Re: Different Modes of Dietary Restriction

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues

> looking for input in response:

>

> I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day

> feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating

> appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm'

> each and every day with no fasting.

>

> First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been

> abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing

> since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So

> in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to

> abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will

> refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the

> acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-

> as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you

> want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no

> calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed

> a " 16/32 " routine.

>

> A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only

> Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for

> logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves

> somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the

> weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much

> outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF,

> might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than

> eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -

> 'EDCR'.

>

> What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly

> caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR

> biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was

> also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained -

> which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR

> mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow

> kept the greatest fat reserves.

>

> However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side

> is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF

> rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate

> and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib

> pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences

> reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?

>

> I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate

> numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear

> them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was

> previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs

> like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems

> to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both

> insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a

> disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice

> lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib.

> So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?

>

> I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about

> what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or

> the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and

> fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done

> without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better

> maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks

> like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-

> hydroxybutyrate too?

>

> One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less

> dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR

> and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR

> it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF

> more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.

>

> [One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I

> would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon.

> In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be

> prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually

> seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently

> read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they

> frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of

> food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone

> succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us

> know how!]

>

> Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of

> body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with

> excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any

> study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or

> MWF) and those on EDCR?

>

> Rodney.

>

You have verbalized the holy grail of the anti-aging community looking

for a way to have our cake and eat it too... I find EOD research

promising but worry that in may cases we are missing the forest for the

trees or more like small bushes when we try to parse out single markers

for the phenomena. I don't have any answers but resting our system from

eating is probably good... how often is yet to be determined and IMO

perhaps difficult to scale from small rodents. Sounds like a good

subject for another primate study.

Regarding mid afternoon drowsiness this is AFAIK part of our natural

sleep/alerting mechanisms. This mechanism diminishes as we age (reverts

to a more infant pattern, a non-pattern actually). I think a good book

on the subject is " The promise of sleep " by Dement.

JR

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues

> looking for input in response:

>

> I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day

> feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating

> appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm'

> each and every day with no fasting.

>

> First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been

> abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing

> since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So

> in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to

> abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will

> refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the

> acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-

> as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you

> want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no

> calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed

> a " 16/32 " routine.

>

> A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only

> Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for

> logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves

> somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the

> weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much

> outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF,

> might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than

> eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -

> 'EDCR'.

>

> What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly

> caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR

> biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was

> also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained -

> which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR

> mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow

> kept the greatest fat reserves.

>

> However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side

> is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF

> rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate

> and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib

> pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences

> reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?

>

> I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate

> numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear

> them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was

> previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs

> like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems

> to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both

> insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a

> disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice

> lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib.

> So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?

>

> I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about

> what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or

> the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and

> fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done

> without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better

> maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks

> like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-

> hydroxybutyrate too?

>

> One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less

> dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR

> and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR

> it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF

> more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.

>

> [One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I

> would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon.

> In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be

> prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually

> seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently

> read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they

> frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of

> food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone

> succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us

> know how!]

>

> Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of

> body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with

> excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any

> study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or

> MWF) and those on EDCR?

>

> Rodney.

>

You have verbalized the holy grail of the anti-aging community looking

for a way to have our cake and eat it too... I find EOD research

promising but worry that in may cases we are missing the forest for the

trees or more like small bushes when we try to parse out single markers

for the phenomena. I don't have any answers but resting our system from

eating is probably good... how often is yet to be determined and IMO

perhaps difficult to scale from small rodents. Sounds like a good

subject for another primate study.

Regarding mid afternoon drowsiness this is AFAIK part of our natural

sleep/alerting mechanisms. This mechanism diminishes as we age (reverts

to a more infant pattern, a non-pattern actually). I think a good book

on the subject is " The promise of sleep " by Dement.

JR

[Guest guest]

It was common for Christians and Jews of the first centuries of the

common era to fast twice in the week. although they would not skip the

evening meal as you seem to be proposing but postponed it for a few

hours. Fasting for me is relatively easy, I did it last thursday for the

day of atonement. Lots of unanswered questions.

It seems to me that if CR works it works by lowering the metabolism, how

would alternate fasting do on this?

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

It was common for Christians and Jews of the first centuries of the

common era to fast twice in the week. although they would not skip the

evening meal as you seem to be proposing but postponed it for a few

hours. Fasting for me is relatively easy, I did it last thursday for the

day of atonement. Lots of unanswered questions.

It seems to me that if CR works it works by lowering the metabolism, how

would alternate fasting do on this?

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

This mouse has been trying EOD fasting/feeding for a week now, so he'll report in when there are more data. So far, it's easier to do than ongoing restriction except extremely low blood pressure on the feeding days, which makes any horizontal surface look extremely attractive. Looking only at either the beginning of eating day or beginning of fast day numbers, there's a modest ongoing weight loss (0.2 lb every two days)--which for me is fine--but that seems to be completely tunable by how much I eat on the eating days. I sleep fine nights when the hours are stacking up beyond 24 since my last meal, somewhat to my surprise. But the BP drops on the eating days are as large as they are unexpected--on the order of 20/20 from not-very-high numbers to start with.

We'll see.

Maco [ ] Different Modes of Dietary Restriction Hi folks:This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues looking for input in response:I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm' each and every day with no fasting.First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed a "16/32" routine. A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF, might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -'EDCR'.What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained - which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow kept the greatest fat reserves. However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib. So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-hydroxybutyrate too?One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.[One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon. In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us know how!]Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or MWF) and those on EDCR?Rodney.

[Guest guest]

This mouse has been trying EOD fasting/feeding for a week now, so he'll report in when there are more data. So far, it's easier to do than ongoing restriction except extremely low blood pressure on the feeding days, which makes any horizontal surface look extremely attractive. Looking only at either the beginning of eating day or beginning of fast day numbers, there's a modest ongoing weight loss (0.2 lb every two days)--which for me is fine--but that seems to be completely tunable by how much I eat on the eating days. I sleep fine nights when the hours are stacking up beyond 24 since my last meal, somewhat to my surprise. But the BP drops on the eating days are as large as they are unexpected--on the order of 20/20 from not-very-high numbers to start with.

We'll see.

Maco [ ] Different Modes of Dietary Restriction Hi folks:This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues looking for input in response:I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm' each and every day with no fasting.First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed a "16/32" routine. A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF, might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -'EDCR'.What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained - which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow kept the greatest fat reserves. However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib. So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-hydroxybutyrate too?One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.[One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon. In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us know how!]Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or MWF) and those on EDCR?Rodney.

[Guest guest]

> I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day

> feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating

> appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm'

> each and every day with no fasting.

>

Rodney,

The topic of Intermittent Fasting (IF), aka every-other-day feeding,

was discussed in Messages 13677 and 13717, among others. In message

13717, I posted the reply from Mark Mattson to my inquiry about the IF

protocol. Mattson basically used a specific time to make food

available or to take it away.

Since then, I figured out a schedule for having breakfast every day

while eating only on alternate 24-hour periods:

MWF intermittent fasting schedule averaging 2000-Calories per day

Sunday: 4 meals at any time, 3250 (4000-750) calories

Monday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

Tuesday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

Wednesday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

Thursday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

Friday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

Saturday: 3 meals after 9:00, 2000 calories

The schedule has the advantage that there is no fasting on Saturday

and Sunday when there are many social activities.

Tony

[Guest guest]

> I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day

> feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating

> appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm'

> each and every day with no fasting.

>

Rodney,

The topic of Intermittent Fasting (IF), aka every-other-day feeding,

was discussed in Messages 13677 and 13717, among others. In message

13717, I posted the reply from Mark Mattson to my inquiry about the IF

protocol. Mattson basically used a specific time to make food

available or to take it away.

Since then, I figured out a schedule for having breakfast every day

while eating only on alternate 24-hour periods:

MWF intermittent fasting schedule averaging 2000-Calories per day

Sunday: 4 meals at any time, 3250 (4000-750) calories

Monday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

Tuesday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

Wednesday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

Thursday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

Friday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

Saturday: 3 meals after 9:00, 2000 calories

The schedule has the advantage that there is no fasting on Saturday

and Sunday when there are many social activities.

Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Thanks. Somehow you always have very good recall for what has been

discussed previously and when!

Of course fasting to the tune of 'eat all day one day and eat only a

large breakfast the following day' is a lot less demanding than 'eat

all day one day and not at all the next.' And it may (or may not) be

better for longevity. Of course, like so much else, we do not know.

The paper covering the study Mattson mentioned to you should be out

very soon now I would think. If anyone sees it please be sure to

post about it.

Quoting these schedules numerically in terms of 'hours food

available/hours fasting' Mattson's study would seem to be about

midway in terms of 'severity' between's Tony's version and the one I

suggested. Mattson's schedule seems to be a '2/22' - eating for say

two hours and consuming no calories for the next twenty-two hours on

a regular cycle. While Tony's might be called a '24/24'. Mine

was '16/32'.

My guess is that somewhere there is a time threshold at which

the 'starvation response' is activated, and that beyond that point

diminishing returns set in rapidly. But that remains to be

discovered. Hopefully soon. In time for us to make use of it!

Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> > I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-

day

> > feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean

eating

> > appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered

the 'norm'

> > each and every day with no fasting.

> >

>

> Rodney,

>

> The topic of Intermittent Fasting (IF), aka every-other-day feeding,

> was discussed in Messages 13677 and 13717, among others. In message

> 13717, I posted the reply from Mark Mattson to my inquiry about the

IF

> protocol. Mattson basically used a specific time to make food

> available or to take it away.

>

> Since then, I figured out a schedule for having breakfast every day

> while eating only on alternate 24-hour periods:

>

> MWF intermittent fasting schedule averaging 2000-Calories per day

>

> Sunday: 4 meals at any time, 3250 (4000-750) calories

> Monday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> Tuesday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> Wednesday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> Thursday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> Friday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> Saturday: 3 meals after 9:00, 2000 calories

>

> The schedule has the advantage that there is no fasting on Saturday

> and Sunday when there are many social activities.

>

> Tony

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

Thanks. Somehow you always have very good recall for what has been

discussed previously and when!

Of course fasting to the tune of 'eat all day one day and eat only a

large breakfast the following day' is a lot less demanding than 'eat

all day one day and not at all the next.' And it may (or may not) be

better for longevity. Of course, like so much else, we do not know.

The paper covering the study Mattson mentioned to you should be out

very soon now I would think. If anyone sees it please be sure to

post about it.

Quoting these schedules numerically in terms of 'hours food

available/hours fasting' Mattson's study would seem to be about

midway in terms of 'severity' between's Tony's version and the one I

suggested. Mattson's schedule seems to be a '2/22' - eating for say

two hours and consuming no calories for the next twenty-two hours on

a regular cycle. While Tony's might be called a '24/24'. Mine

was '16/32'.

My guess is that somewhere there is a time threshold at which

the 'starvation response' is activated, and that beyond that point

diminishing returns set in rapidly. But that remains to be

discovered. Hopefully soon. In time for us to make use of it!

Rodney.

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...>

wrote:

>

> > I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-

day

> > feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean

eating

> > appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered

the 'norm'

> > each and every day with no fasting.

> >

>

> Rodney,

>

> The topic of Intermittent Fasting (IF), aka every-other-day feeding,

> was discussed in Messages 13677 and 13717, among others. In message

> 13717, I posted the reply from Mark Mattson to my inquiry about the

IF

> protocol. Mattson basically used a specific time to make food

> available or to take it away.

>

> Since then, I figured out a schedule for having breakfast every day

> while eating only on alternate 24-hour periods:

>

> MWF intermittent fasting schedule averaging 2000-Calories per day

>

> Sunday: 4 meals at any time, 3250 (4000-750) calories

> Monday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> Tuesday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> Wednesday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> Thursday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> Friday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> Saturday: 3 meals after 9:00, 2000 calories

>

> The schedule has the advantage that there is no fasting on Saturday

> and Sunday when there are many social activities.

>

> Tony

[Guest guest]

Does anyone else find that the " problem " of eating is not in hunger

but in " time " ? The more free time i have the more i eat, the more I

think about eating and just how " hungry " I am. I am amazed by the time

spent thinking about eating, preparing to eat and.. eating.

When busy I am not so hungry. When not so busy I am ravenous!

" FREE TIME " is a key factor!

agreed?

> >

> > > I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-

> day

> > > feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean

> eating

> > > appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered

> the 'norm'

> > > each and every day with no fasting.

> > >

> >

> > Rodney,

> >

> > The topic of Intermittent Fasting (IF), aka every-other-day feeding,

> > was discussed in Messages 13677 and 13717, among others. In message

> > 13717, I posted the reply from Mark Mattson to my inquiry about the

> IF

> > protocol. Mattson basically used a specific time to make food

> > available or to take it away.

> >

> > Since then, I figured out a schedule for having breakfast every day

> > while eating only on alternate 24-hour periods:

> >

> > MWF intermittent fasting schedule averaging 2000-Calories per day

> >

> > Sunday: 4 meals at any time, 3250 (4000-750) calories

> > Monday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> > Tuesday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> > Wednesday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> > Thursday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> > Friday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> > Saturday: 3 meals after 9:00, 2000 calories

> >

> > The schedule has the advantage that there is no fasting on Saturday

> > and Sunday when there are many social activities.

> >

> > Tony

>

[Guest guest]

Does anyone else find that the " problem " of eating is not in hunger

but in " time " ? The more free time i have the more i eat, the more I

think about eating and just how " hungry " I am. I am amazed by the time

spent thinking about eating, preparing to eat and.. eating.

When busy I am not so hungry. When not so busy I am ravenous!

" FREE TIME " is a key factor!

agreed?

> >

> > > I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-

> day

> > > feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean

> eating

> > > appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered

> the 'norm'

> > > each and every day with no fasting.

> > >

> >

> > Rodney,

> >

> > The topic of Intermittent Fasting (IF), aka every-other-day feeding,

> > was discussed in Messages 13677 and 13717, among others. In message

> > 13717, I posted the reply from Mark Mattson to my inquiry about the

> IF

> > protocol. Mattson basically used a specific time to make food

> > available or to take it away.

> >

> > Since then, I figured out a schedule for having breakfast every day

> > while eating only on alternate 24-hour periods:

> >

> > MWF intermittent fasting schedule averaging 2000-Calories per day

> >

> > Sunday: 4 meals at any time, 3250 (4000-750) calories

> > Monday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> > Tuesday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> > Wednesday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> > Thursday: 4 meals after 9:00, 3250 calories

> > Friday: Only breakfast before 9:00, 750 calories

> > Saturday: 3 meals after 9:00, 2000 calories

> >

> > The schedule has the advantage that there is no fasting on Saturday

> > and Sunday when there are many social activities.

> >

> > Tony

>

[Guest guest]

I kind of feel the opposite way... when I'm really busy working,

especially when I'm working on some annoying things that I'm really

plodding through, I seem to need the " crutch " of eating, especially if

I'm actually really hungry! It's as though the food is a " salve " to the

pain that I'm feeling while I'm doing that work.....

drsusanforshey wrote:

> Does anyone else find that the " problem " of eating is not in hunger

> but in " time " ? The more free time i have the more i eat, the more I

> think about eating and just how " hungry " I am. I am amazed by the time

> spent thinking about eating, preparing to eat and.. eating.

>

> When busy I am not so hungry. When not so busy I am ravenous!

>

> " FREE TIME " is a key factor!

> agreed?

>

>

[Guest guest]

I kind of feel the opposite way... when I'm really busy working,

especially when I'm working on some annoying things that I'm really

plodding through, I seem to need the " crutch " of eating, especially if

I'm actually really hungry! It's as though the food is a " salve " to the

pain that I'm feeling while I'm doing that work.....

drsusanforshey wrote:

> Does anyone else find that the " problem " of eating is not in hunger

> but in " time " ? The more free time i have the more i eat, the more I

> think about eating and just how " hungry " I am. I am amazed by the time

> spent thinking about eating, preparing to eat and.. eating.

>

> When busy I am not so hungry. When not so busy I am ravenous!

>

> " FREE TIME " is a key factor!

> agreed?

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Maybe address ?s with the free full text:

Mantis JG, Centeno NA, Todorova MT, McGowan R, Seyfried TN.

Management of multifactorial idiopathic epilepsy in EL mice with caloric

restriction

and the ketogenic diet: role of glucose and ketone bodies.

Nutr Metab (Lond). 2004 Oct 19;1(1):11.

PMID: 15507133

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed & pubmedid=15507133

--- jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

> I'm puzzled about the comments on beta-hydroxybutyrate (BOHB) in relation to

CR.

> It's a marker for ketoacidosis. I'd expect it to be present during any fasting

> period as the body converts fats.

> I slip into that state pretty quick if I don't eat breakfast, like waiting for

a

> blood test. By noon, my breath is of concern to people. Now when I try to

think

> how that would benefit longevity, if I believe the glucose theory, I guess I'm

> glycating less stuff, but I question if that natural process is the " aging "

> factor.

>

> Anti-aging is what I'm after, not trying to figure out if higher IGF-1 than

> average is youthful or cancerous. IGF-1 falls off with age - I should WANT it

to

> stay youthful, no?

>

> So do I believe that BOHB is indicative of longer life? - not unless I think a

low

> carbo diet is associated with longer lifespan. I don't think it is, but it

might

> be assoc with lower mortality.

> Just my take.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Different Modes of Dietary Restriction

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues

> looking for input in response:

>

> I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day

> feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating

> appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm'

> each and every day with no fasting.

>

> First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been

> abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing

> since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So

> in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to

> abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will

> refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the

> acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-

> as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you

> want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no

> calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed

> a " 16/32 " routine.

>

> A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only

> Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for

> logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves

> somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the

> weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much

> outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF,

> might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than

> eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -

> 'EDCR'.

>

> What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly

> caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR

> biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was

> also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained -

> which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR

> mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow

> kept the greatest fat reserves.

>

> However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side

> is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF

> rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate

> and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib

> pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences

> reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?

>

> I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate

> numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear

> them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was

> previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs

> like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems

> to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both

> insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a

> disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice

> lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib.

> So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?

>

> I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about

> what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or

> the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and

> fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done

> without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better

> maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks

> like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-

> hydroxybutyrate too?

>

> One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less

> dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR

> and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR

> it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF

> more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.

>

> [One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I

> would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon.

> In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be

> prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually

> seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently

> read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they

> frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of

> food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone

> succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us

> know how!]

>

> Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of

> body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with

> excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any

> study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or

> MWF) and those on EDCR?

>

> Rodney.

>

>

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Maybe address ?s with the free full text:

Mantis JG, Centeno NA, Todorova MT, McGowan R, Seyfried TN.

Management of multifactorial idiopathic epilepsy in EL mice with caloric

restriction

and the ketogenic diet: role of glucose and ketone bodies.

Nutr Metab (Lond). 2004 Oct 19;1(1):11.

PMID: 15507133

http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed & pubmedid=15507133

--- jwwright <jwwright@...> wrote:

> I'm puzzled about the comments on beta-hydroxybutyrate (BOHB) in relation to

CR.

> It's a marker for ketoacidosis. I'd expect it to be present during any fasting

> period as the body converts fats.

> I slip into that state pretty quick if I don't eat breakfast, like waiting for

a

> blood test. By noon, my breath is of concern to people. Now when I try to

think

> how that would benefit longevity, if I believe the glucose theory, I guess I'm

> glycating less stuff, but I question if that natural process is the " aging "

> factor.

>

> Anti-aging is what I'm after, not trying to figure out if higher IGF-1 than

> average is youthful or cancerous. IGF-1 falls off with age - I should WANT it

to

> stay youthful, no?

>

> So do I believe that BOHB is indicative of longer life? - not unless I think a

low

> carbo diet is associated with longer lifespan. I don't think it is, but it

might

> be assoc with lower mortality.

> Just my take.

>

> Regards.

>

> [ ] Different Modes of Dietary Restriction

>

>

> Hi folks:

>

> This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues

> looking for input in response:

>

> I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day

> feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating

> appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm'

> each and every day with no fasting.

>

> First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been

> abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing

> since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So

> in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to

> abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will

> refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the

> acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-

> as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you

> want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no

> calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed

> a " 16/32 " routine.

>

> A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only

> Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for

> logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves

> somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the

> weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much

> outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF,

> might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than

> eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -

> 'EDCR'.

>

> What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly

> caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR

> biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was

> also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained -

> which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR

> mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow

> kept the greatest fat reserves.

>

> However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side

> is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF

> rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate

> and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib

> pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences

> reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?

>

> I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate

> numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear

> them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was

> previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs

> like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems

> to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both

> insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a

> disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice

> lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib.

> So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?

>

> I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about

> what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or

> the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and

> fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done

> without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better

> maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks

> like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-

> hydroxybutyrate too?

>

> One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less

> dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR

> and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR

> it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF

> more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.

>

> [One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I

> would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon.

> In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be

> prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually

> seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently

> read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they

> frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of

> food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone

> succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us

> know how!]

>

> Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of

> body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with

> excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any

> study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or

> MWF) and those on EDCR?

>

> Rodney.

>

>

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

I'm puzzled about the comments on beta-hydroxybutyrate (BOHB) in relation to CR.

It's a marker for ketoacidosis. I'd expect it to be present during any fasting period as the body converts fats.

I slip into that state pretty quick if I don't eat breakfast, like waiting for a blood test. By noon, my breath is of concern to people. Now when I try to think how that would benefit longevity, if I believe the glucose theory, I guess I'm glycating less stuff, but I question if that natural process is the "aging" factor.

Anti-aging is what I'm after, not trying to figure out if higher IGF-1 than average is youthful or cancerous. IGF-1 falls off with age - I should WANT it to stay youthful, no?

So do I believe that BOHB is indicative of longer life? - not unless I think a low carbo diet is associated with longer lifespan. I don't think it is, but it might be assoc with lower mortality.

Just my take.

Regards.

[ ] Different Modes of Dietary Restriction

Hi folks:This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues looking for input in response:I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm' each and every day with no fasting.First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed a "16/32" routine. A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF, might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -'EDCR'.What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained - which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow kept the greatest fat reserves. However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib. So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-hydroxybutyrate too?One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.[One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon. In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us know how!]Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or MWF) and those on EDCR?Rodney.

[Guest guest]

I'm puzzled about the comments on beta-hydroxybutyrate (BOHB) in relation to CR.

It's a marker for ketoacidosis. I'd expect it to be present during any fasting period as the body converts fats.

I slip into that state pretty quick if I don't eat breakfast, like waiting for a blood test. By noon, my breath is of concern to people. Now when I try to think how that would benefit longevity, if I believe the glucose theory, I guess I'm glycating less stuff, but I question if that natural process is the "aging" factor.

Anti-aging is what I'm after, not trying to figure out if higher IGF-1 than average is youthful or cancerous. IGF-1 falls off with age - I should WANT it to stay youthful, no?

So do I believe that BOHB is indicative of longer life? - not unless I think a low carbo diet is associated with longer lifespan. I don't think it is, but it might be assoc with lower mortality.

Just my take.

Regards.

[ ] Different Modes of Dietary Restriction

Hi folks:This is a somewhat rambling post touching on a number of issues looking for input in response:I have recently become curious about the benefits of every-other-day feeding as compared with regular CRON. By 'regular' I mean eating appreciably fewer calories than is generally considered the 'norm' each and every day with no fasting.First of all, 'every-other-day' feeding has sometimes been abbreviated to the acronym 'EOD'. But I find this possibly confusing since that could also be construed to mean 'end-of-day' feeding. So in the interests of minimizing confusion I am instead going to abbreviate it to ADF - 'alternate-day-feeding'. Regular CR I will refer to as 'EDCR' ............... every day CR. When I use the acronym 'ADF' I mean: no calories on alternate days and eat-as-much-as-you-want on the other days. Or, put another way, eating all you want from 8 am to midnight (16 hours), followed by consuming no calories until 8 am 32 hours later - what might perhaps be termed a "16/32" routine. A number of mouse CR experiments were done with the animals fed only Monday, Wednesday and Friday (MWF), perhaps principally for logistical reasons. This is quite similar to ADF, but involves somewhat less frequent feeding since there is a two day gap on the weekend. Those MWF mice seem to have thrived, since they much outlived their ad lib siblings. So one wonders whether MWF, or ADF, might be a better approach to caloric restriction in humans than eating every day while restricting calories 10%, 20% or 30% each day -'EDCR'.What is interesting about a MWF routine is that, even when weekly caloric intake was not much reduced, some of the standard CR biomarkers were better on MWF than on EDCR, while weight loss was also less drastic. Presumably this means more fat is retained - which may be important because Warren has posted here that the CR mice which survived the longest of all were those which had somehow kept the greatest fat reserves. However there are (at least) two sides to this coin. The other side is that two biomarkers behaved dramatically differently for MWF rodents compared with EDCR animals. Both blood beta-hydroxybutyrate and IGF-1 were a lot lower in EDCR animals compared with their ad lib pals, but a lot higher in those on MWF. So how are these differences reflected in comparative maximum lifespans?I do not have any idea what the differing beta-hydroxybutyrate numbers mean. If anyone has any thoughts it would be good to hear them. But as regards IGF-1 this has raised an issue of which I was previously ignorant. A couple of Google seaches using inputs like 'IGF-1 cancer', or 'insulin cancer', indicate that there seems to be a direct link between cancer incidence and levels of both insulin and IGF-1. This **suggests** that higher IGF-1 would be a disadvantage. Yet, while mice mostly die of cancer, the MWF mice lived a lot longer than their pals which had lower IGF-1 on ad lib. So how harmful, I wonder, can elevated IGF-1 be? Not much, perhaps?I don't know what to make of this. If anyone has any input about what all this might mean to humans, please enlighten us. If MWF (or the presumably-very-similar ADF) can better preserve body weight and fat reserves, much improve many biomarkers, and **IF** it can be done without causing additional cancer then it might result in even better maximum lifespans than our standard EDCR. But the higher IGF-1 looks like it may be a fly in the ointment - and possibly the higher beta-hydroxybutyrate too?One explanation for the improved biomarkers despite a much less dramatically changed weekly caloric intake might be that both EDCR and ADF or MWF elicit a 'starvation response'. In the case of EDCR it is a little 'starvation' every day, and in the case of ADF and MWF more marked starvation, but only on alternate days.[One other item on this general topic ................ one thing I would like to change is my tendency to sleepiness in mid-afternoon. In this regard I had had the impression that this problem might be prompted by what I had eaten for lunch, since the symptom usually seems to arise about an hour after lunchtime. However I recently read that a study of muslims during Ramadan had found that they frequenty attribute their mid-afternoon sleepiness to the lack of food between dawn and dusk! So, so much for that theory! Has anyone succeeded to conquering afternoon sleepness? If so please let us know how!]Do yer begin to see why I decided to write this? A smaller loss of body mass would be an advantage if it could be obtained with excellent biomarkers and no increase in cancer. Do we know of any study in mammals that compared survival curves of animals on ADF (or MWF) and those on EDCR?Rodney.