How important is WHEN you eat calories

jerryvo

I find myself with a ton of calories to eat at the end of the day to make my goal so I usually have a heavy dinner. I generally don't eat anything after 7:00 but is having such a heavy calorie load in the second half of the day a problem?

Typical day: 1870 calorie goal

Short jog with dog -50 calories
Breakfast 250 calories
AM Snack 250 calories
Lunch break at Gym -400 calories
Lunch 450 calories
Mid day snack 200

1170 remaining for dinner

nomeejerome

Meal timing is personal preference.

Ainar

Not important at all. It's personal preferance. Just do what suits to you, it has no effect on anything.

KarenisPaleo

Timing doesn't matter. Good news for once!!

bartman4

Agree that timing doesn't matter at all. Feel free to eat under your goal. That's OK too.

celadontea

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat. It is better to have a few meals throughout the day that are all around the same size and total up to your calorie goal. It is better for your metabolism as well as the hormones in your body related to digestion.

CyberEd312

It is nothing but personal preference..... Best of Luck

nomeejerome

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat. It is better to have a few meals throughout the day that are all around the same size and total up to your calorie goal. It is better for your metabolism as well as the hormones in your body related to digestion.

Nope.

Contrarian

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat. It is better to have a few meals throughout the day that are all around the same size and total up to your calorie goal. It is better for your metabolism as well as the hormones in your body related to digestion.

This has been proven to be incorrect.

Lleldiranne

As long as you're feeling satisfied through the day, and not prone to overeat when you get to dinner, it doesn't really matter.

Also be wary of eating back all your exercise calories … it depends on how sure you are of the accuracy (if you're using the machine's estimate at the gym, not very accurate; a HRM, more accurate)

diannethegeek

I'll add my voice to the personal preference vote. If snacking during the day helps you stay on track, great! If you prefer to eat two meals in an 8 hour window, that's good too! Whatever helps you stay within your calorie goal for the day is fine.

55in13

I wasn't going to post, but since someone went the other way I will add my voice to the din. Recent studies have completely blown away any notion that meal timing matters. It does not. What made the recent studies so definitive is that they incorporated data mining; it turns out there were hundreds of thousands of in patient records that had exact meal times and all manner of weights and measures they could use to determine impact. It has none.

Fitnin6280

I always eat about 70% of my cals at or after 7:00 pm. I really don't think it matters.

SideSteel

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat.

The problem with this type of thinking is that you're focusing on acute processes and not on long term things.

If you are in a caloric deficit over time and eat all of your food in one big meal, you may store fat after that big meal but you are burning fat before and afterwards. Fat accumulation is the difference between fat storage and fat oxidation, and this is governed by energy balance over time.

IZackV13

There is no difference in meal timing whatsoever. Popular "science" and even dieticians have mislead the average Joe to thinking they have to be tupperware-toting lunatics, eating 6-7 small meals a day, yada yada. Rubbish. This is not to say this can't work, but it's more a tactic of reducing the urge to overeat or binge rather than have any measureable effect on gains/losses in dieting.

I am a big proponent of I.F. (Intermittent Fasting). There are different ways to do it, but I essentially only eat during an 8-hour window each day. This allows you to eat larger meals without all the tupperware-hysteria, and you still achieve your macro-nutrient ratios.

Please read again: THERE IS NO TRUTH TO EATING FREQUENTLY KEEPING YOUR METABOLISM "BURNING" HOT!!!! Your metabolic rate on an I.F. plan actually INCREASES, as well as it improving your blood sugar levels (after a few days adjustment), triglycerides, and noticable ability to burn fat faster (especially if training in a fasted state, as I am currently doing).

I know, sounds crazy, but research it. I.F. is legit. Google "leangains".

Fitnin6280

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat.

The problem with this type of thinking is that you're focusing on acute processes and not on long term things.

If you are in a caloric deficit over time and eat all of your food in one big meal, you may store fat after that big meal but you are burning fat before and afterwards. Fat accumulation is the difference between fat storage and fat oxidation, and this is governed by energy balance over time.

This is a great way to explain it. Thanks Side Steel!

SideSteel

Regarding "how important" it is to time your nutrients:

1) It may be important for gym performance.
2) It may be important for dietary adherence/hunger/satiety.
3) It may be important for blood glucose regulation.

But for all of the above, methods of meal timing are going to vary from person to person so you can't really make concrete recommendations, in my opinion, that are going to apply to everyone.

It's not likely to be very important for fat loss outside of the above circumstances, assuming we are talking about meal distributions that remotely resemble "normal" eating habits.

MikeDasTrainer

Unless you have a metabolic condition is does not matter. However, I'm still all for the simple carb and protein sorce after a workout to inhibit muscle breakdown for energy

RockClimber69

Not at all. Length of eating window though....now that's a different story.

Deb226

My experience has been to eat bigger meals at Breakfast and Lunch time when your most active during the day and your metabolism is working faster to burn off the fat and calories, later have a small meal when your going to be less likely active and more relaxed.

SideSteel

Not at all. Length of eating window though....now that's a different story.

How is that a different story?

sharleengc

I think it's all personal preference. As long as it's within your calorie goal, who cares when it is.

That being said, there are people that swear that if they eat after ___ at night, they gain weight or lose slower or something along that line. Probably just how their metabolism is.

For me, the time doesn't matter as long as I stick within my goal. Example, last night I didn't eat dinner until 11 when I got home from the 49ers game (didn't eat anything at the stadium) and I still lost overnight to be at my typical morning weight.

IZackV13

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat. It is better to have a few meals throughout the day that are all around the same size and total up to your calorie goal. It is better for your metabolism as well as the hormones in your body related to digestion.

This is 100% patently false. Your metabolic rate will be appreciably higher following an intermittent fasting regimen (or similar dieting plan) rather than eating multiple times throughout the day. Insulin level are also more tightly controlled.

born2drum

I eat when I want and when I need too. Doesn't really matter, though. Whatever floats your boat

AglaeaC

My experience has been to eat bigger meals at Breakfast and Lunch time when your most active during the day and your metabolism is working faster to burn off the fat and calories, later have a small meal when your going to be less likely active and more relaxed.

What does "metabolism working faster" mean?

Alisha28

I usually eat my biggest meal at dinner to for me its my favorite meal so I rather have extra cals for it and if I want a yogurt with fruit and nuts at night too

Mommybug2

I do the same thing. I eat about 1/4 of my calories for breakfast then I have a small lunch and snack so at dinner I still have almost half of my calories left to eat. I eat a normal dinner with my family no special "diet" dinner or anything. I simply just ensure I take no more then one serving of everything. Then I normally eat a small desert and still have calories left over for a small late night snack too.

I have lost almost 60lbs in 7 months and am still going strong. Never hungry, never tired. So I say if it works for you go for it.

dressagester

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat. It is better to have a few meals throughout the day that are all around the same size and total up to your calorie goal. It is better for your metabolism as well as the hormones in your body related to digestion.

Was that a class at Hollywood Upstairs Medical College?

javacafe

I practice Intermittent Fasting, and limit my food intake to a 4-hour window in the evening. For weight management, I don't think there is anything as important as the total amount of calories consumed . If I consume too much or to little, the concomitant results will speak for themselves.

However, IF does two things for me: (1) It helps me *enormously* in controlling how many calories inside of myself. There is only so much that you can eat at one sitting (provided you are not eating junk). (2) During most of the day, when my stomach is virtually devoid of food (a state that I used to find uncomfortable initially, but have gotten quite used to), I am at cognitively at my sharpest. I love how I can focus on any work that requires mental acuity . Surprisingly, even my physical energy levels are higher throughout the day. Indeed, I have gotten used to doing my weight training at the end of the fast.

Is fasting beneficial by itself? Not everyone will agree. But, personally, I happen to buy the purport of this documentary: https://player.vimeo.com/video/54089463 .

TR0berts

I am going to go against what everyone else is saying-- I learned in a nutrition class I just took that it is very critical. If you consume more than you need to replenish your body with energy at one given time you will store it as fat. It is better to have a few meals throughout the day that are all around the same size and total up to your calorie goal. It is better for your metabolism as well as the hormones in your body related to digestion.

Get your tuition refunded.

grantwashere

I just computed total pounds lost for the nays and total pounds lost for the yays. I dunno, you do the math on which philosophy is correct. Afterall, that IS the bottom line, right? \m/ \m/