6 ms·

Timeframe of 8-hour restricted eating irrelevant to weight loss

77 points by hilux 2y ago

gwerbret 2y ago
The title in HN ("(Any) 8-hour time-restricted-eating window effective for weight loss") is heavily editorialized from that of the NIH blurb ("Timeframe of 8-hour restricted eating irrelevant to weight loss"), but actually better reflects the findings of the actual paper ([1], unfortunately paywalled). They found that people who fasted for 16 straight hours a day lost (a little bit) more weight over 12 weeks than those who followed a Mediterranean diet. However, the weight loss didn't represent a loss of visceral fat (around the abdominal organs, fat which is more likely to be associated with diabetes and cardiovascular disease) and so the essential finding was that the time-restricted fasting made no difference. 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39775037/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39775037/
- genewitch 2y ago
  those read the same to me, to be fair; although the important bit is "fasting for 16 consecutive hours", perhaps that gets to the point more effectively. I've read that intermittent fasting has more "holistic" value than just losing a little bit more weight, specifically on blood sugar or insulin levels, as well as fat storage. weight loss for health reasons should probably be coordinated with an expert who can look at your contemporary and historical blood tests. To be safest.
  - NemoNobody 2y ago
    It's a bit to do with a change in diet and lifestyle to accompany the eating window but there is definitely something else at play as well. The human body is an amazing machine and it has all sorts of abilities that we are unaware of. When you starve, your body starts shutting down non essential things first, starts pulling nutrients from everywhere it and limiting activity. Starvation has both a physical and mental element to it - both during the process and following it. Intermittent fasting has been demonstrated to start a regenerative process in the body. It triggers cellular autophagy, which is kind of like running a cellular defrag. There have been a lot of studies lately that look into the regenerative aspects of deep sleep following a serious injury - I sus that's the same system behind both things. In response to the stress of not eating as usual, the body reacts. The mind does too. It sucks while you are starting it but it's nice to be able to know that you can skip of day of eating and be fine. After eating a big dinner and a good night's sleep you should have more energy and feel better for no real reason. I sus this has to do with how we ate while we were evolving - life was just a cycle of involuntarily intermittent fasting. Unless you do strenuous activity all day - food is energy, you will be wore out of you do too much. The food you first eat after matters too! Don't make a donut or highly processed/sweetened food the first nutrients after fasting - you'll feel like you ran a marathon. Simple carbs and protein - rice and black beans or oatmeal with seeds is typically what I do. Everyone is different tho - whatever works for you! All the best of luck, sorry this is apparently my rant for the day - better topic than normal
  - hilux 2y ago
    I've been following Jason Fung and "intermittent fasting" for six or seven years. I notice that the specific wording "time-restricted eating" has gained popularity in the past couple of years, possibly because "time-restricted" is less of a red flag to the public than "fasting," which may bring up some emotional baggage. The reason for renaming is just speculation on my part - what's clear is that the eating protocol is the same, only the wording is different.
    - genewitch 2y ago
      when i hear "intermittent fasting" i think once or twice a week. Also it's not a silver bullet, but it does "shrink the stomach" a bit if you are mindful of the volume of food you consume to break the fast. better to, as your sibling said, break with a light meal with all the macronutrients and a decent chunk of micronutrients and vitamins than a lumberjack's breakfast. Or if you break in the evenings, the buffet is probably not ideal. Maybe when people realize they don't need as much food as they thought - especially grasses (sugar, wheat, corn, specifically), they can "change their relationship with food." or just ozempic i guess, what do i know. hey i wanted to ninja and let you know i have no problem with what you or sibling said, at all. I'm just speaking to the topic, not trying to argue. I realize a skim makes it seem like i was disagreeing!
- froh 2y ago
  thanks for this summary speaking of visceral fat, do you happen to have pointers how to reduce that?
  - sixtyj 2y ago
    Visceral fat has long-term memory, and also come as the last in the line. So the diet mentioned in the study may not have started the visceral fat reduction at all… And I forgot, you have to exercise, HIIT, calories deficit is not enough. Forget about Ozempic and other drugs, they are good for people with diabetes. And you have to use them for the rest of life, otherwise there is yoyo effect.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - wahern 2y ago
    Fat distribution, including subcutaneous vs visceral, has very clear racial/ethnic genetic associations, not to mention sex. East Asian and especially South Asian groups skew much more toward visceral fat, while European and especially African groups toward subcutaneous fat. Beyond calories in/calories out, generalized advice in this context might not be as helpful on an individual basis as with other health matters. In the context of diet & weight things are already complicated, but at least in this area we know why and can more easily predict how one person's body is likely to respond vs another. (Though, it might just come down to some ethnic groups having to put in alot more effort--e.g. much greater reduction in overall weight--than others for the same reduction in visceral fat.)
- hilux 2y ago
  > However, the weight loss didn't represent a loss of visceral fat (around the abdominal organs, fat which is more likely to be associated with diabetes and cardiovascular disease) and so the essential finding was that the time-restricted fasting made no difference. You're making a bit of a leap with "made no difference." It's well-known that the body "holds on to" visceral fat in many cases, i.e. in order to reduce visceral fat, we first have to lose all the other excess fat. Which the TRE diet achieved: 5-7 pounds in 12 weeks is no small feat!
  - gwerbret 2y ago
    > You're making a bit of a leap with "made no difference." I was paraphrasing the results of the study, which was designed specifically to see if fasting would reduce visceral fat as compared to a non-fasting regimen. If you read the abstract I cited, you'll see that there's not even any mention of overall body weight in the abstract -- that finding is buried in a figure of the paper, and mentioned basically in passing. As for losing losing visceral fat versus other fat, that's partially true, but reality is a little bit more complex than that. Two people with the same 20% body fat can have radically different proportions of visceral and subcutaneous (under the skin) fat, and it's the person with more visceral fat who is at risk. This is why you have studies like this designed to find ways to target visceral fat.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rabid_turtle 2y ago
bREAKfAsT Is THE MOST IMpoRTaNT meAL Of THE daY!
- GenerocUsername 2y ago
  Yes. It is important that every american eat grain-heavy meals every 4 hours. Same regimen as pigs I bet.
  - hilux 2y ago
    Don't forget the sugar! Frosted Mini-Wheats ... mmm ...
    - genewitch 2y ago
      51g carbohydrates per serving, which is a lot, but only 12g of "added" sugar, and you can subtract 6g from that because of the fiber content. i use atkins rules because they're super easy to remember, i think. That's equivalent to 4 Eggo™ buttermilk waffles; again, atkins rules. there's much less added sugar, but the wheat is more highly processed so you get less dietary fiber, in fact, practically none. Compare that to an "English Breakfast" which has 34g of carbohydrates, 15g of added sugar, but you can subtract 6.4g due to dietary fiber - yes - and it's already looking more fulfilling and better for you. The sodium is off the charts though, i'd guess because of the bacon, sausage, and beans, canned food is lousy with sodium. I'd drink hot tea and take a couple 99mg potassium supplements with that meal. Me, personally. You shouldn't, unless a doctor says so.
- d1str0 2y ago
  If you’re under 18 and not already overweight and still growing, it probably is. Pretty sure it’s well studied that kids perform better at school when they’ve had breakfast.
- genewitch 2y ago
  > It was popularized in the early 20th century by John Harvey Kellogg oh weird, American breakfast cereals company says breakfast is the most important meal... ...for their stake/shareholders.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
deadbabe 2y ago
If you find yourself thinking about food all the time, that’s not healthy or normal. If you finish meals and are still hungry, that’s not normal. Normal people think about food only when they’re hungry, then they eat, and don’t think about it again until their next meal. It’s very easy to go 8 hours without eating this way.
- deathanatos 2y ago
  > It’s very easy to go 8 hours without eating this way. It's 16 h: > restricting daily food intake to an 8-hour timeframe […] As long as 16 hours of fasting were maintained Eating was restricted to an 8h window. Fitting 3 meals into an 8h window would be … tricky. I feel like most people's schedule is "[breakfast], [work], [dinner]" (with lunch in the middle of work), and assuming you work 8h, then you're already outside the study's fasting window. Throw two commutes in there …
  - jetrink 2y ago
    > Fitting 3 meals into an 8h window would be … tricky. That's the main secret to time restricted eating, in my opinion: You don't have enough time to eat as much as you normally do so overall calorie intake tends to decrease. I think the other reason it's helpful for some people is that eating nothing for one meal takes less self control than restricting yourself to a small portion, leading to better adherence than normal calorie counting.
    - bitmasher9 2y ago
      Another long term benefit is that it normalizes the feeling of hunger. To be able to feel hunger after not eating for 15 hours, but be able to wait that extra hour is huge for managing impulsively and learning that simple hunger isn’t as urgent of a bodily demand as one might have previously thought. There’s a big difference between “I’m malnourished”, “My body feels hungry” and “I want to eat for reasons other than feeling hungry”. Intermittent fasting will definitely teach you what “My body feels hungry” feels like, and shows you how to suppress it for hours. I think the positive reinforcement of eating during the time window also helps in this learning process.
paulpauper 2y ago
"Effective" as in "not very" The concept of 'eating windows' or timed eating has been studied and tested forever. the difference, if any, is basically nothing. It comes down to eating less. This is why GLP-1 drugs work so well when nothing else does at preventing people from putting as much food in their mouths.
- Gys 2y ago
  In the end any eating restriction has some influence on lowering weight...
  - nxpnsv 2y ago
    the 8 minute window is probably even better...
- hodder 2y ago
  People often confuse the mechanism (calorie deficit) with the behavioral adaptation causing the mechanism. This leads to great confusion among those not educated in nutrition. Time restricted eating as you say, is not effective if you equate calories to non time restricted eating, however it causes many to eat less over time - assuming they adhere to it and arent prone to binging. Its pretty simple to explain, if you can limp through your day without food, you arent likely to crush down more than say 2500 calories of food in a small evening window as your stomach is full. But yes it doesnt change thermodynamics and isnt the magic that bloggers/youtubers and shills espouse, rather it is a tool (among many) available for people to reduce caloric intake.
- hilux 2y ago
  Did you click on the link? If eating windows had been "tested forever" with conclusive results, studies like this one would not be conducted.
hodder 2y ago
It is important to understand that time restricted eating is behavioral adaptation to reduce caloric consumption. A calorie deficit is what drives weight loss. Here is a list of similar things that also "work". It is key to understand that "working"- meaning weight loss is the result of a deficit of energy requiring the body to use stored fuel (fat) as energy over time: -higher protein is more satiating -higher fiber is more satiating -keto diets are for most people pretty satiating so they reduce caloric intake -GLP1s like Ozempic and Mounjaro lead you to feel "full" and eat less through a few mechanisms - slowing digestion, stabilizing insulin and blood sugar -Drinking lots of water -subbing out sugars with artificial sweeteners -fasting, intermittent fasting, time restricted eating, alternate day fasting. For some can lead to a binge but if you adhere to it you are likely to consume less calories -switching from processed foods to whole foods high in fiber and protein is more satiating -wearing tighter and more revealing clothing will lead one to eat less -weighing yourself daily will lead you to eat less (assuming you understand thermodynamics) -exercising and cardio will lead you to burn more calories. Muscle mass accrued over time burns modestly more calories than fat mass and cardio burns calories directly -counting calories directly (leads to greater adherence). Just like budgeting. If you don't measure and estimate what is going in vs going out at all and have no experience measuring you are unlikely to succeed. It is important to understand that NONE of the above are a substitute for a caloric deficit for losing weight but rather one possible path to CAUSING a caloric deficit. The deficit is still required. These are behavioral tools. Hormones, PCOS, insulin etc are also not workarounds to the laws of thermodynamics. They can make you more hungry or burn more or less calories at the margins but they dont change the equation of calories in vs calories out. Often people confuse the behavioral method to achieve weight loss with the mechanism driving it, and this leads to most of the confusion on weight loss outside of scientific literature (among blogger quacks, fitness guru snakeoil salesman etc.) Rant over.
- bestouff 2y ago
  Brillant rant.
- scns 2y ago
  > cardio burns calories directly And lowers energy expenditure afterwards. Walking works better.
beardyw 2y ago
I mostly have breakfast at about 7am. So no more food after 3pm? Sounds hard to sustain in a normal kind of life.
- hilux 2y ago
  You're not forced to have breakfast at 7am. If you're healthy, keep doing what you're doing. If (like most people) you are overweight and unhealthy, what are you going to change?
- mehphp 2y ago
  I find if i eat an early breakfast, it is indeed hard to not eat after the 8 hours. I find the opposite to be quite easy though. Just skip breakfast and don’t eat until around 1. I get to look forward to food later while actually being hungry.
- jay_kyburz 2y ago
  I find it easier to skip breakfast and start eating a late lunch. That way I can enjoy a normal dinner with the family.
- myheartisinohio 2y ago
  What has worked for me is to delay my meals until noon or even later. Eat protein and veggies for lunch.
- __turbobrew__ 2y ago
  black coffee for breakfast
  - senectus1 2y ago
    there are several signs that coffee on an empty stomach can raise blood sugar and insulin levels. It may not be a great idea for certain groups of people.
nsxwolf 2y ago
So just skip breakfast?
rich_sasha 2y ago
I have only ever gained weight with intermediate fasting. When my window opens, I feel so hungry that I keep eating. I know supposedly you adapt to it and don't feel that extra hunger eventually, but somehow not me.
bhaney 2y ago
As other people are mentioning, I think the key factor for weight loss in any of these diets (intermittent fasting, keto, etc) is just making it more difficult to consume calories, which leads to a caloric deficit. I have a somewhat odd diet, where I naturally prefer to eat a single large (~2000 kcal) meal each day, and don't really eat outside that. I've been maintaining pretty much the exact same weight to within 5lb for years like this, despite it effectively being an extreme ~30-minute time-restricted-eating window.
- jweather 2y ago
  I've been doing this since Jan 1, sometimes called OMAD for One Meal A Day. I had already been skipping breakfast, so lunch is now a cup of tea or diet soda. Maybe it's just the excitement of a new diet plan, but it's helped me lose 25 pounds so far this year, on track for 35 total before I re-evaluate. I just don't seem to have the willpower to only snack in moderation, but limiting myself to an hour a day is working. I can still have that dessert I'm looking forward to, it just has a specific timeframe now. Do I feel hungry sometimes? Yes, but I need some practice being hungry after years of stuffing my face whenever I felt like it.
  - bhaney 2y ago
    So would you agree that the main reason for your weight loss on OMAD is caloric restriction from not being allowed to eat when you're sometimes hungry, when you probably would have eaten extra at those times before OMAD?
    - jay_kyburz 2y ago
      Yeah, I've been attempting OMAD as well and one thing that never occurred to me is how slowly you get through the groceries. And I never seem to get back to those leftovers :)
  - dingaling 2y ago
    > Yes, but I need some practice > being hungry after years of stuffing > my face whenever I felt like it. Why do you need such practice? I'd honestly rather suffer an hour doing unpleasant cardio to burn off carbs than spending all day feeling miserable and shaky from hunger. Particularly on jobs or tasks where mental focus is essential.
parliament32 2y ago
Turns out the key to weight loss is just "eat less" (calories, not volume). If you need a schedule and restricted hours to do that, great. If you need to track your calorie numbers (or some abstraction-of, like Weight Watchers points), great. If you need to "trick" yourself by eating high-volume-low-calorie foods, great. Whatever works for you. Just, less.
moltar 2y ago
I don’t eat all night, which is more than 8 hours. Doesn’t seem to work.

77 points by hilux 2y ago

The title in HN ("(Any) 8-hour time-restricted-eating window effective for weight loss") is heavily editorialized from that of the NIH blurb ("Timeframe of 8-hour restricted eating irrelevant to weight loss"), but actually better reflects the findings of the actual paper ([1], unfortunately paywalled). They found that people who fasted for 16 straight hours a day lost (a little bit) more weight over 12 weeks than those who followed a Mediterranean diet. However, the weight loss didn't represent a loss of visceral fat (around the abdominal organs, fat which is more likely to be associated with diabetes and cardiovascular disease) and so the essential finding was that the time-restricted fasting made no difference. 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39775037/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39775037/

genewitch 2y ago
those read the same to me, to be fair; although the important bit is "fasting for 16 consecutive hours", perhaps that gets to the point more effectively. I've read that intermittent fasting has more "holistic" value than just losing a little bit more weight, specifically on blood sugar or insulin levels, as well as fat storage. weight loss for health reasons should probably be coordinated with an expert who can look at your contemporary and historical blood tests. To be safest.
- NemoNobody 2y ago
  It's a bit to do with a change in diet and lifestyle to accompany the eating window but there is definitely something else at play as well. The human body is an amazing machine and it has all sorts of abilities that we are unaware of. When you starve, your body starts shutting down non essential things first, starts pulling nutrients from everywhere it and limiting activity. Starvation has both a physical and mental element to it - both during the process and following it. Intermittent fasting has been demonstrated to start a regenerative process in the body. It triggers cellular autophagy, which is kind of like running a cellular defrag. There have been a lot of studies lately that look into the regenerative aspects of deep sleep following a serious injury - I sus that's the same system behind both things. In response to the stress of not eating as usual, the body reacts. The mind does too. It sucks while you are starting it but it's nice to be able to know that you can skip of day of eating and be fine. After eating a big dinner and a good night's sleep you should have more energy and feel better for no real reason. I sus this has to do with how we ate while we were evolving - life was just a cycle of involuntarily intermittent fasting. Unless you do strenuous activity all day - food is energy, you will be wore out of you do too much. The food you first eat after matters too! Don't make a donut or highly processed/sweetened food the first nutrients after fasting - you'll feel like you ran a marathon. Simple carbs and protein - rice and black beans or oatmeal with seeds is typically what I do. Everyone is different tho - whatever works for you! All the best of luck, sorry this is apparently my rant for the day - better topic than normal
- hilux 2y ago
  I've been following Jason Fung and "intermittent fasting" for six or seven years. I notice that the specific wording "time-restricted eating" has gained popularity in the past couple of years, possibly because "time-restricted" is less of a red flag to the public than "fasting," which may bring up some emotional baggage. The reason for renaming is just speculation on my part - what's clear is that the eating protocol is the same, only the wording is different.
  - genewitch 2y ago
    when i hear "intermittent fasting" i think once or twice a week. Also it's not a silver bullet, but it does "shrink the stomach" a bit if you are mindful of the volume of food you consume to break the fast. better to, as your sibling said, break with a light meal with all the macronutrients and a decent chunk of micronutrients and vitamins than a lumberjack's breakfast. Or if you break in the evenings, the buffet is probably not ideal. Maybe when people realize they don't need as much food as they thought - especially grasses (sugar, wheat, corn, specifically), they can "change their relationship with food." or just ozempic i guess, what do i know. hey i wanted to ninja and let you know i have no problem with what you or sibling said, at all. I'm just speaking to the topic, not trying to argue. I realize a skim makes it seem like i was disagreeing!
froh 2y ago
thanks for this summary speaking of visceral fat, do you happen to have pointers how to reduce that?
- sixtyj 2y ago
  Visceral fat has long-term memory, and also come as the last in the line. So the diet mentioned in the study may not have started the visceral fat reduction at all… And I forgot, you have to exercise, HIIT, calories deficit is not enough. Forget about Ozempic and other drugs, they are good for people with diabetes. And you have to use them for the rest of life, otherwise there is yoyo effect.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- wahern 2y ago
  Fat distribution, including subcutaneous vs visceral, has very clear racial/ethnic genetic associations, not to mention sex. East Asian and especially South Asian groups skew much more toward visceral fat, while European and especially African groups toward subcutaneous fat. Beyond calories in/calories out, generalized advice in this context might not be as helpful on an individual basis as with other health matters. In the context of diet & weight things are already complicated, but at least in this area we know why and can more easily predict how one person's body is likely to respond vs another. (Though, it might just come down to some ethnic groups having to put in alot more effort--e.g. much greater reduction in overall weight--than others for the same reduction in visceral fat.)
hilux 2y ago
> However, the weight loss didn't represent a loss of visceral fat (around the abdominal organs, fat which is more likely to be associated with diabetes and cardiovascular disease) and so the essential finding was that the time-restricted fasting made no difference. You're making a bit of a leap with "made no difference." It's well-known that the body "holds on to" visceral fat in many cases, i.e. in order to reduce visceral fat, we first have to lose all the other excess fat. Which the TRE diet achieved: 5-7 pounds in 12 weeks is no small feat!
- gwerbret 2y ago
  > You're making a bit of a leap with "made no difference." I was paraphrasing the results of the study, which was designed specifically to see if fasting would reduce visceral fat as compared to a non-fasting regimen. If you read the abstract I cited, you'll see that there's not even any mention of overall body weight in the abstract -- that finding is buried in a figure of the paper, and mentioned basically in passing. As for losing losing visceral fat versus other fat, that's partially true, but reality is a little bit more complex than that. Two people with the same 20% body fat can have radically different proportions of visceral and subcutaneous (under the skin) fat, and it's the person with more visceral fat who is at risk. This is why you have studies like this designed to find ways to target visceral fat.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rabid_turtle 2y ago

bREAKfAsT Is THE MOST IMpoRTaNT meAL Of THE daY!

GenerocUsername 2y ago
Yes. It is important that every american eat grain-heavy meals every 4 hours. Same regimen as pigs I bet.
- hilux 2y ago
  Don't forget the sugar! Frosted Mini-Wheats ... mmm ...
  - genewitch 2y ago
    51g carbohydrates per serving, which is a lot, but only 12g of "added" sugar, and you can subtract 6g from that because of the fiber content. i use atkins rules because they're super easy to remember, i think. That's equivalent to 4 Eggo™ buttermilk waffles; again, atkins rules. there's much less added sugar, but the wheat is more highly processed so you get less dietary fiber, in fact, practically none. Compare that to an "English Breakfast" which has 34g of carbohydrates, 15g of added sugar, but you can subtract 6.4g due to dietary fiber - yes - and it's already looking more fulfilling and better for you. The sodium is off the charts though, i'd guess because of the bacon, sausage, and beans, canned food is lousy with sodium. I'd drink hot tea and take a couple 99mg potassium supplements with that meal. Me, personally. You shouldn't, unless a doctor says so.
d1str0 2y ago
If you’re under 18 and not already overweight and still growing, it probably is. Pretty sure it’s well studied that kids perform better at school when they’ve had breakfast.
genewitch 2y ago
> It was popularized in the early 20th century by John Harvey Kellogg oh weird, American breakfast cereals company says breakfast is the most important meal... ...for their stake/shareholders.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

deadbabe 2y ago

If you find yourself thinking about food all the time, that’s not healthy or normal. If you finish meals and are still hungry, that’s not normal. Normal people think about food only when they’re hungry, then they eat, and don’t think about it again until their next meal. It’s very easy to go 8 hours without eating this way.

deathanatos 2y ago
> It’s very easy to go 8 hours without eating this way. It's 16 h: > restricting daily food intake to an 8-hour timeframe […] As long as 16 hours of fasting were maintained Eating was restricted to an 8h window. Fitting 3 meals into an 8h window would be … tricky. I feel like most people's schedule is "[breakfast], [work], [dinner]" (with lunch in the middle of work), and assuming you work 8h, then you're already outside the study's fasting window. Throw two commutes in there …
- jetrink 2y ago
  > Fitting 3 meals into an 8h window would be … tricky. That's the main secret to time restricted eating, in my opinion: You don't have enough time to eat as much as you normally do so overall calorie intake tends to decrease. I think the other reason it's helpful for some people is that eating nothing for one meal takes less self control than restricting yourself to a small portion, leading to better adherence than normal calorie counting.
  - bitmasher9 2y ago
    Another long term benefit is that it normalizes the feeling of hunger. To be able to feel hunger after not eating for 15 hours, but be able to wait that extra hour is huge for managing impulsively and learning that simple hunger isn’t as urgent of a bodily demand as one might have previously thought. There’s a big difference between “I’m malnourished”, “My body feels hungry” and “I want to eat for reasons other than feeling hungry”. Intermittent fasting will definitely teach you what “My body feels hungry” feels like, and shows you how to suppress it for hours. I think the positive reinforcement of eating during the time window also helps in this learning process.

paulpauper 2y ago

"Effective" as in "not very" The concept of 'eating windows' or timed eating has been studied and tested forever. the difference, if any, is basically nothing. It comes down to eating less. This is why GLP-1 drugs work so well when nothing else does at preventing people from putting as much food in their mouths.

Gys 2y ago
In the end any eating restriction has some influence on lowering weight...
- nxpnsv 2y ago
  the 8 minute window is probably even better...
hodder 2y ago
People often confuse the mechanism (calorie deficit) with the behavioral adaptation causing the mechanism. This leads to great confusion among those not educated in nutrition. Time restricted eating as you say, is not effective if you equate calories to non time restricted eating, however it causes many to eat less over time - assuming they adhere to it and arent prone to binging. Its pretty simple to explain, if you can limp through your day without food, you arent likely to crush down more than say 2500 calories of food in a small evening window as your stomach is full. But yes it doesnt change thermodynamics and isnt the magic that bloggers/youtubers and shills espouse, rather it is a tool (among many) available for people to reduce caloric intake.
hilux 2y ago
Did you click on the link? If eating windows had been "tested forever" with conclusive results, studies like this one would not be conducted.

hodder 2y ago

It is important to understand that time restricted eating is behavioral adaptation to reduce caloric consumption. A calorie deficit is what drives weight loss. Here is a list of similar things that also "work". It is key to understand that "working"- meaning weight loss is the result of a deficit of energy requiring the body to use stored fuel (fat) as energy over time: -higher protein is more satiating -higher fiber is more satiating -keto diets are for most people pretty satiating so they reduce caloric intake -GLP1s like Ozempic and Mounjaro lead you to feel "full" and eat less through a few mechanisms - slowing digestion, stabilizing insulin and blood sugar -Drinking lots of water -subbing out sugars with artificial sweeteners -fasting, intermittent fasting, time restricted eating, alternate day fasting. For some can lead to a binge but if you adhere to it you are likely to consume less calories -switching from processed foods to whole foods high in fiber and protein is more satiating -wearing tighter and more revealing clothing will lead one to eat less -weighing yourself daily will lead you to eat less (assuming you understand thermodynamics) -exercising and cardio will lead you to burn more calories. Muscle mass accrued over time burns modestly more calories than fat mass and cardio burns calories directly -counting calories directly (leads to greater adherence). Just like budgeting. If you don't measure and estimate what is going in vs going out at all and have no experience measuring you are unlikely to succeed. It is important to understand that NONE of the above are a substitute for a caloric deficit for losing weight but rather one possible path to CAUSING a caloric deficit. The deficit is still required. These are behavioral tools. Hormones, PCOS, insulin etc are also not workarounds to the laws of thermodynamics. They can make you more hungry or burn more or less calories at the margins but they dont change the equation of calories in vs calories out. Often people confuse the behavioral method to achieve weight loss with the mechanism driving it, and this leads to most of the confusion on weight loss outside of scientific literature (among blogger quacks, fitness guru snakeoil salesman etc.) Rant over.

bestouff 2y ago
Brillant rant.
scns 2y ago
> cardio burns calories directly And lowers energy expenditure afterwards. Walking works better.

beardyw 2y ago

I mostly have breakfast at about 7am. So no more food after 3pm? Sounds hard to sustain in a normal kind of life.

hilux 2y ago
You're not forced to have breakfast at 7am. If you're healthy, keep doing what you're doing. If (like most people) you are overweight and unhealthy, what are you going to change?
mehphp 2y ago
I find if i eat an early breakfast, it is indeed hard to not eat after the 8 hours. I find the opposite to be quite easy though. Just skip breakfast and don’t eat until around 1. I get to look forward to food later while actually being hungry.
jay_kyburz 2y ago
I find it easier to skip breakfast and start eating a late lunch. That way I can enjoy a normal dinner with the family.
myheartisinohio 2y ago
What has worked for me is to delay my meals until noon or even later. Eat protein and veggies for lunch.
__turbobrew__ 2y ago
black coffee for breakfast
- senectus1 2y ago
  there are several signs that coffee on an empty stomach can raise blood sugar and insulin levels. It may not be a great idea for certain groups of people.

nsxwolf 2y ago

So just skip breakfast?

rich_sasha 2y ago

I have only ever gained weight with intermediate fasting. When my window opens, I feel so hungry that I keep eating. I know supposedly you adapt to it and don't feel that extra hunger eventually, but somehow not me.

bhaney 2y ago

As other people are mentioning, I think the key factor for weight loss in any of these diets (intermittent fasting, keto, etc) is just making it more difficult to consume calories, which leads to a caloric deficit. I have a somewhat odd diet, where I naturally prefer to eat a single large (~2000 kcal) meal each day, and don't really eat outside that. I've been maintaining pretty much the exact same weight to within 5lb for years like this, despite it effectively being an extreme ~30-minute time-restricted-eating window.

jweather 2y ago
I've been doing this since Jan 1, sometimes called OMAD for One Meal A Day. I had already been skipping breakfast, so lunch is now a cup of tea or diet soda. Maybe it's just the excitement of a new diet plan, but it's helped me lose 25 pounds so far this year, on track for 35 total before I re-evaluate. I just don't seem to have the willpower to only snack in moderation, but limiting myself to an hour a day is working. I can still have that dessert I'm looking forward to, it just has a specific timeframe now. Do I feel hungry sometimes? Yes, but I need some practice being hungry after years of stuffing my face whenever I felt like it.
- bhaney 2y ago
  So would you agree that the main reason for your weight loss on OMAD is caloric restriction from not being allowed to eat when you're sometimes hungry, when you probably would have eaten extra at those times before OMAD?
  - jay_kyburz 2y ago
    Yeah, I've been attempting OMAD as well and one thing that never occurred to me is how slowly you get through the groceries. And I never seem to get back to those leftovers :)
- dingaling 2y ago
  > Yes, but I need some practice > being hungry after years of stuffing > my face whenever I felt like it. Why do you need such practice? I'd honestly rather suffer an hour doing unpleasant cardio to burn off carbs than spending all day feeling miserable and shaky from hunger. Particularly on jobs or tasks where mental focus is essential.

parliament32 2y ago

Turns out the key to weight loss is just "eat less" (calories, not volume). If you need a schedule and restricted hours to do that, great. If you need to track your calorie numbers (or some abstraction-of, like Weight Watchers points), great. If you need to "trick" yourself by eating high-volume-low-calorie foods, great. Whatever works for you. Just, less.

moltar 2y ago

I don’t eat all night, which is more than 8 hours. Doesn’t seem to work.