|
|
|
|
|
|
by dibt
1234 days ago
|
|
|
> Fasting every single day for the rest of your life is not realistic and probably does more harm than good. What evidence is there for this statement? What is considered "fasting?" I can't see how a 12-hour feeding window would be problematic. I could understand some people might develop "disordered eating" if their approach is unsustainable, but "more harm than good" isn't true for those that can do it. One reason for fasting is that it improves insulin sensitivity. From: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur... "Based on this, researchers from the University of Alabama conducted a study with a small group of obese men with prediabetes. They compared a form of intermittent fasting called "early time-restricted feeding," where all meals were fit into an early eight-hour period of the day (7 am to 3 pm), or spread out over 12 hours (between 7 am and 7 pm). Both groups maintained their weight (did not gain or lose) but after five weeks, the eight-hours group had dramatically lower insulin levels and significantly improved insulin sensitivity, as well as significantly lower blood pressure. The best part? The eight-hours group also had significantly decreased appetite. They weren’t starving." |
|
|
- When I say “fasting” I mean not eating for a good chunk of the day. My Muslim background made me overlook the need to define that clearly.
- I doubt most people can sustain fasting indefinitely, so “disordered eating” and metabolism going out of whack is the most likely outcome.
- If someone has a good reason to fast indefinitely - based on professional advice - then they should go for it. But, like other extreme measures, it’s probably not for the general population.