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

Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

oa.mg

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 91 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

#31

Post by tgtweak »

bhaney wrote: post #25

> Given the same energy intake > During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for women and men, respectively That seems like the first claim is just untrue and the 2-day-fasters are consuming fewer calories over…

1700kcals/day is already in diet territory for an overweight male, honestly.

I think that the logic of giving even less to those fasting is pretty obvious that it would lead to more weight loss.

You can read the full study here, but it seems to confirm a caloric defecit on the IF2 and IF group vs control.

https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s1293...

...

IF1-P, 9058±692 kcals/week vs.

IF2-P, 8389±438 kcals/week

A proper methodology would be to have all 3 groups consume the same 7-day baseline diet for 2 weeks, then switch into the IF groups and monitor increases in rate-of-change for body weight vs net body weight difference before/after. There should also be similar caloric input for all groups before and after program to see if there is actually an additional benefit to intermittent fasting vs caloric input reduction.

Re: Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

#33

Post by stormbrew »

daviross wrote: post #14

> protein pacing diet for the remaining five/six days/week (Protein pacing refers to 4–6 meals/day evenly-spaced, where each meal contains 25–40g of protein) > During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for wom…

> Also something I was wondering, the repeated emphasis on short-term benefits has me wonder how the participants did after the trial.

This right here is the first and most important reason to be skeptical of any study on weight loss. None of these things ever turn out to do anything useful on a time horizon that matters.

If you want to know how to lose weight for a few weeks you don't need a peer reviewed journal, just go get a "women's health" magazine and read about several ways that really do probably work to lose weight in that timespan.

And then you gain it back.

Re: Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

#34

Post by kooky5489 »

unethical_ban wrote: post #17
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate a little about your regimen? Each time I attempted water fasting, the next day I was basically famished ( and needless to say, any progress made was lost ).

I have the same question. Specifically, for a fast lasting longer than 24 hours, is any supplement taken? What side effects occur? I did Paleo in 2012 for several months with success. However, I have tried Keto/low carb again several times with less success. Specifically with Sated meal replacement. I get muscle cramps and other side effects that I assume are due to changes in the diet.

I completed a 7 day water fast about a month ago. For the first time in my life managed to break 70kg/154lbs barrier(30M,5'5) lost about 3.5kg/7.5lbs during that week. First day or two are tough due to cravings, best way to counteract that is to supplement with multivits, electrolytes and nutritional yeast, dissolved in water(for vitamin B). Once ketosis is in full gear, you will get used to it (around day 3) and feel an amazing euphoric energy. Sleep is another thing to factor in, sleep quality will be impacted during the first couple of days so brace yourself.

Also be careful when refeeding[1], I had bone broth to wake my digestive system slowly, then moved onto complex food within hours.

Would I do it again? absolutely!!

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refeeding_syndrome

Re: Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

#35

Post by WithinReason »

DoreenMichele wrote: post #28

The reason why intermittent fasting works is that it is associated with increased oxidation of fatty acids (lipolysis) and ketone body formation (ketogenesis), activated cell-signaling pathways (insulin sensitivity, reduced inflammation, autophagy), and preservation of lean body mass, known as “metabolic switching”. The interesting fact however is that typically, these mechanisms are not fully activated until at leas…

That's when you consume your glycogen stores

Re: Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

#36

Post by von_lohengramm »

saargrin wrote: post #27
daviross wrote: post #14

> protein pacing diet for the remaining five/six days/week (Protein pacing refers to 4–6 meals/day evenly-spaced, where each meal contains 25–40g of protein) > During fasting days, participants fasting for one day/week were allowed to consume 400 Kcal/day, while participants fasting for two consecutive days were allowed 500 Kcal/day. During non-fasting days the dietary regimen provided 1350 and 1700 kcals/day for wom…

1700 kcal a day for male is already pretty high calorie deficit even without any physical activity

On average, sure, but there are plenty of metabolic outliers, and I doubt those seeking weight loss are on the higher end. My weight was surprisingly consistent at 1300kcal/day.

Re: Intermittent fasting 2 days vs. 1 day per week

#37

Post by bcassedy »

FartyMcFarter wrote: post #22
hackerlight wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minimum for normal people should be 0.8*kg/day and muscle building gains top out at around 1.6*kg/day. If these people are fat then just 1.0*kg/day could be 125g/day.

> If these people are fat I've always wondered - do the 0.8 / 1.6 grams of protein per kg apply equally across someone's whole weight? If someone has a lot of body fat compared to lean mass (bones / muscle etc), would the protein requirement per kg go down accordingly? In other words, does having more fat tissue increase protein requirements, or should we instead think of protein requirements only for lean body mass?

Recommendations I've seen that are targeted at people trying to lose fat are given in grams per kg of lean body mass.

I can't imagine a mechanism for fat to increase the need for more protein beyond needing more muscle to carry around the extra weight but that's already reflected in LBM.

Post reply on HN