- Joined
- Jan 20, 2016
- Messages
- 11,793
- Reaction score
- 13,323
That's pretty cool actually. Means that some overweight individuals could skip calorie counting if they use the intermittent fasting method. Calorie counting is a bitch, so that's nice.
New study shows intermittent fasting doesn't work
- Thread starter Fedorgasm
- Start date
That's pretty cool actually. Means that some overweight individuals could skip calorie counting if they use the intermittent fasting method. Calorie counting is a bitch, so that's nice.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 900
- Reaction score
- 107
fasting works i lost ten pounds in a week in a half drinking tons of water and one protein shake a day.
if your stomach hurts take a caffeine pill
if your stomach hurts take a caffeine pill
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2018
- Messages
- 4,574
- Reaction score
- 1,623
fasting works, you have to be dedicated and get over the hunger pangs for it to be effective long term. otherwise you'll just put the weight back on, and claim it doesnt work.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2011
- Messages
- 8,943
- Reaction score
- 24,021
That's not really how statistics work though.
If 2 groups of 50 people were subjected to different diets and experienced a weight loss difference of 0.42%, or less than a pound, that does not necessarily mean that at the individual level you are more likely to lose an extra lb with method B compared to method A. There is fluctuation to be expected in any trial, even if both diets were the same. If the difference observed is not above the normal expected fluctuation by a considerable amount, then it's not statistically significant, that's what they mean.
Having the exact same weight loss in both trials would be a very unlikely result, even if you used the same protocol for both groups. A small difference is to be expected, one way or another. The question is if that difference lies outside of the scope of random factors and normal individual fluctuation.
E.g: If you flip a coin 50 times, and then you flip another coin 50 times, even if both are "fair coins", some variation is expected in the results. Getting 25H and 25T x2 is relatively unlikely. If you flip 2 coins 50 times and the results vary very significantly from the spectrum that is highly probable, then you would suspect that there is something about the second coin, beyond chance alone, that is causing the variation. The likelihood of different variations can be calculated, and for something to have statistical weight, it should fall outside of the scope of expected random fluctuation and be an unlikely result of chance alone. How unlikely it needs to be for it to be called "significant" depends on the researchers' methods.
So the question is, whether intervention B achieved a result that went beyond the normal expected variation between 2 different groups of people, and when the study says "not statistically significant" it's because this is not the case according to the researcher's calculations. It doesn't mean that intervention B will necessarily give you +0.42% all, or even most of the time, that's precisely what that phrasing is warning you about.
Even from a clinical perspective, I don't really see how a difference of less than a lb over 8 weeks for an overweight person is particularly important, considering there's other factors that are more important than that, like long term adherence.
Going beyond that, even if we could find out in some way that that average difference was due to a certain method it wouldn't mean that one should consider it "better" either. If method A is better for 40% of the population and method B is better for 60% of the population, then you will get better results on average in trial B. However, at the individual level, it still means that a lot of the time that won't be the case, so it's not really enough to make a prescription at the individual level or call it "better" without more info.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2007
- Messages
- 2,023
- Reaction score
- 2,744
It works, studies are often skewed one way or another. Do it for 4 weeks and see for yourself. The increase in insulin sensitivity is a good reason to do it on it's own.
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2017
- Messages
- 900
- Reaction score
- 107
some people think not eating for days is actually not going to work in losing weight.
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2012
- Messages
- 31,931
- Reaction score
- 15,924
It doesn't say it doesn't work it actually said they lost .5 lb more per week but that it was not statistically significant.
Losing weight and fat is about calories in vs out and nothing more. Although I have read that working out on an empty stomach doesn't do much. Count calories, work out to retain muscle, the end.
Losing weight and fat is about calories in vs out and nothing more. Although I have read that working out on an empty stomach doesn't do much. Count calories, work out to retain muscle, the end.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,664
- Reaction score
- 4,650
Fasting affects body differently than simple calorie restriction diets so comparing the two merely in terms of calories in vs calories out is a poor way to go about comparing the two approaches. Intermittent fasting or longer fasts are generally better than calorie restricted diets.
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2019
- Messages
- 1,292
- Reaction score
- 907
What is that supposed to mean? Doesnt work? The aim is not to lose weight is it? How should it if you eat the same amount of kcal. Its still very very healthy cause all your bodys repair systems are switched on. So if you wanna age slower you better do that anyway.
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2006
- Messages
- 7,306
- Reaction score
- 4,212
What in the flying fuck!?!? Trying to squeeze through that door would give me severe anxiety due to my claustrophobia.
