Same food, shorter eating window. Hunger? No clear difference.

Randomised controlled trial (RCT). 39 people. 12 weeks (questionnaire and fasting blood at baseline and week 12).

A trial. Chance decided who did what.

Who: US adults (Baltimore) aged 18-69 with obesity (BMI 30-50) and prediabetes or diet-controlled type 2 diabetes; analysed mean age 60 (SD 7), BMI 35.2, 92% women, 92% Black; 39 analysed for eating behaviour (19 TRE, 20 UEP), 38 for blood markers

• Weight: 10h vs 16hsame-2.7% vs -2.5%
• Extra hunger dropnonevs 16-hour window
• Lower inflammationnonein either group

More to know, from our read of the paper:

• Post hoc analysis of a small trial: authors say only large effects could reach significance and nonsignificant results should NOT be read as equivalence. Say 'no clear difference', never 'no difference' or 'doesn't work'
• The TRE here is EARLY 10-h eating (8 a.m.-6 p.m., 80% of calories by 1 p.m.) vs a 16-h day (snack allowed until midnight), with identical food and calories. Not 16:8 and not self-chosen eating; differs from Lowe 2020 TREAT (late 8-h window, free-living)
• Calories were set for weight maintenance and not adjusted, yet both arms lost ~2.5% weight; both diets were study-made DASH-style meals, likely healthier than baseline, which authors think explains the within-group eating-behaviour improvements
• Eating behaviour is self-reported (51-item Three-Factor Eating Questionnaire, binary scoring); higher restraint can also relate to disordered eating (authors' note)
• Hunger visual-analogue scores incomplete and not analysed; leptin fasting only; GLP-1 and PYY not measured; total (not acylated) ghrelin

In this 12-week randomized feeding trial, 39 US adults with obesity and prediabetes (mostly Black women, average age 60) got the same study-made meals and calories. One group ate within 10 hours (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.), the other over a usual 16-hour day. Both lost about the same weight (2.7% vs 2.5%). Self-reported hunger and eating habits, hunger-related hormones and inflammation markers showed no clear difference between the groups. This was an after-the-fact analysis of a small trial, so the authors say real differences can't be ruled out.

We read the abstract and the full text of this paper and checked every number on this page against it (17 facts, checked on 2026-10-29). The study design is named above. Cohort and other observational studies are described as linked, not proven. Found an error? Email theis@onestudyaday.com.