[HN Gopher] Time-restricted eating reshapes gene expression thro...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Time-restricted eating reshapes gene expression throughout the body
        
       Author : lxm
       Score  : 108 points
       Date   : 2023-02-12 16:52 UTC (6 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.sciencedaily.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.sciencedaily.com)
        
       | nobaddays wrote:
       | Yeah my doctor always tells me to intermittent fast, ie stop
       | eating at 8ish pm and have breakfast at 10am.
        
       | siliconc0w wrote:
       | Metabolism for mice doesn't directly translate to humans, their
       | metabolisms are a lot faster. I think the formula is roughly 7
       | times, so this is just above two days of fasting for humans.
       | Which I'm sure would be fantastic for your health but pretty hard
       | to do.
       | 
       | TRF has had mixed research results vs normal calorie restriction
       | - sometimes leading to a drop of muscle - but it's a bit hard to
       | tell since the studies are not consistent about monitoring
       | protein intake or weight training which is generally necessary to
       | avoid muscle loss when doing any sort of weight lost protocol. I
       | think the latest research is skipping dinner is generally better
       | (eTRF).
        
       | dukeofdoom wrote:
       | I tried this. Ended up thinking about food too much until 1 pm.
       | But I might try it again.
        
         | halfjoking wrote:
         | Best trick IMO is to take prebiotic fiber while fasting.
         | 
         | That way your gut bacteria gets fed and doesn't get desperate
         | to tell your brain you're starving.
         | 
         | Personally I don't feel ketogenic state is reached from 16
         | hours. Feels like I need at least 24 hours, but usually do 36.
         | Only thing I need other than water is electrolytes. I would get
         | bad headaches without my mineral/pink salt.
        
         | LAC-Tech wrote:
         | Try having an early dinner rather than skipping breakfast. I've
         | been doing it this month, going alright.
        
       | sidcool wrote:
       | Does restricted time eating mean intermittent fasting?
        
         | mhaberl wrote:
         | yes, but only for a short time, usually 16-20h long fasts.
         | 
         | Some people do fasts that last for multiple days, usually 3-7
         | days - this not I.F.
        
           | cycomanic wrote:
           | I have seen IF described as both in a day and in a week.
           | Supposedly the effects are very similar as well.
        
         | SavageBeast wrote:
         | Presuming you read the linked study but more or less (and this
         | is argument fuel among The Faithful here ), "time restricted
         | eating" spoken of here is Intermittent Fasting. The
         | "restriction" here is that not a single calorie of anything is
         | consumed outside of an 8 hour window and the 16 remaining hours
         | in the day are nothing but water. Some people even like to do a
         | 18:6 split too.
         | 
         | The hacks in this style of eating is that once you stop putting
         | calories in your mouth, your insulin levels drop and that makes
         | the fat cells in the body more willing to allow lipids into the
         | bloodstream where the liver can make Ketones out of them -
         | hence the term "ketosis" is often seen when reading about
         | intermittent fasting.
         | 
         | There are also small studies, I'd call them anecdotal yet still
         | informative, that demonstrate a raise in GH in response to an
         | IF style eating pattern. Leptin sensitivity/resistance is also
         | positively impacted by this eating style.
         | 
         | If you want to go down a rabbit hole and really geek all the
         | way out on a topic, theres a lot out there to sort through,
         | debunk and sort into useful information. I encourage you to
         | give it a look.
         | 
         | EDIT: For extra credit - it's natural to look at Fasted
         | Training in the same context. The hack here is that when you
         | train at near peak low insulin levels ( or near peak anyhow
         | which takes about 14h of fasting ) your body will suffer in
         | terms of absolute performance but if done correctly you can
         | train burning mostly fat. Theres as much on this subject to
         | sort through as the first one. A whole host of hormonal and
         | health benefits are purported here and I can say from
         | experience I believe most of them having seen it myself.
        
           | cycomanic wrote:
           | > EDIT: For extra credit - it's natural to look at Fasted
           | Training in the same context. The hack here is that when you
           | train at near peak low insulin levels ( or near peak anyhow
           | which takes about 14h of fasting ) your body will suffer in
           | terms of absolute performance but if done correctly you can
           | train burning mostly fat. Theres as much on this subject to
           | sort through as the first one. A whole host of hormonal and
           | health benefits are purported here and I can say from
           | experience I believe most of them having seen it myself.
           | 
           | I've done quite a bit of fasted training, but can't say I
           | have seen a huge effect myself. That said, I was very fit at
           | the time, most studies have been done on untrained subjects
           | AFAIK. There are also studies that show that base metabolic
           | rate increases after fasted training, but for men only while
           | it decreases for women, which would be counterproductive if
           | they would want to loose weight.
           | 
           | The main problem with most of the studies is that they have
           | been done with very small study populations.
        
             | arcturus17 wrote:
             | > I've done quite a bit of fasted training, but can't say I
             | have seen a huge effect myself
             | 
             | I've tried it and haven't seen much of a difference in
             | weight loss either. Also I have only been able to pull it
             | off with cardio - any fasted training involving weight
             | lifting has been a dreadful experience. I've completely
             | abandoned the idea.
        
         | enkid wrote:
         | Intermittent Fasting can include fasting for longer periods,
         | including days at a time.
        
       | andy_ppp wrote:
       | A mouse only lives 5 years so if we scale everything based on
       | this to humans you'd have to be fasting for 16h * (80 years / 5
       | years) = 256h or nearly 11 days. You could be damn sure doing
       | this regularly your gene expression would change. Of course
       | basing the scaling this way is completely ridiculous but no less
       | ridiculous than inferring anything about humans from the original
       | study.
        
         | ford wrote:
         | I see where you're coming from, but just because mice don't
         | live as long as humans doesn't mean all biological processes
         | happen 16x as fast. They don't defecate 16x as often as humans
         | or sleep 16x per day.
         | 
         | Do you think there is 0 signal about potential impacts on
         | humans from testing on mice? How would you prefer research be
         | done with a similar cost, ability to control variables, & level
         | of ethics?
        
           | andy_ppp wrote:
           | I think the extrapolations you've made from my comments are
           | fighting an argument I've not made and am not interested in
           | having because I'm not a scientist working on these things.
           | What I've tried to explain in my comment is that we do not
           | know how the metabolism of a mouse doing 16:8 relates to a
           | human being. No more and no less, we simply do not know how
           | to do that mapping and trying to draw conclusions about
           | humans from this specific study is fairly futile because of
           | this (unless they are using some methodology I'm not aware
           | of)!
        
             | wpietri wrote:
             | Your theory is that we don't know anything about the
             | biological similarities and differences between humans and
             | the animal most studied, one picked because it has a lot of
             | biological similarities? That seems like quite a stretch.
             | 
             | I mean yes, people should not just assume that it will be
             | the same. But as with a lot of studies in mice, it can
             | inform what we study further in humans.
        
               | andy_ppp wrote:
               | No, that is not my theory. How similar is 16:8 for mice
               | and humans? That's all we are discussing here and all
               | I've talked about! I've reread my comments and I really
               | can't see where I start talking about all biological
               | similarities or not. I'm talking specifically about 16:8
               | fasting. Can you tell me how similar humans and mice are
               | in this regard?
        
               | wpietri wrote:
               | Ok, so your theory is that even though we study mice
               | because the are in many ways good proxies for humans,
               | there's some special exception when it comes to fasting?
               | 
               | Yes, we don't yet know precisely how similar humans and
               | mice are in this regard, because studies in mice
               | generally precede doing the matching study in humans. But
               | that doesn't mean we should assume that there's
               | absolutely no correlation.
               | 
               | And yes, the more general biological similarities are
               | relevant here because you claim "we simply do not know
               | how to do that mapping", and that's not the case. We
               | can't do a perfect mapping because mice aren't humans,
               | but we can make a good start. We broadly know quite a bit
               | about the relationship between mice and men and what
               | sorts of correlations are more and less likely. E.g., if
               | the study were about fitting through small holes, we'd
               | know that the study wouldn't tell us much about humans.
               | But we use mice because of "their anatomical,
               | physiological, and genetic similarity to humans". [1]
               | 
               | Does that mean people should take this as gospel about
               | what happens in humans? No. But it gives us a lot of good
               | questions and things to explore in humans.
               | 
               | [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3987984/
        
               | [deleted]
        
         | aquafox wrote:
         | Actually C57 black 6 mice (the ones used in the study), only
         | live 2.5 - 3 years.
        
       | mariambarouma wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | pammf wrote:
       | I've been doing intermittent fasting for 2 years. Did a bunch of
       | different protocols and eventually settled on ~18:6. Lost around
       | 15kgs (from 105 to 90) and as a nice "side effect" got rid of all
       | skin problems that I'd had during the previous 10 years or so.
       | Today I don't preach it anymore cause I got tired of debating
       | whether it was healthy or not but I definitely recommend to
       | everyone that's truly interested in giving it a try.
        
         | StefanWestfal wrote:
         | I tried it for some time but felt cranky in the morning until I
         | ate at lunch time. How was your experience regarding cravings,
         | hunger and mood changes over time when starting your fasting?
        
           | matwood wrote:
           | I was a religious breakfast eater. Would often wake up
           | because I was hungry. The first few weeks of IF was rough,
           | but the hunger eventually passed. My energy levels also
           | dipped, but then went way up. I try to do all my deep work
           | and exercise before my first feeding of the day because of
           | how sharp I feel.
           | 
           | 3ish years in I feel great, and routinely get comments how
           | 'in shape' I look. I also try to weight train every day and
           | train BJJ a few times/week.
           | 
           | Other things I've learned personally is if I eat poorly the
           | night before (lots of sweets or something), I am more likely
           | to feel a bit of hunger the next morning. Normally I don't
           | really feel hungry though, and if I'm busy I can go right
           | through lunch without noticing.
        
           | gavinray wrote:
           | Not the poster but the hunger lessens after the first few
           | weeks as you adapt to it, or at least that's my experience
           | 
           | I start to dread eating a bit now because I get tired/sleepy
           | after I do. I want to eat because I'm hungry but mentally
           | feel clearer if I don't.
        
           | wpietri wrote:
           | For what it's worth, I can happily do IF if I eat from 7a-1p,
           | but I'm miserable if I do 12p-6p. I got super grouchy in the
           | 10a-12p range and if anything that got worse over the month I
           | tried it.
        
           | pammf wrote:
           | I only had cravings while doing the 36 hours fasting, which I
           | don't do regularly anymore. It was usually during dinner time
           | (rest of the family was having dinner normally) and what I
           | tried to do was to distract myself with something else (work,
           | book, movie, etc.). I never really had problems during other
           | periods of the day.
           | 
           | What I'd suggest is to experiment a bit, perhaps in your case
           | skipping dinner is easier than skipping breakfast. Or try to
           | start by simply not having snacks and gradually increase the
           | intervals between meals.
        
           | arcturus17 wrote:
           | Not OP, but I've done ~16:8 intermetinent fasting (aka
           | skipping breakfast) many times during my life, and have
           | almost always experienced morning crankiness like you.
           | 
           | At times I've felt the crankiness has been good; the
           | increased aggression has led to some really productive
           | mornings. The flip side of the coin is that it sometimes also
           | leads to negative thoughts and feelings of pessimism until I
           | eat.
           | 
           | I prefer to have a more stable mood so what I'm doing as of
           | late is drinking a protein shake with oat milk for breakfast
           | and a high-quality multi-vitamin. The crankiness completely
           | goes away and mental acuity is still high. It's still
           | excellent for weight control since it's a ~200kcal breakfast
           | that is digested very fast. Arguably better for recovery too
           | since I practice sports every day. It's definitely not IF but
           | it's been serving me well.
           | 
           | I'm also experimenting with a ~24h fast once a week, from
           | Sunday lunch to Monday lunch, but don't have enough
           | experience to know what it's doing for me yet.
        
         | piqi wrote:
         | > ...got tired of debating whether it was healthy or not...
         | 
         | I've had a similar experience. "unhealthy" seems to often be
         | used in place of "not normal."
         | 
         | I don't blame them. Advertising has been pushing "normal" food
         | choices for 100+ years. Social gatherings are focused too much
         | on eating. People are shamed for being "skin and bones."
         | 
         | I've been doing it for more than 10 years. I never get hunger
         | pangs. I don't feel the need to eat something before leaving
         | the house, or stopping at a drive-thru while out. I'm able to
         | make better food choices. It doesn't mean I starve myself, or
         | abstain from eating lunch/dinner with friends. I get all
         | necessary calories for whatever my goals are (ie fat loss,
         | maintenance, or weight gain).
         | 
         | Constant calorie intake from accessible food products designed
         | to sit on store shelves for months should be considered not
         | normal and unhealthy.
        
           | birdyrooster wrote:
           | I mean some people look unhealthfully slim like they would
           | starve if there was too much snow or they couldn't leave
           | their house for a protracted time.
        
             | piqi wrote:
             | Intermittent fasting has has nothing to do with being fat
             | or skinny. My point about "skin and bones" is more about
             | how normal it is to comment on someone that isn't
             | overweight. I can't imagine people tolerating fat-shaming
             | people in a friendly social context.
        
       | torusenthusiast wrote:
       | For posters who do time restricted eating, how do you deal with
       | the panicked/dizzy feeling you often get when not eating for long
       | periods. Does that eventually go away with IF, or do you just get
       | used to it?
        
         | lockyc wrote:
         | Electrolytes.
         | 
         | You probably need at least more sodium.
         | 
         | https://old.reddit.com/r/fasting/wiki/fasting_in_a_nutshell/...
        
         | exfatloss wrote:
         | [dead]
        
       | aquafox wrote:
       | Computational biologist with >5 years experience in analyzing
       | RNAseq data like the one in the paper: I find 80% of genes being
       | differentially expressed very hard to believe. You usually see
       | such strong effects only when there are other sources of
       | variation not being controlled for (e.g. batch effects) or when
       | inducing an unphysiological state (e.g. treating with a cytotoxic
       | drug).
        
         | 331c8c71 wrote:
         | I think they are overselling... Not clear to me how they
         | treated the multiple testing across 22 tissues - gene
         | expression measurements across different tissues in a single
         | mouse are clearly not independent from each other.
         | 
         | > A total of 15,430 genes were DE in at least one tissue, but
         | only 816 and 1,335 genes were differentially up- or
         | downregulated, respectively, by TRF in >=5 tissues
        
         | manmal wrote:
         | Have you considered that 16h for a mouse might, from a
         | metabolic POV, be comparable to 4+ days in humans? That'd be
         | quite the intervention.
        
       | sandermvanvliet wrote:
       | * in mice
        
       | elgazzar wrote:
       | [dead]
        
       | mrandish wrote:
       | Notes:
       | 
       | - In mice.
       | 
       | - Tested 16:8 pattern.
       | 
       | - Sustained consistently for nine weeks.
       | 
       | - No exploration in this study of the effects and/or benefits
       | from the gene expression.
       | 
       | N=1 but I've been doing ~16:8-ish along with strict keto for the
       | past five years and the net benefits for me have been
       | transformative in fitness (Weight: -100+ lbs, BMI: Obese->Fit),
       | long-term health (A1C, LDL/HDL, Trigs, BP, resting heart rate all
       | from bad to great), cognitive acuity and emotional stability.
       | First 12 weeks required serious effort/focus to transition
       | habits, palette and metabolism (must RTFM and be rigorous) but
       | after that it's been surprisingly easy to sustain long-term,
       | requiring no will power or conscious effort.
       | 
       | Other surprising experiential learnings: Dietary intake impacts
       | long-term mental/emotional states FAR more than I ever suspected.
       | Food & taste prefs I had since childhood are not innate. Many
       | things I _loved_ no longer even taste good. Hunger pangs and
       | cravings are driven by my blood sugar cycle. Once I stabilized
       | that I no longer get hungry or feel food deprived /obsessed.
       | (<--- all N=1 of course.)
        
         | throwawaycities wrote:
         | There are also studies showing both keto diets and fasting can
         | alter the microbiome and attributed changes in gene expression
         | to changes in the microbiome.
        
         | mywacaday wrote:
         | What RTFM do you recommend?
        
         | tomcam wrote:
         | Are you available for a consultation? My contact is in my
         | profile and of course I'm happy to pay.
        
         | sometimesno wrote:
         | 16:8 is utterly unremarkable. A huge percent of people skip
         | breakfast and then have dinner before 8pm. This is a normal,
         | bog standard eating pattern.
        
           | snozolli wrote:
           | In my experience, it's exceptional in America. This may be
           | due to constant indoctrination that "breakfast is the most
           | important meal of the day". Also, modern food processing has
           | put all sorts of late-night snacks at our fingertips.
        
             | TedDoesntTalk wrote:
             | Agreed. 16:8 is not normal in America in 2023. Most people
             | pay absolutely no attention to when they eat - only what
             | they eat.
        
               | galangalalgol wrote:
               | Given the amount of disagreement, I'd expect it is common
               | enough but with some multimodal distribution tied to
               | culture, geography or job type, so that the two modes
               | don't notice each other. Happens with lots of stuff. My
               | N=1 is that I probably know fewer people who skip
               | breakfast (to include calories in coffee) than I do
               | people who do 20:4 fasting. I like how I felt on 20:4 but
               | it is easy to fall off of for social reasons, and womce I
               | do, the blood sugar related cravings come back so I need
               | a 48H water fast to get back into effortless 20:4.
        
             | piqi wrote:
             | Hard to imagine skipping breakfast, lunch, coffee/tea
             | w/milk & cream, and all snacking during the day, everyday
             | is normal outside America. Isn't burned bread with beans or
             | butter for breakfast a thing in the UK?
             | 
             | 16:8 means if your last calories are before 10PM, you
             | wouldn't eat anything at all until after 2 PM. And this
             | would be every day, not every other day.
             | 
             | 12:12 might be more common, but not consistently.
        
               | sometimesno wrote:
               | Why are you being purposefully obtuse? Lunch at 12 and
               | dinner at 8 and snacking in between sounds like a very
               | normal day for lots of people who don't think they're
               | doing a special diet.
        
               | piqi wrote:
               | > sounds like a very normal day for lots of people
               | 
               | That's the issue with your statement. I didn't survey
               | "lots of people" and neither did you. I can't find any
               | data to back it up, but I do see a plenty of surveys
               | about breakfast consumption.
               | 
               | I find it very hard to believe people are restricting
               | their calories within 8 hours everyday, naturally just
               | based on the conversations I've had with people. Even in
               | this thread people say they've tried it, and found it to
               | be too difficult.
               | 
               | It's simple: People enjoy eating. People eat when they're
               | bored, because of habit, or socially. No reason to
               | believe they abstain from those things 16 hours a day.
               | 
               | It's not like all of that 16 hours is sleep. On average,
               | more people are getting less than 7 hours of sleep.
               | 
               | https://www.cdc.gov/sleep/data-and-statistics/adults.html
               | 
               | Fasting is not an on/off switch, but too many calories
               | (>10-20) in a short amount of time pushes you out of a
               | fasted state. It's very likely people are snacking or
               | drinking calories within those hours after waking, and
               | before lunch.
               | 
               | Also, some people will often over eat one day, and then
               | under eat the next. This could help get through a 16 hour
               | fast a few days every week. I think those times are
               | usually over represented when self-reporting these
               | habits.
        
           | fbdab103 wrote:
           | If you mean a full meal, sure. However, I suspect the
           | majority of people enjoy some calories pretty early in the
           | day. Sugary coffee/tea, cereal bar, bagels or other grab and
           | go snacks.
        
             | robertlagrant wrote:
             | Two bagels is basically a full breakfast's worth of carbs
             | already anyway.
        
         | manmal wrote:
         | To give another N=1, I don't feel good on a 16:8 split. At
         | least not when the eating window starts at noon. Long term (18
         | months) this zapped my energy and I lost a lot of muscle. Yes,
         | weight loss was phenomenal, but I gained all of that back in
         | the phase of exhaustion that followed.
         | 
         | What has worked better for me was longer fasts, eg 48h, max
         | once per week. And lately I've been experimenting with skipping
         | late dinner (no food after 6PM) which is kinda hard but seems
         | to work for improved sleep and digestive health. I usually have
         | visible bags under my eyes, those tend to be greatly reduced
         | when I eat an early or no dinner.
        
           | [deleted]
        
         | kayoone wrote:
         | I had similar improvements without fasting and without keto. I
         | do 16:8 on some days but it's mostly to help me manage my
         | weight. I strongly believe most of the fasting benefits come
         | from the fact that it makes managing weight easier. Calorie
         | restriction and tracking my macros has helped me tremendously
         | not only loosing weight but also understanding nutrition and
         | what works for me and what doesn't. I am a 40 year old Software
         | Engineer and fitter and stronger than I have ever been.
         | 
         | I do quite a bit of high intensity cardio (cycling) + weight
         | training and my recovery and peak performance suffered a lot
         | when I tried keto for a few weeks, it also tanked my hormone
         | levels. I still focus my carb intake on times around training
         | but generally don't restrict.
        
           | kbrisso wrote:
           | You need to stay on it for months to become keto adapted. I
           | would say 6 months minimum, after that the energy swings go
           | away and you generally have a lot more energy. You can also
           | add MCT oil. The problem with keto is eating enough calories.
        
             | otoburb wrote:
             | >> _You can also add MCT oil._
             | 
             | If you use MCT oil it would be best to start _slowly_ and
             | _not_ on an empty stomach because it can cause stomach
             | aches otherwise.
        
           | layer8 wrote:
           | > it also tanked my hormone levels.
           | 
           | How do you measure those?
        
           | galangalalgol wrote:
           | For me the benefits seem to be a lack of carb cravings, and
           | my fullness indicator turned on for the first time in my
           | life. That was with 20:4 though, and no keto.
        
         | croossin wrote:
         | Agreed. Another additional benefit in my opinion is that when
         | restricting your feeding window, it's much easier to control
         | cravings. When "free-eating", it's easy to just continue to
         | snack.
        
         | TedDoesntTalk wrote:
         | How did you test your A1C?
        
         | yonibot wrote:
         | N=1 and also probably too many variables to learn from this -
         | keto itself is already a massive lifestyle intervention. Did
         | you restrict calories as well? Exercise?
        
           | TedDoesntTalk wrote:
           | most everyone sees body changes when using time-restricted
           | eating WITHOUT any dietary changes. There's no need to go
           | keto like OP to see results.
        
           | mrandish wrote:
           | I started IF only after I had been doing keto for about six
           | weeks. At that point it was frankly easy because I wasn't
           | getting hungry or having cravings anymore. I can't tease out
           | how much IF contributed but I'd already lost a remarkable
           | amount of weight on just keto. In general, I'd recommend only
           | making one significant change at a time.
           | 
           | Calorie tracking and restriction pretty much comes with
           | strict keto. Transitioning to keto rigorously requires
           | detailed tracking of every molecule that goes in your mouth
           | (with a food scale and measuring cups), at least for the
           | first 12 weeks. I tracked constantly for about 6 mos until it
           | was automatic for me and I knew every food and portion I
           | typically encounter at a glance. It's hard at first but only
           | tracking part way is the #1 reason for failing to get
           | results.
           | 
           | I didn't do any exercise at all while losing weight, in fact
           | while changing diet I was more sedentary than my usual slug-
           | like activity level due to work and life factors. For me,
           | exercise has always been hard, unpleasant and inevitably
           | makes me hungrier. N=1 but that's what worked best for me and
           | my weight loss was dramatic and super fast (>100 lbs in 8
           | mos).
        
         | exfatloss wrote:
         | [dead]
        
         | kaitai wrote:
         | What's interesting to me is that there is strong support from
         | data that skipping breakfast causes many people to eat more
         | later, in particular eating more carbs/sugar/snack foods. I
         | have to wonder to what extent a planned 16:8 window where
         | you're conscious about having a good "break-fast" meal is
         | different than simply running out of the house without a meal
         | plan in place. It is very clear from the data that simply "not
         | eating breakfast" does not lead to better outcomes.
         | 
         | I also find it interesting that the gender of the mice was not
         | specified. If we're talking about hormonal profile changes,
         | this will matter. When intermittent fasting was very popular, a
         | number of women in "the scene" with a vested interest in making
         | IF work noted that while initially it was great, they
         | eventually started experiencing adverse effects, and often felt
         | better on a 14:10 window instead.
         | 
         | Agree with you on the last paragraph re: your experiences. I've
         | needed to substantially change what I eat due to some health
         | challenges, and blood sugar is huge. Protein in the morning
         | (rather than something like oatmeal) is key for me. A dozen
         | eggs a week and my hereditarily-high cholesterol went down,
         | too. Sorry oatmeal folks!
        
           | esperent wrote:
           | > there is strong support from data that skipping breakfast
           | causes many people to eat more later, in particular eating
           | more carbs/sugar/snack foods.
           | 
           | There's a big difference between skipping breakfast one time
           | and habitually skipping breakfast. The body adapts. You no
           | longer feel hungry in the mornings and you develop new eating
           | patterns - since most people doing IF are focused on health,
           | these are likely to be healthy eating patterns that don't
           | include lots of sugary snacks. Apparently this adaptation
           | takes the form of the liver learning not to expect breakfast
           | after waking and producing glucose at that time, although I
           | have not personally checked the research on this.
           | 
           | I've been doing IF 16:8 for about a year now. I rarely eat
           | processed sugar (except a good croissant a few times a week).
           | Even some fruits like ripe mango taste too sweet to me now.
           | 
           | From personal experience and discussing this with other
           | people, if your fear is that you'll end up getting so hungry
           | that you'll stuff your face with junk, it's not a valid fear
           | beyond the first week. To avoid this I would suggest easing
           | into it. Eat breakfast an hour later for a few days, then two
           | hours later, and finally combine it with lunch.
        
         | karim79 wrote:
         | Out of curiosity, and if you don't mind me asking, what is your
         | daily carb intake while doing keto?
        
         | Beaver117 wrote:
         | Also N=1, I did 16:8ish for a year and had no signficant
         | change.
         | 
         | It wasn't until I changed the type of food I was eating and
         | tracking calories that I lost weight. But I still do 16:8 often
         | because its a habit now.
        
         | hellosputnik wrote:
         | Is your 16:8 restricted to a full meal or did you consume or
         | drink anything outside of the 16:8? After-work drinks? Coffee?
        
           | TedDoesntTalk wrote:
           | black coffee and plain tea are acceptable according to
           | everything I've read, probably because they are close to 0
           | calories and certainly not nutritional calories if >0. So I
           | drink them. Unfortunately there's no way to know if you're
           | still in a fasted state after that coffee. You can test blood
           | sugar with a pinprick and that is a marker, but not a
           | guarantee.
           | 
           | To summarize: absolute safest is water only.
        
         | karaterobot wrote:
         | > One group was given free access to the food. The other group
         | was restricted to eating within a feeding window of nine hours
         | each day.
         | 
         | Small correction: 15:9 pattern, if this writeup is correct.
        
       | cush wrote:
       | There's an excellent Huberman Lab episode that covers various
       | studies on time restricted eating for both mice and humans.
       | There's a high focus on cognitive, health, and sleep benefits in
       | humans.
       | 
       | https://hubermanlab.com/effects-of-fasting-and-time-restrict...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-02-12 23:01 UTC)