CICO????
max8987
Posts: 6 Member
For everybody who believes CICO is the be-all end-all of weight loss. How can it explain this?
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/a-12-hour-window-for-a-healthy-weight/?_r=0
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/a-12-hour-window-for-a-healthy-weight/?_r=0
0
Replies
-
Most likely, the mice who are eating within the time frame are eating less. This is why some people do IF, so they aren't snacking at night.0
-
You are not a rat.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
0
-
Not spam...a genuine article.0
-
What studies like this are actually answering is why people eat more than they should when they aren't actively tracking their calories. Eating in the middle of the night has the effect of adding a meal to the day, so the calories in is increased by the size of that meal and the calories out doesn't increase.0
-
Didnt read the article but how did they assure the calories out was identical? Maybe the mice who were not eating so often were on the treadmill more the rest of the time.0
-
So the food they're given was taken away whether it was finished or not, while those who had the food at all times could still eat and finish.0 -
again......
"The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."0 -
Most likely, the mice who are eating within the time frame are eating less. This is why some people do IF, so they aren't snacking at night.
^exactly!!!, but I can tell you if I ate whatever I wanted in a 12 hour window I would get fat. For weight loss CICO is the be-all-end-all. That is weight LOSS, not nutrition.0 -
Meh, I do what works for me and so far CICO hasn't failed me yet and I don't predict that it will. I have shifted my breakfast until later in the day only because if I eat when I wake up, then I'm starving way before lunch. I found that I was snacking before lunch just because I had about 7 hours between the two meals.0
-
How about this...
because there's a long time period when they're not eating, they're drawing more on their store of fat than
the mice which nibbled ad libitum and so were running mostly on blood sugar.0 -
Well, the study was done on mice, not humans; I look forward to seeing how this does in human trials. Secondly, it may work for some people (just like some people do great on a paleo diet, others need more carbs, and still others eat everything in sight and tend to still look healthy and thin...)
If you are intrigued, Max, try it out and see how you do-- I would be very interested to see how it works out for you. It might be interesting to track your calories while trying this experiment too, to see if you eat more (or less) if you limit the time that you are allowed to take in calories...0 -
This has already been posted and discussed. Anyways, CICO isn't everything to nutrition but it's the best metric we have so you might as well embrace it.
0 -
again......
"The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."
What it actually says is, "Some of the mice in each dietary group were allowed to eat whenever they wanted throughout their waking hours; others were restricted to feeding periods of nine, 12 or 15 hours. The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
The current stage of this research means it has limited application for humans.
'nuff said.
0 -
the *kitten* does this have to do with CICO if all the rats ate the same amount of calories
smdh0 -
I'm curious to know how they ensured this:
"Some of the mice in each dietary group were allowed to eat whenever they wanted throughout their waking
hours; others were restricted to feeding periods of nine, 12 or 15 hours. The caloric intake for all the mice
was the same."
Since they were eating different kibble, and for different periods of time, how could researchers ensure they were
eating the same amount of calories?
Here's the summary from the actual study:
http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131(14)00498-7
"Preventing obesity with time-restricted feeding (TRF; 8–9 hr food access in the active phase) is promising, yet
its therapeutic applicability against preexisting obesity, diverse dietary conditions, and less stringent eating
patterns is unknown. Here we tested TRF in mice..."
(And the graphic is cute!)0 -
TimothyFish wrote: »again......
"The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."
What it actually says is, "Some of the mice in each dietary group were allowed to eat whenever they wanted throughout their waking hours; others were restricted to feeding periods of nine, 12 or 15 hours. The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."
Which probably means that the intake for all of the mice in their respective groups were the same. Not that all mice across all groups had the same caloric intake. It's a play on words and can have 2 different meanings upon how it's cleverly written.0 -
I can't draw any parallel to TRF feeding in humans what so ever. The study indicates rats that ate in a 9 to 12 hour window were less obese. I don't believe any parallel could be drawn to humans. The humans eating in the TRF would likely need to be eating fewer calories or more active to lose more weight...cuz that is the way it works.0
-
eh I prefer real life humans...my husband for example who does 2 12 hour days shifts then turns around and does 2 12 hour night shifts...and OT when offered...he's not fat...note the profile pic.
He has had a cold or two this winter but so did my son and half the guys he works with...
0 -
Well, my first rambling thoughts are mice as well as other animals do a lot better at maintaining their homeostatic weight (survival of the fittest, not fattest). That's not to say that if you put a mouse on highly tasty food (like these researchers did) that they would not get fat. So you have mice that eat X amount of calories in say 8 hours, then you have Y amount of calories in 24 possible hours... so 16 possible extra hours of calories; and especially on highly tasty food sources... I am not a rocket scientist, but they just had 16 possible more hours to to eat more calories. Amazingly, they did not include the amount of calories eaten in 8 hours compared to the amount of calories eaten in 24 potential hours. Seems like if you are going to refute a premise (CICO), that you would provide data correlating to caloric data.0
-
Full text of the study isn't available without a Cell subscription and I'd be VERY weary of how a blogpost interprets any kind of study.0
-
eh I prefer real life humans...my husband for example who does 2 12 hour days shifts then turns around and does 2 12 hour night shifts...and OT when offered...he's not fat...note the profile pic.
He has had a cold or two this winter but so did my son and half the guys he works with...
I couldn't read the whole study linked in the article because you need a subscription, but the one that DeguelloTex mentions "TRF does not appear to have an influence on weight gain for mice eating a healthy or normal diet.".
I also worked shiftwork while losing weight. I had no choice but to eat at odd hours and I still lost weight. CICO prevails. Are there other factors that could contribute, sure.
ETA - even taken as is this study did not prove CICO doesn't work. All the mice fed higher calorie diets gained, the difference is how much.0 -
OP what is your point. You make a profile to post a link about rats because they are exactly the same as humans on a calorie counting site. I am very lost with what you are trying to say? No I didn't read the article because it is about rats and not humans. Do you have anything else to add to this besides the rats ate the same calorie intake ?0
-
How do I explain it? I'm not a rat.
/close thread0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »
I was planning to post that, but you had already done so. Excellent. Here's the conclusion:Time-restricted feeding caused less weight gain than all-hour access for mice eating a high-fat, high-sugar diet over 12 to 26 weeks. It also led to weight loss of up to 12% when applied to mice that were already obese. TRF does not appear to have an influence on weight gain for mice eating a healthy or normal diet.
The current stage of this research means it has limited application for humans. We already know that high-fat and high-sugar diets cause weight gain, as was found here. It may be that future randomised controlled trials in humans will show that the amount of weight gain is more if the calories are consumed at times that do not make the most of our natural metabolic rhythm.
Even if the timing of eating patterns do have an effect on weight gain, we suspect that any beneficial effects would be modest. If you regularly consume high-fat and high-sugar foods, and do not exercise, you will put on weight regardless of any time-restricted eating habits. Sadly, there is no quick fix to weight loss.0 -
ruggedshutter wrote: »TimothyFish wrote: »again......
"The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."
What it actually says is, "Some of the mice in each dietary group were allowed to eat whenever they wanted throughout their waking hours; others were restricted to feeding periods of nine, 12 or 15 hours. The caloric intake for all the mice was the same."
Which probably means that the intake for all of the mice in their respective groups were the same. Not that all mice across all groups had the same caloric intake. It's a play on words and can have 2 different meanings upon how it's cleverly written.
lol more like ambiguous rather than clever0 -
How about this...
because there's a long time period when they're not eating, they're drawing more on their store of fat than
the mice which nibbled ad libitum and so were running mostly on blood sugar.
Why would that only work in certain kinds of diets?
I don't know, just a question that comes to mind.
Also, wouldn't the fat/sugar thing even out? If you run on the sugar there's less left to be stored as fat, so the net gain is roughly the same.
I am also interested in how they insured the same calories, and wondering if there's an effect on either sleep or activity.
I think it's unfortunate, however, that people are so quick to try to apply this kind of thing to humans. Basically, if you think you can lose weight by just changing eating time, you are almost certainly wrong (unless you are someone for whom it affects total calories eaten, of course), and if you are someone whose schedule makes eating within a 12-hour window impossible or unpleasant (like me, most of the time), beating yourself up about that or deciding it means you can't lose weight would be ridiculous and counterproductive, and yet people do that kind of thing.
The most important factors are calories and activity level. These kinds of possible tweaks are interesting, but the minors, and could well be things that individuals vary on.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