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

371–380 of 388 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#371

Post by BugWatch »

tomcooks wrote: post #197
theshrike79 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well, to be frank, he did say farting was 24/7 - and not intermittent.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#372

Post by chrisweekly »

strstr wrote: post #351
chrisweekly wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

smoking - yes, it's incontrovertible. drinking - less clear; mortality rates for teetotallers (total abstinence) are higher than for even moderate to heavy drinkers, and there are health benefits from eg 1-2 servings of red wine. IMHO the issue is the degree to which people slip from a drink or maybe 2, to 3 or maybe 4.

Most people that are sick stop drinking. This polluted the early studies on alcohol safety. More recent studies have pointed in the direction of “no safe quantity of alcohol”.

Thanks. Wish I had a citation handy; I do recall reading a decent one that accounted for that, looking at lifelong habits. (shrug)

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#373

Post by wavepruner »

st1x7 wrote: post #347
wavepruner wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first heard of abstaining from water while fasting I also had a strong emotional reaction to the idea. After realizing that water is a byproduct of catabolism, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it is beneficial.

It's not an emotional reaction - we have plenty of evidence about the negative impact of dehydration and no substantial evidence in favor of it. > After realizing that water is a byproduct of catabolism, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it is beneficial. The two parts of this sentence aren't connected by logic.

I'll clarify the sentence.

The body produces water as a byproduct of ATP (energy) metabolism. During a fast, fat and other tissues are broken down by catabolic reactions to accomplish this. Knowing this, I am willing to entertain the idea that abstaining from water for a period of time can be beneficial, or perhaps I should say at least not harmful, because there are mechanisms in the body that synthesize water. Obviously, a sufficiently long period of time without water would be harmful.

I haven't done the math to figure out how much water this is, and so I do not know how sufficient it is to keep minimally hydrated during a water-fast. I'm just saying that the thought of abstaining from water during a fast isn't necessarily as dangerous as it sounds, because your body can and does produce it's own water as a by-product of energy metabolism.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#374

Post by st1x7 »

wavepruner wrote: post #373
st1x7 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not an emotional reaction - we have plenty of evidence about the negative impact of dehydration and no substantial evidence in favor of it. > After realizing that water is a byproduct of catabolism, I'm willing to entertain the idea that it is beneficial. The two parts of this sentence aren't connected by logic.

I'll clarify the sentence. The body produces water as a byproduct of ATP (energy) metabolism. During a fast, fat and other tissues are broken down by catabolic reactions to accomplish this. Knowing this, I am willing to entertain the idea that abstaining from water for a period of time can be beneficial, or perhaps I should say at least not harmful, because there are mechanisms in the body that synthesize water. Obvi…

> I haven't done the math to figure out how much water this is

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_water

> Humans obtain only about 8-10% of their water needs through metabolic water production

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#375

Post by frank2 »

joemazerino wrote: post #365
ensiferum wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably by giving the signal that "food is available" and the system can break out of the hypocaloric energy preservation state. The problem is that the fat deposits are extremely valuable (in a non overweight person) and as one enters a hypocaloric state they become more valuable. I.e your body will rather throttle down metabolism and energy levels farther than start breaking down the fat for energy. Eating some…

This carb refeed reset "tricks" your leptide hormones to burning through energy reserves rather than putting the body through a catatonic (muscle burning) state. This is why the "Cheat" meal or day is an important step to sustaining body fat loss through elongated periods.

"catabolic", not "catatonic".

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#376

Post by mgh2 »

mikenew wrote: post #9

> Subjects had a significant reduction in body mass index, waist circumference, and improvement in blood pressure Would really like to see this compared to another group with a similar level of calorie restriction but without the intermittent fasting. The question with intermittent fasting is really just "is it better than plain old calorie restriction". Seems like there's some evidence that points to "yes" and some…

Not sure if 14 subjects is enough sample size

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#377

Post by patrickk »

chiefgeek wrote: post #317
patrickk wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 tric…

I assume that is from Buchinger Clinic in Germany? I watched a documentary (can’t remember the name) about fasting that claims it is more commonplace in Europe than elsewhere. They also claimed the Soviets studied it for years with favorable results.

Yeah it's from Germany. I can personally attest to its effectiveness. Another colleague who is approaching retirement does it twice per year or so, and he's in great shape and looks great for his age. It was very eye-opening to see that and then to experience it.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#378

Post by tripzilch »

ronyeh wrote: post #32
mikenew wrote: post #9

> Subjects had a significant reduction in body mass index, waist circumference, and improvement in blood pressure Would really like to see this compared to another group with a similar level of calorie restriction but without the intermittent fasting. The question with intermittent fasting is really just "is it better than plain old calorie restriction". Seems like there's some evidence that points to "yes" and some…

I think intermittent fasting is easier to implement for the average person. It's much easier to tell someone that they can eat as much as they want, but only between 6-8pm (one meal a day). It's difficult to tell someone you can eat 3 meals but no more than 1500 calories in total. Once I start eating, I don't want to stop (until I'm full). But the point at which I'm full is way beyond my calorie limit if I am eating…

> Once I start eating, I don't want to stop (until I'm full).

Did you ever try, waiting 10 minutes?

You eat a little, food gets in your stomach, after 10 minutes the message "I'm full" is sent.

The point is, you won't feel full until those 10 minutes pass. But you don't need continue eating during those 10 minutes.

I'm just asking because if you always do, you might be under the impression that it requires 10 minutes of sustained eating, to stop feeling full.

Re: Intermittent fasting from dawn to sunset induces anticancer response

#380

Post by smusamashah »

erklik wrote: post #40
kranner wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll have to account for increased rates of smoking in both Muslim-majority countries and Muslim populations in non-Muslim-majority countries. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1360407/ > A fifth of the world's population is Muslim, and most Muslims live in areas where the prevalence of smoking is high and often increasing. But even among the many Muslims living in Europe, smoking prevalence (partic…

That's interesting. I believe smoking is discouraged in Islam, so I wonder why the uptake is higher. Guessing it's a general education issue?

As far as it goes for Muslims in Pakistan, laws/rules given by religion are mostly take literally instead of what they might mean. Drinking is forbidden, that's agreed upon, as far as other drugs go its up if the person is following teachings of any religious scholar.

Smoking is therefore not considered forbidden (haram) in the same sense as alcohol. I am a little too sensitive to drugs and smoke and betel leaves ('paan') make my head go south just as much.

So it correctly is issue of education I would say.

Post reply on HN