Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Science

Eat For 10 Hours. Fast For 14. This Daily Habit Prompts Weight Loss, Study Finds (npr.org) 226

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
There's a lot of enthusiasm for intermittent fasting -- a term that can encompass everything from skipping a meal each day to fasting a few days a week. Or, how about this approach: Simply limit your daily eating window to 10 hours. This means that if you take your first bite of food at 8 a.m., you'd need to consume your last calorie of the day by 6 p.m. A new study published in Cell Metabolism offers some evidence that the approach can be beneficial. From a report: Researchers tracked a group of overweight participants who followed this approach for about three months. "Typically, people would go for an 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. eating window," explains Dr. Pam Taub, a cardiologist at the University of California, San Diego's School of Medicine, and an author of the study. During the fasting period, participants were encouraged to stay hydrated with water. Each day, they logged the timing of their meals and their sleep in an app. "We saw a 3% reduction in their weight and a 4% reduction in abdominal visceral fat," says Taub. "We didn't ask them to change what they eat," she explains, though participants consumed about 8.6% fewer calories -- likely as a result of the limited eating window. In addition to the weight loss, "we saw that cholesterol levels improved and blood pressure [levels] also improved," Taub explains. There was also some reported improvement in sleep quality, and many of the participants reported more energy.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Eat For 10 Hours. Fast For 14. This Daily Habit Prompts Weight Loss, Study Finds More

Eat For 10 Hours. Fast For 14. This Daily Habit Prompts Weight Loss, Study Finds

Comments Filter:

  • People get stuck on the word "fasting" and won't even consider programs like this.
    TRE is much more palatable (pun intended) and actually is a better description of the program.
    My wife and I have been eating this way for years and it really helps to get the weight in check.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by xevioso ( 598654 )

      I don't understand why this is even a thing. If dinner time is around 6-7pm for you and you eat breakfast at 8 or so, then this plan can be more accurately described as just "Don't eat snacks/meals after dinner time or before bed."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jrumney ( 197329 )

      Is it really the time window that is causing the 3% weight reduction though, or is it just that the participants were forced to become more disciplined about their eating habits because they had to record them?

  • So they ate less and lost weight? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dirk ( 87083 ) <dirk@one.net> on Monday December 09, 2019 @12:33PM (#59501492) Homepage

    I don't see how exactly the time restriction can be said to have done anything. They ate less so they lost weight. Sure, the time restriction probably led to them eating less, but the same thing could be achieved by a standard diet. Was it compared to people who just ate 8.6% fewer calories to see if there was any difference? Without something to show the fasting actually made a difference, this is just another fad diet.

    • Counting calories is laborious. Atkins etc takes away whole food groups/ has strict regimens.
      Here just dont have an evening snack works just as well as all those.

      • Counting calories to the level of "good enough" is not laborious, it takes maybe a grand total of 5 minutes a day to log all the shit you eat into MFP.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      I don't see how exactly the time restriction can be said to have done anything. They ate less so they lost weight. Sure, the time restriction probably led to them eating less, but the same thing could be achieved by a standard diet. Was it compared to people who just ate 8.6% fewer calories to see if there was any difference? Without something to show the fasting actually made a difference, this is just another fad diet.

      I would like to see the breakdown between people who chose the 8am-6pm window vs, say a 10am-8pm or 12pm-10pm window and see who lost more weight. Haven't they always said you shouldn't a few hours before going to bed? All this really does is seem to confirm that old wisdom.

      Wouldn't really work for my regular schedule anyway. Up before 6, at work by 7:30, home at 5-5:30, workout 5:30 or 6:30 for an hour, then dinner. That's getting into a 12 hour window right there, even though, if you count the fact th

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by boskone ( 234014 )

        I'm not a nutritionist but what has been working for me is only taking in calories from 12pm to 6pm.

        so after dinner, no more calories, at all, until lunch the next day. I only drink tea, black coffee and water between 6pm and 12pm. then eat a smart lunch and a smart dinner.

        I'm in an aggressive mode of eating right now to lose a good bit of weight, but once I hit my target, my goal is to keep the 18 hour fast going, but increase my allowed calories from 1,000/day to 2,000 a day to level off at my new spot.

    • Was it compared to people who just ate 8.6% fewer calories to see if there was any difference?

      That would not be a fair comparison, because you'd be a comparing a group that got instructions with a group that successfully did something.

      To make it fair, you should compare a group of people that are told to eat in a 10 hour window with a group of people that are told to eat less.

    • I think it has merit, it's about your body switching from storing excess energy (digestion) to consuming stored energy, the latter of which actually burns fat. Always eating every few hours doesn't let the body go into fat burning mode, it takes a while for the digestive system to process the last meal; this time restriction allows that to happen. I will argue that fat burning mode isn't exercised enough in most people.

    • I think the key phrase is that they weren't asked to eat less. Just eat before 6:00.

      > Sure, the time restriction probably led to them eating less

      Yep, a successful and SIMPLE way to eat less and lose weight.

      > but the same thing could be achieved by a standard diet.

      Bob: My new Toyota truck can haul my boat
      Sue: But so can a Ford
      Bob: ???? Your point is?

      Nobody said this plan is the ONLY one that ever work.

    • Anecdotal success among my friends. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Somervillain ( 4719341 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @12:58PM (#59501616)
      You really shouldn't diminish it so quickly. For many of us, it's a huge struggle, beyond just not making stupid choices. Everyone in my family is overweight and I eat more healthily than most people I know who are a lot more slender. I eat small quantities of food, workout 5x a week, and get 15k+ steps every day...but I am overweight (not tooo much, but frustratingly 36" waist)

      For some, not getting fat is simply a matter of not doing anything stupid...for others, it is inevitable without lots of strict dieting, hunger, and exercise.

      I know about a dozen people in my life who took up intermittent fasting and got shockingly thin. Most have only done it for 2 years, but there has been no significant regression. I have more hope that it will get me to a better weight than any other approach...I just personally need to work it into my life.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Weekend Triathlete ( 6446590 )

        I eat small quantities of food, workout 5x a week, and get 15k+ steps every day...but I am overweight

        My wife has this exact problem and it boils down to her choice of workouts. You may have heard some of this before, but look at the math:

        If your workout is lifting, you're only burning *maybe* 200 calories over an hour.
        If you're cycling or swimming, you can push that to ~500 calories per hour for an easy ride, ~800 if you're doing intervals.
        If you're running, you can push that to ~700 calories per hou

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Paxtez ( 948813 )

      So not a dietitian or anything. I've been trying intermittent fasting [IF] for a few weeks (so I am obviously an expert [Some weight loss. But nothing crazy]), and have looked into it a little. So I have some thoughts:

      - IF is supposed to switch some hormones around so your body switches to using fat reserves.
      - The process of converting "food -> energy -> fat -> energy", is less efficient (and therefor "good" for weight loss purposes) than "food -> energy", so
      - As with

    • There have been multiple studies showing the benefits of Intermittent Fasting. Even better would be a 8:16 window.

    • I tried this diet for maybe 3 weeks. My first meal was at 11:00 and I had dinner between 19:00 and 20:00. Other than morning hunger (goes away after an hour) I didn't see any effects, certainly no weight loss.

      Joining a Judo club has been the only way I've been able to lose significant (~40 lbs.) amounts of weight. When I was working out three or four days a week I didn't even have to watch what I ate and I'd lose weight.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Daetrin ( 576516 )
      "I don't see how exactly the time restriction can be said to have done anything."

      Supposedly (IANAD, but there seems to be fair amount of research supporting it) it has to do with insulin response/glucose curves. Healthy bodies produce different amounts of insulin dependent on the last time you ate. I believe that glucose goes up significantly immediately after you eat so insulin production goes up as well in order to deal with it. What your body does with the calories you've consumed depends in part on wh

  • Wait a minute! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brett Buck ( 811747 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @12:39PM (#59501522)

    How is this a Slashdot story? To be appropriate, it has to say how to lose weight drinking from 2-liter bottles of Mountain Dew Code Red and eating Cheetos.

  • Impossible (Score:5, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @12:41PM (#59501532)

    Eat For 10 Hours. Fast For 14.

    I can't eat for 10 hours, I get full way before that.

  • Skip a meal. Been doing it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RyanFenton ( 230700 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @12:44PM (#59501560)

    One significant question though.

    Why don't these submissions ever just link to the study?

    They always link to some rinky-dink reporter making a sloppy enthusiastic take that strips out all the assumptions made listed, and all the caveats on full methodology and the like.

    This is a site for nerds - nerds that most likely would prefer more data when deciding what to do with their body than some Facebook-friendly article.

    So, just link to the study. Skip the double summary with a side of ads. Just like skipping a meal for the sake of metabolism, it might be a decent idea. I know it feels better to me.

    Ryan Fenton

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      It's a summary from a reliable source for people who don't want to read the 28 page study. The study itself was the third link in this NPR article.

      • Thus the joke.

        Why eat two summary meals and a main course (slashdot summary, article summary, actual study), when you could just eat two portions, and get a better result?

        Why do you need two layers before the actual information?

        Ads. That's why you need a summary of a summary.

        Ryan Fenton

    • If you want to nerd out on it, head over to peterattiamd.com and listen to his podcasts and read through the info on his site.
      Here's a link to his podcasts related to fasting. [peterattiamd.com] The first one with Jason Fung is really good. Then again, I've listened to all of his podcasts and they are all really good.

      I have been doing intermittent fasting and time restricted feeding for several years now. I don't eat breakfast, just lunch and dinner. And nothing after 7:30 PM. So about 16 hours not eating every day. O

  • Isn't eating breakfast at 8am, lunch at noon, and dinner at 6pm what most would consider a pretty normal eating schedule?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Misagon ( 1135 )

      That depends on your work hours and how much time you need to spend getting to/from work every day.
      I'd usually have 12 hours between breakfast and dinner even at the best of times.

    • Maybe on the weekend. On the weekdays, I'm at work at 8. I eat breakfast at 6-6:30.

      • Suppose it depends on the person. Many seem to eat at the office. My point was really that these guidelines fall fairly close to the typical schedule most of us think of as "normal" meal hours. It's not as if they're advocating eating dinner at 4pm or something.

  • I get really irritable when I go without food for more than 4 hours. I might lose weight, but murder somebody in the process. Perhaps this diet "works" by cranking up metabolism via anger?

    My office people-skills are already borderline on a full stomach, I'd hate to be my coworkers when I'm on this diet. I find some truth in those Snickers ads. [youtube.com]

    • It takes a week or so, but if you stick with IF you'll find your mood evens out and you feel much better.

      I do 8/16, and never have any mood issues prior to the start of my window. I've actually missed the start a number of times ( busy ), and no one's died.

    • Comparing populations to individuals is why we usually preface statements about what works on a group of people with "YMMV."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      I get really irritable when I go without food for more than 4 hours.

      That sounds more like an addition than actual hunger. Unless you have something wrong with you (medically or mentally), you're probably not genuinely hungry every 4 hours. You just think you are.

      • Or a sugar based diet

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DogDude ( 805747 )
          That's very true. I don't know anybody who eats healthy (no hyper processed foods, sugar) who needs to eat every 4 hours. Sounds like a sugar crash. Those are unpleasant.

    • I get really irritable when I go without food for more than 4 hours.

      So you have a midnight snack every night? Don't know about you, but I don't wake up in the middle of the night every night hungry. Breakfast is about 7AM, lunch about noon, dinner about 5PM. No snacks. I have to work to keep my weight up....

  • What's the distribution of expected outcomes? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by larryjoe ( 135075 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @01:01PM (#59501632)

    From the article, the study group was small and not representative of the general population: "just 19 people. All the participants were overweight and had a cluster of risk factors (elevated blood sugar, elevated cholesterol levels and high blood pressure) that put them at higher risk for Type 2 diabetes and heart disease."

    A "3% reduction in their weight and a 4% reduction in abdominal visceral fat" over 3 months is significant, especially if the reduction can be sustained or at least maintained. However, I would like to know if this works for most people, so I would like to see the distribution of outcomes rather than the arithmetic mean.

    • Any study that relies on self-reported caloric intake, such as this one, muddies the dataset anyway.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by religionofpeas ( 4511805 )

      I would recommend anyone wants to lose weight to give intermittent fasting a try. If it doesn't work, nothing is lost.

    • Amen to this.

      I question their statistical analysis, too - how can you be statistically confident (say, alpha = 0.05) that there is a 3% weight reduction in a population of only 19??? That sample size is waaay too small to measure such a small change, unless the average weight loss was a LOT more.

      Or, to put it another way, if study of another sample of 19 overweight people was conducted, I bet the chances are pretty good that no weight loss would be measured (or quite possibly even a weight gain). I would

  • I mean, is it the eating pattern or is it simply mindfulness of what people are eating?

    I love breakfast. I am up at 0530 for exercise before work, and really have to eat by 0700 or I'm seriously hangry for the morning.

    Suggesting then that I shan't eat after 5pm? That sounds like a recipe not for better sleep but being achingly hungry just as I'm trying to fall asleep.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DogDude ( 805747 )
      You get over the hunger thing after just a few hours. Once you get used to it, you don't even get hangry any more. I know that I don't.

  • Very common practice among orthodox Hindus (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @01:25PM (#59501722) Journal
    For example many observe fasting [quora.com] on the 11th day of the waxing/waning moon. 26 days a year.

    Another common practice is giving up night a meal once a weak. Typically Thursday.

    Another common practice is avoiding "full meal" once or twice a week for the supper/dinner.

    Another common practice is to avoid salt once a day per lunar cycle.

    All these practices are explained in terms of religious benefit, good deeds, pleasing the Lord etc and the benefits to the mortal body is not often stressed. So some observe these penances with loop holes. For example, "full meal" means "whole grain meals". So food using cracked or ground grains is not "whole" meal! Not unlike pious Christians asking "is turtle soup allowed during the Lent?". Lent, Ramadan, Hindu penances show such fasting is wide spread, well known to almost all cultures.

    The religious benefits depends on one's belief system. The religious goal is not dieting or losing weight, but losing "attachment" to "physical body and its comforts and pleasures". But actual benefits to the mortal body is very real. It works as a diet plan.

    Disclosure: I follow the no meal after 6 PM (in usa, after sunset in India) Thursdays. Someday I will develop enough detachment to give it up altogether. If I can do the salt free day once a lunar month I am sure I would feel very good about my own self control. I have given up "passionate foods" (tamasic) on new moon days (onion/garlic), and I feel good about that self control. So if I can go salt less once a lunar month it would be great.

  • Yeah the observer effect has absolutely nothing to do with this result. The fact that people have to enter their food intake into an app does not make them conscious of what they're eating and lead to weight loss. There is some sort of magic that happens to the body when fasting for exactly 14 hours...

    • From TFP:

      Another limitation of our study is the potential effect of mCC app usage on behavior, including dietary choices. However, it has been shown previously that simply using the mCC app for 3 weeks does not result in weight loss, suggesting that use of the app may not significantly influence behavior (Gill and Panda, 2015). The CGM and actigraphy devices may also have served as "reminders" to the participants that they were logging for a health study, and therefore might havealtered behavior. However, t

  • Fauly stats? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mnmn ( 145599 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @01:34PM (#59501774) Homepage
    This is yet another statistic that finds a certain pattern helps weight loss.

    Might it not be possible that just the act of monitoring a person's diet makes them reduce weight?

    I lost most weight a few years ago when I aimed only to monitor and document what I ate. I had a goal of absolutely not dieting. But just the aspect of monitoring and thinking about food consciously made a bigger difference than all previous diets I had tried.

    In a weird way it reminds me of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.
  • This is way old news, guys. Intermittent fasting and window fasting have been around for years.

  • "Typically, people would go for an 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. eating window," So, start eating at breakfast and stop eating at dinner. This is revolutionary?

  • Back in my day we called it "skipping breakfast" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hadlock ( 143607 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @02:17PM (#59501964) Homepage Journal

    My day was 2010.
     
    If you finish dinner/desert/drinking by 9pm, go to bed at midnight, have a cup of coffee around 8am, and then lunch at noon that's 15 hour fast, also known as "skipping breakfast". Pretty normal.

  • Certain benefits already known by nutritionists (Score:5, Interesting)

    by doubledown00 ( 2767069 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @02:28PM (#59501980)

    A daily 8 x 16 fast has become standard advice among diabetic nutritionists. Yes, it can help with weight loss. But the reason they have moved to it is because it forces the body to go longer with only the glucose that the person has on hand. There is an increasing body of evidence that these longer periods without the influx of glucose helps to reduce insulin resistance. That is, the body gets more efficient with the cellular use of sugar because it's now less available.

  • Eat fewer calories, weigh fewer pounds? What sorcery is this??

    If only we knew!

  • Weight is not an indicator of health. There are numerous people who are fat and healthy, and numerous people who are not fat and are unhealthy. I mean, I get it, we've been yammering for decades about an obesity epidemic that is largely not a problem, so it's hard to not just keep doing that, but *sheesh*.

    • Let me guess, your 'source' is.. Linda Bacon? Other FA kooks on the internet?

      There are numerous people who smoke and live to be 90 years old. There are people who drive drunk consistently and never get in a wreck.

      You can't tell if someone is healthy if they are thin. You can tell if someone is unhealthy if they are morbidly obese with one weird trick - you look at them. Sure, you can carry it off with good "numbers" (lol, funny how every fat person has great 'numbers') while you're young. Good luck with tha

  • Eat once a day or so if you feel like, do meth 24/7. The pounds will melt away. Oh, you wanted a 'healthy' diet, can't help you.

  • Growing up we had breakfast at 7 as we had to catch the school bus at 730. School was 800-1400 with a tiffin break at 1130. When we got home at 230 we would have lunch then take a 2 hour nap. Get up 500, go out and play with friends. Come back and have a snack at 630. Do homework from 630-930. Eat Dinner at 930 generally while watching TV. After Dinner from 10-12 we would either finish Homework if we had more or watch TV or read a book and go to sleep at 12. Wake up at 630 and repeat.

    So we got 8.5 hours of

  • Bullshit (Score:3)

    by DeathElk ( 883654 ) on Monday December 09, 2019 @04:09PM (#59502338)

    This is bullshit.

Slashdot Top Deals

This restaurant was advertising breakfast any time. So I ordered french toast in the renaissance. - Steven Wright, comedian

Close