[HN Gopher] Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and...
___________________________________________________________________
Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and Other
Metabolic Parameters
Author : voisin
Score : 39 points
Date : 2020-10-10 19:47 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (jamanetwork.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (jamanetwork.com)
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I have been following a 16:8 routine during lockdown and have
| found a modest weight loss, but there are loads of confounding
| factors - I find myself eating healthier, i have been running
| 5ish K each day etc.
|
| 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.
| issa wrote:
| I'm not sure why the study was designed this way, but it seems
| poorly thought out. 16 hours of fasting is eating dinner at 6pm
| and then going to brunch the next morning. They really should
| have done 20 or at least 18 hours. My personal feeling, is that
| there are a whole bunch of factors involved, and time restricted
| eating is one of them. I'm looking forward to the science being
| done on this.
| shekharshan wrote:
| Precisely. If I fast for 16 hours it does not do much. As a
| male in early 40s I have to hit atleast 18-20 hours of fasting
| to start seeing a difference. I have to restrict sugar intake
| also during the 4-5 hour eating window.
| ImprobableTruth wrote:
| 16 hour fasting seems to be the most popular form of
| intermittent fasting (especially as a way to lose weight), so I
| think it makes sense to focus on it.
| newobj wrote:
| Absolutely works for me. Time restriction is the only "way of
| eating" for me that's ever been able to maintain results for
| years on end without yoyo-ing.
| efitz wrote:
| I'm really happy to see publication of a study that did not
| confirm a hypothesis. I think it's important to see things that
| we tried that didn't work out, as well as seeing studies that
| confirm hypotheses.
| joshgel wrote:
| Previous discussion here:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24622280
| sharker8 wrote:
| Fell off the intermittent fasting bandwagon recently. For some
| reason the intermittent fasting crowd is also usually a big fan
| of ketosis. I have recently switched to high starch very low fat,
| eat whenever you want. No added oil, no animal products.
| Immediately lost about 10% of body weight in first 3 months.
| Recommend fellow recovering keto-ers please look at the starch
| diet advocated by John McDougall.
| dt3ft wrote:
| Huh, wasn't expecting this:
|
| > Conclusions and Relevance Time-restricted eating, in the
| absence of other interventions, is not more effective in weight
| loss than eating throughout the day.
| mahalol wrote:
| From my experience, I simply end up eating more after breaking
| the fast, so overall the same amount of calories a day (if not
| more).
| seebetter wrote:
| This is certainly not true for me. Fasting 16 hours a day has
| changed my life. I eat relatively healthy but been eating a lot
| of sugar, full pizzas etc so I doubt I'm at a calorie deficit
| more than once a week.
|
| 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.
| technoplato wrote:
| When you cite your skepticism, are you saying those doctors
| aren't exploratory in their opinions of diet?
|
| 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?
| c54 wrote:
| They conclude the following:
|
| > 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)
| AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
| > (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)
|
| 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.
| andrei_says_ wrote:
| What is CICO?
|
| 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?
| lol636363 wrote:
| No, all calories are same. This is in the domain of physics
| or chemistry.
|
| 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.
| corty wrote:
| No, all calories are not the same. The basic process for
| measurements is "burn it, measure the energy output". "
| Burning" as in "gas flame, high heat, oxygenated
| atmosphere". This is something your body doesn't do, even
| if you supposedly "burn" calories. Your body uses
| different reactions that are often less efficient,
| meaning the energy output will be different from the
| calories measured. Nowadays some of those errors are
| corrected for, but not all of them. And depending on your
| personal metabolism, from genetics, daily changes and
| nutrient status, your body will be less or more efficient
| with some foods.
| Dahoon wrote:
| No they are not. 1 calorie from fat makes you more full
| than 1 from sugar. Also sugar (or rather glucose) makes
| you hungry because of the blood-sugar spike and crash. So
| while one type of food makes you full, another with the
| exact same amount of calories can make you hungry and
| hence eat more. Also the body burn different things in
| different ways (glucose vs. fat). That is why some (like
| me) will feel awful if I take a long walk while in a
| period of eating what is considered normal today but can
| stop eating for a few days with no problems at all (and
| add a few long walks on-top of that no problem) if I eat
| low carb high fat.
|
| You can say it is the same in basic physics or chemistry
| if you want but if calories from X does not give the same
| amount of energy for the body as Y, then X != Y.
| amelius wrote:
| I think the whole calories in / calories out phrasing is
| very disrespectful towards people with genetic obesity,
| (EDIT:) because these people can eat the same, sport the
| same, etc. as other people and still gain more weight.
| Telling them "just follow this equation like I do" hides
| the real problem behind a variable and is disrespectful
| because things aren't so simple for these people.
| johnkpaul wrote:
| I am one of those people. I appreciate you saying this. I
| have spent decades of my life trying to lose weight
| including following doctors orders word for word for 10
| years. It only ended with gained weight despite their
| beliefs in "physics".
|
| 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.
| joflicu wrote:
| Can you share what you did to lose this much weight?
| matz1 wrote:
| How is it disrespectful?
| curiousllama wrote:
| It's the phrasing, not the idea per se. Like, yes, weight
| loss is energy consumed - energy burned, but it's rather
| obvious, rather unhelpful, and simplifies things in a way
| that triggers shame, not determination for people who
| have to overcome more barriers.
|
| It's like you're in the middle of a marathon and someone
| running a 5k goes "have you considered running faster?"
| [deleted]
| johnkpaul wrote:
| Imagine the time before the formalization of dyslexia
| within medicine. It would have been very disrespectful
| and cruel to tell people who found learning very
| challenging something like "just try harder! It's basic
| physics, the more you study, the more you learn!"
| matz1 wrote:
| Calorie in calorie out principle doesn't imply that its
| not challenging
| johnkpaul wrote:
| Why not? It just means you eat a specific amount of
| calories and you'll lose weight no?
| matz1 wrote:
| That its true but that statement doesn't say anything
| about the difficulty of it.
| johnkpaul wrote:
| I agree. Neither you nor I made a specific comment in
| difficulty. Your parent comment stated it was
| disrespectful. I agreed and tried to use an analogy that
| would be considered both disrespectful and cruel by most
| people.
|
| 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.
| Rich_Morin wrote:
| Burt Herring, the author of the Fast-5 diet book, contends that
| doing physical activity while fasting causes the body to reach
| into fat reserves for energy. This seems plausible to me, but
| IANAD.
|
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-10-10 23:00 UTC)