CICO????
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
And yet here you sit, with zero evidence rebutting those small studies, pretending you're an evidence-guided individual.
my evidence is that they used a small sample size and are not reliable.
and lunch is almost over, so I don't have time to browse studies, because I have a real job that requires my attention.
lmao ahh that job line makes you sound like such a *kitten* bro0 -
I'm interested in this topic (and circadian rhythm more generally). I think CICO is more complicated than it is sometimes made out to be, but at the same time, for all intents and purposes the critical factor is that you establish and sustain a deficit. So, while there may be a benefit to a restricted window of eating, if adding that restriction makes your diet harder to follow long-term, it is useless. As others have stated, the research is hardly conclusive here, but I look forward to see how it evolves. Caution is always needed in interpreting a small number of studies or studies that haven't been translated to humans. I do personally try to keep to a 12 hour eating window, but sometimes eat later for social reasons or just to let myself be flexible.0
-
Impossible to have a meaningful conversation about this if all the mice weren't wearing HRMs, or at least fitbits/similar.0
-
-
I think it's naive to think that the mice would be allowed to have different amounts of caloric intake. That would render the whole study moot. I'm sure the scientists accounted for it one way or another.
My guess is either they gave the mice mouse-kibble so delicious that they cleaned their plates every day, or else they gave them a set amount of kibble, took it out later and measured how much of the kibble was uneaten, and determined their caloric intake from that. Like, free-fed mouse ate 30 pieces of kibble in a day, and set-times mouse also ate 30 pieces of kibble.0 -
From what I can gather, the mice were able to eat as much as they wanted and the amounts were monitored, and then to keep the intake consistent across groups the feeding windows were adjusted by as much as an hour (this adjustment was weekly).0
-
BlueSkyShoal wrote: »I think it's naive to think that the mice would be allowed to have different amounts of caloric intake. That would render the whole study moot. I'm sure the scientists accounted for it one way or another.
This is explicitly described in the results section of the paper.Mice fed an FS diet ad libitum (FSA) consumed the same amount of calories as mice fed within a 9 hr window of the dark phase (FST) (Figure S2A, i), yet the FST mice gained less body weight over a 12-week period (21% compared to 42% for FSA mice; Figure 2A, i).To test if longer durations of TRF are effective in preventing body weight gain (Hatori et al., 2012), mice were allowed access to a HFD (62% energy from fat; Table S1) for 9 hr, 12 hr, or 15 hr (Figure 1B). Food consumption was equivalent in the four conditions (Figure S2A, ii and iii).Finally, to investigate the therapeutic potential of TRF, we tested whether TRF could reverse or arrest body weight gain in preexisting DIO, as observed in FA mice (Figure 1D). In both short-term (13:12) and long-term (26:12) studies, a subset of FA mice was switched to the TRF paradigm (FAT). Within a few days the mice were habituated to the new feeding paradigm and continued to consume equivalent calories (Figure S2A, iv). The 13:12 FAT mice showed a modest drop in body weight (40 g to 38 g) and maintained this new body weight until the end of the study, at which point their weight was not statistically different from FTT mice (Figure S2C).Food intake and body weight were monitored weekly throughout the experiments. The food access durations were readjusted weekly to ensure isocaloric consumption in all groups (± a maximum of 1 hr).0 -
From the experimental conditions section:Food intake and body weight were monitored weekly throughout the experiments. The
food access durations were readjusted weekly to ensure isocaloric consumption
in all groups (± a maximum of 1 hr).0 -
Hmm I think you edited in the meantime
0 -
0 -
-
BlueSkyShoal wrote: »I think it's naive to think that the mice would be allowed to have different amounts of caloric intake. That would render the whole study moot. I'm sure the scientists accounted for it one way or another.
This is explicitly described in the results section of the paper.Mice fed an FS diet ad libitum (FSA) consumed the same amount of calories as mice fed within a 9 hr window of the dark phase (FST) (Figure S2A, i), yet the FST mice gained less body weight over a 12-week period (21% compared to 42% for FSA mice; Figure 2A, i).To test if longer durations of TRF are effective in preventing body weight gain (Hatori et al., 2012), mice were allowed access to a HFD (62% energy from fat; Table S1) for 9 hr, 12 hr, or 15 hr (Figure 1B). Food consumption was equivalent in the four conditions (Figure S2A, ii and iii).Finally, to investigate the therapeutic potential of TRF, we tested whether TRF could reverse or arrest body weight gain in preexisting DIO, as observed in FA mice (Figure 1D). In both short-term (13:12) and long-term (26:12) studies, a subset of FA mice was switched to the TRF paradigm (FAT). Within a few days the mice were habituated to the new feeding paradigm and continued to consume equivalent calories (Figure S2A, iv). The 13:12 FAT mice showed a modest drop in body weight (40 g to 38 g) and maintained this new body weight until the end of the study, at which point their weight was not statistically different from FTT mice (Figure S2C).Food intake and body weight were monitored weekly throughout the experiments. The food access durations were readjusted weekly to ensure isocaloric consumption in all groups (± a maximum of 1 hr).
You can read the whole paper?
What does it say about the eating habits of the unrestricted eaters? Did they portion the food they ate up over the day or did they eat it all at once anyway and just would have had access to it over the whole day? Same question about the restricted ones.0 -
steven - you can get a pdf through google scholar. I think it's publicly available.0
-
Really? I searched for the name of the study but only get the same summary as in Cell.
Oh nevermind there's a link at the side.0 -
Hmm, no link from "bancodasaude.com" on the side? I'm at an academic medical center - so apologies perhaps that shows up through my library access but I thought it would be there for everyone.0
-
girlviernes wrote: »So, while there may be a benefit to a restricted window of eating, if adding that restriction makes your diet harder to follow long-term, it is useless. As others have stated, the research is hardly conclusive here, but I look forward to see how it evolves. Caution is always needed in interpreting a small number of studies or studies that haven't been translated to humans.
This is how I feel, and again it's worth noting that this particular study showed the effect only with high sugar and high fat diets.
While the fact that on average obese rats lost weight without changing diets or calories, merely due to a shortened feeding schedule, is interesting, and I am curious what further research will tell us about the reasons why, the idea that this is greatly significant to a human dieter (as some other posters seem to be claiming) is inaccurate.
First, contrary to OP, it does not suggest that CICO does not work. Personally, I consistently eat breakfast at 6 am or so and dinner around 9 pm--that's what my lifestyle requires--and I have lost weight just fine (although I also don't eat a high sugar or high fat diet, unlike our little ratty friends). If I were to have determined in advance that I couldn't lose without a 12 hour window I'd have been hurting my chances of success, because that wouldn't have been possible without skipping breakfast and I hate skipping breakfast--it makes me personally more apt to snack in the morning, which would be a bad strategy for me, even if the snacking waited until 9:30 or 10. Also, let's say hypothetically that I would have lost 6% more on average per week while obese if I'd given up on my preferred vegetable omelet and brought some kind of portable breakfast to work. Why is that so significant that it's worth the hassle.
I think these kinds of studies provide interesting ideas to try out if they happen to appeal to you, but they are definitely majoring in the minors for most, and can be counterproductive.
Same with the opposite position that you MUST have breakfast or a huge breakfast of half your daily calories (which I also could not do and would be unsatisfied doing).
I actually do think that a 12 hour window would be effective for many humans, but not for the reasons it may have worked for the rats, but because it probably often does restrict total calories. Eating fewer meals (3, and not snacking) does that for me, regardless of the window, and that's why I dislike the claims that everyone should eat 5-6 mini meals (ugh). Another example of majoring in the minors.
If we can set aside the weird idea that this study means that CICO doesn't work or somehow proves that IF is the One True Diet Plan (er Lifestyle Change) -- I always thought that was low carb, anyway! -- these kinds of things are, indeed, interesting and I love reading about them.0 -
Skimmed through.
Doesn't look like they checked the eating times of the ad libidum groups.
Kinda would have been funny if they had access to the food 24 hours but only ate it during the same 9 hours as the other group.
Their activity assessments are interesting. If I see this right, the ones who were more time restricted ran for twice as long during their activity assessment. That would be an extra calorie burn.
They were fitter for some reason.
Maybe they were running around through their cage more, unsuccessfully searching for food while the ad libidum ones had it sitting there all the time so they moved less, that would be an idea.0 -
For years I've been eating during a 9 hour window (from around 8am-5pm. Not to lose weight, but that's just how my schedule has been for many years). I never lost a pound until I actually created a calorie deficit.
Ditto. I still do it because it suits my schedule, but I don't really care about touting it as some fat-burning miracle.
0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Skimmed through.
Doesn't look like they checked the eating times of the ad libidum groups.
Kinda would have been funny if they had access to the food 24 hours but only ate it during the same 9 hours as the other group.
Their activity assessments are interesting. If I see this right, the ones who were more time restricted ran for twice as long during their activity assessment. That would be an extra calorie burn.
They were fitter for some reason.
Maybe they were running around through their cage more, unsuccessfully searching for food while the ad libidum ones had it sitting there all the time so they moved less, that would be an idea.
It's specifically mentioned that the diurnal activity of all of the groups of mice were not significantly different. Exactly how they establish that is not detailed, but I seriously doubt they are measuring the mouse movement to the degree that would be necessary to really make that an unequivocal statement.
I can see tracking larger movements in the cage, but things like fidgeting and other small movements? Doubt it.
Oh, and for running longer - I'm wondering if that's not necessarily much a function of being more fit in the cardiovascular or strength sense, but of being better able to access and utilize stored fuel.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 398.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44.7K Getting Started
- 261K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.4K Food and Nutrition
- 47.7K Recipes
- 233K Fitness and Exercise
- 462 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.7K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.5K Motivation and Support
- 8.4K Challenges
- 1.4K Debate Club
- 96.5K Chit-Chat
- 2.6K Fun and Games
- 4.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 17 News and Announcements
- 21 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.5K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions