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

Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#11

Post by AndrewKemendo »

FacZap wrote: post #7
kreutz wrote: post #3

Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction

Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.

As someone who has been doing, IF for 11 years and has moved to OMAD (more or less) I’d say…not really

Yeah, you might gorge yourself on occasion and have one our two day surplus, but it’s not something that anyone would regularly do because it’s not only uncomfortable, but it also messes with your gut. So in function while you’re correct, it is possible theoretically to ingest the same calories in a tiny window of eating as somebody who eats throughout a whole day, your body can’t process food that quickly and will give you significant gastrointestinal distress

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#12

Post by bcx »

FacZap wrote: post #7
kreutz wrote: post #3

Intermittent fasting is a form of calorie restriction

Hate to be that guy because I know what you were trying to say, but not really, not necessarily. You can avoid eating for the first X hours of the day and then gorge yourself on a huge meal and be in a caloric surplus at the end of the day.

While your point is valid, the researchers in the paper cite evidence from other studies that intermediate fasting reduces calorie intake.

I think the OP has a pretty reasonable point, intermediate fasting, restricts calories to certain hours, calories restriction in general restricts calories to a quantity.

Probably worth exploring the citation to know how well this holds.

“Evidence shows that limiting the eating window to 6 to 10 hours within a 24-hour period naturally reduces energy intake by 200 to 500 kcal/d”.

I linked to full txt above if you want to dig

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#13

Post by jareklupinski »

jitl wrote: post #8

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…

there's a bit of psychology at play too I bet

if you have a 'daily budget' of 1500 calories, personally I would much rather skip breakfast and have a burger and fries for dinner than 3 'slim meals' throughout the day (i'd probably stick to that more readily too)

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#14

Post by neves »

Interesting to know that you don't need to become a dull and boring person without social live if you want to do TRE :-)

The interesting bit for me: "Participants in the TRE group were adherent with their eating window on a mean (SD) of 6.1 (0.8) days per week"

I like TRE, but I don't follow it religiously. Some day of the week I will drink a wine with my partner or drink a beer with my friends. The night I drink I also eat a breakfast the morning after. Nice to know that it works if sometimes you fail to follow.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#15

Post by readthenotes1 »

jitl wrote: post #8

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…

There was an article, maybe a year ago, that reported that Tre and three meals a day with the same calories had the same effect.

Of course the problem is, I have a hard time just eating three meals a day and not snacking in between.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#16

Post by xyst »

Not surprised.

I have been doing intermittent fasting combined with increased cardio activity, significantly reducing sugar intake (only source is from fruits and occasional/once a month indulgences) , and mild increase in fish consumption while reducing beef consumption.

So far, 20 lb weight loss in 3-4 month period. Cholesterol levels were “borderline” prior to weight loss (no statins Rx’d). Fasting glucose normal.

Anecdotally, reducing intake works!

side note: the sugar addiction was real and “retraining” my body and mind was the real effort. The mental fortitude to ignore the usual junk I grab at the grocery store is well understated.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#17

Post by didibus »

jitl wrote: post #8

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…

I've been doing intermittent fasting for years now, and I've not continued to lose weight past a small initial drop.

Only way I can lose weight is if I also start restricting calories.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#18

Post by jitl »

jareklupinski wrote: post #13
jitl wrote: post #8

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…

there's a bit of psychology at play too I bet if you have a 'daily budget' of 1500 calories, personally I would much rather skip breakfast and have a burger and fries for dinner than 3 'slim meals' throughout the day (i'd probably stick to that more readily too)

Adherence is all about psychology! Although what works for one person might not work for another as well; if time restricted eating or calorie counting doesn’t work for you, try a different strategy.

My target right now is 1600 kcal & 150g protein, and my usual meal plan is a 300kcal protein frappe coffee thing in the morning, a lunch around 450kcal like gumbo, a 550kcal dinner like apricot glazed salmon w/ couscous, and then ~300kcal of Ben & Jerrie’s ice cream for dessert. For me adherence is super easy because those are all foods I love to eat, I’m full all day so I never want to snack, and I’m actually eating more dessert than before this diet because I don’t feel guilty about it anymore (yay decadence).

My girlfriend tried the same plan, but something about just knowing about the budget makes her feel totally trapped and she ends up binge eating snacks almost out of “revenge” after a few days. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#19

Post by bgroat »

jitl wrote: post #8

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…

I think for a lot of people (me included), the primary advantage is in ease of measurement.

It's hard to count calories accurately.

It's very easy to look at the clock and determine if it's between 1300-1900 hours

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#20

Post by bequanna »

idianal wrote: post #4

Important to note that all participants in the study had Type 2 diabetes, a mean age of 55 years, and a mean BMI of 39.

That is quite heavy.

It makes you wonder if the intermittent fasting made the participants more aware of when they were actually hungry vs eating mainly out of habit/boredom/coping mechanism.

Post reply on HN