Intermittent fasting prompts anti-inflammatory response(academic.oup.com)
academic.oup.com
Intermittent fasting prompts anti-inflammatory response
https://academic.oup.com/ehjopen/article/1/2/oeab026/6363797
189 comments
I agree with everything you wrote, and kudos for finding something that works for you.
I'll point out that IF didn't work for me, at least after an initial small drop of bodyweight (2-3kg IIRC). As you said, the reason IF works is the same reason any diet works - it helps restrict calories. But in my case, there were a few problems:
1. I was soon adjusting to the "eating window" and was eating extra portions, cramming in dessert before the window closed, etc. This meant I wasn't eating less calories.
2. I found it very inconvenient to stick to - family dinners, going out to nice restaurants for celebrations, etc caused issues.
A different approach worked much better for me, namely tracking calories using MyFitnessPal, and learning to eat more satiating foods (low calorie density foods as some call them). And especially "anabolic" recipes as they are known around YouTube (basically, low calorie high protein foods).
This gave me way more flexibility, for one thing, but also a much better understanding of how food and energy work - what kind of substitutions are "free" from a food-enjoyment perspective, but super helpful to lose weight.
But like you said - whatever diet is sustainable for you and causes you to eat less calories is a diet that will work.
I'll point out that IF didn't work for me, at least after an initial small drop of bodyweight (2-3kg IIRC). As you said, the reason IF works is the same reason any diet works - it helps restrict calories. But in my case, there were a few problems:
1. I was soon adjusting to the "eating window" and was eating extra portions, cramming in dessert before the window closed, etc. This meant I wasn't eating less calories.
2. I found it very inconvenient to stick to - family dinners, going out to nice restaurants for celebrations, etc caused issues.
A different approach worked much better for me, namely tracking calories using MyFitnessPal, and learning to eat more satiating foods (low calorie density foods as some call them). And especially "anabolic" recipes as they are known around YouTube (basically, low calorie high protein foods).
This gave me way more flexibility, for one thing, but also a much better understanding of how food and energy work - what kind of substitutions are "free" from a food-enjoyment perspective, but super helpful to lose weight.
But like you said - whatever diet is sustainable for you and causes you to eat less calories is a diet that will work.
> cravings are real, abstinence doesn’t work, and there are always new foods and new temptations
If IF worked for you that's great, but you shouldn't imply every other diet doesn't work. In my case all I did was track calories of everything I ate (Lose It app, highly recommended) while maintaining a normal eating schedule. Down 105lbs so far. For me I feel like if I just ate whatever I wanted in specific timeframes it'd still be too easy to eat 3000-4000 calories.
If IF worked for you that's great, but you shouldn't imply every other diet doesn't work. In my case all I did was track calories of everything I ate (Lose It app, highly recommended) while maintaining a normal eating schedule. Down 105lbs so far. For me I feel like if I just ate whatever I wanted in specific timeframes it'd still be too easy to eat 3000-4000 calories.
I think what the comment you are replying to is saying, and which I agree with after trying IF, is that IF works simply by making it easier to restrict calories for the average person, not that other methods are impossible or can't work.
I mean, just take your example. Counting calories for everything you eat is a significant amount of work, and it's really easy to cheat if you're feeling hungry ("Oh, look, my app says that an 'average' blueberry muffin is only 250 cals, so that's what I'll put in, despite this muffin being the size of my head").
With IF, all you have to think about is whether you're in your feeding window. You can still cheat, but there is no ambiguity about it, so for many people (or, fine, at least for me) it's easier to keep with it. I found myself getting super hungry during my fasting period, but I knew I just had to wait until my feeding period, and I actually found it difficult to overeat during my feeding period because I would just eat until I was full and then would "run out of time" to overeat.
I mean, just take your example. Counting calories for everything you eat is a significant amount of work, and it's really easy to cheat if you're feeling hungry ("Oh, look, my app says that an 'average' blueberry muffin is only 250 cals, so that's what I'll put in, despite this muffin being the size of my head").
With IF, all you have to think about is whether you're in your feeding window. You can still cheat, but there is no ambiguity about it, so for many people (or, fine, at least for me) it's easier to keep with it. I found myself getting super hungry during my fasting period, but I knew I just had to wait until my feeding period, and I actually found it difficult to overeat during my feeding period because I would just eat until I was full and then would "run out of time" to overeat.
Last time I IFed I found hunger to become a more varied signal and something much more under conscious control.
Some hungers turn out not to be that urgent.
There's a different hunger for an empty stomach and for a suddenly drop in blood sugar, etc.
I mean different body signals tell you that you are hungry and you learn to introspect them a bit.
I had quite a bit of fun trying to get to biochemical/physiological/phycological understanding of the triggers/sensations.
The one I could never quite crack is a craving to chew when I could tell my stomach was full and I was satiated otherwise.
Some hungers turn out not to be that urgent.
There's a different hunger for an empty stomach and for a suddenly drop in blood sugar, etc.
I mean different body signals tell you that you are hungry and you learn to introspect them a bit.
I had quite a bit of fun trying to get to biochemical/physiological/phycological understanding of the triggers/sensations.
The one I could never quite crack is a craving to chew when I could tell my stomach was full and I was satiated otherwise.
I agree with your sentiment but would add I think counting calories is a better strategy than most people think. For many they lack a very high level idea of how many calories they are eating, particularly for sugary drinks. By learning to ballpark better I’ve seen people have success. And for that it’s only tricky for a couple weeks, then you just get good at estimating and it becomes more automatic. Ultimately whatever works is best but I wish more people would give counting an honest shot, especially after seeing how well a few folks I know did once they started doing jt.
Agreeing.
I personally find it psychologically much easier to not eat at all for now (knowing I'll feast in a while) than to exert the effort of eating less when I'm eating now.
I personally find it psychologically much easier to not eat at all for now (knowing I'll feast in a while) than to exert the effort of eating less when I'm eating now.
It doesn't feel like work to me after I'm used to it, just a part of life. I'd only be cheating myself if I cheated on it, so I always err on overestimating.
I also track protein to make sure I get at least 170g, so that's an additional benefit.
I also track protein to make sure I get at least 170g, so that's an additional benefit.
170g of protein?? Are you also doing a carnivore diet or keto?
"gram of protein per pound of bodyweight" is a fairly standard macro ratio in the fitness community.
170g of protein is only 680 cals, so plenty of room left over for carbs and fat.
170g of protein is only 680 cals, so plenty of room left over for carbs and fat.
Right, and in my case I was only going for .8 grams per pound. It's hard to do without going over on calories without a lot of meals being skinless chicken breast.
I think the formula is .8g per kg of bodyweight, not per pound. That’s a significant difference.
That's for the average person, but for someone who's trying to gain muscle, a minimum of .8 per lb is recommended.
I think what the OP meant is that IF has all the benefits in one, simple to use format.
You do not need any apps, you do not need to count calories and you do not need remove food you love from the menu.
And while it may sound that you would try to overcompensate for not eating during specific timeframes, what happens in reality is that your body responds by wanting less food, not more.
You do not need any apps, you do not need to count calories and you do not need remove food you love from the menu.
And while it may sound that you would try to overcompensate for not eating during specific timeframes, what happens in reality is that your body responds by wanting less food, not more.
I was like that too but eventually after doing one meal a day Ive been feeling full on anywhere from 1200-2200 calories. Really depends on the food where I'm at and what's around. But you're absolutely right, there's not one BEST method for everyone. I personally cannot stand the minutiae of calorie counting and measuring portions so it's not good for me. I will measure portions to learn to eyeball things but yeah, can't do it every time I put food on a plate.
For me it feels uncomfortable eating something I can't track accurately, like it's going to actually have 5 times the calories I think it would, since that's the story for so much food. Like once I was hungry after a dinner and there was stuffing left, so I had some assuming it was a lighter food, then I looked it up and it's actually extremely calorie dense.
> Lose It app, highly recommended
It has become such an annoying nag though. If they offered a reasonable one-time payment -- not even for premium features, just to make it stop nagging -- I'd pay it. But no, they want me to subscribe. No thanks.
It has become such an annoying nag though. If they offered a reasonable one-time payment -- not even for premium features, just to make it stop nagging -- I'd pay it. But no, they want me to subscribe. No thanks.
I have same reaction to payment plans. I fully understand the business goal of recurring revenue, but several times in last few months I’ve opted for workarounds/alternates rather than paying a subscription for a product where I would have just paid a flat fee if available.
my folks lost a ton of weight using Noom. I'd try that if Lose It annoys you.
I'll take a look at that. I have occasionally considered writing my own simple logger that fit my needs (I don't need a really fancy database of nutrients, my diet is somewhat repetitive, so the basic FDA stuff would be fine) and then releasing it for free. That's a lot more work than just paying Lose It, but I really don't care much for software subscriptions for every little app.
I used to use lose it but swapped to fat secret. Its database isn't as good as lose it but it's getting better and it doesn't nag. I found Noom infuriatingly naggy and when I went to cancel there were multiple guilt trip prompts I had to OK through before they would cancel my free trial which turned me 100% against them.
That’s fair, in my head I was singling out food-restrictive options like no-carb fad diets. Navigating this world of abundance with our ancient brains is hard so however you do it, congratulations
> You don’t have to abstain from anything.
I mean, you _do_ abstain from eating. But I always found it easier to abstain from something entirely rather than to do it in moderation.
I mean, you _do_ abstain from eating. But I always found it easier to abstain from something entirely rather than to do it in moderation.
Ok I am not a philosopher but is it really “abstinence” if you only have to wait 8 hours?
Reminds me of the joke about celibacy. Most people are celibate 99.99% of their total hours lived. But if you intentionally add 0.01% to that, people lose their mind.
For a lot of people, waiting 8 hours to eat is a long time. If you’ve ever been around snackers, you know what I mean.
Yeah but this can extremely plastic. Snacking is something you do, not who you are :)
I ate 5 or 6 times a day for 15-20 years. I would eat 3 meals, a snack in the afternoon, and then something before bed. And probably more than that to be honest. I was as much of a snacker as anybody.
In April I switched to eating 2 meals a day. I was very hungry for literally 1 or 2 days, and then I just got used to it, and started to like it!
Before that I was on a pretty strict diet for ~4 years. But I relaxed the diet after changing the schedule, and lost about 5 lbs. So the heuristic of just eating twice a day turns out to be easier to maintain than a diet.
Go figure! It was kinda shocking. I do think "3 meals a day" is a relatively recent thing. Millions of people lived for thousands of years without eating 3 meals a day.
Some downsides: I eat bigger meals, and I notice a bigger "tired" crash after dinner. But I think that's better than feely slightly groggy multiple times a day. I definitely am more aware of the fact that eating "slows you down". I do think there is something to the "alert, fasted" state, and I would call that pleasant.
Also I might have slowly gained back the 5 pounds but I'm still under my target weight ("normal" BMI which is like 20th percentile). I think after 6 months your body probably gets used to it, and maybe I relaxed the diet a bit too much. I'll continue to tweak it in the future.
An upside not to be discounted is that I spend less time and money on food, and traveling is a lot easier as a result!
I ate 5 or 6 times a day for 15-20 years. I would eat 3 meals, a snack in the afternoon, and then something before bed. And probably more than that to be honest. I was as much of a snacker as anybody.
In April I switched to eating 2 meals a day. I was very hungry for literally 1 or 2 days, and then I just got used to it, and started to like it!
Before that I was on a pretty strict diet for ~4 years. But I relaxed the diet after changing the schedule, and lost about 5 lbs. So the heuristic of just eating twice a day turns out to be easier to maintain than a diet.
Go figure! It was kinda shocking. I do think "3 meals a day" is a relatively recent thing. Millions of people lived for thousands of years without eating 3 meals a day.
Some downsides: I eat bigger meals, and I notice a bigger "tired" crash after dinner. But I think that's better than feely slightly groggy multiple times a day. I definitely am more aware of the fact that eating "slows you down". I do think there is something to the "alert, fasted" state, and I would call that pleasant.
Also I might have slowly gained back the 5 pounds but I'm still under my target weight ("normal" BMI which is like 20th percentile). I think after 6 months your body probably gets used to it, and maybe I relaxed the diet a bit too much. I'll continue to tweak it in the future.
An upside not to be discounted is that I spend less time and money on food, and traveling is a lot easier as a result!
vadfa(1)
I think with IF it exploits the fact that your stomach can only take so much food at a time. If you restrict your eating to a small window, you can't eat a whole day of calories in that window just because your stomach can't take that much food. It's like exploiting the fact that your stomach is a buffer and you fill it only at certain times of the day.
IME, most people find it rather easy to take in a days worth of calories in a single sitting, with the right (wrong?) kinds of food.
Like... a largish portion of very cheesy mac 'n' cheese will do it.
Like... a largish portion of very cheesy mac 'n' cheese will do it.
> But I always found it easier to abstain from something entirely rather than to do it in moderation.
Not a knock or being troll-y but that sound like a religion. As in, funny how patterns established in religion are just as effective outside that context.
Not a knock or being troll-y but that sound like a religion. As in, funny how patterns established in religion are just as effective outside that context.
I hope I am not oversharing but I definitely need my patterns to cope, I have ADHD so perhaps it is related to that. Maybe something along the lines of lessening the impact my poor impulse control has on my life by avoiding situations in which I could act impulsively. For example, I do not buy sweets and pretty much never have any at home because ignoring them in the store is easier than ignoring them at home. For me, it is an Herculean task to start a bag of sweets _without_ also finishing it in one sitting… but buying no sweets in the store? That is easy peasy lemon squeezy.
I used to be way overweight. A few years ago I lost a lot of weight by basically walking a lot and doing intemittent fasting.
Then I stopped it and started to slowly gain more weight. Now I'm on an IF regiment again.
Now, I really doubt it's the calorie restriction that's at work here.
The human body is not a simple physical machine. It's a complex system.
A simple machine would be some like like a car that has a set amount of energy needed and simple mechanism to switch energy source when one of them is almost depleted.
A complex machine is one that responds to the environment and changes its internal behavior. For example, it can decide to activate or shutdown internal systems that use energy in order to conserve energy. It can decide to let go of conserving energy and just make sure the body has a lot of energy for performing the current activity.
Common wisdom says that the body goes in hunger mode if you restrict calories. But I don't think that's what's going on. Because you also restrict calories on IF. Instead I think that when you consistently eat low calorie meals, it activates some mechanism in your body that's meant to conserve energy when you are living through some sort of a famine, or something like that. (another possibility: instead of a famine, it thinks you became a low status individual within your tribe). But when you do IF you typically eat normal size, filling meals, so this mechanism never gets triggered. Further more, there's probably no mechanism in your brain that thinks that going for many hours without food is a bad thing. Quite the opposite: it's just the normal expected thing.
So if you do some exercise while in a fasted state, even though you are technically low on calories, your brain probably thinks you might be hunting for food so it will make sure you can utilize all the energy you need and some more.
> The problem is, cravings are real, abstinence doesn’t work,
I'm not sure what you mean here? Surely fasting is abstinence, is it not?
You can at any time decide to open the fridge and eat something. You can decide at any time to go to the nearby convenience store and buy something to eat.
Then I stopped it and started to slowly gain more weight. Now I'm on an IF regiment again.
Now, I really doubt it's the calorie restriction that's at work here.
The human body is not a simple physical machine. It's a complex system.
A simple machine would be some like like a car that has a set amount of energy needed and simple mechanism to switch energy source when one of them is almost depleted.
A complex machine is one that responds to the environment and changes its internal behavior. For example, it can decide to activate or shutdown internal systems that use energy in order to conserve energy. It can decide to let go of conserving energy and just make sure the body has a lot of energy for performing the current activity.
Common wisdom says that the body goes in hunger mode if you restrict calories. But I don't think that's what's going on. Because you also restrict calories on IF. Instead I think that when you consistently eat low calorie meals, it activates some mechanism in your body that's meant to conserve energy when you are living through some sort of a famine, or something like that. (another possibility: instead of a famine, it thinks you became a low status individual within your tribe). But when you do IF you typically eat normal size, filling meals, so this mechanism never gets triggered. Further more, there's probably no mechanism in your brain that thinks that going for many hours without food is a bad thing. Quite the opposite: it's just the normal expected thing.
So if you do some exercise while in a fasted state, even though you are technically low on calories, your brain probably thinks you might be hunting for food so it will make sure you can utilize all the energy you need and some more.
> The problem is, cravings are real, abstinence doesn’t work,
I'm not sure what you mean here? Surely fasting is abstinence, is it not?
You can at any time decide to open the fridge and eat something. You can decide at any time to go to the nearby convenience store and buy something to eat.
Yes I agree with you. Body does not go into starvation mode during IF. One meal a day is ideal.
My eating window is around 4-8pm most days the last 6 months. Usually just one meal of literally anything I want and Im still finding I have to eat more to stop losing weight.
My eating window is around 4-8pm most days the last 6 months. Usually just one meal of literally anything I want and Im still finding I have to eat more to stop losing weight.
I'll never understand OMAD from a minimum calorie requirement standpoint. I watched a lean muscular YouTuber prepare his one meal which was mostly cauliflower mash and totaled 600 calories, in which case I call BS since he probably needs about 3500cal/day given his size.
For those of us that aren't burning off excess fat and are active what would a 2700-ish calorie meal look like. Can you learn to eat 2 lbs of steak in one sitting for example and do that every day ? Because it is unlikely there is room in a typical stomach for 20lbs of cauliflower mash or 4.5lbs of pasta eaten all at once.
Also from a time management standpoint spiking your serotonin levels with that massive meal seems counterproductive. Are you really saving time if you are a drowsy for an hour or two after that massive meal ? I realize the parent poster was just contemplating, but if someone has actual experience I would be grateful for a helpful link or comment.
For those of us that aren't burning off excess fat and are active what would a 2700-ish calorie meal look like. Can you learn to eat 2 lbs of steak in one sitting for example and do that every day ? Because it is unlikely there is room in a typical stomach for 20lbs of cauliflower mash or 4.5lbs of pasta eaten all at once.
Also from a time management standpoint spiking your serotonin levels with that massive meal seems counterproductive. Are you really saving time if you are a drowsy for an hour or two after that massive meal ? I realize the parent poster was just contemplating, but if someone has actual experience I would be grateful for a helpful link or comment.
Presumably most people doing it have losing weight as a goal, not maintaining?
Anyway, fat heavy foods make cramming calories pretty easy. You can hide a lot of butter in mashed potatoes or a pasta sauce.
Anyway, fat heavy foods make cramming calories pretty easy. You can hide a lot of butter in mashed potatoes or a pasta sauce.
It is the best I have felt in some time in fact.
The body gets used to it over time. I am not strict with it but most days I find it easy to do.
Lots of water throughout the day helps with the empty stomach and not feeling dehydrated.
I skip breakfast and lunch. But can eat heavily within my time window.
The science is off here from my experience.
The metric to watch is time between meals. If you can go 16-20 hours before your next meal, sleep can be included, then you will find your gains staggering.
The body gets used to it over time. I am not strict with it but most days I find it easy to do.
Lots of water throughout the day helps with the empty stomach and not feeling dehydrated.
I skip breakfast and lunch. But can eat heavily within my time window.
The science is off here from my experience.
The metric to watch is time between meals. If you can go 16-20 hours before your next meal, sleep can be included, then you will find your gains staggering.
>Common wisdom says that the body goes in hunger mode if you restrict calories.
Is it common wisdom though? As far as I know common wisdom says that if you restrict calories then the blood sugar drops and that cause the body to go into hunger mode. The difference being that you can eat, say, 1000 calories of your normal diet and go into hunger mode or you can eat a diet that causes the blood sugar to be stable and not go into hunger mode. This is one of the two main reasons LCHF work so well (the other being that you are way less hungry after 1000 calories of a high fat diet than after 1000 calories of high sugar).
Is it common wisdom though? As far as I know common wisdom says that if you restrict calories then the blood sugar drops and that cause the body to go into hunger mode. The difference being that you can eat, say, 1000 calories of your normal diet and go into hunger mode or you can eat a diet that causes the blood sugar to be stable and not go into hunger mode. This is one of the two main reasons LCHF work so well (the other being that you are way less hungry after 1000 calories of a high fat diet than after 1000 calories of high sugar).
I'm very skeptical of the claims about Insulin being a cause of weight gain or preventing weight loss.
All insulin is, is a signal to cells to absorb sugar from the blood. Think of it this way: if you consume dietery fat, your body will obviously not ignore this fat in your blood and start pulling fat out of your fat storage. It will wait for the fat flowing through your blood to be all used up first. Why would sugar be any different? You have to believe that the design of the calorie input management system is so broken that it reacts so badly to carbs but doesn't react in any negative way to fats.
There's another "theory" of diebetes too: that excess fat int he cells blocks insulin reception. So if you consume high fat, you better not consume any carbs with it or else your body won't know what to do with it.
Now, think about it from an evolutionary point of view. Our ancestors have been sustaining themselves on farming carbs for thousands of years (potato, rice, grains, etc). We should all be very well adapted to a diet that is a mix of carbs and fats and proteins. What is different in the modern age is not an excess of carbs; it's the lack of movement. Athletic people consume upwards of 3000 calories per day with no problems.
All insulin is, is a signal to cells to absorb sugar from the blood. Think of it this way: if you consume dietery fat, your body will obviously not ignore this fat in your blood and start pulling fat out of your fat storage. It will wait for the fat flowing through your blood to be all used up first. Why would sugar be any different? You have to believe that the design of the calorie input management system is so broken that it reacts so badly to carbs but doesn't react in any negative way to fats.
There's another "theory" of diebetes too: that excess fat int he cells blocks insulin reception. So if you consume high fat, you better not consume any carbs with it or else your body won't know what to do with it.
Now, think about it from an evolutionary point of view. Our ancestors have been sustaining themselves on farming carbs for thousands of years (potato, rice, grains, etc). We should all be very well adapted to a diet that is a mix of carbs and fats and proteins. What is different in the modern age is not an excess of carbs; it's the lack of movement. Athletic people consume upwards of 3000 calories per day with no problems.
There are studies on this and, from what I can remember, meal frequency didn't seem to have an impact on weight loss or muscle gain.
You don't need to eat 6 meals or 1 per day to lose weight, just do whatever makes it easy for you to consume the amount of calories you want.
I agree that doing 1-2 big meal makes it easier to eat little calories because you can stuff yourself up to a point.
You don't need to eat 6 meals or 1 per day to lose weight, just do whatever makes it easy for you to consume the amount of calories you want.
I agree that doing 1-2 big meal makes it easier to eat little calories because you can stuff yourself up to a point.
Maybe not but low blood sugar has a high impact on hunger and can cause a slowdown of the metabolism. If you eat a normal diet but less often you get way more hungry and burn less calories. If your 1-2 meals are high on carbs you will quickly either get extreme hunger or go into starvation mode. The dreaded yo-yo effect.
> There are studies on this
Studies on this are generally poor quality, and you can easily tell by looking at the study content.
Remember when early 2020 all the official organizations (WHO, CDC) were telling people to NOT wear masks because studies showed they didn't work? Yea. Turned out all the studies were really bad quality.
"Scientific" publishing is broken and you simply can't rely on it for useful information. Many studies don't even replicate, but they still get published and cited.
For another example, see: https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1459275924059217920
Basically, whenever I hear "studies have shown ..." I just don't care. Let the studies show whatever they want. I will go with my own experience and with personal anecdotes I hear from people. They are way more consistent and reliable.
Studies on this are generally poor quality, and you can easily tell by looking at the study content.
Remember when early 2020 all the official organizations (WHO, CDC) were telling people to NOT wear masks because studies showed they didn't work? Yea. Turned out all the studies were really bad quality.
"Scientific" publishing is broken and you simply can't rely on it for useful information. Many studies don't even replicate, but they still get published and cited.
For another example, see: https://twitter.com/cmuratori/status/1459275924059217920
Basically, whenever I hear "studies have shown ..." I just don't care. Let the studies show whatever they want. I will go with my own experience and with personal anecdotes I hear from people. They are way more consistent and reliable.
> "Scientific" publishing is broken and you simply can't rely on it for useful information. Many studies don't even replicate, but they still get published and cited.
I may take issue with some of your other statements but fully agree with this observation.
A critical thinker needs to be highly skeptical of the appeal to authority used by invoking the phrases “the science says”, or “studies have shown”.
I may take issue with some of your other statements but fully agree with this observation.
A critical thinker needs to be highly skeptical of the appeal to authority used by invoking the phrases “the science says”, or “studies have shown”.
glofish(1)
I totally agree. Since I started IF, my gut seems healthier which is probably interconnected with how I process energy.
I think he is saying you can have ice cream or pizza or whatever. Just not right now. So you get the benefits of calorie deficit now and can satisfy the craving later
Temptation is managed by just having a little patience until your next meal.
My hypothesis is this is the key.
I do something similar to IF. I’ll eat two meals before 10am then won’t eat until 7pm or so.
It’s not that I don’t get hungry it’s that I kind of don’t care? It’s not a big deal and I can wait until the next meal.
Overcoming the psychological “need” to eat is a big part of it.
My hypothesis is this is the key.
I do something similar to IF. I’ll eat two meals before 10am then won’t eat until 7pm or so.
It’s not that I don’t get hungry it’s that I kind of don’t care? It’s not a big deal and I can wait until the next meal.
Overcoming the psychological “need” to eat is a big part of it.
I like this approach. My understanding of my metabolism (and I suspect most others') is that if I eat a fair amount all morning, my body is fueled up and can therefore spend energy without worry of conservation to survive starvation.
If I skip breakfast, my body and especially my mind seem slower and weaker for the entire day. I feel like I have to drag myself through the day rather than be pushed. And, when I do get hungry later in the day it's very difficult to ignore. I suspect this is because my body is worried about food.
Is metabolic economics a thing?
If I skip breakfast, my body and especially my mind seem slower and weaker for the entire day. I feel like I have to drag myself through the day rather than be pushed. And, when I do get hungry later in the day it's very difficult to ignore. I suspect this is because my body is worried about food.
Is metabolic economics a thing?
If I've fasted since an early evening meal and I skip breakfast (and I've done it for a week or two) I'm razor sharp until I eat.
My mind feels significantly keener.
In fact I used to dread eating something, anticipating what felt like a loss of 15 IQ points
My mind feels significantly keener.
In fact I used to dread eating something, anticipating what felt like a loss of 15 IQ points
I do the opposite. I do not eat breakfast and I'm completely fine. Dinner is around 6 p.m. so I go about 18 hours without food every day.
I only have coffee in the morning and the only calories in that come from a bit of milk I take in it.
I don't necessarily feel hungry at lunch time either. If there's something going on at work (prod issue, in the zone) I might find myself at 2 p.m. without having eaten.
Sometimes on the weekends I will have a leftover pancake w/ jam for breakfast. What I noticed is that if I've had that, I usually crave food again at noon.
I only have coffee in the morning and the only calories in that come from a bit of milk I take in it.
I don't necessarily feel hungry at lunch time either. If there's something going on at work (prod issue, in the zone) I might find myself at 2 p.m. without having eaten.
Sometimes on the weekends I will have a leftover pancake w/ jam for breakfast. What I noticed is that if I've had that, I usually crave food again at noon.
There is unexplained difference regarding body energy usage if one eats most calories before noon or in the evening. With the former body spends like 100-200 more calories than with the latter. This is independent of sleeping patterns, what one eats and what one is doing. Even if one works night shifts, the same pattern persists. And it is not clear where exactly the extra energy is spent.
Wait, so about that night shift.. you mean “before noon” isn’t a relative reference to a period of time after waking, it’s an absolute reference to time of day regardless of when sleep takes place? That’s interesting.. irrespective of latitude (sunlight hours)?
Yes, this is in reference to absolute time as measured by highest point of Sun. The effect is so puzzling that there were plans to see if it exists in polar regions during winter time the last time I read about it.
Thanks for sharing. Does that mean if I do IF I can still consume the same calories I consume right now, just in a shorter period?
BTW what does your IF plan look like? I'm thinking about between 4pm (needs a coffee around 2 or 3) and 8am but not sure if it actually is IF.
BTW what does your IF plan look like? I'm thinking about between 4pm (needs a coffee around 2 or 3) and 8am but not sure if it actually is IF.
> I'm thinking about between 4pm (needs a coffee around 2 or 3) and 8am
This is (called 16-8, 16hr fast and 8hr eating window) is actually a recommended way to start IF. I've been on it for ~4 months and can second the effectiveness of weight loss.
About the calorie intake; a funny side effect is that I'm now naturally less hungry even during the 8hr window so the calorie intake has automatically reduced.
I was wondering why would that be and then learned about insulin resistance and things began to fall in place.
Now I'm doing 16-8 IF and close to zero added sugar diet (which is painfully difficult in Indian cuisine, more so during this festival season :-|).
This is (called 16-8, 16hr fast and 8hr eating window) is actually a recommended way to start IF. I've been on it for ~4 months and can second the effectiveness of weight loss.
About the calorie intake; a funny side effect is that I'm now naturally less hungry even during the 8hr window so the calorie intake has automatically reduced.
I was wondering why would that be and then learned about insulin resistance and things began to fall in place.
Now I'm doing 16-8 IF and close to zero added sugar diet (which is painfully difficult in Indian cuisine, more so during this festival season :-|).
The idea is you can eat whatever, but when you come to it there's a natural limit for most people then you feel full and don't want to eat more.
If you imagine it to extremes, if you put all your food for the day on a plate and gave yourself 1 hour how much could you eat if you weren't trying to make yourself sick?
For most people of you only eat between noon-8pm, say (”18-6”) then you'll reduce your calorie intake naturally. Couple it with appropriate exercise and you'll lose weight (doesn't mean you'll be healthier necessarily though!).
If you imagine it to extremes, if you put all your food for the day on a plate and gave yourself 1 hour how much could you eat if you weren't trying to make yourself sick?
For most people of you only eat between noon-8pm, say (”18-6”) then you'll reduce your calorie intake naturally. Couple it with appropriate exercise and you'll lose weight (doesn't mean you'll be healthier necessarily though!).
[deleted]
> abstinence doesn’t work
Well, it does. I don't like to feed the myth believed by overweight people that they won't lose weight if they simply started eating 2000 kCal/day. It's psychologically hard, sure (for some) but it would work.
However, it's often easier to eat "nothing" than a little -- especially of high-carb products. It's easier to eat no tortilla chips than to have "just one".
And getting used to a np-food period of the day similarly helps to stop the cravings.
Well, it does. I don't like to feed the myth believed by overweight people that they won't lose weight if they simply started eating 2000 kCal/day. It's psychologically hard, sure (for some) but it would work.
However, it's often easier to eat "nothing" than a little -- especially of high-carb products. It's easier to eat no tortilla chips than to have "just one".
And getting used to a np-food period of the day similarly helps to stop the cravings.
People have been banging that drum for decades, meanwhile the developed world is becoming increasingly obese. It's quite clear that telling people they should just eat less doesn't work.
The problem I noticed with IF or other "diets" which don't track calories in some way, is that people may tend to eat a lot more once they start doing physical activity, negating the weight loss benefit or gaining too much fat.
The method I recommend nowadays is to keep your diet as constant as possible, then replace meals or snacks with protein rich, lower calories alternatives until you're satisfied with your protein intake (depending on your weight) and you hit a maintenance diet and , as in your weight doesn't change averaged over two weeks, while doing your normal training regimen (which should include some incremental resistance training for muscle gaining or preservation and some cardio for heart health).
Then you have the choice of adding a 200 calories protein rich snack if you're trying to build muscle, removing a snack for 200 calories (if you can manage that) or adding some daily cardio consuming an extra 200 calories (like a 20m cardio class, 2x20 minutes walk, a martial arts class, gymnastic skill-work). You should always weight your self to keep track of things. Eventually you'll weight will stabilise to a new low or a new high and you can go through the process again.
In this way, you don't really count calories, you just roughly know that you'll have a few eggs for breakfast, some pasta for lunch, meat or fish for dinner.
The method I recommend nowadays is to keep your diet as constant as possible, then replace meals or snacks with protein rich, lower calories alternatives until you're satisfied with your protein intake (depending on your weight) and you hit a maintenance diet and , as in your weight doesn't change averaged over two weeks, while doing your normal training regimen (which should include some incremental resistance training for muscle gaining or preservation and some cardio for heart health).
Then you have the choice of adding a 200 calories protein rich snack if you're trying to build muscle, removing a snack for 200 calories (if you can manage that) or adding some daily cardio consuming an extra 200 calories (like a 20m cardio class, 2x20 minutes walk, a martial arts class, gymnastic skill-work). You should always weight your self to keep track of things. Eventually you'll weight will stabilise to a new low or a new high and you can go through the process again.
In this way, you don't really count calories, you just roughly know that you'll have a few eggs for breakfast, some pasta for lunch, meat or fish for dinner.
What meal do you skip? My problem is that I can’t skip breakfast or I get lightheaded (I’ve passed out working out before breakfast multiple times). And I feel like during the work day I need glucose for my brain to function.
I find breakfast the easiest meal to skip, and putting sleep in there and skipping late nate snacks makes a 16 hr fast fairly easy.
My wife is like you though, so obviously it depends on the person.
My wife is like you though, so obviously it depends on the person.
I had the same problem, but it gets easier if you train it.
I recently started cycling for 1h in the morning without having breakfast, and after a few days it became quite easy. Just don't try to convince yourself that it is somehow a bad thing to skip breakfast. Breakfast only makes you hungry for the rest of the day.
I'm doing 16h/8h intermittent fasting, and I only feel slightly hungry on some days in the last 1h before my feeding window.
I recently started cycling for 1h in the morning without having breakfast, and after a few days it became quite easy. Just don't try to convince yourself that it is somehow a bad thing to skip breakfast. Breakfast only makes you hungry for the rest of the day.
I'm doing 16h/8h intermittent fasting, and I only feel slightly hungry on some days in the last 1h before my feeding window.
I skip breakfast aside from one cup of unsweetened coffee and on the other end I brush my teeth for the night with my daughter when she goes to bed at 8pm.
At some point your body starts making modest amounts of ketones overnight/until you eat, so you can still be productive without eating.
If you're gonna work out early in the AM it does make sense to have some kind of fruit or light snack right before. Or you can drink BCAAs during the workout to keep you energized. Just don't let that turn into eating a proper breakfast at like 6am otherwise you're going to end up eating an extra 500+ calories a day.
You still have to abide by Calories In, Calories Out though. If you're eating 3000+ kcals but doing IF, you're still going to gain weight.
Didn’t work in my case. I could fast 16 - 18 hours a day without difficulty. But I made up for it in what I ate in the remaining. Always felt hungry and ate more than I should when not fasting. Still gained weight. Tried IF for months without losing weight, and actually gained a little.
Same. I toughed it out for almost 6 months because your body is supposed to adjust but mine never did. I was doing 12-8 and some days I was so hungry I would start getting blurry vision by 11am. Didn't lose an ounce either.
It’s fascinating how different peoples’ bodies are. Maybe try a slight variation? My father in law has been restricting his food intake to 600 calories per day a few days a week for years, and it’s done wonders for him. The exact numbers might not matter; 700 calories twice a week may be better for you, for example. I’m just thinking this might be good for you if you need some constant (but low) calorie intake.
36 hours was the key for me because you can’t make up for that the next day (eat at night and then nothing the next day until the following morning). If I stick to that once a week, I am good. Otherwise, not.
I've been meaning to get into IF forever. Do you mind sharing what system/method in particular has worked for you?
Your intuition is pretty close to the science: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaDmSEVPZiM
I’ve lost 20 lbs on IF and this is spot on. It’s just a lot easier (for me) to eat way less. I just only eat after 5pm every day. Much much less for me to think about vs any other diet. Its tough at first but mind and body adapted after a few weeks.
I am a big IF fan. Specifically, I try to do it 3-4x a week. I skip dinner and start at 5pm and hold it until 9am. I tried skipping breakfast before, that didn’t work well for me.
Two things have been difficult for me lately:
A) sudden extreme cravings before I start at 5pm
B) a sore throat starting at around 9-10pm. I have no clue why it happens.
Do you guys experience something similar and how do you deal with it?
EDIT: Sorry for the confusion. I meant heartburn.
Two things have been difficult for me lately:
A) sudden extreme cravings before I start at 5pm
B) a sore throat starting at around 9-10pm. I have no clue why it happens.
Do you guys experience something similar and how do you deal with it?
EDIT: Sorry for the confusion. I meant heartburn.
I fast about once a week or once every two weeks.
>A) sudden extreme cravings before I start at 5pm
Have you tried apple cider vinegar? That seems to work for me.
>B) a sore throat starting at around 9-10pm. I have no clue why it happens.
I don't get that specifically, but I do get lowered body temperature. Could sore throat be a symptom of that? Have you tried hot water, perhaps with lemon and/or tea?
>A) sudden extreme cravings before I start at 5pm
Have you tried apple cider vinegar? That seems to work for me.
>B) a sore throat starting at around 9-10pm. I have no clue why it happens.
I don't get that specifically, but I do get lowered body temperature. Could sore throat be a symptom of that? Have you tried hot water, perhaps with lemon and/or tea?
>Have you tried apple cider vinegar? That seems to work for me.
No comment on effectiveness, but for anyone who is going to do this, make sure to dilute the vinegar with some water.
No comment on effectiveness, but for anyone who is going to do this, make sure to dilute the vinegar with some water.
>No comment on effectiveness, but for anyone who is going to do this, make sure to dilute the vinegar with some water.
Oh jeez, woopsie. Yeah, forgetting to do that would certainly cause a bit of sore throat. Or 3rd degree burns.
Oh jeez, woopsie. Yeah, forgetting to do that would certainly cause a bit of sore throat. Or 3rd degree burns.
1 tsp apple cider vinegar mixed in a full glass of water.
It also helps to drink with a straw to avoid residual acid on the teeth (although the water already diluted it enough).
It also helps to drink with a straw to avoid residual acid on the teeth (although the water already diluted it enough).
I get the lower body temperature, too. How do you deal with it?
have had similar and suggest:
- swap coffee for green tea
- supplement phosphatidylcholine daily
- drink hot water with a spoonful of apple cider vinegar and honey at night
- measure humidity in your home and make sure it isn't too dry
For me this reduced inflammation and GERD issue presenting sore throat at night. May take over a week to start noticing results.
- swap coffee for green tea
- supplement phosphatidylcholine daily
- drink hot water with a spoonful of apple cider vinegar and honey at night
- measure humidity in your home and make sure it isn't too dry
For me this reduced inflammation and GERD issue presenting sore throat at night. May take over a week to start noticing results.
Yes, green tea has helped a lot compared to coffee! It’s not completely gone though.
try the other things too and hope it helps.
phosphatidylcholine caps look like fish oil and seem to generate an anti-inflammatory response for me and this research article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636253/
phosphatidylcholine caps look like fish oil and seem to generate an anti-inflammatory response for me and this research article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17636253/
The cravings are likely low blood sugar. Eat more fat, less carbs.
I can't speak to the sore throat but I do keto and on days I skip most/all food, I get crazy food cravings that can usually be addressed (provided I'm not recently re-entering keto but am a week+ fat-adjusted) by drinking a bottle of water with a squirt of electrolyte replacement concentrate (K+Mg) along with 3-5g of salt.
I normally eat a pretty high-salt diet (7-10g per day depending on if I eat out or not), keto or no, and replacing a day's salt with just 1-2g is insufficient to keep my body from cravings. I find that having 3-5g with my other misc electrolyte replacement generally makes it much, much easier for me to skip the day's meals.
Cravings are almost always your body asking for something; the trick is to learn what it's asking for that doesn't involve calories.
I normally eat a pretty high-salt diet (7-10g per day depending on if I eat out or not), keto or no, and replacing a day's salt with just 1-2g is insufficient to keep my body from cravings. I find that having 3-5g with my other misc electrolyte replacement generally makes it much, much easier for me to skip the day's meals.
Cravings are almost always your body asking for something; the trick is to learn what it's asking for that doesn't involve calories.
I have moderate success solving A) by drinking a glass of water.
Also ignore it and it will go away helps.
Also ignore it and it will go away helps.
>ignore it and it will go away helps.
When I was young I would hurt myself somehow and go to my mother saying
Me - My arm hurts when I do THIS (bend arm at elbow, back and forth)
Mom- Don't do that and it won't hurt.
Me - (Pikachu meme face)
When I was young I would hurt myself somehow and go to my mother saying
Me - My arm hurts when I do THIS (bend arm at elbow, back and forth)
Mom- Don't do that and it won't hurt.
Me - (Pikachu meme face)
I find that many times I'm just thirsty not hungry. If I chug a big glass of water, maybe two, I can easily skip a meal or more. This routinely makes 16 hours of fasting possible.
Why don’t you have a filling meal at 4.30 or 4.45 ?
Cravings and weird side-effects suggest you're lacking some basic nutrient/s. Have you tried varying the types of foods you eat to counter this?
> start at 5pm and hold it until 9am
Isn't that basically normal? We call it breakfast for a reason, and 5pm to 9pm is extremely close to what many people do habitually. Maybe a slightly early dinner and a slightly late breakfast, but not by much.
Isn't that basically normal? We call it breakfast for a reason, and 5pm to 9pm is extremely close to what many people do habitually. Maybe a slightly early dinner and a slightly late breakfast, but not by much.
Well, it was never normal for me. I used to eat until 10pm or so and then start eating right after getting up at 7am. So 5pm-9am adds 7h of fasting for me.
interesting. I do IF since 2018, but because I normally do heavy sports at night, I cannot sleep if I don't eat. So I eat well after training and then go until 14:00 without food other than coffee and water.
Sore throat might be heartburn, have you changed your diet? Perhaps you're eating too quickly? Are you drinking enough water?
Might be an idea to consult a registered dietician or a GP (general practitioner, a generalist doctor, sometimes called a 'family doctor').
Might be an idea to consult a registered dietician or a GP (general practitioner, a generalist doctor, sometimes called a 'family doctor').
I've been doing time-restricted eating for maybe 5 years, only eating between 12 and 7-ish. It's not what this experiment studied but is supposed to have similar effects. One thing I can say is you get used to it quickly and no longer feel hunger in the same urgent way as before. Hunger is more of a vague "yeah, I could eat now" feeling in the back of the mind, which can be easily ignored for several hours. Mood never changes, either.
On the few occasions I've gone 24 hours+, the hunger feeling is a little stronger, but still pretty easy to ignore. For one example, there is no difficulty going to sleep.
None of this applies when you are first starting out though :-)
On the few occasions I've gone 24 hours+, the hunger feeling is a little stronger, but still pretty easy to ignore. For one example, there is no difficulty going to sleep.
None of this applies when you are first starting out though :-)
For those who are upbeat about IF: some simple questions:
1. Does coffee/tea count as a "meal"? I can't get through the day without a couple of cups of coffee and tea.
2. This study mentioned a 24-hour water-only fast, not the IF that most commenters are talking about in this post. Thoughts on that?
3. I've been thinking of going on the "Phil Mickelson" diet: https://golf.com/instruction/fitness/phil-mickelson-age-defy... Any thoughts on that?
1. Does coffee/tea count as a "meal"? I can't get through the day without a couple of cups of coffee and tea.
2. This study mentioned a 24-hour water-only fast, not the IF that most commenters are talking about in this post. Thoughts on that?
3. I've been thinking of going on the "Phil Mickelson" diet: https://golf.com/instruction/fitness/phil-mickelson-age-defy... Any thoughts on that?
1. no. a "meal" could be sugar or cream in the coffee though. zero-calorie drinks don't count as a meal
some people "cheat" by considering cream-only coffee acceptable as well (it's keto/zero-carb so might not raise blood sugar levels) - see e.g. "bulletproof coffee" by Dave Asprey (NOT ENDORSING ANYTHING ELSE BY THIS SCAM ARTIST)
some people "cheat" by considering cream-only coffee acceptable as well (it's keto/zero-carb so might not raise blood sugar levels) - see e.g. "bulletproof coffee" by Dave Asprey (NOT ENDORSING ANYTHING ELSE BY THIS SCAM ARTIST)
I SLAMMED coffee the first few weeks and would also drink like a gallon of water a day. Helped a lot. I think the key is to choose the schedule that works for you.
I regularly do IF and I drink black coffee in the morning while I'm fasting. I try to time it so even that is at the tail-end of an 18 hours fast.
Wondering if anyone is in a situation similar to mine (probably not but it's worth a try):
Earlier this year I developed about 30 food allergies (IgE-mediated; I'm using the term "allergy" accurately, not in the fuzzy way we colloquially use it to refer to intolerances, etc, which are entirely different, mechanism- and prognosis-wise). This has absolutely decimated my ability to eat out at restaurants (I literally can't eat anything I don't prepare myself). Logistically it just sucks. It'll be evening after work and someone on the other side of town says "come hang out." I'd love to, but I'll have to drive home one direction, eat, then drive twice as far the other direction. With traffic it'll be 9pm before I can leave, so...yeah, not happening. It's destroyed my social life. My allergies have also affected things that are "quick" or "travel" foods, so basically I always need to heat stuff up. God it sucks.
Naturally, I've arrived at the thought of training myself to "officially" work IF into my life. Unofficially, I do it all the time by way of just...having to go somewhere unexpectedly or staying somewhere longer than I thought, and I don't have any food. About 50% of the time I feel fine and can power through, the other 50% I feel faint and hangry. Can't figure out why.
The other side of this coin, though, is that I'm trying to build muscle mass. Nuff said.
Anyone find a way to satisfy all these competing interests successfully?
Earlier this year I developed about 30 food allergies (IgE-mediated; I'm using the term "allergy" accurately, not in the fuzzy way we colloquially use it to refer to intolerances, etc, which are entirely different, mechanism- and prognosis-wise). This has absolutely decimated my ability to eat out at restaurants (I literally can't eat anything I don't prepare myself). Logistically it just sucks. It'll be evening after work and someone on the other side of town says "come hang out." I'd love to, but I'll have to drive home one direction, eat, then drive twice as far the other direction. With traffic it'll be 9pm before I can leave, so...yeah, not happening. It's destroyed my social life. My allergies have also affected things that are "quick" or "travel" foods, so basically I always need to heat stuff up. God it sucks.
Naturally, I've arrived at the thought of training myself to "officially" work IF into my life. Unofficially, I do it all the time by way of just...having to go somewhere unexpectedly or staying somewhere longer than I thought, and I don't have any food. About 50% of the time I feel fine and can power through, the other 50% I feel faint and hangry. Can't figure out why.
The other side of this coin, though, is that I'm trying to build muscle mass. Nuff said.
Anyone find a way to satisfy all these competing interests successfully?
I got repeated food poisoning x4 around January last year, and since can't do sugar at all, carbs very little, coffee once a week (if that). Also can't do any oil but olive oil. Butter I can.
Kinda similar to your situation.
I have to prep my own meals, always (it's OK, I'm a very well versed cook, and enjoy everything about that). I sourdough my own bread and portion to two slices a day max. I do a lot of soups and salads (that's new).
And I have a keto week, once a month. That starts with 3-4 days of basically water fast, where I am allowed a cup of soup after sunset, but that's all. Also no smoking or coffee these three days. I do a lot of stretching, but little exercise at that time. It helps to have something to do when a craving comes, so I just go stretch or do hot-cold-mild shower, Wim Hoff style.
You feel amazing at the end of day two. Just gotta hold out.
And it continues to the rest of that week where I eat in a window between 14:00 and 17:00, limiting carbs to 20g, protein to 180g and having lots of fat with it. I try to have my protein first, as well, so that the two meals are a salad with olive oil dressing and three eggs in butter for the other one, or whatever.
That's where I do exercise. Short, violent bursts, short rests, stretches. Feels great, helps with the keto, and redistributes body mass towards eh, fighter-style body, I'd say?
The windowing of eating stays, but the amount restrictions go for the remaining three weeks.
Before I added that keto week it was a struggle, as you describe. But now it is not. There might be many reasons for that, but maybe you should try something similar and find out how it maps onto yourself.
Cheers.
Kinda similar to your situation.
I have to prep my own meals, always (it's OK, I'm a very well versed cook, and enjoy everything about that). I sourdough my own bread and portion to two slices a day max. I do a lot of soups and salads (that's new).
And I have a keto week, once a month. That starts with 3-4 days of basically water fast, where I am allowed a cup of soup after sunset, but that's all. Also no smoking or coffee these three days. I do a lot of stretching, but little exercise at that time. It helps to have something to do when a craving comes, so I just go stretch or do hot-cold-mild shower, Wim Hoff style.
You feel amazing at the end of day two. Just gotta hold out.
And it continues to the rest of that week where I eat in a window between 14:00 and 17:00, limiting carbs to 20g, protein to 180g and having lots of fat with it. I try to have my protein first, as well, so that the two meals are a salad with olive oil dressing and three eggs in butter for the other one, or whatever.
That's where I do exercise. Short, violent bursts, short rests, stretches. Feels great, helps with the keto, and redistributes body mass towards eh, fighter-style body, I'd say?
The windowing of eating stays, but the amount restrictions go for the remaining three weeks.
Before I added that keto week it was a struggle, as you describe. But now it is not. There might be many reasons for that, but maybe you should try something similar and find out how it maps onto yourself.
Cheers.
That's the missing link, unfortunately -- I'm allergic to keto staples such as avocado, coconut, fish, egg (yolks only, whites are fine).
I have so very few foods left that I really just have to eat what I can. And more are dropping all the time.
That said I'll try and adapt your suggestions onto my life as best I can. Thanks.
I have so very few foods left that I really just have to eat what I can. And more are dropping all the time.
That said I'll try and adapt your suggestions onto my life as best I can. Thanks.
The worst thing I ever did was start eating breakfast. Turns out I was doing IF for over 20 years, because only after I started eating (even a healthy) breakfast did I start to gain weight.
Yeah, they never should have started the "breakfast is the most important meal" when there was no evidence to back this up.
For me also breakfast doesn't come natural to me, unless my kids bake croissants in the morning ;).
For me also breakfast doesn't come natural to me, unless my kids bake croissants in the morning ;).
I think this starts in childhood. My daughter always wakes up starving, so she usually eats a big bowl of porridge. I think we all do this, and out of habit continue this into adulthood.
When I was a kid, I never ate breakfast. It was too much on my stomach. I only started with it when I was around 10 or 11.
This study seems a little weird (crap) in that they started with a hardcore twice a week fast for a month then dialed it back to once a week. Unless I missed it, I don't see an explanation of why this approach was taken in the paper.
Given the subjects were high cholesterol and/or diabetic, it makes me think their life styles sucked already. I couldn't imagine living like then suddenly being told to stop eating for entire days. I would not be shocked if people didn't really adhere to the guidelines. It seems a food diary was the only thing keeping them "honest". Also a staggering 40% of all participants refused to answer how much alcohol they consumed on average.
If you are going crazy with food or lack of exercise for 6 out of 7 days, I don't think taking a break for one day a week is going to make much of a difference.
Given the subjects were high cholesterol and/or diabetic, it makes me think their life styles sucked already. I couldn't imagine living like then suddenly being told to stop eating for entire days. I would not be shocked if people didn't really adhere to the guidelines. It seems a food diary was the only thing keeping them "honest". Also a staggering 40% of all participants refused to answer how much alcohol they consumed on average.
If you are going crazy with food or lack of exercise for 6 out of 7 days, I don't think taking a break for one day a week is going to make much of a difference.
I accidentally started IF after being annoyed at my lack of mental alertness after lunch and breakfast.
I found that one coffee for breakfast, lots of water/herbal tea throughout the day, and then eating a huge dinner and whatever I want between 5-9 works for me. It seems I can consume over 2k calories in those 4 hours.
I found that one coffee for breakfast, lots of water/herbal tea throughout the day, and then eating a huge dinner and whatever I want between 5-9 works for me. It seems I can consume over 2k calories in those 4 hours.
It's very important to know when you're heading for bed, if that's the case. My own time window is 2-5, but I turn in at 9.
IF is great. IF + low(ish) carb is even better. IF + low(ish) carb + eating calorie amounts matching your healthy weight is amazing.
There is more than one way to lose weight just like there is for gaining weight. Minimize as many of the offending behaviors as possible. Consistency is key. Don't pick something you cannot consistently repeat unless that limited time run is all you're after.
Of the different IF schedules people pick -OMAD, 20:4, 16:8, 5:2, etc-, start with anything that you can do initially without getting frustrated and giving up. You will be able to increase the fasting window over time. It just really works.
Don't get discouraged by words from people that tried and failed (or gave up too quickly), or not even tried but talk out of prejudice. Listen to the encouragement from so many that successfully do it.
Best of luck!!
There is more than one way to lose weight just like there is for gaining weight. Minimize as many of the offending behaviors as possible. Consistency is key. Don't pick something you cannot consistently repeat unless that limited time run is all you're after.
Of the different IF schedules people pick -OMAD, 20:4, 16:8, 5:2, etc-, start with anything that you can do initially without getting frustrated and giving up. You will be able to increase the fasting window over time. It just really works.
Don't get discouraged by words from people that tried and failed (or gave up too quickly), or not even tried but talk out of prejudice. Listen to the encouragement from so many that successfully do it.
Best of luck!!
If you want to have an "anti-inflammatory" response, then try to maximize your fiber intake from a wide variety of plants.
This will increase the quality of your microbiome -- which in turn, will produce substances that are anti-inflammatory.
This will increase the quality of your microbiome -- which in turn, will produce substances that are anti-inflammatory.
Jumping in to share my anti-inflammatory story.
I used to have a limp for the first 2-3 hours of the day due to very early onset arthritis at 30 in my ankle. Around 38 I discovered that minimizing by nightshade intake nearly "cured" me of the problem.
What a huge change in quality of life.
I still eat some potato, tomato, and eggplant - but I never make or order nightshades on purpose.
I used to have a limp for the first 2-3 hours of the day due to very early onset arthritis at 30 in my ankle. Around 38 I discovered that minimizing by nightshade intake nearly "cured" me of the problem.
What a huge change in quality of life.
I still eat some potato, tomato, and eggplant - but I never make or order nightshades on purpose.
"All disease begins in the gut" -- Hippocrates
It seems we just keep discovering more effects of the microbiome on health. I heard about this anti-inflammation effect just yesterday. I think it was explained as gram negative bacteria overgrowth in the gut (due to a bad bacterial balance). Those bacteria have a hard 'shell' that triggers a potent immune response (with inflammation) when present in the blood stream, which they enter from the small intestine.
So I think your advice to maximize fiber intake is sound. This feeds gut bacteria (unlike most other food which is broken down before reaching the small intestine). Another intervention would be fermented foods.
It seems we just keep discovering more effects of the microbiome on health. I heard about this anti-inflammation effect just yesterday. I think it was explained as gram negative bacteria overgrowth in the gut (due to a bad bacterial balance). Those bacteria have a hard 'shell' that triggers a potent immune response (with inflammation) when present in the blood stream, which they enter from the small intestine.
So I think your advice to maximize fiber intake is sound. This feeds gut bacteria (unlike most other food which is broken down before reaching the small intestine). Another intervention would be fermented foods.
Colitis - I haven't read the article but will soon. But here is a data point for anyone with Colitis, if it helps.
I started IF in July as a means to lose a bit of lockdown weight.
No breakfast, no lunch, only a substantial dinner. 4-5 Drinks taken throughout the day. No real restriction. Lots of walking to keep busy.
I've noticed a significant improvement in management of Colitis. No flares. Enabling me to get back to normal life without worrying about the condition throughout the day. Just (sorry TMI), emptying bowels first thing in the morning (2-3) times. Then don't have to worry all day.
Considering colitis is a primarily inflammatory response (I believe), then this article rings true. YMMV
Once I reach target weight, not sure what I'll do. Maybe just add some more protein or good fats to evening meal. It's been too helpful to give up the routine.
I started IF in July as a means to lose a bit of lockdown weight.
No breakfast, no lunch, only a substantial dinner. 4-5 Drinks taken throughout the day. No real restriction. Lots of walking to keep busy.
I've noticed a significant improvement in management of Colitis. No flares. Enabling me to get back to normal life without worrying about the condition throughout the day. Just (sorry TMI), emptying bowels first thing in the morning (2-3) times. Then don't have to worry all day.
Considering colitis is a primarily inflammatory response (I believe), then this article rings true. YMMV
Once I reach target weight, not sure what I'll do. Maybe just add some more protein or good fats to evening meal. It's been too helpful to give up the routine.
The study seems to say the opposite of the title.
A marker for inflammation (hsCRP) increased. Weight and waist circumference decreased. Risk of diabetes (HOMA-IR) decreased. Risk of cardiovascular issues (MSS) decreased.
Nothing extraordinary, I think the caloric deficit reduced the weight and weight loss brought down risk of diabetes and cardiovascular issues.
I don't think it says much about IF.
A marker for inflammation (hsCRP) increased. Weight and waist circumference decreased. Risk of diabetes (HOMA-IR) decreased. Risk of cardiovascular issues (MSS) decreased.
Nothing extraordinary, I think the caloric deficit reduced the weight and weight loss brought down risk of diabetes and cardiovascular issues.
I don't think it says much about IF.
Thanks
What does your diet look like otherwise?
I have Crohn's, and mostly manage it through diet, and am always curious what other people are doing for their IBD.
I have Crohn's, and mostly manage it through diet, and am always curious what other people are doing for their IBD.
Non restrictive. I definitely enjoy all manner of food, sometimes even fast food. Though I'm 95% vegetarian and very occasionaly eat fish, which I love. Have to admit, I'm quite carb-dominant at the moment, potato, bread, pasta, but I do consciously try to balance that stuff out.
Sadly and strangely, any time I've made a concerted effort to really eat a model, healthy diet, I react badly after a few weeks.
So, as with everything, I guess, all things in moderation has generally been the key for me lately. Along with IF.
How about yourself? I'm similarly curious.
Sadly and strangely, any time I've made a concerted effort to really eat a model, healthy diet, I react badly after a few weeks.
So, as with everything, I guess, all things in moderation has generally been the key for me lately. Along with IF.
How about yourself? I'm similarly curious.
It seemed to have helped my epilepsy. It’s mentioned in the bible as a treatment for the disease, and diet based treatments are experiencing a resurgence in use. Keto is sometimes prescribed in kids with difficult cases, and low GI (the south beach diet) is similarly being prescribed to adults since keto is too difficult for most. I haven’t heard of IF being prescribed but my doctor said it may be effective when I brought it up.
I did low carb/cal AM (1 egg) and didn’t eat til 3 PM. I did this most days of the week. There are other confounding variables so don’t take it as medical advice, since the diet can also exacerbate seizures.
I did low carb/cal AM (1 egg) and didn’t eat til 3 PM. I did this most days of the week. There are other confounding variables so don’t take it as medical advice, since the diet can also exacerbate seizures.
Could you give that Bible reference please, thanks.
Mark 9:14-29, depending on the translation. The translation of biblical fasting is suspected to be one meal a day type thing, like Ramadan.
More about the history of fasting and epilepsy here (which also cites the Bible verse, god forbid):
https://www.medlink.com/articles/ketogenic-diet-in-the-treat...
Of course I’m being downvoted because I mentioned a religious text. It’s in other secular ancient texts as well. My point was more about how fasting and the ketogenic diet has been recognized as a treatment for mental diseases for a long time. As it relates to the title, a lot of them are suspected to have roots in inflammation and metabolism.
More about the history of fasting and epilepsy here (which also cites the Bible verse, god forbid):
https://www.medlink.com/articles/ketogenic-diet-in-the-treat...
Of course I’m being downvoted because I mentioned a religious text. It’s in other secular ancient texts as well. My point was more about how fasting and the ketogenic diet has been recognized as a treatment for mental diseases for a long time. As it relates to the title, a lot of them are suspected to have roots in inflammation and metabolism.
FWIW, I just saw the downvote and I totally did not understand why you were downvoted. You're just spot on w/ keto and epilepsy and I nowadays find religious fasting quite interesting. In fact I find religion more and more fascinating the older I get. Not in the sense of actually believing in a super human creator being but in the wisdom distilled into these texts.
Unfortunately I don't remember the name but very recently I heard a (Christian in this case) scholar on the radio talk about the bible and religion in general that really resonated. He wasn't reading the bible and other ancient texts quite literally like so many of us do. He saw them as regular people describing the world they saw and distilling the wisdom they gained and wanted to preserve in the pictures of their time. His interpretations just made sense to me and I says that as a totally non-religious person. And that's because they weren't dogmatic and "religious" or prescriptive, like so many a preacher is the Sunday before an election, telling everyone who to vote for.
As mentioned before (both here in another comment and other posts on HN), I find the population control aspect of religion very fascinating. In the currently active world religions this will probably not be seen kindly and more like heresy. But just the fact that many of the major religions will see each other that way too is fascinating. Or even slight variations of the same major religion for that matter. Usually it's much easier to talk to people about this for long lost/dead religions and it's fascinating how they see those aspects in those religions, but not their own.
Unfortunately I don't remember the name but very recently I heard a (Christian in this case) scholar on the radio talk about the bible and religion in general that really resonated. He wasn't reading the bible and other ancient texts quite literally like so many of us do. He saw them as regular people describing the world they saw and distilling the wisdom they gained and wanted to preserve in the pictures of their time. His interpretations just made sense to me and I says that as a totally non-religious person. And that's because they weren't dogmatic and "religious" or prescriptive, like so many a preacher is the Sunday before an election, telling everyone who to vote for.
As mentioned before (both here in another comment and other posts on HN), I find the population control aspect of religion very fascinating. In the currently active world religions this will probably not be seen kindly and more like heresy. But just the fact that many of the major religions will see each other that way too is fascinating. Or even slight variations of the same major religion for that matter. Usually it's much easier to talk to people about this for long lost/dead religions and it's fascinating how they see those aspects in those religions, but not their own.
There is certainly wisdom distilled into the texts, they've made it this far. I found the bit about fasting particularly interesting, because its now being studied and proven to be therapeutic, and is mentioned and practiced often in both western and eastern religions.
Funny that you mentioned population control, one could consider science a popular religion of today ;) As you said, not all religions get along.
That, and marvel is the new greek mythology, they'll unfortunately be watching those movies a thousand years from now in history class and thinking we were idiots.
Funny that you mentioned population control, one could consider science a popular religion of today ;) As you said, not all religions get along.
That, and marvel is the new greek mythology, they'll unfortunately be watching those movies a thousand years from now in history class and thinking we were idiots.
[deleted]
Ferritin is a marker of inflammation of the liver and anecdotally it rises when fasting.
The cult of IF among tech nerds is one of those bizarre subcultures I'll never get used to. Here we are, modern human beings who live twice as long as their forebears, and yet a small fraction of them feel they need to regularly and intentionally starve themselves in order to be healthy. Humans are goddamn weird.
I don't know if it's limited to tech nerds, though, I find that pretty much everyone loves to give diet advice complete with mounds of anecdotes about how it improved their life in immeasurable ways, and IF is popular with them too. Hell, my 80 year old mother lectures me occasionally on how much skipping breakfast has improved her life.
I do find it interesting that a group of people I would otherwise suspect of being more pro-science would be so enthusiastic about bro-science.
I do find it interesting that a group of people I would otherwise suspect of being more pro-science would be so enthusiastic about bro-science.
The real pro-tip here is that basically everything you read on HN for which you are not an expert has the appearance of expertise and authenticity. Once you see those same people speaking on a subject which you know a lot about, you realise that HN is only actually high-expertise on tech and entrepreneurship. The users here (myself included!) are probably quite good at programming, business, and maybe project management, which gives us false confidence in our abilities in every other field that exists.
You could phrase most healthy behaviors as bizarre in todays world tbf.
Look at these idiots spending an hour preparing green leaves and lean cuts of chicken when I, a intellectual just buy a box of Twinkies and get my calories in a fraction of the time and effort. I am obviously the superior Hunter gatherer
Look at these idiots spending an hour preparing green leaves and lean cuts of chicken when I, a intellectual just buy a box of Twinkies and get my calories in a fraction of the time and effort. I am obviously the superior Hunter gatherer
Many of us are insecure from being bullied as kids and being in a profession where we are often surrounded by people who are smarter than us. Also the extremely high pay creates an imposter syndrome, where we feel like society has "selected" us to be the most intelligent and we can only live up to that standard by having contrarian views on a wide range of topics.
The sad thing is most of us would be better off lifting weights or making money or going to social events than developing eating disorders.
The sad thing is most of us would be better off lifting weights or making money or going to social events than developing eating disorders.
> a small fraction of them
Fasting isn't really that weird at all, people have been doing it for literally thousands of years. Christians do it, Muslims do it, Jews do it, Buddhists do it, and so on. A small fraction?
I do IF just because it makes me feel better and more healthy, but sometimes I fast for religious reasons.
Fasting isn't really that weird at all, people have been doing it for literally thousands of years. Christians do it, Muslims do it, Jews do it, Buddhists do it, and so on. A small fraction?
I do IF just because it makes me feel better and more healthy, but sometimes I fast for religious reasons.
They're pretty different things. Isn't the whole point of religious fasting that it is a different regime, and that the hunger felt is used as a reminder to focus the mind/spirit on higher things than bodily needs. Religious fasts are purposeful privations.
Whilst with IF it's about adopting a habit that stays constant and that negates the potential feelings of hunger by teaching your body that there's no point in complaining food comes in this time-period no matter how hungry it pretends to be. IF is about creating a norm that is no longer experienced as a privation.
Whilst with IF it's about adopting a habit that stays constant and that negates the potential feelings of hunger by teaching your body that there's no point in complaining food comes in this time-period no matter how hungry it pretends to be. IF is about creating a norm that is no longer experienced as a privation.
If you think about it with a non-religious mind, just abstractly and without prejudice, religions are really good for controlling large populations of people of varied backgrounds and intellect.
How do you get a large populace to eat healthily?
You can either try to convince them with sound arguments and scientific studies. Or you get them to believe in your religion and tell them whatever they need to hear to get them to do it as a side effect. I'm pretty convinced that there's some other motives behind fasting in religions than healthy eating, such as natural scarcity of food during certain times etc. but if you wanted to get them to do it, this would be a great way to do it. And I don't think anyone can deny the potential health benefits of it. After all, what is Ramadan if not IF?
How do you get a large populace to eat healthily?
You can either try to convince them with sound arguments and scientific studies. Or you get them to believe in your religion and tell them whatever they need to hear to get them to do it as a side effect. I'm pretty convinced that there's some other motives behind fasting in religions than healthy eating, such as natural scarcity of food during certain times etc. but if you wanted to get them to do it, this would be a great way to do it. And I don't think anyone can deny the potential health benefits of it. After all, what is Ramadan if not IF?
So let me get this straight...
I and at least one other friend (coincidentally who is a hardcore athlete and in accounting not tech) both noticed it really is the food that clouds our minds and makes us unproductive at work and fall asleep in meetings. And the improvement onLy got better going from low carb to IF eating daily or per 48hrs, so we are weird for having common sense? Or basic logic skills? If brains only work correctly when in "starvation" perhaps it is you who needs to work on rewriting some definitions of words. !!! Astounded.
I and at least one other friend (coincidentally who is a hardcore athlete and in accounting not tech) both noticed it really is the food that clouds our minds and makes us unproductive at work and fall asleep in meetings. And the improvement onLy got better going from low carb to IF eating daily or per 48hrs, so we are weird for having common sense? Or basic logic skills? If brains only work correctly when in "starvation" perhaps it is you who needs to work on rewriting some definitions of words. !!! Astounded.
I'm sure it's different for everyone.
I never experienced a "food coma".
If I'm starving I can't think straight.
I never experienced a "food coma".
If I'm starving I can't think straight.
For a personal anecdote, IF was the most impactful change I did nutrition wise, and I am currently midway testing diets from carnivore to vegan.
How long have you been on an IF style diet? I "ran" it for about 3 and a half years before moving on.
I'm curious to know what long term success looks like for people on an IF diet. I did get my weight under control on IF but when it came time to bulk or cut, in accordance with my strength and conditioning training, it simply wasn't working.
I'm curious to know what long term success looks like for people on an IF diet. I did get my weight under control on IF but when it came time to bulk or cut, in accordance with my strength and conditioning training, it simply wasn't working.
Since mid-2017. I agree it is not enough to gain muscle, but it also doesn't seem to hinder that for me.
Could you say more about your IF regimen? And what sort of impacts did you notice?
I have done IF for almost 2 years now. Some personal experiences from my blog if interested: https://link.medium.com/ju1cOdlG9kb
Improved skin, clearer mind, less fatigue. I was doing 14:10 after years of irregular eating, then settled on 16:8 which also improved the above.
I tried 23:1 for a week but I could not eat enough in that one hour.
I tried 23:1 for a week but I could not eat enough in that one hour.
Thanks.
One of the surprising experiments for me with IF is that hunger changes for me. After I'm used to it, I rarely experience hunger outside the eating hours even when I'm losing weight.
When you did your 23:1, what was hunger like for you?
One of the surprising experiments for me with IF is that hunger changes for me. After I'm used to it, I rarely experience hunger outside the eating hours even when I'm losing weight.
When you did your 23:1, what was hunger like for you?
I experienced the same when starting IF. With 23:1 I did get hungry a few hours after the meal, but the main issue wasn't that, it was not getting enough nutrients in that single meal.
I suspect that if I combine 23:1 with carnivore it'll be much easier to do.
I suspect that if I combine 23:1 with carnivore it'll be much easier to do.
Yeah, in my case I'm thinking of it for weight loss, so that could be a positive. Controlling eating hours for me is much easier than other things I've tried. I'll have to try 23:1 and see how it goes.
Thanks for the details!
Thanks for the details!
> I tried 23:1 for a week but I could not eat enough in that one hour.
That gives me a stomach ache just thinking about it. 2000C in a sitting is a lot, even with relatively high calorie food choices.
That gives me a stomach ache just thinking about it. 2000C in a sitting is a lot, even with relatively high calorie food choices.
Ooh, interesting. This particular study is with full-day fasts 1-2 times per week. I see that insulin resistance improvement was also seen with eTRF (early time-restricted feeding, where one doesn't eat after, say, 2 pm). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6627766/
It was a very weird transition, as a well-off American, from going to never, ever actually feeling _real hunger_ at any point in any of my normal days (our workplaces, transit hubs, homes, lifestyles, and app landscape are all designed to deliver/provide high caloric density food, in extreme abundance, at all times and places, from snacks to full meals), to regularly/often being actually hungry for some/all of most days.
It's done wonders for my well-being - anecdotally, of course.
It turns out we don't actually need to never be hungry; our society just pushes us to assume that even the tiniest pang of hunger is a negative health issue that is to be instantly eradicated. It's actually fine as long as you're not skinny or otherwise malnourished.
It's ok to fast, and to hear your body demanding sustenance and just say "no, maybe tomorrow" - doubly so if you're 10kg+ overweight like I have been (in my case, 20-40kg) my entire adult life.
It's done wonders for my well-being - anecdotally, of course.
It turns out we don't actually need to never be hungry; our society just pushes us to assume that even the tiniest pang of hunger is a negative health issue that is to be instantly eradicated. It's actually fine as long as you're not skinny or otherwise malnourished.
It's ok to fast, and to hear your body demanding sustenance and just say "no, maybe tomorrow" - doubly so if you're 10kg+ overweight like I have been (in my case, 20-40kg) my entire adult life.
> society just pushes us to assume that even the tiniest pang of hunger is a negative health issue
This is the mistake. In fact, the hunger pangs and light headedness, nausea, etc. are the result of low blood sugar. This can be a dangerous condition, but our body is equipped to deal with that situation - it can create sufficient energy from stored energy (fat and glycogen) - and will do so if we let it. But most people have conditioned their bodies for a steady supply of easy energy, and this makes the body increasingly less willing to go to the stores for energy (we are at a hormonal imbalance with excessive insulin prevalence which works to lock up fat stores and crave quick increases in blood sugar).
This condition can be gradually fixed with intermittent fasting, which gives the body time to burn off the blood sugar spike, and concomitant insulin, and allow the process of fat burning to pick up, before you start feeding again.
The effect of the fasting can be enhanced by eating fewer carbohydrates (which are the main trigger for blood sugar and insulin), which is the principle behind the keto diet.
This is the mistake. In fact, the hunger pangs and light headedness, nausea, etc. are the result of low blood sugar. This can be a dangerous condition, but our body is equipped to deal with that situation - it can create sufficient energy from stored energy (fat and glycogen) - and will do so if we let it. But most people have conditioned their bodies for a steady supply of easy energy, and this makes the body increasingly less willing to go to the stores for energy (we are at a hormonal imbalance with excessive insulin prevalence which works to lock up fat stores and crave quick increases in blood sugar).
This condition can be gradually fixed with intermittent fasting, which gives the body time to burn off the blood sugar spike, and concomitant insulin, and allow the process of fat burning to pick up, before you start feeding again.
The effect of the fasting can be enhanced by eating fewer carbohydrates (which are the main trigger for blood sugar and insulin), which is the principle behind the keto diet.
> It turns out we don't actually need to never be hungry; our society just pushes us to assume that even the tiniest pang of hunger is a negative health issue that is to be instantly eradicated.
Huh, is that really something you feel like your society teaches you? In my upbringing (UK), snacking was very much discouraged (you won't eat your dinner) and although eating meals was encouraged, going without one was never seen as a health issue and would be seen as preferable to giving me other food if I didn't like what had been cooked for me.
Huh, is that really something you feel like your society teaches you? In my upbringing (UK), snacking was very much discouraged (you won't eat your dinner) and although eating meals was encouraged, going without one was never seen as a health issue and would be seen as preferable to giving me other food if I didn't like what had been cooked for me.
Yes, that's what I got. Fast food everywhere, snacks constantly available, cookies and cakes in break rooms, vending machines, junk food, snack bars in offices, coffee milkshakes, kiosks in airports... everywhere you look in the USA there are people trying to sell you stuff to spike your blood sugar between meals. As opposed to Europe, there are entire aisles in the grocery stores here that are stocked solely with non-meal foods. This extends even to drugstores! CVS and Walgreens have a seasonal candy aisle!
I eat very low carb (I target <10g per day, with 20-30g as a hard limit) and it's sort of freaky how prevalent it is, because despite a million food options in some circumstances, precisely 0 of them are without carbs. I've been in airports when I haven't eaten for 18-24h with multiple places vending food and there has been approximately nothing available that would fit my diet.
I eat very low carb (I target <10g per day, with 20-30g as a hard limit) and it's sort of freaky how prevalent it is, because despite a million food options in some circumstances, precisely 0 of them are without carbs. I've been in airports when I haven't eaten for 18-24h with multiple places vending food and there has been approximately nothing available that would fit my diet.
I notice this difference with my US friends. They do seem to think hunger is a genuine problem that must be resolved immediately. A sort of health risk. I've occasionally tried to press in on what the unspecified danger is meant to be but it's hard to do so without being obnoxious.
Obviously hunger where there is food insecurity is terrible. But the first pangs of hunger in an otherwise well fed and, in my case, well padded person? It doesn't seem like it's a big deal to me.
Snacking does seem to have become established in the UK now though for children at least. (I also remember being told not to spoil my appetite as a child.) The children I know now often have some kind of tiny packet of something on the go in between meals.
Obviously hunger where there is food insecurity is terrible. But the first pangs of hunger in an otherwise well fed and, in my case, well padded person? It doesn't seem like it's a big deal to me.
Snacking does seem to have become established in the UK now though for children at least. (I also remember being told not to spoil my appetite as a child.) The children I know now often have some kind of tiny packet of something on the go in between meals.
[deleted]
Definitely. Just go look for the official line on how to eat for losing weight. They actually recommend lots of small meals as often as possible. It's ridiculuous.
You may be onto something here. I never thought about this effect of IF. The self-control aspect of overcoming hunger, or not just eating when you needn't to.
This self-control aspect also works in other diets, too, of course. It's why I prefer cheat days over cheat meals in my diet. I've found that keeping myself consistent with my eating, and make deliberate decisions, for 6 days straight leads to much better results than letting my diet slip occasionally through out the week and excusing it by convincing myself it's a "cheat meal."
How do you deal with distracting hunger? I try ignoring it and then find myself subconciously going to the fridge every 10 minutes. And I'm not doing somewhat abnormal things like not eating for 20+ hours.
I eat when the hunger is so distracting I can't not.
Consuming 3-5g of salt in 1L of water makes the distraction less sometimes, I find. Also, coffee helps, as does the keto diet.
Consuming 3-5g of salt in 1L of water makes the distraction less sometimes, I find. Also, coffee helps, as does the keto diet.
I keep a glass of water on my desk and keep slowly sipping it, and refill when it runs out. It’s helped me significantly to reduce cravings.
There’s also a 500% spike in HGH after 48h according to Dr Ekberg
Could you provide a source? I tried googling it but I'm getting a lot of obviously click bait and misleading articles/videos.
It is well established that fasting increases the level of growth hormone, quite significantly too. It's the leptin trigger. Just google effect of fasting on growth hormone.
I think the OP is talking about Steen Ekberg the keto youtuber. His stuff is legit and well sourced, but unfortunately marketed to look like facebook meme videos.
I think the OP is talking about Steen Ekberg the keto youtuber. His stuff is legit and well sourced, but unfortunately marketed to look like facebook meme videos.
That...isn't what the study says, I think. In fact, it says that the level of hsCRP--a marker of inflammation--actually increased in the subjects who undertook intermittent fasting, though the difference from the control group (1.02 ± 2.73 vs. −0.25 ± 5.66) was far from statistically significant (p = 0.23, see Table 3). That's the only part of the study that even mentions inflammation.
Can somebody comment the effects size of improvements
HOMA-IR (−0.75 ± 0.79 vs. −0.10 ± 1.06; P = 0.004) and
MSS (−0.34 ± 4.72 vs. 0.31 ± 1.98, P = 0.006).
Without knowing the normal range it's impossible to say how big change 0.75 (HOMA-IR) or -0.34 (MSS) are. The article says significant, but how much that is.
HOMA-IR (−0.75 ± 0.79 vs. −0.10 ± 1.06; P = 0.004) and
MSS (−0.34 ± 4.72 vs. 0.31 ± 1.98, P = 0.006).
Without knowing the normal range it's impossible to say how big change 0.75 (HOMA-IR) or -0.34 (MSS) are. The article says significant, but how much that is.
Also worth noting that the sample (as a whole) was 96% white, 91% non-Hispanic, and 33% male.
Granted, the study was performed in SLC, but these numbers suggest that this is not even a particularly representative sample of SLC, much less of the nation as a whole.
Granted, the study was performed in SLC, but these numbers suggest that this is not even a particularly representative sample of SLC, much less of the nation as a whole.
Also, this isn't IF as popularly understood. IF usually means uninterrupted water-only fast for a certain part of the day, e.g. 18:00-10:00.
The paper is about "low frequency" IF, which in this case means a 24h water only fast, twice a week for a full month, then only once a week for the rest of the trial.
The paper is about "low frequency" IF, which in this case means a 24h water only fast, twice a week for a full month, then only once a week for the rest of the trial.
5 days of normal eating, 2 fasting, every 7 days. That is the definition of IF in all places I have seen it mentioned. Skipping a meal now and again isn't really fasting at all.
FWIW, this isn't atypical. IF in a scientific study pretty much always means some form of 24h+ fast. The more common practice of eating in a time window is usually "time-restricted eating/feeding."
Does that mean a 24h fast but frequent is enough to trigger DNA repair mechanism? My understanding so far was you needed at least a 72h fast.
I haven't read enough on the subject, but Peter Attia has discussed this on a few podcasts. His general view is that no one knows; we simply don't have the biomarkers or lab tests to even run good experiments yet.
> needed at least a 72h fast
I think you're thinking of ketosis, which is ~72hrs. You can also verify entering ketosis by the smell & color of your urine. We're not 100% sure how ketosis relates to cellular autophagy.
I think you're thinking of ketosis, which is ~72hrs. You can also verify entering ketosis by the smell & color of your urine. We're not 100% sure how ketosis relates to cellular autophagy.
Autophagy? It's still unknown but many believe that happens around 48 - 72 hour mark.
Odd title. Study doesn't mention any anti-inflammatory response. The change in hsCRP in Table 3 actually seems to show a (non-significant) pro-inflammatory measure.
I came here to say the same thing. The improvements are to insulin resistance and metabolism. Are those factors well-known to be related to inflammation?
I’ve long considered my Sunday runs (26km usually) as a form of sped up intermittent fasting. There’s something fascinating about burning a day’s worth of calories in 2 hours.
Took a few years of practice to get my metabolism to the point where it can burn ~2000 calories in 2 hours and munge through enough food to feel fully operational the same day. I wonder if the overall effects are similar to intermittent fasting.
Anecdotally I’ve noticed that training for long distance running has made me a lot less sensitive to energy-from-food fluctuations. If you can run for 2+ hours while eating 100cal of running gels, what’s a little missed lunch while sitting at a desk?
Took a few years of practice to get my metabolism to the point where it can burn ~2000 calories in 2 hours and munge through enough food to feel fully operational the same day. I wonder if the overall effects are similar to intermittent fasting.
Anecdotally I’ve noticed that training for long distance running has made me a lot less sensitive to energy-from-food fluctuations. If you can run for 2+ hours while eating 100cal of running gels, what’s a little missed lunch while sitting at a desk?
I'm a big fan of Intermittent Feasting.
Joking aside, I've tried intermittent fasting and had more balance / homeostasis as a result. They say `the first element of discipline starts with your diet`. Control diet, and you control many other things.
Joking aside, I've tried intermittent fasting and had more balance / homeostasis as a result. They say `the first element of discipline starts with your diet`. Control diet, and you control many other things.
So does nutritional ketosis... which is probably why this result was found... because when you fast, you go into slight keto
if you don't like CR or fasting (or being hungry), consider keto as an alternative, just realize that you'll have to do your homework
I've definitely seen the same anti-inflammatory results that this has.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IEuhp8RFMU
if you don't like CR or fasting (or being hungry), consider keto as an alternative, just realize that you'll have to do your homework
I've definitely seen the same anti-inflammatory results that this has.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IEuhp8RFMU
I accidentally did intermittent fasting as a teenager for years. I just didn't have breakfast, had lunch and dinner and oddly enough it matched the requirements to be considered IF.
One day I got interested in IF, looked up the rules and found out I was already on it.
I can't say whether it did anything but it definitely made it hard to consume enough calories, so despite training a lot and despite eating a lot at lunch and dinner, I've always been skinny.
I assume IF could be a good choice for someone who's overweight and barely training or not training at all.
I was training bodyweight and gymnastic at the time, making significant progress in terms of strength - despite that, I saw very little muscle building. I suppose being that lean lowered my testosterone production resulting in little gains.
I had the brilliant idea of even trying going vegetarian, vegan for a while, shifting to a source of proteins which is not as complete and not as well absorbed as proteins coming from animal sources.
After 20 years of reading on the subject and looking at what studies are saying nowadays, if I could go back through my teenage years I would eat close to paleo, 6 times per day and lift weights.
One day I got interested in IF, looked up the rules and found out I was already on it.
I can't say whether it did anything but it definitely made it hard to consume enough calories, so despite training a lot and despite eating a lot at lunch and dinner, I've always been skinny.
I assume IF could be a good choice for someone who's overweight and barely training or not training at all.
I was training bodyweight and gymnastic at the time, making significant progress in terms of strength - despite that, I saw very little muscle building. I suppose being that lean lowered my testosterone production resulting in little gains.
I had the brilliant idea of even trying going vegetarian, vegan for a while, shifting to a source of proteins which is not as complete and not as well absorbed as proteins coming from animal sources.
After 20 years of reading on the subject and looking at what studies are saying nowadays, if I could go back through my teenage years I would eat close to paleo, 6 times per day and lift weights.
So I’m invested in this technique, but I really believe the primary and possibly exclusive benefit is simply calorie restriction.
In a typical “diet” you attempt to restrict calories by remove foods from your diet. The problem is, cravings are real, abstinence doesn’t work, and there are always new foods and new temptations.
On an IF regimen, you restrict calories by removing eating hours from your day. You don’t have to abstain from anything. Temptation is managed by just having a little patience until your next meal.
Possibly there is a deeper truth to why this lifestyle works but I personally like the simplicity of it.
It’s like a rate limiter, for daily food intake.