Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #14   ^
Old Fri, Apr-22-22, 11:36
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,853
 
Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JLx
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.

Since the NYT article is behind a paywall, I can only refer to the short study description as reported by the NEJM. My comment was on articles in general citing nutrition/eating studies that are often misinterpreted or cannot be assessed for quality by the journalist, particularly if the NYT used only the NEJM summary as its source. In addition, I find no statements of rigor in how study subjects controlled, measured or reported accurate calorie consumption, as it's simply a summary of findings.
Quote:
Background The long-term efficacy and safety of time-restricted eating for weight loss are not clear.

At the end of this study, I believe the previous statement is still true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLx
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 Ė 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.

Yes and that's one of my points, that people who eat in smaller windows may consume fewer calories. The other part of this is that those who eat satiating food during those smaller eating windows including increasing good-quality protein and lower carb vegetables may eat even less and still be satiated without corresponding lean-mass loss. The calorie count may be positively impacted. Yet it doesn't appear that food quality was part of the referenced study, which is very hard to control in human subjects. My observation was purely from my experiences, and my history of eating more frequently over longer periods of time was a failure for me. I don't doubt the study is accurate, but applying it as a "one size fits all" has never worked for me, and I suspect others. Many I know can eat different foods on a different schedule than I, and some do very well. So, it's fine to observe that.

I believe a key in pursuing nutritional health is understanding the added complexity of how we all vary. It's why reading a diet book or article can put some on a good path, but the rest is up to the individual to discover how to fine-tune it based on personal results. This is an important message, as many (the majority?) aren't willing to do the introspective deep dive to make those discoveries.

This conflicts with many other studies; yet, it's refreshing to read about a human study despite how hard it is to have rigorous controls for us. However, there are many who are researching the metabolic benefits of caloric restriction through a variety of methods. Attia, I find I need to take his statements with a grain of salt. Yes, he's focused on longevity, but I believe his references about loss of lean mass were in observation of the times he did longer fasts. It's a good sign to see him adapt and change his views over time, that's science, as good science is never static. Mark Mattson is an extremely knowledgeable person in this field as well. And yes, Walter Longo is not yet out of a job.
Reply With Quote
 

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:55.


Copyright © 2000-2022 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.