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

Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 388 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#191

Post by Markoff »

azemetre wrote: post #41
mrapogee wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True. However, even if intermittent fasting is no more effective than calorie restriction, from a human behavior perspective, it seems to be an easier way for many people to achieve their calorie goals than just "eating less".

Yeah, this is why I prefer one mead a day (OMAD). It's a very large meal, 1600-2000 calories over a 2 hour period but I find it much easier to control my calorie intake this way. The only thing I regret since the pandemic is drinking coffee. I try to limit the amount of sugar and almond milk I add, but I feel like it's impacting my diet some how.

give a try to butter coffee aka Bulletproof coffee (TM), basically just coffee, butter and coconut oil, some people say it can easily replace breakfast

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#192

Post by Markoff »

Melting_Harps wrote: post #96

I've been doing a 16-20 hour fast since the lockdown and WFH, and to be honest I saw a significant decrease in my overall anxiety as a result. Anxiety I often offset with significant amounts of CBD (a $100/month expense). And while there are drawbacks, I can't bench press 215lbs anymore, the overall benefits have been pretty significant that I will keep doing it. My weight was pretty erratic, given the high stress lo…

Is it really fasting though? That's having big lunch and just skipping dinner. Many people do this often unintentionally without calling it fasting at all. You should move at least to 36-40 hours, although even that I don't find particularly special.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#194

Post by jmnicolas »

I'm a bit surprised by the recommendation to eat in the evening: I can't find it now, but I clearly remember reading an article that the liver was expanding during the day to adapt to the incoming food intakes.

And my own experience confirms it: on one meal a day I will loose much more weight if I eat at noon than if I eat the evening.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#195

Post by patrickk »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #119
mrslave wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doing a 1-2 meal, 800 calorie/day diet for 8 weeks helped me to figure this out. The hard adjustment period was only for the first week. I then realized small and fewer meals was sufficient. Not that the remainder was easy, but it was a different kind of struggle - and noticeably easier than the first week.

800 is far too low for that amount of time unless you weight like 80lbs. 1200 calories at least to stop your body from using muscle for sustenance.

> 1200 calories at least to stop your body from using muscle for sustenance.

This is only true up to a point. A colleague put me onto a fasting method called “Buchinger’s Fasting”. I fasted for around a week and a half, muscle maintenance was not a concern. After 3 days, your body burns through the glucose reserves and you get brain fog. After that, indeed, your body tried to break down muscle mass for fuel. The trick is to do some moderate exercise to keep your muscles in good condition. After a few days, your body finally turns to your fat reserves, and rapidly starts burning away fat. After the first 3 or so days, you actually become numb to the hunger and go into a slightly “high”, hunter gatherer alert mode that enabled our ancestors to search for food when hungry. It really brings home that being hungry and not being fed constantly is a normal part of human existence, and the industrial era, shoving food down our gullets constantly is making us sick and prevents natural healing within our bodies.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#196

Post by _-___________-_ »

markdown wrote: post #88
voisin wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think I heard it on the FoundMyFitness podcast which has excellent discussions about fasting science. I think it may have been the last interview with Valter Longo. I’ll see if I can dig it up, but their website would be a good starting point.

"Someone said so in an interview" isn't really compelling evidence. Do you know of actual evidence of this? Studies?

No idea why you're being downvoted. Even when videos/podcasts cite studies, it's difficult to verify that the study actually supports their claim since it's often difficult to find the study they mention.

The 18 hour claim may be supported by evidence, but there isn't any in this subthread so far.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#197

Post by tomcooks »

theshrike79 wrote: post #185
JacKTrocinskI wrote: post #173

I don’t think you should be looking at studies when it comes to how you eat, you should be focusing on how you feel, observing your own body and possibly talking to a doctor. I had a really big problem with acid reflux a while back after I stopped drinking alcohol. I visited many gastrologists and most of them offered little to no help, most only prescribed me drugs which was in my opinion not a solution. I finally m…

The problem with this, for too many people, is that they've never felt "good". They don't have a point of reference they could use to guide them to a better lifestyle They only know the right-now and that's good enough for them. This is something I've seen with my friends and family who have never been in good shape. They don't know that it's possible to go up 3 flights of stairs 2-3 steps at a time at a brisk pace a…

> fart 24/7

The article is about intermittent faSting

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#198

Post by _-___________-_ »

hnick wrote: post #73
jsdalton wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who absolutely needed sugar in coffee before I considered it drinkable, I can tell you that you can wean yourself off it. It took me several months before I stopped noticing its absence but nowadays I don’t miss it. I still use milk though!

I'm with you there, milk alone is almost too sweet for me because I rarely add sugar to anything. But I think I need it for the creaminess (fat?) to cut the bitterness (and adding oil/butter is probably worse).

You could try finding some different coffee, or brewing it differently. I never add anything to coffee, and find that the flavour differs markedly between blends / origins / brewing methods, for me covering the whole spectrum from "undrinkable" to "delicious".

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#199

Post by _-___________-_ »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #131
colinmhayes wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drip coffee is horrible, so I understand wanting sugar. I moved to black by buying a mocha pot and aeropress. It's a whole different coffee experience, milk and sugar not necessary.

I have every coffee making gimmick from the chemex to the aeropress and I guarantee you would fail a blind test on which one is which, or if the cups of coffee are even different. I mean, what exactly is the mechanical difference of putting hot water through coffee grounds and a filter that differs when you do it in an aeropress vs. a dripper? And you think you're tasting enough of a difference to say one is horrible…

Are you really arguing that the length of time the hot water is in contact with the coffee makes no difference? Or the pressure under which that contact occurs? It seems fairly intuitive that both things would make a difference.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#200

Post by manicorganic »

hombre_fatal wrote: post #131
colinmhayes wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drip coffee is horrible, so I understand wanting sugar. I moved to black by buying a mocha pot and aeropress. It's a whole different coffee experience, milk and sugar not necessary.

I have every coffee making gimmick from the chemex to the aeropress and I guarantee you would fail a blind test on which one is which, or if the cups of coffee are even different. I mean, what exactly is the mechanical difference of putting hot water through coffee grounds and a filter that differs when you do it in an aeropress vs. a dripper? And you think you're tasting enough of a difference to say one is horrible…

Alternating between pour-over, drip, french press (rarely) and a moka pot gives me a different coffee experience for each. The former two are similar in flavor, probably exactly the same aside from amount of grounds used per cup of joe. French press is a bit stronger flavor, usually slightly more bitter as well. It can be slightly chalky, but if you're picking grounds from your teeth you might be doing it wrong.

The moka pot is miles ahead of all the rest in terms of flavor and texture. It isn't quite as creamy and rich as a good shot of espresso, but it's pretty darn close for what it is. It's certainly better than a mediocre espresso, like you might get at a drive-through coffee shack (could be my beans more than anything, hard to know for sure). There is a pressure buildup and a rapid extraction time with the moka pot that certainly changes the interaction between hot water and ground coffee. If you are picking grounds from your teeth with a moka pot you are 100% doing it wrong and probably ruining the coffee in the process.

I don't bother with the chemex (isn't this just a retro style of pour over?) and aeropress because I'm not really into gimmicks :)

Post reply on HN