*Clinical Implications*

This study provides exciting preliminary data on the potential beneficial e ffects and feasibility of TRF in older adults with very few risks associated with the intervention. In addition to the previously reported weight loss outcome and high adherence to the intervention [22], most participants adjusted relatively easily to the fasting window of 14–18 hours. Adverse e ffects were rare and were quickly remedied. No decrease in energy during the fasting time was reported by eight participants. There was also a carry-over e ffect, with some family members participating and a high likelihood the participants would recommend this intervention to a friend. While these findings are promising, more work needs to be done before a TRF intervention can be e ffectively implemented into clinical practice. The primary challenge relates to the participants' initial misunderstanding of what they were and were not allowed to consume during the 14–18 hour fasting period. The addition of dietary monitoring in which participants record their food intake, as well as the start and stop times, may be one approach to enhance adherence levels. This approach has proven essential for most behavioral weight loss programs, so it may be beneficial to helping older adults understand the key distinction between the fasting and non-fasting time periods. Other common adherence barriers expressed by participants included program adherence during social events, changes in work schedule, or vacations. Nevertheless, there is more opportunity to overcome these barriers due to the flexibility of TRF and the ultimate ability to focus on a yes or no behavior (eating vs. fasting) rather than consciously eating less or counting calories with traditional diets.

**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/3/874/s1, Figure S1: Time to eat pilot study—Weekly follow-up progress notes. Figure S2: Exit Interview Questions. Figure S3: Participant responses to the five questions within the biological domain of the Diet Satisfaction Survey, Figure S4: Participant responses to the ten questions within the psychological domain of the Diet Satisfaction Survey., Figure S5: Participant responses to the seven questions within the socio-environmental domain of the Diet Satisfaction Survey.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.A.L. and S.A.; methodology, S.A.; formal analysis, S.A.L.; original draft preparation, S.A.L.; writing—Review and editing, C.S., C.M., S.A., B.A.B., K.T.S., W.T.D.; visualization, C.S., C.M.; supervision, S.A.; funding acquisition, S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Acknowledgments:** The authors would like to express their appreciation to the participants and research associates who made it possible to complete this research project. This research was supported by the NIH-funded Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center (P30AG028740).

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
