> “A fat cell is almost like a primitive immune cell,” says Hotamisligil. “It can request the assistance of immune cells when in trouble, but if the stress continues, and the immune cells remain, they start changing their character and behavior from helpful to harmful.”
> When overloaded with stored lipid, fat cells begin to lose their functional and structural integrity and may start spilling their toxic cargo. When cells fail like this, the immune system kicks in, initially to assist in clean-up. Macrophages engorge themselves on the leaking fuel, and may die themselves during this process. But in the long run, what is meant to be a mutually beneficial interaction between the metabolic and immune systems turns into a very dangerous and harmful relationship. Obese individuals thus live in a state of chronic stress and inflammation; in fact, many people do, because their energy intake vastly exceeds their needs. Hotamisligil calls this chronic energy overload, and the resulting abnormal immune response, metaflammation: metabolic inflammation.
This article brings together a whole host of different areas of research about human inflammation. I would recommend reading it, but it isn't an article you can skim and there's no big bang conclusions, just more areas of keen research and exploration.
These are probably different for the different types. (When young, non-obese kids get it, I doubt it's because of energy surplus)
Extended fasting is the most assured way to help normalize glucose. Some, and expecialy over time (I'm one of these) show elevated gluconeogenesis response and will take longer to normalize under a fasting focused or very low carb (aka keto diet). Once glucose is normalized (without supplemental insulin) the weight is easier to manage/normalize as well.
It's not easy, and the longer you are diabetic (type 2) the harder it is. Supplemental insulin works against you in a lot of ways. Time restricted eating, generally, and more specifically very low carb (not overdoing protein) are good approaches.
There's a lot of supporting articles and reference linked data on dietdoctor.com and elsewhere. First, and foremost, stop all refined sugars. Second, avoid refined carbs. Third, reduce refined seed oils. Eat clean and get some fatty fish 3-4x a week. And imho clean can mean red meat from naturally fed sources, likewise eggs and fish.
I think that's an oversimplification. Roughly a third of people with T2D have a normal BMI, and most obese people don't have T2D. I mean, sure, lose the weight if you can afford it, but that's attacking an exacerbating factor rather than the root causes (which are not really understood yet).
Also, the root causes are fairly well understood at this point. Yes, genetics play a role (sometimes a large on), but if an individual eats a balanced mostly plant based diet, exercises, and gets enough sleep (minimum 8 hours), then the likelihood of getting T2D reduces significantly. If someone has T2D, they are almost assuredly lacking in one of those three areas.
"that broke my heart :(
other eukaryotes? multicellular eukaryotes? animals? Whatever you like, but please, no "higher", the poor yeast have been evolving for a long time and are much better than us at fermenting beers..."
This is a great paper that touches on animal complexity, see "Developmental Depth" and "Structural depth"
I think drawing conclusions from one specific motivation in isolation is too simplistic. Many other profit interests benefit greatly from a healthy population that doesn't spend all its money on useless pills.
And motivations other than profit, both personal and political, are very powerful as well.
I don't think there is much evidence that eliminating the profit motivation leads to better results in general -- on the contrary. But there is a lot of evidence from Europe that health systems with public buyer cartels can achieve the same or better health outcomes far cheaper than in the US.
Although some say that sky high US drug prices effectively subsidise those European outcomes.
But insurance companies do.
American healthcare is a complex system of highly-incentivized agents. Zooming in on a single component as a synecdoche is like trying to reason how a car works by extrapolating from a fuel injector.
Additionally almost every industry is profit motivated, we wouldn't have the brightest people going into medicine unless it paid well. Ironically it doesn't actually pay well enough
That’s just semantics in the end. But it’s foolish to think that just because some endeavor is profitable is must be immoral.
A cure for Hepatitis C was developed by profit-seeking companies. Be careful what you're willing to throw away.
Setup a different system, and other motivations will drive their innovation, right?
Unless your claim is that innovation can only EVER be driven by profit?
1. Observed value drives innovation.
2. Profit / profit-motive is one of the most straightforward / most efficient means we have to observe value.
1. Human [curiosity, desire, necessity] drives innovation.
2. Profit mandate suppresses most of those innovations by promoting the few money making ideas (however beneficial or harmful they may be).
Sure it does. Developing a cure for 100 people will generated far less profits than a cure for 100,000 people.
It's why you see cars get better every year and constant attempts to appeal to the widest customer base possible. (That didn't happen with Soviet built cars, which tended to never improve.)
As for advertising platforms, the customers are the advertisers.
But in the first paragraph, the side effect is that developing a not-quite-cure treatment for 50,000 people is more profitable than both the others.
As for the last paragraph, this is perhaps the essence of the problem. The motive is profit, so we only care about the advertisers. But the users are real people too, and they are getting screwed.
Until someone else develops a cure and takes all your business away.
Recall that a company blinded by greed developed a cure for Hepatitis C, not a treatment.
Socialist funded research is driven by politics, not maximizing the benefit to the maximum number of people.
Note that a lot of university research is funded by corporations.
I await your list of medical advances from the USSR.
1. ABC develops an effective treatment for diabetes, but you have to take it for life.
2. DEF develops a cure for diabetes.
Which one do you think is going to make more money? The only way ABC can make money is if a cure cannot be developed, or ABC somehow convinced the government to ban DEF's cure.
Your theory reminds me of the 1970s when everyone was sure that 100 mpg carburetors existed but the oil companies bought up all the patents for it so they could sell more gas.
Unless you're the first to cure. The income, grants, and knowledge drain in your favor? People will continue to get diabetes and a treatment will cure it.
So there are alternatives, and probably others we didn't think about.
"In 1897, scientists at the drug and dye firm Bayer began investigating acetylsalicylic acid as a less-irritating replacement for standard common salicylate medicines, and identified a new way to synthesize it.:69–75 By 1899, Bayer had dubbed this drug Aspirin and was selling it around the world."
> "It has been suggested that heat stress induces adaptive hormesis mechanisms similar to exercise, and there are reports of cellular effects induced by whole-body hyperthermia in conjunction with oncology-related interventions"
I wonder if the key is simply raising the temperature of the blood. My understanding is that processes like Regenokine extract your blood, elevate its temperature (which causes it to produce natural anti-inflammatory compounds?) and then inject it back into your body. Perhaps sauna (and exercise?) are doing the same, but to a lesser degree. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autologous_conditioned_serum
It's available for sale
Well, if I thought that having sex for purposes other than procreation was illegitimate, I might buy that. I have the impression that some social conservatives believe that. However, I don't think that.
Also, we don't see as much industry effort to push contraception, as we do from the big pharmaceutical industries. Also, we don't see a problem of contraception not actually working; it can fail to work, of course, but most people who use contraception actually get the intended results. I believe it is far more common when Big Pharma tries to put into pill form something that could be obtained from good food or good exercise, that it does not work nearly as well.
Also many of the ingredients in curry powder, e.g. turmeric, ginger, fenugreek, black pepper have inflammation-fighting properties. Curry powder is traditionally best used within a few weeks of grinding the ingredients together; it may not be the taste which subsides in this time, but the other properties.
“Inflammation” includes so many normal homeostatic processes that it’s essentially a tautology to point to inflammation as being a critical component of disordered homeostasis. The biggest key as to whether a molecule is considered inflammatory is what type of biologist discovered it first.
I'm super ignorant of this field. Do you have examples of molecules that would be classified differently if found by different researchers?
Interleukins are a great example, as a class. They were first discovered as signaling molecules between white blood cells (inter-, -leukins, leuko meaning 'white'). Unsurprisingly, though, just because we found types of cell-cell communication in immune cells first doesn't mean it's unique to the immune setting. Some examples:
Interleukin-1 acts as a neutrophil chemotactic agent. It attracts that group of immune cells. However, it also acts to regulate the differentiation of osteoclasts. Osteoclasts are the cells that break down bone. They're a normal part of bone physiology - bone is constantly being broken down and rebuilt, as part of the normal bone remodeling process. If this were discovered by cell biologists before immunologists, it would've been named something like "osteoclast differentiating factor". Sometimes it goes in the other direction: what was originally named "osteoclast activating factor" was ultimately renamed Interleukin-1Beta.
Interleukin-4 is primarily known for its role in regulating B-cell differentiation.. It was one of the earlier lymphocytotropic hormones fully characterized and reproduced in the lab by immunologists. However, IL-4 receptors have been found on numerous cell types, strongly suggesting its pleiotropy: human myocardium expresses an IL-4/13 type II receptor, which allows it to respond to IL4 and IL13 signaling. Lab studies suggest that this allows IL4 and IL13 to jointly regulate human heart muscle contractility and baseline metabolism (knockouts for IL-4 and IL-13 receptors have shown impaired contractility and dyssynergic heart contraction.) You can imagine if this had been discovered by molecular biologists before immunologists, this would have simply been a "myocyte regulatory factor 3" rather than "interleukin 4". There's no immediately obvious immunologic connection, outside of the broader umbrella of homeostasis (stress conditions -> inflammation, stress conditions -> increased cardiac activity.)
Moving away from the interleukins:
Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha is a major immune/inflammatory regulatory; it plays a key role in the acute response to sepsis, induces apoptosis and cachexia, and is produced chiefly by various immune cells. It's also expressed in taste bud cells where it modulates neural responses to bitter tastes. Overexpression = stronger response to bitterness. It's postulated that this is why severely inflammatory states may be associated with taste distortion. No one really cares that much about physiology of taste, so even if the immunologists had been last to the party, we still would've ultimately classified this an inflammatory mediator.
And these are the obvious ones. There are more subtle ones, like macrophages and their associated matrix metalloproteinases. These are involved in tissue remodeling and thus wound healing, and thus kind of obviously fall under the broad heading of "inflammation," since we associate pretty much anything even vaguely related to trauma as "inflammatory." But really, remodeling extracellular matrix happens constantly in healthy tissues and is part of normal physiological activity. If I'm not mistaken, matrix metalloproteinases weren't discovered in the immune/inflammatory setting first - they were discovered as part of general cell biology.
Inflammation and immune response seem entirely connected.
I didn't believe this until I had a dear friend pass away from a heart attack at 33. This forced me into getting my blood work done. I was astonished how bad my numbers looked across the board even though I was skinny.
By eating a planet based diet all my numbers have normalized. I eat and sleep better. My energy has increased. I take 0 drugs. It's been a really eye opening experience. I'm 38.
The standard american diet needs to be fixed. It should look more like this
Book recommendation - How not to die - Michael Gregor
“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food.”
In the 30 days since I completed the fast, my fasting blood glucose has dropped from ~80-90 down to 65-75.
I'm concerned about the accuracy of my Freestyle Libre, but it was previously consistent with professional labs.
Anyway, a long term fast like the one I did may help improve your insulin resistance; it seems it did for me.
In this study, people with FBG levels above 95 had more than 3x the risk of developing future diabetes than people with FBG levels below 90: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(08)00231-3/fulltex...
This study showed progressively increasing risk of heart disease in men with FBG levels above 85 mg/dL, as compared to those with FBG levels of 81 mg/dL or lower: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16207847
The only obvious changes have been
1. Smoother, younger looking skin with fewer blemishes
2. I look ripped
While I can't disagree w/ Metformin/Berberine being effective for glucose control, I personally don't think that they aren't great long term for the dysbiosis, B12-deficiency (for metformin) and toxicity (for Berberine) effects... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5478780/
Most people that haven't long-term diabetic (eg, completely destroyed beta cells) should be able to get their health back in order via primarily dietary interventions, although it may require some detective work (conscientious dietary, blood work, body composition tracking).
Some of the hypertension may require addressing the IR, which can just take time to resolve: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/3299096/
Some of it may also be insuring adequate electrolytes, most people are much too low on ketogenic diets: https://blog.virtahealth.com/sodium-potassium-magnesium-keto...
I think waist:height ratio is definitely the best home measurement, but hopefully you're getting good supporting bloodwork as well, which can be very helpful in helping diagnosing problem areas. Also I found DXA and RER testing to be personally quite useful as well, especially for tracking progress on visceral fat (I took off 25% of my body weight off starting last summer). Good luck!
Adding 20-30mn HIIT sessions fasted right before breaking the fast may help also.
The hypertension may be related in some cases to sodium depletion causing aldosterone production (and cortisol and adrenaline) leading to fluid retention (and potassium excretion).
For this reason some people supplement themselves with sodium/potassium during keto or long term (72h optimally) water fasts.
Linking an article to with a brief overview, but there are many studies that can be found online.
Egg whites are the most bioavailable protein. Humans can use about 98 percent of it. I used egg whites to good effect when one of my sons needed more protein for some reason.
(This is not advice per se. I'm just making conversation and super tired.)
Never said it's healthy, but you will lose fat. If you're not keen on the ethanol poisoning aspect of the diet, you can substitute complex fibrous carbs like broccoli or some such and get similar results.
Of course if you really don't care about health you could poison yourself with Dinitrophenol. It's the fat burning drug. Literally. Users routinely die from their bodies cooking them to death.
If you were taking a drug and it made you feel horrible would you take more? Most likely you would stop or at least forego increasing the dosage.
These people didn't die because of dinitrophenol. They died because of an underlying condition. It's an accidental suicide.
Because a ketogenic diet depends the amount of carbohydrate restriction that will cause your body to physiologically be generating ketone bodies (eg, say less than 20g of net carbs), even at a constant formulation that doesn't change (as your TDEE changes) you will still be in the same state of ketosis - eg, if you measured your mmol concentration of BHB, it would likely remain the same. However, your caloric deficit of course would change (and you would need to lower it to match that to maintain your rate of weight loss).
In your hypothetical example, if your TDEE were 2000kCal and you were able to eat and absorb 4000kCal of butter a day, you would gain weight (although slower than the expected 0.57lb/day due to increased TDEE; this expenditure change (up to +50%!) was shown in the Vermont State Prison overfeeding experiments in the 60s). But despite that, due to the complete lack of carbohydrates, this diet would definitely stimulate ketogenesis (and would do so regardless if your TDEE were a 2000kCal surplus or deficit).
Due to the complete lack of proteins, you would eventually start consuming some lean body mass to produce some of the glucose (a percentage of glucose would be provided by the glycerol molecule holding together each triglyceride) required by the brain (~30%) and RBCs. I'd expect a pure butter diet to have about the same physiologic effect on protein-sparing as an extended fast (eg, you'd probably last a couple months before eventually expiring).
I don't exactly know why, but some suggest it reduces inflammation, or improves blood sugar regulation.
Multiple human and animal trials indicate MSM may reduce oxidative stress and inflammation.
Interested why you decided against metformin. Lots of people without DM or Metabolic syndrome are taking it for its apparent life extension effects (mostly unproven this far in humans). For diabetes, there's pretty solid evidence.
I work in this space tangentially and I had not heard of berberine before. What are you hoping to achieve with this supplement?
The pain may be related to blood pressure.
Is there any reason you didn't also add a multivitamin? How much D and K? Magnesium? Ever had any lab work done?
My BP is under control though I would love to stop using BP drugs. In fact, I would like to see legislation around the use of them, i.e., doctors must within 180 days, find the root causes of the abnormal BP and within 360 days, have the person on a program to fix it. BP drugs are bad news and put people at grave risk (as the body fights the effect) which means if you stop taking them, your body fighting the ffect triggers a rebound. It's happened to me twice when the pharmacy was screwing around with my prescription.
Magnesium is 100mg, 3 times a day. It is chelated and bound to a couple amino acids. K2 MK4, 100mcg twice a day. K2 MK7 100mcg twice a day.
The only lab work I've had done was testing for the usual things, cholesterol, triglycerides, checking for h.pylori, etc... I don't think they even do a ldl lipoprotein spectrum graph.
A recent review of 2009-2016 NHANES data concluded that only 12.2% of Americans were in "optimal cardiometabolic health". https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/met.2018.0105
The guidelines they used were (very similar but slightly more stringent than the ATP III):
* waist circumference (WC <102/88 cm for men/women)
* glucose (fasting glucose <100 mg/dL and hemoglobin A1c <5.7%)
* blood pressure (systolic <120 and diastolic <80 mmHg)
* triglycerides (<150 mg/dL)
* high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (≥40/50 mg/dL for men/women)
* not taking any related medication
Even w/ ATP III, only 19.9% of American adults don't have metabolic syndrome.
What metabolic syndrome really is, is hyperinsulinemia/insulin resistance. You should get your estimates by having fasting glucose and fasting insulin tested for to get HOMA-IR and QUICKI estimates (TG-FB and TC/HDL are two other estimates you can use). If you are IR (probably 80% of American adults), then you can improve this by eating less often, eating earlier in the day, or eating less carbohydrates (especially those with a high glycemic load) - doing all three is pretty doable and actually tends to work synergistically (endocrinology!). Exercise also helps improve insulin sensitivity, but you can't really outrun a bad diet.
Praise the power to define/change definitions of these values...
Gingivitis is "inflammation of the gums", but it's "caused" by bacteria, plaque, tarter, etc... inflammation is the description of what is happening (ie, symptom) not the "cause".
For example the "fat cell leak": The body is correctly responding to a real problem, but the response is so heavy handed it causes other problems.
Which is why suppressing inflammation might be an interesting area of research, but we wouldn't want to completely eliminate it because the body may lose a vital tool needed to fight illnesses and normal maintenance.
For example, you can get a blood infection from really bad gingivitis. But it's quite a leap to blame inflammation as the "cause" when it's really plaque (or a myriad of other related things). I think this is the foundational problem with health sciences.
There is a lot money to be made treating symptoms, very money little to be made curing people.
If you've got 2 or 3 different things killing you at once, you're gonna have to deal with the "most killing" one the most, so to speak.
People focus too much on obesity, but obesity is more like a marker rather than a cause (even if it can make things worse by fat cells becoming inflammatory).
And I have to agree with the parent, we have an obsession with treating the symptoms instead of the cause. And there are cases in which treating those symptoms does not reduce the all cause mortality rate
The perfect example is statins. A high LDL-p might in fact be the body’s response to infection and by impairment of LDL particles production or by accelerating clearance, you can end up doing more harm than good, even if a high LDL-p is a good marker for CVD. And then you’ve got a ton of side effects that reduce quality of life, because such pills are a blunt tool with a lot of downstream effects, some of which are unforeseen.
And to put salt to injury there are studies showing that statins don’t reduce the all cause mortality in patients that haven’t suffered a stroke already. Or that even in patients that suffered a stroke, the life extension is measured on average in only a couple of months. Which actually makes a lot of sense if you really think about it.
Inflammation is an effect that _can_ cause other problems. But as far as I know, inflammation is a symptom of other problems, not a cause in and of itself.
The article claims that inflammation is both a symptom of other problems (when in reasonable ranges of signalling) and a causer of problems (when signalling too much).
I know the title of the article itself is a bit sensationalist, but I would assume that any tests aiming to determine if inflammation is the cause of a problem in specific would also check to make sure that the inflammation was in the "starting to cause harm" range rather than merely in the "signalling" range.
>Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
This is like saying water damaged my carpet without acknowledging the real problem... that firemen were putting out the fire. No one cares about a mold problem in carpet if your house burns down.
If we treated health issues in the same common sense way we would not focus on symptoms, but on causes.
The root cause is all the little issues, but you can't get there without first tackling the inability to fix any of the issues (labor shortage/unreasonable expectations/so on).
>People with gum disease (also known as periodontal disease) have two to three times the risk of having a heart attack, stroke, or other serious cardiovascular event. https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/gum-disease-and-...
The idea is bacteria in the gums cause inflammation (red swollen flesh, more white cells, metabolic changes) causes clogged arteries causes heart attacks.
It’s like saying type2 diabeties or fatty liver disease are not diseases but symptoms caused by certain dietary habits. Though as I write this...maybe you are correct and we should look at these things like symptoms of poor diet and not diseases.
Recently a couple of friends had heart issues. One event went so far as the Mayo clinic and the doctors there said that she needed to stop eating white sugar (one issue at least) because it was scratching her arteries and causing inflammation.
Is inflammation really the problem she is having? She is overweight and didn't want to change her diet. All she heard was "inflammation is the problem", not "change your diet".
If you chemically turn off inflammation and the negative downstream effects disappear, then inflammation is arguably a cause of those negative effects. Inflammation is supposed to be a healthy response to various conditions, but that isn't always the case, so when it's causing negative effects it becomes a pathology and arguably a cause.
Now if you're trying to argue some sort of infinite regress, then the Big Bang tautologically caused everything and nothing else is a meaningful cause.
It is not necessarily just a symptom, that's the point. So no, it's not necessarily correct because sometimes inflammation is exactly the cause.
Can you demonstrate where inflammation does not have a root cause?
Lots of things can cause inflammation, but the underlying process can be similar. And it can have good and bad effects.
Suppressing inflammation is still temporary relief, not a cure for the root cause.
The article also gives sound reasoning for why metabolic stress, i.e., overeating, eating crap and not exercising, could be the most common cause of chronic inflammation. I would guess that psychological stress is another big factor given it's known ability to exacerbate autoimmune and inflammatory conditions. So the cure for most cases of chronic inflammation is going to be the usual mix of diet, exercise, sleep and stress management. We already know that these are the most effective preventative measures against age-related diseases and this research gives us a better understanding of the underlying mechanics.
Went to the doctor. I was prescribed a certain stretching exercise, plus also 800mg ibuprofen, bed rest, etc.
I was popping the ibuprofen "on schedule" - 3x a day. At first, it helped some, and so did the exercise. But then, the pain came back, and nothing was cutting it. Not the stretching exercises, not the ibuprofen; this was after a few weeks of doing all of this.
So I decided that since the ibuprofen wasn't helping, to just drop it. And I continued with the exercise.
...and the pain went away. I haven't had a major problem with my lower back since then (knock on wood).
My anecdotal theory is that somehow, the anti-inflammatory drug was preventing healing at high doses, and I had to quit it to get better.
I don't know if that is really true or not, all I know is that was what seemed to do the trick for me.
Its chronic inflammation that's not good.
One day I went to a lecture on brain research by some top neurologist at Stanford. As an aside about the difficulty of maintaining double-blind standard in actual experiments, she mentioned that she once worked on research involving NSAIDs. To mark the mice for tracking they punched coded holes in their ears but found they could tell which mice were getting NSAIDs because the holes would not heal for the treated mice whereas in untreated mice the holes would heal. I tossed the horse pills that night when I got back from the lecture and the cuts on my hands started healing normally again.
I had herniated disks before and after, but only one required surgery. For as long as I can remember, I'll get severe back pain once or twice a year, which eventually goes away. The explanation I received for these events is that it is likely that the outer sheath of a disk is getting torn, stretched, or some other type of trauma. This hurts in and of itself, however, additionally the disk material may begin to bulge. Once bulging, that part of the disk loses access to nutrients and moisture and eventually dries up, with the bulge receding and the damage scarring over. The doctor described this like a grape to a raisin, though I'm sure it looks nothing like the analogy.
Summary, with time, the disk sheathing trauma scars and the bulge dessicates, possibly about the same time NSAIDs are declared of no help.
For me, I definitely notice much less pressure in my back when on an NSAID, and I sleep much better as well.
The pain was so insane nothing helped (didn't try oxy though). I went to a million different doctors of all types and nothing really helped.
It wasn't until a met a chiropractor who told me that it was some upper disc fracture which resulted in some liquid pushing on my nerve and that the only thing I could do was to make some neck exercise to pump blood through the area which would make it heal.
That helped within 3 weeks.
Yet at the same time, oxidative stress is linked to numerous diseases.
Biology is hard.
 Derek Lowe’s blog (don’t have exact link)
With everything complex, not just living creatures, the real problems are caused by failure to maintain a negative feedback loop properly, and pushing on it doesn't help because the negative feedback is still there almost the same way as normal and has to be to avert complete disaster.
Inflammation is what the body uses to clean out disease and heal itself.
The individual mechanisms used to do this could be considered analogous (but very different from) a short antibiotics regimen.
In the short term or localised to one area it is beneficial. But at a systemic always on level there are negative side effects where these systems begin to overwhelm/damage healthy functions/cells.
I recently started Remicade - it reduces the immune system to try to stop the auto-immune problem that is Crohns. It was eye opening what other little aches and pains went away once the immune system was turned down a bit and the inflammation was lowered
Certainly the extra inflammation was causing other problems where the inflammation is the main cause.
* exercise regularly
* don't overeat
* ensure you're getting enough omega-3 (EDA and DHA,
from fish/fish oil/algae) and arachidonic acid
Why scientific "consensus" is not scientific.
There are a few studies knocking around about regarding it, but I've only got a minute so this is the best I could do for the moment-
"Findings indicated that pre-exercise feeding enhanced prolonged (P = .012), but not shorter duration aerobic exercise performance (P = .687). Fasted exercise increased post-exercise circulating FFAs (P = .023) compared to fed exercise."
I experimented at the start of the year and didn't experience any drop in performance - office or gym - with water fasts less than 24 hours.
Fasting between 24-72 hours, though, really affected my sleep and made me feel weaker during workouts (though it didn't really affect me mentally). Curious to see if others experienced the same.
Can't comment on longer fasts as I didn't exceed 72 hours (though I did read many reports of it actually getting easier after that point in time).
Currently doing IF (very rough 20/4) which is working pretty well.
I fast once every 10 days minimum (arbitrary number, but it keeps me disciplined). If I've had a few weeks of excess (lots of drinking and greasy takeaways) I might do 3-4 days. At least 2-3 times a year I like to do a 6-8 day fast. I've done this for the past 4 years and I've felt remarkably better for it, with the most noticeable thing being reduction in scar tissue (from surgery) and inflammation symptoms.
In terms of how it makes me feel while fasting, it depends on the day. A one day fasts tends to make me just feel hungry around meal times, assumedly because I'm still largely running on the glycogen in my muscles. I used to find day 2 pretty rough, as I'm guessing that's how long it would take for the process of ketosis to start in me. As your body adapts to frequent fasting though it becomes plain sailing though. I'll often arrange my fast to coincide with a large stint of work, as I feel my mental clarity is much higher - akin to taking Modafinil if you've ever tried it. Hunger isn't an issue for me at all once I'm in a state of ketosis.
I highly recommend doing an extended fast at some point. If anything it allows you to become much more satiated by smaller portions, and it eliminated any sugar cravings I used to have.
This was my first reservation about fasting and while everybody is different and you'll need to see how your own body responds, I am happy to report that the following activities:
- mid to long distance runs (4-8 miles)
- 60-90 minute power movement weightlifting session
- routine crossfit workout and/or plyometrics
- BJJ class with 5 minute sparring rounds
... are not only not impacted, but are in many cases enhanced by being in a fasted state. The most positive impact is in my weightlifting workout which, ironically, is the activity I thought would be most negatively impacted.
I can't speak to 50 mile ultra runs and I know I can't do all of the above in a fasted state - but I never attempted to do all of the above on the same day anyway.
Just try it.
 Power movements, relatively heavy weights and relatively low reps. Just the kind of workout you'd think would be difficult while in a fasted state.
Beginners can start with just intermittent fasting.
If this not affordable, then have to afford a more costly one - chronic diseases.
Dr Lustig has done the sugar research.
If you don't eat meat because you don't want to for whatever reason, but there is a LOT of bias in food research.
In general, avoid refined sugars, avoid refined seed oils, avoid other refined/processed foods... increase intake of less processed (even if cooked) foods, and try to eat fattier fish 3-4 times a week.
Look, I wish it was as simple as a single easily treatable vector like inflammation. But it's not. Life is not simple.
Unexplained inflammation might be sign of an undiagnosed condition.
There are ingredients in most commonly sold processed foods that are level 1, 2, and 3 on the hazmat scale.
For the rest, just pull on the wiki-thread.
The article brings together different issues, like fasting, fat tissue, exercise, diet, sugar and chronic disease.
Reposted with a summary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/comments/bh2s9a/could_i...
A cursory search reveals it's associated with heart disease. But for most people heart disease can be diagnosed with other blood work.
There was a blog posted to HN about a man whose Apple watch told him he had an irregular heartbeat. His resting heart rate is 120. He doesn't need an Apple watch to tell him something is wrong!
I'm wondering if hsCRP is more pointless data gathering.
This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease.
Really? What about side effects? Why not work on becoming smart instead of telling people to eat pills?
From the end of the article:
“To treat excessive inflammation, whether it is chronic or the result of an acute tissue injury, we don’t want to block the inflammatory response. We want to stimulate the resolution pathways.”
Overall they are definitely not promoting the use of drugs over lifestyle improvements. They talk about lifestyle improvements throughout the article and this was my primary takeaway: exercise regularly; don't overeat; eat those things mentioned above.
Because that has worked about as well as the war on drugs for the past 30 years.
Where does "work on becoming smart" address anything you quoted?
Where do you think did I not address the things I quoted?
Quote: "People know what they need to do" - your response to that: ignore it, don't address it.
Quote: "that knowledge doesn’t change behavior" - your response to that: ignore knowledge entirely, state that "smarts" changes behaviour.
Quote: "Humans are hard-wired to conserve energy (citation)" - your response to that: don't address it, implicitly dismiss it, state that willpower overcomes hardware (no citation).
Quote: "prefer foods that are fatty, salty, and sugary." - your response: ignore it.
Quote: "This suggests that pharmaceutical interventions that block inflammation may be necessary" - your response: "really?" doesn't particularly address it. Yes, apparently, really.
Quote: "to check the global epidemic of non-communicable disease", your response to global epidemic of disease: "why don't people WORK HARD to be SMARTER, they're ill because they're dumb", i.e. dismiss it as trivial and uninteresting with a throwaway intelligence worship quip.
Hard-Wiring implies software can't change it. This is the fundamental point, if you're to address the things you quoted, you need to address why you think it's not hard-wired in the face of a claim that it is, or why the claim is unsupported. The world's population has become more overweight and obese over the past hundred years - is your explanation that it has become dumber since stopping working to be smart?
If you addressed the things you'd quoted, your comment would have included things like: why you don't think people "know what they should do", why you think people are not hard wired to conserve energy, why you think taste for high energy food is learned or is changeable and not innate, why you think "work to be smart" is a plausible way to address a global disease epidemic and what you think that work would involve, and how it could be taught to the world. Why you think it's possible that work can improve "smart"ness, is there anything to suggest that's true? AND/OR why those claims shouldn't be accepted.
Instead, "nah bro, just work at being smart" is the same quality of reply as "global disease epidemic of cancer may need chemotherapy" "really? why not work on raising your astral frequencies?". It's a feel-good non-solution that doesn't relate to what was said.
When you say "work to get smarter instead", that says the problem is a lack of work and a lack of "smart", and therefore that people are ill because they're dumb. It follows from what you said, even though you did not write those words out. So yes, I imply that your responses are your responses.
How is that different from telling me I did not supply citations?
I don't want to read citations, I mentioned them as one example of what "addressing a point" could look like, so that the absence of any of these possible things supports that you didn't address them.
Anyway, I guess there is little value in discussing further. Thank you for explaining your reaction. Definitely food for thought