5 ms·

I don't believe it's as simple as what's the net -ve because with TRE the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) does not reduce like with calorie restricted eating, so the

I don't believe it's as simple as what's the net -ve because with TRE the BMR (Basal Metabolic Rate) does not reduce like with calorie restricted eating, so the net -ve is higher with TRE even when the calorie intake is the same. Also, reducing the BMR has other negative effects because the body does away with key repairing processes to live with the reduced availability of energy.

OrionSeven 3y ago
Do you have a source that shows BMR does not reduce with TRE?
- stevenwoo 3y ago
  Multiple hacker news stories have been published about Herman Ponzter and double water studies. https://researchblog.duke.edu/2021/03/24/duke-researcher-busts-metabolism-myths-in-new-book/ https://researchblog.duke.edu/2021/03/24/duke-researcher-bus...
  - pc86 3y ago
    This is the first I've ever heard someone talk about "publishing" a "hacker news story."
    - stevenwoo 3y ago
      I think my brain was searching for "posted" but I was about to step away from my computer and "published" was the only word that came to me then.
jitl 3y ago
I think at reasonable sustainable fitness planning & weight change goals the BMR changes aren’t a significant factor. My target is to lose about 0.9% body weight per week. I did some napkin math numbers before starting my plan and decided not to worry about it much, and in my case seem to be fine. I went from somewhere around 2400kcal daily to 1600kcal daily while eating 3 meals and lifting for 30min a day and my estimated resting energy expenditure per day by Withings & Apple Health is down about 60kcal over ~4 months. They’re not super accurate sources, but at current rates I’ll hit my target minimum weight before my estimated resting expenditure has dropped -100kcal.