A beginner's guide to intermittent fasting (2012) • Hacker News Board

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

#191

Post by stjohnswarts » Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 8:44 PM UTC

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…

Yet another person acting like "calories-in calories-out" is the only variable in dieting. Good grief. There's a lot of psychology to it. I've lost a bunch of weight just eating 2 meals a day and make that "the law". I don't really count calories. I eat a small plate of food that is "whole" food and not crap. probably 600-800 calories most meals. Occassionally on the weekend I'll relent on a saturday to go out with friends to dinner or movie or something. Most people are getting their extra calories by snacking and eating huge meals when they really don't need to. That's no secret to anyone. There are techniques like IF that work for some people. There also seems to be some side effects as well of less inflammation and food cravings, at least there were for me.

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

#192

Post by vidarh » Thu, Mar 10, 2022, 9:57 PM UTC

sasawpg wrote: post #185

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…

> ... the balance was ~1800-2000 when exercising 5 times a week including 3x1 hour long weightlifting sessions. I see you added a couple more details to your post. Weight lifting sessions really aren't that productive as far as calorie burn is concerned. I pulled a random 30m weight workout and my avg HR was just over 50% resulting in approximately 130kCal/hr burned (estimated based on HR, actual could be a bit highe…

> Weight lifting sessions really aren't that productive as far as calorie burn is concerned.

That's kinda the point. Very few people do high intensity workout very often or very long. Most people who think they're "active" are actually not burning all that much. Weight lifting can be quite intensive. Mine usually are at substantially higher HR than 50% unless I'm going for a 1RM. E.g. I'd do power cleans into press for reps quite regularly, and that gets brutal. But for most people they're not because most people take their time and don't push themselves to progress very fast towards the limits of what they could lift. But even for someone who takes the lifts seriously, sure, it's not going to compete with someone who takes cycling seriously for calorie burn. But then again, most people don't push themselves with cardio either. The proportion who pushes the limits in pretty much any given exercise regime is tiny.

> I would be surprised if I averaged less than 2500, though I haven't tracked in a long time.

You're quite likely right you're above that if you do a lot of cycling.

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

#193

Post by tails4e » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 12:50 AM UTC

JKCalhoun wrote: post #83

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…

My sense is that conventional dietary wisdom comes from an agricultural heritage — where we spent all damn day working the fields. Without that intensive labor, three meals seems to make less sense.

Diet, and wisdom are hard to put in a sentence together with a straight face. It seems this area is fraught with misinformation and disinformation. We're told to eat small amounts regularly, were told to fast intermittently, we're told to avoid carbs and eat fats, avoid fat (OK that's old), calorie count, and calories don't really matter insulin does. It's very very confusing. Is the jury still out on this? is it too subjective? what is the reason that explains why if you ask 10 people you get 10 answers for what you should do to have a good diet and keep weight down?

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

#194

Post by killjoywashere » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 2:53 AM UTC

himlion wrote: post #69

killjoywashere wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

tl:dr: shift your window. I did 18:6 for about 6 months a decade ago and noticed the hangry effect (as did my wife and kids!). I went from 232 to 190 lbs though, placing top 5 in triathlons, so the method undeniably works. It's been 10 years and I found myself back at 225 and decided to get back on the IF wagon in December, with one modification: I stop eating at 9 pm and start at 3 pm, so by the time I encounter my…

Curious what your initial eating window was?

Working man hours, not eating until home, so more like 5 pm to 10 or 11 pm.

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

#195

Post by ycombinete » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 7:05 AM UTC

TimMeade wrote: post #148

pjio wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a "breakfast is my most important meal" person and therefore I eat breakfast and lunch but skip dinner. Works too!

There are several IF studies that say this may be the best way to do it. As the rising of the sun triggers some hormones that help process the food. So having an earlier 'window' has more benefits. Not a doctor. But something i have seen in my studies of this.

That’s interesting, I might have to try this out! Especially since my appetite is most reasonable at breakfast time, and becomes more gluttonous as the day progresses.

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

#196

Post by seer » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 7:49 AM UTC

arboghast wrote: post #42

seer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The work from Dr. Sinclair, and various other scientist seems to agree that its not just weight and body shape, you actually live longer and have less illnesses throughout your life. Really fascinating stuff - the Lifespan podcast really changed how I think about all of this. I'm like you and haven't had breakfast in quite a while, but recently started skipping launch as well. A lot harder, but supposedly will feel a…

Except that in his podcast he spreads a lot of bad science. I'd even call it misinformation. The work on Sirtuins role in health span and life span is, at most, inconclusive. Multiple studies on trans-resveratrol failed to show any improvement whatsoever (and yes, even when mixed with a fat to increase bioavailability). Maybe NMN does something, maybe not. It's not yet clear. He states everything as facts while most…

_Obviously_ until conclusive double blind controlled studies have been done, this is all hypothesis.

The science behind the "longevity clock check" with by testing methaliations seems legit though doesn't it? I'm just a dude on the internet so would love some advice from somebody in the field.

But if that test is real, then it's a mater of time now isn't it? We wouldn't need to wait decades for people to die off so we can prove anything, we can just test with this clock, and in a couple of years we'll have results. I for one am quite excited about the whole thing.

While in his book he is less so, I think he seems pretty straight forward on his podcast by what has been tested with what, and how dubious the science of the various claims is. He admits a lot about some mechanism that they have no idea how it works, just that it does in various model organisms.

Anyway fasting and exercise have been linked to longevity for literally millennia by various religions largely unconnected with each other. I gather that we're now just trying to understand the mechanisms how all of this actually works.

I personally am trying the things on myself that have been proven to not cause harm, and seeing how it affects me. For now I've settled on reduced sugar in my diet, cut out gluten, stoped doing breakfast, started excising and do an occasional (2-3 times a year 4+ days water fasting). Seems to have kept the gray out of my hair for now - a lot of the friends in my age group already have it. Will see how that "no lunch" affects to me. All anecdotal of course.

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

#197

Post by seer » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 7:57 AM UTC

lancesells wrote: post #109

seer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The work from Dr. Sinclair, and various other scientist seems to agree that its not just weight and body shape, you actually live longer and have less illnesses throughout your life. Really fascinating stuff - the Lifespan podcast really changed how I think about all of this. I'm like you and haven't had breakfast in quite a while, but recently started skipping launch as well. A lot harder, but supposedly will feel a…

I'm not doctor but I why skip lunch if it's hard to do? Eat something healthy and enjoy your time and days spent on the earth. I'm not saying ignore eating healthy or exercising. Those are key but punishing yourself to optimize for the possibility of living longer is a weird one. Especially since diet science seems to be far from perfect.

What I gather is that eating less = living longer, and living better. Skipping lunch "feels hard" only at first, supposedly. Friends have been doing the no lunch thing for other reasons and report that after several weeks you just don't feel the need to lunch at all.

For me that sounds like a little bit of hardship now, for a big gain afterwards. I get the time to think about / prepare lunch back, and can now enjoy my dinners way more, as I don't need to really think and restrain myself on how much I eat then.

Obviously I wouldn't trade feeling bad for the rest of my life for a longer life, but it seems that's not what's happening, hopefully. It's more like "invest a bit of pain now, gain a lot of pleasure later" kinda dynamic. But I'm in the middle of this thing though so we'll see :)

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

#198

Post by tasuki » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 8:40 AM UTC

ssharp wrote: post #153

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 f…

Why do your kids eat breakfast? Do they want to?

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

#199

Post by wink » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 1:32 PM UTC

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'd say yours is as much anecdata as mine. I've skipped breakfast for years at times and the only thing with calories between 10pm and lunch was the milk in my coffee (mentioning it because it might invalidate the whole thing, but not talking about daily morning coffee) and I didn't lose any weight, despite not being overly hungry at lunchtime and eating massive portions...

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

#200

Post by dorfsmay » Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 2:08 PM UTC

puchatek wrote: post #184

dorfsmay wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I would be very surprised if 500 kcal didn't register because of IF. Is that the claim though? I've been doing 5:2 for years and there they say "eat normally" on the off days. Don't overeat/compensate.

So intermittent fasting for ease of compliance? Yes, that I agree with. As stated above my issue is to let people believe they can eat all the food they want as long as they follow a magic schedule.