Thu, Apr-21-22, 12:50
|
 |
Senior Member
Posts: 3,199
|
|
Plan: High protein, lower fat
Stats: 000/000/145
BF:276, 255 hi wts
Progress: 0%
Location: Michigan U.P., USA
|
|
It's fascinating how journalists with no ability other than to form words and summarize a study can unintentionally distort the issues.
That quote was from the study, not the NYT. Here's what else they said in the link I posted:
Quote:
|
Changes in weight were not significantly different in the two groups at the 12-month assessment.... Results of analyses of waist circumferences, BMI, body fat, body lean mass, blood pressure, and metabolic risk factors were consistent with the results of the primary outcome.
|
I know that cutting calories for me is not sustainable, slows my metabolism, and causes cravings that are hard to resist and lead to poor food choices. When I eat healthy whole food that doesn't spike my blood glucose, I can eat in a small window of time without any of the other issues and get the benefits of stable blood glucose and autophagy.
I believe the point being made here is that you are cutting calories by eating in a small window of time. What Peter Attia said recently in this podcast is that...
"3000 calories spread out over the day 12 hrs, versus 6 hrs, versus narrow window of eating – no difference."
Now if a person would ordinarily eat 4,000 calories over 12 hours, then eating only 6 hours resulting in 3,000 calories instead is an obvious advantage.
|