Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss | NEJM

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

[@ginosantiago3061]

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.

[@DeviantDespot]

Low carb in combination with TRE has show great benefits.

[@ahmedahm1]

Very low N and you expect significant results ?

[@nader371t3]

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]

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.

[@crixster]

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

[@JT-bs2lm]

every diet pattern would fare better if regular exercise was involved

[@vermontmike9800]

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]

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

[@k.c.8658]

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

[@wolfpytlak2786]

A dietary trial with a low N is kinda wierd

[@assco28]

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]

@@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]

@@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]

@@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.

[@brokebob6301]

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