5 day fast-mimicking diet

rotuts · June 22, 2015

things like this have always interested me :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/06/22/heres-how-a-five-day-diet-that-mimics-fasting-may-reboot-the-body-and-reduce-cancer-risk/

this might not be that new, but the current version interests me. All i could find was Popular Press

if anyone has detail particulars on a way to implement this diet ( not so much perhaps earlier ones )

Id be grateful for particulars.

so much of this, that, and this other

rather than just the calories involed

many thanks

heidih · June 22, 2015

I read the article about the studies in Trojan Family (USC's alumni magazine) from the USC Longevity Institute. Here is a link http://tfm.usc.edu/winter-2014/live-long-and-prosper

The article touches on a holistic and individual approach rather than the cookie-cutter sensationalism of the newspaper blurb.

I can't find my hard copy but somewhere in there was a statement about quality versus quantity of years which was refreshing.

rotuts · June 22, 2015

Thank you interesting article

My interest is not so much in weight loss, but effects of diet, calories, and immune response.

Id love to see what the actual foods consumed were.

**Smithy** · June 22, 2015

I think both articles were interesting. I too would like to know of the specifics. For instance, the first day requires 56% of the calories to come from fat. Does the type of fat matter? (I would think so, but it would be nice to read.) If I were to select fruits, vegetables and meats to fit the caloric and proportion specifications, would I be meeting the goal?

I agree that it's nice to see "quality" emphasized along with longevity. The holistic approach in the USC article makes sense.

rotuts · June 22, 2015

the problems with 'diets' is that for what ever reason, they don't work and this years model will generate billions of dollars to those who

market them.

they will be back next year with something else for another taste of that huge pie.

the specifics of this current '5 day' is therefore valuable, the more so if it accomplishes something.

still keen to see that menu.

Okanagancook · June 22, 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/lifestyle/wellbeing/diet/11686002/Why-weve-all-been-doing-the-Fast-Diet-wrong.html

This is quite interesting and explains a little more but other than buying their prepackaged diet product I'm not sure of the details as mention above.

The examples at the end of the article seem strange. For example day two to five should be 44% fat or 35 grams. The sample menus don't seem to be that fatty so we clearly need more details. They are in the midst of an expanded study involving more subjects. The first one of just 19 people!

rotuts · June 22, 2015

thank you. that's the sort of thing I was looking for.

kudos your way

Okanagancook

scubadoo97 · June 22, 2015

the problems with 'diets' is that for what ever reason, they don't work and this years model will generate billions of dollars to those who
market them.
they will be back next year with something else for another taste of that huge pie.
the specifics of this current '5 day' is therefore valuable, the more so if it accomplishes something.
still keen to see that menu.

So it's not just the dieters who are getting fat off the diets.

My grandmothers diet. "Eat half"

heidih · June 22, 2015

Does anyone read the articles before commenting? How did this morph into weight loss? I suppose the word diet in the title which just means what you eat! This is about reducing disease risk and longevity......

Okanagancook · June 23, 2015

Well, all I know is that I need way more evidence before undertaking such change in nutrient intake. To me, the 'boring' Mediterranean way of eating has the most credibility and that's by enlarge the way we eat as much as possible.

radtek · June 23, 2015

Interesting? Not really. For pseudoscience. Recently as in the last couple years, IIRC the low cal longevity "lifestyle" has been found to be less effective as previously touted. Re-programming the body...? What a way to discredit the article. So with a grain of salt...

We (our bodies) simply wear out due to extraneous factors, radiation being significant in my professional opinion. So "damaged cells" are a result of our environment actually. Of which a part is the food we eat.

Be more worried about cholesterol and a sedentary lifestyle.

Anna N · June 23, 2015

Interesting? Not really. For pseudoscience. Recently as in the last couple years, IIRC the low cal longevity "lifestyle" has been found to be less effective as previously touted. Re-programming the body...? What a way to discredit the article. So with a grain of salt...

We (our bodies) simply wear out due to extraneous factors, radiation being significant in my professional opinion. So "damaged cells" are a result of our environment actually. Of which a part is the food we eat.

Be more worried about cholesterol and a sedentary lifestyle.

I am not sure I would be prepared to call an article published in a recognized journal "pseudoscience". I do find the size of the study (19 people) to be an issue. But so do the authors. And as Heidi said diet does not translate to weight-loss but simply to nutritional intake. However, we have lived in a world where for too long diet has meant reduced intake with a view to reducing poundage and hence it is almost impossible now to believe that it isn't the same thing at all.

Honkman · June 23, 2015

Another "scientist" who is trying to get grants with useless small studies which have no power to produce any meaningful results. There is a reason why small clinical P1/2 studies often produce "interesting" result which ultimately have no value once repeated in a meaningful P3 study with enough participants to actually have statistical significance. The authors published these result based on pseudoscience to get most likely more grants but not so really develop quality science. In addition one of the authors is cofounder of a company making such kind of "diet foods" which should be readon enough not to publish such paper

hummingbirdkiss · June 23, 2015

Another "scientist" who is trying to get grants with useless small studies which have no power to produce any meaningful results. There is a reason why small clinical P1/2 studies often produce "interesting" result which ultimately have no value once repeated in a meaningful P3 study with enough participants to actually have statistical significance. The authors published these result based on pseudoscience to get most likely more grants but not so really develop quality science. In addition one of the authors is cofounder of a company making such kind of "diet foods" which should be readon enough not to publish such paper

EXACTLY yup I agree 100% and yes I did read the study I am a nurse and have read tons of very good studies in my career that were subsidized with bias and used to start food trends .. "immune response " super"on trend with the dietitian community ……. still do not have proof it really matters and no that article or 19 person and the like do not convince me either ..

**Mjx** · June 24, 2015

things like this have always interested me :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2015/06/22/heres-how-a-five-day-diet-that-mimics-fasting-may-reboot-the-body-and-reduce-cancer-risk/

this might not be that new, but the current version interests me. All i could find was Popular Press

if anyone has detail particulars on a way to implement this diet ( not so much perhaps earlier ones )

Id be grateful for particulars.

so much of this, that, and this other

rather than just the calories involed

many thanks

The article was published in Cell Metabolism (a well-respected journal that does not publish 'pseudoscience'), and may be found here: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdfExtended/S1550-4131%2815%2900224-7. The presentation of what is very clearly and honestly described as a pilot study on humans is on p. 9 (right hand column, bottom of page).

It's also important to consider this study in a broader context: preceding it are literally decades of credible studies addressing the effects of fasting on human health. This is no more some new 'food trend' than, say, washing your hands before eating. What makes this study interesting is that it explores an alternative to fasting that appears to yield similar effects.

Eating lightly 5 days a month is extremely unlikely to be difficult or problematic for most adults; it's quite a stretch to describe this as a 'low calorie lifestyle'.

Page 27 gives a clear breakdown of the macronutrient ratios employed, so this is easy to DIY if you have a scale and look up the caloric values of proteins, fats, and a carbohydrates; there's no need for (or claim that) special products must be used (although I'm certain some pople would appreciate the convenience of something of that sort, if it becomes available).

If you step back, and look at this as involving food as such, this kind of eating pattern also offers a great opportunity to amplify flavour in small portions of food, and really appreciate it in a way that only happens when you're truly hungry.

heidih · June 24, 2015

What I think of whenever I read this line of research are the books that encompass the natural cycle of fasting and feasting like Patience Gray's Honey from a Weed

A brief quote from a review:

She relates the fasting practiced on the island of Naxos at Advent and Lent to the times of year when there was little left to eat. “Fasting is therefore in the nature of things, and feasting punctuates it with a joyful excess.”

Edited June 24, 2015 by heidih (log)

Honkman · June 24, 2015

The article was published in Cell Metabolism (a well-respected journal that does not publish 'pseudoscience'), and may be found here: http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/pdfExtended/S1550-4131(15)00224-7. The presentation of what is very clearly and honestly described as a pilot study on humans is on p. 9 (right hand column, bottom of page).
It's also important to consider this study in a broader context: preceding it are literally decades of credible studies addressing the effects of fasting on human health. This is no more some new 'food trend' than, say, washing your hands before eating. What makes this study interesting is that it explores an alternative to fasting that appears to yield similar effects.
Eating lightly 5 days a month is extremely unlikely to be difficult or problematic for most adults; it's quite a stretch to describe this as a 'low calorie lifestyle'.

Page 27 gives a clear breakdown of the macronutrient ratios employed, so this is easy to DIY if you have a scale and look up the caloric values of proteins, fats, and a carbohydrates; there's no need for (or claim that) special products must be used (although I'm certain some pople would appreciate the convenience of something of that sort, if it becomes available).

If you step back, and look at this as involving food as such, this kind of eating pattern also offers a great opportunity to amplify flavour in small portions of food, and really appreciate it in a way that only happens when you're truly hungry.

But is there any data on correctly organized clinical studies which clearly show the effect of fastening on human health. Just because there are many papers published over a long time doesn't mran there are any studies available which have meaningful results. Food and diets are particukar known have very little relevant data but a lot of "research"

Also just looking for a minute about the journal I found this criticism on handling complains about an other paper in the same journal and its questionable clinical data (and its interpretation) http://www.biolayne.com/news/protein-metabolism-experts-respond-to-recent-anti-protein-claims/

I review manuscripts for other (not food related) scientific journals and I am very surprised that this paper was allowed to be published with this significant conflict of interest by one of the authors

rotuts · June 24, 2015

MJX

thanks for the ref to the whole article. it looks quite meaty.

Ill give it a close look soon.

that and the ref to an actual menu has potential.

Id like to see a menu with the usual :

fruit and veg, fresh, with dark pigments, some nuts, some legumes, some whole grain, some salmon, chocolate

didn't see any double espresso's ( no sugar is OK ) on the lists.

Id try it for sure.

**Mjx** · June 24, 2015

But is there any data on correctly organized clinical studies which clearly show the effect of fastening on human health. Just because there are many papers published over a long time doesn't mran there are any studies available which have meaningful results. Food and diets are particukar known have very little relevant data but a lot of "research"

There is a lot of research on the effects of fasting on human health (executed with varying degrees of rigour, as is the case with any field of research), much of which originated in its effects on cancer cells, and then led researchers to explore the possibility of extending the findings to healthy humans. Since you review journals, you probably have access to substantial collections of research articles, so I definitely recommend taking a look (resist the temptation to cherry-pick, just dive into the 'fasting + human [cells]' area, and enjoy the rabbit hole!).

Also just looking for a minute about the journal I found this criticism on handling complains about an other paper in the same journal and its questionable clinical data (and its interpretation) http://www.biolayne.com/news/protein-metabolism-experts-respond-to-recent-anti-protein-claims/

Transparency is generally preferable, but without hearing the other side of this (and which has to do with an entirely different article), I simply don't believe I have enough information to draw conclusions about this.

I review manuscripts for other (not food related) scientific journals and I am very surprised that this paper was allowed to be published with this significant conflict of interest by one of the authors

It would be lovely if science could work free of commercial interests, but because even simple research comes expensive, it is not at all unusual for research to be funded by a commercial enterprise, or for a researcher to have an interest in the the enterprise. This does not automatically invalidate, or even undermine, the research, just as disclosure of potential conflict of interest (which there is, here) doesn't automatically eliminate the risks associated with them.

Again, I think it is crucial to step back and see what this study is saying, which comes down to there being indications that spending five days a month eating a reduced amount of food has some health benefits. This is not a drastic suggestion. Even if the major benefit to a given individual ends up being that it makes him or her think more about food, health, and the connection between the two, that's something, since most people in the Western world are so accustomed to taking for granted the regular consumption of large, even excessive amounts of food.

ChrisZ · June 24, 2015

Does anyone read the articles before commenting? How did this morph into weight loss? I suppose the word diet in the title which just means what you eat! This is about reducing disease risk and longevity......

I am guessing that the title of the article is making people assume it is about the 5-2 diet, which has been as fashionable as diets get. But yes, this is a different thing and I was wondering the same thing.

Honkman · June 24, 2015

There is a lot of research on the effects of fasting on human health (executed with varying degrees of rigour, as is the case with any field of research), much of which originated in its effects on cancer cells, and then led researchers to explore the possibility of extending the findings to healthy humans. Since you review journals, you probably have access to substantial collections of research articles, so I definitely recommend taking a look (resist the temptation to cherry-pick, just dive into the 'fasting + human [cells]' area, and enjoy the rabbit hole!).

I am aware of the many years of academic research in this field but you mentioned in your post that "preceding it are literally decades of credible studies addressing the effects of fasting on human health. This is no more some new 'food trend' than, say, washing your hands before eating". I am just wondering which credible studies (and credible would mean controlled randomized clinical studies with clearly defined endpoints and enough statistical power) are you refering to ? I might have overlooked some and was hoping you could point to them. I could only find small, badly designed studies from institutes you normally read on "ScienceBasedMed". Cell- or animal based research is interesting but has actually little relevance as i can see in my daily work were we can cure most cancers in cells and mice xenograft models but fail very often in humans as the results don't correlate well.

Transparency is generally preferable, but without hearing the other side of this (and which has to do with an entirely different article), I simply don't believe I have enough information to draw conclusions about this.

It would be lovely if science could work free of commercial interests, but because even simple research comes expensive, it is not at all unusual for research to be funded by a commercial enterprise, or for a researcher to have an interest in the the enterprise. This does not automatically invalidate, or even undermine, the research, just as disclosure of potential conflict of interest (which there is, here) doesn't automatically eliminate the risks associated with them.

I guess at this point we have very different opinions and I think if somebody has very strong conflict of interests it makes his/her research very suspicious

Again, I think it is crucial to step back and see what this study is saying, which comes down to there being indications that spending five days a month eating a reduced amount of food has some health benefits. This is not a drastic suggestion. Even if the major benefit to a given individual ends up being that it makes him or her think more about food, health, and the connection between the two, that's something, since most people in the Western world are so accustomed to taking for granted the regular consumption of large, even excessive amounts of food.

Actually I think this is one of the biggest problems with this type of research and publishing it - this type of research should never be the reason we "step back and see what the study is saying." There are way too many studies like this where people defend it after criticism about details that we should look "at the bigger picture" when they ignore that we can't look at the bigger picture if the details are already flawed. How can you come to the conclusion that "there being indications that spending five days a month eating a reduced amount of food has some health benefits." when the study design exactly doesn't allow it and we don't know if fasting has any health benefits on humans. This is no different than the many "studies" about autism, acupuncture, vaccines etc. where there are no real, hard clinical data and advocates just pick out the "data" they need for their arguments and defend the "bigger picture", e.g. vaccines might have negative effects and can cause autism etc., acupuncture cures anything etc.

Edited June 24, 2015 by Honkman (log)

**Mjx** · June 24, 2015

There is a lot of research on the effects of fasting on human health (executed with varying degrees of rigour, as is the case with any field of research), much of which originated in its effects on cancer cells, and then led researchers to explore the possibility of extending the findings to healthy humans. Since you review journals, you probably have access to substantial collections of research articles, so I definitely recommend taking a look (resist the temptation to cherry-pick, just dive into the 'fasting + human [cells]' area, and enjoy the rabbit hole!).

I am aware of the many years of academic research in this field but you mentioned in your post that "preceding it are literally decades of credible studies addressing the effects of fasting on human health. This is no more some new 'food trend' than, say, washing your hands before eating". I am just wondering which credible studies (and credible would mean controlled randomized clinical studies with clearly defined endpoints and enough statistical power) are you refering to ? I might have overlooked some and was hoping you could point to them. I could only find small, badly designed studies from institutes you normally read on "ScienceBasedMed". Cell- or animal based research is interesting but has actually little relevance as i can see in my daily work were we can cure most cancers in cells and mice xenograft models but fail very often in humans as the results don't correlate well.

Transparency is generally preferable, but without hearing the other side of this (and which has to do with an entirely different article), I simply don't believe I have enough information to draw conclusions about this.

It would be lovely if science could work free of commercial interests, but because even simple research comes expensive, it is not at all unusual for research to be funded by a commercial enterprise, or for a researcher to have an interest in the the enterprise. This does not automatically invalidate, or even undermine, the research, just as disclosure of potential conflict of interest (which there is, here) doesn't automatically eliminate the risks associated with them.

I guess at this point we have very different opinions and I think if somebody has very strong conflict of interests it makes his/her research very suspicious

Again, I think it is crucial to step back and see what this study is saying, which comes down to there being indications that spending five days a month eating a reduced amount of food has some health benefits. This is not a drastic suggestion. Even if the major benefit to a given individual ends up being that it makes him or her think more about food, health, and the connection between the two, that's something, since most people in the Western world are so accustomed to taking for granted the regular consumption of large, even excessive amounts of food.

Actually I think this is one of the biggest problems with this type of research and publishing it - this type of research should never be the reason we "step back and see what the study is saying." There are way too many studies like this where people defend it after criticism about details that we should look "at the bigger picture" when they ignore that we can't look at the bigger picture if the details are already flawed. How can you come to the conclusion that "there being indications that spending five days a month eating a reduced amount of food has some health benefits." when the study design exactly doesn't allow it and we don't know if fasting has any health benefits on humans. This is no different than the many "studies" about autism, acupuncture, vaccines etc. where there are no real, hard clinical data and advocates just pick out the "data" they need for their arguments and defend the "bigger picture", e.g. vaccines might have negative effects and can cause autism etc., acupuncture cures anything etc.

I'm up to my eyes in work at the moment (which iwhy I'm still awake at past 1.00), but google scholar should turn up some credible studies if you search for [cancer fasting].

Find me a researcher who does not bring some form of bias to his or her research, and I'll prove to you it is an impressively realistic android. An acknowledgement of potential conflict of interest has the advantage of making a study's audience imore discriminating in its acceptance of the research; we might not even be having this exchange, if the researchers had no connection to the company mentioned.

A lot of the responses to this study seem directed at words associated with the titles of newspaper articles about it, and people tend to have a remarkably visceral reaction to the word 'fasting'. In this case, 'stepping back' is crucial, since it means 'not glaring wildly at that one word, and screaming at it incoherently to go away, because it has scary associations'; there is way too much of that. Keeping in mind that this is a mini, modified fast is absolutely important, under the circimstances.

gfweb · June 25, 2015

Publishing underpowered studies is a failure of either reviewer or editor. On a couple of occasions I've seen papers that were killed by the peer reviewers published anyway because of the "sex appeal" of the topic.

Honkman · June 25, 2015

I'm up to my eyes in work at the moment (which iwhy I'm still awake at past 1.00), but google scholar should turn up some credible studies if you search for [cancer fasting].

Find me a researcher who does not bring some form of bias to his or her research, and I'll prove to you it is an impressively realistic android. An acknowledgement of potential conflict of interest has the advantage of making a study's audience imore discriminating in its acceptance of the research; we might not even be having this exchange, if the researchers had no connection to the company mentioned.

A lot of the responses to this study seem directed at words associated with the titles of newspaper articles about it, and people tend to have a remarkably visceral reaction to the word 'fasting'. In this case, 'stepping back' is crucial, since it means 'not glaring wildly at that one word, and screaming at it incoherently to go away, because it has scary associations'; there is way too much of that. Keeping in mind that this is a mini, modified fast is absolutely important, under the circimstances.

I looked in SciFinder and other databases and couldn't find a well designed study (a lot of underpowered, badly designed ones are obviously available). So I am waiting for your suggestions.

There is a lot of research (actually the large majority) done which has no conflict of interest (are you working in the science field ?). The only interest many researchers have is getting their next grant which often have much higher hurdles of acceptance/referees than most peer-reviewed journals. In addition, this conflict of interest is that one of the key authors founded a company selling these meals/additives. So it is a valid question if they would have come to the same conclusion/or even published these results at all even that wouldn't have been the case.

And I am not looking at the title of any newspaper but at their actual manuscript (and the papers they have published like their mouse study about fasting and cancer drugs) and "taking a step back" is absolutely the wrong way as you are trying to extrapolate meaningful "conclusion" out of a badly design study which should didn't produce anything that would indicate if fasting has any negative or positive effect. (I don't know if you have Modenist Cuisine but in the first book is a short chapter which addresses some similar concerns)

gfweb · June 25, 2015

Here's a relevant piece. http://nsnbc.me/2015/06/19/shocking-report-from-medical-insiders/

In spite of the sensational headline this isn't fluff.

A lot of published peer reviewed research is just wrong..

One of the big reasons not to be blown to and fro with every new report and a very big reason to insist on adequately powered studies and author integrity issues.

Sign In

5 day fast-mimicking diet

Recommended Posts

Similar Content

Recently Browsing 0 members