
A 12-Hour Window for a Healthy Weight - sethbannon
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/a-12-hour-window-for-a-healthy-weight/?smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0
======
stronglikedan
I've tried all kinds of diets, including time restricted eating, I've
eventually failed at all of them for various reasons, or succeeded, but was
unable to enjoy keeping the lifestyle.

Enter the portion control diet. This is the only diet that I've been
successful with, and I've been doing it for just over a year now. The reason
I'm able to sustain it, is because I can eat whatever I want. For example, I
eat ice cream every night if I want, but only a scoop, and when I go out to
eat, I split my entree and take half home. The only caveat is that I try my
best not to eat processed food; if I can't make it at home with whole
ingredients, then I will likely not eat it.

I can now look at a plate of food an know exactly how much will fill me up
(this took a while). So, even when I don't leave the table feeling full, I
know I'll feel satisfied within 15 minutes. I used to love the feeling of
being overstuffed, but now I just feel sick when I overeat, and I don't enjoy
it.

I've lost over 30 lbs in the past year using the portion control method. It's
not a lot, but it's a healthy reduction, and one that I know I can sustain.

I know everyone is different when it comes to dieting, both mentally and
physically, but I just wanted to share my experience with the most successful
diet I've ever undertaken. I hope someone else can benefit from my anecdote.

~~~
gmarx
I don't want to discourage you so much as warn you; I too have spent a
lifetime dieting and have lost and gained back weight many times. All working
diets feel like you to maintain them for ever during what I call "the momentum
phase". Your brain is amazing at slowly making diets cease to work over time.

That said, portion control and calorie counting are components of a working
weight loss plan and one should be extremely skeptical of diets like the "eat
only before midnight diet". I have never been a night snacker and managed to
get morbidly obese just fine without it.

~~~
stronglikedan
Thanks for the warning.

I feel that I'm out of "the momentum phase", because I've never maintained a
diet for over a year, until now. However, I realize that I may be deluding
myself on that point.

I think that the key to my success is eliminating all but portion control. I
don't count calories, or anything else that would make more work for me. All
of those things are the things that would make my diet cease to work over
time. Now I eat whatever I want, but keep processed foods to an absolute
minimum.

Growing up, my nickname used to be "Trashcan", because I would finish
everything on my plate, and then eat whatever my dining partners didn't from
their plate. I still do, but I take it as leftovers, and eat it for breakfast
or lunch the next day. I used to relish being stuffed to the point where I
couldn't move. I still very occasionally overeat, but now it's more of a sick
feeling that I despise.

------
edgyswingset
This discussion has shown that, if anything, the only thing we can rely on is
that our bodies are incredibly complex. There does not appear, at least to me,
any consistently correct way to do things when diet and exercise are
concerned.

All of this is why I prefer to just stick with the basics:

\- Real, unprocessed food

\- Calories from food, not drinks

\- Consistently getting up and out of the chair

\- Sleeping when I'm tired

\- Waking up when I'm not tired

\- Exercising regularly

I'm happy, healthy, and energetic. I'll let scientists keep working on the
hard stuff without stressing too many details.

~~~
samolang
There may not be a consistently correct way to optimize health, but there is a
consistently correct principle when it comes to weight loss. Consumer fewer
calories than you burn and you will lose weight (even if those calories come
from processed foods:
[http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/](http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/)).

~~~
logfromblammo
...unless your body responds to a reduction in caloric intake by burning fewer
calories.

If you employ a caloric restriction diet, you must do something to keep your
metabolism from down-regulating, by whatever means that works for you.
Otherwise, you will get stuck at a weight-loss plateau that is probably well
above your goal weight, and further restricting calories from there might just
worsen your situation.

You can't push on a string. Don't consume fewer calories than you burn; burn
more calories than you consume. It's a fine hair to split, but be aware that
they are not two independently controllable variables.

~~~
samolang
> If you employ a caloric restriction diet, you must do something to keep your
> metabolism from down-regulating

No you don't. You will always burn calories by simply existing. You can get no
exercise and still lose weight simply by cutting calories. Cutting 100
calories from your daily diet may be matched one-to-one with metabolism
decreases, but I guarantee that if you cut 1,000 calories from your daily diet
you will lose weight.

~~~
Swizec
If your only goal is losing weight, might as well chop off your legs, lose 50
pounds and be done with it.

Hint: nobody's goal is _just_ weight loss.

~~~
samolang
Lowering your BMI from 31 to 24 by cutting fat makes you healthier and
increases your expected lifespan (regardless of whether or not you exercise),
chopping off your legs does not.

~~~
Swizec
Yes, BY CUTTING FAT.

See, your goal is not just to lose weight. Your goal is to _lose fat_. Your
body will burn a hell of a lot of muscle if you just sit still and not eat.

And becuase you're burning more muscle than fat, you're even going to lose
_more_ weight. Hooray!

For added bonus, you can lay in bed all day so that you lose bone density as
well. Even more weight loss even faster! So much better BMI. Much healthy and
awesome.

Point is, _nobody 's goal is JUST to lose weight_.

------
hoopism
Constrain eating to a 12 hour window? It has to be more nuanced than that...
no?

I usually skip breakfast (bad, I know) and eat lunch at noon. So does my
window stay open till midnight? My expanding waist line is questioning this.

~~~
jaworrom
I'm a practicioner of intermittent fasting, and I've found that an 8 hour
window is ideal for eating my meals, with a 16 hour fast. I can eat like shit
on occasion and it doesn't do a thing to my physique. It's been pretty
sustainable; I've been doing it for a good 4 years now. You might give it a
try!

I found out about all of this from
[http://leangains.com](http://leangains.com). The guy has some really good
reads and he always provides the science/citations from medical journals.

~~~
mrfusion
What window times do you use? I want to try this but I can't seem to cut out
night eating.

~~~
oskarth
I've done IF as well for extended periods of time (I quit mostly because I
wanted to gain weight). The most common schedule is to skip breakfast and eat
a late "lunch". I.e. if you wakeup at 8am, have your eating window be between
4pm and midnight. If you have a less flexible schedule, there's really not
much harm eating just one really big meal after work, together with some more
snacking (preferably high-protein) before bed.

In my experience, it's much easier to fast the first half of the day and do
social eating in the evening and go to bed full, than doing the opposite.

------
kyasui
Many people have found success using similar methods popularized by Martin
Berkhan’s Leangains or Brad Pilon’s Eat Stop Eat. So anecdotally, efficacy
isn't just limited to Rats (although I don't know the state of controlled
studies in humans).

It’s interesting watching these intermittent fasting styles grow from niche
body building communities to general population. It seems to be a great
heuristic based way of keeping overall food intake under control.

~~~
TelmoMenezes
For what it's worth, I've tried several approaches to lose weight and the one
that works for me is intermittent fasting.

I was never obese or anything, just a bit overweight.

I usually only eat dinner. Between about 20 and midnight I allow myself to eat
whatever I want. This just fits my personality, I find it easier to skip meals
knowing that later I'll be free to have whatever I want than constantly
watching what I eat. I suspect most diets work, the trick is to find one that
you can live with in the long run. This probably has to do more with
personality than biochemistry.

~~~
kyasui
Agreed, the best diet is the one you can adhere to over the long term. Here is
a great series comparing dieting approaches:
[http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-
diet...](http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/comparing-the-diets-
part-1.html/)

------
debacle
This has been relatively common knowledge for a few years, at least, and the
science behind it is very sound and also makes a lot of evolutionary sense.
Fasting has an incredibly good impact on our metabolisms and our overall
health, especially for those who are suffering from diabetes.

The direct link to the study:

[http://www.cell.com/cell-
metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2814...](http://www.cell.com/cell-
metabolism/abstract/S1550-4131%2814%2900498-7)

Has a really good graphic on the impacts. One of the critical things to note
here is that the allotment of food to the restricted group and the
unrestricted group was the same. Fasting detractors commonly try and create an
association between fasting and reduced caloric load, which can be the case,
but this study shows that fasting has a different mechanism for weight loss.

------
idofxeno
This should be a pretty good place to start IMO:
[http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-
debun...](http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-
debunked.html)

------
aquark
I wonder how they managed to keep the calorie intake the same for each group
as mentioned in the study?

Either the mice self-regulated this, and the shorter window mice learned to
eat more when it was available or there was a fixed amount of food available
then the window seems less relevant unless they tracked when the food was gone
for the day.

------
indralukmana
I am doing one of the fasting systems in islam. I have been doing it for
around two month.

What i am experiencing in observing this are mainly good things, which are:

\- I can controll my eating habits into a good systematic way, in sahoor and
iftar. Before I would eat regardless of time or my hunger level, it is just
difficult for me to moderate myself.

\- My state of mind seems improved quite a lot. I am more aware of my self, my
being, my hunger, and many other aspects in my life.

\- I can taste food a lot more better, before I would just stuff anything as
long as it is there. After I got used to the fasting, I am more selective of
what I eat and enjoy each bite with great gratefulness.

Of course there are several times that are difficult for me when I am doing
it. But they are far out weighted by the better things.

This is based on my own experiences and they may differ with other people's.

------
abandonliberty
An increasing body of evidence is supporting intermittent fasting in humans
helping with weight and health indicators.

[http://www.livescience.com/48888-intermittent-fasting-
benefi...](http://www.livescience.com/48888-intermittent-fasting-benefits-
weight-loss.html)

~~~
kazinator
"Increasing body of evidence" is even better than "Dr. Panda" in the article.
:)

------
eitally
How does this work for people who regularly burn 500-1000 calories in a
workout (bikers, swimmers, runners, skiers, etc)? I'm genuinely curious, not
so much from a weight loss perspective but from a mortality/longevity point of
view.

~~~
debacle
It can help prevent diabetes and is theorized to assist in slowing down aging
(through HGH secretion). Longer fasts are theorized to help stave off cancer
to some extent, but I don't believe those ideas are backed up by hard science
yet.

------
Rainymood
What works for me: skip breakfast, skip lunch, eat a large dinner with a lot
of protein (fish/meats/eggs) and green vegetables. After dinner I can pretty
much eat whatever I want left / can afford to eat. Works for me.

------
ThomPete
I have recently changed my way of living loosing 40 pounds in 4 months. The
number one factor is exercise and holding back on carbs. I actually feel
better not eating carbs (but I do miss my pasta and my bread which i only eat
occasinally)

A family of four we cook all our meals ourselves completely from scratch
unless we go out for dinner that also helps me control what I am getting. I
drink wine and drinks when I want to, try to keep my lunches to fish and
dinners to meat and veggies.

But I would say exercise is the most important of everything I am doing.

------
shittyanalogy
Cool, another useless diet article:

"Scientists, like mothers, have long suspected that midnight snacking is
inadvisable."

"began experimenting with the eating patterns of laboratory mice"

"Precisely how a time-based eating pattern staved off weight gain and illness
is not fully understood"

"To date, Dr. Panda’s studies have been conducted with only mice"

------
ipince
How does this reconcile the advice that eating more often (say, 6 times a day)
but with smaller portions helps increase metabolic rate and thus helps with
weight loss?

~~~
johndavi
I think that's just conventional wisdom/wishful-thinking propagated forward
(like so much dietary advice):
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985)
(cited in
[http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/23really.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/23really.html)).

------
Kiro
OT but am I the only one who tries to gain weight? I'm on a 500 kcal surplus
every day, lifting heavily four times a week.

~~~
cubano
You must be under the age of 25 or so.

Please believe as you age, gaining weight will get easier and easier.

~~~
mlrtime
I'm currently trying to gain at age 35, I eat until I can't eat another bite
and lift hard 3 days a week. Gaining weight comes slowly.

~~~
hoopism
Do you drink alcohol? If so, how much?

~~~
mlrtime
I'd say I average less than 1 drink a month.

~~~
hoopism
Drink more. You'll gain weight.

------
tremblaylive
"This article appeared in the January 18, 2015 issue of The New York Times
Magazine."

Future past tense?

------
grandalf
I think it's more of a function of how much time elapses between dinner and
bedtime.

------
Lewton
Is it really a surprise to anyone that if you restrict almost any of the
variables of diet, you can make a study showing it'll lead to weightloss?

>Precisely how a time-based eating pattern staved off weight gain and illness
is not fully understood

Really? It's not fully understood how, if you give less time to eat, you'll
eat less? It's not like mouse-stomachs are infinitely big

~~~
_sentient
I believe the caloric intake was the same across all diets.

~~~
ejk314
> The caloric intake for all the mice was the same.

Yup. Directly from the article.

------
cubano
It's just calories in vs. calories burned, nothing more nothing less.

Why does everyone make it more complicated than this?

Of course not consuming calories for half the day (does sleep count or not? I
couldn't tell from the article), as compared to those who do, helps you not
gain weight.

~~~
getsat
People think they are special snowflakes whose bodies aren't bound by the laws
of thermodynamics. They'd rather focus on trendy microoptimizations (like
"eating vegetables before rice", and other non-sense) than diligently tracking
caloric intake.

~~~
hcal
The laws of thermodynamics are not limited to the total calories consumed and
calories burned during intentional exercise. Many variables matter.

We know that humans are not capable of converting 100% of food's available
energy. What if your body is less capable of breaking down certain types of
food right after you wake up? what if consuming a large portion of your daily
diet in once overwhelms your body's ability to digest it. Science may have
solved those specific questions, but pretending that the complex bag of
chemical reactions in the human digestive tract is entirely governed by two
simple summation variable seems naive. Please forgive any formatting errors.
I'm typing this on a tiny little phone

~~~
getsat
If you assume (incorrectly, as science has proven) that the human body can
metabolize 100% of the energy it consumes, your worst case scenario is your
caloric intake. In practice, since you're not receiving 100% of that energy,
you're actually better off. Figure out your BMR (basal metabolic rate) and add
your estimated calorie expenditure and consume fewer calories than that. The
fact that not all those calories are actually used by the body makes it even
easier to stay below your daily energy requirements. Thanks for the reply

~~~
hcal
The study is specifically stating that of groups of mice consuming similar
diets with the same caloric intake, the group that ate whenever they wanted
became obese and unhealthy while the windowed eaters did not. That, I think,
is scientific evidence that strict caloric regulation is not a complete
solution as implied by you first commment. I think the researchers would agree
that the difference between obese and healthy is not the result of a micro
optimization.

The point I was making is that the equation isn't calories_in + calories_out =
weight_loss/gain. It is at least x(calories_in) + y(calories_out) =
weight_loss/gain where x and y are complex physical and chemical variables
that we haven't completely teased out yet. One less than insignificant part of
x seems to be related to the time window of consumption. A small change in x
or y would result in significant improvements over the course of a life.

~~~
getsat
I'm thinking more in the context of modern "weight loss" theory. These
articles are just more fuel for fat Americans, Brits, and Aussies who want a
scapegoat for their weight and a shortcut to lose it. They will do anything
except change their diet and (optionally) exercise. They've made that small
change to x or y for years and aren't willing to revert those changes. Thanks
for the reply.

