Mike's blog via Tim Feriss's blog ... ?

[mcsblues]

I'm not really into conspiracies, so I assume this is just an oversight ;) but if not does anyone know why the latest blog post advertised here (http://www.proteinpower.com/blogs.php) (the blog link above) for March 1, only appears here (http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2008/03/02/postponing-death-caloric-restriction-vs-intermittent-fasting-part-1/) (March 2nd)?

[Mitra]

Looks like a bit of glitch, but "we" don't have much contact with that end of the site, so I don't know. Would you rather talk about the content or the bizarre links ;)?

[Gaelen]

It's actually pretty simple...Ferriss asked Mike to 'guest appear' in his blog. There was a similar guest appearance a couple weeks ago...one of Mike's previous blog posts funnelled through or liked to Ferris' blog.

Note the intro to Mike's post on Ferriss' site: "Following up on the popularity of his last post on this blog (The Science of Fat-Loss: Why a Calorie Isn’t Always a Calorie), Dr. Eades examines these two options and his personal experiments with both."

Ferriss then proceeds to reprint Mike's entire blog entry from months ago (with Mike's permission, I think...)

and Mike, who's already said he's busy working on other stuff, gets to post an 'active' blog entry via the direct link to Ferriss' site, without actually having to write a new blog entry.

'Fraid you're going to have to look elsewhere for conspiracy, Malcolm.

[dvdmon]

Malcolm, I think Mitra is right. There's no "conspiracy." The first paragraph that you see both on the Eadeses' site and Tim Ferris's actually comes from the orginal blog on IF that Mike wrote a year and a half ago:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting/fast-way-to-better-health/

The title isn't the same as the one on their main site, but the first paragraph is. So Tim Ferris apparently referenced this from the Eadeses site, and now for some reason the Eadeses page you link to has this as the summary text for the most recent blog entry, but when you click on it, the entry has nothing to do with IF. So I think there was a technical snafu here, that's all. And Ferris is just quoting the Eades' blog so that he can comment on it...

[maxlharris]

FWIW: I LOVE Tim Ferriss' Book, "The Four-Hour Work Week".

It's a book that has really turned around my understanding of actually living. PPLP is now part of a larger experiment in lifestyle design.

I DO NOT think Ferriss' book is for everyone. But it was a very quick and engaging read, with a lot of ideas towards realizing goals.

[Alex]

The Mar 1 blog entry that shows up on the preview page but not when you click through can be seen in its entirety here:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/intermittent-fasting-rad-or-fad/ (http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/../drmike/intermittent-fasting-rad-or-fad/)

[Mitra]

Thanks, Alex.

That's a very interesting blog.

[maxlharris]

Interesting post. Cannot say I'm surprised. It does leave open the IF/LC as a possibility, though my belief is that it's more about energy flux to keep the hormones in the right place rather than CRON or IF/CRON.

To each their own.

[Gaelen]

Actually, I don't think Ferriss is just commenting on the blog Mike wrote about IF last year. I think this post on IF (rad or fad?) is an update, by Mike, on IF, written at the request of Ferriss for Ferriss' site/blog. The words are Mike's, the voice is Mike's and some of it is line for line a restatement of the IF post he wrote several months ago. And then, at the end, are some new conclusions.

From Ferriss' blog for March 3:
"This is the second half of our two-part article on real experiments (and successes) in life extension, authored by Dr. Michael Eades. Part 1 covers supporting research for caloric extension (CR) and intermittent fasting (IF).
Dr. Eades continued from Part 1:"

Then the blog continues (Part I appeared on March 2).

Since this appears to be Mike guest-writing a column for Ferriss, then I hope all of the devotees of IF fast-forward to the last three 'graphs, where Mike appears to have drawn some new (and less favorable) conclusions about intermittent fasting, based on newer research showing that IF contributes to increases in insulin resistance, elevated BP, impaired glucose tolerance, and decreased thermogenesis, including references to some human studies of IF. The last 'graphs of the blog on Ferriss' site:

"The one question that remains unanswered is whether or not the intermittent fast followed in a low-carbohydrate way will lead to these same problems. To me, that point is kind of moot. Why? Because I looked at the IF as a strategy that allowed me to eat a lot of high carb foods that I would normally avoid and not pay the health consequences for it. If I’m going to limit myself to low-carb foods, why go on the IF? I can get the same results just following a regular, whole-food, low-carb diet without having to eat only every other day.

It’s looking like the intermittent fast is another of those ideas in science that look good in animal studies them not so good in human studies, proving once again that rats and mice aren’t simply furry little humans. And it appears - for humans, at least - that the intermittent fast is indeed beginning to look like the reality of a late-night gimmicky infomercial: long on promises, short on delivery. I suspect that it is also a cautionary tale about the applicability of caloric restriction studies to humans as well.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news that the IF didn’t live up to its early billing, but that’s the way science sometimes works."


Earlier in the blog are these 'graphs, which sound like something Mike wrote months ago:
"If you buy into the idea that the Paleolithic diet is the optimal diet for us today because it is the diet we were molded by the forces of natural selection to perform best on (and I do), then you should probably also buy into the idea that a meal timing schedule more like that of Paleolithic man would provide benefit as well.

With this in mind I recruited my wife into the process and we went on an intermittent fast . As I’ll discuss in a bit, it wasn’t all that difficult, but I can tell you that the non-eating days were long. And the eating days were spent eating and dreading the non-eating day soon to follow."

Sound familiar, gang?
How about this section:
"My wife and I fooled around with our regimen for a few weeks here and there just to prove to ourselves that we could live with it and that it was a doable strategy for just about anyone. We ultimately drifted back to our normal low-carb existence just because it seemed to work better with our schedules. It seemed that we always ended up with some kind of dinner engagement on the nights we were supposed to be fasting, necessitating a change in our fasting schedule.

Over the period that we followed the various IF regimens we lost a couple of pounds (we really didn’t have much weight to lose, nor did we have health problems that needed fixing) because, unlike the rodents, we couldn’t eat twice as much during the eating days as we would have eaten were we not fasting. We didn’t check any lab work to see if any values had changed. We weren’t doing a hard core study; we were simply evaluating IF as a practical means for humans to use to improve their health.

I then wrote a blog post about IF that became the most commented on post on my blog. It seems that the idea of IF had struck a chord with a lot of people, many of whom took up the torch and started IFing."

And there's this from Mike's actual blog, the lead-in to the post about statins from Feb 27:
"I’m sorry if I’ve been a little less than diligent lately with getting new posts up and comments dealt with in a timely fashion. Tim Ferriss, author of the bestselling 4-Hour Workweek and popular blog of the same name, asked me to put up a post on his site. I put up an updated version of the “is a calorie just a calorie?” debate post, which was hit with numerous comments. Tim asked if I would deal with a few of the comments, which I did. It was fun, but it took some time. If you get into an argument with a hostile vegetarian you ought to take a look at comment # 73 and comment # 84 , my response. This will give you some hard info for your dispute."

Apparently, Mike also put up the IF post directly on Ferriss's site.

[Mitra]

The link that Alex posted is Dr Mike's blog, and the one on the Tim Ferris site finishes by with a "guest writer bio" of Dr Mike, so I didn't think there was any question about its authorship, just that the links weren't working properly (I think they've been fixed now).

In a way I was rather sorry to read the conclusions, "that the intermittent fast is indeed beginning to look like the reality of a late-night gimmicky infomercial: long on promises, short on delivery," but the bit to focus on, I suppose, is, "I can get the same results just following a regular, whole-food, low-carb diet without having to eat only every other day." At least he believes the benefits IF promised are still available, even if the packaging isn't as sexy.

[mcsblues]

Jeez guys it was a joke! :p (hence the wink) - yes it was obviously just an oversight on Mike's part (advertising the new blog - and then not posting it, or the link) ... which is now fixed. And yes Janet, I do want to comment at some stage (I feel I should be using this new section for some reason ;)) - and I will get to it, as soon as get a spare minute or two ... and a new pc ... after just having gone through the pain of a clean Windows install ... and the seemingly inevitable loss of some bookmarks/addresses/emails:rolleyes: ... my monitor just died - so I've decided to bite the bullet and start a whole new system.

But I will get back to this ... promise!:)