| SZ: Warum Intervallfasten nicht funktioniert |  |
[https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/intervallfasten-diaet-abnehmen-vergleich-1.5047981?reduced=true]
Zwar ist das Ding hinter einer Paywall, aber schon Überschrift und der erste Satz verraten eigentlich alles, was man über die Studie wissen muss.
"Acht Stunden essen, was man will."
Klar, Sahnetorten, Pizza, Cola... oh man, oh man.
Differenzierter setzt man sich hier damit auseinander:
[https://www.dietdoctor.com/new-study-states-intermittent-fasting-doesnt-work-but-is-that-true]
Let’s take a minute to discuss why TRE has been proposed to have health benefits. First, it is an effective means of reducing daily calories. And second, it allows insulin to remain low for longer — thereby, allowing for greater fat oxidation.
The current trial failed at the first point. The TRE group ate the same calories as the control group. In fact, at the end of the trial, there was a trend towards greater calorie intake.
One of my main rules for any patient I start with TRE — and a big point we make in Diet Doctor’s soon-to-be-released coaching program on intermittent fasting — is that you shouldn’t “make up for lost calories.” Instead, you should eat your meals as you usually would, or at a minimum add a little extra protein, and simply take one meal out. It is one of the easiest ways to reduce your calorie intake.
This trial didn’t achieve that. I can only assume it was because participants weren’t coached on the strategy of not making up calories. Right away, we can see that this study tested equal calorie diets for TRE, eliminating one of the most significant potential benefits of TRE.
And so, this does not exclude TRE as being an effective means of safe and sustainable calorie reduction when participants are properly coached.
But what about the second point? Did this study disprove that there is anything special about keeping insulin levels lower for a longer period? Maybe.
Sixteen hours may not be enough time to see that benefit. Would 18, 20, or even 24 hours be enough? Or, what if the eating window was cut off earlier to around 5 pm when the body is more insulin sensitive? These are interesting questions to which we don’t yet have answers.
What may even be more important to consider is that we don’t know what the subjects ate during their eating window.
Ich meine, ich verstehe es, Ernährungswissenschaft ist ein äußert komplexes Feld, aber dass sich die SZ einfach so hinstellt und rausposaunt, es _funktioniere nicht_ ist arg dumm. Quo vadis Journalismus?