So you're saying they either did caloric restriction portion control within a 10 hour window or another group within the study , eight sub maintenance calories . So , caloric restriction cr as we're calling it the acronym cr but restricted that to an eight hour feeding window and they didn't see any difference in terms of weight loss . But , but it's not all that surprising , right ?
I've wondered about this because recently , you know , there's been , there were a bunch of news headlines about intermittent fasting and , and frankly , I was frustrated . Uh If you looked at one major news outlet , they would say time restricted feeding affords no additional benefit beyond caloric restriction for weight loss . Then an another popular press venue , let's call it that same study described as time restricted feeding doesn't work .
Then an another popular press venue , let's call it that same study described as time restricted feeding doesn't work . And then another 1 may be someplace um even more extreme , you know , time restricted feeding um uh only beneficial because of caloric restriction or something like that . So what you've essentially got are three different interpretations of the same data .
So they're eating in a 10 to 12 hour feeding window anyway . So you're saying they either did caloric restriction portion control within a 10 hour window or another group within the study , eight sub maintenance calories . So , caloric restriction cr as we're calling it the acronym cr but restricted that to an eight hour feeding window and they didn't see any difference in terms of weight loss .
All participants had to reduce their calorie intake and they reduced by almost 25% . The cr group continued with 10 hours eating window and the cr plus time restricted group had to eat the same number of calories within eight hours . So it's just a two hour difference .
