649848 tn?1534633700

Time-Restricted Eating: Any Better Than All-Day Eating?

There's been a lot of talk lately about "time restricted eating" - otherwise known as intermittent fasting - in which one eats only during certain hours of the day.  I ran across this article regarding a study between time restricted eating and regularly scheduled meals.

"Time-restricted eating -- a type of intermittent fasting -- proved no better for weight loss than eating consistent meals throughout the day, a new study found."

4 Responses
973741 tn?1342342773
I'm a fan ot intermittent fasting.  It does seem to work for me.  I had a cardiologist tell me that it is a good thing to do for weight management.  His suggestion was to stop eating right after dinner (be done by 7 pm) and if you are hungry to have a cup of tea.  When I stick to this, weight is usually much easier to manage and when I have pounds to lose, I do.  From morning until dinner though, I eat meals at regular intervals with a snack like a yogurt or a banana thrown in a couple of times if I'm hungry.  I think the thing is finding what works for the individual person.  My son has to eat heavy protein before bed to feel good when he wakes up.  We've found that for him through trial and error.  
You're absolutely correct that we each have to find what works for us.  I, too, have to stop eating by about 6:00 pm, otherwise I have really bad acid reflux/GERD during the night.   Taking that into consideration, I'm doing a type of intermittent fasting and we do eat our largest meal at mid-day - unfortunately, nothing is working well for me right now.  With my broken foot I can't get much of any exercise and I happen to be one of those that loses weight best if I can get a certain amount of exercise.  
134578 tn?1614729226
I'm not interested in time-restricted eating (only) because some writers feel it improves the chance of losing weight. It just seems sensible based on the way people evolved. When humans were hunter-gatherers, unless the gathering was really good it doesn't seem like they munched all day the way we do. And especially it seems unlikely that the food they ate was so high in carbs and simple sugars (and sodium, and artificial ingredients of all kinds). Whether they fasted for lots of hours in a day or just had random berries or nuts all day long along with the occasional big meal when the hunting was successful, I have no way to know. But it does seem like humans are built for a different diet than we eat today. (By a long shot.) I am glad when I've been 12 or more hours in between meals, because I'm concerned about high, constant levels of blood sugar without ever a drop. This is due to concerns more about not feeding inflammation than about weight loss.
Actually, the vast majority of a hunter-gatherer's food in hot climates where plant food grew plentifully was carbs.  Animal food was hard to get without modern technology, and even as people became more urban the great civilizations were built on grains.  It's only very recently that people have started to eat large amounts of protein, and that corresponds with a lot of chronic illness although with modern sanitation and the like we still do live longer.  Now, in very cold climates, once people emigrated that far, there was little plant food to be had, so they ate almost all animal food, and seemed to do okay on that too but did not live long lives.  When they were conquered and their food supplies affected, as with native Americans and first nations in the northern western hemisphere, switching to grain based diets and processed sugars and alcohol gave them a lot of diabetes, so not so much advantage there in extended lives from modern conveniences.  I know we've come to think of carbs as white flour and cookies, but all plant food is high in carbs or all carbs, even legumes and nuts and seeds, while high in protein, still contain carbs which is good because they have fiber that is really helpful that animal food lacks.  Now, that doesn't lead me to be vegetarian, as those who study brain development consider the onset of eating animal protein to be the fuel that led to the human brain, along with the energy added when they tamed fire.  And those fruits they ate contained a lot of sugar, and they also consumed honey and syrups, so it's not like humans ever lived without sweets.  
I agree Anniebrooke.  Many diabetes educators recommend the period of no food for sugar levels. Here's a recent article from Harvard Health stating it helps with prediabetes as well as weight control.  I worry about both, so try to stick to it.  Although it isn't the best for everyone, obviously.  :>) https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-surprising-update-2018062914156
Avatar universal
I have said this before, but I don't see how intermittent fasting is either fasting or useful unless it just means you're skipping a meal you didn't need anyway for fuel.  If you eat the same amount you did before, you're consuming the exact same amount of food but in a compressed period of time, which just means more difficult digestion.  True fasting, on the other hand, which lasts at least an entire day, can be very spiritual and can re-regulate a body.  Hunter-gatherers did true fasting not on purpose when where they were living started to run out of food, in which case they had to move elsewhere so that place could regenerate.  It wasn't a choice.  But as said above, if it works for you, and you can only know that long-term because compressing your food intake over a long period of time might have adverse consequences.  I'm guessing nobody knows this.  So if it works for you short-term, okay, but you are taking a risk long-term.  I personally don't think I'd trust a heart doc on my diet.  I'd rather go to someone who actually studies food, just saying.  But that's just me.  Peace.
There are a lot of different types of doctors that study diet, nutrition and other food related issues. They aren't always just limited to their specialty - such as cardiology, neurology or whatever "ology" they practice.  
I do agree that some docs are really good and keep learning after they enter practice, but nutrition is only slightly touched upon before they enter practice.  Same problem with medication and supplements -- they just don't teach a lot of it, but some have the passion and learn.  But most don't, and there is also a bias in mainstream medicine against anything not preached by food companies and pharmaceutical companies.  Shouldn't be, but it is there.  If your doc has gone the extra mile and learned a ton about nutrition, bless you and keep that doctor!  But I'm guessing the knowledge is skin deep, as food is so complicated and almost nobody truly understands it.  Peace, all.
Avatar universal
Ya, it beneficiary if you eat less and healthy calories but if you are eating same about of calories then there is no way it's beneficiary for you. it work for me for losing a lot of weight.
Thanks have a nice day.
Have an Answer?

You are reading content posted in the Diet and Fitness Community

Top Healthy Living Answerers
649848 tn?1534633700
Avatar universal
Arlington, VA
Learn About Top Answerers
Didn't find the answer you were looking for?
Ask a question
Popular Resources
14 super-healthy foods that are worth the hype
Small changes make a big impact with these easy ways to cut hundreds of calories a day.
Forget the fountain of youth – try flossing instead! Here are 11 surprising ways to live longer.
From STD tests to mammograms, find out which screening tests you need - and when to get them.
Tips and moves to ease backaches
Here are 12 simple – and fun! – ways to boost your brainpower.