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

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#151

Post by m463 »

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 read "the glucose revolution" and it talked about reducing blood sugar spikes. If you have a big blood sugar spike, later you will have a blood sugar crash with a lack of energy, reduced concentration and... cravings.

I suspect that if you minimize your blood sugar spikes, you will reduce the crash later and waves of hunger aren't as much of an issue.

random internet presentation summarizing hacks from the book: https://www.believebig.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Glucos...

EDIT another one: https://njms.rutgers.edu/education/student_affairs/student_s...

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#153

Post by steve1977 »

theshrike79 wrote: post #147
chrispeel wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I‘m certainly the „snack every 3-4 hours“ type, though I‘m not sure how much of this is already some symptom of insulin resistance.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#154

Post by steve1977 »

anthonypasq wrote: post #96
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

1lb of fat is ~3500 calories and that is simply 9 calories per gram of fat X 453 grams in a pound. its actually closer to 4000 but people just use 3500 because that means you would need a 500 calorie deficit per day to lose a pound a week.

It’s even easier in the metric system, where a 500 kcal (daily) deficit should roughly amount to a 500 g (weekly) weight loss.

And AFAIK this is calculated based on body fat actually corresponding to around 7.7 kcal per gram, not 9 (that is for food).

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#155

Post by mx20 »

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…

The problem with your thinking is that you assume that your eating habits don't effect your energy consumption. But that is wrong, if your Blood Sugar is to high your Body can't access Fat and needs to Burn other sources that are scarce and it prefers to make you tired and cold to reduce energy consumption. That doesn't happen if your Blood Sugar is very low and you can easily access your Fat reserves. Eating spikes your Blood Glucose, that's why intermittend fasting works so great.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#156

Post by d4rkp4ttern »

After reading Benjamin Bikman’s book (Why we Get Sick) I think the other benefit of IF/TRF besides caloric restriction is that you’re also reducing your “insulin abuse”, I.e you are avoiding having elevated insulin levels for a longer period, which helps with improving insulin sensitivity. This book (highly, highly recommend) makes the case that insulin resistance is at the root of many metabolic and other disorders. I think there’s too much focus on weight loss in these threads, but even those with normal weight and BMI can have issues due to insulin resistance.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#157

Post by jitl »

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 should never eat them.

> You should do this for your entire life.

Out of all the advice in these comments, this contradicts the scientific evidence on fitness and nutrition the most. Everyone should do the thing that makes it the easiest for them to attain their health and fitness goals. Living an an acetic life because an internet comment and Michael Pollan said so will work sustainably for very few people.

Adherence/consistency is the single most important factor to consider when building a fitness plan. Evidence shows users of systematic plans like weight watchers points are less likely to lapse in the long term. A very gradual improvement that works for a long time is much better than a deep “improvement” you practice for 1.5 months before giving up.

I’d much rather count calories and eat ice cream every day than treat ice cream as arsenic. For me a little bit of a treat every day makes self control around my diet easier overall - I never buy snacks or overeat at meals because I think “hrrng if I spend this calorie now, I cant spend it on ice cream tonight”. Might not work for everyone - there’s a lot of commenters here who prefer TRE because it’s easier for them; if works well that’s what they should do.

If living an acetic life without treats works the best for you, then do that - but don’t tell other people they should do it too.

There’s no reason to fear treats if you can manage them; if time restricted eating or calorie counting enables someone to eat the food they like, and so life is more enjoyable and it’s easier to adhere to a good diet, they should do that.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#158

Post by jitl »

titanomachy wrote: post #133
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.

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

Eating ice cream almost every day helps my self control a bunch. I serve into a little glass bowl on top of my kitchen scale to my target mass, and whatever’s left in the tub I put away knowing I’ll get to have it tomorrow or later this week.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#159

Post by jcul »

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.

Yeah I agree it makes it easier to eat less calories, and it's a simple rule to follow. Sometimes I might count calories also, but if I just eat within the window it is unlikely I'll go over.

However, one unforseen side effect for me is that I sleep better on an empty stomach and feel better when I wake.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#160

Post by j45 »

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.

Only was wrong.

‘A major’

Appreciate you stepping out to engage in this. I’m going to answer this in support of the perspective you’re speaking from.

There is advice available from people who haven’t always been healthy and fit, but are now.

Should someone seeking diet/fitness advice take it from someone who hasn’t become and remained reasonably fit or diet?

One thing for me I strive towards is remembering building discipline is one of the key if not the master habit that unlocks so many other ones. For me a responsible mindset empowers, and a victim or blame mindset disempowers and I try not to forget it.

Longevity whether I like it or not is based on two things, a bit (not a lot) of regular exercise where uninterrupted walking over 60-90 minutes is amazing, and reducing the amount of processed food and step by step making sure the diet is one that best suits each individuals body. Reducing a harmful activity is a great start instead of making big leaps.

I have folks with weight and health problems in my life.

It’s easier sometimes to think it’s easy for people who have it done, but not know their story

Starting and keeping going 1% better every day is the way and something everyone can learn to do relative to themselves as long as they don’t compare, and don’t stop. Intermittent fasting (starting with a smaller window and increasing it by 5 minutes every day than normal can be very helpful).

Post reply on HN