Stop eating after 5:00 p.m.?
Options
Replies
-
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
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 400 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 991 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions