Does this study on fasting show that fasting doesn't work?

(Robin) #61

Call me a heretic…. But I don’t pay much attention to studies. For every subject there are opposing studies, and people who stand strongly behind the ones they support. So, I study my one true subject… myself. But don’t worry, I won’t publish.


Well, science underpins everything we do. It’s fine to ignore it or not understand - but not to dismiss it. The second part of your post reminds me of the great philosopher Rene Descartes (I think therefore I am). :thinking:

(Old Baconian) #63

Given that most nutrition science is abysmally bad, ignoring it might actually be the best option. Some of the problems are inherent in the subject being studied (for example, it is very difficult to do a double-blind study in which one food is substituted for another, and food-frequency questionnaires are notoriously unreliable—not to mention that locking 40,000 people in a metabolic ward for 20 years is both technically difficult and hellishly expensive), and some of the problems lie in the shortcuts taken by researchers (small N, too great a reliance on epidemiological associations, acceptance of high levels of statistical unreliability, making much of small, statistically-significant results that are clinically irrelevant, and so forth).

For myself, I have come to the conclusion that, unless a presumed association between a food and a health outcome meets Bradford-Hill’s criteria, it’s probably not worth worrying about all that much. Hence, I ignore much of what has been said about saturated fat and cholesterol, about vitamins, and about the gut biome, to give a few examples.

This might make you chuckle: Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, the Scottish cardiologist, says that in his experience, a glance at the study authors is enough to tell you what conclusion they reached. His thought is that the best thing to do with such studies is to print them out, crumple them up, and toss them into the wastepaper bin.


Being Scottish myself, I feel duty-bound to agree with him!

(Robin) #65

Scottish here too. Tweedy’s, of the Fraser clan. My favorite country to visit. so far…


Haha, I’m no snowflake, I’m not insulted at all, I just find it funny how quick people are with the labels because somebody does something differently than them. Especially something like protein which is a big part of… MEAT! which is typically a keto staple.


It is for each person to decide for themselves if they care or not about everything, including muscle loss.

I try to understand how come people who lose weight put it back so fast when they fall off the wagon, as they say.

Perhaps it’s the loss of muscle.

A diet is easy to stick to, until it isn’t. If one’s calories needs decrease because of muscle loss, for instance, it’ll be difficult to continue to lose weight. Then sticking to a diet becomes more difficult, since motivation can hit a low. One falls off the wagon and immediately gains weight, also because just a little food will have a big impact.

Losing weight is the “easy” part.

I was listening to a Peter Attia interview. He also lost muscle fasting.

I’ve become interested on the subject, because of my own first “long” fast. I want to fast to heal my liver and pancreas. But if it means I’ll have to fast more and more just to keep myself from gaining weight, I just know I won’t be able to keep it up. But if with every fast I lose muscle, it means my calorie needs will decrease and I’ll start to have to do exaggerated diet/fasts just to keep my weight.

I’m sharing the thought in case it could be useful to another person.


My understanding, certainly involving alternate day fasting, is that you get the fat loss benefits without the decrease in RER that you would suffer on continuous energy restriction diets.

Further, there was a study done in South Korea where they had alternative day fasting participants also do resistance training and this seemed to mitigate against substantial muscle loss, which has been noted in other alternate day fasting studies.