Meal Timing and Weight Loss??
missblondi2u
Posts: 851 Member
Ok, so I've been debating a few of my friends on the issue of whether meal timing affects weight loss. My opinion, which has been heavily influenced by the MFP community, is that CICO is all that matters. You can spread those calories out however you'd like, as long as you stick to your total calorie limit. My friends, however, are not convinced. They swear by the idea that eating a bigger breakfast and a smaller dinner (and not snacking after dinner) is the way to go.
My "evidence" is anecdotal mostly. I have lost almost 30 pounds since June with simple CICO. I often find myself skipping breakfast or just having something light (about 100 calories), and I eat about half (or more) of my 1400 calories at night. And I always leave room for a late night snack or a couple of evening beers. It's worked well for me. I've also found a few articles disputing the "breakfast myth" that breakfast is the most important meal of the day to shed pounds--http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/10/the-science-of-skipping-breakfast-how-government-nutritionists-may-have-gotten-it-wrong/
My friends, on the other hand, have pointed to studies (two linked below) that seem to directly contradict this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23512957
The first study put overweight or obese women in two groups--one was a large breakfast group (BF) and the other a large dinner group (D). "The two meal plans were either high-calorie breakfast (BF) or high-calorie dinner (D) with a total daily energy of 1400 +/- 25 kcal with identical macronutrient content and composition. The energy of the BF meal plan was: a large breakfast (~700 kcal, 50%), medium-sized lunch (~500 kcal, 36%), and a small dinner (~200 kcal, 14%) (Table 1). This was reversed in the D meal plan; a small breakfast and a large dinner."
The findings were pretty astonishing to me: "Body weight decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) in both the BF and D groups over 12 weeks. However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss (-8.7 +/- 1.4 vs. -3.6 +/- 1.5 kg, respectively) (One-way ANOVA P < 0.0001). As a result, the BMI was significantly different between the groups (P < 0.0001), with 10% reduction in the BF group and only 5% reduction in the D group. Participants assigned to the BF plan also showed a greater reduction in waist circumference than participants assigned to the D plan, both at 6 and 12-week follow-ups (-8.5 +/- 1.9 vs. -3.9 +/- 1.4 cm, respectively) (P < 0.0001)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756673/
The other study had to do with people who's largest meal was lunch (a Mediterranean population), and they were grouped into late lunch eaters (after 3:00) and early lunch eaters (before 3:00). Again, the results surprised me: "Our results indicate that late lunch eaters lost significantly less weight than early eaters. As shown in Figure 1, the weight loss pattern during the 20 weeks of treatment also differed between late and early eaters in a way that late eaters displayed a slower rate of weight loss starting after the 5th week of treatment, a difference that was maintained during the remaining intervention period (P=0.002). Differences were significant for total weight loss (kg), percentage of weight loss from initial weight, and weekly weight loss rate."
I'm finding it difficult to dispute theses results. I don't think it will change my weight loss strategy because it's working well for me, but I haven't been able to find much in the way of contradiction. The only issue I can see is that the studies weren't conducted under constant supervision, but the participants seem to have been monitored fairly closely.
Can anyone help me prove my friends wrong
My "evidence" is anecdotal mostly. I have lost almost 30 pounds since June with simple CICO. I often find myself skipping breakfast or just having something light (about 100 calories), and I eat about half (or more) of my 1400 calories at night. And I always leave room for a late night snack or a couple of evening beers. It's worked well for me. I've also found a few articles disputing the "breakfast myth" that breakfast is the most important meal of the day to shed pounds--http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/08/10/the-science-of-skipping-breakfast-how-government-nutritionists-may-have-gotten-it-wrong/
My friends, on the other hand, have pointed to studies (two linked below) that seem to directly contradict this.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23512957
The first study put overweight or obese women in two groups--one was a large breakfast group (BF) and the other a large dinner group (D). "The two meal plans were either high-calorie breakfast (BF) or high-calorie dinner (D) with a total daily energy of 1400 +/- 25 kcal with identical macronutrient content and composition. The energy of the BF meal plan was: a large breakfast (~700 kcal, 50%), medium-sized lunch (~500 kcal, 36%), and a small dinner (~200 kcal, 14%) (Table 1). This was reversed in the D meal plan; a small breakfast and a large dinner."
The findings were pretty astonishing to me: "Body weight decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) in both the BF and D groups over 12 weeks. However, compared with the D group, the BF group showed a 2.5-fold greater weight loss (-8.7 +/- 1.4 vs. -3.6 +/- 1.5 kg, respectively) (One-way ANOVA P < 0.0001). As a result, the BMI was significantly different between the groups (P < 0.0001), with 10% reduction in the BF group and only 5% reduction in the D group. Participants assigned to the BF plan also showed a greater reduction in waist circumference than participants assigned to the D plan, both at 6 and 12-week follow-ups (-8.5 +/- 1.9 vs. -3.9 +/- 1.4 cm, respectively) (P < 0.0001)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3756673/
The other study had to do with people who's largest meal was lunch (a Mediterranean population), and they were grouped into late lunch eaters (after 3:00) and early lunch eaters (before 3:00). Again, the results surprised me: "Our results indicate that late lunch eaters lost significantly less weight than early eaters. As shown in Figure 1, the weight loss pattern during the 20 weeks of treatment also differed between late and early eaters in a way that late eaters displayed a slower rate of weight loss starting after the 5th week of treatment, a difference that was maintained during the remaining intervention period (P=0.002). Differences were significant for total weight loss (kg), percentage of weight loss from initial weight, and weekly weight loss rate."
I'm finding it difficult to dispute theses results. I don't think it will change my weight loss strategy because it's working well for me, but I haven't been able to find much in the way of contradiction. The only issue I can see is that the studies weren't conducted under constant supervision, but the participants seem to have been monitored fairly closely.
Can anyone help me prove my friends wrong
0
Replies
-
I'm in no way an expert and don't know of any scientific studies to help prove your friends wrong, but I have lost almost 50 pounds (exactly 48) since the middle of April by eating whenever I want. Most days I don't eat "breakfast" until 2pm and sometimes dinner is around 11pm, lol. I'm a CICO *kitten* all the way! 0
-
What are your friends results with their plans?0
-
Why is "and not snacking after dinner" in parenthesis - this is what matters
0 -
Those studies are useless without knowing what being total calorie intake of each group was. At most, the studies you posted are showing that certain eating patterns tend to make most people eat less, on average.
To show that meal timing specifically makes a difference, you would have to produce a study showing greater weight loss in a situation where total calorie intake per day was strictly measured and matched between groups.0 -
The studies don't seem to have controlled for activity. Eating earlier in the day may cause people to feel more energy and thus expend more calories during the day. You should be factoring in your activity and exercise levels when creating calorie goals.0
-
The first big breakfast vs big dinner group were women who were obese/overweight and had metabolic syndrome. That's a specialized group and results shouldn't be generalized over population at large. This is like saying that everybody should eat lower carb based on a study of women who have PCOS and insulin resistance.
I haven't read the second study yet but will when I have time.
0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The studies don't seem to have controlled for activity. Eating earlier in the day may cause people to feel more energy and thus expend more calories during the day. You should be factoring in your activity and exercise levels when creating calorie goals.
^that too
0 -
Exactly. If the participants aren't tracking calorie intake then what they're relying on is their hunger patterns, not a calorie allotment.Chief_Rocka wrote: »Those studies are useless without knowing what being total calorie intake of each group was. At most, the studies you posted are showing that certain eating patterns tend to make most people eat less, on average.
To show that meal timing specifically makes a difference, you would have to produce a study showing greater weight loss in a situation where total calorie intake per day was strictly measured and matched between groups.
So, for people who don't count calories, a strategy of larger meals earlier in the day, or later in the evening, and no snacks after dinner (which is what puts many people over their maintenance calories for the day) may work. For those of us who count calories, it doesn't matter when you eat them, as long as you stay at your goal.
0 -
I personally don't like to eat a big breakfast, it tends to make me feel the need to eat more all day. The earlier I eat the sooner the battle of will power begins and it exhausts me to the point where I throw in the towel before bed and eat the same calories that night as I would have if I had a smaller or no breakfast. Conversely, if I don't eat by 2-3 pm I also tend to over eat. I am happy with my healthy rate of weight loss, so even if they came out with a study that proves eating a bigger breakfast increases weight loss, it would not work for me as an individual.0
-
Exactly. If the participants aren't tracking calorie intake then what they're relying on is their hunger patterns, not a calorie allotment.Chief_Rocka wrote: »Those studies are useless without knowing what being total calorie intake of each group was. At most, the studies you posted are showing that certain eating patterns tend to make most people eat less, on average.
To show that meal timing specifically makes a difference, you would have to produce a study showing greater weight loss in a situation where total calorie intake per day was strictly measured and matched between groups.
So, for people who don't count calories, a strategy of larger meals earlier in the day, or later in the evening, and no snacks after dinner (which is what puts many people over their maintenance calories for the day) may work. For those of us who count calories, it doesn't matter when you eat them, as long as you stay at your goal.
From what I understand, in the first study all participants ate 1400 calories a day and had identical macros. The only variable was the size of breakfast vs. dinner.0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »Why is "and not snacking after dinner" in parenthesis - this is what matters
I put that in parentheses because the studies didn't really speak to snacking, per se. However, I'm interested to know why you say it matters more. If my snack is within my calories, it shouldn't make a difference if CICO is all that matters.0 -
mattyc772014 wrote: »What are your friends results with their plans?
They aren't losing weight, and to my knowledge have never been overweight. So I guess their practice of not eating late (in this case they say they never eat after 8:00), and having a big breakfast has worked for them.0 -
rankinsect wrote: »The studies don't seem to have controlled for activity. Eating earlier in the day may cause people to feel more energy and thus expend more calories during the day. You should be factoring in your activity and exercise levels when creating calorie goals.
Good point.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Why is "and not snacking after dinner" in parenthesis - this is what matters
I put that in parentheses because the studies didn't really speak to snacking, per se. However, I'm interested to know why you say it matters more. If my snack is within my calories, it shouldn't make a difference if CICO is all that matters.
Exactly - if you keep within your alotted calories, it doesn't matter when or how you eat. Those tips on meal timing are old... not useless per se, but should be regarded as possibly helpful only for people who are not counting calories, or for those who don't count "a little bit here, a little bit there".0 -
Not an expert either but we do watch our calorie intake and do find that if we eat late in the evening, we tend to be up slightly the next day (although our 'official' weigh in is only once a week). I would also be inclined to say whatever works best for you. Everybody is different.0
-
The first big breakfast vs big dinner group were women who were obese/overweight and had metabolic syndrome. That's a specialized group and results shouldn't be generalized over population at large. This is like saying that everybody should eat lower carb based on a study of women who have PCOS and insulin resistance.
I haven't read the second study yet but will when I have time.
I wasn't familiar with "metabolic syndrome," so I looked it up. Mayo's website says:"Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of conditions — increased blood pressure, a high blood sugar level, excess body fat around the waist and abnormal cholesterol levels — that occur together, increasing your risk of heart disease, stroke and diabetes." While I get what you're saying about not generalizing to the entire population, I would think that for people interested in weight loss like I am (trying to drop another 40 pounds on top of the 30 I've lost already), these factors might not be a stretch. I myself have 3 of these conditions and fall into the class I obese category.0 -
kommodevaran wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »kommodevaran wrote: »Why is "and not snacking after dinner" in parenthesis - this is what matters
I put that in parentheses because the studies didn't really speak to snacking, per se. However, I'm interested to know why you say it matters more. If my snack is within my calories, it shouldn't make a difference if CICO is all that matters.
Exactly - if you keep within your alotted calories, it doesn't matter when or how you eat. Those tips on meal timing are old... not useless per se, but should be regarded as possibly helpful only for people who are not counting calories, or for those who don't count "a little bit here, a little bit there".
But these participants did count calories and both groups had the exact same meal plan, with only breakfast and lunch swapped out.0 -
MrsCaitlinBeltran wrote: »I'm in no way an expert and don't know of any scientific studies to help prove your friends wrong, but I have lost almost 50 pounds (exactly 48) since the middle of April by eating whenever I want. Most days I don't eat "breakfast" until 2pm and sometimes dinner is around 11pm, lol. I'm a CICO *kitten* all the way!
CICO *kitten*! LOL Congrats on the loss!0 -
I think you can't discount the results, regardless of the biochemistry behind it.
Search for "how do sumo wrestlers gain weight".. they don't eat breakfast and then eat late and go to sleep.
I think spreading calories somewhat evenly works best for me, but I do fall into the smaller breakfast category, FWIW. I have lost ~32 lbs without too much attention paid to my calorie spread. I definitely do not eat after 7pm, though.
R
0 -
lyndefisher wrote: »Not an expert either but we do watch our calorie intake and do find that if we eat late in the evening, we tend to be up slightly the next day (although our 'official' weigh in is only once a week). I would also be inclined to say whatever works best for you. Everybody is different.
Yeah, like I said, I don't think I would give up my big dinner or my precious after dinner snack as long as I'm losing. I just like to debate things like this.0 -
I think you can't discount the results, regardless of the biochemistry behind it.
Search for "how do sumo wrestlers gain weight".. they don't eat breakfast and then eat late and go to sleep.
I think spreading calories somewhat evenly works best for me, but I do fall into the smaller breakfast category, FWIW. I have lost ~32 lbs without too much attention paid to my calorie spread. I definitely do not eat after 7pm, though.
R
Interesting.0 -
There ARE benefits to "carb" tapering, eating most at breakfast, less at lunch, and the least at diner so that you burn more fat as you sleep, but as far as calorie tapering I don't think it matters when you eat them.0
-
I think you can't discount the results, regardless of the biochemistry behind it.
Search for "how do sumo wrestlers gain weight".. they don't eat breakfast and then eat late and go to sleep.
I think spreading calories somewhat evenly works best for me, but I do fall into the smaller breakfast category, FWIW. I have lost ~32 lbs without too much attention paid to my calorie spread. I definitely do not eat after 7pm, though.
R
From the very first link in a google search for the bolded phrase:
A sumo wrestler's daily caloric intake can reach 8,000 kilocalories, more than twice that of an average Japanese adult male.
Yep...I'm sure it's because they skip breakfast0 -
There ARE benefits to "carb" tapering, eating most at breakfast, less at lunch, and the least at diner so that you burn more fat as you sleep, but as far as calorie tapering I don't think it matters when you eat them.
I would ask for a source for the above claim, but since we all know you only post one drive-by, unsubstantiated post per thread, I'll save my breath.0 -
I would continue to do what works for you. The truth of the matter is that those studies just do not matter. I have been calorie cycling for 3 months now myself. Calorie/carb cycling has no studies to support it. I eat when ever I want, but I eat what works for me. It always comes down to CICO and macros. Keep losing and looking great to prove your friends wrong.
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I think you can't discount the results, regardless of the biochemistry behind it.
Search for "how do sumo wrestlers gain weight".. they don't eat breakfast and then eat late and go to sleep.
I think spreading calories somewhat evenly works best for me, but I do fall into the smaller breakfast category, FWIW. I have lost ~32 lbs without too much attention paid to my calorie spread. I definitely do not eat after 7pm, though.
R
From the very first link in a google search for the bolded phrase:
A sumo wrestler's daily caloric intake can reach 8,000 kilocalories, more than twice that of an average Japanese adult male.
Yep...I'm sure it's because they skip breakfast
Sumo wrestlers get all the ladies. Great point.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »
Exactly. If the participants aren't tracking calorie intake then what they're relying on is their hunger patterns, not a calorie allotment.Chief_Rocka wrote: »Those studies are useless without knowing what being total calorie intake of each group was. At most, the studies you posted are showing that certain eating patterns tend to make most people eat less, on average.
To show that meal timing specifically makes a difference, you would have to produce a study showing greater weight loss in a situation where total calorie intake per day was strictly measured and matched between groups.
So, for people who don't count calories, a strategy of larger meals earlier in the day, or later in the evening, and no snacks after dinner (which is what puts many people over their maintenance calories for the day) may work. For those of us who count calories, it doesn't matter when you eat them, as long as you stay at your goal.
From what I understand, in the first study all participants ate 1400 calories a day and had identical macros. The only variable was the size of breakfast vs. dinner.
They only got a plan and had to report on if they did comply or not. In other words, the people doing the study had to rely on the people's word if they actually only ate what was on their plan or not.0 -
The results in the first study are (on average) 3.6 kg (or just under 8 lb) in 12 weeks v. 8.7 kg (or just over 19 lb) in 12 weeks. It appears like the members of the study had the freedom to "cheat," but were monitored through interviews with the dietitian to try and figure out who was non-compliant and those non-compliant beyond a certain level were removed from the study.
This to me raises some question about reliability, especially since it seems people in general can quite easily eat without noticing it when logging (not scientific, but see also the TV show Secret Eaters, as well as some of the doubly labeled water experiments).
That aside, when I was obese, without worrying about eating times, I lost on average 24+ lb in 12 weeks. (I also did not have metabolic syndrome.) I think trying to change my eating times to comply with some idea about possible benefits supported by a couple of studies and not some others would have made it much more burdensome and less sustainable to keep to my plan, and based on these numbers, likely with it making no difference to the actual results. Therefore, I strongly believe that it's counterproductive for people to worry about stuff like this, on which there are likely individual differences anyway. What matters is what makes it easiest for YOU to stick to your calorie goal over a long period of time (and make it into a lifestyle when increasing calories to maintenance). For a dieter, it's majoring in the minors. (For scientists, sure, it's interesting and worth exploring.)
As for the explanation, one thing of note is that the big breakfast group had better fasting glucose and reported feeling less hungry. IMO, breakfast might on average (but not for everyone) lead to reduced hunger throughout the day (I believe having breakfast does that for me, although I wouldn't enjoy 700 calories for breakfast and it wouldn't fit with my lifestyle -- I like 300-400). More significantly, someone with metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance might well have issues with hunger due to that issue, and therefore eating in a way that is better for IR and fasting glucose probably would make a difference, even if it's just in compliance (which is not the conclusion of the study, but I don't see how it could be ruled out). Again, this would make no difference for those of us who have no IR problem.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I think you can't discount the results, regardless of the biochemistry behind it.
Search for "how do sumo wrestlers gain weight".. they don't eat breakfast and then eat late and go to sleep.
I think spreading calories somewhat evenly works best for me, but I do fall into the smaller breakfast category, FWIW. I have lost ~32 lbs without too much attention paid to my calorie spread. I definitely do not eat after 7pm, though.
R
From the very first link in a google search for the bolded phrase:
A sumo wrestler's daily caloric intake can reach 8,000 kilocalories, more than twice that of an average Japanese adult male.
Yep...I'm sure it's because they skip breakfast
OK OK - you got me. :-)
However, there is still something to the eating pattern.
R
0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »I think you can't discount the results, regardless of the biochemistry behind it.
Search for "how do sumo wrestlers gain weight".. they don't eat breakfast and then eat late and go to sleep.
I think spreading calories somewhat evenly works best for me, but I do fall into the smaller breakfast category, FWIW. I have lost ~32 lbs without too much attention paid to my calorie spread. I definitely do not eat after 7pm, though.
R
From the very first link in a google search for the bolded phrase:
A sumo wrestler's daily caloric intake can reach 8,000 kilocalories, more than twice that of an average Japanese adult male.
Yep...I'm sure it's because they skip breakfast
OK OK - you got me. :-)
However, there is still something to the eating pattern.
R
What and why?
I just assume that it's personal preference - that's how and when they prefer to eat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions