6 ms·

I wondered this as well. In many of the intermittent fasting studies they kept caloric intake the same and showed that the benefits applied even when taking cal

I wondered this as well. In many of the intermittent fasting studies they kept caloric intake the same and showed that the benefits applied even when taking caloric restriction out of the equation.

rtkwe 7y ago
A lot of diets, especially IF style diets, are pretty much just tricks to get you to eat less calorie wise. Intermittent fasting does this by just setting the simple rule, only eat during a relatively small window of time. It's easier to eat less during that period because there's only so much you can comfortably eat in that time. (Granted you can totally fit a whole day's intake in the IF period but it's harder).
- frank_nitti 7y ago
  Is there really no difference between eating 1500 calories at once vs. over the course of 5 meals? Of course, there is no weight loss without a calorie deficit, but are all calorie deficits equivalent on magnitude alone? I struggle with the notion that the timing does not matter at all, and much of the suggested benefits of controlling the timing focus on other metrics beside immediate weight loss. The "wisdom" of the late 90s was that six or so small meals were better than one large meal, with respect to weight loss. Now it appears some experts would argue the opposite. Is it all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors over calories in > calories out?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > The "wisdom" of the late 90s was that six or so small meals were better than one large meal, with respect to weight loss. Note that this was a fairly direct application of advice to diabetics on glucose control translated out of it's original context.
  - defertoreptar 7y ago
    > The "wisdom" of the late 90s was that six or so small meals were better than one large meal, with respect to weight loss. Now it appears some experts would argue the opposite. Is it all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors over calories in > calories out? Too true. It was trendy as recently as a decade ago to eat many small meals and frequently "to keep your metabolism high." What no one was acknowledging was how the study that showed the relationship between fasting and metabolism had participants basically starve themselves for an extended length of time.
  - rsync 7y ago
    "Is there really no difference between eating 1500 calories at once vs. over the course of 5 meals?" Digestion - and the ramping up of your entire metabolic process - is not a minor task. It is an all-hands-on-deck marshaling of a number of bodily processes that preclude other processes that you might like your body to engage in. If you are firing up this mechanism every three hours - insulin response, spiking your blood sugar, moving your stomach and bowels, etc., then you never give your body time to do any other housekeeping tasks. Think of food intake as an interrupt, in computer science parlance. What happens to process performance when you're throwing interrupts ? IANAD.
    - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
      > then you never give your body time to do any other housekeeping tasks. Do you have any links to describe what other tasks it would want to be doing in that time and which are blocked by an insulin spike?
      - rsync 7y ago
        https://osher.ucsf.edu/patient-care/integrative-medicine-resources/cancer-and-nutrition/faq/cancer-and-fasting-calorie-restriction https://osher.ucsf.edu/patient-care/integrative-medicine-res... "...it is theorized that cancer cells do not respond to the protective signals generated by fasting, thus leaving them vulnerable to both the immune system and cancer treatment. This process is known as differential stress resistance (DSR). Short-term starvation (STS), fasting for 48 hours, causes a rapid switch of cells to a protected mode, which is capable of protecting mammalian cells and mice from various toxins, including chemotherapy." (et. al) I read it as cleanup/housekeeping tasks that aren't high priority, relative to processing food inputs. When freed from those tasks, the body can concentrate on housekeeping.
        SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        That's not housekeeping though, that's in the case of fighting cancer. And based upon the mechanism you lay out, that's with outside intervention. That doesn't seem to expand out to "general housekeeping" when you're also dealing with medical science trying to kill cancer without killing you.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    What I meant was it's easier to eat less calories if you restrict the amount of time you're allowing yourself to eat not anything about absorption being different due to the compressed time frame.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  > It's easier to eat less during that period because there's only so much you can comfortably eat in that time. Unless you're a food addict, in which case you can trust me that neither time limitations nor discomfort is an obstacle to filling your gob.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    True on the face of it but if someone is able to do IF at all they have at least some control over their urges to eat.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
      I'm just saying, if your rule is going to be "eat whatever you want during your window", that's never going to work for a food addict. Ultimately you will have to count calories regardless.
      - ivanhoe 7y ago
        true, but food addicts usually have other issues with self-discipline as well, and IF makes it easier to stick to the program as you have to count your calories only once a day... at least it's my experience

I wondered this as well. In many of the intermittent fasting studies they kept caloric intake the same and showed that the benefits applied even when taking caloric restriction out of the equation.

rtkwe 7y ago

A lot of diets, especially IF style diets, are pretty much just tricks to get you to eat less calorie wise. Intermittent fasting does this by just setting the simple rule, only eat during a relatively small window of time. It's easier to eat less during that period because there's only so much you can comfortably eat in that time. (Granted you can totally fit a whole day's intake in the IF period but it's harder).

frank_nitti 7y ago
Is there really no difference between eating 1500 calories at once vs. over the course of 5 meals? Of course, there is no weight loss without a calorie deficit, but are all calorie deficits equivalent on magnitude alone? I struggle with the notion that the timing does not matter at all, and much of the suggested benefits of controlling the timing focus on other metrics beside immediate weight loss. The "wisdom" of the late 90s was that six or so small meals were better than one large meal, with respect to weight loss. Now it appears some experts would argue the opposite. Is it all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors over calories in > calories out?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The "wisdom" of the late 90s was that six or so small meals were better than one large meal, with respect to weight loss. Note that this was a fairly direct application of advice to diabetics on glucose control translated out of it's original context.
- defertoreptar 7y ago
  > The "wisdom" of the late 90s was that six or so small meals were better than one large meal, with respect to weight loss. Now it appears some experts would argue the opposite. Is it all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors over calories in > calories out? Too true. It was trendy as recently as a decade ago to eat many small meals and frequently "to keep your metabolism high." What no one was acknowledging was how the study that showed the relationship between fasting and metabolism had participants basically starve themselves for an extended length of time.
- rsync 7y ago
  "Is there really no difference between eating 1500 calories at once vs. over the course of 5 meals?" Digestion - and the ramping up of your entire metabolic process - is not a minor task. It is an all-hands-on-deck marshaling of a number of bodily processes that preclude other processes that you might like your body to engage in. If you are firing up this mechanism every three hours - insulin response, spiking your blood sugar, moving your stomach and bowels, etc., then you never give your body time to do any other housekeeping tasks. Think of food intake as an interrupt, in computer science parlance. What happens to process performance when you're throwing interrupts ? IANAD.
  - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
    > then you never give your body time to do any other housekeeping tasks. Do you have any links to describe what other tasks it would want to be doing in that time and which are blocked by an insulin spike?
    - rsync 7y ago
      https://osher.ucsf.edu/patient-care/integrative-medicine-resources/cancer-and-nutrition/faq/cancer-and-fasting-calorie-restriction https://osher.ucsf.edu/patient-care/integrative-medicine-res... "...it is theorized that cancer cells do not respond to the protective signals generated by fasting, thus leaving them vulnerable to both the immune system and cancer treatment. This process is known as differential stress resistance (DSR). Short-term starvation (STS), fasting for 48 hours, causes a rapid switch of cells to a protected mode, which is capable of protecting mammalian cells and mice from various toxins, including chemotherapy." (et. al) I read it as cleanup/housekeeping tasks that aren't high priority, relative to processing food inputs. When freed from those tasks, the body can concentrate on housekeeping.
      - SketchySeaBeast 7y ago
        That's not housekeeping though, that's in the case of fighting cancer. And based upon the mechanism you lay out, that's with outside intervention. That doesn't seem to expand out to "general housekeeping" when you're also dealing with medical science trying to kill cancer without killing you.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  What I meant was it's easier to eat less calories if you restrict the amount of time you're allowing yourself to eat not anything about absorption being different due to the compressed time frame.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
> It's easier to eat less during that period because there's only so much you can comfortably eat in that time. Unless you're a food addict, in which case you can trust me that neither time limitations nor discomfort is an obstacle to filling your gob.
- rtkwe 7y ago
  True on the face of it but if someone is able to do IF at all they have at least some control over their urges to eat.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    I'm just saying, if your rule is going to be "eat whatever you want during your window", that's never going to work for a food addict. Ultimately you will have to count calories regardless.
    - ivanhoe 7y ago
      true, but food addicts usually have other issues with self-discipline as well, and IF makes it easier to stick to the program as you have to count your calories only once a day... at least it's my experience