Eating less and more than needed on alternate days prolongs life (2006) • Hacker News Board

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

#31

Post by dualogy » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:21 AM UTC

reasonattlm wrote: post #6

Slows glaucoma: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep33950 Effects in long-lived mice: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exger.2013.06.009 Protective of the aging heart: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2009.10.003 Benefits without calorie reduction: https://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1035720100 In nematodes, looking at signaling: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature07583 And so on. There is a lot more out there on this topic: htt…

> In order to do that one pretty much as to have a complete map of cellular biochemistry. Don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen;

A point well worth emphasizing. Probably would help if more people interested in such stuff (whether academics or private enthusiasts) started to recognize the importance of the biochemical side and striving for an ever more complete understanding of it, rather than piling epidemiological and observational long-term "study" upon study.. these are valuable, too, granted, but just like in software development, I suspect there's a lot of castles being built on profoundly muddy/slippery/incomplete foundations

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

#32

Post by mikekchar » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:25 AM UTC

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?

Keep in mind that this was a study of 60 individuals all in the same old age home. I haven't read the study (just the abstract), but it seems possible to me that the study is biased by having selected the participants based on the results rather than as a random sample. For example, let's say I look at 1000 old age homes and find one in which all the residents are healthier than other old age homes. Then I find some unusual behaviour in the old age home and attribute that to the increased health. This is classical biased sampling.

It's like looking at all the classrooms in the US and picking the one with the best grades. Then noticing that there is a higher than normal occurrence of the letter "M" in the students' names. Finally we conclude that using the letter "M" in your child's name will lead to a better outcome in their schooling.

Like I said, I haven't read the paper, but I've seen so many similar studies with biased sampling (or with absolutely no mention of their sampling techniques) that I'm highly suspicious.

While it is interesting (and possibly merits further study), I don't think you will find an answer to your question in your lifetime, unfortunately. Experiments that would provide good results will take a long time, if they are ever even attempted.

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

#33

Post by matwood » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:29 AM UTC

flat6turbo wrote: post #17

jackvalentine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried implementing calorie counting... how exactly do you do it? You either cook everything yourself and weigh every ingredient. Or you buy totally packaged meals (Lite 'n Easy, etc), or you buy fast food (And even then, the calorie counts in fast food are... inaccurate at best). If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what's in it and there is no accurate way to estimate. While it's good…

> If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what's in it and there is no accurate way to estimate. uh, why not? i'll do it right now for you off the top of my head, which anyone can do after they look them up for a while. 100g of white bread = ~ 250 calories / 2 tbsp of mayo = ~ 200 calories / 4 oz of deli turkey = ~ 100 calories / 1 tbsp mustard = ~ 10 calories / 2 slices (2 oz.) of cheese = ~ 240…

I was about to start writing a similar comment, but you saved me the time. I just wanted to emphasize that this is why people consistently under/over estimate how many calories they eat. Every single person who has asked me for help either gaining or losing weight has thought they knew how much they were eating until they actually started counting.

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

#34

Post by cagenut » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:29 AM UTC

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #25

rubicon33 wrote: post #7

I have long believed, due entirely to anecdotal evidence, that restricting calories and eating less is one of the best ways to add years to your life. It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body. Though obviously necessary, eating is something that we should strive to minimize. Any more than necessary, and the stress induced from digestion, and inflammatory molecules, damages the body and undermines our…

> It seems that eating is inherently stressful for the body. It seems that eating 3 meals a day, every day, like clockwork, is not the best strategy overall (to say nothing of perpetual snacking in between). I think some signal starts to show above the noise in the data, indicating that our metabolism is optimized for a less regular schedule - or at least a schedule interspersing times of abundance with intervals of…

right but "educate people and then they will use their will power" never even remotely works.

imho the next step is to learn how to measure in much greater detail (and on a personal level) where thresholds for immune, organ, hormone, etc responses occur. Then use that to design and customize diets.

Essentially I wanna capacity plan my carb/sugar intake to keep it just about 20% shy of of triggering an insulin response. That's just one potential example.

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

#35

Post by Retric » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:30 AM UTC

randlet wrote: post #30

jackvalentine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried implementing calorie counting... how exactly do you do it? You either cook everything yourself and weigh every ingredient. Or you buy totally packaged meals (Lite 'n Easy, etc), or you buy fast food (And even then, the calorie counts in fast food are... inaccurate at best). If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what's in it and there is no accurate way to estimate. While it's good…

Spend a couple of weeks/months preparing your own food and weighing everything. Use an app like MyFitnessPal to record and count your calories. It doesn't take very long to develop an intuition that's "good enough" about how many calories a deli sandwich contains.

2% extra calories per day ~= gaining 6 pounds a year. I doubt you can get within 2% making this far less useful.

Basically, you need a feedback mechanism like your actual weight. Counting calories is not about actual calories it's a way to cut back if your not getting the results you want.

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

#36

Post by mikekchar » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:32 AM UTC

jaggederest wrote: post #13

jackvalentine wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having tried implementing calorie counting... how exactly do you do it? You either cook everything yourself and weigh every ingredient. Or you buy totally packaged meals (Lite 'n Easy, etc), or you buy fast food (And even then, the calorie counts in fast food are... inaccurate at best). If I go to the corner shop and get a sandwich I have no idea what's in it and there is no accurate way to estimate. While it's good…

I calorie counted for years. You take things apart and weigh them, or make good estimates based on total weight. You don't need to be very accurate, anything within ~25% error is fine. You just need to be very consistent. The USDA has a great database that provides you all the raw materials (and many of the packaged composite items) to use, and once you've eaten a thing and recorded the values, you can simply reuse t…

As bizarre as it may sound, I have found that buying only pre-packaged food for a few weeks really helps people get a ballpark feel for what 1900 calories (or whatever) looks/feels like. Because the calories on packaged food exist by law (even if they aren't always completely accurate), it's a really easy way learn about it. After that people can develop some intuition (like, "I only ate a few mouthfuls of cheese. How many calories could that be?" or "It's just trail mix. It's healthy. Peanuts and raisins. Like 0 calories!" or "I just have a single bran muffin and a coffee for breakfast. It's not even a meal" or... well you get the idea).

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

#37

Post by nabla9 » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:32 AM UTC

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 is important if you want to lose weight.

Diet patterns and periodic fasting has other wealth effects.

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

#38

Post by mwpmaybe » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:34 AM UTC

randlet wrote: post #27

Florin_Andrei wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's a lot easier if you just flip that rule. Don't eat before 1pm or something like that. Basically, skip breakfast. Seems a lot easier, and the fasting interval should be about the same. Perhaps I'm biased because this is what I naturally do.

I've been doing this for a couple years now (only coffee/water before 12pm and no food after 7-8pm). It's a very effective method of calorie restriction for me. Only eating before 1pm would be absolute torture for me!

I just started doing this a few weeks ago, along with counting calories during my "feeding" window (which I actually try to restrict to six hours). So far so good.

I find I'm actually more successful at counting calories on this schedule. I think it's easier for me to completely abstain during the fasting period, and I'm less tempted to snack with lunch and dinner so close together. I've been planning and allocating my calories like I never have before, even though I've tried many carb- and calorie-counting schemes in the past.

I'm also toying around with taking a little MCT oil in the morning to help with cravings and mental focus and give me a little keto boost. It's unclear to me whether or not this defeats the purpose of the fast. Many people seem to think it's fine ("fat fasting") and maybe even a good idea, but I'm not yet convinced one way or the other.

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

#39

Post by flat6turbo » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:42 AM UTC

nabla9 wrote: post #37

flat6turbo wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 is important if you want to lose weight. Diet patterns and periodic fasting has other wealth effects.

see what i'm saying?

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

#40

Post by synicalx » Thu, Mar 09, 2017, 2:43 AM UTC

zeamaize wrote: post #5

This sort of result has been showed repeatedly. We really need more (and better) nutrition education. The level of obesity and overeating in our society is astounding. I'd be surprised if most people could even implement basic calorie counting.

Is calorie counting really necessary though? Unless you cook every meal yourself, your count is always going to be off by a significant amount which seems to defeat the purpose of counting in the first place.

Surely it would be better to just eat your fruit and veggies, and avoid excessive cheese burgers and thickshakes.