3 ms·

I'm just skimming through the paper and I see no calorie equated control group or even measuring caloric intake. If that's the case than this is another "eatin

I'm just skimming through the paper and I see no calorie equated control group or even measuring caloric intake. If that's the case than this is another "eating less causes weight loss" study, and measuring the benefits of caloric restriction. They don't even equate caloric restrictions between the methods they compare ?

nerdponx 4y ago
Are you saying that the reason the low-carb diet doesn't seem to make a difference here is that the participants either didn't follow it strictly or that "low carb" was not measured properly?
- moonchrome 4y ago
  Pretty much - unless they made sure the calorie deficit was equal between groups (with reasonable precision) it's hard to argue they are measuring more than differences between caloric deficits (it's probably easier to get to a higher deficit with IF compared to low carb) Especially since I've read that when you equate calories most of the differencea go away in studies and meta analysis.
Grumbor 4y ago
This seems to be a study about metabolic syndrom, not weight loss. The weight loss is only a side effect.
- chicob 4y ago
  Besides improving MS, the study also mentions reduction of visceral obesity.
  - aidenn0 4y ago
    High visceral body-fat is one of the symptoms of MetS.
    - chicob 4y ago
      Correct. But it seems anyone with excess visceral fat alone could benefit from TRE, even if not suffering from MS, which is having 3 out of 5 symptoms: - Abdominal obesity - High blood pressure - High blood sugar - High serum triglycerides - Low serum HLDL
aulin 4y ago
The point I guess it that there are dietary regimens that tend to naturally restrict caloric intake without any effort. The question is not if eating less causes weight loss, but which regimen is best to avoid overeating while eating to satiety.
- perlgeek 4y ago
  > there are dietary regimens that tend to naturally restrict caloric intake without any effort. Which ones? I've never seen any, so far. IF is effort. Low carb is effort. And so on.
  - aulin 4y ago
    Ever tried losing weight just counting calories? you feel hungry, miserable and sooner or later every day becomes a cheat day. With TRE and even more with keto you feel satiated, insulin is way more stable so hunger is manageable. So you prevent overeating with little effort. It's obvious that gettint into the regime takes effort, my point is that once you start it's easier to follow than a classic ipocaloric diet.
- gruez 4y ago
  >The point I guess it that there are dietary regimens that tend to naturally restrict caloric intake without any effort. By "dietary regimens" are you talking about intermittent fasting? I find it hard to believe that "not eating for 16 hours a day" is "without any effort", or less effort than "not snacking" or "not eating smaller meals". >The question is not if eating less causes weight loss, but which regimen is best to avoid overeating while eating to satiety. That's what a lot of commenters are concluding, but it's not really obvious to a uninformed layman who's just reading the title. "Time-restricted eating reduces visceral fat and improves metabolic syndrome" makes it sound like the benefits are coming from the time restriction, not from eating less calories.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    > By "dietary regimens" are you talking about intermittent fasting? I find it hard to believe that "not eating for 16 hours a day" is "without any effort", or less effort than "not snacking" or "not eating smaller meals". As someone who used to weigh a lot more, I think you'd be surprised. The first couple days are a little rough, but after that you're just not very hungry during the day. In contrast, "eating smaller meals" fucking sucked. You're still hungry, you've already gone out of your way to obtain food, and now you have to stop and keep going on with your day. Remember that people don't get fat being used to eating appropriate size meals.
VLM 4y ago
If you don't control people on a high carb diet, there is a massive swing in blood sugar and insulin levels every two hours or so as they binge eat. Enormous amounts of willpower can push thru that, or a low carb diet destroys the appetite. Either way if a fat person eats for 16 hours a day unrestricted that'll be about eight cycles of super high blood sugar and the resulting hypoglycemic insulin crash followed by about eight episodes of binge eating. If the same person limits their food intake to only 8 hours a day either via appetite suppression due to lower carb diet, or willpower or external force, they can only get about four cycles in of super high blood sugar followed by insulin spike followed by hypoglycemic crash followed by massive binge eating. It seems likely that four cycles of binge eating per day will cause less "metabolic syndrome" damage than eight cycles of binge eating per day. Even if the total caloric intake is the same, the body at least has more time to recover. The above "seems" to be what they verified in the paper.
haywood 4y ago
Came here to say the same thing. Lots of studies on fasting and time restricted eating and when calories are equated and put up against low fat, low carb, balanced, all groups show the same improvements in metabolic health and fat loss. It's a tool to restrict calories, which is the _actual_ thing that improves health. It's slightly less optimal if you're trying to conserve lean body tissue since you're spending more time in a negative nitrogen-balance. Bottom line from lots of research, do the form of calorie restriction that is most easy for you to adhere to :)
ezekiel68 4y ago
This is not an unfair criticism and deserves discussion. Yet we have no particular evidence (I am aware of) indicating that all strategies for caloric restriction for H. Sapiens shoud be considered equal. I am surprised why people who levy this critique (including yourself and Dr. Brad Stanfield on YouTube) don't simultaneously acknowledge the possibility that -- even if caloric restriciton is the main mechanism explaining the results -- time-restricted feeding may be a more effective/sustainable caloric restriction strategy than all-day calorie counting either alone or with other interventions lacking the time-restricted element (such as social support, AKA Weight Watchers). In my own n=1 anecdote, I have lost 20 excess kg over the past 12 months (and continuing to gradually reduce) with time-restricted feeding as the primary intervention. Eliminating my continuous grazing during waking hours due to a time-based "cut off" for all eating was much more effective (in my case) vs previous strategies over decades where I simply "tried" not to snack between meals throughout the day.

nerdponx 4y ago

Are you saying that the reason the low-carb diet doesn't seem to make a difference here is that the participants either didn't follow it strictly or that "low carb" was not measured properly?

moonchrome 4y ago
Pretty much - unless they made sure the calorie deficit was equal between groups (with reasonable precision) it's hard to argue they are measuring more than differences between caloric deficits (it's probably easier to get to a higher deficit with IF compared to low carb) Especially since I've read that when you equate calories most of the differencea go away in studies and meta analysis.

Grumbor 4y ago

This seems to be a study about metabolic syndrom, not weight loss. The weight loss is only a side effect.

chicob 4y ago
Besides improving MS, the study also mentions reduction of visceral obesity.
- aidenn0 4y ago
  High visceral body-fat is one of the symptoms of MetS.
  - chicob 4y ago
    Correct. But it seems anyone with excess visceral fat alone could benefit from TRE, even if not suffering from MS, which is having 3 out of 5 symptoms: - Abdominal obesity - High blood pressure - High blood sugar - High serum triglycerides - Low serum HLDL

aulin 4y ago

The point I guess it that there are dietary regimens that tend to naturally restrict caloric intake without any effort. The question is not if eating less causes weight loss, but which regimen is best to avoid overeating while eating to satiety.

perlgeek 4y ago
> there are dietary regimens that tend to naturally restrict caloric intake without any effort. Which ones? I've never seen any, so far. IF is effort. Low carb is effort. And so on.
- aulin 4y ago
  Ever tried losing weight just counting calories? you feel hungry, miserable and sooner or later every day becomes a cheat day. With TRE and even more with keto you feel satiated, insulin is way more stable so hunger is manageable. So you prevent overeating with little effort. It's obvious that gettint into the regime takes effort, my point is that once you start it's easier to follow than a classic ipocaloric diet.
gruez 4y ago
>The point I guess it that there are dietary regimens that tend to naturally restrict caloric intake without any effort. By "dietary regimens" are you talking about intermittent fasting? I find it hard to believe that "not eating for 16 hours a day" is "without any effort", or less effort than "not snacking" or "not eating smaller meals". >The question is not if eating less causes weight loss, but which regimen is best to avoid overeating while eating to satiety. That's what a lot of commenters are concluding, but it's not really obvious to a uninformed layman who's just reading the title. "Time-restricted eating reduces visceral fat and improves metabolic syndrome" makes it sound like the benefits are coming from the time restriction, not from eating less calories.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  > By "dietary regimens" are you talking about intermittent fasting? I find it hard to believe that "not eating for 16 hours a day" is "without any effort", or less effort than "not snacking" or "not eating smaller meals". As someone who used to weigh a lot more, I think you'd be surprised. The first couple days are a little rough, but after that you're just not very hungry during the day. In contrast, "eating smaller meals" fucking sucked. You're still hungry, you've already gone out of your way to obtain food, and now you have to stop and keep going on with your day. Remember that people don't get fat being used to eating appropriate size meals.

VLM 4y ago

If you don't control people on a high carb diet, there is a massive swing in blood sugar and insulin levels every two hours or so as they binge eat. Enormous amounts of willpower can push thru that, or a low carb diet destroys the appetite. Either way if a fat person eats for 16 hours a day unrestricted that'll be about eight cycles of super high blood sugar and the resulting hypoglycemic insulin crash followed by about eight episodes of binge eating. If the same person limits their food intake to only 8 hours a day either via appetite suppression due to lower carb diet, or willpower or external force, they can only get about four cycles in of super high blood sugar followed by insulin spike followed by hypoglycemic crash followed by massive binge eating. It seems likely that four cycles of binge eating per day will cause less "metabolic syndrome" damage than eight cycles of binge eating per day. Even if the total caloric intake is the same, the body at least has more time to recover. The above "seems" to be what they verified in the paper.

haywood 4y ago

Came here to say the same thing. Lots of studies on fasting and time restricted eating and when calories are equated and put up against low fat, low carb, balanced, all groups show the same improvements in metabolic health and fat loss. It's a tool to restrict calories, which is the _actual_ thing that improves health. It's slightly less optimal if you're trying to conserve lean body tissue since you're spending more time in a negative nitrogen-balance. Bottom line from lots of research, do the form of calorie restriction that is most easy for you to adhere to :)

ezekiel68 4y ago

This is not an unfair criticism and deserves discussion. Yet we have no particular evidence (I am aware of) indicating that all strategies for caloric restriction for H. Sapiens shoud be considered equal. I am surprised why people who levy this critique (including yourself and Dr. Brad Stanfield on YouTube) don't simultaneously acknowledge the possibility that -- even if caloric restriciton is the main mechanism explaining the results -- time-restricted feeding may be a more effective/sustainable caloric restriction strategy than all-day calorie counting either alone or with other interventions lacking the time-restricted element (such as social support, AKA Weight Watchers). In my own n=1 anecdote, I have lost 20 excess kg over the past 12 months (and continuing to gradually reduce) with time-restricted feeding as the primary intervention. Eliminating my continuous grazing during waking hours due to a time-based "cut off" for all eating was much more effective (in my case) vs previous strategies over decades where I simply "tried" not to snack between meals throughout the day.