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

61–70 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#61

Post by jasonjmcghee »

tashoecraft wrote: post #31
gspencley wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

8am -> 5pm? Or you had an easier time fasting 5 extra hours than not?

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#62

Post by JshWright »

rtkwe wrote: post #37
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.

That doesn't strike me as "well actually". The title says "more effective than calorie restriction". If it's a form of calorie restriction, then the title doesn't make sense: "Form A of calorie restriction is more effective than calorie restriction".

I think a clearer title would be something to the effect of "Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie counting for calorie restriction"

Also worth pointing out that the study was specific to T2 diabetes.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#63

Post by TuringNYC »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #29

Calorie restricting for a long time will let your body adapt to live with that. I'm curious what the result would be if you add a cheatmeal every 3-4 days. Note: This is regulated by leptin as far as I know - https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/22446-leptin > Leptin’s main function is to help regulate the long-term balance between your body’s food intake and energy use (expenditure). Leptin helps inhibit (…

>> PS. If you want to lose weight, you want your energy expenditure to be as high as possible ;)

How do you deal with the hunger resulting from high energy expenditure. I find myself famished after a tough workout (interval training / strength training).

I realize there are other benefits to interval training / strength training (e.g., endurance, toning, increasing mass), but I wonder if it runs counter to weight loss given how much hunger it induces.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#64

Post by jitl »

krasney wrote: post #59

The most recent critiques I've seen for intermittent fasting have to do with how it may not preserve lean body mass unless you are extremely conscientious about getting enough protein (and probably resistance training). That is, if you don't get enough protein during your feeding windows, you'll lose lean body mass along with fat mass, which harms body composition. I'd expect to see the TRE arm losing more lean body…

To be fair, any substantial calorie restriction TRE or not means you will lose some muscle/lean mass. I’m not sure table 2 shows evidence that TRE is more detrimental to lean mass than CR given that the TRE group had fewer calories on average than the CR group.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#65

Post by tshaddox »

scetron wrote: post #49
rip_netrunner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And the actual title of the study is 'Effect of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss' which describes a concept that is basically the colloquial definition of intermittent fasting. The popular term 'intermittent fasting' usually describes time restricted eating, with a fasting period usually between 16-20 hours.

That study needs to update its terminology. They call it “feeding” on the podcast circuit now, not “eating.”

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#66

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

krasney wrote: post #59

The most recent critiques I've seen for intermittent fasting have to do with how it may not preserve lean body mass unless you are extremely conscientious about getting enough protein (and probably resistance training). That is, if you don't get enough protein during your feeding windows, you'll lose lean body mass along with fat mass, which harms body composition. I'd expect to see the TRE arm losing more lean body…

Different intermittent fasting regimens result in different results re: losing lean muscle. The longer intermittent fasting cycles seem to show no significant loss of lean muscle. (i'm way too lazy to go find the studies to back this up claim, but they're out there somewhere)

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#68

Post by pard68 »

gopher2000 wrote: post #54
pard68 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. In the beginning it certainly is. But once I did it for a while, I found that I had developed a mental understanding for what various foods represented in terms of calories and could navigate it with much less effort. I started with spreadsheets and apps. IMO much of the value in calorie counting stems from those early weeks where you suddenly realize how…

It wasn't so bad for me when I started in college. Everything was prepared in the cafe and had calorie count on it. When I graduated and got married we started making all our own food and that was when it became depressing for me.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#69

Post by matwood »

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…

> After a period of adaptation, when this just becomes the new normal

Yep, and eventually even hunger you do feel is easy to ignore. I practice TRT and was meeting a friend at 3pm for a late lunch. I just skipped food all day, ate a nice meal at 3pm and then a very light dinner. Wasn't ever hungry after working out and working up until that point.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#70

Post by stronglikedan »

didibus wrote: post #17
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.

Everyone's different. I did IF for 6 months and lost to the point of being gaunt, so I had to stop. It seems to have changed my metabolism for the better, because now I can eat what I want (mostly pizza and ice cream) without gaining weight. Of course, I don't overeat, or I would gain weight.
Post reply on HN