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

A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

jamesclear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 202 posts

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#151

Post by vidarh »

sasawpg wrote: post #146
vidarh wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was eye-opening once I started tracking my calorie intact and adjusting until I was in balance to realise just how far off typical dietary advice was for me. Especially as I was actively powerlifting at the time, and forums were full of advice about the massive amounts of food I "needed". UK NHS still say 2000kcal for women and 2500 for men, but for me after actually counting and tracking my weight at different in…

> Without actually being in a physically demanding job, odds are you're not "active" in any meaningful sense (of course there are exceptions). That's a curious conclusion. I and most others in my circle of friends are active in a meaningful sense, at least based on my definition of "meaningfully active". Most of us are in desk jobs, and none that I know have what I would define as a "physically demanding" job.

In the context of calories burned, most people in office jobs will fit firmly within ranges usually given for sedentary people. It takes a lot of physical activity outside of working hours to make up for an office job.

E.g. for me, an hour of high intensity exercise five days a week still placed me firmly in the sedentary range.

Part of the issue is that we tend to "forget" about the hours spent at work when evaluating if we consider ourselves active.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#152

Post by dorfsmay »

puchatek wrote: post #102
dorfsmay wrote: post #78

Intermittent fasting works because you end up eating less calories. On the other hand, shifting your eating to earlier in the day while eating the same amount of calories leads to weight loss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQThN6e4PD4 I don't have a reference to it handy, but I know Rhonda Patrick talk about this: it takes a minimum of three days fasting in humans to reproduce the effects seen in one day fasting in…

You're completely discounting the effects of fasting on insulin levels. Low levels of insulin are correlated with higher rates of lipid oxidisation. Not that this effect will outweigh e.g. an additional banana you devour because you're famished after fasting. But it is there. Counting calories is a good help in making sure you don't nullify it. ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-a... )

Sure, but how much effect do all those "side effects" have in comparison to a significant calorie deficit or surplus? How applicable are those effect to the average person who wants to keep their eating to something relatively simple?

Do you think that any of those effects will be enough to maintain your weight if you consistently eat a 500 calorie surplus?

My issue is that a lot of people start doing "intermittent fasting" (less than 3 days) thinking they can eat all they want during the eating period, and that they will benefit from the fasting health effects shown in mice studies, but neither is true.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#153

Post by ssharp »

I've found that the 2 meals per day, eating lunch and dinner and then not eating again for 16 hours, is by far the easiest "diet" I've ever followed. It doesn't really disrupt any cultural norms around eating dinner (especially important with kids and getting that time together every night), doesn't require too much movement in terms of food you eat, and is very simple to follow. I think it can also have a bit of a flywheel effect in that you can start out eating your normal portions/food for lunch and dinner and will lose weight since you're cutting out breakfast. Once you get going, you start to say "maybe I'll just have some veggies for lunch today" and start doing that and start to lose even more and feel better. Compared to counting calories, counting macros, diet restrictions, etc. the guardrails for IF are incredibly simple to follow.

Once you get into the pattern, it's not even that much of a morning struggle, though the first few weeks may be if you're used to breakfast.

The one hiccup I have is my kids still eat breakfast and I prepare if for them, so it's sometimes hard not to grab a few bites!

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#154

Post by 01100011 »

dhimes wrote: post #128

Once again I'll post my contra-indications. I tried intermittent fasting twice; the second time I got my doc to go along with ordering a second blood test after six months. My glucose and cholesterol were both worse . I gained a few points. FWIW, I skipped breakfast most of my adult life, but after having kids (well, my wife actually birthed them) I remained overweight. Exercising and using fitbit to monitor calories…

When I was exercising a lot(30-60 miles going per week) I unintentionally did time restricted eating and it seemed to work well for me. I tried it again years later while only doing moderate exercise and it caused me to start falling asleep after meals while I didn't see any positive effects like weight control. It took months to recover from the post meal sleepiness.

Time restricted eating isn't, to my knowledge, well supported my evidence in humans(Dr. Brad Stanfield covers this here: https://youtu.be/zC9_g01disc). So much misinformation these days in dietary science. Lots of frauds and scammers (i.e. David Sinclair) are pushing dubious claims derived from poorly designed or irrelevant studies.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#155

Post by jrs235 »

ballenf wrote: post #132
gilbetron wrote: post #106

Just started doing this (again) two weeks ago and am down 4 lbs already. All I do is skip breakfast, and be a little aware not to gorge when lunch/dinner comes around, and then stop snacks (other than maybe a pickle or something) after dinner. It really depends on the person, for my wife, she just calorie counts and can shed the pounds with little problem. I can't stand being constantly hungry and not eating until I'…

Does black coffee break the fast? No sweetener, not a flavored coffee.

No.

I'm very similar to the OP. I rarely eat breakfast. If I do, I can expect my body to have hunger pangs the next morning at breakfast time. However, black coffee doesn't affect me (I even add creamer so I get some morning fat sugar fuel, but not much). I also stopped drinking alcohol but a few times a year. If I drink alcohol after about 6 pm, I will get hunger pangs the next morning. I've never been overweight in my life and I stopped eating breakfast after high school.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#156

Post by jrs235 »

thoughtpeddler wrote: post #124
gilbetron wrote: post #106

Just started doing this (again) two weeks ago and am down 4 lbs already. All I do is skip breakfast, and be a little aware not to gorge when lunch/dinner comes around, and then stop snacks (other than maybe a pickle or something) after dinner. It really depends on the person, for my wife, she just calorie counts and can shed the pounds with little problem. I can't stand being constantly hungry and not eating until I'…

It's remarkable (or maybe not?) how much of a similar experience I've had with my own diet, in relation to my wife. It's the exact same narrative between us -- she needs breakfast every morning, whereas for me I'm used to just skipping it. When I join my wife on a daily breakfast schedule, I feel like I'm just needlessly eating food when I know I don't have to. But for her, her mood palpably worsens within an hour or…

I'm with you and OP!

But as I mention in a comment elsewhere here, if I indulge in a breakfast I will get hunger pangs the next morning (or two). Which leads me onto "needing breakfast". If I push through and just do my coffee and cream, I can get back to not feeling hungry in the morning (no hunger pangs) and back to [my] "normal".

My philosophy is: I eat if/when I'm hungry, not because "someone" tells me I should. "Someone" might be society. Also "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day" is marketing BS started by Kelloggs(?I think?) to sell cereal.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#157

Post by jrs235 »

random_upvoter wrote: post #9

For decades of my adult life I skipped breakfast, going against all conventional dietary wisdom. Having 3 meals a day just felt like turning my body into a conveyor belt that produces faeces. Now I feel kinda vindicated. A few times I traveled with a friends who did the breakfast - lunch - dinner thing and after two or three days I had to opt out of either breakfast or dinner. I remember asking "how do you even manag…

I'm very similar to you and your history.

I'm 41 now and my body weight is still like when I was 20.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#158

Post by subpixel »

partomniscient wrote: post #6

I've found this youtube channel, The Galen Foundation, founded by a cardiologist really informative: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUp8SWTLsEC6Mn8ExztMIjA There's a bunch of talks, the earlier ones (Fat lies, Bittersweet Truth) cover how 'we' got to where we are, and the later ones (Fasting for Survival and the followup on Addiction) about intermittent fasting itself as a strong part of the solution. Personally ha…

Most of this thread is about time-boxing your meal(s) and losing weight. An important aspect of fasting is that there are highly beneficial results to not eating - especially for 36 hours or more.

Most of what Galen Foundation promotes seems to be a low carb, low sugar, low manufactured (including processed vegetable oils), non-vegetarian diet combined with what ever level of fasting you feel comfortable with.

Interesting stuff: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOvn4UqznU

"Our life revolves around eating too much". God yes it does.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#159

Post by sasawpg »

vidarh wrote: post #151
sasawpg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Without actually being in a physically demanding job, odds are you're not "active" in any meaningful sense (of course there are exceptions). That's a curious conclusion. I and most others in my circle of friends are active in a meaningful sense, at least based on my definition of "meaningfully active". Most of us are in desk jobs, and none that I know have what I would define as a "physically demanding" job.

In the context of calories burned, most people in office jobs will fit firmly within ranges usually given for sedentary people. It takes a lot of physical activity outside of working hours to make up for an office job. E.g. for me, an hour of high intensity exercise five days a week still placed me firmly in the sedentary range. Part of the issue is that we tend to "forget" about the hours spent at work when evaluati…

I haven't really looked at sedentary ranges, can you point me to the guideline you reference? Are they based on calories burned during an activity, amount of activity, time in HR zones?

As for intensity exercises, unless you actually measure your activity it will be difficult to estimate exactly how much time you're active inside of your hour exercise. I would guess a lot of people will over-estimate how much active time they really had. For example, weight lifting would be on the low side, HIIT classes somewhere in the middle and running/rowing/cycling on the high side.

Re: A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012)

#160

Post by watwut »

sasawpg wrote: post #159
vidarh wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of calories burned, most people in office jobs will fit firmly within ranges usually given for sedentary people. It takes a lot of physical activity outside of working hours to make up for an office job. E.g. for me, an hour of high intensity exercise five days a week still placed me firmly in the sedentary range. Part of the issue is that we tend to "forget" about the hours spent at work when evaluati…

I haven't really looked at sedentary ranges, can you point me to the guideline you reference? Are they based on calories burned during an activity, amount of activity, time in HR zones? As for intensity exercises, unless you actually measure your activity it will be difficult to estimate exactly how much time you're active inside of your hour exercise. I would guess a lot of people will over-estimate how much active…

I think it is even more complicated. When I was having after work activities that required me to walk to places, load/unload shelves, water the garden etc, I started loosing weight more then when exercising. And all those activities were not intensive at all. I was moving little bit a lot of time, basically.

Same goes when I go for hikes in summer. I am loosing weight, but I am walking at comfortable pace max.

I did not felt hungry at no point either. I dont know what it is, but intensity is not the only factor.

Post reply on HN