3 ms·
> 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
by notacoward 7y ago
> 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.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago> Neither is calories counting alone. I've got 160lbs of missing mass that disagrees. Not to mention numerous studies and basic physics.
- notacoward 7y agoAgain, 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.