[HN Gopher] Intermittent fasting+protein pacing can lead to weig...
___________________________________________________________________
Intermittent fasting+protein pacing can lead to weight loss, gut
health
Author : instagib
Score : 29 points
Date : 2024-06-07 16:45 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (nypost.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (nypost.com)
| instagib wrote:
| Nature study pdf link also from the article:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48355-5.epdf
| miesman wrote:
| Summary of the diet used in the study via ChatGPT4:
|
| IF-P Diet Instructions:
|
| Protein Pacing Days:
|
| * Women: 4 meals/day; Men: 5 meals/day.
|
| * Meals: 2 shakes (breakfast + one), 1 whole food dinner, 1
| afternoon snack (men only), 1 evening protein snack.
|
| * Calories: Women: 1350-1500/day; Men: 1700-1850/day.
|
| * Macros: 35% carbs, 30% fat, 35% protein.
|
| * Fiber: 20-30 g/day.
|
| Intermittent Fasting Days:
|
| * Calories: 350-550/day.
|
| * Fasting Duration: 36-60 hours with supplements and snacks.
|
| Protein Intake:
|
| * Each Shake: 30-36 g protein, 9 g fiber.
|
| * Evening Snack: 200-250 kcals.
| grecy wrote:
| Even shorter summary:
|
| Eating less energy than the body burns results in burning of
| stored energy reserves.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Eating less energy than the body burns results in burning
| of stored energy reserves_
|
| Nope [1].
|
| Even proponents of the energy-balance model clarify that "the
| brain is the primary organ responsible for body weight
| regulation operating mainly below our conscious awareness via
| complex endocrine, metabolic, and nervous system signals to
| control food intake in response to the body's dynamic energy
| needs as well as environmental influences" [2].
|
| Calorie in calorie out is the flat-earth model of metabolism,
| trading truth for simplicity.
|
| [1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/stop-
| counting...
|
| [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291
| 652...
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Yet, you can lose weight on Mountain Dew and Doritos by
| counting calories. Little Debbie Snacks,
| Oreos, Doritos and Diet Mountain Dew sure don't sound like
| diet food. But a nutrition professor at Kansas State
| University ate only convenience store snacks for two months
| and lost 27 pounds. The key? Moderation.
| Mark Haub kept his food intake below 1,800 calories a day
| -- no extra exercise required.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131286626/professor-s-
| weight-...
| miesman wrote:
| Dirty Keto!
| Zanfa wrote:
| > Each group was given meals with the same number of
| calories and instructed to eat as much as they wanted, but
| when participants ate the processed foods, they ate 500
| calories more each day on average. The same people's
| calorie intake decreased when they ate the unprocessed
| foods.
|
| Your own Harvard link supports the calories in/out theory,
| but argues against counting calories. Different things.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _own Harvard link supports the calories in /out theory_
|
| Calorie in / calorie out isn't a theory, it's a
| thermodynamic corollary. I compare it to flat eartherism
| because "things go down" is similarly a corollary of
| gravity. The missed link with the latter is that down
| isn't what it intuitively means. The missed link with
| colloquial energy-balance interpretations is "calorie in"
| and "calorie out" don't mean what people think it does.
|
| If you have a healthy metabolism, cutting calories and
| increasing burn-- _cereris paribus_ --should spike a
| starvation response. That has some perks. But it should
| also reduce your resting metabolism, sometimes below even
| maintenance levels; it should increase your absorption
| and sequestration of energy; it should alter your taste
| to make calories more appetising, and increase
| existential anxiety around the procuring of those.
| (Counterfactial: I'm someone who is fine being hungry. )
|
| Just as one can design short bridges on a flat-earth
| model and be fine, one can deploy this simplistic model
| (it's not a theory, that's the vastly more complex
| energy-balance model) to make short-term gains. But it's
| fundamentally wrong in that it builds the wrong
| intuitions. Similar to how thinking of our brains as a
| steam engine or microcomputer sort of works, in some
| cases, or if you're trying to be punchy in internet
| comments, but is fundamentally wrong and misleading.
| instagib wrote:
| From the referenced study supplemental documentation on the
| "fasting" days and non-fasting days. Even the fasting days they
| allow you to eat 350-550 calories as aforementioned
| supplements/snacks for a ~9% weight loss and 17% reduction in
| desire to eat over 8 weeks. Not bad at all if you can manage to
| do it: 205lbs->184.
|
| Table
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10107279/bin/OB...
|
| Doc
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10107279/bin/OB...
|
| #15 study
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10107279/#oby23...
| paipa wrote:
| Title is misleading, the intermittent fasting this paper is
| talking about is a brutal 350-550 calories per day restriction.
| That's just fasting.
| penjelly wrote:
| I'm actually more interested in side effects of prolonged IF or
| fasting in general. My impression over the long term is it can
| contribute to gastritis. I don't see any evidence to support this
| other than anecdotally how it feels to me.
| MrGuts wrote:
| NY Post: "Mysterious alien eggs spotted in Oklahoma lake"
|
| NY Post: "Trump tells Dr. Phil evil forces are controlling Biden"
|
| NY Post: "How intermittent fasting, protein pacing can lead to
| weight loss"
|
| What could go wrong?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-06-07 23:02 UTC)