Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–129 of 129 posts

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#121

Post by jackvalentine »

coldtea wrote: post #83
jackvalentine wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about avoiding weight loss? I've had far more success just keeping a simple food diary and going "wow I eat a lot of cakes" and cutting them out. I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) and their success comes from the very act of attempting to quantify what they're eating being a defacto food diary.

> I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) Accurate or inaccurate is only meaningful related to the task and its requirements. 25% can be totally acceptable margin of error for the task. We use even bigger margins in lots of ventures (determining which startup will have a succesful exit to fund, for one). And yes, the mere act of quantifyin…

> Not sure in what reasoning one can complain for a method with 25% margin of error (say), but be OK with a method like "5 cakes" which still applies quantification, just in an even more vague and hazy sense.

One method implies rigour and the other one is honest about what it is setting out to do

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#122

Post by coldtea »

jackvalentine wrote: post #120
coldtea wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The above poster talking about the deli sandwich mentally breaking down all the ingredients... I'm happy to be proven wrong but I simply don't believe you can do that with a reasonable degree of accuracy. You are just overestimating both the difficulty and the degree of accuracy required. While at the same time, still relying on even more vague terms, to determine if you ate too many cakes etc (as per your other ex…

I'm not claiming any degree of accuracy in the estimates, just that without tricking yourself in to think you're being rigorous you can achieve pretty much the same results. I outlined the mechanism that I think these 'counters' are actually achieving results by in spite of their atrocious data collection. I can't believe people are defending such poor data collection practices. You'd be all over it if someone else w…

>I outlined the mechanism that I think these 'counters' are actually achieving results by in spite of their atrocious data collection.

The mechanism is simple: they reduce their caloric intake, because they can track how much they eat. More or less: it doesn't have to be perfect, nor is it "atrocious" if it isn't. And you can easily just round the numbers up ("I calculated 500 for this thing, but let's say it's 600 just to be safe").

You seem to believe that any kind of "back of the envelope" / "ballpark" calculation is useless. Or that people only eat complex multi-part meals with no nutricion information, and have to gauge everything from zero all the time.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#123

Post by coldtea »

jackvalentine wrote: post #121
coldtea wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) Accurate or inaccurate is only meaningful related to the task and its requirements. 25% can be totally acceptable margin of error for the task. We use even bigger margins in lots of ventures (determining which startup will have a succesful exit to fund, for one). And yes, the mere act of quantifyin…

> Not sure in what reasoning one can complain for a method with 25% margin of error (say), but be OK with a method like "5 cakes" which still applies quantification, just in an even more vague and hazy sense. One method implies rigour and the other one is honest about what it is setting out to do

But you seem to be the only one assuming and/or bringing up rigor in this discussion.

Everybody said it's a quick ballpark figure / back of the envelope style calculation.

The mere fact "cake bad, carrots good" everybody knows. It's not much information concerning "Did I ate too much today?". One can have a caloric budget and stay within it (more or less) without having to be perfect in measurements (or sticking to carrot because it's easier to know its light).

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#124

Post by greenhatman »

flat6turbo wrote: post #23
hourislate wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Joe Rogan had Dr Rhonda Patrick on and they spoke about Time restricted eating and she referenced some studies that if you keep your eating within a 10 hour window without doing anything else, you will lose weight and gain lean muscle mass. You will also improve long term memory recall. Facinating stuff, it's toward the end of the interview around 2:27. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxM_CLsvieE He also had Gary Tau…

yes, it's all very fascinating. there is starting to emerge a small, fringe group of people that believe calories-in-calories-out is a complete myth (or, more specifically, calories-out is a complete unknown given current understanding of metabolic science), which pretty much sends people into apoplectic fits of rage when they hear about it. even if it turns out to be a complete troll, it's great entertainment watchi…

Calories-in-calories-out isn't false or a myth. It's just not useful. It's like saying to get rich you just need to make lots of money.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#125

Post by Mandatum »

kbart wrote: post #67
Mandatum wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I can't exactly eat 2000 calories (unless it's a super calorie dense) in a single meal, but there's at least a period of 14 hours in between eating (aside from coffee).

Coffee can have up to several hundred calories[0] if drank with sugar, milk, syrups etc., so that doesn't say much. 0. https://www.thestreet.com/story/12846402/4/ranked-the-10-hig...

Drink mine black, thanks though.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#126

Post by jackvalentine »

coldtea wrote: post #122
jackvalentine wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not claiming any degree of accuracy in the estimates, just that without tricking yourself in to think you're being rigorous you can achieve pretty much the same results. I outlined the mechanism that I think these 'counters' are actually achieving results by in spite of their atrocious data collection. I can't believe people are defending such poor data collection practices. You'd be all over it if someone else w…

> I outlined the mechanism that I think these 'counters' are actually achieving results by in spite of their atrocious data collection. The mechanism is simple: they reduce their caloric intake, because they can track how much they eat. More or less: it doesn't have to be perfect, nor is it "atrocious" if it isn't. And you can easily just round the numbers up ("I calculated 500 for this thing, but let's say it's 600…

So I went looking for any studies about peoples ability to estimate calories, since any under/over estimation compounds either way in terms of results.

It turns out like everything, that's a tricky thing to study. When people are aware that their meals are going to be scrutinised they change what they eat for the duration of the study.

I wasn't able to find a recent study that investigates people's ability to estimate calories and the variance in their estimations.

> You seem to believe that any kind of "back of the envelope" / "ballpark" calculation is useless.

I do think that anything above a "good, bad, not sure" estimate is probably going to be so inaccurate as to not be worth the effort. However the act of trying to count calories itself promotes a mindfulness of what we're eating and that can induce change.

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#127

Post by df3 »

rando444 wrote: post #78
df3 wrote: post #16

All of the participants in this study were over the age of 65. I'm curious what the effects of fasting would be for someone younger? I'm 26 and want to do everything I can to improve my lifespan. Most longevity research seems to target older generations. Do I have to starve myself now or is there an age where the benefits really start to kick in?

Intermittent fasting / calorie restriction has a wide range of health benefits, and give your age, there's no reason not to start now.. provided of course that you're getting a proper amount of calories in your diet for your activity level. Most longevity research targets older people because they are the group that is most interested.. and unfortunately by that time it's mostly too late to do anything significant, s…

Thanks for this encouraging reply!

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#128

Post by marttt »

nabla9 wrote: post #12

I read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting. Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for…

I loosely followed Ori Hofmekler's Warrior Diet (20-hour fast with coffee/tea, lots of water and occasional fruits + 4-hour eating window in the afternoon) for about a year. I noticed a considerable boost on my ability to focus on mental tasks (it's like the mind becomes "cristal clear"). On the other hand, it proved to be daunting whenever I had to do serious physical labour.

I'm also a somewhat experienced Vipassana practicioner. An annoying thing I noticed with regard to meditation was that since Hofmekler's diet is essentially about "overeating" at night, both late night and early morning meditations became much harder for me.

Intuitively I still feel that Hofmekler has got many things right. It's actually surprisingly easy to follow after about 5-6 days of adjustments.

Here's an article on the method by Hofmekler: http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fitness/archive/2012/09/14/...

My frugality hero Jacob Lund Fisker (author of "Early Retirement Extreme", a fascinating book about radical saving and beyond) also follows Hofmekler's diet: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-we-eat.html

Re: Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006)

#129

Post by dalore »

nojvek wrote: post #115
kenver wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can buy ketone strips that will indicate whether you are experiencing ketosis. They react to your urine.

Holy shit, I had no idea this was a thing. This is awesome. I am totally buying this. Where can I learn the science of ketosis. So I can be more data driven regarding my health.

Reddit has a good keto community, here are some links from the sidebar:

https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/keto_in_a_nutshell https://www.reddit.com/r/keto/wiki/faq

also https://www.reddit.com/r/ketoscience/

Post reply on HN