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

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#101

Post by aidenn0 »

pc86 wrote: post #78
didibus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

Oh, how I wish I could restrict my eating to 2,500 calories a day; I have a pretty high metabolism, but I manage to out-eat it.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#102

Post by [deleted] »

paulpauper wrote: post #83
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

but you still have to avoid overeating when doing IF. It's not like you get to just eat to fullness and ignore calorie counts.

[deleted]

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#103

Post by aidenn0 »

bluescrn wrote: post #87
j45 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only challenge of intermittent fasting for the masses if anyone happens to need to take medication in the morning that requires some food. Moving the eating window isn't always ideal.

The 'only challenge'? The problem with most diet/fitness advice is that it comes from fit+healthy people who've never had serious weight/health problems, and for whom it's all easy.

For an example that isn't from such people, there is always The Hacker's Diet[1]. I'm not nearly type-A enough for it to work with me, but at least it's from someone who struggled with weight.

1: https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#104

Post by aidenn0 »

kraig911 wrote: post #40

If you're a diabetic like me I'd recommend don't do intermittent fasting. I almost died. My blood sugar goes from 300+ to 50ish some days and when I tried this I never felt hunger. I felt like I was about to slip in a coma all day.

Type 1 I assume? TFA was a study on people with Type 2.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#105

Post by grecy »

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

The incredible thing is you don't really need to count calories, you just have to avoid complete garbage.

As Michael Pollan says "Eat food, mostly greens, not too much".

Don't eat anything processed, don't eat anything with more than one ingredient and only eat meat with at most one meal, and ideally quite a small portion.

Completely and utterly ignore things like icecream, chocolate, soda, candy, chips, anything deep friend and other "non food items". Treat them like Arsenic - i.e. you should never eat them.

There, you are now restricting calorie intake and you didn't have to count anything.

You should do this for your entire life.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#106

Post by danpalmer »

stronglikedan wrote: post #73
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.

I'm glad this works for you but this is far from a universal solution. It's true that thirst is often mistaken for hunger and in those cases this can work.

Personally when I wake up I quickly need a meal – I always drink a glass of water in the morning and it does very little, but if I have a black coffee the caffeine gets rid of my hunger for a few hours.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#107

Post by 876978095789789 »

> Interventions: Participants were randomized to 1 of 3 groups: 8-hour TRE (eating 12 to 8 pm only, without calorie counting), CR (25% energy restriction daily), or control.

Longer fasting periods, including 16/8 TRE and alternate-day fasting, have been shown to cause a disproportionate amount of lean body mass loss: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...

>In this RCT, a prescription of TRE did not result in weight loss when compared with a control prescription of 3 meals per day. Time-restricted eating did not change any relevant metabolic markers. Finally, there was a decrease in ALM in the TRE group compared with CMT. Together, the results of this study (1) do not support the efficacy of TRE for weight loss, (2) highlight the importance of control interventions, and (3) offer caution about the potential effects of TRE on ALM. Future studies should be aimed at understanding the effects of early vs late TRE and protein intake or timing as a means to offset the loss in ALM.

ALM = Appendicular (i.e., limb) Lean Mass.

One of the authors of this study, Ethan Weiss, is a cardiologist and was a big proponent of TRE, but after the results of his own study came in showing drastic loss of LBM in TRE group (to the point that most of the weight lost was LBM) and no added benefit, he completely stopped doing TRE, stopped recommending it, and went to Twitter and the news media to publicize the harm, eg: https://www.insider.com/new-research-finds-intermittent-fast...

X isn't showing his Twitter thread, but there's a copy of it here: https://old.reddit.com/r/ScientificNutrition/comments/j1fav8...

>In the in-person cohort, the average weight loss in the TRE group was 1.70 kg. Of this, 1.10 kg (~ 65% wt lost) was lean mass; only 0.51 kg of weight lost was fat mass. Loss of lean mass during weight loss is normal but typically accounts for 20% to 30% of total weight loss

>So in summary: 1) no matter how you slice it, prescription of TRE is not a very effective weight loss strategy; 2) There was no advantage to TRE when compared to a proper control group; 3) What weight was lost looked to come more from muscle mass than fat mass

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#108

Post by InitialLastName »

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

It's also psychologically easier to manage. People have an easier time building a schedule where they do or don't eat and holding it (say, by skipping breakfast) than they do managing counting calories around things like "I went out to dinner and probably ate too much".

Binary choices (should I eat right now?) take much less cognitive overhead than spectral choices (What should I eat? How much of it? If I eat X and Y now will I have the capacity to eat Z later?)

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#109

Post by joecool1029 »

monopoliessuck wrote: post #95
stevedt wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you lose muscle faster due to low protein during the fasting period if this is the reason, then wouldn't adjusting your macros to ensure enough protein mitigate this?

The body doesn't store protein in any real capacity. Fat is stored in adipose tissue and carbs in glycogen, but protein must be available in the bloodstream when needed for muscle maintenance and synthesis. Even if you up your dietary protein during the feeding window, if you're fasting for lengthy periods of time where the protein has already been utilized for fuel, then the muscles are starved and catabolic. There'…

Is it possible some of the area it uses protein from is old cells? I'm thinking parts of digestive system, immune system, old cells it scrubs and reclaims some protein from when fasting. Still catabolic but useful catabolic?

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#110

Post by nradov »

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)

While dietary adherence might be easier with that eating schedule, it isn't optimal from a protein metabolism standpoint. With any calorie restricted diet you risk losing lean muscle along with fat so you need to get enough protein to mitigate that (along with certain types of exercise and other factors). And that protein should to be split across at least two separate meals in order for your digestive system to process it effectively.

https://peterattiamd.com/donlayman/

Post reply on HN