Hacker News Reader

You're being downvoted by people who don't agree with you. That doesn't mean that you are wrong. According to dang this is actually encouraged. [1] [2]

I don't think it's a good practice to downvote things you don't agree with, but apparently HN's current approach is that it is (and it's always been that way).

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16574021

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16131314

I think time restriction AND caloric restriction matter. Yes, a narrow eating window reduces the odds of overeating. But it also gives the body a chance to lower insulin levels during the fasted period, lowering the potential for insulin resistance. This is why it's bad advice to eat many small meals throughout the day--it keeps your insulin high at all times, never giving your body a chance to actually burn fat and likely resulting in reduced metabolic rate when done concurrently with caloric restriction.

> I can easily (very, very easily) down 10k Calories in under an hour.

But would you want to? Maybe you would, but most wouldn't because appetite doesn't just increase linearly over time. The idea with TRF is that even if people eat 500 extra calories at dinner that still has less effect than 1000 calories' worth of breakfast, lunch, and/or snacks, both in terms of raw calories and in terms of varying metabolic effects. Even if it were just a highly abstracted trick for just eating fewer calories (it's not), people might find it easier to stick to than having every meal but eating less at each. Motivation matters.

You're right that time restriction alone is not sufficient. Neither is calories counting alone. How much you eat, what you eat, when you eat all matter. Any diet that focuses on only one - any one - won't work for some people, or at all. Let's not try to counter bad advice with more sample-of-one bad advice.

> Neither is calories counting alone.

I've got 160lbs of missing mass that disagrees. Not to mention numerous studies and basic physics.

Again, sample of one. Great that it worked for you. Doesn't mean it will work for everyone, even if they can stick to it. Science is not made of anecdotes.

Edit (responding to your ninja-edit): there might not be any examples of people gaining weight if they stuck to a long-term caloric-deficit plan, but there are millions who gained weight when they couldn't stick to one. And be careful about criticizing them for lacking willpower or whatever, or someone might wonder about the willpower aspect of being unable to keep from eating 10K calories in a single sitting. People are different, with individual strengths and weaknesses. That's why statistical evidence outweighs anecdotes.

With all due respect, I wager you've got a pretty good idea of what works and what doesn't for you. There's no silver bullet, and the effectiveness of dietary interventions is very individualized.

For instance, I've got a friend who manages to stay thin by always eating throughout the day, but never more than a handful of food. This wouldn't work for me because once I start eating, it's very difficult for me to stop.

By the same token, simple caloric restriction (calorie counting) doesn't work for me, because I just hate tracking my food intake, so inevitably I give up on it.

However, for me, time restricted eating is like magic. I simply don't start eating until a bit later in the day, and everything else takes care of itself.

So it could very well be that this is the wrong diet for you but that doesn't mean it's completely without merit.

I know some chronically thin people who eat many small meals throughout the day, but they get very cranky very soon if they don't get to eat within a few hours. It's like they don't store fat at all.

I have the opposite experience. I find it virtually impossible to consume 2,000 calories at once, so I don't have to spend a single second thinking about diet or exercise; I just eat once a day and can guarantee weight loss / maintenance. Eating under 2,000 calories is obvious. You don't fast so that you can eat more, you fast so that eating less doesn't feel so terrible. Everyone already knows they have to eat less calories to lose weight.

> By some delusional people's metric, that's a 23 hour fasting period and should work great.

No one thinks you can fast and eat 5 days worth of food every day and lose weight.

I'd like to know how you could possibly consume 10,000 calories in less than an hour, let alone "very, very easily".