Does it matter when you eat ?

AnnPT77

OP, timing is important, but only because it helps if you individually figure out what eating schedule works best in your individual life in a practical sense, what does the best job of keeping you personally full, energetic and happy.

Someone mentioned timing potentially being necessary to optimize . . . that can be true, but in the sense that a bodybuilder in the few weeks before major competition, or an elite athlete focused on maximum achievement, or an endurance athlete (even a recreational one) may need to time nutrients in order to get to optimum performance. (There are also health conditions where nutrient timing is important. You'd know if you had one.)

For us regular basically healthy people, even active regular people who are seeking improvements in fitness and/or muscle mass, the best timing strategy is the one that helps us get well-rounded nutrition across the day, and most easily stick with a sensible calorie goal.

As far as maintaining weight after loss: I'm a big believer personally that the way to go is to lose weight in the way we plan to maintain a healthy weight forever. The difference between weight loss and maintenance is that in maintenance, one eats a few more calories a day - that's all. Using the weight loss period to experiment and figure out a sustainable strategy: That maximizes likelihood of keeping weight off long term. (It's still not automatic! 😉)

Personally, I eat different numbers of meals and snacks on different days depending on my needs and schedule,violate so-called "rules" by doing things like eating right before bed, and (in maintenence) eat 200-250g of carbs most days (in the context of appropriate protein, fats, fiber, micros, calories). (I ate 150-200g carbs most days while losing.) I was obese for 30+ years. I"ve been at a healthy weight for 5 years now since losing in 2015. (I didn't change my exercise schedule to do it - already very active while obese.) I was at BMI 21 (126.4 pounds at 5'5") this morning.

The idea that fasting is universally necessary for weight loss is nonsense. The idea that low carbs are universally the only route to weight loss is nonsense. The idea that either are universally necessary to keep weight off long term is nonsense. The only "science" that supports a "must fast, must low carb" strategy as universally essential is cherry-picked for advocacy. It is not the consensus of serious nutritional science.

Fasting and low carb are strategies that help *some* people hit a sensible calorie level. If those strategies are sustainable for the person - something they can keep up forever - then they can help keep weight off long term. Those people should use fasting or low carb.

Experiment with your food timing. Find a strategy that works well for you to be energetic, full (mostly!), happy. Do that.

Kiefer_1

Yeah, timing doesn’t really matter. Order of decreasing importance:

1. Calories in/calories out
2. Macro breakdown (protein/carb/fat balance)
3. Quality of macros
4. Timing

I’ve tried all different timing schemes and successfully maintained each of them for an extended period of time. Trust me, it doesn’t really matter.

janejellyroll

tsazani wrote: »

I am a carb addict. On the borderline between moderate and severe.

Carbs for me are cigarrettes for the nicotine addict, alcholic beverages for the alcoholic, or vicodin tablets for the narcotics addict.

Plenty of people have no problem with alcoholic beverages or carbs. And plenty of people do. Obesity is always a result of carb toxicity.

Carbs is society's current addiction craze. Workers in healthcare industry will continue making a nice livings off the consequences of carb addiction.

I think you sum it up well when you say that plenty of people have no problem with carbohydrates. Your comments about them being "poison" or harmful are not relevant to their lives, so it might be best to avoid the sweeping generalizations about how avoiding them is best for everyone.

Ddsb11

OP- I used to fast quite a lot. The truth is, it only improved weight loss if I were in a deficit for the day. But I could easily eat all my calories and more in a 6 hour window if I wanted to. Timing didn’t matter at all, just calories.

I used to also fear carbs, for over a decade, and struggled with my weight and mental health every minute of that decade. Once I started to realize it was about calories and not about food being poison, I lost the weight and didn’t obsess over specific foods anymore.

Point being, timing and specific foods do not matter. It really is CICO.

JBanx256

Timing CAN matter, to some some degree, but only if/when your bigger priorities are completely squared-away. And if you can't adhere to your diet, "optimal" is out the window anyway, right? Find something you can stick to and go at it. Nothing wrong with experimenting a bit to find what works best for you - satiety, energy, etc. If OMAD is what floats your boat, so be it. If you find several smaller meals spaced throughout your waking hours is better for you...there ya go.

Also, no entire macronutrient or food group is poison. "I got drunk and wrecked my car so all vehicles are evil & should be banned." Nope.

dragon_girl26

msalicia07 wrote: »

OP- I used to fast quite a lot. The truth is, it only improved weight loss if I were in a deficit for the day. But I could easily eat all my calories and more in a 6 hour window if I wanted to. Timing didn’t matter at all, just calories.

I used to also fear carbs, for over a decade, and struggled with my weight and mental health every minute of that decade. Once I started to realize it was about calories and not about food being poison, I lost the weight and didn’t obsess over specific foods anymore.

Point being, timing and specific foods do not matter. It really is CICO.

Yeah, my partner ate only in a small window of time in the evening for awhile and still had issues losing weight. Fasting didn't exempt him from the CICO equation. As you stated more or less, in the end, intake calories still matter.

ninerbuff

tsazani wrote: »

I am a carb addict. On the borderline between moderate and severe.

Carbs for me are cigarrettes for the nicotine addict, alcholic beverages for the alcoholic, or vicodin tablets for the narcotics addict.

Plenty of people have no problem with alcoholic beverages or carbs. And plenty of people do. Obesity is always a result of carb toxicity.

Carbs is society's current addiction craze. Workers in healthcare industry will continue making a nice livings off the consequences of carb addiction.

Lol, the broscience is strong. So how does a "carb addict" eat vegetables with carbs in them without going into "carb toxicity'.

And you're a doctor right?


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

paperpudding

tsazani wrote: »

I respectfully disagree. The approach I use follows the science. CICO + hormonal response.

All humans do best on a carnivoir based diet. I.e. fat and protein. Human beings do not need carbohydrates.

Homo Sapian biology is 200,000 years old. The agrarian revolution is 10,000. Modern nutritional theory 50 years.

Adkins -> Bernstein -> Carbs are addictive poison.

That doesnt make sense - People eating carb containing foods is not something which has just happened in the last 50 years or even the last 10,000 years

Carbs are obviously not addictive poison - hyperbole doesnt help your arguement.

If you want to do low carb and fast for (sensible, I hope) periods of time, do so - but certainly isnt neccesary for everyone to do that to lose weight and the lack of sustainabilty with that eating style would be counter productive for most of us.
and eat meat if you want to - or don't, if you don't - It isnt something all humans do best on.
One can be healthy doing so or not doing so (or unhealthy either way, for that matter)

and "when you eat your insulin levels go up" isnt called bulking - it is called normal biology. That is what is meant to happen, if it doesn't it is called diabetes.

This scare mongering about normal insulin reactions is quite a weird fad atm