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

Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 169 posts

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#51

Post by motohagiography »

xyst wrote: post #16

Not surprised. I have been doing intermittent fasting combined with increased cardio activity, significantly reducing sugar intake (only source is from fruits and occasional/once a month indulgences) , and mild increase in fish consumption while reducing beef consumption. So far, 20 lb weight loss in 3-4 month period. Cholesterol levels were “borderline” prior to weight loss (no statins Rx’d). Fasting glucose normal.…

Black licorice is a terrible vice for me because it seems like less of one. I do OMAD + hiking + zero alcohol, and lost about 20lbs in 3mos as well. I've done omad before, but was sedantary and still drinking and while it worked, I gained it all back when I started adding lunches again, but it was because of being sedantary.

OMAD is effectively calorie restriction anyway because the longer you do intermittant fasting, the lower your average calorie consumption becomes over that period. Can't say it's healthy or smart, but it worked for me.

Current play is adapting this OMAD + hiking + zero alcohol for the winter to be fewer hikes but adding stronglifts 5x5 3-4x a week as a routine, which should consume any marginal meals and create the metabolic demand as I start lifting heavier again. I've found that sobriety is a free super power as well, can't recommend it highly enough for cutting out impaired judgment snacks.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#52

Post by stevenwoo »

OrionSeven wrote: post #30
herdcall wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it's as simple as what's the net -ve because with TRE the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) does not reduce like with calorie restricted eating, so the net -ve is higher with TRE even when the calorie intake is the same. Also, reducing the BMR has other negative effects because the body does away with key repairing processes to live with the reduced availability of energy.

Do you have a source that shows BMR does not reduce with TRE?

Multiple hacker news stories have been published about Herman Ponzter and double water studies. https://researchblog.duke.edu/2021/03/24/duke-researcher-bus...

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#53

Post by mym1990 »

rip_netrunner wrote: post #35
bgroat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for a lot of people (me included), the primary advantage is in ease of measurement. It's hard to count calories accurately. It's very easy to look at the clock and determine if it's between 1300-1900 hours

That's Time Restricted Feeding, which is not quite the same as intermittent fasting. An example would be doing a 36 hour fast, twice per week.

Intermittent fasting has no strict minimum that you have to fast, it can be 10-12 hours and still be intermittent fasting.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#54

Post by gopher2000 »

pard68 wrote: post #39
uberduper wrote: post #38

In my experience and observations, calorie restricted diets are pretty easy to adhere to until sometime between dinner and bed time. This is where people typically go off the rails and eat far in excess of satiation, negating any success of the day. Intermittent fasting typically has people shift their eating times towards the end of the day which should significantly reduce the chances of falling into a pre-bedtime…

I lost a lot of weight on a calorie restricted diet, from 215lb to 165lb over the course of a few years. But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking. I much prefer things like intermittent fasting or keto, I can think about what I am eating less and it's really raised my quality of life.

> But I gave it up because counting calories is soul sucking.

In the beginning it certainly is. But once I did it for a while, I found that I had developed a mental understanding for what various foods represented in terms of calories and could navigate it with much less effort. I started with spreadsheets and apps.

IMO much of the value in calorie counting stems from those early weeks where you suddenly realize how many calories each food represents - and relative to that how filling you find them.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#55

Post by [deleted] »

rip_netrunner wrote: post #35
bgroat wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think for a lot of people (me included), the primary advantage is in ease of measurement. It's hard to count calories accurately. It's very easy to look at the clock and determine if it's between 1300-1900 hours

That's Time Restricted Feeding, which is not quite the same as intermittent fasting. An example would be doing a 36 hour fast, twice per week.

[deleted]

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#56

Post by nerdface »

uberduper wrote: post #38

In my experience and observations, calorie restricted diets are pretty easy to adhere to until sometime between dinner and bed time. This is where people typically go off the rails and eat far in excess of satiation, negating any success of the day. Intermittent fasting typically has people shift their eating times towards the end of the day which should significantly reduce the chances of falling into a pre-bedtime…

I once heard a great tip to prevent those pre-bedtime snacks. After dinner, brush your teeth as if you’re going to bed. Your brain already associates that with “no more food” and so programmatically dissuades you from eating. It’s always worked for me.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#57

Post by kasey_junk »

Izkata wrote: post #48
gspencley wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've done both. I can attest that intermittent fasting, at least for me, is WAY more sustainable ... and actually makes maintaining a calorie deficit easier too. Hunger is a weird thing. People tend to assume that if you don't eat you'll just get hungrier and hungrier. The reality is that hunger comes in waves. If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. And the longer you don't eat, the le…

Years ago I did some experimenting on myself, including increasing to gain weight, and at least for me hunger seems to mostly be a function of relative emptiness from recent maximum fullness. Sounds odd, but let's say I filled my stomach to 90% of my total capacity, then a few hours later I've digested down to 45% capacity and that's when I get hungry. That's -50% of the last maximum. If I spend a week or two restric…

I do 24-48 hour fasts weekly and for me the single biggest determinate of hunger is what I ate the day before.

Carbs, especially sugar and processed carbs make the fast day’s miserable. But if I stick to meat, vegetables and some whole grains it’s usually no big deal.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#58

Post by jitl »

rtkwe wrote: post #37
jitl wrote: post #8

“More effective” in what capacity? Adherence. > The mean (SD) reduction in energy intake was -313 (509) kcal/d for TRE, -197 (426) kcal/d for CR, and -16 (439) kcal/d for controls So — the time restricted eating group reduced calories more than the group that counted calories; but the resulting weight loss has the same cause: reduced calorie intake compared to before. If there’s a take away here, it’s possibly that a…

I see this kind of 'well actually' style response a lot when calorie counting vs intermittent fasting gets brought up. Yes they're both forms of calorie restriction in general but the mechanism and the ease of adherence is pretty difference so important to study especially given the results that IF seems to be significantly more effective because it's easier to execute.

After causally seeing popular weight loss advice in US media over the years offering all variety of silver bullets (One Weird Trick etc), I was flabbergasted and betrayed to learn how simple the math of weight loss is once I finally looked into it 4 months ago.

Very roughly, there’s 3500kcal in 1lb of body. Given that fact plus your current weight and calorie intake, you can build a spreadsheet in 30 mins to compute the calories per day to make your body any weight you want in a reasonable time frame (losing >1% a week is generally viewed as unhealthy and risky).

Of course adhering to the plan is the challenging part - and then it’s helpful to consider strategies like TRE, once you understand the metric target part.

I wrote the comment as a reaction to the editorialized headline suggesting to some degree that TRE is a silver bullet / One Weird Trick. Maybe it is effectively that for many people - but in case there’s a casual reader scrolling past I want to give them a bit more of the ground truth that’s somehow not popular knowledge.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#59

Post by krasney »

The most recent critiques I've seen for intermittent fasting have to do with how it may not preserve lean body mass unless you are extremely conscientious about getting enough protein (and probably resistance training). That is, if you don't get enough protein during your feeding windows, you'll lose lean body mass along with fat mass, which harms body composition. I'd expect to see the TRE arm losing more lean body mass.

Table 2 seems to show this effect. The TRE arm lost more lean body mass and fat mass, although without a difference in visceral fat. If compliance is the issue, I'd be curious to understand what regime can help TRE participants comply with a minimum protein threshold in their diet to minimize the risk of lean body mass loss.

Re: Intermittent fasting more effective than calorie restriction

#60

Post by 01100011 »

Latest I've heard is that it all boils down to calories and that intermittent fasting (time restricted eating or 8/16)makes you lose muscle faster due to low protein during the fasting period.

Better to eat less calories and consume small amounts of protein throughout the day.

https://youtu.be/G3-EW7nWCbU

I tried IF a couple times in my life. First time, coupled with lots of endurance exercise, worked great but I was constantly fighting to retain muscle. Second time I didn't exercise as much but also didn't lose any weight. I did develop extreme post-meal fatigue though, and that has persisted for years since stopping IF.

Post reply on HN