Causes significant changes in protein levels across various organs.
May have health benefits beyond weight loss, but only after 3 days.
Switches energy source from glucose to fat after 2-3 days.
Average weight loss of 5.7 kg (fat and muscle), with most fat loss sustained after 3 days of eating.

Implications:

Provides insights into the molecular basis of fasting's health effects.
Paves the way for developing alternative treatments based on fasting benefits.
Confirms historical use of fasting for specific health conditions.

all 45 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

5.7 kilo in three days? That sounds pretty bad (as in dangerous).

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Not to mention these results could provide some very dangerous ideas to those with eating disorders (diagnosed or not). Losing 5.7kg (12lb) in three days sounds insanely dangerous. Going for very long is hella dangerous because you're not getting necessary nutrition. That's why there's a minimum calorie intake for dieting and it is dangerous to go below that.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yeah as someone who is working on building a healthier relationship with food, this struck me too. It's absolutely super tempting to lose a lot of weight fast, but I'm firm in my belief that if I want to have results that stick, my attitude towards food needs to change. It's honestly going really well too.

[–] Baahb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Since it looks like you didn't read the article. It's not a 3 day study. 5.8 kg in 3 days is terrifying but it's not what happened.

Researchers followed 12 healthy volunteers taking part in a seven-day water-only fast. The volunteers were monitored closely on a daily basis to record changes in the levels of around 3,000 proteins in their blood before, during, and after the fast. By identifying which proteins are involved in the body's response, the researchers could then predict potential health outcomes of prolonged fasting by integrating genetic information from large-scale studies.

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I am genuinely glad to hear that! Because I know it is really hard (from experience; still working on it)

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've a feeling it's probably a thing that one will have to remain cognisant of indefinitely. I'm just glad it's a fucked up relationship with food rather than something like a sugar addiction, because that seems really tough to handle. Best of luck to us both, I'm sure we can do it! 🥳

[–] agent_flounder@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yes we can!

[–] Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Medical professional here. This is crazy. This is starving your body, I do not recommend.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But what about the potential health benefits?

[–] Cuttlefish1111@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The body believes it is starving after 24 hours and begins to eat itself. The risks far outweigh the benefits. Have to lose weight the real way, diet and exercise.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Damn it.

[–] Baahb@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

[–] Baahb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

[–] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The article says it was "fat and lean mass" not water weight. And while the "lean mass" (which I guess could be water) retuned after eating again, the "fat mass" did not.

[–] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 year ago

Lean mass is generally known as a combination as everything besides fat. So muscle, water, and shit would be my guess.

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You will drop a bunch of water at the start if you are eating carbs beforehand because of the water holding the glycogen in your muscles. As you use the glycogen the water holding it also goes, so it isn't fat loss, just water weight.

[–] RainfallSonata@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The volunteers lost an average of 5.7 kg of both fat mass and lean mass. After three days of eating after fasting, the weight stayed off -- the loss of lean was almost completely reversed, but the fat mass stayed off.

[–] rowinxavier@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Yes, correct, so a smaller portion is fat loss but not the full 5.7kg average. I should have been clearer, they did lose a meaningful amount of weight and it does seem to be beneficial, but it is not 5.7kg of fat loss per person on average, it is a loss of 5.7kg average mass with a portion of that being actual body fat.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Right, that makes sense.

[–] solrize@lemmy.world -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Wait you mean no water? Don't you die of dehydration? That doesn't sound good.

[–] dojan@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No no, they are saying that you’ll lose a bunch of water weight. As far as I know you generally regain that quite easily once you start eating again.

Personally I subscribe to the idea of calories in < calories out. Sustainable weight loss requires good habits and a healthy relationship with food.

[–] constantokra@lemmy.one 5 points 1 year ago

There's a lot of data that shows that restricting calories causes your metabolism to lower. Fasting basically causes your body to shift to using fat stores, so it still does have adequate fuel # and your metabolism doesn't fall the same way. It also changes your insulin response, and insulin resistance is one of the reasons you put on weight to begin with. If you're interested, Dr. Jason Fung has written a couple good books on.the subject. He's also put out a bunch of YouTube videos on it.

I've beef doing intermittent fasting for a while, and you do drop a good amount of weight very quickly. Most of it does stay off, but the idea is that you continue to fast periodically for weight management, typically limiting food intake to only a few hours daily.

[–] nulluser@programming.dev 7 points 1 year ago

Water weight. You still drink water when fasting.

[–] TisI@reddthat.com 5 points 1 year ago

I think that's for the whole week, but even then, it depends on the person's weight to begin with.

[–] skeptomatic@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

Looks like it's 5.7 kg loss in a week, the weight loss is sustained after resuming eating for 3 days

[–] Baahb@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

[–] Tangent5280@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I can't imagine not eating for three whole days. I'd be a groveling mess switching between begging for food and raging at every little thing. How do people do this comfortably? Atleast without breaking the china?

Is there a way to train yourself vis a vis slowly building tolerance or something?

[–] BrightCandle@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

I have done it quite a few times its actually not that bad. The first 24 hours is usually the worst and then the hunger goes away most of the time. You get reminders that you are hungry but it doesn't last. Its no where near as bad as people think it is from the first hunger pangs you just have to get over that initial hump.

[–] BugleFingers@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You could do what I just did and get a horrible stomach bug that leaves you in bed for four days dreading the thought of food and barely able to suck down half a glass of water! -5/10 would recommend active effort to avoid.

RIP myself, silver lining though lmao

Edit: I did lose ~10lbs though likely a fair amount is water weight

[–] constantokra@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago

It really isn't a big deal. You do think of food, but after the second day it's not like you're hungry. If you start by intermittent fasting, eating one meal a day, or reducing carbs it makes it a bit easier. Honestly, I find scheduling fasts around family gatherings, etc. much more difficult than being hungry.

[–] Metype@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago

The only time I've gone that long without eating was when I was stressed beyond belief. It was excruciating and I cannot imagine doing that willingly.

[–] Baahb@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Y'all need to read. NlThis was not a 3 day study:

[+] NineMileTower@lemmy.world -10 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Anything but diet and exercise

[–] MotoAsh@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, not eating is a diet? This seems to be directly addressing one part of that equation: you don't even 'need' exercise for simple fat loss. Though of course an actual balance you can keep up perpetually is much better, but this definitely directly touches diet.

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I can agree with that. Seems unsustainable to me though.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I've heard on quite a few shows that exercising doesn't actually do much for losing weight. It's healthy for you but not a good way to lose weight, apparently. Pretty interesting.

[–] SendMePhotos@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

I lost 60lbs by sitting on my ass playing video games, counting calories (1500-1800 + one cheat day per week).

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Agreed. You can’t outrun the fork, however good habits stack on each other and there’s a lot to be said about mental health benefits. They tend to go hand in hand.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I can't imagine human diets used to be as predictable as they are now, especially in winter. Attempting a diet that includes fasting doesnt seem unreasonable as part of a larger plan.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

At least we now get to decide when to stop fasting :)

[–] constantokra@lemmy.one 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Doctors will recommend fasting, or at least intermittent fasting, for a variety of conditions. Particulaly it helps you deal with insulin resistance, which isn't just diabetes. It could be why you're carrying a lot of weight, and it could also have to do with anxiety.

'Diet' and exercise don't always work for everyone, or for all problems, and insisting that it does really damages the people who have legitimately put a lot of effort into both those things without seeing meaningful results. Not only do they not see benefits from their hard work, they also start to feel like they're just not doing enough even if they are.

You should really look into some of the actual science behind fasting, and also behind caloric reduction and exercise before you criticize it so dismissively.

[–] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

CICO is science.

[–] Omgpwnies@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Yeah, we're aware that the laws of thermodynamics must be followed. The study clearly showed that if you set CI to zero, and CO remains nonzero, you lose weight.

[–] boonhet@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

CICO is science, but your CO can change based on your CI and there are cases where it's very hard to keep CI down. For an example, I have ADHD, it's legitimately extremely difficult to keep track of what I eat, eating one meal a day was about the only thing that helped. I believe I was also prediabetic (based on my glucose levels before my weight loss) and eating a small meal, particularly if rich in carbs, made me go hangrryyyyyyy later, but in a fasted state I was completely OK. Now I've lost something around the neighbourhood of 30 kilos/65 lbs and don't need to do one meal a day anymore, because I feel sated from much less food AND stay sated way longer.

This is why different people need their different tricks for weight loss. Find out how to reduce your hunger first and foremost, then focus on actually reducing calories. If fasting leads to being able to handle caloric restriction, it's awesome. If not, try something else. But don't restrict calories in a way that makes you continuously feel hungry, because that just won't work long term.