Calories and food timing

silentKayak

In general, I've been subscribing to the "calories in, calories out" theory. It's working well for me, and I've lost 30 lbs, though right now I'm on a plateau.

I don't generally believe in diets with weird restrictions. Most of them clearly function by causing you indirectly to eat fewer calories. However, I can see that there are a few possible exceptions to strict CICO, mostly by manipulating how much energy your body absorbs from the foods you're taking in, causing you to literally pee or poop out calories instead of burning them. The two examples I know are:

1. extremely low-carb diets suppress insulin production. Fat can't be stored, and even better, you burn off fat molecules. Partially burned fat cells are excreted as ketones in urine.

One reference here: it's buried in the results, but low-carb participants ate 200 more cals per day (average 1550 compared with 1135) and lost more weight on average (11 kg vs 7 kg in 24 weeks). Exercise levels didn't differ:

http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/5/1/36

2. Cooked foods digest easier and have more available energy than raw foods. People on raw foods diets often lose weight "by accident" due to increased energy absorption.

Highly readable secondary source here:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2011/12/08/why-calorie-counts-are-wrong-cooked-food-provides-a-lot-more-energy

I've looked at other metabolic cheats and haven't found sufficient evidence to be convinced (e.g. exercising in the morning burns calories all day (no, it doesn't); fiber "absorbs" excess calories (no, it doesn't); drinking lots of water causes weight loss (no, it doesn't), etc). Not to say that any of these things are bad, and if they're working for you, that's great. But there's no scientific evidence that any of them is a CAUSAL factor for weight loss.

Now, on to the question:

I never gave the "no carbs at night" or any other IF theory much credence, except that snacking at night is one way people can add huge numbers of calories beyond their basic energy requirements, so if you're hungry at night you should just go to bed. But I was just reading about this study:

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2009/09/turek.html

It suggests that timing actually matters; that is, eating during the day causes you to absorb fewer calories than eating at night, even when the calories in and exercise levels are held consistent.

Thoughts? Especially interested in anyone who knows more about the science behind it. I would really like to keep it simple (count your calories, do the math), but I'd give up my bedtime snack if there was really evidence that eating the same amount but at a different time of day would make a difference.

silentKayak

Sorry, "1335", not "1135". Doh!

LolBroScience

Simply modifying the time of feeding alone can greatly affect body weight, the researchers found. Mice that were fed a high-fat diet during normal sleeping hours gained significantly more weight (a 48 percent weight increase over their baseline) than mice eating the same type and amount of food during naturally wakeful hours (a 20 percent increase over their baseline). There was no statistical difference between the two groups regarding caloric intake or the amount of activity.

My take away: Do it on humans.

eric_sg61

Fat can be stored without insulin. Re-esterification
http://sigmanutrition.com/eat-more-fat-burn-more-fat-myth-magic-or-metabolic-advantage/

RoxieDawn

What's the question? What is OP looking for?