20 ms·

Jason Fung explains why intermittent fasting diets work

277 points by prostoalex 8y ago

fermienrico 8y ago
The way this article is written is very off-putting. For instance, "We run around chasing our kids to eat cookies and drink juice, and then wonder why we have a childhood obesity crisis. Good job, everybody, good job." I am not sure if I understand this: "The median daily intake duration (the amount of time people spent eating) was 14.75 hours per day. That is, if you started eating breakfast at 8am, you didn’t, on average, stop eating until 10:45pm." I certainly spend may be 1 hour eating everyday including breakfast, lunch and dinner.
- aaronblohowiak 8y ago
  From first to last bite is 14.75 hours
- kranner 8y ago
  The author means time between first and last food intakes of the day, not total time spent eating.
  - fermienrico 8y ago
    I see. So then this statement is not correct "The median daily intake duration (the amount of time people spent eating) was 14.75 hours per day.". It should be "The time between first and last meal during waking hours". "The amount of time people spend eating" statement is totally wrong.
    - simonh 8y ago
      Each year the average person starts eating at 8am on January 1st and doesn’t stop until about 7:30pm on December 31st!
    - kranner 8y ago
      Yes, taken literally, it is incorrect. But being familiar with the thesis, I understood what the author meant. Definitely an example of sloppy writing.
    - baddox 8y ago
      It’s common terminology when referring to fasting, and it’s pretty clear from context. Apply the principle of charity: it’s highly unlikely that the author is making the ludicrous claim that people on average are literally eating food constantly for 14.75 hours a day.
- megaman8 8y ago
  > "We run around chasing our kids to eat cookies and drink juice, and then wonder why we have a childhood obesity crisis. Good job, everybody, good job." I literally have seen this happen, where parents chase their kids around cookies and Juice in hand, Literally.
  - pacaro 8y ago
    As a parent, I have done this. It’s hard when an active kid is constantly distracted. It has been a big exercise in discipline (for me) to say that food is eaten at the table at specific times and if she’s hungry, then she can eat more at the next meal. (Obviously baring force majeure etc.)
- Oras 8y ago
  This talk has a nice information about circadian habits if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erBJuxVR7IE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erBJuxVR7IE
- thebeefytaco 8y ago
  Your body is in a 'fed' state long after eating.
- gorpomon 8y ago
  I have to agree on the writing style. I think it's pretty anecdotal that it's "...almost considered child abuse to deprive your child of a mid-morning snack or after-school snack." I suspect the author has first hand exposure to helicopter parents at soccer games, but should realize that inserting such experiences might get in the way of their main point.
reasonattlm 8y ago
Calorie restriction is probably the most important aspect of short term fasting of the sort achieved by eating only in some parts of the day. Animal studies show that isocaloric intermittent fasting, altering eating schedules, to e.g. alternate day, while still ingesting the same amount of calories, do have benefits. Those benefits hit many of the same areas of metabolism as calorie restriction, but are still significantly different in their overall operation. They are also not as effective at extending life. Time spent being hungry might be a good metric, but even that is overly simplistic. Grehlin has all sorts of regulatory connections throughout metabolism, but you can't point to any one thing. All of these dietary changes, less calories or more hunger, cause sweeping changes throughout metabolism that are not well understood as a whole. Cause and effect and which parts are important versus not is very much open for debate for any part of this system. Further, fasting (or fasting mimicking) for longer periods is clearly a different beast from just rescheduling a few meals. In humans fasting for 72 hours or more results in very different outcomes for immune health than anything less than 72 hours. The longer fast kills up to a third of the immune system, which then repopulates when the individual starts eating again, and thus has very beneficial effects in people whose immune system is damaged or dysfunctional in some way (e.g. as the results of chemotherapy). Similarly these longer fasts produce changes to insulin metabolism that last for months after the fasting is done, which is not the case for fasting in the rearranging a few meals sense.
- roganartu 8y ago
  This has been posted before, but a good digestible source for the information in this comment is this two-video podcast series: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/valter-longo https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/valter-longo The studies you mention results of (like the 30% immune system culling in a 4-5 day fast) have only been published for mice so far afaik, but they're currently doing human studies. Also worth noting that one of the points Valter Longo makes quite strongly in these podcasts is that refeeding after the fast is at least as important as the fast itself.
- onewhonknocks 8y ago
  I may have misunderstood, but the article stated the following: ‘The two arms of the study were eating between 8am and 8pm, and the eTRF strategy of eating between 8am and 2pm, but remember, both groups ate three meals per day of the same foods.’ So it's not like the time restricted people took in less calories. Both groups consumed the same total amount of calories. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
megaman8 8y ago
i've been fasting 15-16 hours a day everyday for the last 6 years and it's certainly helped me keep my weight about 10 lbs lower than I would have with just dieting. Before that I always subscribed to 3-5 meals a day hypothesis. Once I switched over to fasting 16 hours, I noticed the effect immediately, by losing 10 lbs in 2 months and have kept it off ever since.
atomical 8y ago
> This was not merely an American phenomenon. More recently, China has followed in America’s footsteps with increased snacking. Large-scale surveys show that from 1991 to 2009, the percentage of children and adults who regularly snack has skyrocketed. Among children aged 13 to 18, those who snacked went from 8.7% to 46.3% — a more than fivefold increase. Adults showed the a similar rise from 8.7% to 35.6%. Even so obesity rates are still low in Asian countries. I guess Asians are enjoying eating throughout the day while still outperforming Americans. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017....
aviv 8y ago
Fasting, in particular prolonged fasting (up to 40 days of water fasting or 8 days of dry fasting) is the best gift you can give to your body.
- sixo 8y ago
  Support that?
  - mtgx 8y ago
    Dr. Valter Longo says you need only 5 days of fasting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28202779 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28202779 Also, it seems to regenerate β cells for Type 1 diabetes humans, although I would imagine the "regular" fasting would do that, too since it's a more extreme version of the FMD: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357144/ Some interviews with him on it (there are more on youtube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGFWRXEzz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGFWRXEzz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdjGgrh5zSk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdjGgrh5zSk
- viach 8y ago
  Saying this in public can cause someone to actually follow your advice without consulting a doctor and, well, u know, die.
  - aviv 8y ago
    God forbid should they actually do this and cure themselves of whatever said doctor is telling them is a life long ailment. Unbelievable the brainwashing out there.
    - ectospheno 8y ago
      Most people here expect evidence after an assertion. They are especially critical of use of terms like "brainwashing" in posts devoid of evidence. Food for thought.
peterwwillis 8y ago
Intermittent fasting seems like it'd wreck your body if you do moderate to intense exercise. So I just fasted, and now I want to do intense cardio.... but I might run out of glycogen or blood sugar. Or I may do a set of weight lifting, but not if I can't eat protein after. So if I do intermittent fasting, I have to come up with a complex schedule to follow in order to get any performance gains. The whole point of a diet is to be healthy. You don't need intermittent fasting to be healthy. It seems to just introduce complication for a menial improvement in a few measures of health. I'm sure they work, if you can actually stick to them, but there's a lot simpler diets that will also work. Exercise three times a week. Eat lots of plants. Keep your fat, protein, and simple carb levels within reasonable limits for your age, height and sex. That's not super complicated to follow, and it can fit into basically any schedule.
- alokedesai 8y ago
  Totally anecdotal but I lost 40 pounds in 4 months with IF and I still worked out 4-5 days a week in the mornings. I found it very very easy to follow and my body had very little trouble adapting
  - rawland 8y ago
    "in the mornings". That's exactly the point.
- javagram 8y ago
  > So I just fasted, and now I want to do intense cardio.... but I might run out of glycogen or blood sugar Isn’t that where ketosis comes in? Your body can break down fat and provide energy through ketones. Some proponents of intermittent fasting would probably argue that simply not eating at certain times is the simplest diet of all since it doesn’t require continually evaluating at each meal what a “reasonable” level of intake is.
  - ngngngng 8y ago
    It takes between 2-10 days to reach ketosis and switch from using carbs for energy to using ketones. Burning ketones also brings less energy than burning carbs, which would not be ideal for cardio.
southphillyman 8y ago
I have been doing IF for a month or two now. Hard to really quantify it's effects since I've been eating much better and going to the gym during that same time period. Either way I think it's useful if only as a way to make eating at a calorie deficit easier. My biggest gripe is that it's basically impossible to have a social nightlife on the weekends if you can't eat or drink after 8pm
- throwaway82729 8y ago
  Wondering if you could alternate day fasting on weekends. Social life on Saturday evening and restrict yourself to 500 calories on Sunday. I struggle with this as well. Just curious as to how people manage.
- ccmonnett 8y ago
  If time-restricted eating is having that big of an impact on your life, adapt to it. Eat lunch later on the following days after going out, or - and stop me if this is crazy - don't be so strict about it if your friends want to meet up. I am a time-restricted eater. I use Zero to track my eating windows and make sure I'm not trending in the wrong direction, and that gives me the peace of mind to let up every once in a while. Just this morning I broke my fast early because I didn't eat enough last night and I was pretty zonked before my workout (beyond the point I thought would be productive). I ate a few dates, recorded it in Zero, and will live to fast another day.
embwbam 8y ago
For athletes, how does one reconcile IF with the idea that one should eat protein at regular intervals? They seem to conflict. https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-nutrition-how-much-protein-does-a-climber-need/ https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-nutrition-how-much-...
- sridca 8y ago
  Biased studies by the supplements industry, most probably.
- tejohnso 8y ago
  Test the idea. Try dialing back the protein for a while. You might be surprised at how little you need to build muscle and stay fit while at the same time loosing weight.
- vlasev 8y ago
  I'm not able to look for articles on this right now, but I believe that it was shown that your overall daily intake of protein is more important than the time of ingestion.
  - embwbam 8y ago
    That’s the exact opposite result as the studies listed in the article I posted. Weird.
tzs 8y ago
This needs a title change to the article's actual title: "A diet guru explains why you should eat dinner at 2pm" The submitted title: "Jason Fung explains why intermittent fasting and ADF diets work" is bad because the article doesn't appear to [1] use the term "ADF" anywhere. Google tells me that probably stands for "Alternate Day Fasting", which also doesn't appear to be anywhere in the article. [1] I'm saying "appear to" because I've been burned before by browser search functions missing something because the site did something like have some markup interrupt a word or maybe have some invisible character in the middle of it.
- ionforce 8y ago
  And who is Jason Fung? Does his name have any cachet?
  - fbnlsr 8y ago
    Jason Fung is Canadian nephrologist. He's been working with obese and type 2 diabetes patients for years. He's been advocating fasting and time-restricted eating for years to fight obesity and diabetes. He's mostly known for this book "The Obesity Code" in which he details how modern eating habits are wrong and the main cause for the obesity epidemic. I hope I summed it up well. You might want to look him up on Youtube, he has some really interesting talks.
  - astura 8y ago
    Google tells me he appears to be a doctor, who specializes in renal diseases (nephrologist), has written several books on fasting, advocates fasting for some patients, and runs something called the Intensive Dietary Management program.
- prostoalex 8y ago
  I had the ability to change the title shortly after submission, so just did. I used the HN's bookmarklet, which I think picked up <title>.
  - sctb 8y ago
ngngngng 8y ago
I dislike articles like this as they continue to perpetuate the belief that there are secrets to weight loss. There are no secrets to weight loss. Eat fewer calories than you burn. It doesn't matter if that involves keto, or vegan, or one meal a day. Thyroid problems also don't change physics. The problem is made worse because overweight people typically greatly underestimate how much they eat, while underweight people (me most of my life) typically greatly overestimate how much we eat. It's nearly impossible to accurately gauge calorie intake without strict calorie counting. When talking nutrition with people, I'll often bring up the examine.com piece on "does metabolism vary between two people?"(1) And I am always amazed to find at least one person in any conversation that will flat out deny the information presented there. they are positive that if they ate one single slice of pizza a day and nothing else, they would still be fat. 1: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...
- electrograv 8y ago
  > There are no secrets to weight loss. Eat fewer calories than you burn. It doesn't matter if that involves keto, or vegan, or one meal a day. Thyroid problems also don't change physics. That's like saying "There are no secrets to space flight: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It doesn't matter if that involves Hydrogen, Hydrazine, or just big tubs of water -- throw them one way, and you'll move the opposite. Your choice of fuel doesn't change physics." Of course fundamental physics laws hold. But some fuels and systems of using those fuels are more effective than others. When it comes to diet, different foods and eating patterns do have different effects on our endocrine system, and that does affect how viably we can sustain ourselves on less calories. Different foods will also have different proportions that are retained vs passed the same day. Unless you also capture ALL your own human waste, and measure it in a 'bomb calorimeter', counting calories (intake only) is not nearly as useful as you seem to think. If you disagree, drink 2000 calories of olive oil every day and eat nothing else, then come back after a year and tell me that calories are all that matter :) Disclaimer: Don't actually do that, because you would starve to death.
  - projektir 8y ago
jgrahamc 8y ago
Am I meant to know who Jason Fung is? Means nothing to me.
- wishinghand 8y ago
  Just the same as some readers not knowing Alan Kay or Richard Stallman.
projektir 8y ago
This doesn't sound like it was controlled for simply eating less calories.
- oxymoran 8y ago
  Because it wasn’t and that’s not the point. Everybody already knows a caloric deficit results in weight loss. The point, and the control, was that the same person, eating the exact same caloric intake exhibited different outcomes solely based on the time of day the ate.
  - projektir 8y ago
    > Everybody already knows a caloric deficit results in weight loss. I can assure you "everybody" doesn't already know that, in fact, this seems to be a _minority_ opinion. The vast majority of people seem to think they need a diet (i.e., restriction on type of food) to lose weight. The only people I know who are actually on CICO are people I encouraged to try it.
    - gore90- 8y ago
      I can't get over how many people on here are suggesting that knowing about CICO is "useless". Why? Because it is an oversimplification? They underestimate how many people literally do not believe that eating at a caloric deficit would result in weight loss.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Caloric deficit does not result in weight loss. It results in a smaller energy input. That smaller input can be balanced two ways: 1. Utilizing stored calories (which will result in weight loss). 2. Expending less energy (which would not result in weight loss). Realistically, reducing calories probably results in some combination of the two, with things tilting toward expending less energy as your body gets below a body fat percentage that it "wants" to be at.
tzs 8y ago
As always for this kind of article, some of the comments have turned to more general discussion of human diet and metabolism. There was an very interesting article relevant to that in Vox.com a little over a month ago [1]: "What I learned about weight loss from spending a day inside a metabolic chamber" [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17486110/metabolism-diet-fast-weight-loss https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17486110/metabolism-diet-fast-w...
- socalnate1 8y ago
  Thanks for sharing; really enjoyed this.
freecodyx 8y ago
as a muslim, i have to fast for a whole month (non stop) each year, it's hard, but i can clearly see the benefits during and after.
- swebs 8y ago
  What do you mean by non stop? Does that mean you consume 0 calories for the entire month?
  - wishinghand 8y ago
    Just during daylight hours.
  - ccmonnett 8y ago
    Non-stop as in on all days in Ramadan consecutively. It's quite trendy to do alternating fasting cycles like "5:2" (five days 'normal', 2 days fasting, typically separated). Ramadan is ~30 days of fasting during daylight hours in a row.
- ThirdFoundation 8y ago
  What benefits have you personally seen? Genuinely curious.
  - freecodyx 8y ago
    Personally, i don't have issues with overweight. but before last ramadan (June), i was having some digestive issues, i lost appetite, and i was feelings like i need to vomit, but just after ramadan, everything is back to normal, i recovered quickly, and everything is back to normal, Also i was starting to get used to drinking beers (alcohol), but i had not to drink the whole month, and since then i don't drink (i don't miss it) for non muslims it might seems like it's crazy thing to do and you are harming yourself, but it's really easy for us and we miss it.
barbecue_sauce 8y ago
THE Jason Fung?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gdsdfe 8y ago
It's fascinating that we're still using the term 'guru' in 2018
mancerayder 8y ago
Having gone back and forth on this (a 16-hour fast for a several week period more than one time), and having read a bunch on the topic, I've concluded thus far that, fundamentally, there's no one-size-fits-all for human bodies. In other words, human bodies are so complex that results for almost any food program vary a lot. Aside from the individual factors, which include your gender and age and whatever uniqueness about your body that we don't know yet (like effects of gut flora on metabolism), there's the type of exercise you do. If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. If you do a short conditioning workout or strength workout right before breaking your fast (if you're lucky enough to have a schedule that allows that), that sounds okay. There's some speculation that fasting 'resets' the gut flora, or that there's a benefit to 'giving the digestive system a rest', then there's some science around the impact on fasting on circadian rhythm reset benefits, some other science around fasting to 'reset the immune system.' My personal experience was that I didn't get much benefit in terms of body fat cutting, I didn't notice a performance increase or decrease in the gym (where I do strength training and calisthenics primarily with a bit of cardio). I DID notice I was obsessing over food in the mornings and when 2pm came around, there was a feeling of accomplishment. I'm not sure it was worth it for me. As for everyone else, the jury's still out. It's just that I'm not convinced it'll be back within my lifetime in this complex area of study.
- arif_sohaib 8y ago
  Sounds like Ramadan. Especially the "obsessing over food" part. Some of us actually end up fatter after the month of 16 hour fasts.
  - msiyer 8y ago
    If you are "obsessing over food" during Ramadan you are doing it wrong.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - user3359 8y ago
    Having spent time with Muslim friends around Ramadan, I have no doubt that this is due to OVEREATING after sunset and before sunrise. I've seen people pack 3000 calories into 2 meals when they should be getting 1500-2000, especially with the reduced activity levels due to lower energy. Fasting doesn't give you the ability to break rules of biology.
sys_64738 8y ago
I fast for 18 hours every day and only eat during a six hour window. I've done this for 5 months now and lost about 15 pounds.
koube 8y ago
I suspect there's no objective way to discuss a topic while it's in the hype cycle. Mindnfulness meditation seems to have dubious benefits, the uberman sleep cycle has all but disappeared, but during their hype cycles there was no way to sit down and discuss whether they actually do anything. There were too many people singing praises and making tons of claims, and there's really no way to dispute them. The science seems to never happen on these types of things as well, so just waiting doesn't seem to be the answer either.
- loceng 8y ago
  The biggest problem is many of these practices are often done and discussed in relative isolation of other holistic practices.
- jklinger410 8y ago
  For all we've done in science, it seems like we still have a huge correlation != causation issue. I just had someone tell me that the amount of auto accidents increase between 2 and 4pm in the US. This somehow showed that people make poor decisions during that time because of our sleep cycles? I was met with much resistance when I pointed out that there are fundamentally different people driving during 2 and 4pm than 8am or 5-6pm. The numbers don't lie, right? Just how you read them... Anyway, I'd love to see the science that mindfulness and meditation have dubious benefits. I am such a believer in those practices, I have a hard time understanding the argument that they are not beneficial.
  - koube 8y ago
    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wheres-the-proof-that-mindfulness-meditation-works1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wheres-the-proof-... > The new paper cites a 2015 review published in American Psychologist reporting that only around 9 percent of research into mindfulness-based interventions has been tested in clinical trials that included a control group. The authors also point to multiple large placebo-controlled meta-analyses concluding that mindfulness practices have often produced unimpressive results. A 2014 review of 47 meditation trials, collectively including over 3,500 participants, found essentially no evidence for benefits related to enhancing attention, curtailing substance abuse, aiding sleep or controlling weight. > Van Dam acknowledges that some good evidence does support mindfulness. The 2014 analysis found meditation and mindfulness may provide modest benefits in anxiety, depression and pain. He also cites a 2013 review published in Clinical Psychology Review for mindfulness-based therapy that found similar results. “The intention and scope of this review is welcome—it is looking to introduce rigor and balance into this emerging new field,” says Willem Kuyken, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford in England, who was not involved in research for the new report. “There are many areas where mindfulness-based programs seem to be acceptable and promising, but larger-scale randomized, rigorous trials are needed.” >As Van Dam and his co-authors wrote, “[there is] neither one universally accepted technical definition of ‘mindfulness’ nor any broad agreement about detailed aspects of the underlying concept to which it refers.”
overcast 8y ago
A 16 hours fast is so easily achievable that many probably do it without even knowing. If you stop eating by 8PM, and skip breakfast till lunch at noon. That's a 16 hour fast. I've done that basically my entire adult life without even consciously thinking about it. These days I push it out to anywhere from 18-20 hours, and limit my calorie intake from 2pm-8pm. I've been slim my whole life, 175lbs at 6'1. Never get sick, last time I've been to the doctors was easily 20 years ago as a child. Haven't had an antibiotic since grade school. Cardio exercise daily, hiking mountains, no loss of energy.
rawland 8y ago
My question in this article is: What were the properties of the participants in this study? According to the paper these "eight overweight men with prediabetes [...] had a mean BMI of 32.2 ± 4.4 kg/m2" (page 3). The metabolism of these people is quite different compared to a healthy human. These were sick people. And they received a strictly controlled and monitored diet according to the paper. Paper mentioned in article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952
RobertRoberts 8y ago
I have been experimenting with weight loss for the past year. My goal it total weight "control" _not_ loss. Anyone can lose weight, I want to never ever worry or think about it again. Today I am at a low of 181.2lbs. I haven't been this weight for probably over 12 years. Last summer I did a month of running 6 days a week (increased distance as I went) + 1 meal a day (strict). And lost .5-.6lbs a day in 30 days. I went from 202 to 187. I gained some of it back by December. I was fluxuating between 192-195. Then I changed my tactic, did strength exercising for one month, got up to 198, didn't lose weight at all. Current experiment: I changed two things - 1. I said "it's ok/fine/good to be hungry". I now naturally eat one meal a day, I eat when I want, but I don't fool myself. Sometime I eat only a couple bites of something to ease my stomach. 2. No exercise during this time at all. No running, lifting, pushups, nothing. I have gone from 198 to 181 from last January to Oct, 2018. (17lbs) Not eating is what makes you lose weight. Being hungry is your body telling you it's eating fat. I even went to a wedding, gained 3 lbs in 3 days, and shed them again 3 days later. (obviously not all of it stuck on me in the first place) After awhile you get used to being hungry, your diet matches your need and intake. Be hungry, control your weight, it's liberating. I never have to worry again the rest of my life how to manage my weight.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  TL;DR: there's no need to feel hungry, you can graze on plain intact vegetables all day long. Use calisthenic exercise to keep you honest through feedback. My experience going from 225lbs to 165lbs and keeping it there for over a decade now +-5lbs suggests there's no need to feel hungry at all, as long as I'm eating the right foods. I didn't use any exercise, just removed sugars and most refined carbohydrates and processed foods in general. Most the food I eat by volume is raw organic produce. I can eat plain heads of lettuce all day long and I will not gain weight. I eat canned wild sardines, salmon, and sometimes tuna for protein and omega-3s, with the occasional (~weekly) meat binge. Once my weight stabilized at 165, physical activity became a lot more appealing so I started hiking, running, doing hand stands, pushups, generally being more active and this has given me a more masculine physique but doesn't seem to play much part in maintaining my weight. Sometimes I experiment by ceasing most physical activity for a week or two, and mostly what happens is I become less sexy looking, the weight is more or less the same with the uniform mostly-produce diet. My mood does deteriorate though. When I deviate from the diet, usually for social reasons, eating meat more often or letting more refined carbs and generally processed foods in, my weight immediately goes up. Another thing I've learned to appreciate about physical activity is the feedback it provides. Calisthenics like hand stands, pushups, pullups, all give direct feedback on your power:weight ratio. It's a lot more impactful to only be able to do 80 pushups when last week you were doing 100 every day, than see your weight increased by 10lbs on a bathroom scale. This feedback, for me, plays a more significant role in maintaining my weight through diet via exercise than any direct calorie burning.
gremlinsinc 8y ago
I'm 485. I had gastric sleeve surgery in 2012 at 650 (after losing 40 through liquid diet). 5 weeks ago I was 515. I started a fitness challenge at a CrossFit gym, I workout 4 days a week, I eat Keto, and I (sometimes) eat just one meal a day. I find it really hard, like extremely hard when doing IF to get all my protein in for the day. I kid you not, because of my stomach size, the keto effects (lower hunger), and only having an hour or two window for food when I stick to IF completely I can't get more than 50 protein, and 600 calories. This week, I've modified it to fit my body, I've added body fortress protein which 1 scoop in almond milk = 8 carbs, and 60 protein (my daily minimum). I eat this around 11 or noon. Then I try to have my 1 meal at 5pm. Is it IF? Not completely, but I feel for me it works a lot better. I can probably still get only 600-800 calories a day; example: 2 burgers + 1/4th cup cheese and a dab of mayo and I'm stuffed to capacity, it takes an entire hour to finish this much food, but at my weight that's no biggie, the biggest thing is getting protein so my weight lifting at CrossFit has good results. I'm no expert on physiology, so if anyone has tips to maximize my progress (I'm about losing more (fat) and gaining more(muscle) as fast as humanly possible). Physically I feel like a million dollars, depression is mostly gone and anxiety as well. I'm a little obsessed on my diet/exercise regime, not sure that's bad. I started taking Vyvanse for ADHD so that also curbs appetite/hunger and has helped me focus more on my code/work. Last year I had major depression with dark thoughts, this year I feel like a different person, I'm also seeing a therapist for that stuff as of a few months ago.
- squish78 8y ago
  I have no advice, but applause and encouragement. Keep going and congrats on your progress so far. Don't stop or get complacent - you can be a motivator for other people and your progress can be a positive force for more people than just yourself
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    Thanks, I appreciate it. I feel great, I love Cross Fit -- the community has been VERY supportive and the box I go to is VERY good at modifying workouts -- I can't get down on the floor yet, or do lunges for example, but I still get my ass handed to me.
ccmonnett 8y ago
My experience with time-restricted eating has been that, regardless of the benefits of the fasting itself (which FWIW I do believe in), it has brought one significant change into my life: caring much more about the nutrition of each meal I eat. Before I began fasting, I found myself saying things like, "Well, this isn't great for me, but it'll be filling for a few hours and then I'll eat something else." With IF that is not an option, and it forced me to more carefully consider whether I was providing my body with the proper fuel for the next X hours. Similarly, coming out of the fast, I was much more likely to eat nutritionally-valuable foods because I knew that whatever I put in my body it would immediately consume for fuel and I wanted to give it something valuable. That in itself has led me to rave about IF to anyone who is interested enough to listen. I recommend at least an experiment with it to experience that consideration of nutrition, because I think that will stay with you whether you stick with IF or not.
matachuan 8y ago
Never thought I'd see this on here...There is no need for all the complications like IF, etc. This game is only about your caloric deficient and surplus.
jcoffland 8y ago
Many people don't like this but it all boils down to calories in calories out. All human bodies work pretty much the same way with some slight variances due to disease and genetics. Fasting works because it restricts your overall intake.
- thebeefytaco 8y ago
  >Many people don't like this but it all boils down to calories in calories out. Not true. Calories are a very crude metric of metabolic energy. Wood (and anything else that burns) has a bunch of calories, yet we cannot process it as energy.
  - jcoffland 8y ago
    Undigested wood would come out your butt, hopefully. So it's still calories in, calories out.
    - jdminhbg 8y ago
      Great, so as long as you're measuring the caloric content of your feces, CICO will make for a great diet tool.
- Tharkun 8y ago
  Many people don't get this, but calories aren't a very reliable measure of available energy. Measuring the caloric content of food is a pretty weird process, and is some kind of "one size fits all" measure of energy which we might be able to extract. The digestive system is not an engine, where you put in fuel, add oxygen, combust and use the energy. The digestive system is more like a mining operation which extracts coal from the bedrock that is your food, and which then throws it over the wall where billions of consumers burn the coal for energy. That process isn't anywhere near 100% efficient. There is a huge amount of complexity in how food is digested and broken down into protein/sugars/fats. Some people can't even break down certain foods. Even more complexity in how those macronutrients are then dealt with. Sure, in any system energy in == energy out. But without a way of reliably measuring how much available energy there really is in food for a specific body, there's really no way you can say "calories in, calories out".
jordache 8y ago
>It was likely the successful efforts of snack-food companies advertising to dietitians, and doctors, clueless about nutrition at the best of times, who simply went along for the ride. How did he make that determination? Oh I see "likely"
tw1010 8y ago
My main qualm with intermittent fasting is that it makes me hungry, which depletes my will-power budget for the day (which prevents me from being productive later in the day). Is there any diet that works better than IF (or just as well), given the constraint that it also needs to minimize use of your daily self-dicipline resevoire?
- martin-adams 8y ago
  I find that happens when I also have carbs during my eating window. By reducing carbs and increasing fat, I’ve noticed less hunger feelings and more mental clarity.
louprado 8y ago
Given that poor sleep quality exacerbates insulin resistance, it is possible that by not eating late into the day, the research subjects in the article's fasting study may have also lost weight because their sleep improved.[1] Personally if I eat dinner after 5PM, I have trouble sleeping. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21950773 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21950773
mysterypie 8y ago
The volume of ever-changing and contradictory advice about dieting is maddening. The only dieting advice I truly accept these days is the First Law of Thermodynamics. In context of dieting, you could state this as, eat less (calories) or exercise more (joules) or both, and you will lose weight. Absolutely guaranteed by a fundamental law of physics. Yes, it's very hard to follow this rule, but for me at least a simple rule that is guaranteed to work is much better that complex rules and theories that inevitably turn out to be nuanced, dependent on particular genetics or environment, or plain wrong.
- ionforce 8y ago
  I think everyone knows that "works" on paper. But people are looking for solutions that fit their lifestyle, including human imperfections like the lack of willpower.
  - mysterypie 8y ago
    > I think everyone knows that "works" on paper. You'd think so, but people with science or math degrees have said, it doesn't work for me, even though I point out that we're talking about laws of physics, not about willpower. Never mind the average person. The average person will not agree that "eat less, exercise more, guarantees weight loss". Regarding your other point, I know that everyone is looking for a shortcut, trick, or something that works for them. I'm saying that with the insane volume of unreliable studies and advice, it's simpler to ignore it all and try one rule that will work.
mark_l_watson 8y ago
I am participating right now in one of these studies (Stanford University). Amazingly, you really don’t get hungry at night after a breaking in period. I eat between 9am and 6pm, so not quite the same time period as in the article.
mythrwy 8y ago
A good cleanout a few times a year is great, but skipping meals and walking around hungry on a regular basis doesn't work for me at all. 3 reasonable sized meals a day with maybe a light snack is just right. No heavy meals, not too much carbs (but not no carbs either). Plenty of vegetables and fruit and protein. Regularly, in small amounts through the day. Keeps me at the right weight, blood sugar not spiked, not off. Being hungry I have trouble focusing. And mood gets off. I make worse decisions. Not sure why this fad is so promoted lately, maybe it works for some people but not me and "our ancestors starved" isn't really a good reason to torture oneself for no discernible reason in my opinion.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
octygen 8y ago
Am interesting read. IF is supported by much science and I even studied it in a Coursera course on brain hacking. Along with Mediterranean diet and Keto, it's great for the brain and body apparently. That said, the best advice my Cirque-coach gave me: match food intake with exercise in a given day. So if do a killer workout today, intermittent fasting is not going to give me enough fuel. But if I sit around in meetings/writing 6AM-10PM, fasting for 16h and eating in 8h of that day could work as it'll simply be lessening how much you one eats.

277 points by prostoalex 8y ago

The way this article is written is very off-putting. For instance, "We run around chasing our kids to eat cookies and drink juice, and then wonder why we have a childhood obesity crisis. Good job, everybody, good job." I am not sure if I understand this: "The median daily intake duration (the amount of time people spent eating) was 14.75 hours per day. That is, if you started eating breakfast at 8am, you didn’t, on average, stop eating until 10:45pm." I certainly spend may be 1 hour eating everyday including breakfast, lunch and dinner.

aaronblohowiak 8y ago
From first to last bite is 14.75 hours
kranner 8y ago
The author means time between first and last food intakes of the day, not total time spent eating.
- fermienrico 8y ago
  I see. So then this statement is not correct "The median daily intake duration (the amount of time people spent eating) was 14.75 hours per day.". It should be "The time between first and last meal during waking hours". "The amount of time people spend eating" statement is totally wrong.
  - simonh 8y ago
    Each year the average person starts eating at 8am on January 1st and doesn’t stop until about 7:30pm on December 31st!
  - kranner 8y ago
    Yes, taken literally, it is incorrect. But being familiar with the thesis, I understood what the author meant. Definitely an example of sloppy writing.
  - baddox 8y ago
    It’s common terminology when referring to fasting, and it’s pretty clear from context. Apply the principle of charity: it’s highly unlikely that the author is making the ludicrous claim that people on average are literally eating food constantly for 14.75 hours a day.
megaman8 8y ago
> "We run around chasing our kids to eat cookies and drink juice, and then wonder why we have a childhood obesity crisis. Good job, everybody, good job." I literally have seen this happen, where parents chase their kids around cookies and Juice in hand, Literally.
- pacaro 8y ago
  As a parent, I have done this. It’s hard when an active kid is constantly distracted. It has been a big exercise in discipline (for me) to say that food is eaten at the table at specific times and if she’s hungry, then she can eat more at the next meal. (Obviously baring force majeure etc.)
Oras 8y ago
This talk has a nice information about circadian habits if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erBJuxVR7IE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erBJuxVR7IE
thebeefytaco 8y ago
Your body is in a 'fed' state long after eating.
gorpomon 8y ago
I have to agree on the writing style. I think it's pretty anecdotal that it's "...almost considered child abuse to deprive your child of a mid-morning snack or after-school snack." I suspect the author has first hand exposure to helicopter parents at soccer games, but should realize that inserting such experiences might get in the way of their main point.

reasonattlm 8y ago

Calorie restriction is probably the most important aspect of short term fasting of the sort achieved by eating only in some parts of the day. Animal studies show that isocaloric intermittent fasting, altering eating schedules, to e.g. alternate day, while still ingesting the same amount of calories, do have benefits. Those benefits hit many of the same areas of metabolism as calorie restriction, but are still significantly different in their overall operation. They are also not as effective at extending life. Time spent being hungry might be a good metric, but even that is overly simplistic. Grehlin has all sorts of regulatory connections throughout metabolism, but you can't point to any one thing. All of these dietary changes, less calories or more hunger, cause sweeping changes throughout metabolism that are not well understood as a whole. Cause and effect and which parts are important versus not is very much open for debate for any part of this system. Further, fasting (or fasting mimicking) for longer periods is clearly a different beast from just rescheduling a few meals. In humans fasting for 72 hours or more results in very different outcomes for immune health than anything less than 72 hours. The longer fast kills up to a third of the immune system, which then repopulates when the individual starts eating again, and thus has very beneficial effects in people whose immune system is damaged or dysfunctional in some way (e.g. as the results of chemotherapy). Similarly these longer fasts produce changes to insulin metabolism that last for months after the fasting is done, which is not the case for fasting in the rearranging a few meals sense.

roganartu 8y ago
This has been posted before, but a good digestible source for the information in this comment is this two-video podcast series: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/valter-longo https://www.foundmyfitness.com/episodes/valter-longo The studies you mention results of (like the 30% immune system culling in a 4-5 day fast) have only been published for mice so far afaik, but they're currently doing human studies. Also worth noting that one of the points Valter Longo makes quite strongly in these podcasts is that refeeding after the fast is at least as important as the fast itself.
onewhonknocks 8y ago
I may have misunderstood, but the article stated the following: ‘The two arms of the study were eating between 8am and 8pm, and the eTRF strategy of eating between 8am and 2pm, but remember, both groups ate three meals per day of the same foods.’ So it's not like the time restricted people took in less calories. Both groups consumed the same total amount of calories. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

megaman8 8y ago

i've been fasting 15-16 hours a day everyday for the last 6 years and it's certainly helped me keep my weight about 10 lbs lower than I would have with just dieting. Before that I always subscribed to 3-5 meals a day hypothesis. Once I switched over to fasting 16 hours, I noticed the effect immediately, by losing 10 lbs in 2 months and have kept it off ever since.

atomical 8y ago

> This was not merely an American phenomenon. More recently, China has followed in America’s footsteps with increased snacking. Large-scale surveys show that from 1991 to 2009, the percentage of children and adults who regularly snack has skyrocketed. Among children aged 13 to 18, those who snacked went from 8.7% to 46.3% — a more than fivefold increase. Adults showed the a similar rise from 8.7% to 35.6%. Even so obesity rates are still low in Asian countries. I guess Asians are enjoying eating throughout the day while still outperforming Americans. https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017.pdf https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/Obesity-Update-2017....

aviv 8y ago

Fasting, in particular prolonged fasting (up to 40 days of water fasting or 8 days of dry fasting) is the best gift you can give to your body.

sixo 8y ago
Support that?
- mtgx 8y ago
  Dr. Valter Longo says you need only 5 days of fasting. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28202779 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28202779 Also, it seems to regenerate β cells for Type 1 diabetes humans, although I would imagine the "regular" fasting would do that, too since it's a more extreme version of the FMD: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357144/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357144/ Some interviews with him on it (there are more on youtube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6PyyatqJSE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGFWRXEzz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGFWRXEzz8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdjGgrh5zSk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdjGgrh5zSk
viach 8y ago
Saying this in public can cause someone to actually follow your advice without consulting a doctor and, well, u know, die.
- aviv 8y ago
  God forbid should they actually do this and cure themselves of whatever said doctor is telling them is a life long ailment. Unbelievable the brainwashing out there.
  - ectospheno 8y ago
    Most people here expect evidence after an assertion. They are especially critical of use of terms like "brainwashing" in posts devoid of evidence. Food for thought.

peterwwillis 8y ago

Intermittent fasting seems like it'd wreck your body if you do moderate to intense exercise. So I just fasted, and now I want to do intense cardio.... but I might run out of glycogen or blood sugar. Or I may do a set of weight lifting, but not if I can't eat protein after. So if I do intermittent fasting, I have to come up with a complex schedule to follow in order to get any performance gains. The whole point of a diet is to be healthy. You don't need intermittent fasting to be healthy. It seems to just introduce complication for a menial improvement in a few measures of health. I'm sure they work, if you can actually stick to them, but there's a lot simpler diets that will also work. Exercise three times a week. Eat lots of plants. Keep your fat, protein, and simple carb levels within reasonable limits for your age, height and sex. That's not super complicated to follow, and it can fit into basically any schedule.

alokedesai 8y ago
Totally anecdotal but I lost 40 pounds in 4 months with IF and I still worked out 4-5 days a week in the mornings. I found it very very easy to follow and my body had very little trouble adapting
- rawland 8y ago
  "in the mornings". That's exactly the point.
javagram 8y ago
> So I just fasted, and now I want to do intense cardio.... but I might run out of glycogen or blood sugar Isn’t that where ketosis comes in? Your body can break down fat and provide energy through ketones. Some proponents of intermittent fasting would probably argue that simply not eating at certain times is the simplest diet of all since it doesn’t require continually evaluating at each meal what a “reasonable” level of intake is.
- ngngngng 8y ago
  It takes between 2-10 days to reach ketosis and switch from using carbs for energy to using ketones. Burning ketones also brings less energy than burning carbs, which would not be ideal for cardio.

southphillyman 8y ago

I have been doing IF for a month or two now. Hard to really quantify it's effects since I've been eating much better and going to the gym during that same time period. Either way I think it's useful if only as a way to make eating at a calorie deficit easier. My biggest gripe is that it's basically impossible to have a social nightlife on the weekends if you can't eat or drink after 8pm

throwaway82729 8y ago
Wondering if you could alternate day fasting on weekends. Social life on Saturday evening and restrict yourself to 500 calories on Sunday. I struggle with this as well. Just curious as to how people manage.
ccmonnett 8y ago
If time-restricted eating is having that big of an impact on your life, adapt to it. Eat lunch later on the following days after going out, or - and stop me if this is crazy - don't be so strict about it if your friends want to meet up. I am a time-restricted eater. I use Zero to track my eating windows and make sure I'm not trending in the wrong direction, and that gives me the peace of mind to let up every once in a while. Just this morning I broke my fast early because I didn't eat enough last night and I was pretty zonked before my workout (beyond the point I thought would be productive). I ate a few dates, recorded it in Zero, and will live to fast another day.

embwbam 8y ago

For athletes, how does one reconcile IF with the idea that one should eat protein at regular intervals? They seem to conflict. https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-nutrition-how-much-protein-does-a-climber-need/ https://www.climbing.com/skills/climbing-nutrition-how-much-...

sridca 8y ago
Biased studies by the supplements industry, most probably.
tejohnso 8y ago
Test the idea. Try dialing back the protein for a while. You might be surprised at how little you need to build muscle and stay fit while at the same time loosing weight.
vlasev 8y ago
I'm not able to look for articles on this right now, but I believe that it was shown that your overall daily intake of protein is more important than the time of ingestion.
- embwbam 8y ago
  That’s the exact opposite result as the studies listed in the article I posted. Weird.

tzs 8y ago

This needs a title change to the article's actual title: "A diet guru explains why you should eat dinner at 2pm" The submitted title: "Jason Fung explains why intermittent fasting and ADF diets work" is bad because the article doesn't appear to [1] use the term "ADF" anywhere. Google tells me that probably stands for "Alternate Day Fasting", which also doesn't appear to be anywhere in the article. [1] I'm saying "appear to" because I've been burned before by browser search functions missing something because the site did something like have some markup interrupt a word or maybe have some invisible character in the middle of it.

ionforce 8y ago
And who is Jason Fung? Does his name have any cachet?
- fbnlsr 8y ago
  Jason Fung is Canadian nephrologist. He's been working with obese and type 2 diabetes patients for years. He's been advocating fasting and time-restricted eating for years to fight obesity and diabetes. He's mostly known for this book "The Obesity Code" in which he details how modern eating habits are wrong and the main cause for the obesity epidemic. I hope I summed it up well. You might want to look him up on Youtube, he has some really interesting talks.
- astura 8y ago
  Google tells me he appears to be a doctor, who specializes in renal diseases (nephrologist), has written several books on fasting, advocates fasting for some patients, and runs something called the Intensive Dietary Management program.
prostoalex 8y ago
I had the ability to change the title shortly after submission, so just did. I used the HN's bookmarklet, which I think picked up <title>.
- sctb 8y ago

ngngngng 8y ago

I dislike articles like this as they continue to perpetuate the belief that there are secrets to weight loss. There are no secrets to weight loss. Eat fewer calories than you burn. It doesn't matter if that involves keto, or vegan, or one meal a day. Thyroid problems also don't change physics. The problem is made worse because overweight people typically greatly underestimate how much they eat, while underweight people (me most of my life) typically greatly overestimate how much we eat. It's nearly impossible to accurately gauge calorie intake without strict calorie counting. When talking nutrition with people, I'll often bring up the examine.com piece on "does metabolism vary between two people?"(1) And I am always amazed to find at least one person in any conversation that will flat out deny the information presented there. they are positive that if they ate one single slice of pizza a day and nothing else, they would still be fat. 1: https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-two-people/ https://examine.com/nutrition/does-metabolism-vary-between-t...

electrograv 8y ago
> There are no secrets to weight loss. Eat fewer calories than you burn. It doesn't matter if that involves keto, or vegan, or one meal a day. Thyroid problems also don't change physics. That's like saying "There are no secrets to space flight: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It doesn't matter if that involves Hydrogen, Hydrazine, or just big tubs of water -- throw them one way, and you'll move the opposite. Your choice of fuel doesn't change physics." Of course fundamental physics laws hold. But some fuels and systems of using those fuels are more effective than others. When it comes to diet, different foods and eating patterns do have different effects on our endocrine system, and that does affect how viably we can sustain ourselves on less calories. Different foods will also have different proportions that are retained vs passed the same day. Unless you also capture ALL your own human waste, and measure it in a 'bomb calorimeter', counting calories (intake only) is not nearly as useful as you seem to think. If you disagree, drink 2000 calories of olive oil every day and eat nothing else, then come back after a year and tell me that calories are all that matter :) Disclaimer: Don't actually do that, because you would starve to death.
- projektir 8y ago

jgrahamc 8y ago

Am I meant to know who Jason Fung is? Means nothing to me.

wishinghand 8y ago
Just the same as some readers not knowing Alan Kay or Richard Stallman.

projektir 8y ago

This doesn't sound like it was controlled for simply eating less calories.

oxymoran 8y ago
Because it wasn’t and that’s not the point. Everybody already knows a caloric deficit results in weight loss. The point, and the control, was that the same person, eating the exact same caloric intake exhibited different outcomes solely based on the time of day the ate.
- projektir 8y ago
  > Everybody already knows a caloric deficit results in weight loss. I can assure you "everybody" doesn't already know that, in fact, this seems to be a _minority_ opinion. The vast majority of people seem to think they need a diet (i.e., restriction on type of food) to lose weight. The only people I know who are actually on CICO are people I encouraged to try it.
  - gore90- 8y ago
    I can't get over how many people on here are suggesting that knowing about CICO is "useless". Why? Because it is an oversimplification? They underestimate how many people literally do not believe that eating at a caloric deficit would result in weight loss.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Caloric deficit does not result in weight loss. It results in a smaller energy input. That smaller input can be balanced two ways: 1. Utilizing stored calories (which will result in weight loss). 2. Expending less energy (which would not result in weight loss). Realistically, reducing calories probably results in some combination of the two, with things tilting toward expending less energy as your body gets below a body fat percentage that it "wants" to be at.

tzs 8y ago

As always for this kind of article, some of the comments have turned to more general discussion of human diet and metabolism. There was an very interesting article relevant to that in Vox.com a little over a month ago [1]: "What I learned about weight loss from spending a day inside a metabolic chamber" [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17486110/metabolism-diet-fast-weight-loss https://www.vox.com/2018/9/4/17486110/metabolism-diet-fast-w...

socalnate1 8y ago
Thanks for sharing; really enjoyed this.

freecodyx 8y ago

as a muslim, i have to fast for a whole month (non stop) each year, it's hard, but i can clearly see the benefits during and after.

swebs 8y ago
What do you mean by non stop? Does that mean you consume 0 calories for the entire month?
- wishinghand 8y ago
  Just during daylight hours.
- ccmonnett 8y ago
  Non-stop as in on all days in Ramadan consecutively. It's quite trendy to do alternating fasting cycles like "5:2" (five days 'normal', 2 days fasting, typically separated). Ramadan is ~30 days of fasting during daylight hours in a row.
ThirdFoundation 8y ago
What benefits have you personally seen? Genuinely curious.
- freecodyx 8y ago
  Personally, i don't have issues with overweight. but before last ramadan (June), i was having some digestive issues, i lost appetite, and i was feelings like i need to vomit, but just after ramadan, everything is back to normal, i recovered quickly, and everything is back to normal, Also i was starting to get used to drinking beers (alcohol), but i had not to drink the whole month, and since then i don't drink (i don't miss it) for non muslims it might seems like it's crazy thing to do and you are harming yourself, but it's really easy for us and we miss it.

barbecue_sauce 8y ago

THE Jason Fung?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

gdsdfe 8y ago

It's fascinating that we're still using the term 'guru' in 2018

mancerayder 8y ago

Having gone back and forth on this (a 16-hour fast for a several week period more than one time), and having read a bunch on the topic, I've concluded thus far that, fundamentally, there's no one-size-fits-all for human bodies. In other words, human bodies are so complex that results for almost any food program vary a lot. Aside from the individual factors, which include your gender and age and whatever uniqueness about your body that we don't know yet (like effects of gut flora on metabolism), there's the type of exercise you do. If you do long distance running or cycling, at one extreme, it's obviously a no-go. If you do a short conditioning workout or strength workout right before breaking your fast (if you're lucky enough to have a schedule that allows that), that sounds okay. There's some speculation that fasting 'resets' the gut flora, or that there's a benefit to 'giving the digestive system a rest', then there's some science around the impact on fasting on circadian rhythm reset benefits, some other science around fasting to 'reset the immune system.' My personal experience was that I didn't get much benefit in terms of body fat cutting, I didn't notice a performance increase or decrease in the gym (where I do strength training and calisthenics primarily with a bit of cardio). I DID notice I was obsessing over food in the mornings and when 2pm came around, there was a feeling of accomplishment. I'm not sure it was worth it for me. As for everyone else, the jury's still out. It's just that I'm not convinced it'll be back within my lifetime in this complex area of study.

arif_sohaib 8y ago
Sounds like Ramadan. Especially the "obsessing over food" part. Some of us actually end up fatter after the month of 16 hour fasts.
- msiyer 8y ago
  If you are "obsessing over food" during Ramadan you are doing it wrong.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- user3359 8y ago
  Having spent time with Muslim friends around Ramadan, I have no doubt that this is due to OVEREATING after sunset and before sunrise. I've seen people pack 3000 calories into 2 meals when they should be getting 1500-2000, especially with the reduced activity levels due to lower energy. Fasting doesn't give you the ability to break rules of biology.

sys_64738 8y ago

I fast for 18 hours every day and only eat during a six hour window. I've done this for 5 months now and lost about 15 pounds.

koube 8y ago

I suspect there's no objective way to discuss a topic while it's in the hype cycle. Mindnfulness meditation seems to have dubious benefits, the uberman sleep cycle has all but disappeared, but during their hype cycles there was no way to sit down and discuss whether they actually do anything. There were too many people singing praises and making tons of claims, and there's really no way to dispute them. The science seems to never happen on these types of things as well, so just waiting doesn't seem to be the answer either.

loceng 8y ago
The biggest problem is many of these practices are often done and discussed in relative isolation of other holistic practices.
jklinger410 8y ago
For all we've done in science, it seems like we still have a huge correlation != causation issue. I just had someone tell me that the amount of auto accidents increase between 2 and 4pm in the US. This somehow showed that people make poor decisions during that time because of our sleep cycles? I was met with much resistance when I pointed out that there are fundamentally different people driving during 2 and 4pm than 8am or 5-6pm. The numbers don't lie, right? Just how you read them... Anyway, I'd love to see the science that mindfulness and meditation have dubious benefits. I am such a believer in those practices, I have a hard time understanding the argument that they are not beneficial.
- koube 8y ago
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wheres-the-proof-that-mindfulness-meditation-works1/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/wheres-the-proof-... > The new paper cites a 2015 review published in American Psychologist reporting that only around 9 percent of research into mindfulness-based interventions has been tested in clinical trials that included a control group. The authors also point to multiple large placebo-controlled meta-analyses concluding that mindfulness practices have often produced unimpressive results. A 2014 review of 47 meditation trials, collectively including over 3,500 participants, found essentially no evidence for benefits related to enhancing attention, curtailing substance abuse, aiding sleep or controlling weight. > Van Dam acknowledges that some good evidence does support mindfulness. The 2014 analysis found meditation and mindfulness may provide modest benefits in anxiety, depression and pain. He also cites a 2013 review published in Clinical Psychology Review for mindfulness-based therapy that found similar results. “The intention and scope of this review is welcome—it is looking to introduce rigor and balance into this emerging new field,” says Willem Kuyken, a professor of psychiatry at the University of Oxford in England, who was not involved in research for the new report. “There are many areas where mindfulness-based programs seem to be acceptable and promising, but larger-scale randomized, rigorous trials are needed.” >As Van Dam and his co-authors wrote, “[there is] neither one universally accepted technical definition of ‘mindfulness’ nor any broad agreement about detailed aspects of the underlying concept to which it refers.”

overcast 8y ago

A 16 hours fast is so easily achievable that many probably do it without even knowing. If you stop eating by 8PM, and skip breakfast till lunch at noon. That's a 16 hour fast. I've done that basically my entire adult life without even consciously thinking about it. These days I push it out to anywhere from 18-20 hours, and limit my calorie intake from 2pm-8pm. I've been slim my whole life, 175lbs at 6'1. Never get sick, last time I've been to the doctors was easily 20 years ago as a child. Haven't had an antibiotic since grade school. Cardio exercise daily, hiking mountains, no loss of energy.

rawland 8y ago

My question in this article is: What were the properties of the participants in this study? According to the paper these "eight overweight men with prediabetes [...] had a mean BMI of 32.2 ± 4.4 kg/m2" (page 3). The metabolism of these people is quite different compared to a healthy human. These were sick people. And they received a strictly controlled and monitored diet according to the paper. Paper mentioned in article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29754952

RobertRoberts 8y ago

I have been experimenting with weight loss for the past year. My goal it total weight "control" _not_ loss. Anyone can lose weight, I want to never ever worry or think about it again. Today I am at a low of 181.2lbs. I haven't been this weight for probably over 12 years. Last summer I did a month of running 6 days a week (increased distance as I went) + 1 meal a day (strict). And lost .5-.6lbs a day in 30 days. I went from 202 to 187. I gained some of it back by December. I was fluxuating between 192-195. Then I changed my tactic, did strength exercising for one month, got up to 198, didn't lose weight at all. Current experiment: I changed two things - 1. I said "it's ok/fine/good to be hungry". I now naturally eat one meal a day, I eat when I want, but I don't fool myself. Sometime I eat only a couple bites of something to ease my stomach. 2. No exercise during this time at all. No running, lifting, pushups, nothing. I have gone from 198 to 181 from last January to Oct, 2018. (17lbs) Not eating is what makes you lose weight. Being hungry is your body telling you it's eating fat. I even went to a wedding, gained 3 lbs in 3 days, and shed them again 3 days later. (obviously not all of it stuck on me in the first place) After awhile you get used to being hungry, your diet matches your need and intake. Be hungry, control your weight, it's liberating. I never have to worry again the rest of my life how to manage my weight.

newnewpdro 8y ago
TL;DR: there's no need to feel hungry, you can graze on plain intact vegetables all day long. Use calisthenic exercise to keep you honest through feedback. My experience going from 225lbs to 165lbs and keeping it there for over a decade now +-5lbs suggests there's no need to feel hungry at all, as long as I'm eating the right foods. I didn't use any exercise, just removed sugars and most refined carbohydrates and processed foods in general. Most the food I eat by volume is raw organic produce. I can eat plain heads of lettuce all day long and I will not gain weight. I eat canned wild sardines, salmon, and sometimes tuna for protein and omega-3s, with the occasional (~weekly) meat binge. Once my weight stabilized at 165, physical activity became a lot more appealing so I started hiking, running, doing hand stands, pushups, generally being more active and this has given me a more masculine physique but doesn't seem to play much part in maintaining my weight. Sometimes I experiment by ceasing most physical activity for a week or two, and mostly what happens is I become less sexy looking, the weight is more or less the same with the uniform mostly-produce diet. My mood does deteriorate though. When I deviate from the diet, usually for social reasons, eating meat more often or letting more refined carbs and generally processed foods in, my weight immediately goes up. Another thing I've learned to appreciate about physical activity is the feedback it provides. Calisthenics like hand stands, pushups, pullups, all give direct feedback on your power:weight ratio. It's a lot more impactful to only be able to do 80 pushups when last week you were doing 100 every day, than see your weight increased by 10lbs on a bathroom scale. This feedback, for me, plays a more significant role in maintaining my weight through diet via exercise than any direct calorie burning.

gremlinsinc 8y ago

I'm 485. I had gastric sleeve surgery in 2012 at 650 (after losing 40 through liquid diet). 5 weeks ago I was 515. I started a fitness challenge at a CrossFit gym, I workout 4 days a week, I eat Keto, and I (sometimes) eat just one meal a day. I find it really hard, like extremely hard when doing IF to get all my protein in for the day. I kid you not, because of my stomach size, the keto effects (lower hunger), and only having an hour or two window for food when I stick to IF completely I can't get more than 50 protein, and 600 calories. This week, I've modified it to fit my body, I've added body fortress protein which 1 scoop in almond milk = 8 carbs, and 60 protein (my daily minimum). I eat this around 11 or noon. Then I try to have my 1 meal at 5pm. Is it IF? Not completely, but I feel for me it works a lot better. I can probably still get only 600-800 calories a day; example: 2 burgers + 1/4th cup cheese and a dab of mayo and I'm stuffed to capacity, it takes an entire hour to finish this much food, but at my weight that's no biggie, the biggest thing is getting protein so my weight lifting at CrossFit has good results. I'm no expert on physiology, so if anyone has tips to maximize my progress (I'm about losing more (fat) and gaining more(muscle) as fast as humanly possible). Physically I feel like a million dollars, depression is mostly gone and anxiety as well. I'm a little obsessed on my diet/exercise regime, not sure that's bad. I started taking Vyvanse for ADHD so that also curbs appetite/hunger and has helped me focus more on my code/work. Last year I had major depression with dark thoughts, this year I feel like a different person, I'm also seeing a therapist for that stuff as of a few months ago.

squish78 8y ago
I have no advice, but applause and encouragement. Keep going and congrats on your progress so far. Don't stop or get complacent - you can be a motivator for other people and your progress can be a positive force for more people than just yourself
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  Thanks, I appreciate it. I feel great, I love Cross Fit -- the community has been VERY supportive and the box I go to is VERY good at modifying workouts -- I can't get down on the floor yet, or do lunges for example, but I still get my ass handed to me.

ccmonnett 8y ago

My experience with time-restricted eating has been that, regardless of the benefits of the fasting itself (which FWIW I do believe in), it has brought one significant change into my life: caring much more about the nutrition of each meal I eat. Before I began fasting, I found myself saying things like, "Well, this isn't great for me, but it'll be filling for a few hours and then I'll eat something else." With IF that is not an option, and it forced me to more carefully consider whether I was providing my body with the proper fuel for the next X hours. Similarly, coming out of the fast, I was much more likely to eat nutritionally-valuable foods because I knew that whatever I put in my body it would immediately consume for fuel and I wanted to give it something valuable. That in itself has led me to rave about IF to anyone who is interested enough to listen. I recommend at least an experiment with it to experience that consideration of nutrition, because I think that will stay with you whether you stick with IF or not.

matachuan 8y ago

Never thought I'd see this on here...There is no need for all the complications like IF, etc. This game is only about your caloric deficient and surplus.

jcoffland 8y ago

Many people don't like this but it all boils down to calories in calories out. All human bodies work pretty much the same way with some slight variances due to disease and genetics. Fasting works because it restricts your overall intake.

thebeefytaco 8y ago
>Many people don't like this but it all boils down to calories in calories out. Not true. Calories are a very crude metric of metabolic energy. Wood (and anything else that burns) has a bunch of calories, yet we cannot process it as energy.
- jcoffland 8y ago
  Undigested wood would come out your butt, hopefully. So it's still calories in, calories out.
  - jdminhbg 8y ago
    Great, so as long as you're measuring the caloric content of your feces, CICO will make for a great diet tool.
Tharkun 8y ago
Many people don't get this, but calories aren't a very reliable measure of available energy. Measuring the caloric content of food is a pretty weird process, and is some kind of "one size fits all" measure of energy which we might be able to extract. The digestive system is not an engine, where you put in fuel, add oxygen, combust and use the energy. The digestive system is more like a mining operation which extracts coal from the bedrock that is your food, and which then throws it over the wall where billions of consumers burn the coal for energy. That process isn't anywhere near 100% efficient. There is a huge amount of complexity in how food is digested and broken down into protein/sugars/fats. Some people can't even break down certain foods. Even more complexity in how those macronutrients are then dealt with. Sure, in any system energy in == energy out. But without a way of reliably measuring how much available energy there really is in food for a specific body, there's really no way you can say "calories in, calories out".

jordache 8y ago

>It was likely the successful efforts of snack-food companies advertising to dietitians, and doctors, clueless about nutrition at the best of times, who simply went along for the ride. How did he make that determination? Oh I see "likely"

tw1010 8y ago

My main qualm with intermittent fasting is that it makes me hungry, which depletes my will-power budget for the day (which prevents me from being productive later in the day). Is there any diet that works better than IF (or just as well), given the constraint that it also needs to minimize use of your daily self-dicipline resevoire?

martin-adams 8y ago
I find that happens when I also have carbs during my eating window. By reducing carbs and increasing fat, I’ve noticed less hunger feelings and more mental clarity.

louprado 8y ago

Given that poor sleep quality exacerbates insulin resistance, it is possible that by not eating late into the day, the research subjects in the article's fasting study may have also lost weight because their sleep improved.[1] Personally if I eat dinner after 5PM, I have trouble sleeping. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21950773 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21950773

mysterypie 8y ago

The volume of ever-changing and contradictory advice about dieting is maddening. The only dieting advice I truly accept these days is the First Law of Thermodynamics. In context of dieting, you could state this as, eat less (calories) or exercise more (joules) or both, and you will lose weight. Absolutely guaranteed by a fundamental law of physics. Yes, it's very hard to follow this rule, but for me at least a simple rule that is guaranteed to work is much better that complex rules and theories that inevitably turn out to be nuanced, dependent on particular genetics or environment, or plain wrong.

ionforce 8y ago
I think everyone knows that "works" on paper. But people are looking for solutions that fit their lifestyle, including human imperfections like the lack of willpower.
- mysterypie 8y ago
  > I think everyone knows that "works" on paper. You'd think so, but people with science or math degrees have said, it doesn't work for me, even though I point out that we're talking about laws of physics, not about willpower. Never mind the average person. The average person will not agree that "eat less, exercise more, guarantees weight loss". Regarding your other point, I know that everyone is looking for a shortcut, trick, or something that works for them. I'm saying that with the insane volume of unreliable studies and advice, it's simpler to ignore it all and try one rule that will work.

mark_l_watson 8y ago

I am participating right now in one of these studies (Stanford University). Amazingly, you really don’t get hungry at night after a breaking in period. I eat between 9am and 6pm, so not quite the same time period as in the article.

mythrwy 8y ago

A good cleanout a few times a year is great, but skipping meals and walking around hungry on a regular basis doesn't work for me at all. 3 reasonable sized meals a day with maybe a light snack is just right. No heavy meals, not too much carbs (but not no carbs either). Plenty of vegetables and fruit and protein. Regularly, in small amounts through the day. Keeps me at the right weight, blood sugar not spiked, not off. Being hungry I have trouble focusing. And mood gets off. I make worse decisions. Not sure why this fad is so promoted lately, maybe it works for some people but not me and "our ancestors starved" isn't really a good reason to torture oneself for no discernible reason in my opinion.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

octygen 8y ago

Am interesting read. IF is supported by much science and I even studied it in a Coursera course on brain hacking. Along with Mediterranean diet and Keto, it's great for the brain and body apparently. That said, the best advice my Cirque-coach gave me: match food intake with exercise in a given day. So if do a killer workout today, intermittent fasting is not going to give me enough fuel. But if I sit around in meetings/writing 6AM-10PM, fasting for 16h and eating in 8h of that day could work as it'll simply be lessening how much you one eats.