5 ms·

I've done both. I can attest that intermittent fasting, at least for me, is WAY more sustainable ... and actually makes maintaining a calorie deficit easier too

I've done both. I can attest that intermittent fasting, at least for me, is WAY more sustainable ... and actually makes maintaining a calorie deficit easier too. Hunger is a weird thing. People tend to assume that if you don't eat you'll just get hungrier and hungrier. The reality is that hunger comes in waves. If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. And the longer you don't eat, the less hungrier you get. I think this is because those waves of hunger tend to correspond to your eating habits. So if you're accustomed to eating lunch, you feel hungry around lunch time etc. After a period of adaptation, when this just becomes the new normal, you can find that when it comes time to eat you just don't want to eat all that much either. It's weird, but cool, and seems to work well for a lot of people. Then there is metabolic adaptation, which is thought to be the biggest contributor to people re-gaining any weight that they've lost. What happens is that after dropping around 10% of your body mass, your body kicks in a survival mechanism whereby it lowers your resting metabolic rate to adapt and try to slow the weight loss. This means that two people who weigh the exact same, one of which just dropped a bunch of weight to get there, will require different caloric intakes just to maintain their weight. The person who just cut weight will need 300 - 400 fewer calories per day than the person who didn't. If you cut weight just by caloric restriction alone, this is DISASTROUS, because you are hungry and weak and miserable ... and you need to eat even less just to keep the weight off. Which is why crash diets don't work. You start by making sacrifices, which is uncomfortable, and then when metabolic adaptation kicks in you stop seeing results unless you make even more sacrifices. People can't stick with it so they stop dieting and very quickly and easily regain the weight. Intermittent fasting not only helps with hunger control, but there is research that suggests that it can also increase resting metabolic rate, which can help to counteract metabolic adaptation. But even if it didn't boost RMR, the fact that it helps with hunger control and maintaining a calorie deficit alone would make it more sustainable for more people than just trying to eat less in general.

tashoecraft 3y ago
It's very interesting once you experiment with it. I had a much easier time fasting between 8pm -> 5pm, then from 8pm to noon.
- contravariant 3y ago
  I've not really tried fasting, at least not deliberately. I do notice that the times I get hungry differ depending on whether I'm at home or at work. Expectation of when you are going to eat does seem to factor into it somehow.
- jasonjmcghee 3y ago
  8am -> 5pm? Or you had an easier time fasting 5 extra hours than not?
  - pc86 3y ago
    I've heard from many people who have had success with IF that somewhat more aggressive schedules (e.g. 20-4 compared to 16-8) can be easier to maintain.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      At that point it sounds more like one meal a day. Which does sound a lot simpler to do, though I can't say how easy or hard.
- somenameforme 3y ago
  Before starting intermittent fasting I decided to try out a 24 hour fast, just to see how it would feel, and I felt abysmal and ravenous by the end. But after eventually starting intermittent fasting (which I ended up doing for at least 3-4 years), I had a few times where I would casually fast for nearly two days just by skipping my window one day, and it was not especially difficult. Our bodies are so absurdly adaptive to just about anything we can throw at them. And so it makes sense, in some weird way, that if you're going to do something - doing it to an extreme degree can make things easier than going half way, since you optimize for the adaptive response from your body.
- tootie 3y ago
  I think it's just going to vary a lot by person. I tried a 12-8 fast which basically just meant skipping breakfast which seemed like a gentle intro. A few weeks in and I was so painfully hungry at times I was noticeably irritable and having trouble waking up. Also, didn't lose a single ounce.
Izkata 3y ago
Years ago I did some experimenting on myself, including increasing to gain weight, and at least for me hunger seems to mostly be a function of relative emptiness from recent maximum fullness. Sounds odd, but let's say I filled my stomach to 90% of my total capacity, then a few hours later I've digested down to 45% capacity and that's when I get hungry. That's -50% of the last maximum. If I spend a week or two restricting what I ate to a maximum of 60% capacity, I'd only get hungry around 30%, also -50%. But with less total calories eaten. (numbers made up just to give an idea what it felt like)
- kasey_junk 3y ago
  I do 24-48 hour fasts weekly and for me the single biggest determinate of hunger is what I ate the day before. Carbs, especially sugar and processed carbs make the fast day’s miserable. But if I stick to meat, vegetables and some whole grains it’s usually no big deal.
  - matwood 3y ago
    Yes! I've noticed this too. If I have a carb heavy meal at dinner, I'm much more hungry the next day than less carb heavy meal.
    - bavarianbob 3y ago
      Takes longer for protein to be digested, it's just nutrition 101.
  - nathancahill 3y ago
    Strongly agree with that. Pasta dinner? I'll wake up ravenous. Smaller dinner of meat and vegetables? Won't feel hungry at all.
matwood 3y ago
> After a period of adaptation, when this just becomes the new normal Yep, and eventually even hunger you do feel is easy to ignore. I practice TRT and was meeting a friend at 3pm for a late lunch. I just skipped food all day, ate a nice meal at 3pm and then a very light dinner. Wasn't ever hungry after working out and working up until that point.
- jimmydddd 3y ago
  Agreed. My mom was complaining that she had a blood test scheduled for noon where she had to fast before the test. I was confused as to what she was upset about, and then finally realized that she didn't think she would be able to fast until noon. I'd been doing IF for so many years that this problem didn't even occur to me. Like, you can't go until noon without eating? :-)
theshrike79 3y ago
This is exactly me. I can easily do a 16/8 intermittent fast. I just don't eat anything after 8pm and skip breakfast. That's about it. The hunger goes away when I'm sleeping and I'm not hungry in the morning - Lunch at 11 or 12. It's really hard to eat too many calories in the 8 hour window, unless I drink sodas and stuff my face with candy.
- guiomie 3y ago
  I'll add that intermittent fasting (16/8) has also conditioned my brain (and stomach likely) to eat less during the non-fasting window. In 6 months I'm down 20 pounds (198 to 178), I've also removed alcohol consumption except for in-person social events. My main concerns with 16/8 are: 1. I drink coffee in the morning, it helps with hunger, but im also wondering if this will have long-term affect to my stomach 2. I'm losing weight, but I'm wondering what to do to stop losing it, I'll soon reach a healthy level. 3. It gets annoying being told 'you shouldnt skip the most important meal of the day' by people all the time.
  - bavarianbob 3y ago
    The more that one experiments with these diet changes, I think, the more one reveals how untrue that phrase "most important meal of the day" becomes. I feel unstoppable if I skip breakfast, lethargic if I don't.
    - chrispeel 3y ago
      I'd like to see a RCT that compared two time-restricted eating groups: 7am to 3pm, and noon to 8pm. Which would have the larger benefit over a control group? Also, it would be good to simultaneously (somehow) check if the results depend on one's genetic or cultural bias towards eating in the morning or evening.
      - theshrike79 3y ago
        It most definitely is highly personal, like most weight management advice seems to be. The only immutable truth is that calorie deficit will make you lose weight. BUT different people find different methods of calorie deficit easier to handle mentally and/or physically.[1] I can easily go even 20 hours without food maybe only sipping on some water or tea, my grandmother is the same. She can just have a big meal once per day and go about her day (and night) just fine. My partner on the other hand needs to eat every 3-4 hours or they become completely unbearable mentally. It doesn't need to be a full meal, but some kind of calorie top-up is essential. [1] ...and it seems that different people get different amounts of calories from the same food, it's a gut flora thing.
smcleod 3y ago
Bingo. This is pretty much exactly what I found to be true after many years of failing to lose weight - then adding IF/TRF to the party - it made it a lot easier.
yencabulator 3y ago
> If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. I don't know how scientific this is but this comes from a person I consider smart & knowledgeable: My medical doctor friend explained this as hunger being triggered by a nerve signal from your stomach that food in your stomach _is about to run out_. That is, once it runs out, the nerve signal goes away.
m463 3y ago
> If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. I read "the glucose revolution" and it talked about reducing blood sugar spikes. If you have a big blood sugar spike, later you will have a blood sugar crash with a lack of energy, reduced concentration and... cravings. I suspect that if you minimize your blood sugar spikes, you will reduce the crash later and waves of hunger aren't as much of an issue. random internet presentation summarizing hacks from the book: https://www.believebig.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Glucose-Revolution-FFT-.pdf https://www.believebig.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Glucos... EDIT another one: https://njms.rutgers.edu/education/student_affairs/student_support/wellness/Glucose%20Revolution%20-%20Joshua%20Greendyk.pdf https://njms.rutgers.edu/education/student_affairs/student_s...

tashoecraft 3y ago

It's very interesting once you experiment with it. I had a much easier time fasting between 8pm -> 5pm, then from 8pm to noon.

contravariant 3y ago
I've not really tried fasting, at least not deliberately. I do notice that the times I get hungry differ depending on whether I'm at home or at work. Expectation of when you are going to eat does seem to factor into it somehow.
jasonjmcghee 3y ago
8am -> 5pm? Or you had an easier time fasting 5 extra hours than not?
- pc86 3y ago
  I've heard from many people who have had success with IF that somewhat more aggressive schedules (e.g. 20-4 compared to 16-8) can be easier to maintain.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    At that point it sounds more like one meal a day. Which does sound a lot simpler to do, though I can't say how easy or hard.
somenameforme 3y ago
Before starting intermittent fasting I decided to try out a 24 hour fast, just to see how it would feel, and I felt abysmal and ravenous by the end. But after eventually starting intermittent fasting (which I ended up doing for at least 3-4 years), I had a few times where I would casually fast for nearly two days just by skipping my window one day, and it was not especially difficult. Our bodies are so absurdly adaptive to just about anything we can throw at them. And so it makes sense, in some weird way, that if you're going to do something - doing it to an extreme degree can make things easier than going half way, since you optimize for the adaptive response from your body.
tootie 3y ago
I think it's just going to vary a lot by person. I tried a 12-8 fast which basically just meant skipping breakfast which seemed like a gentle intro. A few weeks in and I was so painfully hungry at times I was noticeably irritable and having trouble waking up. Also, didn't lose a single ounce.

Izkata 3y ago

Years ago I did some experimenting on myself, including increasing to gain weight, and at least for me hunger seems to mostly be a function of relative emptiness from recent maximum fullness. Sounds odd, but let's say I filled my stomach to 90% of my total capacity, then a few hours later I've digested down to 45% capacity and that's when I get hungry. That's -50% of the last maximum. If I spend a week or two restricting what I ate to a maximum of 60% capacity, I'd only get hungry around 30%, also -50%. But with less total calories eaten. (numbers made up just to give an idea what it felt like)

kasey_junk 3y ago
I do 24-48 hour fasts weekly and for me the single biggest determinate of hunger is what I ate the day before. Carbs, especially sugar and processed carbs make the fast day’s miserable. But if I stick to meat, vegetables and some whole grains it’s usually no big deal.
- matwood 3y ago
  Yes! I've noticed this too. If I have a carb heavy meal at dinner, I'm much more hungry the next day than less carb heavy meal.
  - bavarianbob 3y ago
    Takes longer for protein to be digested, it's just nutrition 101.
- nathancahill 3y ago
  Strongly agree with that. Pasta dinner? I'll wake up ravenous. Smaller dinner of meat and vegetables? Won't feel hungry at all.

matwood 3y ago

> After a period of adaptation, when this just becomes the new normal Yep, and eventually even hunger you do feel is easy to ignore. I practice TRT and was meeting a friend at 3pm for a late lunch. I just skipped food all day, ate a nice meal at 3pm and then a very light dinner. Wasn't ever hungry after working out and working up until that point.

jimmydddd 3y ago
Agreed. My mom was complaining that she had a blood test scheduled for noon where she had to fast before the test. I was confused as to what she was upset about, and then finally realized that she didn't think she would be able to fast until noon. I'd been doing IF for so many years that this problem didn't even occur to me. Like, you can't go until noon without eating? :-)

theshrike79 3y ago

This is exactly me. I can easily do a 16/8 intermittent fast. I just don't eat anything after 8pm and skip breakfast. That's about it. The hunger goes away when I'm sleeping and I'm not hungry in the morning - Lunch at 11 or 12. It's really hard to eat too many calories in the 8 hour window, unless I drink sodas and stuff my face with candy.

guiomie 3y ago
I'll add that intermittent fasting (16/8) has also conditioned my brain (and stomach likely) to eat less during the non-fasting window. In 6 months I'm down 20 pounds (198 to 178), I've also removed alcohol consumption except for in-person social events. My main concerns with 16/8 are: 1. I drink coffee in the morning, it helps with hunger, but im also wondering if this will have long-term affect to my stomach 2. I'm losing weight, but I'm wondering what to do to stop losing it, I'll soon reach a healthy level. 3. It gets annoying being told 'you shouldnt skip the most important meal of the day' by people all the time.
- bavarianbob 3y ago
  The more that one experiments with these diet changes, I think, the more one reveals how untrue that phrase "most important meal of the day" becomes. I feel unstoppable if I skip breakfast, lethargic if I don't.
  - chrispeel 3y ago
    I'd like to see a RCT that compared two time-restricted eating groups: 7am to 3pm, and noon to 8pm. Which would have the larger benefit over a control group? Also, it would be good to simultaneously (somehow) check if the results depend on one's genetic or cultural bias towards eating in the morning or evening.
    - theshrike79 3y ago
      It most definitely is highly personal, like most weight management advice seems to be. The only immutable truth is that calorie deficit will make you lose weight. BUT different people find different methods of calorie deficit easier to handle mentally and/or physically.[1] I can easily go even 20 hours without food maybe only sipping on some water or tea, my grandmother is the same. She can just have a big meal once per day and go about her day (and night) just fine. My partner on the other hand needs to eat every 3-4 hours or they become completely unbearable mentally. It doesn't need to be a full meal, but some kind of calorie top-up is essential. [1] ...and it seems that different people get different amounts of calories from the same food, it's a gut flora thing.

smcleod 3y ago

Bingo. This is pretty much exactly what I found to be true after many years of failing to lose weight - then adding IF/TRF to the party - it made it a lot easier.

yencabulator 3y ago

> If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. I don't know how scientific this is but this comes from a person I consider smart & knowledgeable: My medical doctor friend explained this as hunger being triggered by a nerve signal from your stomach that food in your stomach _is about to run out_. That is, once it runs out, the nerve signal goes away.

m463 3y ago

> If you can ride out a wave of hunger for 30 - 45 minutes it goes away. I read "the glucose revolution" and it talked about reducing blood sugar spikes. If you have a big blood sugar spike, later you will have a blood sugar crash with a lack of energy, reduced concentration and... cravings. I suspect that if you minimize your blood sugar spikes, you will reduce the crash later and waves of hunger aren't as much of an issue. random internet presentation summarizing hacks from the book: https://www.believebig.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Glucose-Revolution-FFT-.pdf https://www.believebig.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Glucos... EDIT another one: https://njms.rutgers.edu/education/student_affairs/student_support/wellness/Glucose%20Revolution%20-%20Joshua%20Greendyk.pdf https://njms.rutgers.edu/education/student_affairs/student_s...