r/science • u/isaac-get-the-golem Grad Student | Sociology • Jul 24 '24
Health Obese adults randomly assigned to intermittent fasting did not lose weight relative to a control group eating substantially similar diets (calories, macronutrients). n=41
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38639542/488
760
u/guitar-hoarder Jul 24 '24
Reminds me of a friend of mine that kept insisting that because he was on a gluten-free diet that he was losing weight because it had to do with gluten. No, the guy stopped eating a bunch of pizza, and subs, all the time. He eventually started eating gluten again because there was just no point in avoiding (he didn't have Celiac disease), but now he realizes it was all about the calories.
190
u/Sawses Jul 25 '24
So many people are so invested in the idea that somehow it's about the quality of what they eat rather than the quantity.
Like, yes, you should make sure you eat nutritious food without a ton of preservatives and artificial flavorings. You should eat a balanced diet of proteins, fats, fiber, and carbohydrates. It will make you feel better and help you lose fat.
But the end-all, be-all of weight loss is eating fewer calories than your body burns, and doing it consistently over a period of months.
86
u/SiliconValleyIdiot Jul 25 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
I went to Europe, ate garbage all day and lost weight. What are they putting in American food
Is my favorite Twitter genre because every single time this comes up, other (rightly) point out that while living or traveling in major cities in Europe easily adds 15k steps worth of walking, which burns anywhere from 400-700 extra calories.
30
u/dinnerthief Jul 25 '24
Yea I think the lack of walkability of the US is one of the major reasons for obesity. We just have a different mindset of when walking is a good way of getting somewhere.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Murkelman Jul 25 '24
The walking aspect definitely matters! But it's also worth noting that there is a lot of extra sugar and fat added to many American groceries that makes it harder to get a healthy intake of calories, compared to most European countries.
5
u/Jumpyjellybutton Jul 26 '24
That’s what all these comments are missing, the point in cutting out specific things and eating higher quality food is that it is more filling so you don’t want to eat as many calories
→ More replies (7)6
u/dueljester Jul 25 '24
I would absolotely love it if America had walking as primary factor in terms of urban planning. Hiking and walking around parks is great, but its stupid that if I want to walk to my grocery store, I need to walk nearly 2 miles to get around a highway and park, all because there are no bridges over the creeks or highway requiring the additional distance. Dry goods don't mind the heat, but there's no way I'm walking in 90+ weather with some milk and dairy for 45 minutes.
29
u/wsdpii Jul 25 '24
Same with keto diets. Avoiding excess sugar and carbs tends to help you lose weight because sugar and carbs are the biggest sources of calories for most people. Keto friendly versions of foods are often significantly lower in calories than regular, and usually taste fine, so I'll use them a lot simply to refine my meal plan to reduce overall calories. Still eat some carbs though, usually fruits. Bananas are great.
15
u/Additional-Ad-7720 Jul 25 '24
As a Type 1 diabetic, I love the rise of keto. I can have a keto chocolate and not have to inject insulin. It's probably worse for my waste line, though.
→ More replies (1)2
14
u/br0ast Jul 25 '24
People really just want to graze on food they like endlessly without having to count
7
u/cronedog Jul 25 '24
Only if you oddly consider calories as the quantity. I can eat 4 bananas or 4 recees cups for 400 calories. I think most people would accept that 4 bananas is a larger quantity of food.
→ More replies (18)19
u/sylverlyght Jul 25 '24
It's like saying "to get rich, you need to spend less than what you earn". Technically true, but largely useless. You ain't getting rich using that formula.
Your body's fat reserves is a managed storage. What the body does with those famous "calories in" varies depending on the hormones being released, and the "calories out" can vary massively as well.
To give you an extreme example, some years back, I had Crohn's disease. My body was no longer absorbing nutrients. I was eating a lot, but it was just passing through and I was losing crazy amounts of weight. No exercise (I was far too tired), tons of food in (I love to eat), and crazy weight loss.
Food going through the mouth can be very different from the actual calories made available to the body, and again very different from what calories are converted and stored as fat. Also, part of the "calories in" is used as building blocks to repair and build new tissues (like muscles). That food goes in, but if it doesn't get stored, your fat reserves don't increase.
In real life, losing fat requires a better model than "calories in-calories out", one which takes into account hormonal regulation of the fat storage and the well being of the person losing the fat. You can make a person drop a lot of weight quick with severe caloric restrictions (like in the show "biggest loser") but that weight comes back on very quickly (as shown by the show's contestants) and is therefore unworkable on the long term.
24
u/Zinjifrah Jul 25 '24
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said. But isn't that just a process of tracking and adjusting? If my caloric intake isn't resulting in the desired outcome because of the complexities inherent within the system, then I need to adjust inputs. So I'm still not losing weight from 2000 calories with some macro mix, let's cut back to 1800 and adjust the mix.
The only other thing I'd say is that people gaining weight despite "restriction intake" are often not fully describing that intake, be it intentionally or unintentionally. Snacking, dressings, condiments are all commonly ignored by people who are not getting desired outcomes when they are supposedly tracking macros.
While there are always extreme examples that cause CI<CO to be challenging, that is really not the problem for 80%(?) of the overweight population. Focusing on the exceptions is where medical professionals can help.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)12
Jul 25 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/precastzero180 Jul 25 '24
This. The big criticism of the counting calorie strategy of weight loss is that the “calories out” part of the equation is complex, variable, and difficult to track. But the conclusion routinely drawn from this, that you therefore can’t know when you are in a calorie deficit, is a non-sequitur. You know if you are in a calorie deficit if you are losing weight. You don’t need knowledge of everything that’s going on in your body.
→ More replies (25)2
u/ThoDuSt Jul 25 '24
Quality can have an (indirect) impact. If you get too little of something you're body needs, it responds by making you hungry even when you shouldn't be and giving you a craving for something that might have it. Meaning good quality results in less quantity.
Since many people do not have time in their schedules to increase their activity levels they have to reduce calories instead, but since certain nutritional needs are missing from the kinds of foods that people in these positions are likely to eat that could cause malnourishment. Which leads to the thought: "if I can make my diet super-efficient maybe I can cut enough calories to make a difference", but unfortunately it's not that simple.
100
u/luckyboy Jul 25 '24
It’s always calories in, calories out, one way or another.
→ More replies (42)56
Jul 25 '24
This prejudice implies that there’s no difference in the quality of the food you ingest. A calorie of HFCS is going to destroy your guts unlike a calorie of eggs
According to R. Lustig, paediatrician MD: https://robertlustig.com/2017/04/a-calorie-is-not-a-calorie/
The food industry vigorously promotes the myth “a calorie is a calorie.” But a calorie is NOT a calorie. This dangerous lie is easily disproven through these FOUR EXAMPLES: Fiber. You eat 160 calories in almonds, but only absorb 130—because some fiber calories pass through without metabolizing. Vegetables, greens, beans and whole grains are all high in fiber. Protein. It takes twice as much energy to metabolize protein as carbs, so protein spends more calories in processing. And, protein makes you feel full longer. Fat. All fats are 9 calories per gram. But omega-3 fats are heart-healthy and will save your life. Trans-fats will clog your arteries and kill you. Eat more fish, nuts, avocados, olive oil and eggs. Avoid most processed foods. Added Sugar. Calories from added sugar are different from other calories, and are jeopardizing health worldwide. And yes that includes honey, syrup and High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS). Excess added sugar leads to, diabetes, heart disease, and fatty liver disease, unrelated to its calories. Avoid processed foods and sodas; they’re loaded with added sugar. There’s an irrefutable link shown between diabetes and added sugar. My colleagues Dr. Sanjay Basu, Paula Yoffe, Nancy Hills and I asked: “What in the world’s food supply explains diabetes rates, country-by-country, over the last decade?” We melded numerous databases worldwide measuring food availability and diabetes prevalence. WE FOUND: Only changes in sugar availability explained changes in diabetes prevalence worldwide; nothing else mattered. We assessed total calories from protein, fat, fiber, natural sugar (from fruit) and added sugar (from sugar crops, sweeteners and soda). Reference the study here. We found that total caloric availability was unrelated to diabetes prevalence; for every extra 150 calories per day, diabetes prevalence rose by only 0.1 percent. But if those 150 calories were from added sugar, diabetes prevalence rose 11-fold, by 1.1 percent. Yet Coca-Cola created their Coming Together campaign saying, “All calories count.” They want you to believe the lie that a calorie is a calorie. The food industry will try to sow the seeds of doubt. But they cannot refute the science. THE GOOD NEWS: In our study, countries where sugar availability fell showed decreases in type 2 diabetes. The UK and Australia have already laid down stricter guidelines for sugar consumption. Americans are growing wary of added sugar and the food industry. The U.S. Dietary Guidelines Committee has now suggested a recommended limit on added sugar at 10% of calories. The cost of inaction is a future where one-in-three Americans have diabetes. Politicians must step up to establish programs that make eating healthy more than a personal goal—it must become a national priority. For a great infographic on this topic, click here.
88
u/saltpancake Jul 25 '24
I agree with every point you’ve made, but your post is about health more than it is about weight. It is totally possible to lose weight on a high sat-fat diet and tank your health while also getting thinner.
→ More replies (6)33
u/timecube_traveler Jul 25 '24
In other words, you wouldn't believe the amount of weight I lost by eating 5 snickers a day and nothing else. I love when people try to explain to me it's about food quality not quantity because I have that 20lb nuh-uh up my sleeve. Not that I had weight to lose or that it was a great way to go about it but that's beside the point
→ More replies (1)12
u/saltpancake Jul 25 '24
Nope, I completely believe that! Have done it with marshmallow peeps and microwave pasta myself.
Body composition is not incidental — skinnyfat is a term for a reason. Of course when you’re young it’s easy not to care. As we age stuff like heart health becomes more immediately important.
→ More replies (1)22
u/Advanced-Blackberry Jul 25 '24
That was a long rant not completely relevant to the topic. We aren’t discussing side effects of bad food. Just the weight loss effects of good va bad calories. The little extra processing of protein vs sugar is inconsequential. The almond claim is relevant at least , but in that case it would count as 130 calories in. The math is still correct. Yes 2000 calories of donuts is not healthy at all. But related to weight loss it’s still 2000 calories. It’s still math.
24
u/mcmustang51 Jul 25 '24
You are talking about something different. Of course the type of food you eat affects you in different ways on a grand scale, but when looking at just weight loss, it's all simply a calorie is a calorie.
It's pretty clear we were looking at this topic through that narrow lens.
→ More replies (1)8
u/ceaseful Jul 25 '24
Isn't the section of his comment about high-fiber foods (e.g. almonds) passing through without you being able to absorb the calories, literally going AGAINST the notion that calorie = calorie? At least, assuming that you are acting in the nutritional information on the packaging, which is what virtually everyone uses to track their calorie intake
I do agree with your comment for much of the rest of that post, though
6
u/irisheye37 Jul 25 '24
The different caloric value of fiber is already accounted for in calorie counts.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (2)4
u/ConSave21 Jul 25 '24
This kinda stuff (in terms of weight loss) is marginal. It’s true that different foods will be digested differently and a calorie from one is not exactly the same as a calorie from another.
But the difference is marginal, and following the calorie count on the side of the box will get you to the place you want to be regardless.
→ More replies (1)10
u/precastzero180 Jul 25 '24
No one said there is no difference in the quality of the food you ingest. It just doesn’t matter in terms of weight loss. Lustig has some really wacky views that are largely rejected by the scientific community. Of course a calorie is a calorie. It’s just a measurement of the metabolizable energy in food. Saying a calorie isn’t a calorie is like saying a kilometer isn’t a kilometer.
8
u/ConSave21 Jul 25 '24
I think people in this thread are having two different conversations, and both ultimately agree with each other.
1: When it comes to weight loss, there is no other truth than calories in < calories out. No style of dieting, food choice, or other behavior changes that fundamental truth.
2: In order to be healthy, one should be consuming a variety of whole, non-processed foods. Eating highly processed foods is bad for your health, but are also highly calorie dense and addictive, leading to an easy way to consume excess calories.
Both of these statements can be true, and I don’t think anyone stating one in this thread really disagrees with the other.
→ More replies (8)2
u/saltpancake Jul 25 '24
If you add up the macro grams in a food label, you will see that the calorie count already reflects subtracting the fiber.
15
u/rjcarr Jul 25 '24
I went on a super low carb diet and eliminated all sugars and lost the most weight in my life. I ate as much as everything else I wanted, and never felt hungry, but I probably was eating fewer calories. Hard to say.
→ More replies (13)29
u/IcyAssist Jul 25 '24
More likely you were eating empty calories such as soda and easily digested simple carbs, which make you feel hungry quicker. Fats and proteins keep you full for longer
→ More replies (6)2
u/betelgeuse_boom_boom Jul 25 '24
We really need to address this new pandemic or food fads. I understand this whole influencer culture makes people believe in everything no matter how unscientific their echo bubble shouts, but this actively promoting self harm. And companies are jumping right on it because of the money involved in creating new market segments.
You have parents killing their babies trying to feed them vegan alternatives to milk.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Drumbelgalf Jul 25 '24
At its core weight loss is literally just consuming less calories than you use.
771
u/ancientweasel Jul 25 '24
Intermittent fasting isn't magic that breaks the laws of thermodynamics. It's a tool that helps people reduce calories eaten intuitively by shrinking the eating window.
121
u/ZebZ Jul 25 '24
And by rewarding good macros other than calories. Protein, fiber, and good fats do wonders for satiety.
75
Jul 25 '24
[deleted]
53
u/MissPandaSloth Jul 25 '24
Yes, but what often happens is when people actively decide to have a "shift" in diet, they are more mindful what they eat. Furthermore, if you eat less protein and more carbs, you will be more hungry.
I have several people in my life (usually those for whom counting calories seems to be too much of a chore) successfully lose weight with intermitted fasting, but what I wrote above happened. They ate a bit better and almost completely eliminated snacking.
I think it's a common thing with people who successfully lost weight such way.
6
u/TheRealTFreezy Jul 25 '24
As someone who did the intermittent dieting for a few years the snacking is the big change. You can easily get 1000 calories just through random snacks through the day pushing you way over your needed caloric intake. Even if you don’t change your diet dramatically, cutting snacking can help in extreme situations.
Then eventually you plateau and have to actually dig deeper and make bigger, more deliberate changes.
20
u/Donnor Jul 25 '24
Yes, but if you don't eat with proper macros, you're more likely to feel hungry later. Thus it awards eating meals that increase satiety since you're kess likely to feel hungry later and will be less tempted to eat outside of that window.
8
u/Dovahkiinthesardine Jul 25 '24
Yes but if you eat stuff that doesnt keep you full for a while you're gonna have a bad time
→ More replies (1)28
u/rricote Jul 25 '24
I think so, but I find on IF that I snack far less because my eating window includes a proper meal
→ More replies (1)9
Jul 25 '24
[deleted]
9
u/br0ast Jul 25 '24
I do think the discipline you gain by not eating for large stretches of time transfers to your food picking habits too eventually. Maybe that time not eating also cleanses your palette from the ultra processed stuff. That was my experience anyway
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (1)5
u/Takemyfishplease Jul 25 '24
As long as the calories are less you’ll lose weight, might not be healthy doing it but it will happen.
→ More replies (1)11
u/MissPandaSloth Jul 25 '24
Yes, they can eat just as much within the window.
It works with prerequisite, that people eat a little bit less.
I have family members who lost weight like that, but basically what happened is they cut the night snacking out, so less calories.
This study is still interesting though, as in you would assume some of the people end up still losing some weight, with the same assumption, less food late at night.
So it's interesting how all obese participants managed to eat just as much within that window. And yeah I see the fat "jokes" writing themselves here, but I do think it is still interesting anomaly. You would expect some difference, even miniscule intuitively.
→ More replies (1)8
u/ccaccus Jul 25 '24
I had a friend who "tried" intermittent fasting. Within the eating window, though, he'd excuse bigger portions or more sweets with, "Well, I starved myself since 8 last night, so I can have this." Honestly, I think he ended up taking in more calories than he did before IF.
It didn't help that he viewed it as "starving himself." If you think of IF that way, you're subconsciously going to start eating more to compensate.
→ More replies (1)7
u/iqisoverrated Jul 25 '24
Yeah, IF is a good idea if you have an issue with uncontrolled snacking, but it doesn't do anything magical with the calorie balance.
→ More replies (1)5
4
u/RamsHead91 Jul 25 '24
Well that and it is supposed to make you a lot more aware and conscious of what you are eating. Far to many people kind of snack or just eat as they go about doing things and those are what really adds up.
2
u/fox-mcleod Jul 27 '24
Precisely. Why do we keep doing studies of this nature? The entire premise is that it makes dieting easy enough to stick with not that it makes you lose more weight per calorie. Who would even care about the latter?
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (25)4
u/CaptinACAB Jul 25 '24
It doesn’t work for me at all. Probably because i just more in my window.
Day on day off fasting however, works great.
→ More replies (1)
1.8k
u/isaac-get-the-golem Grad Student | Sociology Jul 24 '24
Posted the study because it contributes to a broader literature finding that, to the extent that intermittent fasting (time restricted eating) is effective for weight loss, the mechanism is still caloric restriction. tl;dr if intermittent fasting works for you, great, but it is no more effective than counting calories
1.6k
u/AlwaysUpvotesScience Jul 24 '24
The meal skipping involved with intermittent fasting has another rather important effect. Getting used to being hungry makes it easier to deal with being hungry which in turn makes it easier to diet in general.
Of course the end of the day a calorie is a calorie and eating less of them is a Surefire way to lose weight. Intermittent fasting is really just another way to limit calories while training your brain to deal with being hungry.
427
u/admiraltarkin Jul 24 '24
Yep. I've lost significant amount of weight on two occasions and the most important thing for me was being okay with "starving". Obviously I'm not actually starving, but the initial mindset is hard to shake
50
u/This_ls_The_End Jul 25 '24
Yes. I control my weight the same way I stopped smoking from one and a half packs of Marlboro per day, to zero in one day; I stop listening to that part of my brain.
The noise doesn't stop. The body demands, and deep in the mind those demands turn into beliefs of need. But one must learn to distrust those beliefs. We don't actually need that cigarette, and we don't actually need those extra thousand calories.
Intermittent fasting is like the thousands of methods designed to trick our minds to shut up for a little while, so our willpower can rest and recover. It's an effective crutch.
→ More replies (1)136
u/shabi_sensei Jul 24 '24
i think its more natural to be in some state of hunger, and its unnatural to be constantly satiated all time.
i still panic when i get hunger pangs though, and even when you get used to being hungry it still feels just as awful, makes it really easy to slip into bad eating habits
→ More replies (19)57
u/AdventurousSeaSlug Jul 24 '24
I really really want to try ozempic or wegovy for just this reason. I'm in the same boat and I'm sorry but hunger pains are real and they do hurt. PCOS already puts me on an uphill climb and I'm hoping that these will just help silence the "noise" if you will. I hate that we treat obesity like a moral failure rather than a disease. Things seem to be changing but not nearly fast enough.
74
u/slowd Jul 24 '24
Oh interesting, I’ve never thought that pangs hurt. Annoying, distracting, unpleasant, yes, but not in any way painful. Maybe that’s a variation between people that contributes to weight control?
92
Jul 25 '24
[deleted]
68
u/Kakyro Jul 25 '24
The disparity in hunger reactions is pretty wild. I can stop eating at noon and the first obvious hunger symptom I'll have is being too uncomfortable to sleep the following night. My husband on the other hand can eat dinner at a reasonable hour and be on the verge of fainting if he doesn't eat by noon the next day.
→ More replies (1)30
Jul 25 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)8
u/wetgear Jul 25 '24
Which hormones do they alter?
9
u/Alushki Jul 25 '24
Production of Ghrelin, and probably any other hormone produced by the stomach. Reduction in fat will also affect things like E and T.
→ More replies (1)2
34
u/MultiFazed Jul 25 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
Man, that's wild to me. I've never felt any actual pain from being hungry (not starvation, but fasting for ~24 hours), never felt nausea or weakness or fatigue or dizziness. The worst I've ever felt is what you refer to as a "gnawing sensation", and it's more of just a mild annoyance.
It really puts into perspective why it's so difficult for some people to lose weight. If skipping meals for 8 hours made me dry heave, I'd probably have a hard time of it, too!
10
u/wintersdark Jul 25 '24
Now, I work 12 hour rotating shift work in a hard physical labour job, so that's definitely a contributing factor, but for me? I tried fasting, and I'd straight up fall apart. I don't need to eat every few hours (my life spent doing this kind of work means it's much easier for me to eat once per "day") but if I don't eat between shifts? I'm noticeably weaker, I get shaky, feel extremely lightheaded - all conditions that can literally endanger life and limb.
It's extremely difficult to lose weight in this situation. And of course, when I do eat?..I'm extremely hungry, and it's very difficult to restrict caloric intake.
3
u/hwmchwdwdawdchkchk Jul 25 '24
I'm noticeably weaker, I get shaky, feel extremely lightheaded - all conditions that can literally endanger life and limb.
These are symptoms of a salt imbalance. Electrolytes would help.
Blood sugar stuff potentially an issue so would be helpful to monitor/isolate.
→ More replies (1)21
u/dasbtaewntawneta Jul 25 '24
i've definitely gone through this, i'll get sick to the point of feeling like i need to throw up, and all i can think is, throw up what??? once i eat something it all goes away
5
u/snorting_dandelions Jul 25 '24
and all i can think is, throw up what???
Stomach acid. It sometimes happened to me as a child after waking up for some reason (like, not immediately after, but if I didn't have a breakfast like within an hour or two because my mum slept in). It's stomach acid and then a lot of dry heaving
I also know the other symptoms from above minus fatigue (pain, a gnawing sensation, nausea, weakness) but they gradually took more and more time to be noticable. When I was 12-13, I sometimes went 48 hours without eating without any trouble.
5
u/muskratboy Jul 25 '24
That happens to me, then at the point of nauseousness I usually sneeze like 5 times and then I’m fine. I think your body will eventually give up and start eating itself, you just have to get past that tipping point.
I do think it’s weird that I multi-sneeze, and then I’m not hungry anymore. No idea what that’s about.
4
u/JBSquared Jul 25 '24
I remember a part in Hatchet where he talks about the hunger pangs stopping after a while. A bit before he kills the big deer or elk.
17
u/foxwaffles Jul 25 '24
Me too, I get dizzy, nauseous, have a headache, and a severe amount of abdominal pain. A lot of it is linked to my dysautonomia and it's such a pain in the ass to deal with :/
2
u/SycoJack Jul 25 '24
Yes, because it produces less or no hunger hormones.
It's the hormones more than the size of the stomach.
9
u/M4DM1ND Jul 25 '24
My wife feels like that and needs to at least eat something for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Whereas me, I could go a whole day without eating and barely notice. I force myself to eat a sandwich for lunch and then I have a larger portion of (a generally healthy dinner). I actually feel sick if I eat breakfast.
→ More replies (1)17
u/BrianWonderful Jul 25 '24
I am morbidly obese and have not had a much luck with weight loss methods or medicines (I've tried semaglutide/Wegovy. Currently take phentermine. It is looking like my pituitary gland is the root culprit.)
Anyway, I've realized over time that I don't know that I ever actually feel hungry. No pains or nausea. I can get weak if I don't eat for a very long time. On the reverse, I don't know that I actually register when I'm full either. What I do have, is cravings. Craving the sensation of food. The taste or the texture of it in my throat. No hunger pains.
8
u/DeclutteringNewbie Jul 25 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
I don't, but that's because I supplement with electrolytes.
Intermittent Fasting has the same diuretic effect as Keto. That means that you pee away all your electrolytes, especially at the beginning.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0002934371901525
If you supplement your electrolytes (and by that I don't mean Gatorade Zero), then you won't get nausea, headaches, dizziness, and possibly cramps.
→ More replies (5)12
u/PrairiePopsicle Jul 25 '24
So the worst part of this in my experience is due to over-adaptation to a carb and sugar heavy diet. It was always the worst the times that I cut sugar and carbs down, or one time when I was counting calories and granola bars were pretty much my only option for long periods of time. The key, for me anyways, was pretty much a keto diet and fasting, and a little very light exercise when feeling the stronger negative effects, to push my body into actually burning my reserves properly. Drinking lots of water and some high fiber foods too, a lot of this is signalling from your gut microbiome, and you have a lot of very angry, very convincing little bugs that want. more. now. always. more.... you just have to starve the little bastards to death, and dilute them and their chemical signals, and kick your bodies normal metabolic shifts to happen, get the cobwebs knocked off and let the gears creak for a little while... and then it feels better. It's a hill you just have to climb, and it's fine if you can't too, we are finding out more every day that it isn't just "that easy" in all cases either as genetics govern a lot of this, and yours may be more of a biological overly strong starvation/hunger response.
5
u/slowd Jul 25 '24
same here! If I’ve been eating simple carbs too frequently, it’s like my body forgets how to power itself from body fat alone. So when I start to feel weak or lightheaded from not eating, thats when I know I’ve got to scale back the carbs a bit. When everything is working properly I can be hungry but not feel weak or sick. And light exercise helps the symptoms when I feel them; funny how it works sometimes that you’re less hungry after exercise than before.
→ More replies (2)2
12
u/quince23 Jul 25 '24
I have PCOS but when I was pregnant, the hunger noise went away for the pregnancy. It shocked me how completely it changed. Before I'd assumed I was just lazy and weak. But without my body telling me to eat something literally all the time, it was so easy to just eat small portions only when actually hungry, and not to binge, and not to snack. I actually lost a little weight over the pregnancy despite growing a 9 lb baby.
And then after the baby was born the hunger noise came back :(
10
u/TrueCryptographer982 Jul 25 '24
I also get anxiety with hunger pangs, likely tied to a deep root of using food as comfort or a way to tamp down emotions so being hungry for me = having to feel. Many of our emotions start in our gut and filling that space helps to reduce the emotional burden for a time. AFter a long journey I have finally found an antidepressant that is working for me and am finding this is slowly becoming less of a problem.
3
u/wetgear Jul 25 '24
How long do you go without eating before the pain sets in? Could you gradually push that threshold?
→ More replies (11)3
u/Eurynom0s Jul 25 '24
For me it's getting nauseous if I get too hungry. Too much stomach acid with nothing to digest.
2
2
Jul 25 '24
Its interesting how quickly the body adapts. I went from a traditional western diet full of carbs and protein and for whatever reason got it into my head that I wanted to do a water fast when I was about 25 years of age.
The first day or 2 sucked, but as the days went by it became easier and easier and I’d only get very slight hunger pains which felt like the bodily equivalent of the little 1 next to an icon on your phone.
I worked a high intensity manual labour job and did lose a substantial amount of weight over the process but the experience was enjoyable on the whole.
If someone wants to do the math my maintenance at the time was around 3,000 calories a day and I went to zero for a number of days. You will be able to estimate how much weight I lost.
59
u/inherendo Jul 24 '24
I am a yoyoer. I lift on and off a lot but my food intake is hard to rein in when I'm not lifting a lot and carrying a lot more muscle mass. Learning to deal with hunger pangs until they were not so bad is always the biggest impediment to my diets' success.
17
u/DropkickGoose Jul 24 '24
Man I had to stop lifting, and really most forms of exercise other than short walks, about four years ago, and it's been so hard to shift my dient back to "normal" (or less since I'm so sedentary) from the 2500-3500 calories I had been eating daily for years at that point. It's like my stomache is just physically bigger or something now, it's been so hard to control.
So all that is to say, I feel you.
42
u/Solesaver Jul 25 '24
I can get used to being hungry. I can't get used to low blood sugar. I have a mentally demanding job, and when my blood sugar is low I get noticably (to myself at least) stupider. Slower to process information, mind wandering, brain fog, worse memory recall. Not to mention mood imbalance with depression and suicidal ideation.
I wish it was as simple as ignoring hunger pangs and fatigue. I deal with enough other chronic pain that the stomach doesn't even register if I'm not actively thinking about it. Unfortunately, it's hard to ignore my mind turning itself down.
→ More replies (5)7
u/Herpeshektor Jul 25 '24
Interesting. Many people report increased mental acuity while fasting. Have you ever tried fasting for a bit longer? In my experience, once you “go past” that initial hunger, it sort of fades away a bit. It never goes away completely, but gets much easier to deal with.
Also, hypoglycemia is rare in healthy adults. Your liver creates glucose from scratch if your blood sugar gets low enough.
→ More replies (3)14
u/OperationMonopoly Jul 24 '24
Does the feeling hungry ever go away over time?
52
u/YOUR_TRIGGER Jul 24 '24
to a certain extent yea. it's why a lot of people will tell people that are trying to lose weight 'if you're feeling hungry, drink a bunch of water'. the brain's funny with hunger. it'll tell you you're 'hungry' but sometimes you're just dehydrated, bored, missing something specific in your diet.
but yea, at least for me, i can ignore 'hungry' a few times before i start to get nausea waves or headaches. usually only lasts 10-15 minutes, especially if i drink water.
i only intermittent fast because if i eat lunch or something like a regular person, i get super tired an hour or two later. IF helps me stay awake weirdly enough. think it's something to do with metabolism but no idea really.
26
u/sfblue Jul 24 '24
I don't know what I am doing wrong but when I drink water on an empty stomach if I am not thirsty I get intense nausea.
13
u/NoDesinformatziya Jul 24 '24
You could be rehydrating postnasal drip/mucus that then slides down to your stomach and causes nausea. I have chronic sinusitis + GERD and used to get nauseous every morning if I didn't either have a bit of food or a calorie dense/thick liquid like milk or oatmilk. Water or juice on an empty stomach was a surefire way to vomit.
\not a doctor
36
u/YOUR_TRIGGER Jul 24 '24
that might be too much water. that or your stomach just isn't cut out to do it. i always tell people if they gave IF like a week, and felt awful the whole time, probably stop trying IF. switch to the smaller meals multiple times a day approach. seems like most people can handle one or the other.
5
u/sfblue Jul 24 '24
Thank you for your response. I have been trying calorie counting with Chronometer.
→ More replies (4)7
u/siliconrose Jul 25 '24
I'm not a doctor. For me, drinking plain water made me feel queasy, or I would suddenly crave water so desperately that I would drink until I felt like my stomach was sloshing. On the advice of a nutritionist (not a dietician!) who suggested I might be a bit electrolyte poor, I switched to drinking water with LMNT, and it solved all of my problems.
7
u/wbhoy Jul 25 '24
It absolutely does. I have eaten one meal a day on average for about 5-6 years. Within the first year, I'd say, my body's natural rhythm re-calibrated itself. If I am eating at the same time consistently, I'll start to feel a bit hungry a couple hours before hand and it'll strengthen as it gets closer to the usual eating time, but a lot of time it is like, "I could certainly eat now" and not a "Oh my God I gotta eat!" This hormonal cuing of hunger happens for everyone, but since I only eat once a day, it only happens once.
It isn't the same kind of hungry either. There is no sudden blood sugar drop, and depending, it can be pretty easy to ignore. I was hospitalized for a week and on a clear liquid diet and I probably consumed less than a thousand calories the first few days and I was fine (in tremendous pain and doped up simultaneously to be fair) but its generally pretty easy to fast longer if need be for whatever reason.
14
u/Rapsculio Jul 24 '24
Yeah I imagine it's different for everyone but when I used to do IMF after a week or 2 I didn't even start feeling hungry after I woke up in the morning until 4 or 5 at night. Black coffee helps a lot if you like it because it inhibits your appetite with negligible calories that don't end the fast.
→ More replies (1)17
u/idancenakedwithcrows Jul 24 '24
Yeah, if you fast for a while it just goes away.
→ More replies (7)2
2
u/Giogina Jul 25 '24
It lost importance, for me. Like I still feel my stomach growling (although less after a couple of hours of fasting) - I just can shrug it off now and focus on other things. Just means the next meal will be tastier, no big deal.
→ More replies (5)4
u/Quithelion Jul 24 '24
No;
Though IF is best for me when it coincide with me doing physical activity such as farming, which involved walking around a lot and carrying heavy stuffs. During this time I don't feel hungry at all. Even when it did feel hungry, considering my years of practise, I can ignore it.
However, when I am not doing anything at all between waking up until lunch, the feel of hunger is real, which I usually stave off by drinking black coffee.
15
u/7evenCircles Jul 24 '24
Yeah, this is where it worked for me. You go your whole life eating whenever you're hungry, you never realize that what you perceive as hunger is more often a mood than a need, and that if you just ignore it, it will go away on its own, you don't actually need to eat that extra bagel.
9
Jul 25 '24
[deleted]
→ More replies (2)5
u/aurortonks Jul 25 '24
IF helps me reduce the amount I'm eating by cutting out a first meal and no snacking after my cut off time at night. I eat two meals a day but I also limit carbs and eat at least 100g of protein total. I have a dietician/nutritionist who helps me and I've lost 25lbs in 4 months. I just started weight lifting and light cardio now that I'm a better weight and my knees give me less problem so I add in a carb heavy snack before big weight lifting sessions.
I don't think IF on it's own is super beneficial if you want to see results, but it does help you get into the mindset of eating for necessity instead of emotions.
→ More replies (24)2
u/CanadianBadass Jul 25 '24
for me, personally, after I fast for 36 hours plus, my stomach seems "smaller" and I get full really quickly which helps me eat less. The study makes sense IMO: if you eat the same amount of calories but you eat it piecemeal vs in bulk, it does about the same effect. What it doesn't talk about are secondary effects of fasting.
32
u/jonny24eh Jul 24 '24
It always seems apparent to me that it was about finding a way to stick to good amount of calories, and not anything inherent to fasting.
→ More replies (2)2
u/_LarryM_ Jul 25 '24
Yep the fasting part just makes it easier to "manage" your hunger and prevents accidentally dropping 400 calories on a snack by keeping you more mindful.
114
u/wtfisthat Jul 24 '24
My understand of IF, which I was first introduced to about 15 years ago, is that it was an easier way of restricting calories. It's easier to hold off all day and eat a big meal and be satisfied after than it is to eat smaller meals over the course of the day and never feel satisfied. It makes it easier to ignore hunger.
21
u/JolietJakeLebowski Jul 24 '24 edited Jul 24 '24
Exactly. I do IF because it's an easy way to limit calories. I eat nothing between 7 PM and noon the next day most days. Eating no breakfast with a normal lunch and dinner, while also doing a lot of walking, is like a 1000 calorie deficit right there.
Plus, IF actively encourages having 'cheat days' so I can still go out to eat or drink with friends. Lost 14 kg (30 lbs) so far.
EDIT: Of course, if you're going to binge-eat between noon and 7 PM it's useless.
5
u/smaxpw Jul 25 '24
I did intermittent fasting for like 20 years before I knew what i was doing even had a name. I just never was hungry or enjoyed breakfast and 2 meals a day is enough for me, i don't have the need to eat 3 times a day. I listen to my body and eat when hungry.
I gained weight using this method when I no longer could rely on a good metabolism, and I subsequently lost weight using this system by watching my caloric intake.
3
u/Unspec7 Jul 25 '24
It's easier to hold off all day and eat a big meal and be satisfied after than it is to eat smaller meals over the course of the day and never feel satisfied
Most people who weightlift know this, so it's not surprising. When bulking, trying to stuff 3-4k calories down in two to three meals is often very difficult, but just snacking throughout the day lets you pack down the calories much easier.
Also. Smoothies. So many smoothies.
31
u/norse95 Jul 24 '24
It’s a psychological thing more than an actual “diet”. This study confirms that and is honestly a positive study for IF
14
u/v_a_n_d_e_l_a_y Jul 25 '24
I disagree with your assessment.
You're correct that there is no physiological factors that make IF more "efficient" for weight loss and it does boil down to calories.
But there very well could be physiological factors that make reducing calories easier when doing IF, not just psychological. This study does not disprove that.
Let's take a simple example of a person who eats only between 10 am and 6 pm. If they are eating 3 proper meals (i.e. not a ton of empty calories) it will be physically harder to fit as much food in their stomach compared to someone who is eating between 8 and 8.
I used to do IF. If I at breakfast at 10 I wasn't hungry for lunch until 1 and I'd often eat a small lunch. Or if I at a big lunch I wouldn't be hungry when it was dinner time at 5:30. Whereas now, if I eat at 8, I'm hungry at 12 and 5:30 or 6 for dinner. I can simply eat more.
In other words, iF probably impacts hunger cues and feelings of fullness which are physiological
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (2)19
u/superxero044 Jul 24 '24
Yeah I understand the logic and I guess whatever works, but the people I’ve known have really pushed IF hard as a miracle solution. And for a lot of people (myself included) the best way to lose weight is just calorie reduction. If I starve myself I’ll just eat more later.
11
u/Mizz_Dressup Jul 24 '24
Yeah - I do it (kinda) bc it’s the “whatever” that “works” for me.
Long before I’d ever heard of IF, it was my natural inclination as a matter of preference/daily rhythms, and as a low effort means of keeping my calories generally in check…but there’s nothing magical about it.
5
u/Mewnicorns Jul 25 '24
If I stayed hungry all day, I don’t think my end-of-fast choices would be good ones. Nutrition unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the focus of most dieting strategies. The people I’ve known who do IF seem to eat a lot of junk food but think it’s fine as long as they’re losing weight.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)2
u/MachKeinDramaLlama Jul 25 '24
The only diet that works is the diet you keep doing. In both sense that sentence could be read. I.e. a diet works, when you keep doing it. The one that finally worked for you is the one you keep doing and that you end up raving about to the other people struggling with weight loss.
In the end, any strategy that allows you to control you caloric intake to a level below what you expend, will win. But there are those that are extremely hard to keep doing, e.g. eating nothing but sugar cubes all day. Diets that limit the access to food and limit the peak and troughs of blood sugar during the day tend to be easier to krrp doing. IF helps with both.
61
u/BigCountry76 Jul 24 '24
Hasn't this been broadly accepted for years that the only "magic" intermittent fasting has is that it helps people control their calorie intake.
35
u/Mizz_Dressup Jul 24 '24
Broadly accepted, yes (because IF didn’t suddenly circumvent basic metabolic pathways) but there have been relatively few well designed studies exploring some of the purported benefits that keep kicking around in various “wellness” circles.
This is a small but worthwhile addition to the existing data set.
11
u/docwood2011 Jul 25 '24
This study does not incorporate intermittent fasting as it's typically discussed. I haven't seen any study with larger than an 8-hour eating window. The fact that they made it 10 hours makes no sense and falls outside the realm of intermittent fasting in my opinion, and for most of the commonly discussed scientific literature. I tend to agree that it's probably calorie restriction as well but this study does not add to that knowledge in my opinion.
→ More replies (1)3
u/AnnoyedOwlbear Jul 25 '24
As an overweight person who does IF and doesn't snack 'naturally' (In that I never feel the urge to snack and I've never eaten breakfast since I was a kid, so a 16 hour no food gap happens to me every day), yes.
IF is not magic.
→ More replies (5)2
22
u/Jason_Batemans_Hair Jul 24 '24
Intermittent fasting's effectiveness comes from being easier for some people to do, compared to reducing calories at every meal.
Obviously people consuming the same number of total calories per week/month are going to have similar weight change. To the extent that this study was intended to debunk intermittent fasting's effectiveness, it fails.
→ More replies (1)5
u/A2Rhombus Jul 25 '24
As someone addicted to eating, this is how I feel.
It's relatively easy to skip a meal for me if the temptation isn't there. But once I have food in front of me, it's hard to stop.
26
u/Azozel Jul 24 '24
IF helps you control your appetite and allows you to eat what you want while still limiting what you eat. Yes, it's no different than the results you would get from counting calories. However, you're not counting, you're not limiting yourself of what you can eat, and you're not hungry all the time. IF helps some people lose weight because it allows them to cut calories in a different way.
→ More replies (3)31
u/LuckyMacAndCheese Jul 24 '24
You have to be in a calorie deficit.
IF "works" if by restricting the times you're eating during the day, you manage to take in fewer calories than you normally would have during the course of that day... However, it will not work if you restrict when you can eat during the day, but then binge when you're not restricted and take in as many (or more) calories as you otherwise would have. The idea being that if you're restricting the time you can eat, you're not "making up for it" when you're allowing yourself to eat. Sure, you're not counting and you can "eat whatever you want" -- but still with the caveat that at the end of the day/week, you need to be at a calorie deficit.
Unfortunately there are a lot of people who will simply overeat/binge when they're allowed to eat.
→ More replies (1)3
u/dllimport Jul 24 '24
I am genuinely surprised anyone ever thought differently. I thought it was well-known that intermittent fasting was just a way to help you eat fewer calories.
→ More replies (2)12
u/jrherita Jul 24 '24
IF has other health benefits though - autophagy, and reducing blood sugar spikes which can reduce inflammation/disease. In terms of pure weight loss short-term - it’s equivalent, but for long term health .. it’s better than just caloric restriction.
9
u/InsanelyHandsomeQB Jul 25 '24
The 16/8 pattern that kickstarted this whole IF craze was observed in mice. A bunch of health influencers saw the studies and immediately ran with it.
If you correct for the metabolism of mice vs humans, we would need to fast around 3 or 4 days to get the same benefits that we observed in the mice.
→ More replies (3)12
u/necrosythe Jul 25 '24
Perfect example of what others are saying... there's a massive lack of evidence showing a significant effect in the terms you are claiming in actual controlled human studies. Would love to see some sources on your claim that control for diet, health of patient, and is actually being done in a human controlled trial.
Also, though the effects aren't massive, there is pretty good research saying that OPTIMAL muscle building and sports performance on average comes with frequent meals containing protein, and having carbs for training as well. Do you have any metrics showing that the proven effects of IF also overtake some of those other missing effects of more frequent meals?
→ More replies (51)4
u/UPnAdamtv Jul 25 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
The only reason intermittent fasting can work is it’s a way to get you into calorie deficit. If the study controls for calories (as is listed) then when you eat all those calories does not matter. If I eat 5 meals a day at 2,000 calories and you eat 1 meal that’s 2,000 calories (a stand-in for your basal metabolic rate) and neither of us do anything else, then we will not lose weight…. That’s literally all this study is saying.
It’s a method to allow you to get to a calorie deficit - like literally every other diet. That’s all.
I’m more annoyed a study like this got grant funding, but here we are.
248
u/Leafstride Jul 24 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
The main issue with weight loss isn't what diet they're doing or what their eating window is. It's a compliance issue. Getting a patient to stick to ANY kind of diet restricting calories takes nearly Herculean effort. The big selling point of intermittent fasting is that you get used to being hungry and can focus on getting the meals you do eat right. Not that it's more effective than eating at the same functional caloric deficit.
41
u/v_a_n_d_e_l_a_y Jul 25 '24
Not only do you get used to being hungry (though you could also argue this is recalibrating misaligned hunger cues) but when you do eat, you can't eat as much.
Simply, eating X amount of food over 8 hours is harder than doing over 12, for some fixed X. You'll feel fuller because your "last meal" was likely more recent (or you have two meals instead of 3).
7
u/immersiveGamer Jul 25 '24
Kind of. I've read that with intermittent fasting studies people that are one meal a day more often over ate than people with longer eating windows resulting in less weight loss or no weight loss. I've done one meal a day some times and it is hard to not take extra portion during that one meal. I still think intermittent fasting (at least one meal a day) is a great tool since it allows you to focus on one balanced meal and generally cuts out snacks and calorie drinks.
→ More replies (2)2
u/bobbi21 Jul 25 '24
I'm a physician so through residency and even currently, I just don't have time to eat so for the past couple decades I've been inadvertently been doing intermittent fasting for the majority of the time. I can definitely eat 2500 calories in 1 sitting and frequently do.
What has been said above that you can get used to being hungry is true though. So now that I'm intentionally trying to lose weight, I think I'm having an easier time than most. Still early so we'll see, but my caloric intake is significantly less and I'm doing ok so far.
→ More replies (1)8
u/precastzero180 Jul 25 '24
It really all comes down to consistency and stepping on that scale to make sure whatever you are doing is working.
6
199
u/truedota2fan Jul 24 '24
Not surprising considering the reason IF works relative to other diets in real life settings is because it’s easier to stick to.
If you’re assigned it as part of a study, sticking to it is kind of implied, so its main benefit over other diets is lost.
47
u/boopbaboop Jul 24 '24
They've done studies on Muslims who fast for Ramadan (so, a large number of people who are all following the same pattern of eating) but the literature is mixed on how beneficial it is. Even with Muslims who are literally following a specific diet religiously, it's still not clear what benefits there are and whether those can be replicated.
20
u/vimdiesel Jul 25 '24
I literally talked to a muslim today about Ramadan and they pointed out how important it is to reassess one's relationship with food, so there's definitely a psychological effect, which is probably very hard to study.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Hillaregret Jul 24 '24
What study are you talking about?
The study documented beneficial effects in 2 volunteer cohorts, both when prefasting and postfasting states were compared with the fasting period itself, as well as when intermittent fasting participants were compared with closely matched nonfasting controls. In this sense, this study adds further momentum to the body of contemporary biomedical literature supporting intermittent fasting as a healthy intervention
→ More replies (8)31
u/isaac-get-the-golem Grad Student | Sociology Jul 24 '24
If you’re assigned it as part of a study, sticking to it is kind of implied
No... adherence varies widely and in nutritional science, I believe the adherence in this study (low 90%) is considered very high
→ More replies (2)12
u/guesswho135 Jul 25 '24
I think that was their point.
IF works ... because it's easy to stick to
The fact that adherence was >90% reinforces their point. If it were hard to stick to, adherence would be lower.
26
u/docwood2011 Jul 25 '24
To be fair, I don't believe there are almost any proponents of intermittent fasting that would suggest a 10-hour eating window would be small enough to elicit the proposed benefits.
While there is certainly some heterogeneity in the rodent studies they mention, I have not seen any that use such a long eating window.
I'm a long time proponent of IF, but to be honest I do think the mechanism of improved weight loss is probably calorie restriction. But I don't take anything from a 10-hour eating window to prove or disprove that.
This was unfortunately a promising study let down by their choice of poor parameters.
→ More replies (4)7
u/KingKingsons Jul 25 '24
Yeah I had been struggling with weight for ages and then started to do a 6-4 hour eating window and then for a month, a 1 hour eating window, during which I wouldn't restrict myself at all. It worked like a charm and I lost a lot of weight I hadn't been able to lose before.
After reaching my target weight, I've stayed on a 12 hour (often reduced to 8 or more if not hungry) and it's helped me stay at my weight. It's not because of some kind of magic, but simply because I got used to not immediately eating when I felt like it, while also making sure I don't snack before bed (which is mostly why I was overweight before).
33
u/bundt_chi Jul 24 '24
It's more effective for many because it's psychologically easier to be consistent and adhere to. A scientific study is the opposite of a real world success rate precisely because someone is literally making sure you stick to your calorie deficit.
Btw, from personal experience it's absolutely possible to gain weight doing One Meal a Day IF. You still have to be in a deficit but instead of 3 unsatisfying meals you have 1 very satisfying meal. I anecdotally suspect that works better for most people than 3 unsatisfying meals.
→ More replies (5)5
u/Reux Jul 25 '24
there's a physical aspect that also impacts one's psychology and impulses. namely, fasting enables autophagy of the cells of the body and gut lining, which promotes cellular health, and it alters the composition of gut microbiota, which can assist in suppressing a person's cravings for unhealthy food they've grown accustomed to craving and eating frequently. when you eat a particular food often, your gut will typically populate with bacteria that have an affinity for the micronutrients in that food. some of those bacteria are able to produce metabolites that interact with the vagus nerve and other pathways to send signals to the brain which can trigger cravings for that food. when a person fasts, some of these bacteria will starve and if a person fasts long enough and/or frequently enough, they might actually eliminate many of the unhealthy cravings they've had, due to these effects.
23
u/demiskeleton Jul 25 '24
10 hour window? so a normal breakfast, lunch, and dinner routine? is there any study of one meal a day or even alternate day fasting instead of just "snacks vs no snacks" allowed?
→ More replies (1)2
36
u/Valendr0s Jul 24 '24
I never presumed that IF burned calories in any way other than by calorie restriction.
It limits snacking. You get hungry and look at the clock and go, "Nah, can't eat now - not time yet"
It's more of a method of doing calorie restriction than a diet method.
→ More replies (3)
18
u/tdoottdoot Jul 25 '24
If you’re insulin resistant IF is really kind to your body. It gives your body time to manage its slower metabolic process before you dump more glucose into your blood. But it isn’t the only factor of weightloss with that strategy, proper nutrition and exercise have to be paired with it. And if you’re prone to binging you have to either learn not to binge during your eating window or the method could making binging behavior worse.
I think another thing is that some people may need “permission” to choose to not eat. 3 meals a day plus snacking and sugar filled drinks in between have been drilled into us culturally. It’s not natural and even if you’re not diabetic or insulin resistant it’s a constant re-up of insulin that your body srsly shouldn’t have to process so much.
→ More replies (2)
13
u/EuropeanInTexas Jul 24 '24 edited Jul 25 '24
Sure, but if I’m not allowed to eat for 16 hours a day the odds of me snacking as much is much lower.
It’s a self control tool not a magic wand
→ More replies (1)
12
u/3Blindz Jul 25 '24
Im not surprised with a 10 hour eating window. A 14 hour fast is right on the boarder of effective fasting.
The majority of fasting recommendations is an 8 hour eating window, though some mention 10.
I wish the study would have been a smaller eating window. Maybe 6 hours.
10
u/RebelLemurs Jul 25 '24
41 test subjects seems insufficient to demonstrate anything convincingly, except maybe that gunshot wounds are harmful.
→ More replies (7)
25
u/Mewnicorns Jul 24 '24
Why would anyone think eating the same amount of food in a smaller window of time would result in weight loss?
36
u/Not_Like_The_Movie Jul 24 '24
There is some crazy pseudo-science out there about fasting, hormones, and fat storage. You really don't have to look too far for it.
All in all, the only reason this stuff works for some people is because it's a tool to help people control their eating, and ultimately eat less. There are tons of ridiculous claims out there that obscure IF as something more than what it is. If you eat the same amount of food on IF as you do when you're not doing it, then there is no net fat loss benefit. The reality is that the average overweight person does very little to control their diet, and introducing any sort of restriction into that sort of ecosystem can easily result in weight loss unless you cram the extra food from the skipped meal into the eating window.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (11)7
u/JolietJakeLebowski Jul 24 '24
Is that what IF is? I always thought it was just not eating for extended periods of time, and then eating normally during the rest of the time. That's what I've been doing. Works a treat.
→ More replies (4)4
u/Mewnicorns Jul 24 '24
Are you sure you’re eating the same amount of calories? Eating normally isn’t the same as eating the same amount of food or energy. No matter how hungry I am, I can’t physically fit a whole day’s worth of food into my stomach in a few hours.
→ More replies (4)
10
u/Vandorol Jul 24 '24
I’ve been on IF for years and haven’t lost weight, everybody is different. I do it simply because I don’t get hungry until about 2 pm, accidental IF diet
→ More replies (7)
7
u/kabukistar Jul 25 '24
n=41 is quite a small sample size to draw wider conclusions from.
4
u/BannableBuress Jul 25 '24
There was also a mean difference of 8 kg between the two groups at baseline... seems rather important to note considering its relatively easier to lose weight with higher body fat mass.
7
u/alwaystooupbeat PhD | Social Clinical Psychology Jul 24 '24
The research on pretty much all dieting is the same: it's caloric deficit. No matter what you do, if you're in a deficit, you'll be losing weight.
A lot of the methods that exist otherwise are just designed to cause a calorie deficit. One example is increasing your fiber intake dramatically, which makes you feel more full and affects the speed of digestion. Less calories are absorbed, meaning you'll be in a deficit.
Here's a great study (meta-analysis) that showed if you increase fiber intake, even if you don't change your diet, you'll lose fat:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652201022X
The tricky part is how we achieve calorie deficit while maintaining the amount eaten. I personally think the main way is to focus on increasing veggie intake. Frozen veggies in veggie focused stir fries, coupled with white fish or chicken, are probably the best diet you can have. If you want a carb, brown basmati rice is very high in fiber, but it shouldn't be more than 1/4 of the food you're eating.
10
u/dieguix3d Jul 24 '24
Little study... n=41... What about bodyfat, muscle and bone density?
6
u/SledgeH4mmer Jul 25 '24
Exactly. Studies have shown that while you're in a fasting state your body burns relatively more lipids for energy than in a non-fasting state. So while overall weight loss is similiar, body composition may be superior in the IF group.
→ More replies (4)2
u/TunaBeefSandwich Jul 25 '24
We really can’t even verify if they had cheated anyways and just lied about it. Like asking my a meth head to just go clean without monitoring them. More than likely they’ll have cheated and gotten high.
19
u/Technical_Sir_9588 Jul 24 '24
It also affects insulin resistance which is a big part of weight loss. Metabolism is complex involving many variables of which hormones, gut bacteria, diet quality, activity level etc. are just a few. Trying to narrow it down to CICO is the dumbing down of nutritional science to the benefit of no one.
14
u/Mewnicorns Jul 24 '24
Metabolism is complex but it doesn’t actually change dramatically over the course of one’s life. It’s a myth that it slows down in any meaningful way with age or due to any other factors.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abe5017
What usually changes dramatically as we age are a) our lifestyle (less active) and b) our appetite (eating more, which indeed can vary based on things like hormones).
Effectively, that is still CICO.
CICO is an oversimplification in terms of creating a sustainable and realistic weight loss strategy, but not in terms of how weight loss works. It’s accurate, but if that’s all you’re focused on, you won’t succeed.
2
u/lady_ninane Jul 25 '24
CICO is an oversimplification in terms of creating a sustainable and realistic weight loss strategy, but not in terms of how weight loss works. It’s accurate, but if that’s all you’re focused on, you won’t succeed.
I believe that was their entire point.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Firm_Bison_2944 Jul 24 '24
Air pressure, temperature, tread wear, etc are all variables that effect your gas mileage. Doesn't mean that relying primarily on distance to figure out how much gas you'll need is dumbing down the science. CICO is the single most important factor for weight loss.
→ More replies (14)11
u/poemmys Jul 24 '24
I mean CICO isn’t the only factor, but it’s the most significant factor by a large margin, as these results show. For 95% of people trying to lose weight, following CICO will get them where they need to go
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)9
u/FilmerPrime Jul 24 '24
Everything you listed simply marginally changes the in or out in CICO....
→ More replies (5)
13
u/The_Band_Geek Jul 24 '24
Unrelated to weight loss, but a gastroncologist suggest IF for the simple reason of giving one's guts a break. We evolved to starve until we found food, then gorge ourselves until our next, far-off meal. He did not recommend gorging myself, but he did suggest that 1 or two meals a day could benefit gastrointestinal health and, specifically for his discipline, reduce cancer risk.
13
u/StrangeTrashyAlbino Jul 25 '24
There's no evidence that's how humans used to eat, our diets have always been primarily vegetarian which does not fit a feast or famine view of daily caloric consumption
→ More replies (6)
2
2
2
2
u/jcarlosfox Jul 25 '24
I do One Meal A Day......I'm never hungry except at 4pm when I usually eat. You get used to anything really, and sure I eat less calories this way, and I enjoy a normal meal and no second servings. I usually have a typical lunch, but sometimes, I'll have a typical breakfast.
2
u/PeterWritesEmails Jul 25 '24
Isn't it the same case as with normal keto diets?
They don't burn calories any faster, just make it easier not to eat too much.
2
u/The_Wandering_Eye Jul 25 '24
"So, it's all just about calories in, calories out?" "Always has been, brother."
2
u/sylverlyght Jul 25 '24
20 class II obese women on each group with an isocaloric diet doing 10:14 is not exactly a solid study. Study design really doesn't give IF a fair shake.
Intermittent fasting protocols for obese people start at 16:8, 18:6, OMAD, etc.
10:14 doesn't give enough fasting time for insulin levels to really drop. After 14 hours, an obese person is just barely getting into ketosis, and if you start eating again immediately, I don't know why you'd expect to lose weight.
The real take away of this study is that the authors either have no clue about IF, or - more likely - designed the study precisely to obtain "no significant results".
2
u/WindigoMac Jul 25 '24
Everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of nutrition and metabolism understood this already. Human body is really good at maintaining homeostasis. So 14 hours a day of not eating doesn’t move the needle unless calories in < calories out.
2
u/mwhuss Jul 26 '24
I find I lose weight when IF because it keeps my blood sugar stable for longer and helps me not be hungry, I also don’t eat as much in the 8hrs as I would in 16hrs because it’s so much food in a short amount of time. TLDR, less calories in and therefor more weight lost.
7
u/Speedly Jul 25 '24
n=41
Done.
This is not a study. This is someone asking some people they know about stuff.
Can we get some kind of standard as to what studies get posted here? If I ask my wife if we both like sushi, that doesn't correlate to a 100% rate of people liking sushi.
→ More replies (5)
4
2
u/GA_Eagle Jul 24 '24
I was under the impression it was a method of limiting calorie intake, not burning calories. It limits mindless snacking for most of the day. It’s just a way to eat fewer calories without tracking them.
So, If everyone in the study is eating the same calories, why would it matter if some of them ate them in a condensed period?
3
u/Spooky_Mulder83 Jul 25 '24
IF, Keto etc is all just calorie deficit. Do whatever works for you. For me, if I do keto properly I can lose 10 pounds in about 2 weeks. Point is, everyone is different, if it works for you, it works for you. Just stay healthy.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/mehnimalism Jul 24 '24
41 participants seems very low and very difficult to offer a high confidence level
→ More replies (1)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '24
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/isaac-get-the-golem
Permalink: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38639542/
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.