Does the time you eat affect weightloss?

While meal timing has no direct effect on weightloss, it may have an effect on satiety/appetite and therefore how many calories you intake a day.

I find that if I delay eating when I get up in the morning, I eat fewer calories in the day, and can barely squeeze them all in. If I eat breakfast (particularly if it's high carb/sugar like pancakes, waffles, pastry, etc., but even if it's all protein like eggs) then I end up hungry and snacking all day and go way over.

Reason why you are hungry is because of your metabolism. You are digesting to food so quickly for breakfast leaving you hungry the rest of the day. If I eat and I am not hungry 3 hours later than my metabolism has dropped a little.

That makes no sense though...I'm also digesting dinner at the same speed at night, and then going to bed, so if it were just metabolism then why wouldn't I wake up starving? And why would I feel fine and less hungry between lunch and dinner just because I skipped breakfast? Wouldn't I still be digesting lunch at the same speed, especially since I didn't have breakfast and was therefore "empty"?

You do not wake up hungry. I wake up starving and if I do not eat within a half hour my body does something where my stomach feels awful to the point where I have to drink water slowly. There is debate going on now that is trying to figure out if eating smaller frequent meal is better than three standards meal. My nutrition class says it makes no difference but it does for me. I have no fact about it but I think skipping breakfast decline metabolism a lot and when you eat lunch it will digest very slowly because there is a such thing as starvation mode. There are articles on that. I know in me that my body definitely has a starvation mode point.

Wut? I can't even... So very much misinformation.

If you wake up that hungry and feel what is called "tissue hunger" (feels like a black hole in your stomach, quite painful, will prompt you to eat absolutely anything to make it go away) then you're probably hypoglycemic. You might want to schedule a glucose tolerance test.

There is very little "debate" going on about smaller, more frequent meals any more. Study results trend in the direction of "it doesn't matter." What matters is total calories, not when or how frequently you eat them. Your nutrition class was right..

Your metabolism cannot decline just from skipping breakfast, especially if you are eating enough calories throughout the rest of the day. Starvation mode is widely held to be a myth according to the current science, and even if it wasn't, it takes a very long time of consistently undereating before you could even consider it as a problem. We're talking months of huge deficits, not a morning of skipped breakfast when you ate 1500 cals the day before.

I mean the level of misinformation in his posts are incredible. But knowing the posting history it's not surprising.

I will remember all my so called misinform and misguided information during these post when it is my turn to put up my success story because I will now put mine up very soon.

Are you saying that you're having success because you put your body into starvation mode?



Your success is due to the simple formula of calories in < calories out. It does not matter when those calories go in or out, as long as in is less than out. There's only one way that you could prove that your success was due to the time or frequency of your meals: if you are eating more calories than you burn, but eating them at such times and increments that you lost weight in spite of having a surplus of calories.

I am doing the exact opposite of starvation mode. Calories in< calories out works then you gain it back with the low metabolism you create with only relying on that. Keeping metabolism high or getting higher + calories in <calories out = lifestyle change. Which is what I have figured out.

Then explain. Why haven't so many of us gained the weight back? You are also over valuing the amount of metabolic adaptation that occurs in a hypocaloric diet.

So you figured out how you can keep your metabolism high (which apparently no one else has) while losing weight right? Why don't you explain to everyone how you have gone about doing that.

I mean last I check I personally have made a lifestyle change. Don't know how I haven't.

Also, how are you making all these claims when you are still so far from your goal? How does that make sense?

Also,

yopeeps, can you not make outlandish claims then the only evidence you have is that it worked for you.

You do this in every single thread.

You are killing some of this community with your bad information

That^^^^
How can someone say something has worked for them without even getting to an end result???????

While meal timing has no direct effect on weightloss, it may have an effect on satiety/appetite and therefore how many calories you intake a day.

I find that if I delay eating when I get up in the morning, I eat fewer calories in the day, and can barely squeeze them all in. If I eat breakfast (particularly if it's high carb/sugar like pancakes, waffles, pastry, etc., but even if it's all protein like eggs) then I end up hungry and snacking all day and go way over.

Reason why you are hungry is because of your metabolism. You are digesting to food so quickly for breakfast leaving you hungry the rest of the day. If I eat and I am not hungry 3 hours later than my metabolism has dropped a little.

That makes no sense though...I'm also digesting dinner at the same speed at night, and then going to bed, so if it were just metabolism then why wouldn't I wake up starving? And why would I feel fine and less hungry between lunch and dinner just because I skipped breakfast? Wouldn't I still be digesting lunch at the same speed, especially since I didn't have breakfast and was therefore "empty"?

You do not wake up hungry. I wake up starving and if I do not eat within a half hour my body does something where my stomach feels awful to the point where I have to drink water slowly. There is debate going on now that is trying to figure out if eating smaller frequent meal is better than three standards meal. My nutrition class says it makes no difference but it does for me. I have no fact about it but I think skipping breakfast decline metabolism a lot and when you eat lunch it will digest very slowly because there is a such thing as starvation mode. There are articles on that. I know in me that my body definitely has a starvation mode point.

Wut? I can't even... So very much misinformation.

If you wake up that hungry and feel what is called "tissue hunger" (feels like a black hole in your stomach, quite painful, will prompt you to eat absolutely anything to make it go away) then you're probably hypoglycemic. You might want to schedule a glucose tolerance test.

There is very little "debate" going on about smaller, more frequent meals any more. Study results trend in the direction of "it doesn't matter." What matters is total calories, not when or how frequently you eat them. Your nutrition class was right..

Your metabolism cannot decline just from skipping breakfast, especially if you are eating enough calories throughout the rest of the day. Starvation mode is widely held to be a myth according to the current science, and even if it wasn't, it takes a very long time of consistently undereating before you could even consider it as a problem. We're talking months of huge deficits, not a morning of skipped breakfast when you ate 1500 cals the day before.

I mean the level of misinformation in his posts are incredible. But knowing the posting history it's not surprising.

I will remember all my so called misinform and misguided information during these post when it is my turn to put up my success story because I will now put mine up very soon.

Are you saying that you're having success because you put your body into starvation mode?



Your success is due to the simple formula of calories in < calories out. It does not matter when those calories go in or out, as long as in is less than out. There's only one way that you could prove that your success was due to the time or frequency of your meals: if you are eating more calories than you burn, but eating them at such times and increments that you lost weight in spite of having a surplus of calories.

I am doing the exact opposite of starvation mode. Calories in< calories out works then you gain it back with the low metabolism you create with only relying on that. Keeping metabolism high or getting higher + calories in <calories out = lifestyle change. Which is what I have figured out.

Then explain. Why haven't so many of us gained the weight back? You are also over valuing the amount of metabolic adaptation that occurs in a hypocaloric diet.

So you figured out how you can keep your metabolism high (which apparently no one else has) while losing weight right? Why don't you explain to everyone how you have gone about doing that.

I mean last I check I personally have made a lifestyle change. Don't know how I haven't.

Also, how are you making all these claims when you are still so far from your goal? How does that make sense?

Also,

yopeeps, can you not make outlandish claims then the only evidence you have is that it worked for you.

You do this in every single thread.

You are killing some of this community with your bad information

That^^^^
How can someone say something has worked for them without even getting to an end result???????

You said it yourself. How can I know something works if im not at the end result and really experience it. I hope that is not how you have been learning. I have already answer the metabolism question you have. You know what you did you disregard my evidence which was a article. You want to know what other people did? They thanked me for the article. Now I am helping them with there weight loss. All of this will come up again during my success story. Maybe then you will actually have a open mind to listen when I am thinner and stronger then the major of Americans ( Where I live). My outlandish claims. LOL

While meal timing has no direct effect on weightloss, it may have an effect on satiety/appetite and therefore how many calories you intake a day.

I find that if I delay eating when I get up in the morning, I eat fewer calories in the day, and can barely squeeze them all in. If I eat breakfast (particularly if it's high carb/sugar like pancakes, waffles, pastry, etc., but even if it's all protein like eggs) then I end up hungry and snacking all day and go way over.

Reason why you are hungry is because of your metabolism. You are digesting to food so quickly for breakfast leaving you hungry the rest of the day. If I eat and I am not hungry 3 hours later than my metabolism has dropped a little.

That makes no sense though...I'm also digesting dinner at the same speed at night, and then going to bed, so if it were just metabolism then why wouldn't I wake up starving? And why would I feel fine and less hungry between lunch and dinner just because I skipped breakfast? Wouldn't I still be digesting lunch at the same speed, especially since I didn't have breakfast and was therefore "empty"?

You do not wake up hungry. I wake up starving and if I do not eat within a half hour my body does something where my stomach feels awful to the point where I have to drink water slowly. There is debate going on now that is trying to figure out if eating smaller frequent meal is better than three standards meal. My nutrition class says it makes no difference but it does for me. I have no fact about it but I think skipping breakfast decline metabolism a lot and when you eat lunch it will digest very slowly because there is a such thing as starvation mode. There are articles on that. I know in me that my body definitely has a starvation mode point.

Wut? I can't even... So very much misinformation.

If you wake up that hungry and feel what is called "tissue hunger" (feels like a black hole in your stomach, quite painful, will prompt you to eat absolutely anything to make it go away) then you're probably hypoglycemic. You might want to schedule a glucose tolerance test.

There is very little "debate" going on about smaller, more frequent meals any more. Study results trend in the direction of "it doesn't matter." What matters is total calories, not when or how frequently you eat them. Your nutrition class was right..

Your metabolism cannot decline just from skipping breakfast, especially if you are eating enough calories throughout the rest of the day. Starvation mode is widely held to be a myth according to the current science, and even if it wasn't, it takes a very long time of consistently undereating before you could even consider it as a problem. We're talking months of huge deficits, not a morning of skipped breakfast when you ate 1500 cals the day before.

I mean the level of misinformation in his posts are incredible. But knowing the posting history it's not surprising.

I will remember all my so called misinform and misguided information during these post when it is my turn to put up my success story because I will now put mine up very soon.

Are you saying that you're having success because you put your body into starvation mode?



Your success is due to the simple formula of calories in < calories out. It does not matter when those calories go in or out, as long as in is less than out. There's only one way that you could prove that your success was due to the time or frequency of your meals: if you are eating more calories than you burn, but eating them at such times and increments that you lost weight in spite of having a surplus of calories.

I am doing the exact opposite of starvation mode. Calories in< calories out works then you gain it back with the low metabolism you create with only relying on that. Keeping metabolism high or getting higher + calories in <calories out = lifestyle change. Which is what I have figured out.

Then explain. Why haven't so many of us gained the weight back? You are also over valuing the amount of metabolic adaptation that occurs in a hypocaloric diet.

So you figured out how you can keep your metabolism high (which apparently no one else has) while losing weight right? Why don't you explain to everyone how you have gone about doing that.

I mean last I check I personally have made a lifestyle change. Don't know how I haven't.

Also, how are you making all these claims when you are still so far from your goal? How does that make sense?

Also,

yopeeps, can you not make outlandish claims then the only evidence you have is that it worked for you.

You do this in every single thread.

You are killing some of this community with your bad information

That^^^^
How can someone say something has worked for them without even getting to an end result???????

You said it yourself. How can I know something works if im not at the end result and really experience it. I hope that is not how you have been learning. I have already answer the metabolism question you have. You know what you did you disregard my evidence which was a article. You want to know what other people did? They thanked me for the article. Now I am helping them with there weight loss. All of this will come up again during my success story. Maybe then you will actually have a open mind to listen when I am thinner and stronger then the major of Americans ( Where I live). My outlandish claims. LOL

Yawn.

I have better results than you and I am doing the exact opposite.

Now what?

So you look stronger to everyone including yourself and losing fat simultaneously, Body recomp that is so impossible to do, thats awesome keep it up. But here the things how much room do you have in your lifestyle to change? I still eat fast foods and pizza. Now that I have taken that out. Pounds will melt off even quicker than they are.

You said it yourself. How can I know something works if im not at the end result and really experience it. I hope that is not how you have been learning. I have already answer the metabolism question you have. You know what you did you disregard my evidence which was a article. You want to know what other people did? They thanked me for the article. Now I am helping them with there weight loss. All of this will come up again during my success story. Maybe then you will actually have a open mind to listen when I am thinner and stronger then the major of Americans ( Where I live). My outlandish claims. LOL

The first line makes no sense at all. Yes I said how can you claim something works for you if you haven't actually done it. That is true. You are making claims about these things you read in an article working for you, you are asked to explain and your response is that if we don't believe it then fine but it's working for you. Then you are asked for evidence and you reference an article from the same website. That's just dumb.

You hope I haven't been learning how? By reading, understanding, applying the methods and "achieving" the goal? Yes that is one of the ways I've learn. Reading and gathering information is another way. What you fail to realize is you make claims that things can be done that most people dispute and say it can be because of an article when anyone can do that. That means nothing. I can sit here and say I can run a properly structured carb refeed and look much more vascular the next day ready for the beach because I have read about it, however, there is a big difference when I can say I have studied it, have attempted it many times and have gotten consistent positive results by applying what I learned. You unfortunately are missing the application part of your arguments which unfortunately for you is very important given the outlandish claims you like to make.

A perfect example was a claim you just made in another thread where you think you can be in the 200's with a low bf and high lbm "easily" Nd that it's all diet. That's just absolutely delusional. Those are the types of claims you have no right to make. Why? Because you have never done that before. On the other hand me saying something like I can get down to 10% bf while still being able to deadlift over 325 lbs and not even have to blink during the process and it being a walk in the park, is a fact. Why? Because I've been there, myself. Not that I simply read it somewhere.

You claiming people thank you and now you are helping them with their weight loss doesn't impress me. As I've stated in the past, those people are obviously very gullible and naive to believe what you claim just because you link them a T Nation article.

i do not log in any workouts. I do not log in all my food. I never log salad dressings.. Never log condiments. I barely count calories in other words. I do not weigh my food out. I do not see the need to do any of this stuff. And plus people don't believe what I have been saying because I am still big. So when I make my success story maybe people will start to read what i say. This weight loss is way easier this time around because there is more than calories in<calories out. Way more factors to look at .There is so much more behind this simple answer because if it was that easy then we would all be able to do it and keep weight off.

i do not log in any workouts. I do not log in all my food. I never log salad dressings.. Never log condiments. I barely count calories in other words. I do not weigh my food out. I do not see the need to do any of this stuff. And plus people don't believe what I have been saying because I am still big. So when I make my success story maybe people will start to read what i say. This weight loss is way easier this time around because there is more than calories in<calories out. Way more factors to look at .There is so much more behind this simple answer because if it was that easy then we would all be able to do it and keep weight off.

So, for all we know, you're eating 500 calories a day....can you at least understand why your word might be difficult to accept when it goes against the current science and you have absolutely no proof to show us?