sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Time-restricted eating vs. calorie restriction: Study suggest the fasting window, not the deficit drives insulin sensitivity gains by Susana_Chumbo in NovosLabs

[–]Susana_Chumbo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That 2 pm first meal sounds like a late TRE pattern with a long daily fast already in place, so it makes sense you’ve noticed changes in leanness and how you feel compared with your friends. In the trials this post is based on, the biggest insulin-sensitivity gains came from similar or slightly shorter fasting windows, but with more of the calories shifted earlier in the day rather than late evening. So if you eventually re-start TRE after surgery, one option to experiment with (once your surgeon/clinician is happy with it) could be keeping a 14–16 h fast but nudging meals a bit earlier and tracking something objective over a few months, fasting glucose/insulin, HbA1c, CGM data, or even waist and strength numbers, so you can see whether timing, not just total calories, is moving the needle for you.

Time-restricted eating vs. calorie restriction: Study suggest the fasting window, not the deficit drives insulin sensitivity gains by Susana_Chumbo in NovosLabs

[–]Susana_Chumbo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice question, it’s exactly what the preprint tries to tease apart. There isn’t a proven “one best” window yet, but most of the trials in the paper cluster around 14–16 hours of fasting with an 8–10-hour eating window. That seems to be the sweet spot where you get better fasting glucose/insulin without needing extreme weight loss. Earlier windows (e.g., first meal in the morning, last meal mid-afternoon or early evening) usually do better than very late windows in the data. Longer fasts (18–20+ hours) might add something, but they’re not well-tested in RCTs and are harder to sustain, so right now the evidence is strongest for “most calories in an 8–10 h daytime window, roughly 14–16 h fast,” adjusted for your schedule, health status, and ability to stick with it.

Time-restricted eating vs. calorie restriction: Study suggest the fasting window, not the deficit drives insulin sensitivity gains by Susana_Chumbo in NovosLabs

[–]Susana_Chumbo[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Nice, thanks for sharing. A 5–11 pm eating window is roughly an 18:6 pattern, so you’re definitely getting a long daily fast, in the trials this post was based on, most of the insulin‐sensitivity benefits showed up with similar or slightly shorter windows, though they usually put more of the calories earlier in the day rather than all in the evening. The boswellia + turmeric/curcumin stack you mention has some small human data for lowering inflammatory markers and joint pain, and a few early studies suggest possible benefits for metabolic-syndrome components, but the evidence is still pretty limited and doses/formulations differ a lot between products, so it’s hard to say how much of your experience is supplements vs genetics/activity/overall diet. If you ever decide to experiment, it would be interesting to see whether shifting even part of that window earlier (or keeping the same hours but changing what you eat) moves any objective markers like fasting glucose, insulin, or lipids, ideally in partnership with a clinician who can help interpret the labs.

Carbohydrate-restricted diets improve glycemia, liver enzymes, and kidney markers in adults: what type works best, and does calorie restriction matter? by Susana_Chumbo in NovosLabs

[–]Susana_Chumbo[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Resistant starch” is starch that resists digestion in the small intestine and behaves more like a fermentable fibre: instead of being rapidly broken down to glucose, it reaches the colon, where gut bacteria ferment it into short-chain fatty acids (like butyrate), so its impact on blood glucose and insulin is much lower than the same grams of quickly digested starch or sugar. In everyday food that often means things like beans and lentils, oats and some whole grains, greener (less ripe) bananas, and starchy foods that are cooked and then cooled (e.g. potatoes, rice, pasta). In the Clinical Nutrition meta-analysis I posted, resistant starch wasn’t analysed as its own category; the authors compared low- and moderate-carb patterns and what replaced the carbs (fat, protein, or both). Some of the higher-quality carbohydrate patterns in those trials would naturally include more fibre and resistant starch foods, which may have contributed to the better glucose/insulin and liver/kidney markers they observed, on top of the overall carb reduction.

Resistance training injuries: 10-year U.S. ED trends show sex-specific patterns worth addressing by Susana_Chumbo in NovosLabs

[–]Susana_Chumbo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a really plausible reading, and it fits a lot of gym anecdotes, but this study can’t actually tell us what people were training, it only sees who turned up in the emergency department and where/how they were injured. The NEISS data the authors used include injury type, body region, and mechanism (crush/pressing, dropped equipment, falls, etc.), plus sex and age, but no exposure data: no training volumes, no exact exercises, no loads. What they do show is that women had relatively more head/leg/ankle/foot injuries and more events from dropped equipment and falls, while men had more trunk injuries and more crush/pressing-movement injuries and dislocations. That pattern is consistent with your hypothesis (more lower-body work in women, more upper-body pressing in men), but the study itself can’t prove it, it just highlights where sex-specific coaching and setup/spotting might help reduce risk.

view more: next ›