Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and Other Metabolic Parameters
jamanetwork.com
jamanetwork.com
> Time-restricted eating, in the absence of other interventions, is not more effective in weight loss than eating throughout the day.
I believe this, with two additions: In my experience, time restricted eating confers weight loss via reduced calorie intake (in short, if I only eat until I’m full for a 6 hour period in a day, I simply don’t eat as much).
The other factor is the supposed ‘cellular regeneration’ kinds of claims, along the lines of “well, if your cells arent metabolizing fresh food, they have time to do clean—up processes and this is good for reasons”. I would be interested to learn more along these lines, but it makes sense that this wouldn’t be directly related to weight loss as such and would instead affect other factors (longevity, gut and skin health, etc)
Maybe for some people that will work, however as a food addict I can safely say that I can very easily consume more than a days worth of calories in a lot less than 6 hours. And have. A lot.
I am not surprised by the result. The only thing that really works for losing weight is CICO, and anything else is an abstraction.
Do you mean something like calories in calories out?
And doesn’t that disregard the fact that sugar calories are very different from non sugar ones in terms of metabolism?
In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight. I admit, andcdata, but I am not the only person with this story nor am I the only one with this odd medical outcome.
>In addition, I have successfully eaten the “correct” amount of calories for years and years and still gained weight
So that means you are not eating the correct amount of calorie. But i guess you knew that since you use the word correct in quote.
I put correct in quotes because it was ineffective. I did not lose weight eating the amount of calories that the doctors calculated. Is that surprising?
Finding how many calories your body needs right now to maintain weight is another issue entirely, and one which involves estimation and uncertainties.
If you find you're not losing weight while hitting your target value, well then it's simple[1]: your target value is wrong and needs to be lowered.
[1]: Assuming your doc verified you're not gaining weight due to water retention or similar.
It’s like you’re in the middle of a marathon and someone running a 5k goes “have you considered running faster?”
Some people may find it obvious but some other people can find it helpful.
https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lac...
1. Unlike a fixed diet or meal plan, it freed me to keep eating the things I wanted to eat. Not exactly as before, but to a large degree. I really enjoy my food, so not being forced to eat stuff I didn't want or like was crucial. Instead I focused finding ways of keeping the calories per day roughly at a target value. This simplified things a lot for me, as it was a clear and very tangible goal.
2. If I failed one day, say maybe I went out with some friends or I just had to have some ice cream or whatever, it allowed me to not feel bad about it. I knew this process would take a year at least, so "calories in / calories out" meant whatever I do today doesn't matter much, it's what I do every day that matters.
I am now 3.5 years into carbohydrate recovery and I’ve lost 200 pounds eating way way way more than my “TDEE”.
I’m not saying this for any other reason than to express my gratitude.
I lean toward either butter or tallow as a cooking oil, but outside of directly eating a stick I can’t imagine using an entire one to cook a meal per person.
All 10 of them? That's fine then, because for the rest of 99% of the obese population it's fine...
But of course if you get all your calories from simple carbs, you will be deficient in other important nutrients like vitamins.
However, deficiency of certain nutrients may cause body to slow down or increase metabolic rate.
1) It ignores the processes involved in burning fats, sugars, and proteins, which can heavily impact where your body prioritizes getting its energy (or storing it).
2) It ignores other health impacts of 'calories' such as blood glucose levels, which absolutely will depend on what it is you're eating and not just the calorie count. Sugars, fats, and carbs are also processed in different parts of your body - so you might be following a "calories in calories out" and giving yourself non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.
3) It conflates calories, as measured via completely artificial process, with human digestion.
Calorie as a measure sets upper limit of maximum energy you can extract from a given food. If you want to gain 1lb of weight, you will need to eat at least 3500 calories. If you want lose 1lb, you have create deficits of at least 3500 cals.
What do you mean by "works" here?
Technically it is true... the same way as "atoms in, atoms out" is technically true. So why do people prefer saying "calories in, calories out" instead of "atoms in, atoms out"?
That's because "calories in, calories out" implies that there is an easy solution to being fat... you simply need to "out" more calories, while you "in" less calories, duh!
Which conveniently ignores all possible problems with trying to "in" less calories and "out" more of them. For example, that your metabolism can make you feel extremely tired, even pass out, if you don't "in" enough calories. Similarly, to "out" more calories you sometimes need more than sheer willpower; your muscles have to cooperate, and sometimes they will only if you "in" enough calories.
I would argue that CICO does not imply easy. The rendering equation really just says light in == light out but that doesn't mean writing a renderer is easy. People who say CICO doesn't work are usually trying to sell you an "easy" way to lose weight. Take this proprietary fat burning pill. Don't eat carbs. Don't eat fats. Eat 6 small meals a day. Eat 1 meal a day. Don't feed your mogwai after midnight.
If one of these strategies works for you, great. You've found a way to get calories in less than calories out.
This is the danger I see in simple slogans, that they make people automatically dismiss potential solutions. Of course, if a successful solution is found, it will be obvious in hindsight that CICO didn't actually contradict it. But no one who is happy with CICO as an answer is looking in that direction now.
EDIT: Same objection applies to "calories out". How do you spend calories? Typically by exercise or sport. But that way you can only spend calories that are currently stored in your muscles. What about calories that are currently stored in your fat cells -- how do you move them from there, into your muscles? Again, I imagine that a pill, or a change of diet, could make this more easy or difficult.
Or to make it easier how about eggs, let's say 2500 calories at ~80 calories per egg, you just need to down ~32 eggs in a few hours, maybe 10 eggs an hour?
Calling something near physically impossible "an abstraction" seems a bit oversimplified, perhaps?
I'm honestly not sure any human being could physically consume a days worth of calories in a whole day eating nothing but uncooked leafy greens. So the time restriction would be irrelevant to the goal wouldn't it? And that's my point, it matters more what you eat and how much of it than when you eat it. Time restriction is a poor abstraction of CICO.
Now, a year later, I am doing 8 hour eating window (not Keto) and am sticking to it for the long-term. I simply don't enjoy breakfast. Never have really. Not eating it appears to give me more stable energy and concentration for both intellectual and physical tasks, both before and after "lunch": a raw oats & berries breakfast anywhere between midday and 4 PM depending. I also run 5 km every second day, heavy weights once a week. Reuslt: -0.75 kg/week averaged over many months. Now my weight is somewhat stable at a healthy weight.
I wholly accept that this is most likely de-facto calorie restriction and not the wonders of TRE per se. Early in Fast 800 Dr Mosley addresses diet adherence and it is widely believed that this is the single biggest factor impacting diet for weight (fat) loss success.
With respect to cellular regeneration, I like the story but the only sources I've found (and they're not scientific so do your own searching) is that this process starts at about 16 hours of fasting. It really peaks around 3-4 days of fasting, which is a whole different thing. I have started doing occasional 2 day fasts and want to say it's do-able by normal people, but so far it appears TRE won't get you anything like it.
I have seen a lot of post from people on fasting subreddit with pictures of skin condition improving/gone after fasting.
It does make sense that our bodies take path of least resistance, and when there is no food around the cellular 'garbage' becomes something can be recycled into food.
What prevents us from developing tools, whether statistical techniques or otherwise, from settling these questions once and for all? And why do the answers need to be universal? Most papers I've read do not universalize their results, at least outwardly, but (some) popular science writers seem to do that a lot.
I can imagine, and several other comments allude to this, that individuals with different genetic makeup will experience a different set of dynamics around nutrition. I don't mean to be facetious or to suggest these aren't real challenges, I'm just curious on what the big obstacles are, in 2020.
Also it goes without saying, but statistical tools won't save you if your data is garbage.
Meet all RDAs with just a variety of whole quality foods, 1:1:1 calcium:phosphorus:magnesium ratio, and ensure sufficient quality sleep (sustained-release melatonin after growth plates fuse).
Anything else is based on genetics, something that can be known and analyzed nowadays. For example, I learned I have issues with saturated fats. Some learn they have methylation/MTHFR mutations. Etc.
Most things done are to maintain youthfulness, looks, etc. Mostly noise, though, save the basics mentioned above.
A substantial long term study, with many experimental subjects, is more costly to fund, and produces much less papers than 10 or 20 hastily done studies. The system optimizes for more papers and easier funding.
Plus, research/university ties with industry means the industry (glorified telemarketers) says jump and researchers say "how high". Bad results that promote a product/supplement/fad diet can be way more profitable than good research.
But the science is very clear. Eat more veggies and fruits.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31151228/ (First I found via search, not sure if it's the initial one I'd heard of)
That may not necessarily impact weight loss/ gain directly, but it's certainly critical for health.
In any event, I've been able to lose 30+ pounds over the past several months by going for regular walks and (mostly) refraining from eating anything with calories until evening. Interestingly, I also find that my food intake capacity at dinnertime seems to be less than it used to be.
> Conclusions and Relevance Time-restricted eating, in the absence of other interventions, is not more effective in weight loss than eating throughout the day.
That's all under the heading of "eating healthily and exercising". But looking for one specific item in a whole life change is looking at the wrong problem.
We are looking in the wrong place here - we live in an "obesogenic" world - rather than looking for a fix that helps us live with aisles in super markets stuffed with sugar and crisps, shouldn't we take those aisles away? A coffee shop does not need cakes, just good company. A fast food takeaway does not have to be fried.
It's not the fault of each of us as individuals that (so many) of us cannot resist what we are programmed to eat.
It's the fault of "us" as society - we talk about designing better cities, more walkable, more community - it one of those designs we also need is access to healthy food.
Nobel laureate Richard Thaler talks about a Libertarian Paternalism - i think we need to consider something like it.
As an aside, I had cancer and worked with surgeons professionally. And I am exceptionally skeptical and disappointed in the curiosity of doctors and surgeons. Some of my doctors would repeat word for word answers. My oncologist didn’t know basic questions.
How did you work with these doctors in a way that’s relevant to the topic?
Apologies for my ignorance and assumptions but wouldn’t you need to gain weight after surgeries for cancer?