What is truth about eating times?

Not looking to get into any kind of debate. Mostly because I don't honestly care what anyone else does. For me though, timing does make a difference. At least time spent not eating does.

I've lost weight eating 3 meals a day with snacks in between, and I've lost weight doing 16 to 20 hour fasts on IF. Eating the exact same number of calories and doing the same exercise regimen, I lose nearly twice as much with the Intermittent Fasting.

If your blood sugar tends to drop then small frequent meals is a good idea.

Timing only matters as it pertains to performance, preference, and dietary adherence.

If you're training, you might want or need to time your meals according to your training schedule.

Some people love to have a huge breakfast, while others aren't hungry at all until noon or later.

I, personally, find it easier to maintain a deficit when I eat one meal per day. I also prefer to train in a fasted state.

These are really the only reasons meal timing/frequency matters. Eating more frequently doesn't speed up your metabolism, eating late at night doesn't make you fat, etc. Calorie deficit is king if weight loss is your goal.

Hmmm, this is actually what I do now. I started eating 3 meals a day then switched to 2 and now I am at 1. I used to be out of energy all the time even with 3 meals a day but now I can go all day and even do hours of cardio in a fasted state. When I was eating breakfast It would only be small but it would make me hungry till the next meal. Biggest thing as others have stated is total calorie intake, you want to lose weight quit eating so much.

Biggest bonus about eating one meal a day is you can have a really big plate if you want and fill you stomach right up. I don't think this is for everyone as it takes willpower to get on track and if you do, start with having a few snacks during day.

Timing doesn't matter for weight loss, to the best of my knowledge. (Some experts think it does, most think it doesn't, so I'll go with the majority here).

Where it can make a difference is in controlling hunger, adherence to your plan, and overall health. Might want to do some reading on intermittent fasting ... the research is ongoing and the conclusions certainly aren't cut and dry (there seem to be some sex-specific differences in health benefits), but most research seems to suggest a reduced risk for many chronic diseases and better longevity.

Regardless of weight or health benefits, though, it's got to work for you. If you feel fine without adhering to any specific meal times and just eating when you're hungry, and you're seeing the results you want, why tweak anything?

Experience. It's only common sense if you eat all your calories at once you will then get hungry later. Your body isn't designed to be stuffed with a days worth all at once and then go without and you will end up with hunger cravings and excess calories your body just can't use at the time. But as I stated this is my opinion based on experience. When I space my meals evenly I lose more weight. I also lose more weight If I don't eat right before sleeping. So sure try and shoot me down if you like. You MFP Nazi's who think that you know the whole damn score when it comes to weight loss and fitness. But I will continue to give the advice that worked for me. And I don't speak for others I speak for myself. That's why I said IN MY OPINION.

So then it's an anecdote?

You guys all seriously need to stop demanding proof and throwing groundless accusations every time someone disagree with your opinions. It's childish. You clearly can't stand the existence of contrary opinions so you have to shoot them down. Usually with one liners either demanding unreasonable amounts of proof in the situation or simple outright denials. Neither is tedrickp's little chart proof. None of you have supplied proof. So I find it hypocritical that you ask me to do the same.

It's not a disagreeing on opinion, it's disagreeing on what clinical studies show as proof. Opinions are subjective, whereas what clinical study shows is objective. You don't have to agree, but it's hard to disprove what clinical study shows.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness industry for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

When it comes to health and fitness there is probably a clinical study somewhere out there to show that sticking bananas up your bum causes you to convert 10lbs of fat to muscle instantly. And you well know that. Cherry pick the clinical studies if you like but I have found personal experience far more reliable. And you know what even such studies that have been used to establish dietary guidelines that we followed for decades have turned out to be dead wrong. With everyone buying into them looking like damn fools now. So I suggest you make use of your brain rather than letting confirmation bias do the thinking for you.

That's great that you find your own personal experience as reliable to you. But understand that as a professional in the business of health and fitness, I don't just take experience as truth. Someone will say "I do ab exercises so that's why I have a six pack" and science shows that's not how it works. It would make "sense" because he's working his abs to assume that's what's caused the six pack, but again scientific evidence doesn't support it.
You don't like science. I get it. But it still doesn't make it incorrect regardless of how you feel about it. I believe it's much more important to lay out actual facts rather then go by what sounds right, especially on a site that has many individuals who lifestyles may be polar opposite of someone who's giving their opinion on how they eat.
Again feel free to disagree, but if you're going to state that current clinical study on meal frequency and time are incorrect, be ready to back it up with some credible evidence and not an anecdote.
Using my brain would be looking at all evidence and research available at hand, then making an intelligent decision based off the findings.

Well honestly there are only a couple big mistakes you can make. In my opinion.

1. Loading most of your calories into one meal. This will cause the big meal to make you deposit more fat and cause you to be ravenous through the rest of the day.

2. Eating less than 2 hours before you sleep. This will marginally impact weight loss.

Proof?

Experience. It's only common sense if you eat all your calories at once you will then get hungry later. Your body isn't designed to be stuffed with a days worth all at once and then go without and you will end up with hunger cravings and excess calories your body just can't use at the time. But as I stated this is my opinion based on experience. When I space my meals evenly I lose more weight. I also lose more weight If I don't eat right before sleeping. So sure try and shoot me down if you like. You MFP Nazi's who think that you know the whole damn score when it comes to weight loss and fitness. But I will continue to give the advice that worked for me. And I don't speak for others I speak for myself. That's why I said IN MY OPINION.

You guys all seriously need to stop demanding proof and throwing groundless accusations every time someone disagree with your opinions. It's childish. You clearly can't stand the existence of contrary opinions so you have to shoot them down. Usually with one liners either demanding unreasonable amounts of proof in the situation or simple outright denials. Neither is tedrickp's little chart proof. None of you have supplied proof. So I find it hypocritical that you ask me to do the same.

Actually what you proved is that eating more frequently fit your lifestyle and preference and that made it sustainable for YOU.

Stating that people are making mistakes by eating all calories in 1 meal or 2 hours before sleeping is where you would need to back up your claim with studies.

Because just like you I can give my experience and what worked for me which is eating 1-2 meals a day, last night I ate 95% of my calories in bed watching TV and fell asleep about an hour after. It works for me, maybe it doesn't work for you, but this is sustainable to me. Because meal timing is personal preference for most people, review that chart that was posted above as that was a good breakdown.

I eat 2200 calories per day. I eat a good breakfast, then snack all morning then eat lunch. I usually have about 1100 calories left for dinner and evening snack. That works well with my work schedule/workout schedule. I'm very hungry up until noon, then can go until dinner, I love a big dinner.

I like science just fine. I just know the difference between well executed science and poorly executed science. Just because someone put on a lab coat does automatically give his words divine writ.

This is what we come to. No one questions anything if it has the words "clinical study" on it. OMG if a SCIENTIST says it it must be true! ... and at the same time many on this forum (rightfully) dismiss the "scientific" claims of diet pill manufacturers who claim that their product and theirs alone will melt all your fat with zero effort. You don't want to take my opinion seriously and so you appeal to "science". And I am telling you that this approach is rubbish despite the myriad "clinical studies" that say that we should not load all our calories in one meal. Of course there are also many "clinical studies" that prove that meals time don't matter. So which one is right? they both claim to be scientific proof?

This whole shebang reeks more of religion than it does of real science. You find clinical studies which support your opinions then quote them at each other as if it means a god damn thing. Well I refuse to be drawn into the ridiculous farce of psuedo scientific epeen measuring. I will tell people what worked for me because that's my experience and you don't have any grounds to categorically state that I am wrong and that's really the end of it. Oh I'm sure you will try and wriggle out of it. But no one is going to spend the time it would take to actually seriously PROVE a scientific hypothesis on a forum. That would require multiple controlled trials that consistently agree with each other. And despite whatever you might claim neither of us has or can be bothered to have that much "proof".

This is no different from backwards people who thought everything a priest said was true.

Then instead of sitting on your high horse, and telling us all what we don't know and what we are doing wrong, why not back up your claims?

If you know the difference between "well executed science and poorly executed science" then why not simply point out the poor execution of any of the studies that have been provided in this thread?

Instead of calmly discussing, you are now semi incoherently rambling by attacking people you don't even know. You say we believe everything that is a clinical study, then go on to say except we (rightfully) dismiss diet pill scientific claims. Clearly then, people here engage in some level of critical thinking and do NOT believe every clinical study.

It is hard for people to argue your stance,because you don't back it up. You mention a myriad of studies, but don't post any. Maybe if you posted one or two of these, then people who are smarter or more analytical than you (and me - that isn't a diss - some very smart people here) could pinpoint this poor execution you speak of. OR maybe you will post something that makes people change their opinion.

You won't engage in "pseudo scientific epeen measuring" but instead you will take your time to write paragraphs of ad hominen attacks on the message board users as a whole. It's the oldest lamest style of argument ever on the net.

If you enjoy science like you claim, and are actually open to learning I suggest you start here:

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-10-5.pdf

A meta analysis of the current research on nutrient timing by Alan Aragon and Brad Schonfeld. These aren't just dudes in lab coats they are two of the most brilliant nutritional minds out there.

NOTE: Nothing I have said dismisses your personal experience. While you seem very keen to draw conclusions about anyone here who wants scientific proof, I do not feel as comfortable drawing conclusions about you. I actually 100% believe in the power of personal preference so I always suggest people find what works for them - and sounds like you did.

I like science just fine. I just know the difference between well executed science and poorly executed science. Just because someone put on a lab coat does automatically give his words divine writ.

This is what we come to. No one questions anything if it has the words "clinical study" on it. OMG if a SCIENTIST says it it must be true! ... and at the same time many on this forum (rightfully) dismiss the "scientific" claims of diet pill manufacturers who claim that their product and theirs alone will melt all your fat with zero effort. You don't want to take my opinion seriously and so you appeal to "science". And I am telling you that this approach is rubbish despite the myriad "clinical studies" that say that we should not load all our calories in one meal. Of course there are also many "clinical studies" that prove that meals time don't matter. So which one is right? they both claim to be scientific proof?

This whole shebang reeks more of religion than it does of real science. You find clinical studies which support your opinions then quote them at each other as if it means a god damn thing. Well I refuse to be drawn into the ridiculous farce of psuedo scientific epeen measuring. I will tell people what worked for me because that's my experience and you don't have any grounds to categorically state that I am wrong and that's really the end of it. Oh I'm sure you will try and wriggle out of it. But no one is going to spend the time it would take to actually seriously PROVE a scientific hypothesis on a forum. That would require multiple controlled trials that consistently agree with each other. And despite whatever you might claim neither of us has or can be bothered to have that much "proof".

This is no different from backwards people who thought everything a priest said was true.

Then instead of sitting on your high horse, and telling us all what we don't know and what we are doing wrong, why not back up your claims?

If you know the difference between "well executed science and poorly executed science" then why not simply point out the poor execution of any of the studies that have been provided in this thread?

Instead of calmly discussing, you are now semi incoherently rambling by attacking people you don't even know. You say we believe everything that is a clinical study, then go on to say except we (rightfully) dismiss diet pill scientific claims. Clearly then, people here engage in some level of critical thinking and do NOT believe every clinical study.

It is hard for people to argue your stance,because you don't back it up. You mention a myriad of studies, but don't post any. Maybe if you posted one or two of these, then people who are smarter or more analytical than you (and me - that isn't a diss - some very smart people here) could pinpoint this poor execution you speak of. OR maybe you will post something that makes people change their opinion.

You won't engage in "pseudo scientific epeen measuring" but instead you will take your time to write paragraphs of ad hominen attacks on the message board users as a whole. It's the oldest lamest style of argument ever on the net.

If you enjoy science like you claim, and are actually open to learning I suggest you start here:

http://www.jissn.com/content/pdf/1550-2783-10-5.pdf

A meta analysis of the current research on nutrient timing by Alan Aragon and Brad Schonfeld. These aren't just dudes in lab coats they are two of the most brilliant nutritional minds out there.

NOTE: Nothing I have said dismisses your personal experience. While you seem very keen to draw conclusions about anyone here who wants scientific proof, I do not feel as comfortable drawing conclusions about you. I actually 100% believe in the power of personal preference so I always suggest people find what works for them - and sounds like you did.

You are here ---->












Here is the point

---

:>

My point was not to state which opinion has more "scientific backup" it was to state that pretty much every piece of bs imaginable has scientific backup and people just use their personal biases to try and shoot each other down. It's more about the widespread trends on this board than it is about actual science at this point. But people like you aren't actually mature enough to accept the reality of the situation so you persist in insisting on everything you say is gospel truth because your little end of scientific theory says so. It's ridiculous and reeks of confirmation bias. Your opinion is your opinion it is you good sir that is on a high horse and needs to get over yourself. If you where really confident about your opinion you wouldn't feel the need to shoot mine down. You would just give yours and rely on the intelligence of the readers to make their choices. Instead you pick up whatever so called science seems to prove you right. Well I'm not going to have a 5 day harrangue where we hit each other with our science bats until we both storm off in a huff because the other guy is obviously an idiot. Sorry but I'm not that much of a kid so just get over yourself and accept the fact that not everything you believe can be forced down each others throats with a bit of flimsy science to grease the way. There's a good chap.