7 ms·

Intermittent fasting: No advantage over conventional weight loss diets

93 points by AndrewDucker 8y ago

baal80spam 8y ago
Summary: Intermittent fasting helps lose weight and promotes health. However, it is not superior to conventional calorie restriction diets, scientists have found out in the largest investigation on intermittent fasting to date. The scientists conclude that there are many paths leading to a healthier weight. Everybody must find a diet plan that fits them best and then just do it! In other news: water is wet.
- mikikian 8y ago
  Or is water wet? https://youtu.be/QUAKOgxiXKg https://youtu.be/QUAKOgxiXKg :)
- jobigoud 8y ago
  It is superior if you take into account human psychology and the fact that we have unlimited supply of food.
black-tea 8y ago
Of course there isn't a difference between a calorific deficit with and without intermittent fasting. That's not the point at all. The point is it may be easier to adhere to than regular caloric restriction. A secondary point may be that it's overall healthier to fast.
- cnahr 8y ago
  Yes, due to upregulated authophagy, another point the study ignored.
- vosper 8y ago
  This is certainly my experience - I've found it much easier to fast 18 hours per day (a bit less on the weekends) than to try to adhere to a caloric restriction over a full day. I think that for me it requires less willpower to have fixed start and end times for eating.
  - mixmastamyk 8y ago
    The blood sugar spike and trough (from eating recently) is what makes you feel hungry. So avoiding that can make it easier to eat less.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- nil_pointer 8y ago
  Another benefit of IH is the dramatically increased HGH production. Not sure if calorie restriction has similar numbers.
cnahr 8y ago
Completely missing the point. Of course calorie reduction works as long as it is followed. But people have a very strong desire to regularly eat their fill. With intermittent fasting this is part of the diet by design. With daily calorie restriction it’s impossible. Compliance with daily calorie restriction always lapses over time for this reason, so people return to their former fatness. Intermittent fasting is possible to maintain for the rest of your life, daily calorie restriction usually is not.
- hondo77 8y ago
  > With daily calorie restriction it’s impossible. May be impossible for you. Doesn't mean it's impossible for, say, me (and it, demonstrably, isn't).
  - wnissen 8y ago
    90% fail within a year. That's not even really long term yet. I think the 5-year numbers are 95%. Depends on your definition of impossible, but...
    - NikolaeVarius 8y ago
      That's not impossible. That's just people have terrible willpower
      - SpikeDad 8y ago
        And this is why dietary science fails often. Because of the insistence that dieting is a matter of willpower whatever that means. Lots of real research needs to be done on why people eat unhealthy even though logically they know it's bad for them. And unless you're someone who's lots a significant amount of weight, changed your eating habits over a long time person and have maintained that you don't really have any standing to make such statements.
        NikolaeVarius 8y ago
bigmit37 8y ago
I thought intermittent fasting was better for insulin resistance. I can’t read the article right now but was this disproven?
- pard68 8y ago
  It wasn't covered. The article only covered weight loss.
tonystubblebine 8y ago
This reminds me of a study we ran at Lift/Coach.me a few years ago where we randomly assigned 12,000 people into popular diets. I was hoping we'd be able to pick a winner, but all of the diets led to weight loss and all had a result within the same margin of error (and yes, there was a control group). So basically, all the diets worked equally. The only strong signal we got was that people who were giving up soda were the most likely to lose the most weight. The cynic in me feels like we're writing giant book-length stories that are just cover to get people to reduce their sugar intake. As I read more of the research, I'm coming to the opinion that our framework for thinking about weight loss is wrong. We mostly talk about rules, and I think we should be talking about levers. You want to pull the levers that cause your body to burn fat while avoiding the levers that cause your body to store fat. That's subtlely but importantly different than calories in < calories out. Your levers include fasting, going Keto, even extreme exercise (most studies against exercise stop at 60 or 90 minutes, but try doing a backpacking trip or other 5hour+ routine).
- ars 8y ago
  > The cynic in me feels like we're writing giant book-length stories that are just cover to get people to reduce their sugar intake. I feel that's factual, not cynical. That's exactly what all the different weird diets that people love to make fun of do: Convince people in all sorts of ways to eat less. All the rules and whatever of the diet have just the one goal. We should stop evaluating diet plans based on weight loss (since they are all basically the same), and instead evaluate them based on compliance.
  - tonystubblebine 8y ago
    > instead evaluate them based on compliance. Or rather, evaluate people for which diet they're most likely to comply with. One of the flaws in the personal development ecosystem is that because everyone is selling their own "one weird trick" there's no incentive to build good assessment programs. It's not diet, but probably the only top author with a solid assessment is Gretchen Rubin and her habit tendencies. All the tendencies lead back to her advice, but at least they acknowledge that not all people are the same.
ravenstine 8y ago
I don't ever hear proponents of intermittent fasting talking about weight loss, but of maintaining weight and for longevity. This article doesn't speak of the touted benefits IF has on telomere length, so I'm not sure how seriously I can take it.
jmvoodoo 8y ago
My experience with intermittent fasting is that it was superior if you wanted to change body composition. I used it to reduce body fat while increasing lean mass (results confirmed via DEXA scan). I suppose it's probably possible to do that without intermittent fasting but I wasn't able to do it.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  Did you run a controlled study? Body builders have sworn by "precision nutrition" for years, which is basically the opposite of IF. This kind of anecdotal "evidence" is very problematic. Could be that both "worked" and your composition improved over time, due to better fitness regimen.
ohthehugemanate 8y ago
As others have pointed out, the weight loss of any caloric deficit diet is more or less identical. The stuff that's impressive about intermittent fasting is the other benefits we've seen in (still early!) studies. Insulin resistance, blood glucose, cholesterol, and overall metabolic profile, obesity, and diabetes risk. Most of this comes from rodent or animal studies. The precise definition of "intermittent" varies from study to study, and there are a lot of other variables going on. But it is legitimately interesting science. But afaik no one says it's particularly better at weight loss than other kinds of caloric restriction.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
  Exactly! Though it sounds a bit paradoxical when written out - walking around with less weight is just one of the healthy things that happens when you lose weight.
aaron695 8y ago
DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy196 for what it's worth (It's a bit hidden on the page) It's idiotic, the point of intermittent fasting is considered mainly effective is the theory it's easier to do. This Strawperson crap is annoying. They do actually seem to look at this in the DOI. They say no diff. But it's "after a 3-mo intervention phase and a 3-mo maintenance phase" Which doesn't seem replicable in the general population. Meh.
newnewpdro 8y ago
I thought the most significant claim for intermittent fasting is the anti-aging effects through autophagy, not just weight control. The study seems entirely focused on bodyfat.
- Omnius 8y ago
  IF when discussed usually means fasting daily. So maybe your food window is only between 4 - 8 pm. The anti-aging stuff you saw/read (if its the same that i did) was more about actual fasting where you might not eat everyday and here they did find some linkage to aging.
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    I am under the impression that IF usually refers to the now popular (thanks BBC) 5:2 schedule. This is the context I've most seen/read about the topic, which often includes the talk of anti-aging and autophagy. But this is all very muddy waters since it's fad diet territory and unscientific claims abound.
everdrive 8y ago
Incorrect, it feels awesome whereas traditional diets do not feel awesome.
virtuallynathan 8y ago
I really enjoy intermittent fasting, over the past 265 days I've spent 4655 hours (193 days) fasted. 235 of those days >15h, 190 >16h, and 60 >20h. I now eat a single meal per day, and aim for some notion of nutrient density. I'm almost never hungry, and my body composition has never been better.
jhowell 8y ago
I IF because I get pretty sleepy during the day if I eat.
solidrake 8y ago
I've tried IF before and was very similar to caloric restriction. Many people point out the point that a diet has to be followed and when you fall thru, you will gain the weight back all over again. Imho, IF is easier to do than conventional diets.
- P_I_Staker 8y ago
  It definitely can be. For me, I don't get hungry until late morning, and can usually hold off until lunch. I only really feel the need to eat 400-800 cal during the day, which is around 30% of my daily needs (depending on exercise and goal number)
hippich 8y ago
When I was experimenting with my Clicker Diet (shameless plug - https://clickerdiet.com/ https://clickerdiet.com/) I found it is much easier to not eat in the morning/lunch times, to stay under daily target. It is intermittent fasting per se, but the reason, I believe, it worked for me - it helped me to stay under target, not because it made me burn more fat.
a0-prw 8y ago
The ICR group reduced their energy intake by 75%, 2 days a week. Hardly real fasting, is it? And also, .. "Log_e relative weight change over the intervention phase was −7.1% ± 0.7% (mean ± SEM) with ICR, −5.2% ± 0.6% with CCR, and −3.3% ± 0.6% with the control regimen (Poverall < 0.001, PICR vs. CCR = 0.053)." So the difference on average between the ICR group and the CCR group was as great as the difference between the CCR and the control group. Seems pretty clearly superior despite not being real fasting.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
loourr 8y ago
This study is totally missing the point. Intermittent fasting is not about weight loss. It's about trying to mimic bodily processes that result from fasted states that have been observed to lengthen lifespan.

93 points by AndrewDucker 8y ago

Summary: Intermittent fasting helps lose weight and promotes health. However, it is not superior to conventional calorie restriction diets, scientists have found out in the largest investigation on intermittent fasting to date. The scientists conclude that there are many paths leading to a healthier weight. Everybody must find a diet plan that fits them best and then just do it! In other news: water is wet.

mikikian 8y ago
Or is water wet? https://youtu.be/QUAKOgxiXKg https://youtu.be/QUAKOgxiXKg :)
jobigoud 8y ago
It is superior if you take into account human psychology and the fact that we have unlimited supply of food.

black-tea 8y ago

Of course there isn't a difference between a calorific deficit with and without intermittent fasting. That's not the point at all. The point is it may be easier to adhere to than regular caloric restriction. A secondary point may be that it's overall healthier to fast.

cnahr 8y ago
Yes, due to upregulated authophagy, another point the study ignored.
vosper 8y ago
This is certainly my experience - I've found it much easier to fast 18 hours per day (a bit less on the weekends) than to try to adhere to a caloric restriction over a full day. I think that for me it requires less willpower to have fixed start and end times for eating.
- mixmastamyk 8y ago
  The blood sugar spike and trough (from eating recently) is what makes you feel hungry. So avoiding that can make it easier to eat less.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
nil_pointer 8y ago
Another benefit of IH is the dramatically increased HGH production. Not sure if calorie restriction has similar numbers.

cnahr 8y ago

Completely missing the point. Of course calorie reduction works as long as it is followed. But people have a very strong desire to regularly eat their fill. With intermittent fasting this is part of the diet by design. With daily calorie restriction it’s impossible. Compliance with daily calorie restriction always lapses over time for this reason, so people return to their former fatness. Intermittent fasting is possible to maintain for the rest of your life, daily calorie restriction usually is not.

hondo77 8y ago
> With daily calorie restriction it’s impossible. May be impossible for you. Doesn't mean it's impossible for, say, me (and it, demonstrably, isn't).
- wnissen 8y ago
  90% fail within a year. That's not even really long term yet. I think the 5-year numbers are 95%. Depends on your definition of impossible, but...
  - NikolaeVarius 8y ago
    That's not impossible. That's just people have terrible willpower
    - SpikeDad 8y ago
      And this is why dietary science fails often. Because of the insistence that dieting is a matter of willpower whatever that means. Lots of real research needs to be done on why people eat unhealthy even though logically they know it's bad for them. And unless you're someone who's lots a significant amount of weight, changed your eating habits over a long time person and have maintained that you don't really have any standing to make such statements.
      - NikolaeVarius 8y ago

bigmit37 8y ago

I thought intermittent fasting was better for insulin resistance. I can’t read the article right now but was this disproven?

pard68 8y ago
It wasn't covered. The article only covered weight loss.

tonystubblebine 8y ago

This reminds me of a study we ran at Lift/Coach.me a few years ago where we randomly assigned 12,000 people into popular diets. I was hoping we'd be able to pick a winner, but all of the diets led to weight loss and all had a result within the same margin of error (and yes, there was a control group). So basically, all the diets worked equally. The only strong signal we got was that people who were giving up soda were the most likely to lose the most weight. The cynic in me feels like we're writing giant book-length stories that are just cover to get people to reduce their sugar intake. As I read more of the research, I'm coming to the opinion that our framework for thinking about weight loss is wrong. We mostly talk about rules, and I think we should be talking about levers. You want to pull the levers that cause your body to burn fat while avoiding the levers that cause your body to store fat. That's subtlely but importantly different than calories in < calories out. Your levers include fasting, going Keto, even extreme exercise (most studies against exercise stop at 60 or 90 minutes, but try doing a backpacking trip or other 5hour+ routine).

ars 8y ago
> The cynic in me feels like we're writing giant book-length stories that are just cover to get people to reduce their sugar intake. I feel that's factual, not cynical. That's exactly what all the different weird diets that people love to make fun of do: Convince people in all sorts of ways to eat less. All the rules and whatever of the diet have just the one goal. We should stop evaluating diet plans based on weight loss (since they are all basically the same), and instead evaluate them based on compliance.
- tonystubblebine 8y ago
  > instead evaluate them based on compliance. Or rather, evaluate people for which diet they're most likely to comply with. One of the flaws in the personal development ecosystem is that because everyone is selling their own "one weird trick" there's no incentive to build good assessment programs. It's not diet, but probably the only top author with a solid assessment is Gretchen Rubin and her habit tendencies. All the tendencies lead back to her advice, but at least they acknowledge that not all people are the same.

ravenstine 8y ago

I don't ever hear proponents of intermittent fasting talking about weight loss, but of maintaining weight and for longevity. This article doesn't speak of the touted benefits IF has on telomere length, so I'm not sure how seriously I can take it.

jmvoodoo 8y ago

My experience with intermittent fasting is that it was superior if you wanted to change body composition. I used it to reduce body fat while increasing lean mass (results confirmed via DEXA scan). I suppose it's probably possible to do that without intermittent fasting but I wasn't able to do it.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
Did you run a controlled study? Body builders have sworn by "precision nutrition" for years, which is basically the opposite of IF. This kind of anecdotal "evidence" is very problematic. Could be that both "worked" and your composition improved over time, due to better fitness regimen.

ohthehugemanate 8y ago

As others have pointed out, the weight loss of any caloric deficit diet is more or less identical. The stuff that's impressive about intermittent fasting is the other benefits we've seen in (still early!) studies. Insulin resistance, blood glucose, cholesterol, and overall metabolic profile, obesity, and diabetes risk. Most of this comes from rodent or animal studies. The precise definition of "intermittent" varies from study to study, and there are a lot of other variables going on. But it is legitimately interesting science. But afaik no one says it's particularly better at weight loss than other kinds of caloric restriction.

bitxbitxbitcoin 8y ago
Exactly! Though it sounds a bit paradoxical when written out - walking around with less weight is just one of the healthy things that happens when you lose weight.

aaron695 8y ago

DOI: 10.1093/ajcn/nqy196 for what it's worth (It's a bit hidden on the page) It's idiotic, the point of intermittent fasting is considered mainly effective is the theory it's easier to do. This Strawperson crap is annoying. They do actually seem to look at this in the DOI. They say no diff. But it's "after a 3-mo intervention phase and a 3-mo maintenance phase" Which doesn't seem replicable in the general population. Meh.

newnewpdro 8y ago

I thought the most significant claim for intermittent fasting is the anti-aging effects through autophagy, not just weight control. The study seems entirely focused on bodyfat.

Omnius 8y ago
IF when discussed usually means fasting daily. So maybe your food window is only between 4 - 8 pm. The anti-aging stuff you saw/read (if its the same that i did) was more about actual fasting where you might not eat everyday and here they did find some linkage to aging.
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  I am under the impression that IF usually refers to the now popular (thanks BBC) 5:2 schedule. This is the context I've most seen/read about the topic, which often includes the talk of anti-aging and autophagy. But this is all very muddy waters since it's fad diet territory and unscientific claims abound.

everdrive 8y ago

Incorrect, it feels awesome whereas traditional diets do not feel awesome.

virtuallynathan 8y ago

I really enjoy intermittent fasting, over the past 265 days I've spent 4655 hours (193 days) fasted. 235 of those days >15h, 190 >16h, and 60 >20h. I now eat a single meal per day, and aim for some notion of nutrient density. I'm almost never hungry, and my body composition has never been better.

jhowell 8y ago

I IF because I get pretty sleepy during the day if I eat.

solidrake 8y ago

I've tried IF before and was very similar to caloric restriction. Many people point out the point that a diet has to be followed and when you fall thru, you will gain the weight back all over again. Imho, IF is easier to do than conventional diets.

P_I_Staker 8y ago
It definitely can be. For me, I don't get hungry until late morning, and can usually hold off until lunch. I only really feel the need to eat 400-800 cal during the day, which is around 30% of my daily needs (depending on exercise and goal number)

hippich 8y ago

When I was experimenting with my Clicker Diet (shameless plug - https://clickerdiet.com/ https://clickerdiet.com/) I found it is much easier to not eat in the morning/lunch times, to stay under daily target. It is intermittent fasting per se, but the reason, I believe, it worked for me - it helped me to stay under target, not because it made me burn more fat.

a0-prw 8y ago

The ICR group reduced their energy intake by 75%, 2 days a week. Hardly real fasting, is it? And also, .. "Log_e relative weight change over the intervention phase was −7.1% ± 0.7% (mean ± SEM) with ICR, −5.2% ± 0.6% with CCR, and −3.3% ± 0.6% with the control regimen (Poverall < 0.001, PICR vs. CCR = 0.053)." So the difference on average between the ICR group and the CCR group was as great as the difference between the CCR and the control group. Seems pretty clearly superior despite not being real fasting.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

loourr 8y ago

This study is totally missing the point. Intermittent fasting is not about weight loss. It's about trying to mimic bodily processes that result from fasted states that have been observed to lengthen lifespan.