Stop eating after 5:00 p.m.?
Options
Replies
-
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
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 945 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions