![]() This was a very small study to begin with, and, more importantly, there was a fairly significant dropout rate. ![]() LDL is known as a risk factor for heart attacks and strokes, so that's not good. This "weight loss" period was followed by another six months of "weight maintenance" and observations.īoth diet groups lost about 5.5% of their body weight (12 pounds) by month six, and both regained about 1.8% (four pounds) by month 12, and had significant improvements in blood pressure, blood sugar, insulin, and inflammatory proteins when compared to the people who ate their normal diets.Īt the end of the 12 months, there was only one difference between the two diet groups: the alternate fasting day group had a significant elevation in low density lipoprotein (LDL), an increase of 11.5 mg/dl as compared to the daily calorie restriction group. The two diet groups received counseling as well as all foods provided. a third group ate the way they typically did, for six months.a second group ate 75% of their caloric needs per day, every day.one group followed an alternate fasting plan, which meant on the fasting day they would eat only 25% of their caloric needs and on the non-fasting day they'd eat a little bit more (125% of their caloric needs per day).Researchers divided 100 obese study volunteers (mostly African-American women, without other major medical issues) into three groups: So, I welcomed this yearlong study comparing alternate-day fasting with more common calorie restriction. I also depend on scientific evidence to guide my counseling. I preach sensible intake of real foods as part of a lifelong approach to health. Proponents claim that this approach will lead to weight loss, as well as a number of other benefits.Īs a physician researcher, this annoys and alarms me. This gist of it is, basically, feast and famine. The alternate-day fasting thing is very popular right now.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |