| Literature DB >> 31426866 |
Iftikhar Alam1,2, Rahmat Gul2, Joni Chong3, Crystal Tze Ying Tan3, Hui Xian Chin3, Glenn Wong3, Radhouene Doggui4, Anis Larbi5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effects of fasting on health in non-human models have been widely publicised for a long time and emerging evidence support the idea that these effects can be applicable to human practice.Entities:
Keywords: Aging; Health benefits; Inflammation; Recurrent fasting
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31426866 PMCID: PMC6700786 DOI: 10.1186/s12967-019-2007-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Transl Med ISSN: 1479-5876 Impact factor: 5.531
Fig. 1Study design and meal variations. a Study design and b main variations in meal timing and intake. c Change in absolute weight (kg) in the study population during and after fasting. d Metabolic adaptation to fasting assessed by leptin, PPAR and fasting glucose levels
Baseline demographic characteristics (n = 78)
| Age | |
| Mean (± SD) in years | 47.1 (± 21.8) |
| 20 to 30 years (young) | 37 (47.4%) |
| 52 to 64 years (middle-aged) | 18 (23.1%) |
| > 64 (elderly) | 23 (29.5%) |
| Education | |
| No formal education | 24 (30.7%) |
| Primary | 43 (55.1) |
| Middle/high | 8 (10.2%) |
| Higher secondary | 5 (6.4%) |
| Nutritional status | |
| Thinness | 19 (24.4%) |
| Normal | 36 (46.2%) |
| Overweight | 20 (25.6%) |
| Obesity | 3 (3.8%) |
| Fasting habits | |
| Fast only in Ramadan | 68 (69.2%) |
| Also fast other than Ramadan | 24 (30.7%) |
| Monthly incomes | |
| Mean (± SD) in USD | 340.8 (± 212.8) |
| > 500 USD/month | 21 (26.9%) |
| 200–500 USD/month | 45 (57.7%) |
| < 200 USD/month | 12 (15.4%) |
| Others | |
| Diabetes | 6 (7.6%) |
| Marital status—married | 67 (85.9%) |
| Smokers | 32 (41.0%) |
| Snuff use | 28 (35.9%) |
| Alcohol use | 0 (0.0%) |
Assessment of basic nutritional and clinical status
| Parameters | Pre-fasting | Fasting | Post-fasting | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nutritional status | ||||
| Calories (kcal/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 2009.5 (583.4) | 1835.4 (584.6) | 2020.6 (594.8) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 2011.0 | 1805.8 | 1982.4 | |
| Protein (g/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 41.8 (13.5) | 40.8 (13.5) | 41.9 (13.6) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 39.9 | 39.0 | 39.9 | |
| Fats (g/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 85.6 (45.2) | 83.9 (45.2) | 85.8 (45.8) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 76.4 | 74.6 | 77.3 | |
| Carbohydrates (g/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 263.3 (34.5) | 224.6 (54.2) | 219.4 (41.7) | 0.003 |
| Median | 76.4 | 74.6 | 77.3 | |
| Dietary fibers (g/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 5.4 (2.2) | 5.2 (2.2) | 5.6 (2.3) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 5.0 | 5.0 | 5.4 | |
| Sodium (g/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 2.9 (0.3) | 3.1 (0.4) | 3.1 (0.5) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 2.8 | 3.0 | 3.2 | |
| Potassium (mg/day) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 1737.2 (581.8) | 1719.8 (576.0) | 1754.5 (587.6) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 1693.3 | 1676.4 | 1710.2 | |
| Iron (g/d) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 13.8 (5.5) | 12.9 (5.5) | 14.9 (5.5) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 13.2 | 12.3 | 14.3 | |
| Clinical status | ||||
| Weight (kg) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 67.5 (15.0) | 63.7 (14.8) | 66.4 (14.8) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 68.8 | 64.6 | 67.6 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 22.8 (5.1) | 21.6 (5.0) | 22.5 (5.0) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 23.5 | 22.3 | 23.2 | |
| Waist circumf. (cm) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 85.3 (12.4) | 84.4 (12.5) | 84.4 (12.5) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 88.1 | 86.7 | 0.9 (0.1) | |
| Albumin (g/l) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 3.9 (1.0) | 3.7 (1.2) | 3.7 (1.0) | 0.0013 |
| Median | 3.8 | 3.4 | 3.6 | |
| Ferritin (µg/l) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 75.5 (48.4) | 77.2 (49.2) | 74.6 (48.4) | 0.0013 |
| Median | 73.4 | 73.6 | 71.9 | |
| Systolic BP (mmHg) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 140.6 (25.9) | 124.2 (22.9) | 130.0 (22.6) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 138.6 | 102.9 | 124.8 | |
| Diastolic BP (mmHg) | ||||
| Mean (s.d.) | 107.6 (24.5) | 102.9 (25.6) | 106.2 (24.8) | < 0.0001 |
| Median | 104.5 | 97.3 | 102.0 | |
Fig. 2Metabolic adaptation to RCF. a–c Clinical laboratory measures suggesting beneficial effect of fasting. d Heatmap of biological markers of physiological functions measured during the course of the study. All biomarkers measured in plasma/serum samples are shown. Regions highlighted show the overall shift during fasting and return to baseline after fasting. e Specific biomarkers of cardiovascular and f metabolic status
Fig. 3Systemic inflammation in response to RCF. a Biomarkers of inflammaging, b senescence-associated secretory profile (SASP), c chemotaxis of immune cells and d inflammasome measured in serum of participants before, during and after completion of RCF
Assessment of fasting on plasma pro-inflammatory biomarkers and their evolution during post-fasting phase (n = 78)
| Crude data analysis | Repeated measures logistic regression and generalized least squares random-effects model | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All | Young (20–30 years) | Adult-to-elderly (≥ 52 years) | |||||||||||
| Diff.1 (% ≥ cut-off value) or mean (s.d.) | Crude coeff.2 | 95% CI3 | Adjusted Coeff.4 | 95% CI3 | Crude coeff.2 | 95% CI3 | Adjusted Coeff.4 | 95% CI3 | Crude coeff.2 | 95% CI3 | Adjusted Coeff.4 | 95% CI3 | |
| IL-6 | |||||||||||||
| Pre-fasting | – | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
| Fasting | + 15.4 | 0.64 | − 0.03 to 1.30 | + 0.77 | 0.06 to 1.49 | + 0.54 | − 0.42 to 1.51 | + 0.65 | − 0.41 to 1.71 | + 0.74 | − 0.19 to + 1.66 | + 0.89 | − 0.17 to 1.95 |
| Post-Fasting | + 15.4 | 0.63 | − 0.03 to 1.30 | +0.58 | − 0.11 to 1.29 | + 0.32 | − 0.64 to 1.29 | + 0.14 | − 0.91 to 1.17 | + 0.98 |
| + 1.11 | 0.05 to 2.18 |
1Difference (between pre-fasting vs. fasting phases and pre-fasting vs. post-fasting phases) in percentage terms of biomarker concentration ≥ cut-off value or mean ± standard deviation
2Crude generalized least squares random-effects model or repeated measures logistic regression model to examine the association between biomarkers level with fasting or not state
3C.I. 0.95 confidence interval for Diff
4Adjusted generalized least squares random-effects model or Repeated measures logistic regression model to examine the association between biomarkers level with fasting or not state
5p-values: null hypothesis of identical percentage differences of each biomarker concentration level for the pre-, per- and post-fasting or equality of means
6Crude p-value for association of biomarker plasma concentration ≥ cut-off value or for association difference of means for interval variables with co-factor
7Adjusted p-value for association of biomarker plasma concentration ≥ cut-off value or for association difference of means for interval variables with co-factor
Assessment of fasting on plasma biomarkers and their evolution during post-fasting phase (n = 78)
| Crude data analysis | Repeated measures logistic regression and generalized least squares random-effects model | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | Young (20–30 years) | Adult-to-elderly (≥ 52 years) | |||||||||||
| Diff.1 (% ≥ cut-off value) or mean (s.d.) | Crude coeff.2 | 95% CI3 | Adjusted coeff.4 | 95% CI3 | Crude coeff.2 | 95% CI3 | Adjusted coeff.4 | 95% CI3 | Crude Coeff.2 | 95% CI3 | Adjusted coeff.4 | 95% CI3 | |
| Haematological markers | |||||||||||||
| Platelets | |||||||||||||
| Pre-fasting | 190.7 (24.8) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
| Fasting | 213.5 (28.8) | + 22.8 | 21.9 to 23.7 | + 27.66 | 26.17 to 29.15 | + 22.95 | 21.68 to 24.21 | + 28.57 | 26.43 to 30.72 | + 22.73 | 21.5 to 24.0 | + 27.29 | 25.23 to 29.34 |
| Post-Fasting | 201.6 (27.7) | + 10.9 | 10.0 to 11.8 | + 11.71 | 10.55 to 12.87 | + 10.95 | 9.96 to 12.21 | + 12.88 | 11.06 to 14.70 | + 10.87 | 9.63 to 12.11 | + 10.74 | 9.21 to 12.27 |
1Difference (between pre-fasting vs. fasting phases and pre-fasting vs. post-fasting phases) in percentage terms of biomarker concentration ≥ cut-off value or mean ± standard deviation
2Crude generalized least squares random-effects model or repeated measures logistic regression model to examine the association between biomarkers level with fasting or not state
3C.I. 0.95 confidence interval for Diff
4Adjusted generalized least squares random-effects model or repeated measures logistic regression model to examine the association between biomarkers level with fasting or not state
5p-values: null hypothesis of identical percentage differences of each biomarker concentration level for the pre-, per- and post-fasting or equality of means
6Crude p-value for association of biomarker plasma concentration ≥ cut-off value or for association difference of means for interval variables with co-factor
7Adjusted p-value for association of biomarker plasma concentration ≥ cut-off value or for association difference of means for interval variables with co-factor
Fig. 4Age-dependent response to RCF. a Principal component analysis (PCA) of the biomarkers tested in the study for the three time points and similar analysis performed in young (n = 37, 26.5 ± 3.2 years, 20–30) and older participants (n = 41, 68.1 ± 8.6 years, 52–85). b Age-related adaptations to fasting and c the benefits of fasting on CRP and systolic BP were tested after stratification based on age [young (20–30), middle-aged (50–64) and old (65–85)]. d Similar analysis as in c showing IL-6, d-dimer and OPG. ap = 0.005 significant difference with pre-fasting 65–85 (no difference with all groups together). bp = 0.03 significant difference with pre-fasting 65–85 (no difference with all groups together)
Parameters and their loadings of the principal components analysis
| Old PC1 | Old PC2 | Young PC1 | Young PC2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Molecule | Loading | Molecule | Loading | Molecule | Loading | Molecule | Loading |
| GRO | − 0.397 | IL1a | − 0.474 | GRO | − 0.392 | IL1RA | − 0.442 |
| Leptin | − 0.349 | GM.CSF | − 0.433 | Leptin | − 0.355 | IL1a | − 0.375 |
| RANTES | − 0.339 | IL1b | − 0.373 | RANTES | − 0.345 | GMCSF | − 0.321 |
| Galectin | − 0.275 | IL6 | − 0.308 | IP10 | − 0.278 | IL1b | − 0.302 |
| MIP1a | − 0.247 | GCSF | − 0.295 | MDC | − 0.264 | IL6 | − 0.247 |
| IP10 | − 0.245 | IL1RA | − 0.287 | Galectin | − 0.222 | MIP1b | − 0.237 |
| MIP1b | − 0.233 | MIP1b | − 0.156 | MIP1a | − 0.206 | GCSF | − 0.223 |
| Fractalkine | − 0.224 | TNFa | − 0.149 | Fractalkine | − 0.203 | Eotaxin | − 0.181 |
| ENA78 | − 0.199 | IL10 | − 0.149 | MIP1b | − 0.194 | ENA78 | 0.158 |
| MDC | − 0.187 | MIP1a | − 0.132 | FGF | − 0.184 | Galectin | − 0.154 |
| CCL8 | − 0.183 | IL8 | − 0.132 | CCL8 | − 0.168 | Leptin | 0.145 |
| Eotaxin | − 0.152 | MCP1 | − 0.130 | Eotaxin | − 0.160 | FGF | − 0.141 |
| FGF | − 0.149 | IFNg | − 0.092 | ENA78 | − 0.152 | IFNg | − 0.139 |
| TGFa | − 0.148 | IL5 | − 0.085 | MCP1 | − 0.146 | IL8 | − 0.136 |
| TNFa | − 0.135 | Flt3L | − 0.083 | sCD40L | − 0.135 | sCD40L | − 0.131 |
| MIG | − 0.114 | FGF | − 0.081 | TGFa | − 0.128 | Flt.3L | − 0.130 |
| IL10 | − 0.106 | Fractalkine | − 0.075 | IL1a | 0.120 | PYY | − 0.130 |
| IL1a | 0.106 | IGF1 | − 0.065 | MIG | − 0.114 | IL17A | − 0.124 |
| GMCSF | 0.112 | RANTES | 0.063 | IFNg | − 0.107 | GRO | 0.109 |
| IL1RA | − 0.095 | IP10 | 0.054 | TNFa | − 0.102 | RANTES | 0.105 |
Fig. 5Relationship between inflammation and nutritional adaptation. a Glycemia regulation on fasting in individuals with highest vs. lowest glucose levels before the fasting period. b Relationship between glycemia and CRP levels. c Heatmap based on CRP as reference value and its relationship with selected biomarkers during the fasting study (age, B3 (mg), B6 (mg), PI index, NEAP, systolic BP, diastolic BP, BUN, energy (Kcal), protein (g), fat (g), saturated fats (g), calcium (mg), iron (mg), Phosph (mg), Vit D (μg), Vit B1 (mg), VIt B2 (mg), DII density)