Does it matter what time you eat?

Side Steel might be wrong.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/really-timing-of-meals-affects-weight-loss/?src=recg

Study used self reported intake and rather heavily flawed expenditure estimates to arrive at 2.2kg difference in weight over 5 months. Find me an example using tighter controls on energy balance and I'd happily consider it as strong evidence against my claim.



.

You may be right. But, one can always quibble about some minor aspect of methodology. It needs to be replicated. In the meantime, I am not so sure we can make unqualified, categorical claims.

Alternatively one can look at more than one study and note that there's not a whole lot of compelling research to indicate that it matters to any significant degree.

Until you can show that it matters to one degree or another through replicated research then I don't take issue with a "it's not going to really matter" in a population that is keeping energy intake monitored and preferential aspects of dieting in mind.

Fair enough. But, if there is so much compelling evidence that timing of meals makes no difference, then why did the researchers decide to waste time and money looking at it?

I wouldn't say there's "so much compelling evidence that its irrelevant" -- I would say that there's not a whole lot of compelling evidence that it IS relevant to any significant degree, and certainly not to any degree that is strong enough to recommend a nutrient timing protocol that violates the dieters personal preferences.

To my knowledge, and I don't claim to have seen every study, when energy balance is under tight control the differences are insignificant and thermodynamics would agree with this.

As far as why the studies are done, I haven't the first clue about that honestly.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/really-timing-of-meals-affects-weight-loss/?src=recg

I remember reading a summary of that study, if I remember correctly:

1. Similar calories isn't identical calories. I think the difference in groups was about 5 lbs over 5 months. That's about a 116 calories a day, and it was "self-reporting". +/- 116 calories could easily be considered "similar" and still account for a 5 lbs differance over 5 months.
2. 116 calories could also easily be people mis-recording. If the early group underestimated calories by 63 calories a day and the late group overestimates by 63 calories that would be all that was needed.
3. When did they weight themselves? Did eating late lunch mean a later dinner? If eating a late dinner then weighing right after obviously they would weigh more. Even if weighing in the morning, a later dinner can effect a morning weight in. For example, I eat a very large late dinner, and weigh myself first thing in the morning. However I know I weight my least around 11 o'clock.
4. Finally, the study focuses on lunch not dinner as the main meal, we are talking about eating LUNCH before or after 3. We on the other hand are talking about eating dinner before bed, and the study makes no reference to what the subjects ate for dinner or when.

Even is the study is perfectly accurate and eating earlier really will result in 5 lbs over 5 months, if it's easier to stick with your diet and eat later so you don't have to go to bed hungry, wouldn't ease of adherence be more important than less than potentially losing an extra 1/4 lbs or 4 oz of weight a week?

no.






disclaimer: *sorry crankstr*

I lost 100 pounds eating at different times - most very late. Not an issue!