Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by paipa 744 days ago
Title is misleading, the intermittent fasting this paper is talking about is a brutal 350-550 calories per day restriction. That's just fasting.
4 comments

You don't think they looked up intermittent fasting? The diet was 5-6 days of eating whatever you want, and 35-60 hrs with the 350-550 calorie restriction. It's not brutal, it's standard.

I did M-W-F 400kcal days when I would intermittent fast, for 6 months straight, 3-4 times over about 6 years, and the last time my weight never went up again. I've been years in a 5lb range around my perfect high school weight with no effort or thought, and I completely blame IF.

edit: they buried it pretty good in the paper, but was it really worth commenting about if it wasn't worth checking?

yes, the original commenter doesn't know what he's talking about. 35 hr is low end of IF. I did it on a whim with 0 calorie intake (water only), my colleague done it too.

I didn't even know that with 500 calories per day (it's like a whole bagel with cheese) you can still call it "IF", sounds cheaty.

There are 140 calories in a can of coke. All a person has to do is stop drinking two cans a day and make zero other changes and they’ve about met your 300 calorie reduction.

Hardly sounds like fasting to me.

No, you got it backwards. They were restricted to a few hundred calories per day.
ah, sorry, I read that wrong
Was confused by this, as well. It appears they skilled the intermittent part entirely.
That's starvation, not fasting.