Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
If a calorie is a calorie, why do we see this?
saintor1
Posts: 376 Member
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460
So 1400cal in both groups, first BF ate 700 / 500 /200 for breakfast / lunch / dinner and the D group ate the opposite.
And the kicker:
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.
So 1400cal in both groups, first BF ate 700 / 500 /200 for breakfast / lunch / dinner and the D group ate the opposite.
And the kicker:
However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
11
Replies
-
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.
So 1400cal in both groups, first BF ate 700 / 500 /200 for breakfast / lunch / dinner and the D group ate the opposite.
And the kicker:However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT.12 -
They were supposed to prepare the menus on their own, and although they averaged BMIs of over 32 and the calories are supposed to be 1400, the groups lost 8.7 lb and 3.6 lbs respectively, over 12 weeks.
When I was 32 BMI (and even when I was somewhat lighter, as I did this for too long), I lost more like 2 lb/week consistently (and certainly at least 1.5/week) at 1400 net cals (and I'm slightly less than average height for a woman), so about 24 lb in 12 weeks (even 1.5 lb/week is 18 lb, twice as much as the faster group) -- far more than either of the groups. Why? I was a careful measurer, and I had a decent amount of NEAT since I live in a big city and walk a lot for daily life. I mention this, because I consistently ate dinner at 9 pm and it was my largest meal (my breakfast and lunch weren't so much smaller, however, but dinner was closer to 700 than 200).
In any case, what those numbers look like to me is not that there's some inability to lose weight eating a big dinner or some magic to a small dinner and big breakfast (my own results make me incredibly skeptical about that, especially when we look at the actual numbers), but that neither group was necessarily entirely compliant or counting perfectly, and the smaller dinner bigger breakfast group -- which was likely the bigger change, especially if you look at the food choices -- did a better job not overeating.
This is consistent with my existing suspicion that it's easier to not accidentally overeat when meals are MORE different than your norm, although I also think that reduces over time as you get familiar with what you are doing.25 -
It's intriguing, but one thing that stood out to me is they were only actually monitored for 3/7 days per week. So the other 4 were all self reported. And not provided meals, but suggested replacements. So it's all estimates. And with such small numbers, only 30 per group, it's easy to get big fluctuations.23
-
Only 30 people? Then it sounds like statistical anomalies and math threw off the data. Not a big enough study to be accurate. The data is just fluff. Especially if their calorie intake wasn’t controlled every day!21
-
I don't believe studies are highly accurate but I do feel if you eat less towards the end of the day as opposed to more, there is some benefit to that. Now, does it have anything to do with eating less overall?? I know if I ate less at night my caloric intake would diminish because that's when my munchies hit. So as far as studies go, I take some of them with a grain of salt. UNLESS you're able to back them up with even more studies that seem more closely monitored. Just my take on it.4
-
self reported/self prepared/under 1k people/ metabolic syndrome/
NEAT numbers can be very different based on weight...
and did it reveal CO?
and their summary says more
In summary, our results demonstrate that high-calorie breakfast shows increased compliance and is more beneficial than high-calorie dinner for weight loss, insulin sensitivity, and hunger suppression. Our study indicates that avoidance of large meals in the evening may be particularly beneficial in improving glucose and lipid profiles and may lead to reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Thus, in people affected by the metabolic syndrome, dietary recommendations aimed at weight reduction and prevention of high postprandial insulin excursions should include advice on time-of-day of nutrient intake in addition to the overall food intake. However, the long-term potential health benefits of high energy intake in the morning need to be assessed. O
So basically they are saying what the WL study in the states has said for years...people who eat breakfast lose and maintain weight more successfully than those who don't.
not ground breaking...
8 -
Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.3
-
They obviously weren't tracking properly - at that size BMI, on 1400 cals per day, they should have been losing at least a couple of pounds a week! I lose weight on that!12
-
Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
The calories weren't controlled. Both groups seem to have lost less than they should have at the calories provided than if they'd truly been compliant, but the big breakfast group was either more compliant or moved more, most likely.
It would be very interesting to see this study with truly controlled cals, but it's hard to do 12 weeks with such a study. It would then lead to questions about NEAT (we discussed a study recently that supposedly did find that eating breakfast increased NEAT, which offset the fact that people who skipped breakfast tended to eat less over the course of the day -- I don't know if anyone saw the actual study, so we were discussing assuming the account of it were true, which is always risky).4 -
"It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT. "
Pardon the ignorance here...what is NEAT? Thanks!0 -
Suezq72760 wrote: »"It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT. "
Pardon the ignorance here...what is NEAT? Thanks!
Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis
All the calories you burn throughout the day, when not exercising.7 -
Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
^^This.
Plus time of day of weigh-ins...plus the set number of calories allegedly eaten, plus - if it were this simple I'm pretty sure we all would have done this.
It's still about calories, not bogus 30 sample "studies."3 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »Only 30 people? Then it sounds like statistical anomalies and math threw off the data. Not a big enough study to be accurate. The data is just fluff. Especially if their calorie intake wasn’t controlled every day!cmriverside wrote: »Did both groups have the same maintenance cals. if one was higher (BF group) and ate the same cals as the other group they would be expected to lose more. the other possible reason, as noted before, is that bigger breakfast could lead to a higher NEAT.
^^This.
Plus time of day of weigh-ins...plus the set number of calories allegedly eaten, plus - if it were this simple I'm pretty sure we all would have done this.
It's still about calories, not bogus 30 sample "studies."
Just for clarity it was over 90 and they were split into groups...not just 30 people in total.1 -
Aside from the question of the accuracy of the calories and differences in NEAT, I also wonder about body composition before and after weight-loss.
Losing mostly fat versus losing fat and muscle mass would also change the weight loss rate, I presume. Muscle loss certainly seems a relevant factor considering the (theoretically) large deficit.0 -
Aside from the question of the accuracy of the calories and differences in NEAT, I also wonder about body composition before and after weight-loss.
Losing mostly fat versus losing fat and muscle mass would also change the weight loss rate, I presume. Muscle loss certainly seems a relevant factor considering the (theoretically) large deficit.
not sure if any of that matters mainly because the study was done based on BMI not people of the same weight.
"Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome"
so if you are 180lbs at 5 ft 3 eating 1400 calories 3 days a week vs 215lbs at 5ft 9 (both are BMI 32) the one at 215 will lose more weight...without changing anything else...because they are heavier burn more naturally.5 -
quiksylver296 wrote: »Suezq72760 wrote: »"It is likely that the low bf participants were not accustomed to such a low calorie breakfast and it impacted their NEAT. "
Pardon the ignorance here...what is NEAT? Thanks!
Non-Exercise Activity Thermogenesis
All the calories you burn throughout the day, when not exercising.
Thank you!! :-)0 -
i'd like to know how they determined that 1400 cal was the right amount of calories per day for each person - technically by BMI i'm obese but i can tell you that i lose weight eating 2000cal a day (as a female 5'3", 165lbs) so 1400 would be really low for me; but others who aren't as active 1400 could be the right goal3
-
Another study going the *same way*.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169Results: Thirty-six subjects completed the study (G1 = 18, G2 = 18). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition and metabolic parameters but G1 had enhanced results for weight loss (G1: −8.2 ± 3.0 kg; G2: −6.5 ± 3.4 kg; p = 0.028),
1 -
The full study doesn't seem to be available, but it appears to be about identical to the first in results, namely:
(1) Both groups lost LESS than they should have if they were fully compliant; and
(2) The larger morning meal group lost more than the smaller morning meal group.
What I find odd in your reaction, OP, is the idea that there's something, what was it?, "massive" about the performance of the large morning meal group when in both cases it was poorer than one would expect just from actually eating at the deficit provided. Personally, it's hard for me to be too impressed by that when I've always lost what I expected for my deficit (and the rate of loss we are talking about, although perfectly respectable, doesn't strike me as, well, "massive"). My results, based on my own N=1, haven't seemed to vary based on eating time so long as other things were equal.
Now is it possible that on average (important, since not everyone is average) humans may have higher NEAT if they eat a larger breakfast or that humans not used to eating smaller breakfasts might be hungrier and cheat more? Sure. (Indeed, on average people do eat breakfast, and probably a good bit of the deficit calories early in the day with snacking included too, so not doing that might be so hard that they cheat and then still eat the planned dinner, while the people -- on average -- eating lots in the morning may find it easier to eat less in the evening as they were assigned.)
The bigger point is that unless the calories are actually controlled, you cannot use such studies to claim "a calorie is not a calorie." (You couldn't anyway, since what the sentence normally means is that calories from some foods don't operate like those from others, even if consumed and even if TDEE remains equal. Here the argument isn't that calories aren't the same, but that time of eating matters, even if the food choices are identical.)5 -
Btw, I'd be happy to engage in an actual discussion if you disagree with anything I've said. You so far don't seem interested in doing so, sadly.5
-
Another study going the *same way*.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169Results: Thirty-six subjects completed the study (G1 = 18, G2 = 18). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition and metabolic parameters but G1 had enhanced results for weight loss (G1: −8.2 ± 3.0 kg; G2: −6.5 ± 3.4 kg; p = 0.028),
Got any uhhhhhhh metabolic ward studies? Seriously, every study done on free living subjects is subject to the whims of who wanted to buy a Snickers bar and not tell the stern people in lab coats.
Note: it really is much more a matter of not realizing / recalling than actual lying about intake.21 -
So basically it's proving that a calorie deficit is how you lose weight, and weightloss improves health markers.6
-
lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.3
-
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
How so? A calorie is a unit of energy.10 -
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
Why?
Among other things, living only on lettuce would lead to death if done for too long.
"Lettuce calories" are not a thing, btw. Lettuce has (a few) calories, as do other foods. Lettuce also has carbs, certain micros, a tiny amount of protein, etc. Your body cannot identify calories by where they came from originally, as calories are a unit of energy.
Also, I'm trying and trying to figure out how this relates to the posted study, but can't. Could you explain it to me? As I read the two studies mentioned, they were eating the exact same diets (well, not really, but that was the plan and nothing about differences in lettuce consumption or fat or sugar consumption).6 -
just_Tomek wrote: »estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
For weight loss???? Absolutely not. For nutritional value, yeap.
Eh, I think an avocado or some nuts (high fat) compare perfectly well to, say, iceberg lettuce for nutritional value.
Even a banana (high sugar) does.
Of course, I'm all for a diet that includes nuts, avocado, bananas, and lettuce (I like boston lettuce, it's yum, with some spinach and watercress, perhaps). Also, many other greens, fruits and veg, and sources of protein and fat.3 -
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/oby.20460Design and Methods: Overweight and obese women (BMI 32.4 6 1.8 kg=m2) with metabolic syndrome were randomized into two isocaloric (1400 kcal) weight loss groups, a breakfast (BF) (700 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 200 kcal dinner) or a dinner (D) group (200 kcal breakfast, 500 kcal lunch, 700 kcal dinner) for 12 weeks.
So 1400cal in both groups, first BF ate 700 / 500 /200 for breakfast / lunch / dinner and the D group ate the opposite.
And the kicker:However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss
That's massive.
"Eat breakfast like a king, lunch like a prince and dinner like a pauper."
Replying to your title question:
We see all kinds of things. How we evaluate them, and what conclusions we draw from them, is a matter of reasoning, buttressed by education.
How we individually eat may be guided by research and reason, but happy compliance is, for most people, a much more important factor than most research findings about timing, when it comes to weight managemement. (One might even reasonably interpret this particular research study as saying something more meaningful about compliance than about timing, with consideration of its methodological limitations, taken in context of the larger body of research in the field.
)
Bottom line: If a big breakfast/small dinner lead to success for you, that's what you should do. I'll keep eating right up to bedtime, and maintaining weight just fine.
Happy compliance > nutrient timing. And none of this supports the idea that calories are irrelevant: They all - theoretically - restricted calories significantly, and lost weight . . . free-living, so at varying levels of activity (and most likely varying levels of compliance, as well).12 -
estherpotter1 wrote: »lettuce calories would be better than weightloss than fat or sugar calories.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma4 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »Another study going the *same way*.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07315724.2013.863169Results: Thirty-six subjects completed the study (G1 = 18, G2 = 18). Both groups had significant improvements in body composition and metabolic parameters but G1 had enhanced results for weight loss (G1: −8.2 ± 3.0 kg; G2: −6.5 ± 3.4 kg; p = 0.028),
Got any uhhhhhhh metabolic ward studies? Seriously, every study done on free living subjects is subject to the whims of who wanted to buy a Snickers bar and not tell the stern people in lab coats.
Note: it really is much more a matter of not realizing / recalling than actual lying about intake.
Yeah, we've got dozens and dozens of posts here showing us that even when *highly motivated* humans are terrible at accurately tracking and reporting what they eat, to the point that many of us require devices to help us understand what we're actually consuming. So I take self-reports with a huge grain of salt.13 -
Replying to your title question:
We see all kinds of things. How we evaluate them, and what conclusions we draw from them, is a matter of reasoning, buttressed by education.
How we individually eat may be guided by research and reason, but happy compliance is, for most people, a much more important factor than most research findings about timing, when it comes to weight managemement. (One might even reasonably interpret this particular research study as saying something more meaningful about compliance than about timing, with consideration of its methodological limitations, taken in context of the larger body of research in the field. )
Bottom line: If a big breakfast/small dinner lead to success for you, that's what you should do. I'll keep eating right up to bedtime, and maintaining weight just fine.
Happy compliance > nutrient timing. And none of this supports the idea that calories are irrelevant: They all - theoretically - restricted calories significantly, and lost weight . . . free-living, so at varying levels of activity (and most likely varying levels of compliance, as well).
^^This for me, definitely. I have the lowest amount of willpower and the most cravings to eat in the evenings, and nothing I've ever done has changed that. Knowing this, I save as many calories for evenings as I can so that I can end the day within my goals. So even if I could theoretically burn more calories if I ate more in the morning and less in the evenings, knowing my own willpower, if I tried that, I'd end up eating more in the long run and losing less. And if that means I just need to keep going at it a little longer to lose the total amount I want to, then *shrugs* its' not a race anyway; as long as I get achieve the end result, it don't really matter if I do it in 2 years or 2 years and 2 months......13
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions