The best time to fast if you want to lose weight, according to the experts
Restricting your eating to an eight-hour window each day could be a key to long-term weight loss, according to new research.
A study presented at the European Congress on Obesity in Malaga found that overweight and obese individuals who adopted this time-restricted eating pattern successfully lost weight and maintained their reduced weight over time.
While the research is yet to be peer-reviewed, the findings suggest that this strategy could be an effective tool for those struggling with weight management.
Lead author Dr Alba Camacho-Cardenosa, from the University of Granada in Spain, said: 'Our study found that restricting the eating window to eight hours at any time of the day for three months can result in significant weight loss for at least a year.
'These benefits can be attributed to the 16-hour fasting window rather than the time of eating.'
A previous randomised controlled trial by the same researchers published in the journal Nature Medicine found that restricting eating to eight hours per day decreased body weight and improved cardiometabolic health.
Their latest study looked at the long-term effects over 12 months for 99 people.
Individuals were split into four groups for 12 weeks – eating in a 12-hour or more window; restricting eating to an eight-hour window starting before 10am; restricting eating to an eight-hour window starting after 1pm; and allowing people to select their own eight-hour window.
All groups were given tips on a Mediterranean diet to help them eat healthier.
The researchers measured body weight, waist and hip circumferences at the start of the trial, after the 12-week plan, and 12 months later.
The study found that, while those eating over 12 hours or longer lost an average of 1.4kg, the time-restricted groups lost more, at around 3kg to 4kg.
Time-restricted groups also had greater reductions in waist and hip circumferences of several centimetres, and had maintained greater weight loss after 12 months.
At the one-year mark, those eating for 12 hours or more had an average body weight increase of 0.4kg, compared with around a 2kg weight loss in the early and late time restricted groups, the study concluded.
Those who chose their own pattern also maintained some weight loss although this was not statistically significant.
Around 85% to 88% of people restricting their eating window also found they stuck to the plan.
Dr Jonatan Ruiz, study co-ordinator from the University of Granada, said: 'This kind of intermittent fasting appears feasible for adults with overweight or obesity who wish to have a relatively simple way of losing and maintaining weight loss that is less tedious and more time efficient compared with daily calorie counting, but it warrants further investigations in larger and longer-term studies.'
Dr Maria Chondronikola, principal investigator and lead for human nutrition at University of Cambridge Metabolic Research Laboratories, said further studies were needed.
'Understanding how well participants adhered to the timing of their meals, the level of their caloric intake and whether time-restricted eating changed any obesity-related metabolic outcomes would provide valuable insight into the true effectiveness of time-restricted eating,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
29 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Just how psychopathic are surgeons?
These are the people we trust to hold a sharpened knife above our bare bellies and press down until they see blood. We let them tinker with our hearts, brains and bowels while we lie unconscious beneath their gloved hands. Surgeons live in a world of terrifying margins, where the difference of a millimetre can be the difference between life and death. That level of precision demands an extraordinary calm, or what you could also call a cold detachment. But what happens when that same self-possession curdles into something darker? In recent weeks, two surgeons have made headlines for all the wrong reasons. In France, Joël Le Scouarnec was sentenced for abusing hundreds of children – some while they lay anaesthetised in his care. In the UK, plastic surgeon Peter Brooks was convicted of the attempted murder of fellow consultant Graeme Perks, whom he stabbed after breaking into his home in Nottinghamshire. Today, Brooks was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 22 years at Loughborough Courthouse. It would, of course, be absurd to taint an entire profession with the acts of two individuals. But it does resurface a long-standing, uncomfortable question: might the very traits that make a surgeon brilliant also mask something far more troubling? 'When people hear the word psychopath, they tend to think of serial killers and rapists,' says Dr Kevin Dutton, a psychologist and the author of The Wisdom of Psychopaths. 'But the truth is that certain psychopathic traits – focus, emotional dispassion, ruthlessness, self-confidence – can predispose you to success, and in an operating theatre, they really come to the fore.' Dutton has spent much of his career trying to prove that 'bad psychopaths' – people who have these characteristics but who can't regulate them – are the ones who commit crimes. A 'good psychopath', by contrast, is someone who can dial those qualities up and down at whim. He recalls one neurosurgeon who was regularly brought to tears by bits of classical music, but who also said, 'Emotion is entropy. I have hunted it to extinction over the years.' Similarly, a cardiothoracic surgeon told him that once a patient was under, he no longer saw them as a person – just a piece of meat. 'Once you care, you are walking an emotional tightrope,' says Dutton, 'but if you see the human body in front of you as a puzzle to solve, then you are more likely to save their life.' 'There's a ruthless part of me' Gabriel Weston, a London-based surgeon and the author of Direct Red: A Surgeon's Story, describes her profession as one that requires you to 'flick off a switch'. Sent to boarding school at a young age (much of British surgery is the product of elite schools), Weston learnt early how to detach emotionally – a skill she found served her well in the theatre. 'If you asked my family, they'd say I'm very emotional in that I cry in films or at art or literature,' she says. 'But there's a ruthless part of me. I use that in surgery – and in other parts of life where emotion just gets in the way.' Over time, Weston learnt to distinguish between two kinds of surgeons: those who switch their feelings back on once they leave the operating room, and those who never do. 'They don't just have psychopathic traits,' she says. 'They live in that space permanently.' They can also come with a reputation for being not just difficult, but dangerous. Harry Thompson*, a British abdominal surgeon, describes a world of towering egos and simmering aggression. 'If you think about it, all surgeons were in the top five of their class,' he says. 'They are all very competitive, and many play sports: they want to prove they are better than everyone. And if you are at the forefront of major surgery, you think you are invincible. It's a boiling-house environment of jealousy, envy and hatred.' He recalls one consultant who stabbed a plain-clothes policeman with a disposable scalpel after being stopped for speeding en route to the theatre. Another smashed a ward office clock when a nurse arrived five minutes late. Physical assaults were, he says, more common than you would think. 'I was in one operation when a student, John, was an hour and a half late, because he overslept. The surgeon thumped the student's head against the theatre wall until he was unconscious, screamed, 'Nobody move!' then started kicking him. No one ever saw John again.' Nor is the patient always spared. 'When I was training, I saw one surgeon thump a patient for removing a drain from his own bottom after an operation because it had become painful,' says Thompson. 'The patient only admitted this (in tears) after the surgeon had made the nurses and junior doctors line up and interrogated each one in turn about who had done it.' Thompson used to work with Simon Bramhall – the liver surgeon who made headlines and was later struck off for branding his initials onto patients' livers using a laser. 'Simon had always been a bit mad,' says Thompson. 'He was fascinated by the programme Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) and he always wore a white suit [like the character Hopkirk], tie, shoes and socks.' As for tattooing his patients' organs: the initials were discovered by his colleagues only during a second surgery when his once-subtle etching was now grotesquely enlarged by liver damage. While Bramhall's actions sparked public outrage, some in the medical community were nonplussed. Perhaps because this is a far more commonplace occurrence than we realise: an article in Harper's Magazine cited examples of anonymous ophthalmic surgeons who had lasered their initials onto retinas, and orthopaedic surgeons who had etched theirs into bone cement. 'Why would you do that? Ego, of course,' says Dutton, 'and it isn't incidental in surgery. It's selected for. From the moment you start training, you have to fight – quite literally – for your space at the operating table.' 'I find it very freeing not to be pleasant' Dutton researched which of the various disciplines within the profession had the highest rates of psychopathy, and the results are revealing. Number one is neurosurgery (which is bad luck for any fans of Grey's Anatomy), followed by cardiothoracic or heart surgery and then orthopaedic. 'The last one is brutal as you have to smash people's bones,' says Dutton. 'Cardio more than anything is about life and death, but neurosurgery is particularly interesting to me. I think it's because this is the only branch of surgery where, if something goes wrong, you leave the patient permanently crippled or blinded or incapacitated, so only very few people can take such a calculated risk under pressure.' And though these traits are often seen as typically male, women are by no means exempt. Weston says the most difficult surgeon she ever worked under was a woman. 'She was very attractive and well-liked – mostly for being gorgeous and good at her job – but privately she made my life hell. Maybe she didn't like another woman being on the team but she did that horrible thing that women do of presenting this incredibly benign face while being very cruel in private. For months, she blamed me for mistakes that weren't mine, stole credit for my diagnoses, and made me feel like my surgical skills were terrible. She was truly villainous.' And yet, Weston admits, the operating theatre offers her a rare freedom: 'If you are a woman who is quite tough and unsentimental, surgery is a really amazing environment in which you can be yourself. There are many areas of my life – mainly motherhood, but also writing – where there is an expectation that I will be softer than I am. Like Simone de Beauvoir, I find it very freeing not to be pleasant.' Perhaps there is something in all of this (criminal and violent behaviour aside) that we, as patients, secretly find reassuring. We don't want our surgeons to hesitate. We don't want them to be emotional or anxious. We want them to be brilliant: laser-focused, supremely confident, even terrifying if that's what it takes to save us. In life, we dislike arrogance. On the operating table, many of us yearn for it. 'I had one boss,' says Thompson, 'a French surgeon. He used to say: 'There are the porters, the nurses, the managers – and then there are the surgeons. Above them, God. And above God? Me.''
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The Guardian view on fitness: evidence of the benefits of exercise keeps growing, but who is listening?
The role of exercise in promoting good general health, and helping to prevent heart disease, strokes and diabetes is well established. No wonder, then, that long‑distance running keeps growing in popularity. Popular tracks and parks have never been busier, with groups in stretchy Lycra and fitness trackers on their wrists. The internet is awash with exercise videos, while figures earlier this year showed that gym memberships have climbed to a record 11.5m. The 16.9% of people aged 16 or over in Britain who belong to a gym is one of the highest proportions in Europe. The older teenagers and young adults of generation Z are a key demographic behind this social trend. And recent news from the world's biggest cancer conference, in Chicago, shows how right they are to take the health benefits of fitness seriously. A landmark trial compared the outcomes of patients in several countries who were placed on a programme of structured exercise – assisted by a personal trainer – with those offered standard health advice. The results showing that exercise could be as effective as drugs, without the side-effects, in preventing the recurrence of colon cancer, were described by Prof Sir Stephen Powis, the national medical director of NHS England, as 'really exciting'. The expectation is that the study will influence treatment guidelines worldwide – including in the increasingly fitness-conscious UK. But there is another narrative about exercise in Britain that is hard to reconcile with the one above. This is that we are a chronically unwell, overweight and sedentary population, whose health problems are only partly linked to the Europe-wide demographic challenge of ageing. These difficulties are widely recognised to be psychological as well as physical, with particular concerns around the worsening mental health of children and young people, which is widely linked to the rise in smartphone use. Which of these accounts of British fitness habits is more accurate depends which segment of the population is being scrutinised. Government figures show that the age gap – with 16- to 24-year-olds the most physically active age group – is not the only one. There is also a significant socioeconomic disparity. Students and adults in managerial and professional jobs are much more likely to keep active than manual workers or people who are long-term unemployed. As with other indicators of health, such as weight or smoking, there is a clear correlation with income. Richer people with more education and higher social status are more likely to be well. Could gen Z buck this trend with its more general embrace of fitness, which some point out is far cheaper than pub-going? It is too soon to be sure. Some young people believe their gym-going habits are as much about economic insecurity and status anxiety as they are about commitment to health. But as ministers finalise their 10-year plan for the NHS, which is expected to place a strong emphasis on prevention, they have an opportunity to build on, and shape, the way that exercise is offered and experienced. That being physically active is good for you is reinforced by the latest cancer study. But a preoccupation with personal appearance can be debilitating. A public health approach to exercise should seek to maximise the gains and minimise the harms associated with fitness culture.
Reuters
2 hours ago
- Reuters
Explainer: What is the High Seas Treaty to protect world oceans?
LONDON, June 9 (Reuters) - While many countries have agreed to take steps to protect the vast, ungoverned swathes of the world's oceans, they have yet to see their High Seas Treaty go into effect. This week's U.N. Oceans Conference in the French city of Nice hopes to change that. The treaty, signed in 2023, provides a legal framework for creating marine protected areas on the "high seas", or the ocean areas that lie beyond any national jurisdiction. Currently, less than 3% of the oceans are under some form of protection, although altogether the world's oceans cover two-thirds of the planet. The treaty contains 75 points covering areas such as protecting, caring for and ensuring responsible use of marine resources, and includes a provision for requiring environmental impact assessments of any economic activities in international waters. The treaty also aims to ensure that all countries have fair and equitable access to the ocean's resources. While it is widely referred to as the High Seas Treaty, officially it is called the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction Treaty. As of Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron said 50 countries had ratified the treaty, with 60 needed for it to go into effect. Separate to the High Seas Treaty, countries agreed under a 2022 U.N. biodiversity pact to put 30% of their territorial waters under conservation. Oceans support coastal economies and livelihoods through tourism, fishing, shipping, mining, offshore energy and more. Oceans also absorb about a third of the world's carbon dioxide, or CO2 - the primary gas driving climate change - while ocean-swimming phytoplankton provide about half of the world's oxygen. But marine life is now struggling, and human industry and development are almost entirely to blame. More than 1,500 ocean plants and animals are now at risk of extinction, and that number is expected to rise amid ongoing pollution, overfishing, ocean warming, opens new tab and acidification, according to scientists at the International Union for Conservation of Nature. Additionally, new threats to ocean organisms and ecosystems could emerge in coming years in the form of deep-sea mining for rare-earth minerals. In Nice, Macron is expected to urge countries to support postponing sea-bed exploration while researchers work to understand deep sea ecosystems. Scientists are also concerned about the possibility that governments could look to modify ocean chemistry to boost its capacity for absorbing CO2 - a scenario that researchers say could help to limit global warming but could also have unintended consequences. Macron's news on Monday of 50 governments having ratified the treaty means it is still short by 10 signatures. The treaty will enter into force 120 days after 60 countries have ratified it. Work then begins on setting up institutions and committees to implement the treaty, while its signatories expect to hold a first conference within a year. Despite its involvement in the original treaty negotiations, the United States under current President Donald Trump is not expected to ratify the treaty. Macron is co-hosting this third U.N. Oceans conference with Costa Rica, and with at least 55 heads of state, business leaders and civil society groups expected to attend the five-day event. Aside from discussions to advance the treaty, delegates are also expected this week to discuss overfishing, water pollution and other threats to marine life. They'll also be looking for fresh ideas on how to pay for it all - with ocean-linked financing lagging far behind other sustainable investment areas. For the five years spanning 2015-2019, ocean-related spending totalled $10 billion. By comparison, the U.N. estimates that every year at least $175 billion is needed for marine protection. The last U.N. oceans summit was held in Lisbon and co-hosted by Kenya in 2022. The next, co-hosted by Chile and Korea, is set for 2028.
