Stop eating after 5:00 p.m.?
Replies
-
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.
This is not a disagreement with your interesting post, just a quote of it to continue the general line of conversation.
Around here, I think lots of us are implicitly looking for those maybe-mythical, much-marketed "weight loss hacks" that will make the process easy, or at least easier. Studies like the one cited are inevitably fodder for that impulse, even to the point of interpreting the studies out of their scientific context.
In most cases, in a practical sense, what's the harm (as long as risky behavior isn't induced)? The placebo effect is strong, and there's some evidence that it's strong enough to trigger physiological changes in things like satiation and appetite hormone levels.
Sure, more nuanced contextual understanding is better from an intellectual benefits perspective, but this isn't MyIntellectPal, so that's not going to be most threads' take on things, probably. Keep posting, though - it's a good thing.
Thanks Ann.
I believe when a person has more knowledge of a particular subject the more informed they are to make decisions to facilitate better outcomes or when outcomes or strategies don't work, they're better equipped to understand why. I believe myfitnesspal includes nutrition and health as topics for discussion although I know that most people have a limited knowledge and I do understand people may feel like they don't want to get involved or comment, it doesn't mean that they aren't interested or don't get anything out of it, well hopefully anyway. I think mostly people don't want to look uninformed, which is a shame because getting involved with the nuance is how we learn or correct misinformation or long held beliefs, confirmation biases, etc. I know I've learned alot from this site from people like yourself and many others. Basically, this effects our body more than simply our intellect, well hopefully anyway.
The problem I see are two-fold. First is the reductive approach to health and health care in as much as we have completely different disciplines regarding health of the body and mind. That will never work. Secondly nutrition, up until recently was a second-class discipline that never received any attention to speak of and when these two factors come together, we have what we see now with 75% of the population overweight, obese and sick with only about 6% of the population in the US with what would be considered a totally healthy metabolism. In simple terms the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
TRE is a strategy with an outcome that would benefit every single person's overall health and wellbeing with the complication of reducing the amount of hours a person consumes food during a 24 hour period to a minimum of 12 hours, basically a few hrs for most people and the person doesn't have to worry about a deficit or worry whether they ate too many carbs. The risk/benefit is stacked in favor of benefit. So when we don't eat after 5 becomes the talking point the overall message gets overlooked. Plus it's an easy strategy that a person can adhere to relatively easy for the rest of their lives.
Cheers.
I understand and agree with what I think is your general perspective on the usefulness of pursuing (and the potential benefits of achieving) a fuller and more contextualized understanding of the science. I also agree that it's worth adding more of that kind of depth to threads if one is capable, and agree that even non-posting readers may get something out of it.
I've learned a lot here from people who put their time in, to provide depth and context.
What I'm saying is that as a practical thing, a lot of folks in the MFP subculture will apply a "how does this help me lose weight fast" filter to almost anything of the nature of the initially cited study, whether that's on point or not. We should expect that.
On top of that, we're in an overall popular culture context where it's common for people think it's a critique of science itself to say "one study says one thing, another says the opposite" or "you can find a study to support any and every opinion". That culture lowers the probability of folks understanding how any particular study fits into the big picture.
Further, even if I accept the premise that TRE could revolutionarily improve public health, I still think people at large won't adopt things they know in their hearts are good for them, unless those things are easy, fun, convenient, pleasurable, etc. The populace has proven that pretty clearly over and over. Heck, I've proven that pretty clearly over and over myself!
I'm not saying I'm a paragon of intellectual insight here - far from it. I'm saying I'm cynical about the impact of intellectual understanding on humans' practical behavior. There are a lot of overweight and unfit health professionals, y'know?
The cultural and psychological dimensions of obesity and metabolic ill-health are tougher problems IMO than the nutritional and medical science . . . not that that latter part's easy.
1 -
I think studies may show a slight increase in weight loss or something if people dont eat in the evening.
However in real life for many people, this increase is never more than very minimal - and the inconvenience or difficulty of doing something to supposedly get a minimal advantage outweighs the benifits
Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.2 -
paperpudding wrote: »Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.
I mostly agree with you on this. One thing, can't I read your last part you wrote and conclude "Yes, American's are living their actual real lives right now, and making actual choices based on schedule, family, preference, etc. and here we are with the status of Americans and our weight."
With those factors (schedule, preference, family) what if personally taking on a hard project is necessary? Either a continuation of the path we seem to be on, or taking on something challenging?
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.
I mostly agree with you on this. One thing, can't I read your last part you wrote and conclude "Yes, American's are living their actual real lives right now, and making actual choices based on schedule, family, preference, etc. and here we are with the status of Americans and our weight."
With those factors (schedule, preference, family) what if personally taking on a hard project is necessary? Either a continuation of the path we seem to be on, or taking on something challenging?
If some individual wants to take on a hard project, that's great, their choice. I hope they succeed, sincerely.
But it's not a solution to the obesity/metabolic health problem at the population level. How would we convince them to do it?
All of that said, and with recognition that individual people truly face real practical obstacles . . . I'm not convinced that weight management universally has to be a hard project.
Sometimes, I almost think we go out of our way to make it harder, with tricksy, trendy, restrictive named diets, and impractical schedules of punitively intense exercise.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »This study looks at the differences in hormonal regulation and found that the group that ate later (8:00) saw certain hormones affected deleteriously which over time could find that group in a positive energy balance increasing obesity risk. No more, no less. Not eating after 5 somehow became the focus. Cheers.
The lab's focus is understanding timing as it relates to food intake. Not exclusively obesity or weight loss.
I'm thinking at the highest level some people believe the time of the day which people eat has an effect. Others believe the time of day has no impact. This lab is trying to understand this.
I think you might be referring to meal frequency where some will argue it makes a difference and others say it doesn't, which time restricted eating is not that.
The science of Time Restricted Eating (TRE) is about an alternative to getting healthy or healthier that has nothing to do with what you eat, so the focus has nothing to do with the actual food, or, worrying about creating a caloric deficit by finding some kind of diet or strategy. The basic premise around TRE is allowing a minimum of 12 consecutive hours of not eating for the repair and rebuild process to work properly.
Creating a diet strategy for a caloric deficit is an altogether different strategy from TRE and where IF or intermittent fasting may be beneficial if again you don't want a diet that restricts food groups or other compliances that can be hard to adhere to.
This is not a disagreement with your interesting post, just a quote of it to continue the general line of conversation.
Around here, I think lots of us are implicitly looking for those maybe-mythical, much-marketed "weight loss hacks" that will make the process easy, or at least easier. Studies like the one cited are inevitably fodder for that impulse, even to the point of interpreting the studies out of their scientific context.
In most cases, in a practical sense, what's the harm (as long as risky behavior isn't induced)? The placebo effect is strong, and there's some evidence that it's strong enough to trigger physiological changes in things like satiation and appetite hormone levels.
Sure, more nuanced contextual understanding is better from an intellectual benefits perspective, but this isn't MyIntellectPal, so that's not going to be most threads' take on things, probably. Keep posting, though - it's a good thing.
Thanks Ann.
I believe when a person has more knowledge of a particular subject the more informed they are to make decisions to facilitate better outcomes or when outcomes or strategies don't work, they're better equipped to understand why. I believe myfitnesspal includes nutrition and health as topics for discussion although I know that most people have a limited knowledge and I do understand people may feel like they don't want to get involved or comment, it doesn't mean that they aren't interested or don't get anything out of it, well hopefully anyway. I think mostly people don't want to look uninformed, which is a shame because getting involved with the nuance is how we learn or correct misinformation or long held beliefs, confirmation biases, etc. I know I've learned alot from this site from people like yourself and many others. Basically, this effects our body more than simply our intellect, well hopefully anyway.
The problem I see are two-fold. First is the reductive approach to health and health care in as much as we have completely different disciplines regarding health of the body and mind. That will never work. Secondly nutrition, up until recently was a second-class discipline that never received any attention to speak of and when these two factors come together, we have what we see now with 75% of the population overweight, obese and sick with only about 6% of the population in the US with what would be considered a totally healthy metabolism. In simple terms the left hand doesn't know what the right is doing.
TRE is a strategy with an outcome that would benefit every single person's overall health and wellbeing with the complication of reducing the amount of hours a person consumes food during a 24 hour period to a minimum of 12 hours, basically a few hrs for most people and the person doesn't have to worry about a deficit or worry whether they ate too many carbs. The risk/benefit is stacked in favor of benefit. So when we don't eat after 5 becomes the talking point the overall message gets overlooked. Plus it's an easy strategy that a person can adhere to relatively easy for the rest of their lives.
Cheers.
I understand and agree with what I think is your general perspective on the usefulness of pursuing (and the potential benefits of achieving) a fuller and more contextualized understanding of the science. I also agree that it's worth adding more of that kind of depth to threads if one is capable, and agree that even non-posting readers may get something out of it.
I've learned a lot here from people who put their time in, to provide depth and context.
What I'm saying is that as a practical thing, a lot of folks in the MFP subculture will apply a "how does this help me lose weight fast" filter to almost anything of the nature of the initially cited study, whether that's on point or not. We should expect that.
On top of that, we're in an overall popular culture context where it's common for people think it's a critique of science itself to say "one study says one thing, another says the opposite" or "you can find a study to support any and every opinion". That culture lowers the probability of folks understanding how any particular study fits into the big picture.
Further, even if I accept the premise that TRE could revolutionarily improve public health, I still think people at large won't adopt things they know in their hearts are good for them, unless those things are easy, fun, convenient, pleasurable, etc. The populace has proven that pretty clearly over and over. Heck, I've proven that pretty clearly over and over myself!
I'm not saying I'm a paragon of intellectual insight here - far from it. I'm saying I'm cynical about the impact of intellectual understanding on humans' practical behavior. There are a lot of overweight and unfit health professionals, y'know?
The cultural and psychological dimensions of obesity and metabolic ill-health are tougher problems IMO than the nutritional and medical science . . . not that that latter part's easy.
Well, I may be giving people more credit than they deserve, I don't know really, I can only try and convey information that might be valuable.
I also understand perfectly the conundrum as it relates to science voiced by media, interest groups and charlatans that makes it very difficult to impossible to sus out quality data. All I'll say about that for now is that 90% is based on epidemiology which cannot draw any medical conclusions but unfortunately that's what's used more often than not to prove the assertion they believe is in their best interest and not actually in science because that type of data can be manipulated on demand and why we see headlines like eggs are good, eggs are bad that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease and the other hundreds of conflicting headlines. It's not easy but understanding the differences can help alleviate the stress or confusion of not quite knowing for sure.
I also agree the general medical community would be the last place I personally would look for accurate information and that's a good reason why people should take their own health into their own hand because trust me, you'll be more focused than the Dr. that gives you 10 minutes a session every x months just to hear whether your medication staying the same, if your lucky, or going up. Lifes a journey and eyes wide open and prepared isn't such a bad thing. who knows maybe I'm too optimistic.
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »Hence real life application is generally limited and outweighed by other factors - such as work schedules, family life, personal preference etc.
I mostly agree with you on this. One thing, can't I read your last part you wrote and conclude "Yes, American's are living their actual real lives right now, and making actual choices based on schedule, family, preference, etc. and here we are with the status of Americans and our weight."
With those factors (schedule, preference, family) what if personally taking on a hard project is necessary? Either a continuation of the path we seem to be on, or taking on something challenging?
that doesnt seem a logical conclusion to me.
Your post, paraphrased: "People's actual diet/excercise choices now on a population level are resulting in obese people - therefore it would be good if they all gain very minimal advantage by not eating after x evening time"
If they change nothing else the gains would be very minimal - inconvenient, difficult, unpleasant - for very minimal gain.
No point taking on a hard project that doesnt gain much.
Far better to focus on things that will be of worthwhile gain whilst not making the project harder than it has to be by doing things of very minimal gain.
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.0 -
Just to add. I'm not just referring to calorie counting, I'm referring to all dietary strategies designed to put people in a deficit. All these dietary strategies work for a time but doing it for the rest of a persons life is the reason for the failure rate and for a number of logical reasons, so it's not really a surprise.0
-
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.
I didnt say it is simple or easy
it often is difficult to do in practice - nevertheless the only way to lose weight is to eat less and/or move more
Or eat less than you burn
or CICO
all paraphrases of same principle.
the best advice remains for people to find on a way to do that rather than focussing on things like not eating after x time, which make the weight loss goal more difficult and , with nothing else changing, has very minimal impact.
Focus on the main thing not very tangential minimal things.
2 -
Why do people overeat?1
-
neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.
Eating less can mean putting a scoop and a half of rice on your plate instead of two scoops (an easy example, not singling out carbs specifically). No calorie counting or label reading required. There are multiple paths to the same destination.6 -
SuzanneC1l9zz wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.
Eating less can mean putting a scoop and a half of rice on your plate instead of two scoops (an easy example, not singling out carbs specifically). No calorie counting or label reading required. There are multiple paths to the same destination.SuzanneC1l9zz wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »
ie Dont change the wrong path. Don't change when you eat - just change how many calories you are eating by something simple like Eat less, (doesnt matter when) Move more.
Eat less and move more has been the standard advice since the 80's. Either that's too much to ask, because people have only gotten fatter and sicker, or it doesn't work. The only conclusion is people don't care about their health at all and apparently that would include their children and that disease and medication must also be the acceptable result of that decision.
Eating less requires the knowledge to be able to count the calories your consuming, understand labels and portion. Whole foods need to be weighed and portioned and research the calories of those whole foods, writing down in some kind of journal to keep track and if you're a responsible parent you would also do this for your children as well. Moving more, specifically directly focused on cardio and weight training would be more difficult for most people.
I wouldn't call this simple or easy, I would call this a battle cry of determination to improve one's health with a 95% failure rate. Like I said, the only conclusion would be that people really don't care or it doesn't work.
Eating less can mean putting a scoop and a half of rice on your plate instead of two scoops (an easy example, not singling out carbs specifically). No calorie counting or label reading required. There are multiple paths to the same destination.
That is the common advice given to people that are overweight and obese, to eat less, and I agree with you that it is an option and like I said a popular one.0 -
This new study in February 2022 is relevant to this topic showing the metabolic differences in insulin sensitivity, body composition, inflammation, gut microbiome and more when comparing an eTRF (early time restricted feeding) with mTRF (midday time restricted feeding) and with a control group that ate whenever they wanted to over the 24 hour cycle.
https://nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28662-5#:~:text=Here%20we%20show%20that%20eTRF%20was%20more%20effective,serious%20adverse%20events%20were%20reported%20during%20the%20trial.
Here we show that eTRF was more effective than mTRF at improving insulin sensitivity. Furthermore, eTRF, but not mTRF, improved fasting glucose, reduced total body mass and adiposity, ameliorated inflammation, and increased gut microbial diversity. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial.
0 -
neanderthin wrote: »This new study in February 2022 is relevant to this topic showing the metabolic differences in insulin sensitivity, body composition, inflammation, gut microbiome and more when comparing an eTRF (early time restricted feeding) with mTRF (midday time restricted feeding) and with a control group that ate whenever they wanted to over the 24 hour cycle.
https://nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28662-5#:~:text=Here%20we%20show%20that%20eTRF%20was%20more%20effective,serious%20adverse%20events%20were%20reported%20during%20the%20trial.
Here we show that eTRF was more effective than mTRF at improving insulin sensitivity. Furthermore, eTRF, but not mTRF, improved fasting glucose, reduced total body mass and adiposity, ameliorated inflammation, and increased gut microbial diversity. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial.
They state: "We conducted a five-week randomized trial to compare the effects of the two TRF regimens in healthy individuals without obesity."
What I wonder is: is higher insulin sensitivity, improved fasting glucose,... beneficial when these markers are already within normal parameters (since the individuals were healthy)?
Edit: I just saw this: "Body mass and percentage body fat were measured using an HBF-371 Bioelectrical impedance analyzer"
Yikes
3 -
neanderthin wrote: »This new study in February 2022 is relevant to this topic showing the metabolic differences in insulin sensitivity, body composition, inflammation, gut microbiome and more when comparing an eTRF (early time restricted feeding) with mTRF (midday time restricted feeding) and with a control group that ate whenever they wanted to over the 24 hour cycle.
https://nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28662-5#:~:text=Here%20we%20show%20that%20eTRF%20was%20more%20effective,serious%20adverse%20events%20were%20reported%20during%20the%20trial.
Here we show that eTRF was more effective than mTRF at improving insulin sensitivity. Furthermore, eTRF, but not mTRF, improved fasting glucose, reduced total body mass and adiposity, ameliorated inflammation, and increased gut microbial diversity. No serious adverse events were reported during the trial.
They state: "We conducted a five-week randomized trial to compare the effects of the two TRF regimens in healthy individuals without obesity."
What I wonder is: is higher insulin sensitivity, improved fasting glucose,... beneficial when these markers are already within normal parameters (since the individuals were healthy)?
Edit: I just saw this: "Body mass and percentage body fat were measured using an HBF-371 Bioelectrical impedance analyzer"
Yikes
That's a really great question. For a participant to be deemed healthy they looked at both their fasting insulin and fasting glucose and if they fell within healthy markers, they were deemed acceptable, obviously.
In this study both markers were lower in the eTRF which basically means they improved or got better even though both were within what was considered to be the healthy range to begin with. An acceptable level obviously has a range and in that context it went lower which is considered an improvement.
Ok, here's the difference in obese people or at least for a very high % of that demographic compared to what would be considered healthy people.
Blood glucose which is what a Dr. takes and gets an immediate reading will be compared to their fasting glucose (FPG) which is a blood sample, sent to the lab and the results come back and that's our HbA1c.
Fasting insulin is done also with a blood sample sent to a lab called Homeostatic Model Assessment of Insulin Resistance (HOMA-1R) and of course will have a range that is considered healthy and in obese people both these markers would have been higher.
Here's the problem with mainstream medical using only HbA1c to determine whether someone is insulin resistant, or diabetic. High levels of glucose in the blood over an extended period of time is a symptom of insulin dysregulation where more is needed to remove glucose from the blood so by the time someone is IR or is full blown Diabetic they've had Hyperinsulinemia for a very long time. If mainstream medical were doing (HOMA-1R) as well as HbA1c then elevated blood glucose would have been caught long before someone was becoming IR let alone Diabetic....it's just one of pet peeves, sorry for that final rant.
To Edit for your edit: Yeah, generally speaking DLW (double labeled water) is better or was better but improvements in equipment over time make a difference.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30232726/
Conclusion: The DSM-BIA was able to estimate the BC of class III obese women submitted to bariatric surgery with values consistent with those of the DLW method.
Also it wasn't to find mass or calorie but to compare, so both readings were on level ground so to speak.0 -
As a Belgian "exiled" in Canada, I concur. I still eat late. My last meal is usually in a period of one hour before to one hour after midnight. The fact that I have lost over 55 kg so far, nicely indicates that even if there is a late-eating effect, it won't be a major one.Most people I know (Belgium) eat dinner after 5, even after 6pm or later.
[...]
If eating 'late' (after 5) was a major factor in weight gain, I'd expect to see obesity rates in line with cultural eating habits, specifically dinner time.
Calories are where we have to concentrate. I think matters like these are academically interesting, but very difficult to carry out accurately. As long as there are no relatively large studies with people under total control in closed metabolic wards, results like these can easily go all over the place. I see current and past studies as essentially a waste of time and money and unlikely to ever yield reliable results.
1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As a Belgian "exiled" in Canada, I concur. I still eat late. My last meal is usually in a period of one hour before to one hour after midnight. The fact that I have lost over 55 kg so far, nicely indicates that even if there is a late-eating effect, it won't be a major one.Most people I know (Belgium) eat dinner after 5, even after 6pm or later.
[...]
If eating 'late' (after 5) was a major factor in weight gain, I'd expect to see obesity rates in line with cultural eating habits, specifically dinner time.
Calories are where we have to concentrate. I think matters like these are academically interesting, but very difficult to carry out accurately. As long as there are no relatively large studies with people under total control in closed metabolic wards, results like these can easily go all over the place. I see current and past studies as essentially a waste of time and money and unlikely to ever yield reliable results.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
As a Belgian "exiled" in Canada, I concur. I still eat late. My last meal is usually in a period of one hour before to one hour after midnight. The fact that I have lost over 55 kg so far, nicely indicates that even if there is a late-eating effect, it won't be a major one.Most people I know (Belgium) eat dinner after 5, even after 6pm or later.
[...]
If eating 'late' (after 5) was a major factor in weight gain, I'd expect to see obesity rates in line with cultural eating habits, specifically dinner time.
Calories are where we have to concentrate. I think matters like these are academically interesting, but very difficult to carry out accurately. As long as there are no relatively large studies with people under total control in closed metabolic wards, results like these can easily go all over the place. I see current and past studies as essentially a waste of time and money and unlikely to ever yield reliable results.
This study is not about calories or weight loss or gain and if your goal is to lose weight then all you need is a calorie deficit and if you eat at 3 in the morning you'll still lose weight, so no worries, the weight loss won't go away, which you've confirmed with your own journey. Cheers0 -
musicfan68 wrote: »I regularly eat around 7-8 pm, and am losing weight. It doesn't make me more hungry. If I ate at 5 however, I would probably be hungry again by 9 pm. These small studies don't prove much.
I agree. I eat one meal a day (Intermittent Fasting) between 7-8 PM and often have a snack before going to sleep. I'm a night owl and don't go to sleep until midnight or later. I've lost 60 pounds this way and my appetite has stayed in check. Energy level is very high. A study is a study, but the actual truth is in what works for you.0 -
If TRE is about limiting an eating window to 12 hours, don't most people do this anyway? IDK...it's all interesting, but also pretty moot for the majority of people I would think. The only people I know who are home and able to have their evening meal by 5 PM are retired. I'm lucky if I'm shutting down my laptop by 5 PM and even then I have an hour commute to get home 3x per week and that's if traffic is flowing and there aren't any accidents. On my closer to home workdays I'm running around getting my kids to and from sports practices and games. I'm rarely home before 6:30/7PM most nights. I've eaten dinner around 7:30 or 8PM for just about as long as I can remember and don't typically eat anything until 8 or 9AM the next day which would give me the 12 hours.3
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »If TRE is about limiting an eating window to 12 hours, don't most people do this anyway? IDK...it's all interesting, but also pretty moot for the majority of people I would think. The only people I know who are home and able to have their evening meal by 5 PM are retired. I'm lucky if I'm shutting down my laptop by 5 PM and even then I have an hour commute to get home 3x per week and that's if traffic is flowing and there aren't any accidents. On my closer to home workdays I'm running around getting my kids to and from sports practices and games. I'm rarely home before 6:30/7PM most nights. I've eaten dinner around 7:30 or 8PM for just about as long as I can remember and don't typically eat anything until 8 or 9AM the next day which would give me the 12 hours.
If the first meal was 8am then the last meal could be 8pm.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If TRE is about limiting an eating window to 12 hours, don't most people do this anyway? IDK...it's all interesting, but also pretty moot for the majority of people I would think. The only people I know who are home and able to have their evening meal by 5 PM are retired. I'm lucky if I'm shutting down my laptop by 5 PM and even then I have an hour commute to get home 3x per week and that's if traffic is flowing and there aren't any accidents. On my closer to home workdays I'm running around getting my kids to and from sports practices and games. I'm rarely home before 6:30/7PM most nights. I've eaten dinner around 7:30 or 8PM for just about as long as I can remember and don't typically eat anything until 8 or 9AM the next day which would give me the 12 hours.
If the first meal was 8am then the last meal could be 8pm.
That’s still a pretty early dinner time in my world. Dinner is the last thing I do before I sleep or else I lose all productivity. Breakfast happens around meds and work, so it would basically mean restructuring my entire life schedule to hit some magic number. I just haven’t had any experience that leads me (n=1) to think it makes any difference.
1 -
neanderthin wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If TRE is about limiting an eating window to 12 hours, don't most people do this anyway? IDK...it's all interesting, but also pretty moot for the majority of people I would think. The only people I know who are home and able to have their evening meal by 5 PM are retired. I'm lucky if I'm shutting down my laptop by 5 PM and even then I have an hour commute to get home 3x per week and that's if traffic is flowing and there aren't any accidents. On my closer to home workdays I'm running around getting my kids to and from sports practices and games. I'm rarely home before 6:30/7PM most nights. I've eaten dinner around 7:30 or 8PM for just about as long as I can remember and don't typically eat anything until 8 or 9AM the next day which would give me the 12 hours.
If the first meal was 8am then the last meal could be 8pm.
That’s still a pretty early dinner time in my world. Dinner is the last thing I do before I sleep or else I lose all productivity. Breakfast happens around meds and work, so it would basically mean restructuring my entire life schedule to hit some magic number. I just haven’t had any experience that leads me (n=1) to think it makes any difference.
You would be right. Here are some insights on the subject by Krista Varady, a Professor at the university of Illinois in Chicago and someone who is one of the pioneers in the field. In the beginning, she was very excited about the whole fasting field, and wrote a book about it, and then slowly became less excited when more research came in, while not rubbishing the whole thing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsFJWsy9ddc 0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Hedonism?
Car-based society?
Bountiful supplies of incredibly varied ingredients at all times?
Restaurant food + sedentary lifestyles?
All of the above?
I know they all apply to me 😋 🤣1 -
BCLadybug888 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Hedonism?
Car-based society?
Bountiful supplies of incredibly varied ingredients at all times?
Restaurant food + sedentary lifestyles?
All of the above?
I know they all apply to me 😋 🤣
In my own case, it was unbearable hunger, exacerbated by variation. Once I got the hunger under tolerable control, the variation became controllable by simply reducing it: if it is not in the house, I don't eat it (obviously).0 -
neanderthin wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If TRE is about limiting an eating window to 12 hours, don't most people do this anyway? IDK...it's all interesting, but also pretty moot for the majority of people I would think. The only people I know who are home and able to have their evening meal by 5 PM are retired. I'm lucky if I'm shutting down my laptop by 5 PM and even then I have an hour commute to get home 3x per week and that's if traffic is flowing and there aren't any accidents. On my closer to home workdays I'm running around getting my kids to and from sports practices and games. I'm rarely home before 6:30/7PM most nights. I've eaten dinner around 7:30 or 8PM for just about as long as I can remember and don't typically eat anything until 8 or 9AM the next day which would give me the 12 hours.
If the first meal was 8am then the last meal could be 8pm.
That’s still a pretty early dinner time in my world. Dinner is the last thing I do before I sleep or else I lose all productivity. Breakfast happens around meds and work, so it would basically mean restructuring my entire life schedule to hit some magic number. I just haven’t had any experience that leads me (n=1) to think it makes any difference.neanderthin wrote: »cwolfman13 wrote: »If TRE is about limiting an eating window to 12 hours, don't most people do this anyway? IDK...it's all interesting, but also pretty moot for the majority of people I would think. The only people I know who are home and able to have their evening meal by 5 PM are retired. I'm lucky if I'm shutting down my laptop by 5 PM and even then I have an hour commute to get home 3x per week and that's if traffic is flowing and there aren't any accidents. On my closer to home workdays I'm running around getting my kids to and from sports practices and games. I'm rarely home before 6:30/7PM most nights. I've eaten dinner around 7:30 or 8PM for just about as long as I can remember and don't typically eat anything until 8 or 9AM the next day which would give me the 12 hours.
If the first meal was 8am then the last meal could be 8pm.
That’s still a pretty early dinner time in my world. Dinner is the last thing I do before I sleep or else I lose all productivity. Breakfast happens around meds and work, so it would basically mean restructuring my entire life schedule to hit some magic number. I just haven’t had any experience that leads me (n=1) to think it makes any difference.
The take away from the study is down time for repair and rejuvenation which happens every day and they looked at the break between anabolism and catabolism and what might be more ideal. The net advantage might not be realized until many decades later and most people have a hard time committing to just eating healthier, so I suspect this isn't going to change anyone's lives and if you eat just before bed then you more than likely won't be getting much benefit, so I wouldn't worry too much anyway. Cheers.0 -
BCLadybug888 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Hedonism?
Car-based society?
Bountiful supplies of incredibly varied ingredients at all times?
Restaurant food + sedentary lifestyles?
All of the above?
I know they all apply to me 😋 🤣
All pieces of the puzzle for sure.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Because we can.0 -
Which is precisely why my motto is that just because we can eat all we want doesn't mean we should ^_^.chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Because we can.1 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »just because we can eat all we want doesn't mean we should ^_^.
Indeed, though it seems to me restraint, doing what we should, and impulse-control can be challenging. Overeating is easier.
(I have to go find my devil's advocate hat before i reply anymore
)
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Because we can.chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Why do people overeat?
Because we can.
Yeah, that's been part of the problem, no doubt about it.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions