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

141–150 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#141

Post by bavarianbob »

coryfklein wrote: post #138
bavarianbob wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

[flagged]

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#143

Post by chrispeel »

bavarianbob wrote: post #125
guiomie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The more that one experiments with these diet changes, I think, the more one reveals how untrue that phrase "most important meal of the day" becomes. I feel unstoppable if I skip breakfast, lethargic if I don't.

I'd like to see a RCT that compared two time-restricted eating groups: 7am to 3pm, and noon to 8pm. Which would have the larger benefit over a control group?

Also, it would be good to simultaneously (somehow) check if the results depend on one's genetic or cultural bias towards eating in the morning or evening.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#144

Post by lazide »

bavarianbob wrote: post #125
guiomie wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The more that one experiments with these diet changes, I think, the more one reveals how untrue that phrase "most important meal of the day" becomes. I feel unstoppable if I skip breakfast, lethargic if I don't.

Probably depends a lot on what (and how much) you eat for breakfast too?

If I don't have some kind of protein in the AM, I quickly start having mental/emotional issues (and end up with recovery problems due to exercise, including pain). Trying to make up for it at lunch is a losing battle.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#145

Post by NicoJuicy »

TuringNYC wrote: post #63
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 los…

Never be hungry, don't overdo eating. Smaller portions, more regularly. I love a handful of cachewnuts.

Spread more carbs in the morning, lean to more protein in the evening.

Calorie cycling: https://www.webmd.com/diet/what-to-know-calorie-cycling

Based on personal experience here. You're doing HITT? It's possible for a short intensive workout ( under 25 minutes) that you're body isn't taking from fat, but trying to get it from food you ingested. That's why it's "suggested" to do lower intensity workouts.

If you do heavy training, you can eat more than you did before too.

Check https://www.burnthefatinnercircle.com/public/Harris-Benedict... -> Activity Factor Guidelines

There are plenty related root causes, eg. sugar craving. Perhaps add some dextrose to your drink.

https://www.polar.com/blog/sugar-and-workouts-how-it-can-hel...

Also a lack of vitamins could create cravings ( eg. Because of a lack of sunlight/sleep), you need more vitamins since you workout more.

Losing weight is 60-70% eating correctly, the rest is exercise.

I'm still inclined to believe that gaining muscle is the best way to go for losing weight/fat as a male.

If you do weights:

Don't measure you're weight every day ( muscle is heavier than fat), if you want to check that, do it weekly ( preferably with a fat % counter. Same time of day, same water intake. Since it works based on conductivity / water. Water intake can change results slightly). Try the mirror instead.

Building muscle is slow, but losing muscle is slow too... ( Less strict "diet", useful for holidays)

Cardio is fast, gaining it again is fast too.

Ps. If you're always hungry, I think you're going to extreme and you're body is starving versus the exercise you're doing.

Note: random thoughts. Feel free to give some feedback so I understand the situation a bit better.

Fyi. I'm not considered an expert on the topic. I read a lot + personal experience and experimenting. You're mileage may vary ;)

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#146

Post by yencabulator »

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…

> If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away.

I don't know how scientific this is but this comes from a person I consider smart & knowledgeable:

My medical doctor friend explained this as hunger being triggered by a nerve signal from your stomach that food in your stomach _is about to run out_. That is, once it runs out, the nerve signal goes away.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#147

Post by theshrike79 »

chrispeel wrote: post #143
bavarianbob wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more that one experiments with these diet changes, I think, the more one reveals how untrue that phrase "most important meal of the day" becomes. I feel unstoppable if I skip breakfast, lethargic if I don't.

I'd like to see a RCT that compared two time-restricted eating groups: 7am to 3pm, and noon to 8pm. Which would have the larger benefit over a control group? Also, it would be good to simultaneously (somehow) check if the results depend on one's genetic or cultural bias towards eating in the morning or evening.

It most definitely is highly personal, like most weight management advice seems to be.

The only immutable truth is that calorie deficit will make you lose weight.

BUT different people find different methods of calorie deficit easier to handle mentally and/or physically.[1]

I can easily go even 20 hours without food maybe only sipping on some water or tea, my grandmother is the same. She can just have a big meal once per day and go about her day (and night) just fine.

My partner on the other hand needs to eat every 3-4 hours or they become completely unbearable mentally. It doesn't need to be a full meal, but some kind of calorie top-up is essential.

[1] ...and it seems that different people get different amounts of calories from the same food, it's a gut flora thing.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#148

Post by theshrike79 »

bobmaxup wrote: post #129
jitl wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, that is the energy content of the food you eat. Your body still has to metabolize it, store it, and use it. There are sometimes extreme variations on how that takes place between individuals.

Exactly this. There's still a ton of study needed on gut flora and other mechanisms of metabolising calories.

Some people (like me) will almost literally get fat just by walking past the candy isle in the store, my body will suck up every single Joule of energy from any food I ingest.

Meanwhile I have a friend who was actually prescribed by a doctor to eat more fat (butter, specifically) every day because they just don't hold on to calories _at_all_. Everything goes straight through. He's been stick thin for the 25 years I've known him, no matter what he eats and how and when.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#149

Post by klyrs »

bavarianbob wrote: post #141
coryfklein wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

[flagged]

That's entirely counterproductive. People gotta do what works for them, not live up to the ideals of a judgemental rando on the internet.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#150

Post by ac2u »

mfld wrote: post #115
ac2u wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Appreciate that, however people use I.F theorising that it helps all sorts of things, insulin sensitivity, lifespan, inflammation markers etc, not just weight.
Post reply on HN