What if we call it "calorie cycling" instead?
A study I commented on earlier this week (and another I talked about last year) look at the merits of something they're calling Alternate Day Modified Fasting (ADMF) as a way to lose weight. But the word "fasting" appears to have a lot of baggage--to many, it implies extreme, dangerous, or even disordered eating.
ADMF is not really fasting at all. A more accurate term, Calorie Cycling, is now gaining traction and this rebranding may allow people to get beyond their assumptions and preconceived notions for long enough to evaluate this approach on its merits.
There seems to be a deeply entrenched--but completely arbitrary--notion that we should eat the same number of calories every day. Fans of the evolutionary nutrition movement would point out that primitive man certainly did not have the luxury of constant, consistent access to food. We now suffer from an epidemic of over-nourishment. Maybe it's time to think outside the box a little?
The Logic Behind Calorie Cycling
If you were to cut your normal daily caloric intake by a third, you would lose weight--and fairly quickly. But there are problems with this approach to weight loss:1. You will probably experience hunger.
2. Staying on the regimen requires constant vigilance, monitoring, and self-control.
3. After about 72 hours of sustained caloric restriction, your body will adjust by slowing its metabolism (slightly).
So, let's say we take the same reduced number of calories. But instead of spreading them evenly throughout the week, we alternate very low calorie days and normal or slightly above normal days.
Instead of this:
you have this:
Over the course of the week, you'd consume the same number of calories on either regimen and experience comparable weight loss. And, for the sake of argument, let's assume that in both scenarios, you are eating a well-balanced array of nutritious foods.
Does calorie cycling offer any advantages?
Well, for one thing, because there is no sustained calorie restriction, your body does not adjust its metabolism or start catabolizing lean muscle tissue as it would on a sustained low-calorie diet. Additionally, some people report that calorie cycling requires less will-power than constant restriction. Although you may feel hunger on your low-intake day, you can eat to satisfaction on your high-intake day. Contrary to assumptions, research shows that most people will eat only slightly more calories than normal following a skipped meal or fast.
As a bonus, some studies suggest that calorie-cycling may have benefits unrelated to weight loss, such as reducing oxidative damage, improving insulin resistance, and slowing mitochondrial aging.
Calorie cycling clearly isn't for everyone, and I'd strongly encourage anyone considering it to check in with their doctor or nutrition professional first. Those suffering from hypoglycemia, pregnant, or with a history or risk of eating disorders are not good candidates, for example. Aside from health issues, some people may simply prefer or be more successful on a more traditional approach.
But for some, it may be a helpful alternative strategy. At the very least, I think it's worthy of further investigation and study.
Browse the headlines and highlights from the NutritionData.com Blog right from your inbox! Sign up for our free e-letter (it comes out twice a month) and we’ll keep you in the loop! View the archive.
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Diets don't work for you? How about fasting? | | Nutrition Data Blog | | A new approach for treating reflux? |
Posted by: Joseph Gentzel | Dec 2, 2009 11:16:46 AM
After researching more on this subject it (intermittent fasting)seems to offer more promise than I first thought. A good example of maybe "A little knowledge being a dangerous thing." I should have looked clsoer before reacting and I showed my ignorance.
I found a lot of very intersting information; the best initially is a blog by Michael R. Eades, MD. I have read some of Dr. Eades' other blogs and find him very sane and literate. He makes sense and offers well based documented information. The URL I post for him here on intermittent fasting is the same.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting/inflammation-and-intermittent-fasting/
Intermittent fasting and other fasting may have real merit and potential. I would not rename it as people searching for info will probably never find it with the another name. Fasting is well known in our lives and has so much historical and religious association it should stay at what it it.
Posted by: julie | Nov 27, 2009 10:56:11 AM
I think I do some calorie cycling anyway, especially if there are big meals in the picture (such as this time of year). I wouldn't try to eat near 500, but likely I eat 1500 some days, close to 2500 others, and randomly in between, and I slowly lose weight, and I don't feel like will power is involved at all.
Posted by: Jason Chen | Nov 26, 2009 4:43:31 AM
not sure why my comment was cut off. The end read: the Heilbronn 2005 study, published on AJCN (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/81/1/69)
Jason
Posted by: Jason Chen | Nov 26, 2009 4:40:59 AM
Monica,
It seems that the research on this is pretty recent and limited, for the most part - difficult to tell if this has been really validated (or more accurately to say, failed to be rejected).
There is some interesting reading on this subject as well as the collateral "benefits." I found the comment of slowing of mitochondrial aging comment interesting. Are you referring to the
Jason Chen
www.20bmi.com
Posted by: Matt | Nov 25, 2009 10:26:51 AM
I still don't understand how this can be healthy even though it may help you lose weight. Although calorie intake seems like what I'm getting at its really about nutrition. Why would you deprive your body of healthy food for 72 hours and then binge on whatever you want?
Its almost like an excuse to prolong eating crappy food
Posted by: Erik | Nov 25, 2009 9:14:35 AM
Interesting theory, but I think I would personally find it too structured. If I'm in the low-cal zone, it would be almost as much of a chore trying to figure out a way to eat 2800 calories in a day as it is to figure out a way to eat 600 calories in a day.
If your body adjusts its metabolism after 72 hours of starvation, then I'd rather work in 72 hour segments. Let's say I'm supposed to eat 1500 calories per day. So make that 4500 calories per 72 hours. Then if I happen to eat 600 calories on day 1, I can eat 3900 calories over the next 2 days.
Conversely, if I eat 2500 calories on day 1, I now only have 2000 calories for days 2 and 3.
Or, if I can eat 1500 calories on day 1, 1500 calories on day 2, and 1500 calories on day 3, then that's fine too.
Either way, I'm more likely to base my eating on actual hunger and real-world circumstance, rather than a chart on a piece of paper. On March 10, 2011 I'm supposed to eat 600 calories? But what if that's the day of the big pizza party? On March 11, I'm supposed to eat 2800 calories? But what if I'm not that hungry?
I think it would be easier for me to be compliant to this sort of regimen. Even if I was starving, I'm never more than 3 days away from being able to eat something relatively decadent.
If it hasn't been done already, feel free to market this as the "72 Hour Diet" and make a million dollars.
Posted by: David Moss | Nov 25, 2009 6:09:51 AM
The regime described certainly isn't fasting (it's just alternate day calorie restriction), but it would be misleading to call this a rebranding of fasting.
Fasting has been shown to have have benefits separate to those of calorie restriction. Fasting (not eating anything for X hours) has been shown to have health benefits even with ad lib eating (eating as much as you want). Consequently choosing to fast should be viewed as a very different (and arguably preferable) health choice, rather than just re-arranging eating fewer calories.
Posted by: FoodFitnessFreshair | Nov 23, 2009 10:41:14 PM
Nice blog, some very informative posts. I'm not sure if I'm a fan of this diet, as I think it would be better to consistently modify one's diet to a moderate and healthy intake each day. I do think fasting, or eating less, every now and then is beneficial, but I don't think it should be done for weight loss purposes.
Posted by: Hannah | Nov 23, 2009 6:28:48 PM
Apparently, many Americans are convinced that they must sit down to eat three to six times a day and they must consume a specific amount of calories each day, or their bodies will revolt with some tragic results. Who makes these rules? Who decides how often you should eat or how much? Every body is different, with different genetics, different needs and different metabolism, yet someone came up with these magic numbers that apply to all of us. You MUST eat FOUR time a day and you MUST eat at least 1200 calories a day, or else. Or else, what? What is being discussed here is simply skipping a meal now and then, dodging a few calories, it's not starvation and it isn't going to kill most Americans to drop several pounds, if this plan helps them get there, so be it. That would be a good thing.
Posted by: Joseph Gentzel | Nov 23, 2009 4:18:43 PM
Congratulations on your new baby and kudos for breastfeeding your baby. Your baby deserves the best and “mommy’s milk” is the best for baby. The process releases indigenous opiates to benefit both mommy and baby.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/violence/odent1.html
To have this discussion on intermittent fasting is impossible really without knowing what we are starting with. If we want to assume (and it’s a pretty good assumption in our culture) that the HDL/TG ratio and corresponding CRP is high, there is no doubt that intermittent fasting is beneficial. Would it not be a better answer to lower the HDL/TG ratio with diet, supplements and other measures like insuring good sleep, proper breathing, relaxation and elimination of stress? There are other therapeutic techniques to lower the HDL/TG and CRP based off a good diet.
Intermittent fasting simply gives the abnormally high HDL/TG diet result a “break” from the dietary abuse we all inflict on our bodies. A good thing, no doubt, but a very poor second choice IMHO.
This approach at best is gimmicky and it certainly can play into the binge purge pathology syndrome in those who are prone to such.
I submit, if we are to ever have a chance of making any inroads into the obesity epidemic, we have to do much better than intermittent fasting even if we call it something else.
Posted by: Patty | Nov 23, 2009 3:45:48 PM
I love the new wording (even though it is clearly just semantics). I've never considered this "fasting", and I've always only referred to it as caloric restriction, or calorie-control. (Calorie Management??) I couldn't agree more that it is worth further investigation.
You did an excellent job of illustrating this approach.
Posted by: Darla | Nov 23, 2009 3:40:46 PM
This is purely an anecdote, but I have done a version of this. In trying to lose weight in the past I found that if I were too good about dieting every day (consistent # of calories), I would get stuck on a plateau even with exercise. I switched to reducing my calories on weekdays and then eating ad libitum on weekends. I finally lost more weight (and it was easier to eat out.)
I eat well and exercise but it's very hard for me to lose weight. I have always felt that my metabolism adjusts to my diet very quickly. I'm working on postpartum weight loss and am going to try this when finished breastfeeding.
