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

A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

stedavies.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 77 posts

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#61

Post by Singletoned »

m00x wrote: post #9

I'm a big fan of intermittent fasting, but this article lacks any kind of proof on many of the cited benefits: > Benefit #2. It helps with calorie restriction No study cited that proves this. Only cites studies about the benefits of "proof" that caloric restriction helps longevity, but really is just a correlation. > Benefit #3. It helps you lose weight and body fat No study cited, follows up with "believe me, it wor…

He also states:

> There is no scientific evidence to suggest fasting does any of the above...

You can never know that there's NO scientific proof for something because you can't even know for sure that you've read all the studies.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#62

Post by SuperGent »

-Stop eating at 8pm (the time of my last meal) -Start eating at 1 or 2pm the following day

How is this just not just skipping breakfast? 3 times a week? I know lots of overweight people who do this, although it is easy to follow.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#63

Post by majewsky »

SuperGent wrote: post #62

-Stop eating at 8pm (the time of my last meal) -Start eating at 1 or 2pm the following day How is this just not just skipping breakfast? 3 times a week? I know lots of overweight people who do this, although it is easy to follow.

From personal experience [1], even when I have only two big meals, I'll eat a ton of snacks of sweets during the whole day. Cutting these out is the large difference to "just skipping breakfast".

[1] Have not done any fasting, but recently started considering intermittent fasting.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#64

Post by buserror »

nxsynonym wrote: post #8
bmcusick wrote: post #5

"Calorie restriction is proven to help you live a longer life." This is essentially false for anyone reading the article. The studies that showed mice living longer lives from calorie restriction were restricted from birth , and thus their growth was stunted, and smaller creatures live longer (think about dogs; big ones die earlier). Studies of animals where the calories restriction was started mid-life all show incr…

"It's just giving your body a 24 hr period to engage in autophagy and clear out some of the junk; you make up the calories on the other days." Very true. People don't realize that calories don't "reset' after the day ends. Net calorie gain/loss is best measure on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. If you stay under target for 3 days then binge two full pizzas, you aren't actually going to lose anything.

That's not exactly true, if you actually fast for 3 days, even two pizzas won't make up for the lost calories of a 3 days fast, and it's very likely won't be able to eat 2 pizzas in one go..

I know, I fast regularly (I'm days 2 of a 5 day one at the minute) and I do eat quite a lot when I'm not fasting, and despite what everyone will tell you, I don't 'put back the weight immediately' -- even if I have a nice binge dinner on day 5.

In fact, after quite a few years of fasting very intermittently (I do perhaps 4 a year), I know I can't eat as much as I used to, and I don't 'creep' up as I used to when I started. I'm a LOT dryer than I was, and I can still enjoy a 32 ounce steak (!) when I feel like one.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#65

Post by majewsky »

agumonkey wrote: post #58
nsxwolf wrote: post #52

Even if IF is nothing more than calorie restriction supporting the calories in/calories out hypothesis, it succeeds in creating a real psychological benefit - you get to have real, satisfying meals of food you actually like - you just have to wait longer for it. If you're trying to lose weight, and you like food, the sight of the food in these 1200 calorie 3 meal daily plans is incredibly depressing. Eating an egg wh…

I'm aiming at this these days. I'm cutting most shitty food (I allow some pastry in the week; but no soda, no fast food, no industrial meals). But I'm not mentally ready to cut the pleasure of a good meal. I'll better stop using my car and job between places and keep higher calories. I "believe" the benefits of good ingredients, close to no fat and no added sugar + regular sport is already significant. Later I'll mov…

> I'll better stop using my car and job between places

I suppose you mean "jog", but jobbing between places sounds very intense as well. :)

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#66

Post by buserror »

wahern wrote: post #26
nicolashahn wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it tastes better because of your appetite, then that's basically just sacrificing some pleasure of not being hungry for the pleasure of the taste of food, like hitting your head against a wall because it feels so good when you stop. (disclaimer: I practice IF but take issue with this one claim, at least without the stipulation of hunger)

If you fast for several days, by about the 3rd or 4th day your sense of smell becomes much more sensitive. It's an interesting and memorable experience--almost like developing a super power--but for some reason whenever I describe this experience to people they don't seem to put it in the "pro" column.

I do the same, and I experience the same. In fact I find what the OP propose of the 'skipping breakfast' to be the worst effort/benefits fasting method. The first day of a multi-day fast is always the hardest, after that it get a lot easier, and you get these benefits.

I also get a mental 'high' on day 3+4, but it goes down after that.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#67

Post by andygates »

nxsynonym wrote: post #8
bmcusick wrote: post #5

"Calorie restriction is proven to help you live a longer life." This is essentially false for anyone reading the article. The studies that showed mice living longer lives from calorie restriction were restricted from birth , and thus their growth was stunted, and smaller creatures live longer (think about dogs; big ones die earlier). Studies of animals where the calories restriction was started mid-life all show incr…

"It's just giving your body a 24 hr period to engage in autophagy and clear out some of the junk; you make up the calories on the other days." Very true. People don't realize that calories don't "reset' after the day ends. Net calorie gain/loss is best measure on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. If you stay under target for 3 days then binge two full pizzas, you aren't actually going to lose anything.

At least averaging out means it's easier to account for those pizzas in th eocming days. But wait, that's just ordinary calorie-controlled dieting, not sexy enough for a book...!

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#68

Post by zamber »

There's a net of dieting resorts around Poland doing "Dieta Dąbrowskiej" among some other health-oriented stuff.

In essence it's calorie restriction on veggies for 2-6 weeks at a time supplemented with blood tests and physical activity. She (Dąbrowska) states that it resets the immune system, restricts cancer growth (or even puts cancers into recession), helps with diabetes and cures food intolerance.

Proof for it is provided as "I've seen people that improved". I'm highly skeptical about it as my vegan-celiac-fit family part got hyped for it and went through a 3 week run. They came back with anecdotal self-healing miracles.

The diet is around 600-700 kcal a day, low on sugar. Supposedly it stimulates autophagy giving all of the stated benefits (on top of cleansing out "toxins").

As a side note I found that food intolerance is in fashion recently. There's one (!) test offered in my area for it called the Food Detective (made by Cambridge Nutritional Sciences Ltd.). I'm highly skeptical of it too as there's no competition and I couldn't find any studies confirming it's effectiveness.

My main concern is the potential impact on the brain. I vaguely recall some study observing neuron loss during extended periods of starvation.

Also having some sensible studies to back it up (or debunk it) would be nice.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#69

Post by reitanqild »

zamber wrote: post #68

There's a net of dieting resorts around Poland doing "Dieta Dąbrowskiej" among some other health-oriented stuff. In essence it's calorie restriction on veggies for 2-6 weeks at a time supplemented with blood tests and physical activity. She (Dąbrowska) states that it resets the immune system, restricts cancer growth (or even puts cancers into recession), helps with diabetes and cures food intolerance. Proof for it is…

With you on the scepticism esp. about the detox-thing.

That said fasting in some form seems to have been with us for a few thousand years and it seems unlikely that it would be so widely documented and practiced across cultures and religions if there wasn't some benefits to it.

Re: A Guide to Intermittent Fasting

#70

Post by throwawayxyz709 »

ajmurmann wrote: post #51
throwawayxyz709 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great. So I'm hungry and miserable but it's fine because I get to experience it for several extra years!

I've been doing intermittent fasting for over half a year now and am anything but miserable. If you drink enough you won't be very hungry. The big positive for me though is that I'm more awake and figured without breakfast. That more than makes up for me for the occasional wave of hunger.

There are plenty of other good reasons to be miserable, though! :)
Post reply on HN