Is it beneficial to eat all your daily food within a time slot?

dlp97dlp

Hi all,

Just interested as the question came to my mind.

Is their any benefit of eating all your food / meals and snacks within an 8 / 10 hour time frame.

I have heard this mentioned sometimes but I think mainly to do with weight loss.

If i fancy a large bowl of oatmeal a couple hours before I got to bed is that bad? or should you allow time of fasting prior to sleeping. Heard that protein turns to fat if you eat allot of it right before bed?

Any truth in any of what I have said?!!

Thanks

malibu927

No truth whatsoever. The only thing that turns to fat is calories you eat over maintenance.

Those who do intermittent fasting (what you're describing) generally do it for various reasons (don't/can't eat breakfast, have problems overeating late). But if you're eating the same number of calories as you would with a traditional eating schedule, then there is no difference. Some people can't eat before bed because it will cause sleep issues; if this isn't you, eating the oatmeal should be fine.

7elizamae

Nope. All that matters is how much you eat -- not when you eat it.

I do cut myself off from eating past a certain time in the evenings. But that's just because it's the time when I'm most tempted to snack snack snack.

rileysowner

Only if eating that way helps you stick to your calorie goal long term.

alteredsteve175

I tend to overeat late at night. So I started intermittent fasting. First meal at 2 pm. Second meal around 6 to 8 pm. Other food as needed or desired. Helps me stay within my calorie limit.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

rybo

dlp97dlp wrote: »

Hi all,

Just interested as the question came to my mind.

Is their any benefit of eating all your food / meals and snacks within an 8 / 10 hour time frame.

I have heard this mentioned sometimes but I think mainly to do with weight loss.

If i fancy a large bowl of oatmeal a couple hours before I got to bed is that bad? or should you allow time of fasting prior to sleeping. Heard that protein turns to fat if you eat allot of it right before bed?

Any truth in any of what I have said?!!

Thanks

There is benefit if that eating schedule allows you to stay within your calorie goals. For some it does, others don;t prefer that. As far as eating before bed, that's a myth that just won't die. You're food doesn't turn to fat if you eat before bed.
Actually, for some, they sleep better on a full stomach. Others however, have heartburn and digestion issues. But as far as protein turning to fat, that's nonsense.

sksk1026

Weight loss is about eating fewer calories than you burn up. It doesn't matter if you eat them all at 1 meal or 6 spreadout meals etc. You're asking about intermittent fasting which is when you don't eat for set periods, usually in some kind of repeating schedule. Two reasons for IF: you get more to eat in a shorter period which can be a pleasure, and not eating for longer periods can improve insulin resistance. I considered IF for the latter reason, but eventually decided against it because I want to learn to eat 3 reasonable meals a day for the rest of my life. You can find lots of info about IF by using the search facility on the forums. You might also be interested in something like the 5-2 diet which is about reduced calories on two days per week.

mmapags

filbo132 wrote: »

It doesn't matter what you eat, what matters is how much calories you eat in a 24 hour period.

Or in any period you'd like for measuring. Some folks work off weekly deficit. But your primary point is well taken.
Meal timing is largely irrelevant.

blambo61

Consider a person taking in calories at maintenance levels. Looking at extremes, if that person got all of their calories via a glucose drip that was metered evenly over 24-hrs, there would be no fat storage and the person would immediately use up the glucose as it was provided to the body. If the same person then were able to eat all their calories in one quick sitting, anything above the BMR would be used as glycogen storage and/or fat storage. Then for the next 23-hrs or so, the glycogen and the fat stored would be used to power the body. Any of that fat that was metabolized would do so at a cost of converting it back to a usable form (67% efficiency for gluconeogensis I've read), hence more calories would be burned with the person eating all the calories in a short window than having it spread out. The more you fast, the more temporary fat storage and converting the fat back into a usable form there will be as compared to eating continuously. The conversion to fat and back to a useful form uses more calories, so no, it isn't the same eating all at once or eating continuously. How many more calories fasting would burn is the question.

Wynterbourne

blambo61 wrote: »

Consider a person taking in calories at maintenance levels. Looking at extremes, if that person got all of their calories via a glucose drip that was metered evenly over 24-hrs, there would be no fat storage and the person would immediately use up the glucose as it was provided to the body. If the same person then were able to eat all their calories in one quick sitting, anything above the BMR would be used as glycogen storage and/or fat storage. Then for the next 23-hrs or so, the glycogen and the fat stored would be used to power the body. Any of that fat that was metabolized would do so at a cost of converting it back to a usable form (67% efficiency for gluconeogensis I've read), hence more calories would be burned with the person eating all the calories in a short window than having it spread out. The more you fast, the more temporary fat storage and converting the fat back into a usable form there will be as compared to eating continuously. The conversion to fat and back to a useful form uses more calories, so no, it isn't the same eating all at once or eating continuously. How many more calories fasting would burn is the question.

Nope.

LiftHeavyThings27105

What you are asking is something called Intermittent Fasting.

The concept that you are mentioning is called Intermittent Fasting (IF). This is not a diet. At all. This has not a dang thing to do with any "diet". All it is - plain and simple - is a schedule. You eat all of your caloric needs within this schedule (say, between 11am and 7pm - like I do) and outside of that schedule you do not eat. Super simple.

Why would anyone do this? Good question. I will let you investigate that question.

Gaining weight - or losing weight - is nothing more than knowing your maintenance caloric intake (that is the number of calories that you consume in one day without gaining or losing any weight.....) and then eating at a surplus (to gain weight) or then eating in a deficit (to lose weight). It is essentially all about Calories In vs. Calories Out.

So, if your maintenance caloric intake is 2,200 Calories (hey, just like mine) and you are doing IF and following the 11am - 7pm schedule (odd, so am I!) then you would eat all 2,200 Calories between 11am and 7pm (so, within that eight hour window). You would neither gain weight nor lose weight. And that has everything to do with the fact that you are eating 2,200 Calories (your maintenance value) and absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you eat only between 11am and 7PM.

EDIT: added for more clarity...

I also strongly subscribe to the concept of looking at the weekly totals. Thus, the daily numbers (both Calories and macro-nutrients) are simply data points on the weekly graph) are not as important from the mindset that you can be over or under one day and then "make it up" over the next day or two or three to ensure that you meet your weekly numbers. Gives a little bit or psychological relief for some....

blambo61

Wynterbourne wrote: »

blambo61 wrote: »

Consider a person taking in calories at maintenance levels. Looking at extremes, if that person got all of their calories via a glucose drip that was metered evenly over 24-hrs, there would be no fat storage and the person would immediately use up the glucose as it was provided to the body. If the same person then were able to eat all their calories in one quick sitting, anything above the BMR would be used as glycogen storage and/or fat storage. Then for the next 23-hrs or so, the glycogen and the fat stored would be used to power the body. Any of that fat that was metabolized would do so at a cost of converting it back to a usable form (67% efficiency for gluconeogensis I've read), hence more calories would be burned with the person eating all the calories in a short window than having it spread out. The more you fast, the more temporary fat storage and converting the fat back into a usable form there will be as compared to eating continuously. The conversion to fat and back to a useful form uses more calories, so no, it isn't the same eating all at once or eating continuously. How many more calories fasting would burn is the question.

Nope.

Why? What part is not true what I wrote?