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
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
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?)
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
The popular term 'intermittent fasting' usually describes time restricted eating, with a fasting period usually between 16-20 hours.
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.
Well I suppose not eating on purpose vs just being slob or not having time for it is kind of different.