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

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

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 129 posts

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

#81

Post by rlanday »

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…

A can of soda is only about 140 calories. I.e. half the calories in the bread. I think it gets a way worse reputation than it deserves.

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

#82

Post by coldtea »

jackvalentine wrote: post #42
flat6turbo wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You're literally guessing the quantities of the ingredients of the sandwich. (and mixing measurements... grams AND ounces?) How is that counting? That's my point. You're getting a vague idea of what you're eating but it is in no way calorie counting.

>You're getting a vague idea of what you're eating but it is in no way calorie counting.

No, that's exactly calorie counting in the real world.

This is not advanced math or chemistry lab, and you don't need to get to even 80% accuracy for everything. Just to be consistent and get a good feel.

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

#83

Post by coldtea »

jackvalentine wrote: post #47
flat6turbo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mixing g and oz - that's a novel and interesting excuse to avoid the work of weight loss. usually people just blame their thyroid but this bullshit excuse at least has some kind of passable scientific pedantry behind it. i'll have to file that one for later. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analysis_paralysis

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 have a theory that 'calorie counters' are shockingly inaccurate (one other poster mentioned a 25% margin is 'fine'!)

Accurate or inaccurate is only meaningful related to the task and its requirements. 25% can be totally acceptable margin of error for the task. We use even bigger margins in lots of ventures (determining which startup will have a succesful exit to fund, for one).

And yes, the mere act of quantifying helps. But quantifying with even 25% error is still better than just writing down "ate 5 cakes", especially if one doesn't eat too many repeats of the same food.

Not sure in what reasoning one can complain for a method with 25% margin of error (say), but be OK with a method like "5 cakes" which still applies quantification, just in an even more vague and hazy sense.

5 cakes is much worse than 5 carrots, for example, but with merely writing down how many you ate, you have to rely on a far more relative guesstimation of their relative harm than you would be if you were counting their calories and being off by 25%).

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

#84

Post by coldtea »

jackvalentine wrote: post #72
jaggederest wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 "cou…

>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.

You are just overestimating both the difficulty and the degree of accuracy required.

While at the same time, still relying on even more vague terms, to determine if you ate too many cakes etc (as per your other example).

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

#85

Post by easytiger »

kbart wrote: post #66
blackSnake wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

If you make such claims, provide some evidence to back it up or else it sounds simply nuts.

It is all complete bunk. It became a fad in the Uk in the 90s and a couple of people died

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

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

#86

Post by dalore »

nabla9 wrote: post #12

I read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting. Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for…

16 hours of not eating is enough to put your body into ketosis. Perhaps it's related. I know there are health benefits to being in ketosis and eating a keto diet.

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

#87

Post by madhacker69 »

nabla9 wrote: post #12

I read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting. Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for…

There is research going back to the 60ies that shows that any form of reduced caloric intake is beneficial. It can take any form. The outcome is always the same, fasting improves most aspects of health.

Religious groups don't generally make good research subjects due to the fact that it's hard to set up control groups and their population varies too much from the regular joe.

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

#90

Post by johndoe4589 »

nabla9 wrote: post #12

I read from somewhere that even 16 hours is enough for the benefits of Intermittent fasting. Has anyone done studies with Buddhist monks in Vipassana tradition? They have rule not to eat after midday. Obviously many of them cheat different ways but if you can find the hardcorce monks and monasteries, you would have several thousands (possibly tens of thousands) subjects who have already been following the regime for…

Same on the [10 day Vipassana retreats](http://www.dhamma.org/en-US/locations/directory), for "old students" (basically if you return for the 2nd time or more).

So as an "old student" I learned that there was no meal at 5pm. Instead we had hot water with lemon, I think we were allowed to eat a fruit :)

You get used to it pretty quickly.

That said, they have an AMAZING breakfast that is very filling.

And.. you sit for long periods so you can't assume the results are practical for "lay man" day jobs and activities. Could be for programming jobs...

Post reply on HN