shattering the myth of fasting for women

[Lazysuzanne]

www.paleoforwomen.com/shattering-the-myth-of-fasting-for-women-a-review-of-female-specific-responses-to-fasting-in-the-literature/

I'm not sure if this has already been linked to in the fasting section but I thought it was a thought provoking if slightly alarming read.

At the very least it suggests that women are best advised to be more cautious than men with fasting.

Any thoughts or comments anyone?

yeah,
its a rubbish article that you have linked several times and we have debunked several times

Lol talkin

I don't understand 5:2 but will go read it now

its a rubbish article that you have linked several times and we have debunked several times

well, how kind of you to comment talkinpeace
You are clearly confused, I've never linked to the article before, I read it for the first time yesterday.

Perhaps you would be gracious enough to link me to one of the numerous debunkings so that I might learn the error of my ways

CBA
read the 5:2 threads - do a search
it is over 18 months old

wow, I'm bowled over by how welcoming patient and friendly you 5:2 people are

You started a thread posting to an article that slags off 5:2 without good cause.
Tell you what.
Ignore me.
Go post it on the big thread and see what the oters say.

I can tell from your posting history that you are into looking after yourself.

If you don't like the look of 5:2 that is fine
but starting the conversation with "what you do is dangerous" is not generally the best of ice breakers.

Have a look at this forum
www.52fastdiet.co.uk/the-5-2-lab-f10/

5:2 just appears to be cutting back calories over a few days? Is that right and you don't actually 'fast'

I'm interested, or was. It's off putting to find negative posts and links before I've had a chance to read up on it

Think many have found success with this, like I have with low carbing

my reading of the article I linked to is not that fasting is dangerous, more that women respond differently to men and(to quote my initial post) 'it suggests that women are best advised to be more cautious than men with fasting.'

I'm familiar with theories around fasting and I have employed certain fasting protocols for many years.

Perhaps I'd have been better off posting on the thread you mention but your abrupt and nasty response to my thread has put me off

interesting read
I would post it in the feminist section
it suits men becomes it suits people

Good point Merci, I hadnt really considered that aspect.

Mostly I was dismayed to read that (according to the article at least) women don't show much improvement in insulin sensitivity compared to men

I have been following the 5:2 with the hugely appreciated support of the people on the 5:2 threads and it has been life changing for me.

There will always be people who misunderstand things and give out wrong information. I have read that some think you starve for 2 days and stuff your face for five. Clearly that is incorrect but if people were to do that they would not gain health benefits or lose weight.

Our 5:2 threads are brilliant. Supportive and helpful.

I've seen an article similar before linked on here. Still going ahead with the 5:2 though.

For those interested the 5:2 is around 500 calories twice a week and normal eating 5 days a week by trying to stick around 1500 - 2000 calories a day for normal eating.

Ive followed 5:2 since last january and can only say it is easy to follow - your body adjusts to fasting - I am more of a lurker than poster on the 5:2 thread but find the information invaluable - especially the advice from talkinpeace. Give it a try for a couple of months then report back

I have re read this

I see that TalkinPeace says it has been debunked and wonder if someone could explain more

it sounds quite likely that little research on the effects on women has been done. a lot of medical research seems to substitute 'men' for 'people'

thanks, I'm not looking to lose weight and I've used the 16:8 protocol for several years, more interested in the health benefits of fasting and fasted exercise/training

Merci, there is some debunking here:

www.52fastdiet.co.uk/the-5-2-lab-f10/topic974.html#p6708

www.52fastdiet.co.uk/the-5-2-lab-f10/topic974.html#p6708

Apologies for the long post, but i hope this helps:

Highly respected scientists Drs Mattson and Varady have written many papers on health / weight benfits of IF, which you can Google. Dr Varady's book (Kindle from 2 Jan) details a lot of human trials.
5:2 is an easier WOL than other forms of IF, with most days being NFDs during which the body can recuperate.

Many of the problems reported by women with IF don't really seem to be caused by IF, but by combining tough protocols for both IF - ADF or daily 16:8 - and very demanding fasted training - lifting multiples of body weight, increasing over time.
Additionally, some women who have formerly eaten clean have then binged on junk during IF.

Some women have excellent results on protocols like LeanGains and are evangelical about them.
Others have had good results for 6 months or so, then had injuries or health problems, particularly those women with very low (12-18%) body fat, possibly already with irregular menstruation, or with EDs.

Men seem to have few problems on IF, presumably due to differences in hormones, body fat %, metabolism.
Post-menopausal women also seem to have fewer problems.

BigChoc, thank you that is very helpful:o
I will look up Mattson and Varady.

I'm aware that taking fasting too far can be harmful (I appreciate that no-one on this forum is advocating approaches which are in any way extreme or unhealthy)
If anything I'm wondering where the line is....at what point the cost benefit ratio shifts.
Also what factors are involved when a person crosses into the unhealthy zone.

Your post has shed light on my questions and pointed me in the right direction for further research.

(very pleased and interested to hear that post menopausal women seem to do better with IF!)