Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss | NEJM

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 20 кві 2022
  • Does time-restricted eating result in sustained weight loss? Quick Take summarizes new research findings.
    To see the full article, follow this link: nej.md/3KiE524
  • Наука та технологія

КОМЕНТАРІ • 18

  • @DeviantDespot
    @DeviantDespot Рік тому +2

    Low carb in combination with TRE has show great benefits.

  • @ginosantiago3061
    @ginosantiago3061 Рік тому +1

    From my experience Restricted eating is a easier way to limit your caloric intake. Also it teaches the difference between being hungry and thinking that you are hungry. Restrict eating does not provide along enough time for your body to change the way it handle food. To do that you need to fast for a least 24 hours.

  • @ahmedahm1
    @ahmedahm1 Рік тому +2

    Very low N and you expect significant results ?

  • @crixster
    @crixster Рік тому +3

    I am sure time restricted eating would fare better if regular exercise was involved

    • @JT-bs2lm
      @JT-bs2lm Рік тому +4

      every diet pattern would fare better if regular exercise was involved

    • @vermontmike9800
      @vermontmike9800 Рік тому +1

      Actually this has been proven to be a misnomer, as exercising causes the body to crave calories, which creates a never ending cycle. Calorie restriction alone is the key.

    • @r.derringer6426
      @r.derringer6426 10 місяців тому

      @@vermontmike9800 I agree and have read that from a study as well...

  • @nader371t3
    @nader371t3 Рік тому +4

    In the clip at 1min, they present a graph 'Change in Body weight at 1 year' where you can see that the TRE group lost on average 1.7kg more than the people who didn't do TRE meaning there is a significant difference, TRE group lost 1.7kg more but the voice narrating the clip then says there was no significant difference between the 2 groups!?! The graph shows that there definitely was a significant difference, over 20%!!!

    • @plok9408
      @plok9408 11 місяців тому +2

      The narrator is referring to statistical significance. No statistical significance means the result could be random/chance. You have to look at the p value and confidence intervals in this case.

  • @brokebob6301
    @brokebob6301 Рік тому +1

    how many of them cheated on the diet? i bet 100pct

  • @k.c.8658
    @k.c.8658 2 роки тому +11

    NEJM publishes a story that a non-pharmaceutical intervention doesn’t work, such a surprise. Semagutide must not be selling well…

    • @wolfpytlak2786
      @wolfpytlak2786 2 роки тому +6

      A dietary trial with a low N is kinda wierd

    • @assco28
      @assco28 2 роки тому +14

      You seem to be interpreting it wrong. The result was that out of the two non-pharmaceutical interventions the other wasn't more beneficial than the control. Calorie restriction works alone, no need to complicate it with a time restriction.

    • @k.c.8658
      @k.c.8658 2 роки тому +3

      @@assco28 Chronobiology is exceedingly important to the body; diet induced thermogenesis, insulin sensitivity, the gut microbiome are all affected by when food is ingested. NEJM has become a less-than-reliable science source. I withhold my trust of this study until I see confirmatory studies in better journals.

    • @assco28
      @assco28 2 роки тому +6

      @@k.c.8658 that might be the case, but that's not what this study was about. The main objective of the study was to see if there is difference in weight loss between the two.

    • @saniathite9793
      @saniathite9793 2 роки тому +5

      @@k.c.8658 Maybe reading the entire article will quickly help you understand the objective of the study. They're just comparing diet vs diet+time. They're not saying how each of them individually fares. It's like comparing iPhone13 vs iPhone13mini, both individually are better than most phones but vs each other may not be drastically different in specs.