Meal Timing and Weight Loss??
Options
Replies
-
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 -
0
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I too wondered about unreported cheating, but I assumed that both groups would have had a roughly similar "cheating error." But combined with what you said about a big breakfast possibly decreasing hunger throughout the day, I guess that makes some sense. However, on the compliance side, the study actually had larger non-compliance (at least as reported) for the big dinner group. Perhaps this is another result of breakfast decreasing hunger.
As for the eating without noticing idea, I agree that could be a factor, but these people were being interviewed extensively, so I would think that food consumption would be "on the brain" so to speak. I suppose they could be straight up lying, but would that mean that big dinner eaters are inherently more disposed to lying? I hope not! 0 -
I have eaten breakfast like twice since I joined MFP......and I've lost almost 80 lbs in that time frame. So, I assure you, meal timing most definitely does not matter.0
-
I think if meal timing were really the difference between losing 8.7kg and 3.6kg over 12 weeks we'd see a lot more real-world differentiation between such meal timers.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
I agree that a lab-observed study would be better, but what I'd really like to see is some research that controls for calories and shows that meal timing has no effect.0 -
mz_getskinny wrote: »I have eaten breakfast like twice since I joined MFP......and I've lost almost 80 lbs in that time frame. So, I assure you, meal timing most definitely does not matter.
Good for you! I hear that from tons of people on here, which is why the studies surprised me so much.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I too wondered about unreported cheating, but I assumed that both groups would have had a roughly similar "cheating error." But combined with what you said about a big breakfast possibly decreasing hunger throughout the day, I guess that makes some sense. However, on the compliance side, the study actually had larger non-compliance (at least as reported) for the big dinner group. Perhaps this is another result of breakfast decreasing hunger.
As for the eating without noticing idea, I agree that could be a factor, but these people were being interviewed extensively, so I would think that food consumption would be "on the brain" so to speak. I suppose they could be straight up lying, but would that mean that big dinner eaters are inherently more disposed to lying? I hope not!
I honestly don't get how people are as inaccurate with their food as they can be -- see the studies about the reliability of daily logging, even by dietitians, even for a study (where they'd have an incentive to be accurate and I don't think it can be chalked up to lying). Also, overweight people are often embarrassed to admit to overeating -- I know I was.
But I'm not saying that's the only explanation. It could be that the improvement in fasting glucose also goes along with better weight loss (or here apparently improves what seems to be impaired weight loss, as 8 lb in 12 weeks for a closely monitored obese person on 1400 calories seems pretty low). It makes me think of that study that someone else used to post all the time comparing two groups of obese people, one with IR and one without, where the IR group did better on a 40% carb plan and the one without did better on a 60% carb plan. I do think the IR as a relevant factor has to be considered. I'd love to see more research on the topic, though.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I too wondered about unreported cheating, but I assumed that both groups would have had a roughly similar "cheating error." But combined with what you said about a big breakfast possibly decreasing hunger throughout the day, I guess that makes some sense. However, on the compliance side, the study actually had larger non-compliance (at least as reported) for the big dinner group. Perhaps this is another result of breakfast decreasing hunger.
As for the eating without noticing idea, I agree that could be a factor, but these people were being interviewed extensively, so I would think that food consumption would be "on the brain" so to speak. I suppose they could be straight up lying, but would that mean that big dinner eaters are inherently more disposed to lying? I hope not!
I honestly don't get how people are as inaccurate with their food as they can be -- see the studies about the reliability of daily logging, even by dietitians, even for a study (where they'd have an incentive to be accurate and I don't think it can be chalked up to lying). Also, overweight people are often embarrassed to admit to overeating -- I know I was.
But I'm not saying that's the only explanation. It could be that the improvement in fasting glucose also goes along with better weight loss (or here apparently improves what seems to be impaired weight loss, as 8 lb in 12 weeks for a closely monitored obese person on 1400 calories seems pretty low). It makes me think of that study that someone else used to post all the time comparing two groups of obese people, one with IR and one without, where the IR group did better on a 40% carb plan and the one without did better on a 60% carb plan. I do think the IR as a relevant factor has to be considered. I'd love to see more research on the topic, though.
That jumped out at me too, but like someone else said, this study may not be accounting for activity, so maybe the big breakfast group was a lot more active? The study did rule out those who had recently changed their activity level, the participants were all classified as sedentary at baseline, and they were asked to maintain their usual physical activity and report a change in activity level every 2 weeks, but perhaps the big breakfast eaters were moving more and not noticing because they had all this extra energy? IDK, it still doesn't seem to account for such a big difference, but who knows.
0 -
DeguelloTex wrote: »I think if meal timing were really the difference between losing 8.7kg and 3.6kg over 12 weeks we'd see a lot more real-world differentiation between such meal timers.
Yup. I don't even eat breakfast but I lose exactly at the rate I should. And I don't think I'm special, so.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »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.
I too wondered about unreported cheating, but I assumed that both groups would have had a roughly similar "cheating error." But combined with what you said about a big breakfast possibly decreasing hunger throughout the day, I guess that makes some sense. However, on the compliance side, the study actually had larger non-compliance (at least as reported) for the big dinner group. Perhaps this is another result of breakfast decreasing hunger.
As for the eating without noticing idea, I agree that could be a factor, but these people were being interviewed extensively, so I would think that food consumption would be "on the brain" so to speak. I suppose they could be straight up lying, but would that mean that big dinner eaters are inherently more disposed to lying? I hope not!
I honestly don't get how people are as inaccurate with their food as they can be -- see the studies about the reliability of daily logging, even by dietitians, even for a study (where they'd have an incentive to be accurate and I don't think it can be chalked up to lying). Also, overweight people are often embarrassed to admit to overeating -- I know I was.
But I'm not saying that's the only explanation. It could be that the improvement in fasting glucose also goes along with better weight loss (or here apparently improves what seems to be impaired weight loss, as 8 lb in 12 weeks for a closely monitored obese person on 1400 calories seems pretty low). It makes me think of that study that someone else used to post all the time comparing two groups of obese people, one with IR and one without, where the IR group did better on a 40% carb plan and the one without did better on a 60% carb plan. I do think the IR as a relevant factor has to be considered. I'd love to see more research on the topic, though.
I agree, but shouldn't this hold true for both groups? Maybe the answer is that a calorie deficit with a big breakfast is just inherently easier to comply with?
But, I'd bet that if someone came on here complaining about only losing 8 lbs in 2 weeks, and someone suggested shifting their calories to earlier in the day, people would be all over tham saying that CICO is all that matters for weight loss and that 8 lbs in 12 weeks is reasonable.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW7n2UP60bk
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 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
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 913 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions