shachat wrote: I've been experimenting with 16:8 recently and getting on well with it.
What I'd like to know is whether 16:8 carries the same health benefits as 5:2? I'm sure this information is somewhere on this forum but I can't find it. Can anyone point me in the right direction or tell me the answer, if they know? Has anyone had their blood indicators tested after doing only 16.8 for a while?
I really want to know - if 16:8 does have the same health benefits then I'd like to switch over entirely from 5:2 to 16:8 because I find it so much easier. And I'm very encouraged by others posting here about continued or renewed weight loss doing 16:8 only.
@shachat It depends which health benefits you mean! As so many health benefits accrue from losing weight, any form of fasting that results in weight loss will bring a load of health benefits.
There are some studies on daily fasting in the form of Ramadan fasting (12-16 hour fasts during the day for 1 month) that suggest even beyond weightloss there are improvements in glucose metabolism, cholesterol levels and blood pressure, but not all Ramadan studies show these changes. However, you should note that the study results are likely influenced by how the participants in these studies broke their fasts (some followers of Ramadan have a big carb & fat laden meal to break their fast, while others are more frugal). This suggests that 16:8 may bring similar health benefits to 5:2 in respect of glucose metabolism and cholesterol levels at least.
However, if you mean the benefits that have been suggested from studies in rodents such as longevity, cancer risk, neurological improvements, then the answer is that we don't even know if 5:2 will bring such benefits. The studies in rodents are all flawed because the fasting periods they have been exposed to are much, much longer in terms of their metabolic rate than we are using in 16:8, 5:2 or even ADF. To get the answers to these questions we need to have a population who have followed 5:2 or 16:8 or whatever for many years to see whether the rates of cancer, Alzheimers etc are any different than in people who do not practice IF. So, you'll need to come back and ask your question again in about 20 years!!!
I don't think that anyone here has had blood tests done before and after 16:8. However, you could try looking at 'leangains' as the leangains protocol involves 16:8 fasting (combined with certain dietary changes and an exercise schedule) or the '8-hour diet'. Unfortunately, I think that the founders of these two approaches are more interested in selling you stuff than collecting useful data on health outcomes - I have certainly failed to find the info we need anyway!
Hope this helps a bit...