Time-Restricted Eating In Women - A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is a growing interest in intermittent fasting as a method of body fat loss. However, research on time-restricted eating, a type of intermittent fasting, is more limited. The purpose of this study was to assess the effects of time-restricted eating on fat mass in women. Methods: 20 healthy, young (21.3 years ± 1.2 years), body mass stable (± 2.27 kg in the past 6 months) women completed a 4-week time-restricted eating study. During the intervention, participants restricted their daily food intake to an 8-hour period, i.e., between 1200 to 2000 hours. Changes in fat mass and body mass were assessed via densitometry (Bod Pod®). Hunger, satisfaction, fullness, and adherence were assessed on a weekly basis by self-report. Results: A 0.6 kg ± 1 kg decrease in body mass occurred after the 4 weeks (p = 0.015, n = 20) but changes in fat mass were non-significant. Women who performed strength training during the study experienced a 0.7 kg ± 0.5 kg decrease in fat mass (p = 0.037, n = 5). Overall protocol adherence was high (>5.5 d/wk) throughout the intervention. Hunger, satisfaction, and fullness remained constant over the study. Conclusions: Participants seemed to adapt to the time-restricted eating regime quickly and were able to sustain it over a 4-week period. Body mass and fat mass losses were small overall; however, some individuals responded substantially. Perhaps a longer intervention is needed to produce consistency. Time-restricted eating appears to have potential as a fat loss strategy; however, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding its effectiveness at present. More research is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".