The original study reported seems to have been decently well designed and has an adequate, if not great, sample size. The intervention effects are mostly modest, in the neighborhood of 3 - 11%...
The original study reported seems to have been decently well designed and has an adequate, if not great, sample size.
The intervention effects are mostly modest, in the neighborhood of 3 - 11% improvements in metabolic indicators and weight, but the ease of achieving them is surprising, as are the reported improvements in wellbeing. Fasting insulin and thyroid hormone levels are more distinctly improved (21% and 13% respectively), as are days of perceived refreshing sleep (30%).
Since the participants were already obese and suffering metabolic syndrome, this study shouldn't be interpreted as proof that the time-limited eating intervention will prevent these conditions, but the mechanism suggests that it might. The study only continued for 12 weeks - more research is needed.
Unsure of this specific study (haven't had a chance to read it yet), but there have been many studies on IF where the experimental group does something very similar to this - restricting the...
Unsure of this specific study (haven't had a chance to read it yet), but there have been many studies on IF where the experimental group does something very similar to this - restricting the feeding window to begin at lunch and end around dinner.
Generally speaking most of these studies find that perceived hunger is less when restricted in this fashion and that most people tolerate this fairly well. It's a very common strategy to reducing intake as it's low cost and beneficial - albeit not the hugest benefit, I would argue something with close to no cost and a tangible benefit may as well be adopted so long as you tolerate it well.
I'd guess that the point is to ensure a prolonged period of fasting each day (14 hours or more). The paper indicated that the researchers didn't direct the participants to fast during specific...
I'd guess that the point is to ensure a prolonged period of fasting each day (14 hours or more).
The paper indicated that the researchers didn't direct the participants to fast during specific hours, just to avoid eating outside a 10-hour window of their choice.
There's some evidence that eating immediately before sleep contributes to weight gain, but who knows whether that's the case in the context of intermittent fasting.
Intermittent fasting (or "time-restricted eating", as the article calls it) seems to be an internet health fad that is actually safe and beneficial with some research to back it up. Anecdotally I...
Intermittent fasting (or "time-restricted eating", as the article calls it) seems to be an internet health fad that is actually safe and beneficial with some research to back it up. Anecdotally I can say that when I practice IF (usually 16–20 hours fasting each day) I feel more energetic and focused, am less prone to stress eating or overeating, and I normally don't feel hungry at all while fasting (at least once I adapted to it).
It's also a lot easier to lose or maintain weight if I have that as my goal; if I set a short eating window I'll feel full and satisfied from eating much of the day's food at once (and, counter-intuitively, I feel full much more easily when eating after fasting; I don't have a ravenous appetite after fasting as one might expect) and if I break my fast with something healthy like a meal with lots of vegetables I won't have much of an appetite for junk food in the rest of my eating window, either.
As for not eating during the fasting window I find it helps to consider the supposed benefits of fasting (e.g. autophagy) which is good motivation to keep going and to not discard the time I've already spent fasting. This also makes unhealthy choices feel more immediate: junk food during my fasting window will break my fast and have immediate consequences, compared to the "one day this might catch up to me if I keep eating like this" attitude I would have otherwise. (And, like I said, junk food during my eating window is also easier to not have because I'll spend much of that time feeling satiated from healthy meals.)
I don't know if IF is everything its proponents claim but it works for me and seems to be safe1 and at least a little beneficial (or maybe very beneficial) so I find it's worth doing.
1 I think IF isn't recommended if you're pregnant or breastfeeding or in some other cases, but for most people it's supposed to be safe. I mean, all you're really doing is skipping breakfast and some evening and morning snacks, and maybe having a late lunch. And why would it necessarily be the case that the healthy and natural thing for people to do is constantly eat throughout the day, anyway?
Part of the discussion in the paper involves people who have adverse reactions to fasting longer than 14 hours at a time. Given that the study group is already obese and at least pre-diabetic,...
Part of the discussion in the paper involves people who have adverse reactions to fasting longer than 14 hours at a time.
Given that the study group is already obese and at least pre-diabetic, it's good to know that they can still withstand as much as a 14-hour fast without nausea and faintness.
OTOH, based on my experience with fasting and eating only a single meal per day, it's no guarantee that your caloric intake will be less than your energy expenditure even with proper meal planning.
The original study reported seems to have been decently well designed and has an adequate, if not great, sample size.
The intervention effects are mostly modest, in the neighborhood of 3 - 11% improvements in metabolic indicators and weight, but the ease of achieving them is surprising, as are the reported improvements in wellbeing. Fasting insulin and thyroid hormone levels are more distinctly improved (21% and 13% respectively), as are days of perceived refreshing sleep (30%).
Since the participants were already obese and suffering metabolic syndrome, this study shouldn't be interpreted as proof that the time-limited eating intervention will prevent these conditions, but the mechanism suggests that it might. The study only continued for 12 weeks - more research is needed.
Any idea if skipping breakfast and stopping eating after 10pm would qualify?
Unsure of this specific study (haven't had a chance to read it yet), but there have been many studies on IF where the experimental group does something very similar to this - restricting the feeding window to begin at lunch and end around dinner.
Generally speaking most of these studies find that perceived hunger is less when restricted in this fashion and that most people tolerate this fairly well. It's a very common strategy to reducing intake as it's low cost and beneficial - albeit not the hugest benefit, I would argue something with close to no cost and a tangible benefit may as well be adopted so long as you tolerate it well.
I'd guess that the point is to ensure a prolonged period of fasting each day (14 hours or more).
The paper indicated that the researchers didn't direct the participants to fast during specific hours, just to avoid eating outside a 10-hour window of their choice.
There's some evidence that eating immediately before sleep contributes to weight gain, but who knows whether that's the case in the context of intermittent fasting.
Thanks!
Intermittent fasting (or "time-restricted eating", as the article calls it) seems to be an internet health fad that is actually safe and beneficial with some research to back it up. Anecdotally I can say that when I practice IF (usually 16–20 hours fasting each day) I feel more energetic and focused, am less prone to stress eating or overeating, and I normally don't feel hungry at all while fasting (at least once I adapted to it).
It's also a lot easier to lose or maintain weight if I have that as my goal; if I set a short eating window I'll feel full and satisfied from eating much of the day's food at once (and, counter-intuitively, I feel full much more easily when eating after fasting; I don't have a ravenous appetite after fasting as one might expect) and if I break my fast with something healthy like a meal with lots of vegetables I won't have much of an appetite for junk food in the rest of my eating window, either.
As for not eating during the fasting window I find it helps to consider the supposed benefits of fasting (e.g. autophagy) which is good motivation to keep going and to not discard the time I've already spent fasting. This also makes unhealthy choices feel more immediate: junk food during my fasting window will break my fast and have immediate consequences, compared to the "one day this might catch up to me if I keep eating like this" attitude I would have otherwise. (And, like I said, junk food during my eating window is also easier to not have because I'll spend much of that time feeling satiated from healthy meals.)
I don't know if IF is everything its proponents claim but it works for me and seems to be safe1 and at least a little beneficial (or maybe very beneficial) so I find it's worth doing.
1 I think IF isn't recommended if you're pregnant or breastfeeding or in some other cases, but for most people it's supposed to be safe. I mean, all you're really doing is skipping breakfast and some evening and morning snacks, and maybe having a late lunch. And why would it necessarily be the case that the healthy and natural thing for people to do is constantly eat throughout the day, anyway?
Fasting also has an effect on those taking medication, so consulting a doctor is recommended before enacting any changes.
Part of the discussion in the paper involves people who have adverse reactions to fasting longer than 14 hours at a time.
Given that the study group is already obese and at least pre-diabetic, it's good to know that they can still withstand as much as a 14-hour fast without nausea and faintness.
OTOH, based on my experience with fasting and eating only a single meal per day, it's no guarantee that your caloric intake will be less than your energy expenditure even with proper meal planning.