alt Hacker NewsIt's hilarious that people describe their anecdotal experience of being in a calorie deficit as a proof that "intermittent fasting works". This was never the question, but whether intermittent fasting brings additional weight loss benefits as compared to calorie deficit with frequent meals.
My anecdotal experience from 20y of bodybuilding and doing ~3 cuts a year: for cutting, I tried IF, 6 meals a day, low fat, low carb, high fat true keto, balanced... everything works. And works equally well - this is backed by numerous studies. The only difference is the impact on health parameters (different will get worse on low fat vs high fat), satiety, and how easy it is for someone to sustain the diet and stay in a deficit. This will depend on the lifestyle and personal preferences. So my preferred way to cut is high protein, low carb, essential fats, a ton of fiber. When building muscle I go high everything but balanced.
Anything else and more is sectarianism and people bragging about their choices not having verified their true claimed efficacy or benefits.
Replies
Totally agree, you have to figure it out for yourself. Not only do these diets affect people differently, they also affect each individual differently throughout their life. IF might be great when you are 45 but no good when you are 20.
I really struggled to get lighter a few years ago and what ended up working finally was cutting my protein way down. After repeated failures with high protein/low carb, I finally just went for low protein despite no diet recommending it. It worked great, I lost muscle but it made satiety way easier and my body naturally seemed to shift to a lighter composition.
I still don't see any diets recommending that. It seems like a useful tool, especially given how "fitness" nowadays is lifting weights and chugging protein, there are going to be a ton of dudes in their 30s/40s who put on a boatload of muscle in their youth and now are struggling to get lighter using all the recommended high protein diets. If you don't give the muscle up satiety is going to make it an insane battle.
> The only difference is the impact on health parameters (different will get worse on low fat vs high fat), satiety, and how easy it is for someone to sustain the diet and stay in a deficit.
Did anybody claim otherwise?
> Anything else and more is sectarianism and people bragging about their choices not having verified their true claimed efficacy or benefits.
Everybody's looking for a silver bullet and wants to advocate for their specific one by tearing competing theories down. The reason that IF works is because it's more difficult to eat at a caloric surplus when you can only fill your stomach for 8 hours a day. Full stop. There might be modest ancillary benefits but as far as weight loss it really is as simple as calories in versus calories out. There are tons of variations on this theme dependent on goals and tolerance for discomfort but simple math wins ten times out of ten.
For the layperson IF or keto or something similarly extreme is effective but difficult. It requires strict adherence to a lifestyle that impacts one's social life and makes eating prepared foods difficult. Worst of all it leads to impromptu cheat days in moments of weakness that spiral out of control and negatively affect consistency. For people trying to lead a normal life I personally think eating at 80% TDEE with 1:1:1 macros is the most sustainable - you eat at your leisure, get sufficient protein for lean muscle mass and still eat carbs for energy and fun. It's basically "eat less, have a protein shake." Combine this with some light cardio and body weight/kettlebell stuff while watching TV and you'll see great functional fitness gains in addition to quick and steady weight loss.
Of course it's hard to build an online quasi-religion around moderation so this type of thinking isn't mainstream despite its efficacy.