Comment by dorfsmay | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dorfsmay | Hacker News Reader

Intermittent fasting works because you end up eating less calories. On the other hand, shifting your eating to earlier in the day while eating the same amount of calories leads to weight loss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQThN6e4PD4

I don't have a reference to it handy, but I know Rhonda Patrick talk about this: it takes a minimum of three days fasting in humans to reproduce the effects seen in one day fasting in mice. Her theory is that their metabolism is much faster, and one day is a much bigger percentage of a mouse total life time than a human's.

I lost a lot of weight by skipping meals, but then got stuck. I then started logging my food intake, mainly to keep track of nutrients, make sure I eat adequate amount of fiber, etc... Since I was doing it I decided to be consistent and restrict my calories: my weight is linearly correlated with the amount of calories I eat. I still skip meals for convenience, because I get an energy boost and because it was hard for me to eat small meals, but I'm very conscious of my calorie intake and adjust throughout the week when I end up over or under eat.

Yet another person acting like "calories-in calories-out" is the only variable in dieting. Good grief. There's a lot of psychology to it. I've lost a bunch of weight just eating 2 meals a day and make that "the law". I don't really count calories. I eat a small plate of food that is "whole" food and not crap. probably 600-800 calories most meals. Occassionally on the weekend I'll relent on a saturday to go out with friends to dinner or movie or something. Most people are getting their extra calories by snacking and eating huge meals when they really don't need to. That's no secret to anyone. There are techniques like IF that work for some people. There also seems to be some side effects as well of less inflammation and food cravings, at least there were for me.

Number of calories is the only option, but there are many techniques for compliance. I'm fine with saying that skipping meals and snacking helps some people compliance, hunger issues etc... and do it myself, but want to warn against the idea that one can eat as much as they want as long as they eat on a magical schedule.

You're completely discounting the effects of fasting on insulin levels. Low levels of insulin are correlated with higher rates of lipid oxidisation.

Not that this effect will outweigh e.g. an additional banana you devour because you're famished after fasting. But it is there. Counting calories is a good help in making sure you don't nullify it.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-a...)

Sure, but how much effect do all those "side effects" have in comparison to a significant calorie deficit or surplus? How applicable are those effect to the average person who wants to keep their eating to something relatively simple?

Do you think that any of those effects will be enough to maintain your weight if you consistently eat a 500 calorie surplus?

My issue is that a lot of people start doing "intermittent fasting" (less than 3 days) thinking they can eat all they want during the eating period, and that they will benefit from the fasting health effects shown in mice studies, but neither is true.

I would be very surprised if 500 kcal didn't register because of IF. Is that the claim though? I've been doing 5:2 for years and there they say "eat normally" on the off days. Don't overeat/compensate.

So intermittent fasting for ease of compliance? Yes, that I agree with. As stated above my issue is to let people believe they can eat all the food they want as long as they follow a magic schedule.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com