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

111–120 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#111

Post by trip9 »

grecy wrote: post #105
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

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 dee…

Just don't have any treats for your entire life, easy.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#112

Post by f311a »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #66
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)

An old fashioned way of fasting preserves muscle mass way better due to hormonal response. It only kicks in after 30-40 hours of fasting. I don’t think that a lot if people practice 3-4 of fasting when doing IF.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#114

Post by guiomie »

theshrike79 wrote: post #88
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…

This is exactly me. I can easily do a 16/8 intermittent fast. I just don't eat anything after 8pm and skip breakfast. That's about it. The hunger goes away when I'm sleeping and I'm not hungry in the morning - Lunch at 11 or 12. It's really hard to eat too many calories in the 8 hour window, unless I drink sodas and stuff my face with candy.

I'll add that intermittent fasting (16/8) has also conditioned my brain (and stomach likely) to eat less during the non-fasting window. In 6 months I'm down 20 pounds (198 to 178), I've also removed alcohol consumption except for in-person social events. My main concerns with 16/8 are: 1. I drink coffee in the morning, it helps with hunger, but im also wondering if this will have long-term affect to my stomach 2. I'm losing weight, but I'm wondering what to do to stop losing it, I'll soon reach a healthy level. 3. It gets annoying being told 'you shouldnt skip the most important meal of the day' by people all the time.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#115

Post by mfld »

ac2u wrote: post #42
mfld wrote: post #2

The intermittent fasting group adhered to the prescribed eating interval 6.1 days per week. In the calorie restriction group, 68 percent achieved the calorie reduction target over six months. The intermittent fasting group lost more weight, reducing body weight by an average of 3.56 percent in six months, which was significant. Under calorie restriction, body weight fell by an average of 1.78 percent, which was not s…

You should change the title to more accurately reflect that. The first question someone has when reading that title is "effective at what?" and there's room in the title for it to say so without the reader having to click through.

I believed that "more effective at loosing weight" would be self-evident in that context.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#116

Post by f311a »

jitl wrote: post #64
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.

It’s possible to minimize the loss by consuming large amounts of protein, but some amount of it will be converted to glucose unfortunately. The difference is very drastic, you can preserve a lot of muscle mass by doing proper diet vs IF. It all adds up when you so it for 6 months.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#117

Post by grecy »

trip9 wrote: post #111
grecy wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dee…

Just don't have any treats for your entire life, easy.

What humans consider food has changed more in the last 100 years than it did in the preceding 10,000. Eat what your great-great grandmother would consider food, not what a scientist in a lab is trying to sell you as food.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#118

Post by f311a »

joecool1029 wrote: post #109
monopoliessuck wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is called autophagy and happens regularly in our body, but in very small amount. Do experiece greater results, you need prolonged fasting (3-5 days)

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#119

Post by mfld »

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.

Time restricted eating/feeding is just a special case of intermittent fasting, no?

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#120

Post by Terr_ »

grecy wrote: post #105
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

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 dee…

> you just have to avoid complete garbage. As Michael Pollan says

That reminds me of something I saw a long time ago:

> Fuzzy Pink Niven's Law: Never waste calories. [...] Don't eat soggy potato chips. Or cheap candy. Or an inferior hot fudge sundae. Or a cold soggy pizza.

Post reply on HN