When you have 814 calories left and less than 2 hours left in your logging day...
Replies
-
At any rate, I'm not convinced that the temporal placement of food relative someone's sleep cycle is important provided that they are able to adhere to a reasonable diet and get adequate sleep.
So; sleep is one thing, but if you read those papers you'll see that the contention is that it's activating the digestive gene late at night, which effectively blocks other genes from activating through the night, meaning that even though you got eight hours of sleep in, the actual benefit of that sleep to your body could be impacted by digesting large amounts of calories post 8PM.
There is more than enough evidence out there indicating increased risk of a ton of different ailments, and even in regards to weight loss, sure, it really doesn't matter what you do so long as you're in deficit, you'll lose weight, however sticking to a rigid diet structure when you're not feeling fully rested? Ask most nutritionists, it's at times of higher stress and/or lower volumes of sleep that people "fall off the wagon"Additionally, if you can't lose weight and you are obese we know really damn well that this increases the risk for negative health outcomes and so the priority should be weight loss under this condition.
This is precisely why I would absolutely recommend whichever meal timing maximizes adherence to a hypocaloric diet. Because successfully losing weight is overwhelmingly likely to improve the quality of life and reduce health risks in obese people and this is hardly disputable.
Actually, this is quite disputable.
The priority should be building pillars of health that will assist in the normalisation of your nutrients, your sleeping patterns, your blood levels and your weight. It just so happens that generally following a stricter diet, exercising and taking vitamins during that period tends to balance out most of the above, leading to better overall health.
There are some males that carry 30-35% bodyfat that would return blood work, nutrients, echocardiogram ratings and oxygen saturation levels that would indicate despite being obese, they're at much lower health risk than most 15-25% bodyfat males; with exception to the fact that the added weight will cause joint impact and also likely impact their sleeping patterns (sleep apnea, etcetera).
Likewise, there are endless cases of body builders (both those taking steroids and those not) who have body fat in a health range (15-25%) who have much higher prevalence of heart disease due to their diets ( excess protein, excess insulin levels, excess sugars)
I get the feeling this place has become a little too psycho about CICO personally.
0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »At any rate, I'm not convinced that the temporal placement of food relative someone's sleep cycle is important provided that they are able to adhere to a reasonable diet and get adequate sleep.
So; sleep is one thing, but if you read those papers you'll see that the contention is that it's activating the digestive gene late at night, which effectively blocks other genes from activating through the night, meaning that even though you got eight hours of sleep in, the actual benefit of that sleep to your body could be impacted by digesting large amounts of calories post 8PM.
There is more than enough evidence out there indicating increased risk of a ton of different ailments, and even in regards to weight loss, sure, it really doesn't matter what you do so long as you're in deficit, you'll lose weight, however sticking to a rigid diet structure when you're not feeling fully rested? Ask most nutritionists, it's at times of higher stress and/or lower volumes of sleep that people "fall off the wagon"Additionally, if you can't lose weight and you are obese we know really damn well that this increases the risk for negative health outcomes and so the priority should be weight loss under this condition.
This is precisely why I would absolutely recommend whichever meal timing maximizes adherence to a hypocaloric diet. Because successfully losing weight is overwhelmingly likely to improve the quality of life and reduce health risks in obese people and this is hardly disputable.
Actually, this is quite disputable.
The priority should be building pillars of health that will assist in the normalisation of your nutrients, your sleeping patterns, your blood levels and your weight. It just so happens that generally following a stricter diet, exercising and taking vitamins during that period tends to balance out most of the above, leading to better overall health.
There are some males that carry 30-35% bodyfat that would return blood work, nutrients, echocardiogram ratings and oxygen saturation levels that would indicate despite being obese, they're at much lower health risk than most 15-25% bodyfat males; with exception to the fact that the added weight will cause joint impact and also likely impact their sleeping patterns (sleep apnea, etcetera).
Likewise, there are endless cases of body builders (both those taking steroids and those not) who have body fat in a health range (15-25%) who have much higher prevalence of heart disease due to their diets ( excess protein, excess insulin levels, excess sugars)
I get the feeling this place has become a little too psycho about CICO personally.
Yes there healthy obese people and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting that obesity increases the risk for negative health outcomes most of the time and going from obese to not obese will very often improve health markers.
Pointing out the existence of obese people with good health markers (which do exist) and lean people with poor health markers (which also exist) does not at all invalidate the general statement that obesity often increases the risk for negative health outcomes and that typically weight loss improves health outcomes.
I don't think your counterexamples dispute that.
4 -
Yes there healthy obese people and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting that obesity increases the risk for negative health outcomes most of the time and going from obese to not obese will very often improve health markers.
I don't disagree, but that's for the reasons I state above, generally obese people aren't paying attention to the nutrients in their body, nor are they exercising, nor are they following a balanced diet.
The usual one you hear is "Being obese puts you at a much higher risk of diabetes" but it isn't actually your fat percentage that does this, it's the fact that to generate that fat percentage you've likely been inhaling too much sugar, too much fat, not enough water and no exercise to help regulate your insulin.
With body fat, It's one of those correlation != causation
0 -
Pointing out the existence of obese people with good health markers (which do exist) and lean people with poor health markers (which also exist) does not at all invalidate the general statement that obesity often increases the risk for negative health outcomes and that typically weight loss improves health outcomes.
I don't think your counterexamples dispute that.
The point it disputes is that weight loss itself isn't the primary factor people should focus on, if you're solely focused on weight loss (as I've been guilty of in the past), then you'll do everything in your power to cut calories and burn calories at the same time ( an extreme example, consuming 1000-1200 a day, while running 8-10KM most days )
Sure, you'll lose weight... you'll also faint frequently, you'll screw up your micronutrients to a level that will take six to twelve months to recover from, you'll place enormous strain on your heart, you'll severely screw your circulation system, you'll go into massive atrophy of any muscle group that doesn't have any exercise, and minor atrophy even in those that do.
What you should be focusing on is building those key pillars of health, i.e eating a diet that allows you to sustain your body, balancing your nutrient levels, building better oxygen saturation, getting enough sleep through the day, getting a decent amount of exercise, ensuring you remain sufficiently hydrated.
0 -
@SymbolismNZ I finally got around to reading all of your thread-jacking arguing about meal timing apparently posts and would like to reiterate the facts relevant to my post about high calorie snack ideas. As mentioned earlier, the post was made at 4 PM. I was getting ideas for snacks to eat between 4 PM and 6 PM before I start my new tracking day at 6 PM. As this post is two days old I will fill you in on the details. I ate most of my remaining calories before 6 PM and concluded my 24 hour tracking period, then ate my dinner at 6 PM. How anything you have posted has anything to do with this I do not know.13
-
Nuts.... Praline pecans.... bacon! Spinach artichoke Parmesan dip with crackers!5
-
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Pointing out the existence of obese people with good health markers (which do exist) and lean people with poor health markers (which also exist) does not at all invalidate the general statement that obesity often increases the risk for negative health outcomes and that typically weight loss improves health outcomes.
I don't think your counterexamples dispute that.
The point it disputes is that weight loss itself isn't the primary factor people should focus on, if you're solely focused on weight loss (as I've been guilty of in the past), then you'll do everything in your power to cut calories and burn calories at the same time ( an extreme example, consuming 1000-1200 a day, while running 8-10KM most days )
Sure, you'll lose weight... you'll also faint frequently, you'll screw up your micronutrients to a level that will take six to twelve months to recover from, you'll place enormous strain on your heart, you'll severely screw your circulation system, you'll go into massive atrophy of any muscle group that doesn't have any exercise, and minor atrophy even in those that do.
Why the assumption that because you took an unhealthy approach, that everyone else is too? If you spent time reading these boards you would see that while the vast majority talk about CICO as the immutable energy balance that drives weight loss, most here advocate a modest calorie deficit and a primarily nutrient dense diet. Saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss is not a directive to ignore nutrition. I'm not sure why you seem to think these things are mutually exclusive?
The fact remains that for countless people who come to this site, simply losing weight to get to a healthy BMI will have a dramatic impact on risk for obesity related diseases. And in the meantime, many of those people also find their way to better nutrition and physical fitness as well.6 -
jennybearlv wrote: »@SymbolismNZ I finally got around to reading all of your thread-jacking arguing about meal timing apparently posts and would like to reiterate the facts relevant to my post about high calorie snack ideas. As mentioned earlier, the post was made at 4 PM. I was getting ideas for snacks to eat between 4 PM and 6 PM before I start my new tracking day at 6 PM. As this post is two days old I will fill you in on the details. I ate most of my remaining calories before 6 PM and concluded my 24 hour tracking period, then ate my dinner at 6 PM. How anything you have posted has anything to do with this I do not know.
The conversation brewed before you made that clarification; your original post didn't include the detail that you were talking about your tracking day (i.e 800 calories before 6PM ) and by the time that you did make that clarification, people had already begun the discussion around whether the time in which you ate food had any impact on your health.-1 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Why the assumption that because you took an unhealthy approach, that everyone else is too? If you spent time reading these boards you would see that while the vast majority talk about CICO as the immutable energy balance that drives weight loss, most here advocate a modest calorie deficit and a primarily nutrient dense diet. Saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss is not a directive to ignore nutrition. I'm not sure why you seem to think these things are mutually exclusive?
The fact remains that for countless people who come to this site, simply losing weight to get to a healthy BMI will have a dramatic impact on risk for obesity related diseases. And in the meantime, many of those people also find their way to better nutrition and physical fitness as well.
As per any assumption, it's based on the generalisation that many overweight people want the "Lose fat fast!" routine that they're promised in infomercials and websites, you know, what most of the diet industry bases its success around.
In this case, there was a long chain discussion around how eating just before bed didn't have any health impacts, when there is plenty of evidence suggesting it does - that's a good example of CICO trumping nutrition and health here.
0 -
jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I just want to say how grossed out I am by people who keep suggesting peanut butter by itself. I usually can't even stand it on a sandwich. lol. Yuck. I vote a giant bag of chips, pizza or a pint of ice cream for times like this.
Right? How does anyone eat straight peanut butter? If I go overboard with the PB on bread I feel as though I'll never be able to chew it, like I'm slowly drowning in peanut butter sandwich. I do need to have a pizza night very soon. I've had pizza every week since I've began tracking.
I would love to have a big spoonful of peanut butter every single day. But pizza? I try to eat it as seldom as possible. Just not a fan. I think I read once that only 6% of Americans dislike pizza.0 -
jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I just want to say how grossed out I am by people who keep suggesting peanut butter by itself. I usually can't even stand it on a sandwich. lol. Yuck. I vote a giant bag of chips, pizza or a pint of ice cream for times like this.
Right? How does anyone eat straight peanut butter? If I go overboard with the PB on bread I feel as though I'll never be able to chew it, like I'm slowly drowning in peanut butter sandwich.
I don't even like peanut butter on bread much, but I cannot see how people find a spoonful of it enjoyable. I don't really like the texture of nut butters at all.
I know this is heresy to most! ;-)2 -
Verity1111 wrote: »I just want to say how grossed out I am by people who keep suggesting peanut butter by itself. I usually can't even stand it on a sandwich. lol. Yuck. I vote a giant bag of chips, pizza or a pint of ice cream for times like this.
Yes! I thought I must be some kind of freak because I can't stand peanut butter! I'm trying to gain weight and people are always suggesting it as a way of bumping up calories. It's disgusting even in a sandwich and even more so by itself! Yuk0 -
jennybearlv wrote: »I ate all the Babybell cheeses in the house. What's next?
Eat heartier healthy foods called fillers like beef jerky, steak and salad,oatmeal,eggs,peanut butter,nuts those foods will keep you full for longer periods of time so you dont eat all your cheeses in one sitting:)0 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Pointing out the existence of obese people with good health markers (which do exist) and lean people with poor health markers (which also exist) does not at all invalidate the general statement that obesity often increases the risk for negative health outcomes and that typically weight loss improves health outcomes.
I don't think your counterexamples dispute that.
The point it disputes is that weight loss itself isn't the primary factor people should focus on, if you're solely focused on weight loss (as I've been guilty of in the past), then you'll do everything in your power to cut calories and burn calories at the same time ( an extreme example, consuming 1000-1200 a day, while running 8-10KM most days )
Sure, you'll lose weight... you'll also faint frequently, you'll screw up your micronutrients to a level that will take six to twelve months to recover from, you'll place enormous strain on your heart, you'll severely screw your circulation system, you'll go into massive atrophy of any muscle group that doesn't have any exercise, and minor atrophy even in those that do.
What you should be focusing on is building those key pillars of health, i.e eating a diet that allows you to sustain your body, balancing your nutrient levels, building better oxygen saturation, getting enough sleep through the day, getting a decent amount of exercise, ensuring you remain sufficiently hydrated.
Please do not presume that everyone who focuses on CICO does it in the way you did. Therein lies your biggest misconception about everyone on these forums.9 -
jennybearlv wrote: »Verity1111 wrote: »I just want to say how grossed out I am by people who keep suggesting peanut butter by itself. I usually can't even stand it on a sandwich. lol. Yuck. I vote a giant bag of chips, pizza or a pint of ice cream for times like this.
Right? How does anyone eat straight peanut butter? If I go overboard with the PB on bread I feel as though I'll never be able to chew it, like I'm slowly drowning in peanut butter sandwich. I do need to have a pizza night very soon. I've had pizza every week since I've began tracking.
Slowly, like it's my *kitten* (yes, I typed that) and I'm gonna own that sucker. I love peanut butter and I can't keep it in the house. I put the spoon in the jar and savor the experience. It's dirty, dirty magic.3 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Why the assumption that because you took an unhealthy approach, that everyone else is too? If you spent time reading these boards you would see that while the vast majority talk about CICO as the immutable energy balance that drives weight loss, most here advocate a modest calorie deficit and a primarily nutrient dense diet. Saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss is not a directive to ignore nutrition. I'm not sure why you seem to think these things are mutually exclusive?
The fact remains that for countless people who come to this site, simply losing weight to get to a healthy BMI will have a dramatic impact on risk for obesity related diseases. And in the meantime, many of those people also find their way to better nutrition and physical fitness as well.
As per any assumption, it's based on the generalisation that many overweight people want the "Lose fat fast!" routine that they're promised in infomercials and websites, you know, what most of the diet industry bases its success around.
In this case, there was a long chain discussion around how eating just before bed didn't have any health impacts, when there is plenty of evidence suggesting it does - that's a good example of CICO trumping nutrition and health here.
You should read the success forum a bit more about the lifestyle transformations people have made and how many people have made complete turn arounds in all areas, then.
Your responses on these forums are too colored simply by your own experience and have no bearing on what most of us are doing.
I'd share my own story, but you'd write it off as an n=1, I'm sure.
I really, really think you should back off on the presumption that all of us are doing what you used to do and are fat desperate people restricting in the stupidest way possible merely to get the weight off just to be thin. And you're here to save us all.
It's frankly insulting. Please read some more.9 -
SymbolismNZ wrote: »Ultimately, eat only when hungry; regardless of what the calorie count says. Listen to your body.
I have a friend who does this and her doctor told her to gain about 30 pounds.5 -
I usually throw together a sandwich when I've got a lot of calories to make up for, but I'm also not that into sweet things, these days.0
-
If it's a one off I would not force myself to eat more and enjoy the potential 0.2lbs of fat loss that you will glean from it.
If you were actually asking for food ideas to fill 800 calories then my vote is for ice cream.................0 -
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Pointing out the existence of obese people with good health markers (which do exist) and lean people with poor health markers (which also exist) does not at all invalidate the general statement that obesity often increases the risk for negative health outcomes and that typically weight loss improves health outcomes.
I don't think your counterexamples dispute that.
The point it disputes is that weight loss itself isn't the primary factor people should focus on, if you're solely focused on weight loss (as I've been guilty of in the past), then you'll do everything in your power to cut calories and burn calories at the same time ( an extreme example, consuming 1000-1200 a day, while running 8-10KM most days )
Sure, you'll lose weight... you'll also faint frequently, you'll screw up your micronutrients to a level that will take six to twelve months to recover from, you'll place enormous strain on your heart, you'll severely screw your circulation system, you'll go into massive atrophy of any muscle group that doesn't have any exercise, and minor atrophy even in those that do.
What you should be focusing on is building those key pillars of health, i.e eating a diet that allows you to sustain your body, balancing your nutrient levels, building better oxygen saturation, getting enough sleep through the day, getting a decent amount of exercise, ensuring you remain sufficiently hydrated.
Please do not presume that everyone who focuses on CICO does it in the way you did. Therein lies your biggest misconception about everyone on these forums.
Because I can't tag this as insightful, inspiring, like, and awesome, I will leave this here.
8 -
unsuspectingfish wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Ultimately, eat only when hungry; regardless of what the calorie count says. Listen to your body.
I have a friend who does this and her doctor told her to gain about 30 pounds.
Me too. I was anorexic with no hunger signals at all1 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »Why the assumption that because you took an unhealthy approach, that everyone else is too? If you spent time reading these boards you would see that while the vast majority talk about CICO as the immutable energy balance that drives weight loss, most here advocate a modest calorie deficit and a primarily nutrient dense diet. Saying CICO is all that matters for weight loss is not a directive to ignore nutrition. I'm not sure why you seem to think these things are mutually exclusive?
The fact remains that for countless people who come to this site, simply losing weight to get to a healthy BMI will have a dramatic impact on risk for obesity related diseases. And in the meantime, many of those people also find their way to better nutrition and physical fitness as well.
As per any assumption, it's based on the generalisation that many overweight people want the "Lose fat fast!" routine that they're promised in infomercials and websites, you know, what most of the diet industry bases its success around.
In this case, there was a long chain discussion around how eating just before bed didn't have any health impacts, when there is plenty of evidence suggesting it does - that's a good example of CICO trumping nutrition and health here.
You should read the success forum a bit more about the lifestyle transformations people have made and how many people have made complete turn arounds in all areas, then.
Your responses on these forums are too colored simply by your own experience and have no bearing on what most of us are doing.
I'd share my own story, but you'd write it off as an n=1, I'm sure.
I really, really think you should back off on the presumption that all of us are doing what you used to do and are fat desperate people restricting in the stupidest way possible merely to get the weight off just to be thin. And you're here to save us all.
It's frankly insulting. Please read some more.
*Insert standing applause here*0 -
-
jennybearlv wrote: »I ate all the Babybell cheeses in the house. What's next?
grab a pillsbury 800 calorie pack2 -
If I have a large surplus at the end of the day, it's usually from a long run or many hours of dancing (both of which I do in the evening) - and I'm usually ravenously hungry afterward and eat most of them back.0
-
If I have a large surplus at the end of the day, it's usually from a long run or many hours of dancing (both of which I do in the evening) - and I'm usually ravenously hungry afterward and eat most of them back.
In fact the nearby bodega owner recognizes me as the strange girl who used to come in buying ice cream novelties from the freezer in the winter. (Alas, he does not stock them this winter, and I've had to settle on candy bars/nutty bars/debbie cake single).1 -
singingflutelady wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »rankinsect wrote: »SymbolismNZ wrote: »Ultimately, eat only when hungry; regardless of what the calorie count says. Listen to your body.
I'd disagree with this in a few cases.
1. You need to eat a minimum number of calories to be healthy, and even if not hungry, you should eat at least this much.
2. There's a school of thought with some very intelligent and respected adherents, such as Dr. Yoni Freedhoff, that would say you should eat to prevent future hunger. The idea is that if you wait until you're really hungy, you'll often end up eating more in total than if you ate to prevent yourself from becoming really hungry in the first place.
The second point won't really matter as much if you're counting calories - meal timing doesn't matter for weight loss, calories do - but some people may find it easier to stick to a deficit if they are eating smaller but more frequently.
Sure; all good advice; but at 10PM at night?
Why not 10 pm? Nothing wrong with eating at 10
agreed... time means nothing - your body doesn't recognize what day it is.1 -
If I have a large surplus at the end of the day, it's usually from a long run or many hours of dancing (both of which I do in the evening) - and I'm usually ravenously hungry afterward and eat most of them back.
In fact the nearby bodega owner recognizes me as the strange girl who used to come in buying ice cream novelties from the freezer in the winter. (Alas, he does not stock them this winter, and I've had to settle on candy bars/nutty bars/debbie cake single).
Ooh, good call on the nutty bars! There's a food I can't keep in the house! So yum!0 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
You should read the success forum a bit more about the lifestyle transformations people have made and how many people have made complete turn arounds in all areas, then.
Your responses on these forums are too colored simply by your own experience and have no bearing on what most of us are doing.
I'd share my own story, but you'd write it off as an n=1, I'm sure.
I really, really think you should back off on the presumption that all of us are doing what you used to do and are fat desperate people restricting in the stupidest way possible merely to get the weight off just to be thin. And you're here to save us all.
It's frankly insulting. Please read some more.
The thing is, you've already shared elements of your story with me and you did exactly the same thing earlier in your life before finally understanding that proper nutrition and a lifestyle choice, rather than dieting was your option.
Read more? That's something I think people here need to do; because as much as you try to deny it, the prevalent statement here is "As long as it's within your calories, you can do it" - with no thought to any other health measurement.
What's insulting is when people spout their opinions as fact, which is something you in particular are guilty of.
0
I'm pretty sure I would eat an old tire if it had real cream cheese frosting on it. 
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions