Deans' stroke musings

Changing stroke rehab and research worldwide now.Time is Brain!Just think of all the trillions and trillions of neurons that DIE each day because there are NO effective hyperacute therapies besides tPA(only 12% effective). I have 493 posts on hyperacute therapy, enough for researchers to spend decades proving them out. These are my personal ideas and blog on stroke rehabilitation and stroke research. Do not attempt any of these without checking with your medical provider. Unless you join me in agitating, when you need these therapies they won't be there.

What this blog is for:

Shortly after getting out of the hospital and getting NO information on the process or protocols of stroke rehabilitation and recovery I started searching on the internet and found that no other survivor received useful information. This is an attempt to cover all stroke rehabilitation information that should be readily available to survivors so they can talk with informed knowledge to their medical staff. It's quite disgusting that this information is not available from every stroke association and doctors group.
My back ground story is here:http://oc1dean.blogspot.com/2010/11/my-background-story_8.html

Monday, May 1, 2017

Frequent Fasting Doesn't Protect the Heart or Waistline

But did you measure these other endpoints?

To Stave off Alzheimer’s, Stay Hungry?  May 2013

Researchers: Mini-Fast Prevents Alzheimer's  Feb. 2013

Intermittent fasting attenuates increases in neurogenesis after ischemia and reperfusion and improves recovery  Feb. 2014

Caloric restriction has been showed to increase levels of a protein in the brain called BDNF.  March 2017

Calorie Restriction Prevents Neurodegeneration  June 2013

 

The bad research here:

Frequent Fasting Doesn't Protect the Heart or Waistline 

  • by
    Contributing Writer, MedPage Today
  • This article is a collaboration between MedPage Today® and:
    Medpage Today
Fasting every other day didn't improve weight or cardiometabolic profile compared with a calorie-restrictive diet among obese individuals in a year-long, randomized clinical trial.
Mean weight loss came out 6.8% for both the alternate-day fasting group and the calorie restriction group after 6 months of intervention, Krista A. Varady, PhD, of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and colleagues reported in JAMA Internal Medicine.
After a 6-month maintenance phase the weight loss over baseline was -6.0% (95% CI -8.5% to -3.6%) versus -5.3% (95% CI -7.6% to -3.0%) in the two groups, respectively.
Secondary endpoints, which included blood pressure, heart rates, triglycerides, fasting glucose, fasting insulin, insulin resistance, C-reactive protein, and homocysteine concentrations, likewise did not differ between diet strategies.
Although total cholesterol levels did not significantly differ between groups, mean levels of HDL cholesterol were significantly higher among the alternate-day fasting group compared with the calorie restrictive group after 6 months of the weight loss phase (6.2 mg/dL, 95% CI 0.1- 12.4 mg/dL).
However, there were no significant differences between both intervention groups for HDL cholesterol levels after 12 months (1.0 mg/dL, 95% CI -5.9 to 7.8 mg/dL).
Alternatively, mean levels of LDL cholesterol were significantly higher in the alternate-fasting group after 12 months when compared with the calorie-restrictive group (11.5 mg/dL, 95% CI 1.9-21.1 mg/dL). However, this difference was not displayed at 6 months into the trial.
The authors highlighted the growing popularity of alternate-day fasting regimens with the primary goal of weight loss, particularly over the past few years. They explained this type of diet "involves a fast day where individuals consume 25% of their usual intake (approximately 500 kcal), alternated with a "feast day" where individuals are permitted to consume food ad libitum."
They noted that some of the current literature, mostly consisting of short-term studies, have reported improvements in regards to insulin sensitivity, lipid profiles, and blood pressure, and well as weight loss.
The single-center study included 100 people with obesity, with a mean BMI of 34, randomized into three groups: the alternate-day fasting group, calorie restrictive group, and a control.
The weight-loss phase consisted of the first 6 months of intervention. During this time, the alternate-day fasting group was instructed to consume 25% of baseline energy during lunch on fasting days, alternative with feast days, which involved consuming 125% of baseline energy over three meals. The calorie-restrictive group were consumed 75% of baseline energy over three meals, each day. During the first 3 months of the weight-loss phase, meals were provided to the participants, which were in accordance with the American Heart Association guidelines.
During this phase, Varady's group found adherence to the regimen was particularly tougher in the alternate-day fasting group, paired with a higher drop-out rate, which may have resulted in "a possible selection bias between groups." They noted this group tended to consume more than was prescribed on fasting day, as well as eating less than prescribed on feast days, writing "it appears as though many participants in the alternate-day fasting group converted their diet into de facto calorie restriction as the trial progressed."
Alternatively, the researchers reported that participants in the calorie-restrictive group had greater adherence to the prescribed energy intake targets.
The last 6 months of the study consisted of a weight-maintenance phase, where all participants were told to maintain his or her weight, continuing through the completion of the trial. The research group assessed body weight measures each month, while fat, visceral fat, and lean mass were measured every 6 months. Daily energy expenditure was assessed through doubly labeled water. Blood samples were drawn to assess secondary outcomes.
The study had some limitations, including the short duration of the maintenance phase at 6 months, and a control group that received no counseling, and less attention from study personnel, relative to the intervention groups, which may have confounded the findings.
Also, "the dropout rate was higher than anticipated, our power to detect the hypothesized difference of 5% weight loss between the intervention groups at month 6 decreased from 80% to 60%. The higher dropout rate in the alternate-day fasting group may have also introduced a possible selection bias between groups," the authors acknowledged."
Although the trial's findings reported that "alternate-day fasting may be less sustainable in the long term, compared with daily calorie restriction, for most obese individuals," this type of diet still may appeal to some individuals, despite the higher rates of dissatisfaction reported among this group during the trial, the authors noted.
"It will be of interest to examine what behavioral traits (eg., ability to go for long periods without eating) make alternate-day fasting more tolerable for some individuals than others," they wrote. "Future work in this area should examine whether this lack of adherence to alternate-day fasting is due to cognitive, environmental, and/or physiological factors."
The study was supported by the NIH, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases.
Varady disclosed receiving an advance for the book The Every-Other-Day Diet: The Diet That Lets You Eat All You Want (Half the Time) and Keep the Weight Off, published by Hachette Book Group.

No comments:

Post a Comment