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

131–140 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#131

Post by jimmydddd »

matwood wrote: post #69
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…

> 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.

Agreed. My mom was complaining that she had a blood test scheduled for noon where she had to fast before the test. I was confused as to what she was upset about, and then finally realized that she didn't think she would be able to fast until noon. I'd been doing IF for so many years that this problem didn't even occur to me. Like, you can't go until noon without eating? :-)

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#132

Post by riversflow »

guiomie wrote: post #114
theshrike79 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've been doing IF consistently for about a decade. I never needed to lose weight, I did it to improve my healthspan. This is just my experience so obviously YMMV

1) I drink coffee in the morning too. No stomach problems yet, but I'm completely dependent on caffeine. Last summer I did a 4 month hiatus from caffeine and at the end I determined the tradeoff for me wasn't worth it. The energy and focus is just too valuable, to go without.

2) If it's going well, I wouldn't worry about it. At some point your body will stop having a huge fat reserve to burn off, and you will find that your energy levels crater and recover very slowly if you exert yourself too much for a given macro load.

3) You should try an extended fast! My response to "you are skipping the most important meal of the day" is "I don't even eat every day, fasting is good for you". If they press the issue I'll tell them about fasting for 5 days and how good it makes me feel.

And extended fasts really do make me feel amazing after the fact.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#133

Post by titanomachy »

jitl wrote: post #28
xyst wrote: post #16

Not surprised. I have been doing intermittent fasting combined with increased cardio activity, significantly reducing sugar intake (only source is from fruits and occasional/once a month indulgences) , and mild increase in fish consumption while reducing beef consumption. So far, 20 lb weight loss in 3-4 month period. Cholesterol levels were “borderline” prior to weight loss (no statins Rx’d). Fasting glucose normal.…

I increased my sugar intake by 1/2 tbsp brown sugar in the morning and about a fifth of a pint (300kcal) of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream every night, I eat 3 meals a day up from 2, and also lost 20 lbs in 4 months! At the end of the day, it’s all about the numbers — my intake is 1600kcal, and estimated expenditure is 2240kcal – and whatever makes it easy to stick to the plan. For me it’s ice cream.

A fifth of a pint would be superhuman self-restraint for me!

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#134

Post by f311a »

876978095789789 wrote: post #130
f311a wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Longer periods of fasting reduce testosterone, which probably negates whatever GH benefit it provides: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9182756/ And why would your body go out of its way to preserve metabolically more expensive tissue during longer periods of deprivation?

Any kind of caloric restriction lowers it temporarily. There is some evidence that testosterone levels can be even higher after the fasting https://josepheverettwil.substack.com/p/how-fasting-changes-...

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#135

Post by smcleod »

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…

Bingo. This is pretty much exactly what I found to be true after many years of failing to lose weight - then adding IF/TRF to the party - it made it a lot easier.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#136

Post by andrew_gs »

I restrict myself to a 4 hour eating window, and vary that window daily based on what's convenient to me. So some days I'll go 24 hours between windows if that's how things line up.

There are a bunch of advantages for me. I have 3 kids and I always start my window after 10am. Without the restriction I'll end up finishing off their breakfasts and snacking when I'm making their school lunches. Or late at night it's easy to resist the temptation of hot milk and cookies as it's outside of the window.

By myself I'm actually a pretty disciplined eater, but with kids and a partner who is a chronic feeder I need the window as a barrier against lazy eating.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#137

Post by 0xbadcafebee »

876978095789789 wrote: post #127
0xbadcafebee wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> 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) Absolutely wrong: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38194372

"Absolute" means "unquestionable, fundamental, ultimate, no exception", etc. You've linked to a single study which did not test all forms of IF. You can't say you know something absolutely if you haven't even tested for it.

Specifically, there are much longer periods of fasting which may have a different impact on the result which are not tested for here. There is a claim about alternate-day fasting which is actually not supported in the linked study.

In addition, the longer alternate-day fasting practices may include ad libitum which may have a detrimental effect. Lack of adequate protein is presumed by many to be linked to loss of lean muscle, and the quality and form of feeding during feeding windows would therefore be of high importance, but doesn't seem to be accounted for in these studies.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#138

Post by coryfklein »

bavarianbob wrote: post #128
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

Curious why you think it's hard to count calories accurately? If you mean precisely, I'd question why one is trying to do that anyways.

It's not hard in the sense that solving complicated math problems is hard, but hard in that it adds a non-trivial amount of effort to an activity you do multiple times a day, every day, in perpetuity.

Even the small effort of measuring your creamer with a teaspoon instead of just pouring it in the cup just takes more time and effort than simply checking what time it is.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#139

Post by uxp100 »

guiomie wrote: post #114
theshrike79 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just an anecdote, but for a few years I always skipped breakfast and had black coffee, and I did eventually develop some pretty severe heart burn issues. I went to tea for a while, back on coffee but usually eating breakfast again. I guess I’d just keep an eye on it and take action before it gets extremely painful, I’m not sure it’s guaranteed or anything.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#140

Post by mym1990 »

pengaru wrote: post #79
mym1990 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Good observation! Fasting in general is usually at minimum 8 hours, which is also around the time we sleep. There seems to be some evidence that the longer one fasts, the better the benefits. You would be surprised how many people in the US eat right up until they go to bed, and then eat breakfast right after waking up. So for some, extending the fast 2-5 hours is no small feat.
Post reply on HN