Known as time-restricted feeding, or TRF, the approach is simple: Eat more or less what you want, but don’t consume anything before or after the allotted time.
The researchers compared two groups of mice, both of which consumed the same number of calories. One group was limited to an eight-hour window, while the other could eat at any time. After four months, the eight-hour mice weighed 28 percent less than the anytime eaters. “When we saw the results, they were so unexpected,†he says. “Even I didn’t believe it.â€
Science doesn’t prove anything… Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you’re actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed…).
Science doesn’t prove anything… Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you’re actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed…).
Science doesn’t prove anything… Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you’re actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed…).
Wow, you must be fun at parties.
He’s also correct
Reading the ST link to the forum comment, 90% of that is time tested common sense from decades ago for completely normal folks. Not even athletes.
People didn’t sit in front of the TV until 11PM eating and drinking stuff 40 years ago. At least my grandparents didn’t. Their dinner was at 5:30 and that was it. They “might” have had an occasional bowl of digestive tract healthy cereal around 7:30 or 8:00. That was usually right before they read their Bible for 30min and went to bed at 9:00.
They didn’t eat at feeding trough buffets, ate proper sized meals, had some water and a snack after some kind of exertion…etc…
It also meant they weren’t up all night pissing since they drank up until 10PM.
I feel like people serious about sport transition to the more normal way of feeding anyway. I can’t race bike up hills and be over the w/kg ratio acceptable for my class of racing. You’ll be out the back in 5 minutes. Didn’t fuel properly before a hammer ride…out the back.
It’s just describing a normal level of discipline with eating largely absent the entire American population in modern times that we actually used to have.
Can someone explain how you do an intermittent fast(8 hr eating window) while training for an Ironman? I train in the morning at 5am with just coffee preworkout. If I eat from 7am-3pm, then I am starving by bedtime. I’ve also tried eating only from 11am-7pm, but I am starving after my morning workout. If I am not training, then 11am-7pm works fine.
Science doesn’t prove anything… Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you’re actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed…).
Wow, you must be fun at parties.
Is that your null hypothesis? x2 that he is correct!
Science doesn’t prove anything… Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you’re actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed…).
Wow, you must be fun at parties.
Is that your null hypothesis? x2 that he is correct!
My hypothesis: My thread title was click baity enough to get you to click on it. AND comment.
Reading the ST link to the forum comment, 90% of that is time tested common sense from decades ago for completely normal folks. Not even athletes.
But going back to the study, I don’t believe that you can have different outcomes from the same # of calories is “common sense.” Or it wasn’t. Maybe it’s starting to become common sense.
There’ve been a number of studies now that provide evidence (to avoid sophistry from @Trauma) that suggest a good diet takes more consideration than the “it’s just thermodynamics” crowd (which has a mafia on this forum). E.g. this one from February where diet quality also provided a positive outcome with no consideration of calorie count.
Science doesn’t prove anything… Science fails to disprove things, which strengthens the possibility that things might be true. So what you’re actually saying is that science failed to prove that this diet was not effective, which suggests that it might be effective (in the population that they tested, with the constraints that they imposed…).
Wow, you must be fun at parties.
Is that your null hypothesis? x2 that he is correct!
My hypothesis: My thread title was click baity enough to get you to click on it. AND comment.
Congratulations?
You must be so proud of yourself…
Reading the ST link to the forum comment, 90% of that is time tested common sense from decades ago for completely normal folks. Not even athletes.
But going back to the study, I don’t believe that you can have different outcomes from the same # of calories is “common sense.” Or it wasn’t. Maybe it’s starting to become common sense.
There’ve been a number of studies now that provide evidence (to avoid sophistry from @Trauma) that suggest a good diet takes more consideration than the “it’s just thermodynamics” crowd (which has a mafia on this forum). E.g. this one from February where diet quality also provided a positive outcome with no consideration of calorie count.
Hormones FTW.
Insulin, Leptin, and Ghrelin make a difference. What and when you eat can influence them.
Known as time-restricted feeding, or TRF, the approach is simple: Eat more or less what you want, but don’t consume anything before or after the allotted time.
Leaving aside this was rats and not humans…
Did the rats really eat more or less what they wanted, I kind of doubt it?
So not only are we crossing species here, I doubt the rat diet really mimics a human eating more or less what they wanted.
Rule #9: For every PT/MD/STer who says there is absolutely one single and perfect way to do anything , there is *another *PT/MD/STer who will say that way of doing whatever it may be, is completely and absolutely bullshit
.
Reading the ST link to the forum comment, 90% of that is time tested common sense from decades ago for completely normal folks. Not even athletes.
But going back to the study, I don’t believe that you can have different outcomes from the same # of calories is “common sense.” Or it wasn’t. Maybe it’s starting to become common sense.
There’ve been a number of studies now that provide evidence (to avoid sophistry from @Trauma) that suggest a good diet takes more consideration than the “it’s just thermodynamics” crowd (which has a mafia on this forum). E.g. this one from February where diet quality also provided a positive outcome with no consideration of calorie count.
While it is true that there is no mention of calorie counting per se, the participants were on a “healthy diet” so presumably they were at the very least watching the amount of food they were eating. The main point of this study appears to be that there was no sig diff between the effects of a low-fat diet vs a low carb diet. While is is no doubt true that eating so called “healthy food” fills a person up with fewer calories, at the end of the day a calorie is still a calorie. IMO, eat whatever you want but watch very closely how many cals you are consuming.
“In this randomized clinical trial among 609 overweight adults, weight change over 12 months was not significantly different for participants in the healthy low fat (HLF) diet group (−5.3 kg) vs the healthy low carb (HLC) diet group (−6.0 kg), and there was no significant diet-genotype interaction or diet-insulin interaction with 12-month weight loss.”
. IMO, eat whatever you want but watch very closely how many cals you are consuming.
That’s the thing, though. In the study there were zero instructions about calorie watching.
From a NYT interview of the PI,:
“A couple weeks into the study people were asking when we were going to tell them how many calories to cut back on,†he said. “And months into the study they said, ‘Thank you! We’ve had to do that so many times in the past.’â€
But the population did quite well in losing weight, as a whole. Some by 50-60lbs.
I’ll say one thing from experience doing intermittent fasting…
if you dont eat enough during that window and you are consistently too low on calories while training for an ironman, you will pay for it with every symptom that typically comes across as “over training”
Where’s the actual paper making this claim? From the WP article, it doesn’t seem like it was ever published (hmm…).
I’d be interested in the controls ensuring that mice actually ate the same amount of calories; 28% WEIGHT difference (not weight reduction) implies a substantial difference in net burn.
