lizzieh wrote: -does that mean doing the odd 16:8 on non-fast days has no effect? I've been led to believe from conversations on here that restricting the 'feeding window' on feed days, while not as effect as an actual fast with calorie restriction, does help with weight loss.
I'm interested, because I've been doing 16:8 on one or two days each week in between fast days, for about 6 weeks now, and although to start with it seemed to accelerate my losing a few pounds, I've also gained some back and I'm wondering if the net result is worth it.
@lizzieh and @carorees
I just had a look at the data again and here is some additional info.
Average weight loss for different categories of calorie free period on feed days is as in the table (see picture). It shows that only 9 women are using a calorie free period of more than 16 hours. 12 to 16 hours is a somehwat broad categorie if you want to measure 16:8. Apparently the differences between the groups are not large (only for the longer than 16 hours group, but here we have only a few cases!) In a statistical analysis this is not really significant (0.093 in 2-tailed testing), but this might also be the result of not having enough women using this strategy to make an impact in the analysis. Be aware that this does not take the other factors into account. As presented in the paper, once these factors
are taken into account, the fast on feed days factor is clearly not significant. As carorees has suggested, this is probably also the result of the fact that longer fasting on feed days is related to the other factors that do have an influence on weight loss. I looked at the correlations and two of them are significant: women who fast longer on feed days also opt for longer fasts on fast days (correlation 0.29) and choose for healthier diets on feed days, as carorees suggested (correlation 0.19). So, part of the higher weight loss of women who have longer calorie free periods on feed days (in the table) is due to the effect of the two other factors.