Re: Re: Alternate Fasting vs. Caloric Restriction

[Guest guest]

In Walford's book, he points out that fasting a day interrupts the metabolic slowdown that occurs with CR. We just recently pointed this out and there seems to be confusion, at least on my part. I would think we WANT the lower BMR to extend life, not the touted higher BMR the fitness folks want. But the first story I heard was the rats were fasted one day in four.

Fasting keeps the BMR higher and in losing weight that may be good for a while, but at some point, at the desired weight, I would think we want lower BMR.

Thoughts?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: citpeks

Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 11:23 AM

Subject: [ ] Re: Alternate Fasting vs. Caloric Restriction

> Hi Hermit:> > If you are aware of studies in any kind of mammal which show that > fasting groups live as long as CR groups, please post a link to it > because it will be of great interest to everyone here.> ======There was an article in January about Alternate Fasting (eating every other day without caloric restriction). The benefits were supposed to be equal to Caloric Restriction. Here is a quote from Newsweek Jan 26 issue from this link:http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3990725/"Meanwhile, scientists are looking at ways to get some of the presumed benefits of CR without actually forcing people to skip lunch for the rest of their lives. One approach is to tinker with eating patterns in a way that might be easier for most people to sustain, such as intermittent fasting. Neuroscientist Mark Mattson at the U.S. National Institute on Aging has run experiments on mice that were fed nothing on alternate days, and double rations the rest of the time. They didn't lose weight, but they showed changes in blood pressure and heart rate that suggested a lower risk of cardiovascular disease. The "mild stress" of fasting seemed to have inoculated them against more severe forms of stress that ordinarily cause adverse reactions in mice, Mattson speculates. He hopes to begin testing the proposition in humans soon."Live long and prosper,A. Zamorahttp://www.scientificpsychic.com/fitness/index.html

[Guest guest]

My thought is to do whatever is easiest for you as an individual. I find it

easier to eat many small meals and I have trouble fasting i.e. I get sick to

my stomack - so obviously my body doesn't like it..

My husband OTOH, (who btw was so impressed with the Post's story that he may

yet become a CRONIE) finds it easier to fast. He has trouble (once he

starts eating) stopping. So for his type, fasting is ideal.

Even if one way has some advantages over the other, if you can't do it, or

can''t keep it up long term , what's the point?

on 5/4/2004 1:18 PM, jwwright at jwwright@... wrote:

>

> Thoughts?

>

> Regards.