5 ms·
I think for a lot of people (me included), the primary advantage is in ease of measurement. It's hard to count calories accurately. It's very easy to look at
by bgroat 3y ago
I think for a lot of people (me included), the primary advantage is in ease of measurement.
It's hard to count calories accurately.
It's very easy to look at the clock and determine if it's between 1300-1900 hours
- rip_netrunner 3y agoThat's Time Restricted Feeding, which is not quite the same as intermittent fasting. An example would be doing a 36 hour fast, twice per week.
- scetron 3y agoAnd the actual title of the study is 'Effect of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss' which describes a concept that is basically the colloquial definition of intermittent fasting. The popular term 'intermittent fasting' usually describes time restricted eating, with a fasting period usually between 16-20 hours.
- tshaddox 3y agoThat study needs to update its terminology. They call it “feeding” on the podcast circuit now, not “eating.”
- mym1990 3y agoIntermittent fasting has no strict minimum that you have to fast, it can be 10-12 hours and still be intermittent fasting.
- pengaru 3y agoBy that definition everyone who sleeps engages in intermittent fasting.
- Ateoto 3y agoHence breakfast
- olyjohn 3y agoThat's right! That's why the first meal of the day is called breakfast.
- kyllo 3y agoExcept for those people who wake up and have a midnight snack. Cutting out the snacking is probably also a major factor in the effectiveness of intermittent fasting, especially given that snack foods are often more processed, calorie-dense, and less nutritionally balanced than what we typically eat at meals. I think a lot of people could lose significant weight by simply eating three meals a day at the usual times, but just cutting out snacking between meals entirely and changing nothing else. Just fasting between meals, if you will.
- mym1990 3y agoGood observation! Fasting in general is usually at minimum 8 hours, which is also around the time we sleep. There seems to be some evidence that the longer one fasts, the better the benefits. You would be surprised how many people in the US eat right up until they go to bed, and then eat breakfast right after waking up. So for some, extending the fast 2-5 hours is no small feat.
- ozim 3y agoThat is why people joke that it is fancy name for not eating breakfast. Well I suppose not eating on purpose vs just being slob or not having time for it is kind of different.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pc86 3y agoSorry, no. Whether it was always the definition or not, having a daily window to eat that is generally much shorter than normal is called intermittent fasting.
- mfld 3y agoTime restricted eating/feeding is just a special case of intermittent fasting, no?
- paulpauper 3y agobut you still have to avoid overeating when doing IF. It's not like you get to just eat to fullness and ignore calorie counts.
- Semaphor 3y agoIt takes less to feel full, that's the "magic".
- Thetawaves 3y agoThis is not really true. Generally speaking, at the grossest level of averaging, regularly eating 2 meals instead of 3 or 1 meal instead of 2 results in a long term net reduction of calories. Additionally your stomach shrinks under this regime - that one meal will definitely make you feel full and satiated. All this goes into ease of adherence - I just don't have to think about it. I eat as much as I want for dinner each day and have dropped a steady 10lb/year for the last 5 years.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- grecy 3y agoThe incredible thing is you don't really need to count calories, you just have to avoid complete garbage. As Michael Pollan says "Eat food, mostly greens, not too much". Don't eat anything processed, don't eat anything with more than one ingredient and only eat meat with at most one meal, and ideally quite a small portion. Completely and utterly ignore things like icecream, chocolate, soda, candy, chips, anything deep friend and other "non food items". Treat them like Arsenic - i.e. you should never eat them. There, you are now restricting calorie intake and you didn't have to count anything. You should do this for your entire life.
- trip9 3y agoJust don't have any treats for your entire life, easy.
- grecy 3y agoWhat humans consider food has changed more in the last 100 years than it did in the preceding 10,000. Eat what your great-great grandmother would consider food, not what a scientist in a lab is trying to sell you as food.
- blargey 3y agoCake, donuts, ice cream, etc derive their extreme calorie density and negative satiety from cream, sugar, and frying, not some recent invention by a "scientist in a lab".
- Terr_ 3y ago> you just have to avoid complete garbage. As Michael Pollan says That reminds me of something I saw a long time ago: > Fuzzy Pink Niven's Law: Never waste calories. [...] Don't eat soggy potato chips. Or cheap candy. Or an inferior hot fudge sundae. Or a cold soggy pizza.
- jitl 3y ago> you should never eat them. > You should do this for your entire life. Out of all the advice in these comments, this contradicts the scientific evidence on fitness and nutrition the most. Everyone should do the thing that makes it the easiest for them to attain their health and fitness goals. Living an an acetic life because an internet comment and Michael Pollan said so will work sustainably for very few people. Adherence/consistency is the single most important factor to consider when building a fitness plan. Evidence shows users of systematic plans like weight watchers points are less likely to lapse in the long term. A very gradual improvement that works for a long time is much better than a deep “improvement” you practice for 1.5 months before giving up. I’d much rather count calories and eat ice cream every day than treat ice cream as arsenic. For me a little bit of a treat every day makes self control around my diet easier overall - I never buy snacks or overeat at meals because I think “hrrng if I spend this calorie now, I cant spend it on ice cream tonight”. Might not work for everyone - there’s a lot of commenters here who prefer TRE because it’s easier for them; if works well that’s what they should do. If living an acetic life without treats works the best for you, then do that - but don’t tell other people they should do it too. There’s no reason to fear treats if you can manage them; if time restricted eating or calorie counting enables someone to eat the food they like, and so life is more enjoyable and it’s easier to adhere to a good diet, they should do that.
- InitialLastName 3y agoIt's also psychologically easier to manage. People have an easier time building a schedule where they do or don't eat and holding it (say, by skipping breakfast) than they do managing counting calories around things like "I went out to dinner and probably ate too much". Binary choices (should I eat right now?) take much less cognitive overhead than spectral choices (What should I eat? How much of it? If I eat X and Y now will I have the capacity to eat Z later?)
- bavarianbob 3y agoCurious why you think it's hard to count calories accurately? If you mean precisely, I'd question why one is trying to do that anyways.
- coryfklein 3y agoIt's not hard in the sense that solving complicated math problems is hard, but hard in that it adds a non-trivial amount of effort to an activity you do multiple times a day, every day, in perpetuity. Even the small effort of measuring your creamer with a teaspoon instead of just pouring it in the cup just takes more time and effort than simply checking what time it is.
- bavarianbob 3y ago[flagged]
- klyrs 3y agoThat's entirely counterproductive. People gotta do what works for them, not live up to the ideals of a judgemental rando on the internet.