Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body • Hacker News Board

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#101

Post by brassybadger » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:36 PM UTC

jaiball wrote: post #92

brassybadger wrote: post #67

Interesting to see how mainstream intermittent fasting has become. It's worth noting where it started. A few years ago a few hardcore fitness fanatics started playing with the idea of using controlled fasting for weight loss and/or body recomposition. Two people that should be mentioned are Lyle McDonald[1] and Martin Berkhan[2]. Martin especially made IF popular via his blog, laying out the principles he used as a f…

Another recommendation for Leangains.com - been following it for over a year and have seen good results. Although I haven't followed the protocol to the letter - I eat a good amount of junk food during the week, but also good food as well. The point is to narrow your window of time that you eat during the day. I believe I could be doing even better if I concentrated on eating better and cutting out the crap, but now…

The whole "clean eating" thing is mostly a fad. Nobody has managed to define what food is "clean" and what is not (see e.g. what the typical bodybuilder thinks is clean, and what someone doing paleo, what the average dietitian recommends, etc). The only important things are 1) the number of calories you eat, and 2) what nutrients your diet provides.

When I'm cutting, I don't make a fuss about "junk food", as long as I'm below my calorie intake limit and I'm not missing any important nutrient. Usually hovering around 20% junk food.

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#102

Post by venomsnake » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 4:37 PM UTC

g8oz wrote: post #70

Theodores wrote: post #39

A lot of the diets mentioned on this thread are a long way from the diet used in this article. Note it is not mentioned in the article, however it is mostly vegetables with some fish. That is a long way from 'chipotle'!!! It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food. Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else. Their ancestor…

>>like some of those American Indian tribes that tried and failed to build corn-based civilisations in pre-Columbian times. Umm taking into account the Aztec, Maya, Inca and all the aboriginal nations that preceded and co-existed with them I would like to disagree with the failure part. It is as possible to build a civilization from corn as it was from rice and wheat. Oh also, this whole "grains are bad for you becau…

Its not grains are bad for you - it is more like "over consumption of overly refined starches spiked with lots of sugar ingested 3 times a day could easily wreck havoc on your ability to regulate blood sugar and build up insulin resistance"

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#103

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:01 PM UTC

tokenizer wrote: post #35

bobowzki wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a physician. While it's good to lose weight (at least if you are overweight), keep in mind that losing weight is not the only interesting outcome. Any diet might have long term side effects. Such as an increased risk of cancer, arteriosclerosis etc. Also remember that weight loss is not the only benefit of exercise. That said, congrats on losing weight. Now start exercising :-)

Regarding the diet above, which limits your sugar intake to 20 grams a day, what are some potential consequences of starving your body of sugars? Sounds good in theory (sugar is bad), but it sounds stressful (body starts producing ketones due to suck a lack of sugar, flu like symptoms for a week).

The liver produces all the glucose that your body needs, which is mostly used by the brain. The likely consequence is that you might need to eat more protein to replace the amino acids scavenged for this purpose.

In practice, you cannot contract a dietary deficiency disease from eliminating sugar unless you have a genetic defect affecting liver function. Even if you also eat no protein, your body will self-cannibalize muscle tissue to keep the brain alive.

It appears as though the evolutionary pressures on humans have produced support for two different energy metabolisms. In times of feast, where sugars and starches are consumed in excess, the body operates on glucose and glycogen, and stores fat. In times of famine, the body operates on ketones produced from its own body fat, and the brain operates on a combination of lactic acid and sugars scavenged from the body's protein stores.

The potential consequence of this is that if you ever do start eating significant quantities of sugar, your body will chemically signal that famine is over, and prioritize the restoration of your body fat stores. In other words, you can never go off the diet if you want to maintain your weight, as your body will want to turn every last scrap of excess sugar into fat as fast as possible.

This seriously sucks, because the brain is hardwired to love sweeter foods--foods that surround us constantly. It's like Lou Wu from Niven's Ringworld resisting the urge to eat the magic sweet potato that turns Pak breeders into protectors. Your limbic center wants that doughnut, no matter what that prudish frontal lobe says. So low-carb dieters have to consistently maintain a high level of sheer willpower for their entire lives. That may not be physically stressful in the cortisol-producing sense, but it is stressful mentally.

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#104

Post by s_husso » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:15 PM UTC

stickydink wrote: post #28

sn0v wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you notice any long term (lasting) effects after those four months? Also, any particular reason you stopped? Thanks.

After I stopped, and started eating regularly again, I found nothing different at all. One of the side effects, is that you're really susceptible to alcohol. One beer, and I'd be really feeling it. Whereas before, I could drink 3 without really noticing. After I stopped, my tolerance was still pretty low, though it's fine now. I don't know if the low tolerance afterwards could be the diet specifically, or just whethe…

> One of the side effects, is that you're really susceptible to alcohol. One beer, and I'd be really feeling it. Whereas before, I could drink 3 without really noticing. After I stopped, my tolerance was still pretty low, though it's fine now. I don't know if the low tolerance afterwards could be the diet specifically, or just whether I'd not really drank in 4 months.

After going Keto/IF my alcohol tolerance has gone through the roofs to a point that I really don't want to get wasted anymore (not that I did it that often). Around 10 beers used to get me in a great buzz, but now after a 0.7 litre bottle of whisky I could still easily get into a bar and continue drinking. But luckily there is something going in the back of your head, that "maybe this is way too much already, lets call it a day". And top of that, the day after, I seem to have no hangover at all. Now a days, if I go out with friends I usually take one or two servings of some good quality whisky and leave it at that.

For the background I'm currently standing at 115kg

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#105

Post by blendergasket » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:19 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #52

Theodores wrote: post #39

A lot of the diets mentioned on this thread are a long way from the diet used in this article. Note it is not mentioned in the article, however it is mostly vegetables with some fish. That is a long way from 'chipotle'!!! It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food. Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else. Their ancestor…

> It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food. What they want is irrelevant. As they evolved to avoid being eaten, so we evolved to be able to obtains, eat and digest it. It's not a one-sided process of providing us with a ready made menu. > At this stage the cult of eating dead animals was borne Why do you assume we did not eat animals "in the trees"? Is th…

I may be mistaken or we may be both using different myths to justify our food based belief systems but I was under the assumption that at least the larger pre-Columbian societies were done in by European diseases.

At least some pre-Columbian societies nixtamalized their corn (think hominy and masa harina), which unlocks many nutrients, greatly improving its nutritional value and making it a much better staple than non-nixtamalized corn.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixtamalization

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#106

Post by logfromblammo » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:23 PM UTC

eswat wrote: post #79

hessenwolf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waxy fat though. Gotta watch those arteries. Damn tasty pork.

There’s a growing amount of evidence and debunking of past research showing that fat - predominantly the saturated fat found in stuff like bacon - doesn’t clog arteries.

And even if it did, you don't have dangerous atherosclerosis until those clogs start to calcify. The interactions between calcium, magnesium, vitamin D, vitamin A, vitamin K, collagen, silicon, and boron also somehow affect this process, but the exact mechanisms are not yet fully understood by scientifically sound research. I do not know of any human studies planned or underway on the hypercalcemia hypothesis for heart disease.

The pop-science gurus claim that obstructive heart disease is primarily caused by consuming calcium in excess without attending to the other related dietary factors, and this causes the excess dietary calcium to harden arterial plaques rather than bones and teeth. They are usually pushing magnesium supplements or organic butter oil or some other purchasable product.

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#107

Post by dudurocha » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:28 PM UTC

brassybadger wrote: post #101

jaiball wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another recommendation for Leangains.com - been following it for over a year and have seen good results. Although I haven't followed the protocol to the letter - I eat a good amount of junk food during the week, but also good food as well. The point is to narrow your window of time that you eat during the day. I believe I could be doing even better if I concentrated on eating better and cutting out the crap, but now…

The whole "clean eating" thing is mostly a fad. Nobody has managed to define what food is "clean" and what is not (see e.g. what the typical bodybuilder thinks is clean, and what someone doing paleo, what the average dietitian recommends, etc). The only important things are 1) the number of calories you eat, and 2) what nutrients your diet provides. When I'm cutting, I don't make a fuss about "junk food", as long as…

Do you mean: 1000 kcalories of fries and soda == 1000 kcalories of vegetables, fruits and grains?

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#108

Post by bobowzki » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:29 PM UTC

Nimi wrote: post #62

bobowzki wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a physician. While it's good to lose weight (at least if you are overweight), keep in mind that losing weight is not the only interesting outcome. Any diet might have long term side effects. Such as an increased risk of cancer, arteriosclerosis etc. Also remember that weight loss is not the only benefit of exercise. That said, congrats on losing weight. Now start exercising :-)

I'd be curious to read be your response to this - genuinely asking here (skip to 37:30) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1RXvBveht0

Thanks for bringing my attention to this interesting video.

I can't really comment on the facts since I neither read all the studies or had time to watch the whole video.

I'm not an expert in nutrition so this is my personal opinion. I think he's raising some valid points:

* It's a surprisingly difficult subject to study.

* There're a lot of bad studies.

* There're a lot of dubious conclusions.

However, losing weight is just a matter of energy balance. If you consume less energy then you "use", you will lose weight. Consuming less can be done in many different ways. As can "using" more. Different diets may however bring additional advantages (such as decreased risk of cancer).

It also depends on what you are doing with your body, for example, you won't find many tour de France cyclist eating low carb before a race.

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#109

Post by Theodores » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:34 PM UTC

ronaldx wrote: post #77

Theodores wrote: post #39

A lot of the diets mentioned on this thread are a long way from the diet used in this article. Note it is not mentioned in the article, however it is mostly vegetables with some fish. That is a long way from 'chipotle'!!! It is worth bearing in mind that a lot of things we consider to be food really does not want to be food. Grains want to be carried away by the wind to plant themselves somewhere else. Their ancestor…

> Not one single animal, insect or fish has evolved specifically to be eaten. This is an attractive statement but is not trivial: I would question it. (with the caveat that evolution is a passive process) Species may gain evolutionary benefit from being eaten: the weakest of the species are pruned, leaving the strongest candidates. Using toxins to avoid being eaten might have a short-term benefit but a longer-term pe…

I would like to know how your comment would fare at the Natural History Museum. This type of thought goes around the building for a long time...

I cannot think of an example where 'free food for predators' is part of the deal. I can see why lots of eggs are produced in the hope that some get to survive, but that is not the same as deliberately producing 'free food for predators' that also happens to be 'designed to be eaten'.

Did you have any examples in mind?

Re: Intermittent fasting: The good things it did to my body

#110

Post by bobowzki » Fri, Jan 03, 2014, 5:41 PM UTC

tokenizer wrote: post #35

bobowzki wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a physician. While it's good to lose weight (at least if you are overweight), keep in mind that losing weight is not the only interesting outcome. Any diet might have long term side effects. Such as an increased risk of cancer, arteriosclerosis etc. Also remember that weight loss is not the only benefit of exercise. That said, congrats on losing weight. Now start exercising :-)

Regarding the diet above, which limits your sugar intake to 20 grams a day, what are some potential consequences of starving your body of sugars? Sounds good in theory (sugar is bad), but it sounds stressful (body starts producing ketones due to suck a lack of sugar, flu like symptoms for a week).

Sugar is a rather broad term, I'm assuming you mean white refined sugar (sucrose, a disaccharide).

You absolutely don't need to to eat any sugar at all. Simply put, glucose (a monosaccharide) is what normally power our cells. Glucose can be produced from hydrolyzing longer carbohydrates, or even from fat and proteins via gluconeogenesis.