So what if you have a little snack before bed?
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »CoffeeNCardio wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Ditto the above. Enjoy your food when you have it and brush your teeth before bed.
Lol, I'm sure she knows that I just mentioned it because I'm starting pre dental next semester and I have become a teeny bit completely fricken obsessed ha ha!
LOL I've often wondered about the people who say they eat in bed every night, if they get up and brush their teeth and then get back into bed again.. I can NOT go to sleep without brushing my teeth, the thought of food decaying in there bugs me until i get up and brush them!!
Yes, I get back up and brush my teeth, floss if I'm being good, put in the thing that keeps me from grinding my teeth, use the bathroom one last time, put in my earplugs, and off to sleepytime I go.1 -
What is a "lean hormone balance". I googled but there was no such terminology.3
-
Alluminati wrote: »What is a "lean hormone balance". I googled but there was no such terminology.
I don't want to pre-judge, but onomatopoetically, it sounds like woo.3 -
Ok guys, just wanted to get back to you all and thank you for your support! You guys are awesome---this is a great community and I'll keep the discussions in mind. Thanks for the help
3 -
No matter the views on fasting, this isn't the thread for a debate or to even bring it up. It's not what the OP was looking for. She asked if the snack hurt her, and the answer is no. There are plenty of debate threads to debate the merits of if, no?
Why do you think you have the right to control the thread? This isn't a thread for that either.4 -
Your body doesn't know what time it is. I regularly eat at 9pm etc1
-
I eat a pint of ice cream before bed and still hit my goals. It does not matter when you eat.1
-
No matter the views on fasting, this isn't the thread for a debate or to even bring it up. It's not what the OP was looking for. She asked if the snack hurt her, and the answer is no. There are plenty of debate threads to debate the merits of if, no?
Why do you think you have the right to control the thread? This isn't a thread for that either.
Not controlling anything. Just stating my opinion. Never tried to control the thread. Sorry you read the wrong way.6 -
3 -
No matter the views on fasting, this isn't the thread for a debate or to even bring it up. It's not what the OP was looking for. She asked if the snack hurt her, and the answer is no. There are plenty of debate threads to debate the merits of if, no?
Why do you think you have the right to control the thread? This isn't a thread for that either.
Not controlling anything. Just stating my opinion. Never tried to control the thread. Sorry you read the wrong way.
Well all I did was state an opinion. It isn't my fault that people have some deep fear of something that we do everyday to some degree! I simply responded to some grossly incorrect statements. Missing a meal isn't the same as not eating for months or running a severe calorie deficit for months. Those lead to starvation issues.
There is some incorrect belief that burning some of your fat is starving oneself. Starvation is something that happens when the body doesn't have fat reserves it can use and it turns to other sources. Even forcing the body into ketosis isn't starting starvation. I used to think it was, but I was wrong. Only minor amounts of lean body mass are lost until most fat reserves are depleted. Most of us could afford to not eat for weeks to months before we would run into any serious issues.0 -
No matter the views on fasting, this isn't the thread for a debate or to even bring it up. It's not what the OP was looking for. She asked if the snack hurt her, and the answer is no. There are plenty of debate threads to debate the merits of if, no?
Why do you think you have the right to control the thread? This isn't a thread for that either.
Not controlling anything. Just stating my opinion. Never tried to control the thread. Sorry you read the wrong way.
Most of us could afford to not eat for weeks to months before we would run into any serious issues.
You should try this and report your results to us. This would be incredibly interesting.17 -
3 boiled eggs & 10g butter (mashed) 30 mins before sleep last night, all within goal1
-
Alyssa_Is_LosingIt wrote: »No matter the views on fasting, this isn't the thread for a debate or to even bring it up. It's not what the OP was looking for. She asked if the snack hurt her, and the answer is no. There are plenty of debate threads to debate the merits of if, no?
Why do you think you have the right to control the thread? This isn't a thread for that either.
Not controlling anything. Just stating my opinion. Never tried to control the thread. Sorry you read the wrong way.
Most of us could afford to not eat for weeks to months before we would run into any serious issues.
You should try this and report your results to us. This would be incredibly interesting.
I have been fasting, but not for weeks. However the world record is 382 days. I don't have that kind of fat, that guy weighed over 400 pounds and was down to 180 pounds when he finished his fast. So far my longest fast has only about 30 hours. I'm currently trying to do 2 to 3 fasts a week but irregularly.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2495396/pdf/postmedj00315-0056.pdf
The major issue with calorie restriction is it tends to lower metabolism over time. People often run into plateaus where the calorie math just doesn't add up. One theory is that constant eating, even when it isn't enough keeps the body from really burning that much fat. For example if a person is on a LCHF diet and in ketosis, less than two teaspoons of sugar is enough to stop keytone production. Basically it is very easy to greatly reduce or stop your body from burning its fat, just eat. However if you don't eat, the body switches over to burning stored fat because it doesn't have extra sugars to burn. For most of us when we are burning our stored fat our bodies have more then enough food and our metabolism even goes up some. Kind of ideal.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7632212
There is a drawback, at least initially fasting isn't pleasant. It gets easier but even after fasting a few dozen times now, I find there is still a few hours I feel slightly hungry. Kind of like exercise, you have to do it over and over before it gets easy. About 17% of my body is stored fat, so I'm in no danger of starving.
From what I have read from people doing longer fasts, it is only the start that isn't pleasant. Once the metabolism starts increasing people generally feel good. Now if your body fat gets too low, then you will start to lose lean body mass and have all kinds of problems. For men that is closer to 5% body fat, probably more like 15% for women.
Anyway people have been doing fasts for thousands of years. Modern calorie restricted diets, really only for 50 years or so. Considering how much a problem obesity has become, that isn't a good success record for the modern diet plans.
EDIT: For people that love CISO ... there have been studies that show the average long term weight loss while fasting is about 0.57 pounds a day. If you work for the assumption of 3500 kc / lb of fat that works out to about 2000 kc / day. People will actually lose a little more than that short term as the body dehydrates some, but that weigh loss is temporary.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/124616791 -
Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.
For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.
Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.
5 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.
For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.
Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.
Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.
When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964
Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.
I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.1 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.
For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.
Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.
Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.
When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964
Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.
I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.
And none of that applies to the OP's question. Can you stop derailing this thread?4 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.
For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.
Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.
Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.
When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964
Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.
I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.
And none of that applies to the OP's question. Can you stop derailing this thread?
It applies completely. The OP asked if there was any harm in eating right before going to bed. From a calorie viewpoint, there isn't any harm but that doesn't mean there isn't a healthier choice. Nutrients are important, but most people have plenty, what is missing is allowing the body to recover from the stress of lots of blood sugar and excessive insulin levels. Blood glucose and insulin are critically important but too much of them causes disease and at this point metabolic syndrome related diseases are the now the leading cause of death worldwide. It used to be dirty water, now it is too much food.
What is amazing is how offended many seem to be by simply saying it would have been just fine to miss a meal.0 -
CattOfTheGarage wrote: »Either you actually believe fat people don't need to eat, or you're a troll.
For the benefit of those who might take you seriously: yes overweight people have lots of energy stored, but energy is not the only reason we eat. We need a minimum amount of vitamins, minerals, amino acids and so on. Some of these (like vitamin C) need to be taken in daily. All of them need to be taken regularly in minimum amounts to maintain health. This is why mfp gives a minimum calorie intake and you should not eat below it - it's not just the calories, it's the nutrients that go with them. Supplements are not a valid replacement for food, a lot of them have a very poor evidence base.
Yes, you can do IF, but don't undereat. It is bad for you.
Fasting isn't under eating, calorie restriction is under eating. There is a huge difference. Also while fasting you are free to take a multi-vitamin if you are worried about vitamins. When you fast your body kicks into using your stored fat as food. It is actually a natural state, I would argue more natural than dietary ketosis. As far as amino acids and proteins go, your body can produce a lot more than you probably realize and there have been plenty of research that has shown that fasting is actually protective of lean body mass. Sure you aren't going to pack on the muscle while one is fasting, but you probably aren't going to lose any either.
When people continually eat, but don't eat enough that can cause negative changes in metabolism. Portion control and lots of movement to lose weight is what they do on "The biggest loser". The long term outcome for those is most end up with a metabolism much lower then they should have for their size. Is that what you really want?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/oby.21538/full
There have been comparative studies between groups using IF and people using calorie restriction. People on IF actually consumed more calories on a weekly basis, lost more weight and saw drastic improvements in insulin sensitivity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20921964
Anyway I've gone into this on other threads, but people never believe it. I'm actually better off because when I add calories back I use healthy foods like walnuts, chickpeas or fatty fish. Since my basic diet stastifies it is easy to round it out with healthier foods. While I may use fasting in the future to reduce my calories, I'm currently not doing that, I just using it to recomp my body and to improve my health.
I'm also very pro-execise and the best benefit of fasting has happened with my exercise. While it was a hard adjustment, it is amazing how much easier it to do my workouts now when fasted vs unfasted. That is espically true when I run, it really feels like my body is helping me run. I actually run longer distances faster when I've fasted over 15 hours than what I can if I've eaten like 90 minutes before. Frankly I know that is hard to believe and I didn't believe it would work out that way myself.
And none of that applies to the OP's question. Can you stop derailing this thread?
It applies completely. The OP asked if there was any harm in eating right before going to bed. From a calorie viewpoint, there isn't any harm but that doesn't mean there isn't a healthier choice. Nutrients are important, but most people have plenty, what is missing is allowing the body to recover from the stress of lots of blood sugar and excessive insulin levels. Blood glucose and insulin are critically important but too much of them causes disease and at this point metabolic syndrome related diseases are the now the leading cause of death worldwide. It used to be dirty water, now it is too much food.
What is amazing is how offended many seem to be by simply saying it would have been just fine to miss a meal.
Except that she is under her calorie goal for the day. By a lot. You even said that undereating isn't a great idea. While she may or may not want to do intermittent fasting. In this case, if she wanted a snack (which she did), she should eat it. And then she asked if eating that snack would inhibit her goals. Which it won't because she's is still under goal.
Did you read the OP? Or are you just answering based on the title alone. Or have you rambled so long that you're just repeating your same old mantra?3 -
If OP had missed a meal, she would have been undereating. If you fast for days or weeks at a time as you mentioned, you would be undereating. I have no problem with an IF or 5:2 approach or similar, but what you seem to be talking about is long term fasting and undereating. You entirely ignored my point about supplements not being a substitute for food and the stuff you say about your body making amino acids is pure nonsense. Eating is not optional. Again, I am not really speaking to you, you are either a troll or irredeemably wedded to nonsense
I am talking to the people who might read your posts and decide to go without food for days at a time. Not a good idea, people. Not a good idea.4 -
What you seem to be doing, in fact, is promoting VLCDs. Is that what you are doing? Just how long are these fasts you talk about? You mention days, weeks, even months. Just what kind of weekly calorie intake are you recommending? Let's be clear about this.2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 901 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions