sjcsjc

I posted the following as a reply a few weeks ago, but it might interest some people so I'll re-post it here.

Caveat - this is my interpretation of the various research pieces I've come across. I might be wrong.

It seems that having some period of starvation that is beneficial. Overall calorie intake is less relevant. Decreased overall caloric intake may actually be bad (can't find a link for this at the moment).

Benefits appear to include decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, possible decreased cancer risk, and decreased risk of neurological disease. Also longer life expectancy in some animals, as yet unproven in humans.

Even fasting for short periods regularly appears to be beneficial [5]

Three main reasons - autophagy, ketosis and decreased inflammation.

Autophagy, a kind of intracellular recycling operation, is increased by, inter alia, starvation [1]. It seems likely that most of the benefits of fasting derive from this. Valter Longo is a key researcher into this. Of particular interest to me is his work on fasting coupled with chemotherapy. [2]

Ketosis occurs when all your glucose and glycogen (a polymer of glucose) are used up, and you burn fat instead. Mark Mattson is a key researcher into this. Ketosis appears to have a neuroprotective action [3]

Decreased inflammation - chronic inflammation appears to be a cause of all sorts of problems, and fasting appears to decrease it.

[4] is a good general review

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831538/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308...

[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113...

[5] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319

Use sci-hub for paywalled papers.

I love this every time I see it. Newcomers may not have seen it so reposting doesn't seem a problem. And 24 days ago it was totally ignored in the new submission lottery, so again reposting doesn't seem a problem.

For reference: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14591454

Yeah, but only in uncivilised places and fortunately the casualties are always suspected militants. So that doesn't count.

"A growing number of traders IS betting Snap’s stock price will fall"

Pointless pedanty on my part, no doubt, but I believe there are lots of people here trying to improve their English. The verb is "is" because the subject of the sentence is "number" (not "traders").

(Everything in this response is my interpretation of the research I've seen. Some of it is my guesswork with no evidence).

Good question. It seems that having some period of starvation that is beneficial. Overall calorie intake is less relevant. Decreased overall caloric intake may actually be bad (can't find a link for this at the moment).

Benefits appear to include decreased risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, possible decreased cancer risk, and decreased risk of neurological disease. Also longer life expectancy in some animals, as yet unproven in humans.

Even fasting for short periods regularly appears to be beneficial [5]

Three main reasons - autophagy, ketosis and decreased inflammation.

Autophagy, a kind of intracellular recycling operation, is increased by, inter alia, starvation [1]. It seems likely that most of the benefits of fasting derive from this. Valter Longo is a key researcher into this. Of particular interest to me is his work on fasting coupled with chemotherapy. [2]

Ketosis occurs when all your glucose and glycogen (a polymer of glucose) are used up, and you burn fat instead. Mark Mattson is a key researcher into this. Ketosis appears to have a neuroprotective action [3]

Decreased inflammation - chronic inflammation appears to be a cause of all sorts of problems, and fasting appears to decrease it.

[4] is a good general review

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831538/

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/

[3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308...

[4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113...

[5] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319

Use sci-hub for paywalled papers.

And usually when a submission is old it is marked as such with [year]. I incorrectly assumed that was widely known.

This is from 2012

Definitely worth my time. Thanks.

Re solar: not just deserts (there aren't many in the UK) - https://www.fastcompany.com/3053998/these-sky-high-balloons-...

This reminds me of the 80s when my teenage self also had to get the bus to the library to borrow dusty old books on BASIC from its darkest secluded corners that were frequented by almost no-one besides by other dorks and the occasional weirdo looking for an entirely different type of entertainment.

Since the misspelling was repeated, this could actually be a helpful comment.

Just received a warning about this from my daughter's school.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Whale_(game)

From wikipedia: "The game involves a series of duties given by the administrators that players must complete, usually one per day, some of which involve self-mutilation. Some tasks can be given in advance, others can be passed on by the administrators on the day, the last task being suicide. It is believed that the first case of suicide related to the game occurred in 2015 in Russia."

EDIT: Also from wikipedia: "While the phenomenon is real, some publications have exaggerated its scope, leading to a moral panic"

Good idea. Thanks.

re "its rings". I'm never quite sure whether to correct grammar/spelling or not in HN comments. On the one hand I know there are lots of people here for whom English is a second language and who might find it useful. On the other hand, I don't want to appear dickish. At work I generally ask my non-native-English-speaking colleagues if they want me to point out errors and then act accordingly. And every now and then one of them challenges my correction and I discover I'm wrong ;-)

Typo, I assume. Geoff Hinton

Language is constantly changing in all sorts of ways, and lots of people dislike that fact.

This might be slightly off topic, but I highly recommend the first chapter of R L Trask's Historical Linguistics [0] which is a very entertaining overview of how language changes over time.

He starts with the example of the word "bonk" which after 1986 meant "copulate" but prior to then meant nothing of the kind.

He also discusses the modern [ab]use of the word "hopefully", as in for example: "hopefully we'll be there in time for lunch":

"Here is what Mr Philip Howard, a well-known writer on language, has to say about it: he describes this use of hopefully as 'objectionable', 'ambiguous', 'obscure', 'ugly', 'aberrant', 'pretentious', and 'illiterate'; finally, playing his ace, he asserts that it was 'introduced by sloppy American academics'"

He then goes on to point out that "In spite of the vitriol which hopefully has attracted, then, this word provides us with a neat and elegant way of saying 'I hope and expect that', something that we couldn't say before without using a whole cumbersome string of words."

He goes on:

"Lest you suspect that my example of 'hopefully' might be an atypical case, let's look at something quite different. Consider these examples:

"My car is being repaired My house is being painted This problem is being discussed at today's meeting.

"Anything strange here? I doubt it - I don't think there's an English-speaker alive who regards these as other than normal.

"But it wasn't always so. Until the end of the eighteenth century, this particular construction did not exist in standard English, and an English-speaker would have had to say "My car is repairing", "My house is painting", and "This problem is discussing at today's meeting" - forms which are absolutely impossible for us now.

"... when a few innovating speakers began to say things like "My house is being painted", the linguistic conservatives of the day could not contain their fury. Veins bulging purply from their foreheads, the attacked the new construction as 'clumsy', 'illogical', 'confusing', and 'monstrous'.

"But their efforts were in vain. Today all those who objected to the 'illogical' and 'monstrous' new form are long dead, and the traditional form which they defended with such passion is dead with them."

[0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Trasks-Historical-Linguistics-Rober... (this is the second edition - my copy is the first and I don't know if the first chapter is changed)

Link to paper http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6333/73

Not using those specific terms, unsurprisingly, but this may be of interest: https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regene...

I stand corrected.

This comma could cost you millions kids. Pay attention! FTFY

Noted. Thanks.

Or Yes, Minister

Yes, I have a friend who has sworn by this for at least 20 years.

To my own astonishment, I've started using Bing to avoid AMP.

You're right. I always wondered what Cher was on about.

I recall thinking the singular of sheep was shoop, probably from foot/feet.

No. I hope nothing I've said indicates that. And fwiw I concur with the suggestions in many other comments that diabetics should take medical advice before doing anything as drastic as I'm doing.

Oddly enough I an a doctor of sorts - qualified in medicine 25 years ago, but left immediately to do other things. Thanks for the link. I'm pretty sure I'm not hypocaloric. I make sure I eat enough during the 9 out of 14 days on which I eat, and I haven't lost weight. And yes, none of my comments refer to diabetes.