Extremely high priority
22Nice to haveEvidence: mixed
Time-restricted eating
12–14 hour eating window.
Priority Matrix
The numbers.
Four dimensions, scored 1–6, where six is always the good end: cheapest, quickest, easiest, highest impact. Priority is Impact squared, divided by what it costs you in energy, money and time.
CostFree
Time-
EnergyModerate
ImpactModerate
How sure we are
MixedReal studies disagree, or the effects are small and noisy.
Kept separate from the priority score on purpose: confidence in the evidence never raises how worth-it something is.
What we read
- Calorie Restriction with or without Time-Restricted Eating in Weight Loss
New England Journal of Medicine · 2022
In 139 adults with obesity, an 8-hour eating window plus calorie restriction lost no more weight over 12 months than calorie restriction alone.
- Effects of Time-Restricted Eating on Weight Loss and Other Metabolic Parameters in Women and Men With Overweight and Obesity
JAMA Internal Medicine · 2020
In 116 adults, a 16:8 window without calorie coaching produced no significant weight-loss difference versus three structured meals, and the TRE group lost a bit of lean mass.
Research from Southern Medical University · University of California, San Francisco. We cite their published work. They have no involvement with Anew.
Where this falls down
Still unknown. Early, weight-stable TRE has improved insulin sensitivity in tiny lab studies; free-living weight-loss trials keep finding that the window adds little once calories are matched.
Topics
Where it fits.
Related products
The gear.
Products that share a topic with this intervention. Same matrix scoring, same restraint.
- Important
Best ValueNutritionThe dessert with a cocoa-flavanol dossier.
Cost$4–8TimeNoneEnergyEffortlessImpactModerate
Keep going