It is important to understand that weight is entirely a function of input and output. The input is the food you eat and the calories contained therein. The output is your energy output. To lose weight the output needs to be greater than the input. It is that simple. Do not believe any of the diet fads. If you are currently not gaining or losing weight then just burning 300 extra calories per week or eating/drinking 300 calories less per week (2 sodas for example or a small burger) WILL make you lose weight - in this case around 5 pounds of fat per year.
High blood sugar levels coupled with high blood ketones, on the other hand, will mean that you have a pathologically low level of insulin – something non-diabetics do not suffer from. This can lead to ketoacidosis – a potentially life-threatening condition. If this happens, you’ll need to inject more insulin; if you’re at all unsure of what to do, contact a medical professional or have someone take you to the hospital to be checked out. Coveting really high blood ketones for weight control is not worth the risk for people with type 1 diabetes.
IF makes intuitive sense. The food we eat is broken down by enzymes in our gut and eventually ends up as molecules in our bloodstream. Carbohydrates, particularly sugars and refined grains (think white flours and rice), are quickly broken down into sugar, which our cells use for energy. If our cells don’t use it all, we store it in our fat cells as, well, fat. But sugar can only enter our cells with insulin, a hormone made in the pancreas. Insulin brings sugar into the fat cells and keeps it there.
Aude, Y., A. S, Agatston, F. Lopez-Jimenez, et al. “The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat: A Randomized Trial.” JAMA Internal Medicine 164, no. 19 (2004): 2141–46. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.19.2141. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/217514.
Jerimiah, the linked study in the article (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413118302535) specifically studied “eTRF”(Early Time-Restricted Feeding) from 8am – 2pm, and implies that eating earlier is better than later. I haven’t read the study (it’s behind a damn Elsevier pay-wall), so I don’t know how strongly they feel about early vs late, though. For me, personally, 12-8 is doable, and skipping dinner (given the existence of a family and the desire to have dinner with said family) isn’t doable, so I’m pleased to hear from you and April above that it’s working. Just starting!
Jeremiah, I don’t think the author is suggesting that TRF in the later hours of the day is bad, but rather that it is DIFFICULT. The key finding in this study is that the 07:00-15:00 eaters had a reduced appetite (in other words, didn’t find it very hard to follow this regimen), whereas other approaches have been found to be kind of difficult for some.