Live data from Hacker News

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

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

71–80 of 129 posts

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

#71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about avoiding weight loss? I've had far more success just keeping a simple food diary and going "wow I eat a lot of cakes" and cutting them out. I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) and their success comes from the very act of attempting to quantify what they're eating being a defacto food diary.

it doesn't matter if it's accurate, it matters if it's precise, and consistent. kind of like the scale you stand on, or weigh your food with.

I disagree that you can possibly be precise and consistent across foods without preparing them yourself.

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

#72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said anything about avoiding weight loss? I've had far more success just keeping a simple food diary and going "wow I eat a lot of cakes" and cutting them out. I have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!) and their success comes from the very act of attempting to quantify what they're eating being a defacto food diary.

I actually agree with you - to a large degree, counting the calories is enough to change behavior in itself, without even attempting to modify your diet at all. The point remains, though, that it really doesn't matter how accurate or precise you are, simply that you're gathering data and using it to make measurable changes in your diet. Your way is perfectly fine too! The nice things about calories (just like money)…

My point though is what you're "measuring" is quite difficult to do in a clinical setting, let alone every day living your life.

The above poster talking about the deli sandwich mentally breaking down all the ingredients... I'm happy to be proven wrong but I simply don't believe you can do that with a reasonable degree of accuracy.

I suppose this is turning in to quite a pedantic argument about the definition of "count". I'd call what everyone has said they're doing more accurately a "calorie estimating food diary".

My initial post was genuinely curious about how people can be so accurate when eating foods from a variety of non pre-measured sources. It turns out they're not being accurate.

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

#73
post #70

> Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species. Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings? First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.

Calorie restriction prolongs life, it's been proven in studies on animals.

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

#74
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.

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 had success with a smartphone app (loseit) and estimating. You really don't need to be more precise. Lost 3-4 kilos in a month. Doing a rough calculation will often do the trick, that one sandwich could be 400-500 calories, and you had two beers, which is already 400-500. A weight losing calculator suggested you can eat about 2000 calories that day. So that's already half o your daily intake. But if you go run or cycle for an hour you can eat maybe 300-400 more. Keeping track breaks the bad eating habits.

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

#75
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.

In addition to education, just having less miseducation would be a start.

I suspect part of the problem is that if anyone ever admits to skipping breakfast they're shamed and guilted about as much as if they'd started the day by doing lines of cocaine. The breakfast nazis are out in force, and they push this idea on people when they're very young (even though breakfast is mostly a scam made to sell sugary grains).

Anecdata, but I only started to lose weight and feel healthier when I switched to only eating when I was hungry. Most of my eating had been to adhere to US social norms or combat boredom (while not great, diet soda worked to fight the latter until I got used to the idea that I didn't need to be consuming stuff). For all the "education" out there, "you don't have to eat if you're not hungry" is shockingly rare advice.

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

#76
post #70

> Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species. Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings? First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.

> First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy?

Define healthy? They may lose muscle mass / strength but still get sick less and live longer.

In my mind it makes some sense that slowing down your metabolism moderately could make your body "last" longer... but this is just me trying to make sense of things and I'm far from an expert.

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

#77
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are a few reasons for eating only once a day as a monk. Making yourself easy to take care of is one of them, as you mentioned. But there is another interesting point that a senior monk taught me while I was ordained. He said that one of reasons food intake is restricted is to avoid building up a lot of energy reserves which often leads to getting your mind going on the wrong things, something that's particularl…

Along the same lines, monks begin to gather energy through different methods. They aren't eating as much but can sustain themselves off the vitality of the sun and surrounding environment (if they are in a clean, restorative environment.. basically nature)

[deleted]

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

#78
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?

Intermittent fasting / calorie restriction has a wide range of health benefits, and give your age, there's no reason not to start now.. provided of course that you're getting a proper amount of calories in your diet for your activity level.

Most longevity research targets older people because they are the group that is most interested.. and unfortunately by that time it's mostly too late to do anything significant, so of course the best thing is to start now.

If anything you'll benefit more by starting now, because as you get older your body becomes more difficult to change (for lack of a better phrase)

At any rate, forget the research, focus on yourself.

The most important thing you can do is get regular exercise. Use your body, let your body naturally work it's way to better health. A sedentary lifestyle will kill you quicker than anything else.

Second most important thing (IMHO) is trying to limit the amount of stress in your life. Get out of stressful situations, focus on yourself, meditate, don't let yourself get bothered by things that you can't change or aren't worth your time. This is not only good for yourself mentally, but will help your immune system, lower your body's inflammation levels, etc.

If you do these things you'll be well on your way to living a long healthy life. Then you can add whatever other health recommendations come along your way, olive oil, the occasional glass of red wine, etc.

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

#79
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What, confirmation bias?

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

#80
post #70

> Restricting caloric intake to 60-70% of normal adult weight maintenance requirement prolongs lifespan 30-50% and confers near perfect health across a broad range of species. Am I the only one for whom this ends all kind of warnings? First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy? Second, "confers near perfect health" seems like a hell of a claim.

>First, how can eating less than required to maintain mass be healthy?

Because you don't need to maintain the full adult mass you carry. In the end you'll find a new balance, albeit skinnier. It's not like you'll end to 0 pounds.

In other words, the "normal adult weight maintenance" target weight is not that normal, and not optimally healthy.

Post reply on HN