So what if you have a little snack before bed?

2

Replies

  • Ricksh1000
    Ricksh1000 Posts: 88 Member
    edited September 2016
    3 boiled eggs & 10g butter (mashed) 30 mins before sleep last night, all within goal
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    No matter the views on fasting, this isn't the thread for a debate or to even bring it up. It's not what the OP was looking for. She asked if the snack hurt her, and the answer is no. There are plenty of debate threads to debate the merits of if, no?

    Why do you think you have the right to control the thread? This isn't a thread for that either.

    Not controlling anything. Just stating my opinion. Never tried to control the thread. Sorry you read the wrong way.

    Most of us could afford to not eat for weeks to months before we would run into any serious issues.

    You should try this and report your results to us. This would be incredibly interesting.

    I have been fasting, but not for weeks. However the world record is 382 days. I don't have that kind of fat, that guy weighed over 400 pounds and was down to 180 pounds when he finished his fast. So far my longest fast has only about 30 hours. I'm currently trying to do 2 to 3 fasts a week but irregularly.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf

    The major issue with calorie restriction is it tends to lower metabolism over time. People often run into plateaus where the calorie math just doesn't add up. One theory is that constant eating, even when it isn't enough keeps the body from really burning that much fat. For example if a person is on a LCHF diet and in ketosis, less than two teaspoons of sugar is enough to stop keytone production. Basically it is very easy to greatly reduce or stop your body from burning its fat, just eat. However if you don't eat, the body switches over to burning stored fat because it doesn't have extra sugars to burn. For most of us when we are burning our stored fat our bodies have more then enough food and our metabolism even goes up some. Kind of ideal.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212

    There is a drawback, at least initially fasting isn't pleasant. It gets easier but even after fasting a few dozen times now, I find there is still a few hours I feel slightly hungry. Kind of like exercise, you have to do it over and over before it gets easy. About 17% of my body is stored fat, so I'm in no danger of starving.

    From what I have read from people doing longer fasts, it is only the start that isn't pleasant. Once the metabolism starts increasing people generally feel good. Now if your body fat gets too low, then you will start to lose lean body mass and have all kinds of problems. For men that is closer to 5% body fat, probably more like 15% for women.

    Anyway people have been doing fasts for thousands of years. Modern calorie restricted diets, really only for 50 years or so. Considering how much a problem obesity has become, that isn't a good success record for the modern diet plans.

    EDIT: For people that love CISO ... there have been studies that show the average long term weight loss while fasting is about 0.57 pounds a day. If you work for the assumption of 3500 kc / lb of fat that works out to about 2000 kc / day. People will actually lose a little more than that short term as the body dehydrates some, but that weigh loss is temporary.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12461679
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.

    For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.

    Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.

    Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.

    When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.

    I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.

    For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.

    Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.

    Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.

    When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.

    I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.

    And none of that applies to the OP's question. Can you stop derailing this thread?
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    auddii wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.

    For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.

    Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.

    Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.

    When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.

    I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.

    And none of that applies to the OP's question. Can you stop derailing this thread?

    It applies completely. The OP asked if there was any harm in eating right before going to bed. From a calorie viewpoint, there isn't any harm but that doesn't mean there isn't a healthier choice. Nutrients are important, but most people have plenty, what is missing is allowing the body to recover from the stress of lots of blood sugar and excessive insulin levels. Blood glucose and insulin are critically important but too much of them causes disease and at this point metabolic syndrome related diseases are the now the leading cause of death worldwide. It used to be dirty water, now it is too much food.

    What is amazing is how offended many seem to be by simply saying it would have been just fine to miss a meal.
  • auddii
    auddii Posts: 15,357 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    auddii wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.

    For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.

    Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.

    Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.

    When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full

    There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964

    Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.

    I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.

    And none of that applies to the OP's question. Can you stop derailing this thread?

    It applies completely. The OP asked if there was any harm in eating right before going to bed. From a calorie viewpoint, there isn't any harm but that doesn't mean there isn't a healthier choice. Nutrients are important, but most people have plenty, what is missing is allowing the body to recover from the stress of lots of blood sugar and excessive insulin levels. Blood glucose and insulin are critically important but too much of them causes disease and at this point metabolic syndrome related diseases are the now the leading cause of death worldwide. It used to be dirty water, now it is too much food.

    What is amazing is how offended many seem to be by simply saying it would have been just fine to miss a meal.

    Except that she is under her calorie goal for the day. By a lot. You even said that undereating isn't a great idea. While she may or may not want to do intermittent fasting. In this case, if she wanted a snack (which she did), she should eat it. And then she asked if eating that snack would inhibit her goals. Which it won't because she's is still under goal.

    Did you read the OP? Or are you just answering based on the title alone. Or have you rambled so long that you're just repeating your same old mantra?
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,745 Member
    If OP had missed a meal, she would have been undereating. If you fast for days or weeks at a time as you mentioned, you would be undereating. I have no problem with an IF or 5:2 approach or similar, but what you seem to be talking about is long term fasting and undereating. You entirely ignored my point about supplements not being a substitute for food and the stuff you say about your body making amino acids is pure nonsense. Eating is not optional. Again, I am not really speaking to you, you are either a troll or irredeemably wedded to nonsense
    I am talking to the people who might read your posts and decide to go without food for days at a time. Not a good idea, people. Not a good idea.
  • CattOfTheGarage
    CattOfTheGarage Posts: 2,745 Member
    What you seem to be doing, in fact, is promoting VLCDs. Is that what you are doing? Just how long are these fasts you talk about? You mention days, weeks, even months. Just what kind of weekly calorie intake are you recommending? Let's be clear about this.
  • somegirlsdo
    somegirlsdo Posts: 37 Member
    I have a little snack like that before bed probably 4-5 nights a week. Hasn't stopped me from losing 30lbs so far.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2016
    dykask wrote: »
    CattOfTheGarage wrote: »
    Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.

    For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.

    Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.

    Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating.

    Oooookay. So let's be clear. You are asserting that eating nothing for a month isn't undereating, just fasting. But eating an average of 1500 calories per day for a month (for me that would be a calorie restriction) is undereating. Is that really what you are saying?
    There is a huge difference.

    We agree here!
    Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins.

    As the prior poster noted, it does not seem at all clear that getting nutrients from vitamins is as good for you as getting them from food. Part of this, as Marion Nestle among others has written about (in her case it was as part of an argument against restrictive diets) is that although we have identified some specific benefits (vitamins and minerals) in the foods we eat, we don't know a lot, including whether there are other positives from foods that seem to have healthful effects that have not been identified or, of course, possible positives from common combinations that are lost when primary nutrition is not from food (or the diet is incredibly restrictive).
    When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food.

    Your body uses stored fat as food whether you fast or not. If you have a calorie deficit you use more stored fat than you add. That's how I lost 95 lbs. (I did occasionally fast for religious reasons, but I am pretty sure that was irrelevant, as I did that in years I was gaining and maintaining too.)
    Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.

    What is the support for the idea that someone -- not morbidly obese -- can fast for a month and not lose muscle? And also that they won't have a decrease in metabolism?
    When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?

    No one is recommending the BL approach (well, other than you with your "consider skipping dinner and being below 1200 for the day as an opportunity!" perhaps). But the idea that fasting means that you can't have it no matter what is not supported.

    (I agree that short fasts within a calorie regime that is otherwise sensible for activity level does not lead to reduced metabolism, so don't give me cites showing that. That's not in dispute.)

    Also, I again don't understand why you are evangelizing IF (which is quite different from a month-long fast and doesn't even really involve what I'd consider actual fasting) in a thread where the OP has expressed no interest in it.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    I'll try to make this simple and explain why fasting provided fat reserves isn't risking starvation but reduced calorie consumption can be risking starvation. I'm defining starvation as an unmet energy deficit.

    Real simple:
    Eating ==> Body tries to store fat
    Fasting <== Body just consumes fat

    When you are fasting your body is consuming the stored fat that it has. Your body easily burns as much fat as it needs. There is an energy balance and basically no loss of lean body tissue. Switching into his consuming fat mode isn't an instant process, but even overnight the body is under way shifting into this fat burning mode and by 12 hours is likely consuming enough fat to avoid an energy deficit. In this mode metabolism is maintained and often even increased, although it can take a few days to get the full benefit of that. There are major changes in the amounts of various hormones in the blood and the internal consumption of proteins is greatly reduced. These changes are well underway just 12 to 16 hours into a fast. This is a completely normal and natural process.

    When you are eating frequently but eating at a calorie deficit the body often has difficultly consuming enough stored fat to make up the energy deficit. The main driver is to much insulin but there are other factors. When the body can't consume enough fat to make up the difference, it ends up with an energy deficiency. (Starvation) That can force a reduction in metabolism or even the undesired loss of lean body mass.

    (Note: You always have some insulin in your blood unless you are very sick, some insulin is important to good health and even building muscle.)

    By giving your body more time to shift over to consuming fat you gain the needed nutrition and avoid an energy deficit. You lose fat which leads to a safe reduction in mass without many of the side effects that come from a reduced calorie diet.

    So while people can and do lose mass with a calorie restrictive diet, it is often doing it the hard way and working against the bodies normal processes. Excluding exercise, that is why people hit plateaus and often fail while dieting. A calorie restricted diet is risking malnourishment where as fasting doesn't provided you have the fat resources.

    There are of coarse many variations, ketosis based diet for one tries to keep the body in the fat burning mode but does add external fuel. Exercise kicks off a lot of processes to help maintain and build lean body mass. Many variations, but I'm not considering these right here. There are also people that shouldn't fast for various reasons, children, pregnant women or women trying to be pregnant, people on some medications, people with low body fat, etc... However the beauty of fasting is that if you have problems you just have to start eating.

    People like to point out that meal frequency doesn't matter to calorie deficits, but that is comparing the amount of meals spread out through the day, it isn't comparing eating vs fasting.

    Fasting is simply the voluntary replacing the consumption of food with the consumption of stored fat. It doesn't risk an energy deficit because the body meets the energy demand by consuming fat. With a reduced calorie diet there is the risk the body can't meet the energy demands because the consumption of stored fat is a complex process that is hindered when there is food being consumed.

    Again:
    Eating ==> Body tries to store fat
    Fasting <== Body just consumes fat

    However, at least initially fasting isn't exactly pleasant. I think we can agree on that.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    Interesting study where obese women were put on 1400 kc/day diets, but with 1/2 having a large breakfast and lite supper and the other half have lite breakfast and large dinner. The Breakfast group lost more weight and even though they had much larger insulin production in the morning overall produced far less insulin than the dinner group. (page 2510) At least in the study it there were differences based on meal timing.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.20460/epdf

    All foods simulate insulin production to some degree. When we eat insulin drives glucose into cells, that creates more stored fat that can't be consumed until insulin levels are reduced. It isn't that stored fat isn't consumed, it is just the body has less opportunity to consume the fat and that leads to different results. For many people, it isn't until we are resting for a while that our insulin levels get low enough for fat consumption. However some people don't eat breakfast either, which is actually a form of short-term fasting. (Not recommended for children!)
  • tahxirez
    tahxirez Posts: 270 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    I have a slightly different viewpoint. It isn't that you hurt yourself, you didn't really as the body is quite flexible, it is you just missed an opportunity. It was already 6 hours since you ate and you were going to go to sleep anyway, unless hunger keeps you from sleeping why not just go to bed? That would just put more pressure on your body to burn a little bit more fat. It happens because your blood sugar gets low and the body is more likely to use your stored fat.

    Now one night doesn't make much of a difference in actual fat loss. It does though show that you can do something a little more. It turns out there are possibly a lot of benefits from short fasting periods. People even build diets around it because of the benefits and the fact that it is easier to manage one's eating when eating fewer hours of the day.

    I also disagree with this advice. It is of course fine to go to bed not feeling full but this strikes me as encouraging restriction outside comfortable levels. IME restricting in this manner makes me lazy/lethargic the next day as well as a ravenous food monster who eats anything in sight. The outcome being that a person trying to remain in goal will further restrict their urges and potentially start down a slippery slope. Fasting is well and good if it is planned and a part of your strategy. Restricting meals (not eating at or near your goal) is a different matter. Additionally if you already have an aggressive deficit further restricting your intake may have negative effects on your overall muscle retention and possibly lead to motivation or commitment issues down the road.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    There is so much fear and nonsense being thrown around, it is no wonder people have a hard time losing weight.

    Fasting is only uncomfortable when you haven't done it before, after a little bit of it your body gets used to it. Hunger often isn't physical or even real. Once one has missed a few meals, you quickly figure out that it no big deal. It does help if you normally eat healthy. A short fast isn't as affective as a longer fast, but it does help. Once you move past about 12 hours, the benefits really start happening. There is a lot of debate about if 12 hours is enough but most agree by 16 hours your body is freely using stored fat. Anyway almost all of us fast some everyday. Are you starving when you get out of bed? Probably not.


    Eating ==> Body tries to store fat
    Fasting <== Body just consumes fat

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-great-medical-disconnect
    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/obesity-solving-the-two-compartment-problem/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-biggest-loser-diet/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/feasts-and-fasts-the-cycle-of-life-fasting-part-11/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/atkins-revolution-hormonal-obesity-part-xix/
    https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    People love to create calorie goals, but the body doesn't care about that. The body cares about digesting and using the food consumed. When you eat, you increase your insulin. Increased insulin causes glucose to be consumed by most types of body cells, including your fat cells. Depending on your metabolic health, it can take some time for the insulin to drop to levels where your body can start to use the stored fat. That is why it is better to skip a meal once in a while and give your body a chance to work rather than to constantly under eating. I'm not claiming you can't lose weight by under-eating, it just isn't the healthiest way to do it. I'm over simplifying, but I'm NOT simplifying as much as the calorie restriction claims do. The human body isn't so simple.

    It isn't about goals, or numbers, it is about letting your body work they way it is designed to work.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited September 2016
    .
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    .

    You can't even! ;)
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    .

    ^This.

    Hey, dykast...Take it outside.

    We are well aware of IF, fasting, etc. There have been groups here and thousands of threads.

    We also know someone who is obsessing about "being right," when we see one.
  • Hornsby
    Hornsby Posts: 10,322 Member
    dykask wrote: »

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    Ignoring those fantastic, highly reputable sources you posted....

    I find it funny you find this is proof.
    Your proof insists that the 2000 calorie diet is an average. It isn't. Also, let me ask you a simple question. If a person is eating above their maintenance. They gain weight. Now, as you gain weight, what happens to calorie needs for maintenance? They go up. Now, if someone is consistently eating 530 calories more than they need at say 200 lbs, would that consistent intake of the same amount not arise at a maintenance at a higher weight? So, no, people wouldn't continue to gain in continuum.

    Needless to say, your "proof" is lacking.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    Hornsby wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    Ignoring those fantastic, highly reputable sources you posted....

    I find it funny you find this is proof.
    Your proof insists that the 2000 calorie diet is an average. It isn't. Also, let me ask you a simple question. If a person is eating above their maintenance. They gain weight. Now, as you gain weight, what happens to calorie needs for maintenance? They go up. Now, if someone is consistently eating 530 calories more than they need at say 200 lbs, would that consistent intake of the same amount not arise at a maintenance at a higher weight? So, no, people wouldn't continue to gain in continuum.

    Needless to say, your "proof" is lacking.

    Who said anything about 2000 kc diet being an average? In fact the US government data shows that by the year 2000 the US per capita consumption was 2700 kc /day. That is counting children too. That value had increased from 2170 kc / day in 1970. Even a 100 kc/day excess would be 10 lbs a year using standard calorie math. The average weight gain is less than 6 lbs a year, and most of that comes at holidays.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10727591

    There are other proof including studies that show that as calories are increase expected weight gains aren't seen over the long term and likewise with calorie deficits and loses. Most studies that show losses (even short of what the calorie math suggests) are very short term. The REE is dependent on the calories amount of calories consumed. In general the more you eat the higher your metabolism and the less you eat the lower your metabolism. Two such studies:

    Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212

    Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.long

    At least on a large scale it is clear the "Calories out" is a dependent variable of "Calories in." Further evidence is seen by just how many people fail over and over again with diets. In general diets don't work well. Clearly some people do make them work and a group of people do succeed by eating less and moving more, but it appears that accounts for only about 5% or less of the people that actually diet. Over a short term period results are often more positive and many of the studies used to justify calorie restriction are short term. That isn't proof that metabolism is independent of consumption but it does indicate just how complex metabolism actually is.

    Additionally my sources are largely medical doctors, researchers and people looking through what research is showing. I do tend to discount non-scientific base sources of which there is a vast amount with it comes to weight loss.
  • Wynterbourne
    Wynterbourne Posts: 2,235 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    There is so much fear and nonsense being thrown around, it is no wonder people have a hard time losing weight.

    Fasting is only uncomfortable when you haven't done it before, after a little bit of it your body gets used to it. Hunger often isn't physical or even real. Once one has missed a few meals, you quickly figure out that it no big deal. It does help if you normally eat healthy. A short fast isn't as affective as a longer fast, but it does help. Once you move past about 12 hours, the benefits really start happening. There is a lot of debate about if 12 hours is enough but most agree by 16 hours your body is freely using stored fat. Anyway almost all of us fast some everyday. Are you starving when you get out of bed? Probably not.


    Eating ==> Body tries to store fat
    Fasting <== Body just consumes fat

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-great-medical-disconnect
    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/obesity-solving-the-two-compartment-problem/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-biggest-loser-diet/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/feasts-and-fasts-the-cycle-of-life-fasting-part-11/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/atkins-revolution-hormonal-obesity-part-xix/
    https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    People love to create calorie goals, but the body doesn't care about that. The body cares about digesting and using the food consumed. When you eat, you increase your insulin. Increased insulin causes glucose to be consumed by most types of body cells, including your fat cells. Depending on your metabolic health, it can take some time for the insulin to drop to levels where your body can start to use the stored fat. That is why it is better to skip a meal once in a while and give your body a chance to work rather than to constantly under eating. I'm not claiming you can't lose weight by under-eating, it just isn't the healthiest way to do it. I'm over simplifying, but I'm NOT simplifying as much as the calorie restriction claims do. The human body isn't so simple.

    It isn't about goals, or numbers, it is about letting your body work they way it is designed to work.

    And it's all coming out of your mouth. I really really really hope none of the newbies here think you have any clue what you are saying. You seriously risk causing someone harm and that is nothing to play with. I'm sorry, but the dangerous nonsense you are spouting makes me sick.
  • queenliz99
    queenliz99 Posts: 15,317 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    Hornsby wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    Ignoring those fantastic, highly reputable sources you posted....

    I find it funny you find this is proof.
    Your proof insists that the 2000 calorie diet is an average. It isn't. Also, let me ask you a simple question. If a person is eating above their maintenance. They gain weight. Now, as you gain weight, what happens to calorie needs for maintenance? They go up. Now, if someone is consistently eating 530 calories more than they need at say 200 lbs, would that consistent intake of the same amount not arise at a maintenance at a higher weight? So, no, people wouldn't continue to gain in continuum.

    Needless to say, your "proof" is lacking.

    Who said anything about 2000 kc diet being an average? In fact the US government data shows that by the year 2000 the US per capita consumption was 2700 kc /day. That is counting children too. That value had increased from 2170 kc / day in 1970. Even a 100 kc/day excess would be 10 lbs a year using standard calorie math. The average weight gain is less than 6 lbs a year, and most of that comes at holidays.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10727591

    There are other proof including studies that show that as calories are increase expected weight gains aren't seen over the long term and likewise with calorie deficits and loses. Most studies that show losses (even short of what the calorie math suggests) are very short term. The REE is dependent on the calories amount of calories consumed. In general the more you eat the higher your metabolism and the less you eat the lower your metabolism. Two such studies:

    Changes in energy expenditure resulting from altered body weight.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212

    Long-term persistence of adaptive thermogenesis in subjects who have maintained a reduced body weight
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/4/906.long

    At least on a large scale it is clear the "Calories out" is a dependent variable of "Calories in." Further evidence is seen by just how many people fail over and over again with diets. In general diets don't work well. Clearly some people do make them work and a group of people do succeed by eating less and moving more, but it appears that accounts for only about 5% or less of the people that actually diet. Over a short term period results are often more positive and many of the studies used to justify calorie restriction are short term. That isn't proof that metabolism is independent of consumption but it does indicate just how complex metabolism actually is.

    Additionally my sources are largely medical doctors, researchers and people looking through what research is showing. I do tend to discount non-scientific base sources of which there is a vast amount with it comes to weight loss.

    You are wrong, this is not about you or your beliefs. The OP asked a simple question and you twisted it into some sort of personal agenda.
  • dykask
    dykask Posts: 800 Member
    edited September 2016
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    There is so much fear and nonsense being thrown around, it is no wonder people have a hard time losing weight.

    Fasting is only uncomfortable when you haven't done it before, after a little bit of it your body gets used to it. Hunger often isn't physical or even real. Once one has missed a few meals, you quickly figure out that it no big deal. It does help if you normally eat healthy. A short fast isn't as affective as a longer fast, but it does help. Once you move past about 12 hours, the benefits really start happening. There is a lot of debate about if 12 hours is enough but most agree by 16 hours your body is freely using stored fat. Anyway almost all of us fast some everyday. Are you starving when you get out of bed? Probably not.


    Eating ==> Body tries to store fat
    Fasting <== Body just consumes fat

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-great-medical-disconnect
    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/obesity-solving-the-two-compartment-problem/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-biggest-loser-diet/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/feasts-and-fasts-the-cycle-of-life-fasting-part-11/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/atkins-revolution-hormonal-obesity-part-xix/
    https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    People love to create calorie goals, but the body doesn't care about that. The body cares about digesting and using the food consumed. When you eat, you increase your insulin. Increased insulin causes glucose to be consumed by most types of body cells, including your fat cells. Depending on your metabolic health, it can take some time for the insulin to drop to levels where your body can start to use the stored fat. That is why it is better to skip a meal once in a while and give your body a chance to work rather than to constantly under eating. I'm not claiming you can't lose weight by under-eating, it just isn't the healthiest way to do it. I'm over simplifying, but I'm NOT simplifying as much as the calorie restriction claims do. The human body isn't so simple.

    It isn't about goals, or numbers, it is about letting your body work they way it is designed to work.

    And it's all coming out of your mouth. I really really really hope none of the newbies here think you have any clue what you are saying. You seriously risk causing someone harm and that is nothing to play with. I'm sorry, but the dangerous nonsense you are spouting makes me sick.

    So eating healthy, exercising and beneficial fasting is dangerous nonsense?

    This isn't anything that I've made up. In fact I was initially apposed to my current position. I've posted sources of which there are many more and continually posted reasoned responses. Others have attacked me personally and make outlandish claims like you just did by claiming I'm posting dangerous nonsense. I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not pushing anything. I suggested the OP would have been better off just skipping her make up meal. Other posts have only explained and expanded on the reasoning because so many people were offended by such a simple and safe suggestion.

    What has made me reevaluate my positions was the realization that the world is dying from metabolic issues. In the US life expectancy has started to decrease because metabolic diseases. The world is eating itself to death, that is what should bother you.
  • dragon_girl26
    dragon_girl26 Posts: 2,187 Member
    edited September 2016
    Wow, this thread turned into a dumpster fire really quickly.

    To answer the question in a nutshell, no...timing of meals is not important. As long as you are at or under your calorie goal for the day, it won't inhibit your weight loss.
    Like me, for instance....every Saturday night I eat dinner around 9-10 PM. I usually have a snack later at night sometimes during the week. Didn't affect me one bit when I was in weight loss mode.
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,454 Member
    dykask wrote: »
    Wynterbourne wrote: »
    dykask wrote: »
    There is so much fear and nonsense being thrown around, it is no wonder people have a hard time losing weight.

    Fasting is only uncomfortable when you haven't done it before, after a little bit of it your body gets used to it. Hunger often isn't physical or even real. Once one has missed a few meals, you quickly figure out that it no big deal. It does help if you normally eat healthy. A short fast isn't as affective as a longer fast, but it does help. Once you move past about 12 hours, the benefits really start happening. There is a lot of debate about if 12 hours is enough but most agree by 16 hours your body is freely using stored fat. Anyway almost all of us fast some everyday. Are you starving when you get out of bed? Probably not.


    Eating ==> Body tries to store fat
    Fasting <== Body just consumes fat

    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-great-medical-disconnect
    http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/do-calories-matter
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/first-law-thermodynamics-irrelevant/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/obesity-solving-the-two-compartment-problem/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/the-biggest-loser-diet/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/feasts-and-fasts-the-cycle-of-life-fasting-part-11/
    https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/atkins-revolution-hormonal-obesity-part-xix/
    https://authoritynutrition.com/debunking-the-calorie-myth/

    The human body doesn't work by the numbers. Proof is simple. According to the US government, Americans are consuming 530 kc / day in 2000 average than they did in 1970. http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
    If calorie expenditure was independent of consumption it would imply people would be gaining 1 lb / week from the extra calories. Americans are fat, but not that fat! Very few people actually gain 50 lbs a year, year after year. The numbers don't add up. It is clear that what you eat changes what TDEE.

    People love to create calorie goals, but the body doesn't care about that. The body cares about digesting and using the food consumed. When you eat, you increase your insulin. Increased insulin causes glucose to be consumed by most types of body cells, including your fat cells. Depending on your metabolic health, it can take some time for the insulin to drop to levels where your body can start to use the stored fat. That is why it is better to skip a meal once in a while and give your body a chance to work rather than to constantly under eating. I'm not claiming you can't lose weight by under-eating, it just isn't the healthiest way to do it. I'm over simplifying, but I'm NOT simplifying as much as the calorie restriction claims do. The human body isn't so simple.

    It isn't about goals, or numbers, it is about letting your body work they way it is designed to work.

    And it's all coming out of your mouth. I really really really hope none of the newbies here think you have any clue what you are saying. You seriously risk causing someone harm and that is nothing to play with. I'm sorry, but the dangerous nonsense you are spouting makes me sick.

    So eating healthy, exercising and beneficial fasting is dangerous nonsense?

    This isn't anything that I've made up. In fact I was initially apposed to my current position. I've posted sources of which there are many more and continually posted reasoned responses. Others have attacked me personally and make outlandish claims like you just did by claiming I'm posting dangerous nonsense. I'm not attacking anyone and I'm not pushing anything. I suggested the OP would have been better off just skipping her make up meal. Other posts have only explained and expanded on the reasoning because so many people were offended by such a simple and safe suggestion.

    What has made me reevaluate my positions was the realization that the world is dying from metabolic issues. In the US life expectancy has started to decrease because metabolic diseases. The world is eating itself to death, that is what should bother you.

    Oh, well in that case carry on.

    I didn't know you were saving the world.

    Metabolic issues (caused by weight) happen because people eat too much. Full stop.

    What does this have to do with not eating before bed?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories