Stop eating after 5:00 p.m.?
Replies
-
chris_in_cal wrote: »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
)
I completely agree. That is why "willpower" is not the dirty word it is often made out to be. Replacing a word with a clear meaning as willpower by a vague and mushy word like "lifestyle" is not helpful in my opinion. Just because we ban every word that, however vaguely, refers to the effort required is not going to change the reality that it is required.0 -
Basically, the digestive system related thing is, eat at least tow hours before going to sleep, otherwise a slugging digestive process will result in acid reflux and bad digestion.
Another factor is, eating early helps people who practice intermittent fasting.
If it suites your lifestyle, it's a good thing for you.
If it doesn't, it isn't.
I eat around 5 pm and I found it helpful in weight loss. After that, if I feel hungry, I strictly eat only protein, not carbs. Suits me.0 -
Basically, the digestive system related thing is, eat at least tow hours before going to sleep, otherwise a slugging digestive process will result in acid reflux and bad digestion.
Another factor is, eating early helps people who practice intermittent fasting.
If it suites your lifestyle, it's a good thing for you.
If it doesn't, it isn't.
I eat around 5 pm and I found it helpful in weight loss. After that, if I feel hungry, I strictly eat only protein, not carbs. Suits me.
The two bolded statements are highly individual though:
- acid reflux and bad digestion can happen (try it and find out - for me it isn't an issue as long as it isn't a full meal, snacks are fine)
- intermittent fasting can be done at any time of the day - when I did intermittent fasting, I still ate late (up to 10PM) but I simply starting eating later in the day.
2 -
I don't doubt that they've found something here, but that is an incredibly small sample size. Wish it didn't cost $35 to read the original findings.
I was in the hospital for a week recently, and I didn't eat past 8pm, rarely past 6pm. I wasn't hungry during this time. I've returned from the hospital a couple weeks ago, and my hunger levels have felt pretty out of control. I actually have been meaning to tell myself not to eat past 6pm, but I've found it difficult.
There could be (and probably are) several reasons why my hunger wasn't that high in the hospital, but it's possible that one of the main reasons was the time of day I was eating. Once I get my sleeping schedule fixed, I'll try out not eating food after 6 or 7pm. Although, if it works, who is to say that it won't be because my sleeping schedule is fixed...Ha! So many factors all the time!1 -
Basically, the digestive system related thing is, eat at least tow hours before going to sleep, otherwise a slugging digestive process will result in acid reflux and bad digestion.
Ive never found that myself and I have many many times eaten within 2 hours of going to bed.2 -
Another intermittent fasting study this week. They seem to all come out on Tuesdays.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It finds that regardless of type of food or total calories, intermittent fasting (TRF) has a positive impact on our genes. The eating timing meshes with circadian rhythms and cell health.
A press release: https://salk.edu/news-release/time-restricted-eating-reshapes-gene-expression-throughout-the-body/
The study: https://cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(22)00543-5“Circadian rhythms are everywhere in every cell,” says Panda. “We found that time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes.”These results indicate that TRF promotes synchronized rhythms of gene expression across tissues, leading to the temporal compartmentalization of various catabolic and anabolic processes. Such compartmentalization is known to improve physiology.
0 -
It is good to read the entire article. In this case, this part is most enlightening:chris_in_cal wrote: »Another intermittent fasting study this week. They seem to all come out on Tuesdays.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It finds that regardless of type of food or total calories, intermittent fasting (TRF) has a positive impact on our genes. The eating timing meshes with circadian rhythms and cell health.
A press release: https://salk.edu/news-release/time-restricted-eating-reshapes-gene-expression-throughout-the-body/
The study: https://cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(22)00543-5“Circadian rhythms are everywhere in every cell,” says Panda. “We found that time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes.”These results indicate that TRF promotes synchronized rhythms of gene expression across tissues, leading to the temporal compartmentalization of various catabolic and anabolic processes. Such compartmentalization is known to improve physiology.
Humans are not mice. That does not mean this study is rubbish, it is interesting, but whether or not it has any relevance to humans is unknown. Science takes time and lots of it. This is a good example of that.One of the major limitations of our study is that the transcriptome atlas was generated only from young, male mice.4 -
Like anything else it’s a tool. I imagine for a noob it can be effective. As you become more experienced you can settle into a pattern that fits your personal preference. At the end of the day IMO it boils down to energy in vs energy out…1
-
chris_in_cal wrote: »Another intermittent fasting study this week. They seem to all come out on Tuesdays.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It finds that regardless of type of food or total calories, intermittent fasting (TRF) has a positive impact on our genes. The eating timing meshes with circadian rhythms and cell health.
A press release: https://salk.edu/news-release/time-restricted-eating-reshapes-gene-expression-throughout-the-body/
The study: https://cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(22)00543-5“Circadian rhythms are everywhere in every cell,” says Panda. “We found that time-restricted eating synchronized the circadian rhythms to have two major waves: one during fasting, and another just after eating. We suspect this allows the body to coordinate different processes.”These results indicate that TRF promotes synchronized rhythms of gene expression across tissues, leading to the temporal compartmentalization of various catabolic and anabolic processes. Such compartmentalization is known to improve physiology.
Yeah, these are well documented which inevitably lead to human trials. Here's a few you might not be familiar with.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29754952/
Early Time-Restricted Feeding Improves Insulin Sensitivity, Blood Pressure, and Oxidative Stress Even without Weight Loss in Men with Prediabetes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31151228/
Early Time-Restricted Feeding Improves 24-Hour Glucose Levels and Affects Markers of the Circadian Clock, Aging, and Autophagy in Humans
0 -
Realistically, if this held so true, then all the countries where people eat well after 5pm should have the same obesity issues as US, England, etc. While I find the study interesting, I'm betting the impact of actual weight gain is likely minimal if the diets are exactly the same but eaten at different times. Let's face it, it's OVERALL CALORIES eaten in a day that matters most.
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
5 -
Realistically, if this held so true, then all the countries where people eat well after 5pm should have the same obesity issues as US, England, etc. While I find the study interesting, I'm betting the impact of actual weight gain is likely minimal if the diets are exactly the same but eaten at different times. Let's face it, it's OVERALL CALORIES eaten in a day that matters most.
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
Here's my comment earlier.This study has nothing to do with weight loss or if eating past 5 puts on weight or how someone might find it inconvenient for whatever reason. Whether someone's schedule finds them eating late or they do shift work also has nothing to do with this study, it's just showing that certain factors (hormones) can elicit a possible negative outcome that over time if someone is obese could find their condition not improving or getting worse even though they're controlling their calorie intake. The two groups ate the same number of calories, which were not designed to put participants in a deficit, basically isocaloric conditions
Cheers
0 -
Indeed. She is not the most popular figure out there, because she refuses to tell people what they want to hear and instead tells them what to they need to hear, but she is a pioneer in intermittent fasting research, was so enthusiastic about it in the beginning that she even wrote a book about it and cooled down tremendously when more and more research (hers and others') came in and showed it is essentially nothing or not much more than a way people can use to reduce their energy ingestion levels. She is a professor of nutrition at the university of Illinois in Chicago.Realistically, if this held so true, then all the countries where people eat well after 5pm should have the same obesity issues as US, England, etc. While I find the study interesting, I'm betting the impact of actual weight gain is likely minimal if the diets are exactly the same but eaten at different times. Let's face it, it's OVERALL CALORIES eaten in a day that matters most.
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
https://ahs.uic.edu/kinesiology-nutrition/directory/varady-krista/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsFJWsy9ddc
1 -
I like this new studies' relationship to circadian rhythms. It isn't possible for me to draw a line between basic research in mammal biology and a generic example of a 2023 graveyard shift worker who drives to the restaurant that serves the type of food she is currently focusing on to drop some weight.
I'm intrigued by a link between Awake/eating and resting/not-eating phases and how bodies may face less stress and promote better outcomes if managed well (whatever 'managed well' is)0 -
Meal timing is minutia when discussing Fatloss. Overall weekly calories will always be the prime factor in weight management. I will say that when I’m in a Fatloss stage, I don’t eat late so I’m hungry when I’m asleep. I had 20 years of daily records on fitday.com (they pulled the plug last month) and meal timing had zero effect on progress. It was all about the weekly/monthly reports.4
-
tomcustombuilder wrote: »Meal timing is minutia when discussing Fatloss.
I agree.
Related: fatloss is not minutia, but it's just a part of less stress, overall systemic wellbeing, fitness, flexibility, less chronic disease, a more healthy overall life.
For these other topics things like rest, recovery, stress relief, fitness, exercise, quality and composition of food, even circadian rhythm have roles.
The study concludes doing somethings can cause gene expression to function in different ways. Lots of things have ramifications.0 -
Today's Washington Post has a general population article related to "Stop eating after 5:00 p.m.?"
It's probably paywalled: https://washingtonpost.com/wellness/2023/01/10/meal-timing-big-meals/
Here's an excerpt.The biology of meal timing
Scientists have uncovered several mechanisms that explain why an early-eating schedule is better for your health. Our bodies are better able secrete insulin, a hormone that controls blood sugar levels, in the morning.
We also tend to be more insulin-sensitive early in the day, meaning our muscles are better able to absorb and utilize glucose from our bloodstreams. But as the day progresses, we become less and less insulin-sensitive. By nighttime, the beta cells in the pancreas that produce insulin become sluggish and less responsive to blood sugar elevations.
Another important factor is hormone-sensitive lipase, an enzyme that releases fat from our fat cells. This enzyme is typically most active at night so it can provide our bodies with energy to keep our organs functioning as we sleep.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
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.
As to "why do people overeat", I would also add that many don't...at least not in the sense that it's obvious or deliberate or really perceived as over consumption. My wife and I both eat a sensible and nutritious diet...basically 3 squares of sensibly portioned food, maybe an afternoon snack...only eat out maybe once every week or two, etc. Generally speaking we don't have much problem maintaining a healthy weight so long as we are generally active which for us means mostly active recreation with a smattering of "workouts" thrown into the mix...but we do run into problems with our weight when things get hectic and our activity level dips to sitting at our desks all day, commuting, and maybe a weekend warrior bike ride as our only really active outing.
Technically, yes...we are overeating for our activity, but really it's pretty sensible eating but lack of that activity that gets us. Usually it's because life got busier than normal, but we are also known to get into lazy slumps from time to time...or to hibernate in winter...and both of our commutes are rather sucky and require a vehicle.2 -
I agree 100% with that. In fact, that is what made me fat to begin with: eating until I am "full and satisfied". I (almost) never pigged out, junk food was a rare treat, and was really limited to nuts, pork scratchings and cheese, and not all that often. It is why I got –and still get– mad at dietitians who say that you should learn to eat until you are full and satisfied.cwolfman13 wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
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.
As to "why do people overeat", I would also add that many don't...at least not in the sense that it's obvious or deliberate or really perceived as over consumption. My wife and I both eat a sensible and nutritious diet...basically 3 squares of sensibly portioned food, maybe an afternoon snack...only eat out maybe once every week or two, etc. Generally speaking we don't have much problem maintaining a healthy weight so long as we are generally active which for us means mostly active recreation with a smattering of "workouts" thrown into the mix...but we do run into problems with our weight when things get hectic and our activity level dips to sitting at our desks all day, commuting, and maybe a weekend warrior bike ride as our only really active outing.
Technically, yes...we are overeating for our activity, but really it's pretty sensible eating but lack of that activity that gets us. Usually it's because life got busier than normal, but we are also known to get into lazy slumps from time to time...or to hibernate in winter...and both of our commutes are rather sucky and require a vehicle.
Instead, I had to find a way to limit calories while also limiting hunger in order to have it stay within tolerable limits. I have been doing this for a little of four years now, and while I have lost well over 60 kg, I still have some way to go, and contrary to popular claims, the hunger stays. It is tolerable, it is not overly distracting, but it is constantly gnawing hunger nevertheless. I have simply learned to accept it as a fact of my life. That has become slightly easier because the advantages of the weight loss outweigh the disadvantages of the hunger, for me anyway. That does not make it particularly pleasant though.
That said, when one gains fat, it is because one overeats, there is no more mystery to it than that. Sure, if I would be walking 40 km a day or bike 200 km a day, that would almost certainly make a significant difference muscle-wise, but it would really not solve anything weight-wise: I would just be more hungry and overeat even more in overcompensation. That is not an assumption. I rode my bike from Toronto to Holland Landing and even to Barrie quite regulary years ago, and it made me so hungry that I gained weight even faster in that period.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
I agree 100% with that. In fact, that is what made me fat to begin with: eating until I am "full and satisfied". I (almost) never pigged out, junk food was a rare treat, and was really limited to nuts, pork scratchings and cheese, and not all that often. It is why I got –and still get– mad at dietitians who say that you should learn to eat until you are full and satisfied.cwolfman13 wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »
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.
As to "why do people overeat", I would also add that many don't...at least not in the sense that it's obvious or deliberate or really perceived as over consumption. My wife and I both eat a sensible and nutritious diet...basically 3 squares of sensibly portioned food, maybe an afternoon snack...only eat out maybe once every week or two, etc. Generally speaking we don't have much problem maintaining a healthy weight so long as we are generally active which for us means mostly active recreation with a smattering of "workouts" thrown into the mix...but we do run into problems with our weight when things get hectic and our activity level dips to sitting at our desks all day, commuting, and maybe a weekend warrior bike ride as our only really active outing.
Technically, yes...we are overeating for our activity, but really it's pretty sensible eating but lack of that activity that gets us. Usually it's because life got busier than normal, but we are also known to get into lazy slumps from time to time...or to hibernate in winter...and both of our commutes are rather sucky and require a vehicle.
Instead, I had to find a way to limit calories while also limiting hunger in order to have it stay within tolerable limits. I have been doing this for a little of four years now, and while I have lost well over 60 kg, I still have some way to go, and contrary to popular claims, the hunger stays. It is tolerable, it is not overly distracting, but it is constantly gnawing hunger nevertheless. I have simply learned to accept it as a fact of my life. That has become slightly easier because the advantages of the weight loss outweigh the disadvantages of the hunger, for me anyway. That does not make it particularly pleasant though.
That said, when one gains fat, it is because one overeats, there is no more mystery to it than that. Sure, if I would be walking 40 km a day or bike 200 km a day, that would almost certainly make a significant difference muscle-wise, but it would really not solve anything weight-wise: I would just be more hungry and overeat even more in overcompensation. That is not an assumption. I rode my bike from Toronto to Holland Landing and even to Barrie quite regulary years ago, and it made me so hungry that I gained weight even faster in that period.
I am really grateful that I do not have the hunger issues that you have. I am not a morning eater. I eat later in the day, and it doesn't, in and of itself, cause me issues. I do remember during my initial weight loss, I would sometimes feel "empty" in the morning before I had my first food. That was days that I was in the office and I'd have something like uncooked oats mixed with yogurt and left to sit for a half hour to two hours to soften. I actually got to where I enjoyed the slightly empty feeling. I would not feel "full" or sated after I'd eat, but magically a quarter hour later, I wasn't empty or hungry at all. It takes a little while before the signal from my belly that I had eaten enough got to my brain. All the more reason to use portion control and then wait to see how I felt later. Worked really well for me.
I also remember being on a dive boat several years ago. Our dinner was grilled tri-tip with broccoli and rice or something. It was delicious. I went back to the galley to get more broccoli. The galley crew asked if I wanted more meat. I thought about it and said, "Yes." It was still delicious. Then, about 15 minutes later, I was UNCOMFORTABLY full. I noticed it and thought how I really did NOT like that feeling. I also thought further that "This is how I used to always feel after a meal, and I used to like it." I am so grateful that the habits I developed allowed my body to respond better to what I eat. I sincerely hope you can get to this place too. I know there are some medical conditions that can cause unquenchable hunger. I feel sympathy for people who struggle with those conditions. I hope you don't have those because if you do you'll likely never get to a place where you aren't hungry.1 -
At the end of the day IMO it boils down to energy in vs energy out…
I mean that's not an opinion, it's a fact. You can't lose weight unless you have more calories(energy) leaving than entering your body. Everything else, including research like this, is only meant to help guide us to better figure out how to get there!1 -
Indeed. It is a Good Thing that you don't have that problem. That said, very many people do have it. Most probably don't have it as bad I do, but they do have it. It had a genetic origin and it is the original reason for the "It's not your fault" claim. Unfortunately, that claim, while quite correct when taken in context, has been perverted into an excuse for people to pig out. Just because our genes predispose us to overeating does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that we cannot fight those genes. That is where willpower comes in, which has become a "dirty word" in the weight loss industry.I am really grateful that I do not have the hunger issues that you have. I am not a morning eater. I eat later in the day, and it doesn't, in and of itself, cause me issues. I do remember during my initial weight loss, I would sometimes feel "empty" in the morning before I had my first food. That was days that I was in the office and I'd have something like uncooked oats mixed with yogurt and left to sit for a half hour to two hours to soften. I actually got to where I enjoyed the slightly empty feeling. I would not feel "full" or sated after I'd eat, but magically a quarter hour later, I wasn't empty or hungry at all. It takes a little while before the signal from my belly that I had eaten enough got to my brain. All the more reason to use portion control and then wait to see how I felt later. Worked really well for me.
I also remember being on a dive boat several years ago. Our dinner was grilled tri-tip with broccoli and rice or something. It was delicious. I went back to the galley to get more broccoli. The galley crew asked if I wanted more meat. I thought about it and said, "Yes." It was still delicious. Then, about 15 minutes later, I was UNCOMFORTABLY full. I noticed it and thought how I really did NOT like that feeling. I also thought further that "This is how I used to always feel after a meal, and I used to like it." I am so grateful that the habits I developed allowed my body to respond better to what I eat. I sincerely hope you can get to this place too. I know there are some medical conditions that can cause unquenchable hunger. I feel sympathy for people who struggle with those conditions. I hope you don't have those because if you do you'll likely never get to a place where you aren't hungry.
I used to be like you, at least partly. Breakfast was the one thing I could skip without any ill effects for a few hours. I used to call that the anorexic effect of sleep. However, it only worked if I ate a relatively short time before going to sleep.
Uncomfortably full? I know that too. The worst thing was when I was uncomfortably full while also being ravenously hungry. It is the most miserable feeling ever, except for hunger-induced pain, nausea and vomiting (for me anyway). In fact, I never even knew what "feeling full and satisfied" felt like until the beginning of 2022 when I experimented with cheese. It turned out that I was able to feel exactly that. It was heaven. Completely satisfied, no hunger, not even any remote interest in food... for about 3 to 4 hours and then the hunger came back. The problem? It took a bit over 800 g of a (semi)hard cheese to get that far. That is about 3 times the calories I need in a day. Not the best way to lose weight even less so because I would have to repeat the cycle 3 to 4 times a day. So, I decided to effectively ban cheese altogether and I joined nuts and pork scratchings to that ban as well. Nuts gave me zero satiety and while pork scratching gave me satiation, it was accompanied by feeling ravenously hungry leading me to eat anything in sight. While the ban did not solve my hunger problem, it gave me what I call "food serenity", and my quality of life has improved tremendously as a result. I did not expect that at all, but I am extremely happy with it.
As for eternal hunger: I am unlikely to ever get rid of it. After four years on my "doable" diet, the hunger remains unrelenting. But at least, it is now tolerable. I no longer have the pain, the nausea and the vomiting I used to have, only the hunger.
Thanks for your wishes, and I wish you continued success on your journey!1 -
Indeed. While personal opinion and the expression of it should be protected, I think a very good case can be made for making claims to the contrary made by professionals who can be reasonably expected to know that they are lying about it a crime. Saying that "it is not about an energy deficit" as some well-known charlatans do, is beyond cruel and potentially damages people's reasoning power and ability to distinguish between reality and mythology.At the end of the day IMO it boils down to energy in vs energy out…
I mean that's not an opinion, it's a fact. You can't lose weight unless you have more calories(energy) leaving than entering your body. Everything else, including research like this, is only meant to help guide us to better figure out how to get there!0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »it It had a genetic origin and it is the original reason for the "It's not your fault" claim. Unfortunately, that claim, while quite correct when taken in context, has been perverted into an excuse for people to pig out. Just because our genes predispose us to overeating does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that we cannot fight those genes.
To play devils advocate, because I don't think any of us are geneticist, you identifying "genes." The study posted earlier in this thread explicitly found a shift in "gene expression" with changes to time of eating.
If you do infact have genes doing stuff, there still might be techniques or behaviors that might help you have a happier life. Reading that study might be worthwhile.
Sounds like you have done a lot of stuff right. Good luck moving forward.0 -
The operative word being "might". Reading that study (and any and all other studies) is interesting for researchers, but dangerous for non-researchers who tend to misinterpret what they are reading. As I said, mice are not people and we have been disappointed over and over and over by thinking we are. Anyone remember the injecting-bleach episode in the US?chris_in_cal wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »it It had a genetic origin and it is the original reason for the "It's not your fault" claim. Unfortunately, that claim, while quite correct when taken in context, has been perverted into an excuse for people to pig out. Just because our genes predispose us to overeating does not mean by any stretch of the imagination that we cannot fight those genes.
To play devils advocate, because I don't think any of us are geneticist, you identifying "genes." The study posted earlier in this thread explicitly found a shift in "gene expression" with changes to time of eating.
If you do infact have genes doing stuff, there still might be techniques or behaviors that might help you have a happier life. Reading that study might be worthwhile.
My own point is simply that even though humans are unusually similar genetically speaking when compared to other species, we really are all very different. Unfortunately, in the current state of science and technology, besides a few really clear-cut cases (such as monogenic obesity) we have no way of predicting what a particular human has to do.
All we can do, is try different "strategies" and diets until we find the one that works in the hope that we actually do. In *all* cases known to science, that means an energy-unbalanced diet, a.k.a. as an energy deficit, or as I like to call it, ingesting less energy than one needs to stay alive.
What I mean by that is that a weight loss diet is by definition not a sustainable diet, because a sustained weight loss diet is one that ultimately and unavoidably ends in death. In practice, that will almost never happen, because our energy requirements gradually decrease when weight is lost, so there will be a cross-point where the curves intersect and diet provides (almost and hypothetically) exactly what we need, but at that point, the diet that was a weight loss diet is -obviously- no longer a weight loss diet, but simply a balanced diet (at least from an energy standpoint).
However, the point about (un)sustainability holds. All we have to do to know that, is to look at the numberless cases where people who are eating (but not enough) are indeed dying (with some confounding factors, such as inadequate micronutrient intakes, inadequate healthcare and the like).
It is why I always insist people consult with at least one physician, i.e. an MD. While they are not perfect, far from it, they are our best bet to find good advice because of all the people we *can* consult, they have the most extensive and holistic knowledge. No other consultant comes close, not even dietitians (they know quite a bit, far more than most lay people, but they do not have the same level of scientific background doctors have). That does not mean that dietitians are not useful, they most definitely are, but their level of understanding is more shallow than a physician's and it shows. They are basically the nutritional equivalent of physiotherapists.
Thanks. It took forty (!) years, but I am there now. Trial and error does take time. Sometimes/often lots of it. It is the only reason I came to MFP, because I finally found my way and I want to find a way to encourage people not to give up. regardless of the ideal/only path for them, which is almost certainly not the one I am following and mine could very well still have unintended and unforeseen negative outcomes, given our limited knowledge.Sounds like you have done a lot of stuff right. Good luck moving forward.
That said, the effort required is more than worth it, and once one has found a way that works for one, one is set for the remainder of one's foreseeable life. I could not in good conscience do that before, but now I can. I wish you and everyone else the success I have now the privilege to enjoy, and enjoy I do.0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »What I mean by that is that a weight loss diet is by definition not a sustainable diet, because a sustained weight loss diet is one that ultimately and unavoidably ends in death. In practice, that will almost never happen, because our energy requirements gradually decrease when weight is lost, so there will be a cross-point where the curves intersect and diet provides (almost and hypothetically) exactly what we need, but at that point, the diet that was a weight loss diet is -obviously- no longer a weight loss diet, but simply a balanced diet (at least from an energy standpoint).
I'm not sure if this is intentionally or unintentionally abstruse. A way of eating (or as you say "diet") that supports fat loss is not a static thing. A person who is morbidly obese can use a larger deficit with a goal to lose weight more quickly. There are plenty of solutions about loss rates. At 100 pounds overweight, I think I've seen two pounds a week as a maximum. As the person losing fat becomes smaller, their intake should adjust to a smaller deficit. With 50 or 20 pounds to lose, no more than one pound a week is a good goal. Someone with 100 pounds to lose may not have a completely clear idea of where the end-point is, but as they get closer to it, they can fine tune it. With 20 or 10 pounds to lose, again the diet goal should adjust to an even smaller deficit to lose no more than a half pound per week. At some point, the person can find their maintenance weight range. Maybe that's plus or minus two pounds, maybe plus or minus five. At that point, their calorie target should be zero deficit. If a deficit continues, yes, they will continue to lose weight to an unhealthy level. Nobody is proposing that. A weight loss diet is NOT by definition non-sustainable because it should adjust as the person losing fat is successful. It is all part of the plan.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »It is why I always insist people consult with at least one physician, i.e. an MD. While they are not perfect, far from it, they are our best bet to find good advice because of all the people we *can* consult, they have the most extensive and holistic knowledge. No other consultant comes close, not even dietitians (they know quite a bit, far more than most lay people, but they do not have the same level of scientific background doctors have). That does not mean that dietitians are not useful, they most definitely are, but their level of understanding is more shallow than a physician's and it shows. They are basically the nutritional equivalent of physiotherapists.
We will have to disagree on this one. Many general practitioners are not well versed at all in nutrition or weight loss. A registered dietician in the state I live must go several steps including a Bachelor's degree in dietetics, human nutrition, food and nutrition, or food systems management from an accredited University, complete a 22-month internship, pass a certification exam, obtain a license, and then maintain that license with continuing education. An MD doesn't have nearly this depth of knowledge. An RD is not the same as a "nutritionist." I can call myself a nutritionist. I should. I need the money. If I needed an orthopedist, my general practitioner could recommend one or refer me to one or I could find one myself. A GOOD general practitioner would refer me to a Registered Dietician if I needed to work on nutrition.
3 -
No discussion here. You have simply not read or understood what I wrote, because I wrote almost the exact same thing you did. My point is that a diet that causes uninterrupted constant weight loss is possible, but that this is unsustainable because it will unavoidably end in death and that most weight loss diets stop being weight loss diets at some point and become maintenance diets because an equilibrium has been reached between energy use and energy intake which is precisely why Robert Baron used to talk about the "forever diet" before he came up with the "generic diet".BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »What I mean by that is that a weight loss diet is by definition not a sustainable diet, because a sustained weight loss diet is one that ultimately and unavoidably ends in death. In practice, that will almost never happen, because our energy requirements gradually decrease when weight is lost, so there will be a cross-point where the curves intersect and diet provides (almost and hypothetically) exactly what we need, but at that point, the diet that was a weight loss diet is -obviously- no longer a weight loss diet, but simply a balanced diet (at least from an energy standpoint).
I'm not sure if this is intentionally or unintentionally abstruse. A way of eating (or as you say "diet") that supports fat loss is not a static thing. A person who is morbidly obese can use a larger deficit with a goal to lose weight more quickly. There are plenty of solutions about loss rates. At 100 pounds overweight, I think I've seen two pounds a week as a maximum. As the person losing fat becomes smaller, their intake should adjust to a smaller deficit. With 50 or 20 pounds to lose, no more than one pound a week is a good goal. Someone with 100 pounds to lose may not have a completely clear idea of where the end-point is, but as they get closer to it, they can fine tune it. With 20 or 10 pounds to lose, again the diet goal should adjust to an even smaller deficit to lose no more than a half pound per week. At some point, the person can find their maintenance weight range. Maybe that's plus or minus two pounds, maybe plus or minus five. At that point, their calorie target should be zero deficit. If a deficit continues, yes, they will continue to lose weight to an unhealthy level. Nobody is proposing that. A weight loss diet is NOT by definition non-sustainable because it should adjust as the person losing fat is successful. It is all part of the plan.BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »It is why I always insist people consult with at least one physician, i.e. an MD. While they are not perfect, far from it, they are our best bet to find good advice because of all the people we *can* consult, they have the most extensive and holistic knowledge. No other consultant comes close, not even dietitians (they know quite a bit, far more than most lay people, but they do not have the same level of scientific background doctors have). That does not mean that dietitians are not useful, they most definitely are, but their level of understanding is more shallow than a physician's and it shows. They are basically the nutritional equivalent of physiotherapists.
We will have to disagree on this one. Many general practitioners are not well versed at all in nutrition or weight loss. A registered dietician in the state I live must go several steps including a Bachelor's degree in dietetics, human nutrition, food and nutrition, or food systems management from an accredited University, complete a 22-month internship, pass a certification exam, obtain a license, and then maintain that license with continuing education. An MD doesn't have nearly this depth of knowledge. An RD is not the same as a "nutritionist." I can call myself a nutritionist. I should. I need the money. If I needed an orthopedist, my general practitioner could recommend one or refer me to one or I could find one myself.
As for dietitians and doctors, please read what I wrote and do it completely. Dietitians know more than most people, but they are astonishingly ignorant regarding the science underlying what they do. Most doctors don't know everything there is to know either, that would be impossible, if only for the simple reason that a human head can only collect so much information in the years that it takes to become a doctor, but where the science is concerned, they positively know more than dietitians. That is not an insult, it is simply the reality of life. It is, as an unrelated example, why doctors use ECG technicians and don't usually make ECGs themselves (though there are exceptions just as for any rule). That does not mean the technician knows more of the science. It does mean that he/she has more knowledge and experience with respect to recording and interpreting ECGs. It is the very reason an MD has to check the results and sign off on them, to make as certain as reasonably achievable that the examination is credible and correct.
It is, by the way, usually not very difficult to spot how ignorant dietitians can be, even university professors, as I have had the displeasure to experience. Again, that is not an insult. It is a mere fact. No one can know everything there is to know. While it is impossible to prove this claim, no one has ever been able to present a person who knows everything. Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is the most credible evidence of absence we can hope to get.
As for the difference between dietitians and nutritionists, yes I know. Anybody can call herself/himself a nutritionist. It is a meaningless title. Not everybody can call herself/himself a registered dietitian. That is a protected title that guarantees a certain minimum of proven knowledge. It is also why I usually tell people to go to an MD and not merely to someone who calls herself/himself a doctor.
Precisely my point: the dietitian has more practical knowledge, the doctor has more scientific knowledge.A GOOD general practitioner would refer me to a Registered Dietician if I needed to work on nutrition.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »You have simply not read or understood what I wrote,
Though you may make great points, and have valuable experiences to share. I don't like it when personal @mtaratoot accusations get posted. I find it off-putting.
4 -
What accusations would that be? I make it a point never to accuse someone, even when I am accused myself since I am a hater of ad hominems. Help me out here please.chris_in_cal wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »You have simply not read or understood what I wrote,
Though you may make great points, and have valuable experiences to share. I don't like it when personal @mtaratoot accusations get posted. I find it off-putting.
0 -
BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »Help me out here please.
Sure, in my post I clipped and quoted you. Reread your sentence that was quoted.
Your whole post, without that one sentence would have been materially no different. How did that "You" statement further clarify the point you were making? I'll take you for your word "help me out here please." There you go.
2 -
Thank you for that. This is my bad: I had not clicked on your quote because it looked like it was simply a repeat of what I said. So, I have to learn that this is not always the case.chris_in_cal wrote: »BartBVanBockstaele wrote: »Help me out here please.
Sure, in my post I clipped and quoted you. Reread your sentence that was quoted.
Your whole post, without that one sentence would have been materially no different. How did that "You" statement further clarify the point you were making? I'll take you for your word "help me out here please." There you go.
As for the sentence itself: point well taken. It was not an attack, simply a normal reaction to a reply that made no sense to me in light of what it said and what I had said before. Regardless, your help is appreciated. Thank you.
1
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