New research linking intermittent fasting to increased diabetes risk

90three

Banned
Banned
Joined
Jun 21, 2018
Messages
443
Reaction score
0
New research presented recently at the European Society of Endocrinology annual meeting is suggesting the intermittent fasting diets may actually damage the pancreas and increase a person's risk for type 2 diabetes. The research stands in opposition to many studies in recent years that have pointed to the positive health effects of intermittent fasting and experts suggest this new data should be treated with caution.

The new study, from a team at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, set out to investigate the effect of fasting on body weight, free radical levels and insulin function. For three months, healthy adult rats were subjected to intermittent fasting consisting of no food every other day. Although a decrease in overall body weight was recorded across the experiment period, an increase in abdominal fat tissue was identified.

Most striking is the study's finding that after three months of this diet, insulin-producing cells in the pancreas displayed damage. Markers of insulin resistance were identified, as were increased levels of free radicals.

"This is the first study to show that, despite weight loss, intermittent fasting diets may actually damage the pancreas and affect insulin function in normal healthy individuals, which could lead to diabetes and serious health issues," says Ana Bonassa, one of the researchers on the project.

The research was presented as part of a conference presentation, is currently unpublished and is not peer-reviewed, so caution is necessary when evaluating its conclusions. The report also stands in direct contrast to several strong studiesrecently suggesting that fasting can actually improve a person's health. More specifically, a study from the University of Southern California in 2017 found that mimicking a fasting diet in mice with diabetes actually repaired insulin production and stabilized blood glucose levels. These results have also been replicated in humans.


https://newatlas.com/intermittent-fasting-causes-diabetes-debate/54685/
 
If you inhale a lot sugar after fasting I have no doubt you will spike insulin which is generally bad for cardiovascular health and will lead to insulin resistance.

Still won't stop me from eating noon - 8pm.
 
1. For three months, healthy adult rats were subjected to intermittent fasting consisting of no food every other day.

2. So why is this new study demonstrating such outlying data? Nicola Guess, from King's College London, suggests one major factor could be the fundamental difference between rats and humans regarding both insulin production mechanisms and relative duration of fasting.

… 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," explains Guess. "The exact method is unclear from the abstract, but if the rats were fasted for one day, this is equivalent to an approximately three to four week fast in humans! So it's not applicable to the 24-hour or 48-hour fasts practiced by humans on common fasting diets."

.....
LOL

So much folly.
 
1. For three months, healthy adult rats were subjected to intermittent fasting consisting of no food every other day.

2. So why is this new study demonstrating such outlying data? Nicola Guess, from King's College London, suggests one major factor could be the fundamental difference between rats and humans regarding both insulin production mechanisms and relative duration of fasting.

… 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," explains Guess. "The exact method is unclear from the abstract, but if the rats were fasted for one day, this is equivalent to an approximately three to four week fast in humans! So it's not applicable to the 24-hour or 48-hour fasts practiced by humans on common fasting diets."

.....
LOL

So much folly.
people who are crudely dismissive are usually the ones who are biased, in my experience
 
That's the thought I had in the back of my mind about research showing that intermittent fasting is healthy.

It's too early and the research results are not extensive enough and haven't withstood the test of time.

There are research results every decade that suggest something is good only to be debunked decades later.

Sticking to time-tested traditional diet/health wisdom is still best.

Eat in moderation, have plenty of fruits and vegetables in your diet (especially vegetables). Eat less processed foods.
 
people who are crudely dismissive are usually the ones who are biased, in my experience

No bias. I dont do IF.

They used mice and not humans. Already admitted our physiology is so different that a high fat doesnt impact humans but does with mice (no shit). This literally shows our insulin responses are vastly different (as someone who has a degree in physiology, has worked in metabolic wards, done physical rehab etc, this is a red flag in a study like this because we have enough population to do observational studies and ask for blood and urine samples).

They also did every other day fasts. This isnt even IF (16:8 to 20:4 tends to be most common ranges). So they are using extremes. And showed that a one day fast is like us doing a much longer fast(3 to 4weeks in humans) lol, something humans dont actively do unless they have vastly unhealthy eating habits.

Studying fasting of ramadan for cross reference of extreme fasting (waiting til sunset and only eating one large meal usually) , you can actually see how it more typically improves insulin and leukocytes in short durations.

So they used a rodent study to extrapolate the exact opposite results of what strong human studies have shown in regards to insulin and diabetes and IF.

They literally did lazy science. This shit should not even hit ethics board for approval.
 
Last edited:
Well, running through my mind on the study, of course it is a rodent study. Human studies are best. Another other item that comes to mind is that when loosing weight testing parameters tend to go haywire. It is best to let weight stabilize for a month or two before conducting tests. No mention in the mouse study if that was done. There are a few other items that comes to mind, but those were the bigger questions I can think of.

With insulin and type 2 diabetes, there is a concern with how that condition is treated. From my understanding that is why some physicians have begun to promote IF as a way to lower insulin levels, and get off of type 2 medications. Basically, the older thought is that when glucose levels become to high then insulin is needed to lower glucose levels. The problem with that is several studies have found that lowering glucose levels with medications does not prevent type 2 diabetes complications, such as blindness, nerve damage, limb amputations, etc. A little on that can be read here ~

Turning diabetes upside down

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/08/04/turning-diabetes-upside-down/
 
Intermittent fasting came naturally to me. I was starting to skip breakfast and having a late lunch before I even knew what IF was.

Stopped forcing breakfast down my throat around 18 months ago and have never felt better. Not sure if it's merely a coincidence but my skin looks and feels a lot better too.
 
Intermittent fasting came naturally to me. I was starting to skip breakfast and having a late lunch before I even knew what IF was.

Stopped forcing breakfast down my throat around 18 months ago and have never felt better. Not sure if it's merely a coincidence but my skin looks and feels a lot better too.
I used to force feed myself in the morning too, I guess some people really don't need breakfast
 
I eat everyday and have fasting for 12-14hrs for the past month or so - depending on how I feel.

I feel better and can notice the weight loss.
 
I saw that article recently. I'd like to see an expert doctor debunk the rat study point by point with test evidence. The thought of pancreas damage and diabetes is scary.
 
I think it would be a good idea to distinguish between intermittent fasting and time restricted eating. If you are eating every day within 8 to 12 hours then you are on a time restricted eating schedule. If you eat nothing for 24 hours or more then you are fasting.
 
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/esoe-cif051618.php

The study was on thirty-day old female Wistar rats. For starters that's a little weird, why only females? Why start at 30-days old? They're not even adults at this stage. These rats live 3 years on average.

We know that males and females respond differently to intermittent fasting. The female body is much more interested in keeping and storing fat because it's vital for a potential pregnancy. Males don't have this type of reproductive pressure at all. Also it makes sense that subjecting juveniles, who don't have much body fat at all, and haven't finished growing, would cause stress on the body.
 
LMAO rats?!?!

Considering that theres ACTUAL studies on humans that suggest IF improves blood glucose for Type 2 diabetes (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5394735/ is one of many)


Then I wondered what kind of idiot would fund a "research study on IF on rats".

Then I found that this rat study isnt even a published research, and that the main "author" of this "study" is just a student at the University of Sao Paulo, who got together with classmates to do what I assume is a dissertation
 
Last edited:
I used to force feed myself in the morning too, I guess some people really don't need breakfast

Depending on what age you are and if you grew up in the US or Canada you were force fed non-stop propaganda about 'breakfast being the most import meal of the day'. My wife still thinks that's true.
 
Then I found that this rat study isnt even a published research, and that the main "author" of this "study" is just a student at the University of Sao Paulo, who got together with classmates to do what I assume is a dissertation

To be fair, the lead author (first listed) is almost always a grad student or post doc and sometimes an ugrad for a 4th year ugrad thesis. So that doesn't mean much. Not very often is the PIs the first author on a paper.
 
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-05/esoe-cif051618.php

The study was on thirty-day old female Wistar rats. For starters that's a little weird, why only females? Why start at 30-days old? They're not even adults at this stage. These rats live 3 years on average.

We know that males and females respond differently to intermittent fasting. The female body is much more interested in keeping and storing fat because it's vital for a potential pregnancy. Males don't have this type of reproductive pressure at all. Also it makes sense that subjecting juveniles, who don't have much body fat at all, and haven't finished growing, would cause stress on the body.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with a series of comments here ITT but it doesn't look like many of you have experience using animal models.

In general, you use male mice or rats when you want to rule out hormonal effects, and female mice/rats when you are interested in hormonal impacts. That's a general rule of thumb, the specifics of the study and pathway will determine the sex for the study.

It's most likely that the development of the pathway of interest is established at 30days. I've used Sprague-Dawley rats for osteoporosis research and you can use them as young as 6months old, or 9-12months for full bone remodeling. Keep in mind your mimicking a disease that in humans starts in the late 50s-60s in women. Those ages of rats are not randomly selected.
 
In some way we all do intermittent sometimes, I don´t buy, still many governments don´t ban cereals that are pile of sugar but hey...they´ll make a tiger of you !
 
Back
Top