Intermittent fasting
4 min
Table of contents
Share
Among the diets of the moment we could not fail to talk about the one that is currently among the most "googled" of all: Intermittent Fasting, known in Italian as digiuno intermittente.
Is it a new diet or just a trend making a comeback? Is it a real eating plan or more of a general strategy? Is it healthy, easy to follow and useful for everyone, or should it be approached with respect and with the help of a specialist?
The vast sea of information circulating on the internet only muddles the situation even further, and something that seems easy to understand, both on the surface and in substance, is invariably made complicated.
Put simply, the practice of Intermittent Fasting involves dividing the day into phases without food, lasting more than 14-16 hours, and phases in which you eat, lasting no more than 10-8 hours.
In fact we are all familiar with some form of fasting, intermittent or otherwise, and we have known it since ancient times, from the experiences of the Greeks and Romans before Christ, but also from more recent religious practices, with days of purifying or penitential fasting linked to different rites or faiths.
Come to think of it, which of you has never tried, perhaps after an evening social event where you ate a little more than usual or went to bed a little later than planned, squeezing the next day's meals in between 1 pm and 8 pm? Looking back at the previous day, we would discover that we had gone without food for at least 14-15 hours, assuming we had finished eating between 10 and 11 pm the night before. Doing this as just described would be normal and automatic if you wanted to restore a certain physiological balance after a specific event, such as a ceremony or a religious celebration, but basing your eating strategy on repeating this pattern means you need to structure a proper plan. In reality this would not actually be a diet in the sense of "restriction", but rather in its more correct definition of "lifestyle", given that in this way the person is free to eat the same amount of food over the 24 hours, simply distributed differently.
And what about "what to eat"? As mentioned earlier, this is not really an eating style so much as a way of organising your diet, which in terms of quality may not change at all; in fact we could keep our Mediterranean or vegetarian, paleo or keto diet, or whatever approach you choose, as long as it is confined to the times set by the pattern being followed.
So what benefits would I get if I tried this pattern? There would indeed be some positive aspects, although negative aspects would not be entirely absent either. We note without a shadow of a doubt that, in this case too, how the pattern suits the individual is the deciding factor in classifying a given "eating style" as positive or negative; ultimately everything depends on your entirely personal way of approaching a nutritional programme, on your ability to stick to the plan and get the most out of it.
Among the "pros" is undoubtedly the ability to influence daily calorie intake, cutting it down more easily if that is the goal of the new approach, since you have 2 or 3 meals instead of many more, as with an unrestricted eating pattern. Another advantage would lie in the body's improved ability to draw energy from fat-based energy substrates, stimulated precisely during the long fasting phase. Insulin sensitivity and GH production would also improve: the body would find itself reasoning a little as it did in prehistoric times, when eating after long periods without food while hunting for prey, that is, having to optimise anabolic processes, supported by the hormone insulin and secondarily by the hormone GH, in view of a possible and highly probable subsequent period without food.
The "cons", on the other hand, would lie more in the practical and organisational, emotional and "compliance" aspects of the eating plan. This new strategy could in fact be a double-edged sword for anyone who struggles to control their impulses and ends up overeating during the hours when eating is allowed. Just as difficult would be the task of those who, because of their habits or their work or family schedules, would be unable to follow the new plan. Finally there is the more purely emotional aspect which, for some, would be limiting whenever it is not possible to keep to the timings set at the start for convivial and social reasons.
From a health point of view, if you are interested in trying out a similar behavioural pattern, the advice is to proceed gradually: let us analyse our current habits, preferences and personal tastes and then move step by step towards true intermittent fasting, without however going beyond physiological limits, for example by exceeding 24 hours without food without appropriate medical advice or support.
In short, never more than in this case do we feel we should recommend a personal approach to the subject, with the one real overriding goal of achieving maximum "compliance" from the individual, that is, the best possible adherence to the new habit, without which any change to our current regime would be short-lived and bring equally meagre results.
Is it a new diet or just a trend making a comeback? Is it a real eating plan or more of a general strategy? Is it healthy, easy to follow and useful for everyone, or should it be approached with respect and with the help of a specialist?
The vast sea of information circulating on the internet only muddles the situation even further, and something that seems easy to understand, both on the surface and in substance, is invariably made complicated.
Put simply, the practice of Intermittent Fasting involves dividing the day into phases without food, lasting more than 14-16 hours, and phases in which you eat, lasting no more than 10-8 hours.
In fact we are all familiar with some form of fasting, intermittent or otherwise, and we have known it since ancient times, from the experiences of the Greeks and Romans before Christ, but also from more recent religious practices, with days of purifying or penitential fasting linked to different rites or faiths.
Come to think of it, which of you has never tried, perhaps after an evening social event where you ate a little more than usual or went to bed a little later than planned, squeezing the next day's meals in between 1 pm and 8 pm? Looking back at the previous day, we would discover that we had gone without food for at least 14-15 hours, assuming we had finished eating between 10 and 11 pm the night before. Doing this as just described would be normal and automatic if you wanted to restore a certain physiological balance after a specific event, such as a ceremony or a religious celebration, but basing your eating strategy on repeating this pattern means you need to structure a proper plan. In reality this would not actually be a diet in the sense of "restriction", but rather in its more correct definition of "lifestyle", given that in this way the person is free to eat the same amount of food over the 24 hours, simply distributed differently.
And what about "what to eat"? As mentioned earlier, this is not really an eating style so much as a way of organising your diet, which in terms of quality may not change at all; in fact we could keep our Mediterranean or vegetarian, paleo or keto diet, or whatever approach you choose, as long as it is confined to the times set by the pattern being followed.
So what benefits would I get if I tried this pattern? There would indeed be some positive aspects, although negative aspects would not be entirely absent either. We note without a shadow of a doubt that, in this case too, how the pattern suits the individual is the deciding factor in classifying a given "eating style" as positive or negative; ultimately everything depends on your entirely personal way of approaching a nutritional programme, on your ability to stick to the plan and get the most out of it.
Among the "pros" is undoubtedly the ability to influence daily calorie intake, cutting it down more easily if that is the goal of the new approach, since you have 2 or 3 meals instead of many more, as with an unrestricted eating pattern. Another advantage would lie in the body's improved ability to draw energy from fat-based energy substrates, stimulated precisely during the long fasting phase. Insulin sensitivity and GH production would also improve: the body would find itself reasoning a little as it did in prehistoric times, when eating after long periods without food while hunting for prey, that is, having to optimise anabolic processes, supported by the hormone insulin and secondarily by the hormone GH, in view of a possible and highly probable subsequent period without food.
The "cons", on the other hand, would lie more in the practical and organisational, emotional and "compliance" aspects of the eating plan. This new strategy could in fact be a double-edged sword for anyone who struggles to control their impulses and ends up overeating during the hours when eating is allowed. Just as difficult would be the task of those who, because of their habits or their work or family schedules, would be unable to follow the new plan. Finally there is the more purely emotional aspect which, for some, would be limiting whenever it is not possible to keep to the timings set at the start for convivial and social reasons.
From a health point of view, if you are interested in trying out a similar behavioural pattern, the advice is to proceed gradually: let us analyse our current habits, preferences and personal tastes and then move step by step towards true intermittent fasting, without however going beyond physiological limits, for example by exceeding 24 hours without food without appropriate medical advice or support.
In short, never more than in this case do we feel we should recommend a personal approach to the subject, with the one real overriding goal of achieving maximum "compliance" from the individual, that is, the best possible adherence to the new habit, without which any change to our current regime would be short-lived and bring equally meagre results.