For geeks only: meal timing affects weight loss
joinn68
Posts: 480 Member
I was discussing yesterday and supported the idea that meal timing doesn't affect weight loss (though the debate was more "woo-ish" and more in the line of "you WILL gain weight of you eat before sleeping" and me supporting the idea that it is not true. We didn't discuss whether you would lose weight slower or faster depending on meal timing) But I come across this study that says it does (independently of total food intake) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24467926
Are there more recent studies contradicting or supporting this?
(just a scientific debate please. I won't change my eating habits or anything). Just kind of want to know what y'all have read on the subject
Are there more recent studies contradicting or supporting this?
(just a scientific debate please. I won't change my eating habits or anything). Just kind of want to know what y'all have read on the subject
0
Replies
-
But, but, but........I lost 65 pounds while working the night shift.
I must be a special snowflake!
0 -
But, but, but........I lost 65 pounds while working the night shift.
I must be a special snowflake!
LOL... That's why I said "scientific debate". The question is NOT whether you will lose weight at a calorie deficit. You WILL. But whether you lose weight faster or slower depending on meal timing and what other impacts there are. You might want to read the study. I personally don't care too much when I eat I know will lose weight. But I am curious about what studies show. Someone's going to come up with the "circadian rhytm diet" soon☺0 -
Time of day does affects blood sugar and fat levels but im not sure what impact that has on weight. Im sure the circadian rythum diet will be developed soon!
Its like the gut bacteria and blood sugar research - it never says what impact on weight higher blood sugar has.0 -
But, but, but........I lost 65 pounds while working the night shift.
I must be a special snowflake!
LOL... That's why I said "scientific debate". The question is NOT whether you will lose weight at a calorie deficit. You WILL. But whether you lose weight faster or slower depending on meal timing and what other impacts there are. You might want to read the study. I personally don't care too much when I eat I know will lose weight. But I am curious about what studies show. Someone's going to come up with the "circadian rhytm diet" soon☺
Yes, well, working the night shift certainly messes up one's "circadian clock," as the study mentions, so I don't see how that is much different.0 -
If you look at the body of research on the subject as a whole, you will notice some studies supporting, others refuting and others that are neutral to the subject. The general trend appears to be that people who are put on a meal timing schedule that is not their usual tend to lose more weight for some reason.
I have yet to see a ward study though, so it's hard to control for food and calorie accuracy. Breakfast foods tend to be less variable. It's easy to count calories reasonably accurately for an omelette, but a bit harder for salads and sandwiches which are usually eaten for lunch, let alone random forgotten bites of food that people whose calories are concentrated in the evening tend to take and forget about that people who eat most of their calories in the morning don't due to work, so it can be as simple as a calorie count margin of error. Personally I'm a mid-day eater. I don't always eat breakfast and my appetite greatly diminishes in the evening, so when I tracked my natural habits without reducing calories I found my random bites to be few and far between in the morning and evening, but quite a bit of them between noon and 6 pm.
Keep in mind that the word "significantly" is usually misunderstood. It could be a not very practically significant difference that has statistical significance.0 -
Yes, it's a minor element for most people. Have you got everything else right? Is it worth the extra effort?
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »If you look at the body of research on the subject as a whole, you will notice some studies supporting, others refuting and others that are neutral to the subject. The general trend appears to be that people who are put on a meal timing schedule that is not their usual tend to lose more weight for some reason.
I didn't know this! Weird.
You might be right. I tend to eat less during the day overall if I tell myself I am done eating whenever I have reached my calorie goals. So indeed I don't usually eat late at night. Otherwise I would eat when hungry at night and items might not make it in my food log. + as you mentioned more variations in lunch and diner foods and meals. If the studies are mostly self reported it could be things like that0 -
in for geeks
But Ev has covered it with that chart tbh IMO0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Yes, it's a minor element for most people. Have you got everything else right? Is it worth the extra effort?
It is not about me. I clearly said if you read me (just a scientific debate please. I won't change my eating habits or anything. I am nicely losing weight at around 1.6 lbs/week and don't want to go any faster. Thank you.
It's really just a general discussion in the theory.
Would you happen to have some of the underlying papers that allowed Precision Nutrition to come up with the chart? (especially papers supporting the first part about "normal" people)0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Yes, it's a minor element for most people. Have you got everything else right? Is it worth the extra effort?
It is not about ME. And I clearly said if you read me I will NOT change the way I eat. I am nicely losing weight at around 1.6 lbs/week and don't want to go any faster. Thank you.
It's really just a general discussion in the theory.
The questions aren't intended for YOU. In general, placing theory to practice - if one hasn't gotten all the other little ducks lined up, it is a waste of effort and time for one to focus on meal timing for that 2-5% efficiency.
If you want to discuss the theory - read the Alan Aragon site - he's got significant references on this. We can then include substrate selection, substrate mixing, exercise types, GI and GL indexes, supplement impact, etc... There are a lot of minors one can modify. But focusing on the majors first is what is important.
Now, having put that aside. If you want to discuss the theory - any comments on the info-graph?0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Yes, it's a minor element for most people. Have you got everything else right? Is it worth the extra effort?
I like this, and it makes sense. While I have lost significant weight, I am finding it difficult to drop the last 5-8 pounds or really hit the weights hard, and I bet it's because I CAN'T regulate my meal timing to be more in line with my circadian clock and my sleep is pretty jacked up. Sleep is so important for recovery and being able to hit the workouts really hard.0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »Yes, it's a minor element for most people. Have you got everything else right? Is it worth the extra effort?
I like this, and it makes sense. While I have lost significant weight, I am finding it difficult to drop the last 5-8 pounds or really hit the weights hard, and I bet it's because I CAN'T regulate my meal timing to be more in line with my circadian clock and my sleep is pretty jacked up. Sleep is so important for recovery and being able to hit the workouts really hard.
I bet it has little to do with meal timing. 5-8 lbs is not in the extreme cases unless you are fasting, a competitive athlete, etc...
However, sleep is an essential part of recovery and metabolic stress management. Sleep and hormonal balance go hand in hand - and are very chicken and egg - Disorders of thyroid, testosterone, cortisol, and growth hormone can cause sleep disorders, and poor sleeping patterns can, in return affect those hormones.
But that is a bit off topic - if you like, start a different thread or shoot me a PM.0 -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415001865
Here is an article from 2015 that might be helpful.
I eat 18:6 --- with my first meal at 6:00 pm only because the timing suits my life long natural rhythms, suits my work schedule, and helps me keep daily calories at defeficit. If I had to do a morning meal and snack a few times, I would be off balance.
0 -
The one immutable truth about fat loss is creating an energy deficit. If there is any truth to this, it would necessarily have to somehow fit into the energy equation to create a bigger deficit. If the intake is identical, the expenditure would have to increase or the absorption decrease. But maybe the intake isn't identical, lord knows how many of these kinds of studies rely on self reporting.0
-
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The questions aren't intended for YOU. In general, placing theory to practice - if one hasn't gotten all the other little ducks lined up, it is a waste of effort and time for one to focus on meal timing for that 2-5% efficiency.
If you want to discuss the theory - read the Alan Aragon site - he's got significant references on this. We can then include substrate selection, substrate mixing, exercise types, GI and GL indexes, supplement impact, etc... There are a lot of minors one can modify. But focusing on the majors first is what is important.
Now, having put that aside. If you want to discuss the theory - any comments on the info-graph?
I am really interested in the theory not the practice. Practice CICO works for most and no point making it too complex imo.
No comment on the infograph. But I've seen Alan Aragon's site and will probably read him at some point out of curiosity. He seems to have stopped updating his review of other articles in 2008 and his blog one year ago though. No comment because this goes even beyond just meal timing to nutrient timing which I've never thought about tbh
What do you think of the article that I linked though?0 -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415001865
Here is an article from 2015 that might be helpful.
I eat 18:6 --- with my first meal at 6:00 pm only because the timing suits my life long natural rhythms, suits my work schedule, and helps me keep daily calories at defeficit. If I had to do a morning meal and snack a few times, I would be off balance.
That's interesting! I only read the astract. I'll see how to access to full text later. The article that I posted was 2013. Seems they are actually studying humans more and more rather than just lab mice and coming up with some interesting theories on meal timing. Definitely to be followed. I'll long be at GW then but I am curious to see what emerges in the next few years0 -
(ETA: regarding the OP study)
They didn't give the nitty gritty results in the abstract, so it's hard to tell if there was a control group or if there was self-reporting (even for the rest of the day, which would be my guess). Self-reporting may have its errors randomized in the control group as well, so it might not be a big deal. But if there's no control group either then things go downhill.
It looks very interesting, especially what they will discuss about the organs (presumably), so I'd love to read the whole thing. One study is not enough to say a whole lot, but I do think these studies (which commonly have surprising results) are reason enough to not make absolute statements in the opposite direction. It's why I won't completely agree (100%) with lots of things stated here as absolute gospel I really am nerdy that way, lol. 0 -
Should there be a thread dedicated to things 100% Gospel with a listing of said items? I have one or two. I am not allowed to start this thread, but you can.cafeaulait7 wrote: »(ETA: regarding the OP study)
They didn't give the nitty gritty results in the abstract, so it's hard to tell if there was a control group or if there was self-reporting (even for the rest of the day, which would be my guess). Self-reporting may have its errors randomized in the control group as well, so it might not be a big deal. But if there's no control group either then things go downhill.
It looks very interesting, especially what they will discuss about the organs (presumably), so I'd love to read the whole thing. One study is not enough to say a whole lot, but I do think these studies (which commonly have surprising results) are reason enough to not make absolute statements in the opposite direction. It's why I won't completely agree (100%) with lots of things stated here as absolute gospel I really am nerdy that way, lol.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The questions aren't intended for YOU. In general, placing theory to practice - if one hasn't gotten all the other little ducks lined up, it is a waste of effort and time for one to focus on meal timing for that 2-5% efficiency.
If you want to discuss the theory - read the Alan Aragon site - he's got significant references on this. We can then include substrate selection, substrate mixing, exercise types, GI and GL indexes, supplement impact, etc... There are a lot of minors one can modify. But focusing on the majors first is what is important.
Now, having put that aside. If you want to discuss the theory - any comments on the info-graph?
I am really interested in the theory not the practice. Practice CICO works for most and no point making it too complex imo.
No comment on the infograph. But I've seen Alan Aragon's site and will probably read him at some point out of curiosity. He seems to have stopped updating his review of other articles in 2008 and his blog one year ago though. No comment because this goes even beyond just meal timing to nutrient timing which I've never thought about tbh
What do you think of the article that I linked though?
Well, the actual research is behind a pay wall, so I can only judge from the abstract.
Based on the abstract itself - it's.... nothing. There is no research summary of results.
A quick search on the author shows me ... whoops, she has a huge conflict of interest because she sells diet books on chrononutrition. (Her wiki page here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Garaulet in Spanish.)
Her diet books: http://www.amazon.com/Marta-Garaulet/e/B00J6LVX9G/ref=la_B00J6LVX9G_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1454325644&sr=1-1
So, so far not so good overview.
But a quick view of publications by the same author does reveal a source research article used for the review article you linked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955
This study found Spanish late lunch eaters lost less weight. A look at the method highly suggests that it was not well controlled for iso-calories - just "24-h dietary recall". Lol, we know how good that is in terms of measuring calories when items are not weighed. Possibly, late eaters prepare larger meals, eat more because they are hungrier or are less active in the afternoon... All of cultural elements that can affect weight gain - remember this is Spain with strong lunch time cultural elements.
So, let's say it is valid research, despite the method issues, it is still completely irrelevant to someone on here. Why? Because we calorie control. What the research showed was specific to the Spanish lunch model - not to people changing their overall food schedule with calorie counting. No real crossover analytics, no fasting models, etc...
If I was living in Spain and not counting calories, I might consider that a quick light lunch might be a better solution to the traditional larger late lunch. And I'd focus on that. But I find it irrelevant to the people here.
By the way, I have real issues with their methodology. Take a look at this 'corrected' graph (n=420, split into two). Do you see the problem with it? (hint variance growth is small and doesn't show spikes even when main curve isn't smooth.)
0 -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867415001865
Here is an article from 2015 that might be helpful.
I eat 18:6 --- with my first meal at 6:00 pm only because the timing suits my life long natural rhythms, suits my work schedule, and helps me keep daily calories at defeficit. If I had to do a morning meal and snack a few times, I would be off balance.
That's interesting! I only read the astract. I'll see how to access to full text later. The article that I posted was 2013. Seems they are actually studying humans more and more rather than just lab mice and coming up with some interesting theories on meal timing. Definitely to be followed. I'll long be at GW then but I am curious to see what emerges in the next few years
Again, not research but an opinion review.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »(ETA: regarding the OP study)
They didn't give the nitty gritty results in the abstract, so it's hard to tell if there was a control group or if there was self-reporting (even for the rest of the day, which would be my guess). Self-reporting may have its errors randomized in the control group as well, so it might not be a big deal. But if there's no control group either then things go downhill.
It looks very interesting, especially what they will discuss about the organs (presumably), so I'd love to read the whole thing. One study is not enough to say a whole lot, but I do think these studies (which commonly have surprising results) are reason enough to not make absolute statements in the opposite direction. It's why I won't completely agree (100%) with lots of things stated here as absolute gospel I really am nerdy that way, lol.
I'll probably tone down my argument that 'meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss' too... But just tone down until they have more research... And then I am pretty sure it still won't be relevant in real life anyway
Back to the study: Self-reporting of what and when people ate. They then split the results based on what people reported. 420 people. Spain. Mediterranean diet. Surprinsingly to me, the meal that actually had an impact was lunch. Whether people ate lunch earlier or later. But they do say "main meal" So maybe if the study is replicated in other cultures who have different main meals and meal times it will be different. Seriously, Spaniards eat lunch and dinner quite late compared to every other country that I know.
Full text here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/233579550 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »EvgeniZyntx wrote: »
The questions aren't intended for YOU. In general, placing theory to practice - if one hasn't gotten all the other little ducks lined up, it is a waste of effort and time for one to focus on meal timing for that 2-5% efficiency.
If you want to discuss the theory - read the Alan Aragon site - he's got significant references on this. We can then include substrate selection, substrate mixing, exercise types, GI and GL indexes, supplement impact, etc... There are a lot of minors one can modify. But focusing on the majors first is what is important.
Now, having put that aside. If you want to discuss the theory - any comments on the info-graph?
I am really interested in the theory not the practice. Practice CICO works for most and no point making it too complex imo.
No comment on the infograph. But I've seen Alan Aragon's site and will probably read him at some point out of curiosity. He seems to have stopped updating his review of other articles in 2008 and his blog one year ago though. No comment because this goes even beyond just meal timing to nutrient timing which I've never thought about tbh
What do you think of the article that I linked though?
Well, the actual research is behind a pay wall, so I can only judge from the abstract.
Based on the abstract itself - it's.... nothing. There is no research summary of results.
A quick search on the author shows me ... whoops, she has a huge conflict of interest because she sells diet books on chrononutrition. (Her wiki page here: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Garaulet in Spanish.)
Her diet books: http://www.amazon.com/Marta-Garaulet/e/B00J6LVX9G/ref=la_B00J6LVX9G_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1454325644&sr=1-1
So, so far not so good overview.
But a quick view of publications by the same author does reveal a source research article used for the review article you linked: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23357955
This study found Spanish late lunch eaters lost less weight. A look at the method highly suggests that it was not well controlled for iso-calories - just "24-h dietary recall". Lol, we know how good that is in terms of measuring calories when items are not weighed. Possibly, late eaters prepare larger meals, eat more because they are hungrier or are less active in the afternoon... All of cultural elements that can affect weight gain - remember this is Spain with strong lunch time cultural elements.
So, let's say it is valid research, despite the method issues, it is still completely irrelevant to someone on here. Why? Because we calorie control. What the research showed was specific to the Spanish lunch model - not to people changing their overall food schedule with calorie counting. No real crossover analytics, no fasting models, etc...
If I was living in Spain and not counting calories, I might consider that a quick light lunch might be a better solution to the traditional larger late lunch. And I'd focus on that. But I find it irrelevant to the people here.
By the way, I have real issues with their methodology. Take a look at this 'corrected' graph (n=420, split into two). Do you see the problem with it? (hint variance growth is small and doesn't show spikes even when main curve isn't smooth.)
I came to a similar conclusion and ran across the same research on Spanish lunchtime effects.
With no direct control of food intake we can't be sure that the participants didn't sneak snacks, especially those in the late eaters group who may have been hungry before eating their main meal. My wife is still struggling to lose weight but now she is "logging everything", but I already know (and have pointed out) of various times where she takes a few bites of something and it isn't in her log (and I only see 1/3rd of her day of eating or less). People lie on food logs all the time. The ones who are the most honest have the best results.
On top of that, the Spanish study randomly selected a single "average" week and used that as the nutritional basis for the entire 20 week study. Honestly, that is questionable at best. Why not just use all 20 weeks of data and average it out? Or, if you want to exclude odd weeks (sickness, vacations), then just exclude those and cut the study down to 16-18 weeks of actual results instead.
Basically, I have to conclude that this link proves nothing, the spanish study proves nothing, and there is no evidence that eating earlier/later somehow affects the CI/CO equation outside of maybe affecting self control.0 -
The ones who are the most honest have the best results.
And that is the easiest thing to let slip. Sometimes I'm just lazy.
We went to a home expo thing Saturday and most of the samples I passed. But I did eat 2 pecan halves and a little square of toffee, samples from my fave candy vendor. It is a small operation - no nutritional info listed. I could have tried to find an equivalent and figure out something...didn't.
When I do break into the peanut brittle I bought (SO good, and they only make it in winter due to humidity) I will weigh it and estimate high.0 -
For a community who so strongly supports the position that "meal timing does not affect weigh loss" I expected more peer reviewed papers supporting that position. I thought I'd be drowned in a review of the literature on that.
Only one person (+me) acknowledged the possibility that our general position might not be 100% correct all the time
Thanks for everyone's input0 -
But, but, but........I lost 65 pounds while working the night shift.
I must be a special snowflake!
LOL... That's why I said "scientific debate". The question is NOT whether you will lose weight at a calorie deficit. You WILL. But whether you lose weight faster or slower depending on meal timing and what other impacts there are. You might want to read the study. I personally don't care too much when I eat I know will lose weight. But I am curious about what studies show. Someone's going to come up with the "circadian rhytm diet" soon☺
It might have a small effect, but outweighed by compliance issues.
I can't have dinner before 9 and would give up if I couldn't have a normal dinner.
I lost more than predicted until well into the healthy weight zone.
It would have been a huge shame for me to worry and focus on eating before 7 or some such, as I simply cannot be home that early. And a shame for me to think I could not be successful given my results (95 lbs lost in 11 months).
People should not major in the minors.0 -
For a community who so strongly supports the position that "meal timing does not affect weigh loss" I expected more peer reviewed papers supporting that position. I thought I'd be drowned in a review of the literature on that.
Only one person (+me) acknowledged the possibility that our general position might not be 100% correct all the time
Thanks for everyone's input
I missed your peer articles saying otherwise0 -
For a community who so strongly supports the position that "meal timing does not affect weigh loss" I expected more peer reviewed papers supporting that position. I thought I'd be drowned in a review of the literature on that.
Only one person (+me) acknowledged the possibility that our general position might not be 100% correct all the time
Thanks for everyone's input
Then you didn't read the responses.
And you ignored the explaination of why your linked abstract is highly suspect and why it shouldn't be used as a basis for saying that meal timing matters unequivocally and has practical significance.
I'm sorry the user base didn't spend a lot of time drowning you in peer reviewed literature to refute your linked abstract. I guess they, like you, didn't feel the need to spend the time doing your research for you.0 -
For a community who so strongly supports the position that "meal timing does not affect weigh loss" I expected more peer reviewed papers supporting that position. I thought I'd be drowned in a review of the literature on that.
Only one person (+me) acknowledged the possibility that our general position might not be 100% correct all the time
Thanks for everyone's input
Then you didn't read the responses.
And you ignored the explaination of why your linked abstract is highly suspect and why it shouldn't be used as a basis for saying that meal timing matters unequivocally and has practical significance.
I'm sorry the user base didn't spend a lot of time drowning you in peer reviewed literature to refute your linked abstract. I guess they, like you, didn't feel the need to spend the time doing your research for you.
That's fine. I was just curious really. I didn't want people to go out of their way to do research.
Thanks for your input
Edited to add: You are right; I should have done my own research instead of asking a question.0 -
I am aware of research that indicates meal timing does/doesn't matter for building muscle, I haven't read as much about losing weight, which is what I thought this thread was about.
Even then, the meal timing research mostly supports the idea that meal timing isn't worth it except for the upper echelon athletes.
The biggest problem with meal timing studies in general is a lack of compliance (or proof of it anyways). So it is easy to cast doubt on the results of any of them.0 -
For a community who so strongly supports the position that "meal timing does not affect weigh loss" I expected more peer reviewed papers supporting that position. I thought I'd be drowned in a review of the literature on that.
Only one person (+me) acknowledged the possibility that our general position might not be 100% correct all the time
Thanks for everyone's input
Then you didn't read the responses.
And you ignored the explaination of why your linked abstract is highly suspect and why it shouldn't be used as a basis for saying that meal timing matters unequivocally and has practical significance.
I'm sorry the user base didn't spend a lot of time drowning you in peer reviewed literature to refute your linked abstract. I guess they, like you, didn't feel the need to spend the time doing your research for you.
That's fine. I was just curious really. I didn't want people to go out of their way to do research.
Thanks for your input
Edited to add: You are right; I should have done my own research instead of asking a question.
Asking wasn't the problem.For a community who so strongly supports the position that "meal timing does not affect weigh loss" I expected more peer reviewed papers supporting that position. I thought I'd be drowned in a review of the literature on that.
Lamenting the lack of participation you wanted and ignoring the participation your thread did get...
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions