Meal timing... the saga continues!

adietron

PAIRING CARBS WITH PROTEIN AT BREAKFAST results in more successful weight loss.

These findings were just published (March 2012) in the peer-reviewed scientific journal "Steroids." reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22178258

In this study of roughly 150 people, the carbs at breakfast helped to curb participants' cravings for sweets and carbs, and the protein at breakfast helped them feel full (satiated) longer (this study measured both "feelings" of hunger and cravings, as well as hormonal indicators of hunger).

* * * The combination of reduced cravings and increased satiety resulted in significant weight loss and PREVENTION OF WEIGHT RE-GAIN AFTER DIETING, compared to participants who ate a low-carb, low-calorie breakfast (all other meals and total daily calorie intake were the same in both groups). * * *

This figure is particularly convincing:


The "protein at breakfast" finding isn't really a new one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19283886
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20125103

And neither is the "treat yourself to reduce cravings" phenomenon:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18549985

AeolianHarp

I'll have to read the full study to fully comment. Unfortunately you didn't provide it but I have found it through my University's database.

adietron

Unfortunately you didn't provide it but I have found it through my University's database.

I wasn't sure if Elsevier would allow public access, but here's their link to the full-text article:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0039128X11003515

Glucocorticoid

They compared a low carb breakfast versus a high carb + PROTEIN breakfast. The latter lost more weight. How is this news? Protein = satiating. Eat more protein and you will be less hungry, which means you will eat less calories and therefore lose weight.

All of which has nothing to do with meal timing. Can you elaborate on your logic?

adietron

They compared a low carb breakfast versus a high carb + PROTEIN breakfast. The latter lost more weight. How is this news? Protein = satiating. Eat more protein and you will be less hungry, which means you will eat less calories and therefore lose weight.

All of which has nothing to do with meal timing. Can you elaborate on your logic?

The timing comes into play in this study because their intervention is at breakfast. At all other meals, the carb/protein/fat ratio is equal between experimental groups, and the total caloric intake for the day is also equal. And you're right, the protein/satiety thing isn't new (see refs in original post).

adietron

They compared a low carb breakfast versus a high carb + PROTEIN breakfast. The latter lost more weight. How is this news? Protein = satiating. Eat more protein and you will be less hungry, which means you will eat less calories and therefore lose weight.

All of which has nothing to do with meal timing. Can you elaborate on your logic?

Also, It might be important to point out that in the High carbohydrate- and protein-enriched breakfast diet (HCPb) participants were allowed a “dessert” on a daily basis, AT BREAKFAST. The “dessert” was a sweet food selected from the following list: chocolate, cookies, cake, ice cream, chocolate mousse or donuts.

So, they're not only looking at a high-carb+enriched protein breakfast, they're combining this with previous knowledge that daily indulgence of snack foods decreases their reinforcing value (desirability, essentially). Although the effects of the breakfast itself and the "dessert at breakfast" can't be teased apart, their results still indicate that the combination of the two could be a useful strategy for long-term compliance to a weight-loss program.

The authors are currently studying the direct effects of carbohydrate consumption (morning vs. evening). Those results will certainly be interesting, regardless of the outcome.

PercivalHackworth

Increased meal frequency does not promote greater weight loss in subjects who were prescribed an 8-week equi-energetic energy-restricted diet.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985

Glucocorticoid

The timing comes into play in this study because their intervention is at breakfast. At all other meals, the carb/protein/fat ratio is equal between experimental groups, and the total caloric intake for the day is also equal. And you're right, the protein/satiety thing isn't new (see refs in original post).

Your logic does not make sense. There were two groups in the study. One group ate a low-carb breakfast while the other ate a high protein/high carb breakfast. BOTH groups ate breakfast. How does this lead you to conclude anything about breakfast? They did not have a third group which did not eat breakfast.

Also, It might be important to point out that in the High carbohydrate- and protein-enriched breakfast diet (HCPb) participants were allowed a “dessert” on a daily basis, AT BREAKFAST. The “dessert” was a sweet food selected from the following list: chocolate, cookies, cake, ice cream, chocolate mousse or donuts.

How is that important? Both groups had the same amount of calories at the end of the day (at least up to week 16).

So, they're not only looking at a high-carb+enriched protein breakfast, they're combining this with previous knowledge that daily indulgence of snack foods decreases their reinforcing value (desirability, essentially). Although the effects of the breakfast itself and the "dessert at breakfast" can't be teased apart, their results still indicate that the combination of the two could be a useful strategy for long-term compliance to a weight-loss program.

The authors are currently studying the direct effects of carbohydrate consumption (morning vs. evening). Those results will certainly be interesting, regardless of the outcome.

Don't confuse correlation with causation. Let's break down the results of the study:

What was being compared was the HCPb (high carb/protein breakfast) group vs the LCb (low carb breakfast) group.

There were two phases:
Weeks 0-16 (Diet Intervention Period): Caloric intake was monitored
Weeks 16-32 (Follow-up Period): Caloric intake was SELF-SUPERVISED (this is very significant) and they WERE FREE TO EAT as motivated by hunger or cravings (this is also very significant)

RESULTS:

They study said the following:
- At Week 16, groups exhibited similar weight loss: 15.1 ± 1.9 kg in LCb group vs. 13.5 ± 2.3 kg in HCPb group, p = 0.11.
- From Week 16 to Week 32, LCb group regained 11.6 ± 2.6 kg, while the HCPb group lost additional 6.9 ± 1.7 kg

So during the first 16 weeks, both groups pretty much lost the same amount of weight. This would make sense since their caloric intake was equal (and was monitored). If you want to be nitpicky, the high protein group actually lost a little bit less weight. This also makes sense because the LCb group probably lost a bit more muscle than the HCPb group. When you go from a low protein diet to a high protein diet, you will generally see an initial muscle-sparing effect.

During weeks 16-32, the LCb regained most of their weight back while the HCPb group lost more weight. The big thing to keep in mind here is that they were free to eat however much they wanted based on their hunger. That means you can't really compare the two groups accurately because their caloric intake was NOT the same. Of course, the high protein group had less hunger and therefore ate less (so they lost weight).

As I said originally, all this study points out is that increasing protein in your diet will lead to weight loss because you will be more satiated and therefore eat less calories. Which has absolutely nothing to do with meal-timing.

adietron

I think the factors you're leaving out are the psychological ones, and that these strategies are used in combination.

Based on the Figure 2, there is an obvious, statistically significant difference between these groups. So what accounts for this difference?

The interpretation is up to each individual, surely. However, based on the data in this paper, I think it is logical to conclude that the COMBINATION of an enriched meal, at breakfast, that includes a highly rewarding "treat" food... is a successful strategy for effective weight loss and maintenance over a period of 32 weeks.

In my opinion, it IS important to keep the "treat" food at breakfast in mind. These participants experienced a measurable decrease in cravings that could very well contribute to their adherence to a weight-loss program, even in the 16 weeks when they were self-supervising. The rewarding effect of "treat" foods goes away if you eat them daily... if they don't feel as good when you eat them, you don't eat them as much, and they don't show up in your waist line.

We're obviously all here because we take a very scientific view of diet, caloric deficits, and our bodies... but it's important to keep these psychological factors in mind too.

Glucocorticoid

I think the factors you're leaving out are the psychological ones, and that these strategies are used in combination.

I agree that there are always psychological factors involved (although you can't actually make a distinction between psychological and physiological factors - the mind impacts the body and vice versa).

Based on the Figure 2, there is an obvious, statistically significant difference between these groups. So what accounts for this difference?

All Figure 2 shows is the results from Week 0-32, which I already explained in my previous post.

The interpretation is up to each individual, surely. However, based on the data in this paper, I think it is logical to conclude that the COMBINATION of an enriched meal, at breakfast, that includes a highly rewarding "treat" food... is a successful strategy for effective weight loss and maintenance over a period of 32 weeks.
In my opinion, it IS important to keep the "treat" food at breakfast in mind. These participants experienced a measurable decrease in cravings that could very well contribute to their adherence to a weight-loss program, even in the 16 weeks when they were self-supervising. The rewarding effect of "treat" foods goes away if you eat them daily... if they don't feel as good when you eat them, you don't eat them as much, and they don't show up in your waist line.

We're obviously all here because we take a very scientific view of diet, caloric deficits, and our bodies... but it's important to keep these psychological factors in mind too.

The issue is multifactorial. Human hunger is extremely complicated and there are a lot of hormonal things going on (if you are interested, look into leptin, insulin, ghrelin, peptide YY, GLP-1, CCK, etc.)
Without getting into detail, the bottom line is that it depends on the individual and their goal. For some folks, eating breakfast will help, for others, it will hurt or just be an irrelevancy.

I am assuming you have heard of intermittent fasting? Thousands of people have lost plenty of weight by skipping breakfast. Specifically, they will fast for 16 hours and eat their calories in an 8 hour window. www.leangains.com.
There is emerging research actually showing possible health benefits from this style of eating. But it's main benefit is convenience.

There is nothing inherently superior about breakfast - it's not a magical time of day that will somehow cause you to lose more weight. Different eating patterns work for different people. From that same website, read an article called "Top ten fasting myths debunked" - read #7 in particular (Myth: Skipping breakfast is bad for you and will make you fat). Here is the link.
http://www.leangains.com/2010/10/top-ten-fasting-myths-debunked.html