liver glycogen stores become depleted, overall metabolic processes are altered, and positive health effects are observed.

Here are some of the science-backed benefits of intermittent fasting.

1. Improved cholesterol levels

Findings across animal and human researchTrusted Source show favorable changes in cholesterol levels.

Intermittent fasting has the potentialTrusted Source to reduce total cholesterol, triglycerides, LDL cholesterol or “bad” cholesterol, and increase HDL cholesterol or “good” cholesterol.

Elevated total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels are risk factorsTrusted Source for heart disease.

2. Blood sugar control

Intermittent fasting can improve blood sugar controlTrusted Source by reducing insulin resistance, and increasing insulin sensitivity.

This results in lowerTrusted Source fasting blood sugar and glycated hemoglobin — HbA1c — levels.

In fact, experimental research in adult males with type 2 diabetes showed the potential for intermittent fasting as a therapeutic approach that may reduce the need for insulin therapy.

3. Changes in body composition

Changes in body weight and compositionTrusted Source are among the most studied effects of intermittent fasting.

Several studies have shown that weight loss of between 3–7% body weight in an average of 8 weeks was achievable through intermittent fasting. Research also noted that this method could result in fat loss.

Fasting in a 14:10 patternTrusted Source — an eating window of 10 hours and a daily fast of 14 hours — can act on the risk factors of metabolic syndrome, including by reducing waist circumference, body fat percentage, and visceral fat.

Intermittent fasting can thus ease metabolic syndrome, a set of risk factors that increase the risk of heart disease and type 2 diabetes.

4. Other healthbenefits

A 2015 reviewTrusted Source of 2,650 adult females indicated that reducing calorie intake in the evenings, and fasting for longer periods at night, may lower inflammation and the risk of breast cancer and other inflammatory conditions.

Observational researchTrusted Source of 26,092 adult males over a 16-year period suggested that reducing late-night eating through time-restricted eating may significantly reduce the risk of heart disease.

Other areas of health that intermittent fasting is being explored in include longevityTrusted Source and neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson’s diseaseTrusted Source.

Potential downsides

Despite the many touted benefits of intermittent fasting, there are also some downsides.

Side effects

Intermittent fasting may be safe for heart and metabolic health, but according to a 2017 reviewTrusted Source, it may induce negative side effects in some people, such as:

• increased feelings of hunger
• heightened irritability
• worsened mood
• increased thoughts about food
• fatigue
• fears of feeling out of control around food
• overeating during eating windows
• difficulty concentrating.

Quality of evidence

Additionally, most of the research on intermittent fasting is based on animal research, with littleTrusted Source long-term human research available.

Furthermore, a 2021 reviewTrusted Source found that only six out of 104 alleged health benefits of intermittent fasting were supported by moderate- to high-quality evidence, and most findings were based on low-quality research.

This means that more rigorous human research on the long-term health benefits of intermittent fasting is warranted.

Alternatives

Intermittent fasting is not the only type of diet to result in the aforementioned benefits.

Calorie restriction

Calorie restrictionTrusted Source involving a reduction of about 25% of daily energy needs without a change in mealtimes had a positive effect on promoting overall health.

Some research suggests that the health outcomes of intermittent fasting are no greater than those observed in calorie restriction diets.

In fact, outcomes for weight and/ or fat loss, body fat percentage, and metabolic risk factors are comparableTrusted Source between the two.

However, research on intermittent fasting shows a greater adherence over longer periods compared to calorie restriction, and suggests that it may be a more sustainable approach.

Mediterranean diet

The Mediterranean dietTrusted Source is a renowned dietary pattern based on the traditional eating patterns of the Mediterranean basin.

Like the potential heart-friendlyTrusted Source benefits of intermittent fasting, research shows that long-term adherence to the Mediterranean diet reduces the occurrence of heart attack and stroke by up to 30%Trusted Source after approximately 5 years.

Additional research on the Mediterranean diet demonstrates its protective nature against the development of colorectal cancerTrusted Source and the loss of nerve cells in Parkinson’s diseaseTrusted Source.

A major benefit of the Mediterranean diet compared to intermittent fasting is that similar results can be achieved without the need for fasting.

The bottom line

Intermittent fasting describes a variety of eating patterns that alternate periods of fasting and eating with a consistent, recurring pattern over the course of a week.

Time-restricted eating is the most popular form of intermittent fasting and uses the principles of chrono-nutrition to lengthen night-time fasting and potentially reduce chronic disease risk.

Intermittent fasting may improve cholesterol levels, blood sugar control, weight and/ or fat loss, lower inflammation, promote longevity, and support neurodegenerative conditions like Parkinson’s disease.

However, most of the research on intermittent fasting is based on animal studies and human research is sparse and often of low quality.

Alternative non-fasting diets that produce similar results to intermittent fasting include calorie restriction and the Mediterranean diet.

Source - Medical News Today

 

What is a gluten-free diet?: Definition, foods, benefits, and risks.

A gluten-free diet eliminates foods that contain gluten, a group of proteins present in foods such as wheat, rye, and barley.

People who have celiac disease or a non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) need to follow a gluten-free diet. For a person living with celiac disease, a gluten-free diet is the only current treatment.

This article looks at gluten-free diets in more detail, including what foods to include and avoid, and the possible benefits and risks.

What does gluten-free mean?

A gluten-free food is a food that does not contain any gluten, a group of proteins present in wheat and other grains. Gluten helps bind baked goods and provides some elasticity to bread.

A gluten-free diet, as the name implies, involves avoiding gluten in foods and drinks completely.

According to the Celiac Disease Foundation, the main three sources of gluten in a diet are products that contain:

• wheat
• rye
• barley

A newer grain called triticale, which is a cross between rye and wheat, also contains gluten, as do some other foods.

Anyone following the diet can include any foods that naturally contain no gluten, such as vegetables, fruits, grains such as rice or quinoa, seafood, and meat.

Although anyone can follow it, people living with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity should follow a gluten-free diet for optimal health.

Following a gluten-free diet can help preventTrusted Source the symptoms of celiac disease and allow the body to heal from damage.

Who should eat a gluten-free diet? 

Anyone can follow a gluten-free diet, although most people will not need to in order to live a healthy lifestyle.

Anyone with any of the three conditionsTrusted Source below should consider following a gluten-free diet:

• celiac disease, an autoimmune disease that causes the immune system to attack the small intestine
• gluten intolerance, which is when the body cannot metabolize gluten
• dermatitis herpetiformis, a type of celiac disease in which the immune system attacks the skinTrusted Source instead of the small intestine

Foods to avoid on a gluten-free diet 

The primary concern when following a gluten-free diet is avoiding any foods that contain certain grains. Gluten comes from several sources, including:

• wheat
• rye
• barley
• triticale

Several foods contain these basic ingredients. Common examples include:

• baked goods, such as bread, muffins, scones, cakes, and cookies
• pasta
• cereals
• beer, including rye beer
• brewer’s yeast
• soups
• malt
• food coloring

Other products, such as oats, may also contain trace amounts of gluten if a company processes them and wheat-containing products in the same facility.

Foods to include in a gluten-free diet 

Although a gluten-free diet restricts several sources of carbohydrates, such as baked goods, pastas, and cereal, a person living with celiac disease or a gluten sensitivity can safely eat several food groups.

The Celiac Disease Foundation recommends that a person living with celiac disease or gluten-sensitivity focus on foods that naturally contain no gluten. Some suggestions include:

• fresh vegetables and fruits
• dairy products
• meat
• seafood
• beans and legumes
• nuts
• poultry

Several companies now offer gluten-free versions of popular baked goods, from pastas and cereals to breads and sweets. A person should look for a label on the product specifying that it is gluten-free.

Food labeling

In 2013Trusted Source, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) created standards for the use of the gluten-free label on foods. For a food to use the label, the food must meet the following criteria:

• naturally gluten-free
• not made from a gluten-containing grain
• not derived from a gluten-containing grain that the producer has not processed to remove the gluten
• contains a gluten-containing grain, but the manufacturers have processed it to remove the gluten

In addition, the FDATrusted Source rule states:

• Companies can use these terms interchangeably: “gluten-free,” “free of gluten,” “without gluten,” and “no gluten.”
• The final product must contain less than 20 parts per million (ppm) of gluten.
• Manufacturers can use allergen advisory warnings on products they produce in shared facilities as long as the product contains less than 20 ppm of gluten, but the statement does not guarantee the product’s safety.

Additionally, in 2020, the FDA issued a final rule for compliance on the gluten-free labeling of fermented or hydrolyzed foods, such as:

• yogurt
• pickles
• cheese
• FDA-regulated beers and wines
• plant proteins to add flavor to soups, sauces, and seasoning 

Are there any risks to a gluten-free diet? 

A gluten-free diet carries a few risks. According to a 2018 studyTrusted Source, three areas of concern exist, including:

• Nutritional deficiencies: Cutting out gluten can cause a person to get insufficient nutrients associated with whole grains, such as fiber, iron, and other nutrients. However, well-planned gluten-free diets are unlikely to lead to nutrient deficiencies, so they are suitable to follow for life.
• Costs: On average, gluten-free products can cost up to 267% more than regular products.
• Social and psychological impact: Gluten-free eating can make social eating more difficult and cause the development of obsessive behaviors and thoughts.

Are there benefits to a gluten-free diet for people who are not intolerant or allergic? 

• Although people not living with a gluten-related condition may be interested in a gluten-free diet, evidence suggests that people without celiac disease or gluten sensitivity probably should not follow the diet.

  According to a 2018 reviewTrusted Source, the evidence suggesting that a gluten-free diet is good for broad groups of people is not high quality. The authors also note that following a gluten-free diet may cause adverse effects in other groups.

  Other sources present similar views. People who may wish to avoid a gluten-free diet include:

  • People trying to self-diagnose: There is a difference in severity between celiac disease and gluten sensitivity. For those with a sensitivity, coming into contact with trace amounts may not have any effect. People living with celiac disease, however, can damage their intestines with even trace amounts of gluten.
  • People looking to lose weight: A gluten-free diet can be restrictive, so it is not a good option for people aiming for weight loss. Instead, a person should follow a balanced, nutritious diet that meets their health and calorie needs.
  • People looking to follow a low carb diet: A gluten-free diet is not the same as a low carb diet. Gluten-free diets only cut out gluten-containing carbs, such as wheat, rye, and barley. Other sources of carbohydrate, such as potato, rice, starchy vegetables, and quinoa, are suitable to eat.

  People considering a gluten-free diet for anything other than gluten sensitivity or celiac disease should ask a doctor whether it is a good choice to help them meet their goals.

Summary

• People following a gluten-free diet will need to avoid any food, drink, or product that contains the protein.

  People with a gluten sensitivity will find that their symptoms improve when they are not eating gluten. People living with celiac disease need to follow the diet to avoid damaging their health.

  Although experts advise these individuals to follow a gluten-free diet, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that a gluten-free diet is beneficial for other people. For those not living with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity, the risks of nutrient deficiencies outweigh any unproven benefit of the diet.

• Source - Medical News Today

Share on PinterestWhat does gluten-free mean? 

 

Should Smallpox Samples In The USA  And Russia Be Destroyed?

If smallpox laboratory stocks are destroyed, we eliminate the risk of an accident which could lead to an outbreak, get rid of them and say goodbye to any future research on a how to respond to a biological weapon one day. What should be done about a disease that used to kill nearly 30% of infected patients, was declared eradicated in 1980, and still exists in two laboratories?

This week, WHO (World Health Organization) will decide on its position during the 64th World Health Assembly. This theme, which was first brought up in the Assembly in 1986, has been bouncing around debating circles ever since.

Getting rid of the smallpox stocks would address the problem of a possible accidental release one day. However, the USA and Russia are concerned that virus vials may exist elsewhere. In fact, as 50 variola virus strains have been fully sequenced, scientists could if they wanted to build one from scratch. This capability encourages the Americans and Russians to hold onto their stocks so that research can lead to ways of dealing with a biological attack.

Although scientists say there have been enormous advances in smallpox research, this has not been the case with drugs and vaccines. There are no infected humans to test the new candidate vaccines and drugs on. Put simply, there is no way of carrying out clinical trials these days.

US Government Position

Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary Of Health And Human Services, explained the US government’s position in a letter to the New York Times last month. She wrote that the smallpox samples held in secure laboratories should and will eventually be destroyed. However, when this is done will determine whether humans continue living with the risk of a re-emergence of the disease through deliberate misuse of the virus.

Sibelius warns of advocates who would like to destroy all stocks and believe another outbreak is impossible. She cautions that it might be naïve to ignore the need to be properly prepared for another outbreak – this can only be done if we hang on to the current samples.

Put simply, Sibelius explains that the US and Russia believe the dangers of destroying the existing smallpox samples are greater than if we hold on to them.

Sibelius explained that over 300 million people worldwide were killed by smallpox in the last century alone – there were also hundreds of millions of survivors who became blind or badly scarred. Thanks to the most effective vaccination campaign this planet has ever seen, the disease was totally eradicated by 1980.

When the disease was eradicated, WHO asked nations around the world to destroy their sample or send them to two laboratories, one in the USA and the other in Russia – both WHO-sanctioned laboratories. Sibelius says that we presume, in good faith, that every nation did what WHO asked. Unfortunately, we have no proof – nobody has ever tried to verify or validate compliance.

What if undisclosed or forgotten stocks are still around, Sibelius asks.

Sibelius wrote:

Other Positions

Supporters for the destruction of the samples describe America’s and Russia’s reasons as “obscure”. They cannot see any reason for keeping them. All the productive research work that could ever be done has already been done, they add.

Some scientists believe it might be a mistake to destroy the stocks and say their concerns are purely scientific. In an interview with the BBC, Professor (virology) John Oxford, of Queen Mary University London, said:

Whatever WHO decides, if it does manage to agree on this, is not legally binding anyway. Russia and America can choose whether to follow the recommendations or ignore them. Developing countries tend to favor destroying the samples, while the industrialized nations are slanted more towards the US and Russian concerns.

Many believe WHO will decide on another date to discuss the issue again, thus avoiding the embarrassing situation of being ignored by the two nations.

According to The Wall Street Journal in January 2011, the WHO Executive Board “. . backed efforts by the U.S. and Russia to keep the last known stocks of the smallpox virus for research to combat terrorism, in an initial debate over the fate over what is left of one of the world’s most lethal pathogens,” (link)

Written by Christian Nordqvist

Source - Medical News Today