Meal Timing and Weight Loss??
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.0 -
Admittedly I didn't read all of that, but I think if there were really something to this then it would be a widely known fact, and something that would be being emphasized rather than something one has to dig up research to discover for themselves.
But, I can see there being some merit to it in the sense that starting off the day with a very filling meal can take the edge off overall hunger for the remainder of the day. I'm not a big breakfast eater myself, but that's what I would think would end up happening in a fair number of cases.0 -
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.[/quote]
That's funny!
0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.
I doubt it.
Such a study would have to be based on obviously faulty assumptions or have bad math or faulty logic, so it would be easy enough to critique and pick apart to the point of discrediting it without having to actually conduct more studies.
0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.
Not really, there's so many studies coming out each year, no one has the time to conduct counterstudies to each one that looks suspect.
I can only find studies on frequency, i.e. 1-3 meals vs. a whole bunch (no difference is the consensus on that it seems). It just looks like no one is really interested in seeing if the time has any impact, possibly because they're like "obviously it doesn't, why would it?"0 -
They aren't gaining weight though unless they are in a surplus. And that would happen whether someone went to bed early, ate breakfast, etc.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
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0 -
When I eat breakfast I get hungry again 2 hours later....and then again at lunch time and again around 2:30. By the time dinner rolls around, I'm out of calories. But I still eat dinner, because it's dinner! And then I stop losing weight....
The ONLY REASON I eat all of my calories at night is because it's the easiest way for me to create a calorie deficit. And calorie deficits = weight loss. If the sumo wrestlers only eat at night and gain weight it is because they are eating at a calorie surplus at night....which would have the same effect as eating at a calorie surplus in the morning.0 -
juggernaut1974 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.
I doubt it.
Such a study would have to be based on obviously faulty assumptions or have bad math or faulty logic, so it would be easy enough to critique and pick apart to the point of discrediting it without having to actually conduct more studies.
Yes, but gravity was his somewhat absurd analogy, not mine. If what you're saying is that the idea that meal timing has no effect on weight loss is as basic a concept as gravity, I'd have to disagree. If it were, then how did the breakfast myth become so prevalent?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.
Not really, there's so many studies coming out each year, no one has the time to conduct counterstudies to each one that looks suspect.
I can only find studies on frequency, i.e. 1-3 meals vs. a whole bunch (no difference is the consensus on that it seems). It just looks like no one is really interested in seeing if the time has any impact, possibly because they're like "obviously it doesn't, why would it?"
So you're saying that meal timing's effect on weight loss is somehow more obvious (or less interesting) to scientists than meal frequency? I don't think I believe that, especially given the health profession's apparent obsession with breakfast.0 -
Eating a regular breakfast may be a keystone habit for successful dieters (those who have kept it off).
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm0 -
Breakfast food companies. Correlation with with successful weight loss. The same kind of misinformation that drives a lot of false myths.missblondi2u wrote: »juggernaut1974 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
Well, you won't find studies showing you "Yup, gravity still works!" either. I guess the ones making these studies are people who might have some sort of interest in convincing you "nah, it's more complicated than that."
I can tell you with 99% certainty that meal timing, when you're actually paying attention to your intake honestly, is not going to matter to a degree where you lose more than twice as much, like in that one study.
While that may be true, I would think that if a study came out that said "Hey, gravity doesn't work anymore!" there would be plenty of studies to disprove it, so I'm going to take your response with a grain of salt here.
I doubt it.
Such a study would have to be based on obviously faulty assumptions or have bad math or faulty logic, so it would be easy enough to critique and pick apart to the point of discrediting it without having to actually conduct more studies.
Yes, but gravity was his somewhat absurd analogy, not mine. If what you're saying is that the idea that meal timing has no effect on weight loss is as basic a concept as gravity, I'd have to disagree. If it were, then how did the breakfast myth become so prevalent?
0 -
There's some really interesting and thoughtful discussion in the second linked study. The authors actually seem kind of surprised by their findings.
Here's the concluding paragraph:In summary, eating late may impair the success of weight loss therapy. Unexpectedly, total energy intake, dietary composition, and estimated energy expenditure were not explaining these results. Changes in the chronotype, genetic background, and/or circadian system function may be implicated in this outcome. The current findings may help in the development of novel therapeutic strategies incorporating not only the caloric intake and macronutrient distribution—as is classically done—but also the timing of food.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »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?
I think it might be easier to comply with for people (at least people with insulin resistance) ON AVERAGE, but the mistake would be assuming that means it is for everyone.
This is similar to studies that show that people are likely to eat less if they eat 6 mini meals or snack. I believe that's possibly true, on average, but when people are advised to do that because that works better it annoys me, since I know for myself snacking makes it feel much more difficult and when I snack and don't count carefully I eat more. And when I snack vs. larger meals, I feel deprived. So for me a better strategy is no snacking or snacking more rarely.
I actually think it makes sense to try playing around with how often you eat or your macros or when you eat, but I think the most important consideration needs to be if you will be happy eating that way and if it's sustainable for you. Trying to figure out the way of eating that will lead to the maximally fast weight loss (even if I believed it made anything more than a minimal difference, if any, at least for healthy people, and I currently do not), seems to me to be self-defeating. More important -- especially for the obese -- to figure out what's sustainable over time.
So when it comes to advice I really do believe in the KISS strategy vs. the make it super complicated and focus on all the various tricks that one can find a study to report that one gets in fitness and women's mags (based on my occasional perusal, anyway). People think weight loss is complicated and requires doing all these things precisely right, even if it makes you miserable, and that's not so.0 -
missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
This has some links: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrient-timing
(It starts with workouts and nutrition, but gets to breakfast vs. dinner later in the article, with links to the research studies at the end.)0 -
Any time you turn to research to answer questions you should consider not only the study design but also what other studies exist that may be relevant. Then you take in all of that data collectively to see if it leans in one direction or another.
Alan Aragon just wrote about it here for Men's Health. There's been eight studies done and collectively they DON'T point towards AM or PM calories being superior.
If it were better to eat more calories in the AM then you would expect the research to lean heavily in that direction.
Now for the sake of discussion with your friends, this link won't help because the studies aren't attached, so showing them this article won't really do you any good, and rightfully so in a way since you should be showing them the research demonstrating the opposite. I'm aware of a couple of studies but I'd need to reference Alan's research review to pull them -- chances are he's reviewed all of them as this is a topic he's covered at length.
http://www.menshealth.com/nutrition/late-night-snacking?utm_content=buffer25146&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer0 -
Eating a regular breakfast may be a keystone habit for successful dieters (those who have kept it off).
http://www.nwcr.ws/Research/default.htm
The problem with this is that it doesn't compare the percentage of the general population who eat breakfast with the percentage of successful maintainers who eat breakfast. Most people actually do eat breakfast.
(I personally eat breakfast, and feel better when I do, but I don't think that's the case for everyone.)0 -
Were these two groups under surveillance the whole 12 weeks? What were they eating the rest of the time? How do we no the other group wasn't popping twinkies in between meals?
I'm all about CICO.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »missblondi2u wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
This is generally true for me as well (except I've actually been losing a a higher rate than expected), so I'm curious as to why I can't find controlled studies to back this up.
This has some links: http://www.precisionnutrition.com/nutrient-timing
(It starts with workouts and nutrition, but gets to breakfast vs. dinner later in the article, with links to the research studies at the end.)
Thanks! I will check this out.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions