Hacker News Reader

Comment by issa | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure why the study was designed this way, but it seems poorly thought out. 16 hours of fasting is eating dinner at 6pm and then going to brunch the next morning. They really should have done 20 or at least 18 hours. My personal feeling, is that there are a whole bunch of factors involved, and time restricted eating is one of them. I'm looking forward to the science being done on this.

View on HN

Precisely. If I fast for 16 hours it does not do much. As a male in early 40s I have to hit atleast 18-20 hours of fasting to start seeing a difference. I have to restrict sugar intake also during the 4-5 hour eating window.

Why would 18 or 20 hours be better than 16? What would happen physiologically in the extra 2-4 hours of fasting that didn't happen in the first 16?

The theory of fasting in this situation is that once your body burns the available food-fuel, various systems are impacted. So, if that is correct, you would see a change towards the end of the fasting period. A longer period would therefore be expected to show more change.

16 hour fasting seems to be the most popular form of intermittent fasting (especially as a way to lose weight), so I think it makes sense to focus on it.

If you've ever gone down the internet rabbit hole of intermittent fasting (which I don't recommend!) you'll find that people shoot for 20/4 or at least 18/6. 16/8 is the beginner version.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com