Intermittent Fasting In Women

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

It’s Q&A Day at 10almonds!

Have a question or a request? We love to hear from you!

In cases where we’ve already covered something, we might link to what we wrote before, but will always be happy to revisit any of our topics again in the future too—there’s always more to say!

As ever: if the question/request can be answered briefly, we’ll do it here in our Q&A Thursday edition. If not, we’ll make a main feature of it shortly afterwards!

So, no question/request too big or small

❝Does intermittent fasting differ for women, and if so, how?❞

For the sake of layout, we’ve put a shortened version of this question here, but the actual wording was as below, and merits sharing in full for context

Went down a rabbit hole on your site and now can’t remember how I got to the “Fasting Without Crashing” article on intermittent fasting so responding to this email lol, but was curious what you find/know about fasting for women specifically? It’s tough for me to sift through and find legitimate studies done on the results of fasting in women, knowing that our bodies are significantly different from men. This came up when discussing with my sister about how I’ve been enjoying fasting 1-2 days/week. She said she wanted more reliable sources of info that that’s good, since she’s read more about how temporary starvation can lead to long-term weight gain due to our bodies feeling the need to store fat. I’ve also read about that, but also that fasting enables more focused autophagy in our bodies, which helps with long-term staving off of diseases/ailments. Curious to know what you all think!

~ 10almonds subscriber

So, first of all, great question! Thanks for asking it

Next up, isn’t it strange? Books come in the format:

  • [title]
  • [title, for women]

You would not think women are a little over half of the world’s population!

Anyway, there has been some research done on the difference of intermittent fasting in women, but not much.

For example, here’s a study that looked at 1–2 days/week IF, in other words, exactly what you’ve been doing. And, they did have an equal number of men and women in the study… And then didn’t write down whether this made a difference or not! They recorded a lot of data, but neglected to note down who got what per sex:

Intermittent fasting two days versus one day per week, matched for total energy intake and expenditure, increases weight loss in overweight/obese men and women

Here’s a more helpful study, that looked at just women, and concluded:

❝In conclusion, intermittent fasting could be a nutritional strategy to decrease fat mass and increase jumping performance.

However, longer duration programs would be necessary to determine whether other parameters of muscle performance could be positively affected by IF. ❞

~ Dr. Martínez-Rodríguez et al.

Read in full: Effect of High-Intensity Interval Training and Intermittent Fasting on Body Composition and Physical Performance in Active Women

Those were “active women”; another study looked at just women who were overweight or obese (we realize that “active women” and “obese or overweight women” is a Venn diagram with some overlap, but still, the different focus is interesting), and concluded:

❝IER is as effective as CER with regard to weight loss, insulin sensitivity and other health biomarkers, and may be offered as an alternative equivalent to CER for weight loss and reducing disease risk.❞

~ Dr. Michelle Harvie et al.

Read in full: The effects of intermittent or continuous energy restriction on weight loss and metabolic disease risk markers: a randomised trial in young overweight women

As for your sister’s specific concern about yo-yoing, we couldn’t find studies for this yet, but anecdotally and based on books on Intermittent Fasting, this is not usually an issue people find with IF. This is assumed to be for exactly the reason you mention, the increased cellular apoptosis and autophagy—increasing cellular turnover is very much the opposite of storing fat!

You might, by the way, like Dr. Mindy Pelz’s “Fast Like A Girl”, which we reviewed previously

Take care!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • Tourette’s Syndrome Treatment Options
  • It’s Not You, It’s Your Hormones – by Nicki Williams, DipION, mBANT, CNHC
    Manage hormonal fluctuations with intermittent fasting, anti-inflammatory diet, and more. This book is for peri-menopausal and post-menopausal women, and anyone with an endocrine system. Take control of your hormones now!

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Unexamined Effects

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Semaglutide’s Surprisingly Big Research Gap

    GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic, Wegovy, and other semaglutide drugs. are fast becoming a health industry standard go-to tool in the weight loss toolbox. When it comes to recommending that patients lose weight, “Have you considered Ozempic?” is the common refrain.

    Sometimes, this may be a mere case of kicking the can down the road with regard to some other treatment that it can be argued (sometimes even truthfully) would go better after some weight loss:

    How weight bias in health care can harm patients with obesity: Research

    …which we also covered in fewer words in the second-to-last item here:

    Shedding Some Obesity Myths

    But GLP-1 agonists work, right?

    Yes, albeit there’s a litany of caveats, top of which are usually:

    • there are often adverse gastrointestinal side effects
    • if you stop taking them, weight regain generally ensues promptly

    For more details on these and more, see:

    Semaglutide For Weight Loss?

    …but now there’s another thing that’s come to light:

    The dark side of semaglutide’s weight loss

    In academia, “dark” is often used to describe “stuff we don’t have much (or in some cases, any) direct empirical evidence of, but for reasons of surrounding things, we know it’s there”.

    Well-known examples include “dark matter” in physics and the Dark Ages in (European) history.

    In the case of semaglutide and weight loss, a review by a team of researchers (Drs. Sandra Christenen, Katie Robinson, Sara Thomas, and Dominique Williams) has discovered how little research has been done into a certain aspect of GLP-1 agonist’s weight loss effects, namely…

    Dietary changes!

    There’s been a lot of popular talk about “people taking semaglutide eat less”, but it’s mostly anecdotal and/or presumed based on parts of the mechanism of action (increasing insulin production, reducing glucagon secretions, modulating dietary cravings).

    Where studies have looked at dietary changes, it’s almost exclusively been a matter of looking at caloric intake (which has been found to be a 16–39% reduction), and observations-in-passing that patients reported reduction in cravings for fatty and sweet foods.

    This reduction in caloric intake, by the way, is not significantly different to the reduction brought about by counselling alone (head-to-head studies have been done; these are also discussed in the research review).

    However! It gets worse. Very few studies of good quality have been done, even fewer (two studies) actually had a registered dietitian nutritionist on the team, and only one of them used the “gold standard” of nutritional research, the 24-hour dietary recall test. Which, in case you’re curious, you can read about what that is here:

    Dietary Assessment Methods: What Is A 24-Hour Recall?

    Of the four studies that actually looked at the macros (unlike most studies), they found that on average, protein intake decreased by 17.1%. Which is a big deal!

    It’s an especially big deal, because while protein’s obviously important for everyone, it’s especially important for anyone trying to lose weight, because muscle mass is a major factor in metabolic base rate—which in turn is much important for fat loss/maintenance than exercise, when it comes to how many calories we burn by simply existing.

    A reasonable hypothesis, therefore, is that one of the numerous reasons people who quit GLP-1 agonists immediately put fat back on, is because they probably lost muscle mass in amongst their weight loss, meaning that their metabolic base rate will have decreased, meaning that they end up more disposed to put on fat than before.

    And, that’s just a hypothesis and it’s a hypothesis based on very few studies, so it’s not something to necessarily take as any kind of definitive proof of anything, but it to say—as the researchers of this review do loudly say—more research needs to be done into this, because this has been a major gap in research so far!

    Any other bad news?

    While we’re talking research gaps, guess how many studies looked into micronutrient intake changes in people taking GLP-1 agonists?

    If you guessed zero, you guessed correctly.

    You can find the paper itself here:

    Dietary intake by patients taking GLP-1 and dual GIP/GLP-1 receptor agonists: A narrative review and discussion of research needs

    What’s the main take-away here?

    On a broad, scoping level: we need more research!

    On a “what this means for individuals who want to lose weight” level: maybe we should be more wary of this still relatively new (less than 10 years old) “wonder drug”. And for most of those 10 years it’s only been for diabetics, with weight loss use really being in just the past few years (2021 onwards).

    In other words: not necessarily any need to panic, but caution is probably not a bad idea, and natural weight loss methods remain very reasonable options for most people.

    See also: How To Lose Weight (Healthily!)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Inverse Vaccines for Autoimmune Diseases

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Inverse Vaccines for Autoimmune Diseases

    This is Dr. Jeffrey Hubbell. He’s a molecular engineer, with a focus on immunotherapy, immune response, autoimmune diseases, and growth factor variants.

    He’s held 88 patents, and was the recipient of the Society for Biomaterials’ Founders Award for his “long-term, landmark contributions to the discipline of biomaterials”, amongst other awards and honours that would make our article too long if we included them all.

    And, his latest research has been about developing…

    Inverse Vaccines

    You may be thinking: “you mean diseases; he’s engineering diseases?”

    And no, it’s not that. Here’s how it works:

    Normally in the case of vaccine, it’s something to tell the body “hey, if you see something that looks like this, you should kill it on sight” and the body goes “ok, preparing countermeasures according to these specifications; thanks for the heads-up”

    In the case of an inverse vaccine, it’s the inverse. It’s something to tell the body “hey, this thing you seem to think is a threat, it’s actually not, and you should leave it alone”.

    Why this matters for people with autoimmune diseases

    Normally, autoimmune diseases are treated in one or more of the following ways:

    • Dampen the entire immune system (bad for immunity against actual diseases, obviously, and is part of why many immunocompromised people have suffered and died disproportionately from COVID, for example)
    • Give up and find a workaround (a good example of this is Type 1 Diabetes, and just giving up on the pancreas not being constantly at war with itself, and living on exogenous insulin instead)

    Neither of those are great.

    What inverse vaccines do is offer a way to flag the attacked-in-error items as acceptable things to have in the body. Those might be things that are in our body by default, as in the case of many autoimmune diseases, or they may even be external items that should be allowed but aren’t, as in the case of gluten, in the context of Celiac disease.

    The latest research is not yet accessible for free, alas, but you can read the abstract here:

    Synthetically glycosylated antigens for the antigen-specific suppression of established immune responses

    Or if you prefer a more accessible pop-science approach, here’s a great explanatory article:

    “Inverse vaccine” shows potential to treat multiple sclerosis and other autoimmune diseases

    Where can we get such inverse vaccines?

    ❝There are no clinically approved inverse vaccines yet, but we’re incredibly excited about moving this technology forward❞

    ~ Dr. Jeffrey Hubbell

    But! Lest you be disappointed, you can get in line already, in the case of the Celiac disease inverse vaccine, if you’d like to be part of their clinical trial:

    Click here to see if you are eligible to be part of their clinical trial

    If you’re not up for that, or if your autoimmune disease is something else (most of the rest of their research is presently focusing on Multiple Sclerosis and Type 1 Diabetes), then:

    • The phase 1 MS trial is currently active, estimated completion in summer 2024.
    • They are in the process of submitting an investigational new drug (IND) application for Type 1 Diabetes
      • This is the first step to starting clinical safety and efficacy trials

    …so, watch this space!

    Share This Post

  • Peace Is Every Step – by Thích Nhất Hạnh

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Mindfulness is one of the few practices to make its way from religion (in this case, Buddhism) into hard science. We’ve written before about its many evidence-based benefits, and many national health information outlets recommend it. So, what does this book have to add?

    Thích Nhất Hạnh spent most of his 95 years devoted to the practice and teaching of mindfulness and compassion. In this book, the focus is on bringing mindfulness off the meditation mat and into general life.

    After all, what if we could extend that “unflappability” into situations that pressure and antagonize us? That would be some superpower!

    The author offers techniques to do just that, simple exercises to transform negative emotions, and to make us more likely to remember to do so.

    After all, “in the heat of the moment” is rarely when many of us are at our best, this book gives way to allow those moments themselves to serve as immediate triggers to be our best.

    The title “Peace Is Every Step” is not a random collection of words; the goal of this book is to enable to reader to indeed carry peace with us as we go.

    Not just “peace is always available to us”, but if we do it right: “we have now arranged for our own peace to automatically step in and help us when we need it most”.

    Bottom line: if you’d like to practice mindfulness, or practice it more consistently, this book offers some powerful tools.

    Click here to check out Peace Is Every Step, and carry yours with you!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • Tourette’s Syndrome Treatment Options
  • What’s Keeping the US From Allowing Better Sunscreens?

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    When dermatologist Adewole “Ade” Adamson sees people spritzing sunscreen as if it’s cologne at the pool where he lives in Austin, Texas, he wants to intervene. “My wife says I shouldn’t,” he said, “even though most people rarely use enough sunscreen.”

    At issue is not just whether people are using enough sunscreen, but what ingredients are in it.

    The Food and Drug Administration’s ability to approve the chemical filters in sunscreens that are sold in countries such as Japan, South Korea, and France is hamstrung by a 1938 U.S. law that has required sunscreens to be tested on animals and classified as drugs, rather than as cosmetics as they are in much of the world. So Americans are not likely to get those better sunscreens — which block the ultraviolet rays that can cause skin cancer and lead to wrinkles — in time for this summer, or even the next.

    Sunscreen makers say that requirement is unfair because companies including BASF Corp. and L’Oréal, which make the newer sunscreen chemicals, submitted safety data on sunscreen chemicals to the European Union authorities some 20 years ago.

    Steven Goldberg, a retired vice president of BASF, said companies are wary of the FDA process because of the cost and their fear that additional animal testing could ignite a consumer backlash in the European Union, which bans animal testing of cosmetics, including sunscreen. The companies are asking Congress to change the testing requirements before they take steps to enter the U.S. marketplace.

    In a rare example of bipartisanship last summer, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) thanked Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) for urging the FDA to speed up approvals of new, more effective sunscreen ingredients. Now a bipartisan bill is pending in the House that would require the FDA to allow non-animal testing.

    “It goes back to sunscreens being classified as over-the-counter drugs,” said Carl D’Ruiz, a senior manager at DSM-Firmenich, a Switzerland-based maker of sunscreen chemicals. “It’s really about giving the U.S. consumer something that the rest of the world has. People aren’t dying from using sunscreen. They’re dying from melanoma.”

    Every hour, at least two people die of skin cancer in the United States. Skin cancer is the most common cancer in America, and 6.1 million adults are treated each year for basal cell and squamous cell carcinomas, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The nation’s second-most-common cancer, breast cancer, is diagnosed about 300,000 times annually, though it is far more deadly.

    Dermatologists Offer Tips on Keeping Skin Safe and Healthy

    – Stay in the shade during peak sunlight hours, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. daylight time.– Wear hats and sunglasses.– Use UV-blocking sun umbrellas and clothing.– Reapply sunscreen every two hours.You can order overseas versions of sunscreens from online pharmacies such as Cocooncenter in France. Keep in mind that the same brands may have different ingredients if sold in U.S. stores. But importing your sunscreen may not be affordable or practical. “The best sunscreen is the one that you will use over and over again,” said Jane Yoo, a New York City dermatologist.

    Though skin cancer treatment success rates are excellent, 1 in 5 Americans will develop skin cancer by age 70. The disease costs the health care system $8.9 billion a year, according to CDC researchers. One study found that the annual cost of treating skin cancer in the United States more than doubled from 2002 to 2011, while the average annual cost for all other cancers increased by just 25%. And unlike many other cancers, most forms of skin cancer can largely be prevented — by using sunscreens and taking other precautions.

    But a heavy dose of misinformation has permeated the sunscreen debate, and some people question the safety of sunscreens sold in the United States, which they deride as “chemical” sunscreens. These sunscreen opponents prefer “physical” or “mineral” sunscreens, such as zinc oxide, even though all sunscreen ingredients are chemicals.

    “It’s an artificial categorization,” said E. Dennis Bashaw, a retired FDA official who ran the agency’s clinical pharmacology division that studies sunscreens.

    Still, such concerns were partly fed by the FDA itself after it published a study that said some sunscreen ingredients had been found in trace amounts in human bloodstreams. When the FDA said in 2019, and then again two years later, that older sunscreen ingredients needed to be studied more to see if they were safe, sunscreen opponents saw an opening, said Nadim Shaath, president of Alpha Research & Development, which imports chemicals used in cosmetics.

    “That’s why we have extreme groups and people who aren’t well informed thinking that something penetrating the skin is the end of the world,” Shaath said. “Anything you put on your skin or eat is absorbed.”

    Adamson, the Austin dermatologist, said some sunscreen ingredients have been used for 30 years without any population-level evidence that they have harmed anyone. “The issue for me isn’t the safety of the sunscreens we have,” he said. “It’s that some of the chemical sunscreens aren’t as broad spectrum as they could be, meaning they do not block UVA as well. This could be alleviated by the FDA allowing new ingredients.”

    Ultraviolet radiation falls between X-rays and visible light on the electromagnetic spectrum. Most of the UV rays that people come in contact with are UVA rays that can penetrate the middle layer of the skin and that cause up to 90% of skin aging, along with a smaller amount of UVB rays that are responsible for sunburns.

    The sun protection factor, or SPF, rating on American sunscreen bottles denotes only a sunscreen’s ability to block UVB rays. Although American sunscreens labeled “broad spectrum” should, in theory, block UVA light, some studies have shown they fail to meet the European Union’s higher UVA-blocking standards.

    “It looks like a number of these newer chemicals have a better safety profile in addition to better UVA protection,” said David Andrews, deputy director of Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit that researches the ingredients in consumer products. “We have asked the FDA to consider allowing market access.”

    The FDA defends its review process and its call for tests of the sunscreens sold in American stores as a way to ensure the safety of products that many people use daily, rather than just a few times a year at the beach.

    “Many Americans today rely on sunscreens as a key part of their skin cancer prevention strategy, which makes satisfactory evidence of both safety and effectiveness of these products critical for public health,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, wrote in an email.

    D’Ruiz’s company, DSM-Firmenich, is the only one currently seeking to have a new over-the-counter sunscreen ingredient approved in the United States. The company has spent the past 20 years trying to gain approval for bemotrizinol, a process D’Ruiz said has cost $18 million and has advanced fitfully, despite attempts by Congress in 2014 and 2020 to speed along applications for new UV filters.

    Bemotrizinol is the bedrock ingredient in nearly all European and Asian sunscreens, including those by the South Korean brand Beauty of Joseon and Bioré, a Japanese brand.

    D’Ruiz said bemotrizinol could secure FDA approval by the end of 2025. If it does, he said, bemotrizinol would be the most vetted and safest sunscreen ingredient on the market, outperforming even the safety profiles of zinc oxide and titanium dioxide.

    As Congress and the FDA debate, many Americans have taken to importing their own sunscreens from Asia or Europe, despite the risk of fake products.

    “The sunscreen issue has gotten people to see that you can be unsafe if you’re too slow,” said Alex Tabarrok, a professor of economics at George Mason University. “The FDA is just incredibly slow. They’ve been looking at this now literally for 40 years. Congress has ordered them to do it, and they still haven’t done it.”

    KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Coconut & Lemongrass Protein Soup

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    The main protein here is pea protein, but the soup’s health benefits don’t stop there. With healthy MCTs from the coconut, as well as phytochemical benefits from the ginger and chili, this wonderfully refreshing soup has a lot to offer.

    You will need

    • 1 can coconut milk
    • 1 cup vegetable stock (making your own, or buying a low-sodium option)
    • 1 cup frozen petits pois
    • 1 oz fresh ginger, roughly chopped
    • ½ oz lemongrass stalk, crumpled without being broken into multiple pieces
    • 1 red chili, roughly chopped
    • 1 tbsp white miso paste
    • zest and juice of 1 lime
    • Optional: garnish of your choice

    Method

    (we suggest you read everything at least once before doing anything)

    1) Mix the coconut milk, vegetable stock, ginger, and chili in a saucepan, and simmer for 15 minutes

    2) Remove the lemongrass and ginger (and the chili if you don’t want more heat), and add the petit pois. Bring back to a simmer for about 2 minutes more, stir in the miso paste and lime, then take off the heat.

    3) Blend the soup to a smooth purée. Since it is hot, you will need to either use a stick blender, or else a food processor that is ok with blending hot liquids (many are not, so don’t use yours unless you’re sure, as it might explode if it’s not made for that). Alternatively, you can let it cool, blend it, and then reheat it.

    4) Serve, adding a garnish if you so wish:

    Enjoy!

    Want to learn more?

    For those interested in some of the science of what we have going on today:

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Caffeine Blues – by Stephen Cherniske

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Caffeine use is an interesting and often-underexamined factor in health. Beyond the most superficial of sleep hygiene advice (à la “if you aren’t sleeping well, consider skipping your triple espresso martini at bedtime”), it’s often considered a “everybody has this” drug.

    In this book, Cherniske explores a lot of the lesser-known effects of caffeine, and the book certainly is a litany against caffeine dependence, ultimately arguing strongly against caffeine use itself. The goal is certainly to persuade the reader to desist in caffeine use, and while the book’s selling point is “learn about caffeine” not “how to quit caffeine”, a program for quitting caffeine is nevertheless included.

    You may notice the title and cover design are strongly reminiscent of “Sugar Blues”, which came decades before it, and that’s clearly not accidental. The style is similar—very sensationalist, and with a lot of strong claims. In this case, however, there is actually a more robust bibliography, albeit somewhat dated now as science has continued to progress since this book was published.

    Bottom line: in this reviewer’s opinion, the book overstates its case a little, and is prone to undue sensationalism, but there is a lot of genuinely very good information in here too, making it definitely worth reading.

    Click here to check out Caffeine Blues, and remedy yours!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: