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

71–80 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#71

Post by matwood »

kasey_junk wrote: post #57
Izkata wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I did some experimenting on myself, including increasing to gain weight, and at least for me hunger seems to mostly be a function of relative emptiness from recent maximum fullness. Sounds odd, but let's say I filled my stomach to 90% of my total capacity, then a few hours later I've digested down to 45% capacity and that's when I get hungry. That's -50% of the last maximum. If I spend a week or two restric…

I do 24-48 hour fasts weekly and for me the single biggest determinate of hunger is what I ate the day before. Carbs, especially sugar and processed carbs make the fast day’s miserable. But if I stick to meat, vegetables and some whole grains it’s usually no big deal.

Yes! I've noticed this too. If I have a carb heavy meal at dinner, I'm much more hungry the next day than less carb heavy meal.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#72

Post by nathancahill »

kasey_junk wrote: post #57
Izkata wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Years ago I did some experimenting on myself, including increasing to gain weight, and at least for me hunger seems to mostly be a function of relative emptiness from recent maximum fullness. Sounds odd, but let's say I filled my stomach to 90% of my total capacity, then a few hours later I've digested down to 45% capacity and that's when I get hungry. That's -50% of the last maximum. If I spend a week or two restric…

I do 24-48 hour fasts weekly and for me the single biggest determinate of hunger is what I ate the day before. Carbs, especially sugar and processed carbs make the fast day’s miserable. But if I stick to meat, vegetables and some whole grains it’s usually no big deal.

Strongly agree with that. Pasta dinner? I'll wake up ravenous. Smaller dinner of meat and vegetables? Won't feel hungry at all.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#73

Post by stronglikedan »

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…

The trick to IF without hunger pangs is water. A glass of water will make them subside nearly instantly, and for hours.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#74

Post by pc86 »

jasonjmcghee wrote: post #61
tashoecraft wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I've heard from many people who have had success with IF that somewhat more aggressive schedules (e.g. 20-4 compared to 16-8) can be easier to maintain.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#75

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

jitl wrote: post #58
rtkwe wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

After causally seeing popular weight loss advice in US media over the years offering all variety of silver bullets (One Weird Trick etc), I was flabbergasted and betrayed to learn how simple the math of weight loss is once I finally looked into it 4 months ago. Very roughly, there’s 3500kcal in 1lb of body. Given that fact plus your current weight and calorie intake, you can build a spreadsheet in 30 mins to compute…

> Very roughly, there’s 3500kcal in 1lb of body. Given that fact plus your current weight and calorie intake, you can build a spreadsheet in 30 mins to compute the calories per day to make your body any weight you want in a reasonable time frame

emphasis on the very roughly ... a significant part of body mass is tissue you do not want to lose: bone, brain, organs

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#76

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

Imo it's still hard to stick to after a while. You're out with friends and want to eat/drink, or you get depressed and want to eat/drink during your fasting window, or you end up eating later than you should due to the time window. I've been struggling with keeping on track lately because I don't have a goal I'm working towards to keep me accountable. I lost a bunch of weight, but then had no real reason to keep it off other than "for health", and now the weight's coming back.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#77

Post by pc86 »

rip_netrunner wrote: post #35
bgroat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sorry, no. Whether it was always the definition or not, having a daily window to eat that is generally much shorter than normal is called intermittent fasting.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#78

Post by pc86 »

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.

Intermittent fasting doesn't suddenly change the laws of thermodynamics. Of course if you still eat 2,500 calories a day you will likely gain weight unless you already have a lot of muscle (but if you do, you likely know what you're doing enough that you're not reading this article actually hoping to learn anything).

The point is that IF makes it easier to reduce calories, in part psychologically but also in part because it's just a lot harder to eat 3,000 calories in 4 hours than it is to eat 3,000 calories in 12 hours.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#79

Post by pengaru »

mym1990 wrote: post #53
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.

Intermittent fasting has no strict minimum that you have to fast, it can be 10-12 hours and still be intermittent fasting.

By that definition everyone who sleeps engages in intermittent fasting.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#80

Post by paulpauper »

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.

Nothing really works that well for most people ,and there is a lot of ambiguity. I am thankfull we have GLP-1 drugs , which unlike having to compare CR vs IF, seems to work for most people .
Post reply on HN