4 ms·

Intermittent fasting is so over-hyped. What it means is usually skipping breakfast. Big deal. I've been intermittent fasting, eating only around 2pm for lunch,

by sph 4y ago

Intermittent fasting is so over-hyped. What it means is usually skipping breakfast. Big deal. I've been intermittent fasting, eating only around 2pm for lunch, and 7pm for dinner, for more than 10 years and I've managed to get quite overweight. Not IF's fault, just pointing out that it's neither worse nor better for your diet. Eating one fewer meal doesn't stop one from making bad food choices, or doesn't change how much energy you burn through and hunger you feel. Only OMAD might be a little worthy of that hype because it is often physically impossible to overeat your daily caloric expenditure in one sitting, but as a recovering binge eater, I've seen first hand how ultra-processed hyper-palatable food makes it very easy to eat >3000 kcal in one meal. That said, I agree that breakfast is a silly idea for us office workers. I personally do my best work in the (16) fasted hours between waking up and lunch, so much that I tend to have lunch as late as possible these days. You certainly don't need to eat 3 times a day for sitting on a chair 12 hours. Let alone that most idiotic, first-world idea of needing to eat "at least 5 small meals" around the clock never to feel hungry. Well, stop eating low-fat carby food and you won't feel hungry 5 times a day.

profstasiak 4y ago
My grandma never smoked and still got cancer. Not smoking is so overhyped
- User23 4y ago
  I believe smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer by about 20%[1]. It's definitely significant, but plenty of regular smokers manage to die from something else. I'm pretty happy about the repression of public smoking though, because I find the odor of cigarette tobacco revolting and also prefer to not have my risk of lung cancer even moderately increased by second-hand smoke. Annoyingly, it's hard to find good figures on relative risk for smokers and non-smokers, probably because of the current public health fad of dissembling to attempt to encourage desired behaviors. All I can find is that for the total population lifetime chance is 1/15 for men and 1/17 for women[2], with some weasel words about smoking increasing risk, but no actual quantification. Edit: I appreciate the replies, but note that none of the sources cited actually list any meaningful quantifiable data. So I dug a bit more and found this[3]. It indicates that the effect is largely dose dependent and only really shows up in smokers of ten years or more. While p=.05 might fly for psychology studies, it's not a convincing bar for serious science. On the other hand the decade and longer smokers show a very respectable p=.001. For the heaviest smokers it looks like a bit over a 5x increase. Assuming continuity, there also exists some level of moderate smoking where my proposed 20% increased risk is accurate and even more limited levels of smoking where the risk is not appreciably higher than not smoking. In fact the data indicate that former smokers who quit for more than ten years actually have lower risk of lung cancer than never smokers! Surely that's some kind of noise, but it still goes to show. [1] It's true that most people with lung cancer are or were smokers. But it's also true that most people with lung cancer are over 65, and they're from a period where most everyone was a smoker or exposed to smoke regularly. That's a pretty major confound. Over the next few decades we should get better data due to the relative decline in smoking making the effects of choosing to smoke clearer. [2] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statisti... [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/484996 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
  - goda90 4y ago
    I think you misinterpreted 20x as 20%. CDC say smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer by 15-30 times[0] vs someone who doesn't. [0]https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
  - tayistay 4y ago
    Dunno where you got the 20% stat, but it’s totally wrong. From cancer.org: > The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke is many times higher than for people who don't smoke. The longer you smoke and the more packs a day you smoke, the greater your risk. MANY TIMES
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  it actually is in some way. first of all, Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers [1], so if you are a woman, chances are similar. Secondly, former smokers and current smokers have similar risks of getting lung cancer. Last, but not least, once you get it, survival rates are similar for non smokers, former smokers and current smokers (in similar groups of course). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ EDIT: it is overhyped because not smoking is in the public discourse treated as a cure, but it's not, especially if you are a woman. In USA, for example, black men have higher chances of getting lung cancer than white men, but black women risk much less than white women. So it's like saying that being a black woman saves you from lung cancer. Risks are expressed as probabilities, people too often don't get it.
  - wlesieutre 4y ago
    > Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers 50% seems like a big number but it's a pretty meaningless statistic if women overall smoke less than men. It just means that when you have few smoking-related cancer cases, the other cases make up a larger percentage. Using that ratio to justify "you might as well smoke, 50% of women with lung cancer were non-smokers" is... not a good use of the statistics. As a thought exercise with made up numbers, suppose that you have 10 people, 1 will naturally get lung cancer, and everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. If 4 men smoke and get cancer, that's 5 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 20% are non-smokers. If 1 woman smokes and gets cancer, that's 2 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 50% are non-smokers. In this scenario you can say the exact same statistic about "50% of women with lung cancer are non-smokers" and brush it off as not a big deal even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer. That's not a useful number to be looking at to judge the risk of smoking vs not smoking.
    - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
      > 50% seems like a big number I don't know why I thought that linking a scientific paper reporting accurately all the data would be helpful to the discussion. Not my opinions my friend. > but it's a pretty meaningless statistic women overall smoke less than men That's not how epidemiology works. The fact that black men in USA have ~20% higher risk of getting lung cancer, despite being less than white men, says anything to you? No, they don't smoke more. No, risk of getting cancer is not linked to how many cigarettes you smoke in a lifetime, once a smoker, the risk gets higher and stays higher for as long as you live, even if you quit. > even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer they are absolutely not! See why I say non smocking is over hyped? Because it leads to ideology, which is not the same thing of being informed.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pieter_mj 4y ago
  Radon victim?
verdenti 4y ago
OMAD (one meal per day) genuinely works with the only caveat being that you need to make sure you’re getting all your nutritional requirements for the day. This means having a larger single meal and taking multivitamins for me. Also I avoid all processed foods, especially processed meat. I’ve been doing it for two years now.
- 1270018080 4y ago
  What does "genuinely works" mean?
  - verdenti 4y ago
    Lose weight for the most part with tangible results over a relatively short time. This is in contrast to something like just skipping breakfast.
bryans 4y ago
Nobody ever said that intermittent fasting would prevent you from becoming overweight. If you still overeat, you will still gain weight. It's not magic. You're being hypercritical for no reason and without knowledge of the topic.
- weakfortress 4y ago
  [dead]
rybosworld 4y ago
"Intermittent fasting is so over-hyped...I've managed to get quite overweight. Not IF's fault, just pointing out that it's neither worse nor better for your diet." This is a strange take. For one thing, intermittent fasting is not a diet. IF is also not about eating less than you did before. You can, and many people do, eat the same number of calories as they did before. Eating more or less calories should be a separate decision made in the context of what you are trying to achieve.
Existenceblinks 4y ago
So many non-conclusion in nutrition. My father has subscribed to 3 cardiologists they are somewhat 70% overlap and left 30% non-consensus. Read some papers (only read abstract mostly). When I read all of these I only treat it as raw data, listen to your own body is closer to the truth. Debugging your body is kinda not fun since it takes a lot of time in iteration. I found my brain burn a lot of energy even if I just sit for a couple hours. So breakfast is needed.
taylodl 4y ago
> Intermittent fasting is so over-hyped. What it means is usually skipping breakfast. Big deal. Not quite. Intermittent fasting is, typically, eating in a restricted time range in the day, usually an 8 hour period. As you point out, most practitioners skip breakfast. As you also point out it's also possible to overeat. Eating between 11am - 7pm works well. You can have a late morning snack, a mid afternoon snack, and a normal dinner. No snacking at night. No consumption of alcohol outside of this eating range. What IF isn't about is gorging yourself during the window when you're able to eat. The goal then isn't just about when you eat, but also paying attention to what you eat, and how much you're eating.
aulin 4y ago
IF works while it's a stressor. Does it still work if you've been doing it non-stop for 10 years?

by sph 4y ago

profstasiak 4y ago

My grandma never smoked and still got cancer. Not smoking is so overhyped

User23 4y ago
I believe smoking increases your risk of getting lung cancer by about 20%[1]. It's definitely significant, but plenty of regular smokers manage to die from something else. I'm pretty happy about the repression of public smoking though, because I find the odor of cigarette tobacco revolting and also prefer to not have my risk of lung cancer even moderately increased by second-hand smoke. Annoyingly, it's hard to find good figures on relative risk for smokers and non-smokers, probably because of the current public health fad of dissembling to attempt to encourage desired behaviors. All I can find is that for the total population lifetime chance is 1/15 for men and 1/17 for women[2], with some weasel words about smoking increasing risk, but no actual quantification. Edit: I appreciate the replies, but note that none of the sources cited actually list any meaningful quantifiable data. So I dug a bit more and found this[3]. It indicates that the effect is largely dose dependent and only really shows up in smokers of ten years or more. While p=.05 might fly for psychology studies, it's not a convincing bar for serious science. On the other hand the decade and longer smokers show a very respectable p=.001. For the heaviest smokers it looks like a bit over a 5x increase. Assuming continuity, there also exists some level of moderate smoking where my proposed 20% increased risk is accurate and even more limited levels of smoking where the risk is not appreciably higher than not smoking. In fact the data indicate that former smokers who quit for more than ten years actually have lower risk of lung cancer than never smokers! Surely that's some kind of noise, but it still goes to show. [1] It's true that most people with lung cancer are or were smokers. But it's also true that most people with lung cancer are over 65, and they're from a period where most everyone was a smoker or exposed to smoke regularly. That's a pretty major confound. Over the next few decades we should get better data due to the relative decline in smoking making the effects of choosing to smoke clearer. [2] https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statistics.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/lung-cancer/about/key-statisti... [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/484996 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
- goda90 4y ago
  I think you misinterpreted 20x as 20%. CDC say smoking increases your chances of getting lung cancer by 15-30 times[0] vs someone who doesn't. [0]https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm
- tayistay 4y ago
  Dunno where you got the 20% stat, but it’s totally wrong. From cancer.org: > The risk of lung cancer for people who smoke is many times higher than for people who don't smoke. The longer you smoke and the more packs a day you smoke, the greater your risk. MANY TIMES
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
it actually is in some way. first of all, Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers [1], so if you are a woman, chances are similar. Secondly, former smokers and current smokers have similar risks of getting lung cancer. Last, but not least, once you get it, survival rates are similar for non smokers, former smokers and current smokers (in similar groups of course). [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431055/ EDIT: it is overhyped because not smoking is in the public discourse treated as a cure, but it's not, especially if you are a woman. In USA, for example, black men have higher chances of getting lung cancer than white men, but black women risk much less than white women. So it's like saying that being a black woman saves you from lung cancer. Risks are expressed as probabilities, people too often don't get it.
- wlesieutre 4y ago
  > Worldwide, 15–20 percent of men with lung cancer are non-smokers while over 50 percent of women with lung cancer are non-smokers 50% seems like a big number but it's a pretty meaningless statistic if women overall smoke less than men. It just means that when you have few smoking-related cancer cases, the other cases make up a larger percentage. Using that ratio to justify "you might as well smoke, 50% of women with lung cancer were non-smokers" is... not a good use of the statistics. As a thought exercise with made up numbers, suppose that you have 10 people, 1 will naturally get lung cancer, and everyone who smokes will get lung cancer. If 4 men smoke and get cancer, that's 5 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 20% are non-smokers. If 1 woman smokes and gets cancer, that's 2 with cancer and 1 of them was a non-smoker. 50% are non-smokers. In this scenario you can say the exact same statistic about "50% of women with lung cancer are non-smokers" and brush it off as not a big deal even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer. That's not a useful number to be looking at to judge the risk of smoking vs not smoking.
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    > 50% seems like a big number I don't know why I thought that linking a scientific paper reporting accurately all the data would be helpful to the discussion. Not my opinions my friend. > but it's a pretty meaningless statistic women overall smoke less than men That's not how epidemiology works. The fact that black men in USA have ~20% higher risk of getting lung cancer, despite being less than white men, says anything to you? No, they don't smoke more. No, risk of getting cancer is not linked to how many cigarettes you smoke in a lifetime, once a smoker, the risk gets higher and stays higher for as long as you live, even if you quit. > even though 100% of smokers are getting cancer they are absolutely not! See why I say non smocking is over hyped? Because it leads to ideology, which is not the same thing of being informed.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
pieter_mj 4y ago
Radon victim?

verdenti 4y ago

OMAD (one meal per day) genuinely works with the only caveat being that you need to make sure you’re getting all your nutritional requirements for the day. This means having a larger single meal and taking multivitamins for me. Also I avoid all processed foods, especially processed meat. I’ve been doing it for two years now.

1270018080 4y ago
What does "genuinely works" mean?
- verdenti 4y ago
  Lose weight for the most part with tangible results over a relatively short time. This is in contrast to something like just skipping breakfast.

bryans 4y ago

Nobody ever said that intermittent fasting would prevent you from becoming overweight. If you still overeat, you will still gain weight. It's not magic. You're being hypercritical for no reason and without knowledge of the topic.

weakfortress 4y ago
[dead]

rybosworld 4y ago

"Intermittent fasting is so over-hyped...I've managed to get quite overweight. Not IF's fault, just pointing out that it's neither worse nor better for your diet." This is a strange take. For one thing, intermittent fasting is not a diet. IF is also not about eating less than you did before. You can, and many people do, eat the same number of calories as they did before. Eating more or less calories should be a separate decision made in the context of what you are trying to achieve.

Existenceblinks 4y ago

So many non-conclusion in nutrition. My father has subscribed to 3 cardiologists they are somewhat 70% overlap and left 30% non-consensus. Read some papers (only read abstract mostly). When I read all of these I only treat it as raw data, listen to your own body is closer to the truth. Debugging your body is kinda not fun since it takes a lot of time in iteration. I found my brain burn a lot of energy even if I just sit for a couple hours. So breakfast is needed.

taylodl 4y ago

> Intermittent fasting is so over-hyped. What it means is usually skipping breakfast. Big deal. Not quite. Intermittent fasting is, typically, eating in a restricted time range in the day, usually an 8 hour period. As you point out, most practitioners skip breakfast. As you also point out it's also possible to overeat. Eating between 11am - 7pm works well. You can have a late morning snack, a mid afternoon snack, and a normal dinner. No snacking at night. No consumption of alcohol outside of this eating range. What IF isn't about is gorging yourself during the window when you're able to eat. The goal then isn't just about when you eat, but also paying attention to what you eat, and how much you're eating.

aulin 4y ago

IF works while it's a stressor. Does it still work if you've been doing it non-stop for 10 years?