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

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#31

Post by tashoecraft »

gspencley wrote: post #27
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 done both. I can attest that intermittent fasting, at least for me, is WAY more sustainable ... and actually makes maintaining a calorie deficit easier too. Hunger is a weird thing. People tend to assume that if you don't eat you'll just get hungrier and hungrier. The reality is that hunger comes in waves. If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. And the longer you don't eat, the le…

It's very interesting once you experiment with it. I had a much easier time fasting between 8pm -> 5pm, then from 8pm to noon.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#32

Post by Broken_Hippo »

bequanna wrote: post #20
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.

It doesn't make me wonder that.

If I follow an overly strict diet, I wind up thinking about food all of the time. Calorie counting is a form of strictness: I'm continually putting in more time thinking about food. How many calories was that? Do I need to log everything? Do I figure it out when I'm planning and add the extra food thought time there?

And so on.

I've only lost weight through specific dietary changes that are easy to follow. Usually, this has been things like changing daytime food to something more healthy or fewer calories. Or simply putting more vegetables in my diet. I'm currently pescetarian, but rarely eat fish.

Intermittent fasting is in this second category. There isn't much to keep track of and I wouldn't have to put all that much extra thought into it. Some folks could put little to no thought into it. It makes it easier than anything strict.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#33

Post by jitl »

herdcall wrote: post #24
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 don't believe it's as simple as what's the net -ve because with TRE the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) does not reduce like with calorie restricted eating, so the net -ve is higher with TRE even when the calorie intake is the same. Also, reducing the BMR has other negative effects because the body does away with key repairing processes to live with the reduced availability of energy.

I think at reasonable sustainable fitness planning & weight change goals the BMR changes aren’t a significant factor. My target is to lose about 0.9% body weight per week. I did some napkin math numbers before starting my plan and decided not to worry about it much, and in my case seem to be fine.

I went from somewhere around 2400kcal daily to 1600kcal daily while eating 3 meals and lifting for 30min a day and my estimated resting energy expenditure per day by Withings & Apple Health is down about 60kcal over ~4 months. They’re not super accurate sources, but at current rates I’ll hit my target minimum weight before my estimated resting expenditure has dropped -100kcal.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#34

Post by Broken_Hippo »

neves wrote: post #14

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 a…

People also have some luck on other diets by having a "cheat day" one day every week or so.

I mean, eating well 85% of the time is better than not doing it at all and most folks will still run an overall calorie deficit. And for a lot of people, if they can make 75-85% of their food decently healthy, they'll be better off.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#35

Post by rip_netrunner »

bgroat wrote: post #19
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

That's Time Restricted Feeding, which is not quite the same as intermittent fasting. An example would be doing a 36 hour fast, twice per week.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#36

Post by traviswingo »

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 IF for a while now, and it’s the easiest approach to “putting down the fork.” Rather than continuing on a standard eating schedule, simply skipping a meal or going longer between eating actually creates a new habit rather than trying to modify a bad one.

I’m actually capable of going an entire day without eating now and I’m not craving anything. A lot of days I’ll only have one meal, sometimes two.

It’s done wonders for my health. I’ve lost a little under a point per week (wouldn’t recommend more than this), my blood pressure is down, I no longer get heartburn after eating anything, and I feel lighter and healthier.

There are also tons of studies indicating that going longer between meals is healthier, and had anti aging effects on a cellular level. Seems to be an all around winner to me.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#37

Post by rtkwe »

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 see this kind of 'well actually' style response a lot when calorie counting vs intermittent fasting gets brought up. Yes they're both forms of calorie restriction in general but the mechanism and the ease of adherence is pretty difference so important to study especially given the results that IF seems to be significantly more effective because it's easier to execute.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#38

Post by uberduper »

In my experience and observations, calorie restricted diets are pretty easy to adhere to until sometime between dinner and bed time. This is where people typically go off the rails and eat far in excess of satiation, negating any success of the day.

Intermittent fasting typically has people shift their eating times towards the end of the day which should significantly reduce the chances of falling into a pre-bedtime eating habit. Especially if you also shift your sleep window earlier. So if you stop eating at 8PM and make sure you're asleep by 10PM, you're less likely to get hunger pangs.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#39

Post by pard68 »

uberduper wrote: post #38

In my experience and observations, calorie restricted diets are pretty easy to adhere to until sometime between dinner and bed time. This is where people typically go off the rails and eat far in excess of satiation, negating any success of the day. Intermittent fasting typically has people shift their eating times towards the end of the day which should significantly reduce the chances of falling into a pre-bedtime…

I lost a lot of weight on a calorie restricted diet, from 215lb to 165lb over the course of a few years. But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. I much prefer things like intermittent fasting or keto, I can think about what I am eating less and it's really raised my quality of life.
Post reply on HN