Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Recently there has been a lot of talk about the intermittent fasting diet (fast 16 hours, eat for 8). My friend is a doctor and started the diet himself a few months ago, and takes his bloodwork every week. He says it's making huge improvements in his cholesterol and other blood levels.

I've been trying myself recently and so far no big changes, although I have lost a couple of pounds. But I think that's just because I had to cut out late night snacking!




Just curious: wouldn't this then show overwhelming health benefits or decreased mortality in people who regularly skip breakfast, and simply eat lunch and dinner?


There's a whole book on the diet with a lot of science, but the very short summary is, no, it doesn't quite work like that. For one, the recommendation is to eat at the beginning of your day (skip dinner not breakfast). But also, most people who eat like that don't actually limit themselves to eight hours. That was basically how I was eating, skipping breakfast, but I was still having a late night snack, and sometimes an early morning snack. I basically just dropped the snacks, but that's not really the right diet.


I've been doing 16/8 for a couple of months now and I was trying to think if I've noticed any changes. The one big one is that I no longer wake up with pain in my hands, wrists, or knees. Other than that, I think having more time in the morning is an unexpected benefit.


I agree. The 16/8 seems to be beneficial from my own personal experience and much more sustainable.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: