Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Time-Restricted Eating - Early Shift
Options
Replies
-
OllyBooBoo wrote: »Early shift here! The last two nights I finished dinner by 5:30. I like to wake up early and be in bed early so this works for me. I'll eat breakfast around 9:30-10am. When I don't IF, my snacking is out of control.
How far are you from maintenance on your weight goals? Also, how is your sleeping, do you struggle with it, or are you mostly well rested?0 -
"This meta-analysis evaluated whether weight loss caused by early time-restricted eating could promote fat mass loss while preserving fat-free mass, thereby leading to improvements in inflammation and metabolic health."
"Early time-restricted eating, especially 16:08 strategy, appears to be an effective strategy to decrease body weight, fat mass, abdominal obesity and inflammation, but less likely to decrease fat-free mass."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402124000134?via=ihub
I'm not primed to defend, critique, or explain this paper; nor do I have access to the full text beyond the summary at that link. I simply ran across the summary, thought of this thread, and felt it was on-topic enough to perhaps interest some who participated in the thread who might not have seen it.
I have no dog in this fight, not even a tiny one. (TRE sounds unpleasant to me, as an unashamed hedonist
).
0 -
"Early time-restricted eating, especially 16:08 strategy, appears to be an effective strategy to decrease body weight, fat mass, abdominal obesity and inflammation, but less likely to decrease fat-free mass."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402124000134?via=ihub
Yeah, this is well documented and I've mentioned that a few time previously, ad nauseum I suspect.
What's interesting is that short term fasting, within 24-48 hours is basically a survival mechanism that was adapted during our evolutionary past. Short term fasting actually increases metabolism by increasing our norepinephrine which promotes fat burning and energy usage which by default preserves lean fat mass. Basically a physiological response that helped optimize the body's energy usage during times of food scarcity and ensuring there is enough energy for crucial survival tasks. IF is also good and I would say crucial for our microbiome as well.
0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »rileysowner wrote: »I am not sure what you mean by "late shift" and "early shift". My eating preference is to stop eating about 6-7:30PM and not eat again until around 1PM the next day.
It's a term of art.....waiting until 1:00 p.m. to eat is definitely the late shift.
I agree preference for a choice of eating window matters.
I would call that an early shift, or maybe I'm not interpreting the definition properly. Basically the fasting is done by skipping breakfast. That increases his total time in IF to around an 18:6 protocal, which in RCT's results in the most benefit as well. imo0 -
neanderthin wrote: »"Early time-restricted eating, especially 16:08 strategy, appears to be an effective strategy to decrease body weight, fat mass, abdominal obesity and inflammation, but less likely to decrease fat-free mass."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402124000134?via=ihub
Yeah, this is well documented and I've mentioned that a few time previously, ad nauseum I suspect.
What's interesting is that short term fasting, within 24-48 hours is basically a survival mechanism that was adapted during our evolutionary past. Short term fasting actually increases metabolism by increasing our norepinephrine which promotes fat burning and energy usage which by default preserves lean fat mass. Basically a physiological response that helped optimize the body's energy usage during times of food scarcity and ensuring there is enough energy for crucial survival tasks. IF is also good and I would say crucial for our microbiome as well.
over the years, various eating approaches have been strongly advocated, and particularly to 'not skip breakfast and/or lunch or meals' for a variety of stated reasons like better mental performance post-breakfast or to prevent ravenous eating/bingeing later in the day.
So it, again, is a bit of mental whiplash to see opposite recommendations, and beyond to have a significant number of medical providers push 1 direction versus the other.
As I read and try to sort the info, it is hard just as a non-medical or science professional... it is difficult to discern anymore what truly is a better/best... since recommendations are so opposite in approach.
For me personally, I would be a sleep nightowl, and natural hunger does not appear until late afternoon... so I would be late shift.
Beyond that, my fav meals out at restaurants/feasts are more than the body needs in a whole day, so whatever approach I use, i need to understand how much is enough and stop at that.
My additional concern is how a quantity of carbs in a single meal evokes particular hormone/chemical responses, so I prefer not to have too much in a particular meal which necessitates shift the rest of the calories into fats and proteins, or dividing overall/carb amounts into more than 1 eating event.
Beyond that, I wish there were definitive on impact of the macros in single eating events or across days or???
And secondarily, i suppose, is to consider emotional satisfaction with the actual eating approach...
Combined for me, eat enough, not too much, foods that nourish my body, that I also enjoy. Low carb seems to be better physically and emotionally with food/carbs limited and spread across the day - so don't do TRF at this time.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »or maybe I'm not interpreting the definition properly.
Communication can be tricky.
My observations and the question I was trying to pose are: Nearly everyone I've read here on MFP who writes about their experiments with Time-Restricted Eating says something like -
"I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours. Then I eat starting later in my day, until before going to bed again for the night."
The semantics of naming it "early shift" or "late shift" aren't important (and can be confusing).
I've observed that most TRE people who responded concurred that they practice this technique: "I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours."
I was curious about others who might "Wake up from a night's sleep and eat, and then continue to eat for a few hours, and stop eating a much longer time before they go to bed."
The people practicing TRE here on MFP seem to come mostly from just one group. Some of that group wrote that the timing is irrelevant. When I observe a majority going in one direction, I become curious: Why in that direction and not the other? An answer of "stop thinking about that, it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant." doesn't make me less curious.
This one study's hypothesis is the same thing that makes me curious. Is there, in fact, any difference? I still don't know. It's just one study, but now, when someone writes, "Stop thinking about that; it doesn't matter," I'm buoyed by the fact that some researchers are wondering the same thing I am.0 -
What I see is you are in the vast majority of people here on MFP who are trying this.Adventurista wrote: »... natural hunger does not appear until late afternoon... so I would be late shift.0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »or maybe I'm not interpreting the definition properly.
Communication can be tricky.
My observations and the question I was trying to pose are: Nearly everyone I've read here on MFP who writes about their experiments with Time-Restricted Eating says something like -
"I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours. Then I eat starting later in my day, until before going to bed again for the night."
The semantics of naming it "early shift" or "late shift" aren't important (and can be confusing).
I've observed that most TRE people who responded concurred that they practice this technique: "I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours."
I was curious about others who might "Wake up from a night's sleep and eat, and then continue to eat for a few hours, and stop eating a much longer time before they go to bed."
The people practicing TRE here on MFP seem to come mostly from just one group. Some of that group wrote that the timing is irrelevant. When I observe a majority going in one direction, I become curious: Why in that direction and not the other? An answer of "stop thinking about that, it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant." doesn't make me less curious.
This one study's hypothesis is the same thing that makes me curious. Is there, in fact, any difference? I still don't know. It's just one study, but now, when someone writes, "Stop thinking about that; it doesn't matter," I'm buoyed by the fact that some researchers are wondering the same thing I am.
I don't know if I said it in an earlier post, but I eat at the end of the day because I find it difficult to sleep with an empty stomach. There are times I fast more than 24 hours, and if I have fasted from the previous evening by the time I get to bed time, I usually don't feel hungry any more so I sleep just fine.0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »or maybe I'm not interpreting the definition properly.
Communication can be tricky.
My observations and the question I was trying to pose are: Nearly everyone I've read here on MFP who writes about their experiments with Time-Restricted Eating says something like -
"I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours. Then I eat starting later in my day, until before going to bed again for the night."
The semantics of naming it "early shift" or "late shift" aren't important (and can be confusing).
I've observed that most TRE people who responded concurred that they practice this technique: "I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours."
I was curious about others who might "Wake up from a night's sleep and eat, and then continue to eat for a few hours, and stop eating a much longer time before they go to bed."
The people practicing TRE here on MFP seem to come mostly from just one group. Some of that group wrote that the timing is irrelevant. When I observe a majority going in one direction, I become curious: Why in that direction and not the other? An answer of "stop thinking about that, it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant." doesn't make me less curious.
This one study's hypothesis is the same thing that makes me curious. Is there, in fact, any difference? I still don't know. It's just one study, but now, when someone writes, "Stop thinking about that; it doesn't matter," I'm buoyed by the fact that some researchers are wondering the same thing I am.
Yes, kinda, but no, kinda. It's a meta-analysis, an analysis of multiple studies of a similar thing, not just a single study. There are pros and cons, but potentially more persuasive than a single study.0 -
-
Adventurista wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »"Early time-restricted eating, especially 16:08 strategy, appears to be an effective strategy to decrease body weight, fat mass, abdominal obesity and inflammation, but less likely to decrease fat-free mass."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402124000134?via=ihub
Yeah, this is well documented and I've mentioned that a few time previously, ad nauseum I suspect.
What's interesting is that short term fasting, within 24-48 hours is basically a survival mechanism that was adapted during our evolutionary past. Short term fasting actually increases metabolism by increasing our norepinephrine which promotes fat burning and energy usage which by default preserves lean fat mass. Basically a physiological response that helped optimize the body's energy usage during times of food scarcity and ensuring there is enough energy for crucial survival tasks. IF is also good and I would say crucial for our microbiome as well.
over the years, various eating approaches have been strongly advocated, and particularly to 'not skip breakfast and/or lunch or meals' for a variety of stated reasons like better mental performance post-breakfast or to prevent ravenous eating/bingeing later in the day.
So it, again, is a bit of mental whiplash to see opposite recommendations, and beyond to have a significant number of medical providers push 1 direction versus the other.
As I read and try to sort the info, it is hard just as a non-medical or science professional... it is difficult to discern anymore what truly is a better/best... since recommendations are so opposite in approach.
For me personally, I would be a sleep nightowl, and natural hunger does not appear until late afternoon... so I would be late shift.
Beyond that, my fav meals out at restaurants/feasts are more than the body needs in a whole day, so whatever approach I use, i need to understand how much is enough and stop at that.
My additional concern is how a quantity of carbs in a single meal evokes particular hormone/chemical responses, so I prefer not to have too much in a particular meal which necessitates shift the rest of the calories into fats and proteins, or dividing overall/carb amounts into more than 1 eating event.
Beyond that, I wish there were definitive on impact of the macros in single eating events or across days or???
And secondarily, i suppose, is to consider emotional satisfaction with the actual eating approach...
Combined for me, eat enough, not too much, foods that nourish my body, that I also enjoy. Low carb seems to be better physically and emotionally with food/carbs limited and spread across the day - so don't do TRF at this time.
I take more of an holistic approach to my wellbeing, which took me down a path that required more understanding of nutrition in general and how that might effect me. Basically it's a ground up approach, which turned out to pretty much be the opposite of the standard advice set, which from what I can tell is just a best guess that most agree with to try and keep a population happy and healthy, which so far hasn't worked out so well.
The advice for the Med diet for example if I read just once, that we should be eating nose to tail and consuming brain and intestines and also include lard and fat from the animals that most people of the Med had on their own piece of land from time emporium and simply doing for thousands of years I might have taken the standard advice more seriously, but to tell you the truth I'm kind of glad it's so blatantly biased and obviously based in politics, large entities like the food and pharma and the obvious money and power plays that when just doing simple research it works out to be pretty glaring how ridiculous it all looks, but that's just my opinion. People should take on a more active roll in dicovering ways to improve their own health as oppose to worry if they go off the ubiquitous guidelines bad health and death is waiting, lol. Again just my opinion, but I am a contrarian.
1 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »or maybe I'm not interpreting the definition properly.
Communication can be tricky.
My observations and the question I was trying to pose are: Nearly everyone I've read here on MFP who writes about their experiments with Time-Restricted Eating says something like -
"I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours. Then I eat starting later in my day, until before going to bed again for the night."
The semantics of naming it "early shift" or "late shift" aren't important (and can be confusing).
I've observed that most TRE people who responded concurred that they practice this technique: "I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours."
I was curious about others who might "Wake up from a night's sleep and eat, and then continue to eat for a few hours, and stop eating a much longer time before they go to bed."
The people practicing TRE here on MFP seem to come mostly from just one group. Some of that group wrote that the timing is irrelevant. When I observe a majority going in one direction, I become curious: Why in that direction and not the other? An answer of "stop thinking about that, it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant." doesn't make me less curious.
This one study's hypothesis is the same thing that makes me curious. Is there, in fact, any difference? I still don't know. It's just one study, but now, when someone writes, "Stop thinking about that; it doesn't matter," I'm buoyed by the fact that some researchers are wondering the same thing I am.
I don't do any specific IF at all and just eat in a pretty consistent pattern which generally reflects a 14-16 hours of no consumption of food anyway, I rarely have breakfast.
TRF originally had nothing to do with what a person eats or how much a person eats, it's all about how the body repairs and rejuvenates itself and how that on a timeline will adjust our metabolic health which also works in harmony with our circadian rhythm and other physiological aspects and hopefully if done consistently it could translate into better overall health in our later years, basically old age. If your doing it for weight loss then really the only factor that should be observed is, does it help create a situation where the person eats less and loses weight, full stop.
Whether you do it early or late will has no consequences if weight loss is the main goal, other than a preference that would facilitate a better outcome for that weight loss. Also that study just showed that 16:8 had a more profound effect, which is a given considering the longer repair and rejuvenation down time, kind of a no brainer really. imo.0 -
Maybe. You might be right.neanderthin wrote: »Whether you do it early or late will has no consequences if weight loss is the main goal0 -
chris_in_cal wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »or maybe I'm not interpreting the definition properly.
Communication can be tricky.
My observations and the question I was trying to pose are: Nearly everyone I've read here on MFP who writes about their experiments with Time-Restricted Eating says something like -
"I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours. Then I eat starting later in my day, until before going to bed again for the night."
The semantics of naming it "early shift" or "late shift" aren't important (and can be confusing).
I've observed that most TRE people who responded concurred that they practice this technique: "I wake up from a night's sleep and do not eat for several hours."
I was curious about others who might "Wake up from a night's sleep and eat, and then continue to eat for a few hours, and stop eating a much longer time before they go to bed."
The people practicing TRE here on MFP seem to come mostly from just one group. Some of that group wrote that the timing is irrelevant. When I observe a majority going in one direction, I become curious: Why in that direction and not the other? An answer of "stop thinking about that, it doesn't matter, it is irrelevant." doesn't make me less curious.
This one study's hypothesis is the same thing that makes me curious. Is there, in fact, any difference? I still don't know. It's just one study, but now, when someone writes, "Stop thinking about that; it doesn't matter," I'm buoyed by the fact that some researchers are wondering the same thing I am.
I think there’s more of a social skew towards a skipping breakfast approach. Many people find dinner to be a more social meal. At least for me, I go out to dinner with friends and almost never breakfast, even though I far prefer to eat a large breakfast and don’t care much about dinner at all. If you adopt IF as a lifestyle, it’s a much better fit to be able to have a larger dinner with family or friends.0 -
neanderthin wrote: »Whether you do it early or late will has no consequences if weight loss is the main goalchris_in_cal wrote: »Maybe. You might be right.
I think there's reasonable evidence at this point that weight loss is a direct function of calorie intake. There are subtleties to it because human bodies are dynamic, not static (calories in influence calories out); and because the behavioral side of reducing calories can be quite complex, among other factors.
The meta-analysis I linked suggest there may be benefits of early TRE during weight loss, including possibly better retention of fat-free mass (FFM). FFM does have an effect - probably small - on long-term calorie expenditure . . . tiny in direct terms, perhaps more meaningful indirectly, though the indirect effect is speculative.
My personal opinion, worth every penny anyone here ever pays me for it, is that compliance with reduced calories is a bigger factor in practical success than the theoretical benefits of any particular eating style (in an otherwise generally healthy person) or eating timing regimen.
In other words: Finding the personally easiest to manage method is more important than theoretical differences between methods. Still talking weight management only, BTW.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »Whether you do it early or late will has no consequences if weight loss is the main goalchris_in_cal wrote: »Maybe. You might be right.
In other words: Finding the personally easiest to manage method is more important than theoretical differences between methods. Still talking weight management only, BTW.
This is very true in many aspects of weight loss and maintenance. The easiest to manage method for an individual will have a higher likelihood of improving adherence to the overall eating goals leading to increased long-term success at reaching one's goals.
0 -
rileysowner wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »Whether you do it early or late will has no consequences if weight loss is the main goalchris_in_cal wrote: »Maybe. You might be right.
In other words: Finding the personally easiest to manage method is more important than theoretical differences between methods. Still talking weight management only, BTW.
This is very true in many aspects of weight loss and maintenance. The easiest to manage method for an individual will have a higher likelihood of improving adherence to the overall eating goals leading to increased long-term success at reaching one's goals.
Exactly my point. True for eating style, timing, exercise, food choices, and much, much more. I'm a huge fan of "don't try to make it fast, try to make it easy".2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 402 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
- 998 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions