공격적인 단식: 칼로리 제한 이상의 이점

### 공격적인 단식: 통제된 연구에서 얻은 새로운 인사이트
* 📊 최근 Cell Metabolism에 발표된 한 연구에서는 칼로리 제한과 비교하여 **공격적인 단식의 효과**를 조사했는데, 이는 **단식에 대한 임상적으로 감독된 최초의 인간 대상 통제식 단식 실험**입니다.
* ⏳ 참가자들은 두 그룹으로 나뉘어 **한 그룹은 6시간 동안 식사를** 하고 **다른 그룹은 12시간 동안 식사를 제한**했으며, 두 그룹 모두 5주 동안 체중을 유지하기 위한 맞춤형 칼로리를 제공받았습니다.
* 💪 연구 결과에 따르면 **공격적인 단식을 실천한 그룹**은 인슐린 민감도와 췌장 기능이 크게 개선되어 단순한 체중 감량 이상의 대사적 이점을 경험한 것으로 나타났습니다.
* 또한, 연구 결과 **활성산소종(ROS)이 감소**하는 것으로 나타나 식사 시간을 단축하면 노화의 원인으로 알려진 산화 스트레스에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있음을 시사했습니다.
* 🍽 흥미롭게도 같은 양의 칼로리를 섭취했음에도 불구하고 **6시간 동안의 참가자들은 식욕이 감소**한 것으로 나타나 장기적으로 체중 감량에 도움이 될 수 있는 것으로 나타났습니다.
* 🔄 이 연구의 교차 설계는 **12시간 식사 시간에서 6시간 식사 시간으로 전환한 사람들**도 비슷한 신진대사 개선 효과를 보였기 때문에 연구 결과를 더욱 검증했습니다.
* 📉 이 연구는 **보다 공격적인 단식**을 지지하지만, 이는 통제된 환경에서 수행되었으며 이러한 극단적인 단식이 모든 사람에게 적합하지 않을 수 있다는 점에 유의해야 합니다.
* 🔍 궁극적으로 이 연구는 짧은 단식보다 긴 단식의 잠재적 이점을 강조하며, **14시간 단식이 신진대사 건강에 충분하다는 개념에 도전**합니다.

공격적인 단식은 인슐린 민감성을 개선하고 식욕을 감소시켜 칼로리 제한에 대한 기존의 관점에 도전합니다.

while the whole world and the whole internet has been talking about this fasting study that came out that shows that fasting and caloric restriction are no different in terms of end result, there's another paper that was published that nobody was really talking about that actually looks at real more aggressive fasting. What do I mean by that? Well, the previous study, and I've done some videos on this, that takes a look and says fasting is the same as caloric restriction. Although I agree with everything it said, everything, nothing I disagree with. Well-crafted study. It was looking at very short-term, like fasting periods were very short fasting periods, rather. It was very, it was like 14-hour fasts, which I don't know, but without even thinking about it, I faster 14 hours, and a lot of people do, so that's not really fasting. So this study was the first clinically supervised controlled feeding trial in humans on fasting, the first of its kind. We're in a very tightly controlled setting, controlled feeding, and controlled metabolic adjustments to compare if

time-restricted feeding in a more aggressive sense, like a six-hour eating window if calories are equal, has any benefit. Very interesting findings after today's video. If you're into fasting, you might want to try Element electrolytes and try their new sparkling electrolytes, which are in a ready-to-drink can, which makes it awesome. I'm a big fan of electrolytes when I'm fasting anyway because it makes longer fasts easier, but it also just gives me something to sip on 'cause I get bored, and it tastes really good. But the sparkling ones are a new level because now it feels like you're kind of drinking a soda, but with no calories, no sugar, and you're getting the same awesome Element flavors and then some. So link down below, you can try their new ready-to-drink Element sparkling, and you can get a free sample pack, sample variety pack of all their different flavors with any purchase. So whether you want to get their stick packs or you want to try their new sparkling via that link down, you get a

free variety pack, so free sample pack of all their different flavors of electrolytes. Huge fan of Element over here, and I have been for a very long time. Those of you that know me know that that link down below is for that special offer, so it's drinklnt.com/Thomas. So this study was published in Cell Metabolism, and what's cool is they gave subjects enough calories to maintain their weight, okay? So it went on for 5 weeks, okay? And it was a crossover design, so when one group finished, the other group went into the other arm. So what's interesting about this study is they didn't put them on a caloric restriction. They didn't even like match calories. What they did is they said, Hey, here's exactly what this person needs to maintain their weight, exactly, and Here's what this person needs to maintain their weight, and This person. It was so designed to a tee, clinically supervised, and absolutely like literal to the tee feeding to make them keep their weight, and it worked. By the end, there was no

weight change and the reason they did this is people will say, Okay, well, benefits come. It's hard to tell if the benefits are coming from the food, from the fasting period, from this, from that, supplements, yadda yadda, or is the benefit just flat out coming from the weight loss. And that's a very valid thing. If you take two people and one person loses 100 pounds and one person loses 50 lb, is the person that's losing 100 lb getting more benefit that looks like it's coming from the diet but in reality, it just came from losing more weight? Or if you had some people that were eating the exact same thing and one person lost weight and one person didn't, would the person that lost weight show more benefits than the person that didn't? And the answer is, of course, they would. Losing weight is going to give you benefits. Losing adipose tissue, not being obese, is going to give health benefits. So where scientifically do we determine what the actual reason people are having improvements or metabolic improvement or glycemic

Improvement is it because they lost weight or is it because of the diet. So, the way we fix that is we get scientific and we get literally down to the calorie for one specific person. How do we make you maintain weight? How do we adjust in this clinical format? Well, they did that. So, one group ate in a 6-hour aggressive fasting window. Okay, they couldn't eat past 300 p.m. The other group ate in a 12-hour block. But remember, it didn't matter with calories because it was all equal. Macros were equal, spacing was obviously different, but as close to equal as they could get in terms of the sequencing. Okay, so the only thing that was different was the timing period. No calorie difference individually as a percentage or relatively speaking. Here's what they found: insulin sensitivity improved. Who would have thought you take a break from food, insulin sensitivity is going to improve? But insulin sensitivity didn't just improve in the short term. Beta cell function improved. Pancreatic function improved. So, over a 5-week period, they had significant improvements in

just the ability to process carbohydrates and manufacture insulin. Okay, well, guess what else happened? There was a decrease in reactive oxygen species. This is fascinating to me because reactive oxygen species is a driver of aging. Okay, so from a longevity perspective, for a long time, for like the longest time, up until probably 15 years ago, 10 years ago, we thought that reactive oxygen species, ROS, oxidative stress was the primary driver of aging. It could still be a primary driver, but we've since found a lot of other things that are driving it, okay? Mitochondrial stuff that's beyond that, but ROS is still a big one, oxidative stress. The fact that just compressing the eating window in an aggressive time reduced ROS is very interesting. Oxidative stress went down, but who would have thought if you stop eating for a little bit, maybe you give yourself a chance for endogenous antioxidants to actually do the job? I love this study because it's just, it's really hard to poke holes in it. The other thing that's interesting is that appetite went down, even though they had

to eat the same amount. Appetite went down, right? So they were maintaining weight, but they had less desire to eat. But they ate anyway because they had to, because they were eating to maintain weight, but they actually didn't even want to eat that much. So it's like some would say, Well, the benefits of intermittent fasting as far as the consumption is concerned and the lack of appetite comes because you're restricting your stomach, shrinking, and that could be true. But in this particular case, they were feeding them just enough to maintain weight, and they still had a reduction of appetite. So there's a good chance that even after the study, maybe they would continue to lose weight. But it gets better in the fact that they crossed over, and those that did the 12-hour went to the 6-hour, and they had the same effects. So it was like double proven in this metabolic, like supervised situation. The thing that makes me happy about this study is this one actually looked at real fasting compared to some of these other studies.

that are looking at 12 hours or 14 hours or sometimes even 16 hours. That's just not enough time, and I've preached this for so long, and yes, I'm tooting my horn here, but I have like, if you want the benefits of fasting, you need to go more aggressive. The caveat with this is I don't think everyone should just model this. This was a contr situation for 5 weeks, which is about as far as I would probably push it in this case before it might be too much fasting. However, calories were set to keep the metabolism somewhat high, so maybe it would be okay if you were doing it this way. But the short-term, like three times a week, more aggressive fasting is probably the way to go, and I think this kind of study demonstrates that compared to the other study that was published in the annals of internal medicine just a couple of weeks ago that says like, Hey, 14-hour fasts every day don't do that much. However, let me make a note. I talked about this in

that other video that broke that study down. A 14-hour fast still showed improvements in insulin resistance in their H IR. It wasn't highlighted in a lot of people's reviews of that study because it was statistically insignificant, but when you actually look at the literal graph, it's pretty darn significant. And if you know scientific journals at all, you know that statistically significant and absolute significance in like what it actually is in real life is a little bit different because it's more about the parameters that are set on the study versus the actual outcome. So, it means that it was not statistically significant beyond what was pretty much expected, but it was still significant enough to say, Hey, it's significant. Bottom line, it works. I'll see you tomorrow.

Shocking Results of 1st Ever Human Controlled Trial on Intermittent Fasting (supervised clinical)

Thomas DeLauer has built his name around helping the busiest people in all corners of the world find the time to make small, easy changes within their diets and their lifestyles to not only become healthier, but to become top performers within their respective areas.

On this channel you're going to find close to all the information that you need to begin making a change for the better without having to sacrifice your favorite things. As someone that has been in the healthcare space for his entire career, Thomas brings a wealth of knowledge to the table and alongside him is a remarkable research team that backs everything with science and evidence to ensure that you get the most out of what you are doing.

At the end of the day, this is a channel for you, because in our eyes, if you perform better, the world performs better. Soak it up and enjoy some learning and get ready to optimize the heck out of your life, no matter how busy you are!

http://www.thomasdelauer.com

Thomas DeLauer

공격적인 단식: 새로운 연구 결과

잘 알려지지 않은 한 연구는 통제된 환경에서 보다 공격적인 단식, 특히 6시간의 식사 시간 제한에 대해 조사하고 있습니다.

이 연구는 동일한 칼로리를 섭취하는 이 시간 제한 단식이 어떤 이점을 제공하는지 알아보는 것을 목표로 합니다.

저자는 단식을 위한 유용한 도구로 Element의 새로운 스파클링 전해질을 홍보하며 구매 시 무료 샘플 팩을 제공합니다.

체중 유지 및 건강 혜택에 관한 연구

Cell Metabolism에 발표된 한 연구에서는 교차 설계를 통해 5주 동안 체중을 유지하는 데 필요한 칼로리를 피험자에게 정확하게 제공했습니다.

통제된 식단에도 불구하고 참가자들의 체중 변화는 나타나지 않아 체중 감량만이 건강상의 이점을 가져다준다는 통념에 도전장을 던졌습니다.

이 연구는 체중 감량과 건강상의 이점 사이의 복잡한 관계를 강조하면서 신진대사 및 혈당 개선의 진정한 원인을 규명하는 것을 목표로 했습니다.

한 연구에서는 식사 시간이 다른 두 그룹을 비교했습니다.

한 그룹은 6시간 공복, 다른 그룹은 12시간 이상 식사했지만 두 그룹 모두 동일한 칼로리와 매크로를 섭취했습니다.

그 결과 단식 그룹의 인슐린 감수성, 베타 세포 기능 및 췌장 기능이 개선되었으며 노화와 관련된 활성 산소 종도 감소한 것으로 나타났습니다.

또한 공격적인 식사 시간 제한은 식욕 감소로 이어져 단식이 전반적인 건강에 미치는 잠재적인 이점을 강조했습니다.

간헐적 단식은 체중을 유지하면서 식욕을 감소시킬 수 있으며, 이는 통제된 식사 스케줄을 따르는 참가자들을 대상으로 한 연구에서 확인되었습니다.

참가자들이 12시간에서 6시간의 식사 시간으로 전환하는 교차 설계를 통해 그 효과를 더욱 검증했습니다.

저자는 보다 공격적인 단식 프로토콜을 옹호하며, 일주일에 세 번 단기간의 강도 높은 단식이 더 길고 덜 강도 높은 단식보다 더 유익할 수 있다고 제안합니다.

14시간 단식이 인슐린 저항성에 미치는 영향

14시간 단식을 하면 인슐린 저항성이 개선되는 것으로 나타났지만 그 결과는 통계적으로 유의미하지 않았습니다.

이 연구의 그래프는 통계가 시사하는 것보다 더 유의미한 영향을 나타냅니다.

통계적 유의성과 실제 영향 사이의 차이는 다를 수 있지만, 결론은 14시간 단식이 여전히 효과적이라는 것입니다.