So what if you have a little snack before bed?

dykask

queenliz99 wrote: »

show previous quotes

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

GottaBurnEmAll

You are arguing about more than skipping a meal.

You are saying that a form of IF that cuts calories by fasting (meal skipping, and thus having a low caloric intake for a few days a week) is metabolically preferential to overall calorie reduction.

That's just wrong.

diannethegeek

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

AmandaHugginkiss

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

Your reasoning is so circular that it's almost impossible to even comprehend what it is you're trying to convey.

Seriously, everything I've ever seen you post is designed to do nothing but confuse new people and frustrate the rest of us.

dykask

diannethegeek wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

WinoGelato

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Lovee_Dove7

Test your blood sugar first thing upon waking up in the morning. That's a good way to know how what/how you are eating is affecting your metabolism.
Also, if you are using a fitness/sleep tracker, you can see if this eating pattern is interrupting your sleep cycle.
How does your digestion feel when you eat this way?
Notice your energy levels on the following day. I avoid late night eating myself. If I'm hungry late at night, it's because I stayed up too late, and am feeling hungry again, or because my eating during the day wasn't that great.
For older women, they can feel hungry just due to the fact that their progesterone levels are too low.

dykask

WinoGelato wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

Wynterbourne

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

WinoGelato

Wynterbourne wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

Machka9

whitegems wrote: »

I just got back from a late night meeting and haven't eaten for at least 6 hours because there was absolutely no time for dinner there.
Anyways, it's about 9:15 pm, and I go to bed at 10:30pm ish; I had a hard boiled egg, 2 light string cheeses (Cache Valley kind), and 3 slices of Columbus low sodium oven toasted turkey breast deli meat. Total Cal: 250 ish; total fat: 10 (6 from sat) grams; 37 protein.
This snack is well beneath my total calorie, sodium, fat, and carb goals; my question is, whether or not this will inhibit me from my weight loss goals/progress.

You'll be fine.

And if this happens again in the future ... you'll be fine again.

In fact, if you were still well beneath your total calorie goal for the day, you could have eaten more!

dykask

WinoGelato wrote: »

show previous quotes

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

Hornsby

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

The OP didn't ask if she would have been okay to not eat anything. She asked if it was okay that she ALREADY HAD eaten something. There's a difference there.

queenliz99

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

Horrified? I've been here awhile, I have not witnessed horrified

WinoGelato

dykask wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

Machka9

WinoGelato wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

Mexican food is always a good choice.

Noreenmarie1234

i eat 1000+ cals right before bed its fine

lemurcat12

WinoGelato wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

Perfect analogy. And when people respond to the "no, eat Italian" posts with "why are you pushing Italian food when OP wanted Mexican and Mexican is perfectly good," that does not mean that they are expressing horror or fear at the idea of Italian food. It's just that no one needs to eat Italian food to lose weight.

(Although one certainly can!)

LiminalAscendance

WinoGelato wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

I don't have a dog in this race (never tried IF, although certain aspects of it appeal to me). However, your example amused me somewhat.

Often on these forums, I witness the following:
OP: "I'm looking for suggestions on lower calorie foods."
Forum: "What? Just fit it in. I eat [pizza/ice cream/candy] every day!"

Another example:
OP: "I'm trying to eat clean. Anyone have any suggestions?"
Forum: "Clean? No, that definition is totally meaningless. Eat whatever you want."

Seem familiar?

Apparently, group consensus (based on posting frequency) is what determines the validity of addressing the actual question.

queenliz99

LiminalAscendance wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

I don't have a dog in this race (never tried IF, although certain aspects of it appeal to me). However, your example amused me somewhat.

Often on these forums, I witness the following:
OP: "I'm looking for suggestions on lower calorie foods."
Forum: "What? Just fit it in. I eat [pizza/ice cream/candy] every day!"

Another example:
OP: "I'm trying to eat clean. Anyone have any suggestions?"
Forum: "Clean? No, that definition is totally meaningless. Eat whatever you want."

Seem familiar?

Apparently, group consensus (based on posting frequency) is what determines the validity of addressing the actual question.

Summed up nicely! <rolly eyes>

lemurcat12

LiminalAscendance wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

I don't have a dog in this race (never tried IF, although certain aspects of it appeal to me). However, your example amused me somewhat.

Often on these forums, I witness the following:
OP: "I'm looking for suggestions on lower calorie foods."
Forum: "What? Just fit it in. I eat [pizza/ice cream/candy] every day!"

Another example:
OP: "I'm trying to eat clean. Anyone have any suggestions?"
Forum: "Clean? No, that definition is totally meaningless. Eat whatever you want."

Seem familiar?

No, I think that's a misrepresentation of what happens.

For example, what I usually say with a "looking for clean eaters!" thread is "well, what are you looking for and what does clean mean to you?" Then I explain how I eat (some would call it "clean" or "mostly clean," but since I eat processed foods and don't like the term anyway, I never would, and say that if what the person is actually interested in is eating a healthful diet and talking about cooking from whole foods or nutrition, I'm always interested, but if the person wants a group who avoid specific foods that I eat, then maybe I'm not the right respondent.

Personally, I think if someone is cutting out a food because they think they can't eat that food and lose, they should know that. (And, in this thread, if someone thinks they can't eat before bed and lose, they should know that's not the case.)

If someone prefers to cut out that food (there are foods I don't eat), then they should. But it shouldn't be made on a false understanding (like that cheese makes you gain weight beyond it's calories, which is something I've heard claimed). Similarly, OP shouldn't be told that she has to fast to lose weight effectively.

So seems consistent to me.

Also, the opposite of eating clean doesn't mean eating without regard to food choice. I happen to think that eating based on overall nutrition is an approach that tends to lead to a more healthful overall diet, for many.

Wynterbourne

WinoGelato wrote: »

show previous quotes

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

This. A million times this. This is exactly what happened in this thread, but Mr. Italian refuses to see it no matter how many times or ways we explain the analogy.

NancyYale

Eating a small snack before bed won't hurt a thing as long as you are staying below that deficit line. For me, it's a nightly occurance.

clicketykeys

LiminalAscendance wrote: »

show previous quotes

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Wynterbourne wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

diannethegeek wrote: »

dykask wrote: »

queenliz99 wrote: »

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.

You are not correct. It isn't about what I believe or even want to believe. I posted a simple suggestion and others started making outlandish claims about how dangerous my suggestion was. What is wrong is people pushing the idea that missing a meal is going to cause any serious harm. In fact if you are healthy and have some fat to spare, it is a healthy choice. Your post is an example of twisting something into what it isn't. If you don't agree you don't have to respond.

I understand that people are fearful of missing a meal. I used to be that way too. What I didn't know is how beneficial it can be to miss a meal. I prefer to skip dinner when I can but I used to really look down on adults that skipped breakfast. As I studied the issues more I come to realize it isn't a bad thing in itself.

You are free to disagree, but it isn't right to suggest this is anymore of a personal agenda that people pushing you should eat because the one is below goal for a day. This isn't about beliefs is about trying to understand what really happens in our bodies.

I don't think anyone who's responded to you believes that missing a meal is dangerous. Many of them have suggested doing it in other threads where those comments were actually on topic. But from what I've gleaned from your posts, you seem to be suggesting that not skipping meals is dangerous, will kill everyone, and that people should try and go without food for up to 30 days unless they want to die.

I've never even came close to claiming to not skipping a meal is dangerous. However I do think that eating even a small meal does reduce the bodies ability to use lipolysis to break down stored fats. How much and for how long would be highly variable. There is a difference between not losing fat and doing something dangerous. Even if such eating patterns move a person to reduced metabolism, that is more uncomfortable than dangerous. Metabolic syndrome that is dangerous wasn't caused by people trying to control their weight.

Why bother eating at all? Sounds like optimal results would be achieved from never eating again.

Well death isn't the goal is it? Once your fat reserves are exhausted you will actually starve and your body will start consuming lean body mass which will lead to harm and death.

However just to humor you:
Some people have stopped eating until their fat reserves were low. I posted this before but he longest medically monitored fast was 382 days and the man went from 456 lbs to 180 lbs.

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

That though is very extreme and there are risks in fasting that way. There are people that do fast for multiple weeks to reverse T2D. Hopefully those people would only do that under a doctor's supervision and there possible complications with medication.

https://intensivedietarymanagement.com/category/patient-testimonials/
There are also many blogs, youtube videos, etc.

However, good long term health typically requires a healthy diet. It doesn't necessary though require a calorie restricted diet. Fasting is just a tool for adults that have reasonable health and surplus stored fat.

You realize you're humoring sarcasm right? It was a rhetorical question.

Seriously though, what does any of this have to do with OP's question and how does it help her? She wanted to know if eating a small snack within her calorie goals before bed will hinder her progress. The answer is no.

/endthread

My original post was that she would have been fine to not even eat anything. Too many people here are horrified about even missing a single meal. I only responded so some of the posts since then. I'm seriously shocked by how little people know about something that has been safely used for thousands of years.

No one is horrified about missing a meal. It's unnecessary. That is all. Some people have great success with IF and that's fine, but it too is not necessary. Since the OP actually wanted to eat food, I think people are just unclear why you would push something that isn't even what the OP asked about and then insinuate that it is a healthier approach than just a sustained calorie restriction, something most people here have had great success with.

Try it this way. You say, "I'm hungry for Mexican food, should I have tacos or enchiladas?" and I come in and say, "you know instead of Mexican you should try Italian food. It's much better." People ask me why it's better and I come up with a bunch of reasons that at the end of the day don't matter because you wanted Mexican food to begin with.

I don't have a dog in this race (never tried IF, although certain aspects of it appeal to me). However, your example amused me somewhat.

Often on these forums, I witness the following:
OP: "I'm looking for suggestions on lower calorie foods."
Forum: "What? Just fit it in. I eat [pizza/ice cream/candy] every day!"

Another example:
OP: "I'm trying to eat clean. Anyone have any suggestions?"
Forum: "Clean? No, that definition is totally meaningless. Eat whatever you want."

Seem familiar?

Apparently, group consensus (based on posting frequency) is what determines the validity of addressing the actual question.

I haven't seen either. @lemurcat12 summed up the latter nicely. If the OP *gives* no definition of what they mean by "clean eating," then there's no way for people to respond effectively, since the phrase is used in significantly different ways by different people. And then the thread usually descends into an argument about what clean eating actually means and whether or not it's helpful for weight loss.

I regularly check threads about high-protein/high-fiber foods (haven't seen one asking just for low-cal foods) and they've got lots of good suggestions, with the occasional reminder that it's perfectly fine to eat non-nutritive foods.

Anyway, to actually answer the OP, it's perfectly fine to have a snack before bed. Which has already been pointed out by others ;p