Meals @ a certain time of day?
Options
hiphop10
Posts: 135 Member
Does it help to eat your meals at a certain time of day? For weight loss
Like a scheduled time to eat?
I don't eat late at night anymore...I always keep fruit near though.
Like a scheduled time to eat?
I don't eat late at night anymore...I always keep fruit near though.
0
Replies
-
No.0
-
Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss. Trust me, there are days where I can't eat lunch until 3 or 3:30, days when I don't eat dinner until after 9:30, and I'm doing fine.0
-
Not in a metabolic sense, no. But in knowing your habits and planning around them, yes!
For example, if I know I won't get home after work until 6:30pm (dinner at 7) then I won't eat lunch at noon. I know I won't make it 7 hrs without going on a ravenous quest for snacks. Or if I'm planning on lounging on the couch all night instead of going or and doing something I will either eat a later dinner or plan my calories to include evening snacks (because I know I will want to boredom-eat).0 -
Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss. Trust me, there are days where I can't eat lunch until 3 or 3:30, days when I don't eat dinner until after 9:30, and I'm doing fine.
It is definitely not irrelevant, however there are so many other issues which are more important. Meal timing is one adjustment to make when you have reached a plateau, but not the only one that can make changes.0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss. Trust me, there are days where I can't eat lunch until 3 or 3:30, days when I don't eat dinner until after 9:30, and I'm doing fine.
It is definitely not irrelevant, however there are so many other issues which are more important. Meal timing is one adjustment to make when you have reached a plateau, but not the only one that can make changes.
actually meal timing throughout the day is irrelevant. Our bodies do not use the man made idea of time when it comes to using the food we put in our mouths. Even going on a 24 hour time table is irrelevant.0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »Meal timing is irrelevant to weight loss. Trust me, there are days where I can't eat lunch until 3 or 3:30, days when I don't eat dinner until after 9:30, and I'm doing fine.
It is definitely not irrelevant, however there are so many other issues which are more important. Meal timing is one adjustment to make when you have reached a plateau, but not the only one that can make changes.
It is irrelevant. If you need to eat 2000 calories to lose weight, you can eat 2000 calories in one sitting, 3x a day, or 8x a day. Does. Not. Matter.
If you reach a plateau it's because your intake is no longer low enough with respect to your caloric burns.0 -
The only difference meal timing makes, OP, is with respect to issues such as satiety. So if eating really late at night works for you, then do that. for me eating 3x a day works well, snacking between meals isn't my favourite.0
-
Intermittent fasting is just one example of how meal timing can play a role, as levels of insulin and glucose in the blood can play an important part in the body's preferred source of fuel and nutrient use. While there are very specific conditions where this will present some advantage to fat loss, the timing of meals with regards to their frequency, not necessarily time of day, can play a role in a weight and fat loss strategy.
0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »Intermittent fasting is just one example of how meal timing can play a role, as levels of insulin and glucose in the blood can play an important part in the body's preferred source of fuel and nutrient use. While there are very specific conditions where this will present some advantage to fat loss, the timing of meals with regards to their frequency, not necessarily time of day, can play a role in a weight and fat loss strategy.
I have done an intentional IF regimen and had success with it. I am now LCHF and find I do IF as a by product of my increased satiety from the high fat diet. I dont recall whether any of the IF regimens call for a specific time for the eating window. Mine changed periodically and I found no great variance in my results.0 -
very interesting responses here thank you. I thought for sure they might of been a yes.
For myself a routine is helpful. I guess the main key is calorie deficit accordingly.0 -
LookingBusy wrote: »Not in a metabolic sense, no. But in knowing your habits and planning around them, yes!
This. I do find regular mealtimes also help me in a habit way because I prefer to eat whole meals and not snack, so if I feel the urge to snack -- BECAUSE I HAVE A PERSONAL HABIT AND RULE ABOUT AVOIDING IT -- it's easier for me to say to my inner three year old, "Sorry honey. It's not eating time yet. Think about what you'd like when it is eating time, and we'll see what we can do."
(Other people do better with occasional snacks. It's a personal thing)0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »Intermittent fasting is just one example of how meal timing can play a role, as levels of insulin and glucose in the blood can play an important part in the body's preferred source of fuel and nutrient use. While there are very specific conditions where this will present some advantage to fat loss, the timing of meals with regards to their frequency, not necessarily time of day, can play a role in a weight and fat loss strategy.
Care to back up that claim?
0 -
No.
I personally have to eat every 2-4 hours due to hypoglycemia.0 -
I always find that timing is more important in how much I eat when I have time to eat; if I go longer than 4 hours, I tend to hit that "I'm SUPER hungry" and will eat more than I planned. If I eat a meal at a 4 hr point, then snack in 2 hrs, I tend to eat the right amount. This is something I'm still working on though...0
-
NoelFigart1 wrote: »LookingBusy wrote: »Not in a metabolic sense, no. But in knowing your habits and planning around them, yes!
This. I do find regular mealtimes also help me in a habit way because I prefer to eat whole meals and not snack, so if I feel the urge to snack -- BECAUSE I HAVE A PERSONAL HABIT AND RULE ABOUT AVOIDING IT -- it's easier for me to say to my inner three year old, "Sorry honey. It's not eating time yet. Think about what you'd like when it is eating time, and we'll see what we can do."
(Other people do better with occasional snacks. It's a personal thing)
Yes, this.
The "don't eat after 6 pm" or the "eat 6 mini meals" things drive me crazy since I always eat after 6 (I'm rarely home before 8) and would be miserable if I had to eat all the time and not have full meals. But that doesn't mean I can't see why they could be good strategies for individuals. Similarly, not eating after 6 might mean for some that they don't go nuts and snack at night. I achieve that same goal because I only eat at mealtime and for me mealtime is breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Thus, it doesn't really cross my mind to snack at night (especially since dinner was so late!). Different strategies to get to the same goal.
0 -
Care to refute it?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Care to back up that claim?longtimeterp wrote: »Intermittent fasting is just one example of how meal timing can play a role, as levels of insulin and glucose in the blood can play an important part in the body's preferred source of fuel and nutrient use. While there are very specific conditions where this will present some advantage to fat loss, the timing of meals with regards to their frequency, not necessarily time of day, can play a role in a weight and fat loss strategy.
After you eat, insulin and fatty acids are elevated. You are in the fed state and there's zero fat burning going on. Your body is relying completely on glucose oxidation during the hours following the meal.
One way of measuring this is via the respiratory quotient (RQ). An RQ of 1.0 denotes pure carbohydrate metabolism ("storage mode"), while 0.7 denotes pure fat metabolism. To put this into perspective, consider that RQ is 0.95-1.0 for about 1.5-2 hours after a meal, 0.82-0.85 after overnight fasting and 0.72-0.8 after 16 hours of fasting.
As the hours go by and the nutrients from the meal are done being absorbed, RQ drops in conjunction with insulin. There's a shift towards fat burning and mobilization of stored fat. This process is mediated by insulin and blood-borne fatty acids; when levels drop, an energy deficit is "sensed" and catecholamines (adrenaline and nordrenaline) increase.
The catecholamines travel through the blood and bind to receptors on fat cells. A receptor can be thought of as a "lock." Hormones and neurotransmitters are keys that fit into that lock and make something happen. In this case catecholamines trigger fat mobilization by activating hormone sensitive lipase (HSL), which then shuttles the fat out of the cell to be burned off.
*Thanks Martin0 -
longtimeterp wrote: »
Care to refute it?FunkyTobias wrote: »
Care to back up that claim?longtimeterp wrote: »Intermittent fasting is just one example of how meal timing can play a role, as levels of insulin and glucose in the blood can play an important part in the body's preferred source of fuel and nutrient use. While there are very specific conditions where this will present some advantage to fat loss, the timing of meals with regards to their frequency, not necessarily time of day, can play a role in a weight and fat loss strategy.
The burden of proof falls squarely on the shoulder of the person making the claimAfter you eat, insulin and fatty acids are elevated. You are in the fed state and there's zero fat burning going on. Your body is relying completely on glucose oxidation during the hours following the meal.
One way of measuring this is via the respiratory quotient (RQ). An RQ of 1.0 denotes pure carbohydrate metabolism ("storage mode"), while 0.7 denotes pure fat metabolism. To put this into perspective, consider that RQ is 0.95-1.0 for about 1.5-2 hours after a meal, 0.82-0.85 after overnight fasting and 0.72-0.8 after 16 hours of fasting.
As the hours go by and the nutrients from the meal are done being absorbed, RQ drops in conjunction with insulin. There's a shift towards fat burning and mobilization of stored fat. This process is mediated by insulin and blood-borne fatty acids; when levels drop, an energy deficit is "sensed" and catecholamines (adrenaline and nordrenaline) increase.
The catecholamines travel through the blood and bind to receptors on fat cells. A receptor can be thought of as a "lock." Hormones and neurotransmitters are keys that fit into that lock and make something happen. In this case catecholamines trigger fat mobilization by activating hormone sensitive lipase (HSL), which then shuttles the fat out of the cell to be burned off.
*Thanks Martin
You're proposing a hypothesis based on acute responses, which rarely translate to actual measurable differences. Any actual research?
0 -
Negative, caloric deficit is all thats necessary for weight loss.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 395 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 960 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions