No carbs in the evening to shift last few pounds?????

kdrew11

I am getting married in 7 weeks and am trying to shift the last 7 lbs but it just won't budge. I'm going to try to increase my calories by 200 every other 2 days and then drop back down the other days. After speaking to someone at work today (who lost 4 stone and is also a science teacher so she knows the how it works) I'm also gonna try to eat all my carbs during the day and just eat protein at night with salad or veg. She said your body doesn't burn off many carbs at night and it goes straight to the fat reserve if no carbs to burn. She gave me a quote that I thought was quite good:

"Breakfast like a King, lunch like a Queen and dine like a Pauper"

I'm hoping if I take her advice it might kick start things again.

Has anyone else tried this? Has it worked and has anyone tried it with the last few pounds?

Thanks

mynameisuntz

Meal timing and frequency is entirely irrelevant to body composition. What matters is your entire day's worth of calories/macronutrients. Opting out of carbs in the evening will not change anything assuming you are not changing your overall caloric intake.

mapexdrummer69

Meal timing and frequency is entirely irrelevant to body composition. What matters is your entire day's worth of calories/macronutrients. Opting out of carbs in the evening will not change anything assuming you are not changing your overall caloric intake.

This exactly.

00trayn

My trainer told me to avoid carbs in the evening too. So I tried it, I was eating really low carb veggies, greek yogurt, and chicken or fish for dinner. And I hated it. I didn't lose any weight from doing it and I gave it up after a few weeks. I've seen the most success in cutting out sodium as much as possible, having a protein shake for dinner (blended with juice, frozen fruit and yogurt) and working out with a equal mix of cardio and strength training.

karikariboberry

I'm not sure of the science of it all, but I find that if I avoid carbs at dinner, the next morning wake up feeling skinny, which is always nice whether its moving the lbs or not

Melis25Fit

bump

mynameisuntz

I'm not sure of the science of it all, but I find that if I avoid carbs at dinner, the next morning wake up feeling skinny, which is always nice whether its moving the lbs or not

Correct in that it is not moving pounds (of fat, at least, though maybe water weight which fluctuates). But if you like the feeling, more power to you I guess.

iAMaPhoenix

I am getting married in 7 weeks and am trying to shift the last 7 lbs but it just won't budge. I'm going to try to increase my calories by 200 every other 2 days and then drop back down the other days. After speaking to someone at work today (who lost 4 stone and is also a science teacher so she knows the how it works) I'm also gonna try to eat all my carbs during the day and just eat protein at night with salad or veg. She said your body doesn't burn off many carbs at night and it goes straight to the fat reserve if no carbs to burn. She gave me a quote that I thought was quite good:

"Breakfast like a King, lunch like a Queen and dine like a Pauper"

I'm hoping if I take her advice it might kick start things again.

Has anyone else tried this? Has it worked and has anyone tried it with the last few pounds?

Thanks

Nice quote, but I heard it was, King, Prince and Pauper. But Queen will do.

mynameisuntz

OP - I don't eat breakfast most days until 3-5 pm. It doesn't have any role in losing fat, gaining fat, losing muscle, gaining muscle.

Meal timing means nothing. What you have to do is re-calculate your maintenance based on weight/body fat percentage, re-approach your caloric/macronutrient intake, and revamp training if necessary.

That's your solution. NOT meal timing.

mapexdrummer69

Eating at night is no different than eating in the morning.


Dropping carbs will in turn drop you overall caloric intake for the day, in the event that protein and fats are not increased. In all comes down to energy balance, calories in vs. calories out. No matter what time of day you eat them, or how frequent.

Fat- 9 cal/g
Protein- 4 cal/g
Carbohydrates- 4 cal/g
Alcohol- 7 cal/g (if TEF is taken into account, it's more like ~5, but splitting hairs at that point)


The above information does not always ring true for someone that suffers from a metabolic disorder, such as insulin resistance.

SueInAz

Meal timing and frequency is entirely irrelevant to body composition. What matters is your entire day's worth of calories/macronutrients. Opting out of carbs in the evening will not change anything assuming you are not changing your overall caloric intake.

I third this. Not only does not eating either of the macro-nutrients (protein, carbs or fat) in the evening not affect weight loss, but the myth regarding not eating anything after a certain time in the evening has also been debunked. It's the total amount of calories you consume each day that matters, not what time of day you eat them.

That said, you're welcome to give it a try, but don't be discouraged when it doesn't help. Those last few pounds are always the hardest. You'd be better off varying your workout routine than trying to change how you're eating.

kdrew11

Eating at night is no different than eating in the morning.


Dropping carbs will in turn drop you overall caloric intake for the day, in the event that protein and fats are not increased. In all comes down to energy balance, calories in vs. calories out. No matter what time of day you eat them, or how frequent.

Fat- 9 cal/g
Protein- 4 cal/g
Carbohydrates- 4 cal/g
Alcohol- 7 cal/g (if TEF is taken into account, it's more like ~5, but splitting hairs at that point)


The above information does not always ring true for someone that suffers from a metabolic disorder, such as insulin resistance.

What's TEF when you refer to alcohol please?

mapexdrummer69

Sorry, thermic effect of food.


Alcohol is labeled as 7.1 calories per gram, but the real value is more along the lines of 5.7 calories due to the thermic effect of food (TEF) which is 20% of the ingested calories. This makes the TEF of alcohol a close second to protein (20-35% depending on amino acid composition). The heightened thermogenesis resulting from alcohol intake is partly mediated by catecholamines.


Not to get off subject, but here's a good article to read in regards to alcohol.


http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html

kdrew11

Sorry, thermic effect of food.


Alcohol is labeled as 7.1 calories per gram, but the real value is more along the lines of 5.7 calories due to the thermic effect of food (TEF) which is 20% of the ingested calories. This makes the TEF of alcohol a close second to protein (20-35% depending on amino acid composition). The heightened thermogenesis resulting from alcohol intake is partly mediated by catecholamines.


Not to get off subject, but here's a good article to read in regards to alcohol.


http://www.leangains.com/2010/07/truth-about-alcohol-fat-loss-and-muscle.html

Thank you

beau8

I wish I could wake up feeling skinny lol

hamton

I agree the meal timing isn't important for the most part. When you throw in exercise, I believe it matters. I have reasons to believe eating your biggest meal after a workout is best.

mynameisuntz

I agree the meal timing isn't important for the most part. When you throw in exercise, I believe it matters. I have reasons to believe eating your biggest meal after a workout is best.

Only if you're training after extended periods of fasting, or performing multiple glycogen-depleting exercises per day.

hamton

Only if you're training after extended periods of fasting, or performing multiple glycogen-depleting exercises per day.

Which I think I'm doing using the IF technique combined with carb-backloading style kung fu, I achieve Zen.
Bah, I'm really doing because it's most convenient.

erk143

So take this from me, I'm a personal trainer with a masters degree in clinical exercise physiology. Nutrient timings very important. Very, very, very important. It's is true that your body wont really recognize the difference between a carb eaten at 10am vs a carb eaten at 10pm. The biggest difference with respect to that is if you eat a lot right before bed, you body slows down with sleep, resulting in more of what you ate being stored. I think your best bet, with the little that I know about you, would to be very careful with your nutrient timing. Eat small meals every2-3 hours. This will keep your metabolism going. When there are large gaps between meals our bodies start to slow down metabolically. Physiologically we still function like cavemen who are trying to survive.your body doesn't understand that there is a steady supply of food. It thinks that since you haven't eaten in 8+ hours that you must be entering a famine and all available fat supplies should be conserved. Timing is everything. Supermodels and bodybuilders are so very aware of this. People who say its just calories in vs. Calories out haven't gotten the whole picture yet. Honest to goodness, try small, evenly spaced, evenly sized meals. Make sure they're comprised of the right ratio of fat, complex carb, and protein that you need to reach your individual goals.

Please remember that I'm not a nutritionist and that I don't know you personally. These are just suggestions based on my knowledge. Please discuss with your health care professional before making any changes.

mynameisuntz

So take this from me, I'm a personal trainer with a masters degree in clinical exercise physiology. Nutrient timings very important. Very, very, very important. It's is true that your body wont really recognize the difference between a carb eaten at 10am vs a carb eaten at 10pm. The biggest difference with respect to that is if you eat a lot right before bed, you body slows down with sleep, resulting in more of what you ate being stored.

No. Your body works at BMR rates while sleeping. It does not shut down. If you eat 2,000 calories in the morning vs. 2,000 calories right before sleep, you will see the SAME net fat loss (assuming you're at a caloric deficit and assuming macronutrients are balanced).

I think your best bet, with the little that I know about you, would to be very careful with your nutrient timing. Eat small meals every2-3 hours. This will keep your metabolism going.

False. Your BMR along with NEAT will keep your metabolism going regardless of food intake. That coupled with TEA, assuming you are exercising. TEF is dose-dependent, meaning eating one meal or six meals in a day will result in the same NET metabolic boost for the day assuming macronutrients/calories are consistent.

When there are large gaps between meals our bodies start to slow down metabolically. Physiologically we still function like cavemen who are trying to survive.your body doesn't understand that there is a steady supply of food. It thinks that since you haven't eaten in 8+ hours that you must be entering a famine and all available fat supplies should be conserved. Timing is everything. Supermodels and bodybuilders are so very aware of this.

False. Our bodies will not slow down metabolically after going a few hours without food. It takes days of fasting before catabolism occurs, and much longer before our BMR slows down due to lack of caloric intake.

See: http://www.leangains.com/ - all the competitive bodybuilders and models who eat all their food in an 8 hour window each day.

People who say its just calories in vs. Calories out haven't gotten the whole picture yet. Honest to goodness, try small, evenly spaced, evenly sized meals. Make sure they're comprised of the right ratio of fat, complex carb, and protein that you need to reach your individual goals.

Calories for weight loss, macronutrients for body composition, micronutrients for general health. Ratios of macronutrients per meal and meal timing/frequency is ZERO bearing on body composition.

Please remember that I'm not a nutritionist and that I don't know you personally. These are just suggestions based on my knowledge. Please discuss with your health care professional before making any changes.

Where did you formulate these opinions? Any scientific research of any kind? I can post some research showing heightened fat loss from a single meal per day compared to three meals per day, if you like.

hamton

Holy cow, I'm doing the exact opposite of what you just said. I eat 2 meals a day and my last meal dinner is where most of my calories are. Close to 2000 calories. Few years ago, I believed and practiced what you just preached. Then after reading some new research, I'm doing just the opposite. I haven't gained any weight. I'm not trying to lose weight either. Just trying to recompose.

Now I'm trying a high saturated fat diet to improve my HDL. I'm trying to consume about 133g fat a day. Half of that is saturated fat. This must really blow your mind.

mynameisuntz

Holy cow, I'm doing the exact opposite of what you just said. I eat 2 meals a day and my last meal dinner is where most of my calories are. Close to 2000 calories. Few years ago, I believed and practiced what you just preached. Then after reading some new research, I'm doing just the opposite. I haven't gained any weight. I'm not trying to lose weight either. Just trying to recompose.

Now I'm trying a high saturated fat diet to improve my HDL. I'm trying to consume about 133g fat a day. Half of that is saturated fat. This must really blow your mind.

You really can't change your body composition without gaining or losing weight. Gain weight to add muscle, lose weight to burn fat. If your body isn't changing in weight, then you're not doing either of those things.

Just something to consider.

hamton

Word. Check out Martin's post where he addresses the eating every 2-3 hours to stroke your metabolic fire. I find his stuff very interesting and funny.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

mynameisuntz

Word. Check out Martin's post where he addresses the eating every 2-3 hours to stroke your metabolic fire. I find his stuff very interesting and funny.

http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html

Yeah I saw it when he posted it on the bodybuilding.com forums :]

hamton

You really can't change your body composition without gaining or losing weight. Gain weight to add muscle, lose weight to burn fat. If your body isn't changing in weight, then you're not doing either of those things.

Just something to consider.

I've tried cut and bulk cycles and it appear it's not for me. I use Wender's 531 with bodybuilding style to bulk and circuit training style to cut. I can cut until I'm under 10% body fat, but I then I look incredibly scrawny. Then I tried to a slow bulk, but end up looking fat again. Repeat and it appears I end up the same place over and over again. That's why I'm trying this IF carb-backloading style to see if this fits me better. Cutting sux and feels taxing on the body. Bulking is fun but I feel fat and lazy.

mynameisuntz

I've tried cut and bulk cycles and it appear it's not for me. I use Wender's 531 with bodybuilding style to bulk and circuit training style to cut. I can cut until I'm under 10% body fat, but I then I look incredibly scrawny. Then I tried to a slow bulk, but end up looking fat again. Repeat and it appears I end up the same place over and over again. That's why I'm trying this IF carb-backloading style to see if this fits me better. Cutting sux and feels taxing on the body. Bulking is fun but I feel fat and lazy.

Why are you doing circuit training to cut? Maintain high weight, low reps for your cutting routine. If you feel you gain too much fat bulking, then bulk slower to minimize fat gains (slower than you were). If you felt scrawny after your cut, then cut slower to maximize fat loss and minimize muscle loss. I would say upping to protein to higher numbers, 1.2 - 1.5g per pound LBM, could potentially help, too, if the standard 1g per pound LBM did not.

High weight + low reps = more muscle sparing than circuit training.

erk143

Oh my. And where did you get your education? There's always going to be individuals on both sides of an issue. Honestly, look at the people who are your ideals. Do you want to look like a pro athlete? A model? A very fit friend? Ask them what they do, i bet nutrient timing is important for them. No, when you eat a food does not change it's TEF (do you enjoy using words that other readers may not understand?) but it can change what your body does with it. Muscles function like insulin and perform glucose uptake from the blood stream. This results in quick energy as well as stable blood sugar levels. Whenblood sugar levels remain stable energy levels remain stable as well as keeping hunger at bay.

If your basing your statement on nutrient timing being unimportant on the fact that if your inactive it's irrelevant then you are correct, but aren't you kind of missing the whole point of this site? If you're active, walk, run, play sports, lift weight, clean house, have kids you chase around, when you eat and what you eat matters. I could find a website that says the moon is made of cheese, that doesnt mean its credible

mynameisuntz

Oh my. And where did you get your education? There's always going to be individuals on both sides of an issue.

Scientific research. How about you? Men's Health? Supplement ads?

Honestly, look at the people who are your ideals. Do you want to look like a pro athlete? A model? A very fit friend? Ask them what they do, i bet nutrient timing is important for them.

Okay, here are some people that eat all their calories in an 8 hour window per day:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2wFoFwS-A3o/TeFQUHIkFxI/AAAAAAAABJc/s29MVzoun6c/s1600/Leangains+Success+Story+Spencer+After.JPG

http://articles.elitefts.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/martin.bmp

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_dtaWqzV6d7M/TRib99OMPPI/AAAAAAAAA8c/UJxDOIPZdkk/s1600/Intermittent+Fasting+Leangains+Competition+Day+Lange.jpg

http://bodyspace.bodybuilding.com/img/user_images/growable/2010/03/27/22285211/gallerypic/1QYQVEy93bxDM3O5NpwNUakvjX45325e.jpeg

No, when you eat a food does not change it's TEF (do you enjoy using words that other readers may not understand?) but it can change what your body does with it. Muscles function like insulin and perform glucose uptake from the blood stream. This results in quick energy as well as stable blood sugar levels. Whenblood sugar levels remain stable energy levels remain stable as well as keeping hunger at bay.

If someone prefers more meals for reasons of satiety, that's one thing. That does NOT change the fact that two diets that are the exact same in calories/macronutrients will see the same exact results even if one person eats all his meals in 2 sittings and the other eats all his meals in 6 sittings.

Feel free to post some evidence that supports your claim that meal timing/frequency matters in regards to body composition. Find me a shred of evidence that you lose more fat eating 6 meals per day than you will eating 2 meals per day assuming calories/macronutrients are consistent.

If your basing your statement on nutrient timing being unimportant on the fact that if your inactive it's irrelevant then you are correct, but aren't you kind of missing the whole point of this site? If you're active, walk, run, play sports, lift weight, clean house, have kids you chase around, when you eat and what you eat matters. I could find a website that says the moon is made of cheese, that doesnt mean its credible

I'm not talking about websites. I'm talking about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS in scientific journals.

Why do you HAVE to eat within 30 minutes of exercise? If I go lift weights, which I do regularly, why do I have to drink a protein shake within an hour of lifting? Who says?

If I go for a bike ride for 50 miles, which I do regularly, why do I have to eat immediately after? Who says?

kdrew11

Whooooooah! Like erk143 says everyone has different opinions on these things and people have proven that different types of diet work for them. It doesn't mean someone with a different opinion is necessarily wrong. I wondered if anyone had any experience of no carbs in the evening and how it went. Think I'll give it a try over the next couple of weeks to see if it changes anything. Just wanted to try something slightly different as I think my body may be too used to what I'm doing.

mynameisuntz

Here are some fun things you can read:

"The study was a randomized crossover design with two treatment periods. During the treatment periods, subjects consumed all of the calories needed for weight maintenance in either 3 meals/d or 1 meal/d.

Subjects who completed the study maintained their body weight within 2 kg of their initial weight throughout the 6-mo period. There were no significant effects of meal frequency on heart rate, body temperature, or most of the blood variables measured. However, when consuming 1 meal/d, subjects had a significant increase in hunger; a significant modification of body composition, including reductions in fat mass; significant increases in blood pressure and in total, LDL-, and HDL-cholesterol concentrations; and a significant decrease in concentrations of cortisol."

-K. Stote, D. Baer, K. Spears, et al. A controlled trial of reduced meal frequency without caloric restriction in healthy, normal-weight, middle-aged adults. Am J Clin Nutr; 85:981-988 (April 2007).

"Many health practitioners recommend eating small, frequent meals for weight loss, yet the relationship of eating patterns, such as eating occasion frequency (EOF), to energy intake and body weight is controversial. Broad-based efforts to promote worksite wellness programs increase the importance of this issue, as many work environments inherently restrict eating patterns. The eating patterns of school personnel are understudied, but are of particular interest, not only because they have limited eating opportunities during the day but also because their diet and weight outcomes are likely to influence behaviors of a much larger population. We examined relationships between weekday EOF and energy intake and BMI among female elementary school personnel in 22 schools in a suburban county of southeastern Louisiana. Two 24-h dietary recalls were administered to randomly-selected employees (n = 329) on nonconsecutive days by registered dietitians. Measured heights and weights were used to calculate BMI (weight/height(2)). On average, employees consumed 2.2 of their total 5.9 meals and snacks during the school day, accounting for 37% of daily energy. In multiple regression models controlling for demographic and health variables, EOF as well as separate counts of meal and snack frequency were each positively and significantly associated with energy intake. However, neither the number of meals, snacks, nor overall EOF was associated with BMI. The proportion of energy consumed during the school day and the positive association of weekday EOF with energy intake suggest an important role for worksite wellness programs that target the dietary improvement of elementary school personnel."

-Hartline-Grafton HL, Rose D, Johnson CC, Rice JC, Webber LS. The influence of weekday eating patterns on energy intake and BMI among female elementary school personnel. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Apr;18(4):736-42. Epub 2009 Aug 20.

There have been reports of an inverse relationship between meal frequency (MF) and adiposity. It has been postulated that this may be explained by favourable effects of increased MF on appetite control and possibly on gut peptides as well. The main goal of the present study was to investigate whether using a high MF could lead to a greater weight loss than that obtained with a low MF under conditions of similar energy restriction. Subjects were randomised into two treatment arms (high MF = 3 meals+3 snacks/d or low MF = 3 meals/d) and subjected to the same dietary energy restriction of - 2931 kJ/d for 8 weeks. Sixteen obese adults (n 8 women and 8 men; age 34.6 (sd 9.5); BMI 37.1 (sd 4.5) kg/m2) completed the study. Overall, there was a 4.7 % decrease in body weight (P < 0.01); similarly, significant decreases were noted in fat mass ( - 3.1 (sd 2.9) kg; P < 0.01), lean body mass ( - 2.0 (sd 3.1) kg; P < 0.05) and BMI ( - 1.7 (sd 0.8) kg/m2; P < 0.01). However, there were NS differences between the low- and high-MF groups for adiposity indices, appetite measurements or gut peptides (peptide YY and ghrelin) either before or after the intervention. We conclude that increasing MF does not promote greater body weight loss under the conditions described in the present study.

-Cameron JD, Cyr MJ, Doucet E. Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet. Br J Nutr. 2010 Apr;103(8):1098-101. Epub 2009 Nov 30. PubMed PMID: 19943985.

"Several epidemiological studies have observed an inverse relationship between people’s habitual frequency of eating and body weight, leading to the suggestion that a ‘nibbling’ meal pattern may help in the avoidance of obesity. A review of all pertinent studies shows that, although many fail to find any significant relationship, the relationship is consistently inverse in those that do observe a relationship. However, this finding is highly vulnerable to the probable confounding effects of post hoc changes in dietary patterns as a consequence of weight gain and to dietary under-reporting which undoubtedly invalidates some of the studies. We conclude that the epidemiological evidence is at best very weak, and almost certainly represents an artefact. A detailed review of the possible mechanistic explanations for a metabolic advantage of nibbling meal patterns failed to reveal significant benefits in respect of energy expenditure. Although some short-term studies suggest that the thermic effect of feeding is higher when an isoenergetic test load is divided into multiple small meals, other studies refute this, and most are neutral. More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency. We conclude that any effects of meal pattern on the regulation of body weight are likely to be mediated through effects on the food intake side of the energy balance equation."

-France Bellisle, Regina McDevitt and Andrew M. Prentice, British Journal of Nutrition (1997), 77 (Suppl. I), S57-S70.

kdrew11

I'm not talking about websites. I'm talking about SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS in scientific journals.

p.s. It was a scientist who told me about this in the first place and gave the theory behind it too. She lost 4 stone doing this. Again one scientist's opinion may differ from another's which is maybe why a mountain of health problems have not all been solved and research continues.