Try this link. It may be better
Just scroll down. You should be able to see entire article.
Wouldn’t let me scroll or do anything at all.
Sorry, but I just tried it and it works when I do it. Not sure why this would not work for you. If others cannot view as well, I will delete the post.
Not if you aren’t in the US…
I see it. Nothing new to me though.
Study or not it works WAY well for me.
Paywall obstacles aside, it would seem that continuous eating (e.g., small portions every 10 minutes nonstop) cannot be healthy as it deprives the body of many of the diurnal hormonal shifts essential to a functional metabolism.
By the same token, continuous nonstop reading of the NYTimes (only 2 quid for 6 months unlimited access) can’t possibly be healthy for you, either.
I bet the so called scientists are funded by the processed food industry
@ffskier’s original post in this thread contains a link to the original article in the New England Journal of Medicie. I notice that the image in @Shortstuff’s post is to an article in the New York Times.
The Times wants our money badly. Even century-old articles are behind their paywall. However, the NEJM link gives me the complete article.
The way they did it is all wrong. When you fast you don’t restrict calories the way they did it. And I bet the diet was high carbs.
55% carbs, calorie restricted. And the extra 2 kg of the time restricted group was considered not significant.
I consider that study not significant. For me time restricted eating works well.
It doesn’t say it doesn’t work. It works for many due to the caloric restriction it makes possible. Even if I know I easily lose fat eating N calories while having a big eating window and/or eating a bunch of sugar, I need carnivore (or close) and a small eating window to realize it. I just eat a lot more otherwise.
I don’t say it’s all about calories for everyone, we know it isn’t just that it often works because it causes eating less while feeling just fine. And I actually need to eat little to lose fat, personally, carbs or timing don’t even matter. They just make things borderline impossible for me.
I fast an average of 19 hours per day, I eat moderately low carbs, I don’t measure, weigh or count calories, in 14 months I have lost 55 pounds and most importantly 14 inches from my waist and no longer take any prescription drugs.
I BADLY would need OMAD for that… And as much honeyed bread as I can eat, once I managed 45% fat that way but my carb intake still wasn’t near 55% as I always eat high protein… And that was my carbiest possible day… (If I eat enough food, I had a day with a bite of fruit in my life, that doesn’t count, okay?)
Even many high-carbers are unable/unwilling to eat THAT carby! Especially when losing fat so probably, hopefully the protein percentage goes up…
But no matter what diet they use, it’s not mine, it’s probably far from it. And they don’t have my individual body. That’s why I don’t care about such studies when it comes to my own decisions. It may be useful in general for something if the study is done well… But I as an individual? With my diet that was never average among any groups, very much not after I became 17 and went high-protein very high-fat vegetarian? Even macros don’t give nearly the full picture.
Yes, I can see it. (US, the updated link.) The thing that’s problematic for me is that both groups are quite severely calorie restricted for a long period of time. This moves the entire study into the realm of metabolic slowdown, which is a confounding variable. If your body’s simply slowed down and not burning its food, apparently all bets are off in terms of when you eat it. That’s all I can really extrapolate from this.
I will also say that even though the differences are perhaps not statistically significant, even in this foolishly calorie restricted population more or less Every marker was at least slightly more improved in the TRF group, from loss of abdominal fat to triglyceride levels.
That NEMJ link works, but Spaywall is a good browser addon to install, (usually) busts through most paywalls.
It came naturally to me and always helped manage the intense hunger I had in the beginning.
If I eat when I first wake up (how I was raised), I’d have food on my mind and in my mouth all day.
Yeah, similar - and as soon as I wasn’t a little kid who had to eat in the morning, I quickly quit I passionately hated breakfasts. I am satiated in the morning, always had this, WHY to force myself to eat, triggering hunger again soon? It made no sense to me.
The earlier I eat, the smaller the meal, small meals make me hungry soon… And while I love eating, eating and getting hungry all the time is annoying. On carbs it was a smaller problem satiation wise, I always needed a bigger lunch and that lasted long, the more the carbs therefore the bigger the meal, the longer but I can get hungry every hour on carnivore if I eat too early too little. I prefer 1-2 meals, maybe 3 but I need carnivore for that to avoid overeating. If I wait longer, it’s much nicer And TMAD with IF 21/3 is pretty convenient (lunch after 3pm, dinner before 6pm, perfect for me).
Whatever our goals (and possibly diets) are, IF is simply the way some of us live. I did it before I heard it was a thing, it was natural. It would immediately fall apart if I ate an early meal but I don’t do that. Not doing IF is as hard as eating high-carb. Possible for one day, maybe two but longer? I don’t have that kind of willpower and anti-hedonism