Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

If a calorie is a calorie, why do we see this?



  • saintor1saintor1 Member Posts: 339 Member Member Posts: 339 Member
    THIRD is a charm. Another study going the same way, from Italy this time.
    Our study revealed that a lifestyle intervention with more energy intake in the first part of the day had a higher impact on weight and fat reduction

    Welcome to circadian cycle. Here is number FOUR, from France this time. And a possible/reasonable explanation why a calorie eaten in the evening has NOT the same impact as in the morning.
    The present study showed a clear difference in the EE responseto the same meal. depending on the circadian stage during whichit was consumed.

    Again *massive*. It takes +50% more energy to process a calories in the morning than in the evening, and +25% in the afternoon than the evening.

    FIFTH one.
    The same meal consumed in the evening determined a lower RMR, and increased glycemic/insulinemic responses, suggesting circadian variations in the energy expenditure and metabolic pattern of healthy individuals.

    SIXTH one.
    The circadian system plays a dominating role in the morning/evening difference in early DIT and may contribute to the effects of meal timing on body weight regulation.

    There is no mistake. This is of the highest interest, IMO.

    According to these SIX highly documented studies, majority (like 80%) of the calories should be eaten before afternoon.

    edited January 2020
  • lemurcat2lemurcat2 Member Posts: 7,138 Member Member Posts: 7,138 Member
    I concede it is possible that meal timing makes some small difference to weight loss

    It is possible it doesnt too - but for arguements sake lets say it does.
    It would only be small but lets say its there.

    What relevance does this have for real life??

    Im sure we've all heard the saying The best exercise is the one you actually do.

    likewise the best calorie deficit plan is the one you actually do - and that will be with whatever meal timings suit you

    Good points, but I don't actually expect a response from OP.

    Hope I'm wrong!
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Member Posts: 1,198 Member Member Posts: 1,198 Member
    SnifterPug wrote: »

    I am in no way advocating the red wine diet, and the study itself points out that for social drinkers alcohol calories should be treated as normal calories. Nevertheless, it would appear that a calorie is not always a calorie.

    I also recommend a new book just out by a bariatric surgeon who has been exploring why people become overweight and obese and has some very interesting things to say:

    Why We Eat (Too Much) by Dr Andrew Jenkinson

    For the first part on alcohol, I believe I've heard Lyle McDonald discuss some of the papers cited by the linked one. Of note is that the calories "count less" in alcoholic women than in men. The best explanation is actually that at a lighter weight, able to carry less alcohol, and having just different social behaviors in general, women are more likely to end up not eating, or even throwing up while blanked out drunk.

    Going into the study, Lieber himself concludes:
    The energy loss seems to result either from the liver damage produced by alcohol and the consequent inefficient utilization of fat as well as other nutrients, and/or the energy wastage associated with the induction of microsomal pathways that results from the chronic consumption of substantial amounts of ethanol.
    So sure, do people with a damaged liver need more calories? Looks like it it. Calories in represents digested, not ingested calories. A calorie isn't a calorie if you're calling them eaten when someone throws up either.

    As for Jekinson, I'm not sure what his book says, but isn't bariatric surgery predicated on the idea that the amount of food matters to weight? Most weight loss surgery causes an inability to take in large amounts of high fiber foods, the ones usually agreed upon as "healthy", good for you, and "necessary" for weight loss by people claiming clean eating is needed, not counting calories.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Member Posts: 5,766 Member Member Posts: 5,766 Member
    I think with enough people and enough time energy balance will drive fat loss regardless of the how large one meal is in relation to another...
  • magnusthenerdmagnusthenerd Member Posts: 1,198 Member Member Posts: 1,198 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I don't know whether this applies here, but a thing I sometimes see on MFP concerning ways of eating/exercising (and in other parts of life concerning other things), is a puzzling need for some to believe that a way they prefer to behave is objectively the very best, and so should be adopted by everyone. I may be wrong, but in some cases (where I've known the person), I've perceived it as a need to be validated by "facts", as if their own preferences and opinions were not good enough by themselves, or as if them doing the thing they prefer required others to do it as an endorsement, or something.

    I think what is interesting is that the more of things done right, the more things that seem to be optimal (objectively the very best). Several people who are at a good body composition, eating around maintenance, and doing both some resistance and aerobic activities could both report different recommendations for the best and actually both be right. Some could report their experience is eating 50% carbohydrate, or 50% fat, all show similar health markers, or the could say they need 5 hours of exercise or 10, and both show similar markers.
    I don't think that's the case here though. :'(
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Personally, I think reasonably balanced nutrition is more important (to long term weight management) than some other people here, and say so regularly, for example. And there are numerous threads suggesting that people struggling with calorie-goal compliance should experiment with different food choices, different timing, even different exercise strategies and weight loss rate goals, to see if that makes their compliance easier (or their energy level better). Sometimes that even extends - rationally, IMO - to suggesting that someone on very low calories should increase intake* to find a "knee in the curve" where the relationship between activity level and intake results in the best relationship between NEAT expenditures and intake (sometimes oversimplified to "eat more to weigh less"). (* Because NEAT and exercise performance can be depressed by low-calorie-driven fatigue and adaptive thermogenesis)
    Well in the most long term, everyone acquires adaptive thermogenesis that brings BMR to 0, because in the long run, we're all dead. >:)
    This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
    Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 19,593 Member Member, Premium Posts: 19,593 Member
    lemurcat2 wrote: »

    (snip for reply length)
    Perhaps, in this case, OP firmly believes this thesis, has seen the strategy be effective in his/her personal case, and simply wants the rest of us to share in the "massive" benefits of big breakfast/small dinner.

    Maybe (again, I think you are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt than me), but that's not the impression I got.

    I appreciate the supportive comments, Lemurcat2, and (unsurprisingly) agree with your additions (which I didn't quote): The plethora of "research proven" (heh) "rules" (heh) obscures the basics, makes the process seem unachievable, and adds counter-productive tonnage to the psychological baggage many of us are already carrying, when it comes to food, weight, exercise, nutrition, and health.

    To the bolded: You've said something similar before, I think. You could think of the passage of mine you quoted as being generous, as you say; or as rhetorically offering a friendly off-ramp to some disagreeing readers. ;) I'd point out that it's phrased as speculation, not conclusion.
    edited January 2020
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 19,593 Member Member, Premium Posts: 19,593 Member
    (snip for reply length)
    This does remind me though that this morning I saw Menno showing a study that showed on long term predictions of weight maintenance seems to do with variability in weight.
    Menno felt with his clients the less variability in weight, the more the life style they're doing is a maintainable one instead of reactionary.

    Reading only the abstract (since the article appears to be behind a paywall): Maintainability, perhaps (which I assume is equivalent to sustainability, in this context?); or perhaps just extent of personal commitment to change at that point. I support the idea of research to substantiate common sense, and this seems like it might be that sort of thing. To put it in MFP-common lingo I don't really believe in, are we saying that people who fall off the wagon more often along the way are less successful in the long run?

    This is not a diss of anyone for "lack of commitment", BTW: I've tried to change many times, in many ways. When I decide to change, I change, as long as the relevant factors are under my control. I've often mused about what it is that makes that switch flip: If I could consciously control it completely in all cases, that would be useful. People say all kinds of things about discipline and determination and motivation, but those are somewhat-circular abstractions, IMO, so not very satisfying as explanations.
  • Amber_DawnnAmber_Dawnn Member Posts: 10 Member Member Posts: 10 Member
    I was always told to eat more food early in the day and less at dinner so you're not overlapping sleep with digestion.
Sign In or Register to comment.