6 ms·

> protein pacing diet for the remaining five/six days/week (Protein pacing refers to 4–6 meals/day evenly-spaced, where each meal contains 25–40g of protein) >

> protein pacing diet for the remaining five/six days/week (Protein pacing refers to 4–6 meals/day evenly-spaced, where each meal contains 25–40g of protein) > During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for women and men, respectively, and a macronutrient distribution consisting of 35% protein, 35% carbohydrate, and 30% fat. That's somehow more calories/day than I would expect for a "fasting day", and fairly restrictive over-all. I'd be curious to hear how these compare to someone on the 1350/1700 kcal/day diet 7 days a week. > Extending beyond 4-weeks reduces compliance and may be overly excessive for a caloric restriction and 2 day IF and create undue metabolic, physiologic, hormonal, and psychological stress in the study participants. Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial. Does it do much good if you drop more but it bounces back? > Isagenix International, LLC (Gilbert, AZ, USA) provided all meal replacement shakes, bars, beverages, and supplements. > Whole Blend IsaLean® Shakes, Cleanse for Life®, Ionix® Supreme, Collagen Bone Broth, AMPED™ Hydrate, Harvest/Whey Thins™, IsaDelight® Chocolates, > This study was supported by a grant (IRB#: 1911–859) from Isagenix International, LLC > P.J.A. (the primary author) is a member of the scientific advisory board at Isagenix International LLC, the study’s sponsor. E.G. and A.E.M. are employed by Isagenix International LLC. Ok, that reads as very suspect, now.

bena 4y ago
Assuming 2000 kcal/day is the normal amount blah blah blah. For men, they are running a 300 kcal deficit for 5 days and 1500 kcal deficit for the other two. For a total of 4500 kcal per week. Or losing about a pound and a half. Now, seeing as this is for overweight people, it's likely to be even more. As it takes more calories per day to maintain higher weights. So if the person's maintenance is about 3000 kcal/day, that's going to be a deficit of roughly 11,500 kcal per week. Which is close to 4 pounds. But then again, restricting yourself to just 2000 kcal/day would have you lose about a pound and a half per week. Because, when you are very overweight, lots of things work.
saargrin 4y ago
1700 kcal a day for male is already pretty high calorie deficit even without any physical activity
- von_lohengramm 4y ago
  On average, sure, but there are plenty of metabolic outliers, and I doubt those seeking weight loss are on the higher end. My weight was surprisingly consistent at 1300kcal/day.
  - zro 4y ago
    As an outlier more towards the other end, my weight tends to fall if I go below about 2500 kcal/day
- petercooper 4y ago
  Is it that far off? I had a medical last week and was told my resting metabolic rate was around 1750 kcal.
  - FartyMcFarter 4y ago
    Resting metabolic rate means "sitting on the couch literally all day long". Even the slightest physical activity (working, moving around the house) will raise that by a few hundred calories.
stormbrew 4y ago
> Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial. This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters. If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan. And then you gain it back.
- wutbrodo 4y ago
  > This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters. It's (always) worth skimming the article, or at least the headline. From the subheadline: > *Given the same energy intake and expenditure*, intermittent fasting two days versus one day per week increases weight loss in overweight men and women This study isn't saying "2 day IF is a miracle weight-loss cure and you should just do it bada bing bada boom weight loss solved". It's holding everything constant except the number of fasting days, and finding that it's (quite dramatically) more effective in the short-term. This is a data point, not a weight-loss plan. It doesn't call for "skepticism", just careful reading and limited application (or for a start, reading the article/headline at all). Nutrition is intensely complicated and devilishly difficult to study. But for scientifically-literate people who take it seriously, data points like this shed light on limited portions of the "solution space". This is crucial to mapping out the space enough to understand how to improve your own diet; it's not amenable to an impatient approach that expects every study to be a magic bullet. Even ignoring the signal that this provides, the absolute minimum value of this study is that somebody who's already doing a time-limited IF-1 diet can switch to a time-limited IF-2 diet. That's valuable in and of itself. > If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan. With the same improvement in hunger levels, hormone profile, and cardiometabolic health (all mentioned in the for both the control and treatment)? I highly doubt it. Even assuming that IF isn't sustainable[1], people do have short-term weight loss goals sometimes, and IF provides a path to do so that keeps metabolic and hormonal health in mind relative to traditional crash dieting. [1] I've been doing it for....five years now? Not only did I lose a reasonable amount of weight early on, it's been helpful for maintaining during a life phase of suddenly-expanding waistlines among my peers. Plus it's trivial to dial it up slightly when I do feel the need to tighten up a little.
NineStarPoint 4y ago
Study is definitely suspect, but if 400-500 kcal allowed for the benefits of fasting that would be really useful information for some. I have to eat some food for medication in the morning, and have always presumed that made fasting not a viable strategy for me.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

bena 4y ago

Assuming 2000 kcal/day is the normal amount blah blah blah. For men, they are running a 300 kcal deficit for 5 days and 1500 kcal deficit for the other two. For a total of 4500 kcal per week. Or losing about a pound and a half. Now, seeing as this is for overweight people, it's likely to be even more. As it takes more calories per day to maintain higher weights. So if the person's maintenance is about 3000 kcal/day, that's going to be a deficit of roughly 11,500 kcal per week. Which is close to 4 pounds. But then again, restricting yourself to just 2000 kcal/day would have you lose about a pound and a half per week. Because, when you are very overweight, lots of things work.

saargrin 4y ago

1700 kcal a day for male is already pretty high calorie deficit even without any physical activity

von_lohengramm 4y ago
On average, sure, but there are plenty of metabolic outliers, and I doubt those seeking weight loss are on the higher end. My weight was surprisingly consistent at 1300kcal/day.
- zro 4y ago
  As an outlier more towards the other end, my weight tends to fall if I go below about 2500 kcal/day
petercooper 4y ago
Is it that far off? I had a medical last week and was told my resting metabolic rate was around 1750 kcal.
- FartyMcFarter 4y ago
  Resting metabolic rate means "sitting on the couch literally all day long". Even the slightest physical activity (working, moving around the house) will raise that by a few hundred calories.

stormbrew 4y ago

> Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial. This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters. If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan. And then you gain it back.

wutbrodo 4y ago
> This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters. It's (always) worth skimming the article, or at least the headline. From the subheadline: > *Given the same energy intake and expenditure*, intermittent fasting two days versus one day per week increases weight loss in overweight men and women This study isn't saying "2 day IF is a miracle weight-loss cure and you should just do it bada bing bada boom weight loss solved". It's holding everything constant except the number of fasting days, and finding that it's (quite dramatically) more effective in the short-term. This is a data point, not a weight-loss plan. It doesn't call for "skepticism", just careful reading and limited application (or for a start, reading the article/headline at all). Nutrition is intensely complicated and devilishly difficult to study. But for scientifically-literate people who take it seriously, data points like this shed light on limited portions of the "solution space". This is crucial to mapping out the space enough to understand how to improve your own diet; it's not amenable to an impatient approach that expects every study to be a magic bullet. Even ignoring the signal that this provides, the absolute minimum value of this study is that somebody who's already doing a time-limited IF-1 diet can switch to a time-limited IF-2 diet. That's valuable in and of itself. > If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan. With the same improvement in hunger levels, hormone profile, and cardiometabolic health (all mentioned in the for both the control and treatment)? I highly doubt it. Even assuming that IF isn't sustainable[1], people do have short-term weight loss goals sometimes, and IF provides a path to do so that keeps metabolic and hormonal health in mind relative to traditional crash dieting. [1] I've been doing it for....five years now? Not only did I lose a reasonable amount of weight early on, it's been helpful for maintaining during a life phase of suddenly-expanding waistlines among my peers. Plus it's trivial to dial it up slightly when I do feel the need to tighten up a little.

NineStarPoint 4y ago

Study is definitely suspect, but if 400-500 kcal allowed for the benefits of fasting that would be really useful information for some. I have to eat some food for medication in the morning, and have always presumed that made fasting not a viable strategy for me.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]