6 ms·

They conclude the following: > Time-restricted eating, in the absence of other interventions, is not more effective in weight loss than eating throughout the d

by c54 6y ago

They conclude the following: > Time-restricted eating, in the absence of other interventions, is not more effective in weight loss than eating throughout the day. I believe this, with two additions: In my experience, time restricted eating confers weight loss via reduced calorie intake (in short, if I only eat until I’m full for a 6 hour period in a day, I simply don’t eat as much). The other factor is the supposed ‘cellular regeneration’ kinds of claims, along the lines of “well, if your cells arent metabolizing fresh food, they have time to do clean—up processes and this is good for reasons”. I would be interested to learn more along these lines, but it makes sense that this wouldn’t be directly related to weight loss as such and would instead affect other factors (longevity, gut and skin health, etc)

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> (in short, if I only eat until I’m full for a 6 hour period in a day, I simply don’t eat as much) Maybe for some people that will work, however as a food addict I can safely say that I can very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours. And have. A lot. I am not surprised by the result. The only thing that really works for losing weight is CICO, and anything else is an abstraction.
- andrei_says_ 6y ago
  What is CICO? Do you mean something like calories in calories out? And doesn’t that disregard the fact that sugar calories are very different from non sugar ones in terms of metabolism?
  - amelius 6y ago
    I think the whole calories in / calories out phrasing is very disrespectful towards people with genetic obesity, (EDIT:) because these people can eat the same, sport the same, etc. as other people and still gain more weight. Telling them "just follow this equation like I do" hides the real problem behind a variable and is disrespectful because things aren't so simple for these people.
    - matz1 6y ago
      How is it disrespectful?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - johnkpaul 6y ago
        Imagine the time before the formalization of dyslexia within medicine. It would have been very disrespectful and cruel to tell people who found learning very challenging something like “just try harder! It’s basic physics, the more you study, the more you learn!”
        matz1 6y ago
        Calorie in calorie out principle doesn't imply that its not challenging
        johnkpaul 6y ago
        Why not? It just means you eat a specific amount of calories and you’ll lose weight no?
        matz1 6y ago
        That its true but that statement doesn't say anything about the difficulty of it.
        johnkpaul 6y ago
        I agree. Neither you nor I made a specific comment in difficulty. Your parent comment stated it was disrespectful. I agreed and tried to use an analogy that would be considered both disrespectful and cruel by most people. In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight. I admit, andcdata, but I am not the only person with this story nor am I the only one with this odd medical outcome.
  - lol636363 6y ago
    No, all calories are same. This is in the domain of physics or chemistry. But of course if you get all your calories from simple carbs, you will be deficient in other important nutrients like vitamins. However, deficiency of certain nutrients may cause body to slow down or increase metabolic rate.
    - corty 6y ago
      No, all calories are not the same. The basic process for measurements is "burn it, measure the energy output". " Burning" as in "gas flame, high heat, oxygenated atmosphere". This is something your body doesn't do, even if you supposedly "burn" calories. Your body uses different reactions that are often less efficient, meaning the energy output will be different from the calories measured. Nowadays some of those errors are corrected for, but not all of them. And depending on your personal metabolism, from genetics, daily changes and nutrient status, your body will be less or more efficient with some foods.
      - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
        Irrelevant. If your body extracts only 50Cal from a 100Cal cube of sugar, but you counted that 100Cal value against your daily limit, then you're still achieving your goal. The problem is often that people set too high a limit and overestimate how much they burn during exercise.
    - Dahoon 6y ago
      No they are not. 1 calorie from fat makes you more full than 1 from sugar. Also sugar (or rather glucose) makes you hungry because of the blood-sugar spike and crash. So while one type of food makes you full, another with the exact same amount of calories can make you hungry and hence eat more. Also the body burn different things in different ways (glucose vs. fat). That is why some (like me) will feel awful if I take a long walk while in a period of eating what is considered normal today but can stop eating for a few days with no problems at all (and add a few long walks on-top of that no problem) if I eat low carb high fat. You can say it is the same in basic physics or chemistry if you want but if calories from X does not give the same amount of energy for the body as Y, then X != Y.
  - fredophile 6y ago
    Calories in calories out works. The thing you, and many critics of CICO, are missing is that the food you eat affects both sides of the equation.
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      > Calories in calories out works. What do you mean by "works" here? Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"? That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh! Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.
      - fredophile 6y ago
        I mean anyone trying to tell you that it doesn't work and they have some magic shortcut for how to lose weight is lying to you. Their method for weight loss might work for you but not because CICO is wrong. I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight. If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
        Viliam1234 6y ago
        One of those easy methods might actually work by affecting the "calories in". I mean, not everything you eat is processed by your body; some potential calories may be simply excreted. I can imagine how a pill, composition of food, or even the timing of it, might influence the gut flora, which in turn would change how many calories are actually extracted from the food. This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now. EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.
- themgt 6y ago
  Can you very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours eating uncooked leafy greens? Or to make it easier how about eggs, let's say 2500 calories at ~80 calories per egg, you just need to down ~32 eggs in a few hours, maybe 10 eggs an hour? Calling something near physically impossible "an abstraction" seems a bit oversimplified, perhaps?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
    > Can you very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours eating uncooked leafy greens? I'm honestly not sure any human being could physically consume a days worth of calories in a whole day eating nothing but uncooked leafy greens. So the time restriction would be irrelevant to the goal wouldn't it? And that's my point, it matters more what you eat and how much of it than when you eat it. Time restriction is a poor abstraction of CICO.
mrslave 6y ago
I have done a TRE based diet twice, with success. The first time was Keto+OMAD, after reading Michael Mosley's Fast 800 book (which advocates a less restrictive diet but in the same vein). Result: -8 kg in 8 weeks. Also my weight was mostly stable after that, eventually trending up as my discipline waned. I have also seen up close two people suffering type 2 diabetes get it under control with the rapid weight loss afforded by this method. Now, a year later, I am doing 8 hour eating window (not Keto) and am sticking to it for the long-term. I simply don't enjoy breakfast. Never have really. Not eating it appears to give me more stable energy and concentration for both intellectual and physical tasks, both before and after "lunch": a raw oats & berries breakfast anywhere between midday and 4 PM depending. I also run 5 km every second day, heavy weights once a week. Reuslt: -0.75 kg/week averaged over many months. Now my weight is somewhat stable at a healthy weight. I wholly accept that this is most likely de-facto calorie restriction and not the wonders of TRE per se. Early in Fast 800 Dr Mosley addresses diet adherence and it is widely believed that this is the single biggest factor impacting diet for weight (fat) loss success. With respect to cellular regeneration, I like the story but the only sources I've found (and they're not scientific so do your own searching) is that this process starts at about 16 hours of fasting. It really peaks around 3-4 days of fasting, which is a whole different thing. I have started doing occasional 2 day fasts and want to say it's do-able by normal people, but so far it appears TRE won't get you anything like it.
me_me_me 6y ago
> The other factor is the supposed ‘cellular regeneration’ kinds of claims, along the lines of “well, if your cells arent metabolizing fresh food, they have time to do clean—up processes and this is good for reasons”. I would be interested to learn more along these lines, but it makes sense that this wouldn’t be directly related to weight loss as such and would instead affect other factors (longevity, gut and skin health, etc) I have seen a lot of post from people on fasting subreddit with pictures of skin condition improving/gone after fasting. It does make sense that our bodies take path of least resistance, and when there is no food around the cellular 'garbage' becomes something can be recycled into food.

by c54 6y ago

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> (in short, if I only eat until I’m full for a 6 hour period in a day, I simply don’t eat as much) Maybe for some people that will work, however as a food addict I can safely say that I can very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours. And have. A lot. I am not surprised by the result. The only thing that really works for losing weight is CICO, and anything else is an abstraction.

andrei_says_ 6y ago
What is CICO? Do you mean something like calories in calories out? And doesn’t that disregard the fact that sugar calories are very different from non sugar ones in terms of metabolism?
- amelius 6y ago
  I think the whole calories in / calories out phrasing is very disrespectful towards people with genetic obesity, (EDIT:) because these people can eat the same, sport the same, etc. as other people and still gain more weight. Telling them "just follow this equation like I do" hides the real problem behind a variable and is disrespectful because things aren't so simple for these people.
  - matz1 6y ago
    How is it disrespectful?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - johnkpaul 6y ago
      Imagine the time before the formalization of dyslexia within medicine. It would have been very disrespectful and cruel to tell people who found learning very challenging something like “just try harder! It’s basic physics, the more you study, the more you learn!”
      - matz1 6y ago
        Calorie in calorie out principle doesn't imply that its not challenging
        johnkpaul 6y ago
        Why not? It just means you eat a specific amount of calories and you’ll lose weight no?
        matz1 6y ago
        That its true but that statement doesn't say anything about the difficulty of it.
        johnkpaul 6y ago
        I agree. Neither you nor I made a specific comment in difficulty. Your parent comment stated it was disrespectful. I agreed and tried to use an analogy that would be considered both disrespectful and cruel by most people. In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight. I admit, andcdata, but I am not the only person with this story nor am I the only one with this odd medical outcome.
- lol636363 6y ago
  No, all calories are same. This is in the domain of physics or chemistry. But of course if you get all your calories from simple carbs, you will be deficient in other important nutrients like vitamins. However, deficiency of certain nutrients may cause body to slow down or increase metabolic rate.
  - corty 6y ago
    No, all calories are not the same. The basic process for measurements is "burn it, measure the energy output". " Burning" as in "gas flame, high heat, oxygenated atmosphere". This is something your body doesn't do, even if you supposedly "burn" calories. Your body uses different reactions that are often less efficient, meaning the energy output will be different from the calories measured. Nowadays some of those errors are corrected for, but not all of them. And depending on your personal metabolism, from genetics, daily changes and nutrient status, your body will be less or more efficient with some foods.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
      Irrelevant. If your body extracts only 50Cal from a 100Cal cube of sugar, but you counted that 100Cal value against your daily limit, then you're still achieving your goal. The problem is often that people set too high a limit and overestimate how much they burn during exercise.
  - Dahoon 6y ago
    No they are not. 1 calorie from fat makes you more full than 1 from sugar. Also sugar (or rather glucose) makes you hungry because of the blood-sugar spike and crash. So while one type of food makes you full, another with the exact same amount of calories can make you hungry and hence eat more. Also the body burn different things in different ways (glucose vs. fat). That is why some (like me) will feel awful if I take a long walk while in a period of eating what is considered normal today but can stop eating for a few days with no problems at all (and add a few long walks on-top of that no problem) if I eat low carb high fat. You can say it is the same in basic physics or chemistry if you want but if calories from X does not give the same amount of energy for the body as Y, then X != Y.
- fredophile 6y ago
  Calories in calories out works. The thing you, and many critics of CICO, are missing is that the food you eat affects both sides of the equation.
  - Viliam1234 6y ago
    > Calories in calories out works. What do you mean by "works" here? Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"? That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh! Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.
    - fredophile 6y ago
      I mean anyone trying to tell you that it doesn't work and they have some magic shortcut for how to lose weight is lying to you. Their method for weight loss might work for you but not because CICO is wrong. I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight. If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
      - Viliam1234 6y ago
        One of those easy methods might actually work by affecting the "calories in". I mean, not everything you eat is processed by your body; some potential calories may be simply excreted. I can imagine how a pill, composition of food, or even the timing of it, might influence the gut flora, which in turn would change how many calories are actually extracted from the food. This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now. EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.
themgt 6y ago
Can you very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours eating uncooked leafy greens? Or to make it easier how about eggs, let's say 2500 calories at ~80 calories per egg, you just need to down ~32 eggs in a few hours, maybe 10 eggs an hour? Calling something near physically impossible "an abstraction" seems a bit oversimplified, perhaps?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
  > Can you very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours eating uncooked leafy greens? I'm honestly not sure any human being could physically consume a days worth of calories in a whole day eating nothing but uncooked leafy greens. So the time restriction would be irrelevant to the goal wouldn't it? And that's my point, it matters more what you eat and how much of it than when you eat it. Time restriction is a poor abstraction of CICO.

mrslave 6y ago

I have done a TRE based diet twice, with success. The first time was Keto+OMAD, after reading Michael Mosley's Fast 800 book (which advocates a less restrictive diet but in the same vein). Result: -8 kg in 8 weeks. Also my weight was mostly stable after that, eventually trending up as my discipline waned. I have also seen up close two people suffering type 2 diabetes get it under control with the rapid weight loss afforded by this method. Now, a year later, I am doing 8 hour eating window (not Keto) and am sticking to it for the long-term. I simply don't enjoy breakfast. Never have really. Not eating it appears to give me more stable energy and concentration for both intellectual and physical tasks, both before and after "lunch": a raw oats & berries breakfast anywhere between midday and 4 PM depending. I also run 5 km every second day, heavy weights once a week. Reuslt: -0.75 kg/week averaged over many months. Now my weight is somewhat stable at a healthy weight. I wholly accept that this is most likely de-facto calorie restriction and not the wonders of TRE per se. Early in Fast 800 Dr Mosley addresses diet adherence and it is widely believed that this is the single biggest factor impacting diet for weight (fat) loss success. With respect to cellular regeneration, I like the story but the only sources I've found (and they're not scientific so do your own searching) is that this process starts at about 16 hours of fasting. It really peaks around 3-4 days of fasting, which is a whole different thing. I have started doing occasional 2 day fasts and want to say it's do-able by normal people, but so far it appears TRE won't get you anything like it.

me_me_me 6y ago

> The other factor is the supposed ‘cellular regeneration’ kinds of claims, along the lines of “well, if your cells arent metabolizing fresh food, they have time to do clean—up processes and this is good for reasons”. I would be interested to learn more along these lines, but it makes sense that this wouldn’t be directly related to weight loss as such and would instead affect other factors (longevity, gut and skin health, etc) I have seen a lot of post from people on fasting subreddit with pictures of skin condition improving/gone after fasting. It does make sense that our bodies take path of least resistance, and when there is no food around the cellular 'garbage' becomes something can be recycled into food.