Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 129 posts

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#61

Post by flat6turbo »

jackvalentine wrote: post #47
flat6turbo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mixing g and oz - that's a novel and interesting excuse to avoid the work of weight loss. usually people just blame their thyroid but this bullshit excuse at least has some kind of passable scientific pedantry behind it. i'll have to file that one for later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

Who said anything about avoiding weight loss? I've had far more success just keeping a simple food diary and going "wow I eat a lot of cakes" and cutting them out. I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) and their success comes from the very act of attempting to quantify what they're eating being a defacto food diary.

it doesn't matter if it's accurate, it matters if it's precise, and consistent. kind of like the scale you stand on, or weigh your food with.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#62

Post by Mandatum »

plaguuuuuu wrote: post #57
Mandatum wrote: post #55

I tend to fast out of laziness and drink coffee, snack on nuts to supplement afternoon drowsiness. Then eat way too much in the evening.

Nuts are extremely calorie dense. They're also very healthy, but yeah - lots of calories.

Well I can't exactly eat 2000 calories (unless it's a super calorie dense) in a single meal, but there's at least a period of 14 hours in between eating (aside from coffee).

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#63

Post by tonyedgecombe »

laichzeit0 wrote: post #52

This is bad news for bodybuilders. How long does poor Arnold have left? I mean pro bodybuilders are eating around 4000 calories just to _maintain_ their weight at about 200lbs. Eating anything less than that and you're getting smaller. Let's not even talk about powerlifters..

Arnold is 69 and looks in pretty good shape to me. When you get to that age lack of muscle mass is probably a bigger issue.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#64

Post by jaggederest »

jackvalentine wrote: post #47
flat6turbo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mixing g and oz - that's a novel and interesting excuse to avoid the work of weight loss. usually people just blame their thyroid but this bullshit excuse at least has some kind of passable scientific pedantry behind it. i'll have to file that one for later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

Who said anything about avoiding weight loss? I've had far more success just keeping a simple food diary and going "wow I eat a lot of cakes" and cutting them out. I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) and their success comes from the very act of attempting to quantify what they're eating being a defacto food diary.

I actually agree with you - to a large degree, counting the calories is enough to change behavior in itself, without even attempting to modify your diet at all.

The point remains, though, that it really doesn't matter how accurate or precise you are, simply that you're gathering data and using it to make measurable changes in your diet.

Your way is perfectly fine too! The nice things about calories (just like money) is that they're a universal medium of comparison, so you can compare your cakes to steaks. But if you simply want to look at a category and say "I am eating N of these, I need to eat N-1 to lose the weight", that's perfectly functional!

The thing I hate is when people make totally non-empirical diet changes, and then lament that they aren't losing weight. You just have to measure and adjust.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#66

Post by kbart »

blackSnake wrote: post #54
geomark wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few reasons for eating only once a day as a monk. Making yourself easy to take care of is one of them, as you mentioned. But there is another interesting point that a senior monk taught me while I was ordained. He said that one of reasons food intake is restricted is to avoid building up a lot of energy reserves which often leads to getting your mind going on the wrong things, something that's particularl…

Along the same lines, monks begin to gather energy through different methods. They aren't eating as much but can sustain themselves off the vitality of the sun and surrounding environment (if they are in a clean, restorative environment.. basically nature)

If you make such claims, provide some evidence to back it up or else it sounds simply nuts.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#67

Post by kbart »

Mandatum wrote: post #62
plaguuuuuu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuts are extremely calorie dense. They're also very healthy, but yeah - lots of calories.

Well I can't exactly eat 2000 calories (unless it's a super calorie dense) in a single meal, but there's at least a period of 14 hours in between eating (aside from coffee).

Coffee can have up to several hundred calories[0] if drank with sugar, milk, syrups etc., so that doesn't say much.

0. https://www.thestreet.com/story/12846402/4/ranked-the-10-hig...

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#68

Post by kbart »

wapz wrote: post #8

Does anyone have experience with this? I can't imagine eating a "similar amount" with one day being healthy, low-calorie foods and the other day being junk food can be good for your health.

High-calorie doesn't necessary mean unhealthy and/or junk food.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#69

Post by tudorw »

syedkarim wrote: post #58
blackSnake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Along the same lines, monks begin to gather energy through different methods. They aren't eating as much but can sustain themselves off the vitality of the sun and surrounding environment (if they are in a clean, restorative environment.. basically nature)

Monks are solar powered?

electric monks are ;)

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#70

Post by norswap »

> Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species.

Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings?

First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.

Post reply on HN