17 ms·

Can a Diet That Mimics Fasting Turn Back the Clock?

181 points by sjcsjc 9y ago

brad0 9y ago
It's annoying that there isn't enough research on calorie restricted diets to conclusively show the benefits and drawbacks.
- learc83 9y ago
  Diet research is expensive because people are terrible at self reporting. Especially with something like calorie restriction. To get good data you really need to monitor people 24 hours a day.
  - miguelrochefort 9y ago
    > To get good data you really need to monitor people 24 hours a day. Unfortunately people love their privacy too much to make that happen.
    - mikhailt 9y ago
      I doubt it has to do with privacy, have you seen how many selfies are out there with food shots and stuff? Plus, such studies could be funded to give people money for tracking this. I believe the problem isn't with privacy but just that it is difficult to keep notes of what you eat daily. Make a product that makes monitoring what you eat very easy to do and you can get more data that's solid. What Apple did with HealthKit did in fact help, we just need more of that. I know a buddy who lost weight easily because of a smartwatch (Apple Watch) that he uses to monitor his input because it is so easy and quick.
      - miguelrochefort 9y ago
        People should be more serious about nutrition. It's impossible to track and test nutrients if you're not disciplined about it. Ideally, you would only eat what you (or a coach, or an app) planned to eat. Most people should have a nutrition routine where they eat the same thing every day or week. Eating for pleasure should be the exception, not the norm. Tracking only the 5% of food that's not part of your routine would be a lot easier (especially if packaged and provides a bar code).
        goldfeld 9y ago
        No, people should be less neurotic about their nutrition, eat less, and let go. Don't over think it or put up barriers to health.
        miguelrochefort 9y ago
        Most people are not qualified to feed themselves.
        chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Agreed. Food is for nutrition. Instead we've made it into some sort of proxy for an orgasm. Yet ask people what they ate yesterday and they're likely unable to tell you. Point being, they we're so determined to eat something that "made them feel good" that they already forgot. So instead they should have ate for their body, not their mind. Pardon me, but I really think there's some truth to "fat and stupid."
    - sov 9y ago
      This happens frequently. See: metabolic wards.
    - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
      We could also give incentives to prisoners for participating in health related studies. It gets a really bad wrap because of historical abuses, but it could really be a win/win. All the prisoners would need to be separated and lose access to the commissary. They would probably be willing to trade their commissary for access to an XBox in their cell or something similar. Then we can control exactly what they eat, and measure the effects of a calorie surplus or deficit over time. We could even give prisoners the same amount of calories but different macros, to finally prove the effects of a long term ketogenic diet are different than just calorie restriction. The food would have to be more palatable than what they receive now, and they would have to agree to consume 100% of it and not try and trade with other prisoners. This probably involves a guard who watches them eat in their cells. It would be costly, but not nearly as expensive as the controlled environment studies in a hospital (metabolic wards) that Gary Taubes has done before.
- reasonattlm 9y ago
  The CALERIE study data seems pretty compelling to me. What more do you want?
  - hodder 9y ago
    Demonstrative evidence that shows meaningfully lower disease rates and longer life expectancy in calorie restricted cohorts of accurately tracked long term human trials. That is basically what most people would love to see. Unfortunately, studies like this are notoriously difficult to run due to terrible self reporting. To complete an accurate study like this would likely take constant monitoring and an administered diet for the participants.
- collyw 9y ago
  There is decent evidence in rat studies. Ok, not human, but its a good start.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    I seem to remember primate studies haven't been so conclusive.
- allsunny 9y ago
  Diet research is notoriously difficult. If you have a chance (and haven't alreadY) pick-up Gary Taubes book, "The Calorie Myth." Even if you don't agree with his conclusions he does a great job in explaining the difficulty of diet research. It's why he prefaces ideas in his books with "I could be completely wrong about all of this." It's hard to completely trust any given study in the area and why there is a ton of conflicting information out there.
- keymone 9y ago
  do you think there will ever be enough? calorie restriction is just one, very vague detail about input for human body; macro distribution, amount of fiber, amount of water and many more are just glossed over. total weight or even breakdown by tissue type on the other hand is a very simplistic measure of the "output". blood glucose, white/brown fat distribution, hormonal balance, basal metabolic rate, blood pressure and many more - all depend from long-term diet choices. it's like trying to train a nn by providing 95% random noise with input and not bothering to understand 95% of output. seems like taking everything into account is just too expensive.
- threepipeproblm 9y ago
  Intermittent fasting does not necessarily entail calorie restriction. However, if low calorie diets work one mechanism is probably autophagy, and intermittent fasting with much more moderate calorie restriction (or without calorie restriction) will also stimulate autophagy. So one could potentially get some of the benefits of calorie restriction while avoiding some of the problems. All this said, fasting is an extra stressor on the body, I think... something to be aware of. Autophagy can also be achieved by limiting protein over a certain time window, and some have advocated this as a likely preventative for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzehiemer's, involving "plaques" that are normally cleaned up during authophagy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
unholywars 9y ago
look at hunter gatherers, native tribes in brazil, and some of those african dudes. they're all shredded, 10% body fat or less, that's how humans are supposed to live, not a 25% body fat blob of sedentarism
allsunny 9y ago
I've been trying out fasting over the past 6 months or so. I watched the BBC documentary (Eat, Fast & Live Longer) and read Jason Fung's book (Complete Guide to Fasting) and decided I'd see if I could do it; mostly to lose weight but the health improvements often cited seemed great as well. For me it turned out it to be easier to do than I thought. I had a mental barrier in my head that going without a meal or two would put me in some sort of dangerous state where my body couldn't function. Once I realized that wasn't the case I was able to plow through increasingly long periods of time without eating. Things I've noticed: * being h-angry is a real thing. ;-) Make sure you have a low-stress time window to do the fasting in * drink a lot of water * hunger comes in waves, you'll get to a point where you feel super hungry, it'll usually pass after some time. * maybe it's placebo but I recognize a stronger ability to focus when I'm in the midst of a fasting period * if you get super hungry, just eat. don't beat yourself up over it * i've generally learned to NOT tell people you're fasting, they think you're crazy (immediately they associate it with anorexia, etc) * again, don't forget to drink water
- elorant 9y ago
  Are there any particular foods you avoid or ones that you eat more? Fruits for example, are you eating more or less of those? How many times a day do you eat and which meal do you skip? I'd like to hear more usable info about this if you don't mind me asking.
  - allsunny 9y ago
    I generally try to avoid sugar and refined carbohydrates. I find if I eat too much of them my appetite spikes later in the day or the next day. So my "normal" diet low-carb, hight fat. I eat a lot of protein and vegetables but I'm not religious about it. If my family / friends want to go out for pizza or whatever, I'll have it, and dessert. :) But most days, except for those when I'm fasting, I usually eat chicken or fish and vegetables. I only eat breakfast once or twice a week (on the weekends with my family) and then it's just eggs and bacon, maybe a slice of toast. I fast a day or two a week. The meal plan for those days is simple: water and black coffee.
- GordonS 9y ago
reasonattlm 9y ago
From an HN audience perspective, perhaps the most interesting thing going on here in recent years is the way in which Longo's group managed to break out of the funding ghetto of aging research for this one part of the field by figuring out the plan and establishing the relationships to productize the research. This pulled in new money and support that allowed them to make good, new steps in quantifying the effects of reduced calorie intake. The cost is that we now have another set of marketing drones extracting rent from the regulatory capture /intellectual property morass for telling people to eat less, but you can decide for yourself whether this is clever hacking of a hopelessly corrupt system or adding to the problem.
sjcsjc 9y ago
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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831538/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/ [3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308001045 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308... [4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113005032 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113... [5] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319 Use sci-hub for paywalled papers.
- MicroBerto 9y ago
  Experimenting with the keto diet for my YouTube endeavors and one thing I didn't expect is how much better my joints would feel. Prediction: the keto diet will soon come under HEAVY fire from mainstream media, journals, and lobbyist health organizations under the pressure of certain agriculture and pharma groups. Just wait for it.
  - 9y ago
GreaterFool 9y ago
This was mentioned on HN not too long ago: https://prolonfmd.com/ https://prolonfmd.com/ (fasting mimicking diet). If they'd ship to where I live I'd try it. Always happy to try new things that could potentially benefit.
- js2 9y ago
  That URL is mentioned in the article. The site requires you to fill out a survey to see the cost. For the curious: 1-2 boxes: $299 per box One box of ProLon is a 5-day total diet replacement. No extra food purchases needed for those days. 3-6 boxes: $250 per box Using three boxes of ProLon over a three month period replicates the clinical trial protocol. Price includes shipping, sales tax charged only in CA.
  - nothis 9y ago
    Holy overpriced batman! Are they feeding you with gold dust or something?
    - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
      If you want to try this the frugal way, check out what this guy did. https://www.quantifiedbob.com/2016/04/fasting-mimicking-diet/ https://www.quantifiedbob.com/2016/04/fasting-mimicking-diet...
  - miguelrochefort 9y ago
    Why couldn't I just drink water and electrolytes instead?
    - ar-jan 9y ago
      I recall an interview with Valter Longo in which he said the fasting-mimicking diet was just because patients were more comfortable with eating a special diet than with a full water fast, and doctors were also more willing to recommend the FMD than a water fast, because it seems so extreme to people. So you certainly can just do a water fast instead.
nbardy 9y ago
I fasted for the first time after seeing some research on the benefits. Once I realized it's safe I figured, why not try and see how it affects me. I noticed a definite improvement in stress over the week following and now I try to fast once every 3 weeks if it fits into my schedule. Everyone reacts so differently to different diets I've found the most benefit from trying whatever I can and being mindful about the changes. We've become a little too obsessed with the one fits all approach to health.(e.x. Soylent) There is benefit to finding general guidelines through research, but a little self experimentation goes a long way.
acconrad 9y ago
Calorie restriction diets don't make sense to me the way they are phrased. Reduce calories by 20-50%...of what. My current calories? Of the RDA 2000? Cause the thing is the logical conclusion of this prescription is you eat approaching zero calories. If you're in a negative energy state you lose weight. Then your body adapts. Then what....restrict by another 20-50%? Maybe I'm missing something but the way metabolisms work is any calorie level you set the body will adapt to, and that number is different for every single person.
- jimrandomh 9y ago
  2000 calories is not an RDA; the average American needs significantly more, and spreading the impression 2000kcal is an RDA is dangerous. Actual calorie needs depend on age, height, weight, and activity level, and are calculated using the Harris-Benedict equation.
  - dpark 9y ago
    It's not an RDA but the average American probably does land close to 2000 calories/day. Don't forget that half of Americans are women and that most Americans are sedentary.
    - jghn 9y ago
      anecdata of a single point, but I'm pretty typical. Early 40s male, fairly sedentary lifestyle. Whenever I try to figure out my baseline caloric level by keeping track of calories and watching how my mass increases or decreases, I always end up in the upper 2Ks. Despite being overweight I'll grant you that my metabolism might be on the fast side, but I'm certainly not exercising the calories away.
      - dpark 9y ago
        Depending on what resources you trust, the average does seem to land above 2000, but not wildly so. http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/estimated-calorie-requirement http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/estimated-calorie-require... Here sedentary women peak around 2k and sedentary men at 2.4k. In the 30-50 age group, its 1.8k and 2.2k.
havella 9y ago
Some tricks I've tried: --> Start the fast in the early evening before a long day of flight travel. Seems easier and convenient to avoid bad airport/flight food. --> Don't do it as a regular scheduled event. --> Eat according to your physical activity. Some days where Im just working in the computer I don't eat much. --> Do frequent random 10pm - 2pm next day fasts.
_arvin 9y ago
A few years ago I had some downtime and nothing going on, so I decided to try a water fast for three days as a sort of detox/cleanse after doing some research. The first 24-36 hours were definitely the toughest, but then the hunger feeling just went away. It was sort of liberating in a sense that I didn't feel "dependent" on food for those three days; the key being to stay plenty hydrated. However, if you're currently working or going to school, I wouldn't recommend it. Save it for a time where you're mentally ready to take on that challenge. Coupled with low-stress and lots of rest, the results were pretty remarkable. And from the article and science standpoint of it, it makes sense; the less your body has to spend time digesting food (say every couple hours with snacks/meals), the more your immune system can work and more time for the body to naturally repair itself. This is also why I try to avoid eating late at night.
- cgh 9y ago
  There is no science to support the notion of detoxifying or cleansing[1]. Not eating does not cause your body to repair itself. There is no relationship between the time taken for digestion and your immune system. It's not like your body can only do one thing at a time. By all means, if fasting makes you feel good or whatever then continue to do it. Just realise that none of your stated claims of its physical benefits are true. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-m...
  - mojoe 9y ago
    Not eating absolutely causes the body to repair itself -- there are many peer-reviewed journal articles covering animal and human clinical trials that demonstrate this (a google scholar search returns huge numbers of results, but here are just a couple examples: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115002247 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115..., https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-of-damaged-old-immune-system/ https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regene...).
    - 9y ago
40acres 9y ago
I've experimented with Keto many times, the first time I lost about 15lbs (granted I was working a warehouse job at the same time so that had a lot to do with it). Every subsequent time I've tried Keto I've developed a nasty rash on my back which has caused me to break out of ketosis though.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  Apparently, this is caused by ketones in the sweat.
  - rthomas6 9y ago
    I've also read it can be caused by histamines stored in bodyfat.
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Wouldn't that inhibit rash swelling?
- rthomas6 9y ago
  Today is my third day on Keto and I feel like crap right now. Apparently this is pretty normal and it goes away, and it has something to do with too low sodium intake. This comment has no real point, I just wanted to share.
  - saryant 9y ago
    When I do keto I make sure to drink at least one cup of bone broth every day, generally with some extra salt thrown in. Whenever I do that, I manage to avoid keto flu.
peter_retief 9y ago
yes
greggman 9y ago
> There were no adverse effects on quality of life Does quality of life have some specific medical meaning? I'd say not being able to eat as much would be a huge reduction in quality of life for myself and many people in know. No I don't massively over eat like many Americans but I love eating and cooking and going out to dinner. Trying to keep calories at or below 2000 is hard enough. I can't imagine having to try to enjoy even less.
- rubatuga 9y ago
  Well, the thing is your ideas and feelings might change after the fasting period, and you may end up thinking that it hasn’t negatively impacted your life.
- d8421l01vv4r 9y ago
  From https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv057 https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv057 We found no significant adverse effects of CR [calorie restriction] on a broad range of quality of life variables including mood, self-reported hunger, sexual function, and cognitive function, using validated measures of all constructs. These results are shown in online Supplementary eTable 3. > Trying to keep calories at or below 2000 is hard enough. How much of a reduction from your baseline usage is 2000 kcal per day?
- scottLobster 9y ago
  It's actually quite easy after the first few days. Your body simply has to adjust to burning fat/glycogen. I've gone days when I've eaten maybe 500 calories and never felt hungry, but the first day I thought I was going to pass out. One thing you learn from fasting is to recognize when your body actually needs food vs when you just crave a blood-sugar-rush. What most people think of as "hungry" is really just a trained reflex, and it can be retrained. These days if I'm not active I can easily go at least 12 hours without feeling hungry. Granted my job is sitting in a cube 9 hours a day with some scattered meetings. YMMV.
rsync 9y ago
The most important - and as yet, unanswered - question I have about fasting is: are the benefits (if they exist) the result of absolute fasting or is relative fasting just as effective ? If I require an extra 600 calories per day due to exercise, but I "fast" by cutting caloric intake by 15%, do I receive a comparable benefit to someone who does not exercise but also cuts their caloric intake by 15% ? All evidence seems to point to exercise regimens as providing quite pronounced longevity benefits - equal to or greater than what we expect from fasting. But this is counterintuitive since exercise - and the calories it requires - represent an absolute increase in total metabolism. So if we each fast our way down to the same trim and lean low calorie existence, but you are consuming 2000 of your previous 2500 calories and I am consuming 2400 out of my previous 3000 calories (assuming we are the same size, weight, etc.) who gets more longevity benefits ?
- reasonattlm 9y ago
  Valter Longo's research is essentially aiming to answer some of these questions. He was looking for the 80/20 point at which reduction in calories produces much the same outcome as fasting. His current position is expressed by the fasting mimicking diet; you might go read the papers in which he outlines trial results and the data that forms the basis for the diet. From a gene expression in mice point of view, none of it is exactly the same. Different but overlapping patterns of change for calorie restriction, isocaloric intermittent fasting, intermittent fasting with calorie restriction, methionine or other protein restriction, etc, etc. All different. Also, all the data on exercise shows it does little to life span in comparison to calorie restriction, while both are vaguely comparable when considering healthspan. There are plenty of papers on this topic to read. Again, completely different set of changes and benefits.
- microbatch 9y ago
  Not answering your question directly, but I don't think you can compare calorie restriction with fasting in that way. Over time, reducing calories by 15% just causes your body to lower its metabolic rate accordingly (see Biggest Loser contestants), while fasting turns off the digestive system completely, allowing the body to focus on other tasks. That's when you get benefits like persistent low insulin levels, autophagy, etc. In other words, if you have 1000 calories to eat over two days, you're better off fasting entirely one day and eating the 1000 calories in one meal the second day rather than many small snacks over the two day period.
chiefalchemist 9y ago
There was a article a couple months back about fasting (3 days) and how it triggers a reboot of the immune system. I think if you stop looking at calorie restriction as restriction, and instead consider it normal (i.e., the ideal the body prefers) then the current normal is essential over-eating. That that a step further and consider such excess unnecessary stress on the body and it's various subsystems, things fall into place. Factor in the various chemicals in today's food and it's not crazy to think we're eating ourselves ill - both from quantity and (lack of) quality (i.e., chemicals). Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the gut, under these circumstances.
- jcoffland 9y ago
  > Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the gut, under these circumstances. I agree with most of what you said but the jury is still out on GMOs. GMOs are not just one thing either. Some may prove to be bad for us and others beneficial. The biggest problem with the anti-GMO campaign is that it's driving force is a general distrust of science rather than facts.
  - tonyedgecombe 9y ago
    I think it's more a distrust of the commercial entities involved rather than the science.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    I know someone in the GMO field. I've asked him about gut bacteria. The reply was, "Good question. Big issue right now..." That's from the (private) horse's mouth. Yet I haven't seen that in anything I've read. That concerns me.
  - chiefalchemist 9y ago
    Perhaps. But the problem with the pro-GMO side is you can't say something is safe when you haven't fully tested it. Specifically, I'm speaking about gut bacteria - in humans and up and down the food chain. We are in the early days of knowledge about the gut, and how it effects the entire system. So it's just not possible to test for safety. Sure you can eat it. You don't die. That doesn't mean you should. GMOs are about yield and farming. They're not about humans, nutrition, and the gut. That's the context that can not be dismissed.
jcoffland 9y ago
I've had great success with a pretty severe dieting routine. I eat a reasonable (800-1,000 calories) dinner as my only meal but also allow myself a cappuccino in the morning and all the carrots, celery and fresh fruit I want throughout the day. The main benefit for me is that it does not take a lot of thought. I can drop 4 lbs a week this way without any apparent negative health effects. For reference, I'm a 41 year old male, in good health, weighing just under 200lbs at 6'3". I'm a software/hardware engineer so I spend much of my day sitting indoors.
- MuffinFlavored 9y ago
  how sustainable is this?
  - scottLobster 9y ago
    Doesn't have to be. As someone who's on a similar regimen, best part of the intermittent fasting is that once the body gets used to it you can stop/start at will. If my coworkers go out for lunch, so can I, even if it would technically violate my fasting period. Then I just go right back fasting the next day with no issue.
- xutopia 9y ago
  How long do you do this for?
  - jcoffland 9y ago
    A few weeks at a time when I need to lose some weight.
projectramo 9y ago
Okay, this is a small little trick but I found the easiest thing to do is to not eat in the morning. I can easily not eat till 10am without feeling hungry. Sometimes 11 without effort. And then I stop eating early in the day... say 8pm or 9pm. I found that to be very sustainable and easy in the long run. YMMV.
- magic_beans 9y ago
  8pm and 9pm are really late to "stop eating".
  - projectramo 9y ago
    You find that late? Interesting. I am simply not hungry before 7pm.
    - danielharrison 9y ago
      I'm very much the opposite. My entire day is shifted forward a few hours so I'll generally wake around 5am, breakfast at 5.30. Lunch is around 11.30 and dinner at 5pm (latest 6). Bed around 8. I hate sleeping during daylight hours so shift my day to make the most of it.
      - quantum_magpie 9y ago
        I currently do a very similar regime (sunrise is at 4:30ish, sunset 7ish at the moment): wake 4:30 ish, skip breakfast, eat a light meal 300ish kcal at 11, and then have dinner of some meat and veggies at ~4pm. 8 -- 8:30 bedtime. It's really incredible since I have also shifted my work hours to 6 am -- 2-3 pm. It feels pretty good. I was doing a single-meal version of this regime for several months, but at one point my body started craving for a slight influx of calories at noon.
        projectramo 9y ago
        I feel that all sleeping recommendations should come with a tag that says if the recommender has kids or not.
paulcole 9y ago
Probably not, but it can help us feel like we have some control over our own inevitable death.
didibus 9y ago
I naturally fast once in a while. I almost always skip breakfast and eat twice a day. I was always curious why we eat 3 times a day, when we feed most pets twice a day. Normally, once a month I'll have a lazy day, where I only eat from 6pm to midnight. I'll still have two meals, just closer to each other, one at 6pm, one at say 11pm before sleeping. Next morning I'll skip breakfast again. That's just the way it works out for me. Not actually trying. Good to know this might in fact be healthy.
sireat 9y ago
I keep seeing advice in the comments to skip breakfast and how great it is. What about the common folk advice of "eat a hearty breakfast by yourself, share a lunch with friends and give dinner to your enemy"?
- mswen 9y ago
  The key as I understand it is a period of fasting [no eating] for 16 to 20 hours a day. Your saying would work because the last thing you eat would be around midday and you wouldn't eat again until morning. I think that many people find it easier to extend their overnight fast by skipping breakfast rather than dinner in the evening. In the United States it is also true that breakfast tends to be more of a solitary meal and dinner more of a communal meal. So by skipping breakfast one is not as out of sync with family and friends who want to include you in dinner plans.
Tharkun 9y ago
I've tried intermittent fasting as a weight control strategy. Unfortunately I discovered that fasting increased the frequency of my migraines. Fasting probably isn't for everyone.
novaleaf 9y ago
I eat breakfast and lunch, basically eat whatever I want between 8am and 2pm, and only water outside those hours. It was hard for my stomach to adjust for the first week (hunger pains) but no problems since

181 points by sjcsjc 9y ago

It's annoying that there isn't enough research on calorie restricted diets to conclusively show the benefits and drawbacks.

learc83 9y ago
Diet research is expensive because people are terrible at self reporting. Especially with something like calorie restriction. To get good data you really need to monitor people 24 hours a day.
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  > To get good data you really need to monitor people 24 hours a day. Unfortunately people love their privacy too much to make that happen.
  - mikhailt 9y ago
    I doubt it has to do with privacy, have you seen how many selfies are out there with food shots and stuff? Plus, such studies could be funded to give people money for tracking this. I believe the problem isn't with privacy but just that it is difficult to keep notes of what you eat daily. Make a product that makes monitoring what you eat very easy to do and you can get more data that's solid. What Apple did with HealthKit did in fact help, we just need more of that. I know a buddy who lost weight easily because of a smartwatch (Apple Watch) that he uses to monitor his input because it is so easy and quick.
    - miguelrochefort 9y ago
      People should be more serious about nutrition. It's impossible to track and test nutrients if you're not disciplined about it. Ideally, you would only eat what you (or a coach, or an app) planned to eat. Most people should have a nutrition routine where they eat the same thing every day or week. Eating for pleasure should be the exception, not the norm. Tracking only the 5% of food that's not part of your routine would be a lot easier (especially if packaged and provides a bar code).
      - goldfeld 9y ago
        No, people should be less neurotic about their nutrition, eat less, and let go. Don't over think it or put up barriers to health.
        miguelrochefort 9y ago
        Most people are not qualified to feed themselves.
      - chiefalchemist 9y ago
        Agreed. Food is for nutrition. Instead we've made it into some sort of proxy for an orgasm. Yet ask people what they ate yesterday and they're likely unable to tell you. Point being, they we're so determined to eat something that "made them feel good" that they already forgot. So instead they should have ate for their body, not their mind. Pardon me, but I really think there's some truth to "fat and stupid."
  - sov 9y ago
    This happens frequently. See: metabolic wards.
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    We could also give incentives to prisoners for participating in health related studies. It gets a really bad wrap because of historical abuses, but it could really be a win/win. All the prisoners would need to be separated and lose access to the commissary. They would probably be willing to trade their commissary for access to an XBox in their cell or something similar. Then we can control exactly what they eat, and measure the effects of a calorie surplus or deficit over time. We could even give prisoners the same amount of calories but different macros, to finally prove the effects of a long term ketogenic diet are different than just calorie restriction. The food would have to be more palatable than what they receive now, and they would have to agree to consume 100% of it and not try and trade with other prisoners. This probably involves a guard who watches them eat in their cells. It would be costly, but not nearly as expensive as the controlled environment studies in a hospital (metabolic wards) that Gary Taubes has done before.
reasonattlm 9y ago
The CALERIE study data seems pretty compelling to me. What more do you want?
- hodder 9y ago
  Demonstrative evidence that shows meaningfully lower disease rates and longer life expectancy in calorie restricted cohorts of accurately tracked long term human trials. That is basically what most people would love to see. Unfortunately, studies like this are notoriously difficult to run due to terrible self reporting. To complete an accurate study like this would likely take constant monitoring and an administered diet for the participants.
collyw 9y ago
There is decent evidence in rat studies. Ok, not human, but its a good start.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I seem to remember primate studies haven't been so conclusive.
allsunny 9y ago
Diet research is notoriously difficult. If you have a chance (and haven't alreadY) pick-up Gary Taubes book, "The Calorie Myth." Even if you don't agree with his conclusions he does a great job in explaining the difficulty of diet research. It's why he prefaces ideas in his books with "I could be completely wrong about all of this." It's hard to completely trust any given study in the area and why there is a ton of conflicting information out there.
keymone 9y ago
do you think there will ever be enough? calorie restriction is just one, very vague detail about input for human body; macro distribution, amount of fiber, amount of water and many more are just glossed over. total weight or even breakdown by tissue type on the other hand is a very simplistic measure of the "output". blood glucose, white/brown fat distribution, hormonal balance, basal metabolic rate, blood pressure and many more - all depend from long-term diet choices. it's like trying to train a nn by providing 95% random noise with input and not bothering to understand 95% of output. seems like taking everything into account is just too expensive.
threepipeproblm 9y ago
Intermittent fasting does not necessarily entail calorie restriction. However, if low calorie diets work one mechanism is probably autophagy, and intermittent fasting with much more moderate calorie restriction (or without calorie restriction) will also stimulate autophagy. So one could potentially get some of the benefits of calorie restriction while avoiding some of the problems. All this said, fasting is an extra stressor on the body, I think... something to be aware of. Autophagy can also be achieved by limiting protein over a certain time window, and some have advocated this as a likely preventative for diseases like Parkinson's and Alzehiemer's, involving "plaques" that are normally cleaned up during authophagy.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

unholywars 9y ago

look at hunter gatherers, native tribes in brazil, and some of those african dudes. they're all shredded, 10% body fat or less, that's how humans are supposed to live, not a 25% body fat blob of sedentarism

allsunny 9y ago

I've been trying out fasting over the past 6 months or so. I watched the BBC documentary (Eat, Fast & Live Longer) and read Jason Fung's book (Complete Guide to Fasting) and decided I'd see if I could do it; mostly to lose weight but the health improvements often cited seemed great as well. For me it turned out it to be easier to do than I thought. I had a mental barrier in my head that going without a meal or two would put me in some sort of dangerous state where my body couldn't function. Once I realized that wasn't the case I was able to plow through increasingly long periods of time without eating. Things I've noticed: * being h-angry is a real thing. ;-) Make sure you have a low-stress time window to do the fasting in * drink a lot of water * hunger comes in waves, you'll get to a point where you feel super hungry, it'll usually pass after some time. * maybe it's placebo but I recognize a stronger ability to focus when I'm in the midst of a fasting period * if you get super hungry, just eat. don't beat yourself up over it * i've generally learned to NOT tell people you're fasting, they think you're crazy (immediately they associate it with anorexia, etc) * again, don't forget to drink water

elorant 9y ago
Are there any particular foods you avoid or ones that you eat more? Fruits for example, are you eating more or less of those? How many times a day do you eat and which meal do you skip? I'd like to hear more usable info about this if you don't mind me asking.
- allsunny 9y ago
  I generally try to avoid sugar and refined carbohydrates. I find if I eat too much of them my appetite spikes later in the day or the next day. So my "normal" diet low-carb, hight fat. I eat a lot of protein and vegetables but I'm not religious about it. If my family / friends want to go out for pizza or whatever, I'll have it, and dessert. :) But most days, except for those when I'm fasting, I usually eat chicken or fish and vegetables. I only eat breakfast once or twice a week (on the weekends with my family) and then it's just eggs and bacon, maybe a slice of toast. I fast a day or two a week. The meal plan for those days is simple: water and black coffee.
GordonS 9y ago

reasonattlm 9y ago

From an HN audience perspective, perhaps the most interesting thing going on here in recent years is the way in which Longo's group managed to break out of the funding ghetto of aging research for this one part of the field by figuring out the plan and establishing the relationships to productize the research. This pulled in new money and support that allowed them to make good, new steps in quantifying the effects of reduced calorie intake. The cost is that we now have another set of marketing drones extracting rent from the regulatory capture /intellectual property morass for telling people to eat less, but you can decide for yourself whether this is clever hacking of a hopelessly corrupt system or adding to the problem.

sjcsjc 9y ago

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/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831538/ [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3608686/ [3] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308001045 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165017308... [4] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113005032 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413113... [5] http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/861319 Use sci-hub for paywalled papers.

MicroBerto 9y ago
Experimenting with the keto diet for my YouTube endeavors and one thing I didn't expect is how much better my joints would feel. Prediction: the keto diet will soon come under HEAVY fire from mainstream media, journals, and lobbyist health organizations under the pressure of certain agriculture and pharma groups. Just wait for it.
- 9y ago

GreaterFool 9y ago

This was mentioned on HN not too long ago: https://prolonfmd.com/ https://prolonfmd.com/ (fasting mimicking diet). If they'd ship to where I live I'd try it. Always happy to try new things that could potentially benefit.

js2 9y ago
That URL is mentioned in the article. The site requires you to fill out a survey to see the cost. For the curious: 1-2 boxes: $299 per box One box of ProLon is a 5-day total diet replacement. No extra food purchases needed for those days. 3-6 boxes: $250 per box Using three boxes of ProLon over a three month period replicates the clinical trial protocol. Price includes shipping, sales tax charged only in CA.
- nothis 9y ago
  Holy overpriced batman! Are they feeding you with gold dust or something?
  - ghostbrainalpha 9y ago
    If you want to try this the frugal way, check out what this guy did. https://www.quantifiedbob.com/2016/04/fasting-mimicking-diet/ https://www.quantifiedbob.com/2016/04/fasting-mimicking-diet...
- miguelrochefort 9y ago
  Why couldn't I just drink water and electrolytes instead?
  - ar-jan 9y ago
    I recall an interview with Valter Longo in which he said the fasting-mimicking diet was just because patients were more comfortable with eating a special diet than with a full water fast, and doctors were also more willing to recommend the FMD than a water fast, because it seems so extreme to people. So you certainly can just do a water fast instead.

nbardy 9y ago

I fasted for the first time after seeing some research on the benefits. Once I realized it's safe I figured, why not try and see how it affects me. I noticed a definite improvement in stress over the week following and now I try to fast once every 3 weeks if it fits into my schedule. Everyone reacts so differently to different diets I've found the most benefit from trying whatever I can and being mindful about the changes. We've become a little too obsessed with the one fits all approach to health.(e.x. Soylent) There is benefit to finding general guidelines through research, but a little self experimentation goes a long way.

acconrad 9y ago

Calorie restriction diets don't make sense to me the way they are phrased. Reduce calories by 20-50%...of what. My current calories? Of the RDA 2000? Cause the thing is the logical conclusion of this prescription is you eat approaching zero calories. If you're in a negative energy state you lose weight. Then your body adapts. Then what....restrict by another 20-50%? Maybe I'm missing something but the way metabolisms work is any calorie level you set the body will adapt to, and that number is different for every single person.

jimrandomh 9y ago
2000 calories is not an RDA; the average American needs significantly more, and spreading the impression 2000kcal is an RDA is dangerous. Actual calorie needs depend on age, height, weight, and activity level, and are calculated using the Harris-Benedict equation.
- dpark 9y ago
  It's not an RDA but the average American probably does land close to 2000 calories/day. Don't forget that half of Americans are women and that most Americans are sedentary.
  - jghn 9y ago
    anecdata of a single point, but I'm pretty typical. Early 40s male, fairly sedentary lifestyle. Whenever I try to figure out my baseline caloric level by keeping track of calories and watching how my mass increases or decreases, I always end up in the upper 2Ks. Despite being overweight I'll grant you that my metabolism might be on the fast side, but I'm certainly not exercising the calories away.
    - dpark 9y ago
      Depending on what resources you trust, the average does seem to land above 2000, but not wildly so. http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/estimated-calorie-requirement http://www.webmd.com/diet/features/estimated-calorie-require... Here sedentary women peak around 2k and sedentary men at 2.4k. In the 30-50 age group, its 1.8k and 2.2k.

havella 9y ago

Some tricks I've tried: --> Start the fast in the early evening before a long day of flight travel. Seems easier and convenient to avoid bad airport/flight food. --> Don't do it as a regular scheduled event. --> Eat according to your physical activity. Some days where Im just working in the computer I don't eat much. --> Do frequent random 10pm - 2pm next day fasts.

_arvin 9y ago

A few years ago I had some downtime and nothing going on, so I decided to try a water fast for three days as a sort of detox/cleanse after doing some research. The first 24-36 hours were definitely the toughest, but then the hunger feeling just went away. It was sort of liberating in a sense that I didn't feel "dependent" on food for those three days; the key being to stay plenty hydrated. However, if you're currently working or going to school, I wouldn't recommend it. Save it for a time where you're mentally ready to take on that challenge. Coupled with low-stress and lots of rest, the results were pretty remarkable. And from the article and science standpoint of it, it makes sense; the less your body has to spend time digesting food (say every couple hours with snacks/meals), the more your immune system can work and more time for the body to naturally repair itself. This is also why I try to avoid eating late at night.

cgh 9y ago
There is no science to support the notion of detoxifying or cleansing[1]. Not eating does not cause your body to repair itself. There is no relationship between the time taken for digestion and your immune system. It's not like your body can only do one thing at a time. By all means, if fasting makes you feel good or whatever then continue to do it. Just realise that none of your stated claims of its physical benefits are true. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-myth-health-diet-science-ignorance https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/dec/05/detox-m...
- mojoe 9y ago
  Not eating absolutely causes the body to repair itself -- there are many peer-reviewed journal articles covering animal and human clinical trials that demonstrate this (a google scholar search returns huge numbers of results, but here are just a couple examples: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115002247 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413115..., https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regeneration-of-damaged-old-immune-system/ https://news.usc.edu/63669/fasting-triggers-stem-cell-regene...).
  - 9y ago

40acres 9y ago

I've experimented with Keto many times, the first time I lost about 15lbs (granted I was working a warehouse job at the same time so that had a lot to do with it). Every subsequent time I've tried Keto I've developed a nasty rash on my back which has caused me to break out of ketosis though.

Chris2048 9y ago
Apparently, this is caused by ketones in the sweat.
- rthomas6 9y ago
  I've also read it can be caused by histamines stored in bodyfat.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    Wouldn't that inhibit rash swelling?
rthomas6 9y ago
Today is my third day on Keto and I feel like crap right now. Apparently this is pretty normal and it goes away, and it has something to do with too low sodium intake. This comment has no real point, I just wanted to share.
- saryant 9y ago
  When I do keto I make sure to drink at least one cup of bone broth every day, generally with some extra salt thrown in. Whenever I do that, I manage to avoid keto flu.

peter_retief 9y ago

yes

greggman 9y ago

> There were no adverse effects on quality of life Does quality of life have some specific medical meaning? I'd say not being able to eat as much would be a huge reduction in quality of life for myself and many people in know. No I don't massively over eat like many Americans but I love eating and cooking and going out to dinner. Trying to keep calories at or below 2000 is hard enough. I can't imagine having to try to enjoy even less.

rubatuga 9y ago
Well, the thing is your ideas and feelings might change after the fasting period, and you may end up thinking that it hasn’t negatively impacted your life.
d8421l01vv4r 9y ago
From https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv057 https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glv057 We found no significant adverse effects of CR [calorie restriction] on a broad range of quality of life variables including mood, self-reported hunger, sexual function, and cognitive function, using validated measures of all constructs. These results are shown in online Supplementary eTable 3. > Trying to keep calories at or below 2000 is hard enough. How much of a reduction from your baseline usage is 2000 kcal per day?
scottLobster 9y ago
It's actually quite easy after the first few days. Your body simply has to adjust to burning fat/glycogen. I've gone days when I've eaten maybe 500 calories and never felt hungry, but the first day I thought I was going to pass out. One thing you learn from fasting is to recognize when your body actually needs food vs when you just crave a blood-sugar-rush. What most people think of as "hungry" is really just a trained reflex, and it can be retrained. These days if I'm not active I can easily go at least 12 hours without feeling hungry. Granted my job is sitting in a cube 9 hours a day with some scattered meetings. YMMV.

rsync 9y ago

The most important - and as yet, unanswered - question I have about fasting is: are the benefits (if they exist) the result of absolute fasting or is relative fasting just as effective ? If I require an extra 600 calories per day due to exercise, but I "fast" by cutting caloric intake by 15%, do I receive a comparable benefit to someone who does not exercise but also cuts their caloric intake by 15% ? All evidence seems to point to exercise regimens as providing quite pronounced longevity benefits - equal to or greater than what we expect from fasting. But this is counterintuitive since exercise - and the calories it requires - represent an absolute increase in total metabolism. So if we each fast our way down to the same trim and lean low calorie existence, but you are consuming 2000 of your previous 2500 calories and I am consuming 2400 out of my previous 3000 calories (assuming we are the same size, weight, etc.) who gets more longevity benefits ?

reasonattlm 9y ago
Valter Longo's research is essentially aiming to answer some of these questions. He was looking for the 80/20 point at which reduction in calories produces much the same outcome as fasting. His current position is expressed by the fasting mimicking diet; you might go read the papers in which he outlines trial results and the data that forms the basis for the diet. From a gene expression in mice point of view, none of it is exactly the same. Different but overlapping patterns of change for calorie restriction, isocaloric intermittent fasting, intermittent fasting with calorie restriction, methionine or other protein restriction, etc, etc. All different. Also, all the data on exercise shows it does little to life span in comparison to calorie restriction, while both are vaguely comparable when considering healthspan. There are plenty of papers on this topic to read. Again, completely different set of changes and benefits.
microbatch 9y ago
Not answering your question directly, but I don't think you can compare calorie restriction with fasting in that way. Over time, reducing calories by 15% just causes your body to lower its metabolic rate accordingly (see Biggest Loser contestants), while fasting turns off the digestive system completely, allowing the body to focus on other tasks. That's when you get benefits like persistent low insulin levels, autophagy, etc. In other words, if you have 1000 calories to eat over two days, you're better off fasting entirely one day and eating the 1000 calories in one meal the second day rather than many small snacks over the two day period.

chiefalchemist 9y ago

There was a article a couple months back about fasting (3 days) and how it triggers a reboot of the immune system. I think if you stop looking at calorie restriction as restriction, and instead consider it normal (i.e., the ideal the body prefers) then the current normal is essential over-eating. That that a step further and consider such excess unnecessary stress on the body and it's various subsystems, things fall into place. Factor in the various chemicals in today's food and it's not crazy to think we're eating ourselves ill - both from quantity and (lack of) quality (i.e., chemicals). Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the gut, under these circumstances.

jcoffland 9y ago
> Pardon the editorial, but God only knows what GMOs do, to the body and the gut, under these circumstances. I agree with most of what you said but the jury is still out on GMOs. GMOs are not just one thing either. Some may prove to be bad for us and others beneficial. The biggest problem with the anti-GMO campaign is that it's driving force is a general distrust of science rather than facts.
- tonyedgecombe 9y ago
  I think it's more a distrust of the commercial entities involved rather than the science.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  I know someone in the GMO field. I've asked him about gut bacteria. The reply was, "Good question. Big issue right now..." That's from the (private) horse's mouth. Yet I haven't seen that in anything I've read. That concerns me.
- chiefalchemist 9y ago
  Perhaps. But the problem with the pro-GMO side is you can't say something is safe when you haven't fully tested it. Specifically, I'm speaking about gut bacteria - in humans and up and down the food chain. We are in the early days of knowledge about the gut, and how it effects the entire system. So it's just not possible to test for safety. Sure you can eat it. You don't die. That doesn't mean you should. GMOs are about yield and farming. They're not about humans, nutrition, and the gut. That's the context that can not be dismissed.

jcoffland 9y ago

I've had great success with a pretty severe dieting routine. I eat a reasonable (800-1,000 calories) dinner as my only meal but also allow myself a cappuccino in the morning and all the carrots, celery and fresh fruit I want throughout the day. The main benefit for me is that it does not take a lot of thought. I can drop 4 lbs a week this way without any apparent negative health effects. For reference, I'm a 41 year old male, in good health, weighing just under 200lbs at 6'3". I'm a software/hardware engineer so I spend much of my day sitting indoors.

MuffinFlavored 9y ago
how sustainable is this?
- scottLobster 9y ago
  Doesn't have to be. As someone who's on a similar regimen, best part of the intermittent fasting is that once the body gets used to it you can stop/start at will. If my coworkers go out for lunch, so can I, even if it would technically violate my fasting period. Then I just go right back fasting the next day with no issue.
xutopia 9y ago
How long do you do this for?
- jcoffland 9y ago
  A few weeks at a time when I need to lose some weight.

projectramo 9y ago

Okay, this is a small little trick but I found the easiest thing to do is to not eat in the morning. I can easily not eat till 10am without feeling hungry. Sometimes 11 without effort. And then I stop eating early in the day... say 8pm or 9pm. I found that to be very sustainable and easy in the long run. YMMV.

magic_beans 9y ago
8pm and 9pm are really late to "stop eating".
- projectramo 9y ago
  You find that late? Interesting. I am simply not hungry before 7pm.
  - danielharrison 9y ago
    I'm very much the opposite. My entire day is shifted forward a few hours so I'll generally wake around 5am, breakfast at 5.30. Lunch is around 11.30 and dinner at 5pm (latest 6). Bed around 8. I hate sleeping during daylight hours so shift my day to make the most of it.
    - quantum_magpie 9y ago
      I currently do a very similar regime (sunrise is at 4:30ish, sunset 7ish at the moment): wake 4:30 ish, skip breakfast, eat a light meal 300ish kcal at 11, and then have dinner of some meat and veggies at ~4pm. 8 -- 8:30 bedtime. It's really incredible since I have also shifted my work hours to 6 am -- 2-3 pm. It feels pretty good. I was doing a single-meal version of this regime for several months, but at one point my body started craving for a slight influx of calories at noon.
      - projectramo 9y ago
        I feel that all sleeping recommendations should come with a tag that says if the recommender has kids or not.

paulcole 9y ago

Probably not, but it can help us feel like we have some control over our own inevitable death.

didibus 9y ago

I naturally fast once in a while. I almost always skip breakfast and eat twice a day. I was always curious why we eat 3 times a day, when we feed most pets twice a day. Normally, once a month I'll have a lazy day, where I only eat from 6pm to midnight. I'll still have two meals, just closer to each other, one at 6pm, one at say 11pm before sleeping. Next morning I'll skip breakfast again. That's just the way it works out for me. Not actually trying. Good to know this might in fact be healthy.

sireat 9y ago

I keep seeing advice in the comments to skip breakfast and how great it is. What about the common folk advice of "eat a hearty breakfast by yourself, share a lunch with friends and give dinner to your enemy"?

mswen 9y ago
The key as I understand it is a period of fasting [no eating] for 16 to 20 hours a day. Your saying would work because the last thing you eat would be around midday and you wouldn't eat again until morning. I think that many people find it easier to extend their overnight fast by skipping breakfast rather than dinner in the evening. In the United States it is also true that breakfast tends to be more of a solitary meal and dinner more of a communal meal. So by skipping breakfast one is not as out of sync with family and friends who want to include you in dinner plans.

Tharkun 9y ago

I've tried intermittent fasting as a weight control strategy. Unfortunately I discovered that fasting increased the frequency of my migraines. Fasting probably isn't for everyone.

novaleaf 9y ago

I eat breakfast and lunch, basically eat whatever I want between 8am and 2pm, and only water outside those hours. It was hard for my stomach to adjust for the first week (hunger pains) but no problems since