Small (and potentially obvious) eating tips aka timing is everything

GottaBurnEmAll

It's how much (calorically speaking), not when and not whether you eat it in 6 small meals or 2 big ones or standing on your head while you recite Hamlet's soliloquy.

In spite of whatever the latest diet guru/women's magazine headline/medical quack tells you.

cryonic_273

Meal timing is irrelevant - if you are in calorie deficit each day.

The main reason for weight gain eating at night is most likely - people are less likely to accurately record late night snacks or weigh them properly .

jjpptt2

cryonic_273 wrote: »

Meal timing is irrelevant - if you are in calorie deficit each day.

The main reason for weight gain eating at night is most likely - people are less likely to accurately record late night snacks or weigh them properly .

True. But meal timing is HUGELY relevant if it helps you stay in a deficit. If skipping breakfast or eating 5 meals or eating right after a workout or whatever else helps you stay on track with your intake, then meal timing is most definitely relevant.

If you're going to say it's irrelevant, than say it's irrelevant related to your body's ability to lose weight/burn fat. Don't just say it's irrelevant. Because it's not.

lemurcat12

chiefwilson wrote: »

Interesting comments on this thread. Given the discussion about meal timing, what's the general consensus on intermittent fasting (IF)? Specifically:

• Does meal timing have a greater effect on the body's ability to burn fat?

Over the course of a whole day? No. And precisely WHEN you are burning fat doesn't matter to weight loss.

Similarly, when people talk about low carbing making on burn more fat, that's silly -- you burn the same amount of stored fat (if calories are equal), but more fat that you eat (since on a deficit we burn what we eat and someone who eats 100 g of fat (and burns that plus, say, 250 cal of stored fat) will burn more fat than someone who eats 40 g of fat (plus 250 cal of stored fat), big whoop).

That said, many may find that IF helps them stick to a deficit more easily, and others find that eating in the morning or in the evening or small meals through the day or (like me) 3 meals helps.

OP seems to be talking about what affects the scale the next day, also, which is of course irrelevant.

lemurcat12

janejellyroll wrote: »

Noel_57 wrote: »

It's ironic, but the studies that I have read say that increasing meal frequency actually resulted in more in between meal hunger.

This is personally true for me. I find that when I eat more frequent, smaller meals, I feel hungry for most of the day. When I eat three bigger meals, I feel more satisfied between meals.

Yes, this is 100% true for me.

I know there are exceptions/differences -- I spend the last couple of days with a woman who said that she likes to graze all day and if she can't and eats main meals after not eating for hours she is hungry and overeats. She is quite thin, so her regular way of eating works for her. This is similar to my sister who likes lots of little (but nutritious) snacks, and who also does the things people are told not to do, like eating standing at the counter and so on. My sister is also thin and perfectly happy with snacks instead of meals if that is how her day goes.

For me, if I graze without thinking about it, I tend to constantly want to eat and overeat. To make it worse, it doesn't much affect my desire to have a regular breakfast, lunch, and dinner, so I don't naturally cut calories because of the snacking/grazing, unless I force myself to. If I just eat breakfast, lunch, and dinner and don't snack, I am satisfied with the same amount as I would be when eating lots of extra food all day, and I tend to not think about food except at meal time (vs all day long).

I also realized recently that if I don't have meals like I think of them I don't feel like I've eaten, don't have that satisfaction. I can plan to eat the appetizers at a cocktail party instead of dinner and have more calories than a normal dinner and yet I don't feel like I've eaten.

MegaMooseEsq

jjpptt2 wrote: »

chiefwilson wrote: »

Interesting comments on this thread. Given the discussion about meal timing, what's the general consensus on intermittent fasting (IF)? Specifically:

• Does meal timing have a greater effect on the body's ability to burn fat?

The overwhelming advice is to not worry about timing, to do what works best for your personal preference, and sets you up best for adherence and consistency.

Personally, I'm willing to accept that there is a minute benefit to some iterations of IF, but those benefits are very, very small, and only apply under very specific circumstances.

Agreed. Both the science and common sense seem to agree that the single most important element of a successful diet is personal compliance. Maybe there's some minute benefits here or there to meal timing or composition or whatever, but if the individual in question can't stick to the diet, then it doesn't matter.

As for the eating at night bit, I'd be fascinated to hear the supposed mechanic behind the "no eating after [arbitrary measurement of time]" rule. I've lost 37 pounds so far eating every 2-3 hours that I'm awake, because that's what works for me.

Bry_Fitness70

The only time that I would sort of agree that "timing is everything" is in regards to protein ingestion. I have read conflicting research on whether there is a limit to the amount of protein one can synthesize in one dose, so I err on the side of not eating more than 40-50 grams at a time. If this is bro science, so be it, it is harmless...

PAV8888

I "balance out" my day after my Fitbit returns my TDEE for the day at midnight.

In the past three years I doubt there was even a handful of days where I didn't eat a substantial number of calories between midnight and bed-time.

I am willing to concede that there might be a MARGINAL difference that might optimise your caloric burn and capacity for training in an iso-caloric 24 hour period based on the timing and composition of the food you ingest.

But, to control weight the amount of calories you intake relative to the amount of calories that you burn is the only thing that matters. And the best meal timing is the one that suits you and allows you to succeed in doing that.

CarvedTones

When I have used IF, it was to reduce meal count; instead of 21 meals a week, I ate 17. So if they were all at maintenance level, it cuts calories by about 19%. I quit doing IF because I am a chronic under eater when cutting back and IF just made it worse.

lulalacroix

Eating early in the day usually just sets me up for being famished all day long. I don't always practice IF, but when i skip the early meal, I can adhere to my calorie restriction easier.

corinasue1143

watts6151 wrote: »

Does my 3am(ish) snack class as eating
Late or an early breakfast

Since you mentioned it---
When do you log it? I've been wondering since I started MFP

Lillymoo01

The only relevance meal timing has on weight loss is in regards to satiety and this is vastly different for individuals. I personally do best on 5 meals a day where all are of a similar size calorie wise. IF just doesn't work because my body copes better with a good breakfast and I sleep better with food in my stomach. Grazing doesn't work because I never feel full. Less than 4-5 meals and I tend to undereat.

Finding what works best for you can be a huge game changer with weight loss and maintenance and can make the journey so much easier once you do. The only way to do this is to play around with timing (and macros) until you find your best fit. People can make suggestions based on what worked FOR THEM, but no one can tell you what is best FOR YOU.