9 ms·

I know it's just one data point, but I've been doing a very mild form of intermittent fasting (more time-restricted eating) since June, and have been very happy

I know it's just one data point, but I've been doing a very mild form of intermittent fasting (more time-restricted eating) since June, and have been very happy with the results. (I stop eating by 8pm, don't start again until noon, but haven't done much in terms of changing what I'm actually eating.) At 5'5", I went from 156lbs. to 143 (goal is 135), and it's been relatively easy. Your mileage may vary, of course, but I feel great. This was inspired by a paper I read (I believe linked-to in this article, but I'll have to track it down later.) https://www.the-scientist.com/features/running-on-empty-31436 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/running-on-empty-3143...

phkahler 8y ago
Close your eating window to 4 hours and eliminate carbs. You'll drop weight incredibly fast. Delay lunch until 1-2pm and then have an early dinner if you can't bring yourself to eating just one meal a day. I did this and it is amazing, but I failed to keep it up long enough to become my normal.
- Angostura 8y ago
  > but I failed to keep it up long enough to become my normal. And that's exactly why you want to keep it to a moderate 8pm to 12 noon fast. Its not hard to do, you lose a little bit of weight each week. You end up healthier with minimal pain or change to life-style.
  - linkmotif 8y ago
    yep I’ve found that moderation is my key to keeping up with anything like this. If I don’t exercise too hard, I’m inclined to come the next day or the day after. I’m on a very similar time restricted eating now, and it’s been sustainable because it’s not too extreme. I’ve experienced great results from it as well. I eat whole milk by way of coffee and then eat 1000 or so calories between 12:30 and 7 or 8 pm.
    - DeBraid 8y ago
      > If I don’t exercise too hard, I’m inclined to come the next day or the day after. Heavy weights 1x per week. Consistent, light and fast training is optimal (~50-60% max) via "Train Smarter with Firas Zahabi -- Consistency over intensity" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR0m0Vt3JF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR0m0Vt3JF4
  - phkahler 8y ago
    But you're also not triggering ketosis much if at all. The benefits of that go far beyond weight loss. There are test strips you can use to see if you're in ketosis.
    - erikpukinskis 8y ago
      What are the benefits of ketosis that you don’t get with 8-12 fast, lots of veggies, and low sugar diet?
    - zhengyi13 8y ago
      There's two things being mentioned here, going low-to-no-carb, and going to a time-restricted eating schedule. My understanding is that ketosis is a function of low/no carb eating; I think further that in time-restricted eating, if you're losing weight, it's primarily from simply taking in fewer calories overall. Have I misunderstood?
    - Angostura 8y ago
      Doing the 16:8 restricted eating time thing has nothing to do with ketosis.
- naasking 8y ago
  Losing weight fast is not a desirable goal. You can lose considerable muscle mass, even around your heart which is obviously dangerous.
  - justtopost 8y ago
    This is FUD. Please cite your sources. While not healthy to literally starve yourself, getting your calories from stored fat is absolutely safe. There are dozens of documented cases of people subsisting on vitimins/broth and their own fat for over a year. Proper electrolytes all but eliminate most issues you suggest, only applicable to a pure starvation diet. Conflating the 2 is either uninformed or dishonest.
    - consp 8y ago
      In general, muscle is 'consumed' before 'fat'. Quotes since it is more complex than just what regular muscle and fatty tissues do. > While not healthy to literally starve yourself, getting your calories from stored fat is absolutely safe. No one will disagree with you there, but for most normal healthy people with regular muscle/fat content (or a bit too much) it takes a while for your body to decide it is a good idea to start creating toxins (ketones, which are quite harmless in smaller quantities) which are the result of fat conversion in a starvation diet.
      - joycian 8y ago
        If that is true, then why even have fat instead of extra muscle? Burning muscle before fat makes no evolutionary sense.
        sergiosgc 8y ago
        > If that is true, then why even have fat instead of extra muscle? Higher density, lower basal metabolic rate increase. > Burning muscle before fat makes no evolutionary sense. The chemical pathway for getting energy from muscle is much shorter than the one to get energy from fat.
- amelius 8y ago
  Did anyone here try the "Fasting Mimicking Diet" yet? https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet/ https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet/ (not affiliated)
- amelius 8y ago
  I've also found the benefits of intermediate fasting. Lost about 16 pounds in 2 months. I have an 8-hour feeding window, but I try to start the day with low-carb food, such as some nuts and an egg. Then after one or two hours, I will eat normally (some bread, banana etc.) Summarized: 8 hour feeding window, 6-7 hour carb window.
- amacbride 8y ago
  I specifically don't want weight loss greater than 1-2lbs/wk -- slow and steady wins the race. Trying to change a very complex set of equilibria too quickly is a recipe for disaster.
- aqme28 8y ago
  Ability to maintain a diet is more important than the speed of weight loss. You showed yourself that while it was fast, it was difficult to maintain. This sounds like a less effective diet.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    I know people who did it and they tell me it takes at least a few weeks or a month before you just plain lose the appetite and it becomes the norm. Habits are hard to change, even when the change positively affects the quality of your life.
garyclarke27 8y ago
I’m 55 6’1/2” I’ve always done weights but only about 1 hr per week because of family long work hours etc. 1 year ago I moved from UK to Portugal (brexit), I was 95 kg 209 lbs, was disgusted with my self and wanted to get beach presentable body back. So I tried one meal a day - results were astonishing lost 10kg in 6 weeks. I’ve kept it going with a few cheat days 1 or 2 days per week and kept at around 86 Kg 189lbs. By far the easiest diet i’ve tried, I find it much easier to just not eat than to eat small portions, low carb also worked for me before but so difficult to maintain. I eat what I like now, inc pizza fries burgers etc though I try and eat lots of veg 4 meals a week. Just lots of black coffee lots off water and Himalayan salt rest of the time. My colleague was in early stages of type II diabetes taking Metformin etc, he tried the same and it completely cured him with 8 weeks, his doctor couldn’t believe it.
albertgoeswoof 8y ago
>haven't done much in terms of changing what I'm actually eating. Sure about that? Pretty unlikely you’ll lose weight if you’re consuming the same calories
- EForEndeavour 8y ago
  It's entirely possible to consume fewer calories "automatically" by making simple dietary changes that don't involve tracking calories. Thermodynamically, a calorie is a calorie, but it turns out the physics picture misses the point of recommending how to eat for weight loss and good health. Nutritionally, a calorie is emphatically not a calorie. Calories in different macronutrient forms (protein, fat, simple carbs, complex carbs) have different effects on metabolism, satiety, insulin secretion, and mood. These differences in turn alter caloric intake. Cutting out refined starches and added sugar is more effective for long-term weight loss than obsessing over caloric intake, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calorie...

phkahler 8y ago

Close your eating window to 4 hours and eliminate carbs. You'll drop weight incredibly fast. Delay lunch until 1-2pm and then have an early dinner if you can't bring yourself to eating just one meal a day. I did this and it is amazing, but I failed to keep it up long enough to become my normal.

Angostura 8y ago
> but I failed to keep it up long enough to become my normal. And that's exactly why you want to keep it to a moderate 8pm to 12 noon fast. Its not hard to do, you lose a little bit of weight each week. You end up healthier with minimal pain or change to life-style.
- linkmotif 8y ago
  yep I’ve found that moderation is my key to keeping up with anything like this. If I don’t exercise too hard, I’m inclined to come the next day or the day after. I’m on a very similar time restricted eating now, and it’s been sustainable because it’s not too extreme. I’ve experienced great results from it as well. I eat whole milk by way of coffee and then eat 1000 or so calories between 12:30 and 7 or 8 pm.
  - DeBraid 8y ago
    > If I don’t exercise too hard, I’m inclined to come the next day or the day after. Heavy weights 1x per week. Consistent, light and fast training is optimal (~50-60% max) via "Train Smarter with Firas Zahabi -- Consistency over intensity" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR0m0Vt3JF4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vR0m0Vt3JF4
- phkahler 8y ago
  But you're also not triggering ketosis much if at all. The benefits of that go far beyond weight loss. There are test strips you can use to see if you're in ketosis.
  - erikpukinskis 8y ago
    What are the benefits of ketosis that you don’t get with 8-12 fast, lots of veggies, and low sugar diet?
  - zhengyi13 8y ago
    There's two things being mentioned here, going low-to-no-carb, and going to a time-restricted eating schedule. My understanding is that ketosis is a function of low/no carb eating; I think further that in time-restricted eating, if you're losing weight, it's primarily from simply taking in fewer calories overall. Have I misunderstood?
  - Angostura 8y ago
    Doing the 16:8 restricted eating time thing has nothing to do with ketosis.
naasking 8y ago
Losing weight fast is not a desirable goal. You can lose considerable muscle mass, even around your heart which is obviously dangerous.
- justtopost 8y ago
  This is FUD. Please cite your sources. While not healthy to literally starve yourself, getting your calories from stored fat is absolutely safe. There are dozens of documented cases of people subsisting on vitimins/broth and their own fat for over a year. Proper electrolytes all but eliminate most issues you suggest, only applicable to a pure starvation diet. Conflating the 2 is either uninformed or dishonest.
  - consp 8y ago
    In general, muscle is 'consumed' before 'fat'. Quotes since it is more complex than just what regular muscle and fatty tissues do. > While not healthy to literally starve yourself, getting your calories from stored fat is absolutely safe. No one will disagree with you there, but for most normal healthy people with regular muscle/fat content (or a bit too much) it takes a while for your body to decide it is a good idea to start creating toxins (ketones, which are quite harmless in smaller quantities) which are the result of fat conversion in a starvation diet.
    - joycian 8y ago
      If that is true, then why even have fat instead of extra muscle? Burning muscle before fat makes no evolutionary sense.
      - sergiosgc 8y ago
        > If that is true, then why even have fat instead of extra muscle? Higher density, lower basal metabolic rate increase. > Burning muscle before fat makes no evolutionary sense. The chemical pathway for getting energy from muscle is much shorter than the one to get energy from fat.
amelius 8y ago
Did anyone here try the "Fasting Mimicking Diet" yet? https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet/ https://prolonfmd.com/fasting-mimicking-diet/ (not affiliated)
amelius 8y ago
I've also found the benefits of intermediate fasting. Lost about 16 pounds in 2 months. I have an 8-hour feeding window, but I try to start the day with low-carb food, such as some nuts and an egg. Then after one or two hours, I will eat normally (some bread, banana etc.) Summarized: 8 hour feeding window, 6-7 hour carb window.
amacbride 8y ago
I specifically don't want weight loss greater than 1-2lbs/wk -- slow and steady wins the race. Trying to change a very complex set of equilibria too quickly is a recipe for disaster.
aqme28 8y ago
Ability to maintain a diet is more important than the speed of weight loss. You showed yourself that while it was fast, it was difficult to maintain. This sounds like a less effective diet.
- phkahler 8y ago
  I know people who did it and they tell me it takes at least a few weeks or a month before you just plain lose the appetite and it becomes the norm. Habits are hard to change, even when the change positively affects the quality of your life.

garyclarke27 8y ago

I’m 55 6’1/2” I’ve always done weights but only about 1 hr per week because of family long work hours etc. 1 year ago I moved from UK to Portugal (brexit), I was 95 kg 209 lbs, was disgusted with my self and wanted to get beach presentable body back. So I tried one meal a day - results were astonishing lost 10kg in 6 weeks. I’ve kept it going with a few cheat days 1 or 2 days per week and kept at around 86 Kg 189lbs. By far the easiest diet i’ve tried, I find it much easier to just not eat than to eat small portions, low carb also worked for me before but so difficult to maintain. I eat what I like now, inc pizza fries burgers etc though I try and eat lots of veg 4 meals a week. Just lots of black coffee lots off water and Himalayan salt rest of the time. My colleague was in early stages of type II diabetes taking Metformin etc, he tried the same and it completely cured him with 8 weeks, his doctor couldn’t believe it.

albertgoeswoof 8y ago

>haven't done much in terms of changing what I'm actually eating. Sure about that? Pretty unlikely you’ll lose weight if you’re consuming the same calories

EForEndeavour 8y ago
It's entirely possible to consume fewer calories "automatically" by making simple dietary changes that don't involve tracking calories. Thermodynamically, a calorie is a calorie, but it turns out the physics picture misses the point of recommending how to eat for weight loss and good health. Nutritionally, a calorie is emphatically not a calorie. Calories in different macronutrient forms (protein, fat, simple carbs, complex carbs) have different effects on metabolism, satiety, insulin secretion, and mood. These differences in turn alter caloric intake. Cutting out refined starches and added sugar is more effective for long-term weight loss than obsessing over caloric intake, e.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calories-weight-loss-diet-dieting-low-carb-low-fat.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/20/well/eat/counting-calorie...