Is Intermittent Fasting Better Than Cutting Calories?
The term “intermittent fasting” has become part of everyday vernacular over the past few years. Whether it’s the 16:8 method (fasting for a 16 hour window, eating within the remaining eight), or the 5:2 approach (reducing your calories to around 500 on two days of the week, and eating normally on the other five), time restricted eating—or abstaining from eating during certain hours—is a popular way to manage weight, look after our digestive systems and feel focused, energised, happier and healthier.
But a new study published last week prompted headlines questioning the efficacy of the popular technique—specifically when it comes to weight loss. The study’s aim was to determine whether time-restricted eating proved more effective for weight control in 90 obese (and, it’s worth noting, diverse) adults than calorie restriction, the more traditional method of weight management.
While the time-restricted eating group consumed fewer calories per day than those in the calorie-restricted group, they lost less weight (10lbs versus 12lbs) over the year. The results—which come as a reported 4.3 million people in the UK are living with diabetes—suggest that calorie-counting is a more effective method to achieve and maintain a healthy weight than intermittent fasting. We asked an expert for their take on the study, and on how well the technique actually works.
Excerpted from Vogue
