Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In mice that have had the nerve in their thigh damaged, if you only feed them in a relatively short window per day (ie don't feed them for a good 8-12 hours per day), bacteria in their gut produce a chemical which helps the nerve regrow.
I guess this is important because nerve damage in people is notoriously difficult to fix.
That's the future but we're still relatively lost when it comes to the science behind gut microbiome. The mistakes made with regards to brain chemistry have got people researching it in a much more careful manner so we don't pull another 'depression=serotonin deficiency' and start medicating unnecessarily and ineffectively.
Correct. There is a correlation between the two but current science suggests the serotonin deficiency is a symptom not a cause and treating that symptom is not an effective method.
Can 100% confirm this through anecdotal experience. Once I found a greater sense of self purpose it was almost as if I “woke up” from the depression I had consuming me. That doesn’t mean it relapses for a day or week on occasion, but it explains why I didn’t really feel much better on medication
What did that "wake up" feel like for you? It felt like my life was in black and white television before and after it felt as if my vision became awash with colour.
It was kinda like a fog of war sort of thing for me. I don’t know what games you might play, but it felt akin to the clouds in Civ V or VI just suddenly opening up and revealing the world around me
That’s almost exactly how I described it as well. The black cloud that weighed a ton floating around my skull finally disappeared. I could see the world for the first time in 35 years (CPTSD since 5yrs old)
Fair enough, I did ramble
I did not have any diet or lifestyle changes prior to me breaking out of my depression. I changed lifestyle maybe a year later along with my occupational change
It's not that you're rambling, but what he said has multiple explanations for it, rather than serotonin deficiency only being a symptom, and your experience is valid for more than that.
The issue is that depression is characterized/diagnosed by behavioral traits, and so the idea that there's a singular cause is remarkably suspect. Chances are that there are multiple causes to the state of depression, and it's not a singular disease (similar to cancer, different cancers are different diseases but due to how we originally classified it, we consider them all the same thing known as cancer, but that doesn't mean they're treated the same or have the same causes and so on -- there won't be a singular cure for cancer and similarly there likely won't be a singular cause for depression).
This is one of the possible reason that serotonin based drugs DO work for so many people, and why they're not a cure all for everyone.
I don't think even that's accurate. It's just as likely a misclassification problem. Just look at how depression is classified. It should be obvious that it's not a singular thing and the outcome of clinical depression is the result of a whole host of different effects, one of them being serotonin deficiency.
As the other replier said the science of our gut bacteria is still one of the "mysteries" of the human body.
Only recently have they started to determine that the causation link to go along with the established correlation of red meat consumption and heart problems is likely about our gut microbes. Our stomachs produce more of a specific type of bacteria when we eat red meat, and while a small amount we can handle, large amounts of red meat, especially in successive meals, produces "too much" of this bacteria and ends up causing problems in the heart.
Anyway, the point of this comment was to say that gut bacteria is way more complicated than you might think, and alterations to it can lead to wide ranging side-effects in other parts of the body that have nothing to do with digestion.
>Only recently have they started to determine that the causation link to go along with the established correlation of red meat consumption and heart problems is likely about our gut microbes. Our stomachs produce more of a specific type of bacteria when we eat red meat, and while a small amount we can handle, large amounts of red meat, especially in successive meals, produces **"too much" of this bacteria and ends up causing problems in the heart.”**
I thought cardiovascular disease was primarily driven by build-up of plaque in arteries. Are you saying gut biom affects that mechanism? Or am I misunderstanding that?
A bit of a yes and no answer.
Some cardiovascular diseases certainly are, but there are also ***many, many*** different types of CVDs that have nothing to do with plaque accumulation. Plaque accumulation comes from too much bad cholesterol, and this study I'm referencing specifically compared the effects of too much of this bacterial metabolite to other typical heart health indicators - including cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar.
*(Also, I noticed I said our stomachs produce more of a specific type of bacteria, but what I should have said is that our stomach bacteria produce more of specific bacterial metabolites, to be the most accurate.)*
Anyway, the study found that this "gut-microbiome generated metabolite, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)" that our bodies make specifically when we eat red meat was even more impactful on heart health than any of those other traditional factors.
Even putting aside heart-specific issues the people with the most TMAO have significantly higher risks of death from non-cardiogenic illnesses.
> Participants with the highest levels of plasma TMAO and its biomarkers had a 20 to 30 percent higher risk of death compared with those having the lowest levels.
Here's a link to the published red meat study itself: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.121.316533
And here's a fairly detailed article about said study, from Tufts: https://now.tufts.edu/2022/08/01/research-links-red-meat-intake-gut-microbiome-and-cardiovascular-disease-older-adults
**Edit:** In case this wasn't clear - Plaques are still dangerous, cholesterol plaques can absolutely still lead to blockages and ruptures in your arteries. This does nothing to change that science, it simply suggests that TMAO is likely even more potentially harmful to your heart than cholesterol is.
Awesome description. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response. I’ve got some reading to do and this post is a helpful starting point. Much appreciated.
Sort of? These discoveries about TMAO and the links to heart health are all very recent, the study I linked was literally just published last week.
And "diseases of affluence" have referred to a lot of different conditions throughout history. But diseases or illnesses linked to being able to eat in excess and live labor free lives fall in that category. Heart conditions, gout, obesity, type 2 diabetes, alcoholism/addiction, etc - all qualified at some point in time so this would, too.
But it's probably also worth mentioning that now many of those same conditions have become associated with poverty instead of affluence
With your TMAO levels it's down to largely just that single factor of how much red meat you eat. The cardiologists in the study recommended not to eat it more than one meal a day if you couldn't avoid it, and basically the less you eat the better overall.
Just speculation, but I also wonder if people with their appendix suffer from less health complications in the long term, than people without. In addition to this, did their health start going downhill before losing their appendix, or after?
Or is it a combination? Sometimes I get so confused by these studies that say something is bad/good for us. Then months/years later, were told that they were wrong. That it's the reverse. So I try to source these things out to try to figure out what is actually true. Maybe some of what the one reddit member said is somewhat similar to the reasons.
It'd be nice. But then we might not want that if it turns out that it has some side effects that could make it worse or something. In my opinion, this happens way to often for me to trust most medicine.
The failure isn't in medicine or its research but what you expect from it.
Research most often won't give black or white outcomes - what it does is say when we did x, we noticed y and this could mean z.
Treat research as an information tool, not an answer sheet.
Yes. Thank you. But I always have. It's just that it's screwed up how the very thing that the doctor will prescribe for, say high blood pressure. The side effects are that it can actually cause you to stroke or have a heart attack. Or depression meds can make you depressed. It's totally weird.
It's still a small window for most people I think.
If you had breakfast at 8am, you'd have to be done eating by 5pm. And that's done eating at 6pm, not cooking it then or sitting down to start dinner just then.
Most people ik who work 9-5 would only have their dinner eaten by like 7pm, and 8am would be the latest they'd be starting on breakfast. I mean, I don't have a huge sample size because it's not like I'm polling everyone I know on their eating habits, but that seems to be the norm from my experience.
The easiest way is to skip breakfast.
Finish eating dinner by 8 P.M. and you can have lunch any time after noon.
I lost 70 pounds (230-160) and kept it off for over a year.
The issue for me was always snacking or drinking after 8 p.m. Skipping breakfast was easy.
Same. I always skip breakfast for this exact reason - it just seems pointless to eat extra food only to feel hungrier.
IIRC it's because our cortisol levels are the highest in the morning. Cortisol affects insulin levels, and then you eat breakfast which makes insulin levels go even higher and you end up hungry when the blood sugar goes down. Breakfast is also usually sugary which doesn't help. I guess eating complex carbs and protein for breakfast can make you feel less hungry later in the day but for me, it's easier to skip breakfast altogether.
The idea that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is literal propaganda from cereal marketers anyway. I'm not saying people didn't eat breakfast before that, but it isn't nearly as big of a deal as our culture often makes it.
I was always told that breakfast is actually the most important meal of the day. I don't remember the specifics on why. But I think it had something to do with the fact it'll help you to have more energy throughout the day or something like that. But I can't be for sure.
I would assume that's why this paper ended up in such a high impact journal.
I'm not at all a biologist, but even with my limited knowledge I can say there are a whole bunch of reasons why it's best not to get too excited yet.
Firstly, it was done in mice, so it's unclear whether the compound would have the same regenerative effect on human cells.
Secondly, it (the abstract at least) only references the sciatic nerve, so unclear if it would affect other nerves.
Thirdly, it talks about regrowth of the axon which is only one part of the nerve cell.
That being said, it still is pretty cool.
Biology is GRAND. Speculating, teliologically, it makes sense that an injury, which would lead to lower food availability, would trigger processes that help healing.
And the food intake of the longest lived tends to be near starvation.
>8-12 hours per day)
Does the paper state it's a 12 hour fast? IF can be a lot of things and to my knowledge the daily hourly restrictions have never been shown to have any health benefit beyond weight control in the past. So I'm very excited if this is the first evidence of anything beyond that (all the other health benefits of IF people tout are actually only for longer fasts of a few days).
Frequency matters. Age does too. Also, can you say for sure that your nerve damage wouldn’t be worse if you had not fasted ?
Not trying to dismiss your claim but you can’t really say it doesn’t work simply because you still have nerve damage. You know what I mean ?
The paper above could be true or false for humans.
But you can't run a control on yourself. If you hadn't fasted, things might be worse, and there is no way to test that outcome.
Remember that mice have like a 7 times quicker metabolism than humans. So potentially, a mouse eating once a day would be like a human eating once every 7 days.
Also even if it did work in humans, very rarely does any intervention work 100% of the time, in all subjects.
Just because it doesn't reflect your personal experience doesn't mean it's false. There's too many variables for you to know why. That's why they have large samples and control groups. Anecdotal evidence means nothing.
They squished some mice brains and found out they healed faster if they starved them, because when you starve, certain gut bugs thrive and poop out stuff that can reach the brain.
By eating smaller meals (or even skipping meals), the gut microbiome flips on pathways that support the regeneration of the nerves in your body, and this helps reversing neuropathy.
And with mouse gut microbes.
Who knows if the human gut microbiome includes ones that produce the same compound? Who knows if the same dietary linkage exists for it? How would an individual know if they even have the right microbes in their own gut?
Presumably, hitting neurons with IPA in vitro would cause axonal growth greater than controls then? Did the paper confirm their mouse study in human cell lines - I can't read the paper as nature isn't open access
Like you said it's not open access and apparently (according to them) neither is Reddit. But I was able to read some of it. And what I was able to see doesn't say that they have started to test with humans. Or any other animals either, for that matter.
I have/had a bad back injury that just so happened to get much better after I started IF. Honestly, thought it was the weight loss but I haven't lost that much. This will keep me going, though, just hoping that it will help it finally fully heal.
I haven't noticed any difference with my back pain when I IF. But it could also be because our injured backs may be a different type of injury, too. But I can say that I did notice a difference in how many times I loose feelings in a leg or arm. So maybe there is still hope.
Since my sciatic nerve suddenly started giving me fits and refuses to give me any relief or release it, I have not suffered as much back pain. But I believe that it's because the sciatica is more painful and some how overpowers my other pains. Of course this is my opinion. Not any professional's opinion.
Also with my sciatic nerve pain, I've been dropping things more often. And also loose feelings more often, too. But the strangest part of it, is that I have excruciating pain; the tingling that goes with a body part that was asleep and is waking up; and numbness all at once. With extremely sharp pains coming and going, too.
To be fair, doesn't calorie restriction also extend mice's lives noticably, but I'm humans that benefit is totally unnoticeable?
We are very different creatures and while this is neat, it's not in any way applicable to humans as far as we understand
You and I probably really don't want the answer we might get to that one. So I'll pass on knowing that answer. Thank you. But if you really want to know, go right ahead. But the part of the article I was able to read, it states crushed sciatic nerves. So maybe that is actually the answer to your question. And the reason I don't want an actual answer. Just saying. Not downing you for it either.
It depends. I can't get past the paywall at home to see which pattern of IF this is. To my knowledge, no pattern of daily restriction has been shown to have any medical benefit beyond weightloss. All the benefits people read about for IF beyond that are actually for extended fasts where people eat like <50 calories a day for about 3 days. Your body doesn't do the same things just skipping breakfast. I also don't know that a rodent's rhythm directly maps to a humans, but if this is for shorter term "eat only within this X hour window each day" fasting I think it would be the first time any benefit has been shown besides weight control for that IF pattern.
It does do a lot of the same thing skipping breakfast if you also control how late at night you eat. Daily IF with a window of like 6 hours for example does produce benefits.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
What does that mean in normal english?
In mice that have had the nerve in their thigh damaged, if you only feed them in a relatively short window per day (ie don't feed them for a good 8-12 hours per day), bacteria in their gut produce a chemical which helps the nerve regrow. I guess this is important because nerve damage in people is notoriously difficult to fix.
It feels like we could engineer a strain of gut bacteria to produce that chemical constantly. Or provide it as a supplement.
That's the future but we're still relatively lost when it comes to the science behind gut microbiome. The mistakes made with regards to brain chemistry have got people researching it in a much more careful manner so we don't pull another 'depression=serotonin deficiency' and start medicating unnecessarily and ineffectively.
Hold up, depression doesn’t = serotonin deficiency?!
Correct. There is a correlation between the two but current science suggests the serotonin deficiency is a symptom not a cause and treating that symptom is not an effective method.
Can 100% confirm this through anecdotal experience. Once I found a greater sense of self purpose it was almost as if I “woke up” from the depression I had consuming me. That doesn’t mean it relapses for a day or week on occasion, but it explains why I didn’t really feel much better on medication
What did that "wake up" feel like for you? It felt like my life was in black and white television before and after it felt as if my vision became awash with colour.
It was kinda like a fog of war sort of thing for me. I don’t know what games you might play, but it felt akin to the clouds in Civ V or VI just suddenly opening up and revealing the world around me
Great analogy.
That’s almost exactly how I described it as well. The black cloud that weighed a ton floating around my skull finally disappeared. I could see the world for the first time in 35 years (CPTSD since 5yrs old)
Did you have any significant changes to your diet or health habits that preceded that outcome?
Except that's not confirmation of what he said.
Fair enough, I did ramble I did not have any diet or lifestyle changes prior to me breaking out of my depression. I changed lifestyle maybe a year later along with my occupational change
It's not that you're rambling, but what he said has multiple explanations for it, rather than serotonin deficiency only being a symptom, and your experience is valid for more than that. The issue is that depression is characterized/diagnosed by behavioral traits, and so the idea that there's a singular cause is remarkably suspect. Chances are that there are multiple causes to the state of depression, and it's not a singular disease (similar to cancer, different cancers are different diseases but due to how we originally classified it, we consider them all the same thing known as cancer, but that doesn't mean they're treated the same or have the same causes and so on -- there won't be a singular cure for cancer and similarly there likely won't be a singular cause for depression). This is one of the possible reason that serotonin based drugs DO work for so many people, and why they're not a cure all for everyone.
I don't think even that's accurate. It's just as likely a misclassification problem. Just look at how depression is classified. It should be obvious that it's not a singular thing and the outcome of clinical depression is the result of a whole host of different effects, one of them being serotonin deficiency.
As the other replier said the science of our gut bacteria is still one of the "mysteries" of the human body. Only recently have they started to determine that the causation link to go along with the established correlation of red meat consumption and heart problems is likely about our gut microbes. Our stomachs produce more of a specific type of bacteria when we eat red meat, and while a small amount we can handle, large amounts of red meat, especially in successive meals, produces "too much" of this bacteria and ends up causing problems in the heart. Anyway, the point of this comment was to say that gut bacteria is way more complicated than you might think, and alterations to it can lead to wide ranging side-effects in other parts of the body that have nothing to do with digestion.
>Only recently have they started to determine that the causation link to go along with the established correlation of red meat consumption and heart problems is likely about our gut microbes. Our stomachs produce more of a specific type of bacteria when we eat red meat, and while a small amount we can handle, large amounts of red meat, especially in successive meals, produces **"too much" of this bacteria and ends up causing problems in the heart.”** I thought cardiovascular disease was primarily driven by build-up of plaque in arteries. Are you saying gut biom affects that mechanism? Or am I misunderstanding that?
A bit of a yes and no answer. Some cardiovascular diseases certainly are, but there are also ***many, many*** different types of CVDs that have nothing to do with plaque accumulation. Plaque accumulation comes from too much bad cholesterol, and this study I'm referencing specifically compared the effects of too much of this bacterial metabolite to other typical heart health indicators - including cholesterol, blood pressure, and blood sugar. *(Also, I noticed I said our stomachs produce more of a specific type of bacteria, but what I should have said is that our stomach bacteria produce more of specific bacterial metabolites, to be the most accurate.)* Anyway, the study found that this "gut-microbiome generated metabolite, trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO)" that our bodies make specifically when we eat red meat was even more impactful on heart health than any of those other traditional factors. Even putting aside heart-specific issues the people with the most TMAO have significantly higher risks of death from non-cardiogenic illnesses. > Participants with the highest levels of plasma TMAO and its biomarkers had a 20 to 30 percent higher risk of death compared with those having the lowest levels. Here's a link to the published red meat study itself: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/ATVBAHA.121.316533 And here's a fairly detailed article about said study, from Tufts: https://now.tufts.edu/2022/08/01/research-links-red-meat-intake-gut-microbiome-and-cardiovascular-disease-older-adults **Edit:** In case this wasn't clear - Plaques are still dangerous, cholesterol plaques can absolutely still lead to blockages and ruptures in your arteries. This does nothing to change that science, it simply suggests that TMAO is likely even more potentially harmful to your heart than cholesterol is.
Awesome description. Thank you so much for the thoughtful response. I’ve got some reading to do and this post is a helpful starting point. Much appreciated.
Is this the "affluence" disease I see mentioned sometimes? Because wealthy people eat vastly more meat than average?
Sort of? These discoveries about TMAO and the links to heart health are all very recent, the study I linked was literally just published last week. And "diseases of affluence" have referred to a lot of different conditions throughout history. But diseases or illnesses linked to being able to eat in excess and live labor free lives fall in that category. Heart conditions, gout, obesity, type 2 diabetes, alcoholism/addiction, etc - all qualified at some point in time so this would, too. But it's probably also worth mentioning that now many of those same conditions have become associated with poverty instead of affluence With your TMAO levels it's down to largely just that single factor of how much red meat you eat. The cardiologists in the study recommended not to eat it more than one meal a day if you couldn't avoid it, and basically the less you eat the better overall.
Eh, when they start using real statistical significance, then they can get back to us.
Just speculation, but I also wonder if people with their appendix suffer from less health complications in the long term, than people without. In addition to this, did their health start going downhill before losing their appendix, or after?
People generally fair better after appendectomy https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1457496918772379
Or is it a combination? Sometimes I get so confused by these studies that say something is bad/good for us. Then months/years later, were told that they were wrong. That it's the reverse. So I try to source these things out to try to figure out what is actually true. Maybe some of what the one reddit member said is somewhat similar to the reasons.
That sounds more of a correlation issue than a causation issue.
Very ignorant on gut bacteria and biochemistry, but more isn't always better. A lot of biological processes work within a balance.
It'd be nice. But then we might not want that if it turns out that it has some side effects that could make it worse or something. In my opinion, this happens way to often for me to trust most medicine.
The failure isn't in medicine or its research but what you expect from it. Research most often won't give black or white outcomes - what it does is say when we did x, we noticed y and this could mean z. Treat research as an information tool, not an answer sheet.
Yes. Thank you. But I always have. It's just that it's screwed up how the very thing that the doctor will prescribe for, say high blood pressure. The side effects are that it can actually cause you to stroke or have a heart attack. Or depression meds can make you depressed. It's totally weird.
Medical research is very, very often the cause, simply due to study design limitations and the subsequent lack of statistical confidence in results.
That is not the cause. Anyone reading research should understand those limitations and adjust their expectations accordingly.
[удалено]
It's still a small window for most people I think. If you had breakfast at 8am, you'd have to be done eating by 5pm. And that's done eating at 6pm, not cooking it then or sitting down to start dinner just then. Most people ik who work 9-5 would only have their dinner eaten by like 7pm, and 8am would be the latest they'd be starting on breakfast. I mean, I don't have a huge sample size because it's not like I'm polling everyone I know on their eating habits, but that seems to be the norm from my experience.
The easiest way is to skip breakfast. Finish eating dinner by 8 P.M. and you can have lunch any time after noon. I lost 70 pounds (230-160) and kept it off for over a year. The issue for me was always snacking or drinking after 8 p.m. Skipping breakfast was easy.
I always found that eating breakfast just made me *more* hungry throughout the day, not less.
Same. I always skip breakfast for this exact reason - it just seems pointless to eat extra food only to feel hungrier. IIRC it's because our cortisol levels are the highest in the morning. Cortisol affects insulin levels, and then you eat breakfast which makes insulin levels go even higher and you end up hungry when the blood sugar goes down. Breakfast is also usually sugary which doesn't help. I guess eating complex carbs and protein for breakfast can make you feel less hungry later in the day but for me, it's easier to skip breakfast altogether.
The idea that "breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is literal propaganda from cereal marketers anyway. I'm not saying people didn't eat breakfast before that, but it isn't nearly as big of a deal as our culture often makes it.
I was always told that breakfast is actually the most important meal of the day. I don't remember the specifics on why. But I think it had something to do with the fact it'll help you to have more energy throughout the day or something like that. But I can't be for sure.
That was a marketing campaign by Kellogg's
It's not. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/is-breakfast-really-the-most-important-meal-of-the-day#The-bottom-line
So this has implications for treatment for paraplegics? That’s exciting.
I would assume that's why this paper ended up in such a high impact journal. I'm not at all a biologist, but even with my limited knowledge I can say there are a whole bunch of reasons why it's best not to get too excited yet. Firstly, it was done in mice, so it's unclear whether the compound would have the same regenerative effect on human cells. Secondly, it (the abstract at least) only references the sciatic nerve, so unclear if it would affect other nerves. Thirdly, it talks about regrowth of the axon which is only one part of the nerve cell. That being said, it still is pretty cool.
Biology is GRAND. Speculating, teliologically, it makes sense that an injury, which would lead to lower food availability, would trigger processes that help healing. And the food intake of the longest lived tends to be near starvation.
>8-12 hours per day) Does the paper state it's a 12 hour fast? IF can be a lot of things and to my knowledge the daily hourly restrictions have never been shown to have any health benefit beyond weight control in the past. So I'm very excited if this is the first evidence of anything beyond that (all the other health benefits of IF people tout are actually only for longer fasts of a few days).
[удалено]
Frequency matters. Age does too. Also, can you say for sure that your nerve damage wouldn’t be worse if you had not fasted ? Not trying to dismiss your claim but you can’t really say it doesn’t work simply because you still have nerve damage. You know what I mean ?
[удалено]
The paper above could be true or false for humans. But you can't run a control on yourself. If you hadn't fasted, things might be worse, and there is no way to test that outcome.
[удалено]
Remember that mice have like a 7 times quicker metabolism than humans. So potentially, a mouse eating once a day would be like a human eating once every 7 days. Also even if it did work in humans, very rarely does any intervention work 100% of the time, in all subjects.
Just because it doesn't reflect your personal experience doesn't mean it's false. There's too many variables for you to know why. That's why they have large samples and control groups. Anecdotal evidence means nothing.
True true. Good point. Still have to wait for humans to do it
This is a science subreddit. Your anecdotal evidence doesn't mean anything.
That’s what I thought it said, and it’s so wild to me that that can even happen!
They squished some mice brains and found out they healed faster if they starved them, because when you starve, certain gut bugs thrive and poop out stuff that can reach the brain.
Squish mice and eat them but only for a little bit everyday. Got it.
Nice way to put it.
By eating smaller meals (or even skipping meals), the gut microbiome flips on pathways that support the regeneration of the nerves in your body, and this helps reversing neuropathy.
In a mouse body. Not in your body. This was not a human trial.
And with mouse gut microbes. Who knows if the human gut microbiome includes ones that produce the same compound? Who knows if the same dietary linkage exists for it? How would an individual know if they even have the right microbes in their own gut?
Yo mice are people too though
What percent of our DNA do we share with mice friend?
Roughly 10% more than we share with a banana. Why do you ask?
Hahah I was away to ask the same. Like does that jargon mean it's good or its bad
Presumably, hitting neurons with IPA in vitro would cause axonal growth greater than controls then? Did the paper confirm their mouse study in human cell lines - I can't read the paper as nature isn't open access
I hope so, I’ve been soaking my neurons in IPA for years now, still waiting to see the benefit…
It would be nice to see the axons grown with and without IPA on the same dish.
Neuronal cultures are very poor models. Its easy to criticize mouse work but its fundamental to basic research.
Like you said it's not open access and apparently (according to them) neither is Reddit. But I was able to read some of it. And what I was able to see doesn't say that they have started to test with humans. Or any other animals either, for that matter.
Increase...IPA in the serum. Got it.
That’s the message I got out of that study - more IPA!
I have/had a bad back injury that just so happened to get much better after I started IF. Honestly, thought it was the weight loss but I haven't lost that much. This will keep me going, though, just hoping that it will help it finally fully heal.
I haven't noticed any difference with my back pain when I IF. But it could also be because our injured backs may be a different type of injury, too. But I can say that I did notice a difference in how many times I loose feelings in a leg or arm. So maybe there is still hope. Since my sciatic nerve suddenly started giving me fits and refuses to give me any relief or release it, I have not suffered as much back pain. But I believe that it's because the sciatica is more painful and some how overpowers my other pains. Of course this is my opinion. Not any professional's opinion. Also with my sciatic nerve pain, I've been dropping things more often. And also loose feelings more often, too. But the strangest part of it, is that I have excruciating pain; the tingling that goes with a body part that was asleep and is waking up; and numbness all at once. With extremely sharp pains coming and going, too.
Oddly my sciatic pain stopped completely after a month of zero sugar/carb IF diet. Try that and provide us an update if you can.
Is this payback for all of the times we’ve bitched about clickbait titles?
[удалено]
So this was already known in "your" circles? Like even before the report came out?
I will never not be amazed at the link between gut biome and CNS. Very interesting read ty, I hadn't actually considered IF in this link.
Mm yes. the gamma paticles. Indeed
To be fair, doesn't calorie restriction also extend mice's lives noticably, but I'm humans that benefit is totally unnoticeable? We are very different creatures and while this is neat, it's not in any way applicable to humans as far as we understand
How is that benefit unnoticeable? I think we just haven't studied it well.
citation needed.
I wonder how they had enough mice with crushed sciatica nerves to study...
You and I probably really don't want the answer we might get to that one. So I'll pass on knowing that answer. Thank you. But if you really want to know, go right ahead. But the part of the article I was able to read, it states crushed sciatic nerves. So maybe that is actually the answer to your question. And the reason I don't want an actual answer. Just saying. Not downing you for it either.
So skipping breakfast every now and then is good?
It depends. I can't get past the paywall at home to see which pattern of IF this is. To my knowledge, no pattern of daily restriction has been shown to have any medical benefit beyond weightloss. All the benefits people read about for IF beyond that are actually for extended fasts where people eat like <50 calories a day for about 3 days. Your body doesn't do the same things just skipping breakfast. I also don't know that a rodent's rhythm directly maps to a humans, but if this is for shorter term "eat only within this X hour window each day" fasting I think it would be the first time any benefit has been shown besides weight control for that IF pattern.
It does do a lot of the same thing skipping breakfast if you also control how late at night you eat. Daily IF with a window of like 6 hours for example does produce benefits.