Intermittent Fasting Myths Expertly Debunked in New Video
As regular readers will know, I recently released a book on intermittent fasting (IF) and time restricted eating (TRE) called Not So Fast.
The bulk of the book deals with the misleading fat loss/weight loss claims made for IF and TRE. Instead of relying on anecdote or forum bro-science, I carefully review each of the published, peer-reviewed studies that compared IF diets with more conventional calorie-restricted diets.
I do the same for TRE, but in that case I also include studies with non-calorie-restricted regular diets, because many of the TRE groups in those studies were instructed to eat ad libitum (without restriction) in their assigned eating windows.
Those studies show the lavish weight loss claims made for IF and TRE are pure bunkum.
In many of the studies, there is no difference in fat or weight loss between groups. When differences were noted in favour of IF or TRE, it was entirely explained by differences in caloric intake.
Many of you may be familiar with Dave Asprey, a self-proclaimed "biohacker" who I consider the epitome of pseudoscience (you can read my dissection of his "Bulletproof Coffee" bollockery here).
Asprey has convinced a lot of people he holds the keys to anti-aging, and charges thousandsto share those 'secrets' at “Biohacking” conferences. In a January 2021 story, he claimed to have spent $2 million on his quest to “biohack” his way to eternal youth, but by December 2022 had revised that figure down to $300,000. He’s a former Silicon Valley tech entrepreneur, which probably explains the dodgey figures.
In his book Fast This Way, Asprey writes, in a section titled "PAY NO MIND TO THE CALORIE COPS" (pages 60-61):
"Nothing makes you feel more like a failure than enduring suffering to lose 25 pounds, only to gain them back in a few weeks, plus a dozen more."
And nothing makes you realize you're dealing with a world-class BSer than the fantasmagorical claim you can gain 37 pounds in only a few weeks, when even deliberate overfeeding studies fail to replicate such an astonishing rate of weight gain.
Even the Guinness Book of World Records lists the greatest ever alleged weight gain at 325 lb (147 kg) over 12 months. That averages out at 27 lbs per month, which casts serious doubt on the veracity of Asprey's 37 lb-in-a-month claim.
Not to be deterred, Asprey continues with more utter bollocks:
"... the 'calories in, calories out' model, commonly abbreviated as CICO, should be relegated to the dustbin of failed science. This approach treats your body as though it's a meat robot when in reality it's a dynamic system that responds to calories differently based on their source, the time they're consumed, and the unique physiological makeup of the person consuming them. Yet the myth lives on, leaving obesity, shame, and suffering in its wake."
Oh boy. It's hard to know where to start with such complete and utter hogwash.
CICO will never be relegated to the dustbin of science, because it has been verified time and time again by real scientists, as opposed to reality-denying diet gurus and 'biohackers'.
Time and again, I've challenged the anti-CICO reality-deniers to book themselves into a metabolic ward, and prove their claim that you can gain or lose different amounts of weight (from fat, not dehydration, diarrhea or glycogen losses) on their pet diet when compared to an isocaloric high-carb/mixed diet, and in every instance my challenge has been met with deafening silence.
There's a good reason: It's an impossiblechallenge to meet, because it defies physiological reality.
Asprey's claim that CICO can be rendered invalid by "the unique physiological makeup of the person consuming [calories]" is a real crack-up.
Again, I've been asking for proof of the existence of these metabolic freaks-of-nature to whom the laws of nature have been magically suspended, but again, my requests keep drawing a blank.
Scientists haven't been able to find them either, as decades of metabolic ward studies have confirmed. Even a ward study commissioned and funded by NuSI, a low-carb propaganda outfit masquerading as a non-profit, failed to produce the magical "metabolic advantage" that flabby diet gurus incessantly wank on about.
All someone like Asprey needs to do is give a small portion of his millions to researchers, who can then put out the call for these freaks of nature to live in a metabolic ward for a set period of time. When these subjects lose more weight on a IF/TRE/low-carb/keto diet than on an isocaloric mixed diet, or they lose weight despite eating more than their verified energy maintenance needs - as some especially shameless/deluded diet gurus would have you believe is possible - then we can start questioning CICO.
Until then, the only thing that should be questioned is the ethics and motives of people who make nonsensical statements about diet and calories they know full well have no scientific backing.
When people follow IF and TRE diets and proceed to lose weight, it's for one reason and one reason only: They created a calorie deficit.
Just because you're not actively counting calories, it does not change one iota the fact you still consumed a calorie deficit. I've been driving manual cars for so long that I don't even think about changing gears. If you were to ask me immediately after a drive how many times I just changed gears, I'd have absolutely no idea because I wasn't counting. That doesn't mean I go around telling everyone my car's an automatic.
That would be delusional. Just like the anti-CICO crowd.
As I explain in Not So Fast, the science shows these diets do not "boost" metabolism, they do not boost growth hormone, nor do they flip some magical "metabolic switch". That's pure marketing flimflam.
In fact, TRE studies in active males found reductions in testosterone and the key thyroid hormone triiodothyronine (T3). That's the kind of "metabolic switch" I'll happily leave off.
Another demonstration of Asprey's anti-scientific tendencies comes when he then bangs on about Ancel Keys. The late Keys is an easy target, because he's roundly hated by anyone who knows what an outright fraud the whole anti-cholesterol/anti-saturate hysteria campaign is. But what Asprey doesn't mention is the then-groundbreaking study Keys conducted before he became an anti-cholesterol quack. This was the famous Minnesota Study, that showed when men were fed a very low-calorie mixed diet in conjunction with daily physical labor, they lost weight. Lots of it. Sometimes they lost too much weight and became emaciated. That tends to happen when you work like a lumberjack but eat like a small secretary.
When Keys and his colleagues then greatly increased the men’s caloric intakes, they gained weight. Just as CICO dictates they would. But Asprey doesn't mention the Minnesota Experiment because, like most diet hucksters, he tells a one-sided story designed to sell whatever he's peddling at the time, be it "Bulletproof" coffee or the nouveau-trendy phenomenon of skipping breakfast.
A Reality Check from New Zealand
Like Australia, there hasn't been much good to say about New Zealand over the past few years. Earlier this year however, Dr Brad Stanfield, a Primary Care Physician in Auckland, posted a very insightful video titled "Why Many People Are Abandoning Intermittent Fasting." You can watch it at the end of this post.
The video briefly discusses the fallacy of the weight loss claims, so if you want a detailed breakdown of that research, then Chapters 2 and 3 of Not So Fast are where you need to be.
But Dr Brad touches upon some additional research when he addresses some of the untenable "autophagy", hormone, glycemic and general health claims made for these diets. It's a must-watch for anyone considering these diets.
The comments below the video are also a must-read for anyone fascinated by the psychology endemic in the diet and health arena.
Many of the commenters swear IF or TRE is the best thing they ever did. That it changed their life, even. Just like low-carbers and vegans used to insist whenever I wrote anything remotely critical of their pet diet theories. Funnily enough, I don't hear from them anymore.
Look, I don't doubt many of these people did experience improvements. That happens with many diets, at least initially. And one of the major reasons is that when people embrace a new diet, they often do so as part of a sweeping "get my sh!t together" campaign that includes increasing physical activity, improving their food choices, cutting back on the booze, keeping better sleep hours, and so on.
Here are some cases in point:
Despite Dr Brad saying absolutely nothing offensive and relying on actual science in the video, some of the comments ooze butt-hurtedness.
So much so, that if I was a billionaire philanthropist, I'd offer some of the negative commenters a lifetime supply of Preparation H. Like this person:
Wow.
I don't know why people get so ridiculously defensive about diet. Dr Brad presents the facts, and I note that a grand total of nobody in the comments section refutes even a single of the studies he cites.
He even posts links to each of the studies below the video but, hey, why let a little thing like science get in the way of knee-jerk emotional reactions?
Rest assured, however much folks like mfcypher claim to love IF and TRE, I love cannoli more. But when I meet someone who says they don't like cannoli (it's happened), as utterly shocked, astounded and flabbergasted as I might be, I don't scowl and get all Joe Pesci.
Instead, I just quietly think to myself, "wow, someone who doesn't like cannoli! The world really is full of surprises!"
Look, if someone ever posts a video earnestly claiming the best way to fight ageing and lose weight is to molest the village goat once a week, then please, get angry and indignant. At least for the goat's sake.
But when someone posts a video critiquing your pet diet, and you can't factually refute any of the abundant science he presents, and so you instead get all ad hominem and carry on like he just asked you to molest the village goat, then the problem lies not with the poster of the video.
The problem lies with you.
As I stated in Not So Fast, I'm an information provider, not a dictator. Dr Brad hardly comes across as a domineering "my way or the highway" type either.
We present the side of the story that all the hyperbolic hucksters won't tell you, because it's the side of the story that desperately needs to be told. If IF or TRE seem to work for you, more power to you! But the reality is that they do not work for everybody, as a number of the YouTube comments would attest.
Some people do experience negative effects from IF and TRE, and this is hardly surprising given scientific research has already detected negative hormonal effects.
Don’t expect the anti-CICO crowd to tell you about these negative effects. If they can’t accept the reality of calories in, calories out, what on Earth would they know about the potential pitfalls of, say, routinely raising counterregulatory hormones?
Do they even know what counterregulatory hormones are?
Even if there was only a single person on this entire planet who could be harmed by IF and TRE, then that person has every right to knowthese diets may not be the best for him or her.
The reality is there are a lot more folks in the world who won't do well on these diets. Information about the potential pitfalls of IF and TRE shouldn't be withheld from these people because a bunch of IF and TRE fanboys and girls will have their remarkably fragile feelings hurt.
Anyways, here's Dr Brad's video, enjoy.
Ciao,
Anthony.
Anthony's new book, Not So Fast: The Truth About Intermittent Fasting & Time-Restricted Eating is now available at at Amazon and Lulu.
No comments:
Post a Comment