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

I'm very wary of all evolutionary nutrition arguments, because a) we know very little about prehistoric lifestyle, b) there have been many generations since agriculture started and agricultural societies regularly outcompeted hunter-gatherers.

Furthermore it's really not clear that something is better just because it was that way during the time we supposedly evolved. For example, we didn't evolve with antiseptics either and yet disinfecting wounds seems like a pretty good idea.




70% of Americans are obese or overweight. Every other major countries are following the trend. It's crystal clear that we're fucking up. IT is one of many ways to stay healthy that's all, no more no less.

> there have been many generations since agriculture started and agricultural societies regularly outcompeted hunter-gatherers.

Never refuted that, it's more efficient in every aspects. The only problem is that we're way past "eating for survival", we eat for fun, when we're bored, when "it's time to eat" no matter if we truly are hungry or not.

> we know very little about prehistoric lifestyle

I'm sure we can all agree they were not eating 3 times a day at regular interval, every single day of their life while sitting 80% of their awake time. Not even talking about the amount of calories or how processed their food was.

> Furthermore it's really not clear that something is better just because it was that way during the time we supposedly evolved. For example, we didn't evolve with antiseptics either and yet disinfecting wounds seems like a pretty good idea.

I fail to see the link. We evolved a way to keep bacterias out (skin) and antiseptics were designed to help with that in certain cases. Regular mealtime is something we came up very recently, especially for the average joe (ie. industrial revolution). Try putting SP98 in a diesel engine, that's what we're doing with our stomachs. It might somehow run for a bit but in the long term it's no bueno.

The human body is simply not designed for what we throw at it, and is incapable of handling the changes in such a small timeframe. Looking out of the window is enough proof that our lifestyle is not adequate.


Animals are getting fatter too, including lab animals whose diet is pretty tightly controlled. Perhaps there are more causes for the obesity epidemic than eating three meals a day and working in an office.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3081766/pdf/rsp...


And back when almost no Americans were overweight intermittent fasting wasn't a thing.

IF may be great but it is definitely also riding a diet fad wave right now.

At least IF doesn't involve the sale of anything... that elevates it above almost all the recent diet fads where you end up buying lots of highly processed supplements.


Actually intermittent fasting was the norm - Americans averaged three meals a day with no snacks (you’ll spoil your appetite!), and typically spent 12-14 hours between supper/dinner and breakfast. Insulin response remained pulsatile with enough postprandial time for it to return to baseline.

The reference I have handy shows that Americans average 5 meals/snacks per day now: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29574043 although I’ve seen even higher numbers (closer to 6) mentioned.

Ah, found a source analyzing eating frequency (and timing) changes since 1977: https://idmprogram.com/the-critical-importance-of-meal-timin...


I'm not sure how that's fasting.

I don't consider myself as someone who fasts and it is typically 13-14 hours from my supper to my breakfast.

Eat dinner around 6-7PM Eat breakfast around 7:30-8AM

My schedule I would assume is shifted forward from say my grandparents schedule. They would have eaten dinner & breakfast earlier due to differences in work hours 50+ years ago.

If that's fasting it seems like a strange/new definition. But maybe a lot of people are indeed still eating something substantial closer to midnight as they watch TV or something?

I actually spread out my lunch into several smaller meals during the day.

But I also exercise a lot, and I'm not buying lunch like so many engineers I work with. My lunch is 1/4-1/2 the size of a sit down restaurant meal.

The old norm was so much more physical activity than today too.

One of those articles is totally right about kids though. When I was a kid I took a lunch to school and that was the only time I ate. My son is going into first grade and all the day cares he went to and his current school have dedicated snack times, 2-3 extra times eating that are not lunch. The day care that had 3 snack times porked the kids up pretty good.


Per the article, 14h is actually what’s being spoken about: “There are different ways to go about it, but I advise patients to omit either dinner or breakfast, so that they don’t ingest any food for at least 14 hours at a stretch.” This should probably more specifically described as Time Restricted Eating/Feeding, but IF is sort of used as a catch all for this and other eating patterns, so what can you do.

Sadly, due to snacking and the misconception that they should eat as soon as they get up, I suspect that most Americans probably have an eating window that spans 14-16h instead of 8-10h (which has been RCT’d to show a significant difference in hunger and ad libitum food consumption).




Applications are open for YC Winter 2020

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

Search: