Intermittent Fasting

narcisidm

Hi I know that intermittent fasting is good for overall health, but has anybody found it really good for weight loss specifically? Thank you.

AnnPT77

It will lead to weight loss if it makes it easier for you to eat happily at a calorie level that triggers weight loss. I haven't seen anything well-documented that convinces me it would materially improve weight loss rate over any other eating schedule.

It's probably obvious, but I didn't use IF to lose weight or maintain since. I'm kind of an impulsive hedonist flake, and it wouldn't make me happy to limit my eating hours. Since I lost and maintain fine without IF, I haven't even tried it. I have done some reading about it to see whether I saw enough benefits to override my hedonism, but so far, no.

That's just me, though. If it helps you, that's great, sincerely!

Best wishes!

neanderthin

Your probably talking about TRE or TRF (time restricted eating/feeding) and in most controlled studies it's generally the calorie restriction that leads to weight loss and not when those meals were consumed, so a basic no, scientifically.

On the other hand, in the real world where people are not in a lab and being feed an exact amount of calories every day, then yes it can make a difference when you shorten the window that allows people to stuff their faces with yummy food. Is it scientific, no, does it work for some people, sure.
.

Retroguy2000

It depends how much you eat during the available window. If you find it easier to maintain a sub 2,000 calorie input and that leads to you losing weight, then it works for you. If OTOH you stuff yourself with 4,000 calories in a 4 hour window every day, you'll gain weight.

In other words, CICO.

tomcustombuilder

Not really any healthier.

Fatloss comes from a consistent weekly calorie deficit and not meal timing or frequency.

neanderthin

Here's a few RCT's that show health benefits of TRF for those that either, have never looked or who weren't aware.

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/107/12/3428/6747530
Metabolic Efficacy of Time-Restricted Eating in Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-021-00613-9
Time-restricted feeding improves blood glucose and insulin sensitivity in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial

https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12872-024-03863-6
Beneficial effects of time-restricted fasting on cardiovascular disease risk factors: a meta-analysis

tomcustombuilder

Current:

CHICAGO, March 18, 2024 — An analysis of over 20,000 U.S. adults found that people who limited their eating across less than 8 hours per day, a time-restricted eating plan, were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease compared to people who ate across 12-16 hours per day, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology and Prevention│Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024, March 18- 21, in Chicago. The meeting offers the latest science on population-based health and wellness and implications for lifestyle.


While there will always be contradicting studies on almost all diet related subjects, the quality of the diet will always be the primary factor for health markers.

neanderthin

Well the OMAD crowd should then be dropping like flies with heart disease, good to know.

AnnPT77

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Current:

CHICAGO, March 18, 2024 — An analysis of over 20,000 U.S. adults found that people who limited their eating across less than 8 hours per day, a time-restricted eating plan, were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease compared to people who ate across 12-16 hours per day, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology and Prevention│Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024, March 18- 21, in Chicago. The meeting offers the latest science on population-based health and wellness and implications for lifestyle.


While there will always be contradicting studies on almost all diet related subjects, the quality of the diet will always be the primary factor for health markers.

I don't disagree with your final sentence. Just making a process point.

A well-done meta-analysis ought to be more persuasive than a single study.

I'm explicitly not commenting on the quality of the papers linked here (or not linked but mentioned in uncredited quotes).

Just mentioning the single study vs. meta-analysis point for other readers who may newly be reading these things and trying to sort out how to weigh different conflicting sources. The quality of the meta-analysis or study is a deeper swamp.

ddsb1111

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Current:

CHICAGO, March 18, 2024 — An analysis of over 20,000 U.S. adults found that people who limited their eating across less than 8 hours per day, a time-restricted eating plan, were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease compared to people who ate across 12-16 hours per day, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology and Prevention│Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024, March 18- 21, in Chicago. The meeting offers the latest science on population-based health and wellness and implications for lifestyle.


While there will always be contradicting studies on almost all diet related subjects, the quality of the diet will always be the primary factor for health markers.

I do OMAD. I’ve also switched between that, ADF, and 4/3 for probably a decade. I’d like to read the study if you’d share the link?

For all intents and purposes, I don’t recommend IF as a cure for anything or recommend it for fast weight loss. I use it to mimic my natural way of eating and because I feel best this way.

neanderthin

ddsb1111 wrote: »

tomcustombuilder wrote: »

Current:

CHICAGO, March 18, 2024 — An analysis of over 20,000 U.S. adults found that people who limited their eating across less than 8 hours per day, a time-restricted eating plan, were more likely to die from cardiovascular disease compared to people who ate across 12-16 hours per day, according to preliminary research presented at the American Heart Association’s Epidemiology and Prevention│Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Scientific Sessions 2024, March 18- 21, in Chicago. The meeting offers the latest science on population-based health and wellness and implications for lifestyle.


While there will always be contradicting studies on almost all diet related subjects, the quality of the diet will always be the primary factor for health markers.

I do OMAD. I’ve also switched between that, ADF, and 4/3 for probably a decade. I’d like to read the study if you’d share the link?

For all intents and purposes, I don’t recommend IF as a cure for anything or recommend it for fast weight loss. I use it to mimic my natural way of eating and because I feel best this way.

Here's what I found.

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/8-hour-time-restricted-eating-linked-to-a-91-higher-risk-of-cardiovascular-death

This is not a pier reviewed study and isn't published in any journal and was presented at their annual meeting within the AHA and this preliminary data was collected from 2003-2018 via food frequency questionnaires of those 20,000 people. The data collected were 2 question sessions within the first year only and then they looked to see in that group who then died of heart disease after the study period of 2018.

Considering that the term TRF (time restricted feeding/eating) wasn't coined until around 2016 the questions regarding the eating patterns of these 20,000 are not disclosed here but I suspect it's in the data of the actual study, which will be looked at when it actually gets pier review, but as a guess on my part I suspect in that questionnaire was probably a question like "do you eat breakfast" or similar.

This "study" is of course observational and in the realm of actual scientific data, this has no control group where you have a group where they actually eat their food within a specific time frame while the other group didn't and then you see what happens.

A major conflict of the headlines "8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death" but their finding actually showed no difference in mortality, so it's difficult to know what they're actually trying to find an association to. Plus their study basically flies in the face of the vast majority of studies on this subject, which is the exact opposite and they are actual real studies in pier review journals. Basically it's weird that a large signal like 91% isn't reflected in the all cause mortality which is there basic claim, you die sooner.

I suspect nobody picked up on the type of study this is and just want to give you something for you to maybe look into, because it's a mind field. I'm not a fan of OMAD but it has nothing to do with heart disease and I'm going to throw my hat in the group that says restricting feeding will have some health benefits and some consequences, but heart disease and shorter mortality from fasting, is out there in left field imo.

ddsb1111

@neanderthin Thank you! I’ll take a look.

Okay back. That research was a hot mess lol, I expected to read a proper science research paper. I can’t help but think there was a financial incentive . Here’s some funny excerpts that stuck out to me-

The study’s limitations included its reliance on self-reported dietary information, which may be affected by participant’s memory or recall and may not accurately assess typical eating patterns. Factors that may also play a role in health, outside of daily duration of eating and cause of death, were not included in the analysis.

“One of those details involves the nutrient quality of the diets typical of the different subsets of participants. Without this information, it cannot be determined if nutrient density might be an alternate explanation to the findings that currently focus on the window of time for eating. Second, it needs to be emphasized that categorization into the different windows of time-restricted eating was determined on the basis of just two days of dietary intake,”

“It will also be critical to see a comparison of demographics and baseline characteristics across the groups that were classified into the different time-restricted eating windows – for example, was the group with the shortest time-restricted eating window unique compared to people who followed other eating schedules,  in terms of weight, stress, traditional cardiometabolic risk factors or other factors associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes? This additional information will help to better understand the potential independent contribution of the short time-restricted eating pattern reported in this interesting and provocative abstract.”

The Association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific Association programs and events.

I think my heart can rest easy, at least for now. Thanks for sharing your spot on feedback.

ddsb1111

neanderthin wrote: »

Well the OMAD crowd should then be dropping like flies with heart disease, good to know.

AnnPT77

I'm frankly too bored with the question to go look at what you smart people are describing as a hot mess, but I'd make an observation about how statistics are often (mis-)used in the popular press, or misunderstood by the public.

Reminder: The headline says "8-hour time-restricted eating linked to a 91% higher risk of cardiovascular death"

I'm familiar with similar headlines from cancer studies I am more interested in.

Let's say eating food X once or more per week has been shown to increase risk of death from condition Y by 150%. Let's say people who don't eat food X have a 1 in 100,000 chance of dying from condition Y. That usually means that people who eat food X once or more per week have a 2.5 in 100,000 chance of dying of condition Y.

A person doesn't know whether a big percent increase is truly a big deal without knowing the base figures. If hardly anyone (statistically) dies of Z, then doing things that double the risk of dying of Z might not be that big a deal in making our lifestyle choices, assuming we have other good reasons to choose the "risky" thing.

It's also going to be important to know the time horizon studied. Is that lifetime risk of dying of Y or Z, ever? Or is it risk of dying of Y or Z within the next year, which might be more of a worry?

There's more, but that's enough.

This percentage increase stuff makes for great headlines (clickbait), though. Often, the popular-press article won't even include enough information to evaluate the claim in those ways . . . let alone give any meaningful information about the quality of the research, whether it's been well peer-reviewed, etc.

neanderthin

Yeah Ann, your talking about the difference between relative risk vs absolute risk.

Pfizer was famous for their 36% relative risk reduction in fatal and non fatal heart attacks over a 5 year period with the advertising campaign I think in 2006 for statin's (Lipitor) and where the absolute risk reduction was 0.8% for all cause mortality and 1.3% for myocardia infarction and 0.4% for stroke. Basically that translated into a 1 in 10,000 increase in a heart related event.

Unfortunately in this particular version of this study we would need to know the baseline absolute risk of that specific population before we can determine ARR, which is not sited, and knowing the RR of 91% isn't enough, so we don't know. And I agree with you, RR is a popular number to use in cancer studies, it just sounds more convincing.