The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
So somebody that has those problems, say obese, multiple markers for disease, or risk factor for disease, then once a month, yeah. And that's what the doctors have been doing. So they put them on once a month, and then monitor the changes.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So this is why we say that on average people probably need to do it once every four months, and it's also important to point out that, you know, until millions of people do it, it should be on a need-to-do-it basis, right?
So, the three cycles decreased, in normal people did nothing, in people that had...I mean, I shouldn't say did nothing. Did nothing that you can see in terms of markers, because they already had good levels of these markers. But in people that had elevated cholesterol, it decreased cholesterol. The people that had the elevated triglycerides, it decreased triglycerides. People that had the elevated IGF-1, probably people eating on a high protein diet, it dropped IGF-1. And the highest people dropped dramatically, you know, it came down about 60 points. And the people that had the high fasting glucose, came down. People with blood pressure that was elevated, both the systolic and diastolic, had major effects. The people that had CRP, systemic inflammation, in almost every case they moved back to the normal range.
So, if you are an athlete, you have a great diet, you know, low protein, pescetarian, and you do all the right things, you exercise, etc., you probably only need to do it once or twice a year.
The hope is that you slowly...And that's also very important, this idea, especially with obese people, we'll see how it works, but this idea that you can go back to your diet after five days, right? This is very mentally, to people is very important. Say, "Well, struggle for 5 days, but then leave me alone for the next 25." That I think is both potentially at the mechanistic level, but also the psychological level it could be a good way to go.
So it's really powerful I think in resetting the system somehow, that it's getting out of the...its functional ideal state, it resets it, and I think it really rejuvenates. Now we're doing...we're trying to calculate based on published profiles, and also methylation profiles, is this rejuvenating you? And also A and B, after three cycles, what is your risk for diseases in the next 10 years at baseline, and what is your risk after three cycles? And we suspect there's going to be a drastic change, just...You know, if you think about it, it's three months, right?
So I think the same is true with ketosis. And I think Dr. Valter Longo has a great idea, this idea that... I actually gave it a lot of thought. So it was good to see that he came out, you know, with this idea of the fasting-mimicking diet being implemented for just a one week or five day period, right, per month, and that can have long-lasting metabolic benefits even throughout, you know, weeks to even a month or more after you do that as far as resetting insulin sensitivity and improving different metabolic biomarkers.
Time-restricted eating produces fat loss independent of total calories.
A 72-hour fast measurably improves autophagy markers in healthy adults.
One-meal-a-day (OMAD) eating patterns increase all-cause mortality in long-running cohort data.
Eating the largest meal before 3pm improves 24-hour glucose vs. an evening-heavy schedule, calorie-matched.