[flexblue]

What's wrong with (intermittent) fasting? Of course if you don't raise your blood sugar as much by changing the diet, your HbA1c goes down by definition.

However, limiting your feeding window will naturally reduce the amount of time you spend with elevated blood sugar, without any calorie reduction. Again, that'll lower your HbA1c by definition.

Calorie reduction on the other hand can slow down metabolism and cause a yoyo-effect[1].

The real issue is insulin resistance. Even if your blood sugar is "normal", it may take more insulin to achieve those levels. Elevated insulin levels are harmful by themselves. Also, if you go back to your old diet, you will still be insulin resistant.

Intermittent fasting can reduce visceral fat particularly in the liver and improve insulin sensitivity[2].

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5639963/

[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur...

[chx]

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/321864

> New research suggests that intermittent fasting may raise insulin levels, damage pancreatic cells, and increase the amount of abdominal fat.

> Specifically, the new study — led by Ana Cláudia Munhoz Bonassa, a researcher at the University of São Paulo in Brazil — suggests that intermittent fasting may impair the normal activity of the pancreas and the production of insulin, which may, in turn, raise the risk of type 2 diabetes.

[hombre_fatal]

Dr Nicola Guess, Lecturer in Nutritional Sciences at King’s College London, responding to that study:

> Firstly, it’s important to bear in mind there are important differences between rodents and humans – particularly with regard to diet. For example, a high fat diet causes insulin resistance in rats but it does not appear to in humans.

> The exact method is unclear from the abstract, but if the rats were fasted for one day, this is equivalent to an approximately 3 to 4 week fast in humans! So it’s not applicable to the 24-hour or 48-hour fasts practised by humans on common fasting diets.

(Note: the study made rats fast for 3 days)

Doesn't seem like the study I'd stop at when evaluating the benefits of intermittent fasting. For example, what about the promising ones that study actual humans and only see all markers improve?

I'd certainly stop going around spouting "fasting is bad" if this rat study is all you've got. Reminds me of that political cartoon of a soccer mom digging through a massive stack of studies, finally finding one that says vaccines might be bad, and going "Hah! Knew it!"

[chx]

This is hard to put into the right words especially in a short way but

The entire "what should I eat" field is so full of bad science that I disbelieve everything. There is so much money to made here it's astonishing and it makes everyone's motives questionable.

I believe in a somewhat closer-to-the-nature approach without going stir crazy.

Moving from very processed foods to their less processed versions felt like a good move. I am playing this by the ear because as our conversation shows there is a study to counter every other study.

I personally believe that general food advice can't exist because surely our genetics play a role in how our body reacts to different foods -- foodstuff itself is very complex chemically, biologically.

In short, intermittent fasting is unnatural and

[chx]

I am very near 100% my attempts at intermittent fasting caused this blood sugar spike but since I do not have a lab result from before I can't prove it but I dislike coincidences like that.