Why eating fewer carbs burns just as much fat as fasting
Intermittent fasting is now one of the most-followed dietary patterns in the developed world. According to a 2022 survey, about 10 per cent of American adults practise intermittent fasting, and while the same stats for Britain don't exist, we all know someone who now skips breakfast to maintain their eight hour 'eating window' each day.
It's a fact that pleases nutritionists, doctors and diabetes experts alike. Keeping our eating to a tight timeframe 'can help your body shift from burning food as fuel to burning fat, helping with weight management or weight loss, regulating your blood sugar levels and giving you more energy throughout the day,' says nutritionist Rhian Stephenson, founder of the supplement brand Artah.
But there is an obvious downside to time-restricted eating. The hours spent waiting for the eating window to open are often spent feeling ravenous, miserable and totally drained, and the early dinners that are necessary on this diet – as eating typically stops at 8pm sharp – can become anti-social. What if there was a way to get all of the health benefits of intermittent fasting, and at the same time enjoy both a filling breakfast and a late evening meal?
New research suggests that this could be possible after all – if you're willing to cut carbohydrates out of some of your meals. A study from the University of Surrey, published in April, suggests that 'by restricting carbohydrate intake, without restricting calorie consumption, people can potentially reap all the same benefits that are associated with short-term fasting,' says Dr Adam Collins, an associate professor of nutrition who led the research.
A recent study led by Dr Collins found that by reducing the amount of pasta, potatoes of bread you eat and following a low-carb diet, it can bring all the benefits that we've come to associate with fasting. Most importantly, a switch to burning fat rather than food for fuel, which can lower blood sugar and inflammation and potentially make us less prone to heart disease and diabetes in the long run
'Cutting down on carbs for a few days each week could therefore be a more sustainable but equally effective way for people to manage and improve their metabolic health,' he adds. 'That could take the form of having a 'carb window' instead of a food window, or something similar to the 5:2 diet, which is where people eat normally five days a week, and on the remaining two they eat one meal or five to six hundred calories.'
Dr Collins' study followed the same group of 32 people, all of whom were overweight according to their BMI, across three different days (with five 'washout' days in between).
On day one, the participants ate enough calories to meet their daily needs, ranging from 1,800 to 3,000 based on their weight and gender. On day two, they ate a low-carb, low-calorie diet: women in the study were restricted to around 550 calories, while men ate around 650 calories, and both groups ate 50g of carbohydrates (roughly the amount of carbs in a small portion of cooked pasta).
On the third day, the group could eat as many calories as they needed, but had to keep their carbohydrate consumption to 50g a day. 'Both low-carb days led to improvements in the participants' metabolic health markers, including a shift into a fat-burning state, and how well they could process a high-fat meal after we observed them,' Dr Collins says. 'Essentially, all the benefits you usually get from fasting were still observed when people just ate fewer carbs.'
The Surrey University team were 'tease out the effects of carb restriction from those of calorie restriction,' explains Dr Collins. Crucially, the study didn't look at weight loss – 'you can't measure that after just one day,' he points out. But in the real world, 'when people eat fewer carbohydrates, they take on fewer calories,' leading to a loss in weight, primarily in the form of fat.
This is important to understanding metabolic health as a whole, not only for those who want to lose weight. 'Restricting your carb intake for a few days each week means that you avoid over-fuelling your body and will only ever be burning food as fuel. Being able to switch into fat-burning mode is crucial to avoiding health complications as you age, like diabetes, heart disease and weight gain,' Dr Collins says.
Though you'll only get visibly slimmer if you eat fewer calories than you burn, fasting and carb-restricted eating in any amount 'could both potentially burn some of the fat that develops inside of your organs when you consistently eat more carbohydrates than you burn,' a huge health boost as this kind of fat has been linked to increased risk of heart disease, stroke, and Type 2 diabetes.
As Naveed Sattar, a professor of metabolic medicine from the University of Glasgow points out, 'this study is small, and you'd need a big, long-term study to see exactly what the effects of this type of eating would be'. But 'it's very exciting, and potentially could do a lot to inform the dietary advice we give to people at risk of diabetes and heart disease in future'.
This study only involved people who are over a healthy weight range for their height, 'but we'd expect to see similar impacts in people who are a healthy weight too,' says Dr Collins, 'though the less metabolically healthy someone is, the more exaggerated the effect will be'. This is good news if you're attempting to turn your health around quickly.
For all the benefits that come with intermittent fasting there are also drawbacks, and more serious ones than raging hunger. 'When people practise intermittent fasting consistently for weeks or months, they often put themselves at risk of nutrient deficiencies,' says Stephenson. 'The fewer calories you eat every day, the harder it is for you to get all of the nutrients you need – and keeping a small eating window doesn't mean that you will eat healthily.'
There are also groups of people who don't get on well with fasting for reasons other than hunger. 'I don't recommend fasting to perimenopausal or menopausal women, because fasting can disrupt your hormones and put more strain on your body at a time when it is already under a lot of stress,' she says. A carb-cycling diet could give these women 'some of the same benefits of fasting without the drawbacks,' Stephenson adds.
And while fasting can be good for all of us, not everyone wants – or needs – to lose weight. 'Weight loss is a product of eating fewer calories than you expend, so if you eat enough or more than enough calories while limiting your carb consumption, you won't lose weight,' Stephenson explains. This could make a few low-carb days 'a particularly good option for people who have lost weight and are looking for a way to maintain it,' says Dr Collins. 'That's very difficult to do, and currently we don't have much to offer people in that position.'
That said, restricting carbohydrates could come with its own risks. 'There's some evidence to suggest that low-carbohydrate diets can be bad for your heart, where you replace the carbs primarily with fat,' says Prof Sattar. 'There could be other dangers that we wouldn't be able to identify outside of a large-scale randomised clinical trial.'
For this reason, Stephenson suggests cutting your daily carbohydrate intake to no less than 100g, unless you're working with a nutritionist or doctor. 'It's also worth considering counting 'net carbs' rather than total carbs, by subtracting the grams of fibre in your food from the total carb count on the packet,' she adds. This is because your body doesn't use all of the carbohydrates you consume. Net carbs represent the amount of carb that can impact your blood sugar.
Eating a low-carb diet for one or two days each week can be a lot easier than you might think. Here are two plans put together by Rhian Stephenson, so that you can eat well while you give it a go.
50g of carbohydrates, 1,800 calories
'This is similar to what participants ate in terms of carbohydrates in the study, and is concentrated within one meal to mimic a 'window' style of eating,' says Stephenson. 'It might also lead to weight loss if you follow this plan regularly, depending on your current weight and how much you exercise.'
2g net carbs
3 eggs
100g of spinach cooked with olive oil
Half an avocado
2g net carbs
Large mixed salad (leafy greens)
Lean protein of choice (chicken, salmon or tofu)
2tbsp walnuts
2tbsp seeds
Olive oil and vinegar dressing
48g net carbs
150g chicken breast cooked with olive oil, lemon, salt, pepper and herbs
200g lentils cooked with half an onion and olive oil
150g cherry tomatoes
1 kiwi
Under 100g of carbohydrates, 1800 calories
'This is a more realistic version of a low-carb day that would better support your health if followed regularly, as it involves more carbohydrate intake that is spread throughout the day,' says Stephenson. 'Depending on your weight and how much you move, eating with this plan regularly might also lead to weight loss, but you could reduce some portion sizes or skip the snack to create a calorie deficit if you want to lose weight.'
34g net carbs
45g of jumbo oats
1 tbsp peanut butter
200ml unsweetened soy milk
1 tbsp walnuts
100g raspberries
Sprinkle of cinnamon
1 boiled egg
14g net carbs
Large green salad with mixed veg, cucumber, tomatoes and red pepper
1 can tuna in olive oil
50g chickpeas
Oil and vinegar to dress
12g net carbs
Half a head of cauliflower (to make cauliflower rice)
One head of pak choi
150g chicken
100g mushrooms
35g sugar snap peas
Sauce with tamari, sesame oil, vinegar, garlic and ginger
10g net carb
100g Greek yogurt
80g low-sugar fruit (eg Cantaloupe)
2 tbsp sunflower seeds
Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bodies of 2 hostages recovered from Gaza in Israeli military operation
June 5 (UPI) -- Israel said Thursday it had recovered the remains of two Israeli-American hostages in a military operation overnight in the Khan Yunis area of southern Gaza. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a post on X that the bodies of Gadi Haggai, 72, and Judy Weinstein-Haggai, 70, had been returned to their families in Israel 20 months after they were killed in the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on southern Israel and taken back to Gaza. He said the married couple were recovered in a special operation mounted by the Israeli Security Agency and Israel Defense Forces. "I would like to thank, and express appreciation to, the fighters and commanders for this determined and successful operation. We will not rest, nor will we be silent, until we return home all of our hostages -- the living and the deceased," Netanyahu said. The couple, who held U.S. citizenship, were out for a morning walk near their home in Kibbutz Nir Oz when they were gunned down by Mujahideen Brigades fighters who joined the Hamas-led attacks on Oct. 7 in which around 1,200 Israelis were killed and hundreds abducted. "We welcome the closure and their return to a proper burial at home, in Israel," a statement from the families of Haggai and Weinstein said. Judy Weinstein-Haggai was born in New York but moved to Toronto, Canada, with her family at the age of 3. She married Gadi Haggai after meeting him while working as a volunteer on a kibbutz in the 1970s, according to a bio posted on social media. Gadi Haggai was described as a retired chef, a passionate jazz musician, and a devoted father and grandfather. Israeli President Isaac Herzog said it was a painful time but also a moment of solace. "We will continue to do everything in our power to bring our sisters and brothers back from hell -- the living, for healing and rehabilitation, and the fallen, to be laid to rest in dignity. Every last one of them!" Herzog said on X. The couple's recovery means 54 out of the 251 people originally taken hostage remain in Gaza, of whom about 20 are believed to be still alive. As of Wednesday, Gaza's health ministry, which is run by Hamas, put the number of Palestinians killed since Israel launched its military response a day after the Oct. 7 attacks at 54,607 and 125,341 injured. The "Bring Them Home Now" Hostages and Missing Families Forum said it wanted to stress that a grave was a basic human right and called for authorities to do whatever was necessary to reach an agreement that will see the return of the rest of the hostages, "the living for rehabilitation and the murdered for burial." "There is no need to wait another 608 agonizing days for this. The mission can be completed as early as tomorrow morning. This is what the majority of the Israeli people want." Thursday's rescue came hours after the United States vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution for an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire" in Gaza. The Slovenia-sponsored resolution, which also called for the unconditional release of all the hostages held by Hamas and other groups and the immediate lifting of all restrictions on aid going into Gaza, was defeated in a 14-1 vote on Wednesday evening in New York, the U.N. said in a news release. Slovenia's representative to the U.N. expressed disappointment at the vetoing of a measure motivated by humanitarian intentions, saying "starving civilians and inflicting immense suffering" was inhumane, in breach of international law and unwarranted by any war objective. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Dorothy Shea said Washington could not support rewarding Hamas with a permanent cease-fire that would leave it with the ability to carry out further attacks and criticized the "false equivalence" drawn between Hamas and Israel in the text of the draft resolution. She also argued that the draft did not make any mention of the failings of the system used operated by the U.N. and aid charities to distribute humanitarian assistance in Gaza, which she said had been exploited by Hamas for its own benefit. "Performative actions designed to draw a veto" would only serve to undermine efforts to resolve matters through quiet diplomacy currently underway between the parties, said Shea.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s New Report Actually Nails What's Wrong With American Health. Too Bad About the Other Part.
Sign up for the Slatest to get the most insightful analysis, criticism, and advice out there, delivered to your inbox daily. Emma lives in France. She wakes up in a country where junk food advertising to children is controlled. At school, she eats a nutritious lunch—half of which must come from locally sourced ingredients. The chemicals in her food are more strictly monitored; France bans many food additives that are still allowed in American products. When she gets home, she's not bombarded by algorithm-driven social media designed to maximize engagement through addictive content. Madison lives in Ohio. She wakes up to a breakfast, marketed directly to her through cartoon characters, packed with sugar and artificial additives. At school, she can buy snacks from a vending machine—something banned in French schools—stocked with products from companies that spend millions targeting her developing psychology. Her toys and environment contain harmful chemicals like PFAS and bisphenols that remain largely unregulated in America, unlike in France. After school, she's on social media platforms that use sophisticated algorithms to keep her scrolling, often on to content that makes her feel worse about herself. The health outcomes speak for themselves: France ranks third globally in child well-being, while the U.S. ranks 36th. The difference between Emma and Madison isn't that French doctors practice medicine differently. It's that the French government governs differently. As a pediatrician, I see this policy gap play out in my practice every day. The food we eat and the environment we live in are the primary drivers of chronic disease. Poor nutrition from ultra-processed foods drives obesity and diabetes, environmental toxins contribute to asthma and developmental disorders, and social media algorithms fuel mental health issues. I spend most of my time recommending lifestyle changes that work beautifully in countries like France but struggle to take hold in America's toxic environment. So when I opened the Trump administration's new 'Make America Healthy Again' report on childhood chronic disease, I was genuinely intrigued. Finally, I thought, a government document that seemed to understand what I see daily in clinical practice. The statistics cited are sobering. Over 40 percent of American children now have at least one chronic disease, with childhood obesity increasing by more than 270 percent since the 1970s. As a pediatrician treating these conditions, I was impressed by how thoroughly the commission had documented the crisis. But as I continued reading, I kept waiting for the group to outline a solution. Nearly 70 percent of children's calories come from ultra-processed foods designed to override satiety mechanisms and increase caloric intake, and kids are exposed to 15 food ads a day, with over 90 percent promoting products high in fat, sugar, and sodium. Not to mention the pesticides and microplastics commonly found in at alarming levels in their blood and urine. Americans, as the report demonstrates, simply live in an environment that is saturated with foods and chemicals that are terrible for our health. Just trying to avoid all this stuff can be impossible, particularly if you are a child. The logical thing to do to 'make America healthy' might be to regulate the industries that profit from making us sick—restricting predatory food marketing, cleaning up our chemical environment, and ensuring that kids have access to nutritious options. But MAHA doesn't suggest doing that. Instead, I found something far more fascinating: a document that makes the most compelling progressive case for government intervention I've ever seen, while at the same time steadfastly refusing to embrace its own conclusions. The MAHA report reads as if it were ghostwritten by a liberal think tank. It meticulously details what it calls 'corporate capture'—the way industry interests dominate and distort government actions, regulatory agencies, and medical institutions. The commission even provides a blueprint for solutions, citing countries with superior pediatric health outcomes. It notes that France bans junk food advertising to kids. Japan mandates comprehensive school nutrition programs. Regulation is possible and desirable. It's a lever that government could pull so that citizens lead healthier lives. The MAHA Commission has accidentally written a landmark conservative admission that the free market doesn't work in health care—that allowing corporations to operate without regulation corrupts institutions and undermines children's well-being. Stunningly, rather than embrace the obvious solution its data demand, the report pivots to blaming 'the overmedicalization of our kids.' That is, it claims that doctors like me and our health care system at large are too focused on treating illness and not on preventing it in the first place. It calls for 'unleashing private sector innovation' while explicitly rejecting 'a European regulatory system'—the kind that bans harmful food additives and restricts corporate marketing directed at children. This is where the commission's logic completely breaks down. It has spent dozens of pages documenting how corporate greed harms children, from selling them ultra-processed foods to exposing them to chemical toxins, creating an environment that leads to obesity, asthma, and other chronic illnesses. Then the group proposes solving this issue by giving those same interests more power while scapegoating the doctors trying to treat the resulting diseases of a system that prioritizes profit over well-being. As someone who treats these children regularly, I can tell you: This 'overmedicalization' narrative is completely backward. One example that the report gives of this phenomenon is asthma, noting that prescriptions for medications to control it went up by 30 percent over the course of a decade and declaring, 'American children are on too much medicine.' But the medicine isn't the problem. When I treat a child with asthma, I am dealing with the social determinants of health. That child gasping for breath in my office needs an inhaler because they live in substandard housing with environmental toxins that the government refuses to regulate. This is the reality of practicing pediatrics in America: We're forced to medicalize what other countries prevent through policy. Childhood obesity isn't just a medical condition—it's the symptom of a society that refuses to regulate the food industry. Doctors are left treating the symptoms, with the actual disease being the upstream social and economic factors. I agree with MAHA. This is not ideal. As much as we try, a doctor's stethoscope can't fix what a politician's pen breaks. The MAHA report's critique of doctors reveals how little the commission, which includes not one pediatrician, understands about practicing medicine. For example, the report notes that antidepressant prescriptions were written for greater than 2 million adolescents in 2022, a statistic that makes it seem as if doctors randomly hand out antidepressants. But this ignores that teenage depression rates have skyrocketed, with 5 million adolescents (20 percent of them) having a major depressive episode. When I prescribe an antidepressant to a teenager, it's not because I prefer pharmaceutical solutions. It's because I've already recommended therapy and behavioral changes. We spend much of our time advising nutritional improvement, increasing physical activity, and limiting screen time. However, that teenager lives in a country where all of that is constantly undermined by social media and chronic stress—the very societal factors the report identifies. When it comes to food and mental health, can kids and teens really do anything differently? The typical anti-regulation argument of 'personal responsibility' completely collapses when applied to minors. Children aren't autonomous actors who can meaningfully consent to destructive behaviors. Society has a moral imperative to protect children from predatory behavior. The typical response—that parents should simply 'take more responsibility'—ignores that we're asking families to fight billion-dollar industries alone. That approach has clearly failed. This is particularly true when it comes to guns. A child cannot be held responsible for gun safety. The report's ideological blinders are perhaps most evident in what it omits entirely: There is no discussion of firearm-related fatalities, the leading cause of pediatric deaths. The report does make important observations about pharmaceutical-industry capture, noting: '9 out of the last 10 FDA commissioners have gone on to work for the pharmaceutical industry.' This is a real problem, and the solution is shutting the revolving door between industry and government. Instead, the MAHA Commission uses these legitimate concerns to promote distrust of evidence-based medicine entirely— undermining confidence in the childhood vaccination schedule and framing the worsening mental health crisis as doctor-driven overmedicalization. Despite its flaws, the MAHA commissioners have handed both parties a critical moment of choice. For conservatives, it's a test of whether they're truly the populist party they claim to be. The commission has made the case for government intervention better than any progressive ever has. The question is whether they'll follow their own logic or remain trapped by free-market orthodoxy that's clearly failing America's children. For progressives, it's a reckoning: MAHA has accurately diagnosed the problem. It has correctly identified that U.S. institutions—the Food and Drug Administration, which approves medications from companies that later hire its commissioners; the Department of Agriculture, whose dietary guidelines are written by committees with extensive food-industry ties—are failing American families. Democrats, meanwhile, have found themselves defending institutions that are no longer serving their original purpose—regulatory agencies captured by the very industries they're supposed to regulate. While Republicans have the diagnosis correct, neither side has presented a cure. MAGA's answer is to let DOGE destroy the government's ability to regulate, while establishment Democrats champion the failing status quo. As the popularity of the MAHA movement shows, Americans aren't anti-government; we're anti-corruption. The real answer is pragmatic progressivism—not defending captured institutions but reimagining government—by explicitly channeling antiestablishment anger into pro-government reform. Without these changes, in another decade a different administration will release the next report documenting the same crisis, but with worse statistics. If that happens, the MAHA report will be remembered not as the document that made America healthy again—it'll be remembered as the moment we chose ideological paralysis over taking back our democracy, despite the cost to our children.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Conservationists abseil into 60-metre gorge to tackle invasive plant species
Conservationists have abseiled down a 60-metre gorge in the Highlands to tackle invasive species such as Japanese knotweed in a bid to protect biodiversity in Scotland. Rope access specialists from the National Trust for Scotland (NTS) dealt with invasive plants which had grown in crags in Corrieshalloch Gorge National Nature Reserve in Wester Ross. The gravity-defying feat is part of efforts to tackle invasive non-native species (INNS), including Japanese knotweed and rhododendron ponticum, under NTS's new Plan for Nature, which identified it as the main driver of nature loss in Scotland. Property and conservation staff surveyed the gorge, identifying sites where invasive plants had established themselves on the cliff sides before applying a targeted dose of herbicide. The project aims to protect native flora from being crowded out of their natural habitats. NTS plans to remove the six most troublesome non-native invasive plants from its estate: rhododendron ponticum, Japanese knotweed, giant hogweed, salmonberry, skunk cabbages and New Zealand broadleaf, and to gradually remove non-native invasive shrubs where they are protecting gardens from coastal spray. It will also review emerging invasive species, targeting those which are most invasive and have the highest ecological impact. Rob Dewar, the trust's INNS project officer, said: 'Our work at Corrieshalloch is part of our ongoing nature conservation to remove invasive non-native species and demonstrates the extreme lengths we go to, to protect the places in our care. 'These gravity-defying feats are undertaken by our rope access specialists who support our conservation efforts in these hard-to-reach places where these species can quickly establish themselves, like on the vertiginous sides of the gorge. 'The INNS work is focused on eradicating invasive non-native plants, including Japanese knotweed, American skunk cabbage and rhododendron ponticum. 'The work helps to tackle these species and protect native flora from being crowded out of their natural habitat to safeguard the biodiversity of Scotland's wild landscapes. 'It is thanks to the continued generosity of our members and supporters, including players of People's Postcode Lottery, that we're able to continue our vital work to care for and protect Scotland's natural heritage at this special place for everyone to enjoy, now and into the future.' Players of People's Postcode Lottery have supported NTS's Love Our Nature project since 2022, which benefited from £900,000 last year, and have raised more than £3.4 million since 2014 to support the charity. Further funding will support nature conservation work across a variety of habitats including coastal and marine areas, peatlands, wetlands, woodland, and the eight national nature reserves cared for by the trust. Laura Chow, head of charities at People's Postcode Lottery, said: 'Players of People's Postcode Lottery will be delighted to know they are supporting the important work of NTS to protect the biodiversity of our beautiful landscapes. 'Tackling invasive non-native species is vital to ensure the survival of our native plant-life by protecting the natural habitats in which they thrive.'