[HN Gopher] Timeframe of 8-hour restricted eating irrelevant to ...
___________________________________________________________________
Timeframe of 8-hour restricted eating irrelevant to weight loss
Author : hilux
Score : 57 points
Date : 2025-03-14 17:24 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nia.nih.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nia.nih.gov)
| gwerbret wrote:
| The title in HN ("(Any) 8-hour time-restricted-eating window
| effective for weight loss") is heavily editorialized from that of
| the NIH blurb ("Timeframe of 8-hour restricted eating irrelevant
| to weight loss"), but actually better reflects the findings of
| the actual paper ([1], unfortunately paywalled). They found that
| people who fasted for 16 straight hours a day lost (a little bit)
| more weight over 12 weeks than those who followed a Mediterranean
| diet. However, the weight loss didn't represent a loss of
| visceral fat (around the abdominal organs, fat which is more
| likely to be associated with diabetes and cardiovascular disease)
| and so the essential finding was that the time-restricted fasting
| made no difference.
|
| 1: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39775037/
| genewitch wrote:
| those read the same to me, to be fair; although the important
| bit is "fasting for 16 consecutive hours", perhaps that gets to
| the point more effectively.
|
| I've read that intermittent fasting has more "holistic" value
| than just losing a little bit more weight, specifically on
| blood sugar or insulin levels, as well as fat storage.
|
| weight loss for health reasons should probably be coordinated
| with an expert who can look at your contemporary and historical
| blood tests. To be safest.
| NemoNobody wrote:
| It's a bit to do with a change in diet and lifestyle to
| accompany the eating window but there is definitely something
| else at play as well.
|
| The human body is an amazing machine and it has all sorts of
| abilities that we are unaware of. When you starve, your body
| starts shutting down non essential things first, starts
| pulling nutrients from everywhere it and limiting activity.
| Starvation has both a physical and mental element to it -
| both during the process and following it.
|
| Intermittent fasting has been demonstrated to start a
| regenerative process in the body. It triggers cellular
| autophagy, which is kind of like running a cellular defrag.
|
| There have been a lot of studies lately that look into the
| regenerative aspects of deep sleep following a serious injury
| - I sus that's the same system behind both things.
|
| In response to the stress of not eating as usual, the body
| reacts. The mind does too. It sucks while you are starting it
| but it's nice to be able to know that you can skip of day of
| eating and be fine. After eating a big dinner and a good
| night's sleep you should have more energy and feel better for
| no real reason. I sus this has to do with how we ate while we
| were evolving - life was just a cycle of involuntarily
| intermittent fasting.
|
| Unless you do strenuous activity all day - food is energy,
| you will be wore out of you do too much. The food you first
| eat after matters too!
|
| Don't make a donut or highly processed/sweetened food the
| first nutrients after fasting - you'll feel like you ran a
| marathon. Simple carbs and protein - rice and black beans or
| oatmeal with seeds is typically what I do.
|
| Everyone is different tho - whatever works for you! All the
| best of luck, sorry this is apparently my rant for the day -
| better topic than normal
| hilux wrote:
| I've been following Jason Fung and "intermittent fasting" for
| six or seven years.
|
| I notice that the specific wording "time-restricted eating"
| has gained popularity in the past couple of years, possibly
| because "time-restricted" is less of a red flag to the public
| than "fasting," which may bring up some emotional baggage.
|
| The reason for renaming is just speculation on my part -
| what's clear is that the eating protocol is the same, only
| the wording is different.
| froh wrote:
| thanks for this summary
|
| speaking of visceral fat, do you happen to have pointers how to
| reduce that?
| sixtyj wrote:
| Visceral fat has long-term memory, and also come as the last
| in the line. So the diet mentioned in the study may not have
| started the visceral fat reduction at all...
|
| And I forgot, you have to exercise, HIIT, calories deficit is
| not enough.
|
| Forget about Ozempic and other drugs, they are good for
| people with diabetes. And you have to use them for the rest
| of life, otherwise there is yoyo effect.
| wahern wrote:
| Fat distribution, including subcutaneous vs visceral, has
| very clear racial/ethnic genetic associations, not to mention
| sex. East Asian and especially South Asian groups skew much
| more toward visceral fat, while European and especially
| African groups toward subcutaneous fat. Beyond calories
| in/calories out, generalized advice in this context might not
| be as helpful on an individual basis as with other health
| matters. In the context of diet & weight things are already
| complicated, but at least in this area we know _why_ and can
| more easily predict how one person 's body is likely to
| respond vs another. (Though, it might just come down to some
| ethnic groups having to put in alot more effort--e.g. much
| greater reduction in overall weight--than others for the same
| reduction in visceral fat.)
| hilux wrote:
| > However, the weight loss didn't represent a loss of visceral
| fat (around the abdominal organs, fat which is more likely to
| be associated with diabetes and cardiovascular disease) and so
| the essential finding was that the time-restricted fasting made
| no difference.
|
| You're making a bit of a leap with "made no difference."
|
| It's well-known that the body "holds on to" visceral fat in
| many cases, i.e. in order to reduce visceral fat, we first have
| to lose all the other excess fat. Which the TRE diet achieved:
| 5-7 pounds in 12 weeks is no small feat!
| gwerbret wrote:
| > You're making a bit of a leap with "made no difference."
|
| I was paraphrasing the results of the study, which was
| designed specifically to see if fasting would reduce visceral
| fat as compared to a non-fasting regimen. If you read the
| abstract I cited, you'll see that there's not even any
| mention of overall body weight in the abstract -- that
| finding is buried in a figure of the paper, and mentioned
| basically in passing.
|
| As for losing losing visceral fat versus other fat, that's
| partially true, but reality is a little bit more complex than
| that. Two people with the same 20% body fat can have
| radically different proportions of visceral and subcutaneous
| (under the skin) fat, and it's the person with more visceral
| fat who is at risk. This is why you have studies like this
| designed to find ways to target visceral fat.
| rabid_turtle wrote:
| bREAKfAsT Is THE MOST IMpoRTaNT meAL Of THE daY!
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Yes. It is important that every american eat grain-heavy meals
| every 4 hours. Same regimen as pigs I bet.
| hilux wrote:
| Don't forget the sugar! Frosted Mini-Wheats ... mmm ...
| d1str0 wrote:
| If you're under 18 and not already overweight and still
| growing, it probably is.
|
| Pretty sure it's well studied that kids perform better at
| school when they've had breakfast.
| genewitch wrote:
| > It was popularized in the early 20th century by John Harvey
| Kellogg
|
| oh weird, American breakfast cereals company says breakfast is
| the most important meal...
|
| ...for their stake/shareholders.
| deadbabe wrote:
| If you find yourself thinking about food all the time, that's not
| healthy or normal. If you finish meals and are still hungry,
| that's not normal.
|
| Normal people think about food only when they're hungry, then
| they eat, and don't think about it again until their next meal.
| It's very easy to go 8 hours without eating this way.
| deathanatos wrote:
| > _It's very easy to go 8 hours without eating this way._
|
| It's 16 h:
|
| > _restricting daily food intake to an 8-hour timeframe [...]
| As long as 16 hours of fasting were maintained_
|
| Eating was restricted to an 8h window. Fitting 3 meals into an
| 8h window would be ... tricky. I feel like most people's
| schedule is "[breakfast], [work], [dinner]" (with lunch in the
| middle of work), and assuming you work 8h, then you're already
| outside the study's fasting window. Throw two commutes in there
| ...
| jetrink wrote:
| > Fitting 3 meals into an 8h window would be ... tricky.
|
| That's the main secret to time restricted eating, in my
| opinion: You don't have enough time to eat as much as you
| normally do so overall calorie intake tends to decrease. I
| think the other reason it's helpful for some people is that
| eating nothing for one meal takes less self control than
| restricting yourself to a small portion, leading to better
| adherence than normal calorie counting.
| bitmasher9 wrote:
| Another long term benefit is that it normalizes the feeling
| of hunger. To be able to feel hunger after not eating for
| 15 hours, but be able to wait that extra hour is huge for
| managing impulsively and learning that simple hunger isn't
| as urgent of a bodily demand as one might have previously
| thought.
|
| There's a big difference between "I'm malnourished", "My
| body feels hungry" and "I want to eat for reasons other
| than feeling hungry". Intermittent fasting will definitely
| teach you what "My body feels hungry" feels like, and shows
| you how to suppress it for hours.
|
| I think the positive reinforcement of eating during the
| time window also helps in this learning process.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I read a few years ago that hunger is not pain, it
| doesn't "hurt" and you can ignore it.
|
| What I find fascinating about hunger is how it interacts
| with your subconscious. You start daydreaming about food.
| If you're not paying attention you'll find yourself
| standing in front of the pantry.
|
| When I'm hungry I feel like my conscious mind is
| wrestling with my subconscious.
| bizzleDawg wrote:
| I've been following 16hr fasts by skipping breakfast and
| eating my first meal at around 12:00 each day. Normally
| have an afternoon snack, then dinner at 18:00 with my young
| family. Perhaps a sweet treat by 20:00 after putting the
| little one to bed. Honestly, it's not that tricky if you
| bulk up lunch a bit.
|
| Edit: As a sibling comment says quite rightly, you do feel
| hungry in the late morning, but reacting to that feeling is
| optional
| usrusr wrote:
| I stopped feeling hungry in the morning a long time ago.
| Just unhealthy amounts of coffee, without sugar or milk.
| If I eat even just the tiniest snack or sweet, the food
| processing tract will "wake up" and it's over. But if I
| can avoid that, I only break the fast because of
| convention, not because of hunger.
|
| But it's also very contexy sensitive: currently working
| from a place where I usually go for high calorie
| throughput sports (think Tour de France climbs, but
| higher and a heavier rider, obviously a lot slower but
| the energy demand is mostly mass x elevation, almost
| unpacked to speed) and my body is in "eat! you will need
| it!" mode every day. Crazy weight gain on the working
| days.
| kbelder wrote:
| Why would you even try to fit three meals into 8 hours? That
| kind of defeats the point.
|
| You would probably fit a snack and meal into that period. It
| could be a really big meal, and it would still probably be
| significantly less calories than breakfast, lunch, and
| dinner.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Lots of not normal people out there
| paulpauper wrote:
| "Effective" as in "not very"
|
| The concept of 'eating windows' or timed eating has been studied
| and tested forever. the difference, if any, is basically nothing.
| It comes down to eating less. This is why GLP-1 drugs work so
| well when nothing else does at preventing people from putting as
| much food in their mouths.
| Gys wrote:
| In the end any eating _restriction_ has some influence on
| lowering weight...
| nxpnsv wrote:
| the 8 minute window is probably even better...
| hodder wrote:
| People often confuse the mechanism (calorie deficit) with the
| behavioral adaptation causing the mechanism.
|
| This leads to great confusion among those not educated in
| nutrition. Time restricted eating as you say, is not effective
| if you equate calories to non time restricted eating, however
| it causes many to eat less over time - assuming they adhere to
| it and arent prone to binging.
|
| Its pretty simple to explain, if you can limp through your day
| without food, you arent likely to crush down more than say 2500
| calories of food in a small evening window as your stomach is
| full.
|
| But yes it doesnt change thermodynamics and isnt the magic that
| bloggers/youtubers and shills espouse, rather it is a tool
| (among many) available for people to reduce caloric intake.
| hilux wrote:
| Did you click on the link?
|
| If eating windows had been "tested forever" with conclusive
| results, studies like this one would not be conducted.
| hodder wrote:
| It is important to understand that time restricted eating is
| behavioral adaptation to reduce caloric consumption. A calorie
| deficit is what drives weight loss.
|
| Here is a list of similar things that also "work". It is key to
| understand that "working"- meaning weight loss is the result of a
| deficit of energy requiring the body to use stored fuel (fat) as
| energy over time:
|
| -higher protein is more satiating
|
| -higher fiber is more satiating
|
| -keto diets are for most people pretty satiating so they reduce
| caloric intake
|
| -GLP1s like Ozempic and Mounjaro lead you to feel "full" and eat
| less through a few mechanisms - slowing digestion, stabilizing
| insulin and blood sugar
|
| -Drinking lots of water
|
| -subbing out sugars with artificial sweeteners
|
| -fasting, intermittent fasting, time restricted eating, alternate
| day fasting. For some can lead to a binge but if you adhere to it
| you are likely to consume less calories
|
| -switching from processed foods to whole foods high in fiber and
| protein is more satiating
|
| -wearing tighter and more revealing clothing will lead one to eat
| less
|
| -weighing yourself daily will lead you to eat less (assuming you
| understand thermodynamics)
|
| -exercising and cardio will lead you to burn more calories.
| Muscle mass accrued over time burns modestly more calories than
| fat mass and cardio burns calories directly
|
| -counting calories directly (leads to greater adherence). Just
| like budgeting. If you don't measure and estimate what is going
| in vs going out at all and have no experience measuring you are
| unlikely to succeed.
|
| It is important to understand that NONE of the above are a
| substitute for a caloric deficit for losing weight but rather one
| possible path to CAUSING a caloric deficit. The deficit is still
| required. These are behavioral tools. Hormones, PCOS, insulin etc
| are also not workarounds to the laws of thermodynamics. They can
| make you more hungry or burn more or less calories at the margins
| but they dont change the equation of calories in vs calories out.
|
| Often people confuse the behavioral method to achieve weight loss
| with the mechanism driving it, and this leads to most of the
| confusion on weight loss outside of scientific literature (among
| blogger quacks, fitness guru snakeoil salesman etc.)
|
| Rant over.
| bestouff wrote:
| Brillant rant.
| scns wrote:
| > cardio burns calories directly
|
| And lowers energy expenditure afterwards. Walking works better.
| hodder wrote:
| A few nitpicks with this:
|
| -Yes some studies show that increasing high intensity cardio
| or LISS cardio vs very low intensity cardio like walking can
| lead to both higher hunger and a reduction in NEAT, however
| it isn't correct to necessarily say walking is better.
|
| Walking is also effective, but there is a clear dose response
| effect here:
|
| -If you run or swim etc for an hour, even with a reduction in
| NEAT for the rest of the day, you will have burned more
| calories net than walking for an hour, though it is more
| taxing.
|
| There are other benefits to higher intensity cardio than pure
| caloric expenditure (there are also drawbacks).
| Kirby64 wrote:
| Walking is cardio. It's not high intensity cardio, but it's
| cardio nonetheless. The main point of cardio for burning
| calories is to raise your heart rate; walking is the most
| sustainable way to do this, although it isn't the fastest
| way, time wise.
| latentcall wrote:
| This is all true for me except counting calories. I don't
| usually eat things with a barcode. I'm also not good at
| eyeballing 1/4 cup of pecans, for example. In Noom, it requires
| specific measurements. So if I eat at the hospital cafeteria
| and get a salad that the staff makes, I don't feel comfortable
| logging it because I guarantee the measurements are off.
|
| Now this is different if I have two bananas for breakfast and
| an apple. That is easy to track and input.
| hodder wrote:
| Agreed it isn't simple, but I'm just saying tracking is
| effective. Tracking is in fact the single most effective way
| of ensuring a deficit. But yes it isnt easy and you can
| absolutely be successful in achieving a deficit without
| tracking. A food scale and weighing and understanding portion
| sizes for a couple weeks can be a lifetime level learning
| that you can apply though even if you don't stick to it - as
| most won't.
|
| Much like you can save money without strict budgeting. I'm
| saying tracking is objectively "true" contrary to your
| statement. That doesn't make it easy though. Some find the
| other suggestions difficult. It is important to find what
| works for you.
| dwighttk wrote:
| For me it worked to just estimate and tend to miss high... so
| if you're not sure how much of something there is, just guess
| and keep increasing until you're like "well it's definitely
| not THAT much"... and if I wasn't losing weight I adjusted my
| estimates up assuming I hadn't hit the mark.
| ktimespi wrote:
| I think the approach here is to overestimate your calories a
| bit if you're not sure. Practice makes perfect when it comes
| to eyeballing quantities.
| Kirby64 wrote:
| Counting calories even when you don't have a scale and/or
| barcodes gets much easier over time as long as you do a few
| things. One, actually bring a scale when you're eating out
| for a bit. It's a pain, but can help calibrate how much
| you're actually eating. This works best with meals that have
| individual components. Two, use an app that has a good
| database of food (I use MacroFactor, but I have no clue how
| good Noom is). There's plenty of entries for various salad
| types, and the majority of the calories in a salad tend to be
| the dressing and any meat anyways. With those two things,
| even eating out you'll be a lot more accurate. As long as
| most of your meals aren't falling into the estimation
| category, it also likely won't have a huge impact on your
| weight loss goals either.
| sethammons wrote:
| Everything you say is accurate, but there is something that
| needs a big asterisk:
|
| > calories in vs calories out
|
| Yes, thermodynamics. Also: the human body is a dynamic system
| where adjusting either of those sides can alter the other.
| Calorie restriction can lead to slower metabolism, and vise-
| versa.
| hodder wrote:
| Yes of course. The impact of caloric restriction on
| metabolism however is FAR overstated as we know from the
| available literature. "Starvation mode" is largely relegated
| to pseudo science at this point and most of the reduction in
| metabolism you speak of is due weight loss itself and a small
| reduction in NEAT.
|
| But yes the human body is a complicated system effected by
| hormones, and other individual factors.
|
| However it is important for the layman to understand the
| basics. It VERY rarely helps people struggling with weight
| loss to gloss over the basics and talk about metabolic
| adaption or provide other "excuses" like PCOS, hormones or
| starvation mode. They miss the forest for the trees.
| ktimespi wrote:
| I agree. This nuance is overblown and the knowledge to
| notice and deal with cues from the body aren't brought up
| whenever people mention this, which I think is really
| unhelpful.
| ktimespi wrote:
| It's very easy to observe the changes you mention: A lack of
| energy in activities in the short term, which you can control
| with diet adjustments. In the long term (over the course of a
| few months), you should be tracking your weight chart and
| reducing your intake.
|
| The body can adjust to caloric deficits, but not so much that
| consistent effort over weeks will be blocked.
|
| I think it's necessary to mention how to deal with these
| changes, whenever they're mentioned.
| tangent-man wrote:
| I don't think this is entirely true.
|
| Way too many variables to consider here and the human
| heart/mind/body is much more complex than this, and at the same
| time much more simple.
|
| To give one example.. by time restricted eating you are
| breaking the cycle of eating out of habit when you are not even
| hungry.. or eating because you crave a certain taste or
| sensation in the body (as opposed to actually being hungry).
| You are training the mind/body out of these behaviours so that
| during the times when you are allowed to eat you are trained
| not to eat unless actually hungry, for example.
|
| I am sure there are many other things to consider other than
| just calories in .. calories out - such as adapting the body to
| use stored fuel .. rather than expecting a constant payload of
| calories to consume.. etc. etc.
|
| Peace out.
| hodder wrote:
| "by time restricted eating you are breaking the cycle of
| eating out of habit when you are not even hungry.. or eating
| because you crave a certain taste or sensation in the body
| (as opposed to actually being hungry). You are training the
| mind/body out of these behaviours so that during the times
| when you are allowed to eat you are trained not to eat unless
| actually hungry, for example."
|
| You are describing what I posted above. This is a behavioral
| tool to achieve a mechanism of caloric deficit. Getting out
| of a cycle of pointless eating is the definition of
| behavioral shift.
|
| Not exactly sure what you are describing in the next
| paragraph but we have studies that equate calories between
| time restricted eating and non time restricted eating and
| find no statistical difference in expected weight outcomes.
|
| Yes there are differences is hormonal hunger signaling etc.
| My point is rather that a calorie deficit is why the weight
| loss occurs. The time restricted eating is the METHOD some
| choose to help achieve it.
| from-nibly wrote:
| > assuming you understand thermodynamics
|
| Even in a car engine having different kinds of fuels changes
| how much of it gets converted to energy.
|
| Your body is infitely more complex than a car.
|
| Calories in calories out is not an immutable law.
|
| If that were the case, you could binge eat 30,000 calories and
| then you'd somehow add 28,000 calories worth of fat to your
| body in one day, which just isnt how that works.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Calories in calories out is not an immutable law.
|
| It actually can be, if you define both "in" and "out" in a
| way which makes it so; but for any definition of those terms
| where it _is_ an immutable law, we, in practice, have only
| _very_ rough proxy measures for at least one, and maybe both,
| of "calories in" or "calories out", and the problem then
| becomes mistaking the proxy for the actual figure of merit.
|
| But the bigger problem is that CICO is only a starting point,
| it a set of targets, and an actionable plan that works in the
| real world isn't just the targets the plan is directed at.
| hilux wrote:
| I know that CICO has been debunked, but I've never seen such
| a wonderfully clear example as in your last sentence. Thank
| you!
| hodder wrote:
| CICO has not been debunked at all. If you take it to the
| extremes like eating 30k cals in a day yes your body will
| pass much of it undigested, but that doesn't debunk it at
| all but rather adjust one of the 2 inputs into the
| equation, and for the vast vast majority of people
| following anything resembling a sane diet, CICO is the
| determinant of weight loss. You can eat straight sugar in a
| caloric deficit and body weight will fall off of you. You
| can eat straight fat or protein and it'll do the same. You
| can eat in one meal or 20 meals. It still holds in every
| single study ever done.
| kbelder wrote:
| And yet, increasing calories will cause you to gain weight;
| cutting calories will cause you to lose weight; increasing
| activity will cause you to lose weight; and decreasing
| activity will cause you to gain weight.
|
| Yes, it's complicated and there's subtleties; but CICO is
| the main truth of dieting, and trying to downplay its
| primacy is misguided or deceptive.
| myheartisinohio wrote:
| I've struggled with being overweight my entire life. I feel
| like I am in control and have made a lot of progress-- so I
| want to preach about this.
|
| Restrictive diets work but if you can't maintain it for a long
| time (keto, vegan, paleo, etc.) the weight will come back. I
| yo-yo dieted like many obese people do.
|
| Anyone out there struggling here is how I've lost 160 lbs and
| gained muscle / mobility:
|
| - Make sure you get good sleep. Sleep is incredibly important.
| - Intermittent fast (black coffee, tea, or caffeine pill in the
| am) lunch afternoon - track what you eat (there are a plethora
| of free apps that can help) - track how much you walk aim for
| 10k+ steps - do resistance work outs (free weights,
| calisthenics, ruck march, etc.) - cut back alcohol as much as
| possible - cut back sugar as much as possible - use the scale
| as a tool don't be afraid of it. (when I stepped on a scale I
| weighed over lbs. it was so painful to see that but ultimately
| worth it)
|
| The biggest thing that has helped is a shift in my mindset. I
| look at going to the gym as treat /privilege. I've envisioned
| the end goal of how I look and feel.
| hodder wrote:
| Great to hear!
| beardyw wrote:
| I mostly have breakfast at about 7am. So no more food after 3pm?
| Sounds hard to sustain in a normal kind of life.
| hilux wrote:
| You're not forced to have breakfast at 7am.
|
| If you're healthy, keep doing what you're doing.
|
| If (like most people) you are overweight and unhealthy, what
| are you going to change?
| mehphp wrote:
| I find if i eat an early breakfast, it is indeed hard to not
| eat after the 8 hours. I find the opposite to be quite easy
| though. Just skip breakfast and don't eat until around 1. I get
| to look forward to food later while actually being hungry.
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I find it easier to skip breakfast and start eating a late
| lunch. That way I can enjoy a normal dinner with the family.
| myheartisinohio wrote:
| What has worked for me is to delay my meals until noon or even
| later. Eat protein and veggies for lunch.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| black coffee for breakfast
| nsxwolf wrote:
| So just skip breakfast?
| rich_sasha wrote:
| I have only ever gained weight with intermediate fasting. When my
| window opens, I feel so hungry that I keep eating.
|
| I know supposedly you adapt to it and don't feel that extra
| hunger eventually, but somehow not me.
| bhaney wrote:
| As other people are mentioning, I think the key factor for weight
| loss in any of these diets (intermittent fasting, keto, etc) is
| just making it more difficult to consume calories, which leads to
| a caloric deficit.
|
| I have a somewhat odd diet, where I naturally prefer to eat a
| single large (~2000 kcal) meal each day, and don't really eat
| outside that. I've been maintaining pretty much the exact same
| weight to within 5lb for years like this, despite it effectively
| being an extreme ~30-minute time-restricted-eating window.
| jweather wrote:
| I've been doing this since Jan 1, sometimes called OMAD for One
| Meal A Day. I had already been skipping breakfast, so lunch is
| now a cup of tea or diet soda. Maybe it's just the excitement
| of a new diet plan, but it's helped me lose 25 pounds so far
| this year, on track for 35 total before I re-evaluate. I just
| don't seem to have the willpower to only snack in moderation,
| but limiting myself to an hour a day is working. I can still
| have that dessert I'm looking forward to, it just has a
| specific timeframe now. Do I feel hungry sometimes? Yes, but I
| need some practice being hungry after years of stuffing my face
| whenever I felt like it.
| bhaney wrote:
| So would you agree that the main reason for your weight loss
| on OMAD is caloric restriction from not being allowed to eat
| when you're sometimes hungry, when you probably would have
| eaten extra at those times before OMAD?
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Yeah, I've been attempting OMAD as well and one thing that
| never occurred to me is how slowly you get through the
| groceries. And I never seem to get back to those leftovers
| :)
| dingaling wrote:
| > Yes, but I need some practice > being hungry after years of
| stuffing > my face whenever I felt like it.
|
| Why do you need such practice?
|
| I'd honestly rather suffer an hour doing unpleasant cardio to
| burn off carbs than spending all day feeling miserable and
| shaky from hunger. Particularly on jobs or tasks where mental
| focus is essential.
| kbelder wrote:
| It's the most effective way I've found to lose weight. I
| don't think it's doing anything magical to my metabolism.
| Like you say, it's just a convenient and easy-to-maintain way
| of eating less. I just know that I don't eat anything in a
| day until after I get home from work, and I don't even have
| to think about it.
| parliament32 wrote:
| Turns out the key to weight loss is just "eat less" (calories,
| not volume).
|
| If you need a schedule and restricted hours to do that, great. If
| you need to track your calorie numbers (or some abstraction-of,
| like Weight Watchers points), great. If you need to "trick"
| yourself by eating high-volume-low-calorie foods, great. Whatever
| works for you. Just, less.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-03-14 23:01 UTC)