5 ms·

> Despite similar average weekly energy intake (~9000 kcals/week) and physical activity energy expenditure (~350kcals/day; p = 0.260) during the intervention, p

> Despite similar average weekly energy intake (~9000 kcals/week) and physical activity energy expenditure (~350kcals/day; p = 0.260) during the intervention, participants following the IF-P regimen lost significantly more body weight (−8.81 ± 0.71% vs.−5.40 ± 0.67%; p = 0.003; Fig. 1c; Supplementary Data 1) and total, abdominal, and visceral fat mass and increased fat-free mass percentage (~2×; p ≤ 0.030), as previously reported. Interesting. Calorie in, calorie out getting btfo'd lol. I'm guessing the gut microbiome change has a lot to do with this, not just the fact that the body is forced to use more protein. > The IF-P regimen consisted of 35% carbohydrate, 30% fat, and 35% protein for five to six days per week and a weekly extended modified fasting period (36–60 h) consisting of 350–550 kcals per day using randomization, as detailed previously. In comparison, the CR regimen consisted of 41% carbohydrate, 38% fat, and 21% protein in accordance with current US dietary recommendations Wonder if the fat loss is due to intermittent fasting or the higher protein. Guessing a combination. Also should note that the IF-P diet has "significantly" less sugar and more dietary fiber than the CR diet, which would also contribute to the gut microbiome change and the fat loss etc.

appplication 2y ago
There’s also likely an element of plain old inefficiency associated with throwing a bunch of food in the body at once. Every protein, fat, carb broken down has to be done so by some physical/chemical/enzymatic action. There are only so many chemical/enzymes in the body. If you put a small amount of food in, it’s more likely all of it will be completely broken down more effectively. If you try to digest a larger amount of food in at once, it seems plausible the digestion process could be less efficient.
- kelipso 2y ago
  Good point. Another thing is the participants might not finish the relatively large high protein meals that IF-P would have compared to the smaller CR meals.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
throwaway22032 2y ago
The core principle is still calorie restriction, this is just a modifier on top of that. If they ran it with 18k cal per week then both would gain. I don't think anyone thinks that macro/micronutrients and eating patterns are completely irrelevant, just that they have less effect than total calories, so IIFYM is a good starting point / first order simplification.

appplication 2y ago

There’s also likely an element of plain old inefficiency associated with throwing a bunch of food in the body at once. Every protein, fat, carb broken down has to be done so by some physical/chemical/enzymatic action. There are only so many chemical/enzymes in the body. If you put a small amount of food in, it’s more likely all of it will be completely broken down more effectively. If you try to digest a larger amount of food in at once, it seems plausible the digestion process could be less efficient.

kelipso 2y ago
Good point. Another thing is the participants might not finish the relatively large high protein meals that IF-P would have compared to the smaller CR meals.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

throwaway22032 2y ago

The core principle is still calorie restriction, this is just a modifier on top of that. If they ran it with 18k cal per week then both would gain. I don't think anyone thinks that macro/micronutrients and eating patterns are completely irrelevant, just that they have less effect than total calories, so IIFYM is a good starting point / first order simplification.