It's an unusual body/brain hack...he seems to have done it methodically and observed the outcome...it worked for him and he wrote up something detailed...that's the spirit of hacking!
I don't think it's flagworthy but if it lacks quality vote accordingly!
No, its not...intermittent fasting has been a fad in the last few years. There's nothing unusual about it.
> he seems to have done it methodically and observed the outcome...
I'm having trouble crediting something as a methodical study of a diet pattern change that doesn't have any indication of tracking the specific patterns of what is being eaten (or even quantification of total calories) before and after.
Weight loss is a market in need of disruption. 70% of American adults are overweight, and the solutions espoused by the establishment (eat less and exercise more) are technically correct but practically ineffective. Disrupting weight loss is potentially a hundred billion dollar industry, considering the huge medical expenditures and lost productivity that accrues from people being overweight.
Is there something wrong with making money? If we always settled for "good enough" we wouldn't have half of the nice things we have today, and the potential to make lots of money is a great way of motivating people to push beyond "good enough".
You seem to equate disruption with for-profit. One does not necessitate the other. However, a proper disruption would be really good for saving people money as the current market is ripe with crazy fees and no progress.
It is, though pointing out that obesity is a high cost problem hardly suggests that it is we on Hacker News that need to make that money.
If we help people lose weight in any way, we're going to save the country a lot of money in healthcare costs that could be spent elsewhere. Put another way, if the US finds a way to lose weight effectively, the results will have a strong positive impact on a variety of other services that the government provides that will be able to help more people with more available funding.
There is some evidence that intermittent fasting can help you lose weight and improve your health. In fact, there have been a plethora of books on the subject. In the UK, this type of fasting diet became very popular after the BBC broadcast a (not very good) documentary about it in 2012. The presenter of the programme (Michael Mosley) then went on to write a best-selling book on the subject.
If you're in the UK, you can still watch the programme on iPlayer
As much as I hate saying this, most diets are pretty much identical. I don't see many diet suggestions from big orgs relying on massive multi-variable studies proving that their diet actually works vs anecdotes based on "well the numbers look right so it should work".
The article's title is "Why I don't eat on Mondays" not "Why you shouldn't eat on Mondays". Also, intermittent fasting I fairly well researched and known for its benefits, so it's far from being a "weird advice".
> The article's title is "Why I don't eat on Mondays" not "Why you shouldn't eat on Mondays".
The title isn't the content. The whole article is a lead-in to a call to action in the the last 7 paragraphs which can be summarized as "you should choose one day a week and not eat on that day (it doesn't have to be Monday, though)".
> Also, intermittent fasting I fairly well researched and known for its benefits
> The whole article is a lead-in to a call to action in the the last 7 paragraphs which can be summarized as "you should choose one day a week and not eat on that day (it doesn't have to be Monday, though)".
No it can't
> Whatever your weight loss goals, I can highly recommend giving intermittent fasting a try.
Never does the author say that intermittent fasting should be followed by everyone.
I'm routinely surprised at the popularity of articles in this category. It's no secret that eating less and exercising more leads to a healthier person. Is it just the variety of systems and self-discipline utilized that is found so intriguing?
Articles in this category are popular for the same reason articles in the "don't make these extremely elementary mistakes" category are popular in business magazines. Everyone knows that you need to eat less to lose weight, and everyone knows you need to have strong internal communications to run an effective business. But people have consistently have trouble doing either thing, because they are hard and require a lot of discipline. So people want to read about coping strategies to overcome their natural impulses.
He already said he tried eating less and it didn't stick. So the point isn't that eating less is a good idea (he already knew that), but which method works for him.
I think people would rather read or watch about other people losing weight than actually doing something about it. Seriously, it's hard to lose weight, stop smoking, etc. If anything, at least it gives people momentary hope and a few take changing their diets seriously instead of looking for a miracle pill or momentary diet.
Some of these comments reminded me of a story Clotaire Rapaille told in his book 'The Culture Code.' He gave a talk at an obesity conference. Each speaker gave their own solution to the obesity problem. Rapaille's observed:
“I think it is fascinating that the other speakers today have suggested that education is the answer to our country’s obesity problem,” I said. I slowly gestured around the room. “If education is the answer, then why hasn’t it helped more of you?”
It is well understood that exercise does not generally lead to weight loss and can even be counter-productive. This has well documented by Gary Taubes.
Caloric restriction does work, but it is quite difficult to track and maintain. This weekly fasting approach is a new concept, at least to me, and worthy of serious consideration.
> It is well understood that exercise does not generally lead to weight loss and can even be counter-productive.
Right, exercise is important in weight loss not because it promotes weight loss directly, but because it enables maintaining muscle loss during weight loss, which is critical to healthy weight loss--which is mostly fat loss--and because it promotes cardio-vascular fitness (which is often an important part of the real goal served by weight loss.)
Weight is a problem lots of people have, and lots of people are looking for "one simple trick" to make it go away, and there are entire major industries that survive of selling a rotating array of quick fixes.
Obviously, free articles offering the same thing are going to be popular. Throw an analytical veneer over it with some charts and references to productivity, to meet the cultural biases of HN, and its popular on HN.
Have you read the research about "eat less move more"? Because while it's obviously true it's also clearly not helping reduce the incidence of obesity.
Working out a method to help fat people lose weight would be worth a lot of cash.
So instead listening to my doctor, I should follow the advice of a Belgian entrepreneur with no medical training, based on his experiment with a sample size of one.
I'm sorry, but this is something a non-overweight person would say.
I've been overweight my whole life. I talked to my doctor. One said (yes he literally said this) Follow the SELAP diet. When I asked what he meant he said "Stop Eating Like a Pig". That was his advice. Another doctor said to get surgery.
I finally found another doctor that helped. He put me on a 1,000 calorie a day diet. Tons of people told me it was unhealthy, but I lost weight - 50 lbs. The information out there for dieting is so bad. I had people tell me that if I ate 1,000 calories a day, I would gain weight because of a slow metabolism. These were "professional" people. I've never heard of people who stop eating in food strikes in prisons get to the point where they weighed so much they can't leave their cell!
Unfortunately I couldn't keep that extremely low calorie diet up for the long term and when trying to increase it, I've now gained 25 of it back but it's been a year so I consider it somewhat of a success.
I'm glad to read about something that works for someone. The doctors you mention are pretty clueless in my opinion.
I'm 4'11, so really short and overweight. I tried to keep to the 1200 calories that everyone says is the minimum, but I can't, it's often too much food for me and never really saw much in weight loss. I've been trying to go closer to 600-1000 and have seen much more results and feel healthier.
You'll note that this isn't presented as a medical study. It's presented exactly as you describe it - an experiment with a sample size of one.
No one is telling you to follow this advice. This is one guy saying "Hey, here's something that worked for me when I had this problem. Maybe if you have the same problem, it might work for you."
You are entirely free to ignore it. You should consider using that freedom.
"It tunes my mind to the station of my body. It makes me feel real hunger and lets me differentiate it from other cravings"
What he's describing is congruent with a stoic lifestyle. The core of stoicism is to not be a slave to your feelings and cravings. And this is achieved through mental and spiritual "exercise."
I have fasted for 3 days at a time, allowing myself nothing but water. Try six weeks without a drop of alcohol. And don't cheat. It's not a "detoxifying" process- it's a process of gaining mindfulness. You understand, as the author points out, what your body does and does not need, and that many of your feelings of "hunger" (for food, or more figuratively anything) are triggered by your officemate talking about nutella, or hearing some bad news that makes you anxious, or any number of things that you can control if you become aware of them.
Once you understand the true control you have over your body and your feelings and actions, you can really start to take it to the next level with what you actually want to accomplish, as opposed to what has been programmed by your social environment.
Well if Muslims and people from some other cultures can do fasting, and they still manage to live long and healthy like any other culture - why not try this method to actually loose weight and then pick for example Japanese diet to maintain it?
I think all this fasting is for self control rather than long term process. You teach your body and mind to say "no" to nasty foods and snacks.
Isn't it better, safer, and more comfortable to just eat 200-500 less calories per day?
I know that I'd rather eat one less slice of pizza during a meal than to eat NOTHING for a whole day.
As we all know, weight is primarily determined by calories in versus calories out. Since 3500 calories equals 1 lb or .45 kg, you can lose 2 lbs or 1 kg a week by eating 500 calories less each day.
It was made in beeminder (https://www.beeminder.com/). It is a website where you pledge a certain amount of money towards a goal and if you don't stay on track, it charges you.
> Make it a challenge to see if you can go a full day without eating. What do you have to lose?
A lot, actually. Some medical conditions may be seriously affected by not eating for an entire day. As with any medical advice, you should consult your physician before attempting fasting.
I do get tired of comments like these. Obviously diabetics aren't going to take some random person's advice to fast for 24 hours. Do you think they need you to tell them that?
Do you have a serious medical condition ? A General statement is not Universal. So, if it is applicable to say 80% of population you can cut that guy some slack.
Several times in both articles (linked post and the post at nerdfitness) they mention the diabetic/other blood sugar regulation issues.
Fasting isn't an issue for me. I generally fast from 8pm to 11-12am every day. My morning glucose is generally better when I do this, but there are sometimes swings caused by digestive issues, such as food being too nutritionally dense or slow to digest.
I'm pretty sure that eating less / intermittent fasting will help with Diabetes Type 2 (insulin resistance). Probably not with Type 1 though (inability to produce insulin), but that quite obviously isn't a healthy person.
A Diabetic is not healthy individual but the best part is Intermittent fasting and cold-showers are some of the few things that help with insulin and prevent diabetes.
[Merriam-Webster] Healthy: enjoying health and vigor of body, mind, or spirit
[Merriam-Webster] Health: the condition of being well or free from disease
[wikipedia] Diabetes mellitus (DM) also known as simply diabetes, is a group of metabolic diseases
You are not in good health / healthy in the manor meant in this thread and OA. You might eat healthy, exercise, whatever but you still suffer from a disease that healthy people do not.
Rejoice, you now know the same definition that nearly everyone else knows (rather than your far less useful personal make-believe definition). No longer will you have trouble communicating the state of your health or comprehension issues understanding other's. Bonus Cup! You are now less ignorant.
> Still the idea of going for 24 hours without any food seemed alien at first. Was I going to be okay, I wondered.
I once forgot to eat for three days, I was just so busy. I walked up the stairs to my second-floor apartment, and I felt light-headed enough that I noticed myself start to black out. I began going through the "usual debugging", asking myself "what did you eat today?", and it turns out I hadn't... nor the day before... and when I realized I hadn't eaten the day before that either, it became very clear what happened, and I immediately ordered an extra large pizza. I take it this is highly unusual? :(
How does one manage to forget anything? I guess I was was just really distracted? :( I can easily imagine myself thinking "I should grab some food, but I only have a couple minutes, I'll just eat after class", or "I should eat something, but I'm so tired, I'll just eat a large breakfast", and then "I should eat something, but I'm late, I'll just eat when I get to campus".
Well typically when I don't eat my body gets angry at me and tells me I should. My body feels like ass and my head gets foggy such that I stop and intake some nutrients.
I don't think I can go 72 hours without food without crashing.
One thing about this is paying attention not only to what he eats, but also how his body reacts to food. In high school, I would often only eat one meal a day (I could have had more meals, but I wasn't hungry). In college, I also still only ate the equivalent of one meal a day. Once I had a full time job that included lunch breaks, I felt obligated to eat more, and the more I ate the more I was hungry. Having more money and more freedom to eat what I want, when I wanted (compared to living with parents or in college eating on poor starving student rations), I stopped paying attention to what and how much I ate.
That was the line that alarmed me. Advertising a shot of glucose as "removing a blockage" isn't about the wonders of fasting, it's about the fairly important problems that arise from deciding to just not eat.
Similarly, before adopting a super-low calorie diet on the basis of those "long lifespan" studies in mice, look into the part where it induces depression and agoraphobia.
Frankly, I would attribute this glucose deficiency to his diet that cut down on rice and the like. By reducing bodily supply of starch (and also lipids) they will interfere with their natural metabolic pathways such as glycogenoysis and gluconeogenesis which stabilize blood glucose levels, however without the underlying resources they cannot achieve their purpose.
Probably just mental. Vast numbers of people experience the symptoms of hypoglycemia without actually being hypoglycemic. The condition is known as Idiopathic Postprandial Syndrome.
Quote at the end of that article contradicts your statement...?
"Current medical opinion is that the benefits of fasting are unproven and until there are more human studies it's better to eat at least 2000 calories a day. "
For those interested in different approaches to weight loss, I found this article really helpful while trying to shed a few pounds myself:
http://liamrosen.com/fitness.html
This actually makes a lot of sense. An obese person burns about 2500 calories a day just be existing (obviously depending on weight/heigh/etc.) 1 day of fasting means 1lb a week lost, basically.
"I still try to adhere to a low carb diet, eating mainly meat and vegetables and severely limiting my intake of bread, pasta, rice and potatoes." - I think this is a much larger player in his weight loss success than he may realize.
He claims to have been following this diet for three months whilst maintaining the same weight, and only started seeing a drop in his weight after starting to fast for one day a week (standard sample size disclaimer etc etc).
> He claims to have been following this diet for three months whilst maintaining the same weight, and only started seeing a drop in his weight after starting to fast for one day a week (standard sample size disclaimer etc etc).
Its interesting that I don't notice any discussion of caloric intake on either model -- if he was eating the same except skipping one day of food later, then you are looking at a ~14% reduction in weekly caloric intake, which, without any special effect of fasting, you'd expect to turbocharge weight loss.
That depends on how many calories you are taking in. If you eat 5k calories a day and suddenly fast 1 day a week you aren't going to lose weight you will just stop gaining as quickly.
> That depends on how many calories you are taking in.
"Turbocharge weight loss" means that there is existing weight loss to turbocharge. If you are losing weight, reduce weekly calorie intake by 14% and change nothing else, I think the description is accurate independent of the pre-existing intake level.
